Talk:Jargon

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Timpickard. Peer reviewers: Sheasheas.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 7 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sbobrowsky126, Eg0264a. Peer reviewers: Mr0960a, Sophielina16, Dinara.bb, Sh5272a.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"causes communication failures," is undervalued here.
The concept: "causes misunderstanding or communication failures," is undervalued in the article.

I added "therefore misunderstanding the communication attempt.." to the Lead, which seems to be the only mention of that concept there. My above 3-year-old complaints largely still stands, —this article is an insult to the actual meaning, and to the dictionary definition cited, but selectively quoted and acknowledged.

https://www.webcitation.org/6FTtjox9D?url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jargon

Several have noted that "jargon" is often correctly used pejoratively. I believe one reason (other than it's definition,) is that while it can enhance communication, it can also cause costly communication failures. One can hope that the victim will either 1) recognize it as jargon, or 2) translate the jargon into gibberish, and therefore discard the faulty communication as trash. No harm done. But the danger is in (say;) sound-alike or crypto jargon that makes sense, but means something very differently. For example in Economics, "price," and "scarcity" often have only slight relationships to the lay meanings. That jargon is invisible to the reader. In that case, the victim may learn untruths, possibly dangerous if he is (say;) a voter...parent...planner...etc...

The topic here is effective communication, (+ and -). Almost the first rule in writing is to gear your product to the audience. To do otherwise is poor writing style. (I call it garbage and much worse.) That sense needs to be in the article, it's in phase with the real definition.

About the only downside to jargon according to the article is: "A side-effect of [using jargon] is a higher threshold for comprehensibility, which is usually accepted as a trade-off..."    "higher threshold for comprehensibility!!??" What bullshɨt. Wiki's glowing POV of "jargon" does not match the dictionary nor reality. What kind of writer(s) would do that? --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:48B1:FABE:6C83:FC2F (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Peer Review
The very first thing I noticed about the article - is that it is organized very nicely. Instead of having a bunch of text, which is completely unbroken up, you have many headers, splitting the chunks of text into separate sections and paragraphs, making it very easy for readers to read and navigate.

From the very beginning, it is very clear what the broad definition of jargon is, since you put it as the first, easy to read sentence and made it into a separate paragraph, so that it is an easily seen definition. In the second paragraph, when you start more deeply explaining what jargon is, talking about it in terms of context, I really like how you also briefly cleared up what specifically the "context" you were using was. Also, I like how you try to paraphrase the definition of jargon or how you try to put it in different words/summarizing the longer definition, which makes it much easier to understand the subject. Again, I'd like to point out that you visual organization of the article is very well thought of, with the contents box listing all the sections.

I would recommend adding more on the history of it, how it was used throughout time and in different years. Also, if it is used differently in people's speeches and in cinematography or literature, if used at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinara.bb (talk • contribs) 08:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Addition to Introduction
Hello all,

This is my first Wikipedia edit so please feel to give any feedback about my addition or if it would be better suited in another section of the article. I am doing this as part of an assignment for a college linguistics course so I am only doing a small edit with a citation. I am including a point made by G.F. Drake in which he supports the idea that jargon and slang are essentially the same, both serving as in-group out-group identifiers, the only difference being who uses them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timpickard (talk • contribs) 02:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Techinical of technology
give a word that has a specific meaning within a specific field of expertise 136.158.51.31 (talk) 23:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Desire to differentiate?
From the lead as of 12 Oct 2022:

I've templated this with Template:Dubious, linking here. I doubt that the source given (Drake, 1980) suffices for making such a statement in WP's voice: scientific jargon is for example much more about precision than a desire to differentiate between groups of people. I think we should attribute the statement or, depending on what the source (which is paywalled) says, modify it. --Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 19:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Relevant passage from Drake:

"This focus on lack of dignity leads Dumas and Lighter, as others have been led (e.g. Joos 196l), to urge a distinction between slang and jargon. The reason for this is that although jargon, i.e. professional terminology, is linguistically rather like slang, jargon is used by high status groups and does not convey a sense of rebellion or lack of dignity. I submit that when social psychological factors are taken into account, slang and jargon can be seen as the same behaviour fundamentally - that is, as divergence or convergence of individuals from one group to another."

It's basically just one linguist from 1980's personal take. There's nothing resembling scientific consensus here and the sentence in the article is bad WP:TONE anyway, removing.

Nickelpro (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Industry Theory and Practice
— Assignment last updated by MammothSunflower (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Technical and Professional Communication
— Assignment last updated by Savmanbanans (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Industry term
I plan to add some subsections to this area of the article. I want to add "law jargon" and "education jargon." Any thoughts? Any suggestions as to other professions with jargon that we could add to this article? OhHeckYeah (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Fine – go for it. On legal jargon, if you don't already know them, see Legal writing (esp. subsection Legalese), Legal English and Legal doublet. GrindtXX (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

"Bullshit" in related notes
Is that a suitable page to be linked? Somewhat humorous, yes, but not actually related and may give the wrong impression: Jargon just means niche language, not "bullshit". 118.148.87.147 (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Looks like it was added alone in this uncommented revision, going to delete it. 118.148.87.147 (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)