Talk:Mennonites/Archive 2

Intent of the General Conference Mennonite Church
I disagree with the statement made about the intent of the General Conference Mennonite Church. According to Steven Nolt, professor of History at Goshen College, he stated that the original aim of the GC was not to merge "like-minded" Mennonites, but rather create a single Mennonite denomination for North America that would incorporate ALL Mennonites, hence the name, General Conference. It obviously was a failure in that sense as only more progressively minded and Russian Mennonites joined, but I think that the true intent for the General Conference forming should be included in the article. Hochstetler51 12:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * One place to find an answer to this question is in the first 1860 constitution. Does someone have access to it or a translation? The intent might also be found in Daniel Krehbiel's 1859 invitation to other congregations that appeared in Das Christliche Volksblatt. The goal of creating a single Mennonite denomination would have been a bold move given that the three or four participants at the 1860 meeting from outside of Iowa had first hand experience with how difficult that would be. It is interesting to note that Through Fire and Water: An Overview of Mennonite History (ISBN 0-8361-9015-7), co-authored by Steven Nolt, mentions only the goals of mission work and higher education (p. 184). JonHarder 16:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am still doing some digging in this area. A preliminary thought is that "like-minded" doesn't give quite the right meaning as it implies more unity than was expected by those invited to join the conference. There are a couple of sources I want to check this week to see what light they might shed. JonHarder 02:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In checking more into the original aim of the GCMC I concur that the "like-minded" wording can be improved but have not found a stated goal of uniting all Mennonites.


 * Dyck's An Introduction to Mennonite History covers the formation on pages 258-9. Although not the most detailed reference on GCMC history, it's on its third edition and should have major inaccuracies corrected by now. Dyck states the Iowa congregations "invited others to join them" in 1860 and lists four goals of the 1860 agenda:
 * organization of a mission society;
 * establishment of a training school for Christian workers;
 * formation of a historical society;
 * publication of tracts.
 * Within a day these points were worked into a constitution that was then adopted.


 * Pannabecker's Open Doors covers GCMC formation in detail on pages 44-50. Pannabecker discusses the organization of the Iowa churches and their intent to "invite [other Mennonite churches] to join this union." On the first day of the 1860 meeting, a committee was elected to "submit a written plan of a form of union for the Mennonite congregations of North America." The six point plan was presented the following morning:
 * All divisions of North American Mennonites, regardless of minor differences, should extend to each other the hand of fellowship.*
 * The bond of fellowship can only be severed when a member or a congregation intentionally deviates from the fundamental doctrine of our denomination ...
 * Only well-grounded witness from the Word of God can be accepted in demonstrating a brother's error.
 * The General Conference can consider no exclusion ... unless proven by scriptural testimony.
 * Every smaller or larger district may continue without molestation according to the conscience any rules and regulations adopted for their own upbuilding, providing the same do not conflict with the fundamentals of our common confession.
 * If a member or mebers of a congregation or district, because of certain practices, desire to transfer to another connection within our General Conference, they shall not be hindered if they conscientiously believe that it makes a better relationship as to external usages.
 * Pannabecker then clarifies that although the word "union" (Vereinigung) is used, what this plan provided was "an association in which congregational individuality was unhampered" and then details three main ideas involved:
 * Unlimited participation by which any and every congegregation, regardless of other connections, could join.*
 * There was a this time no other formal interchurch organization, and some of the leaders hoped for a widespread adherence to this movement. [Panabecker p. 49]
 * The association was on a "thoroughly Mennonite basis."
 * Complete freedom was permitted in all matters not explicitly taught in the Scriptures.
 * The two marked (*) items come closest to addressing the "all Mennonites" question. The way I understand this history is that the new conference gave an open invitation to other Mennonite congregations willing to work together toward a small set of common goals. Although some leaders hoped widespread cooperation, it is presented as an invitation but not a specific goal.


 * I changed the sentence under discussion from (changes highlighted):
 * The conference was formed in 1860 by congregations in Iowa seeking to unite with like-minded Mennonites to pursue common goals such as higher education and mission work.
 * to:
 * The conference was formed in 1860 when congregations in Iowa invited North American Mennonites to join together in order to pursue common goals such as higher education and mission work.
 * which better reflects the history and is a more accurate summary.


 * This response to a simple question is way too long, but the history is interesting and not well known. I will also check the main GCMC article too see if similar adjustments are needed. JonHarder 17:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Mennonites in Mexico
I removed the last line "In Mexico, there were about ?? Mennonites in 2003." until the necessary information is acquired. If someone can find the correct number, then by all means feel free to add it back in. --Thisisbossi 15:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The largest population
"The largest population of Mennonites is in Africa" versus "North America had the highest number of Mennonites (about 444,000 members) closely followed by Africa with about 406,000 members". Which is correct? --Nonpareility 17:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I corrected this section and added a source, but see my remarks below. --Zimmerdale 04:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As a country doesnt the US have the most? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bakerboy4 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 3 October, 2006 (UTC).

Can this page be cleaned up?
It seems very thrown together, with question marks scattered throughout the information. It would be helpful if sources were cited for the information that is given. Some of the formatting and capitalization is questionable. For example, in section "3.5 Conservative," there is a distinct difference between "conservative Mennonite" and "Conservative Mennonite," yet they seem to be used interchangeably. I grew up in a Conservative Mennonite church, which also happened to be conservative. I later attended another Conservative Mennonite church, which happened to be liberal. The Conservative Mennonites are a distinct group. All other uses of the term should be lowercase.

An additional problem is that it is nearly impossible to define who is Mennonite. Giving accurate numbers is difficult. There are a gazillion different schisms and fringe groups; Mennonites are known for their church splits. Some of the groups listed would argue that they are not Mennonites. Other groups not listed would argue that they should be included. The Amish are not technically Mennonite, but more correctly Anabaptist. Nonetheless, they are usually thrown in with Mennonites when numbers are concerned. The lists in sections 3 and 4.3 seem like they should be combined, but even then they are incomplete. I changed the Distribution section's numbers to those given by the Mennonite World Conference, which seemed to be what the vague (and incorrect) numbers were referring to. I'm sure there are folks who would disagree with the MWC's categorization of things.

It would be nice to see things presented here according to a generally recognized structure. Is there a better way to organize parts of this? As it is, the article feels like a crazy quilt. --Zimmerdale 04:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There is much about this article that would benefit by a good top to bottom edit. Go ahead a give it a try. The parts you mention are fairly new and could use improvement. Editors who are interested in this article are generally supportive and helpful in keeping the article focused and on-topic. So be bold in your edits and others here will help out. JonHarder 02:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

First to arrive with aid?
Mennonites are prominent among denominations in disaster relief, often being the first to arrive with aid after hurricanes, floods, and other disasters.

Any source for this bold statement? For a start, which Mennonite relief organisations are we talking about? Flapdragon 18:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Can't answer the first question, but the second would almost certainly be Mennonite Central Committee. DJ Clayworth 14:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Its very difficult to prove a statement like this one, but I did find a Fema press release that talks about voluntary organisations being the first to arrive and "the Mennonites" are the only group mentioned by name:


 * "Local disaster recovery task forces are a consortium of local volunteer agencies, such as churches and local volunteer groups; national volunteer agencies, such as the Mennonites, Volunteer Organizations Active in Disasters, state representatives, local governments and civic organizations, local business leaders and other groups that may provide help.


 * That said, there's probably a better way to word the statement.


 * While Mennonite Central Committee is often involved in aid to high profile international disasters, Mennonite Disaster Service focuses on disaster relief in North America.mennonot 15:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose my reaction to it is partly that it's unclear whether we're talking about the church as an organisation, or saying that Mennonites as individuals are particularly active in aid societies. It might be an idea to tone down the existing comment (which has great prominence and to me implies it's one of the main characteristics of Mennonites) and then add a line exactly like your last sentence, specifying particular bodies and their roles. To provide a UK perspective, I can't remember ever hearing mention of any Mennonite activity in international disaster relief, which is why the statement surprised me; while I'm quite prepared to believe this is largely my ignorance and/or Eurocentric media bias, I do think it may be too prominent at the moment. (Come to that I don't think you hear about any other religious denomination mentioned explicitly; even though different organisations may have their religious affiliations they don't wear them on their sleeve.) It may also be the "first on the scene" bit that seemed odd, as if they were competing in some kind of race, with FEMA or whoever standing there with a stopwatch! Is speed really the main characteristic of Mennonite aid or really just a way of saying they are very committed in that field? Flapdragon 15:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The MCC impresses me highly. I focus on one charity, rather than giving dribs and drabs here and there. I had been giving directly to a lupus researcher until he retired. Since then, I've been giving to the MCC, even though I'm not Mennonite. They ship plastic buckets, each containing bath soap, shampoo, toothpaste, toothbrushes, bath towels, a hairbrush, a comb, fingernail clipper, bandaids, and sanitary napkins to various disaster areas.
 * Should I mention that I'm not a mennonite? Anyway, after 9/11 and Katrina, I sure don't want to donate to the Red Cross. The MCC is all about getting aid to those who need, not about getting converts. They goes into places like Iraq, Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo, Honduras, and Venezuela, places that most charities steer clear of, because of the danger, and they were among the very first with Katrina aid and tsunami aid, and they didn't stay for 48 hours and then leave; they stayed for months.
 * I'm not saying there aren't other commendable charities, but they &quot;shine like a gem in a five-and-ten cent store&quot;. I'd think it reasonable to expand mention of MCC, explaining how they differ from most &quot;christian&quot; missions. ClairSamoht 04:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've made some changes to the wording. I hope they more clearly communicate Mennonite's commitment without making it sound like a race. :-) Flapdragon, one of the reasons you might not have heard of Mennonites in the UK is because there's only about 30 living here. ClairSamoht, its nice to hear you're so enthusiastic about MCC. It might be worth adding a paragraph in the Mennonite article, but its already a bit too large. It might be better to expand the Mennonite Central Committee article itself instead. mennonot 08:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Good work on the changes. I'd heard of Mennonites of course, just not in the context of disaster relief. Flapdragon 12:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Africa
Most mennonites live in Africa the article states, but that's really all the info there is about mennonites in africa, all history and current info is about europe and america. Would be cool to have some more info on how it spread in africa and in which areas it focusses. --62.251.90.73 14:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The source for this information would come from here most immediately. http://www.gameo.org/ --Marpeck 02:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Mennonites all over the world
I know that Mennonites are living in following states: In wich states in the world are living Mennonites, too? In Africa they have a lot of Members, but where? Have they members in Uzbekistan or other states in Central-Asia except Kyrgyzstan? Have they members in states in Europe except Germany and Russia? In Poland? Simon Mayer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.169.209.210 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC).
 * Germany
 * Russia
 * Kazakhstan
 * Kyrgyzstan
 * USA
 * Canada
 * Mexico
 * Belize
 * Bolivia
 * Paraguay
 * Argentina
 * Vietnam

According to the Mennonite Weekly Review in a November 17, 2004 special report [], the largest Mennonite group in the world is The Meserete Kristos Church with headquarters in Ethiopia and branches in Kenya and other surrounding countries. --Drziegler 17:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

They have them in Holland !!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bakerboy4 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 3 October, 2006 (UTC).

What´s the matter? Here are only 15 states where Mennonites are living. But around the world are more than 60 states with Mennonites.--84.169.224.87 18:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Questions
Where is the discussion on Homosexuality? Why is the not NPOV? It represents, very briefly of course, a set of factual accurate statements about this issue for this denomination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marpeck (talk • contribs) 02:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It is giving too much weight to the issue for a general information article; it's included as one of three main points in the history of N.A. Mennos (along with the GC and WWII).  That's rather ridiculous.  Quite honestly, I don't think it fits into the article at all.  Yes, it is rather major issue in the church at this time, but so were many such topics in the past (eg. women in leadership, coverings, etc), none of which are really mentioned.  Perhaps it could be condensed to a few sentences and moved to doctrine of Moderate Mennonites, if it's going to exist on this page at all.  -Mbauman 06:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Frankly Mennonite approaches to homosexuality don't differ much from other evangelical denominations. DJ Clayworth 14:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "It represents, very briefly of course, a set of factual accurate statements about this issue for this denomination." That is generally reckoned to be a good thing in an encyclopedia. DJ Clayworth 14:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Haven't the Mennonites been a driving force within the movement for home schooling in the US? I don't see so much as a reference to this issue. --Christofurio 13:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

A Vote for Removal of Current Sexual Controversy

I agree wholeheartedly on eliminating the entire section on homosexuality. This and abortion are great examples of how the far left and far right politics, particularly in North America are having an inordinate and perverse influence on the Church of Christ. We need to remember that ALL Protestant groups, at one level or another, were fleeing from the combined power of the church and state--that historical hegemony of the pre 1500 Catholic Church. Now, we see both sides, moving backwards in time, seeking to restore secular governmental sanction for their own advocacy. Homebuilding 04:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * For one thing, there are more than two sides to these issues. On abortion, the fundamentalist churches generally take the position that human life is sacred from the moment that the egg is fertilized. The catholic church, however, believes it to be wrong to take birth control pills, because they prevent eggs from being released. The methodists, largest of the mainline christian churches, fought to make elective abortion legally available. Similarly, some denominations have gay clergy, others would ban gays from crossing the transom to attend a wedding or funeral, some take an intermediate step, and I suspect there are those who believe they should burn gays at the stake.
 * For another thing, saying that both sides want to restore secular government sanction for their own advocacy is similarly incorrect. I think it's mostly fundamentalists that want government to make sin illegal, and they aren't happy with the ten commandments' definition of sin, since they know from experience that God obviously omitted some of the most important sins. My minister argues that marriage is religious, and government shouldn't recognize marriage at all. That's not restoring government sanction; that's eliminating it.
 * But whether it's right or wrong isn't up for Wikipedia to judge. The question is whether it's notable. You could argue that, at this time, there has been little happening, in the past and in the present, in the Mennonite church vis a vis homosexuality, and consequently, it doesn't belong in the article at this time. I'm not sure, but I suspect I would go along with that argument. Arguing that Wikipedia shouldn't talk about homosexuality because advocates of one or another position are stupid? I don't think that rule would work. Would you blank out all the Wikipedia articles on warfare? ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 08:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not voting, but I will comment that the section on homosexuality should definitely stay. I'm the one that originally moved it from the Excommunication article, rather than deleting it. My reasoning was that the homosexuality conflict has been happening in pretty much all churches, but what makes the section notable are the specific ways in which Mennonites have dealt with the issue. Sxeptomaniac 15:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Other article wide POV Questions are: Anacapa 04:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * How to handle the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal content fairly?
 * How to handle playing cute with terms eg. using 'social or marital avoidance' to conceal what is in fact shunning?
 * How to show core Menno Simons/Mennonite doctrine honestly and fairly, especially where the doctrine is cruel and or controversial?
 * How to show some of the low and little things Mennonites do or have done along with all the great and good things they have done.
 * How to prevent shameless pandering to positive but disengenous POV about Mennonites for Mennonites without unfairly slandering them.
 * How to show Mennonite control of thoughts and what they call 'feelings' within their churches.

"Famous Mennonites"
Is it really relevant to have a listing of popularly famous Mennonites on this article? It seems like that space would be much better served by a list of influential Mennos -- theologians and the like. Maybe include people like John Howard Yoder, Harold S. Bender, etc., as well as the more historical, too. -Mbauman 06:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Since its introduction, the list has been an annoyance to me. What is the definition of fame in this case? Was the person a member of a Mennonite congregation when they became famous? I favor deleting that whole section; the people who are interested in this sort of list can go back to editing the main list-of article. Those watching this article know that I have been reverting any attempts to expand the list. Category:Mennonites has a growing list of articles on notable Mennonites. I would like to see them worked into the prose of paragraphs related to their work rather than trying to single out a list of "most notables." JonHarder 13:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Jon, I would concur with the deletion. It's not relevant to the topic of "Mennonite" that John Doe, who happens to be a Mennonite, is famous for balancing a watermelon atop his nose while tight-walking across Niagra Falls. If someone is famous for being a Mennonite, or leading a Mennonite organization, they may belong in the article, but otherwise they don't belong anywhere except perhaps List of Famous People Who Are Mennonites, which seems to me like a bad idea for an article. (Most "List" articles strike me that way.) ClairSamoht 14:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd support replacing the "Famous Mennonite" section with a link to the List of Mennonites. If you look at the Presbyterian, Methodism and Lutherans articles, none of them have sections with lists of famous people from their denomination, they just have links to list articles. And I agree that people who are famous for being for Mennonite should be linked to as part of paragraphs describing them. mennonot 00:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This looks like a consensus to remove the section. I'll do so. JonHarder 20:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

POV tags
There are two POV tags that were inserted without any explanation [] []. Because they don't seem to serve any real purpose, I'm removing them. There is one that has a separate discussion created on the subject, which I will leave. If someone doesn't like that they're removed, all they have to do is reinsert them and explain why here. Sxeptomaniac 16:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Improved citations would defuse much of the POV issue. For instance, the first four paragraphs of the article only cite sources for two things presented as fact. The other facts, if they are facts, are presented as dogma - things that have to be Taken On Faith because the Wikipedia Says So. That's contrary to Wikipedia policy. I suspect everybody here agrees that the Mennonites have traditionally been considered a peace church - but that's not sufficient; if you want to say that in the article, you find a credible source that says so, and cite it.
 * I ran into a similar problem with the biography article of a living person. The guy said he was a crumbum, and the article had POV problems. I asked him what POV was missing, and he said there was nothing about ::controversial subject::. Fine, I said. The truth is always welcome. I would revert his deletions of favorable material, because that WAS properly cited, from credible sources, and comment out (I'm not so nasty as to actually delete) his additions, because they had no citations at all, even from a non-credible source. Because I welcomed his additions, and only demanded that the quality of the article be maintained, the confrontation eased up. Eventually, he found something he could back up with a citation, I made no objection to it being there, and the flare-up ended.
 * This article DOES come off more like a Glamour Shots portrait than an unretouched, warts-and-all, driver's license photo. Wikipedia policy says you don't say Mother Teresa was wonderful and Hitler was terrible. Instead, you simply list the accomplishments of each, and trust the reader to come to the correct conclusion. Puff pieces don't do any good, anyway; nobody believes them. A benefit of admitting your faults is that you start getting credit for your strengths. I'd highly recommend treating that tag as if it said ClairSamoht 19:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The sermon is not necessary. You're not telling me anything I don't already know, and missing the point of my removal of the tags altogether.  Citations are needed (the  tag works just fine, and takes less space), but that's not the point of POV tags.  When it comes down to it, the editor never explained why (s)he inserted the tags in the first place, so they serve little purpose other than to break up the flow of the article.  They could feel the sections are too critical, or that they are not critical enough.  If they, or another editor, choose to reinsert them and explain, then we have something to work from. Sxeptomaniac 16:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic group
To whoever added the tag, Mennonites are not an ethnic group. They are a religous denomination (or rather a grouping) and have a wide variety of ethnicities. DJ Clayworth 13:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There are some that consider themselves "Ethnic Mennonites," but the information that user is adding would still be wrong, since the 1.3 million refers to denomination members. Many denomination members are not ethnic Mennonites, while many ethnic Mennonites are not denomination members.  Maybe this anonymous editor should get correct information and start a new article. Mennonite (ethnicity) might work. Sxeptomaniac 17:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested to know what an 'ethnic Mennonite' was. Are they something like the people who don't believe in God, never attend church, occasionally blow away their their 'business competition' with automatic weapons, but still consider themselves Catholic? DJ Clayworth 20:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Since Mennonites were a close-knit community for most of their history, people descended from that group sometimes call themselves ethnic Mennonites, whether or not they consider themselves religious Mennonites. Sxeptomaniac 01:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sxeptomaniac is correct in that some Mennonites still retain a tight clan community; but as to whether or not it is an "ethnicity" would require a more precise of just what exactly an "ethnicity" really is. How many centuries does is take for a group of people to be termed as a new group of people?  Many Mennonite familes hail from Germanic countries and their families have only been Mennonite for so long, as the religion itself is relatively young.  A good argument could be made either way: they are an ethnicity because their bloodline has been Mennonite for hundreds of years; or they are not an ethnicity because their bloodline has been Mennonite for only a couple hundred years.  However, keep in mind that not all Mennonites hail from close families or even from Germanic countries: many people in PA Dutch Country are raised Mennonite just because that is one of the more widespread religious options available, and its teachings attract a number of converts.


 * As for my own opinion, as someone whom was raised a Mennonite and per the definitions found on the ethnic group article, I feel that there is too much variety amongst most Mennonites for them to be considered an ethnicity. As opposed to the Amish, a more hardline form of Mennonite, whom I do consider to be an ethnic group as per the article's definition due to the similarities found within Amish communities; and the impact on culture that the Amish community has.  People don't travel to Lancaster County to see the Pennsylvanians, nor do they come to see the Mennonites; they come to see the Amish.  --Thisisbossi 14:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh and I should add in that while I was raised a Mennonite, I am most certainly not one ethnically: my genealogy is completely lacking in anything Mennonite-related. It just happens to be the way of life that immigrants to the Lancaster area tend to be raised as.  --Thisisbossi 20:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Mennonites are far too diverse to be considered an ethnicity. They span the Old Order Mennonites, who are pretty indistinguishable from the Amish, to the Mennonite Brethren who are pretty indistinguishable from any other churchgoers. The Mennonite Brethren of India would be very surprised to be told they were the same ethnicity as the Russian Mennonite farmers of Ontario, or the Mennonites of Central America. I know a few people who were brought up as strict Mennonites and then left. They might refer to their Mennonite heritage, or parentage, but not ethnicity. DJ Clayworth 15:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your making an bipolar falacy about this, just because it is not always a ethnicity does not mean that in certian cases it can not be so. And to state that it is an ethnicity does not make it an ethnicity in all cases, in short it can be both and, for the very reasons you state, it is not a homogenious religion. I live in a place, Manitoba Canada were you can get Mennonite Food, now it might just be Russian/German food from were they immigrated from, but they use the term Mennonite Food in an ethnic sense, not a religious sense, Nobody will call perogies particularly religious, no matter the sour cream. The preceding anonymous comment was posted from 205.200.60.44 (stnbmb01bbk-ac07-60-44.dial.mts.net in Winnepeg) on 19 August 2006

The crucial difference between an ethnic group and an affinity group is that an ethnic group is maintained intergenerationally, by avoiding cultural exogamy. Some Mennonites home-school their children or send them to Mennonite schools, then send them to Mennonite colleges, because they are afraid their children might meet and fall in love with a Methodist, a Presbyterian, or heaven forbid, a Roman Catholic. Others find their daughters bringing home a Jew or a Buddhist, and rejoice that their daughter has found true love. Those in the latter category are never going to form a new ethnic group, although those in the former category might, eventually; the cultural differences between Mennonite life and the mainstream is still pretty minor at this point, though. (And if you want to say fried noodles, chicken and waffles, or chicken pot pie (meaning a noodle dish, not a dish baked in a crust) is a Mennonite food, you might be have an argument, but Perogies? They aren't Mennonite by any stretch of the imagination; they're Polish. ClairSamoht 23:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I believe it's significant that a number of people consider Mennonites an ethnicity, even though others debate that. When you consider that there are some who can trace their ancestry back a few hundred years, and find almost exclusively Mennonites, it does lend weight to their belief that they are an ethnic group.  For comparison, a lot of people would consider African Americans a distinct ethnic group, yet their history would not be much longer than that of Mennonites. Sxeptomaniac 17:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of cuisines that don't relate to an ethnicity, but to a culture. The proportion of Mennonites who might be considered an ethnic group is so small that we can pretty much ignore it. I would like to see examples of people who consider Mennonites to be an ethnicity, remembering again that Mennonites refers to a hugely diverse group of people in many different countries. DJ Clayworth 17:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * From my experience, I would have to say Mennonite is a culture/ethnicity (whatever you want to call it). My heritage, as far back as I can trace it, is Mennonite. If you would visit [La Crete]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Crete%2C_Alberta you would have to agree with me that it is a ethnicity. The food, the traditions, and the core beliefs tie everyone together in unity even though one may dress conservatively and the other not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.65.140.94 (talk)

I've always thought of "Mennonite ethnicity" as analagous to "Jewish ethnicity": there are Jews who are atheists and have blond hair, but if that blond atheist's name is Hymie Mendelbaum and his parents spoke Yiddish and he grew up attending Hebrew school and eating Jewish food, then he very likely considers himself to be ethnically Jewish, despite being an unbeliever and despite not looking like a stereotypical Jew. Likewise there are recognizable Mennonite surnames (Yoder, Wiebe, Stutzman, Dueck, Reimer, etc.), a stereotypical ethnically Mennonite appearance (tall, blonde, blue-eyed), a traditional Mennonite language (Low-German), and Mennonite culture. Not all ethnic Mennonites adhere to Mennonite religious beliefs, and many members of Mennonite churches are not ethnically Mennonite, but that does not mean that there is no such thing as being ethnically Mennonite. If you asked my husband (who is ethnically Mennonite) to state his ethnicity, he would absolutely say "Mennonite". He would never say "Dutch", because he has never had any connection or exposure to Dutch culture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.161.172.67 (talk)


 * Having lived within mennonite communities in both Ontario and Manitoba, Canada, and knowing (personally) at least a hundred from the states, I can guarantee that there is a Russian Mennonite culture - whether or not we want to call that an ethnicity as well is of course, ever debatable. However, I think its important not to speak of ethnic Mennonites, because that will ignore the fact that Russian and Swiss Mennonites in reality only take up a small fraction of Mennonites today.  Due to extensive mission work (note: not to be confused with evangialism) in many parts of Africa, there are now as many Mennonites in Africa as in North America.  Furthermore, there are Mennonites in the Netherlands (Doopsgezinde) who never picked up the Ukranian food, or the German hymns that "Russian Mennonites" did.  All I'm advocating for is the specific change in notation to ethnic Russian Mennonite, or some other version thereof. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.127.85.73 (talk) 16:14, 31 October, 2006 (UTC)

I live in southern manitoba, the entire area is covered in mennonite communitys. Being a mennonite myself i know that mennonites are an ethnic group. We speak a Low German dialect that no other culture speaks, we have are own types of traditional foods and clothing and beliefs etc.... the only reason some people don't recognize us as an ethnic group is becouse we've never owned our own country. Until coming to the new world of north america Mennonites moved around alot from place to place trying to find somewhere they could live with freedom of religon. We dont believe in fighting wars. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.161.208.135 (talk)


 * I believe there should be articles started about "ethnic" Mennonites. However there would be many problems, first of all a problem is what to call the articles. Second, there is a very very understandable aversion to seeing Mennonite used in an ethnic sense. One way to get around it perhaps would be to write an article entitled "Mennist" (the Plautdietsch word for Mennonites), or "Plautdietsch Mennonites" or "Low German Mennonites" or something. This article could mention everything from the Low German Mennonites currently in Kazakhstan and Siberia to the communities that settled in Paraguay, etc. A second separate article could be called "Swiss South German Mennonites", however the Swiss South German Mennonites in North America tend to view their ethnicity as Pennsylvania Dutch, and the separation with their kin they left behind in Europe was much earlier, so there is little feeling of ethnic togetherness with Swiss South German Mennonites left behind in Europe. I think the need is not really there to have an article for them. For the Mennists however, I see the need. I also understand why it is a delicate subject, hence the need for an appropriate title for the article, that lets one know, it is not about "Mennonites the denomination" but Mennists as an ethnicity. Stettlerj 07:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Sentence in need of a rewrite
This sentence, Modern-day Mennonites, in addition to the Amish and Hutterites, are the direct descendants of the Radical Reformation Anabaptists - many do not consider themselves to be Protestants (nor Roman Catholic), but rather a separate (radical) Reformation, is somewhat confusing. The Mennonites themselves aren't necessarily descendants of the reformation's Anabaptists... but the church is. I've tried to rewrite it several times, but I can't seem to make it work nicely. Any takers?

Reference, but in Dutch
I've found a reference for the "The Mennonite church in the Netherlands (Doopsgezinde Kerk) was the first Dutch church to have a female pastor (1911), her name was Anna Zernike" sentence, but the page is in Dutch. http://dpgwesterkwartier.groningen.org/htm/gidsje.htm says: "Vrouwen en mannen hebben dezelde rechten en mogelijkheden in een gemeente, in 1911 is Anna Zernike als eerste doopsgezinde predikante benoemd in Bovenknijpe.", which translates to: "Women and men have the same rights and possibilities in a community, in 1911 Anna Zernike was the first Mennonite pastor, appointed in Bovenknijpe". How would I go about referencing this? Would just adding the mentioned URL as a reference do? nield 20:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Place the URL between tags right at the end of the paragraph. It will then automatically show up in the Notes section. A Dutch reference isn't ideal in an English article, but it's better than nothing. JonHarder 21:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Luther and a state church
The last line in the history section is misleading. While Luther's followers ultimately were recognized as a state church, Luther himself did not "form a state church."

"Key reformers Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli broke with the Catholic Church, each forming a new state church." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.78.118 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Point of View check on the use of links
There has been a sustained attempt to de-link controversial but genuine and relevant links such as [excommunication] and [shunning] in this article. Sometimes some editors have resorted to cute tricks like calling shunning by other names such as 'social or marital avoidance' to delink these links. However these controversial traditions form the core of Mennonite doctrine, have been used since Menno Simons founded his church and are being used by thousands and thousands of Mennonites now. There is IMO a sustained attempt to de-link topics unflattering to Mennnonites and to link topics that are flattering to Mennonites. The Mennonite Third Way website even goes so far as to say that no modern Mennonites practice shunning now which is a loathsome lie. This wiki article needs to reflect all modern Mennonite realities and link all related links to be credible. I see a fast one being pulled by these link criteria.Anacapa 04:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Mennonites in Bolivia
I would like to contribute with two notes in the Mennonites article. This year (2006) I have spent more thant two month living inside the Mennonite colonies of Bolivia. I did a photographic about this topic and I think it is interesting for the readers of the article.

The first note is in "4.1 Membership/Distribution" after the sentence "... encompassing South America, Central America and the Caribbean, with 133,150 members." The note would be "Mennonites in Bolivia" and it would link to http://www.jordibusque.com/Index/Stories/MennoBolivia/MennoBolivia_01.html

The second note is in "3.3 Worship, doctrine, and tradition/Old Order" after the sentence "... school their children in Mennonite-operated schools." The note would be "Mennonite schools" and it would link to http://www.jordibusque.com/Index/Stories/Mennoschools/Mennoschools_01.html

Probably my contribution was deleted because to link my own website it is a kind of selfpromotion. I agree that to be linked is good for me but I do not sell anything in my website and in my opinion the content is quite interesting specially considering the difficulty of getting permissions to photograph this people. I am sure that to include these notes will enrich the quality of the article specially due to the important lack of information about Mennonites in southamerica.

Let me know what do you think.

Panex (talk • contribs) 12:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC).


 * I agree the pictures are very rare and I was quite impressed with the pictures of the Mennonites in Bolivia. However, I would suggest the link to the pictures would be more appropriate for the article Old Colony Mennonite, or perhaps even in the article for Russian Mennonite. A link in the Old Order section would definitely not be appropriate because these Bolivian Mennonites are not Old Order, but instead Old Colony (probably either Sommerfelder or Reinländer). Stettlerj 15:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not propose to link Old Mennonites with Mennonites in Bolivia. I propose to put a note when the article speaks about Mennonites in Southamerica: "... encompassing South America, Central America and the Caribbean, with 133,150 members." A part of this first note, I propose a second note about Mennonite schools when the article speaks about "... children in Mennonite-operated schools." Panex (talk • contribs) 00:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC).


 * I agree that the pictures are excellent and that the Russian Mennonite article is the best fit. However, it would be an order of magnitude better, in my opinion, to release a select few of your photos under one of the free licenses so they could be used as regular images. As I said on your talk page, I will start a comprehensive "Mennonites of South America" article if you are willing to contribute in this way. I really hope you will consider it! JonHarder 01:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * JonHarder, I have considered your proposal about to put a few pictures under free license but I am afraid that the only Creative Commons license I would be agree to put the pictures (cc-by-nc-nd-2.5) is not allowed in wikipedia. I would like to use this license Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 because I try to be professional photographer so I can not allow people to use my pictures for commercial uses. I hope you will understand my position. A second thing: Why do you think that a link in Russian Mennonite will be the best fit? In Bolivia, the Mennonites came mainly from Paraguay, Mexico and Canada. You should at least go back two generations to found their Russian Mennonites origins. In my opinion it is better to put a note when the article talks about Mennonites in South America since the immediate origins of Mennonites in Bolivia are already in South America and Canada. Would be OK for you? Panex 18:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The license variations are a somewhat of a mystery to me; I'm sure you understand them better than I do! It's too bad there isn't one that will work for you. As far as the Russian Mennonite article being more appropriate, even after many generations people from that background are distinct enough that it fits as a general description. Again, Stettlerj's suggestion of Old Colony Mennonite is right on (I assume these are Old Colony), but there is no such article yet. I expect that there will be one within a year as I work through expanding the Russian Mennonite content. Until then, I think Russian Mennonite is the best fit. JonHarder talk 22:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you really think that Russian Mennonites is a good fit for the Bolivian ones (they are Old Colony) I have no problem, lets put it. My initial idea was (and still is) to put a clickable note (not in external links but in notes) when the Mennonite article talks about South America in the same way that there is a clickable note about Mennonites in Canada when the article talks about North America. I can not see difference between both cases. If you do, please could you explain it to me? Apart from that, I know there is a PhD of Univ. Wisconsin-Madison named Kimberly Miller who did a one-year stay in Bolivia studying the Colonies. I'm trying to contact her in order to know if there is some of her work in the net because it would be very interesting also. Panex 22:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The inline citations are used either as [foot]notes or references that are associated with a sentence or paragraph. The external links are for sites that are more general in nature. I don't have an opinion about which is better in this particular case. If I interpret Stettlerj's comment correctly, there is no objection to placing the links in the Russian Mennonite article. At this point, you can go ahead and do that and it shouldn't be necessary to discuss it separately on that article's talk page. Just include a reference to Talk::Mennonite in your edit summary. As for the recent research, it would be great to have a source as a basis for starting to work on "Mennonites of South America." JonHarder talk 01:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, it is done. In the first part of my previous comment I was speaking about the general "Mennonite" article. That's because there is a note to Mennonites in Canada when the article talks about North America and I would like do the same when the article talks about South America with references to the Kimberly Miller's work and to the photographic work. I agree that her work will be very usefull to start with the "Mennonites in South America". Also I would like to introduce the work of another photographer named Larry Towell (from Magnum agency) who is working on that for the last ten years in Mexican Colonies. Sure his work will be interesting for the "Mennonites in South America" article. (Panex 16:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC))