Template:Did you know nominations/Israel National Council for the Child


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Israel National Council for the Child

 * ... that the Israel National Council for the Child says that slapping children is not ethical or educational, and can be destructive?
 * Reviewed: Yehuda Green

Created by Epeefleche (talk). Self nominated at 02:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg New enough, long enough, well referenced. QPQ done. However, there is quite a bit of close paraphrasing from the sources. The article really should be rewritten in your own words. Here are a few examples; there are many more:
 * Source: we provide support and services to children in distress; we successfully influence public policy and raise public awareness of children’s rights and issues affecting their welfare and wellbeing; we initiate innovative projects addressing complex problems at home, at school, and in the community.
 * Article: the NCC provides support and services to children in distress, seeks to influence public policy and raise public awareness of children’s rights and issues affecting their welfare and well-being, and initiates projects addressing problems at home, at school, and in the community.
 * Source: Its ombudsmen deal each year with thousands of calls made with regard to the violation of children's rights.
 * Article: The NCC's ombudsmen takes thousands of calls reporting violations of children's rights each year.
 * Source: Kedman warned that keeping pedophilic pornography on a computer supports an industry that harms children and is in direct violation of the law.
 * Article: warned that keeping pedophilic pornography on a computer supports an industry that harms children and is directly violates the law.
 * Source: Dr. Kadman, NCC Director, pointed out to the Director of the Health Ministry that as of this past spring, it is forbidden to employ anyone convicted of producing, using, distributing, or advertising child pornography in any work with children (an NCC-initiated legislative amendment).
 * Article: NCC's Executive Director pointed out that as of the spring of 2011, due to an NCC-initiated legislative amendment it is forbidden to employ anyone in Israel convicted of producing, using, distributing, or advertising child pornography in any work with children.
 * The hook should be in quotes because these are the words of the executive director quoted in the article. Maybe you want to say it differently? Yoninah (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've sought to address your concerns. Obviously, some of the phrases -- such as the "law forbids employing any person in Israel who has been convicted of producing, using, distributing, or advertising child pornography in any work with children" can't be changed much without risking mis-stating what the law states ... short phrase changes can have significant changes in a legal sense ... and pose little copyright concern, though let me know if you feel a quote would be better. Close paraphrasing is permitted when there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing; see WP:LIMITED. As to the hook, the body of the article is a quote; the snippet could be quoted in the hook as well, but it is so short and slightly changed that I don't think it raises a copyright concern either (there are only three repeated words of content; and of course limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text – for example, by adding "John Smith wrote ...," together with a footnote containing the citation; see WP:PARAPHRASE), but lmk if you have a different view. Epeefleche (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Yoninah here. I don't want to come across as overly harsh, but I'd scrap both the Activities and History sections on close paraphrasing concerns. I do understand that there are only so many ways to state facts, but a lot of what is descriptively written is copied almost verbatim from copyrighted sources. Here, as an example from Haaretz:
 * Source: A bill obligating the state to compensate minors who suffered physical or sexual abuse...is aimed at removing the victim's dependence on the perpetrator for compensation, and to allow the victim to afford medical and psychological treatment without having to force the offender to produce the money...The National Council for the Child, a non-profit organization involved in drafting the initiative
 * Article: In 2010, the NCC was involved in drafting a bill obligating the state of Israel to compensate minors who suffer physical or sexual abuse, so as to remove the victim's dependence on the perpetrator for compensation and to allow the victim to afford medical and psychological treatment.
 * Rewrite: In October 2010, the NCC helped draft a Knesset bill providing state compensation for those who had suffered child abuse.
 * A short statement of fact that adequately summerises information is what WP:LIMITED covers, without taking large (unquoted) chunks out of the original source. Close paraphrasing might be useful if you find it difficult to deviate from the actual source. Fuebaey (talk) 02:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Tx Fuebaey (and welcome to wp). I've made - largely - the suggested change immediately above. I couldn't properly change, as you suggested, "minors who suffer physical or sexual abuse" to "child abuse." Because child abuse is broader. That's the danger of editing - especially statutory language -- with such an approach. The suggested change uses different words.  But in that instance the different words suggest that the law covers emotional abuse, etc., when it does not.  Also, even though your suggested rewrite deleted entirely the purpose of the law - which is not immediately apparent - I took your suggestion and deleted it. Even to the detriment of the article. Rather than paraphrase it, as you did not, so as not to cause such a concern. It is a short one-sentence statement either way, and not a "large chunk", but I've made the change in any event. I'm following wp:paraphrase in the construct of the article, including WP:LIMITED. Tx.Epeefleche (talk) 03:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It's been more than two weeks since an edit was last made. The sections highlighted still contain a substantial amount of close paraphrasing. Are you still working on this or should I tag this as abandoned? Fuebaey (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * @Fuebaey. Thank you for your input. I know you are very new to wp, and appreciate your enthusiasm. I think you misunderstand WP:LIMITED. Which states that close paraphrasing is permitted when there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing. And your reference to "large unquoted chunks" shows another mis-reading on your part, as applied to these facts. That you would, for example, suggest that the one-sentence Activities section be deleted on your concerns that it is close paraphrasing or a large unquoted chunk is, in light of those two points, frankly quite surprising.  I've made some changes to address your concerns, and will look to make some more over this weekend. Epeefleche (talk) 22:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Nothing more I can do here then. Requesting a new review. Good luck with your nom. Fuebaey (talk) 07:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * BlueMoonset requested that I provide another opinion on the paraphrasing in this article. While I agree that at times it can be difficult to maintain the meaning of the source when paraphrasing, I think there are instances in this article where either direct quoting or further rewording is needed. In particular, the latter part of the Activities section might be better as a direct quote. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, Nikki ... it's been awhile. I changed the latter half of the Activities sentence as you suggested, and took another look at what other (admittedly little) could be done, and did it.  I don't see any "large chunks" that pose problems, and don't see anything other than what is acceptable under WP:LIMITED. Epeefleche (talk) 06:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have made a few additional changes, feel free to revert. Also, while it does not affect the outcome of this DYK, I would encourage you to review the licensing status of the logo - it's currently described as both public domain and non-free, which cannot be correct. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Those few additional changes look fine; I might have kept the colon, but could go either way. Good catch on the logo. Does the licensing look appropriate to you now? Epeefleche (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Better. I'm not sure I would describe the design itself as simply geometric, but that's a fairly subjective measure. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So we're good to go? Epeefleche (talk) 04:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Think so, yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)