Talk:Jargon

Languages Stub‑class

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages 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.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Recent expansion

Spinoza1111 06:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)Edward G. Nilges expanded the article with a discussion of recent evolution in the use of the word "jargon": hopefully NPOV: please review, correct and comment as you see fit.[reply]

Concur, too verbose. Starts off well enough, then gets into guild jargon without a mention of the other possible meanings of jargon.

This page is too verbose

It would help if someone shortened the definition in the intro so that it wasn't so verbose, and then followed up with some specific examples.

There is also a secret society named The Secret Society of Jargon.

I found this page VERY interesting and useful. Thank you to whoever made it. Leave it as it is and shut up

Somebody PLEASE edit this article for brevity and clarity. As a casual reader I found it to be obnoxiously prolix. Seems like it was written by a grad student in lit. analysis for the benefit of peers, and not for "hoi polloi". ;-)

I agree. This article needs headings to define the different areas on the page. It also looks like some of this is out of scope for this article, and could be moved/removed, but I don't have enough time to deal with this now. I've put up the needed tags, and I'll try and get back here later to edit and fix it up myself. --CalPaterson

It's very difficult writing to read. It's just so *thick*. I've tried to clean it up some and put the more readable and relevant stuff up-front, but I'm afraid that trying to wrap my head around the text screwed me up a bit. It seems to me that there should be definition, popular usage, history, and some domain-specific examples. The examples should be computer jargon and military jargon, and possibly sports jargon, which are the usages which are most common, and most in line with most definitions (and meanings) of the word jargon. And a section of criticism, namely The Jargon of Authenticity. Additionally, I think it may well have actually been some student's essay. Why else would no time have been spent on wikification? Seems like it was just cut and pasted from some essay. --Flata 01:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It lacks the wikipedian style, and is not, as far as I judge it, an encyclopedic article worthy. However, the topic has a good potential, and I suggest a rewrite from scratch -- that's often less work than formatting already written texts. --vidar lo 19:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at several summaries for the book mentioned in the introduction...I'd like to find another source, something else we can mention. The Jargon of Authenticity appears to adress in general terms his issues with the jargon of certain German existentialists, and it's thicker and drier than...something thick and dry :) I'm going to head to the library and see what I can dig up Tenebrous 07:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this needs a great deal of help. However, I'm not so sure that breaking the article down according to specific categories of jargon is necessarily the best idea. There could potentially be thousands of different subcategories of jargon, and would quickly lead to serious article bloat. -- IronSheep 03:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O dear. May I inquire why this article is repeating itself in a seemingly circular pattern when looked from the eye of one not familiar with the subject?!

Wow. A wikipedia page using jargon to explain jargon. See the part on "uses of jargon". Some terms there that I have never seen before. Also, it's never a good sign when I see a big portion of a wikipedia page missing wiki-links. 165.230.132.122 18:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, too verbose. Starts off well enough, then gets into guild jargon without a mention of the other possible meanings of jargon. I noticed the circular pattern as well, but wasn't sure if it was just my lack of reading comprehension or indeed the author's handling of the subject.

Wikipedia:Jargon?

Is there a Wikipedia guideline about jargon or overly technical language in articles? --zandperl 02:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Jdkkp (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External Link Suggestion

I have read on the following page Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided that commercial sites are generally not linked to (but can be proposed on the discussion page). I understand and in most cases would support this because users of Wikipedia do not want to wade through adverts, but rather have access to good definitions and articles. Therefore, I unashamedly propose the following external link http://www.coza-web.co.za/blog003.htm on not only this page, but also the web design page. Yes, it is my commercial website, but the content is relevant and helpful to the user. And ultimately, the user is what Wikipedia is for. --cozaweb

Just adding links adds little value to the encyclopedia, and most of this content already exists. If there are terms that you think should be in the encyclopedia, feel free to add them to Computer jargon or List of computing and IT abbreviations or other related articles. --mtz206 (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the Word

What is the origin of the word "jargon"? According to the language game page, "Jargon" is a language game in French; it involves replacing vowels with groups of letters ("o" becomes "odogo" and so on). So maybe the general term "jargon" in English derives from the French language game? Hugo Dufort 01:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

slang

Jargon isn't much like slang. The latter is informal.

Good point about slang...jargon is an attempt at a step above - its "unintentional intention," (or maybe that should be stated as "subliminal intention") is to support or elevate the speaker and his/her authority even when they may not be saying anything definitive or worthwhile....As a friend put it "jargon gives you a way to say something, without saying anything..."

In this Wiki article, I wonder if the difference between "terminology" and "jargon" could be further defined. Engr105th 05:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

+

this is very good page :) Nasz 07:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lets keep this page as it is-it is well written. If one alredy knows what jargon is, then they get that the article is a joke about jargon. If someone does not know what jargon is, they should not be looking it up in an encyclopedia so much as a dictionary.

Rework

I removed two dead links (one was an article that was deleted), I added a dictionary definition of "Jargon" rather than the un-sourced opening line, and tried to re-organize and NPOV the article.

There is still a lot of original research on this page. I added a reference section and added a dictionary citation. More work needs to be done though- the page reads a little bit like an anti-jargon polemic. *shrug* I will put it on my watch list to see how it proceeds.Alex Jackl 13:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section on the Jargon of Authenticity. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs in a separate article on Adorno's book. —johndburger 00:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edits

I reordered the sections a little to have the article flow in a more Wiki-manner. I had the "Uses of Jargon" and what it is before the "Pitfalls". I also renamed the section on pitfalls as such instead of "Social Uses" since Jargon both good and bad is a social use. As always happy to discuss any of these... Alex Jackl 18:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watch your language

Is there no Language project? I'm shocked... TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 05:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Watch your language

~~Is there no Language project? I'm shocked... TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 05:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Found it... TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 05:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is only one meaning of "jargon"

It also means "obscure or pretentious language," according to Miriam-Webster. Is it possible to find a term for this concept without the pejorative implication? -- SCZenz (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about technical terminology ... ? It seems to mean the same thing, as far as I can tell. I propose to merge there, for the reason given above. -- SCZenz (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intra-wiki-links

Arguing against changes which eliminate Jargon as an independent article:

This article should not be merged or deleted; although elements of the text may be better presented, understood or evaluated in the context of some other related article. The thrust of this article may need to be reconfigured; and I've been persuaded that SCZenz's point-of-view is well-informed ... but that doesn't mean doing away with jargon entirely. --Tenmei (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't proposing any solutions here. You aren't really even explaining why we should keep an article at this title; the fact that the term "jargon" is misused on other pages, and is misused on other Wikipedias and/or means something different in other languages, is not a good guide for what we should do here. -- SCZenz (talk) 07:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Merge

Certainly in computing/programming/hacking circles 'jargon' (aka The Lexicon/The Jargon File) is NOT the same as 'technical terminology' (what you'd get in an A-Z of Computing). Each has it's own vocabulary, usages and community of speakers.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jargon_File http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/index.html (particularly, http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/distinctions.html) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.232.250.50 (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality tag

"Jargon" is a term that is often understood to be pejorative. Until jargon is either a balanced article that encompasses this meaning, or redirects to a less non-judgemental term like terminology or technical terminology, I dispute its neutrality. -- SCZenz (talk) 07:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't entirely understand SCZenz's point-of-view, but I grasp enough of a point to respect the issue which has been put forward. Obviously, I don't have an appreciation of what kinds of steps will move this thread towards resolution, but I don't accept that it should be cursorily concluded without further development -- ergo my revert of AJackl's removal of that disputed neutrality tag. --Tenmei (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]