Wikipedia has a page called "Parable of the broken window" which claims to reference Economics in One Lesson (footnote 5) as a source showing a "limitation" of the parable.
The paragraph takes Hazlitt's argument out of context by saying that the broken window stimulates productivity. Hazlitt does say that, but he also says that productivity stimulated in this way is artificial. Basically, the paragraph stating "limitations" is a KEYNESian argument referencing HAZLITT instead of KEYNES without making clear that there is any actual debate about the subject.
This is a great place for someone here who is a Wikipedia member to make a contribution to that source. It sorely needs correction. Or become a member. Wikipedia strives for entries which do not show obvious bias, or at least present arguments with correct attributions.
I know enough about it to point it out, but I think someone else would do a better job re-writing the paragraph.
Here's what Hazlitt says:
There may be, it is true, offsetting factors. Technological discoveries and advances during a war may, for example, increase individual or national productivity at this point or that, and there may eventually be a net increase in overall productivity. Postwar demand will never reproduce the precise pattern of prewar demand. But such complications should not divert us from recognizing the basic truth that the wanton destruction of anything of real value is always a net loss, a misfortune, or a disaster, and whatever the offsetting considerations in a particular instance, can never be, on net balance, a boon or a blessing.
That's from:
http://jim.com/econ/chap03p1.html
Sounds to me like it's not a Keynesian argument, but a fact.
I think Hazlitt is saying that if you walk down a dangerous street and are attacked, with all your bones broken and sent to the hospital for months, you MIGHT find a winning lottery ticket on the ground as you lie there bleeding. But that doesn't make getting beat up badly a good thing.
Wikipedia is being a bit out of line. They are writing something like this:
In the broader scope, offsetting factors can reduce or even negate the cost of being beaten to an inch of ones life. For example, you may find a lottery ticket.
Bottom line, it should be rewritten, but it's a very subtle thing.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
What a great analogy -- finding a winning lottery ticket to offset getting beaten almost to death. Perfect! Hahahaha!