Talk:Chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency controversy
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Synoman Barris in topic Requested move 25 September 2020
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency controversy.
|
Requested move 25 September 2020
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved(non-admin closure) Megan☺️ Talk to the monster 19:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency → Chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency controversy – Chronic venous insufficiency is a thing (mostly affecting the legs), but Zamboni's hypothesis that it happens in the head and neck region and then causes or contributes to Multiple sclerosis is unproven. The main subject of this article isn't (and shouldn't be) the hypothesis; it's all of the controversy about how it was tested, promoted, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support because the neutral point of view based on available literature is that the controversy is more notable than the (controversial) condition. — soupvector (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. The article need also a review after being moved. --LuigiPetrella (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support per soupvector. --RexxS (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.