Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reverse speech

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus to delete - Editors encouraged to discuss possible merger or to expand further. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse speech

I think this page should be deleted, as it is an advertisement for David Oates, who is mentioned in the article. The ideas of hidden meanings in reversed speech dates way beyond him, and it is covered in the Backmasking article. There is nothing significant in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Ellipso (talk • contribs)

Merge anything significant with the backmasking article. Doesn't look viable enough for its own article. 23skidoo (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with backmasking or at the very least redirect there, it isn't that worthless that it needs deleted. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per those above. It looks like a duplicate to me. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see the differences noted about intentional/unintentional, a better merge target might be phonetic reversal. If somebody could point out the difference between those two, I'd say keep, but right now I'm not sure of what sets them apart. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Backmasking is intentional, wheras reverse speech isn't, so I do not feel the two articles should be merged as they aer not a mirror of each other. ArcAngel (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment Backmasking is NOT always intentional, and in many famous instances of supposed backmasking (i.e. Stairway to Heaven and Revolution 9), the phenomenon is usually described as exactly what is being described in this Reverse Speech article. I don't think this article is needed, but the main complaint I have is that it is clearly an advertisement for David Oates and his website/machine. The ideas he talks about were around many many years before him. See any arguments of "satan speaking through backwards music" dating to at least the 1960s. If one were to make an article about David Oates along the lines of the Richard C. Hoagland article, I would have no objection, but I have a serious objection to this article as it is, and especially the focus on Oates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Ellipso (talk • contribs) 19:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why not substituting links to Oates by links to another source that u like better? --Homer Landskirty (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid if you removed the references to Oates, the article would disappear. I wouldn't mind the article being changed, I suppose. I actually have been fascinated with altered sound since I was a kid, which is why I'm so interested in keeping Wikipedia's coverage of this subject free of blatant charlatanism. To be honest, though, I'd still rather have the Backmasking article expanded to include more discussion of unintentional examples and perhaps a small section on the more supernatural theories, such as Aleister Crowley's ideas about it. If it is decided to keep this article, then I will certainly take a crack at improving it, though. Dr Ellipso (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because: i think too that "Backmasking" and "Phonetic reversal" (i can say "hello" backwards...) and "Reverse speech" r 3 different things... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, ad for an unimportant crank. WillOakland (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a fringe theory, this has received critical attention (article published in The Skeptic as well as International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law), along with broader articles such as Journal of Psychology. WHen combined with the press attention (NYT OCWeekly there's enough for an objective article. We do have articles on fringe theories that meet NPOV. --Dhartung | Talk 21:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a fringe theory that gets ripped apart in more than one scientific article. Or merge and redirect into whatever the article about "recognizing patterns where there are none" is called. Lars T. (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pareidolia is the article you are looking for. Λυδαcιτγ 04:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All in all, it appears to be a balanced article, with criticism and promotion referred to. It's been written about before; David John Oates didn't originate it, and the article may have a little bit too much about Oates, but that can be remedied. I agree that it's different from backward masking and phonetic reversal. Mandsford (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I use the words, backmasking refers to the process of recording a reversible message (which I would assume to be deliberate) , whereas reverse speech is a proposed phenomenon that occurs unintentionally in all speech. I don't recall any suggestions that the "messages" in "Revolution 9" and "Stairway to Heaven" are products of the the unconscious minds of the Beatles or Led Zeppelin (they're either said to be intentional or suggested by the devil). And I've certainly never heard anyone say that humans emit backmasked messages in their speech every 15-20 seconds. Λυδαcιτγ 04:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though I've heard humans who seem to emit backside messages every 15 to 20 seconds... it's very distracting... Mandsford (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep and discuss. as there seems to be a unsettled dispute about whether or not this subject is distinct from the related subjects, the things to do is to keep it for the moment, and let the people who understand the topic discuss a possible merge on one of the talk pages. This isnt the place. DGG (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism attributed to David Oates, but there is no apparent independent verification of the use and meaning of this term. The article in question is promotional in nature. On the other hand, backmasking is a contraction of the original term backward masking, which was defined and discussed widely in the 1960s. Unless there is multiple independent verifications of the use and definition of "reverse speech" (as opposed to "reversed speech") outside of Oates (per WP:V and WP:RS), the term does not even merit a redirect. B.Wind (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.