Talk:Kingdom Hall/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled section

A great thank you to the JW PR Department for your valuable contribution. ;-)

---

I am deleting some wordiness in the paragraph about the design of KH's. It was just too wordy. It also seemed argumentative. The text is thus before my deletion:

Kingdom Halls vary in size and design. They are usually modest, functional structures, clean and attractive, but essentially practical. They do not include a steeple, bells or recordings of sounding bells, stained glass windows or cathedrals and vaulted ceilings, organs or Grand piano's, although many congregations do have a simple piano which a member pianist plays in order to accompany the congregation while they are singing. There are no "Confession booths" or candle stands. As Witnesses do not use religious symbols, such are not displayed on or in Kingdom Halls. But "this years theme scripture" is displayed in each Kingdom Hall. The theme scripture is the same for all Kingdom Halls worldwide and it's changed simultaneously each year at all Kingdom Halls.

george 03:41, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

DannyMuse: thanks for the security mention, I debated putting it in but ended up leaving it out, I'm glad someone else thought better of it and added it. Kyle Maxwell 04:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV and Sources

I tagged the line as NPOV becasue to say something is "clean and attractive" is a very subjective viewpoint. The building that is pictured I would not call attractive, for instance. Really it should be be removed since it's just someone's opinion. Can't you just say practical and leave it at that? Sourcing the information from The Watchtower isn't really a solution either, as it's not a neutral source. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 10:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as subjectivity goes I think you are perhaps being a little picky. There are some magnificent works of architecture (like cathedrals for example) in this world which many people would describe as beautiful, yet the next person would describe as ugly. To answer the latter part of your comment, sources all over this wikipedia, and on many other subjects concerning Jehovah's Witnesses, fall into 3 categories: Favourable, Neutral, and Critical. As you can see, many fall into the Critical category, but still remain referenced. Feel free to find your own sources no matter what category they fall into. Personally I think articles require adjectives, etc. to make pleasent reading.  Joseph C  Talk  14:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

But such works are only called so in Wikipedia when it is a widely echoed opinion. That Kingdom Halls are "clean and attractive" or even designed with that aim (which would be an oxymoron, 90% of buildings are built in that objective) is subjective no matter how you look at it. Circeus 22:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that subjective sentences will add to everyone's reading experience. I agree with you that sources fall into those three categories, but a good article will have all three and present them neutrally. Articles on cathedrals should be held to and are held to the same standards - making a subjective statement such as "Nîmes cathedral is beautiful" is also a non-NPOV and would not be permitted. If one were to write, "The Catholic Encyclopedia discusses their perceived beauty of the cathedral at length" or something similar, then that would be more acceptable. Anyways I think it's important for readers to know that at the moment there are no non-primary resources, so I've tagged it as such. You can improve the article by presenting the information neutrally and by adding more diverse sources. Thanks! Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 22:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the way you have reworded it Djlayton, thank you. I also note you have quoted and sourced from an "apostate" site. Please be advised FYI that this site and similar ones very often share falsified and unverifiable information in efforts to both discredit Jehovah's Witnesses and to turn others away from the faith.  Joseph C  Talk  13:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Interaction with the community

I can't see what this information is doing in this section. If it has a place anywhere, surely it should be in one of the controversy pages, but not here, as it doesn't directly tie in with the subject of Kingdom Halls (or even it's own header, as far as I can see). Blaise Joshua 10:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It pertains to the subject of a kingdom hall as it discusses the protection of documents kept inside of them. Feel free to change the title of the header to something more appropriate. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 11:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been over the material again, and I still can't see any direct relevance. The document referred to is about issues of confidentiality and handling threats of legal action. I think that the term 'Kingdom Hall' appears twice in what is quite a lengthy document. I don't see anything that merits inclusion in this particular article. Any other thoughts? Blaise Joshua 12:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because I cite that particular source doesn't mean that the bulk of the content in it has to be about kingdom halls. For instance, I have recently been working on the article for an African tree called Bombax buonopozense, and for it I cited a source that is more than 20 pages long, though it only mentions that particular tree on one half of a page. Therefore I don't think that argument is very relevant. I agree that the name of the section would be better off changed to something else. If you would like the information moved to a controversy article, you should seek a third opinion. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 14:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I would invite any editors to comment on this point. I don't understand your point about the tree - for all I know your reference may not warrant inclusion in that article and it may get edited out. Even if it doesn't, it certainly doesn't help with this particular case. I'm not suggesting that any referenced document should have the phrase 'Kingdom Hall' throughout the document - I'm suggesting that any reference should be patently relevant and this one doesn't seem to be. Any number of things might be stored, performed, undertaken, etc, inside Kingdom Halls but it wouldn't warrant a reference to any and every document on every single one of them. It's a particularly odd section in that it's relevance (you say) is based on its discussion of documents that the article itself never mentions! I'm sure that this is not the case, assuming good faith, but it's jarring out-of-placeness gives the impression that it has only been put there to give exposure to a source critical of Jehovah's Witnesses. Blaise Joshua 15:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Djlayton that the information is definitely relevant to the specific topic of kingdom as well as to the more general Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses. (We don't have a "criticism of jehovah's witnesses," although I have to agree that "controversies regarding X" is generally more neutral.) I've tentatively renamed the section as its header was definitely inappropriate. Circeus 17:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Information by En sabah nur

The section about police searches has been removed several times by User:En sabah nur. While I agree that it would be better to have a primary source for this information, it is one of the only pieces of information referenced at all in this article. In addition, the one other reference in the article is also a secondary source, so I see no justification for removing one and not the rest of the information from the article. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 22:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I still don't think that the information has any place in this article and that the reasons given for keeping it are very weak indeed. However, rather than constantly removing the info and having it reposted, it would be better if User En sabah nur articulated his or her reasons for its removal on the talk page. Blaise Joshua 10:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, just learned about the talk page, went to a seminar. Even asked about this case. When I removed it I figured it was surely a mistake someone put it there. Whether one thinks it belongs on here or not, it really should be somewhere else, I think. Though, it could be put under a space about similarities to other holy buildings/houses of God. The reason I noticed it was simply because it popped up when I was using Yahoo! Answers, I saw it and fixed it. I checked back to see if I missed a reason for it to be there, and there it was again. I realise now there are procedures thanks to the class taught by User:Elonka Hopefully I can improve to the caliber befitting wikipedia. (Ishvarlan 16:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

Windows

There is a bit of a myth that Kingdom Halls do not have windows. Though some don't, probably where there is particularly high risk of vandalism, most do. I have seen many KH in Australia, but have never seen any that did not have windows. It should probably be mentioned in the article to alleviate the myth.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, I've never seen any in the United States that do have any windows and I would like to know why. Xenophore 02:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenophore (talk • contribs)

As previously stated, it might be to lower the potential of damage by vandals. Whatever the reason (if in fact there are no KHs in the US that have windows), it is not related to JW belief or doctrine, and is therefore not particularly notable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Location and presentation - error

There are NOT 101,000 Kingdom Halls worldwide. There were 101,376 congregations on 31 August 2007; this grew to 103,267 by 31 August 2008, with five new congregations being formed every day. The current total number of Kingdom Halls has not been published recently but may be in the range of 25,000 or so. Glenn L (talk) 04:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Schools

The new sections on schools constitute undue weight in this article. The schools mentioned are only held occasionally, and their regular meetings certainly constitute more relevance than these other schools. All that is required in the context of this article is a single paragraph listing various schools that JWs might hold in the Kingdom Halls. If further information about their schools is Notable, it should be in a separate article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The material on JW schools is notable, and unworthy of deletion. To my knowledge, it appears nowhere else on Wikipedia.
If relative size is the issue, it would be relatively simple to flood this article with interesting facts about Jehovah's Witnesses' regular "meetings for worship". That would dwarf the size of the sections on KH use for schools! --AuthorityTam (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

As previously stated, "If further information about their schools is Notable, it should be in a separate article." Why do you insist on poor argumentation?--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This article is about Kingdom Halls. It isn't about schools held by JWs. The solution to undue weight about a side issue that is out of scope is not to introduce 'interesting' out of scope details about other topics. If the schools are notable per Wikipedia standards of notability (though I have seen no third party sources cited in the article), there should be a separate article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

(Copied from below section #Out of scope text)
I have removed the sections that are beyond the scope of the article, which have been replaced by a brief summary. The removed text is provided below. As stated earlier, if the information is actually notable per Wikipedia's criteria (though it is largely unreferenced and apparently not notable enough for third-party sources), it should be in a separate article.

No, every one of the deleted sections is a program held at and with the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses as its schoolhouse.
Ironically, two of the three schools have their textbooks discussed in an article about publications, so it seems odd to suggest that the related schools are not also notable!
Take another look at the article's references section.
If third-party references were actually an ironclad requirement, the entire article would be deleted.
Plainly, it doesn't serve the purposes of the Wikipedia community to do that.
The article and its sections on Kingdom Hall schools should remain until a consensus says otherwise. Not just Jeffro.
I've restored the section at Schools and will continue to do so unless and until the Wikipedia community resolves it should be otherwise.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no irony. Indeed, some degree of latitude has been granted to allow the article about the publications, which aren't really particularly notable. I will invite comment from other JW Project contributors.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the original objection that far too much space is devoted to the use of a Kingdom Hall for schools. In most cases it is simply a convenient venue, so its use for these functions is utterly with notability. No sources are provided for the bulk of the statements, which makes it look like original research. One puzzling reference to a branch letter is cited in the Kingdom Ministry School section that adds no information and is best deleted because it fails to meet Wikipedia guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources#When to cite sources and policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources in that no reader without access to back copies of branch letters to congregations able to verify it. And let's not forget the bottom line: If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. The use of Kingdom Halls for schools can easily be covered with one short sentence. LTSally (talk) 09:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted two paragraphs on the history of Kingdom Ministry Schools that are outside the scope of this article. The disaster relief section is also unnecessarily long and should be trimmed. When I attended JW meetings the Kingdom Hall was also used to cook food for an ethnic congregation. It also contained a microwave oven to heat babies' milk bottles. It also provided accommodation for visiting circuit overseers. It housed the territory maps. It housed a library of WT publications. It also become the dumping place for unwanted furniture and vases from congregation members' homes. At the rate of detail being included in this article, all these things may soon be included. Wikipedia's nominal 32kb limit on article size doesn't require that we keep on writing to use that space. LTSally (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

LTSally's experiences would seem to constitute original research, and a remarkably unWikipedian POV.
By contrast, the restored material regarding Kingdom Hall schools is referenced and neutral POV.
It would be better if an editor of articles about Jehovah's Witnesses put aside his or her feelings about when he personally "attended JW meetings", and better if he didn't openly refer to the Kingdom Hall as "a dumping place" see diff. Others might infer that such an editor's decisions are affected by nonneutral POV rather than by purely encyclopedic interests. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The talk page is precisely the place to express one's opinions. LTSally (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Providing a diff to the paragraph immediately above is a bit laughable. People used a Hall for abandoning their old furniture - it seems entirely fine in informal speech on a Talk page to call that a 'dumping ground'. The notability of Halls being used for these schools has not been demonstrated at all.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom Hall schools are notable

This thread seems really odd. For its first two months of existence, the entire article was one sentence or less[1]; was that desirable?
The main article is about a place of worshipful education; three short sections now describe education programs held there. The criticisms seem quite a stretch...

• Scope? A facility's programs are certainly not "out of scope" of an article about the facility. Such an assertion can hardly be justified from WP:Scope.
  
• Size? Wikipedia's standards don't express any need to remove the discussion of Kingdom Hall schools because of this article's length. The Kingdom Hall article is short, only 16K at the moment[2]! According to the WP:SIZERULE, the length of anything less than 40K "does not justify division". At WP:SIZE#No_need_for_haste, it specifically says, "Do not take precipitous action the very instant an article exceeds 32 KB overall. There is no need for haste... Discuss the overall topic structure with other editors. ...Add one of the split tags in order to get feedback from other editors."
  
• Undue? Wikipedia's standards regarding WP:Undue concern differing views of a controversy; that's doesn't define some standard for the relative size of a child topic to its parent. Anyway, the "child" discussion of Kingdom Hall schools does not overwhelm the parent topic "Kingdom Hall". Consider...
  Roughly, the article's length is divided thusly:
  

20% Intro, toc, description, worship

15% Schools

15% Weddings, funerals

15% Construction, maintenance

20% References, external links

Even if Wikipedia's interests were served by obsessing over the relative size of an article's major discussions, the relative size of the Kingdom Hall schools discussion would seem to be untroubling.

WP:UNDUE states: "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the imagined breakdown of the article given above, the details are not accurate, and also do not take into account each section's relevance to the article's subject. The actual breakdown of the article content of AuthorityTam's preferred version, based on word count, is as follows (this does not include references and external links, the auto-generated table of contents or the JW template as these are not strictly content in terms of weight):

• Lead 4%
• Term 2%
• Location and presentation 11%
• Meetings for worship 5% (Preceding 4 sections as grouped above = 22%)
• Schools 21%
• Weddings 10%
• Funerals 7% (Preceding 2 sections as grouped above = 17%)
• Disaster relief 16% (Not included above)
• Construction 21%
• Maintenance 4% (Preceding 2 sections as grouped above = 25%)

(The total is 101% due to rounding.)

The Lead is required, and Term is quite important (though it could be incorporated into the lead). Location and presentation, Construction and Maintenance sections are directly related to the physical structures. Of the remaining sections within Uses, Meetings is the most relevant to the article subject, almost every JW has attended a wedding or funeral at a Kingdom Hall (though these sections could also be shortened), and disaster relief is of significance to uses of Kingdom Halls in the broader communities surrounding them. On the other hand, even most JWs do not attend these other schools, and is therefore completely unnecessary to present a degree of detail about those schools that has no direct bearing on an article about Kingdom Halls. As previously stated, I have not at all contended that these schools not be mentioned, but rather that only a summary is provided. The extraneous details about them should be in a more relevant article, (if deemed notable per Wikipedia standards).--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Original research? The material is not "original research". Is that seriously an allegation? The number of supportive references could be quadrupled if that were truly an issue, with every granule of fact supported (as though it were questionable, which few are). Please state plainly if objections hinge on this.
  
• Verifiable? The complaint about the "Branch Letter" apparently fails to notice that the letter is question is fully quoted in the cited issue of Our Kingdom Ministry. Far from being unverifiable or superfluous, the reference in question verifies the date classes began, the new location at Patterson's WEC, and the new weeklong duration of the class. Most of that is conveyed in the quote that has been appended to the citation. Ironically, the quote will likely be deleted by an editor claiming that quotes are unwanted.
  
• Third party refs? The whines about "third party sources" seem disingenuous. The entire article has, I believe, precisely zero third party sources at the moment. At some risk, I'll ask: Would any of you criticizing editors nominate this article for deletion? I think not. If sincere objections hinge on third party references, know that there are likely hundreds of references to be gleaned from the findings of the EEOC (a US government agency) on behalf of JWs seeking time off to attend either pioneer or KM school. JW language classes have been mentioned in publications serving the non-English communities; such foreign language sources are somewhat awkward to find and use but totally acceptable for Wikipedia purposes. Do editors sincerely doubt the existence of third-party references?
  

That leaves notability.
In the spirit of WP:Candor, each editor should put himself on record as stating plainly whether he honestly believes the material on Kingdom Hall schools[3] to be nonnotable. Yes or no?
I'd guess certain editors will hesitate to give an explicit yea or nay.
Without that, their criticizing just waste everyone's time. Others are left to wonder if critics really believe their own criticisms.
There are much more worthwhile and rewarding efforts on Wikipedia than this deletion campaign.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Many articles start with just a single line, and that is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

The issue is not merely whether their occasional schools are notable at all (though they haven't been demonstrated to be documented in third-party sources), but whether they are notable within the scope of the article. Even most JWs don't participate in these ancillary schools that are occasionally held at the Hall. The unnecessary elaboration about the schools is out of scope of Kingdom Halls, though a brief summary, as previously provided would be suitable.

Though I wouldn't support their proposal, I would not criticize other editors who nominated this article for deletion, because it would be entirely consistent with policy to make such a suggestion in light of the current content; however, I believe that third-party references about Kingdom Halls do exist. JWs seeking time off for a school does not add to the notability of Kingdom Halls being used for this purpose, though it may be of some value to a separate article about schools held by JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do not delete material without consensus.[4]

I've restored it.[5]

User:Jeffro77's arguments about "scope" and "undue" do not reflect what Wikipedia actually says on those topics.

Again, the Kingdom Hall schools section describes schools at the Kingdom Hall. Editors should refrain from repeatedly and summarily deleting the material. --AuthorityTam (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I have quoted directly from WP:UNDUE, so your response is blatantly false. Specifically, "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." WP:SCOPE says very little at all so I have not quoted from it. I have indicated both in principle (specific detail about schools don't relate directly to Kingdom Halls) and by explicit demonstration (schools do not warrant over a third of the information on Uses) that the "depth of detail" about schools is "undue weight".--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

My "response"[6] was certainly not "blatantly false".
My response didn't claim a misquote, but a misapplication in "arguments" propounded by User:Jeffro77.
The facility (the subject of the article) has programs. User:Jeffro77 seems to object to about 15% of the article discussing those programs.
That misapplies WP:Undue. The discussion of Kingdom Hall schools certainly didn't overwhelm the rest of the article; each of the three schools was discussed in a "weight appropriate to its significance to the subject" (as of [7]). It seems rather obvious that the Kingdom Hall schools mentioned could be discussed in much greater depth and detail than currently, but that as-yet-unsuggested level of depth and detail wouldn't be appropriate for this article; that hypothetical level of depth and detail likely would constitute a reasonable example of undue weight.
The size of the section on Kingdom Hall schools did not reflect what is discouraged by WP:Undue.
This thread can probably be held in abeyance due to the recent creation of the new article Jehovah's Witnesses teaching programs.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

"This thread can probably be held in abeyance due to the recent creation of the new article." LOL. You are a piece of work! I think the words you were looking for instead of that entire paragraph should have been, "Thank you". You did not at all try to reach any consensus, instead making empty claims and restoring material that is clearly not directly related to the subject of this article. After I suggested, repeatedly, that the information should be in a separate article with only a summary about the aspects relevant to Kingdom Halls here, I actually created that article for your benefit, and even then you still are unable to display the slightest iota of gratitude. Sheesh.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Out of scope text

I have removed the sections that are beyond the scope of the article, which have been replaced by a brief summary. The removed text is provided below. As stated earlier, if the information is actually notable per Wikipedia's criteria (though it is largely unreferenced and apparently not notable enough for third-party sources), it should be in a separate article.

Language classes

At times, a branch will determine that its territory includes a significant population that speak a particular language that is not well known by many Witnesses involved in preaching in the area. In such cases, local language classes may be coordinated and scheduled at appropriately located Kingdom Halls. Typically, several congregations near each such Hall will announce the details of its upcoming class and invite applications by interested Witnesses. Acceptance is considered a privilege of service, available only for active Witnesses in good standing.

Pioneer Service School

Since 1977, Jehovah's Witnesses have scheduled an annual series of local "Pioneer Service Schools" using the textbook Shining as Illuminators in the World, which is considered confidential for instructors, students, and graduates of the course. Invitations to attend are extended primarily to pioneers (that is, applicants previously appointed for full-time ministry) who are about to complete or have completed their first year of service, and secondarily to continuing pioneers who have seniority to fill any open seats in a local class.

Kingdom Ministry School

About every three years, local one- to three-day seminars for congregation elders and ministerial servants (deacons) are arranged using the curriculum from Jehovah's Witnesses' Kingdom Ministry School; seminars are held at Assembly Halls and Kingdom Halls.

Jehovah's Witnesses began "Kingdom Ministry School" in 1959 as a one-month course for their congregation overseers (now called "coordinator of the body of elders") and "special pioneers" at the facility in South Lansing, New York (an extension of their Brooklyn headquarters); by 1966 the curriculum was limited to overseers for a two week duration. Since 2008, weeklong Kingdom Ministry School programs are conducted at Watchtower Educational Center, best known for its Watchtower Bible School of Gilead and other branch facilities; the announced intention is to eventually invite every appointed elder to attend such a hosted weeklong curriculum.

Beginning in 1977, all elders were loaned the course textbook Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock for reference and use at Kingdom Ministry (or "KM") School. Other texts used are the New World Translation and Organized to Do Jehovah's Will, an organization manual for Witness adherents. The curriculum for ministerial servants uses only the two latter texts.

--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

References

Proper place for detail on 'schools'

I have created Jehovah's Witnesses teaching programs, which is the proper place for additional detail about JW education programs that is beyond the scope of the Kingdom Hall article. It's only a beginning, so AuthorityTam, go for your life on improving it. Please provide third-party sources to support its notability, or it will probably be subject to deletion per WP:NOTABLE.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Windows

It is commonly asserted that JW Kingdom Halls don't have windows. Many editors will realize that this is simply untrue. (Personally, I've never seen one without windows, though maybe there are some in high-vandalism areas(?)) How do other editors feel about stating (and hence dispelling) the urban myth within the 'construction' section?--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I added plain language (that windows may be avoided in areas of high vandalism), and included a Watch Tower reference well-supporting that. I also included lots of backhanded information mentioning windows at other Kingdom Halls (presumably in areas and times without a high incidence of vandalism). See diff.
It doesn't seem necessary to mention the misconception in order to correct it. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've moved the detail about windows to the Construction section. I agree that it is better to simply note the fact that some KHs don't have windows with the reason, rather than focusing on the misconception. I have removed the other points as it's not worth adding a section on persecution just to quote 'backhanded' stuff about windows.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)