Talk:Amish

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.[1] ✤ 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.[2] 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.[3] 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.[4] ✤ 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.[5] ✤ 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.[6] ✤ 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.[7] ✤ JonHarder ^talk 12:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
8. "The Amish often cite three Bible verses that encapsulate their cultural attitudes:"
   • Reworked and sourced.[8] ✤ 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.[9] ✤ 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.[10] ✤ 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.[11] ✤ 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.[12] ✤ 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.[13] ✤ 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.[14] ✤ 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.[15] ✤ 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.[16] ✤ 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.[17] "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.[18] ✤ 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.[19] ✤ 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.[20] ✤ 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.[21] ✤ 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.[22] ✤ 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.[23] ✤ 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.[24] 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.[25] ✤ 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.[26] "Highest incidence of twins" is dubious and has been removed. One source found it slightly lower than the general population.[27]. 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.[28] 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.[29] ✤ 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.[30] ✤ 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.[31] ✤ 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)

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)

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)

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;[32] 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)

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)

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)

"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[33], 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 he 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)

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)

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) 

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)