Talk:Acronym/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Needs a rewrite and reorganization for clarity 2 "the wrong version" 3 Sorry I brought it up

Needs a rewrite and reorganization for clarity

I'm coming in late on this, but this confusion between initialisms and acronyms andportmanteau words really needs to be fixed. Despite all that is said above, the three have distinct meanings and should be carefully distinguished, not mixed all together.

• acronym -- a word (-nym) formed from the "high parts" (acro) of a phrase or name. This is not restricted to initial letters, but can also be initial syllables. That is, not only is NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) an acronym, but also Interpol (INTERnational Criminal POlice Organization), and, two of the most famous acronyms of all, radar (RAdio Detection And Ranging), and sonar (SOund Navigation And Ranging). Also quasar, as per above.
• initialism -- a name formed from the initials of an organization, such as FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation)
• portmanteau word is a blend word, a combination of two words, such as chortle (combining chuckle and snort), or by combining elements of two or more words, such as bookmobile (book and automobile) or motel (motor and hotel).

Naturally, these categories overlap for some people, but the differences seem pretty clear to me.

The present article suffers from the failure to make the distinction between a "word" and a "name". The "pronounceable" rule is not some weird American concoction, it is the difference between a word and a name. The Oxford English Dictionary agrees, advising, in its definition of initialism "Contrast acronym", and giving the definitions of each pretty much as I have them above (which I adapted from the Random House Unabridged and Webster's III. And portmanteau is thrown in here as an afterthought, and not explained as all.

It seems to me there is the germ here of an article words derived from words which would discuss the distinctions drawn here (and some others, lots of words are formed from anagrams, such as crud which is an anagram of curd and lounge which is an anagram from the second word of chaise longue ("long chair). Then there could be separate, shorter articles about acronyms, initialisms, anagrams, portmanteau, all with plenty of examples and cross references to the other articles in the group.

I look forward to discussing this, but I don't believe an acronym and initialism are anything near the same thing and a portmanteau is not an acronym either. Ortolan88 05:37, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've done some editing to remove the flawed "initialisms are acronyms" statements from the article, but of course some references are still left. As it seems some Americans are quite vocal about blending the two distinct categories I feared doing more extensive editing. [[User:Anárion|]] 10:19, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to indent you two colon's worth. Hope you don't mind, but otherwise the conversation won't be followable.

The insistence that there is necessarily a distinction between acronyms and initialisms is wrong. The meaning of a word (in this case "acronym") is not set by you, but by actual usage, and "acronym" is used to describe all kinds of abbreviations made from initial letters and word parts, regardless of whether you think this is "wrong" or not. Second you try to introduce an artifical distinction between "word" and "name" when one doesn't exist in this context. "NATO" pronounced /neto/ and "FBI" pronounced /EfbiaI/ are both words and names.

My insistence, as you call it, consists in looking the words up in dictionaries and trying to understand how they are used by a variety of people, including lexicographers. The distinction is already there in the language and worth keeping. NATO is pronounced like a word. FBI is pronounced like three letters. That is the distinction. The fact that people can "pronounce" a series of letters is irrelevant.

If a lot of people make a mistake, a reference work should help them get it right.

If most people use a word to mean a certain thing, then that word means what those people use to mean.

Further, the supposed distinction between acronyms and initialisms fails to categories examples such as JPEG or IUPAC, which are pronounced as combinations of names of letters and sequences of letters. The distinction fails the empirical usage test as well as an a priori test of its ability to distinguish certain types of abbreviations. The distinction is not a reality of the meaning of the word "acronym" but merely a figment of certain prescriptivists' imaginations. Nohat 17:39, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

JPEG and IUPAC make it interesting, don't they? Wouldn't that be a modern development combining the initialism with the acronym? Are we going to discuss this or not? Look the words up in a dictionary and let's go on with this. I am not a prescriptivist, but I ask you, why are there two words? Why are most cases so easy to distinguish? What is the point or value of conflating the two? Lexicographer does not equal prescriptivist, btw, as the Wester's III uproar of my youth tells us.

Can you give a good reason for mixing acronym and initialism together? That is a sincere question. What are you defending? Ortolan88 21:34, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My opinion about acronyms and initialisms stems from a desire to have usage of words on Wikipedia reflect how people actually use those words. This is a generalization of the "use common names" policy which states that people should use the common names for things (and not more obscure or technical names). By extension, when we define words on Wikipedia, we should use the definitions that reflect what most people believe those words mean. In certain cases where a word means something specific in a specific context and the author of a Wikipedia article intends to use the specific meaning (as opposed to the common meaning), then the article should state that in this article the special meaning of the word is intended, not the common meaning. For example, "variance" has a particular meaning in statistics and while "variance" would be a perfectly acceptable synonym for "variation" in a non-statistics-related article, in an article on statistics, it has a particular meaning.

In the case at hand, "acronym", we have a case where a small minority of users of a word want to assert a more restrictive definition on a word than most people's understanding of the word. Further, the restriction they want to assert is (IMHO) an absurd distinction based on how different kinds of abbreviations are pronounced. I don't believe that the way an abbreviation is pronounced is in any way a fundamental aspect of an abbreviation, and insisting on this distinction leaves us with no commonly-used word to describe all abbreviations that are formed from initial letters.

Indeed, "initialism" has just over 7000 hits on Google whereas "acronym" has over 2 million. [1]

Further, I think IUPAC and JPEG exemplify the problem with the distinction in that the range of such abbreviations don't fit neatly into the divisions advocated by the prescriptivists. Even more extreme (yet contrived) examples would be something like PMSSTBIT, pronounced /piEmEsEstibIt/. Is this an acronym because the last part is pronounced "bit"? Or what about RPLASTIC. Is this just an initialism because the R is pronounced by saying its name? In the former case, if you make the contention that PMSSTBIT is an acronym but PMSSTBT is not, how can you justify making a fundamental distinction about the identity of an abbreviation based on such a tiny portion of it? What about PMSSTBTPMSSTBTPMSSTBTPMSSTBTPMSSTBTPMSSTBTPMSSTBTPMSSTBTPMSSTBIT?

As to your specific questions to me:

• why are there two words? For the same reason that there are any other synonyms in English. Would you propose to defend a distinction between "start" and "begin"?
• Why are most cases so easy to distinguish? I could claim that the difference between an acronym and an initialism is that an acronym is always 6 or fewer letters. It is very easy to make this distinction, but that doesn't provide any weight to support my claim.
• What is the point or value of conflating the two? The point is that this is how the word "acronym" is most commonly used. In fact, even the Meriam-Webster disctionary recognizes this. [2].

I have to say that suggesting "initialism" as an alternative word to describe things like "FBI" and "BBC" are not really acceptable because "initialism" is a very rarely-used word that most people aren't familiar with. What point is there to removing a meaning from a commonly-used word other than to provide prescriptivist pedants yet another reason to wag their finger when they encounter someone describing "IBM" as an acronym?

The reality is that, while perhaps when originally coined, "acronym" was applied only to those acronyms that were pronounced as words, speakers have rejected that distinction as relevant, and use "acronym" to describe all abbreviations made up of initial letters. Clinging to a distinction that has been rejected by most speakers doesn't really strike me as a tenable position. Nohat 22:23, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Most speakers" seem to know the difference between initialisms and true acronyms, it would seem to be only a (quite vocal) minority which does not. I cannot understand how anyone would claim Nato (one word: Nay-toe) and FBI (three letters: Ef Bee Eye) are the same kind of abbreviation. Standard use of the term remains that an acronym is a pronouncible abbreviation formed from the intial letter or letters of the words, whereas an intialism is a series of initials. The reason the Google test here cannot be used is that whereas most people know what an acronym is, few people look for the word to describe abbreviations such as FBI — which is yet another reason why encyclopedias such as the Wikipedia ought to be should provide the correct info. [[User:Anárion|]] 22:29, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is language we're talking about. There is no "the correct information", language is a living, changing entity that literally is just what people think it is. I don't have time for this "Correct English" rubbish that was invented by 19th century intellectuals with the intent of destroying regional dialects. NPOV surely demands that we give equal credence to actual usage as to an "official English" manuscript. PhilHibbs 11:31, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Exactly, which is why the standard definition of acronym should be given, but a note must also be given that some people also call initialisms "acronyms". [[User:Anárion|]] 11:37, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your examples further point out that you do not seem to know what an acronym is: PMSSTBIT would of course NOT be an acronym. It would at the very most be some kind of blend between an acronym and an initialism, like C-SPAN. [[User:Anárion|]] 22:34, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I take it therefore that you assert that JPEG is NOT an acronym then? That's funny, because 155 Google hits disagree.

You make several claims here without showing any evidence. The reason that NATO and FBI are the same kind of abbreviation is because it makes much more sense to define "kind of abbreviation" as "ways an abbreviation is formed from what it stands for" rather than "ways an abbreviation is pronounced". In fact, in written form, there is no need to distinguish between those that can be pronounced as words or as names of letters. You throw out "standard use of the term" but don't define it. Who defines your standard? If you look to usage to define standards, you won't find any support for your claim.

Your quibble with my Google test is founded un yet another assumption unsupported by evidence. What reason do we have to believe that people are more interested in the name for abbreviations that can be pronounced as words versus abbreviations that can be pronounced as names of letter? Certainly not because they're more common, because I think it quite obvious that acronyms like "FBI" are far more common than those like "NATO". Indeed, the reason that there are so many more hits for "acronym" than for "initialism" is because "acronym" is used to describe all abbreviations made from initial letters, regardless of how they are pronounced, because how they are pronounced is a mostly-irrelevant detail.

Let us compare Google searches for "XXX is an acronym" with "XXX is an initialism".

[3] gives 19 hits whereas [4] gives only 5.

[5] gives 18 hits whereas

[6] gives only 5.

[7] gives 2 hits, whereas

[8] gives none.

Google cannot be used here, as, as said above, most people do not use any special word for initalisms like ICBM. Evidence for the correct definition of acronym has been given a number of times before, I suggest you find a good reason why to confuse the terms acronym and initialism. In any case Google cannot define correct usage: at most it will show "search a returns more results than search b".

JPEG is one of those abbreviations which are between true acronyms and pure intialisms: because we are dealing here with a pronouncable "peg" and only one letter before it, "Jay-peg" can be easily pronounced.

FBI, ICBM, WWJD are not acronyms: they are commonly used abbreviations, which, when the class of abbreviations must be referred to, are called initialisms.

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines acronym as:

“a word (as NATO, radar, or snafu) formed from the initial letter or letters of each of the successive parts or major parts of a compound term;”

an abbreviation as “a shortened form of a written word or phrase used in place of the whole.”

The Oxford Companion to the English Language goes so far as to define three types of acronyms:

“letter acronyms” (like FUBAR, GIF)

“syllable acronyms” (like Usenet, sysadmin)

and hybrids of these (like WaSP, SIGGRAPH)

Compare the definition of initialism in Merriam-Webster's:

“An initialism is an abbreviation formed by using the first letters, or initials, of a series of words, for example "BBC", or "IBM".”

More suggested reading: HTML is not an acronym. [[User:Anárion|]] 22:59, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My dictionary says they are acronyms. Why do your dictionaries, which don't actually exclude acronyms like FBI in their definitions, have preference over mine, which clearly says under the definition of "acronym", "also : an abbreviation (as FBI) formed from initial letters :"? Nohat 23:03, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please see all the above. Give one clear reason why acronyms and intialisms should be confused? I added this article to RFC as you seem to insist on reverting to your version. [[User:Anárion|]] 23:09, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have already given several reasons. 1. Most people use the word "acronym" to mean it the way the article says. 2. There is no relevant distinction between acronyms pronounced as words and acronyms pronounced as names of letters. 3. At least one dictionary supports this broader, more widely used definition of "acronym". I have yet to see any good reason why they should be distinguished. Nohat 23:15, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

1 cannot be proven, 2 I disagree with, as for 3 I have yet to see any dictionary or encyclopedia which states "FBI is an acronym", without pointing out it is actually an initialism. [[User:Anárion|]] 23:17, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(Jumping back to the left…) Nohat, can you explain why you are vehemently opposed to having seperate articles for acronyms and initialisms, as long as acronym states that sometimes initialisms are also called acronyms? The fact remains that in normal linguistic usage and in the normal use of many people calling initialisms acronyms is just wrong, and I just do not see what harm can be done by pointing out that initialisms are a different class of abbreviation. [[User:Anárion|]] 23:21, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The problem is my viewpoint is somewhat opposite yours. I think the word "acronym" refers to all such abbreviations, and it is a small minority of pedants who insist on taking away a valid meaning of the word so they can wag their finger at people who use the word in a way that is contrary to their precious definition. I strongly believe the majority of people who are familiar with the word "acronym" would use it to describe abbreviations like "FBI", "BBC", and "ICBM", and only a tiny minority of people would reject that and insist upon using the rare and clumsy word "initialism". Nohat 23:25, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That would seem to be the problem. Is there any way you will accept keeping initialisms in their own article, perhaps by a note like "This article is about acronyms which can be pronounced. For abbreviations (as FBI) formed from initial letters, see initialism" at the top? [[User:Anárion|]] 23:33, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why can't the article just use the inclusive definition of "acronym" and explain that some people disagree that certain acronyms actually are acronyms, the way the article stood for more than a year?

I don't think people are claiming that certain acronyms are not acronyms. They are saying that some words that people want to call acronyms are actually not acronyms. There is a significant difference. Moriori 01:43, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

It's all a matter of perspective. If, like me and most other people, your definition of the word "acronym" includes all abbreviation words that are composed of initial letters, then this debate is a matter of some people claiming that certain acronyms aren't acronyms. That's how I see it. Nohat 02:00, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'd never heard of the term initialism before coming to Wikipedia. It isn't in my dictionary (Chambers, 1998). The definition for acronym is 'a word formed from or based on the initial letters or syllables of other words, such as radar.' Seems as if initialism is a very specialised word that defines a subset of acronyms, to me. I very much doubt if any of my colleagues at work have ever heard the word initialism, although I'd think they would be bright enough to figure out what it meant. It sounds as if it's a U.S. invention. Noisy 23:40, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hardly. I am very non-US, and have never encountered the use of acronym for initialisms. While it is true I cannot recall hearing the term often (FBI is most often referred to as simply an abbreviation), calling it an acronym is just wrong. [[User:Anárion|]] 23:46, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Let's put it like this: initialism is not a word in UK English, as far as I know. My copy of Fowler is at work, so I'll defer to that when I can get hold of it. I'd be happy if a reference was made to the use of initialism outside the UK, but apart from that, all words made from the initial bits of words are acronyms. Noisy 00:01, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Initialism is most certainly a word in UK English. The Cambridge Encyclopedia 0f The English Language has a section headed Abbreviations. It gives four types of abbreviation, namely Initialisms ( BBC etc), Acronyms (laser and NATO), Clipping (ad and phone), and Blends (brunch and smog). Hope this helps. Moriori 00:16, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC).

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

"Initialism: The use of initials; a significative group of initial letters. Now spec. a group of initial letters used as an abbreviation for a name or expression, each letter or part being pronounced separately (contrasted with ACRONYM)."

"Acronym: A word formed from the initial letters of other words."

Since the OED is pretty much the bible of UK English, I think that speaks for itself. Neither of those definitions are listed as being either specifically UK or specifically US. -- Necrothesp 01:00, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You are correct, it certainly needs a rewrite for clarity, and to distinguish between initialism and acronym. I like the OED entry where it specifically says "Initialism.........contrasted with ACRONYM". Moriori 01:26, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

The trouble here is the definition of "word". Using the normal divisibility criterion, all the acronyms pronounced as names of letters are just as much words as the other kind. The names of the letters are not pronounced separately, but run together as the syllables of any other word. You can no more easily remove the /Ef/ from /EfbiaI/ than you can remove the /neI/ from /neI4o/. FBI is as much a "word" as NATO is. You can do all the same morphological things to acronyms as you can with normal words. the FBI's newest recruit; scores of CDs; all the DIYers. Therefore, any definition that says an acronym is a "word" includes words like FBI. Nohat 01:54, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That's just nitpicking. The essential element here is "each letter or part being pronounced separately (contrasted with ACRONYM)" (note the contrasted bit - contrasted does not, in any definition, mean the same - it means "to set in opposition"), which quite clearly asserts that an initialism and an acronym are two wholly different things. If the compilers of the OED actually meant that the two were exactly the same, then I feel sure they would have said so. In FBI (an initialism) you surely cannot dispute that each letter is pronounced separately? That is not, however, the case with NATO (an acronym), in which such a pronunciation would give us EnAyTeeOh, not Naytoh, as it is in fact pronounced. -- Necrothesp 16:19, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No, the letters aren't pronounced separately. You don't say "Ef", "bi", "aI", as though they were separate words, you say "EfbiaI", all run together, as the syllables of a single word. From a phonological perspective, there is no distinction between the pronunciation of FBI and as if there were some made-up word "effbeeaye". "EfbiaI" is as much a "word" as "neto". Secondly, as I see it, the essential element is how the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines "initialism": "an acronym formed from initial letters", which clearly places initialisms as a subgroup of acronyms. Nohat 16:53, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the letters are pronounced separately. How would you pronounce them as three separate letters? Ef, Bee, Aye. How do you pronounce them as an abbreviation? EfBeeAye. Well, sounds exactly the same to me. It doesn't matter how fast you pronounce them; they're still being pronounced as separate letters. And Merriam-Webster has no more claim to be right than the OED. I'm puzzled as to why you think it has. -- Necrothesp 17:12, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The prosody is different when you pronounce them as separate letters. You're only listening to the phonemes when you say they sound the same to you, but the critical difference is in the timing and pitch contour. Nohat 17:16, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Listen to media:Fbi.wav to listen to the difference.

And voila, there you have the difference. Americans put the stress on the first letter. Britons tend to stress each letter equally. When pronounced by us, it does sound like three individual letters. We do not tend to pronounce initialisms as words in this way. As I suggested, it's a national difference, which is possibly why we distinguish acronyms from initalisms more than you do. This does not make us "pedantic". It just makes us different. Try to understand the distinction. -- Necrothesp 18:39, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, that doesn't seem to be the case Media:britishfbi.wav.

Hmm, exactly what I said. The only difference is the gap between the individual letters, not the stress or emphasis. Not that that sounds like any sort of British accent to me. -- Necrothesp 21:38, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Regardless of the stress, the first reading of FBI is clearly a single word and not separated at all. And it should sound like a British accent. It's the voice of Speechify Helen [9]. Nohat 22:29, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh well then, I'm sorry, what more proof could we possibly need that that's how British people pronounce things? Speechify Helen, eh. A computerised voice. Obviously much more accurate than a real British person. Next you'll be telling us that all British people sound like Stephen Hawking. But back to your 'point', I'm afraid all I can say is...rubbish! It's not clearly a single word at all. It's three separate letters. -- Necrothesp 23:24, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, you obviously don't know much about speech synthesis, as Speechify Helen is created from the actual voice of a woman named Helen (whose last name I can't remember) who works as a newsreader for the BBC, and who is clearly British. As for whether or not FBI is a "word", I don't think we'll come to agreement as your understanding of the meaning of word is obviously not based on any kind of linguistic foundation that has any basis to the reality of what is and isn't a word. Nohat 23:32, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Exactly, artificially created, not actual (and you mysteriously seem to be saying that a synthesised voice, which is only based on a real voice, is more accurate than a real live British person - since I am one, I beg to differ). But, as we've already established, you're the only person here in touch with reality and the only person who knows anything. It must be lonely in your world. I give up. -- Necrothesp 23:42, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"the wrong version"

As per m:The wrong version, I note here that the current state of the protected page is "the wrong version" not only because it propagates the broad (and in my opinion "wrong") definition, and this edit has deleted info from the page. [[User:Anárion|]] 23:29, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And in my opinion all this furor about the artificial distinction between "acronyms" and "initialisms" is a load of pedantic hooey that doesn't reflect actual usage. The way the article defines "acronym" now is more or less as it stood between June 20, 2003 and August 19, 2004, more than 1 year. It wasn't until the pedants came along and started pushing their prescriptive POV about the meaning of "acronym" that this debate even started. Nohat 01:41, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's not pedantic, it's the common usage. It's you who are foisting your POV on others. I do not consider that the OED provides POV information. Or maybe the standard English (British English at least) dictionary is wrong? That, incidentally, was a rhetorical question! -- Necrothesp 16:25, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, it certainly provides information at odds with other dictionaries. Merriam-Webster clearly defines "initialism" as a kind of "acronym" [10], and offers FBI as an example of an "acroym" [11]. So maybe the standard American English dictionary is wrong? Nohat 16:40, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Maybe it is. Maybe it's a difference in usage in different countries. Who knows? I'm not an American. That doesn't give you the right to call the OED definition "pedantic hooey" or those who use it pushers of "prescriptive POV". The OED is hardly a minor source, since it is used as the standard dictionary of British English in every library and educational institution in the land. -- Necrothesp 16:53, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you read the OED definition carefully, nowhere does it exclude things like "FBI" from being acronyms. It says that an acronym is "a word formed from the initial lettes of other words", and I already explained how FBI is a word, so strictly speaking the OED is not wrong, it's just your interpretation which is flawed. Everyone I know uses acronym to mean it the way M-W defines it. Are you saying all those people are wrong? I'm not saying the OED definition is pedantic hooey, because nowhere does it say "FBI" is NOT an acronym. It is you and others who make that argument who are full of peadantic hooey. Nohat 17:12, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It also says that an initialism is contrasted with an acronym. How do you define contrasted? If they were the same, they couldn't be contrasted. The definitions are therefore clearly different. And, as I've said, I entirely disagree with you that FBI is a word, so please don't take it as read that it is. Neither did I say that you or those who agree with you are wrong. Reread my post above. Once again, however, you seem to be unable to make your point without insults. Sad really. I'm not insulting you. Are you that insecure in your argument? -- Necrothesp 18:28, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I never said acronyms and initialisms were the same. I just said that the difference is not based on "pronounceability". Acronyms can have letters that aren't initials. For example, Interpol and radar are acronyms but not initialisms. That's what's being contrasted.

Since we obviously disagree, how would you propose the page should be NPOVed? Nohat 19:48, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sorry I brought it up

Sort it out among yourselves. I thought we were going to have a discussion. I do not stay around when people call me names. Lots of other articles I can work on. Ortolan88 01:45, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So you argue that insisting on a minute semantic distinction that most speakers don't observe is not pedantic? Nohat 01:57, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Most speakers do observe it. Where is your proof that they don't? And also remember that this is an encyclopaedia, not a compendium of popular lore. Even if most people did not observe it, wrong is wrong. Most people probably have a lot of misconceptions. Is it really our job to reinfoce those even if they're wrong because, hey, we should just go with the flow? If so, why are we bothering with Wikipedia at all? -- Necrothesp 16:37, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You hold a fundamental misunerstanding about how language works. Words don't mean something that some authority sets down in a book and says "this is what a word means, and it means nothing else." A word's meaning is defined by common usage, and dictionaries reflect that usage. The Merriam-Webster dictionary clearly has kept up with the times and indicates definitions of "acronym" and "initialism" that match the common usage, whereas the OED's 15-year-old definition simply hasn't kept up with common usage and reflects an older distinction that most people no longer observe. It is our job on Wikipedia to represent language the way it is actually used, not the way ivory tower prescriptionists say the language ought to work. Nohat 16:46, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Okay, okay, so you're right and everyone else is wrong. I suppose I should have known that. I know that all the people I know define an acronym the same way that I do. But maybe we're just a tiny island in a sea of people who use it the way that you do. Maybe I just happen to know the only people in the world who use it that way (along with the compilers of the OED, of course). Or maybe, just maybe, it's the other way round. -- Necrothesp 17:00, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No, I'm not disputing the dictionaries, I'm just saying that they're somewhat ambiguous on the issue, but that if you look at actual usage, you'll see that people say that things like "FBI" ARE acronyms. Viz [12]. Nohat 17:13, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) Here is a typical example of usage of acronym to mean any set of initials [13] Nohat 17:25, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) On [14] it says "There is no requirement that an acronym be pronounceable as a normal word (this is a curious myth perpetuated by American dictionaries): IBM is just as much an acronym as LASER." Nohat 17:27, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) On [15] it says "Not all acronyms form pronounceable words. SVP is an acronym that is not pronounceable, instead each letter is spoken." Nohat 17:28, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) Webster's Dictionary of English Usage says "Dictionaries, however, do not make this distinction [between acronyms and initialisms] because writers in general do not"Nohat 17:30, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) [16], which is a British site, says " Acronyms are those things made up of what seems like random letters you see on the internet, in chat rooms and newsgroups" and includes plenty of acronyms pronounced as a series of letters. Nohat 17:34, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) [17] says "ACRONYM - A word formed from the initial letters of a series of words. (e.g., LRC is an acronym for Library Resource Center)." Nohat 17:36, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) [18] says "acronym - A word formed from the initial letters of a series of words. For example, the ALA stands for the American Library Association." [19] says "Acronym - An abbreviation of the first letters of a phrase or the long name of an organization that forms a word or conveys a message. In electronic communication or online documents, acronyms are used as writing shorthand or a method to communicate humor. Examples include IMHO (in my humble opinion), F2F (face-to-face), and WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get)." I think the evidence here shows that most people's definition of acronym includes things like "FBI". Nohat 17:40, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I believe you just said what was laid down in books was irrelevant. I quote:

Words don't mean something that some authority sets down in a book and says "this is what a word means, and it means nothing else." A word's meaning is defined by common usage, and dictionaries reflect that usage.

Actual common usage, in my experience, is what I have said it is (and what the OED says it is). In your experience that may be something different. I'm not disputing that. But please don't say that those of us who use the word in that way are pedants, POV peddlers or any other term intended as a pejorative, or that Merriam-Webster has "kept up with the times" and the OED has not. This is purely your POV. In my experience, most speakers do know the difference between an acronym and other types of abbreviation. Simple fact. -- Necrothesp 18:18, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, where's your proof? This page is littered with examples of people using "acronym" in the way I describe, in dictionaries, on web pages, in glossaries, in usage guides, etc. The only evidence you have presented is a single, ambiguous definition from the OED, which is at least 15 years old, and unsupported claims about "everyone you know". Furthermore, the difference between my inclusive definition of acronym is that it says "X can by Y", whereas your definition says "X is not Y". That is the difference between pedantic prescriptivism and descriptivism. What is the point of excluding a whole class of abbreviations from a category (acronyms) that so many people already include them in? Do you make the world a better place by telling all those people that they're wrong? Nohat 20:09, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Look, we're not going to agree here. And your last claim is bizarre, since you're trying to tell me I'm wrong too and then getting accusatory because I dare to do the same. And note that not everyone here agrees with you, which tends to back up my claim that not everyone uses the word in the way you do. Every dictionary I've consulted (OED, Encarta, Cambridge, Wordsmyth, American Heritage, Infoplease, Dictionary.com, Cambridge American, Columbia, New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy; several of them only two or three years old), with the exception of M-W, says that an acronym is only an abbreviation that can be pronounced as a word. You say that includes initialisms, I disagree. M-W, incidentally, defines an acronym as:

a word (as NATO, radar, or snafu) formed from the initial letter or letters of each of the successive parts or major parts of a compound term; also : an abbreviation (as FBI) formed from initial letters

which tends to imply that even that, while agreeing with your definition of an acronym, considers that FBI is not a pronounceable word, since it joins the last part with an "also". American Heritage Dictionary on initialism:

An abbreviation consisting of the first letter or letters of words in a phrase (for example, IRS for Internal Revenue Service), syllables or components of a word (TNT for trinitrotoluene), or a combination of words and syllables (ESP for extrasensory perception) and pronounced by spelling out the letters one by one rather than as a solid word.

which tends to more than imply that it does not consider such an abbreviation to be a word. I think this is all proof enough, but since you're not going to accept it this really is getting us nowhere. -- Necrothesp 22:06, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The ONLY arbiter of English usage is English usage itself. If plenty of people use a word to mean a certain thing, then one of the definitions of that word IS and MUST BE the thing those people use it to mean. To claim that a large group of people use a word to mean a certain thing but that certain thing is not a definition of the word would be to give authority over the English language to some entity, and there is no authority over the English language. The fact that some dictionaries don't reflect the reality of usage of the word "acronym" is irrelevant. People DO use it to refer to abbreviations like FBI, and therefore abbreviations like FBI ARE acronyms. Neither you nor the dictionaries have any authority to tell those people they're wrong. Nohat 22:47, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And neither do you have the authority to tell those of us who disagree that we're wrong. Why do you not understand that? You're very fond of quoting 'proof' yourself (see your long list above), but refuse to accept anyone else doing so if you disagree with them. -- Necrothesp 23:12, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What are you disagreeing with? That there is some other legitimate arbiter of English usage besides usage itself? Or are you disagreeing that people use "acronym" to refer to abbreviations like FBI? If the former, explain where your arbiter of English usage get its power from. If the latter, explain how examples of people using "acronym" to refer to abbreviations like FBI don't constitute evidence that people use "acronym" to refer to abbreviations like FBI. Nohat 23:25, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As I've already said, this is completely pointless. -- Necrothesp 23:32, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If by "this is completely pointless" you mean that it is indeed true that abbreviations ike FBI can be considered acronyms, then I agree. Nohat 23:34, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) Why don't you make a proposal for how to combine our conflicting points of view into a NPOV article on acronyms? Nohat 23:36, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yep, it's completely pointless. The text of the article already says that there is a debate over usage, and both views are presented. What's the problem? Noisy 10:04, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. What is the problem with keeping the two kinds of abbreviations distinct? A note on the top "Abbreviations which cannot be pronounced as a word, but are read as a series of individual letters (e.g. FBI: Ef Bee Eye), are not acronyms but rather initialisms. However, some people feel that all initialisms are also acronyms: see further below." and a full paragraph discussing initialisms and that some people tend to call them "acronym" was in all edits. If this is unacceptable for some reason I would be very interested to know why. [[User:Anárion|]] 15:40, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would think at this point it should be obvious that the problem with your suggestion is that it makes the assertion that abbreviations like FBI are not acronyms, which is something that at least some of us disagree with. You suggest including the text "Abbreviations which cannot be pronounced as a word [...] are not acronyms [...]", but the article cannot make this claim without attribution if we want to maintain a NPOV in the article, as clearly there are people who disagree with that assertion. The article needs to make no assertion about whether or not they are acronyms, but simply describe the two sides of the issue. Nohat 17:00, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Am I right in assuming then that you will not accept any form of the article which clearly distinguishes between acronyms (as they are defined in dictionaries, and people other than you see them) and initialisms? I hope not. Can you suggest a rephrasing which will be acceptable, for example "Abbreviations which cannot be pronounced as a word, but are read as a series of individual letters (e.g. FBI: Ef Bee Eye), are by some called acronyms but others call them initialisms instead. For more details see below."? [[User:Anárion|]] 17:19, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have written a proposal for an NPOV version of the article at Acronym/temp. Feel free to edit it, but please don't make radical changes, as I don't want to get into another edit war. Leave your comments at Talk:Acronym/temp. If you want to make radical changes, just make a different temp page, say Acronym/temp2 and put your own version there. We can discuss both proposals and hopefully come to an acceptable compromise. Nohat 18:06, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A good step towards the solution, but there is no POV or dispute here: there simply is the fact that initialisms are not acronyms. [[User:Anárion|]] 20:47, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is exactly that kind of attitude that makes it so hard to make NPOV articles. I'm not going to rehash my arguments again, because you don't seem willing to accept that the only arbiter of English usage is usage itself, and that usage of the word "acronym" doesn't universally support your view. There IS a dispute: you believe you're right, and I believe I'm right, and the only way to maintain NPOV is to describe the dispute in the article, and not take one side or the other.

Nevertheless, you state "initialisms are not acronyms", but this is an incorrect analysis of the issue, regardless of which side you take. NATO is both an acronym AND an initialism. The question is whether all initialisms are acronyms, or only those that are pronounceable as a normal word.

Finally, statements like "Any attempt to obscure the categories is a mistaken view" is merely your opinion, not a fact, as evinced by the plethora of examples I have given showing uses of the word "acronym" to describe abbreviations like FBI. I have gotten off my high horse and am willing to acknowledge that some people's understanding of the word "acronym", which excludes abbreviations like FBI, even if it's not backed up by the reality of usage, is nevertheless a legitimate understanding that some people hold based on interpretations of the various dictionary definitions. Why don't you get off of your high horse and acknowledge that the broader definition of "acronym" as used by some people is legitimized by the simple fact that it gets used that way. The assertion that it's simply a "mistaken conception" has no valid theoretical linguistic basis. You may believe that it is "incorrect" to call FBI an acronym, much as my English teachers believe that it is "incorrect" to end a sentence with a preposition, but that concept of "correctness" is not tenable under any broad-based understanding about how language works. In the final analysis, a prescriptive linguistic rule that isn't supported by the overwhelming majority of usage fails to be a valid descriptor of a language. People split infinitives all the time, and a sentence with a split a infinitive isn't somehow not valid English because someone, somewhere says that you can't split infinitives. Similarly, people use the word "acronym" to describe abbreviations like FBI all the time, and the fact that you say they're not really acronyms doesn't make them not acronyms. You might believe with all your heart that they're not really acronyms, much as the previously mentioned prescriptivist might say that the sentence with a split infinitive isn't really english, but plenty of people disagree with you, and the mere fact that the disagreement exists means that you can't make that assertion in a Wikipedia article. The bald assertion of prescriptive linguistic analyses has been rejected again and again on Wikipedia, and it's not going to be accepted here. Nohat 21:19, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

But here we go again: your usage is not "English usage". In your view, any abbreviation made up out of initial letters of words is an acronym: actually, that category of abbreviations includes both acronyms (abbr.'s made up out of initials which form pronouncable words, like PATRIOTACT), initialisms (abbr.'s made up out of initials which DO NOT form pronouncable words, like FBI or WWJD), and mixed forms (including abbr.'s which are formed of single letters plus a pronouncable word, like JPEG).

You have yet to convince me that there is anything to gain in confusing acronyms and initialisms, and since you appear to be unwilling to accept the view that your take on acronym is not correct or standard usage, this is getting us nowhere. I feel like I am talking to a brick wall here. [[User:Anárion|]] 21:27, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Correct definition is at Acronym/corrected. I welcome any help in clarifying it, but further confusion of initialisms and acronyms is not acceptable for an encyclopedic article. [[User:Anárion|]] 21:35, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) See below. [[User:Anárion|]] 08:05, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You continue to ignore all my arguments about the source of usage rules, making the same argument over and over again without addressing the theoretical underpinnings you use to make your argument, which have been called into question. This is not about whether either interpretation of "acronym" is correct or not, but about whether you can make assertions about correctness at all, and if you can, on what basis you can make those assertions, and what facts can be used to back up those assertions. Your arguments can hold no water until you can demonstrate that the basis you make your arguments upon is legitimate.

Usage is set by how people actually use the language, not by some pedant sitting in a ivory tower casting down rulings on what is and isn't correct usage. Until you realize and accept this, you will continue to argue in circles about "correctness" without addressing the real issue of where "correctness" comes from and what legitimizes it. Until you do so, your assertions about what is and isn't an acronym are meaningless.

As for what is to be gained by "confusing" acronyms and initialisms, as you describe, comes from the fact that defining the word "acronym" in the way that people actually use the word is a better reflection of reality than simply trying to paper over the reality of usage by asserting that some dictionary says X, and therefore any statement contrary to X is wrong. Nohat 22:00, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I could easily use your arguments against you, but I won’t. I would appreciate it if you would drop the namecalling: on this talk page it has been shown over and over again that, despite what you believe an acronym should be, the standard definition of acronym, which is used in dictionaries as well as is the main usage in the English language, is an abbreviation which is formed of the initial letters of its words, and can be pronounced. If this were not the case, why would the word initialism exist? Your earlier claim this is a word made up by "pedants" has been disproven, leading us back to the question: why are you so opposed to defining acronyms as acronyms, and allowing initialisms to be in their own article? At least be consistent: if you keep claiming all abbreviations formed out of initial letters of words are "acronyms", you should argue for turning initialism into a redirect, as, in your view, the word defines only a subset of "acronyms", rather than a different kind of abbreviation. [[User:Anárion|]] 22:06, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Again you have failed to address the real issue, and I have to assume it's because you either don't understand the argument or don't really have any real substance to support why your view is legitimate other than making the same circular arguments over and over.

To make my view clear:

Initialism is a rarely-used word used to describe an abbreviation formed from the initial letters of what the abbreviation stands for. Acronym is a commonly-used word to describe an abbreviation that is formed from the initial letter or letters of the words or major word-parts of what it stands for. This means Radar and Conmebol are acronyms, but not initialisms.

Thus initialisms are a subset of acronyms; they are not equivalent sets. That is why a redirect is not appropriate.

Now, I have given many, many examples on this page not only of dictionary definitions that support this view, but examples of actual English usage that uses the word "acronym" in this way. In order to accurately describe how the word "acronym" is used, you have to recognize that there exists a large corpus of English usage that uses the word "acronym" in this way. To disregard the facts, to ignore that "acronym" is indeed used in this way, would not only make the article flawed and incomplete, but would be to do a disservice to our readers by misleading them into thinking that "acronym" is only used to describe abbreviations like "NATO", when indeed, as I have shown again and again, it is used to describe abbreviations like "FBI". Furthermore, simply asserting your view and acknowledging that my view exists but claiming it is incorrect would be tantamount to Wikipedia taking a stand on this debate, which would clearly be a violation of NPOV policy. Nohat 22:22, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Okay. Apparently, we have the same definition for initialism, and a compatible one for acronym: the difference being that you apparently feel that to describe acronyms in any way to possible exclude initialisms is non-NPOV (which is a weird use of the term, but I'll grant it). Now, can you explain clearly why then, if you agree that initialisms such as FBI are not identical to acronyms such as NATO, you feel they must be called acronyms? It would seem to me that if you recognize that FBI is a different kind of abbreviation than NATO, it should not be a problem to define acronyms as "pure" acronyms, with a note that some people group "pure" acronyms and initialism both under a category "acronym" (with then no clear way to refer to non-initialism acronyms). This was the state of the article before your edit war. If I have misinterpreted you, please clarify. I still hold that claiming FBI is an acronym (without at least clarifying that it is an initialism, and by some called an acronym because they call all initialisms, confusingly, acronyms) is wrong, just as claiming "l" is a vowel would be wrong, even if there are some obscure languages which treat it as one. [[User:Anárion|]] 22:36, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You mean like the "l" in "bottle"? But that's a different argument, one for vowel, and I already addressed that issue on that page. But beyond that, as for the existence of acronym and initialism, the English language doesn't always package things into neat little sets that are easy to determine what goes where. As an example, look at the words "language" and "dialect". The general understanding is that two speech patterns are different dialects of the same language if they are very similar, but they are different languages if they are different enough. Spanish and Portuguese are separate languages, but British English and American English are different dialects. However, people often call Mandarin and Cantonese different "dialects" of Chinese, even though Mandarin and Cantonese are far more different than Spanish and Portuguese are. In this case, different people hold different understandings of what is a dialect and what is a language, and those who study them in depth tend to develop very specific views about the dividing line between dialects and language, and people who are only casually familiar with the terms only have a vague understand and would have trouble classifying the edge cases. Nevertheless, while calling Mandarin a "dialect" might be wrong under a linguist's exacting specifications of what is and isn't a dialect, it is not appropriate to say it's simply not a dialect, because many millions of people use the word "dialect" in this way. The word "dialect" has different meanings in different contexts, and while the linguist is free call Mandarin a "language" and not a "dialect", the linguists' definition of what is a dialect and what is a language doesn't necessarily have to apply to all uses of those words. The reality is that the status of the words "language" and "dialect" is hotly contested within the linguistic community. To expect that the rest of the world follow this debate is obviously not a reasonable expectation.

Similarly, you and I have come to competing yet exacting specifications of what is and isn't an acronym, and yet the rest of the world moves on obliviously, believing some version of what you believe or some version of what I believe. There are several groups of English users out there, those who believe your definition of "acronym", and those who believe my definition of "acronym", not mention those who don't know the word "acronym" and those who know both definitions but have chosen one over the other various reasons. There is no point in trying to make claims about the relative sizes of these groups: I can show just as many examples of people using "acronym" according to my definition as you can show of people using "acronym" according to your definition. The reality is that there are two competing definitions of "acronym" out there and the Wikipedia article on acronyms needs to acknowledge this and not take one side or the other on the issue. Nohat 23:45, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just for the sake of collation, here some of the examples of "acronym" being used in the way I describe:

1. The Merriam-Webster definition of "acronym" [20]
2. The Merriam-Webster definition of "initialism" [21]
3. 514 Google hits containing the phrase "pdf is an acronym" [22]
4. 311 Google hits containing the phrase "ftp is an acronym" [23]
5. 169 Google hits containing the phrase "dsl is an acronym" [24]
6. 155 Google hits containing the phrase "jpeg is an acronym" [25]
7. 119 Google hits containing the phrase "irc is an acronym" [26]
8. 117 Google hits containing the phrase "aol is an acronym" [27]
9. 63 Google hits containing the phrase "isdn is an acronym" [28]
10. 36 Google hits containing the phrase "cli is an acronym" [29]
11. 26 Google hits containing the phrase "atm is an acronym" [30]
12. 23 Google hits containing the phrase "eps is an acronym" [31]
13. 19 Google hits containing the phrase "ipo is an acronym" [32]
14. 19 Google hits containing the phrase "ibm is an acronym" [33]
15. 18 Google hits containing the phrase "fbi is an acronym" [34]
16. 17 Google hits containing the phrase "acc is an acronym" [35]
17. 12 Google hits containing the phrase "adhd is an acronym" [36]
18. 6 Google hits containing the phrase "fdi is an acronym" [37]
19. 6 Google hits containing the phrase "aed is an acronym" [38]
20. 5 Google hits containing the phrase "icbm is an acronym" [39]
21. 4 Google hits containing the phrase "ttl is an acronym" [40]
22. 3 Google hits containing the phrase "vtol is an acronym" [41]
23. TLA = Three-letter Acronym [42]
24. "There is no requirement that an acronym be pronounceable as a normal word" [43]
25. "Not all acronyms form pronounceable words." [44]
26. "Dictionaries, however, do not make this distinction [between acronyms and initialisms] because writers in general do not" [45]
27. "Acronyms are those things made up of what seems like random letters you see on the internet, in chat rooms and newsgroups" [46]
28. "LRC is an acronym for Library Resource Center" [47]
29. "acronym - A word formed from the initial letters of a series of words. For example, the ALA stands for the American Library Association." [48]
30. "Acronym - [...] Examples include IMHO [..]" [49]
31. "and the acronym "BBC" stenciled on her camera was drawing some looks from tourists." From page 299 of the Dan Brown novel Angels and Demons [50]
32. "is limited because of all the jargon, especially acronyms like HTML and JPEG." From page 117 of 10 Days to Faster Reading by Abby Marks-Beale [51]\\
33. "Acronym - A word (or group of characters) composed of the first letters of other words. Examples:scuba (self-contained underwater breathing apparatus), FBI (federal bureau of investigation). From page 77 of 100 Things Every Writer Needs to Know by Scott Edelstein [52]
34. "CPU stands for Central Processing Unit and in modern personal computers is the main computing chip; historically, this acronym had other meanings." From page 69 of 1001 Visual C++ Programming Tips by Charles Wright, Jamsa Media Group [53]
35. "... in interest pay- I read about some loans with weird acronyms like ALAS and GSL" From page 120, "1001 Ways to Pay for College: Practical Strategies to Make College Affordable by Gen S. Tanabe [54]
36. "The acronym UFO stands for "Unidentified Flying Object." From page 96, 101 American English Riddles : Understanding Language and Culture Through Humor, by Harry Collis [55]
37. "... Glossary of Acronyms ACLS Advanced Cardiac Life Support AD Associate Degree AHNCC The ..." From the back matter of 101 Careers in Nursing by Jeanne M. Ph.D. Novotny, et al [56]
38. "Some acronyms that you will run across include LBH (Little Big Horn)" From page 4 of 1876 Facts About Custer & the Battle of the Little Big-Horn ("Facts About" Series) by Jerry L. Russell [57]
39. "... Diagnosis of melanoma can be facilitated by using the "ABCD" acronym, where the letters stand for Asymmetry, Border irregularity, Color variegation, ..." From page 303 of 20 Common Problems: Surgical Problems And Procedures In Primary Care by Dana Christian Lynge, Barry D. Weiss [58]
40. "Cascading Style Sheets, more commonly referred to by the acronym CSS" From page 189, 50 Fast Dreamweaver MX Techniques, by Janine Warner [59]
41. "[STP] was an acronymn for 'Serenity, Tranquility, Peace'" From page 175, 66 Frames by Gordon Ball, Jonas Mekas [60]
42. "NC is an acronym for Numerical Control. CNC is an acronym for Computer Numerical Control" From page 3, 7 Easy Steps to CNC Programming, Book II: Beyond the Beginning by David S. Hayden [61]
43. "the acronym BSS is commonly used to specifically refer to an infrastructure ...", from the back matter of 802.11 Demystified: Wi-Fi Made Easy (Telecommunications) by James LaRocca, Ruth LaRocca [62]
44. "the parameters represented by the ABCDE acronym (Airway, Breating, Circulation, Cerebral perfusion, and Chief complain, Drugs and Diagnostic tests, Equipment)" From page 19, AACN Handbook of Critical Care Nursing by Marianne Chulay, et al [63]
45. "VST, an acronym for Virtual Studio Technology" From page 202, Ableton Live 2 Power! by Jr. , Dave Hill [64]
46. "IPC is an acronym for interprocess communication" From page 64, Absolute BSD: The Ultimate Guide to FreeBSD by Michael Lucas, Jordan Hubbard [65]
47. "HTML is an acronym for Hypertext Markup Language", From page 262, Access 97 One Step at a Time (One Step at a Time) by Julia Kelly [66]
48. "I called in my DCM, acronym for deputy chief of mission", From page 136, The Accidental Pope : A Novel by Raymond Flynn, Robin Moore [67]
49. "Called RBRVS (little can be done in government without an acronym)", From page 23, The Accidental System by Michael D. Reagan [68]
50. "Some of the sarcastic alternative definitions of the CRM acronym are "costs reams of money," "causes real migraines...", From page 177, Activity-based Cost Management: An Executive's Guide by Gary Cokins [69]
51. "The acronym PCR may be unfamiliar..." From page 40, Actual Innocence: Five Days to Execution and Other Dispatches from the Wrongly Convicted by Jim Dwyer, et al [70]
52. "an acronym (such as FDA for Food and Drug Administration)", from page 8, Acute Toxicology Testing by Shayne C. Gad, Christopher P. Chengelis [71]
53. "ADHD is an acronym that stands for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder", from page 2, ADHD: 102 Practical Strategies for 'Reducing the Deficit' by Kim T. Frank [72]
54. "VPN has become one of the most-used acronyms in the history of the networking industry." From page 1, Administrator's Guide to VPN and Remote Access, 2nd Edition by TechRepublic [73]

... and I haven't even gotten to books whose titles start with 'B' yet.

Nohat 00:34, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Talk about your circular arguments… the vast majority of your references defines acronym correctly, and includes a note that some people call initialisms also acronyms — ergo the state of the article as it was before your reverts. The loose quotes on people calling initialisms acronyms are, if anything, an argument for pointing out the difference more clearly. Could you please answer the question why it is necessary for the Wikipedia article to define acronyms according to your definition, rather than define acronyms as pronouncable "acronyms", as long as it is kept clear that this is not the only definition of acronym? NPOV does not mean "Nohat's Preferred Original Version". [[User:Anárion|]] 06:32, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your arguments continue to ignore my point that the only arbiter of English usage is usage itself without providing any argument why this point should be ignored. Since this evidence obviously and continuously shows that my definition of "acronym" is used pervasively, I see no reason why this definition should not be accepted as much as any other definition. Nohat 18:44, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)