Talk:Tesqopa

message: This is a Chaldean town. and I don't think that simply because Assyrian nationalists managed to get the Syriac Christians article named Assyrian people, it gives them a license to Assyrianize Chaldean articles. There is a kind of Assyrian fascism going on in Wikipedia. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 08:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Chaldean town

message: Sorry all I haven't participated in a discussion over Wikipedia before, but I am a long time lurker. Wikipedia has a wealth of information, and it is a very beautiful gift to the internet. With that being said, I recently re-read the Chaldean_Christian article and noticed that our numbers (in population) has dropped from an estimated 2.5 million to 1.4 million, and the Chaldean's that live in America (such as the metro-San Diego and Detroit areas) haven't been cited. The Chaldean Catholic Church has dioceses in at least 5 continents last time I checked, but this type of information belongs in that specific article. Sorry for this minor off-topic ranting. Now to get to the important stuff:
Shlama! We have here a great debate between what a Chaldean is and what an Assyrian is. A little background, I'm just a 23 year old Chaldo-Assyrian born and raised in the Detroit, MI area, the largest Chaldean community in North America. Growing up I have always called myself Chaldean, and so does 99% of the community. But what exactly is a Chaldean - can it be an ethnic group, a nationality, what is it exactly? It can't be a nationality, there is no nation (in the sense that we don't have our own borders and rule our own government... there is definitely a nation in a sense of community.) Can it be considered a race? I haven't read the term 'Chaldean' being used to describe the Aramaic-speaking Christians of the Fertile Crescent during pre-Islamic periods. Our race isn't 'Chaldean', it isn't 'Arab' as Arabs generally come from the Arabian desert (read: Arabian peninsula, southern Iraq and surrounding areas.) The basis for the Chaldean argument doesn't add up - we are not descendants of the Ancient Chaldea empire - this empire is like saying the Soviet's were not Russian. If the Chaldean's in that time were considered anything, it would have been Assyrian anyways. All who want to call themselves Chaldean live amongst the Nineveh Plains. This is the area of the Assyrian Empire, not to mention a province of great empires of the past (the most recent to my knowledge the province of Asuristan, with its boundaries from Mosul to Erbil, which is exactly where you'll find plenty of Chaldeans!)
You know where I am going with this - we are Assyrian by ethnicity/race. This is the only thing that makes sense. My parents are both from Alqosh, although my dad was raised in Baghdad. He said he never once called himself Chaldean back in Iraq. He didn't grow up in the Church like many did, but regardless Arab nationalism was imposed upon the majority of peoples. He was born two months after King Faisal II took office. He tells me they would call themselves Christian, so if anything they were considered Christian Arabs. It doesn't seem like Assyrians were recognized as indigenous peoples as they were now, and as Iraq was a newer nation with the Ottoman mandate, Arab nationalism was probably more important to the ruling party.
So with this current Assyrian Nationalism/Fascism accusations that are being made, please understand that this is a breakthrough point for our culture, never before were we included in the constitution, never before had our community had the chance to express itself. Finding out who we really are, and where we come from, is very important.
Other than using history to make the Chaldean = Assyrian connection, lets think about other things within our culture. As a Chaldean, do you believe you speak your language purely? Which word do you use for 'doctor'? Do you not mix Arabic with your Sureth? Besides this, from where does our liturgy come from? Is it not an Eastern Orthodox liturgy? Don't you ever think, how come every single Chaldean is Catholic? Does it make sense that a complete race/ethnicity follows a particular denomination of one religion? The Eastern Orthodox Christians and Eastern Catholics - the split between one church are the same people. There is nothing separating these two groups, that's like telling someone they're not American anymore because they're Republican and you're for the Democratic party. 
Again everybody, there is no such thing as Assyrian Fascism and whatnot. This is the time for the truth, for us to find out who we really are. I am a Chaldean Catholic, born and raised in America, but as I've connected the dots... I am Assyrian. This is the truth, and this is what makes sense.
Syriacscholar (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: What a mess!

message: I have protected the article from editing in order to stop the edit warring that was going on here. I could just as easily have handed out a few blocks to the warring parties. Please engage in a civilized discussion here, and keep the ethnic/religious discrimination out of it. Pursue some form of dispute resolution if needed. If edit warring starts back up after the protection expires, all participants should expect to be blocked. Follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle as opposed to edit warring and that won't have to happen. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a starting point for this conversation: Nothing in this article is verified by reliable sources, so nobody has any sort of high ground in this debate. Find sources to support your positions, and do not rely on your own personal experiences or observations. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This new user has just signed up, with the same name of this article ironically, to start an old argument that has already been done and agreed with. Per the agreement of the title of the main page: Assyrian people page, all Chaldean Catholics are ethnically Assyrian. Iraqi (talk) 07:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't make pronouncements like that, and there is no justification for gratuitously Assyrianizing the Chaldean articles. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  article locked down due to edit warring 

message: I don't want to get involved in the ongoing debate on whether Tel Skuf counts as an Assyrian or a Chaldean town, as these absurd disputes are only of interest to Assyrian nationalists, but I would like to suggest that you choose a more familiar English name for the purposes of a Wikipedia encyclopedia article.  Ever since Badger's time, the town has been known as Tel Isqof to Europeans and Americans.  Most people who consult Wikipedia for information on Tel Isqof will have found its name in one of the classic European studies of the Church of the East (Badger, Cutts, Wigram, etc. in the nineteenth century, and more recently Fiey and Wilmshurst).  I think Tel Isqof is more user-friendly than Tel Skuf.  By all means give all its aliases in the lead paragraph: Tel Zqipa, Tesqopa, etc.
For what it's worth, Tel Isqof is a Chaldean town, and has been since the eighteenth century (Wilmshurst, Ecclesiastical Organisation of the Church of the East, 234–6).  
Beam me up, Scottie, I think it's time to go.
Djwilms (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Tel Skuf, Tel Isqof and Tel Eskof, it looks like the latter is most common spelling. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  English name of Tel Skuf 

message: As ܥܝܪܐܩ suggested, we probably should rename this article to the correct spelling of the commonly used names: either Tel Isqof or Tel Eskof. I personally prefer the first, for it is closer to the way the name is pronounced in Arabic. --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename the Article

message: Which ancient empire controlled the area around Tel Isqof?  The Neo-Babylonian or the Assyrian?  Have the ruins of the town been excavated and when are they dated?  (Taivo (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Tel Skuf lies not far from Nineveh, so I've no idea why Tisqopnaia2010 made that edit. He probably made a mistake, otherwise I hope he'll tell us why. Didn't Henry Layard excavate Nineveh and the area around? Shmayo (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thank you.  I just wanted to make sure of the precise ancient situation before supporting either "Assyrian" or "Neo-Babylonian".  I imagine that the article was edited to "Chaldean" for much the same reason that you edit articles on Assyria to push the "continuity" theory ;)  (Taivo (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

text: The ancient Assyrians controlled that area before the ancient Chaldeans destroyed Assyria, in 612 BC,  and took over the entire region. The Persian empire later, in 539 BC took over Babylon and the Chaldean Empire. So, basically the last of the Mesopotamian empires to control the area around Tel Isqof was that of the ancient Chaldeans. --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not "Chaldean", but Neo-Babylonian.  I won't put up with the "Assyrian continuation" theory, neither will I put up with the "Chaldean continuation" theory.  So the question is, was the ancient village founded by the Assyrians or by the Neo-Babylonians?  (Taivo (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Until we come to a consensus about the ancient village, I removed the identifier for now.  It's really not relevant to this article anyway whether the village was founded by the Assyrians or by the Neo-Babylonians and what the ethnic/linguistic makeup of that long-gone village was.  It's just a reference point for the modern village.  (Taivo (talk) 22:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Well said. I don't buy the "Assyrian continuation" or the "Chaldean continuation" theories either. The facts are that no one knows who is who. What we know is that we are descendants of either Assyrians or Chaldeans, but there is no one on earth that could tell of which of the two we are. I believe I have explained that to Mr. Shmayo before. I could end up being an Assyrian and Mr. Shmayo could end being a Chaldean (I am referring to the ancient people here). --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If Shmayo agrees, then we can just leave the village as an "ancient village" and leave the matter of who lived there alone.  Perhaps that should be a separate Wikipedia article, if the place has actually been excavated.  (Taivo (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

text: So "ancient village" will solve the problem of a village that may have been founded during the Assyrian Empire and destroyed (?) at the end of the Neo-Babylonian Empire.  Good.  (See how easy that was?  Cheers to both of you.)  (Taivo (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoiding an edit war 

message: There seems to be general agreement that "Chaldean Christian" is an acceptable term in most cases of usage.  When "Chaldean Christian" occurs in an article as the first (and second) usage, then it can be shortened to "Chaldean" in subsequent usages without implying that it is something different.  However, the short form cannot be used as the first (and only) reference in an article.  This is standard practice for names in Wikipedia that have long and short forms, especially when the short form can be controversial when used alone.  The first reference in this article must remain "Chaldean Christian".  (Taivo (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chaldean versus Chaldean Christian 

message: Could anyone supply a source for the alleged Mongol attack on Tel Isqof in 1436?  There was an attack in 1235, and another attack in 1508, but not (as far as I am aware) one in 1436.  I suspect that the date is wrong, and that this passage refers to the attack in 1235 commemorated by Giwargis Warda.
If there WAS an attack in 1436, it would represent a very important addition to our scanty knowledge of the history of the Church of the East in the fifteenth century ...
Djwilms (talk) 06:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mongol raids on Tel Isqof