Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious offense


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. Courcelles 06:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Religious offense

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This topic appears ill-defined and thus inappropriate for an encylopedia article. Pam D  12:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Importance of Article PamD has previously slated this article for deletion on the vague grounds that it is "Unsourced, OR, not a global perspective, probably impossible to write a generalised article about "Religious offenc/se" in all the world's faiths".

Definition The definition of this topic is in the distinction that exists between religiously orthodox legal cultures and and those of secular democratic society.

As far as I know, the cultural clash between religious and secular society (crusade, jihad etc) does indeed count as a global view.

Religious offense (USA Spelling) is about offending people with religious sensitivities. It is not about religious crimes per se, except insofar as as they exist in most religions and deserve definition (plus links to detailed articles).

Appropriateness Essentially it is not logically possible to believe both in the supremacy of divine authority and in the supremacy of the will of the people in the governance of a society.

The various attempts to reconcile both - for example by Christian Democrats and popular political parties has resulted in considerable confusion about terms such as heresy and blasphemy.

If an encyclopaedia (encylopedia?) is not intended to dispel doubt, then what purpose does it properly serve? The term is linked to other articles precisely because there is bigoted obfuscation between 'sin' and 'crime' Timpo (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not convinced this article is written in the correct style for Wikipedia - to me, it reads more like a "How-to" style page, or even an expanded dictionary definition, not a Wikipedia article. Beyond this, I would say the three "religious offences" mentioned in the article say enough about the subject. At the very most, a re-written and cut-down entry in Religious law would be appropriate. This is going to be a very contentious issue, however... Lukeno94 (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. The lead section could use some work, but otherwise I do think we have a specific topic here that could use its own article. If you google "religious offense law" (not to be confused with 'religious law') there seem to be plenty of reliable sources talking about it. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Not very well-written, but a good prospect for improvement. I would also agree with Timpo that this article is needed. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think the importance of this article is well established, and it will improve Wikipedia. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a legitimate and logically separate sub-article of Religious law. My very best wishes (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article requires much editing to bring balance to a controversial subject. This issue is increasingly significant in multicultural societies and on a global scale and  presents a notable counter to another major issue:freedom of speech. Kooky2 (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.