From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This Christian denominations related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Category:Food? Inquiring minds want to know? :-) --AKjeldsenPotential fundamentalist! 05:59, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
I presume they eat something... or maybe they're edible. Human? Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 06:20, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
Hehe, feel free to remove it if you want. But I bet they have some interesting food habits one way or another. ħumanUser talk:Human 14:27, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Intro ported from Citizendium[edit]

The material added just now is my own work, ported from Citizendium under the same license (both CZ and RationalWiki use CC-By-SA 3.0). I ported only the CZ intro section since the full article is as yet unfinised (on CZ). The previously existing material on RationalWiki was cut and is included below for reference:

"The Amish are a Christian denomination, mostly living in Pennsylvania, who eschew the use of modern technology.
"They are notable for being a bit of a tourist attraction ("how can you live like that?!"), but also for their independence and lack of central orthodoxy. As such, the decision whether or not to attach "slow vehicle" reflective triangles to their horse-drawn buggies is up to individual parishes.
"Contrary to common belief, their reluctance to adopt modern technology is related not to an instinctual mistrust of technology, but to a desire to maintain a family- and God-centered life. Their children are vaccinated and many families now have a cellphone; a landline phone, on the other hand, is regarded as too much of an intrusion into the family home."

Some of this material is additive to the new intro section and should be included in the main article as it is further developed.

JFPerry 16:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Kindly refrain from replacing our articles with self-plagiarized ones already published elsewhere. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 16:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I consider the above comment to be libellous.
The term "self-plagiarism", to the extent that it is recognized as other than an oxymoron, refers to a deliberate attempt to deceive as to the origins of published material of one's own. I assume you do accept the term as legitimate, however, since you have used it in an attributive sense.
Please refer to the article referenced below for a more detailed discussion of this concept (see section 3.7. So-called "self-plagiarism" and recycling fraud):
Or see the Wikipedia article section on the same subject (see section 3: Self-plagiarism):
I quote from the first of these articles:
"Like plagiarism the essence of recycling fraud is the author's attempt to deceive the reader. This happens when no indication is given that the work is being recycled and an effort is made to disguise the original text." (Emphasis added. Also note that recycling fraud is the term the author has adopted in place of the oxymoronic sounding self-plagiarism as he explains elsewhere in the article).
And from the Wikipedia article:
"Self-plagiarism (also known as "recycling fraud" [13]) is the reuse of significant, identical, or nearly identical portions of one’s own work without acknowledging that one is doing so or without citing the original work. . . .
"In academic fields, self-plagiarism is when an author reuses portions of their own published and copyrighted work in subsequent publications, but without attributing the previous publication.[15]"
(emphasis added)
Clearly, there was no attempt on my part to disguise or defraud. Proper attribution of the source of this, my own work, was stated not only on the talk page, but in the edit summary. If it is against RW policy to port one's own material from elsewhere to this Wiki, it would have been sufficient to simply state that politely. In this connection, some other wikis have no such policy other than that the material being recycled be properly attributed.
Kindly retract your statement accusing me of self-plagiarism and do so immediately. If this is done without equivocation or undue delay, then I will consider this matter to be amicably resolved.
I am also hereby requesting that my account be disabled. I will certainly not be contributing to this Wiki in the future in any way whatsoever.
JFPerry 18:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
(1) You did not cite Citizendium in the article itself, which is where such citation must be placed for the copying not to be self-plagiarism. (2) Lighten up. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 19:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
To rephrase, "Kindly refrain from replacing our articles with ones already published elsewhere." Odd that no comment was made on the substantive part of the request. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Whoops, I see there was, although reading our goals on the main page might have led you to think "I wonder if they want an encyclopedia-style article on the Amish, and perhaps discuss it on the talk page first. Although, of course, the few clicks it took to restore things is no big deal, either. Was there anything worth keeping in the now-deleted addition? ħumanUser talk:Human 00:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
It was informative enough, it is more the fact that the guy adding it was a dick. - π 00:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
True that. Also, the writing quality dropped precipitously near the end, and it was full of red links... ħumanUser talk:Human 00:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


The Beliefs section mentions "IFBs", but doesn't say what the hell that means. Please fix.

Suomi10 (talk)