From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Linguistics (Rated Stub-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Be in Wiktionary[edit]

Shouldn't at least part of this be in the Wiktionary? Mr. Jones 13:45, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps, but having it in the Wikipedia won't hurt either. Meh, but what does it really matter? I concur, anyways. I'd rather have it there, but a wikipedia-article opens for more explaning on it than an dictionary just taking the word itself, and not necessarily examples, or known uses, etc...a little back-story on the word's origins, YADDAH YADDAH! So y'see!--OleMurder 21:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I don't think WMD is a buzzword, BTW, as it has a specific technical meaning-- weapons that can quickly kill or injure very large numbers of people with relatively little human effort. The term is abused and distorted (I heard one female American academic banging on about beehives being catapulted into enemy fortifications by the ancients-- as if the fact the attack was somehow biological made it a WMD), but that doesn't make it a buzzword by the definition of the article. Perhaps I should read the WMD article. Mr. Jones 13:53, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

One could defend it as military jargon. It is easier to say than "weapons of mass destruction". However, its usage renders it a buzzword: it is used instead of specific ideas like "nuclear weapons", "chemical weapons", etc., and it is politically fashionable to use it. Rintrah 14:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Buzzwords are words that are abused and distorted. Half of those words actually have real meanings, but are thrown around by idiots. -- 14:59, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at the source at the "The Buzzword Generator" URL? It looks like it *might* have some "phone home", ahem, "feature" when the user clicks the button. And, there is also string literal content in the scripting that points to a directory on the local C: drive. I don't like that, but am not any kind of javascript wonk, so I'm hoping someone else can take a look at that site, and if it IS "badware-enhanced", either make a note of that in the main article, or, delete the link. 02:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's actually just a check - if the script isn't running from his site or local disk, then it redirects to http:/// (a useless link.) --Stephen (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Why I listed WMD as a buzzword.[edit]

Because during the 2003 media frenzy about justifying an invasion of Iraq by the United States the word was so overused it was like a buzzword.

Also from what I read alot of those so called "Weapons of Mass Destruction" are not as dangerous as people think but just fearmongering perpetuated by the media and the Bush Adminstration. If you want to read what I read you can read the article here. --Armus Aran

....And it is no way an indirect way to in all your "secrecy" to nail Bush with critic of using buzzwords, eh? Right! Although I still don't like him and they still haven't found the damn WMD's, those liars.--OleMurder 21:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The use of WMD as a buzzword, is mostly done by Bush critics, saying such and such is the real WMD. In that case WMD no longer means unconventional weapons, but rather a threat to national security, that needs to be dealt with, with the same priority that Bush gave the possible WMDs in Iraq. Rds865 (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No way![edit]

Sorry, there's simply no way WMD and Terrorists could belong to this list. Maybe we should have a vote here? Anybody who agrees or disagrees with me please say so.

I agree. While "WMD" and "terrorist" could quite conceivably be labeled buzzwords to make a political point(actually, one which I would probably agree with), such debate has no place in a wikipedia entry on a term largely unrelated to current controversies in politics. The term "Weapon of Mass Destruction" has a specific and to my knowledge uncontroversial meaning(as defined by Mr. Jones above), and while "terrorist" is a subjective term, it is not vague in the same way as a buzzword is - while this "buzzword quality" is elusive, I'd say that the fact that most people have pretty clear connotations to the world "terrorist" reveals that it is not a buzzword in the traditional sense. What kind of consensus do we need to reach to justify taking WMDs and terrorists out of this list? Svk 22:59, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If anyone's still interested in this debate, surely the way the word is used is important here? No word in itself is a buzzword unless it's specifically used for emotive appeal rather than developing meaning...I think that's a semi-reasonable in political language post-Iraq, WMD *has* become a buzzword for the most part, since it's often for emotive reasons (especially where other more accurate wording is reasonable). I personally don't think terrorist has become a buzzword because although it is thrown around a lot nowadays, it's because the topic of terrorism has become such a huge issue. It just means it's more often used I think. So questions to answer: Is what matters (1) why/how the word is used and (2) how often it's used for that reason? And just because something has a specific meaning, does that mean it can't be a buzzword? If that meaning is always used correctly, can it still be a buzzword? Anyone want to comment? (talk) 13:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I mostly agree with your view. Apart the most ridiculous corporate new words like "market-driven", "cost-effective", "coaching" and some other new words especially in the IT's field, no word is a buzzword per se. So, either we take out a lot of words from the list, either not and, in this case, we keep a lot of words that can be used "correctly" and "buzzly". In this sense it is clear that WMD should belong to this list. I mean, no doubt about it: that people today refer to those kind of weaponry with initials and in a non reflected way. They are not even caring any more about remembering that WMD, are not a type of weapons, just an easy (and buzzy) way to refer to weapons that can kill in a high amount of people. Also for terrorism, despite it is used more often in it's proper meaning way, we have seen this last 5 or 10 years a profusion of the word in non related contexts and in a clear way of "buzzing". Expressions like politicians or intellectuals accusing their opponents in some polemics of "intellectual terrorism", or men accusing their girls of "emotional terrorism", and so on. --Libmind (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

What is a terrorist?[edit]

Is someone a terrorist or a freedom fighter? To me, a terrorist bombs targets, or fires bullets, then goes to ground, whilst not involving the people they are allegedly fighting for. A freedom fighter will fight openly with the involvement and/or support of the people represented. (In broad terms, Al Qaeda would be terrorists but certain Iraqis fighting back against occupation are freedom fighters, though those carrying out individual kidnappings are also terrorists.) Of course Goverments will use either label interchangeably depending upon whether their aims suit said Government's (foreign) policy. However misuse of a word for political purposes does not make it a buzzword and I would say that WMD and terrorist are not buzzwords. If I was to say black was white, it would not make black a buzzword, it would just mean I was talking rubbish!

And some would agree that you are. I think this should be on the list of buzzwords. 17:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A terrorist attacks civilian populations in order to create terror. They then use this terror to express their political views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

POV problem[edit]

The lead to this article says nothing about the fact that "buzzword" is an inherently POV label, that there is no way to objectively determine what is or is not a buzzword, and that what constitutes a buzzword is a matter of opinion. Where's the neutral POV? --Smithfarm 18:33, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another thing, I expected a very different list of words here (like especially business terms) than what is actually here: something like a big anti-bush list.
Agreed. I trimmed the list down considerably. I removed the partisan, political terms (typical buzzwords are universal). I also removed technical terms like Digital Rights Management because there's no end of (relatively) well-defined technical terms that have become buzzwords at some point in time (cf. XML, CORBA). I left Web services because it's been highly popular despite the lack of common understanding of what it actually means. I wouldn't add to many similar items (e.g. Grid computing), though. And for the record, I don't think words hyped by one company qualify, either, even if they meet the other criteria (say, .NET).
Bottom line: being un-offensive and universal is a key criterion for a buzzword, so don't bother adding words that aren't. Rl 16:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't see why buzzword is essentially point of view. I don't think the assertion there are trendy, empty words like those used in business is inherently subjective. Rintrah 10:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed: Action plan, Methodology, - they are not idioms, or neologisms and meaning is clear defined. --AndriuZ 14:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Separate 'list of buzzwords' article[edit]

I've separated out the general list of buzzwords into its own article (and added a link) for the following reasons:

  • So those wanting to reference a list of buzzwords can do so without getting a crunched up paragraph of words, or a definition for what a buzzword is;
  • So those looking at the term 'buzzword' don't see a paragraph of buzzwords (unless they want to);
  • Because the buzzword article probably should just contain the definition, context, etc. And maybe the top 10 (I'm in two minds about that).

took out HDTV as a buzz-word[edit]

HDTV refers to explicit standards for video resolution, and thus to list it here, where 'buzzwords' are being characterized as vague and non-technical, is inconsistent.

Perhaps the reason it was listed is because of the fact that 720p, 1080i, and 1080p are all considered HD formats. Admittedly, if someone just says 'high definition tv' then it is unknown which of these 3 resolutions he/she is talking about. Regardless, they are still definitely talking about one of those 3 (if they are using the term correctly), and thus 'HDTV' is jargon and not a buzzword.


A buzzword (also known as a fashion word or vogue word) is an idiom, often a neologism, commonly used in managerial, technical, administrative, and sometimes political environments. Are they not used more widely? Academia and social groups seem to have their own buzzwords too. Rintrah 14:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like something further giving the etymology and history of the term. The "buzz" is a meaningful part of the word. I remember a suggestion that one could replace "buzzwords" with actual "buzzing" without harming the semantic value/content of the sentences using the buzzwords... That has long been part of my tacit understanding of what a "buzzword" is... Does anyone remember this? Thanks, Emyth 16:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


isn't there "buzzphrase" used in a similar fashion? -- 13:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


If Dynamic is referring to things like Dynamic Shadows, Ligthing, etc. it means that the lighting is rendered in realtime as opposed to having the lighting and shadows precalculate beforehand. I wouldn't really consider that a buzzword if it's referring to what I'm talking about. (talk) 12:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Added "totallydisputed" tag[edit]

This article seems to be premised on the notion that "buzzword" is an inherently perjorative term, which I don't think is true. Moreover, I don't think that words have to have lost all meaning, or become vague, in order to have become buzzwords.—greenrd (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I came to this article thinking that a buzzword is first and foremost a keyword, but i couldn't find the string "key" in here. Strange. Reading this article, it seems a buzzword is pretty much anything you want it to be.
Also, no mention of its etymology or origin. wikt:buzzword has it, simple: "buzz" + "word", but not so simple when you go check out "buzz", especially that the relevant sense of the word is missing altogether there: "buzz" as gossip, rumour, or news. --Jerome Potts (talk) 07:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


Anyone else amused by the "This article or section appears to contain a large number of buzzwords" cleanup tag in the "Individual Examples" section of this article? (^^) *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 05:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is a disaster area. It's pretty sad. There's way more cleanup tags than necessary on this page. The buzzword tag on the examples section is just ridiculous. Can we please remove some of these; or if so insistent on keeping them then do something about them rather than incessantly restoring them? (Darthveda (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC))
I agree. I even added a comment saying "is this a joke?" near the buzzwords-tag at some point. Michał Kosmulski (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I was actually thinking quite the same thing, Vendetta. I first saw this tag just seconds ago, and wondered if maybe it did not belong on Uncyclopedia, or if it was someone's idea of a joke. Amusing, and cute, yes. But does it really belong there? Is it just a joke, or did someone actually mean that as something serious? (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of buzzword tag on examples[edit]

Please explain to me why this tag is necessary in a subsection of examples in an article that is entirely about buzzwords. It's redundant and looks like a joke. If it is indeed necessary, consider revising the section rather than just restoring the tag.(Darthveda (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC))

Proximate Cause[edit]

This is not a good example of a buzzword. "Proximate Cause" is a term of art which refers to a well defined concept with case law and rules to back it up. It is more like "jargon" as mentioned in this article, although "term of art" is more precise. Mrees1997 (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sentence structure change[edit]

Change from:

Buzzwords differ from jargon; the speaker tries to impress the listener with obscure meanings, while jargon (ideally) has a defined technical meaning. However, only if given to specialists; the advertising hyperbole written to sell new technologies often converts technical terms into buzzwords.

Proposed change to:

Buzzwords differ from jargon. With buzzwords, the speaker tries to impress the listener with obscure meanings. But jargon (ideally) has a defined technical meaning, if given to specialists. However, the advertising hyperbole written to sell new technologies often converts jargon and technical terms into buzzwords. Obankston (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

elaboration required[edit]

"Buzzwords differ from jargon in that jargon is esoteric but precisely defined terminology used for ease of communication between specialists in a given field, whereas a buzzword (which often develops from the appropriation of technical jargon) is often used in a more general way"...

How so? In a more general way how? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


I'd very much like to hear the justification behind "fun" being considered a buzzword. That's quite a depressing outlook. (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

No justification . Removed  Velella  Velella Talk   17:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Pure trolling/vandalism, with no justification for it. Removed repeatedly, resulting in the page now being (again) semi-protected. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 06:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Fun is a buzzword as, because one's fun of one thing is subjective you can not ever use fun as a objective reason to buy or justify something, and therefore fun is a buzzword. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

As an exercise in logic, that it is fatally flawed. Does that mean every subjective word is a Buzzword? Shucks, I've just run right out of Troll food.  Velella  Velella Talk   09:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually yes, ever subjective word is a buzzword. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Fun should be removed from the list of the examples of buzzwords, since its source does not mention fun whatsoever. The source is completely invalid and false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a joke from /v/, pay it no heed. -- (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Loss of original meaning[edit]

I think that a distinguishing characteristic of a buzzword is that it is overused to the point of having lost it's original meaning and weight. Here are just a few references from online to back that up. I think this characteristic should be added to the opening paragraph.

"Words like “creative”, “unique”, and “innovative” have lost their real meaning according to a study conducted by a career networking site, Linkedin." [1]

"Digiday once considered banning buzzwords from all quotes. Then we realized we’d have very few quotes. The industry is awash in terms that might have meant something at one point but since then have lost all meaning as they slid into jargon land." [2]

"When people overuse particular words and phrases, it really takes away from the original meaning, which could actually have been quite brilliant at some point, says Howard Richler, a language expert and author of Can I Have a Word With You?" [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)