![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I've imported the Cathenc article and removed the more blatant Catholic-centrisms. Not sure whether this should be merged into Chaldean Catholic Church. dab (𒁳) 08:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Somehow, they had gotten elided from the article. Dogru144 09:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
they belong to "Assyrian, Iraqi Turkmen or other 5%", and under "religion" to "Christian or other 3%". Their language is in fact listed, as Chaldean Neo-Aramaic. They are also mentioned on Image:Iraq demography.jpg, as making up part of the purple dots in the north. They account for probably about 1% of Iraqi population. dab (𒁳) 12:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
merging this into Assyrian culture would result in giving the Chaldean community far too much weight in that article. Bad idea. Rather, insert a short summary of this article over there. dab (𒁳) 15:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
There are some Chaldeans who do not call themselves Assyrian, and feel quite strongly that they are not Assyrian. Isn't this article biased if it just exhibits the point of view of Chaldeans who call themselves Assyrian? After all, the term Assyro-Chaldean is used in Iraq to mean 'Assyrians and Chaldeans'. — Gareth Hughes 15:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
How about having an article about the history of the Chaldean church and how it came about? Because thats what this article seems to be. Chaldean 16:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
EliasAlucard, if some Chaldeans do not consider themselves Assyrians, this should be duly noted. Wikipedia is not about "truth" but about attributable opinion. It really doesn't matter how you feel about the question, it is our job to document all sides of the question. Obviously, they will still qualify as Assyrians linguistically, as long as they speak an Aramaic dialect. Ethnicity is, after all, a social construct. It doesn't matter if they "were Assyrians originally" if they aren't today, they still aren't. Ethnicity is not some immutable constant but changes over time. I have no idea why both sides feel so strongly about the question, since it's just about a label. To any uninvolved spectator, Assyrian or not is a very arbitrary matter of opinion or self-identification. Maybe they have undergone ethnogenesis in the past five centuries and now qualify as a separate ethnicity, that's really in the eye of the beholder, and not about "fact". dab (𒁳) 21:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
While not all Chaldean Catholics consider themselves Assyrian, it goes without saying that all Chaldeans consider themselves Suraya (Syrian). And we all know where that is derivided from. Chaldean 01:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see how it is a "Nazi comparison" when I point out that you are clearly wound up in national mysticism. Sadly, the Nazis were not the only party in history prone to such fallacies. Everyone has "roots", give us a break. Every organism walking this earth has a line of ancestors reaching back into the paleozoic, what's so special about that? That you fancy to call yourselves after Bronze Age polities is still Romanticism by any other name. dab (𒁳) 20:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Elias, you are looking for trouble. Remember, this is Wikipedia, not some random mailing list. We have rules. I only just saw your post at Talk:Assyrians, where you indulge in statements like
So I suppose Jimbo Wales is a communist too, and Wikipedia is a big communist conspiracy? Then what are you even doing here? You know what, you can take your various hatreds and spill them elsewhere. On Wikipedia, we prefer to cultivate a hate-free environment conductive to WP:NPOV and WP:ENC. Wikipedia also has means of enforcing these. dab (𒁳) 09:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Garzo, was that really necessary? I mean, don't you think you're being immature now? On the Ashurism article, you wanted me to cite sources, from Assyriologists. I've cited sources in this article, from an Assyriologist. Why is that not enough for you? Why are trying to make a fuss out of this? Is this something personal against me? If you have academic sources, claiming that they aren't Assyrians, you are welcome to provide them and perhaps even include them. If not, why should we include personal opinions? That is not how an Encyclopaedia operates. — EliasAlucard| Talk 02:12 02 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
People, please lets keep it cool. I know theres alot of "Chaldeans aren't assyrians, yes they are" etc. but how bout this:
Tourskin 18:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The content of this article is in dire need of being updated. It appears as if this was taken directly from a 19th century book based on limited research. Note the incessant mentioning of the term "Nestorian", which nowadays would certainly be much more reduced, if not eliminated, from scholarly articles concerning the adherents of the Church of the East. I can go on and on, but the bottom line is that this needs to be updated. -- Šarukinu 20:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
How many times have you heard people saying, my nationality is Assyrian, but my religion is Chaldean Catholic. Well my friends let me break your heart!! Back in the 9th century Bc until 6th century Bc, Chaldeans and Babylonians assimilatd into a culture shaped by the two cultures, simply the people became like brothers and sisters. This is when the Assyrian empire was pushed out of Iraq and back to Turkey and since then was destroyed, forcing many Assyrians, especially the working class and also the upper classes to settle down in Turkey. Babylonians (mainly cause they outnumbered the Chaldeans) took advantage of the land of Northern Iraq for farming, mainly because the farming land around Babylon started to become very poor. I am not denying many Assyrians, especially the poor were left behind in their farm lands in today's northern Iraq, however, many more Babylonian and Chaldeans settled in the land. The Babylonians, being under the persian empire had no choice of choosing their faith and was forced to accept the teaching of Nestorians, (remember that the Assyrians were in lands of today's Turkey) however, when the persian empire was falling apart, they choose to reunite with the Catholic Church, looking back into their past for traces of the Church, they found out that Abraham was from Chaldea, and since Chaldeans and Babylonians assimilated hundreds of years ago into one culture, they accepted to call their religion Chaldean Catholic even though the majority of the population was Babylonian, however the only problem is that within this new culture, a number of Assyrians lived in them, the descendants of the poor families who were left behind when the Assyrian Empire was retreating into today's Turkey, that is the reason why i never claim racial purity. So you can actually call today's Chaldeans, Babylonians, but not Assyrian. And if you believe that all Chaldeans are Assyrian Catholic, then why is that there are people calling themeselve Assyrian Catholic, should they not call themeselve Chaldeans, this proves your theory all wrong about Chaldeans being Assyrian.
Asm ccc 07:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Professor Marco
It is important to establish before I begin that I am a historian studying at the University of New South Wales, and that the fact, which will be shown is what really is noted in history of the near east, not the bias opinion some people hold.
Before I begin with the truth, I would like to point out some misleading information stated above. I quote: "What you obviously don't understand, is that the Babylonians, and the Assyrians, were the exact same people from the beginning" (unquote), as a matter of fact, there is no historical accuracy in this statement, and this is only a 'bias' perspective held in deep regard by the Assyrian people. If the Babylonians and Assyrians were the same people, may I question, how people in todays society can make such judgements when fact is not prevalent and furthermore whilst cuneiform clearly states a 'difference' between the two being Babylonian and Assyrian.
Furthermore it was stated that quote: "the Chaldean Catholic Church was created with Assyrian converts" (unquote). This is a swipe at the Chaldean Catholic Church, which is inaccurate purely because it is based on no facts! I am certain that if the Chaldean Catholic Church was created by Assyrian converts, it would not have taken this name, but it is more rather the concept that people call themselves "Assyrian Catholics", when they should truly and in all honesty be calling themselves Chaldeans if what is stated is true. Furthermore, Chaldean Catholics have not been closely attached to the "Assyrian Church of the East" in both there rites and sacraments from day dot to now. It is amusing to see that people with such a bias opinion are allowed to comment and with such historical and religious inaccuracy, I recommend people be checking comments especially in this article.
On a final note, where it was stated that converting to a new church does not make you a new people all of sudden, I challenge this in saying that it does, in terms of your religious person. We must take into account the development of the whole person, and one major branch so happens to be religion, meaning that in fact you are seen as a different person spirtually and religous wise. Hence, it is not a matter of being a 'new' people, of course it does not make Chaldeans a new people, because Chaldeans have always existed as a seperate people from the Assyrians.
It is great that the real fact be shown and that people are enlightened to the truth, not the false merky water of propaganda.
Andrew.hermiz 02:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
It is highly likely that you are a Chaldean Catholic, because many Assyrians are Chaldean Catholic, however you probably only state you are Assyrian, but you are most probably Chaldean. If Chaldeans were not a people and not a distinguished race of its own, then why is it that people in ancient times were referred to as Chaldeans? Is this to in links with religion? Clearly not. As a historian I have studied more then what you have, so I don't care what your opinion is, and if anything I would have a broader general knowledge. Furthermore, Babylonians where there own people, and having said that NEO-BABYLONIANS are Chaldeans, meaning that Babylonians of the past, are Chaldeans of the future. Does this not formulate the fact that Chaldeans are Assyrians? Why are they not called Neo-Assyrians? And why is it that we are called Neo-Babylonians. You have one Assyrian aruging it was founded by a group of people in Mosul and then you have arguing that it was the Roman Catholic Church's fault? It is neither. Being a religion of there own, Chaldean Catholics chose to be in unisome with the Pope as they saw his Infallible character and as they argreed with Church Doctrine, outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. We as Chaldean Catholics are dedicated Catholics from day dot to now, and we are following the ONE TRUE AND HOLY APOSTOLIC CATHOLIC CHURCH. It is highly evident throughout the case presented that there is no historical knowledge, and that bias opinions have spell bound the Assyrian people. Andrew.hermiz 01:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The caption for this picture, is living proof of the bias perspective of the Assyrian people. How can you gurantee that the people in that picture are Chaldean Catholic Assyrians, and it is important to establish that this images caption be changed as it is not accuarte, in turn giving a false perspective to people willing to read. Which person can gurantee 100% that they are Chaldean Catholic "Assyrians"? It is pointless in me asking as nobody can.
I move a motion to change the caption of this picture to "Chaldean Catholic Church Members from Mardin in the 19th Century"
Andrew.hermiz 02:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Andrew.hermiz 02:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
It is exremely ironic that you say that Babylonians are Assyrians, see it is evident, you Assyrians want to take the credit for absoulete everything. Yes i agree if you go back in history, all the way back to the Sumerians, I must agree (we)Babylonians, and Assyrians were of the same people, but so were the Gauls and Franks at one stage, and so were the Swedish and the Norwegian, however, they dont call Norwegians, Swedish because at one stage they were the Vikings. If they were to unite the Scandinavians, it is not fair to call them all Norwegians, would it, and that is why I call myself quite often, "souraya" for me it means Christian, for you it could mean whatever you want it to be, however, the point I am trying to make in the easiest way possible for everyone to understand, "Yes i agree we (Babylonians and Chaldeans) are of the same people of Assyrians, however, when we were the same people, the title Assyria did not exsist as a nation, but it was Sumeria, so it is wrong of you to Generalise us as Assyrians. When the two split, (Assyria and Babylonia) they started to become more independently of each other and started to destroy each other throughout the ages. You must remember, that even back then, the kings of Assyria and Babylonia, never called themeselve King of Assyria nor Babylonia, but refereed themeselve to king of Sumeria or Akkad, both the titles Assyria and Babylonia derived later on.
Professor Marco
Asm ccc 11:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
hello? this is about a label given to this community in 1553. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the ancient Chaldeans vs. the ancient Assyrians. 1553 AD is not the same as 800 BC, what is so difficult to understand about this? dab (𒁳) 11:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much, quote " Of course, we are also descendants of the ancient Babylonians, and the Chaldeans, and the Aramaeans and the Sumerians as well. We are after all, Mesopotamians" so you agree with me, that we are descendants of all these factions however then you state "But the Assyrian identity, is the most important one, since the Assyrians were the people who expanded the most, which logically, makes us most of all, Assyrians". With all your respect, you sound like a three year old stating that just because the British expanded the most throughout History, all of us need to call us British, see how stupid it sounds. Yes i agree with your last statement, that a number of those who call themeselve Chaldean could be Assyrian and vice versa, however, stating that all of us should be labelled Assyrians because they expanded the most is ridicilous. And just to clarify this, I am not stating that this is about Ancient Chaldea verse Ancient Assyria, but as a graduated person, all of the perspectives needs to be included, including Geography. To further clarify my past argument, I would like to state that by referring to the Ancient people, I was referring to where the people were situated after the fall of their empires, which in the case of Assyria, it would be mainly today's Turkey.
An further agreement with DAB is to be made about the label given to the community in 1553, however, just to clarify some certain areas, is that the community which was labeled had a background stretching back to Babylonia, and not Assyria.
To who ever you are, relying on people who can read cuneiform to decide if the converted Chaldeans were Assyrians is of the highest level of stupidity. Last time i checked, they did not write in cuneiform in 1553, nor could the people of the past who could write cuneiform predict the whole future. Next time you type about your "scholars" make sure it is relevant.
Finally, I just want to introduce propaganda, and this stretches back to King Henry 8. His enemy was the Roman Catholic Church and since than, Britian and the Roman Catholic Church have never been closed. Since the Assyrians were long united with the British, it is with no suprise that the stories, and the internet website could be altered to Assyrian's favour to make the follower of the Catholic Church seem of "less value" of those who follow the British.
58.168.71.95 11:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Professor Marco
I could not stop laughing after I had finished reading this comment, because it proves nothing but the fact that Assyrians are bias and full of a anti-chaldean point of view. It was stated that, quote: "This guy, who is capable of reading Akkadian, is an Assyriologist (that's a science, mind you). He knows EVERYTHING about us. If he says we Chaldean Catholics are Assyrians, then so we are", unquote. To begin with, let me call to my intelligence and if you have some call to yours 'ASSYRIOLOGIST', do you not understand that part of the formation of that word is "ASSYRIO"? This just shows that of course they are going to say Chaldeans are Assyrians, because they are not supportive and/or recognising of th Chaldean people but more rather how to expand the ego Assyrians already have. Furthermore, can you tell me right now with proof that there is no bias in the opinions and "factual" evidence, which they "apparently" gained. I have put those in inverted commas because firstly, I doubt they are factual and secondly apparently was put in inverted commas because you said 'this guy'. There are a million guys, which guy is it? Hence, What do you mean if he says we are Assyrians then so we are, if shows how gullable and mainpulated you can be, so if he says Assyrians never existed it means it is true? If I said Iraq is not on the world map and I am an assyriologist does that make it true and believable? Obiviously NOT!
Then it was stated, quote: "And since the name "Chaldeans" hasn't been used in 2000 years until 1553, but Assyrians was in use (in the form of Suraya/Suryoyo), that means, we are Assyrians, not Chaldeans". Give me evidence and give me proof that nobody for 2000 years has mentioned the name Chaldean. You were not living in that time or era so how can you state that nobody used it, once again you go by what other people say, and that in turn forms a bias perspective. Hence, let me reflect on ACCURATE historical soruces to tear the case presented apart and to bring all people out of the merky water Assyrians have left them in. After Assyria fell, there was the last group of semitic people dominating that area. Babylon rose up against Assyria and went to the city of Nineveh and burnt it to the ground! After this the Chaldean King Nebuchadnezzar brought Babylon to be one of the greatest cities in its time. So if the Assyrian Empire fell, and the Babylonian Empire still existed, what chances are there of not naming Chaldeans for 2000 years? How can you stand there and say that they were not named for 2000 years when they are the ones who at the end of the rift between the two nations came on top, and in doing so there is a higher possibility of remembering the person that won and took control, not the one that fell under the slums of a burnt and shattered Nineveh. Do we remember who came second or do we remember and keep in mind who came up on top, and defeated and tore Nineveh down?
Finally, what do you mean when you say "Chaldean crap"? With all due respect, you are the one who has fallen for the Assyrian crap and there bias and ever so lies in there point of views. Furthermore you stated that, quote: "What, do you think that they picked racially pure "Chaldeans" all of a sudden for the new Catholic converts when they started the new Church?" Let us investigate this together. First of all, you are making assertions without any soruces or proof. How on earth can you know what they did or they didn't do, without researching into it? Oh sorry, I forgot you were there to witness these events all along.
I now readily move a motion to rename this article to 'Chaldeans' and to have the right to edit and change the misleading and non-factual information as it provides the innocent public with a bias and ever so lieing background into this whole topic
Andrew.hermiz 03:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
http://history-world.org/chaldeans.htm
There you go !
Andrew.hermiz 10:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
the article previous was named Chaldean couminuty why did Elias moved it Chaldean assyrians?. do not confuse Assyrians and Chaldeans in IRaq. there are 2 separate groups Nochi 19:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Chaldean Assyrians → Chaldeans — There is historical inaccuracy in this article as Chaldeans are a people of there own, and have no Assyrian identity. Furthermore, other modifications have been made to this article, which have showcased the bias opinions of some rectified. —Andrew_Hermiz 10:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.This article is in no way, shape, or form true, and the interesting thing is the main argument of the opposition which agrees with us that many of today's Chaldeans relate back to the ancient Chaldeans and Babylonians, but their twist to the story is that due to the numerous amount of Assyrians outnumbering the other civilisations, we should all be called Assyrians (statement made by user elias Alucard), statement such as these are simply ridiculous.
Asm ccc 00:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Professor Marco
Atoraya Nimrud 01:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The article name is not factual and history is on the side of Chaldeans. This is because Chaldeans were a people of there own, seperate from the Assyrians. It is evident that throughout the article there has been bias opinions, which have been rectified at the good will of Chaldeans, who have at some times taken offence to what has been said, as we are denyed out national image and that has been placed under the Assyrian banner, which in terms of fact is nothing but false and not true. Chaldeans are a people of there own and because of this, we Chaldeans should have an article name of our own, not with Assyrians in it as they think we are "Assyrians", but we have no link, we are Chaldeans.
Andrew.hermiz 10:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Elias, you have already have academic sources, but dont worry, I will bring you actual Assyrialogist, but one thing I am sure of is that he is not to be Assyrian.
Asm ccc 00:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Professor Marco
I am not looking for an assyrialogist anymore cause I have already found one and have talked to him in a number of occasions, but I dont know how to get him to change this article neither do i know how to prove to you that he is an assyrialogist, but until then i want you to visit this website, http://www.aramnaharaim.org/English/ArameanHistory.htm but make sure you have your phone ready incase of a heart attack, remember its 999. have a good day. By the way, I am not the historian, that is a fellow Chaldean who is spreading the truth, good on him, and because of you I am personally thinking to study and maybe become an assyrialogist, as soon as I find some time, so I can put an end to this false accusations.
Asm ccc 06:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Professor Marco
I dont have any idea how you can take this as a joke, brainwashing people. I never shot myself in the foot, Aramaeans have never had a unified empire; they were divided into independent kingdoms all across the Near East. Yet to these Aramaeans befell the privilege of imposing their language and culture upon the entire Near East and beyond, fostered in part by the mass relocations enacted by successive empires, such as Babylonia. And yes i agree with the website, I am most probably Babylonian, and I will probably never be certain due to the assimilation, however, I am Chaldean Catholic by Religion thank you. This webstie proves that the label Assyrian were introduced by the westerners in the 19 th century, how then could you call Chaldean Catholic Assyrians, keeping in mind that when the Chaldean Church was established the term "Assyrian" did not even exist.
Professor Marco
Asm ccc 01:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
First you claim that Babylonians are Assyrians, and then you state that their last king (which I agree with) was Assyrian ( and the reason for the decline in power), well doesn't that only prove that Babylonians are not Assyrians, you are simply arguing among yourself. Secondly, Babylonians were not only from the city of Babylon, but of the whole Babylonian Empire. The website that has been provided by Marco, is approved by scholars, I dont know what more you need, and it proves that the Assyrian title was given to today's Assyrians in the 19 th century. I dont disagree, the term Assyria was mentioned in a number of occasions, however, only referring to the land, not the people. Quote: "The Aramaeans, were assimilated into the Assyrian nation", this is a bias opinion. I agree with the theory that the farmers who stayed behind when the Neo Assyrian Empire was pushed back belongs to today's Aramaeans living in Iraq, however, the majority consists of the descendants of the citizens of the neo Babylonian Empire, accepting the fact, that Babylonia was the last native Empire to the land of mesopotamia to control the region of today's Iraq. Arameans are both Ancient Babylonians, Ancient Chaldeans and some Ancient Assyrians, which all share the Chaldean Catholic faith. Marco has not failed to provide academic sources, there are plenty of scholars proving this theory true, its just that "you cant handle the truth"
I believe we are all one people, and a perect name to put our people under is Aramean where we can take credit of what the Assyrian, Babylonian, Chaldean, Akkadian and Sumerian Empire has accomplished, but by calling us Assyrians is simply not acceptable, since we are not all Assyrians, from all i know, Assyrians could be the minority, and the real Assyrians could still be living in Turkey, believing that they are descendants of turks or kurds.
Pshena my brothers, and dont argue, offer back the Chaldean Article for the sake of peace between Chaldeans and Assyrians —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.108.27 ( talk • contribs)
(Baggygreen 408)
I would just like to clarify something here. What Chaldeans are doing wrong is that they are classifying their race, their nationality, their blood in relation to what religion they are. So for instance, if i am a Russian Orthodox, does that make me Russian by blood? Why cant you accept it that you are Chaldean by faith alone. Can you tell me one Chaldean individual who is not a Chaldean Catholic? and please dont make up a name, sourced facts would be more welcome in this discussion than made up facts like some unnamed Assyriologist you "happened to meet". Lentheric33 07:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
This topic is not a simple concept such as 1*1=1. Marco has continually stated that he believes that he is only Chaldean by faith, but Babylonian by blood, something none of the Assyrians on wikipedia seems to understand. Your argument is very interesting, and as an Assyrian i belong to the Assyrian Church of the East, and every Assyrian I know belongs to the Assyrian Church of the East, according to you that means us Assyrians are only Assyrian by faith. As an Assyrian i like to respect other people's nationalities and cultures, and try not to be bias at all, but it seems like all Assyrians on the wesbsite are simply stubborn and bias, first you ask Marco, (whether he is a "Professor" or not)to supply you with sources and even when he/she does you simply claim it is bias, that is not fair, and as proud Assyrians we should not destroy someone's culture in order to make Assyrians look better. I am ashamed of Assyrians who say bad things about Chaldeans, since they are our brothers and sisters, keeping in mind that we were both a part of the Sumerian Empire.
After reading both sides of the argument, and with a rich background, I believe with no doubt that we are both a different people with a history which connects back at the Sumerian Empire, and I am ashamed of only somne Assyrians and you are on of them Lentheric33 becuase you are simply stubborn, full of bias and dont treat everyone with respect and understanding.
Atoraya Nimrud 01:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Atoraya Nimrud, please do not make this personal, we are having a friendly discussion, i respect everything you say, but that wont mean i cant give my side of the story. It is wrong for an individual to edit or create an article without sufficient sources, you cannot criticise me for question the validity of user:asm_ccc's sources, if the sources arent reliable or valid then it would unwise to make any changes to the article. I would also like to apologise to anyone who would have been offended by my previous comment, i will attempt to put forward my concepts in a varying manner in the future.
I would also like to build on the statement made by user:Chaldean, if one was to return to the homeland and see the two different villages he would see their 'culture' isnt varying in respect to what faith they are, they are one nationality, different religion.
Also, please do not generalise Atoraya Nimrud, quote -something none of the Assyrians on wikipedia seems to understand- You also state that every Assyrian you know is from the Assyrian Church of the East, are you saying you know every single Assyrian? as a matter of fact there are many Assyrians by race with different religions these include Ashurists, Chaldean Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, Orthodox. just like my example above, if a man is a Russian orthodox, does that make him Russian by blood??
Lentheric33 08:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Excerpt: “In Saddam-era Iraq, the country's 800,000 Christians — many of them Chaldean-Assyrians and Armenians, with small numbers of Roman Catholics — were generally left alone.” [3] — I rest my case. — EliasAlucard| Talk 11:03 17 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
If "Chaldean Assyrians" is controversial, move it to Chaldean Christians, or Chaldeans (Syriac Christians), but not to Chaldeans, which needs to disambiguate from the ancient people. Wikipedia:naming conventions requires us to use the most commonly used name. I get 2,000 google hits for "Chaldean Assyrians", and 20,000 for "Chaldean Christians". The case is cleary against "Chaldean Assyrians", imho. "Chaldeans" together with "Christian" gives me some 190,000 hits, so that this article probably should be at "Chaldeans" but for WP:DAB. It follows that we have the two options of (a) Chaldean Christians, or (b) a disambiguated title like Chaldeans (Syriac Christians) or Chaldeans (Christian) or similar. dab (𒁳) 09:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
dab i am more than happy to change the article to Chaldean Christian, and i hope that would end this discussion. EliasAlucard you make me laugh, just because the media says a person is homosexual it does not mean they are right, nor does it in this case. If the media is your most reliable source, I can not stress how sorry I am for you. EliasAlucard you mentioned that if someone is Russian Orthodox, it does not make him or her Russian by blood, and i totally agree, however, what you failed to understand is that when you stated that, you contradiced yourself, proving that your arguments are not trustworthy, if a Russian Orthodox is not necessary Russian by blood, why then do you state and make other believe that if you are Chaldean Catholic, you must be Assyrian by blood, notice the contradiction. I have always stated that no Chaldean of today could claim racial purity, cause there is an unkwon percentage of the people who have mixed with different cultures, but implying that if you are Chaldean Catholic you are simply Assyrian, that is not acceptable, and you by stating "if someone is Russian Orthodox, it does not make him or her Russian by blood" are agreeing with me, but then you go on to contradict yourself again. Next time before you edit something, make sure your arguments are consistent and more importantly, make sure you dont contradict yourself, cause that will be the most sensible thing to do. And for you Chaldean, am I getting on your nerves, why would you call me a "young fool", is it because you know your arguments are failing and people are starting to believe me more. I will ask nicely of you to stop the personal attacks as it is not accepted in wikipedia, and communicate in a civilised manner. dab, I hope I am not asking to much of you, but could you please change the artice name to Chaldean Christian and mention that the majority of the members of this Church lives in today's Iraq and have a link to the indegenous people of that land (without mentioning ancient Assyrian, Babylonian nor Chaldean). And if you choose to do that, I will thank you for ever so much.
Professor Marco
Shlama
Professor Marco, you are mistaken, it was i Lentheric33 who stated the comment about Russians, not user:eliasalucard, so before you criticse others about the way they structure their arguments, please analyse your own comments for errors. Lentheric33 04:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Asm ccc 08:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Yesterday, i had no idea that you could discuss about the articles, however, when I found out I saw Assyrians and Chaldeans arguing. Why do you do so. One thing I cant understand is fellow Assyrians trying to desperately prove that Chaldeans are Assyrians and I wonder why. Why are they so desperate, I whonder what us Assyrians would do if they called us by another name. I believe that we are the same people, but I understand that calling us all Assyrians is not acceptable for the chaldeans and vice versa, and I think it is an excellent idea to call the article Chaldean Christian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Assyrian74 ( talk • contribs) 2007-08-18T12:41:08
excellent points. The reason we are having these discussions is that one Wikipedia feels very strongly about the question, that's all. Since the move was not discussed in the first place, and you seem to agree that "Chaldean Christans" is a good title, I'll move it back there for now. dab (𒁳) 12:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Dab, you should move it back. There was nothing wrong with the title, it only confirmed the content in the actual article. It's not like this article, with the sources in mind, are stating that Chaldean Catholics are something other than Assyrians. — EliasAlucard| Talk 17:44 18 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
Answer to Elias' revert comment: Well, you could say the same about for example Druze and Alawites too, they belong chiefly to a single ethnic group, Arabs, or Yazidis who are Kurds, but going as far as giving them ethnic group infoboxes is a bad idea, as it would imply they are an ethnic group within themselves. What they (Chaldeans) are is simply a sect of Syriac Christianity, and I think you would be the first to point out that they are Assyrians by ethnicity. Also, an image in the infobox is a nice thing. Funkynusayri 15:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
We redirected the Syriac-Aramean people's page directly to Assyrian people. We should do the same here and with Nestorians, if not we should restore the Syriac-Aramean people's page.-- Yohanun ( talk) 21:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The United States of America should be added to the population, according to our priest there are actually more Chaldeans in the united states than any other country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SolutionsPal ( talk • contribs) 21:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
EliasAlucard, that did happen with ethnic Germans. Austrians, Liechtensteiners and Germanophone Swiss now have their own, non-German identity. Saimdusan Talk| Contribs 00:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
additional soapboxing |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Assyrians in Iraq are a minority; the majority of the Aramaic speaking Christians in Iraq are either Chaldean or Syriac, neither of the two claim to be Assyrian. There are Assyrians that are part of each church, do not confuse a pupil that attends the Chaldean Catholic/Syriac Orthodox Church, but calls himself Assyrian. Chaldeans are of Arab ancestry and Syriacs are of Aramean ancestry. Assyrians have nothing to do with ancient Assyrians. They are simply a group of Persian Christians/Armenians that were fooled by British Evangelists. They are Ah-Toor-A-Yah(Atoraya), meaning the people of the mountains, not Assyrians pertaining to Assur. Their issue is complex and they are bending the truth about the Christians of the Middle East, specifically the Syriacs and Chaldeans. They have nothing that proves that they are in fact Assyrian; the only thing they have is references pertaining to Assyrian Nationalists, which many have been successfully refuted by Syriac and Western scholars. They do not seek to unite neither of the groups, they simply wish to push their own agenda so that they can claim benefits from Iraq, Syria, and Jordan. Without Syriacs or Chaldeans on their side, they are unable to achieve any of their goals. They are not going anywhere in politics, the only threat they oppose is here on Wikipedia where they can misconstrued history. The joke is on them however because no scholar or researcher uses Wikipedia as a reference. They are a joke in Iraq and many of them ran during the seventies because their citizenship were stripped for being Iranians, which they truly are. Neither Syriacs or Chaldeans faced that issue in Iraq during the seventies. Many Assyrians speak funny Aramaic and Arabic. Their Aramaic does not sound like Syriac or Chaldean Aramaic; it sounds much like Persian than anything. They are not from Iraq as they have you believe, most of them come from Iran, but because of the Sykes-Picot Agreement many of them immigrated from Iran. They were considered as "ajam" in Iraq. The Massacre of Simele of 1933, was due to their fake Assyrian nationalism. The Syriacs and Chaldeans saved them from ethnic cleansing and this is how they repay them. They are much related to Kurds more than anyone in Iraq, this is apparent through their common mannerisms and nationalism, as well as their language, accent, and looks. Assyrians, please continue to disgrace yourselves, please, the more the merrier. The truth hurts. I feel sorry for your children because they are fed this fake idea of Assyrianization. Many of them will not know that they in fact are Kurds, Persians, or Armenians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CommonSenseofCourse ( talk • contribs) 01:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC) -- CommonSenseofCourse ( talk) 01:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
"Chaldeans are in fact ethnically Assyrian...", let's keep POV like these out of the article, there are no reliable sources saying that. The TriZ ( talk) 16:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
"Chaldeans believe that they are descendants of Chaldea. Assyrians contend that they are in fact ethnically Assyrian." This statement is incorrect, there are heaps of Chaldeans that say they are ethnically Assyrian and that Chaldean is just a term that means a member of the Chaldean catholic church which separated from the Assyrian church of the east, infact some of them i have met have even told me how they're great grandparents converted from the A.C.O.E and became Chaldean, but identify with the Assyrian ethnicity. Aturaya ( talk) 15:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
additional soapboxing |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Chaldean is only a denominational and theological term that arose in the 17th century. That is pretty much a fact. The Chaldean Catholics come from the north of Mesopotamia (which was Assyria) and not the far south east, where the Chaldeans were from. Raphael Bidawid himself clearly distinguishes between Assyrian as the ethnic identity of Chaldeans and Chaldean Catholic as a theological designation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.12.105 ( talk) 02:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC) The modern Chaldean Catholics are in actuality Assyrians indigenous to Northern Mesopotamia. They were never referred to by themselves or their neighbours as Chaldeans before 1683 AD. They were originally members of the Assyrian Church of the East before splitting from it and entering communion with the Roman Catholic Church in 1553 AD. Rome significantly named this new church as The Church of Athura (Assyria) and Mosul, and only in 1683 AD was this changed to Chaldean Catholic Church. The Chaldean Catholics had always previously been referred to by themselves and others as Assyrians, Assouri, Ashuriyun, Syriac, Syrian, Athurai, Atorayeh or Nestorians before this. The term is purely Denominational, and not ethnic, as the Patriarch Mar Raphael Bidawid himself points out. There are no accredited academic studies whatsoever, nor written historical records extant, which link the Assyrian converts to Catholicism with the ethnic Chaldeans. Conversely there ARE historical records and serious academic studies which points to them being Assyrians — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.12.105 ( talk) 07:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC) |
The present quote about Mar Bedawid is incorrect. His quote is erased and replaced with one that does not exist yet the correct is still wrongfully cited.
Some religious officials within the Chaldean Church, such as Patriarch Mar Raphael I Bedawid, advocate the Assyrian ethnicity and holding the belief that Chaldean is just his religious denomination. [1] In an interview with Bidawid, published in 2003, he commented on the Assyrian name dispute and declared his ethnic point of view:
In an interview with the Assyrian Star in the September-October 1974 issue, he was quoted as saying:
Chaldeans call themselves Sūrāyā (Syrian) in singular and Sūrāyē in plural [4]
NOT: "Some religious officials within the Chaldean Church, such as Patriarch Mar Raphael I Bedawid, advocate the Assyrian ethnicity while still holding belief in the Chaldean ethnicity also." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Am6212 ( talk • contribs) 17:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
What is clearly is that you and your other account is writing the same thing twice, I don't know if it is that you want to "show" that you are not the same person or something, however you fail with that, miserable. To the actual point, it says some religious officials. The TriZ ( talk) 00:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
And where does it say the Bishop held belief in the a Chaldean ethnicity? And no, two accounts, two different people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Am6212 ( talk • contribs) 00:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Mm, yeah right. However, sure the sentence could be rewritten or just simply leave out Patriarch Mar Raphaels name. The TriZ ( talk) 00:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Most of the first paragraph discusses ethnicity and that is the quote about ethnicity from the head of the Chaldean Church. Why leave it out? What are you afraid of? Why do you choose to leave in an altered and fabricated quote?
Off-topic, sign your messages with four tildes and do not delete my discussionposts again [5]. On-topic, there si an article that discusses the terms, it is called Names of Syriac Christians, wheter or not Chaldean is an ethnicity or not, can not be decided by you or the Patriarch. If some people identifies as Chaldeans, then their ethnicity is Chaldean, you should read more about ethnicity. There is no need for POV in articles, articles needs to be balanced and trying to be objective (though it is not possible for an article to be completely objective). This article is about Chaldean Christians (though the name should be Chaldean people), the article is not about proving that Chaldeans are Assyrians. The TriZ ( talk) 15:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Do not attempt to answer questions that are not directed at you. Only speak when spoken to. This discussion is not about proving an ethnicity. It is simply about providing the correct references in the first paragraph and removing faricated quotes and citations which give the impression that they came from a real source.-- Am6212 ( talk) 07:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me? I suggest you start speaking like a normal civil person. The TriZ ( talk) 17:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you start behaving like one. And again, This discussion is not about proving an ethnicity. It is simply about providing the correct references in the first paragraph and removing faricated quotes and citations which give the impression that they came from a real source. -- Am6212 ( talk) 21:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Can something be done about the 23 footnote references for the opening sentence?
- if 23 sources are being cited in support of the one statement... well, surely 1, 2 or 3 good sources is enough, but in any case these should be amalgamated into one footnote: you don't need a different footnote for each source, different footnotes are for different elements in the text that are being supported.
- if different elements of the sentence are being supported, the footnote should be inserted next to the fact in question, not bunched together so it is not clear what is being supported.
- some of the footnotes could be deleted altogether, one is to the entry on the Assyrian people which is already linked in the sentence, the relevance of others isn't clear even when the actual source material is quoted in the note. The list almost reads more like a bibliography than a reference.
I know nothing at all about this subject area, only about referencing style. It would be preferable if someone with some knowledge could tidy this, because it does no credit at all to the credibility of this entry.
Vgris (
talk)
02:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
"advocate the Assyrian ethnicity while still holding belief in the Chaldean ethnicity also"...yet the citation says "The name ‘Chaldean’ does not represent an ethnicity... We have to separate what is ethnicity and what is religion... I myself, my sect is Chaldean, but ethnically, I am Assyrian." Clearly not advocating two ethnicities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trippss ( talk • contribs) 21:33, 7 October 2008 in the strictest definitions of ethnicity chaldeans indeed are to be considered a seperate ethnic group> they have a distinct language< distinct customs< and they even have something of a distinct dna makeup due to generations of marriage only with in their own group> if you look up the definition of ethnicity< you will see that chaldeans certainly may lay claim on their own ethnical identity> connie khoshi> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellybutonlint ( talk • contribs) 21:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
You're correct that Chaldeans can claim their own etnical identity, but Assyrian fanatics have layn control over this article and doesn't let anyone else edit it. The TriZ ( talk) 22:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes and you have sabotaged everything with your aramaenist fanatic propganda bullshit everywhere, good job you hypocrite —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.17.92.37 ( talk) 22:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
additional soapboxing |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The modern Chaldean Catholics ARE in actuality Assyrians indigenous to Northern Mesopotamia. They were never referred to by themselves or their neighbours as Chaldeans before 1683 AD. They were originally members of the Assyrian Church of the East before splitting from it and entering communion with the Roman Catholic Church in 1553 AD. Rome significantly named this new church as The Church of Athura (Assyria) and Mosul, and only in 1683 AD was this changed to Chaldean Catholic Church. The Chaldean Catholics had always previously been referred to by themselves and others as Assyrians, Assouri, Ashuriyun, Syriac, Syrian, Athurai, Atorayeh or Nestorians before this. The term is purely Denominational, and not ethnic, as the Patriarch Mar Raphael Bidawid himself points out. There are no accredited academic studies whatsoever, nor written historical records extant, which link the Assyrian converts to Catholicism with the ethnic Chaldeans. Conversely there ARE historical records and serious academic studies which points to them being Assyrians — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.12.105 ( talk) 07:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC) |
This box mentions Syria, but Syria is mentioned nowhere else on the page. Meanwhile, the text mentions Turkey, which does not appear in this box. I have no idea which is correct, but this seems inconsistent.
Regarding this edit by Chaldean2: one of the changes is to state that Chaldeans are not a subset of the Assyrians. However, the cited source claims that they are. Do we have a replacement source that says they aren't? — C.Fred ( talk) 23:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I have invited a user who belongs to the church, hopefully he can make it soon to comment on your concerns. Ninevite ( talk) 22:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Shouldnt this page, as the other ethnic Assyrian pages be redirected to the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people?-- Yohanun ( talk) 23:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
...but I would like to state that we, the Chaldean, Assyrian and Syrian people are one people known as Aramean people.
Let Iraq continue to live with all its ethnic groups, Arabs, Kurds, Arameans, Yazidie' s, Mandeans, and Shabak.
cardinal Mar Emmanuel Delly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.234.33.210 ( talk) 13:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I've made some edits to this page to remove some of the accumulated Assyrianist pov, so that it represents Chaldean people. I've left simple edit summaries for most edits to explain them. ܥܝܪܐܩ ( talk) 18:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
additional soapboxing |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The modern Chaldean Catholics are in actuality Assyrians indigenous to Northern Mesopotamia. They were never referred to by themselves or their neighbours as Chaldeans before 1683 AD. They were originally members of the Assyrian Church of the East before splitting from it and entering communion with the Roman Catholic Church in 1553 AD. Rome significantly named this new church as The Church of Athura (Assyria) and Mosul, and only in 1683 AD was this changed to Chaldean Catholic Church. The Chaldean Catholics had always previously been referred to by themselves and others as Assyrians, Assouri, Ashuriyun, Syriac, Syrian, Athurai, Atorayeh or Nestorians before this. The term is purely Denominational, and not ethnic, as the Patriarch Mar Raphael Bidawid himself points out. There are no accredited academic studies whatsoever, nor written historical records extant, which link the Assyrian converts to Catholicism with the ethnic Chaldeans. Conversely there ARE historical records and serious academic studies which points to them being Assyrians — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.12.105 ( talk) 07:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC) |
First, please understand that this article is about church denominations and not ethnicity. You can move your warring to another article.
Second, the facts that we both agree on are as follow:
The
Church of the East split. Two denominations emerged: the
Chaldean Catholic Church and the
Assyrian Church of the East. The
Chaldean Catholic Church united with Rome. The
Assyrian Church of the East did not. If you (on either side) do not agree with this, please read some of our history. Some really good sources are mentioned in this articles.
I have edited the page to reflect our common beliefs. I have removed any comparison between the two groups in numbers and status. No one is a subgroup of the other, and no one is better than the other. --
Tisqupnaia2010 (
talk)
07:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Taivo, if you have not read all discussions about this, then please stop calling my edits POV. As I said, it have been disscussed in Talk:Assyrian people, please read (see archive). I'm not the one adding POV, I reverted edits that is going against what's been discussed. And the only ones that reverted my edits, except you, are two nationalist Chaldeans. Shmayo ( talk) 18:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not the one removing sourced material and going against what's been discussed. Again, please read Talk:Assyrian people. Shmayo ( talk) 18:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Tisqupnaia2010's message: 1) here we are speaking of religious denominations not of ethnicity 2) Wiki shall be NPOV and not take a stand on which denomination is the true successor of the Church of East, but simply list all claims. A ntv ( talk) 18:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I see that you really do not understand what the " Assyrian people"-article is. The article, formerly called Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people, is a article about the ethnic people belonging to the Chaldean Catholic Church, the Assyrian Church of the East and the Syriac Orthodox Church (and a couple of smaller churches). Now I've already explained why it's called "Assyrian people". After discussion and voting it was changed to "Assyrian people" because in Wikipedia you follow the common name. "your sources that you presented are all non-academic. They are writings done by other Assyrian nationalists." Do you mean the sources in the old version of the article? Then look at those sources again. The history part will I be answering in the Tel Skuf talk page. Shmayo ( talk) 21:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
The old version described it very good. I can't see why you changed it. Shmayo ( talk) 21:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Now again, if you don't like how the name Chaldean is used, discuss in the talk page of Assyrian people. Shmayo ( talk) 21:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
You should understand that this page is about Chaldeans. It is NOT about Assyrians. The two are of different denominations and of different ethnicity. You and other Assyrian nationalists are practicing Assyrian Fascism to promote a single ethnicity over the rest of us. This is exactly the same method that Saddam Hussein used to oppress all the minorities of Iraq to make them Arabs. I don't think Wikipedia would want to be part of your Assyrian Fascism, and I'll make sure they will understand your fascist views. What you have said and mentioned in
Assyrian people is something out of this topic. We don't care about what Assyrians think of Chaldeans. Your fascism is more than clear to every educated person. The Congress of The United States of America itself recognizes us as ethnically different
[7]. I don't think you can do better research than THE CONGRESS OF THE USA. Moreover, none of the Chaldean people identifies himself as Assyrian. I just can't understand why you are having these Assyrian Fascist views? --
Tisqupnaia2010 (
talk)
01:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
"You should understand that this page is about Chaldeans. It is NOT about Assyrians. The two are of different denominations and of different ethnicity." Now that is going against the consensus reached on Wikipedia. I'm going to revert, and I've right to do so because it have been discussed several of times and consensus have been reached, but you don't seem to care about that. And you should look up things before you talk, we are referred to as Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs in US census.
[8]
Taivo, you must understand that consensus have been reached! Please, please read
Talk:Assyrian people. Nobody have right to just make big edits going against consensus, like saying Chaldeans and Assyrians are ethnically distinct from each other.
Shmayo (
talk)
14:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
"Moreover, none of the Chaldean people identifies himself as Assyrian." This is also a false statement. See User:Chaldean, and there are many, many other. In fact, the Assyrian Democratic Movement won in many villages in Iraq that are mostly Chaldean Catholic. [9] [10](that is only of the Chaldean Catholic villages where ADM won) Shmayo ( talk) 14:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
"...this article isn't about ethnicities, but about a religious community." Exactly, this article almost look like an ethnic page now. Taivo, please see the archive. You'll see that it's añ ethnic article for the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people (named Assyrian people which is common name). No, Taivo, these nationalist Chaldean edits have been reverted by other people. Not only me, but User:Chaldean, User:Assyria 90 and User:Nineveh 209 are some that have reverted these kind of edits. Shmayo ( talk) 15:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
For example, it said "Kaldayee Mshekhaye" (Chaldean Christians), now it's only "Kaldayee" (Chaldeans). Yes, this is a religious community belonging to the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people. Not once, not even in the "see also"-section there is a link to Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people. It's the same people, but eveything said about them being one of the three religious communities of this people have been removed. Much culture about Chaldean Catholics is written in the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people-article, but not a single link to that article. And as said, "Christian" have been removed on some placed only showing "Chaldean" as if they were a distinct ethnic group, and not only a religious community. Taivo, it's not just about this article, look for example on articles of some villages where Chaldean Catholics live, see articles of Tel Skuf, Alqosh and some other and you will find these name, maybe some other too. Shmayo ( talk) 15:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I now what this article is about, but if there isn't a link to the other article it's a joke, plenty about Chaldean Catholics is written there. And see articles of other religious communities, isn't it said which ethnic group they are belonging to? Yes, it does. And this isn't just about this article, Taivo, read my last sentence above. Shmayo ( talk) 15:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
But things about Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs have been discussed in the talk page of the ethnic people, and not just about that article, but for example about the old article "Syriac people", where consensus was reached, but yes, I understand what you mean. But some other things on this article should be checked, like the one about the church split, which was much better before. Shmayo ( talk) 16:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Taivo has been a very helpful editor throughout, helping to ensure a npov, and I think his balanced input is deserving of precedence. ܥܝܪܐܩ ( talk) 17:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Why shouldn't the ethnicity be written in the begining? I don't want to start the discussion about the ethnicity again, but in the begining of articles about religious groups ethnicity is allways written (like in the articles about Nasrani, Yezidi...), isn't that right?
Shmayo (
talk)
17:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Did the Church of the East split? Wasn't it one group that didn't follow the patriarch and united with the Holy See? And the other one just kept following the patriarch and really never became a new church? Because it didn't change name to Assyrian Church of the East then, this was much later. And as the Church of the East was called, the church of today is also called Nestorian Church, and the followers Nestorians (even if the patriarch of today don't like that name). Myself I don't belong to any of these churches, but this is what I've understood. The church renamed itself to Assyrian Church of the East later, it was called Church of the East after the split too, isn't that right? It was more like one group left, not a real split? Shmayo ( talk) 17:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but what I've heard it was when the patriarch of today became patriarch (1976?). I just meant that the old version is explaining the split in a better way. The same with the Syriac Catholic Church. The Syriac Orthodox Church was still the Syriac Orthodox Church even after a group created the Syriac Catholic Church and united with Rome instead. Please read my other post above too Shmayo ( talk) 17:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I really think the Chaldean flag belongs in this article, it is used by all Chaldean organizations, please have a look at these links:
"The Chaldean Flag serves to express the Chaldean identity and heritage. After long and purposeful discussions relevant to the Chaldean cultural identity the internationally celebrated Chaldean artist Amer Hanna Fatuhi in Beth Nahrain-Iraq was commissioned to create a community flag. After a number of proposed submissions the flag was approved by leading Chaldean community organizations. Groups like the Chaldean Cultural Center, the Chaldean Union Democratic Party, Chaldean National Congress, and Chaldean Democratic Forum, along with other Chaldean cultural, educational, and social Organizations voted unanimously. The flag has since been registered by international bodies and the United State of America on Oct. 27, 1997."
additional soapboxing |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The modern Chaldean Catholics are in actuality Assyrians indigenous to Northern Mesopotamia. They were never referred to by themselves or their neighbours as Chaldeans before 1683 AD. They were originally members of the Assyrian Church of the East before splitting from it and entering communion with the Roman Catholic Church in 1553 AD. Rome significantly named this new church as The Church of Athura (Assyria) and Mosul, and only in 1683 AD was this changed to Chaldean Catholic Church. The Chaldean Catholics had always previously been referred to by themselves and others as Assyrians, Assouri, Ashuriyun, Syriac, Syrian, Athurai, Atorayeh or Nestorians before this. The term is purely Denominational, and not ethnic, as the Patriarch Mar Raphael Bidawid himself points out. There are no accredited academic studies whatsoever, nor written historical records extant, which link the Assyrian converts to Catholicism with the ethnic Chaldeans. Conversely there ARE historical records and serious academic studies which points to them being Assyrians — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.12.105 ( talk) 07:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC) |
I personally think that these different names serve to add confusion. The original name of our Church was the 'Church of the East' ... When a portion of the Church of the East became Catholic, the name given was 'Chaldean' based on the Magi kings who came from the land of the Chaldean, to Bethlehem. The name 'Chaldean' does not represent an ethnicity... We have to separate what is ethnicity and what is religion... I myself, my sect is Chaldean, but ethnically, I am Assyrian.
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessdaymonth=
, |month=
, |accessyear=
, |accessmonthday=
, and |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: |issue=
has extra text (
help); |pages=
has extra text (
help); |volume=
has extra text (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laysource=
, |laydate=
, |month=
, |laysummary=
, and |quotes=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
By "liturgy", I'm assuming that you mean the scriptures and ceremonial language of the church services. I'm assuming that you mean "Syriac" in this sense--the language of the Middle Ages and the language of the Peshitta. By "liturgical language", I'm assuming that you mean the language that sermons are given in and hymns are sung in. I'm assuming that you mean the modern-day language of the Chaldeans--Chaldean Neo-Aramaic. (
Taivo (
talk)
01:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC))
I have just seen that Mr. Shmayo suggested something about including a link to the name Chaldean/Assyrian/Syriac (The name shouldn't have Assyrians at the beginning of the suggested common name if you want to be consistent with the suggested Arabic name that your fellow Assyrian Nationalists are using to fool the ethnic Chaldeans). Nevertheless, if you had good intentions, you would've renamed Assyrian People article to represent the common name. If the name of your article is "Assyrian People", how do you expect us to believe its neutrality? It is like making an article about Mother Teresa and naming it Nazism. Does that make any sense? -- Tisqupnaia2010 ( talk) 08:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
There is something wrong in this article, not all Christians are Assyrian. Have many assyrians but not all are, some are Arab christians. They may be in religion but not necessarily in the ethnicity.My family are from the city of Mosul, go to Chaldean Church to attend but are not Assyrian ethnicity. There are many ethnic Arabs who are Christian or no religion. Therefore it is necessary to make this correction, for example my family can trace our background the various Christian tribes who came from Arabia (taghlib, Manathera and others). I am in fact an Arab who is Christian.Generally Christians living in cities for many years and do not speak Aramaic are the Arabs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.120.247.2 ( talk) 00:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)