Talk:Amish/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

school

there school sounds kinda like a school who dont have many options but that could be wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.49.30 (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You are commenting that you believe their schools "do not have many options"? What is your point? 69.120.2.107 (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Land Use and Taxes

I thought I previously read something about young Amish men having to find work in factories outside their communities because of the expense involved in maintaining their land. Though they do not pay into Social Security, I thought they are not excluded from paying property taxes. This is relevant information, and should be researched for inclusion.
Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 11:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes they pay land taxes. And my father paid into social security, but was not eligible for regular Social Security Retirement due to an "Exempt number" he got instead of the regular SSN. He did however for 11 years get Social Security Age, which is a different program of the SSA. The Amish had him stop accepting that income this year even though he is paralyzed. [user:mrdeleted] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.28.128.233 (talk) 08:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Along the same line there was feedback asking if the Amish pay Federal Income Taxes? As far a I know they must pay the same taxes on farm and business income as any other US citizen. However the IRS does not seem to mention this specifically. They only have an application for exemption from SSI and Medicare/Medicade. One of the IRS favorite tricks, you can not prove a negative. How can you cite what does not exist? Any ideas? --  :- ) Don 05:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

"amish Grace"

This seems an overblown reference. (In "in popular/film.."). Do we really need three substantial paragraphs for a less-than-notable made for TV movie? Why isn't it just listed like the other movies, etc? I've never seen the film, nor do I have a "dog in the fight" so to speak, but this just stuck out to me as unnecessary. I've changed it to a single reference like the other films, with a link to the internal wiki page for that movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.179 (talk) 13:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

photos

Respectfully disagree with this diff[3], and the editor's characterization of the paragraph as injecting opinion; I did not originally post it, though I edited it for clarity, and I think it accurately summarizes a longish discussion from a WP:RS on a much-discussed and apparetnly much-misunderstood subtopic. DavidOaks (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It may accurately summarize the source, it may not (it's certainly not to be mistaken for a quote). Another supporting source which is closer to the editor's intent would be helpful. TEDickey (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Page split

Note that a user recently moved some content to Amish way of life; the removal was reverted by ClueBot and then Mike Rosoft as vandalism. I currently have no opinion as to whether the article split is appropriate, but note that it certainly doesn't appear to be vandalism, and if the content is reinstated here the new article should be deleted, so it should be discussed here whether or not the split is sensible. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I have just tried to make Wikipedia recommended (32 kb) size of articles and preserve all the information in a new one. Alexander Roumega (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd read this article in the past and thought that it was a nice article. I came back to see what changes had been made and I saw that it was a shadow of its former self. It seems that Alexander Roumega came along and chopped almost every chapter off and turned them into new articles. This, IMHO, really was not necessary. It fragments the article and makes information harder to find. Articles should, to some degree, be self-contained. Forcing someone to follow half-a-dozen links just to read an article is wrong, and is against policy. The original article was not too long. I suggest that we reunite the article and make it how it was. I'd appreciate some input. Thanks. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that History of Amish movement and Amish demography possible have to be remerged with Amish if no one will expand these short articles with new materials. About others... I don't know. These are enough long text with own topics and structures. May add some details to short sections of Amish article? I'm ready to hear other opinions. If these will be to reunite, I'm ready to do it. Please don't make reunite by simple undone of many changes, because many small but good improvements can be lost by this way! Alexander Roumega (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I've added {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} to these section. It's pointless having an article on the Armish, with subsections, and then giving each subsection its own article. I would appreciate it if you made the changes you volunteered to make in your last post. If you need any help then please let me know. Otherwise I will merge the sections myself. For future reference: I really don't think such wholesale changes should have been made without any talk page discussion. Thanks. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I've remerged these articles. How to delete splitted correctly? Alexander Roumega (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've used the speedy deletion template {{db-g6}} on the two articles that you merged back into this one. Does that answer your second question? Thanks again for your good work; it's appreciated! — Fly by Night (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Anarchy

Are Amish communities effectively anarchies? Just a question I thought I'd put out there. Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 02:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so. The anarchy article says that one of its definitions is "No rulership or enforced authority." Given that the Amish do have a leadership structure, e.g. the elders and ultimately God. They do also have enforced authority via shunning and the like. So, by reading the Amish article and the anarchy article, you should be able to answer your own question. Also, this isn't really the place for such a question. An article's talk page is for discussing the editing of the article. You might like to try one of our many references desks next time. — Fly by Night (talk) 12:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Films with episodic Amish part

... may take place in the subsection. These are not sources of information about Amish but examples of cultural reflection of Amish life, IMHO. Alexander Roumega (talk) 11:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Why delete "Abuse in Amish society"?

I think every thing has at least two sides. This is a section with neutral point of view and some sources references. May be abuse in Amish communities taking place not often then in others communities but several facts are known. Alexander Roumega (talk) 10:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not the 'neutral point of view' that's at issue but the fact that the inclusion of a section on abuse is an example of 'begging the question.' The very first line in the deleted section says that nothing definitive can be proven. If that's the case, then why include it? The section only serves to draw attention to a subject with the clear implication being that abuse is more prevalent in Amish societies. According to the facts, however, that is not the case. It's not a standard section in any other religious or social group's wikipedia page, so why include it here, especially given the fact that there's no study or case (i.e. proof) that abuse of any kind occurs at a higher rate in Amish communities? It's inappropriate and borders on bigotry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameswester (talk • contribs) 23:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Something should clearly be said about the widespread use of corporal punishment in the discpline of children. Calling it abuse is probably POV though, but its certainly a very large area of controversy and is actually part of the religion/culture not just a common practice. The logic comes from the "spare the rod..." passage in the bible. There have been many legal cases dealing with it as well 68.188.25.170 (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I think focus on corporal punishment or abuse unduly singles out a population who share parenting practices similar to many other American subcultures, and others outside the US, in addition to being POV. There are no sections under African Americans or Appalachians that focus on the widespread use of physical modes of discipline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.254.84.103 (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Crime

Nothing on drug use, rape, perversion, etc., amongst the Amish? I believe there's a crime when one human covets what another has or contains. I doubt the Amish are crime free. Apple8800 (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Are there articles covering religious denominations at the Feature or Good Article level that can be used as template for such a section? I wasn't aware that criminal behavior was a significant consideration for articles like this. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 00:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

If there were substantial sources for Deviance in Amish society we would probably cover it if sourcing existed. A cursory glance indicates very little literature largely because Amish deal with such things internally The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

And why no mention of the involvement of the Amish and Mennonites in puppy mills? They're notorious for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.115.185.13 (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Annualize Population Growth

Someone please get on this. The current state of that table is dismal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.178.29 (talk) 07:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

AmishAmerica advert as RS

The statement might be factual, but the source isn't WP:RS. Half of it is pasted from Wikipedia, and the other half is bare advertisement TEDickey (talk) 09:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I've changed the source to a New York Times article, which I think will be acceptable. Should have looked longer for a better source. I know these Amish personally, and thus didn't work to hard to find verification. -DaleWatt — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaleWatt (talk • contribs) 22:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

(use : to indent) --Lexein (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I have corrected the wording which did not reflect the reference. Key point being that the Supreme Court overturned the IRS ruling on exemption on the basis of religious belief .. the way I read the judgement. 99.236.179.171 (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Conversion to amish? adoption of non-amish?

Can a person convert to amish? Can a amish couple adopt a non-amish child and have any ever adopted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.133.179 (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

taxes continued

On the article for "Amish", footnote 44 discusses the Supreme Court case United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252 (1982) and it quotes it. However the article misinterprets the court case. The Amish must pay social security tax, even though it violates their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, because the government has a compelling state interest to take taxes from all U.S. citizens to support the social security system. There are no exemptions made by Congress, except for the statute cited by that footnote in the article. But the case also says the statute exemption does not apply to the Amish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.182.112 (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right. The article did misinterpret the case and I corrected. Might not be perfect yet, but it's better. 99.236.179.171 (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Almost all self-employed people are required to pay Social Security taxes; only ministers, members of religious orders, and members of certain religious sects can be exempted. I have updated the article to more closely match the well-written corresponding section in Amish life in the modern world. Jdperkins (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Public attitude that Amish pay no taxes

I deleted this comment, and thought I should say why. While this is no doubt true, I don't believe that wiki is a place to chronicle various public attitudes, unless those become newsworthy and can be sourced. But to the original author of the comment, I think the attitude is best combatted simply by providing accurate and properly sourced specifics about the Amish and payment of taxes. 99.236.179.171 (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge Amish Mennonite -> Amish

The Amish Mennonite article is small and doesn't contain sufficient material. We should merge its contents here and have a redirect. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The second sentence of the Amish article reads: "The Amish are known for simple living, plain dress, and reluctance to adopt many conveniences of modern technology." Though at one time the term Amish Mennonite included all Mennonite Anabaptists in the tradition of Jacob Amman, today it likely describes a subset of those Amish, most of whom would appear to live less simply, dress less plainly, attend high school & college, & use the Internet, among other conveniences of modern technology. EdK (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

"Amish Mennonite" is the name sometimes used by the liberal side of the split among the Amish that occurred in the mid 1800s. The Old Order do not use that term for themselves, but groups such as the Conservative Mennonite Conference and Beachy Amish have used it and some still do, for themselves. You may see a church named, for example, Mountaintop Amish Mennonite Church. The confusion comes from the first sentence of the Amish Mennonite article that refers to the Amman/Reist division of the late 1600s, when it should probably refer to the division of the 1800s between the Old Order and the "progressives". The liberal side of that split used the Amish Mennonite name, even as referencing Amish people before the split. But the conservative side (Old Order) do not generally use that term. Today, the term "Amish Mennonite" refers to a more liberal person than an Old Order Amish, although there is nothing official about that. If the Amish Mennonite article is to be merged, it should go with subgroups of Amish or the Conservative Mennonite Conference articles.Mikeatnip (talk) 02:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The Amish and the Mennonite are not the same so please unmerge them. Although they're similiar in some ways, they are different in many others. I know this because I know both Amish and Mennonite. I found many issues with this article pertaining to this article. I'd have to almost disagree with everything in this article. I'm not coming around to be all knowing of the Amish but I know way more than what this article states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filup2006 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

They are not the same, but they are from the same root. They are not merged yet, that's what the discussion is about. Also, this is not about Amish and Mennonite, it's about merging the Amish and Amish Mennonite articles. The fact that you have to disagree with almost everything in the article may go back to the root of your confusion. If you'd like to discuss your disagreements with this article's contents, feel free to do so, but do it in a new section. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

A little further explanation ... The splits went like this: Swiss Brethren began in 1525 in Zurich. In the late 1600s, there was a split in the Swiss Brethren between the Jacob Amman and the Hans Reist groups. At that time neither side used the name Mennonite, as Mennonite referred to the Dutch Anabaptists. AFTER (caps on purpose) they came to North America, the Reist side came to be called Mennonites (despite the fact that it was the Amman side who helped cause the division by bringing in the Dutch Mennonite ideas of strong shunning and footwashing, which the Swiss Brethren had never practice before!), and the Amman side came to be called Amish. In Switzerland, the Reist side also began to use the name Mennonite, after the split, and today no one uses the name "Swiss Brethren."

In the mid 1800s, the Amman side split between the Old Order and the more "progressive" side over issues like having meeting houses. This more progressive side used the name (sometimes) "Amish Mennonites". Some of these "Amish Mennonites" (unofficial name) later formed into the Conservative Mennonite Conference, and when the "Beachy Amish" division began in the early 1900s, some of those congregations also used that name, again, mostly unofficially. See Leroy Beachy's book, Unser Leit for a detailed history of all this. Mikeatnip (talk) 03:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I know many Amish who would object to being merged with Amish Mennonite. They are a distinct subgroup more akin to Mennonite than Amish. Amish split from Mennonites when Amman and his followers believed Mennonites to be becoming too modern. Amish Mennonite can be a unique contribution to Wiki but does need additional support. In the Wayne-Holmes County Settlement, there are Amish who trace their origins to Sonnenberg, an early 19th Century settlement near Kidron. However, today there are no Amish who label themselves as such since the members of those affiliations are today Conservative Mennonite, Mennonite, or Old or New Order Amish (there are many Swartzentruber, but they moved to the area from southern part of the settlement). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.254.84.103 (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I had created Subgroups of Amish page to put there information about different Amish and near-Amish groups. If this is a different group but Wikipedia has no information enough for separate article (like Beachy Amish Mennonite) it's a good idea: make section in Subgroups of Amish and redirect to section. When this section achieve size recommended for article, this section will be moved to one's own page (replacing redirect). So, may be better to merge Amish Mennonite not to Amish, but to Subgroups of Amish page? Alexander Roumega (talk) 08:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Amish Mennonite should not be merged. They are definitely distinct. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Aniconism

A bit more information about their religious beliefs, specifically aniconism, would be interesting and beneficial to the article. I did see a separate article about Amish beliefs, but I didn't seem to find aniconism mentioned there, either. --Dulcimerist (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

In the early-mid 1800s when cameras were invented, the Amish, the Mennonites, and the German Baptist Brethren would have pretty much all been opposed to having images made of oneself. This would have been from the OT prohibition of "making images," but also from the perspective of humility, which would not want to promote oneself (like, why would I want to give you a picture of myself, unless it were to promote something about me). I believe this was an issue raised in the Dienersammlung (sp?) of the mid 1850s that resulted in the division between the "Amish Mennonites" and the "Old Order." But I would have to check for sure. The Amish newspaper "Die Botschaft" forbids any advertisements with pictures of people in them. Mikeatnip (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Animal welfare - puppy mill operators

"An overwhelming number of puppy mill operators are Amish. Inside the picturesque barns and wooden fences of Amish country in New York State and in all Amish communities throughout the US, "purebred" puppies are bred by the tens of thousands, many living in a hellish world of filthy, crowded cages... Be warned though- the Amish life that is depicted for tourist is nothing like the reality. A simple Google search for Amish puppy mills will return thousands of hits. For farmers, a big crop of dogs can gross up to $500,000 annually, with successful operations netting six figures... In areas of the U.S. where Amish dwell, there is a high number of puppy mills. The Pennsylvania Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement lists 243 kennels in Lancaster County. Pennsylvania, 98% of them owned by Amish. Holmes County, Ohio, has 470 kennels -- more than any other county in the nation." Amish Puppy Mills Exposed.Nemissimo (talk) 12:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Too much Popular Portrayal?

Just wondering if the Portrayal in Popular Entertainment is getting out of hand? I mean, a third of the article?? I propose that the section needs seriously trimmed. Comments? Mikeatnip (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes it has. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

People want to see the Amish. Maybe it will keep them out of Lancaster. Perhaps we can eliminate some poorer quality items. But, that is a judgement call.
This article was delisted. What can we do to get it back? FYI, the article is now semi-protected from IP's for 6 months. --  :- ) Don 07:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Should we make another page, say like Amish in Popular Portrayal, and shrink the section in this article down to about one paragraph? This article is about the Amish, not about all the portrayals, many of which are not accurate.
Yeah, people want to see the Amish. Did you know that Lancaster County receives 11 million tourists a year? Of course not all of those 11 million come to see the Amish, but a majority do. (I happen to live in Lancaster County.) :-) Mikeatnip (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

A separate article might not be a bad idea. Then it could expand to satisfy the needs of the reader. I discovered there is Category Amish which is a bit of a mess IMHO. We have "Amish way of Life" and "Amish life in the modern world" for example. For a comparison, I had a look at a comparable group Hasidic Judaism, a very impressive article we could take a lesson from maybe. They do not have a popular culture section at all. I'm ambivalent about Lancaster tourism, having grown up north of the city, my family is Mennonite, my grandparents spoke Pa Dutch, and I grew up with Amish friends. When I visit, the traffic is worse than LA. --  :- ) Don 02:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Tomcat7! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeatnip (talk • contribs) 22:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Notes

I see User:Lgfcd was very busy. Something that was desperately needed. It appears you tried to add a note with "lower-case". I played with it, and found out, that it does not work with the quotes. Almost any Wiki-markup will work without the quotes and takes up less space. Based on this newly found bug, I would suggest leaving quotes out of any names, including <ref name=xyz>. I like having separate notes and references, but I prefer, just Note 1, Note 2, but anything is better than what we had. Good work, let get this to "Feature Article". Now... what to do with "Popular Media"?. -- :- ) Don 06:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Typo needs correction

under 'Way of life' then under 'Language', the 1st line reads "The Amish speak in Pennsylvania Dutch and refer to non-Amish as "Enlgish"." change Enlgish to English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.155.65 (talk) 04:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for reporting it. — Richwales 06:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Ordnung

All I was trying to do was fix the text that stated Social Security was 'government assistance'. If you know about 'Ordnung' or about Old Order Amish/Mennonite practices, which is implied in your edit summaries, please fix the lede, add references to the article, delete the statements that cannot be verified from reliable sources, etc. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 04:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't broken. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I've added references for the statements that most Amish do not buy commercial insurance or participate in Social Security. In the course of working on the lede & the issues of insurance/Ordnung/Social Security/etc, I have also noticed that the lede has another assertion unsupported by the article, the one regarding nonresistance and military service. Shearonink (talk) 06:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Amish technology

I think this article should have a section explaining what technologies the Amish will use and what technologies they will not use. I think they do use candles and kerosene lanterns. Do they use propane lanterns?

I assume they do not use electric refrigerators. Do they use refrigerators powered by natural gas, propane or kerosene? Do they use natural gas for cooking or heating their homes and water?

I think this article should also explain why they will use some technologies and why they will not use other technologies. Neutrino1200 (talk) 12:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Which technologies the Old Order Amish will and will not use varies considerably. Using an example about which you asked, the most conservative Amish today may use only kerosene lamps, while some Old Order Amish may have electricity (this is a very small minority), and use electric lights.

As with the issue of lighting, this same variation exists with regards to the other examples you used.

I agree that it would be nice to have a section that deals with this subject, but it would need to be written by someone with a fairly deep knowledge of Old Order Amish beliefs and practices. --JMCooper (talk) 04:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 March 2013

In the section "Way of Life", the subsection "Languages" has an error, viz:

Finally, the Amish read prayers and sing in Standard German, or High German (Hoch Deitsch) at church services.

It should be:

Finally, the Amish read prayers and sing in Standard German, or High German (Hoch Deutsch) at church services.

24.136.152.35 (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

 Not done It should not read that way as that is not what the quote it is taken from says. The actual term, "Hoch Deitsch", is in low German itself and is correct in that language. If you had edited the article you would have seen that there is a hidden comment that reads: "this is not a mistake. The quote writes the words in low German and so it is written as such here". Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm doing this improperly, but I have a few observations about this issue. Walter, this may or may not be minor, but Pennsylvania German absolutely is not a form of Low German. It is an Upper German dialect. Secondly, one thing that often causes confusion to English speakers is just any reference to 'High German'. What does it mean? In most cases, if it is Standard German which is being referred to, then it may be best to stick with the term Standard German, in order to avoid ambiguity. I realize that 'Hochdeutsch' has a clear meaning in Germany, but 'High German' is not so clear to an English speaker. Thirdly, and this may also be minor, this word should be written (if it's written at all) as either 'Hochdeitsch' or 'Hochdeutsch', as it is one word, not two. Fourthly, as to the spelling, if you would ask an Amish person to spell 'deitsch', those who could may well use the spelling 'deutsch'. Certainly, none would write 'deitsch'. The reason for this is that the Pennsylvania Dutch-speaking Amish nearly always pronounce 'eu' as someone in Germany would pronounce 'ei'. Most Amish people have no idea that people in Germany do not pronounce 'deutsch' the way they do. Another related problem is that the Amish rarely try to write anything in Standard German, nor even in their own dialect(s). Lastly, to add more complication, most of the songs sung, and many of the prayers read or recited by the Amish, are actually in what many would consider to be Early New High German. It most certainly isn't Standard German. Their Bibles, however, are often just old-fashioned versions of the Martin Luther Bible, with antiquated spelling and grammar, printed in the Fraktur script. My suggestion would be to state something like: Finally, the Amish read prayers and sing hymns in an antiquated form of Standard German in their church services. (and just leave out the whole hochdeutsch/hochdeitsch business, altogether.) --JMCooper (talk) 03:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not what the cited source says though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The exact content in question reads:

According to one scholar, "today, almost all Amish are functionally bilingual in Pennsylvania Dutch and English; however, domains of usage are sharply separated. Pennsylvania Dutch dominates in most in-group settings, such as the dinner table and preaching in church services. In contrast, English is used for most reading and writing. English is also the medium of instruction in schools and is used in business transactions and often, out of politeness, in situations involving interactions with non-Amish. Finally, the Amish read prayers and sing in Standard German, or High German (Hoch Deitsch)<!-- this is not a mistake. The quote writes the words in low German and so it is written as such here--> at church services. The distinctive use of three different languages serves as a powerful conveyor of Amish identity."

• Hurst, Charles E.; McConnell, David L. (2010). An Amish Paradox: Diversity and Change in the World's Largest Amish Community. The Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 15–16. ISBN 0-8018-9398-4. note: ref converted to simple cite.

So you would have to take umbrage with the two authors not me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Walter, I *believe* I am taking umbrage with you, with regard to whether or not Pennsylvania German is some kind of Low German dialect. The authors do not make that false claim (nor does anyone else). Did the authors write something like 'Hoch Deitsch' in their book? I would find that rather strange, and also quite amateurish. Whether or not they made that statement in print, it is still wrong, citation or no (at least insofar as writing the term as two separate words). I explained to you where the Pennsylvania German pronunciation came from. The authors apparently tried to render Pennsylvania German speech into something readable, as the Amish themselves do no writing in the dialect (with only extremely rare exceptions). As the authors state, when the OOA write, they write in English. Your profile page indicates you have some knowledge of German. Just take a peak at the Ausbund (there is a sample page in an image in the article, or download a copy from Google Books), and tell me you think that is Standard German. --JMCooper (talk) 06:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry then. Yes, they wrote Hoch Deitsch: http://books.google.ca/books?id=SvxpZ37sRd8C&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=%22today,+almost+all+Amish+are+functionally+bilingual+in+Pennsylvania+Dutch+and+English;+however,+domains+of+usage+are+sharply+separated%22&source=bl&ots=pnNWNgUB3m&sig=v9RNTLyxUARglqaBBsQPQSjyH_4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=prOAUajXHcagigLRtoCoBA&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22today%2C%20almost%20all%20Amish%20are%20functionally%20bilingual%20in%20Pennsylvania%20Dutch%20and%20English%3B%20however%2C%20domains%20of%20usage%20are%20sharply%20separated%22&f=false. If you have anything you would like to change or add, with a reference, feel free to. Until then, I'm no responding any longer. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Walter, I am in no way trying to belittle you. Since you cite no reference to Pennsylvania German being a Low German variant, and I have asked you a few times now, I will be editing that remark. Sorry. Maybe you do not realize that not all German dialects are Low German. Additionally, I will ask you once again to look at the Ausbund (the hymnal used by the vast majority of Amish churches), and tell me that is Standard German. No one who knows any German needs a citation to realize that the language is not Standard German, the hymnal itself can be cited. --JMCooper (talk) 06:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Please read what was written in the article. Then read the reference. If you have a counter-point to make, off it with a reference. Beyond that your first-hand knowledge while being quaint and interesting, is useless on Wikipedia. What isn't useless is a reliable source, which I'm sorry to say, you're not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Walter, you need to read the comments I made, possibly for the first time. (Again) I asked you specifically about the reference in your hidden comment to Low German. You refused to answer, and I have removed it. Even hidden comments should provide accurate information. Although I find your confidence in sociologists' handling of linguistic matters very quaint, I had assumed that since you know German, you could take a look at the image of a page from the Ausbund, located right next to the passage in question, and see for yourself. "Wie du Christe bißher hast thon, Auf dein Befehl wir uns verlohn, Die Heyden woll'n uns toedten." -This is from the end of the second verse of 'Aus tieffer Noth' (from the image in the article). Standard German? --JMCooper (talk) 06:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, someone has changed 'Hoch Deitsch' to 'Hochdeutsch' in the quote from the book Walter Görlitz has cited. Even though the authors of the book should arguably have used either Hochdeitsch or Hochdeutsch, they did not. This being the case, the book needs to be quoted correctly. In the discussion above, I was not intending to suggest that Walter should modify this direct quotation. Therefore, I have reverted this edit to how Walter had it originally. Walter, thank you for preserving my edit to your hidden comment, even though you clearly do not understand what the term Low German means. --JMCooper (talk) 08:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Amish and language

I changed "The Amish speak in Pennsylvania Dutch..." to "Most Old Order Amish speak Pennsylvania Dutch...". The reason for this, is that there are several areas where the Old Order Amish speak forms of Swiss German, instead of Pennsylvania Dutch. Examples of this would be Allen County and Adams County, in Indiana. --JMCooper (talk) 03:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Title

A few years ago, I expressed my opinion that this article should be titled 'Old Order Amish', rather than merely 'Amish'. Apparently that did not happen, but at least now it is made clear at the beginning that this article refers specifically to the Old Orders. However, I notice now that there is also an article entitled 'Old Order Amish'. Why is this? My opinion would be that these two articles should be merged, and that the title should be 'Old Order Amish'. The article titled 'Amish' should be an article which makes reference to all Amish groups, and groups of Amish derivation. --JMCooper (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Probably because they're actually different things. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

"This article is about Old Order Amish, but also refers to other Amish sects." How do you propose that they are somehow about different things? Both articles claim to be about the Old Order Amish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmichaelx (talk • contribs) 05:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

PBS "companion"

There is a new book out (The Amish, ISBN 1421409143) that calls itself "The Companion to American Experience on PBS". I wasn't sure whether to mention it next to the PBS link in the external links section or list it in the "Further reading" section. Worthy in either? Mapsax (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. I found The Amish (film) and added it there, making appropriate adjustments to the Amish article, which probably should have been made anyway. Mapsax (talk) 01:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hochdeitsch

I made a small change to the article to make it clearer to readers that Hochdeitsch is the Pennsylvania Dutch name for Standard German (and is not simply an accidental misspelling of the better-known Standard German form Hochdeutsch). I know there is an HTML comment in the article's source text warning people not to "correct" this word — a comment which many hopefully well-meaning editors either fail to take seriously or fail to notice at all — but I think that making the issue more explicitly clear in the visible article text is preferable. Please note, too, that the new VisualEditor editing interface does not show HTML comments, so new editors definitely will not see source text warnings like this (and we'll all have to break the habit of using them and expecting them to have any effect). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

External links

The Amish Farmers Reinventing Organic Agriculture. "By studying the immune systems of plants, they've developed a technique that eliminates the need for chemicals." The Atlantic.

This external link is not too niche. It satisfies WP:EL.

Regards, IjonTichy (talk) 03:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:EL states that links may "include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." EL:YES states that it should be "relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article". I'm not sure how discussing organic agriculture is required for an EL and can't be briefly discussed in the article on the subject of agriculture. The idea that it's "too niche" is also not supported in EL in any way and should not be used as a reason to remove it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Walter Görlitz. My concern about the content being "too niche" is in line with WP:EL. As I have just pointed out to IjonTichy over on a different talk page, part of point 13 in the 'Links normally to be avoided' section reads as follows:

Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject.

In other words, the external links section should be reserved for content that is of the same scope as the wiki-article. In this case, I think the failure to meet the this criterion is clear. This is an encyclopedic article about the Amish. In contrast, the news article is about a particular Amish person who has taken to organic farming with help of another (ex?)Amish person who has started a business to spread his ideas. Worlds apart. In fact, I doubt the content of this news article has a place in this article anywhere. There is nothing to suggest that these farming approaches are adopted by the Amish in general and even if they did this is an incredibly trivial point in the context of the broader Amish culture and history. Any addition to the article along these lines would thus be undue weight.

But that is just by feeling. What do others think? CHeers Andrew (talk) 04:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with Andrew. Mikeatnip (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Now that I have more time, maybe I should explain my reasoning. I doubt that 90% (maybe even 99%) of the Amish even know about this particular happening. It is not representative of the Amish as a whole. The majority of the Amish are not even organic farmers/gardeners (I dont have statistics, just a guess from living among them here in Holmes County, OH). If every little accomplishment or happening that included an Amish person were to be linked, the links would be extremely numerous. Mikeatnip (talk) 00:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Mikeatnip. Does this resonate with you IjonTichy ? Cheers Andrew (talk) 11:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Legal edit

I just edited a brief description of Wisconsin v. Yoder for clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.255.199.149 (talk) 06:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

reference query

wth are "references" #77 & #78 supposed to be or mean? They are quite insufficient.

Hamm 2003, p. 101. Hamm 2003, pp. 103–5. 2001:558:6045:1D:7038:B44B:F00:BD14 (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It refers to a citation that was removed some time in 2012-2013. By reviewing the page history, I have restored the citation to the article, as below. General Ization ^Talk 18:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hamm, Thomas D. (2003). Amish Society (fourth ed.). Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-12362-0.

Lemmata

Even though named "Amish" this article is about the Old Order Amish. The article Old Order Amish mainly consists of literature about health issues among the Old Order Amish. I'd like to suggest to move this article to "Old Order Amish" and to develop the article "Old Order Amish" into an article about medical research among Old Order Amish. Under the lemma "Amish" I would create an article consisting of the content of the first half of Amish (disambiguation) (That is the article without "Places" "People" and "Art, entertainment, and media"). In the moved article I would retain "For other uses, see Amish (disambiguation)" but delete "This article is about Old Order Amish, but also refers to other Amish sects." Any objections? -Tuncker (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not clear with what you are proposing in a specific way. This sentence doesn't make sense to me, "I'd like to suggest to move this article to "Old Order Amish" and to develop the article "Old Order Amish" into an article about medical research among Old Order Amish." The Old Order Amish article (which I didn't even know existed up to now) looks like a mess, with a totally unbalanced weight on the medical aspects. On the other hand, I have noticed your edits on other articles and you are generally doing a good job of cleaning up the articles and making them better. If I understand your intent, you are wanting to clarify the distinctions between "Amish" in general, that includes New Order, Beachy, etc, and specifics that relate only to the Old Order. If that is your intent, I say go for it. On the other hand, a merger between Old Order Amish and Amish could work, since most people think of Old Order when they think of Amish. That would necessitate leaving the "This article is about Old Order Amish, but also refers to other Amish sects." If I understand your general intent, your proposal is probably the better option. Mikeatnip (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Amish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081110133521/http://channel.nationalgeographic.com:80/series/inside/3660/amish-rumspringa to http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/inside/3660/amish-rumspringa
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100616103822/http://www.internalmedicine.osu.edu/genetics/article.cfm?id=5307 to http://www.internalmedicine.osu.edu/genetics/article.cfm?id=5307
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110928092054/http://www.wwmt.com/articles/rumble-1366086-joseph-0in.html to http://www.wwmt.com/articles/rumble-1366086-joseph-0in.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Amish participation in land seizure

I added a citation needed tag to help validate and clarify if the Amish actively participated in land seizure, or rather simply bought land that had been seized by the government already. There would be a difference between active participation, and buying already seized land, although the ethics of buying recently seized land could be debated. Mikeatnip (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Reconciliation with Native Americans

I was just checking into the "reconciliation" thing and found that Melvin Lapp is not Amish [[4]], although he was raised Amish. These types of "reconciliation" meetings (they have also happened in Switzerland with the Reformed Church) are not really Amish and are not sanctioned by the Amish in general. Those who promote these types of meetings are of Amish ancestry and would, in some cases, still consider themselves Amish, but they are definitely not Old Order or New Order Amish. I suggest that this should be made clear in the article, since these "reconciliation meetings" are fringe events that the vast majority of the Amish do not endorse, if they even know that they occurred. Personally, I would suggest the removal of this entire section since it does not really reflect the Amish way of doing things. In my personal files I have a copy of a paper signed by even Amish leaders who actually opposed the "reconciliation meetings" that took place in Switzerland. I would assume the same attitude exists in this case with the Native Americans. Mikeatnip (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

For those interested, the above-mentioned letter states (in part), "We believe the descendants of the Reformed Church are not accountable for any actions their forefathers took against the Anabaptists. Far be it from us to request reconciliation." Signed by seven Amish (I assume to be bishops or ministers.) Mikeatnip (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Emigrate/immigrate

Earlier today I changed immigrate to, to emigrate to. My explanation was less than clear. To expand, I think emigrate is better than immigrate because the first assumes the reader is outside Pennsylvania while the second assumes the reader is inside. Most readers would be outside Pennsylvania so 'emigrate to' is more appropriate I think. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Questions and comment

This was an interesting article. I have two questions and one comment.

1. "More people have tested Amish life for weeks, months or even years but in the end decided not to join. Others remain just close to the Amish and never thought of joining."

What is their background and what are their reasons for not joining?

2. "Checklist seekers, who look for a couple of certain specifications."

What is the meaning of this? It's unclear.

3. The article often refers to the Mennonites but it never explain the difference between them and the Amish.

ICE77 (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I can only respond to the last question and it is answered at the start of the article: "They are closely related to, but distinct from, Mennonite churches" and in the history section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll try to answer the questions.

1. There are people from all backgrounds trying to join the Amish but most of them come from an English-speaking Evangelical background. There are several obstacles to join the Amish. Most seekers have a lot of problems with the German/Pennsylvania Dutch language. Many seeker are never able to really master that. There are groups very similar to the Amish that speak English only (Virginia Old Order Mennonite Conference and related groups). There are also the Old Order Schwarzenau Brethren and Old Order River Brethren that speak English only but most seekers are unaware of that.

Another problem is the work ethic. To get along without most of modern technologies, one has to work very hard and almost day and night. People who did not grow up with the work ethic that is required to be an Old Order Amish man or woman, normally have problems to adapt to it.

Most seekers are nonconformists in regard to mainstream society. As Old Orders they are required to conform closely to the rules of the group, which is difficult for people who are used not to conform.

Most seekers are on a spiritial journey and have gone a long way. When they join the Old Order Amish the journey most stops in order to stay in the community.

2. Checklist means e.g. a the following: must be

- in a certain region

- accepting that the seeker is vegetarian/vegan

- without animal cruelty (according the standard of the seeker)

- (a certain form of) beard or no beard

- certain theological doctines (very often evangelical ones)

- certain forms of community of goods

The seeker has a set of conditions that must be fullfilled.

3. Since both Old Order Amish and Old Order Mennonites are quite diverse there a only very few differences that apply to all groups of the Old Order Amish and Old Order Mennonites. One is that Old Order Mennonites normally have meeting houses for church service while Old Order Amish meet in houses or barns of their members. There are Old Order Mennonites who are "more Amish" concerning the use of technologies than most Old Order Amish. Orthodox Mennonites, Noah Hoover Mennonites and Stauffer Mennonites are very similar to Old Order Amish but they wear different forms of beards compared to the Old Order Amish or no beards at all.

Read the article Seeker (Anabaptism)!

By the way, I speak both German and Pennsylvania Dutch and understand both Plautdietsch and Hutterisch. I have visited or lived with several different Old Order groups including different groups of the Hutterites and the "Russian" Mennonites/Old Colony Mennonites. I also spoke with many seeker and joiners. Dan Holsinger (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Holsinger, thank you very much for the feedback. The information you provided is very helpful and interesting.

ICE77 (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Amish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304093952/https://groups.etown.edu/amishstudies/files/2015/08/Population_Change_2010-2015.pdf to https://groups.etown.edu/amishstudies/files/2015/08/Population_Change_2010-2015.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100901100419/http://www.tribune.ie/archive/article/2000/aug/06/at-ease-with-the-alternative-amish-way to https://www.tribune.ie/archive/article/2000/aug/06/at-ease-with-the-alternative-amish-way/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Native American reconciliation section

This section really doesn't belong with the article, to be frankly honest. The group of "Amish" that was involved in this are a very, very tiny group of people that may have grown up Amish, but are not in the mainstream of Amish any more. Just because someone was born Amish does not make them "Amish" forever, if they change their way of life and thinking. Probably 99% of Amish know nothing about this supposed "reconciliation" and would not feel that these types of "reconciliation" meetings really accomplish anything tangible, for events that happened two centuries ago. I would like comments on the proposal to eliminate the section. [ Mikeatnip (talk ]

I added some content and deleted one sentence to give a more balanced view. Dan Holsinger (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I suppose it boils down to what one calls "Amish." This page reveals who Melvin Lapp is, and he is clearly not "Amish" in practice. I will go ahead and delete his quote, since he is speaking for himself, not the Amish community. Mikeatnip (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I endorse your deletion! Dan Holsinger (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Population growth

Historical population

Year	Pop.	±%
1901	6,300	—
1911	6,600	+4.8%
1921	9,960	+50.9%
1931	14,300	+43.6%
1941	21,100	+47.6%
1951	27,650	+31.0%
1961	36,885	+33.4%
1971	57,000	+54.5%
1981	77,955	+36.8%
1991	123,025	+57.8%
2001	198,335	+61.2%
2012	273,710	+38.0%
Source:Kraybill, Donald B., Karen M. Johnson-Weiner, and Steven M. Nolt, The Amish, Baltimore, 2013.

Historical population

Year	Pop.	±%
1920	5,000	—
1928	7,000	+40.0%
1936	9,000	+28.6%
1944	13,000	+44.4%
1952	19,000	+46.2%
1960	28,000	+47.4%
1968	39,000	+39.3%
1976	57,000	+46.2%
1984	84,000	+47.4%
1992	128,150	+52.6%
2000	166,000	+29.5%
2010	249,500	+50.3%
2017	318,400	+27.6%
Source: 1992, 2000, 2010,

There are quite different estimates about the Amish population in different years. It's clear that the Amish population grew rapidly during the 20th century, but the numbers are quite different. I made a table according to the data, given in the 2013 book of Kraybill, Johnson-Weiner and Nolt, who are the most respected Amish scholars, which can be find above. Below that table there is the table used now in the article. What shall we do? Dan Holsinger (talk) 04:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Historical population

Year	Pop.	±%
1890	3,700	—
1900	5,300	+43.2%
1910	9,500	+79.2%
1920	14,000	+47.4%
1930	18,500	+32.1%
1940	25,800	+39.5%
1950	33,000	+27.9%
1960	43,300	+31.2%
1970	57,600	+33.0%
1980	95,040	+65.0%
1990	128,000	+34.7%
Source:John Hostetler: Amish Society, 4th edition, Baltimore and London, 1993, page97

I found one more table about the growth of the Amish population, which I added as the lowermost table. It's from Hostetler's Amish Society, 4th edition, 1993. Dan Holsinger (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

References

GAMEO

Dan Holsinger and whomever else is edit warring over the reliable source banner: You should be discussing here instead of disrupting the article. As far as I can tell, the IP has a legitimate concern. I don't see any evidence that GAMEO meets the standards at WP:RS. There is no evidence of fact-checking, editorial oversight, etc. Please provide evidence that this site meets WP:RS or take it to the RS noticeboard for more discussion. If the edit warring continues, I'll have to protect the page to prevent further disruption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laser brain (talk • contribs) 16:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Then let the editor follow WP:BRD. The source is reliable and the anon clearly knows about RSN so if the anon wants to go there as well... Why didn't you sign? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

"GAMEO is a project of the Mennonite Historical Society of Canada, the Mennonite Brethren Historical Commission, the Historical Committee of Mennonite Church USA, Mennonite Central Committee, and Mennonite World Conference" i.e. the most respected Anabapitst organisation. It is based on written encycolpedias like "The Mennonite Encyclopedia", "Mennonitisches Lexikon (MennLex)" and "Lexikon der Mennoniten in Paraguay". Articles are written by experts like e.g. John A. Hostetler. Only people who know nothing about Anabaptism can question the reliability of GAMEO. Metron (talk) 09:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Health

The health section contains contradictory claims. It claims that the Amish are more in-bred than the general population and have a higher incidence of various genetic afflictions and then claims that they have no more health problems than the general population. You can't have it both ways (unless of course, the health benefits to in-breeding balance out the problems, but they don't. At least not as far as I am aware.) In addition, the citation to the claim that they aren't at increased genetic risk, overall, is a book written by a history professor (i.e. 1. Not peer reviewed and 2. Not authoritative scientific research.) According to an article (not peer reviewed, however) I recently ran across, the incidence of birth defects - many of them not disclosed by the community - is, according to the local medical doctors treating the community, dramatically higher than the general population.173.184.26.190 (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The two claims are not contradictory! The Amish do have a higher incidence of various genetic afflictions, but since they normally live a healthier life than average Americans and have less health problems because of this, the overall health of the Amish is not worse than the health of the the general population. The problems of in-breeding in my view are mostly overestimated. Just have a look at the ancestors of Cleopartra. She has only TWO ancestors (Ptolemy V Epiphanes and Cleopatra I Syra) four to six generation before her and she was beautiful and intelligent. The Amish have some 100 last names which indicates a founding population of several hundred people. The Hutterites have only 15 traditional last names and the Reidenbach Old Order Mennonites only four with two of them (Reiff and Nolt) being quite seldom. Almost all of them are Martins and Hoovers. Despite these facts, the Reidenbachs are not a disease ridden group, but are - as far as I know - even intelligent and beautiful people. Dan Holsinger (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Cleopatra is traditionally depicted as beautiful but historically there is little basis for it. Intelligence I grant you, but that doesn't change the fact that most other later Ptolemies were absolutely useless.15:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)176.46.84.92 (talk)

A Wave is a "what" and not a "who"

"The Amish, as pacifists, did not engage in warfare with Native Americans, nor displace them directly, but were part of a wave of European immigrants who forced Native Americans westward." (bold mine).

This sentence, by it's use of the word "who", and not "what", assigns responsibility of the consequences of this sociological movement to the individual immigrants (otherwise known as settlers, and/or colonists), rather than describe the cause of the "cause and effect" relationship to the "what" of the "wave". A "wave" is a "what", and a "who" is an individual person, presumably white. This idea of personalizing the individuals within a larger movement is rejected in other historical areas, with the idea that these individuals are "swept up" by broader sociological forces and have little to no individual power to change the larger group, and so it is unfair to describe their actions as if they had some share in the responsibility for them. There should be plenty of other quotes to describe the displacement of Native Americans, particularly those perspectives that include that truth that the Native Americans themselves participated in their own "displacement". There were treaties, purchases, and reactions to raids, rapes, murders that were perpetrated by the Native Americans, etc... Given that the sentence cannot be modified (as it is a direct quote), it should be replaced with something that is more neutral. This is an Article on the Amish, and should remain neutral with regard to other things. Also the use of the word "forced" is an over-simplification, and therefore not neutral. Tym Whittier (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tym Whittier: Agreed. What word to you think should replace 'forced'? Nerd271 (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

But we are talking about people, not a wave. It is the people who forced the indigenous people west, not water. Also, we would never even consider the use of the word "what" here. Also the use of the word "forced" here is not an over-simplification, it's a fact. The source, however, uses both "forced" and "pushed": "but they were part of the endless tide of European American settlers that forced the boundaries of the frontier westward". I reverted the change. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

A wave of people is an object and not a person. So Tym Whittier is correct. European settlers "pushed" the boundaries of their frontier Westward, but that does not necessarily imply everything was in direct territorial conflict with the indigenous tribes. Nerd271 (talk) 23:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: You claimed consensus is not reach, yet here you are the only one with your opinion against two other people. Nerd271 (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

A wave of people are still people and neither of you are correct. Two people does not make a consensus, it's a cabal. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

A cabal, you said? According to Merriam-Webster, a cabal is a the contrived schemes of a group of persons secretly united in a plot. There is nothing secret about this. This is a public space. Please refrain from ad hominem attacks. Try to convince the two of us that your position is the right one. Again, a wave of people is not a person but an object, the way a country or an organization is not a person. For example, we say, "Japan is a country that is well-known for advances in robotics." It is similar here with the wave. It is an object or abstract entity, rather than a person. Nerd271 (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: I personally find the current revision acceptable. Can't speak for the other person, though. Nerd271 (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Is there a reason you think I need to be pinged? Perhaps you assume this is an article I stumbled across. Whatever the reason, there's no reason to ping me. I will see the discussion and join it in good order.

I'm glad that it works. I tried to address the concerns raised and tried to avoid confusing or biased language. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Pinging is a habit I adopted in order to make it absolutely clear whom I am talking to. It can get confusing when multiple people are involved in an online discussion. The other person is permanently banned. Bummer. Oh well, at least the issue is resolved. Nerd271 (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Quote on original population numbers

@Walter Görlitz: The Amish arrived in the New World in two principal waves of migration. The first wave lasted from about 1717 to 1750 and included approximately five hundred immigrants. Im- migration then slowed and the Amish did not come in large numbers again until the period 1817-1861

References

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. It should go inside a code= parameter in the reference. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to add to the citation as suits you; for me it is satisfactory. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I just read both and they're not the same. The article clearly states "200 18th" century and this is already 500 emigres in the 19th. Two different facts. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz: I don't understand where you see 200 as referring to the 18th Century (ie the 1700s). The entire paragraph from Crowley (1978) is as follows:

The Amish arrived in the New World in two principal waves of migration. The first wave lasted from about 1717 to 1750 and included approximately five hundred immigrants. Immigration then slowed and the Amish did not come in large numbers again until the period 1817-1861. During this second time span, some fifteen hundred Amish settled in the United States and Canada.

500 first wave 1717-1750, ie 500 in the 18th Century. Other sources confirm two waves of migration, Nolt (2016) speaks of 100 households in the first wave (which easily suggests far more than 200). Landing (1969) speaks of 400 to 500 by 1780. Kraybill (2003) suggests there may possibly have been more than 500 given the earlier Mennonite migration, but confirms 500: It is possible that some early Amish immigrants accompanied these Mennonite settlers, but the first Amish may not have arrived until the 1730s. In any event, about 500 Amish came to the New World in the 1700s. I can only see one source which provides the number 200: PBS (which does not provide its sources). However, PBS is contradictory: PBS's timeline refers to an initial migration of 21 families in 1737 (which would indicate around 100-120) followed by 100 families over the next three decades (so again much closer to the 500). Multiple sources confirm the founder population of around 500 Amish migrants to the 13 colonies in the early-middle/middle/late-middle 18th Century; only one source indicates 200 and that same source contradicts itself. The source linked in the health section following the sentence mentioning the population number contains no specific population number and the source in the previous citation is Nolt (2016) which I have just discussed.

References

Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 11:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

This is the text as it currently stands in the article: "since almost all Amish descend from about 200 18th-century founders". We need to determine what was happening in the 1700s—the time when the Amish were founded in Europe, not when they were coming to the "new world". Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no source I can find that indicates specifically what the original population in Europe was; the point about the relatively closed loop of Amish genetics arises from the physical state of North American settlement (not European origin). There is a fair degree of consensus in the academic literature that the original population number is 500 (although the gene pool would be closer to an original 2,000 given the second wave of migration in the 19th Century). Moreover, some sources indicate the possibility of earlier Mennonite settlements contributing to later Amish populations (eg Kraybill). Nevertheless, I've changed the phrase to the less specific "few hundred" - can we agree on that? I've also cleaned up the language removing a word that is not appropriate when talking about people and added a reference on Amish genetics. Please don't move the {{reflist-talk}} template as it connects references to the specific comment I've made, just answer below my signature. Thanks,

References

--Goldsztajn (talk) 07:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but the references don't go where you put them as they don't support the founders in any way. {{reflist-talk}} usually go at the end of a section of talk, not in the middle as it causes a problem with screen readers and MOS:INDENTGAP. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand your opinion perfectly; you conflate the Amish gene pool with the Amish founders (ie your position is that the 500 people who arrived in North America in the first wave in the 1700s and the 1.500 who arrived in the second wave of the 19th Century are all direct descendants of the founders from the 1670s-90s). Reliable sources indicate otherwise due the results of conversion and the fact that second wage of migration in the 19th Century must have contained members who were not descendants of the original founders. Nolt (2016) highlights at least two converts, Hans Blank and Joseph Mürdlein, the former part of the first wave and the latter's descendants part of the second. While not necessarily an independent source, I would be interested to see what Leroy Beachy's "Unser Leit... The Story of the Amish" indicates on the subject; but I have no access to that. The point is the available sources indicate a number of 200 persons as too small to be the North American Amish's population gene pool; if you have access to alternate sources, then please...

References

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

First, and I cannot stress this enough, stop placing the reflist-talk template in the middle of your replies.

Second, I am not conflating the European founders with the emigres who arrived in North America: that's what you've done.

Third, the sources that I have read indicate, and even logic supports, that a pool of 500 is too small, but the point of the sentence that you—who are apparently not an native English speaker—clearly do not understand. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

If you cannot provide or discuss a single reliable source; well, yes, we are speaking different languages. Thanks, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

No, the problem is you're looking at sources that are making a claim about the number of settlers that arrived in North America. These are not the founders. Do you understand that? A simple discussion about that one word is all that was required here but you're stuck in sources, which are absolutely needed, but you're not talking about the founders themselves. Do you understand that? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Your focus of concern has been this statement: "since almost all Amish descend from about 200 18th-century founders". Can you provide me with a source which indicates the foundation of the Amish began in the 18th Century? All sources I have seen indicate that the Amish trace their origins to the period of the 1670s-1690s (ie the 17th Century) and the split in the Swiss Brethren. So it is utterly reasonable to assume that the phrase "18th Century founders" refers to the founders of North American settlement. If you wish the text we have been editing to be about the founders of the group and the gene pool, then we would be discussing the 17th Century (as I already wrote above). I've understood your point from the very start - the problem is you have been mixing up different historical periods. We both seem to agree the size of the original Amish gene pool must be larger than 200. Perhaps the origin of the 200 number is from this New York Times article in 1964: In the genetic sense they have been long isolated. Dr. McKusick said the Lancaster County group, which now numbers 8,000, traced its ancestry to 200 early settlers. I draw attention to that quote because it offers a useful solution to clarify the ambiguity between 18th Century founders (ie settlers; for which we have numbers from RS) and 17th Century founders (for which the closest to a number I have seen is Roth (2007) discussing 27 ministers supporting Ammann in 1693). Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not about whether I can or cannot supply a source for that sentence. Do you have any idea what I'm saying?

They were founded in "Switzerland, Alsace, and southern Germany", not in the United States, but the immigrated to the latter. A simple reading of https://www.britannica.com/topic/Amish will show you this. So take your founder effect sources and WP:DROP the rest. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Tertiary sources are generally speaking a poor substitute, there's no consensus that Britannica is a reliable source and given the discussion at hand specialist secondary sources are de rigueur. In 1693 (ie the late 17th Century, not the 18th Century) the only indication that I can see which provides insight into the size of the Amish population (ie numbers) at the time of the group's foundation are the 27 ministers supporting Ammann I mentioned above and discussed in Roth (2007), only two of which came from Switzerland. Those ministers would represent a certain number of congregationalists - one could extrapolate and make an estimation from that...but that would be original research. So it seems we have the possibility for two statements that are supported by secondary, reliable sources:

• (a) "almost all Amish claim descent from a few hundred 17th-century founders in the Palatinate, Alsace and Switzerland" or
  
• (b) "almost all Amish descend from less than a few thousand 18th and 19th century North American settlers".

Given the current sentence in the article is incorrect, do you have a preference of what to use? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

When you get WP:RSN to agree with your statement, "there's no consensus that Britannica is a reliable source" and you post it here, I'll read the rest of your discussion here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:RSPSOURCES Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I see. No consensus. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the following best captures the information available in the sources for the health section: "Almost all of the Amish in North America today descend from less than a few thousand 18th and 19th century immigrants from the Palatinate, Alsace and Switzerland." I would suggest that in earlier sections it would be appropriate to include Roth's discussion of numbers in the early 1690s and mention Crowley's discussion regarding the difficulty of obtaining clear numbers around the original size of the Amish in Europe in the 1690s/1700s. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

First, it would be "fewer" not "less", second, it omits the original purpose of describing the founding European families. It is, however, good based on the sources you have found. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Ukrainian Amish

Hi all. This is the sect's page mentioned in my edit on Ukrainian wikipedia.

Posting here for posterity as I didn't put it in the original edit, not sure when my revision will be checked. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Dog breeding

After researching, I have added a small but thorough explanation of the dog breeding as a form of income in the Amish community, including a lack of care leading to prosecution of breeders --Jjamieallen (talk) 05:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

In popular culture

What's the point of showing a section named "In popular culture" whose only purpose is to link a "Amish in popular culture" article... that doesn't exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.245.150.39 (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Apparently the article linked did exist at one point, but it was deleted back in May. Since the section is literally blank and points to a nonexistent page, there is no reason as to why it should still be in the article at this time. I'll remove it. SkyWarrior 19:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Ohio Social Settlements by population

Add your city data here. My area is, Historic Middlefield Villaga Geauga County Ohio USA 44062-9724 American Amish.