If anyone would care to look back at the dictionary definitions above only one appears potentially relevant, and because it requires two value judgments, one as to what purity is and the other as to what is excessive, the question of whether there are purists cannot objectively be resolved. I know there are some who assert that the issue of whether something is "folk" or not can be determined by the 1954 definition and indeed I am close to that position although I can see some parts of the definition that might be put in more certain and more modern terms. There may be others who assert that something can only be "folk" if it is done as it used to be done - and I do not agree with them, and indeed I don't think I've ever met any.

But horse definitioners seem to mistake those positions for the assertion that something is ipso facto bad if it is not folk. That, I think, is never in fact asserted.