text:
Talk:Speech recognition

Voice Recognition
"Voice Recognition" is analysis of the spectral patterns of one's speech to verify if that voice belongs to a registered individual. Voice recognition is used in authentication systems. "Speech Recognition" is analysis of the speech stream to parse semantic content, frequently used for command and control. Why is even wikipedia conflating these two terms? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.198.206 (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Probably because Voice Recognition is often mentioned together with Speech recognition in published literature. A second reason would be that VR techniques come from SR. OrenBochman (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

 * And laypeople often confuse the terms. --Thnidu (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Textbook Link ?
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/%7Emartin/SLP/Updates/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.135.80.109 (talk) 10:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC) I have no idea how to use wikipedia, but someone needs to revert this page back to how it was a couple edits back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.244.50 (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Old comments
Content from Speech Recognition, now a redirect here.

''My understanding is that the entropics HTK toolkit, while available, is copyright microsoft. I would suggest looking elsewhere for places to start... probably CMU sphinx, as evil and difficult as it is to use.''

NotSoAnonymousCoward 17 Nov, 2005

''The phonemes identification is produced when the sound of speech arrives at the computer as analogue wave forms. At the end of the process, these phonemes make up words, which recognise the inputs either they are continuous or discretes. To gather every single word is necessary a hard and long work, which goes on in training samples (known as corpora). There are also some problems when trying this. First of all, the recognition of the kind of speech, depending on a deliberated speech or a continuous one; besides, the difficulty to identify any speaker with the trouble individual speech brings. The pollution in the system produced by outer noises is also another problem. And at the end, to overcome the Grammar mistakes caused by differences in accents, dialects and spoken languages.''

Charles Matthews 09:20, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Note on the Technical Issues Section: I recently added (as an anonymous user) the first part of this section (up to SPHINX) and deleted the original content which was not really technical and which was mostly speculative rather than factual. Many parts of the original section are wrong or irrelevant. Someone put back the original part which makes the whole thing look like it was stitched together. Perhaps the original part (after SPHINX) should be called something else, e.g. "challenges in speech recognition". -Dan

 * If it's wrong, then correct it. If it's mislabeled, then label it correctly. Don't just delete--that's not we do things here. Nohat 23:08, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I restored the above content. It's generally considered bad form to delete content from Talk pages unless it's been archived to an archive page. Nohat 23:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Other old content from Speech Recognition, now moved here as it is too vague and too out of place. Perhaps someone can boil down some observations in it into a paragraph on the technical difficulty on speech recognition.

Some other key technical problems in speech recognition are:
 * Inter-speaker differences and also intra-speaker variations are often large and difficult to account for. It is not clear which characteristics of speech are speaker-independent.
 * Speech recognition system are based on simplified stochastic models, that do not match the real speech accurately.
 * The interpretation of many phonemes, words and phrases are context sensitive. For example, phonemes are often shorter in long words than in short words. Words have different meanings in different sentences, e.g. "Philip lies" could be interpreted either as Philip being a liar, or that Philip is lying on a bed.
 * Co-articulation of phonemes and words, depending on the input language, can make the task of speech recognition considerably more difficult. Some Languages, such as English, have large amounts of co-articulation in conversational speech (consider for example the sentence "what are you going to do?", which can be pronounced as "whatchagonnado?", which has no resemblance to the "correctly" pronounced sentence).  Other languages have almost no co-articulation, and are therefore much easier to recognize. Japanese for example is strictly sylable based, and has no co-articulations, which makes it much easier to recognize than English.
 * Intonation and speech timbre can completely change the correct interpretation of a word or sentence, e.g. "Go!", "Go?" and "Go." can clearly be recognised by a human, but not so easily by a computer.
 * Words and sentences can have several valid interpretations such that the speaker leaves the choice of the correct one to the listener.
 * Written language may need punctuation according to strict rules that are not strongly present in speech, and are difficult to infer without knowing the meaning (commas, ending of sentences, quotations).

The "understanding" of the meaning of spoken words is regarded by some as a separate field, that of natural language understanding. However, there are many examples of sentences that sound the same, but can only be disambiguated by an appeal to context: one famous T-shirt worn by Apple Computer researchers stated, I helped Apple wreck a nice beach, which, when spoken, sounds like I helped Apple recognize speech.

A general solution of many of the above problems effectively requires human knowledge and experience, and would thus require advanced pattern recognition and artificial intelligence technologies to be implemented on a computer. In particular, statistical language models are often employed for disambiguation and improvement of the recognition accuracies.

For foreign speakers an unintended side-effect of using speech recognition technology is that they can improve their pronunciation while trying to make the computer understand what they're saying.

-- 18 Apr 2004; moved by Dan

copyvio
Possible copyright violation from http://www.wombatnation.com/2004/04/speech-recognition/ Arvindn 08:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, a large portion of the content does appear to have been copied directly from a post I made to my blog in April, 2004, albeit with a bit of reorganization and editing. All the material on my blog is licensed under a non-commercial, attribution Creative Commons license. I certainly don't mind having content I've authored show up on Wikipedia, and given the nature of Wikipedia articles, I don't expect attribution. However, it would been nice to have been notified about it directly. Thanks very much, Arvind, for bringing it to my attention, as a link to this page showed up in my website referer log today. RobertStewart 00:45, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

It looks like someone copied in the material on March 4, 2005. Nohat, I saw your comment, "this section is not written in a very encyclopedic style--it is too breezy and sounds like it's written from a single POV." That's spot on! I thought I was just providing a useful summary on my blog, not writing material for an encyclopedia article. As I stated above, you're welcome to use whatever you want of what I wrote. The edits to date have certainly improved it, but I agree that it (at least the parts derived from my original post) could use a lot more editing to make the content more suitable as an encyclopedia article. I'll try to do some editing myself to update things that have changed over time. RobertStewart 01:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

amend
"Speech recognition systems have found use where the speed of text input is required to be extremely fast." It is hard to believe it could outrank the keyboard with a very proficient typist. Even if the speaker trains to speak extremely fast (which is only possible for short amounts of time due to the huge consumption of neural processing) there still wouldn't be a market and thus no software for it.

speech recognition vs voice recognition
I was under the impression that speech recognition differs from voice recognition (which uses voice or voiceprints to identify someone). If so, I don't think a search for voice recognition should redirect someone here to speech recognition.

Am I too off target?

Bill

 * You're thinking of voice authentication, which as of this writing is an article which does not exist yet. You are correct, voice recognition should be a disambiguation page pointing to speech recognition and voice authentication. Nohat 23:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Open source software
Are there any open source speech recognition projects? It would be great to summarize how the best few are doing or note the lack if there are none. — Hippietrail 17:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

There are some, all of the following are under a MIT-like license:

http://cmusphinx.sourceforge.net/html/cmusphinx.php http://www.cavs.msstate.edu/hse/ies/projects/speech/index.html

SimonSays
Quoting: Start-ups are also making an impact in speech recognition, most notably SimonSays Voice Technologies. A Toronto-based company, Simonsays has made several breakthroughs in robust server-based speech recognition. Though SimonSays currently possesses a smaller market share, they are certainly a company to watch.

I would rather like to have some references. This sounds too much like an adverisement. SiriusGrey 17:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

non-encyclopedic?
In terms of freely available resources, the HTK book (and the accompanying HTK toolkit) is one place to start to both learn about speech recognition and to start experimenting (if you are very brave) The last bit about being brave seems kinda POV... sentence should be reworded? Ben Tibbetts 23:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

 * "In this entry, we will the use of hidden Markov model (HMM) because notably it is very widely used in many systems. (Language modeling has many other applications such as smart keyboard and document classification; to the corresponding entries.)". In the section "Performance of speech recognition systems" is rather unclear. "In this entry"? Remains of the copy from the blog, possibly? Musically ut 15:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

some clean ups
I have clean up some of the descriptions, mathematics in the previous version up to the point of "HMM-based speech recognition". The previous description was biased towards commercial speech recognition. So it is easy to mislead readers on some basic facts.

Things I will point out is that on one hand, dictation engine could have high recognition performance. However, for individual speaker, the recognition rate could be varied from speaker to speaker. Notably, when the user speak English with different accents, then the performance will not usually be 98%. So this is generally more a claim, than a fact.

Another thing I will point out is the mathematical explanation of the basic principle of speech recognition. The previous authors obviously mistaken the use of noisy channel formulation (The P(W|A) thing if you don't know what I mean) with HMM. This I will call a mistake, because without the max term appear in finding the best words sequence, it is actually not trivial to remove the term P(A). The theory of speech recognition is actually quite sophisticated. The explanation in the old version lacks of certain mathematical vigor.

This version is still lacking behind a certain standard. For example, I strongly agreed the comment in non-encyclopedic and simon said. The former is really POV and the latter is really just an ad. I also disprove of using Bill Gate's quote in speech recognition. (He is really not a researcher of speech recognition or any speech related research at all.

We also need more scholarly articles and references to support the content. Hopefully, we could add that in future.

 * This section was added by at 06:50, 18 May 2006; see . --Thnidu (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Missing history
This article jumps into the technical issues without giving any context to the history of speech recognition advances over the years. In the intro there is a very short summary of applications, but there are no dates or names associated with them. I guess patent filings would give a good history of who did what when in this field. --DeweyQ 15:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the history is very poor for this topic. For some reason, the content seems to imply that speech recognition software is limited to, or at least largely aimed at, medical applications. My awareness of the history of this idea is that it was going to "make keyboards redundant within X years" ... its failure to do so is in my opinion what the history should cover. 150.101.121.107 01:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

 * "One of the most notable domains for the commercial application of speech recognition in the United States ..." another article which reads like ONLY the US have such technologies ... read i.e. the German version, and learn how Philips (from the Netherlands) took leadership on speech recognition. If I had a wish free at christmas: stop US-propaganda in Wikipedia. --77.186.130.110 (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I also miss a history section on the topic! I.e. the German article covers it, and usually English WP articles with a much smaller amount feature a history section! --PutzfetzenORG (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I just made a first attempt at re-writing the history section. --Dithridge (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Redirected from Speech to text
Funnily enough, the Speech-to-text article was redirected but the Speech_to_text article wasn't. I have rectified this. rmccue 01:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC) hi

Broader Implications of Speech Recognition
This article focuses heavily on the "nuts and bolts" technical discussion of speech recognition technology, and gives scant coverage to the actual business uses, which are many. For example, this article could be expanded to include the impact phone-based speech reco systems have had on customer service (positive and negative). There's also an interesting movement to displace outdated and cumbersome touch-tone IVRs with speech-enabled systems.

Nezzo 15:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Software?
No mention of the programs that one could use to perform speech recognition (i.e., NaturallySpeaking or ViaVoice)? Or how about cell phones and car navigation systems with voice commands? Personally, I thought this was lacking from this article. RobertM525 03:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as a user I am more or less stunned that the article doesn't even mention Dragon NaturallySpeaking, which is clearly the best speech recognition program out there. I don't know of anyone who disagrees with that, but I would be happy to hear differently. 70.32.206.42 01:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Gene Venable 4 December 2006.

Well, that's a POV. In my experience, Dragon is not the best. Probably better to stay away from naming specific companies, although perhaps a reference list of the most well known is useful. A list of applications would be much more useful (such as the cell phones, or car navigation). NWebb 19:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a pointer to a separate List of speech recognition software page that has that information, including identification of discontinued and unsupported software (e.g., ViaVoice). But I think this page should have some useful information, some sort of top-level summary, not just an easily missed link in the last sentence before the "See also" section. Further, that page may give an incorrect impression, because the available software options for platforms other than Windows are presented in table formats, but the Windows options are presented in three successive unordered lists. I will have a run at producing a software list table for Windows so that the presentation is consistent. Brucewh --/Bruce/ [aka Slasher] 07:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Remove external link
Removed a spam link (several times) to a website called ivrdictionary. This is a thinly veiled attempt to put advertising on Wikipedia. Links were added by several anonymous users within a tight IP range. Website purports to list ivr terminology, but in reality it prominently displays an advertisement to Angel dot com, which is a commercial company that sells IVR related products. The same links were added to other articles that are related to IVR technology. Calltech 16:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello.
Would anyone like to take a stab at making an overview for the following almost-the-same-thing subjects. I know someone round here is just salivating at the prospect of 4 slightly different articles saying the same things but I personally find the whole thing confusing and unrequired. Please put an overview.

 * Speaker recognition
 * Speaker verification
 * Speaker identification
 * Speech recognition

--I'll bring the food 01:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I think your first three are pretty much all the same thing. Don't forget Automatic Speech Recognition, (ASR), voice recognition, Direct Voice Input, (DVI), voice command, speech interface, natural language processing, etc etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

 * The latest edit by Tbutzon to the opening paragraph is very welcome. Am sure similar improvements could be made to the whole of this article. But the statement that ASR....."converts spoken words to text" is not strictly true. I agree in most applications it will, but a visual representation of the output from ASR, including standard graphemes, may or may not be produced, even when the recognition is successful. That’s a system design/ HMI question. But I'm note sure how to correct this. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Books Section
I find it odd that this article has a section titled 'Books' this section currently conatins a single book on the subject (despite there being many and links to a online bookshop website where the book can be purchased. To me this reads like an advertisement especially as the book presented seems possibly less specialised on the subject of speech recognition than many other books that are out there but of course are not all listed. Canderra 01:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible external link
I think that VoxForge (www.voxforge.org) should be added as an external link (but I am the VoxForge maintainer, so I cannot add the link myself). LDC is listed, and it *sells* Speech Corpora. VoxForge is trying to create a free English speech corpus for use in creating acoustic models for open source speech recognition engines. We are similar to the BAS – Bavarian Archive for Speech Signals site, which provides a free database of spoken German, which also has an external link. Kmaclean 18:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism here and else where from 65.175.138.211
Please note the "wes is gay ..." comment here. Look then at the history of changes and look at the other things this AC has changed recently. Vandalism pure and simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.44.127.179 (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"machine-readable text?"
I would agree with User: Three-quarter-ten that the task of most ASR is to take an input of human vocal utterances and to deduce from them, by means of phonemes, syllables or word shapes, a series or "words" conforming to an expected syntax or natural lanuage. But the visible (or audible) output is going to be a system design decision, e.g. the output might be - where to route a bag in an airport baggage handling depot, might be a grade on a pupil progress chart, or might be a string of words spoken in a different language i.e. not necessarily "written text" at all. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Very good point. I revised my edit from "converts spoken words to machine-readable text, that is, to a string of character codes" to "converts spoken words to machine-readable input, for example, to a string of character codes". I guess that the irreducible common denominator, regardless of the system, is that the output of speech recognition is a binary string to be used as some sort of input. With a string of character codes to be input into a Word document being a very archetypical example. Thanks! — ¾-10 00:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Binary code certainly, but I'm not sure where "character codes" come in. That's usually the output of an alphabetic keyboard/ keypad, which the ASR usually circumvents entirely. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I see what you mean. From the point of view of the average user, what they "put in" is speech and what they "get out" is a string of character codes, which is to say, "typed" text in their Word document. I'm going to try another revision: "converts spoken words to machine-readable input (for example, to the binary code for a string of character codes)". That's a little dense for the lay reader, but it's more accurate than what I had before. If anybody has any ideas for yet a better phrasing (accurate but lay-friendly), feel free. — ¾-10 01:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Solicitations of any kind are not proper for inclusion in Wikipedia artilces. OccamzRazor (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Shameful anti-Gates bias!
The article makes no mention of Windows Vista, even though it has one of the most advanced spoken command recognition and speech dictation capability among home and office use affordable environment. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And? Just add it - better than howling around here. By the way, those "capabilities" may work in English, maybe ... maybe ... it is not working in the German Vista version.

--77.186.130.110 (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Future of
There is no mention of the expected future for speech recognition. Any studies on the expansion of markets, acceptability of users, rate of increase of robustness to noise, etc?

It has been stated that speech recognition machines may exceed a humans understanding by the year 2012. Can anyone confer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.21.242 (talk) 05:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

whoever said that is so dumb, i mean really dumb, for real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.178.124 (talk) 04:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Speech-to-Text Reporter
Speech-to-text currently redirects to this article, however Speech-to-Text Reporter is not even mentioned on this article. Speech-to-text reporting is obviously a subset of speech recognition, but as the corresponding article presents no in-text citations and relatively little information anyway, I recommend a merge rather than an inset summary. Neelix (talk) 23:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

 *  Agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Completely disagree. Speech to text descirbes the process whereby people (stenogtraphers or palantypists) create a live sylabic feed that a computer compares to a dictionary to display words on screen. The computer does not recognise directly what the speaker is saying, it is the human operator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.152.126.73 (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to be simply suggesting that because the computer speech recognition is not optimal in this case, the operator (or a second operator) has to check the output word-by-word before it is saved? But isn't that true for many, if not most, applications which have a visual HMI component? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But reading Speech-to-Text Reporter I now see that it is, as you say, basically a real-time audio-typing function, albeit with a special keyboard. It thus seems to have nothing to do with computer speech recognition and I have to change my view to "Completely disagree" also. Apologies for missing the point first time here. It may be a "subset of speech recognition", but only insofar as is any natural human speech recognition. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Completely disagree per user 93.152.126.73. Untrue Believer (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed addition: LumenVox Speech Engine
request edit

Full disclosure: I am employed by LumenVox, which sells a commercial automatic speech recognizer. I make this disclosure in compliance with the WP:SCOIC guidelines. While I am a longtime user of Wikipedia, I have no experience as a contributor and would appreciate any help or guidance from editors.

Essentially I would like to suggest that our product, the LumenVox Speech Engine, be added to the list of "Commercial software/middleware" in this page. A description of the product can be found on our Web site at http://www.lumenvox.com/products/speech_engine/

I am not sure precisely what sorts of third-party references are needed to justify inclusion into this list, but if any editors can supply me with the type of references that would be required to justify notability, I can happily provide references. I don't see any references for the other applications in the list. I do believe the product (and the company) meet the notability guidelines.

Stephen Keller (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

 * It looks like someone added this in the mean time. Is it accurate? -- kenb215 talk 20:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it looks good. Stephen Keller (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Speech-to-Text vs Text-to-Speech
Aren't those 2 different things? Speech-to-text is like Dragon Naturally Speaking whereas Text-to-Speech would be the email readers or the speech reader for the Kindle 2. Shouldn't that be clarified? Harriska2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC).

Laptop?
The caption under the main pic (screensaver) describes it as a Toshiba Laptop; is this accurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.24.9 (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Conflation Error, Corrected?
An individual speaker can make a speech with their voice, but isn't always the owner of the speech that they have just spoken; a speech can be written down on paper in words (or binary), and repeated.

A voice is a completely different thing, a voice is what an individual generates in their mind, and owns, even before it leaves their head (even if it's then recorded, and finally repeated elsewhere afterwards, as a speech / waveform).

A voice might be pre-molecular in origin, it might not be, but might also be beyond any systematic explanation, so what, its still a voice (just like a tree is a tree).

The semantics, the lack of scientific categorisation, and use of terms, or lack of, has completely messed-up this article.

Wiki needs definitive linked definitions to the following:

Voice recognition, as a generic term (with links to the following two types of voice recognition).

Speaker recognition, as a means of voice evaluation / verification, etc..

Speech recognition, as a means of voice convertion to text / command controls, etc.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.197.208 (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Linkfarms
I've remove the Commercial software/middleware and Open Source Software/Middleware sections per WP:EL and WP:NOTLINK. --Ronz (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ronz. For the benefit of anyone feeling that the lists should be restored, the See Also section has wikilinks to List of speech recognition software and Speech recognition in Linux which cover most of the notable ones without turning the main article into a link farm Kiore (talk) 11:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for Review of Potential New Article: LumenVox
I am an employee of a company that I believe deserves an article on Wikipedia, but I am reluctant to post the article myself due to my obvious conflict of interest (I believe in the past my company had some employees post articles which were then deleted). It was previously suggested to me that I write a version of it in my user space and ask for it to be reviewed and eventually created by other editors. I have written a draft of the article at and would like feedback on whether it is sufficiently NPOV, researched, and if it meets the notability guidelines. Any help is appreciated. Stephen Keller (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This has been done.Stephen Keller (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Update Links (Euro Fighter)
Reference 3 is a dead link, isn`t it? (Euro Fighter) I don't know the original page, but my suggestion is: http://www.eurofighter.com/capabilities/technology/voice-throttle-stick/direct-voice-input.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.134.136.209 (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Current Research
The discussion of current research is controversial, provocative and not supported by citation. The implication that funding for speech recognition has been reduced since 2001 is factually false. The DARPA projects EARS and GALE were both very well funded.

It is also misleading to say that performance has plateaued. Large vocabulary speech recognition has always been a very difficult task. Most of the performance improvement over the last 35 years has been due to the steady accumulation of small incremental improvements. The published results from the EARS and GALE research continues this trend. In fact the EARS project was noted for a reduction in error rate on certain tasks of nearly a factor of two, one of the largest single-year improvements in speech recognition performance.

It is true that DARPA has changed focus in that GALE no longer supports recognition of English, but only of Mandarin and Arabic. However, it has always been DARPA practice in speech recognition funding to continually shift focus to harder tasks as sufficient progress is made on the earlier tasks. It is sign of success, not of failure. Jay Page (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

 * it is true that is not DARPA anymore funding this research. But then other entities should bring on this research. DARPA is always on the forefront of research. According to this article the situation hasn't changed much from 2001 to 2006. http://robertfortner.posterous.com/the-unrecognized-death-of-speech-recognition If there are other results you should write them with the bibliography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.81.64.228 (talk) 10:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

An error in the History section
There seems to be an error in the first paragraph of the History section, it says the IBM shoebox was first exhibited in New York's world fair of 1964, even though the article for the IBM shoebox states,just as the official IBM site, that it was shown to the public in 1962 at the Seattle's World Fair

Excuse me if my way of speaking is confusing, English is not my first language and I haven't practiced it in years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.172.101.197 (talk) 05:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Quality & refs
I am not happy with the refernces (just 8, 3 of which are irrelevant) or the overall quality of the article. It talks a lot about applications, but doe sot really deal with the technical challenges etc. I would say a 70% rewrite is needed. Not that I can pay attention to it now, but it should be suggested for someone in the field to rewrite. History2007 (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Stress and fatigue voice characteristics
Where is the best place for voice monitoring for other measures such as stress, e.g. and fatigue, e.g., and ? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

How close are we...?
I mean, how close is Wikipedia from a [Click for Audio] button so I could listen to Wikipedia articles while I'm doing something else entirely? Anybody know if that is even in the pipeline? Thanks!

very misleading section under the title "Neural Networks"
The five paragraphs under the title "Neural Networks" are very misleading. They imply that the only work done on Neural networks and speech recognition before 2010 was to use only neural networks on their own, that is without integrating with HMMs. Whilst this was true for a few years in the late '80's, in the early '90's saw the integration of MLPs and RNNs with HMMs (the neural nets replaced the GMMs in HMMs). This allowed phoneme recognition (see, Deep_learning which starts in 1992) and word recognition (see the section Deep_learning which says "Both shallow and deep learning (e.g., recurrent nets) of ANNs have been explored for many years.[42][43][44]"). In my mind this is enough evidence to show what the problem is, but I can find more if needed.

As I did quite a bit of the RNN/HMM work in the '90's I'm well placed to see the problem here and I do know the history so I could fix it. However, that would be in violation of the Conflict_of_interest, so if I can help someone else do it please let me know.

DrTonyR (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Voice Tag
Voice Tag redirects here, but is not explained in the article. -- Beland (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC) hello dear kira — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.161.205 (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

A spoken language that's easy to understand for AIs?
I'm aware humans are attempting to make software understand their speech. But is there a spoken language specifically designed to be easy to understand by software? I enabled closed captions on a random YouTube video, and Google's software still messes up so much... Surely humans are smart enough to be able to design a spoken language that's easy for both humans (for speech) and AIs (to recognize)? Unless I'm overlooking it, I don't see anything on this in the article. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Human natural languages have developed to optimise "human-human" communication. Are you talking just about artificial grammars and vocabularies that use words from existing languages, but restrict legal utterances? Or are you also looking to include general phonetic restrictions as well to create, for example, a wholly artificial spoken language? I guess there would be a trade-off on how easy that would be for any human to learn. AI-recognisable spoken language used in most applications is quite task-specific? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Martinevans123. I'm aware of WP:NOTFORUM, so I'll keep it relatively short. Basically, I'm wondering if a 'wholly artificial spoken language' exists with essentially a full vocabulary that's designed to make speech recognition much easier - yet still being easy enough for humans to learn. A universal language that any human, regardless their native language, could learn to easily communicate with AIs. Because lots of effort is put into improving software to understand dozens - if not hundreds - of different languages that are spoken in all kinds of ways. Is there a versatile language with characteristics (words or sounds) that are impossible to mix up for AIs. Is any research going into that direction. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. I have never heard of any. I suspect the problems might outweigh the benefits. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * DNC training recall task.gif

Everyone
Hi everyone 27.109.115.130 (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Ada pesan dari siganteng heri
Hallo sayang 36.68.53.51 (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

India Education Program course assignment
This article was the subject of an educational assignment at College Of Engineering Pune supported by Wikipedia Ambassadors through the India Education Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 19:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

First sentence is not a sentence?
"Speech recognition most important an interdisciplinary subfield of computer science and computational linguistics that develops methodologies and technologies that enable the recognition and translation of spoken language into text by computers with the main benefit of searchability."

Perhaps I'm just having an aneurysm, but this is seems confusing. 72.192.173.145 (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

 * I also noticed that and came here to see what was up with it 66.108.250.83 (talk) 07:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Linguistics in the Digital Age
— Assignment last updated by Fedfed2 (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Bias
I am a first time editor, please let me know if this looks ok? I think it would be good to add in the performance section.

Bias
Speech recognition tends to understand certain races and genders better than others. Speech recognition has a worse performance for women and non-white English speakers when looking at accuracy in English. Speech recognition has difficulty with certain accents and dialects. The rate of accuracy depends on the dialect that is spoken. Scottish and Indian accents tended to be misunderstood by speech recognition programs, like YouTube's auto-captioning.

These biases exist because speech recognition software has had more exposure to certain types of voices, which can lead to the programs getting voices not included in the training mistaken. Companies that use speech recognition are taking steps to try and fix the bias, but the bias exists on many speech recognition platforms today.

 * 1) ^
 * 2) ^ Jump up to:a b

 * This page was last edited on 13 October 2023, at 23:50.

Pbroskoff (talk) 23:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Crear voz para hablar
Crear voz para hablar 152.206.232.240 (talk) 09:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

 * Could you make any comment(s) here in English? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Speech recognition


text:
Impedance bridging

In audio engineering and sound recording, a high impedance bridging, voltage bridging, or simply bridging connection is one in which the load impedance is much larger than the source impedance. The load measures the source's voltage while minimally drawing current or affecting it.

Explanation

When the output of a device (consisting of the voltage source VS and output impedance ZS in illustration) is connected to the input of another device (the load impedance ZL in the illustration), these two impedances form a voltage divider:

V_L = \frac{Z_L}{Z_S + Z_L} V_S \,. $$

One can maximize the signal level VL by using a voltage source whose output impedance ZS is as small as possible and by using a receiving device whose input impedance ZL is as large as possible. When $$ Z_L \gg Z_S $$ (typically by at least ten times), this is called a bridging connection and has a number of effects including:
 * Advantages:
 * Reduces the 6dB attenuation incurred by impedance matching, which helps by reducing the amount of make-up amplification required and by maintaining a high signal-to-noise ratio. However a transformer can be used instead to match impedance and provide better signal-to-noise. And the 6dB attenuation can be easily be made up in the amplifier.
 * Facilitates connecting multiple loads to the same source.
 * Reduces current drawn from the source device, which helps avoid wasting power and helps reduce distortion. Less current through the wire also reduces resistive loss.
 * Disadvantages:
 * Increasing ZL possibly increases environmental noise pickup since the combined parallel impedance of ZS || ZL (dominated by ZS) increases slightly, which makes it easier for stray noise to drive the signal node.
 * Signal reflection from the impedance change. However for audio frequencies, a quarter wavelength at 20 kHz is approximately 2500 meters, so audio circuits in studios never become true transmission lines.

Limit attenuation of voltage signal
Impedance bridging is typically used to avoid unnecessary voltage attenuation and current draw in line or mic level connections where the source device has an unchangeable output impedance ZS. Fortunately, the input impedance ZL of modern op-amp circuits (and many old vacuum tube circuits) is often naturally much higher than the output impedance of these signal sources and thus are naturally-suited for impedance bridging when receiving and amplifying these voltage signals. The inherently lower output impedance of modern circuit designs facilitate impedance bridging.

For devices with very high output impedances, such as with a guitar pickup or a high-Z mic, a DI box can help with impedance bridging by converting the high output impedances to a lower impedance so as to not require the receiving device to have outrageously high input impedance (which would suffer drawbacks such as increased noise in long cable runs). The DI box is placed close to the source device, so any long cables can be attached to the output of the DI box (which usually also converts unbalanced signals to balanced signals to further increase noise immunity).

Increase electrical efficiency
As explained in, the efficiency $R_{L} == R_{S}$ of delivering power to a purely restive load impedance of $η$ from a voltage source with a purely restive output impedance of $η$ is:$$\eta = \frac{1}{1 + R_\mathrm{S} / R_\mathrm{L}} \, .$$This efficiency can be increased using impedance bridging, by decreasing $R_{L}$ and/or by increasing $R_{S}$.

However, to instead transfer the maximum power from the source to the load, impedance matching should be used, according to the maximum power transfer theorem.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Impedance bridging


text:
User:Elsa Lambarri

Voice Analysis
Voice analysis studies the speech sounds. These studies, which include medical analysis of the voice, are not only made to study linguistics content.

It's important to mention, related with this topic, stammering // stuttering, which is speech disorders and speech processing, where we can find Artificial Intelligence (AI) and linguistics.

title: User:Elsa Lambarri


text:
Bay-class landing ship

The Bay class is a ship class of four dock landing ships built for the British Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) during the 2000s. They are based on the Dutch-Spanish Royal Schelde Enforcer design, and replaced the Round Table-class landing ship logistics logistics ships. Two ships each were ordered from Swan Hunter and BAE Systems Naval Ships. Construction work started in 2002, but saw major delays and cost overruns, particularly at Swan Hunter's shipyard. In mid-2006, Swan Hunter was stripped of work, and the incomplete second ship was towed to BAE's shipyard for completion. All four ships, RFA Largs Bay, RFA Lyme Bay, RFA Mounts Bay, and RFA Cardigan Bay had entered service by 2007.

Since entering service, the Bay-class ships have been used for amphibious operations, training of the Iraqi Navy in the Persian Gulf, counter-drug deployments in the Caribbean, and relief operations following the 2010 Haiti earthquake. In 2010, Largs Bay was removed from service as part of the Strategic Defence and Security Review. She was sold to the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) in 2011, who operate her as HMAS Choules (L100).

Since 2020, the RFA has used the ships for littoral warfare as part of Littoral Response Groups. The ships are expected to serve with the RFA into the 2030s, after which they are expected to be replaced by new Multi-Role Support Ships.

Development
The Bay class was designed as a replacement for the five Round Table-class landing ship logistics logistics ships operated by the RFA. Planning for the class began in the 1990s, after the original intent to modernise and extend the service life of three Round Tables ran into problems with extensive corrosion and problems implementing new safety standards. After the first Round Table returned to service two years late and after excessive cost, the Ministry of Defence began to investigate the acquisition of new ships.

In April 2000, the MoD released an Invitation to Tender for two ships under a budget of £150 million, with the option to acquire three more. Appledore Shipbuilders, BAE Systems Naval Ships and Swan Hunter submitted tenders, but only Swan Hunter's design met all the tender requirements, at a price of £148 million. A shortfall of work for BAE's Govan yard led to fears that it could not deliver the Type 45 destroyers and Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers planned for later in the decade, so the Treasury agreed to fund an additional two LSDs to be built at Govan.

Construction
The contract for RFA Largs Bay and RFA Lyme Bay was awarded to Swan Hunter on 18 December 2000 and the £122 million contract for RFA Mounts Bay and RFA Cardigan Bay was awarded to BAE on 19 November 2001. Construction on Largs Bay started at Swan Hunter on 28 January 2002, and on Mounts Bay at BAE on 25 August 2002.

Swan Hunter struggled to manage the project and contain costs; only 7% of the design drawings were provided on time and more than 52% were over a year late. Swan Hunter's owner, Jaap Kroese, has blamed the MoD for continually changing the specifications. The extent of the problems only came to light in September 2003, when Swan Hunter said they could not fulfill the contract at the agreed price. In November 2004, progress on Largs Bay was delayed by water entering two engines during engine trials, putting the planned first of class behind work on BAE's first ship. The following month the government agreed to pay Swan Hunter an extra £84 million under new contract terms, but in June 2005 Swan Hunter said that they still could not finish the job within budget. This led to their contract being cancelled and BAE taking over the project in July 2006. In total Swan Hunter had been paid £342 million and BAE £254 million, making a total of £596 million for the four ships.

Mounts Bay entered service in July 2006, followed by Largs Bay in November of that year, 28 months later than originally planned. The incomplete Lyme Bay was towed to Govan for completion by BAE. Lyme Bay was dedicated on 26 November 2007; the last ship of the class to enter RFA service. The ship was the only warship built by Swan Hunter but not completed; she marked the end of shipbuilding on the Tyne, as soon afterwards Swan Hunter sold its equipment to India and reinvented itself as an engineering consultancy.

Characteristics
The Bay class is certified as a class 1 passenger ship, with design similarities to ro-pax ferries. The design is based on the Royal Schelde Enforcer, a joint project between the Dutch and Spanish resulting in the Rotterdam-class amphibious transport dock and Galicia-class landing platform dock amphibious warfare ships. The main difference is that the British ships have no helicopter hangar. The ships were originally designated Auxiliary Landing Ship Logistics (ALSL), but this was changed in 2002 to Landing Ship Dock (Auxiliary) (LSD(A)), better reflecting their operational role and bringing them into line with the NATO designation for the Royal Schelde vessels.

The Bay-class ships have a full load displacement of 16160 t. They are 579.4 ft long, with a beam of 86.6 ft, and a draught of 19 ft. Propulsion power is provided by two Wärtsilä 8L26 generators, providing 6000 hp, and two Wärtsilä 12V26 generators, providing 9000 hp. These are used to drive two steerable azimuthing thrusters, with a bow thruster supplementing. Maximum speed is 18 kn, and the Bay-class ships can achieve a range of 8000 nmi at 15 kn. The ships were designed to receive an armament of two Phalanx CIWS, two manual 30 mm DS30B cannon and various small arms, but the exact weapons fit varies within the class.

In British service, the everyday ship's company consisted of 60 to 70 RFA personnel, with this number supplemented by members of the British Armed Forces when the ships are deployed operationally. For example, Largs Bay's deployment in response to the 2010 Haiti earthquake saw her sail with a core crew of 70, plus 40 Royal Logistic Corps personnel for boat- and cargo-handling duties, and 17 from the Royal Navy and Royal Marines for security and related tasks. Australia operates Choules with a permanent crew of 158 including a Ship's Army Department of 22.

As a sealift ship, each Bay-class vessel is capable of carrying up to 24 Challenger 2 tanks or 150 light trucks in 1,150 linear metres of space, with stern- and side-ramp access to the vehicle deck. The cargo capacity is equivalent of 200 tons of ammunition, or 24 twenty-foot equivalent unit containers. During normal conditions, a Bay-class ship can carry 356 soldiers, but this can be almost doubled to 700 in overload conditions. The flight deck is capable of handling helicopters up to the size of Chinooks, as well as Merlin helicopters and Osprey tiltrotor aircraft. There is no hangar for long-term embarkation of a helicopter, although a temporary shelter can be fitted to house a Merlin or smaller helicopter. The well dock can carry one LCU Mark 10 or two LCVPs, and two Mexeflotes can be suspended from the ship's flanks. Two 30-ton cranes are fitted between the superstructure and the flight deck. Internal passages are wide enough to allow two fully kitted marines to pass each other.

Operational history
In 2006 Mounts Bay took part in Operation Vela, a major amphibious exercise off West Africa.

In mid-April 2007, Cardigan Bay sailed for "Operation Orion 07", a four-month deployment to the Mediterranean. From 2008 until the end of 2010, Cardigan Bay was used to accommodate and train personnel of the Iraqi Navy under the tutelage of Royal Navy and United States Navy personnel. During this time, the ship operated almost exclusively in the Persian Gulf.

In late November 2007, Largs Bay was deployed to the Caribbean for counter-drug operations. During the deployment, the ship visited ports across the Caribbean islands and the United States mainland, and intercepted a 575 kg cocaine shipment. In late 2008, it was reported that Largs Bay was to replace the frigate HMS Northumberland (F238) for duties in the Falkland Islands. Northumberland was to have left for the Islands in December 2008, but was instead sent for an anti-pirate patrol off Somalia.

On 3 February 2010, Largs Bay headed to Haiti with aid supplies for relief efforts after the earthquake. On 18 February 2010, she arrived at Port-au-Prince and commenced unloading of the supplies. On 30 March 2010, she returned home.

In December 2010, it was announced that a Bay-class vessel, later identified as Largs Bay, would be decommissioned in April 2011 as part of the Strategic Defence and Security Review. On 17 March 2011, the Australian Department of Defence announced that the RAN would be bidding for Largs Bay; this was followed on 6 April by news that a £65 million (A$100 million) bid had been successful. She was commissioned into the RAN on 13 December 2011 as HMAS Choules (L100), after receiving modifications for service in tropical conditions. A transformer in the propulsion system failed when she was en route to a training area on 14 June 2012, after earlier reports that the ship could not maintain top speed without transformers overheating. An insulation failure had short-circuited the failed transformer, while others aboard were showing signs of premature wear. With no spares available, the need to order from the manufacturer combined with the decision to replace all of the transformers aboard meant that Choules was kept out of service until April 2013.

In June 2011, Cardigan Bay headed to Yemen to aid with the potential evacuation of British citizens affected by the ongoing unrest there.

title: Bay-class landing ship


text:
Talk:Suicide door

Needs a picture
Needs a picture. I can't imagine how this works in my mind. Dysprosia 09:30, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I put a link to one up, at least until someone here can get to an auto show and take a picture. I don't go to too many, myself, but I'll take one if I get the chance. -- Djinn112 11:28, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

 * Also look at the red convertible at Lincoln Continental. Unfortunately the picture I put up at Ford Thunderbird of my '67 suicide-door doesn't really show them.  I'll probably shoot some pictures of it specifically for this article. —Morven 01:46, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Great, it all makes sense now :) Thanks Dysprosia 09:20, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Interesting, never heard the term 'suicide door' before. London taxis have such doors at the back only, so the driver can reach out the window and open the rear doors for the passenger without getting up. Don't know what make or model these cabs are. --Auximines 11:40, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, the door style is rare these days, so it gets less mention. I seem to remember them being called that sometimes in the UK as well.  —Morven 01:46, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

I reckon the Mazda RX-8 came before the Rolls-Royce Phantom, if we're looking at 21st Century uses of suicide doors.

Suicide Doors
Its not a "suicide door" because of how it is hinged. It is called that because if you have to jump out of the car in an emergancy the doors would hit you. Dudtz 9/6/05 5:27 PM EST

This Century? Erroneous?
I always associate the term with 1920's and 30's Dusenbergs and the like. Death might or might not be suicide (e.g. if one were pushed out of the back seat of a moving car with the back door open).

Not named because of the way it's hinged?

But it's the way it's hinged which would cause you to be hit by it if you did fall or jump out of the back seat while the car was moving). True, a similar effect could be gained by exiting the front seat with a front-hinged rear door open, although the impact would in that case tend to close it.

I.e. primarily, I agree with the previous commenter. (commentator?) Except for the "how it is hinged" comment.

An aging online OED doesn't appear to have the term at all (not even in a random citation). A web search finds little, but did suggest that it's more likely that you will fall out of such a car while the door is moving. (If you lean on it, and it starts to open, forces will tend to open it further rather than pushing it back shut, I suppose).

We need a corpus, and earliest citation etc, to see if we can determine who first called them that and determine or infer why.

Alright, I see, looking at the history of the article, that the explanation (originally omitted entirely) here was "perceived danger of door falling open at speed", and changed to its current explanation in August 2005. E.g. http://www.answers.com/topic/suicide-door gives (copies, reproduces) (currently) an earlier version of this Wikipedia article.

To a certain extent, it's always a little suicidal to get out of a door into the road, and many passengers will exit any car's rear seat by shuffling across to the curbside, suicide doors or not.

To another certain extent, derived etymologies cannot be erroneous. People hear "suicide door", look at how it functions, and derive their own reasoning for the term.

To lend substance to the claim that the "falling out", or "being hit by", claims are erroneous, a citation from an early source, perhaps an automobile magazine, must be given in which the author clearly links their use of the term, ideally the original (coining) use, to the worry about the open door obscuring an exiting passenger. (And, true, preventing the passenger from minimizing their encroachment onto the roadway space). But I still say there will be nothing suicidal about the door on the curb side of the car (usually the "passenger side", but not necessarily, depending up on parking regulations).

Unless documented historical proof of the etymology of the term can be found and cited, I think all possible explanations should be mentioned with near equal weight (ie. "others say", rather than "some erroneously claim").--SportWagon way before 22:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I have undertaken to add to this item, specifically with regard to the sentence
 * (although some erroneously claim it refers to an increased danger of the door falling open while at speed)
 * As I said above, the article presents no proof of its etymological claims, and upon reading of Neutral point of view I cannot see how the words "claim" and "erroneously" can be considered to adhere to NPOV. IMHO, changing to "others say" would be sufficient.

 * That said, I can see that this is a very minor point. My suspicion is that this article has merely been overlooked by any senior members who would feel entitled to rule.  My hope is that some such member will agree with my proposed edit, but if someone assertively disagrees I wouldn't wish to invoke any machination to continue the dispute.  Had the article not been this way for so long, I would have simply made my proposed edit.--SportWagon 23:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I've done a little research on this. Here's what I've discovered:
 * The term "suicide door" refers to any door hinged to the back of the vehicle. This definition was quite ubiquitous and I feel its pretty safe.
 * If the intent of the disputed sentence is that suicide doors have or had a tendancy to open spontaneously, a little knowledge of physics and aerodynamics is enough to safely slap the "erroneous" label on it. Therefore, if such a claim is made, "erroneous" is not biased.  However....
 * I could find no source at all that said that suicide doors had that tendancy at all.  I therefore recommend the entire parenthetical be removed as there's nothing cited to support the claim.
 * I also found the etymology of "suicide doors" suspect.  The origin most often quoted is that if the door became unlatched while the car was in the motion, the door would fly open rather than be forced closed.  I quote from The San Diego Reader:
 * If a door came unlatched, because it was hinged at the back the air moving past the car flung the door open, and passengers often fell out. In crashes the door latches tended to fail, and the backseat passenger would fly out of the vehicle. Hence, the nickname.
 * So, I pretty much am proposing an entire rewrite of the opening paragraph. In the meantime, I've been bold and switched the NPOV tag to a  -- ShinmaWa(talk)  06:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks for all that. While the citation might agree with my overall contention that the "others erroneously claim" statement is false, I would put zero stock in it. It is not a citation dating from the time of the origin of the term.  (In other words, the current author would say, "Yes, that citation is one of those erroneous claims".  It is unlikely that we will find on the internet a citation, with an explanation, of early use of the word.  (pre-1940 would be good; one wonders when the notion first appeared that there was something dangerous about these doors, however).

 * Or do you mean the citation to support the "some erroneously claim"?

 * Note that the meaning of the word might correctly arise from erroneous assumptions. That is, "The word arose from people's fear, unfounded if one does the proper physics analysis, that air would tear the door wide open if it became unlatched as the car was moving."   You seem to think the physics analysis to disprove that is obvious.  It is not obvious to me.  Perhaps it would be appropriate to briefly explain or cite such analysis in the article.

 * I dispute your assertion of the meaning of the parenthetical sentence in question. The sentence means to me that people's belief that that is the derivation of the meaning of the word is erroneous.  I repeat, it's perfectly possible for a word to be correctly derived from an erroneous belief.--SportWagon 17:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I dispute your assertion of the meaning of the parenthetical sentence in question. The sentence means to me that people's belief that that is the derivation of the meaning of the word is erroneous.  I repeat, it's perfectly possible for a word to be correctly derived from an erroneous belief.--SportWagon 17:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

"People hear "suicide door", look at how it functions, and derive their own reasoning for the term." "I repeat, it's perfectly possible for a word to be correctly derived from an erroneous belief." I think SportWagon is correct. I've come up with a few more, possibly erroneous, dangers below. Unless we get some definitve source on the derivation, I think the article should say that it is named "suicide door" because it is thought to be dangerous, but what possibly dangerous aspect of the door it was named for is not known. Then, the possible dangers of the door should be given along with the likelihood of the situation happening. -- Kjkolb 17:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

 * My only feedback on this is that we have a citation of a newspaper (San Diego Reader), whose reporters supposedly did the research on our behalf. I think SportWagon might be setting the verifibility bar a mite too high here.  To find a citation from the time of origin is overkill and not necessary.  Under WP:V, we are not required to fact-check newspapers as they are considered trustworthy enough for citation.  For your convienence, here's a quote from this policy:
 * [Emphasis theirs] One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher. [...] "Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable or credible sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
 * As it is, the current article has NO citations at all.  Unless you have a better source or have some convincing reason why we should not trust the San Diego Reader as a trustworthy source, I don't see any reason why we can't leverage the information it provides.   I also wholeheartedly disagree with Kjkolb's idea of stating that the etymology of the term is unknown.   Saying so is a positive assertion that is counter to citable references.  In other words, unless you have a citation from a reputable publisher stating the etymology is unknown, that assertion should not be added, per WP:V.  -- ShinmaWa(talk) 22:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

 * But taken the way you suggest, the newspaper citation contradicts what you asserted as a NPOV use of "erroneous". It says, amongst other things, exactly the "erroneous" claim.  Regarding the actual comparative danger of a rear-hinged door opening, after some thought, my non-expert understanding of physics caused me to decide there was no extra danger of it spontaneously coming open if unlatched ("wind force" still keeps it shut), but that if it was pushed open until the point where wind got inside the door, at that point it would have more tendency to fly open than a front-hinged door.  But you say we would need to find a published analysis of such.  But you also say we can assume your citation as verified.  (That citation seems to be from an advice column; I'm not sure myself that they might not have more latitude for unverified opinions than actual news reports; should we attempt to contact that author and ask his sources?)--SportWagon 17:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

 * There's a big difference between unverified and biased. I still find nothing biased with that statement.   It might be inaccurate and unverified, but its not biased.   However, on the accuracy front:  I have to admit that I was splitting hairs a bit on the difference between the citation and the article.   The article seems to refer to the door opening on its own at speed (which is counter to aerodynamics) versus the citation which was specific about the door being unlatched first, either manually or because of a crash.   I saw these as two very different assertions even though the difference was subtle.   In either case, what we currently have in the article is an uncited assertion.   What I'm suggesting is to replace it with a cited assertion, because that is Wikipedia policy.  If you want to contact the author and get his sources, more power to you.  However, please remember not to violate WP:NOR when you do so.
 * At any rate, my interest in this article was to resolve the NPOV check that you requested. I'm fairly convinced that I have done so.  What you have here is a verifibility issue, not a bias issue.  If you'd like to discuss any potential bias further, feel free to contact me on my talk page.  Best to you, -- ShinmaWa(talk) 18:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

 * To find suitable citations for the meaning, I would suggest looking for reports which led to the apparent banning in the late sixties. Note that modern "suicide doors" (e.g. RX-8) are actively held shut by the front door.  Edit: Er, sorry, I missed the Rolls Royce Phantom.  Perhaps there was never a legal ban, but one would guess there must have been some consumer write-ups at the time which helped cause manufacturers to discontinue them--SportWagon 17:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I note ShinmaWa makes special note of if the door became unlatched. I would argue that a large number of those "erroneous claimers" would assume that was a necessary condition for the flying open at speed.  (Some old-fashioned door-handles might open when leaned-on or accidentally snagged).  But I'd say,  sure, make that nuance specific.--SportWagon 17:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Other danger
The article says that the main danger, or at least the reason for the name, is another car hitting the door while entering or exiting the car. However, a more common danger would seem to be the vehicle moving while someone is getting in or out (by the driver's inattention to a passenger or forgetting to set the parking brake). The person might be dragged along with the car or go under the back wheel.

Aside from getting in or out, it would be more dangerous than a regular door if left open while the vehicle was moving. If a pedestrian was hit with a car door, a regular door would deflect (and tend to not stay wide open in the first place), but a suicide door would hold strong and possibly drag you. -- Kjkolb 11:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

 * But in a hearse, the passenger in the back is already... dead —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.49.126 (talk) 02:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

 * If you exit the car, and another car is passing by, that's dangerous anyway. Also, the other car may go from the front, not from the back. - 37.9.29.40 (talk) 13:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

New Mini Clubman
The New Mini Clubman (see www.motoringfile.com/2005/03/16/the_new_mini_clubman) has suicide rear doors.

Article dated March 3, 2005. --SportWagon 23:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Second-Order Research
Here is an online "report of a report"

 * www.rx8club.com.

It claims that "suicide doors" have been banned in Germany since 1961. It also claims the modern versions are required to have some measure of interlock to prevent them from being opened while moving (often implemented by preventing them from being opened before the front doors are opened, which sounds dangerous, but could be no more dangerous than a regular two-door car.--SportWagon 00:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This has answered the question. I looked up the other cars that are bringing back suicide doors and they also cannot be opened unless the front doors are opened. That indicates that suicide doors are dangerous mainly in motion, which excludes the possibility of the danger being getting in and out of the car and having a vehicle hit the door. Also, there are deadbolts for suicide doors that can be retrofitted to old cars so that they cannot be opened while the car is moving or unless the front doors are opened. I doubt that every car manufacturer is getting the danger wrong, so I suggest that the article be changed.

Stiil, they wouldn't be as safe as regular doors. People might not be able to get out in fire, or get help after being severely injured in a crash, unless the driver is able to open his/her door, and the driver may be killed or incapacitated. Also, if there is no one to open the passenger side front door, someone in the backseat on the passenger side will have to escape through the other door, which will take more time and might be blocked by a dead or incapacitated person on the driver's side. Even if they are able to get out, they may receive more severe burns than they would have otherwise. Not being able to open the doors if the vehicle is moving would be the safest option. However not allowing the rear doors to open may be dangerous as well. For example, if the driver parks the car on a slope and gets out and leaves, a passenger may need to get out if the car starts rolling because the driver didn't leave it in gear and/or set the parking brake. It would be tricky, though. You might want to jump out as far as you can if it's moving faster than a couple miles an hour. This is assuming that the hill is steep or long, or the car could roll into the right of way of fast moving traffic. Otherwise, you would be safer if you just put your seatbelt on. You could try to get the car to stop by climbing into the front seat if you have time, but if you crashed before you get there, you'd be really screwed. -- Kjkolb 02:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

 * It was the following anonymous revision which first suggested the fear was unfounded. (using the term "quite safe" which is trans-Atlantically ambiguous.)

 * version comparison (8 June 2005)

 * It was the following two quick successive anonymous revisions which added the "erroneously" claim, and parenthesized the remark.

 * showing net result of both changes (21 September 2005)

 * I really don't see why this second wasn't just treated as a case of (mild)vandalism?
 * --SportWagon 17:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you should change the article, if you want. I'm working on some other stuff right now, but I might get around to it later. -- Kjkolb 17:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I won't change it today (on Friday; I have reduced access until Monday...). Next week if it's not done by then. --SportWagon 23:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Another Anecdote
I remember my father (born in 1923) explaining to me that the doors used to have hinges in back, and, the door opener handle was a lever. People would rest their arm on the lever, and the door would open. (our car had a levered handle, but not suicide doors). He did not refer to it as a suicide door, but, he did say it was unsafe.

Also, a comment - the "kidnapper door" paragraph is superfluous. It's also poorly written.

 * Correct: long, long ago there were no arm rests in doors and the inside latch release was the same as the outer latch release: a downward lever. In the 50's this became an upward lever. Nowadays the lever is integral to the door, separate from the armrest. People unfamiliar with classic and/or junk cars wont know this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.49.126 (talk) 02:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Properly (something like) Rear-Hinged Doors
This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. We should be describing the engineering concept, not people's linguistics. The main article should be (something like) "Rear-hinged doors", with a brief mention that they are sometimes called "suicide doors". "Suicide door(s)" should redirect to that.

I will attempt to confirm that vendors avoid the term "suicide door", and perhaps find out how they do refer to them.

--SportWagon 21:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

 * A Google search for rear-hinged automobile door currently finds lots of matches, including:
 * www.chalkhillmedia.org/Museum (another unsubstantiated definition of suicide door)
 * autos.msn.com; article clearly uses rear-hinged doors in reference to what this article talks about, and does not mention "suicide"
 * --SportWagon 23:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. That's like saying Aspirin should properly be under Acetylsalicylic acid since its more "technically correct". People aren't going to be looking up "rear-hinged door"; they will be looking up the term they've actually heard: "Suicide door". I have no problem with setting up a redirect though. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 07:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Both of you have good points. It is most commonly known as a suicide door, and it is probably what people will search for most. However, it is a slang term. Rear-hinged door is more neutral and descriptive. I'm leaning towards rear-hinged door, but I would not be opposed to either name, as long as one redirected to the other. -- Kjkolb 08:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't consider it a slang term. It is a popular term, much like "seat belt" is the popular term for "safety restraint" or "safety belt" (the vendors' preferred terms).  Vendors, of course, don't like to refer to suicide doors by that name since it is poor marketing.  I really don't want to fall prey to marketing political correctness.  "Gull-wing doors" are not called "top-hinged doors" and seat belts aren't called "safety restraints" in this encyclopedia.  I don't see any reason why this article should be any exception.  -- ShinmaWa(talk) 08:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

 * My Subaru Impreza owner's manual uses "seatbelt(s)" consistently.  NPOV is itself a type of political correctness. Avoiding undue negativity can be argued to be political correctness, but in the case of "suicide doors" it's not really evasiveness on the part of the manufacturers/marketers--they really are attempting to avoid invalid connotations.  Just because something is contentious doesn't mean it's better than its non-contentious alternative.  Citations for "rear-hinged doors" should be easier-to-come-by, and the possible origins of the (not universally known) contentious name can be relegated to a sub-issue.  Apart from anything else "kidnapping doors", FWIW, fits in better then.  This is an encyclopedia of things, not words/phrases.--SportWagon 18:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Fine. Let's make this a numbers game.  On Google:
 * "Rear-hinged door" and "Rear-hinged doors" - 15,610 hits.
 * "Suicide door" and "suicide doors" - 235,700 hits.
 * "Safety belt" - 2.2 million hits. :)
 * You are never, ever going to convince me that a term that is over an order of magnitude less previlent is "better" based on some vague notion that an adjective-noun pair is somehow more encyclopedic than the term it is actually known by. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 03:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

 * To be fair, 'Seat Belt' beats 'Safety Belt' by four-fold on Google by your rules. 68.219.104.145 23:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope! Rear-hinged door redirects here. 99.101.126.114 (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course it does, it's another name for the same thing. The question is which one should be the article and which one the redirect. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 19:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Positive aspects
The article (including the title) currently reads as one long criticism; if these doors are so bad, why are manufacturers putting them on cars again? There must be some positive aspects to them, which the article should mention, even briefly. Do the doors make it easier to get in and out of the car? Are they stylish and popular among a certain crowd? What? (I know nothing about them so I won't modify the article myself; just stumbled onto here.) --ScottAlanHill 21:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it one advantage is that someone wearing a dress can turn and get out of the seat more elegantly and with less contortions than is the case with a front-hinged door. There is less chance of a 'knicker flash'.

 * Hmm...that sounds like another reason not to have them.172.191.28.59 (talk) 08:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Citation for perception originating the term
Following the discussion from above, we can find:

http://www.sdreader.com/php/ma_show.php?id=476

This is journalistic, and not really historical. Note that even if the physics totally disprove the theory that the door could fly open, that does not prevent that erroneous perception from being the (correct) derivation of the term. However, the article doesn't currently have a References section, so one would need to be added, and I don't have time to do that this minute.--SportWagon 16:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Tewrrible contradictory article.
This article contradicts itself on many points please go back and change it.

01:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)~

A Little Engineering Lesson
Of course Suicide Doors are dangerous. That's how they get their name. Its a matter of aerodynamics and engineering. It was not a big deal when cars drove fairly slowly. But when cars are going 60 mph plus, you could be pulled right out of your seat and into the street!

Lets say your door is slightly ajar. You don't realize it until you are at speed. With a normal car its not a problem. You try the handle and push the door out a little and slam it shut. The air passing the car door tends to make the door self closing. The wider you open the door, the harder the air pushes against the door to close it. Case closed.

However, if you have suicide doors its another matter. Say, you notice the door is slightly ajar and you unlatch the door and attempt to open it a little and slam it hard. The problem is, that if you open the door an it opens a little more, the forces are doubled again. Before you know it, your hand is being pulled very hard and you are in danger of being pulled from your seat. You can push someone off balance fairly easily with a 5 or 10 pound push, if they are relaxed, and not strapped in.

As an architect, I used to do some basic wind load calculations. Typically we design buildings for a wind load here of about 15 pounds per square foot, which is the load you get at something like 90 or 100 miles per hour. Something short of a hurricane, but something that can happen in a car without being a race car. Say a door, with glass, is about three and a half feet high and about two feet or so wide if partially open. Thats about seven square feet total. Multiply that by 15 pounds per square foot and you get over 100 pounds of force on a door and thereby your arm trying to pull you out of the car. Granted, most people are not going to open a door two feet at close to a hundred miles an hour. But realize that if the door pulls away from you at first 5 pounds then 10, then 20, then 40, then 100 pounds, within a second or so, you are being pulled in a way that is irresistable. If you let go of a suicide door, you might wreck the door. So you might tend to hold on longer than you should. Potentially very dangerous IMHO. WonderWheeler 05:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you find citations for this? Would the aerodynamic effect not be affected by the door shape?  Couldn't a rear-hinged door be pulled shut just as powerfully as a front-hinged, if the airflow is appropriate?  (Just asking) --SportWagon 15:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The rear door could be pulled shut only if the wind came from the opposite direction. Or if a wing of some kind was attached near the front edge of the door, like at a 45 degree angle, such that it would tend to force the door closed. The problem being that it would stick out away from the car to do any good, and would tend to slow the car down. Also, it would only work for a little while, until the area of the wing was less than the area of the door exposed to the wing, then the door would be pulled open of course. Even if the vane was the same size as the door, it would still try to pull open the dorp at some point or the door travel.

Wind acts in two ways, pushing against the door and puling away in suction. The 15 psf figure I mentioned is for just about the worst case, a basic box, with its broadside facing the wind. The force against the face is about 60% or so of the total, the suction is about 40% of the total force on that face. In the specific case of a suicide door, the force on the leading edge (pressure vs suction) may be even greater as the door acts a bit like the edge of a knife trying to cut into the oncoming air. The basic wind speed and loading in pounds per square feet is from the Uniform Building Code, which was published starting in about 1927 in southern california. Its last edition was about 1997, when it was superceeded by the so-caled International Building Code. The 1997 UBC if I remember correctly, has its section on wind loads in chapter 19 or 23. It uses an equation to modify the basic allowable wind load by adding factors that try to take into account the importance of the building, the height above ground and type of terrain, and the existance of special wind areas, like the santa anna winds. Maybe an engineer can contribute an opinion on all this. WonderWheeler 05:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Further Links
This page needs to be edited to show the perceved and proven danger of suicide doors, but also the new advances in car engineering that allow special locks that keep them from popping open at speed. Also the positive benefits of the doors in allowing parents to put child seats easily in rear etc.

Inclosed are some links: regarding a guy that got pulled out by a suicide door as a child: http://www.topix.com/forum/autos/rolls-royce-phantom/TCTUNNQP7IB1VEVR3

A descriptions of special deadbolt type locks for these doors http://www.streetrodstuff.com/Articles/Body/Suicide_Door_Deadbolts/

A recent patent for locking these doors http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5655800-description.html

Further descriptions of the problem http://automotivemileposts.com/autobrevity/suicidedoors.html

A company that makes novel hinge kits including 180 degree hinges for these doors http://www.aerokits.net/cart/ WonderWheeler 04:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Dave Shoe comments moved from main page
Note that "suicide doors" references more than just a class of car with rear mounted door hinges. The 1960s Lincoln and Thunderbird 4-door cars with so-called "suicide doors" were quite safe, compared to early cars which coined the term "suicide doors". You must go back to the early 1930s to find popular American cars which caused numerous accidental deaths due to the door design. Ford, Plymouth, and other cars of the early 1930s offered an optional 2-door car with rear hinge, but these cars also had seats mounted forward of the door hinge, and when one of these rear-hinged door would accidentally pop open, the occupant's first reaction would be to grab the door handle, at which time they would be ejected from the car because there were no seat belts and there was nothing to lean a shoulder against. Rear-hinged doors did not disappear after this issue was recognized by car manufacturers, but the hinges were effectively relocated to move the seats further rearward in the car. When later "suicide door" cars popped a door open, the occupant would still reflexively grab at the door handle, but their shoulder would contact the vehicle body and provide safe leverage to close the door. Much later, cars would interlock the rear "suicide door" with the front door to make it impossible for the rear-hinge door to open without a deliberate opening of the front door, followed by deliberately opening the rear door. No one lost their life over the design of a 1960's era "suicide door". The term "suicide door" has natural appeal, and so it has stuck to rear-hinged doors, but the truly dangerous ones were found only in the powerful V-8 powered cars of the early 1930s. Search "Deuce Coupe" (1932 Ford Coupe) or "3-Window Coupe" to learn more about real "suicide doors". Dave Shoe, Mpls, MN.

(Moved by Alfvaen (talk) 04:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC))

kidnapping doors?
not sure if anyone else said this, but ive never heard of that on my life, and i googled it real quick and I only see one refrence to it from a blog... Cherokee40 (talk) 11:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've heared it several times. // Liftarn (talk)

American English?
I don't think I've ever heard 'suicide doors' used as a descriptive term in Britain. It may be used in the custom car and modding worlds, but a lot of American slang and terminology is common there. I know these doors as 'front opening doors', and many British cars were fitted with them before the 1960s.

Is the term used in other English speaking areas? If it is regional, the article should refer to the fact. --80.176.142.11 (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely the common term for rear-hinged doors in Australia XQx (talk) 03:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

 * I'm British and aware of the term. It may be American-English origin, but it's in use in "proper" English.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.75.83.25 (talk) 09:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

1957/58 Eldorado Broughm
The Eldorado had a special half B pillar that the rear door locked to when the car was in gear. It was mechanical, not electric.

Also no mention of hearses, particularly Superior (S&S) conversions. Porque non?

Suggest keeper of the page contact Cadillac and Hearse enthusiasts in SoCal. Anyone coming to an article on Suicide Doors is probably interested in Lincoln Connies and Caddy Hearses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.49.126 (talk) 02:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Studebaker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Studebaker_4-Door_Sedan.jpg

Mrtiller (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studebaker_Land_Cruiser —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrtiller (talk • contribs) 18:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

History Section
The quote from Dave Brownell seems unnecessary. I doubt gangsters had much influence on car design, they were unlikely to be driving late model cars in the first place. Sofar 2 (talk) 05:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

 * The influence part is likely true, but they had an awful lot of ill-gotten disposable income to spend on fancy new cars.172.191.28.59 (talk) 08:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Ford F-150's suicide door
I think it should be no9ted in the article that the F-150 example is a half door and is only able to be opened when the front door is open as well.216.67.3.61 (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Modern Use
Under the image is the caption "A Lincoln concept car reusing classic "suicide door" styling first seen in 1961. Note total lack of B-pillar." There are plenty of examples decades earlier than 1961 of 4-door cars with no B pillar - try e.g. Lancia. Eddaido (talk) 09:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Modern Use 2
Most modern UTVs and tractors with cabs use Rear hinged doors. not sure if this applies to the article or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.89.46 (talk) 03:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Chinese use?
I've been watching Medical Examiner Dr. Qin, and Li Dabao in that series drives a small two-seater car that only has suicide doors (so no safety interlocks with front facing doors.) I assume it's a normal vehicle for China, and is probably worth a note in the article, but I know little about cars or life in China, so I can't add anything.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Toyota Tundra clamshell doors
I changed this on the article - 2003 was the last year Toyota Tundra had clamshell doors instead of 2002. I know because I have one. Also, in this truck, the front door must be opened to open and close the rear door. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.3.92.145 (talk) 03:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Article name could be changed
"Suicide door" is a slang term and is not universally used; not a good name for the article. Also, the term is used in boldface in the first paragraph, while other names do not appear until the next paragraph. I would suggest renaming the article, and putting all names used in the first paragraph. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 12:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Personal experience
I see there's been much discussion about the possibility of a door "becoming unlatched". While this is an encyclopaedia and opinions, and experience, count for nothing—sources are needed—I describe an incident that happened in my family (without consequences, due to good fortune rather than any lack of danger): a toddler was in the back seat of a car, next to a front-hinged door (no child seats or rear-seat safety belts at that time). The driver slammed the door from outside, and we travelled. On arrival I went to open the door; to my shock it was not latched and could be pushed open. Fortunately the child didn't lean on it. There are two points here: 1 - a door doesn't have to "become unlatched" in some improbable way, it may simply not be closed properly. 2 - given that the door wasn't latched, it seems reasonable that the airflow helped to prevent it opening more; a rear-hinged door, if it opened a crack, would tend to be blown open. I'd hope that doors latch more reliably these days, and rear seat belts and child seats obviously make a major difference. (Thinking back, I don't remember for sure that the door was front-hinged, though I assume it was.) FWIW. Pol098 (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Modern vehicles
At least in Australia suicide doors seem very common in modern vehicles. Is that not the case elsewhere? Many people movers rear doors are suicide doors. 120.21.174.153 (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Suicide door


text:
User:Estibaliz Larrañeta

Voice Analysis
Voice analysis studies the speech sounds. These studies, which include medical analysis of the voice, are not only made to study linguistics content.

It's important to mention, related with this topic, Stammering // Stuttering, which is speech disorders and speech processing, where we can find Artificial Intelligence (AI) and linguistics.

title: User:Estibaliz Larrañeta


text:
User talk:Kramer

Thanks
Thanks for taking the time to thank me for editing your new page. I'm glad to help. I'm also still learning my way around wikipedia. Yesterday I was just looking for something to contribute to...

Are you Mark Kramer?
Hello there Kramer: I just happened to stumble across your username whilst looking through an article's edit history, and wondered: are you Kramer as in Mark Kramer, of Shimmy-Disc and JREF Paranormal Challenge fame? If so, I just wanted to say what an honour it is to meet you here, because I have long admired your work that you did as the JREF Challenge Facilitator in demonstrating the right way of using scientific method to combat the delusional; your exchanges with applicants are greatly educational, I think, to anyone interested in the field of paranormal investigation. Your masterful approach to handling such outlandish claims - despite applicants frequently dropping out due to your success in devising a watertight protocol - was a lesson to us all on how to deal with the irrational superstitions that proliferate in society, and thus I count you amongst my scientific heroes. You've actually, I note, been here longer than, since May '04; and so, I look forward to seeing you edit here more often, as I feel your expertise would be of great value to the paranormal-related articles here. Yours, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not the Mark Kramer you seek. --Kramer (talk) 05:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law

The article Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of List of academic journals by preprint policy for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of academic journals by preprint policy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of academic journals by preprint policy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. fgnievinski (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Center for International Security and Cooperation for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Center for International Security and Cooperation is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Center for International Security and Cooperation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. {{u| Sdkb  }}  talk 02:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kramer