Talk:Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Jehovah's Witnesses. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
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)
Contents |
[edit] 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)
- 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)
- 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)
[edit] 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)
- 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)
-
-
[edit] 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))
[edit] 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)
