Talk:Kingdom Hall

Article name

I have moved the article back to "Kingdom Hall". The article was previously moved by User:Mikhailov Kusserow to "Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses" without consensus (twice the same day, after being reverted User:Alexander Moritz), with the claim that "A Real Name. I have been changed it to all Wikipedia" [sic].

Per WP:NAME, the current name is concise, only as precise as it needs to be, and is the common name. Jehovah's Witnesses' Watchtower Library CD uses the term "Kingdom Hall" nearly 7000 times, but "Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses" only about 200 times.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Gallery

I suggest to place one of the best image at the top as It was before. See the Church (building) article for example. Only extra images are placed at gallery--Logical Thinker:talk 11:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I moved it to balance the gap left by a building that is not actually a Kingdom Hall.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Images

I have moved the second 'meeting' picture into the Uses section. However, it would add a little more balance if one of those 'meeting' pictures were removed and a picture relevant to construction (e.g. a half-built KH) were placed in the Construction section instead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

origin of "Kingdom Hall"

the phrase "Kingdom Hall" is an almost exact translation of the Latin (from Greek) basilica, the hall where royal business was conducted. Is this a coincidence? --199.91.207.3 (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It is probably a coincidence. Even if it is not, there would need to be a reliable source to mention it in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Spanking Room

There seems to be some notable dispute over the subject of whether Kingdom Halls are or are not built with a specific room dedicated to be used for child discipline. Some sources, such as http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Spanking-Room-Jehovahs-Witnesses/dp/1579219659 seem to indicate this, but word of mouth such as http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/196639/1/The-spanking-room seem to make the subject disputable. Perhaps it is worth mentioning, if someone could post a more erudite segment about it or two? Justin.Parallax (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

JW.ORG -signs

According to info I got from an elder, blue JW.ORG-signs are going to be a global policy. For meanwhile how about like this:

JW-ORG -signs

To advertice society's website, blue JW.ORG -signs are going to be added on visible place outside kingdom halls from mid 2014s.(etc)

--Russellin teekannu (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Your suggested text, which has no official source, would be promotional and is therefore inappropriate. 'Info you got from an elder' does not constitute a reliable source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

How about images of K-Halls with signs on? So far Ive seen jw.org sign in every one ive passed? (in Finland&Sweden)--Russellin teekannu (talk) 06:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like original research. Images of halls you've seen isn't evidence of a "global policy", which would require a specific source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

According to Our Kingdom Ministry (April 2009, page 4): "Congregations or individuals should not use logos or names of the organization’s legal entities, or variations thereof, on their Kingdom Halls, signs, letterhead, personal objects, and so forth. Such use of the organization’s logos may cause confusion for public officials, publishers, and others about the legal affiliation of the congregation with the organization’s legal entities." It is entirely possible that they have started doing so since then, but I am not aware of any source to support the claim.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, even in our k-hall there was a "Watchtower" sign on the wall (and still is painted on inside walls). "Watchtower"-sign was even used when pointing route to summer assemblies. I remember it was said there is no point to start painting those over until next uplifting of the k-hall. ("Watchtower"(tm) is a registered trademark). But about the Jw.org signs, so far a've been visiting different places, all have had it on their wall. Took even pictures, shoud I upload them to Commons?Russellin teekannu (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing stopping you uploading your photos, but your personal photos do not constitute a reliable source, nor do they constitute evidence of any policy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Please see cover of March 2016 THE WATCHTOWER (Study edition).Russellin teekannu (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

A picture is not an indication of a policy. It is only evidence that some halls have signs. Unless you can cite a source indicating a policy, you may as well stop making the assertion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

It is also unremarkable for a building associated with an organisation to have the organisation's logo on it. It is not appropriate to try to promote the website here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

New construction and funding arrangements

Information has been added about recent changes to the way Kingdom Halls are to be constructed and funded. I have copyedited the new material, but sources are still required for the changes. The information is based on official statements that have been leaked, but I haven't located a specific source that can be cited, as it has been reported on various blogs and forums. Does anyone have a specific source in line with Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources that the new information can cite? Or can we have further discussion about a) whether the leaked video can be cited as a source, and if so, how it would be cited.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

My first question would be where can I find the video? If it's easily accessible to others via a link, then that takes care of whether it can be used (a video that can't be readily found, imo, is the same thing as not having a source. For an example, for all the talk of the missing minutes of the Nixon tapes, lack of evidence proves nothing). After that you'd have to be sure of the legality on whether the leaked video could be used in a lawsuit against WP if it was indeed used as a source, as depending on how it was leaked (was it stolen? or did an attendee at the event release it?) it could be an issue. If it turns out that it is both easy to get to and doesn't constitute a form of theft of intellectual property/some other legal issue, I wouldn't see why it couldn't be used as a source. Vyselink (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Leaked information that appears in sources that otherwise qualify as reliable sources can be cited. However, to my knowledge, information about the leaked video about kingdom all construction is only available on sources such as YouTube,[1] and blogs,[2] which don't generally qualify as sources here. It may be that the information is also available elsewhere, and there could also be suitable sources other than the leaked video.

A separate but similar issue is the letter about the funding of Kingdom Halls, which is arguably usable as a source; although parts of it were 'to be read' only by JW elders, it is also published by the Watch Tower Society into a larger compendium of letters. However, use of similar letters as sources has been disputed in the past.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I see the problem. The video (if indeed those are the only two types of places that it can be found) would seem to not qualify as useable here, for as you correctly stated YouTube and blogs are not generally reliable sources, and adding that information would essentially be WP:OR as it would be a WP editor who watched it and boiled it down.

As for the letter about funding, if it was published in a larger bunch of letters (even if it wasn't supposed to be), I don't see the issue with using it as a source. I personally think it is irrelevant if the information was published by mistake (a literary version of a "Freudian slip") or not. It was still published by the source (i.e. not stolen), can be considered reliable, and is being used in good faith. If "we printed it by accident" could be effectively used as an a posteriori argument to subdue information, imagine what information we wouldn't have. Every statement made by a politician that he/she didn't like would just be swept under the rug so to speak. Vyselink (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I have asked the editor who added the new information to engage in discussion here. Hopefully they will be able to clarify what sources they were actually alluding to when they added the material.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)