# Contextual acronyms should be fine **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [October 8, 2023, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contextual-acronyms-should-be-fine/991272 "2023-10-08T14:54:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Bravo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_bravo/32/493_2.png) [@Johnny\_Bravo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Bravo)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2023, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contextual-acronyms-should-be-fine/991272/141 "2023-10-11T22:32:48Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > “FOIA” is **very** commonly used in journalism, and especially in political discussions. Journalistic conventions often take character counts into consideration, or are descended from rules that did. Other formal writing styles have different conventions. This forum is beholden to none of them. As for your second link, here is the first sentence of the passage describing the purpose of that organization: > The goal of [FOIAproject.org](http://FOIAproject.org) is to provide the public with timely and complete information about every instance in which the federal government grants or withholds records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). We can go tit-for-tat all day on this stuff. None of it really means anything in the context of this specific community’s conventions, which - happily - are in this case landing on the side of proactive clarity. > [@Riemann](#): > > Also called “Sanders” by the _The New Yorker_, which is even more obsessive about getting things like this correct. That’s the Borowitz Report, so it’s probably not a good indicator of when and where they’re obsessing over accuracy. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2023, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contextual-acronyms-should-be-fine/991272/142 "2023-10-11T22:35:05Z")
> [@Johnny\_Bravo](#): > > Journalistic conventions often take character counts into consideration, or are descended from rules that did. I think they’re just referring to the fact that FOIA requests are common in journalism, because it’s often reporters digging into a specific budget or series of communications. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Bravo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_bravo/32/493_2.png) [@Johnny\_Bravo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Bravo)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2023, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contextual-acronyms-should-be-fine/991272/143 "2023-10-11T22:36:20Z")
I mean that a newspaper might use an abbreviation in a title to conserve space, whereas in other styles you would avoid it. ETA: I looked up the actual article that screenshot is from. At the very bottom is this note: > A version of this article appears in print on June 13, 2017, Section A, Page 2 of the New York edition with the headline: The Fight for Freedom of Information. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2023, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contextual-acronyms-should-be-fine/991272/144 "2023-10-11T22:46:29Z")
I understand that. I’m saying that wolfpup is likely just referring to the fact that Freedom of information Act requests are frequent occurrences in the journalistic world. You may hear reporters and pundits alike refer to them, pronouncing it as “‘foy-uh’ requests”, expecting the audience to be familiar with the phrase, especially on the more pundit-y inside-baseball shows. ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2023, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contextual-acronyms-should-be-fine/991272/145 "2023-10-12T00:06:58Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > do you have a cite that she doesn’t like being referred to by her last name? Apologies, you appear correct in this. She refers to herself as Governor Sanders on her [state biography](https://governor.arkansas.gov/about/governor-sanders/). ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2023, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contextual-acronyms-should-be-fine/991272/146 "2023-10-12T00:34:21Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > She is called “Sanders” throughout her Wikipedia article, I’d have thought she would have asked for it to be changed if she didn’t like it. Just a point, as the former primary conflict of interest wonk over at Wikipedia, the article wouldn’t be changed based solely on her request unless it could be backed up by its frequent use in reliable sources, or a persuasive argument was made to generate a consensus among editors at the article that it was the correct title. (Given other evidence provided in this thread, it does seem that “Sanders” is a common public usage after all, so her request would have likely been honored if it was necessary.) But just pushing back… I’ve told celebrities (or more often their representatives) “sorry but no” multiple times when they’ve asked for changes to their biographies that conflict with evidence found in citations. They don’t control their own articles. (I was even threatened with a lawsuit more than once, but I didn’t care because I used a pseudonym there as I do here.) Sorry for a minor hijack, but I just wanted to caution everyone about relying on this particular method of verification. Wikipedia doesn’t work that way. ---
**Author:** ![CairoCarol](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cairocarol/32/3825_2.png) [@CairoCarol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CairoCarol)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2023, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contextual-acronyms-should-be-fine/991272/147 "2023-10-12T01:09:12Z")
Might I propose a bit of guidance we could all agree to, and try to adopt as part of SDMB culture? We all agree that there is a line between: _blindingly obvious acronym; the only reason to spell it out would be in order to be sarcastic - this would include terms like GOP, USA, and SDMB_ and: _acronyms that not all readers can be expected to know; thus consideration for others dictates spelling them out on first reference._ We should also be able to agree that where this line falls varies considerably from person to person. Can we move toward compromise with that understanding as a basis? How about if everyone agrees that we should strive for a culture of tolerance and helpfulness when it comes to acronyms, to wit: **People who understand and use a lot of acronyms:** Do your best to remember to spell things out on first reference. Try not to feel, or at least not express, disdain for people who post simply to point out that an acronym you used was unfamiliar to them. A simple, “oh sorry, that acronym means [whatever]” will suffice as a response. Try to remember that what is obvious to you might not be obvious to someone whose background is different from yours. **People who don’t like acronyms:** Don’t be snide when you ask for clarification. A simple, “Sorry, I’m not familiar with [acronym] and suspect I’m not the only one. Is it [your best guess if you have one]? Or else can you explain it here? Thank you” will do. Try to remember that posters who use acronyms aren’t generally trying to be obscure or jargonistic; sufficiently familiar acronyms are often processed as ordinary words and the poster may not even realize that they were using acronyms. In short, I think both sides need to practice posting in good faith, and assume good faith posting on the part of others. Those who tend to use a lot of acronyms should try to remember to spell them out. Those who think that acronyms compromise their understanding should try to remember that the person posting the unfamiliar acronyms most likely did not intend to be deliberately obscure. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2023, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contextual-acronyms-should-be-fine/991272/148 "2023-10-12T02:42:43Z")
> [@CairoCarol](#): > > I hope this isn’t too tangential, but I’m a bit surprised to read that apparently a few posters didn’t know who Sarah Huckabee Sanders is. (Or perhaps I am misinterpreting.) But it wasn’t about knowing who Sarah H. Sanders is, it was about not knowing what SHS means. Big difference. As governor of Arkansas Ms. Sanders is fairly well known but if you don’t know who it is then look it up. Similarly, if I’m posting in a thread about body-building I might use the term “anabolic steroids”. If you don 't know what that is then you’ll need to look it up. On the other hand, if I just wrote “AS” I have erred by not indicating what it stands for. It is unreasonable for me to assume everyone knows what “AS” means, even in a thread about body-building. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2023, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contextual-acronyms-should-be-fine/991272/149 "2023-10-12T02:53:39Z")
> [@CairoCarol](#): > > **People who understand and use a lot of acronyms:** Do your best to remember to spell things out on first reference. Try not to feel, or at least not express, disdain for people who post simply to point out that an acronym you used was unfamiliar to them. A simple, “oh sorry, that acronym means [whatever]” will suffice as a response. Try to remember that what is obvious to you might not be obvious to someone whose background is different from yours. > > **People who don’t like acronyms:** Don’t be snide when you ask for clarification. A simple, “Sorry, I’m not familiar with [acronym] and suspect I’m not the only one. Is it [your best guess if you have one]? Or else can you explain it here? Thank you” will do. Try to remember that posters who use acronyms aren’t generally trying to be obscure or jargonistic; sufficiently familiar acronyms are often processed as ordinary words and the poster may not even realize that they were using acronyms. I like these suggestions. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2023, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contextual-acronyms-should-be-fine/991272/150 "2023-10-12T03:17:14Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I don’t feel strongly about it, but I think of acronyms mostly like any other bit of vocabulary: **if I don’t know a word, I should put it on myself to learn or infer its meaning** , rather than putting it on the writer to define unusual words for me. [Bolding mine] That works for English words but what if it’s a foreign word? Should that be on you to learn or infer it’s meaning? Because an out-of-place initialism such as “FHRTAO”, for example, is exactly like a foreign word in this usage. It is the author’s place, not the readers’, to communicate effectively. On the other hand, if the thread for example is about quantum physics and it uses some difficult vocabulary such as “Time-Independent Schrödinger Equation” then I as the reader should familiarize myself with that term if I want to discuss it in that thread. But if the author just writes “TISE” then they have essentially used a foreign word when they should have written it out in English (“Time-Independent Schrödinger Equation”). ---
**Author:** ![CairoCarol](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cairocarol/32/3825_2.png) [@CairoCarol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CairoCarol)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2023, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contextual-acronyms-should-be-fine/991272/151 "2023-10-12T03:21:22Z")
> [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](#): > > But it wasn’t about knowing who Sarah H. Sanders is, it was about not knowing what SHS means. No, my post was about not knowing who Sarah Huckabee Sanders is. I was referring to posters who explicitly or implicitly stated unfamiliarity with Sarah Huckabee Sanders, even with the name spelled out in full. See post #83, where LSL graciously says he didn’t know who she was, with the reasonable comment that: > The roster of 150-ish disgraced cabinet members & close insiders of the trump administration are far too numerous and far too vile a hive of scum and villainy to bother remembering the names of anyone except the criminal-in-chief. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2023, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contextual-acronyms-should-be-fine/991272/152 "2023-10-12T03:24:57Z")
Oh. Right-o, then. Cheerio and all that rot! ---
**Author:** ![CairoCarol](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cairocarol/32/3825_2.png) [@CairoCarol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CairoCarol)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2023, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contextual-acronyms-should-be-fine/991272/153 "2023-10-12T03:26:15Z")
Cheers all around! ETA: Oops. “Cheerio” all around.) ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2023, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contextual-acronyms-should-be-fine/991272/154 "2023-10-12T03:42:09Z")
Regarding “FOIA”, I think it’s a great example of an acronym that falls almost exactly between “_everyone_ knows what that means” (like USA) and “what in the world does that mean?” (like DHFRUSMDGIO). I was once going to start a thread where we all try to come up with initialisms that fall in the “in-between sweet spot” like I think FOIA does. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2023, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contextual-acronyms-should-be-fine/991272/155 "2023-10-12T03:42:35Z")
> [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](#): > > if the thread for example is about quantum physics and it uses some difficult vocabulary such as “Time-Independent Schrödinger Equation” then I as the reader should familiarize myself with that term if I want to discuss it in that thread. Who is the assumed audience? People who already know quantum physics or the curious rest of us, maybe intelligent enough to follow the ideas but unfamiliar with the terms? I prefer that a term a large share of the presumptive audience is not reasonably expected to know gets spelled out some. Now we will all guess wrong sometimes. Sometimes we assume words we use all the time out of our interests are also used by others when they are not. Agree with @CairoCarol - try to not do that and I will try to be polite when admitting my ignorance, likely shared by others. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2023, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contextual-acronyms-should-be-fine/991272/156 "2023-10-12T05:05:50Z")
But the main issue here seemingly isn’t an _unknown_ initialism. It’s an “odd” one. So how does this lovely proposed _détente_ help when someone knows the meaning of whatever initialism you’re using, but simply doesn’t like that you’re using it at all. ---
**Author:** ![pjd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pjd/32/3009_2.png) [@pjd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pjd)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2023, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contextual-acronyms-should-be-fine/991272/157 "2023-10-12T10:28:24Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > So how does this lovely proposed _détente_ help when someone knows the meaning of whatever initialism you’re using, but simply doesn’t like that you’re using it at all. It doesn’t. That’s a totally different issue. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2023, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contextual-acronyms-should-be-fine/991272/158 "2023-10-12T10:32:07Z")
> [@pjd](#): > > That’s a totally different issue. It’s the issue this thread’s about. ---
**Author:** ![pjd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pjd/32/3009_2.png) [@pjd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pjd)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2023, 10:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contextual-acronyms-should-be-fine/991272/159 "2023-10-12T10:34:48Z")
I thought this thread was about (over)use of initials / acronyms. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2023, 11:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contextual-acronyms-should-be-fine/991272/160 "2023-10-12T11:08:07Z")
It’s about the moderation around that. And part of that moderation referenced the “oddness” of an initialism where the meaning was admittedly known. So it’s not _just_ about unknown/obscure ones. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contextual-acronyms-should-be-fine/991272.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/contextual-acronyms-should-be-fine/991272.md?page=9)