Talk:Dore Programme

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative medicine

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

Autism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture 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.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Actual quote from cited resource

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]

The same edit was inserted again. Please discuss this sort of thing on the talk page first. I also suggest consulting WP:NPOV and WP:V for why there may be problems with that edit. For now, I've reverted it again. Eubulides (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Dore itself is editing here, and trying to brighten up the page, deleting criticism, etc. see http://holfordwatch.info/2010/03/17/dore-and-some-interesting-wikipedia-edits/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.137.22.156 (talk) 08:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I edited the lede to make it not just positive, but reflect some of the criticisms of Dore as well. Right now all the "not so positive parts" are in the section "Further Research". But someone just reading the intro does not get a sense of it without reading the whole article. Hopefully this helps balance a bit. Thoughts? Nasa-verve (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

This article has serious issues with the sources used. Self published primary sources are not acceptable. Self published YouTube promotional videos are not reliable sources. Unduly self serving content from self published, primary sources has to be removed.

"The Dore method demonstrates that, as skills become more automatic, the working memory required to perform a task decreases." this is unsourced assertion of fact that needs WP:MEDRS quality support.

"The Dore Programme aims to stimulate the development of the cerebellum and hence to strengthen the communications between the cerebrum and cerebellum." with the promotional website of the company selling this programme for a reference. This is grossly out of compliance with policy.

Tags going on, heavy trim to coming. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other brain training program/special ed articles that need editing

People who contributed to this article are requested to have a look at the articles of similar topics: MeeMo, Cogmed and LearningRx and make any improvements necessary. Please keep the articles as balanced as possible. Thanks in advance.--Taeyebaar (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dore Programme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Dore Programme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]