text:
Bronc riding

Bronc riding, either bareback bronc or saddle bronc competition, is a rodeo event that involves a rodeo participant riding a bucking horse (sometimes called a bronc  or bronco) that attempts to throw or buck off the rider. Originally based on the necessary buck breaking skills of a working cowboy, the event is now a highly stylized competition that utilizes horses that often are specially bred for strength, agility, and bucking ability. It is recognized by the main rodeo organizations such as the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association (PRCA) and the International Professional Rodeo Association (IPRA).

Description
Each competitor climbs onto a horse, which is held in a small pipe or wooden enclosure called a bucking chute. When the rider is ready, the gate of the bucking chute is opened and the horse bursts out and begins to buck. The rider attempts to stay on the horse for eight seconds without touching the horse with their free hand. On the first jump out of the chute, the rider must "mark the horse out". This means they must have the heels of their boots in contact with the horse above the point of the shoulders before the horse's front legs hit the ground. A rider that manages to complete a ride is scored on a scale of 0–50 and the horse is also scored on a scale of 0–50. The ride as a whole is rated as the sum of these individual scores: scores in the 80s are considered very good, and in the 90s are considered exceptional. A horse who bucks in a spectacular and effective manner will score more points than a horse who bucks in a straight line with no significant changes of direction.

History
The earliest examples of American bronc riding were believed to have been born out of breaking horses for the United States Army, most notably in Wyoming and Colorado. The first three sanctioned bronc riding championship events were held in 1901 at the Colorado Cattle and Horse Grower's Association, Denver Horse Show Association, and the Northwestern Colorado competition. The following year competitions were held on September 2, 1902, at Cheyenne, Wyoming's Cheyenne Frontier Days, and in Denver, Colorado, at The Denver Horse Show Association annual event. Both of these were won by Harry Henry Brennan, known today as the "father of modern bronc riding."

Bareback bronc vs. saddle bronc riding
Bareback bronc and saddle bronc styles are very different. In saddle bronc, the rider uses a specialized saddle with free-swinging stirrups and no horn. The saddle bronc rider grips a simple rein braided from cotton or polyester and attached to a leather halter worn by the horse. The rider lifts on the rein and attempts to find a rhythm with the animal by spurring forwards and backwards with their feet in a sweeping motion from shoulder to flank.

The bareback rider does not use a saddle or rein, but uses a rigging that consists of a leather and rawhide composite piece often compared to a suitcase handle attached to a surcingle and placed just behind the horse's withers. The rider leans back and spurs with an up and down motion from the horse's point of shoulder toward the rigging handle, spurring at each jump in rhythm with the motion of the horse.

In both events, after the completion of successful rides, two pickup riders in the arena attempt to help the contestants safely dismount the still-moving horses.

Bareback bronc riding began to develop as a professional rodeo sporting event around 1900. The riding equipment used during that era varied. In some cases, the rider simply held onto the horse's mane, called a mane-hold. Others held a loose or twisted rope tied around the horse's girth, and other methods involved using multiple handhold leather riggings based on a surcingle. In the early 1920s, when the old rodeo rules allowing two handed riding were being phased out and replaced with the newer rule of riding with one hand in the rigging and one hand in the air, Earl Bascom invented, designed and made rodeo's first one-hand bareback rigging. The original one-handed rigging was made by Bascom from a section of rubber belting discarded from a threshing machine, with the entire rigging—the handhold and the body—all made as one piece. The handhold was folded back and riveted to the main body of the rigging, with a 'D' ring riveted on each side for tying the latigos. This rigging was first used at the Raymond Stampede in Alberta, Canada in July 1924. Bascom then refined the design, making his second one-handhold rigging out of leather and rawhide. Sole leather was used for the rigging body. Strips of leather, with rawhide sewed between, were used for the handhold with sheepskin glued under the handholds to protect the knuckles; this arrangement became known as "Bascom's Rigging". Honored in several Halls of Fame, Bascom is now known as the "Father of the Modern-day Bareback Rigging". Variations of Bascom's rigging are still used in rodeos today.

The horse
The bucking horse is usually a mare, but occasionally, a gelding (a castrated male horse) is used. Bucking horses usually travel in close quarters and are housed in a herd setting, geldings are generally less disruptive and more prone to get along with one another. Mares are also used, and while a mixed herd of mares and geldings is a bit more prone to disruptions, they can be kept together without great difficulties. Stallions are less common, because they can be disruptive in a herd and may fight if there are mares present.

The modern bronc is not a truly feral horse. Most bucking stock are specifically bred for use in rodeos, with horses having exceptional bucking ability being purchased by stock contractors and fetching a high price. Most are allowed to grow up in a natural, semi-wild condition on the open range, but also have to be gentled and tamed in order to be managed from the ground, safely loaded into trailers, vaccinated and wormed, and to load in and out of bucking chutes. They also are initially introduced to bucking work with cloth dummies attached to the saddle. Due to the rigors of travel and the short bursts of high intensity work required, most horses in a bucking string are at least 6 or 7 years old.

Animal welfare issues
The event has provoked concerns among some animal welfare advocates that practices used in the event may constitute animal cruelty.

Modern rodeos in the United States are closely regulated and have responded to accusations of animal cruelty by instituting a number of rules to guide how rodeo livestock are to be managed. The PRCA has rules that specifically regulate the proper care and treatment of rodeo animals; these guidelines must be followed by all rodeo participants in sanctioned rodeos. In 1994, a survey of 28 sanctioned rodeos was conducted by on-site independent veterinarians. Reviewing 33,991 animal runs, the injury rate was documented at 16 animals or 0.047 percent, less than five hundredths of one percent or one in 2000 animals. A study of rodeo animals in Australia found a similar injury rate. Basic injuries occurred at a rate of 0.072 percent, or one in 1,405, with injuries requiring veterinary attention at 0.036 percent, or one injury in every 2810 times the animal was used, and transport, yarding and competition were all included in the study. A later PRCA survey of 60,971 animal performances at 198 rodeo performances and 73 sections of "slack" indicated 27 animals were injured, again approximately five-hundredths of 1 percent – 0.0004. However, accusations of cruelty in the USA persist. The PRCA acknowledges that they only sanction about 30 percent of all rodeos, while another 50 percent are sanctioned by other organizations and 20 percent are completely unsanctioned. Several animal rights organizations keep records of accidents and incidents of possible animal abuse. They cite various specific incidents of injury to support their statements, and also point to examples of long-term breakdown, as well as reporting on injuries and deaths suffered by animals in non-rodeo events staged on the periphery of professional rodeo such as chuckwagon races and "suicide runs". While in terms of actual statistics on animal injury rate, there appear to be no more recent independent studies on animal injury in rodeo than the 1994 study, groups such as PETA gather anecdotal reports such as one from a 2010 rodeo in Colorado alleging eleven animal injuries, of which two were fatal.

There are economic incentives to keep animals healthy enough for continuing rodeo participation. Bucking horses and bulls are costly to replace: a proven bucking horse can be sold for $8000 to $10,000, making "rough stock" an investment worth caring for and keeping in good health for many years. Health regulations also mandate vaccinations and blood testing of horses crossing state lines. An injured animal will not buck well and hence a cowboy cannot obtain a high score for his ride, so sick or injured animals are not run through the chutes, but instead are given appropriate veterinary care so they can be returned to their usual level of strength and power. PRCA regulations require veterinarians to be available at all rodeos to treat both bucking stock and other animals as needed. The PRCA requires a veterinarian be at all sanctioned rodeos.

Activists also express concern that many rodeo horses end their lives as horsemeat. While it is accurate that some rough stock animals are slaughtered for horsemeat at the end of their useful careers, other bucking horses are retired at the end of their rodeo usefulness and allowed to live into old age. The issue of horse slaughter crosses all equestrian disciplines and is not confined solely to the rodeo industry. Any unwanted horse can meet this fate, including race horses, show horses, or even backyard pasture pets.

Over the years, some states imposed regulation upon certain techniques and tools used in rodeos. In 2000, California became the first state to prohibit the use of cattle prods on animals in the chute. The city of Pittsburgh prohibited the use of flank straps as well as prods or shocking devices, wire tie-downs, and sharpened or fixed spurs or rowels at rodeos or rodeo-related events. Some other cities and states have passed similar prohibitions. Under PRCA guidelines, electric prods may not deliver a shock stronger than can be produced from two D batteries. Prods are allowed as long as the situation requires them to protect the people or the animals.

Flank strap controversy
A "flank strap" (or, "bucking strap") is used to encourage the horse to kick out straighter and higher when it bucks. The flank strap is about 4 inches wide, covered in sheepskin or neoprene and fastens behind the widest part of the abdomen. Flank straps that hurt the horse are not allowed by rodeo rules in the United States.

However, a bucking strap has to be an incentive, not a prod, or the horse will quickly sour and refuse to work. A horse in pain will become sullen and not buck very well, and harm to the genitalia is anatomically impossible because the stifle joint of the hind leg limits how far back a flank strap can be attached.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has stated that burrs and other irritants are at times placed under the flank strap and that improperly used flank straps can cause open wounds and burns if the hair is rubbed off and the skin is chafed raw. However, while the implied argument behind this claim is that pain is what makes the horse buck, in actual practice, irritants or pain generally interfere with a horse's ability to buck in an energetic and athletic fashion.

title: Bronc riding


text:
Jakob Ammann

Jakob Ammann (also Jacob Amman, Amann; 12 February 1644 – between 1712 and 1730) was a Swiss Anabaptist leader and the namesake of the Amish religious movement.

Personal life
The full facts about the personal life of Jacob Ammann are incomplete and have been mostly speculative until recent decades. Since the late 1990s, more research has filled in some of the gaps and a basic outline of his life is now conceivable.

Early life and family
Jakob Ammann was born on 12 February 1644 in Erlenbach im Simmental, Canton of Bern, Switzerland to Michael and Anna (née Rupp) Ammann. Erlenbach church records note the baptism of a Jacob Ammann on 12 February 1644, who was probably Ammann. His grandfather has been identified as Ulrich Ammann. All three Ammanns were tailors. Jakob was third in a family of six children. He probably received limited formal education. On 37 official documents signed by him, only his initials appear, with most of them having a nearby note that Ammann was not able to write so he only "made his mark". However, on three documents, his signed name does appear, although twice it was probably written for him by someone else; once, with the same style of writing as his initials, appear the poorly formed letters "J. AMME", which is assumed to be his own writing. Because he asked for letters to be read in one meeting, it is assumed he was not able to read or could do so only poorly. He did better financially than the average person of his time.

Jakob was married to Verena Stüdler, but very little is known of her beyond her name. They had at least one daughter and one son, Baltz.

Jakob’s father and one of his sisters also joined the Anabaptist movement. His brother Ulli, 18 years his junior, was also an Anabaptist and is known for his moderating tone in the attempts at reconciliation between the Amish and Reist sides.

Conversion to Anabaptism
On 12 March 1671, he is noted as the sponsor for a baptism in the state church. In June 1680, government correspondence from Oberhofen asked counsel from authorities in Bern on how to deal with a Jakob Ammann who had "become infected with the Anabaptist sect". This is the first known reference to Ammann as an Anabaptist. This indicates a conversion to Anabaptism sometime between 1671 and 1680. Sometime between his conversion and 1693, he was ordained to the ministry, possibly by Hans Reist who would later become one of his greatest opponents.

By 1693, Ammann had moved from Switzerland to Heidolsheim, Alsace where his father died and was buried in the neighboring village of Baldenheim. Apparently shortly after the death of his father, he moved to the head of the valley at La Petite Lièpvre (Klein Leberau), near Markirch (today Sainte-Marie-aux-Mines), Alsace, remaining there until October 1712 when all the Anabaptists in the area were expelled by an edict of Louis XIV. After this date, no more records concerning Jakob Ammann have been found. He probably went to live with friends or relatives somewhere in Lower Alsace.

Death
The date and place of Ammann's death are unknown, but in 1730 his daughter requested baptism in the Reformed Church in Erlenbach and stated that her father had died. It is not recorded when or where the death had occurred. Ammann's involvement in church matters had dropped off considerably before his disappearance from the records in 1712, possibly from old age since he would have been approaching 70 years of age when he moved away from the Sainte-Marie-aux-Mines area.

Theology and practice
Because of scarcity of materials, very little is known of Jakob Ammann’s teaching and day-to-day life. Three letters comprise the whole of his first-hand accounts of his thoughts. Other letters accuse Jakob of teaching or holding various viewpoints, but since many of these letters were written by his opponents it is not clear how much bias the accusations contain.

From Jakob’s letters, it can be learned that he was a firm disciplinarian, uncompromising in what he believed, and expected others to "conform to the teachings of Christ and His apostles". His rejection of the "good-hearted" stemmed from his belief that whoever accepted the "true saving faith" would be baptized upon that faith, cost what it may. They would "forsake the world" and practise a very practical separation in their everyday life. Jakob was willing to disregard longstanding customs and practices if they were not founded on God’s Word. He denied that he was trying to start a "new faith". He believed in a new birth experience that would radically change a person. He wrote: "If a miser does not turn from his fornication, and a drunkard from his drunkenness, or other immoralities, they are thereby separated from the kingdom of God, and if he does not improve himself through a pious, penitent life, such a person is no Christian and will not inherit the Kingdom of God."

In practical matters, he stood opposed to long hair on men, shaved beards, and clothing that manifested pride. Liars were to be excommunicated. Ammann, unlike most Amish married men of today, however, had a mustache, which is largely forbidden today in the faith.

Schism
Jakob Ammann is known because of his prominent involvement in a schism among the Swiss Brethren that began in 1693. Until recent decades, he was often heavily blamed for the division, being portrayed as an angry, harsh, and demanding leader who imposed his views on others. With the publication of some of the correspondence from the period (beginning in 1950, with Mast’s "Amish Letters") and the uncovering of new evidence, Ammann’s reputation has received a more positive appraisal among some researchers. Because of their prominent roles, Jakob Ammann and Hans Reist have been used to characterize the two sides of the schism, but the issues were broader than the two most prominent men involved.

Background
In the mid-1600s, a fresh influx of converts came into Swiss Anabaptism. The Reformed pastor at Burgdorf even complained that half of the people in the villages in his area were either Anabaptist or deeply sympathetic to their cause. These fresh converts—zealous for their new faith—were in fact a sort of new movement within Swiss Anabaptism. Of the nearly 200 surnames among the Amish in the 1690s, only a very few were found in the Reist side, indicating that the two sides formed mostly around two groups of people with different origins. Because of persecution, many Swiss Brethren families had emigrated or been evicted from Swiss territory into the Alsace and Palatinate before the division. The civil authorities tended to be more lenient in the new locations, and in some cases welcomed the newcomers as they were looking for people to develop their lands. This emigration tended to create a different environment than the Swiss who had not emigrated were experiencing, making some of the issues come to the fore.

Another important aspect in the schism was a conference held at Ohnenheim, Alsace, by several Swiss Brethren ministers and elders in 1660, in which they formally adopted the Dordrecht Confession of Faith that had been drawn up by Dutch Mennonites. Until this time, the Swiss Brethren (who did not use the name "Mennonite" for themselves) had no official confession of faith beyond the Schleitheim Confession. The Dordrecht Confession contained two points that the Swiss Brethren had not historically practised: foot washing (Article XI) and social avoidance (including not eating meals with those who had been shunned, Article XVII). Swiss Brethren had practised excommunication and a refusal to "eat" the [Lord's Supper] with those banned, but their avoidance did not include refraining from eating regular meals with those in the bann. These two matters, foot washing and not eating "physical" meals with the excommunicated, would be at the core of the schism.

Beginning
In 1693, Jakob Ammann, "together with the ministers and elders," sent a general letter to people within the Swiss Brethren congregations, asking for a meeting in which he wanted clarification about where they stood on three questions: 1) Shunning those who had been banned, 2) whether liars should be excommunicated, and 3) if people could be saved who did not follow God’s word. This last issue was referring to the "good-hearted", meaning those who sympathized with the Anabaptists and even helped them materially in times of persecution, but who would not take the step of rebaptism. Those siding with Ammann felt that these "good-hearted" people should not be looked upon and consoled as "saved" unless they took up the cross and followed Christ in rebaptism and obedience to his teachings.

Along with feetwashing, these three points were at the core of the division. However, other disputations surfaced during the discussions in the following years, including frequency of communion and how church discipline should be conducted. Another matter mentioned during the time of the schism was the establishment of stricter regulations concerning dress and beard styles. However, social avoidance of banned individuals was the most controversial of all the differences between them, and thus it has sometimes been erroneously considered as the only cause of the schism.

Excommunications
Jakob Ammann and Nicolas Augsburger were chosen by a ministerial committee  to travel to Switzerland for a meeting with church leaders to find out where the Swiss congregations stood on the disputed points.. At first, a few of the Swiss ministers agreed with Ammann’s view, but in a later meeting Hans Reist would not agree with social avoidance, using Matthew 15:17 as a basis for "what enters the mouth is no sin." Another meeting was called, in which Hans Reist did not show up, saying he was busy. At this point, Jakob Ammann became irritated (verdreiszlich) and then proceeded to announce that Hans Reist was excommunicated on six points. When Ammann questioned some of the other Swiss ministers at the meeting where they stood on the issues, they pleaded for time to consult with their congregations. Ammann saw this as a turning back, since some of them had previously expressed agreement with his side. He then proceeded to announce the excommunication of six of the present ministers. Amman and the four men with him then left "without shaking hands with anyone." These excommunications created a definite breach within the Swiss Brethren movement. The Reist side eventually excommunicated the Ammann side as well.

Attempts at reconciliation
Within a few years, several attempts were made at reconciliation. In February 1700, Jakob Ammann and several of his co-ministers removed the ban from the Swiss ministers and excommunicated themselves in recognition that they had acted too rashly and had "grievously erred." They did not feel that they were in error, but rather that they had not given sufficient time for the Reist side to consider the matter before excommunicating them. Also, they felt that they should not have excommunicated the Swiss ministers on the spot, but should have consulted with the whole congregation before proceeding. However, while Hans Reist and some of the Swiss ministers appear to have accepted the repentance of Ammann and his co-workers, they held firm to their position of not accepting social shunning. Some of the other issues had been accepted by the Swiss ministers, but the main body of Amish and the Reist side were never able to reach agreement about social shunning.

Today in North America, the Amish and Mennonites work side-by-side on business and charitable aid projects. However, official sharing of ministry and communion is rare among the most conservative groups of Old Order Amish and Mennonites. In more moderate groups, there remains little to no effect from the schism, with the exception of names of churches.The Reist side became known as Mennonites after the schism.

But in a paradox, it was the Amish side that was pushing for the introduction of Dutch Mennonite ideas, and those opposing the ideas eventually became known as Mennonites.

Both live side by side in many communities today, and work together peacefully in publishing,

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Jakob Ammann


text:
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 [|this 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)

title: Talk:Jakob Ammann


text:
Schleitheim Confession

The Schleitheim Confession was the most representative statement of Anabaptist principles, by a group of Swiss Anabaptists in 1527 in Schleitheim, Switzerland. The real title is Brüderliche vereynigung etzlicher Kinder Gottes siben Artickel betreffend ... ("Brotherly Union of a Number of Children of God Concerning Seven Articles").

Origin
The Confession is believed to have been written by Michael Sattler. The South German Ordnung of approximately the same date is similar to that of the Schleitheim Confession but contains many more Biblical references supporting the confession. The Schleitheim confession continues to be a guide for churches such as many Schwarzenau Brethren, the Bruderhof and the Hutterites, who trace their spiritual heritage back to the Radical Reformation and the Anabaptists.

Doctrine
The Confession consisted of seven articles, written during a time of severe persecution:

 * Baptism: Baptism is administered only to those who have consciously repented, turned away from sin, amended their lives and believe that Christ has died for their sins and who request it for themselves (believer's baptism). Infant baptism is specifically denounced.

 * The Ban (Excommunication): A Christian should live with discipline and walk in the way of righteousness, following after Jesus every day. Those members of the Body who slip and fall into sin should be admonished twice in private, but the third offense should be openly disciplined and banned as a final recourse. This should always occur prior to the breaking of the bread, to preserve the unity and purity of the Body of Christ.

 * Breaking of Bread (Communion): Only those who have been baptized into the Body of Christ are members of the Body, thus only they can take part in the communion of the Body of Christ. Participation in Communion is an observance and remembrance of Christ's body and blood; the physical body and blood of Christ is not believed to be received in the sacrament.

 * Separation from Evil: The community of Christians shall have no association with those who remain in disobedience and a spirit of rebellion against God. There can be no fellowship with the wickedness of this earthly world; therefore there can be no participation in the organizations, works, church services, meetings or civil affairs of those who live in contradiction to the commands of God (this may include Catholics and Protestants as well as other religions and pagans). All evil must be put away, including using weapons of force such as the sword and armor.

 * Pastors in the Church: All elders and leaders in the church must be men of good repute, as described in Scripture. Some of the responsibilities they must faithfully carry out are teaching, public reading of Scripture, disciplining, applying the ban, leading in prayer, and the sacraments. They are to be supported by the church, but must also be disciplined if they sin.

 * The Sword (Christian pacifism) – nonresistance: Violence must not be used in any circumstance. The way of nonviolence is patterned after the example of Christ who never exhibited violence in the face of persecution or as a punishment for sin. A Christian must love their enemies and pray for those who persecute them, as Jesus did. A Christian should not pass judgment in worldly disputes. It is not appropriate for a Christian to serve as a magistrate; a magistrate acts according to the rules of the world and uses force or orders force to be used, not acting according to the rules of heaven; their weapons are worldly, but the weapons of a Christian are spiritual.

 * The Oath: No oaths should be taken because Jesus prohibited the taking of oaths and swearing, teaching rather complete honesty. Testifying or affirming is not the same thing as swearing. When a person bears testimony, they are testifying about the truth and the present, whether it be good or evil.

title: Schleitheim Confession


text:
Talk:Schleitheim Confession

"The Schleitheim Confession was endorsed unanimously by a meeting of Swiss Amabaptists in 1527 in Schleitheim, Switzerland. "

 * This doesn't answer the most basic question of all: What was it? --mav

I've added in the 7 articles of the confession. Perhaps a short description of each could be added too... --Colemanyee 03:03, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Can someone put the actual text of the document in the article? This is the longstandingest, stubbiest article I've ever seen. :)

Sugarbat 21:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No such thing as "regeneration" in Anabaptism
The Confession itself does not make any use of the term regeneration and so it should not be used in this article on it. The focus is on discipleship "Baptism shall be given to all those who have been taught repentance", outward demonstration of following Christ "the amendment of life" and profession of faith "and [who] believe truly that their sins are taken away through Christ" or to those who profess that they want to be disciple, "to all those who desire to walk in the resurrection of Jesus Christ and be buried with Him in death". While today there is a requirement for a profession of faith, which would be closer to regeneration, but still not quite that term. This understanding does not fall into any traditional Western faith tradition instead focusing on Harold Bender would call Nachfolge and most closely called discipleship in English. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Schleitheim Confession


text:
Rodeo clown

A rodeo clown, bullfighter or rodeo protection athlete, is a rodeo performer who works in bull riding competitions. Originally, the rodeo clown was a single job combining "bullfighting" — the protection of riders thrust from the bull, as well as being an individual who provided comic relief. Today, the job is split into two separate ones: bullfighters who protect the riders from the bull, and entertainers (barrelmen) who provide comic humor. However, in some parts of the world and at some small rodeos, the jobs of bull rider protection and comic remain combined.

Tasks and skills
The primary job of the rodeo bullfighter is to protect a fallen rider from the bull by distracting it and providing an alternative target for the bull to attack, whether the rider has been bucked off or has jumped off the animal. These individuals expose themselves to great danger in order to protect the riders. To this end, they wear bright, loose-fitting clothes that are designed to tear away, with protective gear fitted underneath. Rodeo clowns require speed, agility, and the ability to anticipate a bull's next move. Working closely with very large, very powerful animals, rodeo clowns are often injured seriously, and, sometimes, fatally. Most rodeos feature a clown, and clowns have become crowd favorites.

In some venues, rodeo bullfighters still wear clown make-up and some may also provide traditional clowning entertainment for the crowd between rodeo events, often parodying aspects of cowboy culture. But most modern bullfighters no longer dress as clowns, though they still wear bright, loose-fitting clothing. At larger events in the United States, the job is split, a bullfighter (sometimes two or more) protects the riders from the bull, and a barrelman (sometimes one person, sometimes two) provide comic humor. Some barrelmen provide both comedy and support to bullfighters, but the job of a bullfighter is generally distinct from that of the comic.

History
Rodeo clowns date to the beginnings of competitive rodeo in the early 1900s, when promoters hired cowboys to entertain the crowd between events or if the competition was delayed. These individuals began wearing oversized, baggy clothing and eventually developed more outlandish gear. When bull riding competition began to use ill-tempered Brahma bulls in the 1920s, the need for a person to distract the bull from fallen riders fell to the rodeo clown. The comedy aspect of clown work, as opposed to protection of rodeo athletes, began to disappear in some parts of the USA by the late 1970s.

The use of a barrel for protection began during the 1930s when a rodeo clown named Jasbo Fulkerson began to use a wooden barrel with a solid bottom. In 1995, Earl W. Bascom was honored at age 89 as the oldest living rodeo clown in the world. Bullfighting was reported as Wick Peth's profession in 1967, and Jimmy Anderson was reported to have begun his career in 1975.

In Australia, rodeo clowns were a part of rodeos and agricultural shows for many years. They were hired to entertain the spectators between events and to help manage the bullocks, steers or bulls in the arena. In the 1930s, with the introduction of aggressive Brahman bulls and Brahman crossbreds, the job became much more serious. In the late 20th century, acknowledging the great danger faced by the profession, the term bullfighter began to replace the name rodeo clown in formal use.

At the 2001 Professional Bull Riders (PBR) World Finals, bullfighter Rob Smets no longer wore his traditional, baggy clown outfit and began wearing a sport jersey and shorts that featured his sponsors' logos. This was the blueprint for future PBR bullfighter outfits as in 2003, all bullfighters in the organization stopped wearing traditional clown make-up and outfits, and traded them for sport jerseys and shorts with corporate sponsor logos. This was also the case for barrelmen in the PBR, but they retained their make-up. In subsequent years, many bullfighters in other organizations would also adopt sport jerseys and shorts, but many also kept wearing clown make-up. Some even combine make-up and baggies with jerseys. Frank Newsom, who had fought bulls in the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association (PRCA) and Professional Bull Riders (PBR), including at each organization's respective world championship event (the National Finals Rodeo and PBR World Finals) was the last bullfighter to wear a baggy outfit and make-up at a televised PBR event, which was the 2004 Built Ford Tough Series (BFTS) event in Guthrie, Oklahoma. He was an alternate bullfighter at said event. Beginning the next year, he would don a sport jersey and shorts as an official member of the PBR elite series' bullfighting team, of which he was a member for several years until retiring at the conclusion of the 2022 PBR World Finals.

For several years, barrelmen at PBR events have no longer gone inside the barrel in the arena. As a result, they are now referred to as "arena entertainers" or simply "entertainers".

Technique
The bullfighters enter the rodeo arena on foot, before the bull is released from the bucking chute. They stand on either side of the chute as the bull is released and work as a team to distract the bull and thus protect the rider and each other. Their role is particularly important when a rider has been injured, in which case the bullfighter interposes himself between the bull and the rider, or uses techniques such as running off at an angle, throwing a hat, or shouting, so that the injured rider can exit the ring.

Typically, at larger rodeos, bullfighters work in groups of as little as two, and as many as four. The barrelman uses a large, well-padded steel barrel that he can jump in and out of easily, and the barrel helps to protect him from the bull. In Australia, barrelmen generally do not use barrels.

All members of the protection team wear loose, baggy clothing. The comic may wear the most outlandish clothing in bright colors, which may include things like wearing an inflatable female costume, and uses noisy colorful props such as rubber chickens and exploding garbage cans.

Typically, the barrelman carries a microphone and heckles the rodeo announcer, the crowd and anyone else he recognizes. During the bull riding event, the barrelman supports the bullfighters, including taunting the bulls by calling them names and waving props at them, usually from within the safety of the barrel. Barrelmen may also tell jokes and use topical humor.

Freestyle Bullfighting
Bullfighting has grown in popularity, so that in addition to being a job in its own right, it is a competitive event at rodeos around the United States. When not working to protect bull riders, many rodeo bullfighters also have their own performances known as American freestyle bullfighting, or simply Freestyle bullfighting or American bullfighting. Instead of bucking bulls, fighting bulls are used in these events. They are turned into the arena and the bullfighter works with the animal, evaluated based upon the aptitude he displays in controlling and maneuvering the bull, precision in jumping the bull, contact with the bull, and handling of the barrel. Similar skills are sometimes displayed at traditional rodeos in intermission acts. A typical format is a 60- or 70-second encounter between bull and bullfighter, in which the bullfighter scores points for various maneuvers. In contrast to the older sport of Spanish bullfighting, no harm is done to the bull in rodeo bullfighting. In some occasions, a bullfighter will draw the same bull numerous times during a season, which can help with score.

Recognition
From 1981 through 2000, the Wrangler Bullfighting Tour held a series of several events at PRCA rodeos and at the end of the regular season, the top six contestants competed at the National Finals Rodeo (NFR) to determine the world champion bullfighter. Since 2004, the PRCA has designated the Bullfighter of the Year award to its best bull rider protection athlete by a way of votes within the organization. As of the 2020s, there are two organizations in the United States that specialize in freestyle bullfighting: Bullfighters Only (BFO) and Ultimate Bullfighters (UBF). Schools exist to provide training for potential rodeo bullfighters.

title: Rodeo clown


text:
Talk:Pub

Copyvio
At least part of "Saloon or lounge" section seems to be copied from History of Pubs/Bars in England. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

 * I put that section into the article in January 2006 -, using material I had gathered for an article I had published on RateBeer in April 2004 - . The above linked article is a "Term Paper, AP European History Class" written in "July 2008" which appears to have copied either the RateBeer article or our Wikipedia article. SilkTork (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Public bar
The second sentence here says, "It had unfurnished floorboards,". Should that be "unfinished" floorboards, or is this some British term for floorboards without furniture? Which I doubt. Venqax (talk) 21:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No reason to credit either without a source to check, but probably intended as written. More sourcing needed.SovalValtos (talk) 01:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

 * I don't know how you would reference something like that. Seems like an obvious auto-correct-type typo. Venqax (talk) 00:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Unvarnished" would make sense. (Some refurbished English pubs have had their floors restored that way.) Bazza (talk) 09:51, 22 December 2018 (UTC
 * Yes, unvarnished would make sense, too. Unfurnished, however, does not, no matter how you look at it. Venqax (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, to me, unfurnished makes sense in that it means untreated (in any way besides the roughest shaping) timber. No shaping, sanding, finishing of any kind. It may not be current usage, but that's my belief as I haven't even a smidgeon of a source. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 17:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The text was added by an IP where much was changed including removing citation requests without adding adequate citation. Some of the content seems to be editorial opinion or WP:OR and if no one can source it, it should be removed soon.SovalValtos (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * So shaping, sanding, and finishing is what you call furniture? Venqax (talk) 17:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

UK and elsewhere
This article is a bit of a mishmash of UK pub culture, and pubs in other countries. Would it work better as a split? Crookesmoor (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

 * If you mean split into separate articles, I think that would be unnecessary. Obscurasky (talk) 23:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

 * It does seem to be mainly UK pubs, though. Is that an issue? Jackalopeicus (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes it is, and it would help if people with knowledge of the concept of public drinking houses in other countries and cultures could expand it. I've added a note to the top to this effect. Bazza (talk) 10:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that it's primarily the UK, can't we just rename this as UK pubs and then create a new worldwide one? Otherwise this would get very long if we have to add information from all other countries? Jackalopeicus (talk) 11:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest leaving the article here and see if more is added. When (if) it gets too unwieldy, then that is the time to split it. Meantime, it could do with a bit of rearranging. Bazza (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That works. I guess if we don't have any information about pubs globally it makes no sense to create one. If (when!) we do, we can do it then. I'll see if I can make some time this weekend to get that done. Jackalopeicus (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * this article is misleading and puts all pub culture under british pub culture, this should be separate or named pubs of Britain, there is no mention of the oldest tavern/pub in the world being Irish or that whiskey is an Irish product that shaped the world of pubs along with stouts like Guinness, it would only be an accurate article if titled British pub origins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.182.72.34 (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems strange to focus exclusively on Commenwealth countries. Pubs have a long history in the parts of the United States that were a part of the British empire for example New England and Virginia as well there are pubs with centuries of provenance dating to colonial times. Perhaps a section could be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:5059:9B00:2835:E68A:93E6:4F1C (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Moved above comment to keep date order. To answer the point, there is no reason to exclude detail about pubs outside the Commonwealth, provided reliably sourced.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  21:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. Pubs are an international phenomenon and the article is too U.K./Comonwealth centric. Obscurasky (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree 100%. Pubs are not an international phenomenon; they started in Great Britain - just because they have spread around the world does not justify their history being stolen from British culture. 51.6.69.71 (talk) 08:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's what's being suggested. Obscurasky (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Etymology
The Public House was a British, specifically English, concept. This is explained in detail in Michael Jackson's book on the history of beer. Unfortunately I no longer have a copy so I can't give proper citations. Without citations I can't put the information on the wiki page. The public house was originally a private residence that brewed ale, Ale was sold in a public room. This room became the Public Bar. Gentry were entertained in the brewer's own living room. That is the origin of the saloon bar. Of course things have changed greatly over the last 600 years. Nevertheless, a Public House is a private house that is partly open to the public.

The consequence is the pub is British. There are bars World-wide and some have taken the name 'Pub'. Also British people have taken the Pub concept overseas. This should explain why the article concentrates so heavily on British Pubs.OrewaTel (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Hugh MacDiarmid
In his 1952 essay The Dour Drinkers of Glasgow, Hugh MacDiarmid claims "The fact is, of course, as the very term 'public house' shows, that the condition of the licence obliges the licence holder to have his place at the disposal of citizens at all times - not necessarily for drinking at all; a citizen is entitled to have the use of these places whenever he wants if only to use the lavatory or shelter from the weather, or read his newspaper, or meet a friend". If this is true, it would be worthy of inclusion. Is it, or was it, in Scotland or more widely? Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Despite his attempt to garnish the statement with some authority, by prefixing it with 'the fact is', it sounds like this is only the author's assumption; based (somewhat tenuously) on the use of the word 'public'. Are public libraries open at all times? I think you would need to find a reliable citation before including any of this. Obscurasky (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Saloon, saloon bar or both? Western saloons?
This article uses "saloon" and some dictionaries and the article for bar list it as "saloon bar".

In UK, they use both saloon and saloon bar to refer to the same "special" bar in a pub.

In USA, they only saloon and refer to the Wild West saloons.

Was "saloon bar" shortened as "saloon" at some point in time? When and where did this shortening happened?

George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Current state of the public bar and the saloon (bar). Do they still exist?
Back in 2009 someone wrote in a forum: In the eighties, there were still quite a few pubs with public bars and saloon bars. The saloon bar was for visitors, and the public bar was for locals. Even then there was a lot of overspill. The serving area would cross both rooms. There would be seperate (sic) external entrances to each bar, often right next to each other. The public bar charged slightly less than the saloon bar, but not if you just walked in there - it was a ‘local pub for local people.’ Still, when ordering drinks you’d have to remind a new bar person which side of the bar you were ordering from.

There are still a few pubs that have a similar division, but they’re very rare indeed - I’ve only been to two such pubs in the last ten years. Most pubs still have separate entrances for the public and saloon bars, but they’re not treated as such - usually one will be permanently shut.

I only knew one place that still had a ladies’ bar, and that was a private members’ club; it was a place for woman to go, and no men were allowed at all.Women were only allowed in the main bar in about 1978 or so in that club. A few pubs still had ‘ladies’ signs up that did not refer to places you’d go to pee (they did have their own ladies’ toilets, but that was an adjunct to the ladies’ bar).

In Orwell’s time, the saloon bar would have been for the gentry and the public bar for everyone else. The women would not have drunk with the men in any but the most disreputable establishment.

And someone from Ireland replied that they had both layouts but he didn't think the "traditional" layout was in danger at all.

It is 2022 now, 13 years have gone by. If that division had practically disappeared back then, I guess the demise of this "layout" was completed long time ago in England. What happened in Ireland?

Source: https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-british-pub-what-are-the-public-bar-saloon-bar-etc/523109/10

George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

 * This from 2010 says many were lost, not all,  but I think even if they physically exist very few have any real distinction between both bars. (e.g. The_Eagle,_Cambridge has multiple 'bars' but no distinction between them.)  Anecdotaly, there are many pubs with a defined split between 'the bar' and 'the seating area for food'. I remember one or two with strict age limits on 'The bar area', but that's going back a decade or two!.  You may be asked if you want to sit 'in the bar' to eat etc. which I guess carries over from the public/saloon bar distinction just based on the layout of the buildings.  No idea where to find sources for this.  Maybe 'guide to eating in England' for tourists or something?  JeffUK (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This explicitly names them as such "The Old Wheatsheaf has recently been refurbished and is now available for all your function needs. [...] Our Saloon bar has space for 40 people, our public bar has space for a further 40 people" this has "Our saloon bar has a separate entrance and is the ideal venue to hire for early morning meetings."   I think it's clear they physically exist, and are still called 'public' and 'saloon' bars,  but that's mostly a traditional distinction/naming. JeffUK (talk) 11:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

"Proscribed" or "prescribed"
"The Wantage law code of Æthelred the Unready proscribes fines for breaching the peace at meetings held in alehouses." The cited source is a book, so not easily verified. Did the law code proscribe (forbid) fines or prescribe (set) fines for breaching the peace? The former claim seems dubious to say the least, unless the implication is that special exceptions were made for disturbances created by group meetings. —Nonstopdrivel (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Pub opening times Christmas day 1960s onwards U.K.
What were the Pub opening times on Christmas Day 1960s onwards, I seem to remember that there were hours of 12am to 2am and 7pm to 10:30pm i.e. Sunday Hours at that time and all pubs had to abide to them hours, and this ended around 1974ish I think when it was then altered to a staggered opening times system e.g. 11am to 1am or even earlier and pubs did not open at all on the Christmas Evening. Terryog1952 (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure whether adding pub opening times is too detailed for the article, but if there are sources to back it up we could add something briefly.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  15:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Article is far too UK-centric already. Adding the opening hours for pubs just that one country would be a backwards step in my opinion. Obscurasky (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Year citation
"...the tavern was one of the traditional centers of social and political life before 1789" What happened in 1789? Was there some big event that a non-Brit wouldn't know about? No reference.```` Venqax (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pub