Talk:Chaldean Catholics/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Import

message: Somehow, they had gotten elided from the article. Dogru144 09:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ignored in [[Demography of Iraq]] 

message: :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)
replies: text: whereas others believe themselves to constitute a separate ethnic group and carry their own flag. -they don't, that is the point. There isn't a "flag of their own". You wont find it in the homeland, and no, they don't consider themselves a different ethnic group. Chaldean 12:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I would just like to clarify something here. What Chaldeans are doing wrong is that they are classifying their race, their nationality, their blood in relation to what religion they are. So for instance, if i am a Russian Orthodox, does that make me Russian by blood? Why cant you accept it that you are Chaldean by faith alone. Can you tell me one Chaldean individual who is not a Chaldean Catholic? and please dont make up a name, sourced facts would be more welcome in this discussion than made up facts like some unnamed Assyriologist you "happened to meet".     Lentheric33 07:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe with no doubt that we are both a different people - reading what some young fools in Australia are writing will get you nowhere! PLEASE, go back to the homeland and see if a village that is Catholic and a village 1 kilometer away that is ACOE are different in culture. I assure you what these kids are saying here will not be heard of in the homeland where it counts. Chaldean 03:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chaldeans = Assyrians, its a very simple equation 

message: Dab, you should move it back. There was nothing wrong with the title, it only confirmed the content in the actual article. It's not like this article, with the sources in mind, are stating that Chaldean Catholics are something other than Assyrians. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:44 18 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
:I think the perfect title of this article should be the History of the Chaldean Church, since that is all this article is talking about - history of the church. Any mentioning of "Chaldean culture" or "Chaldean music" etc, are redundant of Assyrian culture, Assyrian music. Chaldean 17:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chaldean Assyrians

message: Answer to Elias' revert comment: Well, you could say the same about for example Druze and Alawites too, they belong chiefly to a single ethnic group, Arabs, or Yazidis who are Kurds, but going as far as giving them ethnic group infoboxes is a bad idea, as it would imply they are an ethnic group within themselves. What they (Chaldeans) are is simply a sect of Syriac Christianity, and I think you would be the first to point out that they are Assyrians by ethnicity. Also, an image in the infobox is a nice thing. Funkynusayri 15:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you're right. This is for the better. I'm also quite sick of Chaldeans trying to make 'Chaldean' into an ethnicity. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 21:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: They already did, see Syriac people Chaldean (talk) 06:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: EliasAlucard, that did happen with ethnic Germans. Austrians, Liechtensteiners and Germanophone Swiss now have their own, non-German identity. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 00:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to a discussion in Archive 1

message: "Chaldeans are in fact ethnically Assyrian...", let's keep POV like these out of the article, there are no reliable sources saying that. The TriZ (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: The present quote about Mar Bedawid is incorrect. His quote is erased and replaced with one that does not exist yet the correct is still wrongfully cited. 
Some religious officials within the Chaldean Church, such as Patriarch Mar Raphael I Bedawid, advocate the Assyrian ethnicity and holding the belief that Chaldean is just his religious denomination. In an interview with Bidawid, published in 2003, he commented on the Assyrian name dispute and declared his ethnic point of view:
:“I personally think that these different names serve to add confusion. The original name of our Church was the ‘Church of the East’ ... When a portion of the Church of the East became Catholic, the name given was ‘Chaldean’ based on the Magi kings who came from the land of the Chaldean, to Bethlehem. The name ‘Chaldean’ does not represent an ethnicity... We have to separate what is ethnicity and what is religion... I myself, my sect is Chaldean, but ethnically, I am Assyrian.”
In an interview with the Assyrian Star in the September-October 1974 issue, he was quoted as saying:
:“Before I became a priest I was an Assyrian, before I became a bishop I was an Assyrian, I am an Assyrian today, tomorrow, forever, and I am proud of it.”Mar Raphael J Bidawid. The Assyrian Star. Sptember-October, 1974:5.
Chaldeans call themselves Sūrāyā (Syrian) in singular and Sūrāyē in plural
"The Assyrians, A Historical and Current Reality" by Efrem Yildiz, Ph.D. Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies. p 10. 
NOT: "Some religious officials within the Chaldean Church, such as Patriarch Mar Raphael I Bedawid, advocate the Assyrian ethnicity while still holding belief in the Chaldean ethnicity also."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Am6212 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: "advocate the Assyrian ethnicity while still holding belief in the Chaldean ethnicity also"...yet the citation says "The name ‘Chaldean’ does not represent an ethnicity... We have to separate what is ethnicity and what is religion... I myself, my sect is Chaldean, but ethnically, I am Assyrian." Clearly not advocating two ethnicities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trippss (talk • contribs) 21:33, 7 October 2008
in the strictest definitions of ethnicity chaldeans indeed are to be considered a seperate ethnic group>  they have a distinct language< distinct customs< and they even have something of a distinct dna makeup due to generations of marriage only with in their own group>  if you look up the definition of ethnicity< you will see that chaldeans certainly may lay claim on their own ethnical identity>  connie khoshi>  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellybutonlint (talk • contribs) 21:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong Quote

message: This box mentions Syria, but Syria is mentioned nowhere else on the page. Meanwhile, the text mentions Turkey, which does not appear in this box. I have no idea which is correct, but this seems inconsistent.
:Syria is the second most populated Chaldean Catholic nation in the middle east now due to the large influx of Iraqi Chaldeans into that country. Turkey is historical - their used to be a big population their, but not anymore. But I guess it should be included since they still have Chaldean Catholic churches up and running with small communities here and their. Iraqi (talk) 06:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Regions with Significant Populations

message: Shouldnt this page, as the other ethnic Assyrian pages be redirected to the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people?--Yohanun (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No thank you. we will keep our own page on here. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 04:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect

message: ...but I would like to state that we, the Chaldean, Assyrian and Syrian people are one people known as Aramean people.
Let Iraq continue to live with all its ethnic groups, Arabs, Kurds, Arameans, Yazidie' s, Mandeans, and Shabak.
cardinal Mar Emmanuel Delly  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.234.33.210 (talk) 13:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  we are Arameans (cardinal Mar Emmanuel Delly) 

message: I've made some edits to this page to remove some of the accumulated Assyrianist pov, so that it represents Chaldean people. I've left simple edit summaries for most edits to explain them. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As Tisqupnaia2010 said, this is an article about a church denomination [or the members of it] and not ethnicity. You're going against the agreements of Talk:Assyrian people. Before you make such edit, discuss here or even better, in Talk:Assyrian people (where such things have been discussed before). Shmayo (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes

message: First, please understand that this article is about church denominations and not ethnicity. You can move your warring to another article.
Second, the facts that we both agree on are as follow:
The Church of the East split. Two denominations emerged: the Chaldean Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East. The Chaldean Catholic Church united with Rome. The Assyrian Church of the East did not. If you (on either side) do not agree with this, please read some of our history. Some really good sources are mentioned in this articles.
I have edited the page to reflect our common beliefs. I have removed any comparison between the two groups in numbers and status. No one is a subgroup of the other, and no one is better than the other. --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 07:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Chaldean Catholics (members of the Chaldean Catholic Church) and the Nestorians (members of the Assyrian Church of the East) are subgroups of the Assyrian people. This is agreed in Talk:Assyrian people. The Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people is commonly known as the Assyrian people, this is why the article is called so (please read WP:common name). Please read more in Talk:Assyrian_people/Archive_9. And I suggest if you don't agree what's written there, open a discussion there. Shmayo (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Tisqupnaia2010's comments appear to be far more NPOV than Shmayo's.  Shmayo's edits appear to be more POV and anti-Chaldean.  If you have things to add to this article, Shmayo, then discuss it here first and get consensus before adding.  You have been reverted by multiple editors here.  That should tell you that your edits are not appropriate without getting consensus first.  (Taivo (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

text: If you think you're right, Shmayo, then it should be easy to build a consensus here before continuing to disrupt this article.  (Taivo (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Just because material is "sourced" doesn't mean that the sources are appropriate, that your use of the sources is appropriate, that the sources are not fringe, etc.  I can find "sources" that justify any position whatsoever on any topic.  Don't add material to an article when other editors have objected to it without a discussion and consensus here first.  If you think that this is a wider problem in Wikipedia as a whole, then open an arbitration action and get a Wikipedia policy put in place.  You have options within the Wikipedia dispute resolution framework besides the edit warring that you are conducting here.  (Taivo (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, see WP:MOSMAC2, the result of an arbitration action.  (Taivo (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Taivo, didn't really add material, I reverted a controversial edit which was done without discussion here. Problem about this topic have been discussed in the talk page of the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people (with the common name Assyrian people). User:ܥܝܪܐܩ is going against the consensus reached in Talk:Assyrian people, and his is not even discussing. Cred to Tisqupnaia2010 who is actually trying to discuss (but has clearly not read Talk:Assyrian people). User:ܥܝܪܐܩ is not discussing and going against consensus in several articles. Shmayo (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A ntv, what do you mean by "...which denomination is the true successor of the Church of East"? After schism one group of the church entered into communion with the Holy See and was called the Chaldean Catholic Church, and the rest followed the patriarch and was still called Nestorians. I've never heard of any dispute about who is "the true successor of the Church of East". But the split is bad discribed in this article. Shmayo (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  To Mr. Shmayo.You seem to be changing any article that has the word "Chaldean" in it. You keep on refering to Talk: Assyrian People ,forgetting that this is about Chaldeans. Your version of this article has two problems: First, your sources that you presented are all non-academic. They are writings done by other Assyrian nationalists. This makes the article far from neutral. Second, you keep on identifying Chaldeans as being a subgroup of Assyrians, which is historically wrong. I tried to further myself from this kind of discussion, but i guess there is noway to avoid it. Historically, there is no such ethnicity as the nowadays Assyrians. The currently named Assyrians are not related to the Ancient Assyrians. Current Assyrians were named after the church of the east split Wilhelm Baum and Dietmar Winkler: The Church of the East: A Concise History. London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2003. page 135. . Before the Church of the East split, the people in that region were called East Syrians Wilhelm Baum and Dietmar Winkler: The Church of the East: A Concise History. London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2003. page 112. . I don't know what you have been reading, but I am sure it is not related to history. Reading and referring to articles written by other Assyrian nationalists will never be considered reliable by anyone, not even 6th grade kids. History is not a subject to mess with. By exercising a sort of Assyrian Fascism, you will not change history.--Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

text:  To Mr. Shmayo I am glad that you have finally understood that "there is no true successor to the Church of the East. As for the split, perhaps you can tell us how it is "badly described". I have read it 10 times and I still don't see how you consider it bad. Nevertheless, perhaps you can state here what kind of change will keep the true information, be neutral, and will not badly describe the split. --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Let's try to keep the conversation here somewhat civil.  I don't think that Shmayo is "fascist", but you are correct that this article is about Chaldeans and not Assyrians.  It is an article about religion and the adherents of a religion, not about an ethnic group.  Chaldeans are not Assyrians in their religious confession.  That's enough for this article.  The ethnic and linguistic distinction of the Chaldeans is for other articles, not here.  So the Assyrian ethnic POV really isn't relevant to this article.  (Taivo (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Taivo: Believe me, I have tried to keep it neutral. I just got frustrated by the attempts of Assyrian Nationalists attacking any article that has the word "Chaldean" in it. I hope that Mr. Shmayo will at least try to stay away from posting additions that inflame warring. I am totally against warring, and I would rather not see my people engaged in it.  --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've seen the emotions that rise up when ethnic, religious, and nationalistic differences are on the line, when one group is trying to force their opinion on another.  (Taivo (talk) 04:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

text: You keep claiming that there's a consensus at Talk:Assyrian people, but I see no such thing.  You also fail to address the basic issue that this article isn't about ethnicities, but about a religious community.  Start an Arbitration action if you disagree.  You still stand alone against three editors who have reverted you and a fourth who has commented on this page.  (Taivo (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

text: This isn't an ethnicity article and I see nothing in the article that would make me think it was anything other than an article about a religious community.  You say "reverting these kinds of edits", but these names do not appear in the history of this article.  This article is not about an ethnic group, but about a religious community.  You need to stop confusing the two.  (Taivo (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me clarify for you, Shmayo.  "Ethnicity" is in the DNA and you are probably right that the various communities of Neo-Aramaic speakers are similar ethnically.  I'm not going to touch that.  "Religious community" is not in the DNA, but is behavioral.  A group could be ethnically diverse, but unified as a religious community.  This article only covers the religious community that share a single confession.  This article doesn't touch the issue of ethnicity, only the confessional distinctiveness of this community.  Keep the ethnic comments and arguments based on ethnicity out of it.  (Taivo (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

text: If you think that a link is appropriate, then add an appropriate link.  But don't add all that Assyrian argumentation.  If people are interested, they will follow the link, but this article is only about the Chaldean Christian church community, not about the Assyrian Christian community or the Syriac Christian community or the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac ethnic groups.  And in common English usage, once a community has been cited in a full name ("Chaldean Church", "Chaldean Christians", etc.) then later in the article it is perfectly acceptable usage to just write "Chaldean" without all the added words.  Readers are perfectly comfortable with that usage.  (See WP:MOSMAC2 for an arbitrated example of this.)  (Taivo (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You might also want to read WP:OTHERSTUFF.  Unless there is a Wiki-wide written policy like WP:MOSMAC2, then just because one article does X doesn't mean that another article must also do X.  Consensus in one place doesn't always equate to consensus everywhere.  Consensus is also a delicate thing that can change over time depending on the editors currently involved in an issue.  (Taivo (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I placed the link to that article and replaced the sentence about the split which was more correct and more understandable. I also changed the Syriac script so it says Chaldean Christians. Shmayo (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ...which is now reverted by User:ܥܝܪܐܩ, the only one that's not discussing. He've added most material but don't discuss, same thing when he's reverting. Shmayo (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw.  I replaced your label and link, but the wording of "Syriac squiggle" is more informative I think.  (Taivo (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If the link Syriac Christians goes to Assyrian people, then it should be deleted.  The link labelled "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people" should be relabelled "Assyrian people" to reflect the actual title of the article.  (Taivo (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I reworded the first sentence to make it more grammatical English and to clarify.  (Taivo (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

text: A split is a split whether it's by mutual consent or by one group leaving.  It's still a split.  About the name.  When did the Church of the East become Assyrian Catholic Church in name?  (Taivo (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

text: These are all cultural/ethnic organizations and functions.  Unless the flag specifically refers to the Chaldean Catholic Church or is specifically endorsed and used by the Chaldean Catholic Church, then it's not appropriate for this article.  I would be very appropriate in the Assyrian people article, since that article covers Chaldeans in an ethnic/cultural sense.  (Taivo (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with the changes made by Mr. Taivo. Unlike Assyrian nationalists, Chaldeans don't believe in forging history. The Church of the East was later named Assyrian Church of the East; however, this doesn't make the Chaldean Catholic Church part of the Assyrian Church of the East as Assyrian Nationalists make it seem. As for the Chaldean Flag, we have tried to make this article neutral. As long as the article of Assyrian Christans doesn't have the Assyrian Flag, we should not add the Chaldean Flag to this article. However, I invite Mr. Taivo to search for Assyrian Christians in Wikipeida. You'll be redirected to another page that is misleading to the subject. In that page, you'll emmidiatly notice the discrimination against Chaldeans. If you read their first link provided about the Assyro-Chaldean rite (the book is on google books), You see that it is also knows as Chaldean-rite; however, they haven't mentioned that in their article. They have only mentioned it to be know as Assyrian-rite!!!!! It should be corrected, don't you think? --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We aren't dealing with the Assyrian Church here, only the Chaldean Church.  The Assyrian Church needs to be dealt with on that Talk Page, not here.  (Taivo (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chaldean and Assyrian nationalists 

message: By "liturgy", I'm assuming that you mean the scriptures and ceremonial language of the church services.  I'm assuming that you mean "Syriac" in this sense--the language of the Middle Ages and the language of the Peshitta.  By "liturgical language", I'm assuming that you mean the language that sermons are given in and hymns are sung in.  I'm assuming that you mean the modern-day language of the Chaldeans--Chaldean Neo-Aramaic.  (Taivo (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am sorry. I missed that one after deleting the sentence. I am all for naming the language by the written form, Syriac. Thanks for correcting my mistake.--Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liturgy and Liturgical Language 

message: I have just seen that Mr. Shmayo suggested something about including a link to the name Chaldean/Assyrian/Syriac (The name shouldn't have Assyrians at the beginning of the suggested common name if you want to be consistent with the suggested Arabic name that your fellow Assyrian Nationalists are using to fool the ethnic Chaldeans). Nevertheless, if you had good intentions, you would've renamed Assyrian People article to represent the common name. If the name of your article is "Assyrian People", how do you expect us to believe its neutrality? It is like making an article about Mother Teresa and naming it Nazism. Does that make any sense? --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The name of that article needs to be discussed there, not here.  (Taivo (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Taivo, To keep a neutral article, there shouldn't be a link to an article where neutrality is disputed. Until that article is made neutral, this one should stay away from linking it.--Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, no, Tisqupnaia.  Links within Wikipedia are there and not really subject to the "reliability" of the other article.  The hope is that the other article is well-written, but it doesn't preclude appropriate links even when the other article isn't as good as it could be.  We leave it to the readers to decide whether the other article is useful or not.  We do not make value judgments on the links here.  (Taivo (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Article Titled [[Assyrian People]] 

message: There is something wrong in this article, not all Christians are Assyrian. Have many assyrians but not all are, some are Arab christians. They may be in religion but not necessarily in the ethnicity.My family are from the city of Mosul, go to Chaldean Church to attend but are not Assyrian ethnicity. There are many ethnic Arabs who are Christian or no religion. Therefore it is necessary to make this correction, for example my family can trace our background the various Christian tribes who came from Arabia (taghlib, Manathera and others). I am in fact an Arab who is Christian.Generally Christians living in cities for many years and do not speak Aramaic are the Arabs  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.120.247.2 (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you cease to speak your mother tongue that doesn't make you shift your ethnicity. Many Chaldeans/Assyrians do not speak Syriac but that doesn't make them something else. Just like an Irishman who lives in the US is still ethnically Irish. Your claim that you can trace your family back to pre-islamic Arab tribes is very intriguing. So is your family from Jbur? Albu Hamad? Taghleb? I guess you were probably an Assyrian who became Arabized by living in a major Arab city. Rafy talk 07:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnicity