Talk:Backronym/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Re reliable source for defining backronym as a portmanteau word?

Requiring a "reliable source" for defining backronym as a portmanteau, Angr in his edit summary says:

"Does any reliable source call this a portmanteau? Or just Wikipedians who don't really know what that word means?"

What does Angr think a portmanteau is, what does he call a reliable source? Merriam-Webster defines a portmanteau " a word or morpheme whose form and meaning are derived from a blending of two or more distinct forms (as smog from smoke and fog)". Granted, M.-W. is a general dictionary and not a linguistic one, we must surely allow their definition?

Tom McArthur's Oxford Companion to the English Language mentions Lewis Carroll inventing such forms as slithy from slimy and lithe, and calling them portmanteau words. What other kind of word does Angr think "backronym" is, surely a blend of back and acronym and therefore a portmanteau. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dieter Simon (talk • contribs) 01:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the word portmanteau is that (following Carroll) it's used in a general sense as a synonym of what linguists call blend, while linguists use it only in a special case. There is a lot of discussions on this at Talk:Portmanteau word, with some people thinking that the use of "portmanteau" for blends was flawed from the get-go (notice how Carroll described his words as being like portmanteaux), and others replying that even so, general usage and its dictionaries do allow this meaning. (Currently the Portmanteau and Blend articles are to a large extent content forks.) Clearly, Angr is with the first crowd (maybe a linguist?). I can't say I fully agree with the inapplicability of "portmanteau", but I also don't see a reason not to use the more precise "blend" instead, so I'm changing to that and removing the fact tag. —JAO • T • C 05:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am happy with that. Many thanks, Jao. Dieter Simon (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's a portmanteau word. Frankly there is no logical basis for any sort of controversy on this matter, yes, backronym is a blend, but more specifically it is a prime example of a functional portmanteau, as it embodies a meaning that would be lost upon the reader if the root words were read separately. As with Spanglish or Spork, Backwards Acronym would be as contextually incoherent as an open compound word as "Spanish English" or "Spoon Fork" would. In accordance with this I have edited the article. 67.142.172.24 (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I've never heard such definition of "functional portmanteau." Can you point me to a paper or book that describes this notion of functional portmanteaus further? Thanks.

By the way, the word "blend" is a technical term in linguistics for a word that combines the form and meaning of two other words, much like what you call a functional portmanteau. See for example Algeo (1977) Blends, a structural and systematic view, American Speech; Cannon (1986) Blends in English word formation, Linguistics; and Kemmer (2003) Schemas and lexical blends, in the book Motivation in Language.

Portmanteau also has a technical definition in linguistics, but it is not what you describe. The word is usually used for a single function word that combines the function of two other words, such as aux in French. See for example Crystal (1985) A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Cnilep (talk) 13:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Changed to portmanteu because your argument is irrelavent. As you seem to be inventing your own language. . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.181.211.170 (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Changed to "portmanteu or blend" because both are the correct term for a word of this kind - the OED is pretty clear on this...Also the Princton library gives it as: "a new word formed by joining two others and combining their meanings" http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=portmanteau

S: (n) blend, portmanteau word, portmanteau (a new word formed by joining two others and combining their meanings) "`smog' is a blend of `smoke' and `fog'"; "`motel' is a portmanteau word made by combining `motor' and `hotel'"; "`brunch' is a well-known portmanteau"

The fact is that portmanteau is *specific* to language whilst 'blend' can mean the combining of anything (not just words)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.243.170 (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

While the WordNet source defines portmanteau, what we're looking for is a source that defines backronym as a portmanteau word. (By the way, WordNet lists portmanteau as a synonym both of blend and of Gladstone bag, contra your suggestion that it is specific to language.) Cnilep (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I've just checked several possible sources of etymology. No luck in dead-tree dictionaries. Neither OED nor Webster's 10th include backronym or bacronym. Online, Macmillan and Encarta both call it a blend; Wordsmith calls it a compound; and Word Spy offers a definition and early citations, but no etymology. Cnilep (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, the "pretty clear on this" OED defines the verb portmanteau as "trans. To combine (two or more ideas, proposals, etc.); to combine elements and meanings of (two or more words) to form a single word. Also intr." The noun has four senses: a kind of suitcase, and aide to the king, a mixture of ideas, or a clothing rack. Cnilep (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

What makes 'blaxploitation' a portmanteau and not a blend? Dadisrad (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Although no source has been found calling backronym a portmanteau, numerous editors have expressed a preference for that wording, citing their own preference or common sense (or citing nothing at all). I have therefore returned to April 2010 wording (by User:Hippo43) calling the word a "combination". I have also added parenthetical links to both portmanteau and blend. I'm not confident that this will satisfy all users, however, since I note that the wording was changed by User:Dshzzzt in May 2010. If current is not acceptable, then other language needs to be discussed on this page. Cnilep (talk) 01:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Do we need a reliable third-party source to verify that a word means what numerous dictionaries say it does? Do we need a second reliable third-party source to verify that the first third-party source verified the meaning in the dictionaries correctly? Do we then need a third reliable third-party source to verify the verification of the verification? Any response to this comment that does not provide verifiable citations (notarized, in triplicate) for its answers to the above questions will be ignored. Clement Cherlin (talk) 03:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Adding new backronyms

Unless there is some specific reason to add a new entry to a list, do not do so. These lists are supposed to give examples of backronyms. We're not aiming for an exhaustive list. (We've done that in the past, and the result was a list of minor backronyms that editors found funny. Let's get away from that temptation!) Phiwum (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

For examples, we've got one airline, one military, one computer/tech. The edit/revert history demonstrates interest, and of course everyone has her/his fave, but the list really doesn't need expansion in order to illustrate the principle. If there's an important category missing or one that's truly significant according to a WP:RS, that would be a reason. I'm against swapping FIAT for FORD, because the former is more interesting (in that it was an acronym to begin with). DavidOaks (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Fiat more interesting? Ford = First on Race day has been around for over 40 years, and was created buy the Ford Motor company. The Ford backronyms are well known worldwide, and have been documented, as shown by a small number of the multitude of references that have been brought already. I could hardly find a fraction of sources for Fiat's bacronyms. I did not know that this article belonged to any specific person or group, one of the principles on wikipedia is that no one owns any article. I have not been the only person who wants to add á few of the better known/documented backronyms for ford, so it seems that the "We" who is refered to above might not be in the majority. As I suggested on a similar article if "We" (The proverbial We who likes to think they are in charge while not taking responsibility) want to keep the list to a couple of examples then why not have a seperate page or even incorporating them into an already existing list such as List of acronyms and initialisms: N? I'm guessing that "we" want to keep the article as brief as possible, I did not know there was a space/length limitation on article, as seen from Wikipedia:Article size:

(Readability issues) Each Wikipedia article is in a process of evolution and is likely to continue growing. Other editors will add to articles when you are done with them. This is not a problem, because for most practical purposes, Wikipedia has unlimited storage space, but long articles may be more difficult to read and navigate.

An article longer than one or two pages when printed should be divided into sections to ease navigation (see the Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Layout for guidance). For most long articles, division into sections is natural anyway; but even if there is no "natural" way to split a long list or table, many editors believe that it should be done to allow easier navigation and per-section editing.

Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose. If an article is significantly longer than that, it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries (see Wikipedia:Summary style). One rule of thumb is to begin to split an article into smaller articles after the readable prose reaches 10 pages when printed. Articles that cover particularly technical subjects should, in general, be shorter than articles on less technical subjects. (What is and is not included as "readable prose") "Readable prose" is the main body of the text, excluding sections such as:

• Footnotes and reference sections ("see also", "external links", footnotes, bibliography, etc)
• Diagrams and images
• Tables and lists
• Wikilinks and external URLs
• Formatting and mark-up.

So I'm not exactly sure what the issue is.

Of course nobody own the article, and the fact that you get reverted when you ignore the comment at the section header, then insist on re-reverting, isn't evidence to the contrary. Issue is, there's no reasonable place to stop, and we've seen this expand before, until the subsection dominates the article. The encyclopedic function of this section is illustration of one use of backronyms, not an exhaustive list. If you think we should have a separate article listing all doc'd backronyms and acronyms, you should create it. Similar thing happened with the urban legend article, and happens as well with many "x in poular culture" sections. But if there's consensus for swapping FIAT for FORD, or for simply adding FORD, or for allowing the list to expand as it will, it'll happen. If one of these was coined by Ford itself, that's interesting -- but it wouldn't belong under jokes and pejorative meanings, rather under a new section we might develop -- promotional backronyms (I'm thinking of Arby's ("America's Roast Beef, yes sir") -- others? DavidOaks (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(Reply to DavidOaks) I tend to prefer Ford to FIAT, simply because the former backronym is, I think, very well known (though David's point about FIAT being an acronym is sensible as well). Unfortunately, I haven't any source saying that the Ford backronym is particularly popular, so I think we should leave FIAT in at this time, for the reasons David mentions.

In any case, we agree that the list shouldn't grow without exceptionally good reasons. I first put this page on my watchlist because it was an out-of-control mess, with new (uncited) entries regularly popping up. Phiwum (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, seems reasonable. As I said before, "First on Race Day" can't go under "jokes" because it's praise, not disparagement (though "Found on Road Derelict" can) It belongs under an as-yet unrealized "promotional" heading. FIAT remains interesting, especially if we're trying to avoid too much North American centrism (tho' the backronym's in English!) DavidOaks (talk) 05:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Now, if "First on Race Day" can be authenticated as Ford-created, and sent to a new section on promotional backronyms, this diff[1] shows that there can be parapdies of backroymsn themselves. DavidOaks (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's one for the jokes section that I heard about Holden, which is Australia's GM branch. Heaps Of Loud, Disturbing Engine Noises. (There's a bitter rivalry between Holden and Ford Australia) If the answer is no, that's fine, I just thought something with more than five letters would be nice. Dunnybrusher (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2010 (AEST)

For example it would seem to me reasonable to add one if it actually expanded the scope of the section. Right now the backronyms are exclusively English; should we add IKEA ("Idioten Kaufen Einfach Alles" = "stupid people buy everything"); it gets over 100K googlehits, indicating it's widespread; the first site I find that comes close to [[WP:RS][2] is a blog, but a language-club blog would be -- IMO -- reliable for a matter of language. DavidOaks (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a "List of retronyms" page (at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_retronyms); why not add a separate "List of Backronyms" page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halcabes (talk • contribs) 06:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

jokes and pejorative meanings

I have put in a hidden comment requesting that people not add to the list here (expecially uncited items) without discussing it first. There's a strong tendency for people to add their favorites (which tend towards cars and airlines), turning the section into a joke-collection rather than an illustration in balance with the larger topic. DavidOaks (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this particular piece about joke collection? Since it's jokes and pejoratives? I added an alternate for FORD which was "the" definition in my elementary school. There is no citation. And the citation used for Fix Or.. seems slim at best. Does this mean this counts? http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=F.O.R.D.

Anyhoo, I'm not angry, just nervous at my first participation. I get that if every single hometown ford backronym were added it might be a tad distracting from the larger topic. Just curious how that scope is regulated. I suppose by these discussions? - first entry into discussion on wikipedia EVR, srsly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.191.195 (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If it's not cited, it should be deleted. The "jokes" section is a special case, since it attracts lots and lots of uncited contributions, and could easily overbalance the article. WP:Be Bold. Best, DavidOaks (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

so where is this consensus you keep referring back to that states that items should be discussed first prior to adding to the page? I only see YOUR comment that dictates it, that alone doesnt make a consensus. TomNativeNewYorker (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I advised people to get consensus before adding items to this list. To get an understanding of consensus, start with some policy statements: WP:BRD. Now have a look at WP:Trivia and " Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" under WP:WPNOT. WP:Undue is also useful here. What it comes down to is this: stuff gets added, stuff gets edited, conflicts arise, conflicts must be resolved by discussion, with the burden of getting consenus for worthiness/appropriateness of inclusion, notability, proper weight, good citation on the one who wants to add. Example: the article on Urban legend was developing a list of urban legends with wikipedia articles. The list started to overshadow the article. It was cut, with the suggestion that interested parties might create a separate page for such a list. Anyone who thinks Wikipedia should have a list including large numbers of joke backronyms should do so. Anyone who thinks that this article is the place to do it should initiate that conversation. It should not happen until such a conversation has taken place and consenus has been reached. DavidOaks (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a great place to have items listed. Other than you claiming it shouldnt be I do not see any other reason why NOT to list them. You are the one that wants to dictate policy on what should be added and how many should be listed. Reverting good faith edits is not creating any consensus, nor is your 'hidden comment' really something that is something an editor is required to comply with just because 'you say so'.TomNativeNewYorker (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

This is an article about backronyms, not a list of examples. Each section should have a couple of representative examples, with reliable sources, for all the reasons explained above by DavidOaks. There has long been a consensus here about that - take a look back through the article history and talk page. Likewise there is broad consensus across wikipedia that articles about X do not become tedious lists of unreferenced examples of X. --hippo43 (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

As the pachyderm says, DavidOaks's work is not controversial here. This page was an awful mess at one time, growing out of control with uncited jokes — many made up that very day. Keeping these lists in check is a good thing. We illustrate the terminology without allowing the page to revert to its previous, unencyclopedic state. Phiwum (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely with that.Dieter Simon (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

FILA (Finally, I Left Adidas) is widely known. I sourced it properly. Why can't I add it?

We can have FIAT and NASA but not shoes? We can speak of Adidas but not FILA? LizFL (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no rule about shoes here. It's simply that the lists are supposed to be illustrative, not complete. We want to give a small handful of examples of, say, humorous backronyms. If you'll check the ancient history of this page, you'll see that these lists tend to grow without bound — if we add FILA today, then tomorrow, another dozen backronyms will be suggested, each just as notable as FILA. (As well, I'm not sure that abbreviations.com counts as a reliable source here.) Phiwum (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Given the nature of the subject matter under discussion (pejorative abbreviations), to expect anything more "scholarly" would be somewhat impractical.

And since when does the opinions of two people make "consensus"? Since you, David, and your ilk appear to have deemed the article "complete", why don't you go ahead and lock it if no further contributions are necessary (in your opinion)?LizFL (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Liz, no one is saying the article is complete or that no further contributions are necessary, but these sections are not intended as exhaustive lists. If there is a good reason to include say, FILA, over one of the current backronyms listed, we should discuss it here. Likewise if a new backronym emerges and becomes very well-known, it might be appropriate to insert it at the expense of a current example. The point is, discuss it here first - some regular editors here have, with good reason, got into the habit of quickly removing new entries unless they're especially notable. --hippo43 (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Liz-- the good suggestion has already been made that a page be started for a list of humorous backronyms. This section could be expanded if there is good reason to add. But the reason needs to be stated, and gain some support. For instance, demonstrating that humorous backronyms occur outside of English would be a reason -- I made the suggestion on behalf of a backronym someone wanted to add, but no one chose to discuss it, so, lacking consensus, I did not add it. Similarly, I suggested creating a section on corporate-sponsored backronyms, to accommodate another editor who had one s/he wanted to add. Again, no discussion, no consenus, no expansion. DavidOaks (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The reason also is that this is an encyclopaedia and not a publication that specialises in lists. Lists, as they appear, are there to make a point about the general background of an article, to give an example or two of what it being explained in the article, not to create inexhaustible lists of examples. The trouble is that these tend to be open lists that can be added to ad infinitum. If they were closed lists, that is lists with a finite possibility of numbers of examples, that might actually be valuable, because then a list would give the full range of items that fall within the aticle's scope. However that is not the case here.

So let it be lists with just a few examples to give a flavour of what we are getting at in the article, namely what a backronym is. I agree wih both DavidOaks, Phiwum and hippo43 in this. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, not just both but all three, including hippo43. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You've just allowed Delta on the page. You permitted NAVY with no more citation than Norwich University's alumni home page. If the whole exercise is to show current usage, I have done so on both counts (complete with citations).

As to why I think it should be included -- it's much more common knowledge than the alleged backronyms for NAVY and Delta. Explain to me why Norwich University's alumni page is a "reliable source" but a hip-hop blog is not (And furthermore, why allow dictionary.com to be cited while disallowing answers.com? Your standards of evidence are so high they're bordering on ridiculous!)

What constitutes a "reliable source"? I would hardly consider one article on a university's alumni web page "common usage".

If submissions are allegedly closed, why admit Delta? LizFL (talk) 10:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

When was it "admitted"? What you're being asked for is a good reason why your addition represents additional insight into the range of humorous/joke/pejorative backronyms. For instance, NAVY was included after a lot of discussion, on the rationale that the military is a field highly productive of backronyms and represents a big field of human endeavor. I don't see that shoes rise to the same standard (though a backronym on shoes and based in a langage other than English might win consensus). I have been trying to help various proposers with rationale, examples and sources, and it would be nice if we could discuss those. And which ones have only acronyms.com or answers.com as sources? Good eye. These should indeed be tagged for better sourcing. DavidOaks (talk) 12:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I speak of "Delta" (Revision as of 23:33, 20 April 2010)

You still haven't answered my question -- why is a single article on a university alumni homepage (NAVY) considered a "reliable source" but a hip-hop blog is not?

What's the point of having standards if they're not going to be applied consistently? LizFL (talk) 12:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"Delta" has been there a long time. See if you can post the diff, and we could discuss the reasons for the original posting. At one point we had a lot of airlines; "Delta" survived. If you have rationale for a better choice, bring it forward. If you have an argument why airlines should be deleted as a category, bring it forward. I don't see that anybody faulted your source, at least as evidence that the term is in circulation; If you think shoes need to be added as a subject area, make the case. NAVY was added after long insistence by someone who was more persistent about getting it included than about sourcing it. I worked hard to find that source when s/he couldn't be bothered, so if you think it should be deleted on grounds of source, get consensus and do so. DavidOaks (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Is THIS how "consensus" is reached? Edit war the thing to death and see who gets tired first?

If that's the only reason it's there, I say we kill NAVY (A single article on a university alumini homepage can hardly be considered a "reliable source". The term wouldn't seem to be in common usage.) LizFL (talk) 13:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. However, there was more to it than that (look above). See what others think as well. DavidOaks (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

[ec]Please both take a step back and look at what you're arguing over. It's not that important.

There is broad consensus that these lists should have a handful of illustrative examples which are actually used, rather than just made up by someone with time on their hands so they can be added to a big list somewhere on the internet. Whether it's 4, 5 or 6 examples in this list, I'm not too fussy. If you want to add others, and are reverted (per WP:BRD) then you need to discuss them to gain consensus.

That said, there is consensus across wikipedia that material be verifiable in a reliable source, so there's no reason to include examples which aren;t or be lax in applying that policy. I think trying to construct detailed rationales for why certain categories should be included in this section is maybe going a bit too far.

I'm not crazy about "Navy", and would support removing it. --hippo43 (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Liz and others here. If NAVY is unsourced, then let's remove it. In fact, I've done so just now. Phiwum (talk) 13:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't like things being "grandfathered" in. I don't like sacred cows. What's the point of having standards if they're not going to be enforced?

Thanks, Phiwum. I'm willing to give up FILA if it will make for a more consistent policy. I apologize for any trouble I may have caused. LizFL (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand this is not intended to be an exhaustive list. I also feel that examples should show a wide range of types. I agree that some backronyms are used as alternatives (perjoritave or otherwise) for things which started out as abbreviations or acronyms in the first place (such as FIAT). I would propose the entry of PCMCIA = People Can't Memorise Computer Industry Acronyms. It encapsulates the idea of someone taking a word/abbreviation whose meaning is quite opaque and trying to think "what *might* it mean?". The fact that it is also self-referential is no coincidence, PCMCIA was not an abbreviation many could recall, and was later replaced in consumer circles with the easier "PC Card". If the issue of already having a tech entry of ISDN is a blocker, I would argue that the ISDN one is much less well known and does not embody the concept of a backronym in quite the same way.ASVero (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I would second the suggestion to use PCMCIA (Personal Computer Memory Card International Association), which no one could remember giving rise to its alternative meaning, "People Can't Memorize Computer Industry Acronyms." This is very a very well known backronym, and, as has already been said, is a good example of someone reverse engineering the original acronym to provide a humorous alternative meaning. I suggest that this well-known example be provided in place of the much-less well known ARBYS example that is provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.193.128 (talk) 04:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

References

The NASA RADAR reference link from The Internet Archive is broken. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 06:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Propose new section, notes on Jokes & Pejoratives section

Here’s a proposed new section:

(Promotional) Commercial firms and other organizations have formed backronyms to match their brand names. For example, Arbys was originally “RB’s” said to stand either for “roast beef” or “Raffel brothers” (a reference to the founders; an adverstising campaign in the 1970s gave its meaning as “America’s Roast Beef, Yes Sir!”[3] In other cases, firms have been forced to create alternative backronyms when the original encountered legal challenges, as when TCBY: Initially, the company's name was "This Can't Be Yogurt", but a lawsuit from a competitor named "I Can't Believe It's Yogurt!" forced TCBY to create a new backronym for its initials, “The Country’s Best Yogurt.”

I’ve searched hard, and can certainly document the currency of FORD = “First on Race Day”[4] but I have not been able to find any WP:RS claiming it originated with FOMOCO itself. “Found on Road Dead” gets clear documentation for currency [5]; the question is whether people want to add this, to replace an existing car-backronym with it, or what.

I would like to add as well the note that jokes and pejorative meanings exist outside of English: IKEA=Idioten Kaufen Einfach Alles (“Idiots will buy just about anything”)[6]DavidOaks (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm in favor of it. If we can properly source the things, go ahead. LizFL (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I like both the proposal for a new section and the addition of "Found on Road Dead". I've always thought that bacronym is one of the most common. As I recall, we recently removed an uncited bacronym from the jokes section, so why not just add this (rather than replace an existing one)? Phiwum (talk) 11:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, followed through. I think an additional foreign-language example would be good, provided it can be sourced. DavidOaks (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the section on brand names for now - TCBY is not a backronym, as it's not an acronym. The source does not claim it is a backronym. As a result, there's only one example left (Arby's) so I've moved it to the jokes section - the source says it was only briefly an advertising slogan.

I also removed IKEA - this isn't a reliable source. I may have misunderstood but thought we had consensus that we would include examples if reliable sources said they were in wide circulation. The fact that someone with access to the interent used it as a joke doesn't mean we should include it.

I think these sections could both be good additions - I've no objection at all to either if there are reliably-sourced examples, and more than just one. --hippo43 (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

These additions were discussed; won't rv -- let's discuss some more. You deleted the section that acknowledged that neither acronyms nor backronyms need be pronounceable words, then deleted the item because it isn't a pronounceable word (I'm guessing; rationale wasn't fully explicit). Let's figure out what the standard is for notability on linguistic items. "idioten kaufen einfach alles" gets 90K google hits, and is sourced to a language blog. What do we want? Work with us here, Hippo. DavidOaks (talk) 01:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I am working with you. There was only a short discussion with a couple of editors, which I hadn't been able to take part in, before you acted. As I said, I don't have any problem at all with a section on brand names, if they are reliably sourced and there are a few examples. Likewise I have no problem with non-English examples being included - maybe even a short section if there are a few referenced examples. What was the language site IKEA was referenced in?

I took out some of the generalising about how/why backronyms are formed because it was unsourced. I took out the section on non-pronounceable words because it wasn't reliably sourced, and is contradicted by more credible sources - for example, askoxford.com. As a result, I removed TCBY - it's not a backronym, and the source didn't say it was. I just think we need to be careful here - editors have often added small details one by one, each of which is fairly plausible and harmless, then after a while the article starts to look like a bunch of unsourced assumptions. --hippo43 (talk) 11:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

So here are two references from the acronym article that tell us the distinction between acronym and initialism isn't exactly watertight And one more time -- we have a language-blog, and I would consider that a reliable source for the existence of a speech item, especially when backed up by 90K google hits to indicate breadth of distribution. I think IKEA should go back in, and the "promotional" section should be restored. What do others think? DavidOaks (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources used at another article aren't much use if they're not cited here. If there are different (sourced) definitions of backronym, we should include them in this article.

And one more time, what language blog? I might be missing something, but I don't know what source you mean. --hippo43 (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's a blog from a German association in Indianapolis[7] Here's a school publication that documents it using that same organization[8] Then there's an image here[9] Really not sure what's wanted, since the question of what constitutes a WP:RS for the existence or wide distribution of a phrase has still not gotten an answer. It could be a case of WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. As to the other, I would have thought that the relevance of a definition of "acronym" to "backronym" would be evident, as the one is a subset of the other. DavidOaks (talk) 01:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You said "a language blog" - I assumed you meant a blog by someone respected, writing on the subject of language. In reality it's a German social club's website - not quite a language blog. You're right, though, we doo need to decide what is a reliable source here. Are examples of usage enough?

On the definition, it's not good scholarship for us to use sources for the definition of 'acronym' then extrapolate about backronyms. There are enough sources which specifically define what a backronym is. Backronyms are not quite a subset of acronyms, as not all backronyms are actually acronyms (Kiss, Cop, Ford etc, for example). --hippo43 (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Not sure of your point -- we need a SEPARATE definition of backronym that acknowledges that linguists do not require them to be pronounceable words (i.e., are not entirely distinct from other initialisms), as is the case for acronyms? Seems to me legalistic, an obstruction that impedes progress without enhancing precision. DavidOaks (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you're over-complicating things. If we are to include a definition of 'backronym', it should be referenced to a source which defines 'backronym' specifically. --hippo43 (talk) 12:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I feel similarly -- we seem to be limiting backronyms to pronounceable words, because the very few definitions of this new term do so (as a matter of oversight rather than conscious distinction, as far as I can tell) while at the same time these specific definitions link the term to acronym, which is NOT limited by all experts to pronounceable words, but embraces initialisms as well. Upshot: backronyms which are not words pronounceable in English should be admitted to the fold (BTW, it's a stupid exclusion anyhow -- there are plenty of perfectly respectable "words" in plenty of languages (let's say just for instance Polish and !Xhosa) which violate English syllable type rules). DavidOaks (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that (according to sources) a backronym needn't be a pronounceable word. The definition of acronym does not dictate the definition of backronym - the word backronym was obviously coined because it sounds like acronym, but it doesn't follow that the same basic definition applies to both. Go with what reliable sources use as a definition of backronym. Ask Oxford, for example, says "this term refers to either an alternative explanation created for an existing acronym [which it defines as "words that are formed from the first letters of other words"] or to an acronym-type 'explanation' of an ordinary word, often with a humorous intent." --hippo43 (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Hippo here. In my experience, backronyms are alternative etymologies for words, and every example I've seen has been pronounceable. This is just my personal experience and not worth much, but I'd like to see a good source for any claim to the alternative if we're to change the article. Phiwum (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC):::::What I'm not hearing from the WP:RS advanced is a bright-line rule excluding initialisms not corresponding to English language syllable types, eg, TCBY...from a linguistic point of view, I would find it strange if that were the case. DavidOaks (talk) 19:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

For me, it is simple. How do good-quality reliable sources define 'backronym'? If a source defines it in terms of an 'acronym', what definition of acronym is that source using?

We cannot read source A which says a backronym is a bit like an acronym, then go to source B or C to find out how they define an acronym, without synthesising a new definition. --hippo43 (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Flat Hat Club

I’ve added Flat Hat Club to “Examples”, as this is a notable early example (18th century); in this case the reason for a backronym is both humor and the fact that the official acronym was secret (a secret Latin motto), which illustrates another purpose for backronyms as well.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 23:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Jokes and Pejorative Suggestions

I don't recall where I heard it or how popular the pejorative acronym for (SPAM: Synthetically Processed Alternative Meat) is, but It is a very good example of a joke backronym. Carbide20 (talk) 09:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

err, SPAM *is* a portmanteau of "Spiced Ham" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.243.170 (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Example cleanup

Several editors have mentioned, above, that the examples on the page should be illustrative, not exhaustive. I don't regularly contribute to this page, but I would suggest that regular editors decide on a short list of examples - perhaps 3-5 backronyms and another 3-5 false acronyms - and remove or consolidate the other sub-lists (Education, 12 Step, Jokes). Cnilep (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Three more "good examples" have been added in the past week. I'll pare the list myself. Cnilep (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. I've rewritten the examples in prose since I feel (though have no evidence to suggest) that this will invite fewer new examples. I also found a way to allude to the F-word without mentioning it, for our more squeamish readers. Cnilep (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a good job in my view. It manages to provide illustrative examples without bombarding the reader with countless pointless and poorly referenced examples. I agree that prose probably deters the insertion of more examples than a simple list but conversely prose becomes unwieldy far faster - I suppose we'll have to wait and see what happens.

Of course, the problem with things like this is always deterring the "just one more..." contingent (provided that that one more is their pet example) so that will need aggressive monitoring to keep it in check. I find myself reminded of the seemingly endless names for a USB flash drive. In the end everyone got so tired of that one the article acknowledges that one name and any others get bounced out straight away. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

F-word not needed

I understand fully that Wikipedia Isn't Censored, but this is really ridiculous.

It seems that, at every chance people get, someone puts the F-word, or a link to sex, or a link to reproduction, or some other sexual content every time they can. They stuff it into the most unnecessary places JUST beceuse they can. I am not learning anything about Backronyms by reading claims that the F-word was rumored to mean "this" when it actually ahs etymology from "that", and does not mean "this". Shouldn't such data be on the F-word's article?

Another example would be on the Hand Gestures section. Without any educational requirement, someone HAD to put a symbol on there that meant sex in one culture, JUST so they could have something edgy and controversial on there. The even linked to the sex it meant by doing that gesture. Who benefits from that? I know that Wikipedia Isn't Censored and Wikipedia is Not Your Grandma's Paper Encyclopedia, but it's ludicrous when someone places a link to sex and a reference therein on EVERY page they can even remotely carve an excuse for.

When someone tries to remove it, they are reprimended and reverted because Wikipedia Isn't Censored. There is no educational, encyclopedic, or any value for placing the F-word here outside of shock value, and there is no reason to keep it on there.

Why can't we just remove the F-word from this article? It has no value to the article. Do the same on Hand Gestures.

--99.157.108.248 (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You do realize that the book was actually called The F-Word? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.98.242 (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Backronym is not a dictionary word

Backronym is not a real dictionary word. More like jargon or slang. The article should specify this. JettaMann (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The F-Word added and removed

Hi. I added the "f-word" as another exmaple of an backronym and it was deleted. However the user who deleted it (citing that some found it offensive) invited me to state my case here. Let me start off by saying that I don't particularly care about whether the word is included or not, so if it is felt that it is better not to include it, I am fine with that.

So why did I add it? I added it because it was/ is a natural extension of the reference to the book called The F-Word and IS the reason for the book being called that. Secondly, I hesitated about using the f-word itself and was going to leave my addition mentioning f-word instead of spelling the obvious. But then I saw that there is a whole VERY lengthy article on the word fuck - with even a mention to its alleged origin (backronym). On furher analysis, I see that there are 6,076 articles (or sections of articles) in the Wikipedia containing the word fuck. Either way, no problem. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This is what I had added: "The f-word (fuck) is itself an example of backronym, falsely attributed to a supposed old English law that required permission from the king to engage in sex, the word in the event, standing for Fornicating Under the Consent of the King." Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Between acronym and backronym

There is a class of abbreviations not covered by this article: what if the abbreviation and it's meaning are created at the same time? So the words are chosen both to make sense, and to make the "acronym" sound nicely. It is quite common practice in case of the scientific experiments, for example LHC Alice stands for A Large Ion Collider Experiment, ATLAS is A Toroidal LHC ApparatuS, etc. etc. Is is acronym or backronym? 83.31.183.78 (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There is some talk about this at Acronym and initialism#Historical and current use, but I know of no commonly used term for the phenomenon other than simply "acronym". Cnilep (talk) 01:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

New unsourced examples

An IP user (72.10.20.13) recently added JAK protein > Just Another Kinase as an example of a false acronym. User:Dieter Simon helpfully formatted the new user's internal link to Janus kinase.

I removed the example and noted in my edit summary, "Please cite a reliable source for all additions. Wikipedia is not a reliable source."

Dieter Simon reversed my removal, noting "That isn't the point/ Request citation is the point". (Presumably "that" refers to my assertion that WP is not a reliable source?)

As you can see above, there has been discussion and (I believe) consensus to limit the number of examples of backronyms and false acronyms on this page. To that end, I tend to remove unsourced new examples, as these lack verifiability and evidence of notability. I will not start an edit war over this, but suggest that the new example should be removed or else shown to be more notable than other examples, lest the page be over run with (as Crispmuncher put it above) "just one more". Cnilep (talk) 02:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Cnilep, I do take your point. I have done before, as you have done and reverted/removed an unverified item, however I do ask the contributor to reenter with sources that justify the inclusions in the article. The above problem wasn't so much one of notability as the fact that he/she got it wrong by linking it wrongly as if to an exterior source, when all they had to do was to link it as a blue link to the existing Wiki article in question. Purely a matter of convenience, that is what linkages are for. Now, I must admit I don't know much about "kinase", all I was intent on was for womeone who knows more about it to supply the missing sources (if they exist). If you, however, think the link was totally irrelevant/non-notable in relation to the subject "backronym", then go ahead and revert. Maybe an explanation why you think it is not notable might help. As for my part I am sorry I didn't explain well enough. Dieter Simon (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that we need to say the JAK usage is "totally irrelevant/non-notable" to conclude that it is unwarranted on this page. There were, until last summer, dozens of examples which may have been relevant and/or notable to some degree, but there were also several editors (myself included) suggesting that a laundry list of examples was not necessary or helpful to explaining the topic. I am of the opinion that the current small list of examples (that is, without JAK), presented in prose, is sufficient and preferable. Other editors may disagree, in which case we should discuss some standard for inclusion. Cnilep (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good point. I looked at it from a different viewpoint. However, you are right, this is type of list that can get out of hand and your original decision was the right one. The edits can become too non-notable.

There is, of course, a further aspect here: that of emotive language such as the example here "...cynically claimed to mean 'Just another kinase... As per WP:WTW, that just isn't encyclopaedic. So, you have another reason to revert it. Good luck. Dieter Simon (talk) 01:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4