Talk:LOHAS/Archives/2012

Context

This page seriously lacks context. Who made these acronyms? Where and when are they used?Eaglizard 18:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a marketing acronym. Those scumfucks appropriate everything good and try and sell it back to you.--Mongreilf 15:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Quite. (though I would not use the same words) – Kaihsu 14:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"LOHAS" might be marketing jargon, but I don't know anybody who refers to themselves as "Lohasians" as the article suggests. If it's true, there needs to be some citations. Otherwise it should be removed.Moralxdilemma 08:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The LOHAS market is a well identified market segment - over 60% of US consumers alone view themselves as LOHAS consumers. If you follow the links to the Natural Marketing Institute [a market research company] you will find a wealth of resources about this market segment. It's not a matter of repackaging, its an identification that people who are interested in one of the following: wellness, organics, renewable energy, sustainability or SRI [socially responsible investment] are generally interested in all of these various market segments. hence LOHAS Nuovon 08:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)nuovonNuovon 08:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense Nuovon, see the last source currently cited in this article for a much more plausible interpretation [1]. Virtually noone views themselves as "LOHAS". We should figure out who invented this term, probably the Natural Marketing Institute or some entity like it, and clarify this article accordingly. --Brian Z (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent Removal/Redirect

I view the recent attempt to redirect this page as a POV edit. Can we discuss these kind of drastic edits before they take place? see WP:SCV for proper protocol... --travisthurston + 05:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering about that too. And it wasn't just redirected, it was deleted - even the page history is missing, so I restarted it from scratch. On the plus side, I found some new references and added them. Here's the deletion log for the page. I'll post a note on the administrator's talk page and ask him to let us know what happened. --Parsifal _Hello 05:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed there is a cached version at answers.com [2] in case we want to fully restore the page. it doesn't appear to be a copyvio... --travisthurston + 05:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Good idea to check there. I don't know if it's a copyvio from somewhere else, but you're right, the text doesn't seem to match the article at the website URL in the deletion log. --Parsifal _Hello 06:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It was a copyvio of http://www.lohas.com/about.htm - I'm surprised noone noticed: I mean, phrases like "If you're reading this, it's likely that you're part of a diverse and growing community of businesses that provide sustainable goods and services to consumers" don't normally appear in encyclopædic articles. The answers.com version is... not the version that got deleted for copyvio. I could dig through the deleted edits and see if I can find a non-copyvio version if you wanted?

I redirected it because, well, what else are you going to do? Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, right. 08:24, 24 July 2007 . . Nuovon (Talk | contribs | block) (4,566 bytes) (updated with more accurate information largely sourced from lohas.com) - That'll be the start of the copyvio. I've restored all edits before that one. Be careful about that. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for checking that out. I'll restore some of the earlier info but also keep some of the new version we've already re-started since it already has solid new references. --Parsifal _Hello 04:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

new version

After reviewing a bit further, I think the bullet list that's been restored from the old version so far is good, but the rest of the text wasn't supported by good references so we should not restore that. The external links that were there seem commercial, so maybe it's better to keep the new stub we have and let it expand over time in a better-referenced fashion. --Parsifal _Hello 04:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)