Talk:Chaldean

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1 (October 2006 - January 2006)

Contents

[edit] For Chaldeans from Detroit

For Chaldeans born in Detroit and are researching about their identity (like most Americans like to do), please note the importance of the following The Patriach of the Chaldean Catholic Church, ie the number 1 man of the Chaldean Church between 1989 to 2000, up to his death stated two occasions right before his death asserts that his followers are of "Nestorian Assyrian" by ethnicity but Chaldean in faith on LBC TV on April 30, 2000. Here is something Chaldos from Detroit need to understand - Before the establishment of the Chaldean church in 1553, nobody called themselves Chaldean. The word Chaldean was invisable after the fall of Chaldea dynasty in 4th century BC, up to 1553. So please, enough with this silly statements like "if where one people, why did chaldea fight with assyria". Ancient Chaldeans of Chaldea and Ur assumulated into Arab and Persians of today. Chaldean 17:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The Chaldean Catholic Church was established in 1553, however it did not derive from an Assyrian Church nor were the follower all assyrians. Why do assyrians love taking credit for things that have never established. If a person thinks the Nestorian Church consisted only out of Assyrians, then he shouldnt even be here typing in the first place. The Nestorian Church was first established in Persia, and strecthed from middleast all the way to China. After the fall of the Assyrian and Chaldean dynasty, they were under Persian and Mede's rule due to their lack of power, but that doesnt mean that they just assumalate into other type of people, you should know better than that. When the Nestorian Church was established the majoriy of the people who lived in the area of today's Iraq joined the Nestorian Church, and they were people who's empire/dynasty had lost their independance. So when the Nestorian Church was finally weakend, the Chaldeans were finally able to reunite with the Pope under the rule of their Chaldean Patriach Mar Soulaqa. link titleThis website proves that the Chaldean Catholic Church derived from the Nestorian Church, not the Assyrian Church cause that was yet to be established.
Asm ccc 15:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong Chaldean, have you run out of refutes, or are you convinced that you were wrong, i want the article to be changed, and not rechanged, cause by the looks of it you are convinced that the ancient Chaldeans relate s to today's Chaldeans.

124.184.236.221 23:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Sign in when you want to make a comment. 2. I dont have time for child's play. Please see your talkpage. Chaldean 00:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Funny when you have been proven wrong, you stop refuting and called it child's play, you know what, i never knew this was a game, and i dont regard it as a game, i take this seriously, maybe you think its fun playing with the way people think, but i dont, i want the truth to be known, and not some crazy theory like the one "they just assumalated somehow", you have no idea how stupid the theory of yours sound.

Asm ccc 10:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For Chaldeans all over the world

Once again it has been prove that Chaldeans are not ethnically Assyrians. Yes the Chaldean Catholic Church derived from the Nestorian church, however, the Nestorian Church had not yet been given the name the Assyrian Church of the East, it was later on. The nestorian Church united the Chaldean, Syrian and the Assyrians into one people, the people of mesopotamia, the different people split and got back their unique identity again, however, there is a chance that some few of today's Chaldeans and Assyrians are not from the racial group as they believe that they are from due to the Nestorian Church which had united them as one people for such a long time.

Anyone who states that Chaldeans are ethnically Assyrians are influenced by all the propaganda of today's world. Just because someome supplies you with an internet article suggesting that Chaldeans are ethnically Assyrians doesnt necessarily make it true, from all we know it could be written by an assyrian, if you want the truth, visit official website which cannot be edited by anyone.

Asm ccc 05:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ASM, please...

First and formost none of the "Assyrian" or "Chaldean" Emperors referred to themselves as such. They all referred to themselves as Kings of "Sumer and Akkad." Assyrian (Babylonian as well) was coined by the Greeks centuries after (in a historical context) to refer to those whom held Ashur as the supreme diety in the land of Sumer and Akkad for example as the Jews referred to southern Mesopotamia as "Shinar" which meant "land of the moon [god]." "Babylonia" was also coined by the Greeks to refer to southern Mesopotamia which had its "capital" in Bab-ilu aka Kadingirra aka "Babylon." Just as people in ancient Sumer and Akkad referred to themselves by the city-state they inhabbited and religion they followed so do the modern people, they refer to their ethno-religious group by village and/or "national" origin. "Chaldean" was also coined by the Greeks to refer to the last indegenous conquerors of "Babylonia." In reality in the Syriac language we ALL refer to ourselves as Sourayeh or Souryoyeh which is simply translated as Syrian in English which itself is Greek-derived from the designation of the former colonial territories of Assyria for they referred to Sumer and Akkad as Assyria and its colonies (Aram and Canaan) as Syria. That is it in a nutshell. We are Sourayeh/Souryoyeh and ultimately we are Assyrian, Babylonian, and the "Sons and Daughters of the Fusion of Sumer and Akkad." We are Chaldean as well and we are Aramaean as well. However if you want to get into semantics, some hold the God Ashur as one with the Christian God Yah(weh) aka "God the Father" which himself started out as the Canaanite storm god which was roughly equivelent to Ashur and interpreted by the "Hebrews" as the one God; the so-called "sky axle" or "Holder of Heaven" therefore we are THE true "Assyrians" in an ethno-religious sense. Also compare Yah to Ea and you will see the origins of the Abrahamic religions lie in the land that is now called Iraq. The Tsar is Gone but I am King 15:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Chaldean is Greek-derived from the Akkadian_language form of "Kaldu" which in Hebrew is "Kasdu" which may actually be in refference to the Kassites whom once ruled Babylon well before the "Chaldean Dynasty." It was also used interchangebly with "Astrologer" in which Astrology was key in the Mesopotamian religion so even in that sense we are true "Chaldeans" as well for Judaism is a monotheistic religion that evoloved from it and gradually evolved into Christianity and even Islam.The Tsar is Gone but I am King 17:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finally we are getting somwhere

Sorry i have not been on for a long time to my busy schedule as an educator, however, i believe we are getting somwhere, tyou stated "We are Sourayeh/Souryoyeh and ultimately we are Assyrian, Babylonian, and the "Sons and Daughters of the Fusion of Sumer and Akkad." We are Chaldean as well and we are Aramaean as well" Thank you. I believe you are right, but why does it say in the front page of the article say that chaldeans are contemporary Assyrians

Asm ccc 00:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

but why does it say in the front page of the article say that chaldeans are contemporary Assyrians - because your Patriach says so. Chaldean 00:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me tell you one thing Chaldean, just because a patriarch does mention something it doesnt mean it has to be true, several popes have made enourmos mistsakes, and Patriarchs and priests are no difference. A Patriarch is educated in religion, not in ancient or modern history. I am an Indegenous Iraqi, and just as you said, most or all races are not pure blooded, how then can you be so sure that some of those you call Assyrians are not Chaldean. Chaldeans were a part of Babylonia ever after the 7th century BC and they were known as the last indegenous conquerors of the land, and of course you with your elementary arguments are going to refute and say, why do most Chaldeans live in northern Iraq, well after the city of Babylon was in ruins, (however not totally destroyed, it still exist today) under th Selucid Empire, most Chaldeans/Babylonians, were forced to travel north to search for a new home, and since Babylon was not populated anymore, the farmers had no choice but to move north for the search for more fertilised land and also since they no longer belonged to a city/state which they could sell their surplus to. Our Patriarch teaches us about our faith, not our ancestors, get that through your head, i have never heard a Chaldean priest mention the ancient empire nor any of our kings and call us all sons of God, unlike (well i wont say most since i dont have a number) some Assyrian priest which i have been preached to included the God Ashur and many of the kings of Assyria, well Chaldean, if you get your information from some Priests, i feel sorry for you since i get my information from the Vatican which employ historians.

124.183.57.239 06:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but who are you, a 15 year old in Austtralia, to tell the people in the homeland what is their identity? Take a look at these pictures; [[1]]. Do you see what I see? Chaldean Catholics waving the Assyrian national flag. Who are you to tell them they are not Assyrian? Why dont you go back to the homeland and talk to these people? Let us know if you have converted them. Chaldean 16:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CHALDEANS ARE NOT ASSYRIANS!!!!

Chaldeans are not Assyrians & don't criticize others who don't agree with you. So why do you have a screen name of Chaldean when really you are an Assyrian trying to be a Chaldean. Don't push your beliefs on to others. Now I'm not trying to tell you I'm against Assyrians or I hate them or something, I do have close relatives that are Assyrians that are family but nonetheless we are different. First & foremost is the religion....Chaldeans are Catholic & Assyrians are Eastern Orthodox. Second Chaldeans speak a different language but similar to Assyrians or vice-versa. Third of all, Chaldeans in whole come from a unity of multiple cities that include Telkphe, Batnya, Mosul, Dahuk, Alqoush, etc. but Assyrians come from Nineveh, Iran, Syria, & parts of Turkey. Even though we share the same culture, have similar languages yet still obviously different, & have a history that is closely tied....it does not mean we are the same. For example, all the middle east countries have the same basics of culture & food, speak the middle eastern language of arabic...HOW COME JORDAN IS NOT CLAIMING IRAQ AS BEING THE CONTEMPORARY JORDANIANS, OR SAUDI ARABIA CLAIMING EGYPT AS BEING SAUDI ARABIA ETC. Another example if two people were born in the same city, ate the same food, & fought the same war that doesn't make them the same or one of them being the contemporary of the other. One could be a muslim & the other a christian even though CLOSLY RELATE BUT NOT THE SAME OR BEING CLAIMED AS ONE OF THE OTHER OR BEING THE COMTEMPORARY OF THE OTHER. DO NOT GENERALIZE!!! DO NOT CRITICIZE OTHERS & HAVE A MATURE DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS THATS WHY SITES LIKE THIS ARE MADE, SO YOU CAN HAVE A FREE MIND!!! -- KALMANI 00:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not use caps. Also note to not delete sourced info. Chaldean 15:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
You deleted my three sources that I gave you & you gave me a biased Assyrian Source. You keep on reverting back & deleting my contributions because its true & its not in your beliefs. Do not change something to what you dont know & dont delete any contributions to this page. You are not the on e& only. DO NOT DELETE ANY CONTRIBUTIONS Chaldean becuase you have no authorization to do so. This is a collaboration not bias to your beliefs. Read my sources & DO NOT DELETE!--KALMANI 16:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Your edits dont make sense. Please tell me how I am giving you "baised Assyrian sources"? The sources I am giving you are;
  • Strickert, Fred. "Christianity in Iraq: A Small But Respected and Multi-Faceted Population", Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, March 1999, pp. 81-82. - last time I checked Fred Strickert is not an Assyrian and The Washington Report is not an Assyrian newspaper.
  • Jonathan Eric Lewis, "Iraqi Assyrians: Barometer of Pluralism," The Middle East Quarterly, Vol. 10 (Summer 2003). - last time I checked Jonathan Lewis is not an Assyrian and Middle East Qaurterly is not an Assyrian magazine.
  • Al-Machriq, “Revue Catholique Orientale Mensuelle,” 2, no. 3 (Beyrouth, 1899): 97. [1] - Al-Machriq is not an Assyrian and the Lebanese Journal he wrote for was not an Assyrian journal.
In conclusion, I advice you to leave your Sterling Heights home and explore outside of Michigan. Go back home and ask Chaldean Catholics about their identity instead of trying to paint them something else. If Chaldeans in Iraq dont consider themselves Assyrian then they would not be waving Assyrian flags. Pshena. Chaldean 16:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Kalmani please calm down, if you continue the page will be locked and than you cannot edit anything I'll be back to confirm this. Artaxiad 16:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Cahldean you are reverting back to your biased opinion & deleting my contributions because they're against your beliefs which are untrue, so why dont crawl from underneath that rock & educate your little mind & explore the truth. I live where I live but if you are threatening me you will be reported. So dont intimidate none who is trying to help. You are feeble minded & you are trying to criticize others. This page will be locked & let the truth be told that you cant push beliefs onto others & make people believe that it is true. just because a Hawaiian waives a chinese flag or a asian waiving a Turkish doesn't necessarily mean that they are chinese or Turkish. So open your mind & think, dont be dum to your thoughts, understand what is true & accept it.--KALMANI 16:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
How about you open your mind and understand what is the truth and accept it? Your edits are pure vandelism and dont make any sense or redundunt of whats already their. Your the one that deleting sourced and unbaised info because its against YOUR beliefs. Please refrain from this. I have reported you to 2 mods and the more RV you do the more its going to go against you. So please stop. Chaldean 16:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't vandalize nothing. I gave you three sources & I repeat for the third time which you didn't believe in. One source was from an anthropologist from Atlanta, Georgia which is a creditable source. Second from a very reliable source the church. So dont tell me what I believe in or don't. So stop reverting to your beliefs & bias. so please refrain from your bias & stop reverting to your nonsense. its like a drug company having a trial on the drugs while people are dying & saying there drugs are safe kinda like your sources sir. So I reported to the mods & the more RV you do the worse it'll get for you. what comes around goes around & stop threatening me . You have been reported & any future threats will be taken seriously. Do not try to criticize or intimidate me or others who dont believe in your bias thoughts.--KALMANI 17:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


As a matter of fact, the first link works & it takes you directly to the source which is a pdf. Second of all, you insulted me by vandalizing the page with your biased resources & comments & erasing/deleting my contributions with verifiable sources. I've been very mature in trying to resolve this issue with you but you have been single-minded & one-way in your thinking. Remember again this wiki community is a collaboration of many not one. You have undoubtedly not researched the subject your commenting on & believing that what people have told you. You are here to help out other people in learning the facts not biased material from sources getting biased information. I did include my sources so you can research this material. By the way there is a library, internet, & books where you can find valuable information about the sources I have included & many more. You can contact the sources directly by emailing them or calling them directly through my first source. Please refrain from intimidating, criticizing, & threatening others who try to contribute to the wiki. One example of this towards me is I advice you to leave your Sterling Heights home and explore outside of Michigan.[2]. Second example where you try to intimidate & criticize others is this No offense, but who are you, a 15 year old in Austtralia, to tell the people in the homeland what is their identity [3]. Third example is Your edits are pure vandelism and dont make any sense or redundunt of whats already their. [4] where you misrepresent others who are trying to contribute & saying that they are vandalizing the page & the harassing them. This is not a mafia or a cult that you are trying to control. You can't just believe that by harassing, threatening, intimidating, criticizing & then vandalizing the contributing user. You will be blocked. Please refrain from doing this because all it does is cause more animosity between the parties. Don't think this is a tyranny. Don't harass me in not letting me or others in trying to contribute by telling us that we are vandalizing & telling lies & then telling us that you reported us to the mods or admins. This is not a kids game. Doesn't matter who you know or what you do, when somebody reads this & finds out what you are doing you will be banned & blocked. This will not get you no where. Believe me you don't scare me or don't think this will stop me from contributing to the community with facts. The wiki should be free from bias & tell nothing but the truth & not some theories that you believe in. As far the part about the Wikipedia:Disambiguation, you told me about that only once & then I entered that back in with my contributions as you can see here [5] & that you were right & I apologize about that. I had rectified that situation but you keep on telling lies about vandalism. You will respect others & in there contributions. The wiki has stated that good-faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia but you keep on reverting back to your biased info & not letting others contribute as you can see in the history of that article which is here [6]. By the way, you did break the WP:3RR, you at least reverted back to you biased info & deleted my contributing efforts at least four times. I warned you about it in your page plus I told not to vandalize my page but you kept on doing it & harassing me. I hope the Wikipedia admin resolve this & hand out your consequence accordingly. Thank You! --KALMANI 23:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Chaldean, are you deleting Kalmani's sources because you know that you have been proven wrong, or is it just to hard for an assyrian to admitt that their population is much less than the one of the Chaldeans. Why is it so difficult for you to give up, why are you trying to feed people's mind with propaganda. All those sources not only I, but also Kalmani have provided you with have just been deleted while your bias sources (i would'nt be suprised if you got one from assyrianchat) are the ones who are left there now. I have asked you several questions which you could not answer. Let me tell you why you once and for all why everyone thinks that Chaldeans and Assyrians are just Assyrians and I'm not not talking about the establishment of the Chaldean Church in 16th c AD nor am i talking about the establishment of the Assyrian Church of the East which was established after the Chaldean Church. The Churches were established a long time after the Seleucid Empire which was the reason why the Chaldeans had to migrate to today's Northern Iraq and since then Chaldeans and Assyrians have lived as neighbours. What I am talking about is world war 1. I hope this doesnt mean that I have to give you some History lesson however, dont hesitate asking if this information is to hard for you to understand. In world war 1, the Ottoman Empire was a great ally with Germany which Britian was terrified from. Britian quickly made sure to establish some allies in the middleast. Britian could not trust any of the goverments of the middle east cause most of them were already under the control of the Ottoman Empire. Who did Britian turn to, well not the Chaldeans cause they were faithful to the Roman Catholic Church and Italy so Britian took up an aliiance with the Assyrians. Its here where propaganda comes in. If it was Germany who had won the war, Assyrians would have lost their identity, Kaiser wilhem 2nd was ready to change the world's history books the same way the Triple Entene did after the war. Dont you think its funny how in every history book, Germany and it's allies are the evil ones and Britian and it's allies are the heroes. I hope this hasnt confused you to much since your level of education isnt as high as mine and i have used simple language for you not to misunderstand any thing that I have written, and just incase you still dont understand what my meaning was, i will rewrite it just for you. Since Assyrians were on the winning side, their identity was more published and since the Chaldeans were obedient to their rulers (Ottoman Empire which lost the war), they have lost a lot of their sources and some of their identity. This is why it is so hard to find sources about Chaldeans, however, thanks to the Bible and sources from the Vatican we know our true identity, and since the Bible is one source which has not changed, at least not in the last 15 centuries we could realy on it unlike you sources which were established around 5-20 years ago.

By Proffesor Marco Asm ccc 03:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

An offer for user Chaldean and user Sargonius: You know what is so funny, your main argument so far about Chaldeans are Assyrians is that you are a Chaldean Catholic and you know that you are an Assyrian, my friend welcome to the real world, no one cares what you think, back up your argument, i could also make an account called Assyrian, and start writing that all Assyrians are Chaldeans, but fortunately for you, I dont go that level. You have yet not proven that Chaldeans are contemporary Assyrian, and the only source you have provided me and wikipedia with is the same source you can find in every single website about Assyrians, word for word, its called copy and paste, and it is also called, anyone can put up a website on the internet. I am here to make a deal with you and user Chaldean, since we find it very hard to put an end to each other's arguments, why can't we agree to write that Chaldeans are the Catholics belonging to the Chaldean Catholic Church??? Think about it!!

Proffesor Marco Asm ccc 04:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing but garbage. You guys are so confused asking "if your Chaldean then why do you say your Assyrian?" Author Ren A. Hakim puts it best in her interview; "I was born and raised in Michigan. I'm half Iraqi (ethnic Assyrian, Chaldean sect)". Deal with it. Chaldean 16:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why are assyrians arguing?

Chaldeans are Chaldeans, Asssyrians are Assyrians- that's just the way it is. Myself, being an ethnic Assyrian from Nineveh, or around that area ( I cant really be sure, since Assyria no longer exists- duh!!!!!), believe it's wrong us to attempt to claim another race, despite having very simliar cultures and launguage( the religion being the only major milestone towards complete unification?, to be ours.I am an Aturiah, and to all my Assyrian brothers- unite under our flag- and leave spaces under it for Assyrians- not Chaldeans. Assyrian blood n veins 04:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

can everybody please desist from letting their petty ethno-religious infighting spill onto this talkpage? This is a disambiguation page. It's not the place where you discuss your various greivances and resentments. Its job is to simply state that "Chaldean" means (1) primarily, the Babylonians in Hellenistic times, (2) the contemporary adherents of the Chaldean Church (which are treated as a subset of the Assyrian people, hence Chaldean people is a redirect there), and (3) the unrelated Khaldi. That's all perfectly straightforward, and undisputable. Try to act like grown-ups and treat this for what it is, a detached disambiguation page pointing people to the article they might be looking for. Thank you. dab (𒁳) 17:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

So now everything in Wiki must be according to OED? How about using common sense and seeing what the world is saying by doing a simple search? Chaldean 23:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes. Primary meaning

  1. it is undisputed that the "Chaldean people" is a subset of the Assyrian people. Hence the redirect. This is a DISAMBIGUATION PAGE, alright? If you want to discuss this, or cite references about it, go to Talk:Assyrian people. No need to present a footnote here, let alone a whole bunch of them.
  2. The historical meaning of "Babylonians" is obviously primary.

there is no factual disagreement here. It's merely a matter of a properly formatted disambiguation page. dab (𒁳) 07:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, you do not own this article. Removing references like that, is not the right way to go. They should be left there, so that we can avoid users removing it and changing to Chaldean people when it is in fact, Assyrian people. Also, today, only Assyrians are called Chaldeans. The Chaldean name in itself is not that known when people think of Babylonians. It is more associated with Assyrians, and today, only Assyrians in the media are called Chaldeans or ChaldoAssyrians. It should have precedence because of that in this disambiguation page. I know we're not disagreeing on the facts, but why not leave the facts inserted as they should be? It's part of the Wikipedia process. Sources should always be cited. You and I may not disagree on contemporary Chaldeans being ethnic Assyrians, but trust me, a lot of Chaldeans do; they don't know their own roots. I know because I'm a Chaldean Catholic myself. Leaving the sources in the disambiguation page, might help clarify this mess the Assyrian diaspora is in. This may not matter to you, but it does to me. EliasAlucard|Talk 09:58 26 Jun, 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I screwed it up, you guys are arguing about the "Chaldean people" thing. I did that right before Dbachmann changed the lay-out, so you thought it was Dbachmann that changed "Assyrian" to "Chaldean", but it was me. 62.58.16.59|Talk 10:06 26 Jun, 2007 (UTC)


my point is not that I own "this article", it is that this is not even an article in the first place (sob). See Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Your references are very welcome, please take them to Assyrian people. If you want to treat the Chaldeans in greater detail, you could make the Chaldean people redirect into a separate article. But please stop fooling around with this disambiguation page. If there are Chaldeans who have problems with the "Assyrian" designation, they too should come to Talk:Assyrian people, or develop the Chaldean people article. If some new consensus should emerge there, we can still adapt this disambiguation page. I assure you that the primary English meaning of "Chaldean" is Biblical and Classical, that is, referring to the astronomers of ancient Babylonia. That there was an Assyrian schism back in 1553 that gave rise to a "Chaldean Church" (and a "Chaldean people" defined by adherence to this church) is a rather obscure fact compared to the familiar meaning of the term. dab (𒁳) 08:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
So what you're basically saying, is that I'm not allowed to cite sources in this disambiguation page, because you say so? EliasAlucard|Talk 12:06 26 Jun, 2007 (UTC)
Please check WP:DAB. A dab page is for disambiguating, not for expressing opinions, even if these are referenced. dab knows all about dabs. End of the topic. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
and one more time: cite your sources in the target article. When there is a dispute whether a link belongs on a dab page or not, this is to be resolved in the target article. Once the "disambiguated" term (in our case, "Chaldean") is mentioned in the target article with references, it can be added to the dab page as a matter of course. If it is not (as on Biblical Aramaic), the link may be removed from the dab page pending citation. This is all simple common sense, and is handled like this all over Wikipedia: I see no reason why it should be different for Assyrians. dab (𒁳) 14:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

assure you that the primary English meaning of "Chaldean" is Biblical and Classical, - where is your source? We are talking about today's time not ancient time. And if you put chaldean in the news google search, then you will see what the world is mostly used for. Chaldean 23:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

by default, we should consider the historically primary meaning primary. The church was named after the Hellenistic/Biblical term in 1553. I believe you that if you are up to your ears in Assyrian ethnic infighting or whatever, "Chaldean" for you primarily refers to the modern group. But not for your average English reader, or I would challenge you to provide evidence that the historically secondary term has become "primary". dab (𒁳) 23:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

for your edification, the OED, your primary source for educated usage of English, has the following:

Chaldean: (1). Of or pertaining to Chaldea or its inhabitants; hence, to occult science or magic. (2) A native of Chaldea, esp. (as at Babylon) one skilled in occult learning, astrology, etc.; hence gen. a seer, soothsayer, astrologer.

I am sure you will note that the modern meaning is not even mentioned. It is not considered notable enough to be listed in the 2007 OED (big as it is, the OED cannot list every proper name of every religious community or faction). I hope this settles the issue, thank you. dab (𒁳) 23:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a tough call: the word 'Chaldean' is not used that much anyway. The OED[7] surprises me in not mentioning the church. Certainly, Syriac literature (that from 4th-14th centuries) always uses the word ܟܠܕܝܐ to refer to some kind of magician, astrologer or soothsayer. Make of this what you will. — Gareth Hughes 23:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
How about using common sense and seeing what the world is saying by doing a simple search? Chaldean 23:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
why am I being reverted even though I am the only one here actually providing references? I have no opinion on the organization of arc:ܟܠܕܝܐ, but this is en-wiki. dab (𒁳) 09:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
You are being reverted because you are REMOVING references. You are not providing references. To my knowledge, it is not prohibited to provide references on disambiguation pages. I provided credible references, and you are removing them. This borders to vandalism. You have broken the WP:3RR rule. If you keep this up, you will be reported. EliasAlucard|Talk 11:22 27 Jun, 2007 (UTC)
This has been explained to you about four times by me now, and once by Ghirla. If you still don't get it, I do recomment you "report" me, or rather this "dispute" at WP:RFC and wait for third opinions instead of mindless revert-warring. Please be reasonable and respect Wikipedia policy, guidelines and procedures. dab (𒁳) 09:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I've checked WP:DAB. Please enlighten me, where does it state that it is forbidden of disambiguation pages to cite sources? I couldn't find any guidelines stating anything similar. EliasAlucard|Talk 11:41 27 Jun, 2007 (UTC)
can you keep this separate from the "primary meaning" discussion? If you accept the primary meaning issue, we can move to discussing footnotes. I don't know why you insist on this, since nobody even disputes what you are pointing out with the help of these sources. The point of WP:DAB is that we want to avoid disambiguation pages gathering ballast. PerWikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages):
Disambiguation pages ("dab pages") are, like redirects, non-article pages in the article namespace. Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow users to choose among several Wikipedia articles, usually when a user searches for an ambiguous term. (my emphasis)
They are exclusively for pointing people to the page they might be looking for. Any citeable opinions regarding the topic are to be put there. If a term is too complicated to treat satisfactorily in a dab page, you do an additional article on the term itself: Macedonian, no footnotes. Macedonia (terminology), a featured article with lots of footnotes. You want to discuss the term "Chaldean"? Create a Chaldean (name) article, don't make your point on a disambiguation page. I hope this clears up any remaining confusion (I really wish you could figure this out for yourself rather than wasting my time having me figure as your personal guide to Wikipedia, or (worse) to common sense). dab (𒁳) 12:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Dab STOP beating yourself. What are we talking about?; the question of what is the word Chaldean primarly reffered to today? Its Catholic Iraqis, and until you make your case it not being the case, then by all means change it. Some outadate British system isn't going to work. Chaldean 01:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I cited the OED. What is your evidence that the Iraqi crowd is the "primary" referent (apart from your apparent obsession with them, that is)? dab (𒁳) 08:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Here's evidence for ya: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=Chaldean&btnG=Search+News. No one refers to Babylonians as Chaldeans nowadays. Look, the Assyrian nation is in a huge mess today. It's a catastrophic confusion. There are some Chaldeans (actually there are many) who seriously believe that they are the ancient Chaldeans and not Assyrians. Leaving the sources intact, there is a chance they may be convinced otherwise. This may not be an important issue to you, but as a Chaldean Catholic Assyrian, this is an important matter to me. And it is not forbidden to cite sources on dab pages. Please, I know this is not your intention, but you're fighting against us. You're not really helping our cause by removing the sources. EliasAlucard|Talk 10:32 28 Jun, 2007 (UTC)


sheesh. of course in news articles on the Middle East "Chaldean" refers to the present group. And in the context of Biblical studies, "Chaldean" refers to Babylon. That's why we need a disambiguation page in the first place. The Cathenc on Chaldean Christians states that the name "Patriarch of Babylon" was chosen due to an erroneous identification of Baghdad with Babylon. This is all 16th century enthusiasm for Classical Antiquity and modern nationalism. Look, Wikipedia is not to blame if the Assyrian nation is in a mess. You are more than welcome to discuss this mess in the relevant articles. The entire point is (I think shouting is permissible at this point): THIS IS A DISAMBIGUATION PAGE. You are not to discuss your mess here, but in some article. dab (𒁳) 09:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

A reasonable websearch like this: [8][9] tends to establish that the modern term sees slightly more (19:13) online usage. That's online usage, not encyclopedic or literary use, and it's by no means as overwhelming as to trump respectable dictionaries (especially since that websearch is heuristic). dab (𒁳) 09:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I cited the OED - Please tell me where in Wikipedia does it say OED is the sole and legid letmus test for this? Google search is more accurate and you have already admitted you are wrong, so PLEASE stop reverting. Chaldean 02:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

what nonsense. This is about the meaning of the English term Chaldean. I cited a major dictionary. If you are unhappy with what this dictionary says, you are free to cite other notable dictionaries. See WP:RS.

[edit] Chaldean community

I've created a specialized article where your references are at home. I hope you will now spend some productive time there instead of wasting other editors' time here. It is beyond me why I had to create this article, since you are apparently here to cover that topic. But it's always easier to pester people until they do your job for you, isn't it. dab (𒁳) 08:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop glorifying yourself. You are not in any doing 'our job' for us. You are only bringing this on yourself. We are not pestering you. We didn't do anything wrong. We provided sources as we are supposed to, and you just had to remove them because you are so meticulous about some style. Then you created a new Wikipedia entry, which is completely unnecessary and now you're taking credit for it. Disambiguation page or not, it's allowed to cite sources. Nowhere in Wikipedia's policies does it say it's forbidden to cite sources on disambiguation pages. You just have to have it your way, and you don't respect your collaborators. EliasAlucard|Talk 19:20 28 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

You guys are simply trolling and revert-warring, apparently with some diffuse motivation of ethnic pride. You are wasting your own time and that of other people that could be investedin actually improving articles on the Assyrians. dab (𒁳) 06:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No, YOU are revert-warring and trolling. You are not in any way improving anything on the Assyrian related articles you're working on. You are simply removing sources and content for some weird, unknown reason, calling it off topic, and it's ridiculous. EliasAlucard|Talk 09:01 29 Jun, 2007 (UTC)
that's BS and you know it. Unless you show at least some appreciation of my point this is going nowhere. Again, I ask you to get wider community input on this. Regarding this page, you have shown no dictionary (none) that recognized "Chaldean" as referring to the modern group. The specified "Chaldean Church" or "Chaldean Christian" is unambiguous. But "Chaldean" on its own refers to ancient Babylonia. The Chaldean Church was named after ancient Babylonia, for chrissakes, it's impossible to even understand the term without referring to ancient Babylon. Now show me one dictionary that says otherwise and we will be able to debate whether it should be considered more authoritative than the OED. Until you do that, you simply have no case. dab (𒁳) 07:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Babylon is known as Babylon. The ancient Babylonians, though at the end, they were known in Hellenistic context as "Chaldeans", it's not the name they're renowned for. They are known as Babylonians. Today (and believe me, I wish it weren't so), Assyrians are referred to as Chaldeans as if it were some kind of ethnicity. Why should it be first? Because in colloquial speech, the media only reports on Assyrians as Chaldeans every time some Assyrians die in Iraq. I don't think ChaldoAssyrians are notable enough to be recognised in dictionaries. The world barely knows we exist today. We are constantly referred to as "Iraqi Christians" as if we didn't have our own ethnicity, or "Baghdad Christians". That said, how do you expect us to be in dictionaries? EliasAlucard|Talk 09:17 29 Jun, 2007 (UTC)
yeah, well, Wikipedia is for reflecting things, not to "set things right". You are free to document the Chaldean community in loving detail, but as long as dictionaries don't recognize them as the primary referent of "Chaldean", you will not be able to "correct" this on Wikipedia, because the world "should" know more about Assyro-Chaldeans than about the ancient Chaldees. I mean, what part of this do you not understand? I've pointed this out over and over, and you apparently simply don't want to listen, because, hell, listening to reason could interfere with your agenda. I have nothing against Assyro-Chaldeans at all, peace to them, but they happen to be named after something, and this page here exists precisely to point this out. I do not "expect you" to be in dictionaries, I am pointing out that you aren't, which translates to the simple situation that "your" Chaldeans represents a secondary meaning of the term. It's really that simple. dab (𒁳) 12:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
First of all, WP:DICK, second of all, stop being pompous. EliasAlucard|Talk 17:10 29 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

I cannot fail but note that you have not made a single constructive edit to Chaldean community, the article where your Chaldeans are actually on topic. What gives? Are you, in principle, prepared to work on articles, or are you just here for the bickering? dab (𒁳) 12:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I've made edits right here, on this Chaldean disambiguation page. Those edits, you copied and pasted right onto the Chaldean community article. Really, the Chaldean community article is unwarranted. You really didn't have to go that far and make an entire article out of this. It was enough as it was. The Chaldean disambiguation page was fine right before you came along and ruined it. EliasAlucard|Talk 17:10 29 Jun, 2007 (UTC)
Since those footnotes were so lengthy, I agree with Dbachmann that they were inappropriate for a disambiguation page, and I think the creation of Chaldean community was a good idea. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
yeah right, I "ruined" coverage of your favourite ethnic group by creating an article on it. You can put if on Afd if you think that the Chaldean Christians are so obscure as to not even pass WP:NOTABILITY. dab (𒁳) 17:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I have to agree with Dbachmann. I'm Chaldean and I think the Chaldean community article is a good article. And it's not like the contemperary Chaldeans are removed from the dab page, it's just put under the historical Babylonians. We have to remember that to people outside our community, "Chaldeans" are known as (for some of us, not all of course) our ancient Babylonian ancestors. Only a few people know about us, the current Chaldeans.
And again, it's not that the current Chaldean refernce is removed, but the majority of the worlds population recognize Chaldeans as the ancient Babylonians. And we (Chaldeans) are not the whole world. So I have to agree with Dbachmann. 62.58.16.59 10:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
What you guys are obviously missing here, is that the ancient Babylonians, were simply Assyrians who went their own way, and started calling themselves "Babylonians". They were, just like the Assyrians, Akkadians. So, with that in mind, the Assyrian people should be first. EliasAlucard|Talk 16:09 10 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The Babylonians were called Chaldeans by the Greeks from about the 4th century BC. After this, the Catholic Church in Assyria was called "Chaldean" in 1553. This is just about terminology, and it is perfectly clear which was named after which. dab (𒁳) 14:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's about terminology. But, the ancient Babylonians, we're simply southern Assyrians. As you can see in this source, it explains all [10] This timetable also sheds some light on the confusion: [11] My point is, ancient Babylonians, and ancient Assyrians, we're the same people, competing for dominance, in Mesopotamia, from respective cities (Babylon and Nineveh). There weren't any ethnic difference between them; both were descendants of the Akkadians anyway. So, why not just have the Assyrian people first, since we still are called Chaldeans (some of us at least). EliasAlucard|Talk 17:29 10 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
of course they were "the same people", it's just the Greek term, with its own history, related to astrology etc. Did you even read the articles? what does this have to do with anything? I have the impression you are just stalling now. dab (𒁳) 16:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, this is pointless. EliasAlucard|Talk 18:06 10 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

You are all mistaken, have a look at this website http://www.aramnaharaim.org/English/ArameanHistory.htm and it will prove to you that the title of Assyria was given by westerners in the 19 th century, and another thing to clear up, yes i agree Babylonians were given the name Chaldean by the Greek, however Babylonians were not Assyrians, do some research and you will find out that the Babylonian Empire is older, however, i agree that they were both of the same people, but when they were united, they were under the Sumerian Empire, not the Assyrian Empire, I have no idea how you can get confused with such simple concepts.

Professor Marco

Asm ccc 09:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


Dear Professor Marco, can you confirm that the individuals who created that web page are professors like yourself? can you confirm that they are eligible to provide people like you who are very vulnerable to "sources", can you confirm that they have undergone sufficient study to provide such information to people who view their web page. I certainly think you cannot confirm any, yet if you are able to, i would be quite impressed.

And another thing, i am very confused why some people just dont choose to accept the fact that they are deciding their nationality by their religion, the term Chaldean is merely a word used to classify the group of Assyrians who belong to the Catholic Church.

I would also like to question you Professor Marco, since you are a professor, it wouldnt be too difficult for you to tell me, when did the Chaldeans that you claim to the descendant of (i.e. the Ancient Chaldeans) exist, and do you believe that King Hammurabi was a Chaldean?

Lentheric33 07:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well its been a week, have you found anything yet?? Lentheric33 08:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

AramNahrin is a conspiracy website. Anyone who uses it as a reference has lost his credibility. — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:03 12 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chaldeans

They don't have there own article? [12] --Vonones 23:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe a link to here [13] --Vonones 23:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] user:Chaldean Should be banned for Bulling People into his Beliefs!

user:Chaldean has been bulling people into his beliefs, changing people's comments on this page into his own. Putting peoples real names into this discussion page to scare them off. He also scares them by saying he'll ban them. But in all reality you are being reported. Your sources & who you know, don't matter. And Chaldeans are not Assyrians, or the contemporary of them. That is that & deal with it. We have different religions, languages, & beliefs. We are not the same but we are human, we bleed the same, we all have hearts but to say we are the same your crazy....similar yes but same no. And user:Chaldean for your reference where you put my real name here & said I was a hypocrite...no sir I said chaldeans & assyrians should unite & in no way did I say we are the same, I meant we should consider each other as family & not creating arguments. KALMANI (talk) 09:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

if you want to report user misbehaviour, report it to WP:ANI, and remember to post the relevant diffs. Yes, Chaldean has a history of misbehaving, but he is hardly the only one in the topic. It is almost impossible to maintain a minimum of sanity in the "Syriac" topics for all the hysterical nationalism thrown about. We'll need to clamp down on that sooner or later, but you can rest assured that besides wasting people's time, such pranks do not result in any actual effect. dab (𒁳) 10:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thx dab for the info. While I am kind of new to wikipedia, I also know that the wrong info should not be passed around as truth. user:Chaldean has been targeting me & threatening to ban me if I try to do anything. That is why I am seeking adoption so I can fight back the right way & put him & others in there corner. Wikipedia is about collaboration not using mafia tactics & bulling people what you believe in. We should help each other not threaten each other. dab thanx again! If you don't mind can you help me in editing or doing other things the right way in wikipedia. KALMANI (talk) 12:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Like dab has said, state your case and we will go from there. Chaldean (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
in the coming months...I will have my case stated & we will go on from there! KALMANI (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)