Talk:Rumspringa

message: According to this ex-Amish lady (and a few documentaries, such as "Amish at the Altar"), it ends at marriage, not baptism. Baptism is a pre-requisite for marriage. As that ex-Amish lady writes, and as explained in the reality-tv show "Living With the Amish" on Channel4, Sunday-evening hymn singing is how Amish teenagers tend to spend rumspringa, not the media-sensationalised version this Wiki page pushes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macoafi (talk • contribs) 17:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ends at baptism? 

message: What happened to the section on this word appearing in popular culture?  Specifically, the movie Sex Drive and some popular TV Show (and probably others that weren't on this page when I looked).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.19.218.141 (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The section had begun to attract documentation of every mention in every episode of every tv show or movie. It was whittled down to substantive treatments (for example, when the whole film was devoted to the subject). DavidOaks (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Er... why should that have to be whittled down?  Also, the film Sex Drive deals with the subject substantially.  It's an important part to the plot line, and further epitomizes a common (mis)understanding of what rumspringa is.  Can I go ahead and add that back or will those modifications just be deleted from this page's history again? 98.19.218.141 (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be whittled down if it begins to overshadow the subject, for example, if listings and discussions of distortions and send-ups were to start to be a significant proportion of the article (per WP:Undue), in comparison to discussion of the topic itself. Think of what would happen if Mona Lisa had an account and image of every parody. If you think a discussion of this film can advance understanding of the subject, and you have WP:RS for the views reported, policy is WP: Be Bold: have at it. It might be reverted, might not. In which case you and others would visit here and work things out (at least that's the theory and usual practice). I haven't seen the particular film, but I haven't heard that it represents a major contribution to the understanding of anything. If credible third parties have made that case, their views (and opposing views, if any) belong here. If it's just that it's a low-rent flick that deals with the subject, inclusion will get less support. And feel free to get a WP:Username. DavidOaks (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I hardly think two mentioning of pop-culture references in the Media Coverage section is over-shadowing the entire article.  I also just noticed that the Amish article has a much more significant  section dedicated to the portrayal of Amish people in popular entertainment where both of my previous references are cited.  Seems that by your editing that entire section (which is quite large and greatly parallels your Mona Lisa analogy) should be removed.  In fact, there are countless articles that are exactly the same.  I guess "there is no end to the proliferation of episodes and mentions." eh?  And no thanks on the Username.  While I may choose to use this resource in the future (and do greatly enjoy reading lots of great articles written by lots of smart people), I'd prefer to not be associated with a community that fosters people like you.
(outdent)I heartily agree that the section in the Amish article needs trimming on exactly the same grounds (tho' note, it's a bigger subject, longer article, and therefore can sustain a longer digression without losing coherence). Go ahead and clip that one too. As to the personal stuff, I really don't understand what has upset you; you were advised to WP:Be Bold with your ideas, and at the same time asked to recognize that others might not share them -- that's got nothing to do with you and nothing to do with me; it's just how the Wikipedia process works. Stuff I thought (and still think) important has been edited out, stuff I thought and think unimportant has been put back. If that's consenus, I comply or quit participating. DavidOaks (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

text: I intentionally renamed the section because "In popular culture" is a magnet for unsourced or poorly sourced material that is typically tangential to serious coverage of the topic. (On a related note, the proliferation of "In popular culture" section headers is contrary to the heading style guide because it is not a noun phrase.) Because this topic, along with Amish in general, has been thoroughly studied by sociologists and anthropologists, I prefer to see the content tied directly to the work of those scholars. If portrayals by the media are covered by these disciplines or the equivalent in the field of communications, it should be included. If not, I would say it doesn't belong. I invite other editors to raise the bar for this article and strive to ensure it is based on the published work of reputable scholars and researchers. If there is a topic that is important to the article, than it will have been covered by one of these high quality third-party sources. ✤ JonHarder talk 11:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this issue can be easily solved by splitting the section into "Media coverage and "Popular Culture." Nonfiction and fiction. While the concept of 'popular culture' may be tangential to parent topic, Amish, it most certainly is integral to the serious coverage of any topic. Wikipedia is a catalog of human knowledge, not a repository for scholarly knowledge. This subject is explored in film and television because there is sufficient intrigue for it to form the foundation of a good fictional story. There are certainly more than enough references in popular culture to warrant it's own section, provided each reference sufficiently summarizes the story as it pertains to the subject. While popular culture headers are technically and semantically contrary to the heading style guide, frankly, this is easily fixed by simply titling "Popular Culture" or "References in Popular Culture." Pop culture headers are prolific for a reason. People want to know. I did... it's what lead me to this article. While I agree that this article would be improved with more scholarly content, that content should not negate the significance of the subject's role in popular culture. JvA talk 14:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular Culture

message: Is it rumschpringe or rumspringe? Could somebody with some knowledge of Pennsylvania German put that right? 
Ben talk contr 08:13, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
It is "rumschpringe" or "rumshpringa" in Pennsylvania German (Pennsylvania German has various systems of orthography). Rumspringa is an English adaptation, since there is normally a constraint against "shp" in the onset of an English syllable.
:Throughout German orthography, when we say "shp" at the onset of a syllable, we write "sp". So, it would be rumspringa in German-based orthography, and the English pronunciation would be just as explainable as "too literal rendering" than as an adaption. It would be rumshpringa in English-based orthography.--2001:A60:1534:9401:F51B:C55B:1F3A:EAB2 (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling

message: I've read in at least one book that the painted fence story is false.
: Indeed Aurand's own book concludes that "where there is a blue gate there may be a girl eligible for marriage" or may not.  http://www.sacred-texts.com/ame/amish/am07.htm  And there is evidence at least as strong as that, to show the story is just a myth: http://www.amishnews.com/amisharticles/bluegatemyth.htm  Colin McLarty (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Painted Fence? 

message: In the video, mention is made of "unwed mothers". Is there a reputable reference for learning the fate of the children of these "unwed mothers"?
Shachtman's book discusses the phenomenon of unwed mothers to some degree, but not sure if "fate of the children" is covered explicitly. Owlmonkey 07:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Devil's Playground 

message: What's that? Should be clarified or removed.150.243.14.42 13:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rumspringabreaka

message: How do you cite this, and what is the threshold for widespread belief?  I think its just best to remove this. Navou 04:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it needs documentation -- it's a popular belief. Anyone investigating will find the claim asserted. Simply removing the phrase, however, creates the appearance that the claim is factual, and that really changes things.DavidOaks 12:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is in the encyclopedia proper, then its needs to be factual, as opposed to believed.  We can see the "fact" is propoerly referenced in the article, and if such a reference is cited, then has this moved from belief to fact, according to the references? I propose that we remove the phrase, on this rationale.  What are you thoughts? Navou 21:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not completely sure I'm following you. You feel that we need to document the fact that some people believe that Rumspringa is a rite of passage? To me, that seems comparable to documenting the fact that some people believe that the word "dork" was originally slang for "whale's penis" (see the discussion page at dork); anyone googling "dork" and "etymology" will run into that nonfactual assertion very quickly. If that's necessary, here's the first Google hit for "rumspringa is a rite of passage": http://rameumptom.blogspot.com/2004/06/dancing-with-devil.html  It references the film already prominent in the article. I guess we could do that. Now, if we remove "according to widespread belief," we are left with the assertion that "rumspringa is a rite of passage," which is a contested assertion, to put it mildly. Let me try a comparison: the article on Nessie begins thus: "The Loch Ness Monster is a cryptid, claimed to inhabit Scotland's Loch Ness, the most voluminous freshwater lake in Great Britain." On the principle you're proposing, we'd be changing it to "The Loch Ness Monster is a cryptid which inhabits Scotland's Loch Ness, the most voluminous freshwater lake in Great Britain..."  I think this goes against the encyclopedic principle, which seeks to distinguish (consensus) secure knowledge from contested assertions, and in the case of conflict, acknowledging the disagreement. It seems to me that "acording to widespread belief" captures the situation quite precisely, while removing that phrase misrepresents the situation. DavidOaks 22:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do understand where you are coming from, however, if the references back that assertion up, then is it still believed, or is it a properly sourced fact?  But then I would propose, that actually sourcing a belief, and characterizing it as widespread would prove more difficult. Navou 03:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing "Wipespread belief" 

message: :Image:Devils playground.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Devils playground.jpg

message: Egged on by the "cleanup" tag on the article, and while reading Shachtman's book, I took a stab at a new introduction with appropriate citations. I also added sections for the remaining body, attempting to leave as much of it unchanged for future edits or collaboration with you all as possible. I'm also hoping the sectioning will inspire more editing and clarification. Owlmonkey 22:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the reorganization affirms the rumspringa as factual, as institutional; at the very least, that's in dispute.DavidOaks 05:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, would love to work with you on this. I still think the citations were valuable, the article really could use more of those. Shachtman seems to be describing a phenomenon that is quite observable, but I agree he does not depict it in any way as institutional to the Amish or even sanctioned by elders. My suggested changes were an attempt to honor that point of view as well. Is that what you meant? That's why I only used "some youth diverge" and "generally refers". But these edits sounded like they were too institutional to you. Nonetheless it seems to be both a notable phenomenon and factual in the sense that it is being observed by at least some scholars. How can we rectify that, I'd really love to help clean up the article. Right now it's really rough. Or do you really feel like the whole rumspringa depiction in the references is poor scholarship? I'll include the paragraphs I wrote again here, I'd love your specific thoughts on them. Owlmonkey 06:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I had some specific issues with the current article language, including the "widespread belief" language. It seems to me that the concept of rumspringa isn't really "widespread" or well known really at all. So "widespread" struck me as odd. I also didn't find any citation in Shachtman at all that described the phenomenon as a "rite of passage". My understanding of that term would mean it were a required social or religious stage for the youth, but the citations I added clearly made the point that less than half of youth in larger amish communities had pronounced changes in behavior during that age range. But I left that language only not to step on anyone's toes in my initial changes. Owlmonkey 06:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Tweaked the lede; there's no evidence at all that adolescents typically leave the community during adolescence. 150.243.14.35 (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

text: This looks good to me -- it conveys the key points in an orderly, NPOV way, including the disputed areas. DavidOaks 15:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, going ahead with the changes though trying to preserve all of the original content as much as possible. But inviting further editing and cleanup to meet modern quality standards for the article. Owlmonkey 22:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I really appreciate your willingness to take on the cleanup. Going back in the history of the article, what was tussled out was the difference between recognizing the claim made by non-Amish and non-scholars that adolescent misbehavior was more or less condoned by the Amish -- essentially institutionalized; sensationalized accounts like "Devil's Playground" and "Amish in the City" would I think sufficiently document the "widespread" characterization, and it would be supported by a little googling. The solution was to make the question about the normative quality of the "suspension of rules" the lead-in to the article. An alternative would be to have perhaps a single sentence lead-in the simply states that "rumspringa" is a term used in some AMish comunities to refer to adolescence (Nolt and others are very clear that the term is not universal among the Amish).   Then subsections could treat the use of this term in folklore concerning the Amish. At this point, maybe only the phrase -- "During this period, rules may be relaxed and some misbehavior is tolerated" -- tends that way; maybe it needs to go, maybe it needs to be modified with something like "as is the case in many societies." DavidOaks 15:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I'm seeing better what you were getting at. It's tempting with a topic like this to emphasize what is popular culture about the term instead of emphasizing that the popular view is only a minority phenomenon and opinion and from the vantage point of the Amish, not characteristic of their culture. So we have an opportunity to be more neutral here than emphasize the popularized account. Sounds good to me. I'll give some more thought to the phrasing. I did find also in Shachtman citations for the Amish viewpoint but he downplays them, perhaps to emphasize the more interesting, minority phenomenon that is not really about being Amish - just being teenagers in a modern world. I like you're idea to lead with the basic term, then have a section on the Amish internal view then a section about the popularized depiction then how about a section on the variations within the different communities? We have a fair number of citations and details on the variation, and I think that would also help neutralize the popularizing.  Owlmonkey 21:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've made some significant edits to the proposed intro above. Would love to hear what everyone thinks. Owlmonkey 08:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Intro

message: OK, after the edits of the last year, are we feeling like this article should have the cleanup tag removed finally? Is there additional major work that needs to be done or should we remove the tag and let the page evolve over time without an entry in the  cleanup list? Owlmonkey 02:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaned Up Now? 

message: Reverted Stick figure's edits, because very material facts of authorship which have been present since the beginning of the article have been changed without explanation or source, which often signals vandalism. However, this editor seems to know a lot about the film's director, so these may have been totally legit edits that just need citation. DavidOaks (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Stickfigure's edits

message: The first footnote, "please do not 'correct' either the meaning or the pronunciation to standard German", is something that belongs here in the Talk page, not in the article. No article should be telling readers what and what not to do. A footnote explaining the difference between the word and the German word it derives from would be more appropriate, thugh you would need a citation. I am taking the liberty of removing the footnote. Matt Thorn (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My error -- meant to hit the "hidden comment" button and got the "ref." DavidOaks (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate footnote? 

message: The Popularized View section states that Amish adolescents are never formally released from the rules laid out by the Ordnung. However, the following section, Leaving the Community, states that the adolescents are essentially free to experiment. The latter has been added without a citation, but it might be right. One of these needs to be clarified and expanded on and the other should likely be deleted. Are there any experts out there who can decide which one is right? 174.0.56.57 (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the contradiciton. No such phrase as "the adolescents are essentially free to experiment" occurs. They are free to leave the community, but are subject to their parents' authority as long as they remain (the article notes that there is variation in the strictness of parental enforcement). DavidOaks (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: wonder who came up with that wrong translation of the "springen" term (german). it never meant anything other than jump, leap, bounce etc.. but clearly never such thing as "running". linkage: http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&lang=de&search=springen 
Suggestednickname (talk) 11:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead says that it's "derived from the Pennsylvania German term for 'running around'" (rather than "from the German term"), so I assume this is a local dialect word. Would be good to have a clear source, though. --McGeddon (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

text: In fact, the etymology section goes on to say that "In Swiss German as in some German dialects, springe however does - besides meaning "to jump" - also mean 'to run'." Again, an actual source would be good here, but I hope this explains the confusion. --McGeddon (talk) 11:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Think of it similarly to the English "bouncing off the wall". What does this describe? Are people literally bouncing off actual walls? Kar98 (talk) 00:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: springen translated as "run" is South German dialect (Franconian, Alemannic German). Regards, •  • hugarheimur 17:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  faulty translation: springen (german) means jump in english 

message: This statement in the lead:
 'a youth who dares to attend one of these events before reaching the age of sixteen might be forcefed warm milk from a spoon, as a good-natured reminder to observe the lines of status' 
sounds absurdly retarded.  I would remove it on the assumption it was some form of lighthearted vandalism if amish tradition wasn't so peculiar.  Either way, someone really should confirm this with the cited source.--K10wnsta (talk) 08:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You have WP:RS including page number. Depending on the holdings of your local library, and especially if you live in a town with a university, you can look it up yourself. Refusal to believe a thing is not by itself a reason to delete, though an editor might wish to place a confirmation here for the benefit of others who find the statement dubious (though to tell the truth, I have no idea what's doubtful about this very typical folk custom). I do agree it's a level of detail inappropriate to the more general purposes of the lead, and have moved it down into the body of the article. DavidOaks (talk) 13:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the same scholar making the same observation online; he refers to it by the sociological category "boundary maintenance mechanism" DavidOaks (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, I do want to clarify that while deletion would not be called-for, the double-checking of things that sound weird is exactly what we need to do to keep the encyclopedia on track -- props to K1Ownsta. 02:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can Someone Check the Source for This? 

message: Massgebend (standard form) is how the Amish  themselves spell it. In  Hochdeutch sp is pronounced like Englisg  shp while in  northern Low German, and, for example the Bremen and  Hamburg dialects, it schp pronounced sp - a common  anecdote is Die Hamburger stolpern über einen spitzen Stein -all pronounces s : The Hamburgers trip  over a sharp (or pointed)  stone. --Kudpung (talk) 07:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rumschpringa 

message: In about a week, without objection, I will be changing citation format away from the precious, distracting, and quaint inlining of citation page numbers[1]:182-199,802 to the more[2] usual[3] followed by:
:1. Smith, John A. (full citation) (no page numbers mentioned)
:2. Smith, John A. (full citation), pp. 182-199, 802
:3. Smith, p. 282
--Lexein (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation tag clutter 

message: As per WP:COUNCIL/AFAQ#Quality scale, if an article fails one of the 6 itemized B criteria, it could be a C. I believe this articles lead is insuficcient to summarize the article, and had already been tagged as such,
This article contains rather substantial sections of content which are unreferenced or inadequately referenced. I see only one refernce citation in the entire "Variations" section. In general, we prefer having at least one, preferably two, citations per paragraph, and from multiple sources as well. The "Etymology" section contains no clear reference citations. Much of the "Popular culture" section is unreferenced. This is particularly problematic because of the length such sections can sometimes get to be. Each of these items should be individually referenced to something other than the pop culture entity itself, to establish that they are sufficiently notable for inclusion. Lastly, and this is admittedly a minor point, the refernce style is at least to my eyes not necessarily clearly transparent. I think some of the early reference citations, which have additional numbers after the citation itself, are referring to the individual pages in the book in question. But I do not see that particular style included in WP:CITE, possibly/probably for the reason of lack of clarity. 
Adding additional citations and maybe getting the existing ones to adhere to guidelines, and expanding the lead to better summarize, might well be sufficient to bring it up to B. There may still be concerns about the amount of weight given the popular culture section, but that is a fairly frequent question and more or less one which would probably benefit from additional opinions. John Carter (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: Rumspringa, "running around" in Pennsylvania Dutch or, more accurately, Pennsylvania German (as the term "Dutch" used in this context is a variant of the original word deutsch: German) is a noun closely related to the Standard German verb herumspringen meaning "to jump or hop around or about".
"Rumspringa" isn't merely "closely related": it is a dialect form of the identical word. All verbs in German can function as nouns merely by capitalizing the infinitive. Again, the word for this type of "close relationship" is "identity." The parenthetical statement about "Dutch" and German is unnecessary here.
The Standard German term is a portmanteau of the adverb herum (literally: here (her) about (um)) which means "around" or "around here" and the verb springen which means "to jump" or "to skip". However, in Swiss German as in some other German dialects, springen does — besides meaning "to jump" — also mean "to run".
If this is the case, then the number of portmanteaux verbs in German is legion. Rather, it is simply a separable prefix that can be added to any verb of motion or stasis: rumsitzen, rumlaufen, rumlauern, rumblödeln, whatever. The component parts may mean "here" in the sense of being close to the speaker and "um" around, but "herum" indicates random motion within a confined space or just "hanging about." Alemannic dialects indeed use "springa" for "to run" and "gumpa" for "to jump, hop." However, the meaning "to run" is only relevant if one wishes to force this word into the English "running around." The image almost any German speaker would see when hearing "Rumspringen" is small animals gamboling about. Since the Amish are primarily an agricultural community, could this possibly be more relevant than an amateurish attempt at etymology?
In modern Standard German "to skip" ordinarily would be translated with the verb hüpfen, which literally means "to hop". This term/concept also is used as a separable prefix verb, i.e., rumspringen/er springt rum.
Well, it's "hupfen" or "hüpfen" in some areas, but how is this the least bit relevant? And now we get the explanation of a separable prefix verb.
The Pennsylvania German noun Rumspringa was derived by contracting the first component of the Standard German term herum to 'rum and converting the word ending to the Pennsylvania German noun form "a". Such dropping or swallowing of an initial sound (in this case the first two letters he of the first syllable here being dropped to form the contraction 'rum) occurs widely both in colloquial Pennsylvania German as well as many other German dialects, and does not alter the meaning of the prefix/term in any way.
'rum is the standard contracted form of "herum" used in casual spoken German everywhere. It is not a peculiarity of Pennsylvania German. And is it necessary to explain that a contraction — in any language — doesn't change the meaning? The Standard High German infinitive ending is "-en", which becomes an "a" or "e" in every Southern German dialect from Switzerland, Baden, and Swabia and into Bavaria and Austria. It is not a "noun" ending per se.
Apart from Rumspringa's relationship to the Standard German term herumspringen, it also bears close resemblance to the standard Dutch verb rondspringen which likewise is translated as "jumping around".
How thoughtful to include Dutch! But why not Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, and Frisian as well? Again, this is totally irrelevant. --Janko (talk) 02:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree. --Peter Putzer (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: Why is the pronunciation tagged as "dubious--discuss"?
Is it because the accent is placed on the second rather than the first syllable?
The online OED, in an article dervied from the OED 2011 third edition, give the English pronunciations as:
Brit.	/ˈruːmʃprɪŋə/, U.S. /ˈrumˌʃprɪŋə/, /ˈrumˌsprɪŋə/
The Pa. Dutch pronunciation that is given, [rʊmˈʃprɪŋə] , seems fine to me (a student of the dialect), except for the placement of the accent, which should normally be on the first syllable.
Gambaguru (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Rumspringa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100413214928/http://amishamerica.com/2010/03/rumspringa-myths-and-reality.html to http://amishamerica.com/2010/03/rumspringa-myths-and-reality.html
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/64qsMZg6F?url=http://www.holycrosslivonia.org/amish/q_and_a_no2.htm to http://www.holycrosslivonia.org/amish/q_and_a_no2.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111005163406/http://www.emmyonline.tv/news/archive/nominations/news_24th_nominees.pdf to http://www.emmyonline.tv/news/archive/nominations/news_24th_nominees.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified