Talk:Chaldea

message: Esarhaddon - "He conquered Egypt, Nubia and Libya and entrenched his mastery over the Persians, Medes, Parthians, Scythians, Cimmerians, Arameans, Israelites, Phoenicians, Canaanites, Urartians, Pontic Greeks, Cilicians, Phrygians, Lydians, Manneans and Arabs." - over Pontic Greeks, Phrygians, Lydians - I do not believe that!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.143.130.37 (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Jewish Holy texts do not speak of a land known as "Mat" Kasdim... It is Ur Kasdim!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.57.44.107 (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Mat Kadim?

message: The claim that Chaldeans were somehow masters of sorcery and witchcraft is pretty ridiculous. This may be a historical confusion, but even so it seems to be more associated with the Medes (and one of the tribes: "magi"). This should be either verified or removed, but there is no reason to have a random statement sit there for so long.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.186.65 (talk) 23:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sorcerers?

message: I removed this, which was in quotes, because it doesn't explain who is being quoted (presumably something Biblical).
:In former days the vast plains of Babylon were nourished by a complicated system of canals and water-courses, which spread over the surface of the country like a network. The wants of a teeming population were supplied by a rich soil, not less bountiful than that on the banks of the Egyptian Nile. Like islands rising from a golden sea of waving grain stood frequent groves of palm-trees and pleasant gardens, affording to the idler or traveller their grateful and highly-valued shade. Crowds of passengers hurried along the dusty roads to and from the busy city. The land was rich in grain and wine.
Tuf-Kat
::Tuf-Kat's hunch was close. The quote is from Easton's Bible Dictionary 1897. It is quoted at various Christian bible webpages, such as this one. It's not needed in the Wikipedia article. --Wetman 09:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed

message: I quote the following from the wikipedia entry on Chaldean
"Chaldean is the name given to the ancient language Urartian also known as Vannic. It was the official language of Urartu spoken in northeastern Anatolia in the 9th–6th centuries BCE. It along with Hurrian are thought to be descended from the same language. Surviving Chaldean texts are written in Neo-Assyrian script. According to Josephus, Chaldeans were known in Hebrew as "Kasidim" meaning "sorcerers"."
Is there a difference between this and the Chaldeans? who migrated from the Arabian peninsula and were centered in lower mesopotamia?
 omerlivesOmerlives 07:17, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is There A Difference? 

message: That means Chaldeans in Hebrew not Chaldea. I removed the reference and moved it to the Chaldeans page. (anonymous)
:Since "Chaldees" as in "Ur of the Chaldees" is merely the King James Version translation of kasdim, that is to say of "Chaldeans", withdrawing such a very relevant reference here appears obtuse at best. --Wetman 09:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kasdim 

message: The fact that there is a substantial group of people, mostly in Iraq and mostly members of the Chaldean Catholic Church, who call themselves Chaldean should be mentioned in this article. However, the article should simply point one towards more information about them. It should neither proclaim them as proud descendants of ancient Chaldea, nor belittle their existence. --Gareth Hughes 13:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think not. They're mentioned in the article Chaldean. If one wish to jump to conclusions, the sentence '"Chaldee" is a term used by older grammarians for Biblical Aramaic.' followed by 'the Chaldean Catholic Church (since 1553)' in there, indicates that "Chaldean" in that context means "those who use Biblical Aramaic in their churches". That's my to-jumped conclusion, not usable as a citation per se, but maybe an indication on how much "Chaldean" have floated around to refer to anything coming from Mesopotamia. Said: Rursus (☻) 19:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Chaldeans 

message: Is Chaldea related to the Saldea of Robert Jordan's Wheel of time series??
Institute representative 02:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Said: Rursus (☻) 19:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  references 

message: :Chaldean settlement ties the Middle East to early European history as Chaldean colonists led by Aschenez are thought to have been the founders of the city now known as Reggio Calabria, on the east side of the the straight between Sicily and Calabria, Italy. The city was founded at the end of the 8th century BCE, making it one of the oldest cities of Europe, according to local historians .
Is anyone other than me bothered by this passage? I wonder whether someone is confusing Chaldeans with Chalcidians. After all, the linked Italian Wikipedia article on Reggio Calabria  mentions Chalcidian colonists but says nothing as far as I can tell about Chaldeans:
:"Dopo Cuma, Reggio Calabria è la più antica colonia greca in Italia meridionale, è tra le più antiche città d'Europa visto che, la colonia calcidese fondata nell'VIII secolo a.C. manteneva il preesistente nome di Rhegion (Ρήγιoν), già noto come Erythrà (Ερυθρά), sito in cui sorgeva un antichissimo insediamento risalente al III millennio a.C., precedentemente occupato da popolazioni autoctone quali gli Aschenazi, gli Ausoni, gli Itali governati da Re Italo (da cui il nome di Italia successivamente esteso alla penisola) e dal mitico re Giocasto, la cui tomba sorgeva sul promontorio di Punta Calamizzi (Pallantiòn), punto d'approdo dei coloni greci."
Granted, my Italian is pretty lousy (read: nonexistent), but I don't see any reference to Chaldeans--even legendary, non-historical ones--in this passage. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reggio Calabria? 

message: I don't understand why the article repeatedly specifies the KJV Old Testament. This statement implies that the names are different in other translations--but the article never discusses that issue. If other translations give different names, that should be discussed; otherwise, it's probably safe to remove the references to the KJV translation. Aristophanes68 (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  KJV? 

message: KJV translation of kasdim as Chaldea is problematic to say the least. I still don't understand why the arabic word kaldan (meaning chaldean people mostly used to refer to adherents of the modern Chaldean Church). Rafy talk 14:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Again someone decided to revert without considering looking here... Why is Ptolemy given as a reference? and why كلدان in arabic in god's name??? Rafy talk 16:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just a comment to fix broken font markup in comments above (by adding 8 closing tags) so as to stop it from propagating to the rest of the Talk page (like it previously did). — al-Shimoni (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kaldu vs Kasdim vs kaldan(كلدان) 

message: I removed the scare quotes around "Semitic" in the section on Chaldean people.  I realise a lot of people, Americans in particular, get squeamish when using words they perceive as "racially" classifying people, but I assure you that Semitic is a very scientific linguistic category (into which Jews, Arabs, Assyrians, Ethiopians, and many others fall), and you don't have to apologise preemptively for using it.  That would be like saying 'Opossums are a species of "marsupial" indigenous to North America', or 'The cast of the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica included Americans as well as many "Canadian" actors'.    PenitentWhaler (talk) 02:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semitic is not a racial slur.   

message: An IP address 81.111.12.105 made Revision as of 21:50, 10 September 2014
See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Other reasons for attributing text
This editor copied text from other Wikipedia articles but did not copy over the long citations from the same articles. I have searched from articles with identical citations and found in the article "Abraham" with also contain the same text on the day before the copy Abraham 9 September 2014.
Therefore I will copy the missing long citations into this article. -- PBS (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia]] 

message: The term "Chaldaean," when used in reference to the polity that existed in southern Mesopotamia from 626 BCE to 539 BCE, is vanishingly rare outside of works published in the 19th century, reprints of those works, and non-specialist dictionaries and encyclopedias that depend primarily upon such works to the exclusion of more recent scholarship. A Google Ngram demonstrates that the term "Neo-Babylonian" (empire, dynasty, etc.) emerges around 1891 and rather rapidly surpasses "Chaldaean" (empire, dynasty, etc.) in terms of references, and indeed the term "Neo-Babylonian" is used in virtually all recent scholarship to refer to this same group. Chuck Haberl (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Kids writing history will ever and anon be the case. Tradition is a good thing, however. 50.111.49.173 (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chaldaean vs. Neo-Babylonian 

message: who call themselves 'chaldeans' or are called this way by others? stefjourdan  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.237.122.50 (talk) 14:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  are there people in Canada 

message: I removed the paragraph pasted below. 
1. It broke up an otherwise continuous intro section. (The next paragraph begins "These nomadic Chaldeans" which certainly does not seem to refer to neo-Babylonian king Nabonidus.)
2. The 2nd half of this paragraph is clearly better suited to a talk page. *This sentence has been in the article since September 2019.* 
3. It appears the claims in the 1st half of this paragraph are dubious. I don't own the book in question (dueling refs 4 and 5 both cite Roux) but it certainly looks like a well meaning person does have the book and it doesn't say what this paragraph claims it says.
In case there's anything in the deleted paragraph worth keeping or discussing, the removed text is:
----
The short-lived 11th dynasty of the Kings of Babylon (6th century BCE) is conventionally known [citation needed] to historians as the Chaldean Dynasty, although the last rulers, Nabonidus and his son Belshazzar, were from Assyria. [4][citation needed] (This is not found in Georges Roux - Ancient Iraq. Roux states that Nabonidus "was the son of a certain Nabu-Balatsu-Iqbi, who belonged to the Babylonian nobility but was not of royal blood and of a votaress... of the city of Harran.")[5] Grease Bandit (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This should not have been removed suddenly with no replacement. The Chaldean dynasty is arguably more famous than the ancient Chaldea region or the ancient Chaldean people at large and should unquestionably be mentioned in the lede. Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro paragraph re Chaldean Dynasty 

message: If anyone estimates a distance to be "100 miles", that does not mean the distance is estimated to be "slightly over 160,934 meters": the first value suggests high imprecision, and the conversion would be valid if the 100 miles were actual 100.000 miles. Similarly, 100 miles are not 160 kilometers as 1.6 contains more precision - unjustifiedly - than 1. Rough the initial number, equally rough the conversion. Those values should be checked instead of translated automatically. 
Note that one risk is that which frequently occurs in literature, of reading that a distance is precisely specified as, say, 1,287 km - which immediately raises the suspect, "have they just mindlessly translated an original rough 800 miles (meaning in fact between 750 and 850) to that?".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.90.1.99 (talk) 14:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Respect the amount of imprecision in rounded numbers when converting them 

message: The portion of the article which discusses Chaldean religious beliefs, reads, in its entirety, as follows:
Ancient Chaldeans believed in "three heavens".
That's it. Lots of discussion about their history in the region and their origins, but this is the only line discussing their religious beliefs. They're associated with astrology and astronomy, as mentioned in this article, and later (as mentioned in the Wikipedia article "Magic in the Greco-Roman world",) are associated with Zoroaster, magicians, and magic in general.
Is there enough known about their actual beliefs to expand this section a bit? I would love to consult the book cited as a source in the line about the "three heavens," but have no way of doing so short of buying the book. Ormewood (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on "Religion" 

message: Would referral to the West bank of the Euphrates be better? (I'm guessing its is the western Bank from the map, but I'm not an expert.)
"These nomadic Chaldeans settled in the far southeastern portion of Babylonia, chiefly on the left bank of the Euphrates." Paragraph 3, 1st sentence Aot007 (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Left Bank of the Euphrates  

message: This section over here: 
”The terms "Assyrian", and its derivative Syrian remained the common ethnicterm for the Aramaic-speaking inhabitants of Northern Mesopotamia. These were used by the people themselves and their Persian, Armenian, Arab, Greek, Georgian and Kurdish neighbours both before and after the advent of Christianity in Iraq, Northeast Syria, Southeast Turkey and Northwest Iran. The Assyrian continuityin these regions is well documented” 
has nothing to do with Chaldea. Why is it written here I dont know. It should be removed. 83.250.115.18 (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assyrian??