Talk:Plain people

The Merge

I don't see the point in the merge. It seems to be a perfectly valid article. businessman332211 01:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

They are both valid articles, but the same topic. I believe they should become one. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 23:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

AS one who has lived and worked among the Plain People (and probably fall into that category myself) I cannot think of any difference between "Plain sects" and "Plain people". "Plain People" could be defined as "one who is a member of a Plain sect". Inside the Amish/Mennonite circles, they refer to themselves as the "Plain people", so this would be my suggestion for the title of the merge article. Mikeatnip 03:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've carried out the merge as consensus here seems to be to do it, and the article's been tagged for 11 months now. Done! — alex.muller (talk • edits) 21:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is the first paragraph written in the past tense?207.237.38.70 (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Technology

I'm questioning some of the statement in the early part of the article. It paints a false picture of the attitude to technology, which (as I understand it) is about community and not technology itself. Acceptance or rejection is based on the effect on the community, which is why (for example) electricity is permitted in milking barns but not houses, cellphones are permitted for business and why some sects might use a taxi if they absolutely have to but not own a car. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

References list needs fixing

After converting the raw external links into a proper references list, I discovered a number of problems.

• Y Ref 1, Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online -- Page does not exist
• N Ref 3, News article, The Holland Sentinel -- Page does not exist

  I removed this completely. It is an atypical and sensational reference that gives undo weight to the extreme. The generalities of rumspringa are appropriate here; the details of the range of behavior are belong in the rumspringa article. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 14:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• NRef 4, Mariah Daily blog, December 2002 -- This is someone's blog, and it's a huge random mess of stuff some 30 pages long. There's no direct link to the relevant text to the movie, and what is there appears to be speculation rather than anything really worthy of an encyclopedic article.

  I concur that this has little value and have removed it. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 14:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

These article references either need to be fixed, or deleted from the article. DMahalko (talk) 13:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Couple of minor points.

There are still Quakers who practice plain dress and avoidance of some technologies. The article implies that the practice is completely gone. Also, the contemporary Charity Ministries movement advocates plain dress and the rejection of some technologies.

If the information would be valuable, I'll will find appropriate sources, etc. Thanks. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Tourism Section?

The 'Tourism' section seems to be kind of a mess. I'm thinking of either removing it, or putting the first paragraph else and remove the rest. Any thoughts in that regard? Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and cleaned it up. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Plain Catholics

Christian_headcovering#Catholicism mentions a group I was until now unaware of: plain Catholics. Putting the phrase into Google reveals quite a few mentions on the web. Does anyone know about these people? Are they a recent phenomenon or has this strain of Catholicism been around for centuries? Have they taken inspiration from plain protestants when it comes to the modern world but retained the Catholic theology? Are they linked to traditionalist Catholicism? It would be great if an article could be written about them by anyone who knows the details, or at least given a mention in this article. Thanks. Old Man of Storr (talk) 12:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

See the talk page for the Christian headcovering article for more details. There is little evidence that they are anything more than the work of an individual or an affinity group. The only thing close to an offical site is a totally unsourced FreeWebs site with stock photos of Old Order Amish and Old Order German Baptist Brethren members. Long story short, at the present, there simply isn't a reliable source to add them to this article. --Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 23:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right, Surv1v4l1st, no reliable sources! I deleted the Plain Catholics section. In my eyes it's most probablynothing more than an internet phenomenon. Metron (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The Pennsylvania Dutch are not a religious group

The first sentence under "Health" is misleading: "The Pennsylvania Dutch do not proselytize..." This implies that the Pennsylvania Dutch are a religious group, perhaps synonymous with Plain People. "Pennsylvania Dutch" refers to an ethnic group, the majority of whose members are not "plain." There were many Lutherans and German Reform among the 18th Century German immigrants to Pennsylvania whose descendents constitute the Pennsylvania Dutch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.234.188.175 (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

"The average Amish woman can expect to have at least 7 live births". I know that's lifted from the source but that strikes me as a statistically sloppy statement, a good example of the sort of thing that got torn to shreds in How To Lie With Statistics. PatGallacher (talk) 11:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Why are the Amish mentioned in the Quakers section under Origins

Why are the Amish mentioned in the Quakers section under Origins? Mennonites and Amish are Anabaptist groups. --Treekids (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)