Talk:Amish/Archive 2

Amish in the jungle

I would like to contribute with a link in the Amish article. This year (2006) I have spent a time living with an Amish family in a Bolivian jungle. I did a photographic work about this topic and I think it is quite interesting for the readers of the article.

In case of consense, the link would point to http://www.jordibusque.com/Index/Stories/AmishJungle/AmishJungle_01.html

Probably my contribution was deleted because to link my own website it is a kind of selfpromotion. I agree that to be linked is good for me but I do not sell anything in my website and in my opinion the content is very interesting because it shows a very unknown beehaviour of the amish outside Northamerica. I am sure that to include the link will enrich the quality of the article. But may be you do not think so.

Let me know what do you think.

Panex 13:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

The photos of the Old Colony Mennonites in Bolivia are much more valuable because photos of them are hard to find. As for the Amish photos, I do not say it does not exist, but I have never heard about an Amish community in Bolivia. Is it just one family? The question is are they part of any community, and what kind of Amish are they? What are they doing in Bolivia alone? Their pictures should not be included because they definitely do not represent the typical Amish, especially since this is one family, that I am not so sure is even part of any community. Amish apart from their community, are just people in Amish clothes. Stettlerj 15:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we know enough at this point, so let's see what Panex says before jumping to a conclusion that they are just people in Amish dress. And it seems to me that with a few explanatory sentences this might be a good external link illustrating the AMish away from the usual settlement area, for example. So Panex, more information about them would be helpful - what are they doing there, etc. Thank you for wanting to contribute to the article - it is certainly of interest, and perhaps should be included when we have some more information. Tvoz 19:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Before comming to Bolivia something like ten years ago, they were members of an Amish community in Tenesse (USA). What are they doing now in such isolated place? Just live: Let the days pass and wait for the next life! May be this sounds excesively romantic or something like that, but it is just what they think. I would like to explain you a conversation I had with the mother as I remember it: I asked for the reasons they had for to finally decide to settle in such isolated place. She answered like that:

"We just want to be close to God and hope He will take care of us. And we won't find another place with the peace we found here. [...]It doesn't matter to me what happens with my clothes or to my body... It's just temporal! I don't belong here, I'm from Heaven!"

When I hear this last sentence I get goose pimples because I realize that it shows the essence of their thinking! They decided to left everything and came to this isolated place for to feel closer to God. So it is clear that they are not people in Amish dress. They were and are Amish. Of course this is not a typical Amish family, since the main part of Amish live in communities in North America. But it shows how can they react when they feel the presure of the modern world. Panex 23:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Looking over Panex's website, I have to wonder i this is a case of mistaken identity. Amish men don't usually have beards that long, and the kerchief-style coverings worn by the women has more in common with Old Colony Mennonites in other parts of Latin America than what Amish women wear. Amish women usually wear bonnets, not kerchiefs, or coverings in the more modernized groups. It is also difficult to tell whether those are "proper" Amish-style cape-dresses that the women are wearing. I will allow, however, the small possibility that any Amish émigrés to South America might adopt the clothing styles used by other conservative Mennonite groups that have been living in Latin America for generations out of simple climatic pragmatism. As it stands, however, I'm going to say 80% not Amish but rather an ultra conservative Old Colony splinter.

To be sure, I would really like to hear a recording of the type of German they spoke amongst themselves as that would give us a truly definitive answer as to which type of Mennonite they are. Panex - do you have any recordings of that nature? Bytor 04:53, 11 December 2006

Hi Bytor, I should say that they are Amish without question. They told me that. And Mennonites never wears beard. By that time I was also looking for mennonites in that jungle. They told me that the only mennonite family in the zone live 20 km deep in the jungle. There was also another Amish family like one hour on foot from there. They came from an Amish community in Tenesse. Sorry, I have recordings of Mennonites but not of the Amish. Panex 16:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think I have argued the different doubts asked by the community. If nobody says something against in a few more days I will understand there is no oposition to the link. (Panex 17:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC))

I would be opposed to the link. Photos of isolated Amish outside any community, by the very nature of the Amish, should not be included in my opinion, despite their clothes or ethnicity. It is possible however that they are in fellowship with an established community. From time to time there are isolated Amish families but usually because they are the last family to leave a dying settlement and their isolation is temporary. This family is currently in communion with what Amish community, and who is their Bishop and under whose Ordnung are they under? I want to stress I respect this family, and I like the pictures, but I do not believe that their pictures belong until there is an established community there. Stettlerj 17:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see that we are already far of a consense about the possibility of adding this link. May be the discussion can be reduced to that: Is a link usefull if presents a behaviour not shared by all the Amish people? I know that Amish who leave their community in order to go far away to live isolated is a minority. But this family is not the only case. There are a few more Amish families in Bolivia living alone. And as I said in a previous comment it shows the way that Amish can react in front social pressure from outside. In my opinion the link will be usefull if is presented like that: Not a common thing but a thing that happens sometimes. Because is not true that Amish ONLY can live inside communities. Let me know what do you think. (Panex 21:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC))

In my opinion, a link would be ok as long as it is prefaced with a statement that says that this is an unusual example of a family who self-identify as Amish, living outside of a traditional Amish community, etc. It would have to be clear that this is an anomaly, but I think it is interesting to include as a parenthetical item. I'm not an expert, but it would seem that living outside of the community away from a bishop and ordnung would not prima facie make you not Amish any longer, but I could be wrong. I don't feel strongly about including the link - it is interesting, but not essential - but I don't think we should reject the concept that these people are Amish. Tvoz 08:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tvoz for let us know your opinion. I would agree in to indicate clearly that this family is not a common Amish family, but it is not the only existing case. I think this case is similar to the Amish and Technology link that presents technological Amish. Of course is not commom thing Amish do but it is real Amish. What I propose is the following:

• Amish in the jungle Photographic witness of an unusual case of an Amish family who, reacting to external pressure, left their community and went to a Bolivian jungle.

Would be OK that way? What do you think, Stettlerj? In my opinion the witness is valuable, and interesting. Panex 19:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, there are lots of ex-Amish families, Mennonites who still consider themselves Amish, and individuals associated with the Amish community who are not accepted members of any Amish church. I have almost convinced myself that we need a Who is Amish? article, like the Who is a Jew? artticle. Perhaps this family could be addressed within this context. Its a thought anyway. Wachholder0 20:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it Ok if I put the link for the time being? In case you agree, what link category would be the best fit? Let me know your opinion, please. Panex 17:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

These "Amish in the Jungle" are friends of mine, J. and S. Beiler. They are not officially Amish, and the congregation at Lobelville Tn (many of the members there are excommunicated from Old order churches) where they came from is an "offshoot" of the Amish and would not officially be a part of the Old or New Order groups. However, both the Beiler family and the Lobelville congregation would fall under the general heading of Anabaptist, or even "Amish" to an outsider. mikeatnip —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.142.130.43 (talk) 02:33, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Laundry

I am moving the following inline comment placed in the article here for discussion. I believe it refers to the laundry image. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 02:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

What does Amish laundry got to do with any of this, except that an Amish fellow has probably put the laundry there? The laundry seems quite normal and normally put to me, you can't really see any kind of clothing schemes as full from the picture properly as they are wet and folded and laundry is not discussed in the article. And who really cares of Amish laundry in the first place, especially since the talk page says that they still use electronical washing machines? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.112.185.239 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

I agree: it does not appear to contribute much to the article. --Thisisbossi 03:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur and have removed it. As always, please feel free to revert and discuss. Wachholder0 03:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Groups sometimes confused with the Amish

Hello everyone. Lou Sander recently pointed out that there is little substance to the "groups sometimes confused with the Amish" section. I agree, and feel that an unsourced list of erroneous beliefs is a poor addition to an encyclopedia article. The chances of anyone mistaking a Mormon or modern Quaker for a member of the Old Order Amish community seem low. Perhaps some of the information about the similarities between Hutterites and the Old Order Amish should be moved to another section, and the rest removed. Thanks for your thoughts. Wachholder0 20:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest rewriting from the perspective of distinguishing Amish from other present-day plain groups in the same geographic region. I would like to see the following removed in this process:

• the revisit of Amish and Anabaptist history.
• mention of Hutterites because they are are geographically separated for the most part.
• mention of Quakers because I doubt there is a source that indates present-day confusion.
• movie title translation because it is a bit of trivia that does not add to understanding of the topic.

✤ JonHarder ^talk 00:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Amish Food and Recipes

It would be nice if anyone knows about the cuisine of the Amish. I know that region is known for some dishes like scrapple, but would love to expand in this area. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jsderwin (talk • contribs) 10:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Not quite accurate

I don't know if its still possible to edit this article or not, but growing up in Amish country, I can say that at least in my hometown area a blue door doesn't mean anything at all, other than that they like the color(a girl in my class had a father who used to be old order Amish) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clippen (talk • contribs) 03:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Health Section

Should we put the entire well-written and fair, in my opinion, Abuse Controversy section into the health section or keep where it is? I do not want to hide this important section, but at present I wonder if giving it such prominence (it's own main section, more important than language, etc.) looks a little sensationalist (waiting for similar section for other denominations... "lay southern baptist church member abuse controversies", or lists on Cathlicism page of "lay Catholic church members who are convicted murderers" sections. I suppose if everyone was Amish and it was the Amish who wrote the wikipedia these sections might exist :) Stettlerj 00:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well-reasoned, Stettler, you get my vote to do it. DavidOaks 03:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, this has bothered me for months - yes, please make the change. Good call. Tvoz | talk 04:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Who is an Amish

I agree quite strongly in favour of an "Who is an Amish?" article. For example, my maternal grandparents grew up in Beachy Amish-associated churches, but when they were married they started attending a congregation in the then Western Ontario Amish Mennonite Conference. That was also the conference from which my paternal grandparents came. The WOAMC and the Beachy Amish associated churches both derived from the Old Order Amish community in Ontario and there was much "cross pollination," so to speak. A few years before I was born the WOAMC dropped the "Amish" from their name and eventually merged with two other conference to become what is now The Mennonite Church Eastern Canada. Approximately half of my larger extended family, which gathers yearly for family reunions on both sides, are still part of that Beachy Amish group, dress conservatively and use Pennsylvania Dutch at home. My personal understanding of PD is limited, but the core of who I understand myself to be is Amish. Indeed, cultural practices such as how my family celebrates Christmas, Easter and other holidays, weddings, funerals, the foods we cook, regulat large family reunions, are all Amish. The largest difference between me and my conservatively dressed relatives is not in faith, politics, cuisine or that stuff, but in how we dress. We agree, both culturally & religiously, on far more than on what we disagree. And I'm not the only person in this situation. Similar spectra exist across the Amish Mennonite world. One would not split French Canadians (or Italian Americans, Chinese Canadians, etc...) into separate ethnic groups just because some members are not as socially conservative or liberal as others. So why is that done with the Amish? In the past (March '06, Feb '07) I have tried to add a one or two sentence minor edit acknowledging that this Wikipedia article is primarily about the visibly conservative buggy-driving Amish and the existance of more liberal Amish. However, my edits are always deleted or seriously weakened with no comment by the changer. If somebody wants to start an "Who is an Amish" article, I will help with it. Bytor 10:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for reverting you twice earlier. Reading your explanation, I see where you are coming from and about the WOMC and retention of the label "Amish" I agree with you. I also agree that there is so much more to being Amish than no electricity, etc. That is just what the people see. But culture is more than just clothes and ordnung, it is the food, the language, the traditions, a way of looking at life, a way one interacts with others, an attitiude.. those of Amish descendance often retain these Amish characteristics that are more profound. I don't know how to put it in the article without it being "original research" but what you say I could not agree with more. Stettlerj 17:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this issue has been discussed sufficiently in scholarly sources that a new article would not be WP:OR. But there is only one way to find out, I suppose, and that's to write it! Please feel free to jump in once I get it started. Wachholder0 18:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The Amish identity article has been summoned into existence. This is also a golden opportunity to transfer material out of the every-lengthening general Amish article. Wachholder0 19:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally do not agree with an Amish identity article. I think it would be wiser to do it another way, because by far most Mennonites and Mennonite communities who are of Amish origin have lost this Amish identity, and do not have it. I think therefore a better way to deal with it would be to refer to these groups as "Amish-Mennonites" (which already exists) and this article already deals with Mennonite communities of Amish origin. This was their historical nomenclature anyway. I would personally oppose an "Amish Identity" page but perhaps there are good arguments, but I personally would not see the necessity of it. Stettlerj 22:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Amish Mennonite

Do what you want. I know Wachholder you are a good contributer, but I believe the label "Amish Mennonite" introduces a lot of confusion, especially since this title has designated various Amish groups that are not Old Order (to the exclusion of the Old Order) such as the Beachy and those that have merged with the Mennonites (because the greater article hardly deals with the "Amish Mennonites"... and introducing these terms as equals (which they can be on occasion, but usually not) is especially disorienting... so as I say, it introduces confusion. Larger problem, I still don't understand why Amish is listed as an ethnic group when everywhere else it is a religious community. In fact, Amish as an ethnic group... you could write an article about those who descend from the Amish but you would have to change the entire article, since most of those of Amish ancestry have computers, cars, wear modern clothes etc. At least I hope people know this is wikipedia and they should take everything with a grain of salt. But again, do what you want. Unfortunately, people (including myself on occasion) use wikipedia as a source. :) Stettlerj 00:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, Wachholder, the more I think about it, the more I think this article should actually be entitled "Old Order Amish" and then the "Amish Mennonite" article should be the "Amish as an ethnic group" article. That is the CAMEO usage. They use "Amish Mennonite" for all those of Amish descendance. This article deals almost exclusively with "Old Order Amish", (and deals hardly at all with Mennonites of Amish origin or with Beachy Amish - of whom there are more than there are Old Order Amish... for example "Amish Mennonites" in the CAMEO definition of the term exist in Germany, Switzerland, France, as well, and many more Amish communities lost their Amish identity in North America than kept it). Anyway, anyone who knows the Amish knows that the Amish don't bode well for generalities and it is not easy to make statements about the Amish that hold true everywhere. Since wikipedia is written by committee perhaps nothing much can be done. Those that really want to know about the Amish, please see CAMEO, not wikipedia... although there is a lot of good info in this article I think. Stettlerj 00:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

For example, if this were "Amish" or "Amish Mennonite" as an ethnic group, the intro should be as follows:

The Amish (IPA: ˈɑːmɪʃ) or Amish Mennonites[1] are descendants of Amish Anabaptist Christians in the United States, Canada (Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta, British Columbia) and Europe (Switzerland, France, Germany, Luxembourg) that are historically known for their plain dress and among the most traditional of their continued use of limited use of modern conveniences such as automobiles and electricity. The most traditional Amish separate themselves from mainstream society for religious reasons: they do not join the military, they draw no Social Security, nor do they accept any form of financial assistance from the government, and many avoid insurance.

Most historically spoke, and the Old Order continue to speak, a German dialect known as Pennsylvania Dutch (or Pennsylvania German) at home and in church services, and learnt English in school. The most traditional Amish are divided into separate fellowships consisting of geographical districts or congregations. The most liberal Amish have merged with the Mennonite Church during the first half of the 20th century. In the traditional groups, each district is fully independent and has its own Ordnung, or set of unwritten rules. This article primarily discusses the conservative Old Order Amish fellowships that observe strict regulations on dress, behavior, and the use of technology. There are many New Order Amish and Beachy Amish groups that use electricity and, in the case of the Beachy Amish, automobiles, but still consider themselves Amish. There are also many Mennonite communities of Amish descent.

Sorry this is so long, but I think it is important to discuss just what this article is supposed to be about, the Amish as a contemporary religious group, or the Amish and Amish Mennonites as an ethnic group which includes such groups as the Mennonites in Switzerland and Illinois, etc. of Amish origin. Stettlerj 00:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you have hit the nail on the head. The current "Amish" article is pretty much all about the Old Order Amish. Transferring the bulk of this material to the Old Order Amish page, and making the Amish article a more general discussion of the different groups considered Amish, would negate the need for the "Amish identity/who is Amish" article. The revised Amish article would include the history of the Amish before they split into different groups, and include brief descriptions leading to the following articles:

1. Old Order Amish- new home of most of the material in the current article
2. Amish Mennonites (split ~1880s)
3. Beachy Amish (split 1927)
4. New Order Amish (split 1966)

Perhaps it would also be useful to mention people of Amish or Mennonite descent or heritage, since they could be ethnically (or "genetically") Amish. Also, I see why you object to the inclusion of "Amish Mennonite" in the intro and will remove it until it can be included in a more suitable spot. Wachholder0 14:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have created a draft as an example of what such a revision would look like. I think I may have removed too much material, but take a look and see what you think: Amish (draft)

I've thought about this also: how this page is really about OOA. One problem with the proposed change is that most people equate Amish and OOA and this article will continually have to be cleaned of bits about OOA that people have added because they think it is missing. I'm not opposed to changing how these articles are factored and will support whatever the consensus develops. Another possibility is to have an Amish (disambiguation) article that lists the types as above and then just redirect OOA here. That way most people will find what they are expecting when they come to either article. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 22:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The Amish (disambiguation) page seemed the best and simplest solution. Please take a look and add (or subtract) material as you see fit. I want to thank all the regular editors, both for their input on this topic and their general patience with my mercurial editing style. Sto lat! Wachholder0 15:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

To finish the job, I believe it is appropriate to incorporate anything of value from Old Order Amish and then make that page into a redirect that points here. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 22:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'll do that.Wachholder 15:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. There did not seem to be more than a few paragraphs in the OOA article that needed to be transferred; the rest was duplicated material.Wachholder 15:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Wisconsin

I added Wisconsin to the Regions with significant populations list. According to this site: http://www.suite 101.com/article.cfm/wisconsin/111488, Wisconsin has at least the 4th largest population (and growing). Also see http://dhfs.wisconsin.gov/medicaid8/state-grant/amish_project/apindex.htm. Do I need to mention Wisconsin v. Yoder? -- Al™ 04:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Kingpin?

didn't kingpin have a litle about the amish? just asking not telling. feel free to delete this —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.219.195.40 (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes it did and it is already mentioned. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 02:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Claiping

I've searched for more information on the word claip and claiping at Webster's, Wiktionary, and Wikipedia, and haven't found any reference to this word. Searching for it here only brings back this article, it's not mentioned anywhere else. Is this a real term? Dubkiller 02:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Will this do?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=claip

DavidOaks 17:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw it listed in Urban Dictionary, but I don't think it can be used as a reliable reference for word definitions. I've since removed the term from the main article, but the info remains intact. Dubkiller 18:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

amish on vacation

After reading about the Amish lifestyle here, I was wondering if these things have not changed in recent years. I met a group of Amish people vacationing at Niagara Falls last summer. True, this is a nature site, but it is very commercialized and would involve transportation by means other than a horse and buggy. Would someone care to enlighten me?--Gilabrand 06:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Read the "technology" section of the article. There is no prohibition against taking trains, buses, taxis, etc.Wachholder 18:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Pacifism

Amish pacifism is well known in popular culture, but I didn't see anything on it in this entry. Can anyone knowledgeable add something on this subject? BaikinMan 16:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Amish blog

I would like to propose this complete, always updated and incredibly well informed blog dedicated to Amish people in the external links section.

http://amishamerica.typepad.com/

Let me know your opinion. Panex 20:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If nobody says anything against, I'll put the link in a few days. Panex 19:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority are to be avoided according to the manual of style guidelines. I see no reason for an exception here. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 04:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have seen many links to blogs in Wikipedia, and not precisely written by authorities... Is quite strange this kind of policies here. In my opinion the suggested blog is very useful because of the overwhelming quantity and quality of the information it provides. And is made by somebody living inside the place, someone who has been working with Amish people for many years, rather than someone who have learned only from books.

I think we are loosing a great source here and may be there are more people thinking the same way. If there is I think they should express their opinion. Thanks. Panex 07:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed interesting, and I salute you for discussing proposed changes. JonH has a strong point, however, that blogs are very, very rarely acceptable links, and I believe this is a valuable floodgate. Googlin' for Amish america returns you 3rd, and 1st for "Amish america", so I think your blog may reach interested people without wikipedia's help, and interested wikipedia reader can reach your blog without a link. Sincere regards, and happy travels. Wachholder 06:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I just want to point that I am not who writes this blog. I'm just a reader of it. Also that I think that it doesn't matter in which position appears in Google in order to be useful for wikipedia. Panex 16:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

From time to time I read these threads and must say I appreciate that so much work goes into making this entry as good as it can be. Having noticed that some discussion had ensued on whether to include a link to my blog, amishamerica.typepad.com, I’d like to humbly make the case for its inclusion.

I write the blog with two purposes in mind: to 1) disseminate accurate information on the Amish and related peoples, and 2) to entertain my readers. While I’m not so sure I always succeed in the second endeavor, I take great pains to make sure I do so in the first.

My credibility: While I make no claims to be a Kraybill or Hostetler, I do have a measure of experience with the Amish that I feel is above the norm. Mainly by virtue of a business I have run in Amish communities, to this point I have visited approximately 5,700 Amish families in 15 separate settlements.

That may sound like an exaggeration but I can assure that it is correct--granted, many of those were very brief meetings, yet others have developed into deeper relationships. All have contributed to my firsthand knowledge of the Amish--I have eaten at their tables, attended their worship services, sat in at school, worked in the fields, talked for hours with Amish ministers and bishops, and so on. I have pored over the church directories they publish and dug into the theological disputes that have caused so many splits over the years. I feel extremely fortunate for the opportunities to learn that I have had and feel that they have contributed greatly to my understanding of the people. It has turned out to be a life’s calling so I do it all with great joy.

I actively expand my knowledge by reading recognized authorities, both Amish and non-Amish, and seeking out information firsthand, ‘from the source’ as you might put it. Reading through my blog you will frequently notice citations to my sources.

Currently I spend my days with the Amish of Holmes County, Ohio, taking advantage of some free time before teaching begins again. I am doing research for a book I am writing on Amish-owned businesses and to this point have conducted approximately 35 interviews, some up to two hours long, with local Amish entrepreneurs.

I take care to make sure that the information included on my blog is accurate and, in light of the amount of questionable material on the internet, take very seriously the responsibility to portray the people in a respectful manner. So many Amish have told me that they dislike being ‘placed on a pedestal’, as the tendency is with some media pieces and casual onlookers--so with this in mind, while drawing lessons from their lives I take care to represent the human element at the same time. Paraphrasing an Amish friend’s comments after church service this past Sunday: ‘We’re the same as you, we just have different wrappers’.

I realize that blogs are not often included as links. At the same time, if the purpose of the links section is to bring to readers outlets for accurate, timely information on the topic at hand, I am highly confident that a link to my blog would serve to do exactly that, and that interested readers would benefit as a result.

To have a link to Amish America included here would be an honor and again I humbly request that it be included. Thanks to Panex for proposing it and thanks to the group for considering it.

Erik Wesner Amish America 15:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Do Amish have dogs?

I like to know since I'm sota currently researching it in someway. And so what Dog breed are they then? -Jana

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.29.58 (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2007

Very definitely they keep dogs: as pets, vermin-control and hunters. I don't know if they consciously keep them for protection -- that would be a good research question. I've known them to have all different kinds of dogs, and I know one family that raises chiuauaus (uh, sp?) for profit. I do not know that there's any breed the Amish are more likely to favor than another. But now that I look at this, I seem to be reporting original research. Not aware of print or web sources that could help. DavidOaks 20:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Firearms?

Do the Amish use firearms? —Lowellian (reply) 16:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes -- there is no prohibition on hunting. However, they would be ulikely to think of these as weapons for personal defense, nor would they engage in competitive shooting.

DavidOaks 12:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that should be mentioned in the article, under the "Modern technology" section? —Lowellian (reply) 03:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ethics of using images containing the faces of Amish people in this Wikipedia article

I was a little taken aback by the picture currently on this article, "Amish family at Niagara Falls in traditional dress". It's a fine picture, don't get me wrong. However, these people likely have little way of ever finding out that their image is on the Internet presented as the example of what typical Amish people look like. If you follow the first link off Google searching for Amish as I did, this is the first thing you see. It's likely that they might have some objections, I would imagine. Is there a replacement image that might make more sense? --75.165.51.172 02:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that could be a copyright issue, but I don't see anything like that described in the copyright policies. Honestly, though, I don't think it adds much to the article. -Steve Sanbeg 20:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the image really doesn't provide any context anyways, and is poorly-framed even from a photographer's POV, I'm going to be bold and remove it. Hopefully we can find some other images to replace it. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 00:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Why? I don't know why we should care about any hypothetical objections the subjects might have. And there is no copyright issue, all you need to do is look at the image page to see that. We're not claiming fair use so it doesn't need to be important to the article. The only criterion that should matter is whether the article is even slightly better with it than without it. And I think it is. -- Zsero (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

beachy link

I would like to add the link www.beachyam.org.its a beachy website set up by a beachy convert(yes,the beachys do use computers,cars,cd players and electricity).it feel its important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PoppyDadswell (talk • contribs) 20:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Logic

The article states that the amish reject modern labor-saving technology because it may cause a person to be less dependant on the community and more individualistic. In fact, the opposite is true. the level of technology modern society has achieved can only exist under conditions of extreme division of labor. for example, how many farmers build their own tractors? in order to be truly independent from a given community, an individual would have to become dependant on simpler technologies he can create and have control over without help from things produced by that community. by this logic, the amish are actually quite individualistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.91.136 (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Rumm-shpringa?

I wondered about the concept of "rumm-shpringa", the oft mentioned, little understood period of license given to Amish boys to go "sow their wild oats" and sample the English life. I can see how that sort of thing could be exaggerated by the misinformed, but I think, for exactly that reason, WP ought to at least mention the idea, what it is and what it's not. Some references to get it started: http://www.amish.net/faq.asp -- Search in page "rumm" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.252.107 (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Er, have you actually read the article? It's well covered there. -- Zsero (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Mennonite?

Under "religions" in the sidebar, only Anabaptist is mentioned, but many Amish are of Mennonite affiliation (for example much of the Amish community in Southern Ontario near Kitchener). Should this be added? Kristamaranatha (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Mennonites are anabaptists. -- Zsero (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That's true, but Mennonites are their own denomination. The church says "Mennonite Church" on the front instead of "Anabaptist Church." Kristamaranatha (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And Amish are their own "denomination" too. Anabaptist is the kind of Xian that both Mennonites and Amish are. -- Zsero (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Are there any Amish Communties in Texas?

I like to know about it since i'm curious about it somewhat. I think on another website i read on a like of where amish people are in the united states, which it listed texas as one of these. I'm curious in part because of that. So please answer me and remember not to get it confused with the Mennonites and such.65.68.73.142

At what age do Amish usually marry?

That's what I originally came to this article to find out. I suggest adding this to the Marriage section: "Most Amish youth marry between the age of nineteen and twenty-five." I eventually found this answer here: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.37.194 (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction with page on Rumspringa

This is my first time posting a comment in discussion, so let me know if I've flubbed protocol somewhere.

In Rumspringa#Leaving_the_community there is the statement: It is very common for those individuals who choose not be baptized into the church to be shunned by their community and even by their own families.

However, in Amish#Baptism.2C_rumspringa.2C_and_shunning there is this statement: Those young people who choose to leave the church prior to being baptized are usually not shunned, and may maintain close contact with their families.

I myself have no clue as to which statement is correct, but thought I'd point it out to those of you who might. Ray scheel (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Good eye, Ray. I tagged both for verification. I will see if I can find a reliable source for one or the other. If not, I suggest both be deleted.DavidOaks (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Man there's a lot of jive on the subject of the Amish generally, and rumspringa and shunning more particularly. There are sites by wackjobs and commercializers and self-appointed experts with obvious signs of unreliability saying both things. The nearest thing to a reliable source was the author of the novel "The Shunning" [2] that supports the version in Amish (that is, no shunning for the unbaptized). However, I'm not sure that a novelist is a good source for ethnography, especially with a matter surrounded by secrecy and voyeurism like this. I've got some books at the office that may or may not help. Meanwhile, we can strip the claims or put in what this writer says, with the source. I leave it for wikiconsensus. DavidOaks (talk) 00:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Individualism

It seems to me that the following section is just one interpretation of Amish humility (and individualism for that matter). (Also, there doesn't seem to be much on Amish theology.)

"The Amish's willingness to submit to the Will of God, expressed through group norms, is at odds with the individualism so central to the wider American culture. The Amish anti-individualist orientation is the motive for rejecting labor-saving technologies that might make one less dependent on community. Modern innovations like electricity might spark a competition for status goods, or photographs might cultivate personal vanity." 00:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering how they determined what technology is forbidden. After all, even the most primitive farm implement is "labor-saving". So is using a horse and cart instead of walking. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 05:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Medical Expences

"In 1997, Mary Kuepfer, a young Amish woman in Milverton, Ontario, Canada, was struck in the face by a beer bottle believed to have been thrown from a passing car;[73] she required thousands of dollars' worth of surgery to her face (which was paid for by an outpouring of donations from the public)." This doesn't make any sense, if she was canadian then her medical expenses would have been covered there would have been no need for donations from the public??—Preceding unsignedcomment added by unknown author )

It states in the article "Amish do not buy insurance nor accept government assistance, such as Social Security". Flashleg8 (talk) 13:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Use of money?

How would Amish be able to take buses or trains if they don't accept the use/transfer of money? (Mentioned in the modern technology section.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Memprime (talk • contribs) 12:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The article says they don't use money ON SUNDAYS. I do not know whether that's true or not, but they certainly use money the rest of the time. DavidOaks (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

David is right, I am a former Amish, and they do not believe in working or exchanging money on Sundays. (I don't know how I am supposed to add my name here, but it is Joseph Slabaugh, owner of ex-amish.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.145.13.45 (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that need to be addressed. I have made minor corrections and have included several points below that need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA. Please address them within seven days and the article will maintain its GA status. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you disagree with any of the issues, leave a comment after the specific issue and I'll be happy to discuss/agree with you. To keep tabs on your progress so far, either strike through the completed tasks or put checks next to them.

Needs inline citations:

1. "Ohio has the largest population (55,000), followed by Pennsylvania (39,000) and Indiana (37,000)."
   • All population figures updated and referenced.[3] ✤ JonHarder ^talk 13:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
2. "Some Beachy Amish have relocated to Central America, including a large community near San Ignacio, Belize."
   • I addressed this by removing the material as slightly off-topic.[4] If relevant, it could be covered in Beachy Amish. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 12:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
3. "The former Western Ontario Mennonite Conference (WOMC) was made up almost entirely of former Amish who reunited with the Mennonite Church in Canada."
   • Reference provided.[5] That whole paragraph should really be dropped as off-topic and not all that helpful for understanding the topic. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 11:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
4. "Amman insisted upon this practice, even to the point of expecting a spouse to refuse to eat with the banned member until he/she repented of his/her behaviour."
   • No source was found that says this directly, but it is a reasonable conclusion and is echoed in current practice. A source providing the background of Anabaptist shunning, including this very argument of spouse shunning, and Ammann's support of the strictest forms is provided.[6] ✤ JonHarder ^talk 15:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
5. "Because the Amish are the result of a division with the Mennonites, some consider the Amish a conservative Mennonite group."
   • This has been addressed by rewording to clarify the relationship between the two groups and providing a source for Amish becoming Mennonites.[7] ✤ JonHarder ^talk 18:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
6. "No Old Order movement ever developed in Europe; these communities are all in the Americas."
   • This statement was dropped. The decline of the Amish in Europe and origination of "Old Order" adequately covered in remainder of the section. Some clarification and a source added.[8] ✤ JonHarder ^talk 13:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
7. "It is also the proximate cause for rejecting education beyond the eighth grade, especially speculative study that has little practical use for farm life but may awaken personal and materialistic ambitions."
   • This is not an accurate summary of the reason for limiting education. It has been dropped.[9] ✤ JonHarder ^talk 12:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
8. "The Amish often cite three Bible verses that encapsulate their cultural attitudes:"
   • Reworked and sourced.[10] ✤ JonHarder ^talk 03:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
9. "Some of the strictest Old Order Amish groups are the Nebraska Amish ("White-top" Amish), Troyer Amish, the Swartzendruber Amish."
   • Source provided.[11] ✤ JonHarder ^talk 02:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
10. "Shunning is also sometimes imposed by bishops on church members guilty of offenses such as using forbidden technology. Church members may also be called to confess before the congregation."
    • Edited for accuracy; source provided.[12] ✤ JonHarder ^talk 00:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
11. "Those who come to be baptized sit with one hand over their face, to represent their submission and humility to the church."
    • Reference provided.[13] ✤ JonHarder ^talk 21:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
12. "Weddings are typically held on Tuesdays and Thursdays in November to early December, after the harvest is in."
    • Source provided.[14] ✤ JonHarder ^talk 16:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
13. "The deceased are dressed by family members of the same sex: men and unmarried women in white clothing, and married women in their wedding outfits."
    • Slightly reworded and sourced.[15] ✤ JonHarder ^talk 12:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
14. "A church district is measured by the number of families (households), rather than by the number of baptized persons. "
    • Source provided.[16] ✤ JonHarder ^talk 03:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
15. "Once a couple has married, it is understood that the most important family function is childbearing."
    • Reworked and a source provided.[17] ✤ JonHarder ^talk 12:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
16. "In some communities, the church leaders meet annually to review such proposals. In others, it is done whenever necessary."
    • Nailed this one down using Pennsylvania as a model.[18] ✤ JonHarder ^talk 18:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
17. "Many Amish communities also accept the use of chemical pesticides and GM crops, forgoing more common Amish organic farming techniques."
    • Clarified and source added.[19] "Organic farming" now has a specific meaning; the original editor may have intended a meaning more in line with "traditional farming techniques." ✤ JonHarder ^talk 13:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
18. "In the 1970s, for example, a farmer near Milan Center, Indiana, was ordered by his bishop to buy a conventional tractor. He had severe progressive arthritis, and with no sons to harness the horses for him, the tractor was seen as a need, rather than a vanity. The rest of the community continued farming with horses."
    • This has been replaced with several other examples and their sources.[20] ✤ JonHarder ^talk 13:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
19. "Hiring a taxi is forbidden on Sundays, as is any transfer of money."
    • Moved to Sunday service section, expanded and provided a source.[21] ✤ JonHarder ^talk 12:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
20. "It is not descended from the Dutch language, but is closest to the German dialect Schwäbisch or Swabian," This has been tagged since September 2007.
    • This could not be verified and was replaced with a more reliable statement.[22] ✤ JonHarder ^talk 14:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
21. "The restriction on buttons is attributed in part to their association with military uniforms, and also to their potential for serving as opportunities for vain display."
    • Updated paragraph for accuracy and added source. The most reliable sources only mention tradition and vanity as reason for avoiding buttons.[23] ✤ JonHarder ^talk 13:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
22. "When a girl becomes available to be courted, she wears a black bonnet" This has been tagged since November 2007.
    • Age was confused with dating. Corrected and referenced.[24] ✤ JonHarder ^talk 17:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
23. "These unmarried women also wear a white cape." This has been tagged since November 2007.
    • Clarified and referenced.[25] ✤ JonHarder ^talk 17:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
24. "Single Amish men are clean-shaven; if they are available to court women, they will put a dent in their hat."
    • I addressed this by dropping the sentence.[26] The first part is adequately covered in the remainder of the paragraph. The second part about a dent in the hat may be from a single community or original research that will prove difficult to verify. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 03:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
25. "Moustaches are not allowed, because they are associated with the military, and because they give opportunity for vanity."
    • Referenced. Several sentences of original research or speculation removed.[27] ✤ JonHarder ^talk 15:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
26. "Some Amish are afflicted by heritable genetic disorders, including dwarfism (Ellis-van Creveld syndrome), have the highest incidence of twins in a human population, various metabolic disorders, and unusual distribution of blood-types."
    • Referenced.[28] "Highest incidence of twins" is dubious and has been removed. One source found it slightly lower than the general population.[29]. The most reliable sources are silent on the topic. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 12:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
27. "Ministers, certain church employees, and Christian Science practitioners may qualify for exemption under a similar clause."
    • The paragraph has been clarified and provided with additional references.[30] The above statement was dropped as off-topic for the article; the new IRS pub reference does cover it, should the reader choose to follow the link. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 13:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
28. "Despite the vast differences between the two groups, the French and Romanian version of the film Witness mistranslated "Amish" as "Mormon.""
    • This was dropped as stand-alone trivia that cannot be meaningfully integrated into the article.[31] ✤ JonHarder ^talk 17:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Other issues:

1. To better summarize the article, the lead needs to be expanded to three or four paragraphs. See WP:LEAD for guidelines.
   • Expanded.[32] ✤ JonHarder ^talk 01:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
2. "In 2000, there were approximately 198,000 Old Order Amish in the United States, according to calculations based on the number of church districts and average district size in Raber's Almanac." Can this statistic be updated with any more recent data?
   • Possibly not yet. The most reliable numbers currently are from 2000. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 13:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
3. "Most Old Order and conservative Amish groups do not proselytize, and conversion to the Amish faith is rare but not unheard of. The Beachy Amish, on the other hand, do pursue missionary work." I think that this should be moved to another section as it seems out of place here.
   • Done by consolidating all baptism and membership information in one section.[33] ✤ JonHarder ^talk 19:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
4. "Suicide rates for the Amish of Lancaster County were 5.5 per 100,000 in 1980, about half that of the general population." Is there any more current data for this statement? Also, are there statistics for other Amish communities?
   • All online sources seem to be based on this study and another of the same time frame and same population. The paragraph has been exapanded. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 19:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Throughout the article there are several sentences that stand by themselves. They should either be expanded on or incporated into another paragraph.
   • These have all been addressed through the process of fixing the other problems, except for the Amish#Music section. I suggest it can be removed as trivia without a reliable, third-party source. I'll wait to see what other editors think. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 19:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This article covers the topic well and if the above issues are addressed, I believe the article can remain a GA. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. I will leave messages on the talk pages of the main contributors to the article along with the related WikiProjects so that the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. Good job on addressing the issues (the diffs were really helpful by the way!). Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the online inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Three Wikicheers for JonHarder

Who really busted tail on this article, and whupped it into shape! DavidOaks (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Settlements?

It would be nice if somebody could add some list of Amish settlements into this article. 81.18.63.128 (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be far too long a list. Perhaps the Population and distribution section could be expanded another paragraph or two, but I certainly wouldn't list every single settlement. Egads, Lancaster County alone could warrant a page all by itself. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 00:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

And Holmes County Ohio is supposed to be larger then Langcaster County. -Joseph Slabaugh, examish.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.219.114.203 (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Child discipline

Are the details of the various implements used to chastise Amish kids' bottoms really necessary? It seems unnecessary to me, and I thought a reference to corporal punishment would be more useful. --Totorotroll (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Am I correct in thinking that text shouldn't be copied out word for word from a listed source? --Totorotroll (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you'd be correct in thinking that. 172.190.1.102 (talk) 09:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Last line in the section is unessacary, off-topic, and rude.214.13.181.10 (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Notable populations

Some editors repeatedly add Davis County as notable w/o providing a source. There are some Amish there, but only a small part of a small population. Tedickey (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The population figures per state need to be updated. Data from last year establishes that Pennsylvania has the largest Amish population, not Ohio. See http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-09-14-amish-population_N.htm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockthenarb (talk • contribs) 19:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Citations needed

I have added some citation needed tags. They are intended to be helpful, and so I have commented in my edit summaries on each, rather than tag a whole section, or add all the tags in one edit. I believe in a low citation requirement, because citations obstruct the readability of the article, and too many citations obscure the most important ones. However, this article has quite a lot of statements of opinion, and implicit statistics, which Wikipedia cannot assert without attributing them to reliable secondary sources. I hope editors familiar with the sources will be able to address this, and hence improve the article. Geometry guy 22:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph about child labor laws seems to be contradicted by this [url]http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/youthlabor/employmentparents.htm[/url]

The paragraph on 'family life' has several sentences that appear to be copied (not verbatim, but quite close) from the book 'Amish Society' by John Hostetler (see page 145). 28/08/2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.108.246 (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Should Heading not be changed to 'Old Order Amish'?

Should the heading or title of this Wikipedia article not be changed to 'Old Order Amish' for clarity? A separate entry already exists for 'Amish Mennonite'. In my opinion, this would make this particular article a bit more focused. It should somehow be made clear that all 'Amish' are Amish Mennonites, but not all Amish Mennonites are 'Old Order'. The Old Order Amish are a branch of Amish Mennonites, just as Amish Mennonites are a branch of the Mennonites. Somehow it would be good if this could finally get clarified, with good sources cited. (I hope to work on this.) Names do indeed get confusing, and there is a real need here to get all of this straight. I recognize that many Amish and Mennonites do not even understand these names fully, nor the history of their origins. JMCooper (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I think it would add to the clarity since the article is about the Old Order Amish and not the Amish in general. I also think a separate section for the Swiss Amish would be helpful as the Swiss Amish not only are more conservative than most Old Order Amish, but they also use a different dialect of German. Quaker24 (talk) 06:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, I am a former Swartzentruber Amish, and not all Amish are "Amish Mennonites", the later being a more modern version of the Amish, and yes the Amish broke off of the Mennonites, but that does not make the Amish all Amish Mennonites. Maybe a section for Swartzentruber's and old order Amish as well as New Order Amish. THose are the 3 main groups, with the Old order being the largest. Swartzentrubers also broke off of the Old Orders, and have had splits off them a few times over the years, which has caused a lot of divisions among them, but I would say those 3 are the 3 largest groups. mr. deleted (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.145.13.45 (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Inheritance of defects

The prevalence of Pyruvate Kinase (PK) deficinecy has been found high in the Mifflin County, Penn., Amish population.* PK deficinecy is an inherited enzymopathy of the glycolytic pathway of RBCs that causes chronic hemolytic anemia.

• Ref., Frye RE: PK deficiency.

(Mirhimeh (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

$5?

Under education regarding a fine placed upon a Amish family the amount of the fine is said to be $5. They're are no sources I could find that say this amount and I was just wondering if this number is correct. $5 dollars does not seem like a standard fine and just checking to see if anyone can verify this. Sweetness46 (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

A pdf with full text of Wisconsin v Yoder decision at http://www.csustan.edu/cj/jjustice/CaseFiles/Wisconsin-v-Yoder.pdf (WISCONSIN v. YODER, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) Argued December 8,1971 Decided May 15, 1972) includes in the third paragraph: "On complaint of the school district administrator for the public schools, respondents were charged, tried, and convicted of violating the compulsory-attendance law in Green Country Court and were fined the sum of $5 each." Sounds like a fairly nominal or token fine, which was anyways reversed with this decision.

Religion

I notice there is little about the Amish theology. On visiting an Amish workshop I noticed a number of signs referring to belief and to God but no crosses or the name Jesus. How much is Jesus emphasized in Amish belief and ritual? LodovicoR (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that the whole reason they are there is their religion... it deserves much more emphasis... and I'd definitely agree - more explanation on their theology.

Popular culture

Have removed numerous instances of TV series where individual episodes had storylines including Amish characters; figured that a properly cited article on "Amish in the Media" was enough; these sections become magnets for trivia. If there are series devoted to the subject, or documentaries, they of course belong (and have been added beyond Igou's list). DavidOaks (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Portrayal in popular entertainment - Film

You might also mention the 2007 film Saving Sarah Cain Kvsh5 (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

What about Kingpin also? A central character in the film is an Amish man thrust into the modern world.

I believe that For Richer or Poorer should be on the list, since it takes place nearly entirely in an Amish community. If there are no objections, and if someone else doesn't beat me to it, I would like to add it to the list. Stregamama (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Beachy Amish are mennonites or Amish?

The Beachy Amish can't really be considered Amish for 3 main reasons.

First, some Beachy do missionary work which the Amish don't. Second, many of their communities have adapted into the surrounding mainstream society and some drive cars and use electric. Third, many among the Beachy Amish are becoming less conservative in their dress and not speaking PA German.

Some Beachy Amish communities are orthodox by Amish standards but increasingly many are unorthodox by Amish standards. So, wouldn't it be better to label the Beachy Amish as conservative Mennonites rather then Amish (not to be confused with old order or old colony Mennonites) as they are increasingly becoming Amish only in name? They even have a website which they themselves make the distinctions between themselves and the Amish. You can go to their website.

http://www.beachyam.org/amishmennonites.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenthere (talk • contribs) 12:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

All of this is interesting, and sounds like credible, reasoned judgment, but it can't go into the article until it's got WP:RS behind it. DavidOaks (talk) 12:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Funny when WP:RS restricts a person or group of people from identifying themselves. Could you imagine the same rules applying to a home security system or a bank. I'm sorry, since there is no RS, we can't identify you; come back when you have a RS like CNN say that you exist. --206.180.38.20 (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Can a user who lived the lifestyle be considered a reliable source? User:mrdeleted User talk:mrdeleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.145.13.45 (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Amish Mennonite

In my part of Lancaster County the Amish do not consider themselves to be Mennonite anymore than the Methodists consider themselves to be Anglicans. I feel the article would be improved if the Amish-Mennonite terminology were limited to groups who actually consider themselves to be both Amish and Mennonites. And from the Mennonite Encyclopedia http://www.gameo.org/encyclopedia/contents/A4574ME.html The Old Order Amish are among the most conservative descendants of the 16th-century Anabaptists. The Old Order are usually distinguished from the Amish Mennonites (now largely absorbed into the Mennonite Church [MC] or various conservative Mennonite groups), Beachy Amish and the New Order Amish Nitpyck (talk) 02:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

---

I agree with this and this is the reason I came here. I was raised Mennonite, lived in both PA and IN, and I can assure you that the Amish do not consider themselves Mennonites. That sentence is misleading and a small edit would do the trick. Can someone please make this edit? Apparently it's been noted for three years. 72.5.204.5 (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Renita, 12/28/12

Nothing is stopping you from making the change, or otherwise editing the article. Centerone (talk) 02:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Amish in the military

The Wikipedia article (one of the beginning paragraphs) states that the Amish "practice nonresistance and will not perform any type of military service", which is not entirely true.

While it is true that they will not volunteer for military service, they will serve loyally when called upon by their country in times of war, without being shunned by their community. I don't have a written source, as this information was told directly to my father and aunt, both of whom live in rural Eastern Ohio, with many Amish neighbors, including some very strict. Young Amish men who serve in war are NOT excommunicated or shunned... at least not in the Amish communities of Eastern OH/Western PA.

Donkeymeow (talk) 07:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It is well documented that Amish men will perform service to their country so long as it is administered by a civilian organization and does not directly support any military purpose. See Civilian Public Service for the Amish response to World War II. It would be unusual for men to set aside a key principle like nonresistance and we would want to see good documentation for that. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 11:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

My uncle who is still Amish went to prison for 3 years to avoid military service. ✤ mrdeleted ^talk 02:31, 03 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.28.128.233 (talk)

Television

From the television section, the following sentence seems poorly worded to me: "On Wednesday 18 February 2009, BBC2 aired 'Trouble in Amish Paradise', a one-hour documentary on Ephraim and Jesse Stoltzfus and their desire to adhere to Biblical Christianity whilst remaining Amish in culture."

In particular I think "their desire to adhere to Biblical Christianity whilst remaining Amish" -- Amish ARE Christians and follow the Bible, so this sentence makes no sense written as such. "Biblical Christianity" is not a sect that I am aware of as no one group has exclusive claim to the bible, and everybody interprets it differently. If this said something to the effect of "Evangelical Christianity" or mention of some other denomination, it would make sense. According to the following article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/4681945/Could-the-Amish-be-the-worlds-politest-rebels.html it seems that what they want is the ability to use an english bible since (according to the statements made -- although potentially unsourced) 'most' amish can't read the antiquated german (if they speak it, why can't they read it?) and the rules are interpreted by their religious leaders and elders. Centerone (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, and 'Biblical' falls foul of the NPOV principle for the reasons given. Could the user who reverted to 'Biblical' please provide some justification for this, before attempting to revert again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.187.55 (talk) 10:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The change was made without reference to the source (which in fact uses neither term). You're welcome to provide a WP:RS source which uses whichever term you choose. Discussion page comments are not WP:RS TEDickey (talk) 10:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The source is the programme: we don't need an additional source to distinguish "Biblical Christianity", which has the semantic problems outlined above from "Evangelical Christianity", whose meaning is broadly understood in this context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.187.55 (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

But there's no WP:RS given for either term to relate it to the program. The synopsis of the program on BBC's website for instance doesn't use that. (And insisting that there's no such thing as "Biblical Christianity" isn't plausible upon doing a Google search for the term). Lacking a reliable source, the entire statement should be removed. TEDickey (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC).

The discussion was not about sources, but about meaning and NPOV: the source is not in dispute. The user above outlined the problems with the term "Biblical Christianity": no one group has an exclusive claim to the term, and it is particularly inappropriate in this case since both groups would likely claim to base their beliefs on the Bible. Making this an issue of sources is simply vexatious.

But in Wikipedia, reliable sources are used to eliminate disputes over the meaning of terms. The user above isn't providing a link to a commentary which supports either interpretation, and none of the descriptions of the program from WP:RS appear to support either. The disagreement above amounts to denying that there's such a categorization and effectively suggesting a random category that sounds better. TEDickey (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The fact that there is no WP page on "Biblical Christianity" answers this point. And the idea that the term has some meaning because it comes up in a Google search is shaky to say the least. It seems to me that the attempt to use the term is somewhat akin to using "Real Christianity" or "orthodox Christianity". It has an agenda - it is not innocent. But I think I'll leave it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.187.55 (talk) 11:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

More than 400,000 hits in google on the exact phrase. Absence in Wikipedia largely means that no one's sought to make it "notable", noting that Wikipedia is not a repository of knowledge, and that Wikipedia is not a WP:RS in itself. My point however is that WP:RS have not been used effectively in the discussion TEDickey (talk) 12:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

hymnal picture is not an Amish hymnal

ummm... amish hymnals don't have notes at all :) so your hymnal pic is not Old Order Amish at all :) and it has been there a long time... this page is the reason why wikipedia is not trustworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.177.77.203 (talk) 06:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

wow, this one page makes all of wiki untrustworthy? amazing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.179 (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Where'd you get that? The core hymnal, the Ausbund, regularly prints texts without notes. There are lots of Amish around here, and I am utterly certain the hymnals they use contain notes. In fact, I'm looking at a photostat of 'S Lobg'sang, which is always the second song in an Amish service, reproduced in Hostetler's "Amish SOciety" p. 230, and those are definitely notes. DavidOaks (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible self-correction: the source for the Ausbund is Hosteler p 228; the image on 230 has a label "library of congress," so it may be an ethnographer's transcription rather than a field-collected item of print -- text doesn't make it clear. DavidOaks (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

There's an authoritative-sounding discussion of anabaptist and specifically Mennonite hymnals wrt to tunes here;[34] I'm suspecting that there are Mennonite hymnals other than the Ausbund in use. All sources I have checked are clear that the Ausbund itself in authoritative edition, is without tunes; the article alreeady notes variation in practice from one community to the next -- this may be such a matter.DavidOaks (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, the photo and caption were technically correct (and more attractive than what I've replaced them with) but if we're to have only one image of a hymnl, it ought to be the one most reasonably regarded as official. This was more a weak example than an inaccuracy, and inaccuracies in the wiki, so far from demonstrating its unreliability, show how it can be repaired. Try that with your Encyclopedia Americana, which most assuredly contains errors and poor examples worse than this. DavidOaks (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

interesting bit of research, may be worth including

http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/04/smallbusiness/amish_business_success/ Barnabypage (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Amish in Europe Section

This bio User:92.13.125.131 insist including is irrelevant to Violations of WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTABLE on third revert now left COI temp on page. Acusses me of Wanting to Conceal the amish presence in europe? Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no COI. I have no interest in publishing it. I simply found out by accident yesterday that Amish family lives in Poland. I googled what newspepers wrote about them. Then I tried to find information about them in wikipedia, and to my amazement in English language version of wikipedia there was nothing about them, so I decided to summarize the most interesting news about them from those 4 newspeper articles. IMHO such a news that Amish people live permanently outside Amercia is very important. I was very frustrated that my good input to wikipedia was treated like "garbage" by Weaponbb7, as he himself described it. Shame on you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.125.131 (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It's too specific (and overlong) for the topic, and there are likely insufficient sources to stand on its own Tedickey (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Would it be fine in your opinion to leave here a few sentences, and move all of it to a new article: Amish missions outside America? What do you mean insufficient sources? How many would be sufficient? I can't see how 4 sources, including the largest, mainstreem newspapers cannot be sufficient. Have you looked at the sources? There are apparently some articles about them in English as well: http://www.google.pl/#num=100&hl=pl&safe=off&q=Amish+in+Poland&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=9311bf480ab5bba2 I am happy with the sources I provided. If you are not, then feel free to add some more.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.125.131 (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

For a chunk of text that long, I'd expect to see 5-10 distinct sources aside from those from the subject's webpage. Tedickey (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I added some more links in English. I do not understand that: "aside from those from the subject's webpage?" What "subject's webpage"? :-O There is no webpage of Martins. They refuse to use internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.125.131 (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The content (of the links) appears to be mostly written by people with close involvement with the subject. It's a distraction from this topic, since it's talking about just a few people, while this topic is much broader. Tedickey (talk) 00:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, the links in English are written by a researcher of Amish culture Erik Wesner http://amishamerica.com/about-me/. The links in Polish are mostly from the mainstream newspapers (like Rzeczpospolita and Polityka) written by professional journalists. So I do not see any links at all written by people close to the subject. If you claim that this topic is allegedly much broader, then why don't you make your input? From what I learned it is not much broader at all. Those Amish who did not emigrate to America joint back Mennonites, so there were no Amish in Europe left, until perhaps those three families came from America to Poland. I have just found out that allegedly Beachy Amish tried also to settle in Romania and Ukraine, but I do not know anything about that. Someone else would have to supplement the section about those new settlements. That's how wikipedia works after all. No one person can make one article complete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.125.131 (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Since there are no more concerns to address, and Albanman shortened that section considerably, then I consider the dispute closed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.125.131 (talk) 11:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's not up to you to announce that the dispute is resolved. We'll continue here as needed, and look for consensus from the editors who have been maintaining the topic Tedickey (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, some of your edits are personal attacks on other editors, and you can be blocked for that, as well. However, we're still interested if you have anything to say about the undue focus (so far, no response has been made) Tedickey (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why it's not up to me, it is up to me, as it is up to anyone else. Nobody owns the articles (you know what I mean). Since I believed that I replied to all concerns, and nobody for several days had any more concerns, then it seemed logical that consensus was achieved, and the case should be closed.
I believe that I already replied to the undue issue above proving that the data come from reliable sources. The section fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight". If you mean something else, you must be more specific, as I do not understand what more concerns you have.
I did not intend to personally attack anyone, if you think so, then I am sorry that your impression is mistaken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.125.131 (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

this is an attack. As for it being up to you, since no other person is pushing this content in, and you've not responded to the concerns about undue focus, there's no one else to address those issues Tedickey (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. This is the truth, not an attack. He was evading very long all my attemps to talk and achieve consensus. It seemed like he just wanted to delete it regardless of lack of any reasons to do it. I do not like if my good input is destroyed without any good reason. I believe that I addressed all the issues, hence it was proper IMO to close the case. You again claim that I allegedly "not responded to the concerns about undue focus" despite the fact that I already explained to you above that I did, and I noted that if you mean something else then you should explain what you mean. Yet, you chose to ignore it, and only repeat yourself. Why?

I only see repeated assertions from you, without any constructive edits. Lacking that, I'll hold til another experienced editor (distinct from you) takes the time to join in. Tedickey (talk) 08:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I can say that about you. You have apparently even not read the links I provided, yet you claimed falsely that the links are not what they are. I proved above conclusively that you were wrong. What else do you want is beyond me, and despite my several requests to explain what exactly you want, you ignore my requests, and falsely claim that I am not constructive, while if fact I have not seen any constructive input from you here; it seems that you are just teasing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.125.131 (talk) 02:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

you have already added it in an appropriate place nothing else to do here. Weaponbb7 (talk) 03:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No. Because only Anita comes from Beachy Amish, head of the family Jacob does not, and neither other families, which were moving. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.125.131 (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Please quit moving against consensus. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus, because consensus cannot be based on lies. I answered all your concerns, and proved your concerns to have no ground. So because I proved that all your concerns have no ground, there is no reason for the section not to stay.

I have moved the disputed section to a more appropriate part of the article (and I see it has been removed as I write this). It does not belong in the article at all, even is a footnote, in my opinion. This is primarily because:

• this article is mainly about Old Order Amish, which these people do not appear to be
• it gives undo weight to an anomaly
• it adds another novelty angle to this article, which detracts from an encyclopedic, dispassionate presentation
• the main source is the self-published website of an individual, which is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards

For a topic that has been the subject of so much scholarly work in the fields of sociology and other disciplines, I prefer to set a very high standard for what sources are used here. Certainly a section discussing what becomes of Amish people who leave the community is very approrpriate; specific examples outside of that context are not. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 00:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

*this article is mainly about Old Order Amish, which these people do not appear to be
Jacob describes himself as Amish Mennonite. This article cannot be only about Old Order Amish, because that would mean that there is no article in en.wikipedia about Amish in general and that would be simply wrong. If that article was called Old Order Amish then it would be only about Old Order Amish, but since it is called Amish it should be about Amish in general.
* it gives undo weight to an anomaly
So is it better to conceal the truth (because some people may not like what some Amish people do)?
* it adds another novelty angle to this article, which detracts from an encyclopedic, dispassionate presentation
There are only the facts presented - this is encyclopedic.
* the main source is the self-published website of an individual, which is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards
Would you please stop making things up, and read the discussion first? You can't be taken seriously when you are just making things up.
It's been already explained in the discussion above that the links in English are written by a researcher of Amish culture Erik Wesner (he wrote and published a book about them) http://amishamerica.com/about-me/. The links in Polish are mostly from the largest mainstream newspapers (like Rzeczpospolita and Polityka) written by professional journalists. When I first published that section it was based solely on the links to the newspapers and magazines, so that is the main source and not Eric Wesner's webpage (which I still consider a reliable source, as he is an expert and researcher of Amish culture)
So on what grounds you say that the links are not reliable sources? What links would be reliable in your opinion, if those are not?
* Certainly a section discussing what becomes of Amish people who leave the community is very approrpriate; specific examples outside of that context are not.
This in not an example, this is the only case of Amish Mennonites I know, which moved permanently outside North America. If there will be other cases in the future then perhaps it could be generalised more somehow.
If you do not like it here then I don't mind making a separate article about Amish missions outside North America, and leaving here only a few sentences note, and a link to the main article about Amish missions outside North America —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.208.209 (talk) 01:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not Relevant to the larger article on Amish, you added it too the here and that about all the sources deserve. Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

But you ignore the fact that those families were not Beachy Amish, except Anita. Hence, it does not seem apropriate to describe different Amish groups moves in the Beachy Amish article as you propose. And who you are to say arbitrally that it does not deserve the place here? In my opinion that is very important that some Amish try to establish Amish missions outside North America. It deserves a section in this general article about Amish or a separate article, which could be called "Amish missions outside North America".

Two Editors have told you so, I am not arbitrarily decided anything. Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

But in a dispute like this it is not enough to just say something, you have to convince the other party with valid, reasonable arguments why you think like you think, so that the other party could have grounds to change his/her mind. I do not see any reason to change my mind when someone uses lies (e.g. about the reliability of links) or says that Amish missions outside America do not deserve a section or a separate article without any reasonable, convincing explanation why.

As i said, Violations of WP:NOTABLE and WP:UNDUE Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I have already replied to those alleged violations, and you have not disproved my arguments, hence I cannot consider those alleged violations as valid. Just repeating them without taking position to my earlier replies is not going to convince me that there are any violations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.208.209 (talk) 03:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

None of the other editors appear to see where you are responding to the point about undue focus. Perhaps if you summarize your response briefly, there will be something to discuss. TEDickey (talk) 08:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Only you used that frase "undue focus", and I told you several times that I believed that I replied to that, but if you mean something else then I do not understand what you mean, and I asked you several times to explain what you mean, but you ignore my requests. If you really wanted an answer you would not be ignoring my request to explain what you want. You cannot be taken seriously, if behave like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.208.209 (talk) 11:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)