Talk:Backronym

Requested move 5 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 20:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

---

Backronym → Backformed acronym – The backformed acronym is a point of serious interest in academic disciplines studying languages. This page with its silly title should just be moved so it appears as a serious encyclopedia article, and the picture of the comedian should be either added in a popular culture section or removed altogether. We have examples in Ancient Greek and Latin of this (see for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christogram#IHS) we should use one of those as example. The backformed acronym is a much older phenomenon than some 21st-century comedians. 78.156.126.230 (talk) 11:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• oppose - this is a commonly used term in the world, as compared to an equivalent but specialized academic term. We don't care whether this article looks "serious" to somebody, only whether it's useful to readers. However, this article should make note of "backformed acronym" usage. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Following up on the above comment, I can't find much in the way of serous sources that actually use the term "backformed acronym". Maybe the IP who requested it is just trolling us. Either way, I'd say concensus is reached and somebody should close this. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Clear common name, whether you think it sounds silly or not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Common name, obviously. Proposer hasn't provided any support for their claims that "backformed acronym is a point of serious interest..." --hippo43 (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

And IHS isn't even an acronym. --hippo43 (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, per WP:COMMONAME and WP:JARGON. See also WP:SSF; we're not going to change familiar terms to long-winded technical versions just to make specialists happy. We should probably consider de-jaronizing a lot of medical articles' titles, too. Like, whyTF is the article at Thrombus, a word probably less that 0.001% of our readers are familiar with, instead of Blood clot?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

MOS cleanup

Would anyone object to cleaning up the lead along the MOS:ACRO guideline: "Do not apply italics, boldfacing, underlining, or other highlighting to the letters in the expansion of an acronym that correspond to the letters in the acronym." The examples are pretty straightforward. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Nope. :) - FlightTime (open channel) 19:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

No objection here, either - go for it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Is something a backronym if a specific word was not intended?

I've seen a number of invented acronyms which don't strike me as fitting the definition of a backronym. A backronym, as I understand it, means it was invented to spell out a particular word. What I've seen more often, in the context of spacecraft and scientific instruments on them, is a deliberate effort to come up with an acronym which spells out some pronounceable and cool-sounding word. But without any great concern about what that word is. An example would be the JADE (Jovian Auroral Distributions Experiment) or JEDI (Jovian Energetic particle Detector Instrument) instrument on the Juno spacecraft. Those acronyms were invented by taking a long list of potentially relevant words, and then mixing and shuffling them to find something, actually anything, which could be pronounced and sounded good. There was no a priori intention to create one particular word or another. Does that still constitute a backronym?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcrary (talk • contribs) 22:08, May 25, 2020 (UTC)

According to the cited definition we are using " either to create a memorable name or as a fanciful explanation of a word's origin" it would appear that this is acceptable. Meters (talk) 22:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Request for clarification of the definition

I've requested clarification of the first sentence of this article. The {{clarify}} tag has been removed twice, but my concerns remain, so I guess I had better spell them out in a bit more detail. Sorry if I've been unclear in my request for clarity!

A backronym, or bacronym, is an acronym constructed from a phrase that purports to be the source of a word that existed prior to the invention of the backronym.

That explanation/definition seems unhelpful in at least two ways. First, to me "constructed... to be the source of a word" seems to describe the sort of "backronym as false etymology" accounts in the second subsection of this page. That is one type of backronym, but there are others. (Perhaps I misunderstand what the sentence is intended to mean, but if so that itself is a problem.) Second, and I guess related, the sentence gives a description of (one type of) a backronym, but not a definition. It is probably difficult to define the phenomenon in a single sentence, but a few sentences could be used to give a fuller definition before moving to the taxonomy of humorous/serious/false. Cnilep (talk) 06:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

How about just: "an expression that has been formed from the letters of a word or name" ... we used to have something similar to that before we starting tinkering. The examples make it clear, very quickly so I don't think we need to muddy up the first sentence with lots of hair-splitting. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The definition for backronym was confusing until I saw this in the 5th paragraph: "... defining it as the "same as an acronym, except that the words were chosen to fit the letters."--- It seems there is an attempt at a definition in the 1st, 3rd, and 5th paragraphs. 2601:280:4900:54F0:5835:6FAB:6688:11DD (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Improving definition of backronym

I agree that the definition as it stands seems to pertain only to false etymologies. That is what I changed "purports to be" to "is treated as." Perhaps the definition can be clarified by replacing the second sentence with two, one describing an accepted acronym and a second describing a false etymology. Should I post my proposed change here, or just make the change and let people edit it?

I think the definition needs to include something about the backronym being invented after the words was already in use. That's what differentiates it from an ordinary acronym.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

How about just: "an expression that has been formed from the letters of a word or name" ... we used to have something similar to that before we starting tinkering. I don't think we need to muddy up the very first sentence with lots of hair-splitting; the examples make everything clear, and quickly. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, something like that perhaps. Or as Paul C. Anagnostopoulos suggests, maybe "from the letters of an existing word or name"? Cnilep (talk) 04:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that's fine although unnecessary (you can't have a backronym of a word if it doesn't exist) but some others seemed to think it limited the type of backronym, as discussed above. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Since discussion has died down, I put that into the article with a more explicit comparison to an acronym. See what people think. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The current definition is misleading. The backronym is not the phrase from which the backronym is derived. The backronym is the word itself. The second sentence is good. Let me play with it again this week. Paul C. Anagnostopoulos (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the backronym is the word - it's the phrase attached to the word. "Amber" isn't a backronym ... "America's Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response" is a backronym for the word "Amber". - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

A friend of mine, the late Dan Alderson, preferred the word "mynorca," which is simply acronym spelled backward. His definition is that the acronym is selected first, then a name is selected that fits rather than the other way around. I don't expect this to replace backronym, but his definition both fits and is simple and easy to understand. JDZeff (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Can't see any evidence CARES is a backronym

An anonymous editor removed CARES Act, suggesting that it is an acronym but not a backronym. The word cares is an English word that existed prior to creation of that act. Therefore, by the definition given here ("an acronym that is assigned to a word that existed prior to the invention of the backronym"), CARES is a backronym. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that is the intention at all, though I can see why that definition would lead you to believe that. Many acronyms were words that existed before. The Oxford says a backronym is "an acronym deliberately formed from a phrase whose initial letters spell out a particular word or words, either to create a memorable name or as a fanciful explanation of a word's origin."

The key distinction is that it was deliberately structured to make the acronym. That may be the case with CARES, but there is no evidence for it.

Are you OK with that, or do we need a 3rd opinion? Doctorhawkes (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with requiring a third-party source saying that CARES was deliberately fit to the act, or with substituting a more obvious example (such as SECURE Act of 2019 or USA PATRIOT), but I think some example is warranted and helpful. Cnilep (talk) 03:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I think they are both much better examples. Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, do you have a third party source saying that SECURE or USA PATRIOT were deliberately invented and therefore a backronym? It's obvious, but I think that's also true of CARES as well. So clearly someone things, "It's obvious" isn't adequate. Fcrary (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I am struggling to understand what people think deliberately means in "an acronym deliberately formed". To me, any acronym that forms a commonly-used word is self evidently a backronym. I can think of two possible objections to this: (A) Deliberately means "intending to create a word which the creator knows is a word". In this case, a theoretical group calling itself the University of Virginia Engineering Association (UVEA) would not form a backronym if they did not know that uvea names a part of the eye. Or (B) deliberately means "intentionally working backwards from a specifically chosen word in order to form the acronym". In this case, the Culture, Language, And Social Practice (CLASP) program would not form a backronym, despite its members knowing that clasp is a word, because they also considered other possible names such as Culture, Language, and Interaction Program (CLIP), and chose their name without having any special reason to prefer one of those preexisting words. Are there other possible meanings of deliberate that I am not seeing?

In either case, it seems obvious to me that calling a health care-related law called CARES, or legislation to "preserv[e] retirement savings" SECURE is deliberate. Of course, having been a stickler for third-party sourcing on Wikipedia in the past, I will not object to calls for explicit sourcing on this article. Cnilep (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

It's murky. Sometimes there is only an intention of producing an acronym which is pronounceable, and I wouldn't call that a backronym. Sometimes there is a deliberate intention to produce a specific word, and the words which compose the acronym are selected to produce that result. That's definitely a backronym. But from what I've seen (in acronyms for spacecraft and instruments on them), the usual process is to start with a list of relevant words and mix and match them to produce an acronym which is both pronounceable and which has a positive or appropriate meaning. I've never been sure if things like that are really backronyms. The intention is to produce a good-sounding word. But there wasn't any deliberate intent to create a particular word. I guess I think the limited definition of a backronym is more appropriate: Acronyms which result from selecting the desired acronym/word and then working backwards from that to find something vaguely relevant which would be abbreviated as the pre-selected word. But other people disagree, and consider any acronym selected to be any good-sounding word to be a backronym. Fcrary (talk) 04:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

That is a very good explanation of why we've had trouble pinning down exactly what is and isn't a backronym; it's much clearer to me. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

CARES doesn't seem clearly deliberate to me, but I would happily defer to supporting evidence. To me CARES seems somewhat plausible, where I can't fathom a series of words that would accidentally end up forming USA PATRIOT. Obviously the best result is a good source for any example. Doctorhawkes (talk) 04:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

If it helps, I could also give a personal example. Of course, its not usable in the article, but as an example on the talk page, I think it's ok. A few years ago, I did a hypothetical study of what a NASA Discovery Program mission do at Jupiter, and I focused on the idea of doing something like the Earth-orbiting THEMIS mission but around Jupiter rather than the Earth. Just to give it a name, I ended up calling the idea JOLT (Jovian Orbiters Like THEMIS). Which is descriptive and pronounceable, and I thought "JOLT" had a nice sound. But I wasn't targeting any specific word for the acronym. So I personally wouldn't call that a backronym. A few years later, we started to talk about actually proposing such a mission (although that didn't work out) and someone said we could never propose mission with a name which had, imbedded in it, the name of a previous mission. I didn't want to change the acronym, so I settled on renaming it "Jovian Outflow, Loss and Transport" (JOLT). That is definitely a backronym, since I intentionally picked words to produce the same "JOLT" acronym I'd used previously. Unfortunately for this Wikipedia article, I think we'll have a hard time finding references to stories like that. They don't tend to be written down, so we can't cite them. Fcrary (talk) 05:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

It is pretty common practice in government and the legal sector to abbreviate legislation using the initial capitals in the title, more so when the words can form an acronym. Usually prepositions are excluded from the abbreviation but sometimes they're used. The resulting abbreviation is usually a result of what catches on naturally and, if the letters form a word or sound like a word, even better. As a result, I think CARES is a poor example of a backronym. ash (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

USA PATRIOT Act

Is this really a backronym?! It seems very unlikely that that acronym would have resulted by chance. ash (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

You have the definition backwards. According to the definition we use, a backronym is "deliberately formed from a phrase whose initial letters spell out a particular word or words" [emphasis added] Meters (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Use in humour

The section on "Use in humour" is getting some back and forth reversions. Whoever added this section thought it was relevant, and so do I. The last removal of the section claimed that two editors disagreed, so it should be removed. That doesn't make sense to me; leaving it in the past state, before the recent reversions and removals and moving the discussion to the talk page does. So... In this case, someone came up with "Fathers Against Rude Television" to intentionally create make it spell FART. I think that makes it, by definition, a backronym. The objection, which has never been clearly explained, seems to be that the fictional characters in the television didn't do that on purpose. Fine, but the screen writers did. The definition in the lead simply says a backronym is "deliberately" created, without limiting it to who deliberately created it. Fcrary (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

To me it appears to be WP:OR. To you it may seem obvious, but there is no source discussing whether it is a backronym. If the content is disputed, the onus is upon the editor seeking inclusion to provide evidence. I have no problem with the inclusion with a 3rd party source. Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

That's silly. The backronym was put into a comedy television series by the screen writers, and it was one of the jokes in the episode. Stating that they did it on purpose isn't original research; it's stating the obvious. In any case, I believe you are misunderstanding the situation. If there is a disagreement between editors, we're supposed to leave the article in its previous state (i.e. its state before the disagreement arose.) This section was added by an IP editor last April, and no one objected to it until two days ago. That makes including the section the default until a consensus is reached. Fcrary (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, it may appear obvious to you. Others disagree. Have you been able to find a source? My quick search was not fruitful. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Let's get the facts straight. "Others" do not disagree. One other person, yourself, disagrees with one other person, me. If you look at the edit history, the section on humour was added by an IP editor in April, 2021. I have no idea who that person was, but that person clearly thought that the backronym in question was one. No one objected to that until Feb. 4th of this year. At that time, Alarob removed the section because "Trivial section does not describe a backronym but an unintentionally humorous acronym." Other than that removal of content, Alarob has not contributed to this discussion or explained why he made that edit. So, in effect, you and I are the only people discussing this issue. Which means it is incorrect for you to say "others" agree with you. Unless we get more editors to participate, we've just got two who disagree.

In terms of finding a source, you are basically asking for the impossible. The backronym was from a comedy show, where the screen writers literally try to put in one joke per minute (if not more.) They don't publish annotated screen plays, with notes saying "We intended this line to be funny" and "We weren't expecting this line to be funny, but the audience loved it." But that's a problem for all backronyms. The people who came up with them almost never say they did it on purpose. They just do it and let others assume that it was on purpose. Fcrary (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Fine, if you insist on having another editor commenting here rather than simply removing the content from the article (as user:Alarob did) then here's another editor's comment. Is it an intentionally humorous backronym? Very likely in my opinion, but apparently Alarob didn't think so. Do we have a source stating that it is an intentionally humorous backronym? No. Is it Wikipedia's place to state that it is an intentionally humorous backronym? No. Should we include it without such a source now that it has been challenged? No. Meters (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll speak for myself, if I may. I hope we can then stop debating about whether this article has to include a fart joke.

When I removed the "Use in humour" section, I did so with the comment: "Trivial section does not describe a backronym but an unintentionally humorous acronym." IOW I removed it because it does not belong in this article. Why? Because it is about an acronym, not a backronym. The response above from Fcrary that my edit was "never clearly explained" is therefore puzzling.

I agree with Fcrary that it's not necessary to source the fact that the acronym was meant to be humorous, but that whole subject is a red herring. The intent of the writers or of their characters is not an issue, and there is no point belaboring it. The removed section is about an acronym, not a backronym.

There does seem to be confusion about what a backronym is, but the removed section would have stretched the definition beyond the breaking point. A backronym is not any acronym that someone concocts for humorous effect. That's just an acronym.

The editorial consensus is against retaining this section. Let it go. – ℜob C. alias ALAROB 18:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

That's a bit confusing. The first two sentences of the article state that "A backronym, or bacronym, is an acronym formed from an already existing word. Backronyms may be invented with either serious or humorous intent..." If the acronym is intentionally created to spell a particular word, it's a backronym. If you disagree with that definition, please explain what makes a backronym distinct from an acronym. Because if it involves more than the intent to spell a particular word, then this article requires some serious rewriting to clarify that. Fcrary (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Fcrary:, I think the problem is due to the final paragraph of the lede (the "first citation" from the neologism contest). The rest of the lede is quite clear. I'll paraphrase to emphasize the distinctive part: A backronym is an after-the-fact invention of an acronym to "explain" or give a false history to a word or abbreviation. The classic example is the Amber Alert, named after a child called Amber. Changing "Amber" to the acronym "AMBER" also created a backronym.

The simpler definition from 1983 ("the words were chosen to fit the letters") did not catch on and is not authoritative. (No dictionary defines backronym that way.) That definition would require that we make judgments about the intention of whoever coined an acronym, just so we can dub it a "backronym." — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 17:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

This is incorrect, and I offer you the Cambridge Dictionary, dictionary.com and the freedictionary.com as three quick examples which you are saying don't exist. It absolutely *is* finding words to fit a word, not just your narrower definition. 49.185.196.118 (talk)

Bill names aren't backronyms

Someone doesn't say "ok the bill is going to be 'PATRIOT', find an acronym that fits." It's more like "think of a word related to the theme of a bill and simultaneously choose an acronym that works". 71.231.149.58 (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Visa International Service Association

Visa International Service Association is the "worldwide parent entity" of Visa. Would this truly be a recursive acronym, if they came up with "Visa International Service Association" only after the name "Visa" was already in use? ~~ Fabrickator (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)