Talk:Tesqopa

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Assyria Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Assyria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Assyrian-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.AssyriaWikipedia:WikiProject AssyriaTemplate:WikiProject AssyriaAssyrian articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Iraq Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is a

]

What a mess!

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)[reply]

To all so called Assyrians, this is not the place for your spams. You have your own villages, go spam there. We, the people of Tel Skuf, will take care of presenting our village, and we'll make sure it will remain Chaldean. Tel Skuf will never become Assyrian. If you decide to step on our toes again, we will do the same to you and we'll make sure to spam on your articles. You have been warned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tisqupnaia2010 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are new to Wiki, so you might not know how things work here. First, learn to contribute positively and not just get into edit wars over a single word. Second, understand that it has been accepted in Wikipedia's academic society that Chaldean Catholics are a subgroup of Assyrian people. Unless you can prove otherwise, don't get yourself into meaningless edits like these. Iraqi (talk) 07:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been accepted in "Wikipedia's academic society" that Assyrian nationalists have a carte blanche to Assyrianize Chaldean articles. This is no different to an Arab nationalist inserting "Arab" all over the Iraqi, Syrian, Egyptian etc articles. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

understand that it has been accepted in Wikipedia's academic society that Chaldean Catholics are a subgroup of Assyrian people. Read this again and try to understand. This is much different than the thing you're talking about. Shmayo (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why bother commenting if that is all you can say? was it just a quick excuse to justify a revert. My previous comment is very easily understood. Fanatic Assyrian nationalists have been having their cake and eating it on Wikipedia, it seems, for too long. You're just causing disruption at every opportunity. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been accepted, I suppose, that Tunisians, Egyptians, Syrians, Iraqis, and others are all subgroups of

Arab people, based on language, but this doesn't mean that they all elevate 'Arab' ethnicity above their own, and it wouldn't be justified for Arab nationalists to gratuitously Arabize their articles. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Chaldeans are NOT a sub-group of Assyrians. Just by bullying Wikipedia, you won't make it a fact. The fact is that these are two separate groups. Here is an advice: To unite people, you don't eliminate 80% of them. --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose, that Tunisians, Egyptians, Syrians, Iraqis, and others are all subgroups of Arab people 1. No. These are nationalities. Just because someone is Iraqi (=from Iraq) doesn't mean he is Arab. 2. Bad comparison. We're talking about the church denomination here. Chaldean Catholics are Assyrians. Shmayo (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

To Mr. Shmayo ----

You really don't seem to be getting it. Assyrians and Chaldeans are new names given to the two separate groups that resulted from the split of

Tel Skuf does not belong to the Chaldean Catholic Church

.

Until you can prove that, Telskuf will remain Chaldean.--Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About Assyrian and Chaldeans, see my answer Talk:Chaldean Christians#Chaldean and Assyrian nationalists. About "Suraya/Suryoyo", your topic below. Assyrian people is the most common name on our people, so that's why the article is called so. And "Suraya" is enough proof (even if more is written in your topic below). I know that the people of Tel Skuf belong to the Chaldean Catholic Church, and their ethnicity is Assyrian. Shmayo (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, simply saying things are true because you said so is not a proof. I am a man of science, and I know that when you argue something, you have to present your proof. This is known to everyone who is beyond 4th grade. The problem with you,

Tel Skuf belongs to the Chaldean Catholic Church; however, you should present us with facts stating that the people living in the Plain of Mosul (including the people of Tel Skuf) before the split of the Church of the East are ethnic Assyrians. Don't forget to have neutral sources, sources from other Assyrian nationalists will not prove your point. I have presented you with my sources that clearly state that the name Assyrians surfaced after the church split. the ethnicity of both Chaldeans and Assyrians was East Syrians before the schism^[1].--Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

As I've told you a several times "Syrian" is derived from "Assyrian" (see sources below). Yes, we were called Assyrians even before the church split. For example, in the 6th century there was 13 munks who visited Georgia who was called the "thirteen Assyrian fathers" (in Georgian atsamet'i asureli mamani)[2]^[3](commonly known, just search for more sources about them). The Christian writer Tatian called himself Assyrian.^[4] The Syriac Orthodox patriarch Michael The Great said that we are Assyrian, and even said that Syrians comes from Assyrians^[5] And in a letter from Pope Paul V to the Persian king Shah Abbas I 1612 he wrote: "Those in particular who are called Assyrians or Jacobites and inhabit Isfahan will be compelled to sell their very children in order to pay the heavy tax you have imposed on them, unless You take pity on their misfortune.""^[6] (Jacobite meaning Syriac Orthodox). So, there you had some neutral sources telling us people where called Assyrians. I'm pretty sure there is plenty more. Shmayo (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have protected the article from editing in order to stop the

]

Here's a starting point for this conversation: Nothing in this article is

talk) 19:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You are historically wrong. There is no such thing as Assyrian ethnicity. The people who identify themselves as Assyrians are in no way related to the ancient Assyrians. The two names, "Assyrians" and "Chaldeans", have been given after the Church of the East split. Those who united with the Catholic Church became Chaldeans, and the others became Assyrians. Thus both parties have equal status that is separated only by their religious affiliation and NOT by their ethnicity. They could both belong to the Ancient Assyrians or the Ancient Chaldeans, but no one can tell for sure. Some could argue that since these people are living in northern Iraq, they must be Assyrian (relating them to the lands of Assyria); however, you should know that Chaldea in 612 BC destroyed Nineveh and the Assyrian empire. In its place, Chaldeans set up a new empire. So, those people living in the north could as well be Chaldeans. Thus, your argument has no basis! The irony, however, is that those who did not unite with the Catholic Church set up a page with the title "Assyrian People", which ignores all History and claims things that we both know are wrong but still expect Wikipedians to believe it. Moreover, you keep on relating to it as if it is the Bible!! ..... instead of presenting false information, perhaps it is time for you and your people to start acknowledging others. A good start would be stating your real identity (User: Chaldean), rather than masking it with the name: Iraqi. --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 08:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The people who identify themselves as Assyrians are in no way related to the ancient Assyrians. and later They could both belong to the Ancient Assyrians or the Ancient Chaldeans. So, how is it? Haha, you're saying two different things.

They could both belong to the Ancient Assyrians or the Ancient Chaldeans, but no one can tell for sure. Some could argue that since these people are living in northern Iraq, they must be Assyrian (relating them to the lands of Assyria); however, you should know that Chaldea in 612 BC destroyed Nineveh and the Assyrian empire...

The Assyrians continued living in their cities after fall of Nineveh. Just because the Medes and the Babylonians took controll over the area doesn't mean the whole Assyrian population was changed out and suddenly only Medes and Babylonians lived there. But the biggest proof is of course what we call ourselves. Suraya/Suroyo, which people from all the three church denomination use, comes from Aššurayu. So we've allways called ourselves Assyrians. Shmayo (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, the two things I mentioned are not different. The so called "Assyrians" are NOT related to the ancient Assyrians. If you have any historical evidence to prove your claim that they are, I dare you to present it. Can you present an evidence of how many were killed in that war? can you present evidence of how many Ancient Chaldeans settled in that region? That's what I meant by "they could both belong to either".

Second, Saying that the word "Suraya" (Syriac: ܣܘܪܝܐ) comes from the word "Assyrian" (Syriac: ܐܫܘܪܝܐ) is the worst argument that I have heard from a non-Chaldean. Anyone who knows Aramaic knows that there is a big difference between the letters (ܣ and ܐܫ). If you claim that the rest of the word namely (ܘܪܝܐ) is the same (which by the way means "of or from" in Aramaic, but it is not a stand alone word), then you should know that there are many more words that share the same letters (ܟܘܪܝܐ "Korean" is an example. Are Koreans Assyrians too!???). Please, do some research before you post your claims. You are simply copying the fallacies presented by others like you without any research.

Let me tell you (and every one who's reading this) the real word that your name comes from which you're trying by all means to hide. In your accent of Aramaic (Arabic: اثوري), you call yourselves (Syriac: ܐܬܘܪܝܐ or ܐܜܘܪܝܐ) (both read atoo-rah-yey) depending on the region you come from. This word, in Aramaic, means "the men of the mountains", which is where you guys are located. It has nothing to do with the word "Assyrian". The word you have hijacked, "Suraya" (Syriac: ܣܘܪܝܐ), has only one meaning which is "Christian" (i.e. The person who believes in Jesus Christ), and it is not derived from the word "Assyrian". Linguistics is a science that could easily prove the fallacy of your claim. I hope that you and your people will start doing some real research to present some real evidence (I am sure you can't cause there is none). --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is evidences showing that Assyrians continued living in the area, for example: This is what Cyrus II said: "From Nineveh, Assura and Susa, Akkad, Eshnunna, the towns Zamban, Me-turnu, Der as well as the region of the Gutium, I returned to these sacred cities on the other side of the Tigris the sanctuaries of which have been ruins for a long time, the images which used to live therein and established for them permanent sanctuaries. I also gathered all their former inhabitants and returned them to their habitations."^[7], and Assyrians can be found in a list of peoples living in the Persian empire.^[8] I've done more research regarding this! The etymology of Syria/Syrian is clear. If you want to call it "the worst argument", do so, but please read all these and then say something about the etymology of the word: ^{[9][10][11][12][13]}. I'm pretty sure you'll understand that it's clear to most people that the orgin of the word is Assyria/Assyrian. What do you know what I'm calling myself? I call myself Suraya/Suryoyo, which I see as a synonym to Atouraya/Othuroyo. And to your theory about "the men from the mountain", I can just laugh about that. Atouraya/Othuroyo is spelled "ܐܬܘܪܝܐ" , with "taw" (ܬ) not with "teth" (ܜ). Mountain however, is spelled with teth (ܜܘܪܐ). So there is no truth in that. And Suraya/Suryoyo does absolutely not mean christian. The word for christian is Mshekhaya/Mshihoyo. Of course I understand what you mean, because Suraya/Suryoyo almost became a synonym to christian for our people in the home land, this because the people living next to us where muslims. So it's not strange that you connect Suraya/Suryoyo with christian, but to say that the word actually mean christian is so wrong. I can't remember hearing anybody calling the christians living closest to us, the Armenians, Suraya/Suryoyo. Of course this because this word doesn't mean chritian. Please again, read the sources I posted. Shmayo (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources proves that the people of the Plain of Mosul are ethnic Assyrians. Your argument is that these people are ethnically Assyrians. Well, you should present sources that prove what you said not just go around it by some naming argument. The people of the Plain of Mosul are ethnically East Syrians^[14]. You have a problem regarding dating. current day Assyrians are not related to the Ancient Assyrians. You have to understand this. The name of the current day Assyrians surfaced after the split of the Church of the East. I don't think that the Persian Empire or Cyrus II existed at this point. You are living the dream of the common Assyrian Nationalist who believes that current day Assyrians are descendants of the Ancient Assyrians. None of you is able to present any historical facts that back your claim, yet you are having a sort of Assyrian Fascism to change any fact that goes against your beliefs without presenting any proof, in the hopes that one day, after so many lies people will start believing you. Wake up. People have gotten smarter. They will not buy your lies without historical proofs. Until you can get those proofs, try to find some library and read some history. --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The people of the Plain of Mosul are ethnically East Syrians" See there! You said it yourself! I just gave you five very, very good sources showing you the etymology of that word. But of course you ignore that. "who believes that current day Assyrians are descendants of the Ancient Assyrians." Then tell me what we are my friend! I proved Assyrians survived fall of Nineveh and that they were still living in the Nineveh plains. The same place, same language and we are calling ourselves Suraye/Suryoye, which I've already explained the etymology. How can we be anything else?! And yes, I can give you proof that we've been called Assyrians before the church split and before Henry Layarad was born. But I want to hear from you? Are we East Syrians as you said? Well good, I've explained (with excellent sources) where "Syrians" come from. Shmayo (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Shmayo: I said that we were called East Syrian, and I proved it from the same source that I used to prove we are different denominations, No thanks to you. You seem to be going on circles spreading your Assyrian Fascism. You first said there are no Chaldeans. When you couldn't prove that, you started moving toward proving the origins of a word that Assyrian Fascist have hijacked. So, don't come here trying to sound like you have won a debate! The fact still is that you have admitted that

Chaldean Christians. So, to make it simple for you to understand, You said: Tel Skuf --> Chaldean Catholic Church --> Chaldean Christians as members --> Chaldeans. Thanks for proving my point. Even though this proves my point, I would want you (an others) to understand that Chaldeans have been calling themselves Chaldeans for ,at least, the past 600 years. Assyrian Fascists will not change this fact, and they will not impose their will over that of 2.5 million Chaldeans. It doesn't matter what Assyrian think of Chaldeans, for we don't care about what you think. We have the will to call ourselves Chaldeans as we have always done. Just by spamming Wikipedia with your fascist fallacies, you'll not change that. I just have a question to ask you: Why do you keep on attacking any article in Wikipedia that has the word "Chaldean" in it? Why do you have these Assyrian Fascist views?--Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 04:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

According to Wikipedia standards we will use the term which is used most, and it has come to Wikipedias attention that the term "Assyrian" is used more in the English language worldwide than the "Chaldean" or "Aramean" or "Syriac" ones. Therefore we shall have Tel Skuf as an Assyrian village belonging to the Chaldean Church. Religious denomiations do not make you another distinct people. E.g. Brazilians who are Roman Catholic are not anywhere Roman in ethnicity but only Roman Catholic in religion. In the same way the Chaldeans are only Chaldeans by faith and Assyrians in ethnicity. In the recent elections the Assyrian Democratic Movement managed to win 3/5 seats and yet we have a religious Chaldean majority, how do you explain this even though thousands of votes for the ADM were thrown? I am an Assyrian of the Syriac Orthodox Church and we need to accept facts and embrace true nationalism. By the way, most Chaldeans in Europe are Assyrians. --Yohanun (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Yohanun: Here we go again, another Assyrian Fascist. Spamming Wikipedia doesn't change the fact that there are 2.5 million Chaldeans who identify themselves as Chaldeans of the Chaldean ethnicity. As I said before, Chaldeans and Assyrians are denominations that surfaced after the split of the Church of the East. However, as we both know, each became a distinct ethnicity. The Congress of the United States of America itself identified us as different^[15]. Assyrians have never identified themselves with Chaldeans. Are you willing to say you are a Chaldean? I don't think you are! Chaldeans are a different denomination and a different ethnicity. Your fascist views are directly connected to the fact that you have less population than that of the Chaldean ethnicity. You dealt with this by forcing the Assyrian ethnicity over the Chaldeans. As for elections, they don't prove anything. However, I would love to see where you have got that information from just to laugh at your source. As for you, Assyria 90 or Yohanun as you call yourself. You are free to embrace your true nationality, but don't tell me what to embrace. I am as free as you're to embrace my true ethnicity, Chaldean.--Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 04:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop saying all Chaldean Catholic identify themselves as an distict ethnic group. As Yohanun said, ADM won in many Chaldean Catholiv villages (see election result). And again, read US census, we are called Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs ^[16] Shmayo (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't identify ourselves as Assyrians, Shmayo. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you don't, but many, many Chaldean Catholics do. Shmayo (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Shmayo: Chaldean Catholics are a distinct ethnicity whether you like it or not. What you, and other Assyrian Nationalist, say doesn't change that for a very simple reasons: You are fascists. Like many who came before you, you'll seize to exist, and the 2.5 million Chaldeans will keep their Chaldean ethnicity as they have always done. Unlike you, I am not politically motivated. I wouldn't mind having ethnic Chaldeans vote for ethnic Assyrians, After all we are both Christian minorities. However, we both know Assyrians don't think of it that way. You use other minorities to serve your fascist views. Once in power, you ignore all those who voted for you, simply because the are from another ethnicity (Chaldean ethnicity). I would rather have us united, but never under the power of fascists. As long as people like you want to force their fascist views over the other two ethnic groups (Chaldeans and Syriac), there will never be real unity amongst our people. By the way, NO CHALDEAN identifies himself as Assyrian. Just because Chaldeans don't spam Wikipedia, it doesn't mean they accept the name Assyrians. --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to remind everyone of Wikipedia's policy on
  talk) 20:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

You know that Chaldean Catholics wouldn't vote for ADM if they didn't identify themselves as Assyrian. There were pro-Chaldean parties, why didn't they vote for them? So stop saying no Chaldean Catholic identify himself Assyrian, because there are many. And again, just ask User:Chaldean. Shmayo (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can not understand that you're actually saying those words. Who are these Assyrian terrorist?! All Christians in Iraq are oppressed, by Muslims. They really don't oppress each other. Nestorians, Chaldean Catholics, Syriac Orhodoxes/Catholics are oppressed becaused they are Christians, why are you making it look like something else? You're just trying to get support here, so absurd. Shmayo (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that Assyrians and Chaldeans disagree on is their ethnicity. I believe that once anything relating to the ethnicity is removed, there would be no warring.
What I propose is that since both sides agree that the people of

who are comonly known as Chaldeans, we should make the intro read as follows:

Tel Skuf (Syriac: ܬܠܐ ܙܩܝܦܐ Tilla Zqeepa; Arabic: تللسقف) is a town located approximately 19 miles (about 28 Kilometres) north of members of the Chaldean Catholic Church.

I have made two changes to remove any notion of ethnicity. First, I removed the first Chaldean word from the first line so that no ethnic identity is given. Second, I have corrected "vast majority" since all are Chaldean Christians. Also, the link states the common name of Chaldean Christians and it directs viewers to the right page explaining the denomination of the people of Tel Skuf. Of course this should be backed by keeping the current ]

There's still a problem with "Chaldeans who are members of..." It sounds like an ethnic group. A better wording would be:

Tel Skuf (Neo-Aramaic: ܬܠܐ ܙܩܝܦܐ Tilla Zqeepa; Arabic: تللسقف) is a town located approximately 19 miles (about 28 Kilometres) north of

Chaldean Christians

.

With this wording, it is entirely tied to church membership and the hint of ethnic identification is gone. An interested reader can click on the wikilink to find out what it means to be a Chaldean Christian. (Taivo (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I will go with the proposed change by

Tel Skuf

: Tel Isqof, Teleskuf, Telleskuf, Telsquf, Tesqopah, and Tisqopah. So, the intro would be as follows:

Tel Skuf (Neo-Aramaic: ܬܠܐ ܙܩܝܦܐ Tilla Zqeepa; Arabic: تللسقف) (also known as: Tel Isqof, Teleskuf, Telleskuf, Telsquf, Tesqopah, and Tisqopah) is a town located approximately 19 miles (about 28 Kilometres) north of

Chaldean Christians

.

I know that this is tedious, but I would rather have it done once and for all to make everyone happy, including those who might not like the spelling of the english name. This could be a good first step toward stopping name warring in other

Chaldean Christian villages like: Alqosh, Baqofah, Batnaya, and Tel Keppe --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 06:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Why do you leave out the ethnicity? As Taivo says, it looks like Chaldeans are an ethnic group now when you're saying "Chaldeans who are members of...", so as the reached conscious on the name of the people it should be "Assyrians members of the Chaldean Catholic Church", which both show their ethnicity and which religious group they are members of. And just to show that this is just to remove things that you don't like, see this sentence which you edited: "to the hill next to it that contains the ruins of an ancient Chaldean town." Is this a joke? Clearly shows what your interest are. Shmayo (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shmayo, your comment shows that you haven't actually read the proposed change to the text above. You are still reading the text as it currently stands in the article. READ the proposed changes above in our comments before you go off half-cocked again. (Taivo (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

My answer to the proposed change was Why do you leave out the ethnicity?. Shmayo (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly because it is contentious. You are insisting on the term "Assyrian", but Tisqupnaia wants the term "Chaldean". There is no contention over the fact that the residents of this town are Chaldean Christians. I find the Assyrian insistence that Chaldeans be called "Assyrians" rather disturbing. (Taivo (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Me and the people who have actually discussed this topic in the Talk:Assyrian people want the ethnic name to be "Assyrians". Just because most of the people are Chaldean Catholic it doesn't mean that it should say "* is a Chaldean Catholic village", just as articles on Kurdish villages doesn't say "* is a Sunni Islamic village." Shmayo (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shmayo: Is any of the people "who have actually discussed" this topic Chaldean? Do you have a proof or were you authorized by the Chaldean people to have their ethnicity renamed to Assyrian? Just by saying that "you and others want the ethnic name to be Assyrians" proves my claim that Chaldeans don't consider themselves Assyrians. Moreover, it seems that

Talk:Tel_Skuf#Clarification)!! Why do you hate the term Chaldean that much? what do you have against Chaldeans? Why can't you leave them decide what they should be called?--Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Shamyo, I have read the discussion at Talk:Assyrian people and you are mistaken. The consensus that was built there was only for the title of the article, not for the content or a Wiki-wide policy. Chaldeans don't want to be called "Assyrian", Syriacs don't want to be called "Assyrian", only the Assyrians want to be called "Assyrian". Half of the people voting for the title of the article wanted the article to only be about the Assyrians and to have separate articles for the Chaldeans and Syriacs. You're misrepresenting the facts. (Taivo (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

** Nothing else to be Said **
Dear Mr.

,
After the excellent work of ), I must add one last thing. When I didn't have any sources (beside my word and that of my people) I offered Mr. Shmayo giving up on my Chaldean ethnicity by excluding it from the article and keeping only the reference to the religious denomination of the village to stop warring. However, he refused my generous offer. Now, Thank God, with the help of two generous gentlemen who were willing to give my humble village their precious time, we know and have proved that this is a Chaldean village. It is for this that I must now refuse giving up on my ethnicity. I have to ask you to please keep the intro exactly the way it is in the article (after adding the correct name). This is only to teach Mr. Shmayo that such misleading attempts against ethnic affiliations of others are not appreciated in Wikipedia. He did seem to know before hand that there was no consensus regarding his claim about Chaldean Ethnicity.
My deepest thanks to you, Prof. Taivo, and Dr. Wilmshurst. --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 03:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is any of the people "who have actually discussed" this topic Chaldean? Yes,

User:Dbachmann) revert articles about independent Chaldean and Syriac people, then what's conscious? Shmayo (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

"And just to show that this is just to remove things that you don't like, see this sentence which you edited: "to the hill next to it that contains the ruins of an ancient Chaldean town." Is this a joke? Clearly shows what your interest are" I wrote that before (bad temperament, sorry). But I'm reverting it to the old right. Shmayo (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading this and wondering, "Why do the Assyrians want to call the Chaldeans 'Assyrian'?" Why is it so important? Usually, the reason why one ethnic group wants to appropriate another is for political reasons that have nothing to do with Wikipedia. I see this in Ukrainian articles all the time, where Ukrainian nationalists want to remove all reference to the Russian language even in articles about cities where nearly the entire population speaks Russian as their native language. If the majority of Chaldeans want to be known as "Chaldean", then Wikipedia should reflect that fact. It's all a question of numbers. Here in the Wikipedia world, the fundamental question is "Do the majority of Chaldeans (in the real world) want to be known as 'Chaldean' or 'Assyrian'?" What are the sources? I don't want to hear, "X says he wants to be known as an Assyrian" or "Y says he wants to be known as a Chaldean". Are there any sources that talk about what the majority of Chaldeans want to be called? The U.S. Census doesn't actually support Shmayo's view that all Assyrians, Chaldeans, and Syriacs are "Assyrian". It supports the view that all three are distinctly labelled and that the differences between them aren't relevant for counting United States citizens. It has nothing to do with facts on the ground in Iraq. So, very briefly, what is the reason you are fighting the Chaldeans, Shmayo? Why do you care? Why do you want them to be Assyrians? (Taivo (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Taivo, "If the majority of Chaldeans want to be known as "Chaldean"" As you said, this is a very important question. I don't know if you read this above, but just look at the elections in Iraq and see the result. This is the best way to see how the people think. There were 6 Christian lists in the election. ADM (

Chaldean Democratic Union Party two other. The result is posted in the article of Assyrian elections in Iraq. See especially the Chaldean Catholic villages (Tel Keppe, Tel Skuf, Alqosh...). You'll see that mostly these two pro-Chaldean parties' results were jokes. The two Christian parties didn't win a seat, even though most Assyrians in Iraq are Chaldean Catholic. And just see the user which have contributed most to Assyrian-related articles, User:Chaldean

, he identify himself as an Assyrian (same with EliasAlucard). Okay, now you didn't want any "X says he wants to be known as an Assyrian" etc., but just see the election reslut. That two nationalist Chaldeans are starting to say "No Chaldean identify himself Assyrian" doesn't mean it is that way. Many of the people who have written all about Assyrian are Chaldean Catholics!

It's not just me on Wikipedia that see Chaldean Catholics as a part of the Assyrian people, as I said this is actually conscious reached in the talk pages. What makes the ethnic article to be called Assyrian is because that's the common name. Me myself I'm a member of the Syriac Orthodox Church, but I know that this people (belonging to the Chaldean Catholic Church, the Nestorian Church and the Syriac Orthodox/Catholic churches) ethnically is called Assyrians. Shmayo (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shmayo, citing election results as evidence of an ethnic label is ridiculous. It is no evidence whatsoever. People vote for who they want to vote for because of politics, not because they say "I want to be called 'Assyrian', so I'll cast a secret ballot for an Assyrian". That's utterly ridiculous reasoning. So I ask you again, do you have any actual, tangible evidence that the majority of Chaldeans want to be called "Assyrian"? (Taivo (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Then what kind of evidence do you want, Taivo? If the only pro-Assyrian party won most Christian seats in a country were most Christians are Chaldean Catholic then isn't obvious what they consider themselves to be?! Please also read the discussion I and Tisqopnaya2010(?) had about the word Suraya. Shmayo (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read

WP:MOSMAC2, then other discussions don't apply to this discussion necessarily. I've looked at Talk:Assyrian people and don't see any consensus there. I see a continuing argument from Chaldeans that they don't want to be called "Assyrian". (Taivo (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC))[reply

]

Who is anybody to say that Chaldeans wants to be called anything? Do you mean like an historian saying Chaldean Catholics are Assyrians? Because otherwise I really don't know what you're asking for. And in the same way, find a source saying Chaldean Catholics want to be called ethnical Chaldeans. I'm sure we can't find the source you're looking for (if there isn't a person that have not asked all Chaldean Catholics what they identify themselves as, lol). So looking at the talk page the Assyrian name should be used as an ethnic name. How can you even say there is no consensus there? Please check the archive and see the voting about this. It's been discussed! And even if Talk:Assyrian people isn't an "official" page to discuss the whole name controversy, this is the page that allways have been used. One thing you also should now is that many Chaldean nationalist mean that the whole people (members of CCC, ACOE, SOC) are Chaldeans. Of course this isn't spread that wide because the people saying we're Chaldeans aren't many. Again, don't forget that the majority of us are Chaldean Catholic, but still the organisations and parties promoting the Assyrian name are the biggest. Shmayo (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't provided any sources for any of your statements, Shmayo. First, if there is a group of people who call themselves "Chaldean", that's the default position. If people live in Brazil, we don't have to prove that calling them "Brazilians" in English is the right thing to do. Members of the Chaldean Catholic Church are "Chaldeans" just as members of the Roman Catholic Church are "Catholics". It's a no-brainer in English. If you are asserting that Chaldeans don't want to be called "Chaldean", but want to be called "Assyrian", then you are required to give evidence of that based on

reliable sources. Election results are not a reliable source for purposes of establishing a name. I have voted for Republicans in the past, but that doesn't mean that I want to be called a "Republican". The U.S. Census is not a reliable source because that is simply relevant to the U.S. Government for counting purposes, not to an ethnic or religious community in Iraq. Do you have reliable academic sources that deal with the name of the group? This isn't hard. Just get me reliable evidence. So far, you're just quoting some discussion which I cannot verify. If a consensus was reached at some point, then you should be able to link to it. But so far, all I see on the Talk:Assyrian people page is continued resistance by Chaldeans on being called "Assyrian". That's not a consensus. The fact that Chaldeans are still opposed to the designation means that the consensus is either outdated or was not a true consensus at the time. (Taivo (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC))[reply

]

"First, if there is a group of people who call themselves "Chaldean", that's the default position." And who have said that they want to be called Chaldeans? Their old patriarch (Mar Raphael J Bidawid) have stated that their ethnicity is Assyrian[17](an interview: 1) Yes, religiously they are Chaldean Catholic (a name the pope gave the church) but the they are really not related to the Chaldeans of Chaldea. Assyriologists have even stated that modern day Chaldeans are Assyrians.^[18] You must at the same time understand that it's a difference in these parties, so it's a bad comparison. ADM is an ethnic Assyrian party. In archive 9 you can see voting and long discussion about this. Of course there still are some people saying "we are Arameans", "we are Chaldeans", etc. but Assyrians is the common name. See whole archive 9. And something I've tried to explain a several times now. See the artice Assyrian people, it's actually about the whole Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people. All the flags are there and so on. But again, it's called Assyrian people because it's the

]

I'm just going to comment on things as I read and examine them. This isn't my final statement on your sources. The interview is worthless because it's not in English, so it says nothing about English terms for these people. The article by Parpola is 99% irrelevant because it's not about the modern people, but about the ancient empire. Apples and oranges. There is one quote, however, that contradicts your assertion that the term "Assyrian" covers the Chaldeans (pg 22):

Ironically, as members of the Chaldean Catholic Church established in 1553, many modern Assyrians originating from central Assyria now identify themselves as “Chaldeans”, a term inevitably associated with the Babylonian dynasty that destroyed Nineveh and the Assyrian Empire!

How much clearer do you need? Chaldeans want to be called "Chaldean". It's a

reliable source saying exactly what the Chaldeans have been telling you and you have been ignoring. (Taivo (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC))[reply

]

I read the discussion in Archives 8 and 9 at Assyrian people and you have completely misrepresented the consensus that was built there, Shmayo. The consensus was only for the purpose of naming the article. It did not apply to a Wikipedia-wide policy of naming the Chaldeans "Assyrians". Indeed, the "consensus" was not very strong when it came to combining Syriacs and Chaldeans within the Assyrian people article. The vote only affected the name of the article--no other naming issues were included. Beyond the name of the article "Assyrian people", you are wrong to be pushing "Assyrian" throughout Wikipedia in these articles that clearly affect only the Chaldean group. (Taivo (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

...it's actually about the whole Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people. All the flags are there and so on. But again, it's called Assyrian people because it's the

]

I know

User:Dbachmann and have worked with him on other articles. I read his comments at Talk:Assyrian people especially closely and you can't call him as a reference for uniting Assyrian, Chaldean, and Syriac people under the term "Assyrian". He opposed the single name "Assyrian" and wrote a very long comment that blasted the "consensus" on changing the name of "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people" to simply "Assyrian people". The consensus was only for the title of the article Assyrian people. It did not extend to calling all these groups "Assyrian" wherever they were encountered. Indeed, the main reason that people cited for having the simple title was Wikipedia policy, not to reflect some kind of actual unity in fact. (Taivo (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC))[reply

]

I didn't say he want to unite the people under the name Assyrian. He say and have done many times that it is the same people. Now just because they followed

WP:common name

, does mean they want Assyrians to be the umbrella name. Of course there are people calling themselves Chaldeans. But he didn't mean that all Chaldean Catholics do so. Chaldeans don't want to be called "Assyrian", Syriacs don't want to be called "Assyrian", only the Assyrians want to be called "Assyrian". Now this is so false. I said it before, myself I'm a "Syriac" (member of the Syriac Orthodox Church), but I see myself as an ethnic Assyrian, and so do all my relatives. Most of our people in Sweden are Syriac Orthodox, still there is a football team (started by Syriac Orthodoxes) called Assyriska FF, an Assyrian association started by Syriac Orthodoxes and so on. The same with Chaldean Catholics. I've seen Chaldean Catholic Churches with the Assyrian flag inside, and some even called "Assyrian Chaldean Catholic Church". Shmayo (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have still provided no

reliable evidence of the majority of Chaldeans wanting to be called "Assyrian". One of the sources you posted earlier said exactly the opposite. (Taivo (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC))[reply

]

It did not. Again, it's an ethnic party, and it won in most Chaldean Catholic villages. Because we are not getting a better source than that on what Chaldean Catholics consider themselves as. Shmayo (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you neither read your own source, nor read my quote of it. It's from your Parpola source which says, "Ironically, as members of the Chaldean Catholic Church established in 1553, many modern Assyrians originating from central Assyria now identify themselves as “Chaldeans”." That's pretty clear. And election results mean absolutely nothing. They are not a reliable source. If that's the best you can do, then you have not proven that Chaldeans prefer to be called "Assyrian". I suggest you stop your anti-Chaldean edits since you have no

reliable source to justify them. That means that in articles about Chaldean villages, like this one, you stop substituting "Assyrian". I haven't examined the Assyrian people article in detail, but you need to be careful when editing it. (Taivo (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC))[reply

]

Yes, there are people identifying themselves Chaldeans, I know that, Taivo. Parpola is not saying all do so, some of them. Still I haven't seen any source saying Chaldean Catholics want to be known as Chaldeans ethnically. And then don't forget that many villages are not 100% Chaldean Catholic just because the majority is. So calling every villages with 50%+ for Chaldean Christian villages is not acceptable. There is an significant Nestorian population in these villages too. Shmayo (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then call those villages Chaldean/Nestorian. Just stop "Assyrianizing" everything. You are not supported by reliable sources or by Wikipedia consensus. You are doing this on your own and that must stop. (Taivo (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

No, why should they be called after the religious denomination? You've really not understood that there are many Chaldean Catholics and Syriac Orthodoxes (like me) who call themselves Assyrians. Of course we can not find a source saying "these people identify themselves as *", who is anybody to say something like that. I've already shown that there are associations and organisation and other with the Assyrian name started by Syriac Orthodoxes and Chaldean Catholics. The people who've contribued most to the Assyrian articles on Wikipedia are Chaldean Catholics. Just because some people recently have started to call themselves ethnic Chaldeans doesn't mean everything here have to change. Shmayo (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And Tiscopnaia2010(?) said it himself in the begining "The people of the Plain of Mosul are ethnically East Syrians [In Syriac; Suraye Madenkhaye]" And the etymology of Syria/Syrian/Suraye we know. Shmayo (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if the old patriarch himself said he was Assyrian^[19], how can people even say that "no Chaldean call himslef Assyrian"? Shmayo (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one said that you need to change everything in Wikipedia. What I said was that you need to stop unilaterally changing "Chaldean" to "Assyrian" since there is clearly a level of dissent and you have offered no reliable sources to oppose their use of "Chaldean". If Chaldeans start changing "Assyrian" to "Chaldean" in places where it is inappropriate (for example, villages that have a minority of Chaldeans in residence), then you will find me opposing that. I am telling you to leave the Chaldean sphere of influence alone and stop changing "Chaldean" to "Assyrian" just because you want to. If you reach a consensus on a particular page that a particular village is more Assyrian than Chaldean, then fine. But leave the Chaldeans alone and stop changing "Chaldean" to "Assyrian" in places where the usage is clearly Chaldean. I don't care about your personal stories--they are not Wikipedia reliable sources. The interview with the old guy was not in English, so it tells us nothing about English usage. English usage accepts both "Assyrian" and "Chaldean" as ethnonyms in Iraq. If "Chaldean" was not English, then you'd have a point about using it, but it is a valid and recognizable ethnonym in English and you haven't proven that it is not used by Chaldeans for themselves. (I also never said that all Chaldeans prefer "Chaldean" or oppose "Assyrian". Don't put words in my mouth.) So stop your Assyrianization of Wikipedia. Leave the Chaldean articles (villages, religion, etc.) alone if you find it hard to keep your views to yourself. I'm sure that there are many places in Wikipedia where your expertise in Assyrian or Syriac issues will be welcome. (Taivo (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The changing from Chaldean to Assyrian is to show the ethnicity and not religious. What is Assyrian? What is an Assyrian article? The people belong to the C C Church, Nestorian Church and the Syriac church, what is Assyrian?! To say "that villages is mostly Chaldean, but the other one Assyrian" is wrong. How did Assyrian become a religious term when it have described this people in all these years. The term Chaldean nowdays do not have with ethnicity to do, many agree with this^{[20][21][22][23][24][25]}(some actually saying the members of the Chaldean Catholic Church are Assyrians). Shmayo (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It Might be just me, but every time I read Mr. Shmayo's comments, I remember NASCAR. Anyway, which lap is this? oh wait, I remember now. Mr. Shmayo, Chaldeans do not identify themselves as Assyrians. No Chaldean identifies himself as Assyrian. 546221 laps to go. --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 01:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shmayo, none of your sources are properly cited (year, publisher, page number, etc.). They are just names and supposed titles. It is impossible to verify what you say about them. Why don't you post some quotes if they are not on-line and readily accessible? You have no basis on which to continually push for changing Chaldean to Assyrian where it is not appropriate. (Taivo (talk) 04:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

"“In 1551, the Assyrian community refused to accept the appointment of Shim’un VII Denka as Patriarch of the Church of the East. They sent a monk, Youhanna Sulaqa, to Rome, where he was appointed Patriarch of Babylon and head of the first church in the Middle East to unite with Rome. While the name Assyrian refers to an ethnic identity, the name Chaldean refers to the (Catholic) ‘rite’. He later died as a martyr in Diyarbekr (Eastern Turkey) at the hands of the anti-Catholic community."^[26]"“Today’s Chaldean term is new to us, it came from the west, and from Rome precisely. You people, the inhabitants of the above mentioned villages are originally Assyrians, descendants of the Assyrians of antiquity. I, for example, was born in Mosul, and belong to the Chaldean Church, yet I am Assyrian and we all are Assyrians, being Syrians, Chaldeans, or Maronites.”^[27]"Chaldean is the name given to those Assyrians who in 1552, led by one of their bishops, accepted the authority of Rome. They retain to a certain extent their own ecclesiastical constitutions and discipline, and have within their fold approximately 70% of the Assyrians."^[28]"“The Portuguese found an Assyrian Church in India in Malabar in the 16th century. It was reunited with Rome in 1599 and strongly Latinized. In 1830 a Catholic patriarch, called “Chaldean” was created in Mesopotamia, so there now are some Assyrians in union with Rome.”^[29]. Some quotes from them, as you asked for. The translation to what the patriarch said: "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." Shmayo (talk) 11:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While these quotes are interesting and I will consider their import, they don't count until you give a proper reference. Where were they published? When? Are they just quotes from websites? You haven't provided enough information yet to prove that they are from

reliable sources. Do you understand what a complete reference entails? Please provide the information or you can quote all you want to no avail. (Taivo (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC))[reply

]

what's interesting about these quotes? They have the same tone of Mr. Shmayo which attacks the Chaldean ethnicity. His quotes further prove Chaldeans don't consider themselves Assyrians. By the way, the source of Mr. Shmayo is a lecture by "Bahnam Abu al-Soof" who is a well known Assyrian Nationalist in Iraq. So, Assyrian Nationalists are quoting Assyrian Nationalists!! We are really going in circles here, which is a well known tactic used by Assyrian Nationalists. I most note again what facts we have: First, Tel Skuf is a Chaldean Village (See the comment added

below, or do you not consider the comments of someone with a BA degree in Classics and a PhD in Oriental Studies from the University of Oxford reliable). Second, the people of Tel Skuf (like all other Chaldeans) want to be called Chaldeans. Don't let yourself fall to the circular reasoning enforced by Mr. Shmayo. --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Don't lecture me on evaluating sources, Tisqupnaia. If the quotes above are from reliable sources, they deserve to be considered and weighed against the reliable sources that I am already aware of. But Shmayo has failed to prove that they are from reliable sources by providing proper citations. (Taivo (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

^[30][31][32]. If Bahnam Abu al-Soof is an Assyrian nationalist I don't know, but he is professor of archaeology, therefore I thought it could be usable. I've left out that source now. And something more interesting is the source used in this article. The could can be found here. Read the intro (forth page) and see how he uses Chaldean as an religious term. And several times in the book he uses the terms Nestorian and Chaldean together, which again shows that he is refering to it as an religious term. And many other time he is uses Syriac Orthodox and Chaldean together again showing it's a religious term. Shmayo (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the things Dbachmann have worked for is one single ethnic article for the people, that's why he have deleted new articles that have come up. Now removing everything "Chaldean" from the ethnic page is going to far. Of course Dab wouldn't deleted these articles if that (i.e. that it is the same people) wouldn't be conscious (regarding the recent edits in the ethnic page). Shmayo (talk) 11:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This part of the discussion is better at Talk:Assyrian people unless you think there is still a specific issue to be resolved here. (Taivo (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Maybe not the last one I wrote, but the one above. Clearly shows that the term "Chaldean" is used to describe a religious group. Shmayo (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English name of Tel Skuf

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Rename the Article

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)[reply]

Avoiding an edit war

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

This area is the Assyrian heartland. Assyrians didn't just controll the area as they did with Babylon or any other city far away from the heartland, this was the heartland of Assyria. So of course Nineveh and the area around was founded by Assyrians. And it's not even really clear if it was the Medes or the Babylonians who controlled the area later, but it really doesn't matter. If this isn't Assyrian ruins, then there are no Assyrian ruins. But sure, I can agree on just "ancient village". Shmayo (talk) 10:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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))[reply]

Notes and references

Chaldean versus Chaldean Christian

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))[reply]

Mongol raids on Tel Isqof

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)[reply]