Talk:Technobabble

I'm troubled by the focus of this article on the use of jargon to obfuscated - I don't think it's at all the primary usage of the term. It seems to me primarily a disparagement of bad science fiction - something that is woefully undercovered in the article. Phil Sandifer 17:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't want to see the definition as 'jargon to obfuscate' removed, but feel free to prune it back, and expand on the literary usage. I understand technobabble to be a varient of psychobabble or eduspeak, but certainly other uses exist. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is on the wrong subject

"Technobabble" refers primarily to Science Fiction as Phil says above. Certainly that should be the focus of this article. In fact, are there any sources at all to support the definition here that is given as primary? I have placed the {{sources}} and {{accuracy}} tags on this page until these issues are addressed. -- SCZenz 06:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the accuracy of this, but I've heard the term originated (or was at least used) in the production of star trek, when writers would indicate long strings of science-sounding nonsense by just indicating 'technobabble' in the script, and one of the producers would make up some appropriate lines. I'm sure a trek fan would know.

The term itself definitely comes from science fiction - its relation to professional or technical language comes from the fact that, to the uninitiated, such language makes little or no sense, and might as well be about dilithium crystals or some other such technobabble. Jqam 07:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]