Talk:Chaldean Neo-Aramaic

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Natreanne.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Ethnic Chaldeans?
There is just NO EVIDENCE that speakers of Chaldean Neo-Aramaic are ethnic Chaldeans whatsoever. The term Chaldean is specifically a doctrinal term for a branch of the Catholic Church coined in the 1680's AD. The language originated in the far north of Iraq, among people who had always been called Assyrians and Syriacs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.230.41 (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Not true there is a lot of evidence that The people who speak Chaldean neo-aramaic are ethnically Chaldeans. You should consider not vandizing Chaldean pages, before Chaldean lawyers come after you. I speak Chaldean aramaic and I cannot even understand Assyrians when you speak your dialect of Aramaic. This page is about Chaldean neo-aramaic not assyrian neo-aramaic. You politically motivated Assyrians are purposely vandalizing all Chaldean pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.89.34 (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Many historians say that you modern Assyrians are not the same ones as the ancient Assyrians. You were given the term "assyrian" by the British in 1870. Many historians say you modern assyrians are just mountain people (heretic Nestorians) from Turkey who migrated to Iraq and other countries in the last 100 years. There is NO EVIDENCE showing that you "modern day Assyrians" are affiliated with ancient Assyrians in any way. You modern day "Assyrians" are fakes and impostors, made up and aimed at stealing land and rights from other groups.


 * Both language and religion can define ethnicity. But if we're going to claim than language and religion correspond, we need a RS that says so.
 * Of course ancient Assyrians and modern Assyrians are not the same. Anyone who says so is an idiot, and such edits should be reverted.  There are, however, going to be historical connections and ancestry.
 * But mostly, what I see here is a bunch of anonymous editors all yelling at each other for being "vandals". I therefore revert all of you as presumed idiots.  If you want to be taken seriously, start behaving like adults.  Present a rational argument with supporting citations per WP:RS.  — kwami (talk) 04:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Kwami Great point, people can be defined by language and religion as an ethnic group, for example Armenians, Coptics, Maronites, Chaldeans, Assyrians. Chaldeans’ claims are no different than any of these other groups. And yes, modern day “Assyrians” claim they are the same ones as the ancient Assyrians; yet, claim modern day Chaldeans are only a denomination and neither ethnically Chaldeans and not connected to the ancient Chaldeans. Any evidence presented by Chaldeans of our ethnicity, culture, and heritage is discounted by Assyrians. Why? Because there is a political agenda behind Assyrians trying to claim Chaldeans are actually Assyrians. I know for sure that there is thriving Chaldean community worldwide, in Iraq, Europe, the US, and Australia; Chaldeans are ethnically, nationally, culturally and religiously Chaldean NOT Assyrian. There is a political agenda behind all of this. The majority of Iraqi Christians are Chaldeans, my community has lived in Iraq on a consistent basis for thousands of years. The MAIN church in Iraq is the Chaldean Church, while the Assyrian Church was kicked out of Iraq a long time ago and is headquartered in Chicago. Most of the Christian towns in Iraq are Chaldean towns, Assyrians do not have much have a presence left in Iraq yet they need a large presence in order to try to claim stake to land in the country. Politically motivated Assyrians have decided they will stake claim to land in Iraq by usurping the Chaldean culture and church as actually being Assyrian. Therefore, these politically motivated Assyrians have been on a campaign of trying to completely eliminate Chaldean name and heritage and they vandalize ALL Chaldean pages and fill our pages with Assyrian history rather than Chaldean history.

Yes, let’s all be adults. Here’s a compromise: Allow Chaldeans to maintain our own pages and Assyrians maintain their own pages. It sounds like a fair compromise to me. But, I highly doubt Assyrians will be adults about this and stop vandalizing Chaldean pages, because their political aims are all they care about. And they use every dirty trick in the book to accomplish their political aims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.89.34 (talk) 04:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

If Chaldeans have our own religion (Chaldean Catholicism), our language (Chaldean neo-Aramaic), and our own culture how can we not be ethnically Chaldeans?! As you said yourself ethnicity can be defined by language and religion. Assyrians speak Assyrian Neo-Aramaic and belong to the Assyrian Church of the East; therefore, Assyrian ethnicity is based upon their own culture. No one can eliminate the Chaldean ethnicity and culture for the sake of their political agenda; this is fascist and unjust behavior.

Shall we look at some FACTS;

1] Both Chaldean Neo-Aramaic and Assyrian Neo-Aramaic are offshoots of Syriac. Syriac emerged in Assyria in the 5th century BC, as a local dialect within Assyria. They were actually dialects of the same language, but diversified further when varying Christian communities in Northern Mesopotamia became detatched geographically from one another. The terms SYRIA and SYRIAC in its original sense SPECIFICALLY meant ASSYRIAN. These facts are accepted by the overwhelming majority of mainstream academic opinion. The language was clearly not called Chaldiac for a very good reason.

2] Chaldean Neo-Aramaic is also spoken by members of the Assyrian Church of the East and Syriac Orthodox Church, so it is NOT specific to Chaldean Catholics at all, any more than Assyrian Neo-Aramaic is specific purely to members of the Assyrian Church of the East.NEITHER is indicative of a specific ethnicity, nor of a specific church.

3] Chaldean Neo-Aramaic did NOT originate in south eastern Iraq, where the Ancient Chaldeans lived between the 9th and 6th centuries BC

4] The region in which Syriac, and by definition the Neo-Aramaic Dialects originate WAS known as Assyria between the 22nd century BC and 7th century AD.

5] The people from that area WERE known as Assyrians throughout that period, as well as as East Syrians, Syriacs and Nestorians, but NEVER as Chaldeans. There is evidence for the useage of all those names in written record, but none for the useage of Chaldean.

6] The terms Assurayu, Assur, Ashur Assyrian, Athura, Assuristan, East Syrian, Syriac, Atorayeh, Ashuriyun, Assouri Athor, Ator etc HAVE been in CONTINUAL use when describing Northern Mesopotamia and its Semitic inhabitants from the 25th century BC onwards. However, the term Chaldean only came into being in 1683 AD, and only then as the name of a CATHOLIC CHURCH, a church that was founded in NORTHERN Mesopotamia (formerly Assyria), a church which had originally been a part of the Church of the East, which was founded in Assyria, and at the time of the founding of the Chaldean Catholic Church, ALL of its members still lived in what had been Assyria, and a church that when it was founded was originally called The Church of Athora and Mosul

7] The term Chaldean in the modern sense is purely a THEOLOGICAL, DENOMINATIONAL and RELIGIOUS term, it has NO ethnic meaning whatsoever, any more than the terms Mormon, Nestorian or Baptist do.

8] Genetic studies, as well as the opinions of RESPECTED historians, as well as geographical reality, show that the Neo-Aramaic people of Northern Iraq, Northwest Iran, Northeast Syria, and Southeast Turkey are the SAME PEOPLE. A people who have in an ethnic sense, always been called Assyrians, Syriacs or variants thereof.

9] There IS evidence supporting Assyrian continuity, there is NONE supporting Chaldean continuity, I wonder why?.

10] If Chaldean Catholics of Northern Mesopotamia are ETHNIC Chaldeans, WHY is there NO MENTION of the term Chaldean in reference to the Semitic Christians of NORTHERN MESOPOTAMIA during the Assyrian Empire, Neo-Babylonian Empire, Achaemenid Empire, Seleucid Empire, Parthian Empire, Roman Empire and Sassanid Empire???? Why did ALL of these empires call the land Assyria and its people Assyrians, or variants thereof? Why did the Arab Muslims call the people Ashuriyun, not Chaldeans? WHERE is there a mention (let alone a large number of written references) of them being called Chaldean BEFORE Rome founded the Chaldean Catholic Church in 1683 AD?

11] The Chaldean Catholic Church was founded in NORTHERN Mesopotamia, among Semitic Assyrians from NORTHERN Mesopotamia, who had all previously been members of The ASSYRIAN CHURCH/CHURCH OF THE EAST, people who had ALWAYS been called Assyrians, Syriacs etc.

12] In addition, that evidence of Assyrian continuity has been provided by a host of respected and published Historians, Orientalists, Assyriologists, Archaeologists, Geneticists, Ethnologists and Linguists (none of whom are Assyrians themselves). UNLESS proponents of a Chaldean ethnic identity can provide a sizeable body of EVIDENCE gleaned from RESPECTED ACADEMIC sources (NOT priests, religious or nationalist websites, blogs, false references or references that do not in fact support Wiki entries made), claims of a link between modern Chaldean Catholics of Northern Iraq and the long extinct Ancient Chaldeans of the far South Eastern Iraq should NOT be posted on Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 10:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Chaldean is obviously just the name of a Church in Communion with Rome. There just isnt any connection at all to Chaldea and the Chaldeans of old. They lived in a different part of Mesopotamia, and most experts agree they just became absorbed into the population of southern Mesopotamia and disappeaed as a race. Theres no evidence from historians, written records or archaeological finds that show these Chaldeans survived as a separate race and somehow all moved to Assyria and settled there, maintaining a Chaldean identity!!!! You wont find any evidence for that in Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman or Arabic records, because it never happened. Where do priests and bishops of the old Church of The East write that they were Chaldeans before the Chaldean Catholic Church was founded? Why didnt the neighbors of those people, meaning the Arabs, Persians, Kurds, Turks, Armenians, Syriacs, Greeks and Georgians, call those people Chaldeans? Why did they all call them Assyrians or Syrians? Why did Syriac Christian writers and the Greeks argue during the Middle Ages about the meaning of Syrian Vs Assyrian Vs Aramean, but none of them include Chaldean in the debate. Why dont any mainstream academics and historians argue the case that Chaldean Catholics are the descendants of the ancient Chaldeans, but do argue that they are the descendants of the Assyrians? Why was no one called a Chaldean before the forming of the Chaldean Catholic Church? Why was Chaldean Neo-Aramaic called Sureth or Syriac before the founding of the Chaldean Catholic Church? Why do Sureth and Syriac stem from the word Assyrian, and originate in Assyria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.29.101 (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Its basically a load of nonsense to claim some kind of Chaldean ethnic and historic continuity. Every bit of evidence says these people are exactly the same people as those who are called Assyrians. There is nothing at all from any credible source that links Chaldean Catholics of modern northern Iraq to the Chaldean race of ancient southeast Iraq, no historical continuity in written records of any time, no ethnic or geographic link. Its nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.230.41 (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

"Sureth"
I'm not convinced that "Sureth" is a synonym for Chaldean Neo-Aramaic especially when the editor is adding it to multiple Aramaic-related articles. It seems to be a synonym for Classical Syriac and not for any of the modern languages. (Taivo (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC))
 * That's incorrect. Classical Syriac is called Suryaya (sometimes spelt Suraya, though the for with two ys is original), Kthawanaya, Orhaya or Leshshana d-Qorbana. Sureth is not regularly used to refer to the classical language. It is a term used in Christian NENA varieties for those languages. It literally means 'Syriac' but uses an adjectival ending rarely used in the classical language. I have seen Sureth used in a NENA text to refer to the classical language, but is was clear from the context that the classical language was meant, and not the modern language (which latter would be its usual meaning). — Gareth Hughes (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Page Protection
I feel this page needs protection from unregistered users, and the constant reverts that it is suffering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 11:37, 15 February 2015
 * Requests for page protection should be made at WP:RFPP. Edit protected is only for requesting edits to pages that are already protected. SiBr4 (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

User:EddieDrood Page should not be protected. You have a personal point of view which is politically motivated and you are trying to enforce your view on others.
 * In other words, we have a bunch of idiots yelling at each other again. Page needs protection.  — kwami (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

kwami, Actually, I do not, nor am I trying to enforce anything that cannot be supported by well referenced facts/respected opinion. I can reference edits I make from respected and accredited sources, whereas people claiming Chaldean ancestry cannot, in fact it is not even an idea supported by the majority of Chaldean catholics. Assyrian continuity is a respected and well supported concept academically, although not universally supported, granted. However there is no evidence for a Chaldean continuity whatsoever, and unless strong and respected evidence can be provided, such claims should not be stated as fact on Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 10:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Since when did the Assyrians living in Iran (Urmia) speak Chaldean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forassyrianmartyrs (talk • contribs) 01:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Language Endangerment/Adding New Information
I'd like to add a sentence to the History section on different dialectal names
 * According to Ethnologue Chaldean may also be referenced by other names such as Kaldaya[1] or in terms of a region-specific dialect such as Alqosh, Bartille, Dihok, and Mangesh among others[2].

I'd also like to add a section on the endangerment and documentation of Chaldean including classifications of level of endangerment, a brief overview of some causes, and a list of some documentation efforts. Here's an overview of my sources (some are much less "reliable" I do realize they are not completely acceptable according to Wikipedia standard, however, due to the nature of language endangerment and revitalization, it is difficult to find traditional "reliable" sources especially for politically controversial topics such as this language).
 * Awde, Nicholas; Lamassu, Nineb; Al-Jeloo, Nicholas (2007). Aramaic (Assyrian/Syriac) Dictionary & Phrasebook: Swadaya-English, Turoyo-English, English-Swadaya-Turoyo. Hippocrene Books. pp. 44, 90, 139. ISBN 9780781810876.
 * "OLAC resources in and about the Chaldean Neo-Aramaic language". olac.ldc.upenn.edu. Retrieved 2020-12-07.
 * "Size and vitality of Chaldean Neo-Aramaic". Ethnologue. Retrieved 2020-12-07.
 * "UNESCO Atlas of the World's Languages in danger". www.unesco.org. Retrieved 2020-12-07.
 * Naby, Eden. "From Lingua Franca to Endangered Language: The Legal Aspects of the Preservation of Aramaic in Iraq" (PDF). Independent Scholar.
 * "The Constitution of the Republic of Iraq". Iraqi Parliament Council. Retrieved December 7, 2020.
 * "Iraqi Constitution (2005) —". aceproject.org. Retrieved 2020-12-07.
 * Sara, Solomon I. (1974-01-31). A Description of Modern Chaldean. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-11-081202-2.
 * Seepo, Catrin; Hamilton, Michael. "The Syntax of Chaldean Neo-Aramaic: An Examination of Word Order in the Alqoshi Dialect. FAU Undergraduate Research Journal, 8(1), 56-56". FAU Undergraduate Research Journal. 8: 56–63 – via Florida Atlantic University.
 * Jammo, Bishop Sarhad Y.; Younan, Father Andrew (2014). Introductory Chaldean. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. ISBN 9781503371163.
 * Jammo, Bishop Sarhad Y.; Younan, Father Andrew (2014). Chaldean Grammar. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. ISBN 9781496194923.
 * "Chaldean Aramaic | Learn Chaldean Aramaic Online | Mango Languages". mangolanguages.com. Retrieved 2020-12-07.

A small idea I'd like to propose is to address the controversy directly on the page as I feel this is also important information for the public and gives context to those coming to this page for trustworthy information. Let me know your thoughts about this, for context I'm a linguistics student currently in a language endangerment and revitalization course. Natreanne (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Original research
Linguists distinguish the Jewish Neo-Aramaic from Christian Neo-Aramaic varieties since these have a different development and are sometimes mutually unintelligible in the same location. However, within Christian Neo-Aramaic the distinctions are geographic, not by religion, and I can find hardly any sources speaking of a "Chaldean" dialect group. The 1974 book A Description of Modern Chaldean might appear to do this but it is actually a description of the speech of Mangesh, Iraq. Ethnologue has separate entries (it considers "Chaldean" to consist of "Mangesh, Alqosh, Tel Kepe, Tisqopa, Bartille, Shirnak-Chizre (Bohtan), Dihok" dialects), but that's just a database entry and without more solid sources it's impossible to develop the article without going into WP:OR (which I suspect is going on here). I therefore think that this article and Assyrian Neo-Aramaic should be merged, possibly to Suret which is the native name for all Christian Northeastern Neo-Aramaic varieties. (t · c)  buidhe  12:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)