Talk:Chaldean Catholics

Please brothers of Religion, we need change this discussion

unproductive soapboxing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There's been a big mistake, not necessarily religion can trace their ethnicity. This is an error which unfortunately today is causing wars in the world and we see a repeat of that here unfortunately.There are followers of the Chaldean Church who are Assyrians(generally those who come from villages in the Nineveh plain where there were tribes Assyrian), the Chaldeans are the ethnic that the descendant of the Babylonian people who also live in their villages and go to the Chaldean Church. Just as there are Arabs who are Christians and attend the Chaldean Church, some of these cities generally Mosul was inhabited by tribes in its founding of the Kingdom of Araba who were Arab tribes who founded the city of Hatra under a Parthian empire and were in Mosul and Iraq before Islam, as Manathera, Taghlib, Tayy and others who certainly have christians descendants in the major cities of Iraq. We can also mention that some Armenians Chaldean church goers. In this same way the church you attend does not trace their ethnicity, just as there are Muslims who are not Arabs. Even the followers of the Eastern Church and the Assyrian Church, not all are ethnically Assyrian, there are Arabs, Armenians and other ethnic groups. we will be debating that our whole life? We the christians, we have pray to a better world. The reality is we are all Semites and one people by faith, or Chaldean, Assyrian, Arabic and so are all of the Chaldean church and defend our belief that the world is peace and love. This type of discussion serves to divide rather than enhances our people. So let's save our strength to unite our people and do our best Iraq. God Bless all Brothers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salim1187 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC) You are completely wron, the Chaldean Catholics are Syriac Christians and a part of the Assyrian(Syriac) people, they are speaker or originally spoke the the Syriac Aramaic language, how you can say that they are Arabs or Armenian, the Armenians have their own Churches and their own Christian rite and are not adherents of the Chaldean Catholic Church, and they are certainly not arabs, no one of this Church identifies themself as a arab. Elvis214 (talk) 01:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

"Syriac language"

On that article, it is said that Chaldeans speak Syriac. I assure you that this language is long gone. Chaldeans and Assyrians speak Neo-Aramaic languages. I was reverted when I removed it from the language list. I didn't want to have a edit war, so I came here to start this very important discussion (or rather question) - Why is Syriac listed there when it doesn't exist anymore? Not to mention, shouldn't it be Chaldean Neo-Aramaic instead? That's what Chaldeans SPEAK after all. User:Meganesia (talk) 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Theoretically, all Assyrians/Chaldeans speak Syriac considering that their Neo-Aramaic dialects all originated from Syriac. Syriac, the old and first dialect itself, it still used by the respective Assyrian churches as well; so theoretically, they do use Syriac. ܐܵܬܘܿܪܵܝܵܐ 19:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

All the dialects spoken by the Assyrian people derive from the Imperial Aramaic of 8th century Assyria. Syriac evolved in Assyria during the 5th century BC. Actually the Neo Aramaic dialects have more archaic elements than Classical Syriac, and may well have overlaid the earlier Akkadian Assyrian, including loan words, family names and grammatical features that all come from Akkadian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.25.101 (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

There appears to be no single serious source for "Chaldeans" to be a distinct ethnicity

Neither in this article nor anywhere else do I see a serious source for "Chaldeans" to be a distinct ethnicity. Every serious academic source I know of describes the term "Chaldean" for contemporary people as an invention by early modernity European missionaries, to denote those ethnic Assyrian people who were willing to convert to the catholic church they had set up under that name. I recommend that the entire article be radically re-written. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the history needs to be rethought. I didn’t know anything about the Chaldean people until today. I saw ancient Chaldea and the Chaldeans, or should I say Babylon and the Babylonian people in a dream I woke from. In my dream the Chaldeans were black people elaborately dressed and they had black people as slaves. History into 600 BC does suggest that the Chaldeans were initially black. In fact, Nebuchadnezzar II king of the Chaldeans and Babylon did enslave the black Israelites after conquering them. This history is also written in the scriptures. As a matter of fact, in Daniel 2:1-23 the Chaldeans are mentioned by name. 2603:6080:4800:5E3F:8D10:EC7F:4762:EBB2 (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

That's not what the initial comment was about.

He wasn't here to talk about what race the Chaldeans could have been, but thanks for sharing anyway.

I argued for days with a Black Hebrew Israelite claiming that the Israelites were black, so I really don't want to have to go through that again. You can believe what you want dude. 92.40.215.18 (talk) 04:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Fine elaboration of mainstream academic view here: Terms for Syriac Christians#Chaldean and Chaldo-Assyrian identity -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I have now reworked the article to the point that only the "History" section has the fringe theory problem. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Found in the article history that only some months ago it had proper "Etymology" and "History" sections, restoring them, deleting the fringe section instead. Case closed. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Chaldeans are not Assyrians , they have a distinctive recognition in the Iraqi Constitution (Article 125), so you have no right to change what exists in the constitutions and the rights of the Chaldean people --FPP (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The Iraqi Constitution is by no means a source for your fringe theory. You delete huge amounts of well sourced mainstrem academic material, to replace it with unsourced fringe theory stuff. Stop it. If you have issues, go through the mainstream version section by section and say what issies you have, or improve yourself where you have sources. I am reporting your account now for edit-warring. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

First if you want dialogue you have to stop your edits and returns the article as it was, Iraq's constitution is not the source for you? so this your problem with iraqi constitution does not enter here I did not understand about what your claim, replace it with unsourced fringe theory stuff John Joseph, James Claudius, Encyclopaedia Britannica and the sources of the Chaldean Church and also from ancient Nestorian church itself, this is what historians except without all these reliable sources are present in the article, Therefore, this article has sufficient sources to be so--FPP (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The central claims of your "Chaldean nationalist" fringe theory version of the article have ZERO serious sources. Any relation of "Chaldean Christians" of today with the ancient people of the same name, that disappeared from historic records 2000 years ago, has ZERO serious sources. The entire "Chaldean nationalist" historic narrative you invent has ZERO serious sources. And your infobox has no sources. Your version of the article is plain inacceptable for Wikipedia. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry to tell you, that this claims is wrong, because the Chaldeans and present them with their own parties and the Church, current and Chaldeans are the same Chaldeans who brought down the Assyrian empire, and they were taken from their territories with the Medes I'm sorry to tell you that sources confirm what is in the article, including the ancient Nestorian Church sources in Hakkari, as well as the Nestorian Church sources in India, But if you have racist political vision towards the Chaldean, so this your problem, not my problem--FPP (talk) 00:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Your claim that the adherents of the Chaldean Catholic Church "are the same Chaldeans who brought down the Assyrian empire" is exactly the core of your fringe theory, on which you base your Chaldean nationalist version of the article, and for which you have ZERO serious sources (and for which you do not even try to offer any sources). -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

We are not assyrian

This speech is intended to manipulate the history of Chaldeans. Assyrian advocates are rewriting their history under false pretense, desperate attempts by Assyrians who are originally Chaldeans turned Nestorian. The Chaldean name is in the constitution of Iraq as a nationality. This speech is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin matti (talk • contribs) 06:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Please address the article and its sources in substance. There are plenty of good sources for stating that the Chaldean Catholic Church emanated from and its adherents by every measure are part of the ethnic Assyrian community. If you have doubts about that, you have to present sources. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 09:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Racist article against the Chaldeans, they serve political agendas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halabi younis (talk • contribs) 20:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Area of settlement

Can someone create an article like List of Chaldean settlements? 207.38.84.181 (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent Edits prompting the tags

Recent edits by an IP user(https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/2602:306:31B4:1C10:FDD8:D71B:A0BB:984E) to this and several other pages consistently make Chaldean Christians their own ethnic group rather than being Assyrian. I don't know enough about the subject matter to know if this is correct. However, similar past edits were reverted, and the current edits also make claims beyond what is in the cited sources. Thus the placement of the flags int he hopes they'll attract someone more knowledgeable. 2601:401:502:320A:44E6:16AF:15FF:6799 (talk) 03:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 8 September 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Chaldean Catholics. No such user (talk) 08:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Chaldean Christians → Chaldean Catholics – Per WP:Precise, and WP:Consistency on matters pertaining to the Catholic Church, including how the group is described in the arguably normative article Chaldean Catholic Church. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support. This article is about adherents of the Chaldean Catholic Church and therefore it should be moved to Chaldean Catholics, as proposed. Sorabino (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
• They are usually called simply "Chaldeans," but Catholic is better than Christian. Great scott (talk) 07:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge with Chaldean Catholic Church

Let's not make this more complicated than it has to be. Let's merge Chaldean Catholics with Chaldean Catholic Church. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

But I think it is more complicated than what you assume. I think the separate article Chaldean Catholics has merits on its own and discusses the Chaldean people more extensively to make the continuity of its article and further development essential in my point of view. In the Middle east in the absence of the ethnic minority entities, religious-related communities have truly political, social and cultural significance and relevance, far away from the strictly religious-related matters and affiliations. More clearly Chaldean Catholic ia not strictly an eastern Christian but also a separate social and cultural entity worthy of sovereignty and consideration. So Chaldean Catholic Church can handle mostly Chaldeans as a Christian religious community, whereas Chaldean Catholics is far wider than that and includes the history and present of a Chaldean "nation", a culture of language, literature, music, geography, sports, political representation, political parties and movements, Chaldean diaspora, human rights and aspirations etc, far beyond the srtict religious affiliation. In the same breath, Syriac people and culture in the Middle East is more than just the Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholic Churches. Same for Assyrians and the Assyrian Church and the Ancient Church of the East. Same for the Armenians of the Middle East and Armenians of the Ottoman Empire and the present Turkish Republic as more than just the Armenian Apostolic Church and the Armenian Catholic Church. Of course we know Assyrian nationalists would oppose the notion of the existence of a Chaldean nation as such, but Chaldeans consider themselves a nation and we should respect that and not subject ourselves to an aggesive and systematic Assyrian "fundamentalism" in this very crucial and sensitive issue pertaining to Chaldeans. I strongly oppose this proposed .merger and suggest even further expansion of Chaldean Catholics article perhaps with a merited change of title. But that cam be dealt with later in a separate discussion. werldwayd (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Support - I can see parts of this article being merged with Chaldean Catholic Church, but I think most of the info here would be much better suited for Assyrian people since it talks about the adherents of the church.

I think that having a separate article dedicated to Chaldean Catholics continues to carry a notion that they're a separate group or ethnicity compared to Assyrians, which isn't supported well academically. As can be seen in the Talk page archives and Edit history, the article is also prone to anonymous editing that carries these views of Chaldeans being separate from Assyrians. I don't know how to word it without sounding biased, but essentially with edits like this one linked[1], I think a merge would be good for the article Surayeproject3 (talk) 14:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Support – Merge Chaldean Catholics into Chaldean Catholic Church. There is no need to have two separate articles about the Church and its adherents. EXANXC (talk) 12:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Support - Just as there is no page for "Catholics" (or adherents of each of the 23 Eastern Catholic particular churches), there should be no page for "Chaldean Catholics". It's redundant, and its contents rightly belong in the article for the church itself. (To be clear, one of the Eastern Catholic churches has a separate pages for its adherent—Maronites—but I think that should be merged into its main page as well.) natemup (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Support - Chaldeans are not an actual ethnic group they are well known to be Assyrians, and since the page Syriac Orthodox Christians (Middle East) was erased a few years ago and merged with the Syriac Orthodox Church article and Assyrians article, I also propose this entire article be erased and be merged with Chaldean Catholic Church or Assyrians. If this page exists while Syriac Orthodox Christians (Middle East) remains erased, there is a bias that makes Chaldeans seem superior to other Assyrian ethnic groups since they continue to have their own page. HurryHurrian (talk) 10:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

That's a fairly solid point. natemup (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, as the length of the articles suggest that a merge would make an uncomfortably long article. It seems entirely reasonable to discussion the cultural identify from the church itself. It may be true that other stuff exists (or doesn't exist), but considering this particular case readers seems to best served by maintaining separate articles. Such articles are common, as can seen from the hundreds of articles in Category:Ethnoreligious groups. Klbrain (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, due to a substantial distinction between an ethnicity over an ecclesiastic body. Instead it seems apt to 'purify' the Chaldean Catholics article to concentrate on the peoples/culture and their geopolitical developments over ecclesiastic history and the "condition of the church". (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Introduction

@FPP: Hi, regarding your removal of the term "Assyrian" in the introduction, see naming conventions regarding Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac)#Name of the ethno-religious group as a whole and that the two first sources that were used clearly states that Chaldeans are part of the Assyrian continuity: Nisan 2002, page x: [2] and Travis 2010, page 238: "Although this usage is controversial among some Chaldean Catholics, it accurately conveys the fact that Nestorian, Syrian/Syriac, and Chaldean are religious denominations whose members are descended principally from the inhabitants of ancient Assyria". AntonSamuel (talk) 09:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@FPP: Answer to the post on my talk page: Here is a link to the passage from Travis 2010 I quoted: [3], The first source is of a treatise that deals with the history of Oriental Christian denominations, quite relevant for the case regarding adherents of the Chaldean Catholic Church, Hannibal Travis has written several internationally authorative works on the Armenian/Assyrian/Greek genocide and its relation to international law and human rights, so I wouldn't dismiss it or him because of his main profession being an expert on international law, the third source is an academic article from Simo Parpola, a professor of Assyriology, so I would hardly label the article as "bias from political assyrian journal". AntonSamuel (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@FPP: Answer to the second post on my talk page: The issue of Assyrian continuity itself is a larger one, and not the main source of contention here, there have been countless objections by editors on both sides of the argument on Wikipedia whether Chaldean Catholics should be referred to as Assyrians or not, and while the various modern identity labels that are used by people should be presented in a neutral and respectful manner, the fact of the matter remains that the majority of scholars today consider Eastern Neo-Aramaic speakers of the various Syriac Christian denominations in Northern Mesopotamia to be part of the same ethnic group, which is standard on Wikipedia to collectively refer to as Assyrians as I stated above. You've repeated the same arguments as before, but if you do have credible sources of contemporary academics that argue that Chaldean Catholics do not constitute part of the Assyrian continuity you're welcome to reopen that larger debate, however I doubt you will find many or this issue wouldn't have been settled in the manner that it currently is on Wikipedia. AntonSamuel (talk) 10:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments of priest on the naming dispute

Can anyone confirm the veracity of the 1996 lecture? If so, can a YouTube video be used a source? (see below)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGKkG3xrSP8

In a 1996 lecture entitled "Chaldeans in the 3rd millennium," the prelate Sarhad Yawsip Jammo, who today claims a Chaldean identity, was quoted as stating:

"When they gave us the name 'Chaldean,' they did not mean, did not mean, did not mean that they are from people of Babylon. No! No! No! Don't be dumps, all of us, including me, to think that my forefathers didn't understand that the once living in Tel Keppe and Alqosh, they didn't know that they were Assyrians. Our forefathers when they said 'Chaldeans,' how someone living in Tel Keppe doesn't know this Nineveh in front of his eyes that he is not from Babylon? It's not meant in that way. Our forefathers searched for a comprehensive title, not only for one time or one period, but the entirety of the people, all of it."

Herengracht005 (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Herengracht005

Contents

It seems that Ninnyçizzy and I are talking past each other rather than to each other. It is better to bring others to intervene.

You say that the article "Chaldean Catholics" must have the introductory phrase "This article is about ethnic Assyrian adherents of the Chaldean Catholic Church". I say that the question of whether Chaldean Catholics are "ethnic Assyrian" should be addressed within the article, not imposed as a preliminary prejudged definition. I personally accept that Chaldean Catholics fit into the generally accepted definition of ethnic Assyrians, but I do not exclude from the definition of "Chaldean Catholics" those members of the community who avoid that definition.

You see as inadmissible within the article "Chaldean Catholics" any mention that the term "Assyrian" can also refer to adherents of a particular Church distinct from the Chaldean Catholic Church. I hold that, if this article uses the term "Assyrian" (as it does), it ought to indicate the sense or senses in which it uses it.

@Ninnyçizzy: I am therefore seeking assistance for us on the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Bealtainemí (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Insistent redundancy

@Mugsalot:, @Ninnyçizzy:, why do you insist on adding "ethnic Assyrian" to the indication of the subject of the article as "adherents of the Chaldean Catholic Church"?

1. Do you mean to exclude any non-ethnic-Assyrians who for marriage or other reasons have become adherents of the Chaldean Catholic Church? Isn't that silly?

2. Do you mean that all the adherents are ethnic Assyrians? I accept, for my part, that they are ethnic Assyrians, just as I accept that they are human or intelligent, but I wouldn't dream of saying anything as silly as that the article is about human adherents or intelligent adherents of the Chaldean Catholic Church, nor that they are ethnic Assyrian adherents, which is what I believe they are.

3. Do you mean to insist that the adherents of the Chaldean Catholic Church are ethnic Assyrians in spite of the refusal of some of them to accept that fact, as some of them do? Such insistence may perhaps not be silly, but it is contrary to {{WP:POV]], as well as being something of an insult to those who do not accept the idea that you and I share. Bealtainemí (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The page clearly presupposes that it is referring to Chaldean Catholics as something more than ecclesiastical and the added layer is that they are ethnic Assyrians as represented by the statistics, culture and history detailed in the article. Therefore no, it does not include non-ethnic Assyrian adherents of the CCC. If it did then you would include a whole section here detailing the Chaldean Catholics in Kerala as well.

Furthermore, when did a subset of people refusing to accept a widely accepted fact as a fact become enough reason to omit the fact from an encyclopaedia?

Either the description should clearly state the page is referring to the Assyrian adherents of the Chaldean Church or not exist at all and be merged with the Chaldean Catholic Church wiki; as the information in this article exists in pages such as “Assyrian people”, “Assyrian Americans”, “Assyrians in Australia”, “Assyrians in Iraq”, “Chaldean Catholic Church” and “Terms for Syriac Christians”. Ninnyçizzy (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

“as well as being something of an insult to those who do not accept the idea”. Obfuscating to placate is not how you build an encyclopaedia. They would look a lot different if we omitted facts based on the possibility that people might be offended by them; or “insulted”. Ninnyçizzy (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I waited to see if Mugsalot would provide a more sensible explanation, but I find that you Ninny are the only one who have made an attempt.

The article is "Chaldean Catholics". Ninny-style "logic" demands that it be moved to something like "Chaldean Catholics who do not question being classified as Assyrians". Those who do question that designation are still Çhaldean Catholics, whether you like it or not. They are recognized as such by other Chaldean Catholics, whether you like it or not. They remain a subset of Chaldean Catholics, and the article is about Chaldean Catholics in general. It is not exclusively about the subset of those who accept that they ethnic Assyrians. Nor is it exclusively about those who, like Emmanuel III Delly, consider themselves Arameans. They too are Chaldean Catholics, and you have no right to exclude them from the definition of "Chaldean Catholics", any more than you have a right to exclude from "Chaldean Catholics" women Chaldean Catholics! Bealtainemí (talk) 09:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you please actually address my points instead of resorting to emotional arguments and ad hominem attacks. Ninnyçizzy (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Your ideas are off-topic, since, as pointed out, they concern not the existent article "Chaldean Catholics", but your imaginary articles such as "Chaldean Catholics who do not question being classified as Assyrians". Bealtainemí (talk) 13:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I am responding directly to your question of « why do you insist on adding “ethnic Assyrian” ». My point is quite clear. The article is evidently about ethnic Assyrian adherents of the church, as outlined by the history, identity and statistics section, and obviously not converts to the denomination or Chaldean Catholics in Kerala of different ethnic groups and histories. To convolute the ecclesiastical identity with a certain presupposed people is both misleading and ahistorical. Whether some people deny widely accepted facts is completely irrelevant to how you describe the contents of a Wikipedia page. You are making an emotional appeal to obfuscate the truth in order to placate to a subset of people who reject widely accepted fact. That is not how an encyclopaedia works. Ninnyçizzy (talk) 13:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Insistent redundancy from user Bealtainemí

The user is adamant on including: “Chaldean Catholics, while being ethnic Assyrians”...”are distinct from Assyrians in the sense of adherents of the Assyrian Church of the East”. This is a redundant and fallacious statement.

1. The ecclesiastical difference is the entire purpose for this pages existence.

2. The statement positions the “Assyrian” label uniquely to followers of the Assyrian Church of the East denomination, which is untrue and not supported in the pages of the included citations. Ninnyçizzy (talk) 13:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Let us hope that bringing the question to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard will be helpful for us. Bealtainemí (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Bealtainemí, I have never had much involvement with this article, and I don't plan on doing so any time soon, albeit this subject area is something I am moderately familiar with. I did worry you were one of the droves of POV users who advocate either Syriacs, Arameans, or Chaldeans are not Assyrians, but you clearly are not one of them, thankfully. I'm certain you're a decent editor, so I have no issue with your choice of wording in future. Mugsalot (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Mugsalot, warm thanks for your very kind words. I'm sure that you and people like you are able to resolve problems even as heated as this. Bealtainemí (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Bealtainemí, truthfully these problems only get resolved when the other user gets banned, e.g. the disagreement on Arameans which resulted in seven users getting banned in only two months. I would encourage you to pursue disciplinary action to save yourself the hassle of arguing with them endlessly. Mugsalot (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you please share the expert from the pages you have sourced such as page 41 of Yasmeens book to support the idea that the word “Assyrians” is spoken of exclusively regarding adherents of the Church of the East. Furthermore this naming argument doesn’t erase the fact that they are widely accepted as Assyrian and should not change the POV on the Alqosh page that you are editing Ninnyçizzy (talk) 09:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The article that you linked makes an assumption that the name is used alongside “Chaldean”, not in place of; and is not univocal. This is made clear by the following line “some adopt Assyro-Chaldean”. Furthermore the article does not substantialise or back up the claim “preferred ethnic name” at all. If you’re going to insist on including this redundant statement (as this page supposedly exists for the sole purpose of highlighting a difference in church and indefinite self identification) it should be worded correctly. Something along the lines of:

The terms Assyrian and Chaldean are occasionally used to unofficially describe the churches and their adherents; the Assyrian Church of the East and the Chaldean Catholic Church respectively.

makes more sense. Ninnyçizzy (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Lead

I see that my revert was restored again. My suggestion is to revert back to the lead in the edit above, per the discussion above, and based on the fact that the term added to the lead now is not supported by any source. The current source is obviously not referring to this group. Shmayo (talk) 13:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Assyrians?

Why does this page claim they are ”ethnic assyrians” when the clearly aren’t also majority of chaldeans dont make that claim as does their church. Also assyrians/nestorians used to be termed as ’Chaldean Nestorians’ or ’east Syrians’ (Arameans) and not ’assyrians’. 83.250.115.18 (talk) 15:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

The Chaldean were black?

I didn’t know anything about the Chaldeans until 05/22/2024. I woke from a dream about black Chaldeans being the slavers of black people. The dream was so vivid. I woke to research just who were the Chaldeans? Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Chaldeans and of Babylon. He enslaved Israel. The Bible tells the story of Daniel and Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. However, in my dream the Chaldeans were black but recent photos of them show that they are white. My research into 600 BC history of the Chaldeans does suggest that the Chaldeans were black people. So, who are the white Chaldeans and where did they come from? 2603:6080:4800:5E3F:8D10:EC7F:4762:EBB2 (talk) 13:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)