Talk:Anabaptist settlers

Title

This is an odd title, and I think it would be better as History of Anabaptist migration or similar. I was thinking History of Anabaptists in X as well, but I am not sure there would be enough content to justify it. This is definitely a topic that seems notable given the struggles they faced and journey to mostly North America, but runs the risk of being forky. I didnt see anything too duplicative of what was here in a quick survey, but maybe there is something in Anabaptist history. Metallurgist (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, the title is odd. I just corrected a misleading statement. The group killing the Amish had two (if I remember correctly) Frenchmen in it. The real issue was between the French and the British, and the French got the natives on their side in the conflict. The cited source has some of these details. Mikeatnip (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

My edit summary was supposed to say that "they did not resent the Amish." I doubt they even knew they were "Amish"; they were just on the British end of the settlement, and the French and Indian attackers came off of Blue Mountain here and there to make strikes. (I have been to the Northkill scene; my wife grew up a few miles away from there.) The boundary line was, at that time, the Blue Mountain. Which I believe Penn had made a legal deal with the natives for the area southeast of there. Mikeatnip (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

@Mikeatnip You may be interested in "Settlers and Refugees: Reframing the “Hochstetler Massacre” of 1757": "Beiler and Stoltzfus challenges the traditional narrative of the attack on the Amish Northkill settlement during the French and Indian War. The authors argue for a more nuanced interpretation that considers the larger geopolitical conflicts and settler colonialism dynamics at play. The article reframes the incident within the context of refugees competing for land and resources on a frontier contested by European empires and Indigenous groups." Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 3 October 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Anabaptist settler colonialism → History of Anabaptist migration – The current title feels odd and doesn’t really line up with how similar community histories are named. Other migrant groups who formed non-sovereign enclaves abroad (like Italian or German "colonies" in Latin America) aren’t described in this way, so calling this one "Anabaptist settler colonialism" is inconsistent and potentially misleading. A title like History of Anabaptist migration is clearer, more neutral, and better aligned with WP:CONSISTENT. eh bien mon prince (talk) 09:03, 3 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 11:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support: I would support the move. Mikeatnip (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support. The proposed title meets WP:NPOV, while the current one does not. Koshuri ^(あ!) 17:09, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Koshuri Sultan The proposed title move actually does represent a POV, as it conflates the topic of migration with the topic of settler colonialism when they are distinct topics. Settler colonialism is not a POV, it is a fact and a reality in the world that is widely discussed in academic literature and the media. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 12:01, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: The name does feel odd, but the article would need a revision to fit the move, as the lead especially does talk about the migration as settler colonialism. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  @SomeoneDreaming The article does not describe all Anabaptist migration as settler colonialism. EG, British Anabaptism was created by Anabaptist migrants from mainland Europe and was not settler colonial. These are not identical topics. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:45, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article pretty much exclusively talks about settler colonialism, not just migration. Settler colonialism is NPOV as settler colonialism is a very established academic concept and is supported by reliable sources. PersusjCP (talk) 20:44, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

  The validity of the concept of settler colonialism has nothing to do with whether or not "Anabaptist settler colonialism" is a coherent concept or NPOV. Srnec (talk) 22:33, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

  None of the sources used here describe the topic exclusively through the lens of settler colonialism, that framing is something the article itself is doing. The title "Anabaptist settler colonialism" preloads a conclusion the sources don’t actually make. It ends up cherry-picking bits to fit that narrative, which is exactly what WP:DUE warns against.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Underlying lk Are you suggesting that the topic is Anabaptist migration? It is not, as those are two separate things. The topic is settler colonialism. Not all Anabaptist migrations had a relationship to settler colonialism, depending on the country. Anabaptists have been involved in settler colonialism in Eastern Europe and the Americas, but Anabaptist migrants to Western European countries had no relationship to settler colonialism. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:49, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

That’s exactly the problem, none of the cited sources present "Anabaptist settler colonialism" as a unified or recognized historical phenomenon; they discuss specific cases (e.g. Russian Mennonites, Canadian Hutterites) where settlement overlapped with state colonial policy. That’s material for a section or sub-article, not the defining label of the whole topic. The title should summarize the topic as covered in reliable sources, not define it by one interpretive framework that applies unevenly. A title like "History of Anabaptist migration" would actually reflect what the sources show - a broad pattern of movement, within which some cases involved colonial dynamics. The current title assumes a uniform phenomenon that the literature itself does not describe, which is why it violates WP:NPOV and SYNTH.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 14:41, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support. Not sure if the proposed title is the best, but the current title seems misleading to me. "Anabaptist settler colonialism" and "Anabaptist colonialism" return zero hits on Google Scholar. Anabaptists are a decentralized sect, not a country, so this is unsurprising. The current title seems like OR. Srnec (talk) 22:33, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Discrimination, WikiProject Russia, WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard, WikiProject Christianity/Anabaptist work group, WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas, WikiProject Ukraine, and WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 11:19, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@User:Srnec, Google Scholar does actually have many links regarding the Anabaptist relationship to settler colonialism. Also, a simple Google search shows dozens of hits for the topic of Anabaptist settler colonialism. It is a notable subject that Anabaptists and others have written about and debated extensively. Would you regard a title like Anabaptists and settler colonialism to be preferable? This seems like a semantic objection when the topic itself is widely discussed. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:56, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bohemian Baltimore, I haven't stated that I support or oppose the proposal. What I did was relisted it and advertised it in related WikiProjects. That said, others may find your comment useful. TarnishedPath^talk 12:01, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath My mistake, I see now that you didn't nominate it nor was the above comment yours. The proximity of your name to the comments confused me. My apologies. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 12:03, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bohemian Baltimore all good. TarnishedPath^talk 12:09, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

You are writing too much to respond to. The current title is a neologism. It isn't clear that it is correct or NPOV to use the current title for "Anabaptists [settling] western Canada due to government policies aiming to boost the white population". How about Anabaptist settlers? Srnec (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose. Anabaptist migration is in no way identical to Anabaptist participation in settler colonialism. The Anabaptists who immigrated to England and many other Western European countries did not arrive as settlers populating colonized land. The subject of Anabaptist settler colonialism is widely discussed, including among Anabaptists. It is clearly a notable subject that is distinct from Anabaptist immigration. There are Anabaptists in Japan and Vietnam and many other countries, who first arrived as missionaries and immigrants. This is not the same as, say, the Anabaptists who settled western Canada due to government policies aiming to boost the white population. These are separate subjects. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:44, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
• Comment I plugged in phrased like Amish settler colonialism, Mennonite settler colonialism, Anabaptist settler colonialism, Hutterite settler colonialism, etc. into Google Scholar and found a wealth of citations. A number of books and essays also mention the topic in passing or at length. This is not an obscure subject, nor one I made up. I will list some of the citations:
  • Five hundred years of Anabaptism and colonization
  • Mennonite Dispossession of Indigenous Lands as a Challenge to Mennonite Identity.
  • Settler colonial conscripts: Mennonite reserves and the enfolding of implicated subjects
  • The Mennonite case for counter-sovereignty through Indigenous assimilation: Settler colonialism, self-determination and relation to place in religious identity
  • Latin American Migration, Settler Colonialism, and the Unfinished Business of Canadian Mennonite Belonging
  • White Settler Dysconsciousness and Ethnicity – Constructing innocence and non-complicity among Mennonites and other white settlers in Canada
  • “This Land Is Ours”: Investigating Settler Narratives in Ontario Swiss Mennonite Plays.
  • Unsettling the Radical Witness of Peace: A Decolonizing Investigation of Mennonite Migration from Russia to Manitoba in the 1870s
  • Uncanny Encounter with a Historic Peace Church: Reimagining Mennonite Identity through a Postcolonial Lens
  • Mennonite Displacement of Indigenous Peoples: An Historical and Sociological Analysis
  • The Mennonite Colonization of Chihuahua: Reflections of Competing Visions*
  • Settlers and Refugees: Reframing the “Hochstetler Massacre” of 1757.
  • On the Mennonite-Métis Borderland: Environment, Colonialism, and Settlement in Manitoba

• • Furthermore, many notable Mennonite institutions such as the Mennonite Church Canada explicitly mention Mennonite settler colonialism on their websites and in their literature. The MCC says that the "Mennonite expression of Christian faith" has "been deeply impacted by colonial thinking and practices. Together, we need to re-think aspects of settler Christianity." Literature on the Mennonite Church USA website says "We confess that our Anabaptist churches have not been faithful in covenants with the first peoples of this land...our faith ancestors went along with theologies and laws that allowed settlers to take land unjustly from Indigenous Peoples...we confess that descendants of Anabaptist settlers have benefited from broken covenants and stolen land." The Mennonite Mission Network's website exhorts Mennonites to "Become better acquainted with Indigenous Peoples, their connection to the land upon which we live, and the consequences of settler colonial history". The Mennonite scholar Lisa Schirch has written that "most Mennonites have not accounted for their roles in settler colonialism in North and South America, resulting in similar harms to Indigenous peoples in the Americas". So again, this is not a POV topic I simply invented. Anabaptists themselves talk about this at great length. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 12:54, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@User:Underlying lk I also question the claim that no other "non-sovereign" European groups are talked about in relation to settler colonialism in this way. The articles on the Welsh settlement in the Americas and Y Wladfa discuss it as part of British colonization of Indigenous Tehuelche land. The article on Nordic colonialism has a whole section on Finnish colonialism and Finland was under Swedish and Russian rule. There is also a body of literature about emigrant colonialism in South America. The historian Mark Choate has also written about the "migrant colonialism" of the Italian diaspora - see also Google Books. Being unfamiliar with the literature and the concept does not mean it doesn't exist. This link from the European Union also discusses emigrant colonialism: "Poland and Germany, Italy and Japan...purchasing isolated territory abroad and strategically settling their migrants to simulate a settler colonial experience and manufacture demographic territorial claims." Here's a Google Scholar link for "emigrant colonialism". The concept of colonialism without colonies is also widely written about. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

You’re citing examples that actually prove the opposite point. None of those cases - Welsh, Finnish, Italian, or otherwise - have standalone Wikipedia articles titled "X settler colonialism". They’re treated as parts of broader migration or diaspora histories, and where colonial aspects are discussed, they’re framed within existing sovereign contexts (British, Swedish, etc.), not as independent "colonialisms" of the group itself. This title doesn’t summarize the literature, it creates a framework, and that’s textbook WP:SYNTH. The more neutral, accurate framing is "Anabaptist migration" or "History of Anabaptist migration", which allows the colonial aspect to be discussed where sources support it without building the whole article around a premise they don’t actually make.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

The topic is politically-charged, thus various interpretations exist. Technically, one "indigenous" people group attacking a neighboring group and taking over their lands and settling therein would be "settler colonialism." But this early, small-scale colonialism does not usually get denominated as such. Humans have always migrated to other lands throughout history, sometimes peacefully arranging the move (more like William Penn, for example, trying to pay previous inhabitants at least a token price) but more usually involving dispute and/or open war. If one set of people (Anabaptists, for example) are depicted using the perjorative-sounding "settler colonialism" because they settled in what were formerly Lenape lands, then the Iroquois (and other groups of early settlers in North America) need to be tagged with the same "settler colonialism" for attacking neighboring tribes and settling in the conquered lands. For example, both Lenape and Iroquois (most likely) were guilty of "settler colonialism" for pushing out the previous people group (Clovis?). Much of this early history is conjectural, but my point is that if one group is going to be assigned as partaking in "settler colonialism," then any and all other people groups who migrated to new areas need the same treatment ... unless it can be proven that they were the very first people group to a new area. Thus I support the idea of using a more neutral "migration" in the page name, then a subsection could talk about how various governments (Mexico, Russia) invited Anabaptist people to settle land that they considered as under their current jurisdiction, but previous political/social entities may have felt it to be "settler colonialism". Mikeatnip (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Mikeatnip This is Wikipedia:EDITORIALIZING. We don't go by Wikipedia:I just don't like it either. Settler colonialism is a recognized topic in academic literature. It is not a pejorative neologism. We already have multiple articles on the subject on Wikipedia, including Settler colonialism, Settler colonialism in Canada, Settler colonialism in Australia, Zionism as settler colonialism, Settler, Settler society, etc. Migration is not a neutral substitution, as not all people living as part of settler colonial societies are immigrants. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that POV too often decides when settlements are "settler colonialism" or just people looking for better economic situations or fleeing political/religious persecution. Did Catharine the Great, for example, purposely try to displace the local population by inviting Germans to her lands, or was she just trying to improve economics? I don't know, personally, but unless source records show that she and her government specifically mention trying to displace local populations, it becomes POV as to the motives. Governing leaders around the world continuously invite outside investors with capital and knowledge into their lands to improve economics and infrastructure; sometimes a secret desire to displace local populations may be mixed in, but the two are distinct purposes. When one political entity conquers another, who decides if new settlers in the land are participants of "settler colonialism" or just politically-ignorant or politically-neutral people looking for a place to call home? All the article listed above by academic sources are one point of view: that is not the only view out there. Mikeatnip (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@Underlying lk "Migration" it not an accurate or neutral substitute. You seem to be confusing migration with settler colonialism. Virginia Dare was not a migrant but was a resident of a settler colony, for example. We already have an article about the Zionist relationship to colonialism, despite the lack of any sovereign power in Europe or elsewhere. That we don't currently have articles about the role of other European groups in settler colonialism doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't. Many topics are underrepresented or poorly represented on Wikipedia. We don't have an article about colonialism without colonies either, but it has been discussed widely in academic literature. There's also literature about "colonial innocence" in regards to Czechs, Finns, etc. The article about the Scottish colonization of the Americas includes both the independent Kingdom of Scotland and Scotland under the Scotland under the Commonwealth of England, so it does seem to be considered Scots as a people. The article on Nordic colonialism considers the entire region, not only specific sovereign states. There is even literature discussing the Sámi role in settler colonialism in North America and a whole book about Finnish Settler Colonialism in North America. That this literature isn't reflected on Wikipedia is a problem on Wikipedia's part. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. As per above, the current name is more accurate and WP:PRECISE. Yuchitown (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
• Comment Given that migration and settler colonialism are two distinct topics, I'm not sure why there can't be a separate article split off with the title History of Anabaptist migration or even a different title like Anabaptist diaspora or Anabaptist diasporas. We already have articles like Romani diaspora, Jewish diaspora, Basque diaspora, Crimean Tatar diaspora, etc. We don't have Sámi diaspora, but should. Anabaptists are unique, as they form ethnoreligious communities but there has never been an Anabaptist government. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. The term is often applied for "non-sovereign enclaves" in the absence of actual metropolis-colony relationship, whether you (or I) like it or not. Alaexis_¿question? 19:14, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

The term you are referring to, however, is not "Anabaptist settler colonialism". Srnec (talk) 03:03, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@Srnec Why is "migrant" a better term or even an accurate term at all, when not all settlers are migrants? This conflation is factually incorrect. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 08:23, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I never said it was. Above I proposed Anabaptist settlers as a superior title to the current one. Srnec (talk) 14:51, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

@Srnec The term settlers specifically refers to the individuals, while settler colonialism is broader as it includes the process and system, so it is more appropriate. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

But are the process and system Anabaptist? Or, e.g., Canadian? Srnec (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@Srnec So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that (for example) Catharine the Great inviting Anabaptists to live on her lands is not "Anabaptist Settler Colonialism" but rather "Russian Settler Colonialism" (with the assumption she was trying to displace the previous owners of the land) since she and her government were the ones orchestrating it? She also invited German Lutherans, who moved in; so it is a misnomer to call it either "Anabaptist Settler Colonialism" or "German Lutheran Settler Colonialism"? If I am correctly understanding you, then I would see that "Anabaptist Settler Colonialism" is a misnomer pretty much across the board since the Anabaptists were not the ones who orchestrated the processes, even though they may have been the pawns (either ignorantly/innocently or with full knowledge that the current controlling political entity may have been trying to push out previous owners of the land) in such processes. Mikeatnip (talk) 12:24, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support While some sources describe the events within the context of settler colonialism, this is a minority viewpoint. Searching Google Scholar for

• "Anabaptist settlers" ("colonization" OR "colonialism" OR "colonies") "region"'
• "Anabaptist settlement" ("colonization" OR "colonialism" OR "colonies") "region"
• "Anabaptist immigrants" "region"
• "Anabaptist migration" "region"

led to the following results:

	Russia	Africa	Canada	Mexico	United States	Paraguay	Suriname	Total
Settlers	28	9	29	11	28	6	1	112
Settlement	10	3	24	4	27	1	0	69
Immigrants	19	16	41	23	61	7	0	167
Migration	19	8	24	14	35	6	1	107
Ratio	1.00	0.50	0.82	0.41	0.57	0.54	1.00	0.66

Division by region addresses the possible issue that migration could be, for example, to Britain, while settlement happened in the Americas. Another possible objection is that migration and settler colonialism are different concepts. While this is true, the article frequently cites sources that also use 'migration' to describe the movement of Anabaptists.

• 1: Main international migration flows of Mennonites in Latin America
• 2: The Anabaptist Immigration to Paraguay and Bolivia and its Unintended Consequences for the Environment
• 4 A wave of Old Colony Mennonites, who largely reject new technology, emigrated from Europe to the Americas
• 6 settlement of Mennonite immigrants
• 7 Mennonites who left Russia at the end of the 19th century—some as refugees, others as voluntary migrants
• 8 A Decolonizing Investigation of Mennonite Migration from Russia to Manitoba in the 1870s
• 9 Mennonite perceptions of Indigenous people during their migration and settlement in North America

This demonstrates that sources don't distinguish between migration and settler colonialism in this case, so we shouldn't do so when choosing an article title. Additionally, I am not really sure whether the page as written is not SYNTH, as it applies "settler colonialism" for articles that mention Anabaptists settlement, their colonies, and conflicts with indigenous peoples, but do not directly invoke the concept of settler colonialism. As article Zionism as settler colonialism demonstrates, colonization+settlement+conflict is not universally agreed to constitute "settler colonialism", for instance, because it did not involve "an imperial power acquiring political control over another country, settling it with its sons, and exploiting it economically" and did not seek to "dominate the local population", and had no metropole they could flee to, unlike most settler colonial societies. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: This move discussion has been open for well over 7 days. While there is extensive conversation, it’s not moving closer to a consensus. Would be it possible for this proposal to be closed as “no consensus”? Yuchitown (talk) 05:28, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  If nobody closes it it's possible to list it at Wikipedia:Closure requests so that more prospective closers are aware that this is running longer than usual, but RM closes don't always happen on time. I think a while back the backlog was running up to two months. Alpha3031 (t • c) 18:50, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose but consider split Seems to me that the settler colonialism question is separate from a diaspora or migration question. Some Anabaptists (notably the Hutterites) would also qualify as refugees, cast out from their homelands. So seems to me that someone should consider expanding topic a bit. Montanabw^(talk) 02:40, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Islamophobia"?

I read the article linked at footnote 12 and at no point does the word islamophobia appear in it. That means that using the word in our Wikipedia article is original research. But also I didn't find anything in the article to indicate that they were islamophobic. Obviously they did not agree with Islam but then one of the Muslim figures mentioned was told from his infancy to despise Christians. ~2026-12147-71 (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 18 April 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Supporters presented strong, policy-based arguments showing that "Anabaptist settler colonialism" is not a widely-established phrase in reliable sources and academic literature, also arguing pov concerns. Opposers raised valid concerns rooted in WP:PRECISE, noting that "Anabaptist settlers" is a broader term that could encompass migrations unrelated to colonialism or displacement. They also provided sources showing that, while the exact string of the title is rare, the concept is a legitimate topic of academic study. While they successfully demonstrate that the topic of Anabaptist participation in settler colonialism is notable and verifiable, they do not successfully refute the supporters' argument that "Anabaptist settler colonialism" fails WP:COMMONNAME. The consensus is that the proposed title, "Anabaptist settlers", serves as a more neutral and commonly recognized descriptor. (non-admin closure) Feeglgeef (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

---

Anabaptist settler colonialism → Anabaptist settlers – "Anabaptist settler colonialism" is not an established concept. It returns zero hits on Google Scholar. Srnec (talk) 03:17, 18 April 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 13:10, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose We had this exact debate only 5 months ago. What has changed since then? If anything, there are several additional sources mentioning the Anabaptist role in settler colonialism. EG, a recent documentary that addresses "Immigration policy, settler colonialism, all of these themes are explored in this documentary, that in previous renditions of Mennonite history might have been pushed to the side, or just not acknowledged at all." A 2026 article in the Settler Colonial Studies journal about "settler decolonization" utilizes "a case study of early Indigenous-Mennonite relations in what is now the Waterloo Region". Another journal entry in Antipodes states that "Mennonite settlement initiated a process of colonisation" in Paraguay. There's also this recent January 2026 piece in Anabaptist World by Professor Lisa Schirch: "Like many other White settlers, European Mennonites who arrived in the Americas were complicit in the tangled traumas of White genocide against Indigenous peoples, the enslavement of Africans and extensive ecological destruction" and that mentions efforts to address "the church’s involvement with slavery, segregation, Indigenous land theft, white supremacy and colonialism." Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 07:29, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Nothing has changed. As the closer said, As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors can strengthen their arguments, discover new ones, and try again in a few months to change this title. The title was bad then and it's bad now. It does not matter how often "Anabaptist" and "settler colonialism" are found in proximity or how much actual Anabaptists had to do with actual settler colonial endeavours. The current title is not justified. Anabaptists and settler colonialism would be acceptable, I suppose, but Wikipedians are often sceptical—with good reason—of titles formed by mere conjunction. Srnec (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

You proposed "Anabaptist settlers" the first time and that title was bad and inaccurate the first time. As I previously said, "The term settlers specifically refers to the individuals, while settler colonialism is broader as it includes the process and system, so it is more appropriate." One of the reasons the title was and is bad is that it is not Wikipedia:PRECISE and there is a risk that topics not related to settler colonialism could be included. EG, Mennonites who moved to the Vistula Delta are sometimes referred to as Anabaptist settlers, even though that use of the term is unrelated to settler colonialism. Your proposal reduces precision and clarity. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

And as I asked last time, are the process and system Anabaptist? Srnec (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

@Srnec The topic is the Anabaptist role in settler colonialism, of which there is an established body of literature. We also have a body of literature specifically referencing Mennonite colonization/Mennonite colonisation/Mennonite colonizers. The topic is not only about people migrating to another region; it is about what they did to the Indigenous peoples of those regions. Is the process and system Anabaptist? Yes. EG, the Mennonite Church Canada has come to reject its former support for the Discovery doctrine. That is to say, the church as an institution formally embraced and promoted settler colonialism in its theology. As a "model minority for the settler state", they also served a distinct role in the ideological perpetration of the state's settler colonial policies. According to “Part of the Authority Structure”: An Organizational History of Mennonite Indian Residential Schools in Ontario, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada has reported that Mennonites in Canada operated Indian residential schools that were funded by both Mennonite churches and the federal government. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Support per nom and last discussion. This is not the term that is used. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas, WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, WikiProject Russia, WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard, WikiProject Christianity/Anabaptist work group, WikiProject Discrimination, and WikiProject Ukraine have been notified of this discussion. Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 03:56, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Support: Tried to do an Ngram check and it returned an error saying Ngrams not found: Anabaptist settler colonialism. Google Scholar returns no hits if we search for the exact string "Anabaptist settler colonialism", but to be fair doing the same for "Anabaptist settlers" only returns 48 results. A normal search on "Anabaptist settler colonialism" gives 8,420 results while doing the same for "Anabaptist settlers" returns 18,300. Of course, it is like the 8,420 are included in the 18,300, but that's still below half. All in all I'm going to have to say that there is no evidence for "Anabaptist settler colonialism" being the WP:COMMONNAME for this topic, considering that "settler colonialism" is a loaded term it can't be considered a neutral descriptive title. This move is for the best. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 05:22, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

@Maltazarian Part of why "Anabaptist settlers", which was suggested the first time, poses a problem in regards to Wikipedia:PRECISE is that "Anabaptist settlers" is much more ambiguous than "Anabaptist settler colonialism" and opens the door for unrelated info to be added to the article. EG, Swiss refugees in the Rhineland or Dutch Anabaptist migrants to the Vistula Delta may be referred to as "Anabaptist settlers" in the literature, even though that's not related to the topic of settler colonialism. Furthermore, your provocative claim that settler colonialism is a "loaded" term that isn't "neutral" is itself a highly political claim that can in no way be described as neutral itself. "Settler colonialism" is a well-established term in academic and political research. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Of course settler colonialism is a well-established and fully legitimate term. All the more reason to not use it without good reason. I don't see how it's wrong to call it loaded. I think it's a term that carries significant negative connotations for the average reader who has heard of it before, and when I say "can't be considered a neutral descriptive title" that's me making a reference to WP:NDESC. That is to say we should not be using it unless it's the common way to refer to the topic, as established by reliable sources. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 16:20, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

More of a comment, but is there an alternative method to describe the phenomenon of Anabaptist settlers forming colonies that displace indigenous people? BC that is documented as happening right now, and I'm interested in finding a way to title that that fits neutrality guidelines. Kotthu (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Support: as per previous discussion.Mikeatnip (talk) 13:42, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose: This is actually an important topic, but the sections on Mennonite colonies in the Amazon need to be expanded badly. It's a prominent and rapidly-evolving topic. Two main frontiers (Bolivia and Peru) aren't covered at all.This article discusses the phenomenon in the context of settler-colonialism: "Canada at the time was engaged in internal migration and settler colonialism and gave Mennonites all these privileges to come to settle in Manitoba," Nobbs-Thiessen said. When these privileges were revoked in the 1920s, conservative Mennonites went south to look for new land. The Mexican government was on a similar drive to expand and internally colonize. "They invited the Mennonites in as modernizers and agriculturally progressive people who would develop frontier landscapes," Nobbs-Thiessen said. Paraguay, Bolivia and other countries followed. Kotthu (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per various explanations above. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2026 (UTC) —  Blocked sockpuppet of Justthefacts, see investigation. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 14:53, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
• Support. The new title or the previously suggested title, History of Anabaptist migration, is much better. Refer to WP:POVTITLE and WP:ATTACKARTICLE. desmay (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  The term "settler colonialism" is a legitimate subject of scholarly debate. It is a deep misunderstanding to perceive it as an "attack" POV. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.