Editing Reverse speech (section)

==Rejection by the scientific community==
Most academics in the field of [[linguistics]] have not paid attention to Oates' work,<ref name="advertiser">{{Cite web| work=[[The Advertiser (Adelaide)]] | url=http://www.reversespeech.com/imgs/advertiser2.jpg | title=Play that back | last=Duffy | first=Michael | accessdate=6 February 2009}}</ref> and it has been called a pseudoscience.<ref name="demon">{{Cite web| url=http://www.csicop.org/si/show/demon-haunted_sentence_a_skeptical_analysis_of_reverse_speech1/ | title=The Demon-Haunted Sentence: A Skeptical Analysis of Reverse Speech | first=Tom | last=Byrne |author2=Matthew Normand  | accessdate=2010-09-27 | year=2000 | work=[[Skeptical Inquirer]]}}</ref><ref name="newbrook"/>  For the most part, universities and research institutes have refused to test Oates' theories because of a lack of theoretical basis to make his predictions even worth testing, and the fact that many of his claims are untestable,<ref name="newbrook"/><ref name="darkecho">{{Cite web | url=http://www.darkecho.com/skepticalbeliever/reverse.html | accessdate=6 February 2009 | last=Shirley | first=John | title=Reverse Speech | work=The Skeptical Believer | url-status=dead | archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20090129080431/http://darkecho.com/skepticalbeliever/reverse.html | archivedate=29 January 2009 | df=dmy-all }}</ref><ref name="dic">{{Cite web| work=[[Skeptic's Dictionary]] | url=http://skepdic.com/reversespeech.html | title=reverse speech | accessdate=6 February 2009}}</ref> but one of the few scientific experiments to evaluate Oates' claims did not support his findings.<ref name="advertiser"/>  Others have criticized "reverse speech" as lacking a rigorous [[methodology]] and not being informed by an understanding of issues in linguistics,<ref name="newbrook">Newbrook, Mark, and Jane Curtain (1997). {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/19980207000019/http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/revspeech1.htm |date=7 February 1998 |title="Oates' Theory of Reverse Speech." }} ''[[Australian Skeptics]]'' '''17'''(3).  Retrieved on 22 March 2009. Archived from [http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/revspeech1.htm the original] on 7 February 1998. [http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/1997/3.pdf PDF]</ref> and characterized Oates as "more interested in making a profit than educating others," pointing out the large amount of merchandise and services his website sells.<ref name="demon"/><ref name="dic"/>  Reverse speech has been compared to the controversial field (labelled a pseudoscience by some) of [[neuro-linguistic programming]].<ref name="dic"/>  Because of the "dogmatic" tone of Oates' material, reverse speech has been compared to "fringe literature."<ref name="newbrook"/>

Oates' own claims about the applications of reverse speech have also been challenged.  One report has questioned whether reverse speech was ever really used in police work, as Oates claimed.<ref name="newbrook"/>  Likewise, his claim that reverse speech has applications in [[psychology]] and psychotherapy is not supported by mainstream research in those fields.<ref name="newbrook"/> Oates' work has been described as "dangerous" because of its potential for misuse and the likelihood of leading to [[false accusations]] of people in criminal courts, similarly to the controversial practice of [[facilitated communication]].<ref name="demon"/>