Talk:Paolo Zamboni

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Paolo Zamboni. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Paolo Zamboni at the Reference desk.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Medicine: Society Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Society and Medicine task force.

WP:BLP concerns

Editor User:Galassi is assigning theoretical ideas (ie: chelation therapy - in the current version now simply called vein "cleanup") to Dr. Zamboni for which no references have so far shown to exist. This sort of editing has the potential to tarnish the scientific reputation of this doctor. As a result of this concern I am reverting more than 3 times to preserve this doctor's reputation. Sincerely, 87.231.131.227 (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above editor has since edited the article and moved away from the original research of "chelation therapy" he/she introduced however there is still a concern in that the word "noticed" is used relative to iron and "heavy metals" in the brain. There are no references saying Dr. Zamboni "noticed" anything and there are no references talking about "heavy metals" (plural) being a problem. One reference describes iron as a "heavy metal" (singular) described as a potential cause in prior medical literature. The terminology Heavy metal (chemistry) is not scientific particularly with respect to iron which has never been described scientifically as a "heavy metal". 87.231.131.227 (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is sourced, there is no WP:OR. Zamboni mentioned heavy metals in a lecture he gave a few days ago. That would be sourced eventually.-Galassi (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles don't rely upon "eventual sources" to support content (crystal ball anyone?) and there is no source for Dr. Zamboni "noticing" anything. On these two issues alone your editing is problematic here. 87.231.131.227 (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Paolo Zamboni. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100123151517/http://www.msrc.co.uk:80/index.cfm?fuseaction=show&pageid=2944 to http://www.msrc.co.uk/index.cfm?fuseaction=show&pageid=2944

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Research Released

New research on this topic has been released; please consider updating this article. http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/multiple-sclerosis-liberation-therapy-clinical-trial-1.4014494 Thanks, Sturgeontransformer (talk) 05:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

This article makes it look like it is generally accepted that multiple sclerosis is caused by chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency. It is in fact generally accepted among experts in this field that it is not. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is not the neutrality of the article, but the lack of the encyclopedics criteria. Is it possible to ask the community if it's the case to delete the article?--LuigiPetrella (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I significantly toned down the CCSVI section, as I agree it made it sound significantly less controversial than it actually is. I kept the CVI, cerebral venous drainage, and diagnosis on painting sections for the time being as all of this is outside my field, but I'm not sure we need to keep them? It doesn't seem that notable, and looks like someone used Wikipedia to write/spice up their own CV; having entire sections on that seems way out of proportion. This is why I kept the "neutrality" template for now. Arp242 (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]