" Template:Unsigned > 

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

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

 It would be nice to see things presented here according to a generally recognized structure.  Is there a better way to organize parts of this?  As it is, the article feels like a crazy quilt.   

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

 == First to arrive with aid? == 

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

 Any source for this bold statement? For a start, which Mennonite relief organisations are we talking about?   

 :Can't answer the first question, but the second would almost certainly be Mennonite Central Committee.   

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

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

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

 ::While Mennonite Central Committee is often involved in aid to high profile international disasters, Mennonite Disaster Service focuses on disaster relief in North America.  

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