Talk:Plain people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Anabaptist work group. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)