Talk:Buzzword
|
|
| Contents |
Be in Wikitionary
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 origions, YADDAH YADDAH! So y'see!--OleMurder 21:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
WMDs
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)
Buzzwords are words that are abused and distorted. Half of those words actually have real meanings, but are thrown around by idiots. --68.48.28.191 14:59, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Why I listed WMD as a buzzword.
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 (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/realdeal.htm). --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)
No way!
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)
What is a terrorist?
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!
POV problem
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)