Talk:Jakob Ammann

Spelling

Since the name is spelled "Jakob Ammann" throughout (which, as far as I understand, is the correct spelling), why is the header spelled "Jacob Amman"? --Geenius at Wrok

I reiterate this question -- only now the body is divided between "Jacob Amman" and "Jakob Ammann." --Mr. A. 04:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Not anymore. :-) --Mr. A. 02:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it possible to join the apparently two different points of view? This article looks more than a billboard

(mein Alemannisch ist nicht so gut...)

I have read old, yellowed paper texts which claimed that the person the Amish were named after was Joseph Amman. I have also found on-line copies of such texts. I do not know if these are two different people or just confused records. It's perhaps worth noting that this form of naming probably originated in law enforcement efforts (back in the days when "law enforcement" might frequently involve a headman's axe and where going through proper channels on religious matters would typically mean visiting the city council - in other words, "shortly after" the invention of the printing press).

Concerning the reversion on 6/23/12

I am reverting to this edit, since a lot of the information added was based on the findagrave.com article on Ammann. The findagrave page on Ammann is rife with errors that are not supported by other authorities. For one, there is no record of Ammann going to America at all, let alone being buried in this particular cemetery. Next, the picture is very likely not the Jacob Ammann from whom the Amish got their name. There are, as I understand it, records of various Jacob Ammanns in Europe, so it is possible that this picture represents another person of the same name. The edits were very likely done in good faith, but all other research points against some of the findagrave.com information. So I have reverted to an earlier edit rather than try to sort out the smaller good points that may have been mixed with the erroneous. Mikeatnip (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I added a new source and have changed Ammann's birth date to February 12, 1644. This date is substantiated by parish records in Erlenbach (see, Identifying Jakob Ammann). The February 12, 1644 is accepted by most academics and represents the best available information. There is no need to add anything about conflicting dates unless the March 17, 1656 date can be sourced. There has been some confusion about dates, because there was another child born to the same couple on March 17, 1656.

The date of Jakob Ammann's death is substantiated by the Manual der Täuferkammer; the records of the Bernese government's chamber of Anabaptist affairs, where an unnamed woman-"a daughter of the Täuferlehrer [Anabaptist preacher] Jacob Amman of Erlenbach who has died outside the land" - appeared before the chamber on April 12, 1730 and "requested to receive the holy baptism and to be accepted into the bosom of our church." Therefore, this date and place are well established by record.

This only indicates that Ammann had died some time BEFORE that date. April 12, 1730 is the date the daughter requested baptism, the actual date of Jacob's death is unknown. If this is the only reference, we need to change it to say BEFORE April 12, 1730. Mikeatnip (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

As for the depiction of Jakob Ammann, it is a 18th century depiction of the same person. Whether it's an accurate likeness is not known. What is known is that the image is widely circulated on Dutch academic websites. The same argument could be used against the depiction of Jesus on Wikipedia. Would you remove that because it may or may not be an accurate depiction? Whatever the case, you should not revert a reasonably well documented page back to a poorly documented page. If you have something of value to add, by all means add it. If not, leave the page alone. ICarriere (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand that someone can make an image representing a historical figure. I have done so myself. If this image circulates on Dutch academic sites, could you please drop me some references here? I would like to see them. If, however, the image is based solely on the findagrave.com page, it is not acceptable, since that page has gross errors. Also, the Synod of Dort needs to be referenced, or I will need to delete it. Perhaps someone is getting that confused with the Dortrecht Confession of Faith? The Synod of Dort was a Reformed synod, not Anabaptist. But if a reference can be given as to how that influenced Jakob Ammann, I will accept it. Thanks! Mikeatnip (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I did not obtain the image of Jakob Ammann from any website. I searched the Wikipedia image database and found it listed under the name Jakob Ammann. The fact that findagrave uses the same image is irrelevant. Many Dutch and German academic websites use the same image.

With regard to the reference of the "Synod of Dortrecht" versus the "Dortrecht Confession of Faith", I double checked the source. The author must have confused these canons. Clearly the Dortrecht Confession of Faith was the intended reference.

Finally, Mikeatnip, you need to tone down your rhetoric. This article was a complete joke (copy & paste job) before I rewrote it, and I don't appreciate the pretense that you own it. The fact is, you haven't authored a single article on Wikipedia. Let's be honest, your sole contribution to this article was catching a mistake made in the research process. Thank you for that, but don't let it go to your head. ICarriere (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

ICarriere, this is not about me owning the article [sorry about the wording, I should have left the "I" out of "I will need to delete it" and said "it will need to be deleted". The point was that it was bad info that any editor could have deleted. "I" does sound bad, and again I apologize for coming across that way.], it is about making the article factual and verifiable. According to the history, you were the one who originally added the information about the Synod of Dort and the erroneous date of death. I personally dont like the picture because it does not match the historical facts known about Ammann. He would have been opposed to a trimmed beard. The slicked back hair doesnt characterize the Amish either. There is no indication where this drawing came from, but I have not been able to find it anywhere on academic sites. If we are going to use an image for Jakob Ammann (of which he would have been opposed to having his image made, so it is very doubtful there ever was any official image of him), I am only saying that we should try to find one that is more historically accurate. The picture may be of a Jakob Ammann (of which there are records of several during the epoch of Jakob Ammann of the Amish), but does it represent accurately the Jakob Ammann from whom the Amish got their name is my question. I am ok to leave it until a better representation is found or created (I have Leroy Beachy's book here, I will see if he has something. I also have a picture of Jakob Ammann's homestead here, from a friend who took an Anabaptist tour, but I need to get his permission to post it in Commons.). Other editors can give their opinion as well. As time permits I would like to amplify this article. Thanks for your help. Working together we can improve this article from its stub condition. Mikeatnip (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

New changes on 7/07/12

I appreciate the changes made by JonHarder to the article. I also made a few changes to reflect a transition from the general [Anabaptist] movement to the specific [Swiss Brethren] group. Next, I added "1632 Mennonite" to provide context to the "Dortrecht Confession of Faith" reference.

It's important to emphasize the schism from the general conference of Mennonites. For this reason, I believe the section title "Schism From Mennonites" is appropriate.

Next, I modified the "Infobox" to include a general date of death (abt. 1730), instead of the March 31, 1730 date; which can not be sourced. Also, I added the influence of the Dutch Mennonites.

Finally, I modified the Death section to reflect the available information, "death prior to April 12, 1730". - ICarriere (talk) 3:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite as of July 24, 2012

I have put quite a few hours into this rewrite. I know it is still incomplete, but I am getting tired of looking at it. :-) I tried to source the major points, but didnt want to have too many footnotes so not every detail is sourced. If some point needs sourced, feel free to ask and I will try to reference it. I used mostly three sources: Some Mennonite Quarterly Review articles, Roth's translation of the Letters of the Amish Division, and Leroy Beachy's book Unser Leit.Mikeatnip (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations, you have turn a well written article into a poorly written fan page. First, the amateurish hand-drawn depiction of Jacob Ammann is unprofessional. I realize this is what you think he should look like, but history does not support your viewpoint. There are already images of Jakob Ammann in the public domain. Those images should be used in place of this monstrosity. Second, the style of writing, word usage, and grammatical structure is poorly contrived. Third, you have added information that is already covered in the main article on the Amish. Honestly, I think I liked the copy and paste job that you did before I edited this article. Fourth, the references are are not properly placed or sourced.

That said, it has become clear to me that you have your entire ego wrapped up in this article. Apparently, it not enough for you to contribute as you have some strange need to say, I wrote that article. So I guess you decided all on your own, that you'd remove the previous article and replace it with a concoction of your making.

Well I, for one, do not have the time to reshape this mess into a proper article. As such, I am seriously thinking about reverting this your entire edit back to the previous article. - ICarriere (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome to criticize. We can learn one from another. However, many people have read the page since I made the additions and no one has complained. Before continuing to destroy the page, please let other editors or a moderator have some input. The information was well sourced from reputable sources. Thanks!Mikeatnip (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, now you know how it feels to have your work obliterated. That aside, you mentioned no complaints. You right, and no one complained about my revert. I'm guessing that very few people read this article. However, that does not give you the right to replace a well written article with your fan page. The reverts will continue until you come up with a more professional image and rework your fan page into a professional article. - ICarriere (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I will ask for some moderation. Thanks.Mikeatnip (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Having not reviewed the entire history here, I am actually almost more concerned about the behavior and comments of the apparent reverter than of anything else. WP:EDITWAR would seem to apply. In cases like this, the most reasonable way to proceed would be to point out, item by item, the significant changes being proposed, and the sources which support it. I would suggest that those who wish to change the existing version propose on this page exactly why and on what sources they base their comments on. If the threatened reverts to take place, I am prepared to either protect the page myself or request its protection until and unless the issues are resolved and possibly ask for sanctions against those engaged in the edit war. The information was sourced, and we do not remove reliably sourced information without discussion.

I myself have access to the Highbeam Research site, which has some information on this topic as well, and I imagine although I haven't checked JSTOR and other databanks have information as well. I would be more than willing to forward any I find to any editor who drops me an e-mail with their e-mail address for me to send them to. John Carter (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

First, you should not comment on a dispute until you read the history.

Second, Mikeatnip replaced a well known/sourced (published in a Swiss magazine) image of Jakob Ammann with his own hand drawn monstrosity. Then he added a caption that reads, "there are no known images of Jakob Ammann". This statement is false. Because of Mikeatnip's bias, he wanted to re-imagine Jakob Ammannn into the image of a modern day Pennsylvania Dutch Amish. The modern practice by the Amish of shaving the mustache evolved because of the association of the mustache with the military. However, Jakob Ammann taught his followers to retain their facial hair in accordance with Mosaic Law.

Third, Mikeatnip did not add to the previous article in succession. Instead, he replaced my entire work with his own. If his work had been well written and well sourced, I would not have objected. However, what I see is a poorly written article where Mikeatnip prattles on and on about how little was known about the life of Jakob Ammann. The article should be telling the reader what was known, not going on and on about how little is known. The wording should be concise and to the point.

Finally, Mikeatnip completely bungled the references section. Instead of valid sources, he has linked to more of his internal dialog. This is not up to Wikipedia standards to say the least. That is why I reverted the article back to the original. From my perspective, Mikeatnip's new article represents vandalism against my previous work. That said, I'm going to revert the article back to the original. From there, we can discuss any changes here before they are added to the main section. - ICarriere (talk) 10:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology on my talk page. Assuming good faith in that you really meant it, I will set the page back to what the administrator John Carter suggested above. From there we can go forward together to keep improving the article. It makes sense to use the most expanded form of the article as a starting point for further expansion. Mikeatnip (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, you misunderstood what I said. I apologized for the harsh comments that were made in frustration. I went on to say that we should work together to improve this page. That means, that we should follow the process of valid succession. New additions should be discussed on the talk page first, then added to the page after consensus is reached.

When I discovered this page, it was a direct copy and paste of an unpublished article that can be found on docstoc.com. The research I did laid the ground for a well formed and well sourced article. In the process, a couple of my mistakes were pointed out and updates were made to improve the article. That is the process. What we don't do is to take a well formed and well sourced article and replace it with a poorly formed and poorly sourced article. That is the kind of action that leads to edit wars.

If you are truly interested in improving this article, then why not make suggestions for improvements. For example, you said that you didn't like the image of Jakob Ammann because he didn't look like a modern day Amish. In response to this, I made the following points:

1) "The modern practice by the Amish of shaving the mustache evolved because of the association of the mustache with the military. However, Jakob Ammann taught his followers to retain their facial hair in accordance with Mosaic Law."

2) The Wikipedia stock image was published in the Swiss magazine, Schweizerischer Beobachter.

3) I informed you of other Academic websites using this same image. Also, I have a newsletter from Amish people that has the image in the literature.

Finally, The German/Swiss Wikipedia counterpart to this article was the first to use that image.

Those points all stand in favor of keeping the present stock image from Wiki commons. If you have a compelling reason that we should use your own hand sketched image by all means, feel free to provide your reason and we can discuss. - ICarriere (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, we can discuss the details, but first of all we probably should talk about which version to even start with. The Administrator John Carter reverted to a version of the page and made this comment: "I would suggest that those who wish to change the existing version propose on this page exactly why and on what sources they base their comments on. If the threatened reverts do take place, I am prepared to either protect the page myself or request its protection until and unless the issues are resolved and possibly ask for sanctions against those engaged in the edit war. The information was sourced, and we do not remove reliably sourced information without discussion."

In a friendly way, may I ask why you did not respect the administrator's directions? I would guess that reverting (two times now) from the version he chose as a starting point could get you banned from Wikipedia. So, I would suggest that you voluntarily undo your reverts and then start discussions about individual points. I could revert again to the administrator's version, but I will give you a chance to undo your reverts. It would probably help with not getting into trouble with an administrator. Thanks for helping! Mikeatnip (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It's sad that you would attempt to use an admin John Carter and threats of a ban to force your will in this matter. What you are doing proves that you have a self-promoting agenda. That is why you want your own sketch to replace a well sourced image of Jakob Ammann. That is also why you removed my work and replaced it with your own - albeit poorly written and badly sourced article.

Whatever the case, I will protect this page. New additions should be discussed here before changes are made to the article. I suggest a 2 day window of discussion prior to updates being made. If updates can't be sourced, I would suggest they not be added. - ICarriere (talk) 1:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.39.123 (talk)

Hi, John Carter was asked to arbitrate. He wrote what he did. If you have any questions about what he meant, I would suggest asking him. If the page keeps getting reverted, I will ask him again for arbitration. And I commit myself to abiding by what he decides. Mikeatnip (talk) 12:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I didnt have much time this morning, so will add this now. Concerning the image, here are the reasons for not using the one you propose.

1. As stated originally, it is not historically accurate. One of the things the Amish have been noted for since their beginning is a long beard. (Do a google search on "Amish beard cutting" and you will see that having a long beard is still very much part of Amish identity.) It would be like having an image of a lady with earrings and calling it Jakob Ammann's wife ... it simply isnt historically accurate since Amish women do not wear jewelry. Or, having an image of an Amish church service with a woman preaching ... Amish do not have women preachers so it wouldnt be historically accurate. So why use an image of the "founder" of the Amish, with a cut off beard???

2. I asked above for some links where this supposedly circulates on Dutch academic sites and none were given. I did a google and bing search and found nothing. It is possible that some have started using it since it was uploaded Commons about a year ago.

3. I researched this image and tracked it back to a home school site that publishes a historical timeline for sale. From all I could find they created or pulled an image from somewhere and named it Jakob Ammann to fill in their timeline (which they have every right to do, but that doesnt really give it any "academic" weight.)

4. In gathering sources for an upcoming biography of Ammann, I have files from the latest research from the French (Souvenance Anabaptiste), Swiss (Mennonitica Helvetica), and American Mennonite research on Jakob Ammann, from reputable scholars like John D. Roth at Goshen Mennonite Historical Center in Goshen, IN(I have also met him personally), Hanspeter Jecker in Switzerland (I have had recent email contact with him), Robert Baecher in France, and as well as visits to the Lancaster County Mennonite Historical Library and Muddy Creek Farm Library (which is another Mennonite Historical library). I also have Leroy Beachy's 1000-page history of the Amish (and have met him in person). In all my research, this image (nor any, for that matter, purporting to be Jakob Ammann) has ever appeared. I also have all the pre-1960s Mennonite Quarterly Review articles on my hard drive.

If this is an academic image of Ammann, how come the most important scholars of Amish/Mennonite history know nothing about it? My point is that this image is nothing more than a home school timeline project image (and again I say they have the right to use it if they want.)

5. When I looked into this image a couple of weeks ago, I contacted the original uploader and explained what I found. I showed him the drawing I made and asked what he thought about replacing the one he uploaded. He was fully agreed, and I tried to replace the file he had uploaded, but instead of replacing it, Wikipedia made a new file. Otherwise, the image you propose would probably have been replaced. (it also has copyright issues, but that is sort of beside the point of this discussion.)

6. You are correct that the Amish did not always shave the mustache as in now almost universal in Old Order Amish. If you notice though, the image I uploaded has a mustache. That was very purposeful.

7. I am not pushing for my drawing because it is mine. I made it to fill a need and very generously donated my masterpiece (smile) to the PD (See, I am a nice man after all, not? :-) ) I am also responsible for the image at Michael Sattler. I would like, as time permits, to make some other images for the Anabaptist articles on Wikipedia. I have an almost finished oil painting of the first baptism scene in Zurich that I plan to upload when it is finished. I am not a professional artist, but I do think my work is at least acceptable.

8. If my Ammann artwork is not acceptable to the Wikipedia community, then that is fine. But let's at least use a historically accurate image. I spent hours researching the clothing styles for the Sattler painting and the Zurich baptism. I was also trying to be conscience of the historical veracity of the Ammann drawing.

9. I know it was probably hard for you to have your revision totally reformatted when I made the rewrite. It was a small article and I was adding lots of new material so totally rewrote it. Believe me, there was nothing personal I was trying to provoke in you when my rewrite totally changed the look of the article. I am also rewriting the Anabaptist article, but since that is much longer, I am doing it one piece at a time.

10. Let's be friends and work together on the article. That said, the natural starting point would be the most expanded form, which John Carter chose, and happens to be the version of my rewrite. I am not insisting on using it since it is mine, but it is well sourced and contains about 4 times the amount of information then the version you keep reverting to.

11. And finally, the version you keep reverting to says the image is of Ammann "c.1696" Think about it ... he was born in 1644, that would make him to be 52 years old. Does that image look like a 52-year-old man, who doesnt believe in "trimming his beard after the manner of the world"? That quote comes from (I quote) "one of the rules passed at a ministers’ conference of the Swiss Brethren held in Strasbourg in 1568 (confirmed at Steinselz in 1752 and at Essingen in 1755) forbade the trimming of the hair or beard according to the worldly fashions." See [article on the beard] from the Mennonite Encyclopedia. The print edition of the Mennonite Encyclopedia has even more information on the beard, I believe, but I cannot find it in my files at the moment.

12. On a personal note, I am sorry that I seem to have offended you from the start. Looking back, I should have been more patient when you first worked on the article and used the bad info from the findagrave.com site. You were only copying data that at the time you thought was legitimate. I "complained" about the image at that point because I thought that you had taken it from that very misinformed page, and didnt realize that it was a Commons image. I didnt do my homework on that one and I see that it has caused offense. Please forgive my overzealousness in that case. You were willing to correct the errors when pointed out, thank you. Let's work together to keep improving the article and enlarging it. I sincerely ask that you consider what I am trying to say about historical accuracy in depicting Jakob Ammann. Mikeatnip (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Improvement suggestion: clarify terminology

Key to understanding this article is the meaning of three somewhat related terms: the bann, shunning and excommunication. A brief description of these terms is important context. This articles uses the phrase the bann, which is not an English word (according the New Oxford American Dictionary); sources also use the Ban or the ban (off the top of my head). If there is a standard English equivalent, I propose using that.

To summarize, I believe this article can be improved by briefly defining and distinguishing these three terms and then ensuring they are used consistently throughout the article. Perhaps the dispute over discipline is put into perspective by realizing that "the ban" was a peaceful alternative to the executions practiced by the state church. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 13:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy edits! Your suggestion to define and standardize "the bann" (German form) is good, now that I think of it. I guess that is what copy editors are for, to help the author see his inconsistencies. :-) Another aspect in defining excommunication (and the penance that was supposed to accompany it) would be to put it into the context of a discipline (even a self-discipline, as Ammann did to himself on two occasions) and not a punishment or revenge, which I think most people assume it to be on first hearing about excommunication. The definition of penance (as used during that time) probably should accompany a definition of the ban/excommunication/shunning, since many people (including myself until recently) think of it as a synonym of repentance, which it really isn't. I would be happy if you would make the improvement. If not, I will mull over it and see if I can make something sensible. Mikeatnip (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Findagrave error

I reverted the edit that linked Jakob Ammann to the burial in Churchtown. No historical evidence supports this. See Unser Leit, Steven Nolt's book, GAMEO, etc. There were some Ammanns that came to PA, but this findagrave thing has no known historical evidence to be the Jakob Ammann of this article. Jakob Ammann was a common name. To support the supposition that the Jakob Ammann of this article is buried at Churchtown, a clear citation is needed from a reputable source. This has been discussed above. Mikeatnip (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The picture/image again?

The picture used on the article isn't contemporanious, and was made by someone in 2012 (different from the image that people are saying is in Dutch academic sites from a decade ago), and an image isn't that needed at all. And unlike Jesus, I don't think there isn't a general concept of what he looks like, and I'm against the idea of Wikipedia creating that, which seems to already be happening a bit, I've seen this image pop up a few times when being discussed. It's a bit of this whole citogenesis thing, which I think most people are somewhat against, especially when an image just isn't really necessary. Dzseszika (talk) 02:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)