" 

 ::Tryptofish's initial observation is correct. There are far too many weasel words in the article; if a statement is based on the writings of one or two authors, then those authors should be named. If it's a half dozen, then one can actually says ""Critics say"" and the footnote should say something like e.g. Hitchens (2007) p. 35, Dawkins (2006) p. 200, Marx (1867) V. 1 Part VII, Shermer (1999) p.2, Ward (2006) p. 172). Alternatively, if the source actually says ""Critics say..."" then you can use similar terminology. For that matter, the article relies far too heavily on Hitchens and Dawkins, who are good writers, but also non-expert polemicists. There are plenty of good authors on this topic (e.g. philosophers, theologians, historians of religion); there's little need to rely on popular polemics. It also relies far too much on essentially primary sources and OR; arguments are constructed based on newspaper articles or similar media. For example, this: 
 ::An example of this would be the idea that women and men must be kept separate, or that women who do not cover themselves up modestly have tendencies for immorality, or are in some way responsible for sexual assault.{{cite news | last =Kerbaj | first =Richard | authorlink = | coauthors = | title =Muslim leader blames women for sex attacks  | publisher =The Australian | date =2006-10-26 | location = | pages = | url =http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20646437-601,00.html }}{{cite web|title=Women Asked to Leave Seminar|author=Raid Qusti | url=http://arabnews.com/?page=1&section;=0&article;=89107&d;=22&m;=11&y;=2006}} 
 ::Were the authors of those newspaper articles writing a defense of Ebadi's argument? No, of course not. Rather, a Wikipedia author has constructed one. There's lots more I could go into, but I think that's enough for now. Rather than simply removing tags, it would make more sense to address the issues they highlight.  "