Talk:Wynford Dore

Reviewer's Note
I have made several NPOV edits to the article. The biggest was to cut most of the material about the Dore Programme, which has it's own article on Wikipedia, and does not need to be presented again here; certainly not in such detail. Sources are adquate, but can still be improved.

NB: Please be aware that there is a significant gap between what the Dore Programme, or Dynevore, or Dore Programme proponents, claim regarding the effectiveness of the programme, and what the (apparent) majority of scientists have concluded about the research underpinning those claims. That many people testify that they have benefited from the programme is empirical evidence that there is something to it. However, those scientists whose research was independent, ie not paid for by Dore or his associates, have been unable to find any significant evidence of the programme's effectiveness, and they are strongly critical of the methodology of Dore's research. On Wikipedia, therefore, we need to be very careful neither to state nor imply that this is an effective treatment. Neither can we say that it is not effective, or not a treatment. We can report that Patient A believes or asserts that the programme was effetive. We can say that Researcher B has concluded that it is ineffective. Please be careful to remain neutral with further editing. Thank you.  David_FLXD  (Talk) 17:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

NPOV/poor citations
I'm not a habitual wikipedia editor and I'd like to disclose up front I have some personal encounter with the issue- I was put through the Dore_Programme.

I belive this article has significant problems with NPOV, centered on the dore program and his research into the cerebellum- the entire section has once source, which does not actually state that the science underpins his methods-it's a link to a paper which does not mention his work at all, and no other souce linking it to his work. The Dore_programme article has far more well cited and neutral aproaches to the science and his history.

All the other claims in this section, for example "His methods proved controversial, not with the many thousands of families who used them, but with experts involved with other types of intervention for these issues." is uncited and I cannot find sources to support it- his methods were widley debunked, as documented in the dore article, and I can't find studies of families who used them, or reportage on such.

In another example, there's no evidence that his clinics were closed because he stopped funding them- the dore program article has a much more NPOV and better cited way of dealing with it- "In May 2008 the DDAT company (Dyslexia Dyspraxia Attention Treatment), went into liquidation in the UK."

I think leaving out the scientific critiquie of his work, and advertising standards investigations into it, is deeply misleading, and should be corrected. I'll leave this here for a few days, but if no-one has an objection I'm going to have a stab at rewriting that section(and the introduction) with better citations(and remove citation 4- it's misleading as used) and try and keep it as neutral as I can- if a more experienced editor would like to take a look I'd appreicate it. Adacable (talk) 12:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)