Talk:Dore Programme

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Alternative medicine Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

The actual quote from the cited resource says: "Wynford Dore, the businessman who pioneered dyslexia, dyspraxia and attention deficit therapy (DDAT) after his dyslexic daughter became suicidal." Ste4k 12:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The actual quote from the other cited resource says: "They were set up by British millionaire Wynford Dore, and have treated 25,000 children with learning problems across Australia and the US." Ste4k 12:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Alderson's article "Brain exercises 'improve' behaviour of criminals" from The Daily Telegraph, 04-06-2006 should not be mentioned under the Effectiveness header. Surely this is an example of "original research" (a breach of Wiki policy)? The tests were commissioned by DORE and the company appear to have gone directly to the media with their results. Apparently, DORE has drawn heavy fire from medical experts in the past for this sort of thing, and their claims are regarded with suspicion by the scientific establishment. How independant were these tests? Did DORE submit to the usual scientific review? Are there journal references? Is Andrew Alderson an epilepsy expert? Someone needs to look into this.

Refutations in Criticism Section

I've removed comments in the Criticism section that aren't criticisms as they do not cite any sources and are just opinions. But I suppose I'm preaching to the choir here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vosechu (talk • contribs) 17:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

This is a very important subject so I think it is equally important that the article is tidied up and made as informative as possible. The claims and counter-claims need to be stated properly and references sited (I've found a few but there are many more out there). I've taken the 'not npov' label off as I think I have taken out the offending statements but clearly there is much to do to make this article as good as it can be. Btljs 22:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stafford prison study

I've just added a note to the Stafford prison section: the study was fully funded by Wynford Dore, and has not been peer-reviewed. There are no further details of the study on http://www.dore.co.uk/research.aspx, but asking the prisoners to report qualitative outcomes introduces an obvious source of memory bias. A more credible study would also have compared outcomes with other methods; the choice when dealing with troubled prisoners is not DORE or nothing. Motmot 15:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now to make this NPOV

A recient edit to the article removed most of the critical material and replaced it with a very positive take on the program. I've restored the criticism section but left the new content. This leaves the article in a messy state which I don't have time at the moment to fix.

We do need to find a way to make the article NPOV, previous versions have been very negative of the program. --Salix (talk): 15:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new material was not only highly POV, it was very poorly sourced and made claims (such as Dore restarting its programme) that were not supported by the source (a Dore press release). I made a change to undid that, add a reliable source on the liquidation of Dore, and convert some of the words to past tense. Hope this helps. Eubulides (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]