Talk:Chaldean Catholics

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)

Ignored in Demography of Iraq

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)

merge proposal

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)

I oppose. The Chaldo-Assyrians need an article of their own, for some Chaldeans out there to understand their history. This is not a culture topic. — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:31 18 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

it would be like merging, say, Roman Catholicism in Germany into German folklore. dab (𒁳) 07:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Something like that, yeah. — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:00 29 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this biased?

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)

It's not at all biased. I'm aware of the fact, that there are Chaldeans who dislike the Assyrian identity. But, their opinions, do not count; after all, this is not ad populum. Their opinions are based on personal feelings, not historical accuracy; they're into pathos, not logos. It's the same thing with many Syriacs in the Syriac Orthodox Church; they see themselves as Aramaeans. Do you know why? Because that's what their priests tell them. We are not interested in religious propaganda and/or church identities; we're after historical accuracy. Surely Gareth, you don't regard these Chaldeans as some kind of Neo-Babylonians, do you? — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:37 30 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid 'their opinions do not count' confirms my suspicions: you are giving your own point of view as fact and denegrating that of others. If this is not bias, I don't know what is. To be fair, this article should mention that some Chaldeans do not call themselves Assyrian. Even your own websites say that this is the case. This is a fact. It should be mentioned in the article. As for Neo-Babylonians, I think it's as bunk as any other claim to be a long-lost ancient people. — Gareth Hughes 15:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, we can mention that some Chaldeans do not consider themselves to be Assyrians; that's NPOV after all. But, whatever their opinion is on this, they are ethnic Assyrians originally. Just because you change to a new Church, and this new Church is trying to create some new identity, it doesn't mean it's an entirely different people all of a sudden. By the way, many Chaldeans in Iraq are doing away with this ridiculous "Chaldean" pseudo-identity. They now see themselves as ethnic Assyrians. Though of course, being the case that many Chaldeans and Syriacs are uneducated about their own past, and only have priests to listen to, they are confused. After all, the Chaldean priests don't want to lose them over to the Syriac priests, and vice versa. But this article, must be historically accurate either way. We Assyrians have facts, history, and modern research and science on our side. The Syriacs and the Chaldeans, have their priests as their main backup. Go figure. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:57 30 Jul, 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)

We already have that: Chaldean Catholic Church. This article, should focus on the Chaldean Assyrian people. Just like for instance, Ashkenazi Jews is concentrated on a specific Jewish ethnic group, same thing should be applied here. If it touches our history as Chaldean Catholics, and our Chaldean Church of Babylon, fine. Case in point however, is that it should narrowly focus on the Chaldean Catholic group. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:10 30 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

As for Neo-Babylonians, I think it's as bunk as any other claim to be a long-lost ancient people. — Then why are you defending their revisionist views of being something other than Assyrians? You do realise, their resentment of being Assyrians, and their assertions of being "Aramaeans" and "Chaldeans", is simply, as you eloquently put it, bunk. They are just as much Aramaeans/Chaldeans as my asshole is. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:20 30 Jul, 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)

I duly noted it here. Look, the reason why they don't see themselves as Assyrians any longer, is because that's what they have been told to believe. Believe me, I'm not making this up. I should know, because I was spoon-fed with the same lies. Either way, there are lots of Chaldeans and Syriacs, who still stick to historical facts. These self-hating Assyrians, are deluded idiots. Really. It's like some ethnic German, who all of a sudden decides that he's not German any longer, and lots of ethnic Germans begin listening to him. What? Does that make it so? Yes, ethnicity is a social construct. But it's a lot more than that. And there are lots of Assyrian nationalists in Iraq, who are Chaldean Catholics. Please, understand, the Assyrian nation is in a mess right now, since we have been stateless and separated because of different rivalling Churches; priests hating the other sides' version of Christianity more than they care about our people. There are some Syriacs here in Sweden, who want religious leadership, whilst there are Syriacs who want a secular leadership. That's why they claim to be "Aramaeans". It's all bullshit, believe me. You shouldn't take the Aramaean-wannabe Syriacs too seriously. They're full of POV lies. They claim that they're the only Aramaic speaking people today, and that the Chaldeans and Nestorians don't speak Aramaic (this claim, is based on the fact, that the Aramaic dialects are different, and not mutually intelligible, as a result of having developed in wide distances). At the same time, there are other Syriacs, who claim that every one who speaks Aramaic is an Aramaean. WTF? They also claim that Jesus was an Aramaean.[1] That's the only reason why they want to be Aramaeans. Not because they are, but because they have developed into sectarian thinking and they want to feel closer to Jesus by pretending that they're Aramaeans and that he was, allegedly, an Aramaean. Seriously, their opinions do not count. Here on Wikipedia, we go preferably after scholarly sources, and it should be academic. Some confused dipshits wanting to be Aramaeans or Chaldeans, and their opinions, do not count. They are not historians. The biggest irony of it all, is that they suck at getting rid of their Assyrian identity. In Sweden, the Aramaean-wannabe Syriacs call themselves Syrianer. You make the call, what they are. Hint: Assyrian. — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:03 30 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

No, they haven't gone through an ethnogenesis at all. I know Chaldeans and Assyrians and Syriacs, who all look like each other. It's the same people, really. It's just our different Churches who hate each other and keeping us apart from each other, through indoctrination. Believe me, I'm completely NPOV when I say that. The Maronites, however, originally, Assyrians, have gone through an ethnogenesis, and they're no longer 'pure Assyrians', though they have some Assyrian ancestry. — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:11 30 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

Also, lots of Chaldeans/Assyrians/Syriacs marry each other. I myself, for instance, is an example of that. Many in my family, have Syriac and/or Chaldean parents. It's decided by which Church the child is baptised in, usually, after the father's side. It's the same people, really. — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:44 30 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

whatever, Elias -- this is an emotional question, I don't think there's an objective answer to it. We should just be happy to state everybody's opinion about it as usual. dab (𒁳) 21:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

That's what I'm doing. I just don't like lies and revisionist traitors amongst my own people. I'm sure you'd feel the same. However, this is not a matter of opinions. It's a matter of facts. And the facts say, they are Assyrians. Believe me, as a proud Assyrian, I wouldn't want 'true Chaldeans' around me, considering that the ancient Chaldeans destroyed the Assyrian empire. That said, if they were Chaldeans, I would hate their guts and refuse to acknowledge them as Assyrians. — EliasAlucard|Talk 03:14 01 Aug, 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)

That's what's so funny about it. It's like someone who's doing his damnedest to deny his past, yet his identity is written all over his face. Try again, stupid. — EliasAlucard|Talk 04:28 01 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

guys, these are just names. We are talking about modern ethnic groups, this has nothing to do with ancient Assyrians or Chaldeans, that's just national mysticism. Do wake up and stop living in the Bronze Age. dab (𒁳) 13:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

More Godwin's law retorts? More Nazi comparisons? So what are we now, Indo-Europeans? Are we not descendants of ancient Mesopotamia? I guess not, Dbachmann thinks it's antiquity frenzy. Thanks for stating that we have no origin, and that we are a rootless people. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:06 01 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the look of an argument based on natural right. This article may not be as obviously biased as Syriac Assyrians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), but it is part of the same project to create a set of pages that whitewash over the reality of a fragmented group. Those who don't want to be part of the Assyrian identity are labelled 'traitors' and 'liars'. The use of these two words clearly demonstrates the article creators biased intent. If this page is an article, it should be about the actual use of the term, or 'Chaldo-Assyrian/Assyro-Cahldean' as an inclusive label for Chaldeans and Assyrians, rather than an exclusive term as used here. Of course, Wikipedia should reflect the facts and report the opinion, and not turn the latter into the former. That's the problem with a lot of the Assyrian stuff on Wikipedia. Now, what are we going to do with this biased article? — Gareth Hughes 17:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

More anti-Assyrian sentiments. Look, I'm not biased, for sticking to facts. Garzo, have you ever spoken with a Syriac, who believes he's an Aramaean? You obviously have. Did you ask them, on what grounds they base this Aramaean assertion of theirs? They will answer you, "my priest told me so". No offence, I know you're a priest Garzo, but that's not enough. The Aramaean wannabe Syriacs, seriously believe we are a completely different people, when in actual reality, we aren't. If anyone is biased here, then it's the Aramaean and Chaldean wannabes. Yes, I label them as traitors and liars, for disregarding their forefathers. I call a spade a spade. Why are you always working against me, on Assyrian related articles? — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:21 01 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

It may be just me, but I find it hilarious to read "I'm not biased" from the editor who just stated "Believe me, as a proud Assyrian, I wouldn't want 'true Chaldeans' around me, considering that the ancient Chaldeans destroyed the Assyrian empire. That said, if they were Chaldeans, I would hate their guts and refuse to acknowledge them as Assyrians." -- If you hate anyone's guts for this or that turn of luck in Iron Age politics, you clearly need a reality check, my patriotic friend. dab (𒁳) 20:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I wrote, if they were. They're not. No, I'm not biased. These Syriacs and Chaldeans who believe they're not Assyrians, don't know our history. They have been raised as Chaldeans and Aramaeans. Ask them the difference between Orthodox and Catholicism or whatever, and they'll stare at you clueless. It's also interesting that Garzo doesn't believe they're Neo-Babylonians, yet he keeps defending this loose connection with the ancient Chaldean people. Why? I don't get it. Is this some sort of divide and rule mentality? — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:40 01 Aug, 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)

So, are you opposed to us calling ourselves Assyrians, based on that rationale? — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:40 01 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I do not care at all what you (and that's a singular you, directed at everyone individually) call yourself. As long as you don't go around objecting to other people calling themselves whatever they like, and with the understanding that such self-identifications are basically arbitrary. It's when you begin to claim that you "are" somehow identical to a certain people of 1000 BC that things get problematic. You are free to call yourself after anyone you like. dab (𒁳) 21:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

How is that problematic? DNA tests confirm that Nestorian Assyrians, Syriac Assyrians, and Chaldean Assyrians, have a unique DNA profile. Add to that, that we speak Aramaic, and that we are a Semitic people. Look, I can see what you're trying to do here. You're trying to belittle me with this "national mysticism" stuff, and by doing that, trying to lower my credibility and calling me biased and whatever. It's just ad hominem. Both you and Garzo are engaging in this. Why can't you accept, that they are Assyrians? Sure, we have some Chaldeans and some Syriacs, who disregard their Assyrian heritage. Though far from all do that, we do have some amongst us that do. As for you calling me biased and "national mysticism", what makes you Mr. objective, considering your looooong history of anti-nationalism edits here on Wikipedia? — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:41 01 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Elias seems to insist that only his voice be heard, and that the identities of Syriacs and Aramaeans are somehow less than his own. It's nice to be labelled an anti-Assyrianist once again. I'm actually quite rational and not personally involved in all this. I support people identifying their culture in any reasonable way. I think the idea of ethnicity is a thin veneer. From Elias's statements, it is clear that he doesn't understand what I'm saying: he misrepresents me repeatedly. We are writing an encyclopaedia here. It's far from perfect, but we strive for neutrality. Writing articles that present an Assyrianist view and labelling the widespread contrary view as the lies of traitors has absolutely no room here. If you take a measured line, compromise, then your additions will eventually be worked into the project. Extreme views, as expressed here, will eventually be editted out. Here's the choice: work with others and have influence, or stand alone and have none. — Gareth Hughes 21:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

So now I'm an extremist too. Let's see: extremist, national mysticism, biased. Thanks, what more? And of course, needless to say, these are not personal attacks. Garzo, why do you want this [ Syriac Assyrians ] article deleted? Do you believe it's a minority of Syriacs who claim to be Assyrians? Guess again, you're wrong. This Aramaean identity, is something new, and it's really just based on religious propaganda, from Assyrians who consider the Aramaic language to be divine or something. 100 years ago, no Assyrian ever claimed to be an Aramaean. Heck, even 50 years ago, it wasn't common to hear an Assyrian say that he's an Aramaean. This Aramaeanism movement, began here in Sweden and Germany. It's just lies and indoctrination based on ignorance of our history and the fact that we speak Aramaic today. It's indoctrination spread by some Syriacs, and it's unfortunately, gaining ground, mainly, in the Syriac Orthodox Churches. Still, most Syriacs, identify as Assyrians. It is not 'a portion of Syriacs' who identify as Assyrians, as you stated in your vote. I'm willing to work with others, but you obviously have an anti-Assyrian agenda. You've said before, "Assyriology is the preserve of Assyriologists." When we have an expert Assyriologist from Finland, claiming that they are the descendants of the ancient Assyrians (and he's not alone in this amongst Assyriologists, mind you). Why can you not accept this then? Because some confused Syriacs say they're not? We are writing an encyclopaedia here. It's far from perfect, but we strive for neutrality. — That's true. How about, giving the Syriac Assyrians article a chance on improving it, before wanting it deleted already? It's far from perfect. So far, I'm the only one who has edited it. Try to help out instead of deleting everything you disagree with. Writing articles that present an Assyrianist view and labelling the widespread contrary view as the lies of traitors has absolutely no room here. — I did not write in the main article, that they are traitors and liars. If you want to be neutral, you shouldn't even pay attention to claims from Assyrians trying to be Neo-Babylonians and/or Aramaeans, because really, there's no facts to back that up. But hey, Jesus was an Aramaean; that's not a lie, right? Right. Jesus was an Aramaean, is a point of view we must include just to make those Aramaean cry babies satisfied. After all, this is a game of appeasement, not professionalism. Yes, we can include that some Chaldeans/Syriacs do not identify as Assyrians if that makes you happy, but that's opinions. Opinions are not facts. Here's the choice: work with others and have influence, or stand alone and have none. — Is that a threat? Are you going to conspire against me now or what? — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:34 02 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

The DNA tests are questionable. The statement "Sure, we have some Chaldeans and some Syriacs, who disregard their Assyrian heritage" actually means that they don't agree with you, Elias. The consensus is also against you here. Do you want in? — Gareth Hughes 21:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you want in? — What's that supposed to mean? What's your issue with the DNA tests? Look, if we look the same, if we speak the same language, if we follow the same religion, if we are derived from the same region (Middle East), and if we have a unique DNA profile, what more could you want? There's no consensus against me. If anything, there's a consensus amongst all Assyrians, against Chaldeanism/Aramaeanism. It's just you, who want to give these revisionists a more influential voice, regardless if there's any truth in what they say or not. Why? Do you see them as some sort of oppressed minority, is that it? Garzo, are you familiar with the Syriacs in Sweden, and how many here consider themselves Assyrians? Believe me, this Aramaean nonsense, there's not even a consensus amongst themselves. They're constantly fighting over if it should be Syrianer or Araméer. Some even claim that the Kingdom of Armenia, was Aramaean, simply due to the similarity of the names. And you want to take these uneducated morons seriously? — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:34 02 Aug, 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

He's most likely, (a wild guess) a Communist. That's fine, because I hate Communism with an ardent fire.

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)

Looking for trouble? What's that supposed to mean? Of course I don't like Communists. Would you like a radical atheist who wants to kill you for believing in God? I don't like Nazis either because they want to kill me for not being "Aryan". What does this have to do with the topic we're discussing now? Are you trying to make me look bad? The reason why I guessed you're a Communist, is because you have this weird obsession with nationalism, and religion.[2] What the hell man, give me a break. Only a Communist cares that much about observing peoples of different faiths and nationality. I bet you think Karl Marx was awesome and right on just about everything too. — EliasAlucard|Talk 07:38 03 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

AFD?

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)

Cool

People, please lets keep it cool. I know theres alot of "Chaldeans aren't assyrians, yes they are" etc. but how bout this:

• We include in the article that there is a belief that Chaldeans are Assyrians. We then cite, source and explain etc.
• Then we can state that some Chaldeans believe they are descended from Neo-Babylonians.

Tourskin 18:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we can do it that way. But they are, regardless of what they believe, beyond the shadow of a doubt, Assyrians. Many Chaldean Catholics, don't identify as Assyrians, because they haven't been taught about their own history. Claims of being Neo-Babylonians, is ridculous, and they were designated with the name Chaldeans by the Roman Catholic Church, thousands of years after the Neo-Babylonian Empire had been destroyed. Still though, there are many Chaldean Catholics who identify as Assyrians. — EliasAlucard|Talk 02:19 05 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree, but we need to agree and know where we disagree. Anyways, at the moment whats wrong with the article or does simply need maintenance? Tourskin 04:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the article; it's cited from academic scholars, and the sources are serious sources. It has since it was created, stated that they are Assyrians. Garzo, never had a problem with this, until I changed the title from the erroneous "Chaldean community", into the more proper Chaldean Assyrians, just to conform to Wiki standard in naming of ethnic groups. You know, Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardi Jews, etcetera. So, now, because of that, Garzo wants to delete this article because he's into censorship and he obviously has something against Assyrians, for some reason. If you want to, you can vote here and here, provided that you want to get down to work on these articles. — EliasAlucard|Talk 08:07 05 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Severely outdated

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)

Most of the content in this article, is directly imported from the Catholic Encyclopaedia from 1913, by Dbachmann. It could need some more work. Perhaps we should delete the Catholic Encyclopedia content, and just provide a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia article about Chaldean Christians. From there, we should rework the content and focus on Chaldean Asyrians as an ethnic group. — EliasAlucard|Talk 02:19 05 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Chaldeans? Assyrians or Babylonians

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

What you obviously don't understand, is that the Babylonians, and the Assyrians, were the exact same people from the beginning. Difference is, the Assyrians had their capital in Assur (later Nineveh), and the Babylonians had their capital in Babylon. Both peoples emerged from miscegenation between Sumerians and Akkadians, and they were both competing for dominance in Mesopotamia. The Assyrians had conquered most of the known world; Babylon was just a city, and it was tightly controlled by Assyrians, and even destroyed by Assyrians every now and then. Sometimes, Assyrians were designated as rulers of Babylon. Either way, the Chaldean Catholic Church was created with Assyrian converts, its new adherents were mainly former Nestorians, and we know what they are. Converting to a new Church, doesn't make you a completely different people all of a sudden. If you have any academic scholars supporting your theory, you are welcome to bring them into this article. If not, we can not include personal opinions. — EliasAlucard|Talk 11:30 05 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

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)

Not all that well argued, Andrew, but fair enough. Certainly, ancient peoples did not have the same idea of ethnicity as was held in the 19th century (the modern view is that the idea is mostly subjective). Babylonians and Assyrians clearly held a lot in common, but did distinguish themselves from one another. It is quite clear that these distincitons were less than their commonality. As for the founding of the Chaldean Catholic Church, it was founded by a distinct group (mostly those living in the Plain of Mosul before the hill tribes moved south also) of the Church of the East before it took up the name 'Assyrian'. It does not seem that the term 'Chaldean' was widely used either, and perhaps reflected some idea (to the Latins?) of 'southern' Mesopotamian as opposed to 'northern' Hakkari. I agree that a divided church creates more than an institutional division. It does seem like ancient names are being used all round without a clear link to their origin. — Gareth Hughes 16:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Two things: I don't care if you are a self-proclaimed historian. I am a Chaldean Catholic, and I am an Assyrian. More and more Chaldean Catholics are finding out about the history of our Church, and now identify as Assyrians. We don't like the Church split-ups the Roman Catholic Church made with our people. This divide and rule mentality, has seriously damaged us as a people. Please, don't make things worse than they are. We are the exact same people. We are Assyrians. Please cease this indoctrination of yours. — EliasAlucard|Talk 02:43 07 Aug, 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)

You are obviously the one who's biased here. You want to be a "Chaldean" because you have this holier than thou attitude. It's the same with those Syriacs, they think they become somewhat holier by calling themselves "Aramaeans". The irony, is that both of you are neither pure Aramaeans nor are you pure Chaldeans. You are simply Assyrians. Can you attest that you are a qualified historian? So far, you haven't impressed me the least. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:09 07 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Picture - Chaldean Catholic Assyrians from Mardin, 19th century

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)

• It's what the source of the image describes them as. Funkynusayri 16:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• As a matter of fact, the image is sourced as Chaldeansoftheprovinceof_Mardin.JPG, I do NOT see it say "Chaldean Catholic Assyrians from Mardin, 19th century". It was a good try though, but don't spin me around with technology because I know it inside out. In fact, inlight of this new evidence, as we may call it, I further reinstate the motion to change the caption of this image to "Chaldeans of the province of Mardin, 19th Century"

Andrew.hermiz 02:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Well, that's the file name, not the source. Anyhow, you're right, the actual source (the website where the picture is from) doesn't say they're Assyrians: "A postcard by the Cappucin mission in Mesopotemia of two Chaldean men from the villages surrounding the town of Mardin in South East Turkey, along the Syrian border. Chaldean Christians recognize the Pope as the head of the Universal Church. They split from the Assyrian (Nestorian) Church in the sixteenth century. Chaldean Christians are found in largest concentrations in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, the United States (Detroit), Europe, and Australia. The head of the Church, the Patriarch, resides in Baghdad with the title of "the Patriarch of Babylon". He has the rank of a Cardinal in the Catholic church. Their liturgy is in Aramaic." http://mideastimage.com/result.aspx Funkynusayri 16:58, 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)

For once, I agree with dab. It was a label given to Assyrians in 1553. It doesn't mean we became an entirely different people just because the Roman Catholic Church started calling us something else. Marco, you still seem to be under the illusion that you are the true, racially pure descendants of the ancient Neo-Babylonians. Please, give me a break. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:27 07 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are the exact same in trying to say that you are the same pure descendants of the ancient Assyrians, so it is quite hypocritical to say that to Prof. Marco. Furthermore, you need to read more cuneiform, because that really does shatter your case and your enitre POV on this matter. Andrew.hermiz 01:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't care about your opinion. To me, your opinion holds no weight. This guy says that we are Assyrians. He can read Akkadian, as you can see, at the end of the clip. I take his word any day over yours. He knows everything about us. I repeat, he knows everything about us. H. W. F. Saggs and Simo Parpola, two prominent Assyriologists, who both can read Akkadian, say that we are descendants of the ancient Assyrians. 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. 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. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:04 07 Aug, 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

Oh please, stop glorifying yourself. You can mention hundred and fifty times that you are a historian, that you go to college, or what have you. It doesn't matter. 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. just to clarify some certain areas, is that the community which was labeled had a background stretching back to Babylonia, and not Assyria. — Source please. And make sure it's academic. As for the Assyrians expanding, I don't think you get it. The Assyrians wouldn't have been able to conquer that much, if they weren't a majority. 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. Converting to another Church, doesn't suddenly make you a racially pure Neo-Babylonian, with newly, magically imported "Chaldean genes" straight of nowhere. Man, I can't believe you fall for this Chaldean crap. We Chaldean Catholics were former members of the Assyrian Church of the East. 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? Please, give me a break. And don't bother mentioning that you are some kind of historian again. Thanks, but I want academic opinions on this, not assertions. — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:19 09 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

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)

All right, just stop. This is getting embarrassing. You've lost all your credibility. It is called Assyriology, not because the academic professors are biased, but because they study the ancient remnant archaeological discoveries found in the Library of Ashurbanipal. To suggest that they are biased Europeans who are trying to make innocent "Chaldeans" into Assyrians, just because this science, is called Assryiology, is not only stupid, but also, a conspiracy theory. Since you are the one who claims that the misnomer Chaldeans has been in use ever since the Neo-Babylonian Empire, then it's your assertion, and you're the one who's supposed to provide sources for this. Also, while you're at it, explain to me why the last Chaldean king assumed an Assyrian identity? You're no historian. Stop making this up. 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. — You did not provide one single source in your little rant. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:43 09Aug, 2007 (UTC)

http://history-world.org/chaldeans.htm

There you go !

Andrew.hermiz 10:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Article name

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)

Is that why half the Assyrian Democratic Movement's members are Chaldean Catholics? — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:08 09 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

this party was formed by Assyrian-Americans. and all from the Assyrian diaspora have labeld themselfs as Assyrian because of the propoganda but not in Iraq og syria. btw Chaldean term was used from 16th. Assyrian term was used from 19th. Nochi 20:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice try. This Assyrian party is in Iraq. — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:32 09 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Requested Move

Andrew.hermiz 10:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

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)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''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.

• Support

Andrew.hermiz 10:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support

Asm ccc 00:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Professor Marco

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, this is just ridiculous.

Asm ccc 00:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Professor Marco

Discussion

Any additional comments:

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)

You have absolutely no genetic relation to the ancient Chaldeans. Also, Assyrian nationalists in Iraq, are Chaldean Catholics. Knock it off with these lies. If you can provide academic sources for Chaldean Catholics being the true genetic descendants of the Chaldean dynasty, I will be the first to move this article. Until then, forget about it. — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:32 10 Aug, 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