Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The ringworm children affair


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Keep. However, I'm inclined to strongly invite interested parties to list this article on Copyright problems, per mid-discussion: whilst this article is, presently, a potential Copyright infringement (per WP:COPYVIO), it seems that the strongest argument put forward is in favour of permitting this article to be kept, so long as a re-write which encompasses a removal of the infringing content (again, per WP:COPYVIO).

In summary, the most beneficial outcome of this AfD is closing as "Keep", but with a strong prejudice towards a re-write to conform to Copyright violations. However, it is stressed that copyright policy violations are not to be permitted, and deletion is an option I would support should the re-write fail. Anthøny 23:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The ringworm children affair

 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * current name for article

Potentially an hoax as per this SalomonCeb 13:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Israel Talk discussion -- Derwig 14:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

*Delete, the article as it stands is advancing a distorted blown-out-of-proportion conspiracy theory which is only very remotely based on actual tragic events. I suggest recreating a different article about the documentary "The Ringworm Children" that includes reliable sources and film reviews instead. -- M P er el 06:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC) (see new assessment below)
 * Hoax or not, Speedy delete per WP:CSD (advertising), WP:CSD (copyvio). See WikiProject Israel Talk discussion for details. Rami R 14:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In addition, Delete per WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:NPOV. See my reply to User:IZAK below for reasoning. Rami R 09:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC) (withdrawn. Rami R 11:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC))
 * And see my responses below as well. Thank you, IZAK 06:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Rami R. This discussion is redundant. Nominate for Speedy Deletion. - Derwig 14:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per Rami R  Jonathan  letters to the editor — my work  17:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - per this discussion. --GHcool 17:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep a tragic affair... but not a reason to practice negationism, no copyright violation, the first stub was... well... just a stub!--Morfal 18:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Copyright violation --Kimdime69 21:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Kimdime: The article has now been Wikified and re-written with reputable sources. Thanks, IZAK 07:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions.   —Espresso Addict 02:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions.   IZAK 08:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions.   IZAK 05:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, a Google search shows that there has been serious interest and reporting, as well as academic research, about this event, even though unfortunately it is grist for the anti-Zionist mill. Two serious acadmics studies can be located on Google, see Public Health, Law, and Ringworm Mass Irradiation in Israel and Preventive Medicine, Immigrants and the Israeli Melting Pot and Israel has also seen two documentaries about this subject: (1) A 2003 showing of a 46 minute documentary about this at the 20th aniversary Israel Fim Festival THE RINGWORM CHILDREN by directors David Belhassen & Asher Hemias, also listed at Jewish Fim Archive Online  and it was the Best Documentary Haifa International Film Festival. (2) In 2003 Israeli TV screened 100,000 RADIATIONS Dimona Productions Ltd., 2003, Producer, Dudi Bergman, Directors, Asher Khamias & David Balrosen, followed by a panel discussion. So even if only these reliable sources are used, there is a good basis for this article to be kept. IZAK 05:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Miri: Please re-read the new NPOV version of this article with it's reputable sources. Thanks, IZAK 07:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to Ringworm affair. The article still needs a major rehaul, but I can agree to 'keep' since there is a *real* (not "alleged" as the article now incorrectly portrays) "ringworm affair" that is notable as the subject of an article.  IZAK's rewrite is a good effort and a start, but it is not NPOV as it still is presented from the conspiratorial perspective of one particular documentary and there are other problems including unsourced statements and factual errors currently in the article (which can be corrected).  What is notable about the ringworm affair is the fifty years of epidemiological studies, none of which are currently mentioned in the article (the only "study" mentioned is an unpublished paper presented at a conference from a legal perspective).  There was a worldwide outbreak of ringworm, and xray treatment was the accepted treatment at the time before the dangers were known.  Ringworm was a particular health issue in Israel due to the large number of immigrants at the time, so of course Israel bore the brunt of the tragic after effects where the treatments were especially numerous.  The article should present what happened and why, discuss the epidemiological studies that emerged from this, mention the documentary (and there's only one, not many), the sociological effects (i.e. perceived Ashkenazi prejudice against Mizrahi), and the compensation law. -- M P er el  05:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * NOTE: The article is now re-written according to Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you, IZAK 07:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The article clearly violates WP:NPOV, in particular in the documentaries section where undue weight is given to a single documentary (which, for some reason, is portrayed as two different documentaries) and conspiracy theorist, without any weight given to criticism of these (see link provided by User:SalomonCeb above). Also the article is, well, hardly an article, but rather more of a "this event took place, and the following people discuss it:", a borderline violation of WP:NOT. Rami R 09:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Rami: The article reads like a short well-researched paper with reliable sources, so don't knock it. In the opening paragraph it acknowledges the controversy this affair has generated. It is way past what conspiracy theorists say by now, because respected academics have researched the affair and published about it in respectable academic journals for which citations and sources are given in the article. There are also two importnat documentaries and they are reliable. The article does not rely on bloggers. Thanks, IZAK 02:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There is only one documentary. Barry Chamish reviews not a different documentary, but rather the first documentary (with the names of the directors misspelled, which should indicate the reliability of his review). Rami R 17:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Rami R: OK, so it may be the same documentary in different contexts, but that does not diminish from the subject, which is not Barry Chamish, but the actual events themselves which are corroborated by the other sources cited in the article. There is indeed the "conspiracy theory" angle to this story, as well as all the buzz about it in the blogosphere between pro- and anti-Israel advocates and that is where Chamish possibly comes in, but he is neither the core, nor the source nor the subject of this article's main subject. IZAK 06:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * speedy keep wikipedia is not in the business of dissecting the truth from hoax, if it is out there in the media it should be in wikipedia.--יודל 13:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is a significant affair, documented in medical literature, and has been reported in other English-speaking nations. Compensation is being paid (though I see some sources indicate there has been exaggeration - could 6,000 really have died shortly after treatment?). Many young Middle Eastern immigrants to Israel were given this treatment for no reason and feel this was done for discriminatory reasons. The only problem is that parts of the article are copyvio. PRtalk 17:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Move - whilst I can't comment on specifics in Israel, the use of radiation therapy in otherwise potentially severe and difficult to treat scalp ringworm infection (in the days before griseofulvin) was not limited to Israel, but was also standard practice in the UK in the 1930's & 1940's, so the suggestion within the article (by its sole discussion on Israel experience) of it being a sinister experiment seems just a wild conspiracy theory (notwithstanding whether or not there was sterotyping of one group of Jews against another). I still occassionally come across elderly UK patients who were so treated and have had multiple recurrent localised skin tumors since. See for a paper published this year about experiences of one hospital in London. A quick search on PubMed shows also recent papers of  from Tunisia,  from Germany,  Italy etc etc. The example in Israel is therefore not unique, and I know of no sinsiter conspiracy theory for radiotherapy's use elsewhere to treat this condition. Therefore if it was routine and "the modern thing to do" in 1940's Britain, the sole dicussion of the use in Israel seems WP:UNDUE focus, for what should be just a sub-section in an article with more global perspective (eg Radiotherapy for scalp ringworm). Use of a journalistic headline title for a discussion solely about a non-English speaking country seems inappropriate here in English wikipedia, where our primary readers are those from English-speaking countries (Australia, Canada, Ireland, N.Z., S.Africa, UK, US etc). David Ruben Talk 14:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per above copy vio concerns and that this googles to links such as Jewwatch, Alex Jones and Conspiracy Watch. The move suggestion is good, but I don't see this article containing much salvagable at this time. Kyaa the Catlord 14:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Um Kyaa: Quit the scare tactics! Anything with a Jewish connection gets back onto Jewwatch etc, so that is no reason to delete articles that contain negative information about Israel or Jews. No-one can run away from what are now well-researched events and public information. Just because Jewwatch and nutjobs abuse this kind of stuff is absolutely no reason to suppress it. Thanks, IZAK 02:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Query What is the suspected copyright violation of? It isn't obvious from the discussion here.  Is it merely asserted without any evidence, or is there a known original that was copied?  GRBerry 03:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The article was originally little more than a copy of the documentary's official description (compare with amazon.com product page). Hence the original g11 and g12 speedy delete criteria. In the current version of the article, although all the copied text is properly attributed, it fails WP:NFCC 3 (minimal usage), thus still little more than a copyright violation. Also, due to the undue weight given to the documentary (and the lack of weight given to the documentary's criticism), I still maintain that the article is blatant advertising. Rami R 10:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being clear what it is supposedly a copyright violation of. That clarity is necessary to evaluate whether a copyright violation speedy deletion should occur.
 * My judgment as an admin is that I'd decline to speedy delete the original version because there were enough minor changes to show a good faith attempt to avoid the violation, and instead take it to copyright problems (because I think that they weren't enough), allowing the article to be rewritten. That is essentially what is slowly happening during the AFD.  The closing admin of this discussion should review this issue themself in addition to evaluating the altered article and this discussion, to the degree it reflects the altered article.  GRBerry 13:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Rami R: All the citations in the article are given. That is precisely what Wikipedia requires. One cannot ask for WP:RS and then when they are given and cited scream that it is a "copyright violation" which it is not. Usage of brief quotes from respectable and acknowledged sources is permissible and it's the norm in any term paper, academic article, and a Wikipedia article of this nature.
 * GrBerry: It was not just "minor changes" that were made but a major re-write citing at least five independent outside sources from at least two reliable TV documentaries (or one used in a variety of contexts and settings), two published research papers and presentations by two respected Israeli professors, and a summation by another American professor, all reliable and sourced, which makes this acceptable by any standard. The article does not violate any copyrights whatsoever and it is not just a "brief" stub. Thanks, IZAK 06:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. If the original version is a copyright violation, then all derivative versions would also be copyright violations and the article needs to be rewritten from scratch, not just rewritten incrementally via the usual wiki editing process.  The massive changes to the article since the very first edit are irrelevant if the first edit was a copyright violation unless one of them was explicitly a total rewrite with a complete page replacement.  On the other hand, if the original version isn't a violation, but one is introduced later, we can revert back to a good version so the article won't necessarily be deleted (but we may delete certain edits).  GRBerry 19:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * GR: Honestly, you are making things up. Where on earth did you ever hear that "If the original version is a copyright violation, then all derivative versions would also be copyright violations and the article needs to be rewritten from scratch, not just rewritten incrementally via the usual wiki editing process"? On top of which you admit that there have indeed been "massive changes to the article since the very first edit" and they have obviously been for the better and have followed Wikipedia's guidelines for WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY, so then when you go on to claim that "The massive changes to the article since the very first edit are irrelevant if the first edit was a copyright violation unless one of them was explicitly a total rewrite with a complete page replacement" it is too astonishing for words. Where did you ever hear such things? That is pure WP:NOR on your part now. There are no such rules about re-wrting articles as you are claiming here, and if anything, it is the exact opposite, that if an article can be re-written, improved and redeemed in any way at any time, then it happens quite often that nominators will withdraw their nominations based on the improvements made and better sources cited. And finally, when you end by saying that "On the other hand, if the original version isn't a violation, but one is introduced later, we can revert back to a good version so the article won't necessarily be deleted (but we may delete certain edits)" I have lost you entirely when you make such "differentiations" because your own "theory" here is just a huge violation of WP:NOR about Wikipedia's policies. Thanks, IZAK 03:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keeep This is first of all extremely notable, and second no longer a copyvio.  DGG (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * CommentActually, the article still was mainly copyvio until I removed the large chunks of text copied and pasted from the sources provided. Article is now a stub. Kyaa the Catlord 11:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Question Since this procedure was the standard one, per the medical sources cited, at the time of the "affair" isn't this article much ado about nothing? Would someone please try to assert some notability other than that this is a conspiracy theory meme? Kyaa the Catlord 14:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly! There are hundreds of articles in PubMed documenting fifty years of followup of the aftereffects of radiation treatment used to treat ringworm **worldwide**.  Someone above suggested that we rename this article Radiotherapy for scalp ringworm, which seems more appropriate.  The conspiracy theory as hyped up in the documentary isolating it as some diabolical scheme Ashkenazi Jews perpetrated against Mizrahi Jews in Israel may be worth a mention in a renamed article, but it should be presented in the correct context, that this was the accepted treatment that took place worldwide to treat an epidemic of ringworm before the dangers of radiation were fully understood. -- M P er el  17:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.