Talk:Reverse speech

message: The Reverse Speech article could possibly benefit from disambiguation between Backmasking aka Backwardmasking,
the artificial superimposition of a physically reversed (cut the audio tape, half turn,
reconnect to make it play backwards) or digitally reversed track dubbed over a second forward track,
and "true" (sic) Reverse Speech which according to Oates' hypothesis
is spontaneously and subconsciously embedded in the forward speech.
HydraulicJack 06:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly. Would you like to add a disambiguating paragraph? Λυδαcιτγ 21:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this article should be deleted entirely, and some of its contents merged with the Backmasking article.  David Oates has little to do with this subject other than being a modern advocate, and the article seems to be an advertisement for him.  I'm quite sure that either he or one of his believers wrote this article in the first place.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.182.8.21 (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for disambiguation between backmasking and Reverse Speech 

message: Is this related to the ability to talk backwards, to speak words in reverse?  Do you know a medical or academic term for a reverse-speaking ability/condition? Herodthenut 23:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm - The article title sounds like it... I saw/heard that in german TV... It was quite impressive and exact (they replayed it reversed and it was quite clearly spoken german text). I would be interested in a list of reverse-phonemes, so that I can learn it, too... Maybe we should create an own section for this "backwards talking"? I wonder, if such messages would contain a second sentence, too (that can be heard without playing it reversed). --Homer Landskirty 13:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found an article about it: Phonetic reversal --Homer Landskirty 06:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Talking Backwards

message: The Skeptic's Dictionary is a good link but I think arguments from the critical side (and some scientific stuff) need to be added in the article, too. This is just pseudoscientific nonsense.
--— Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.163.16.40 (talk) 2007-05-10T10:00:55 (UTC)
Pseudo science it may be, but I didn't understand a word of this article, could someone who have the vaguest idea like to explain what on earth this postulation is about, as I am non the wiser.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.170.140.101 (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup... Good plan... I tried it...--Homer Landskirty 10:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: contraponents

message: The idea that David Oates was the first to play with this is totally false.  The idea was something I myself have even thought about many many many years ago just from playing around with 4 track recorders, and indeed, people have been playing with reverse speech since the beginning of phonograph recordings.  I remember reading a quote from Aleister Crowley where he says that magicians should play their records backwards.  Reverse music and speech, and crazy theories surrounding the ideas have been around since the beginning of recorded sound.  Oates is certainly one of the most obsessed, but his claims to have invented these ideas are completely absurd.  He has no business being mentioned as "the first" in this article.  He's a footnote at best. 74.182.8.21 (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: origins

message: This article fails to mention that "reverse speech" is widely seen as a pseudoscience and that its claims are not supported by any studies in real academia.  (See, for example, this news article which Oates posted on his own website.)  There are two relatively well-researched attacks on "reverse speech" here and here, and another site (nb: blog post) lampooning it here.  Anyway, if this article is going to stay, it needs to be much clearer about the fact that "reverse speech" is nothing but a ridiculous pseudoscience. rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer)talk/contribs 23:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup needed 

message: More sources about this nut:
*
*.  This article might help with notability, but it is a bit pop-culture-ish (ie, it fails to mention how dumb this theory really is).
rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources