|WikiProject Sociology||(Rated Stub-class)|
Supporting the weasel
User:Mombas, since you asked...
Here's WP:WEASEL: This page in a nutshell: Avoid "some people say" statements without sources. (plus other varieties of weasel statements.)
Examples from Alternative lifestyle:
"The following may be examples which are considered by some to be examples of alternate lifestyles:"
"people who might be said to"
"Alternative lifestyles are sometimes thought be an expression of social rebellion. ... in what they characterize"
"Some psychologists today, however, believe..."
"This is considered by some to be nothing more than an excuse for deviant behavior."
IMHO, that's a pretty high percentage of weasel phrases in this short article.
Fallen out of favor?
I guarantee 100% of the people who visited this page assumed it would mean homosexuality, primarily if not exclusively. It can't be offensive, it's a bleeding EUPHEMISM. From WP:WEASEL: "It is acceptable to use some of these phrases, if they are accompanied by a citation that supports the claim..." (IMHO as is done in the last paragraph of this article.)
From WP:WEASEL: "The following questions can be used to determine some instances of weasel words.
Who says that? When did they say it? How many people think that? How many is "some"? What kind of people think that? Where are they? What kind of bias might they have? Why is this of any significance?
We should improve this article by fixing and avoiding weasel phrases. Have a good one. :-) -- 188.8.131.52 18:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC) (Originally edited this page as "184.108.40.206")
- Sincere apologies if you took offence. While I don't entirely disagree with your assertion I would have thought that simply editing out the offensive material may have been sufficient. Or following the tag with an explanation on the talk page. Keep up your good work and I will back you on any changes you feel necessary to make this subject more credible. Probably a facelift could be on the cards. Cheers mate and best wishes. Mombas 22:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
This article still has problems re WP:WEASEL. I'm not going to do it today or tomorrow, but sometime soon I'm going to come back to this article and remove all weasel statements. If there's anything in here that you don't want removed, edit it now so that it doesn't have WEASEL problems.
Also, the article needs cites! Citing is a core Wikipedia policy. It is not optional. Per Wikipedia:Citing sources, "Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor." -- Writtenonsand 14:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Vegetarianism is by NO MEANS an "Alternate Lifestyle". It is NOT "outside the cultural norm". The word 'culture' is very diverse, and in countless cultures around the world, vegetarianism has been, since ancient times, the norm.
- Uh, just no. Even in India (Hinduism/Buddhism) vegetarianism used to be (and to some extent probably still is) primarily an élite (and urban) phenomenon, associated with religious people (priests/brahmins, monks and presumably ṛṣis and sādhus), not regular people, who may have eaten little meat – including fish, of course – (partly out of a sheer necessity), but would probably never completely avoid it (going as far as declaring seafood as "plants of the sea" in Eastern India); they did not have that luxury. Strict vegetarianism or even veganism is something you have to afford in the first place, a choice in the face of having alternatives, and therefore mainly a phenomenon of the modern society where at least food is present in abundance.
- Anyway, it has been added back, and rightly so. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Must be kept off this page, while often called an 'alternative lifestyle' by bigots, this is actually part of the cultural norms of all civilized cultures. --220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Wow. By bigots? Ironic considering the early use of 'alternative lifestyle' to refer to homosexuality was by gays themselves, as a counter to assertions by bigots that homosexuality was a mental illness or a shameful sin. In any case, an article on alternative lifestyles that doesn't even mention the most common use of the term? Just wow. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- since conservative culture sometimes look down upon homosexuality, i think it should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- I have a few different thoughts here: A. It's not necessarily bigoted to use the term "lifestyle" to describe homosexuality, but I can see why it annoys people. B. Because a term's origin doesn't necessarily dictate its future use, "retarded" wasn't an insult when it was first conceived. The fact is that a lot of people DO go, "Well, if it's a 'lifestyle,' then I can say I 'disagree' with it & claim that things like promiscuous sex are related." C. So it doesn't even really make sense just from the standpoint of describing an actual set of criteria for a "way of life" & the article does not describe these criticisms. D. But yes, it should be mentioned because it is one of the most common uses of the term. E. So, overall, I guess the article needs more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- See Furry fandom#Furry lifestylers for further details about this topic. Jarble (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
"Alternative lifestyles and subcultures originated in the 1920s with the "flapper" movement..." Oh no they didn't. There are many examples from Europe dataing back centuries. e.g. the Paris "left bank" artists, the Morris movement, the Chartists... An article of this kind needs to be written by someone who actually knows history. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)