Talk:Tariq Ramadan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV[edit]

Parts of the article read like OPed, especially the conclusion is clearly not NPOV. OneGuy 07:29, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the rules are regarding a "Books" section... The English books are books of which he is the author, but the French books is just a list of books slandering him, not the list of works he has published in French. Again, I don't know the conventions here... Can anybody enlighten me? Pedro.Gonnet 16:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revocation of Tariq Ramadan's visa:[edit]

For a discussion regarding why his visa was revoked at the last minute read:

http://www.islamicamagazine.com/content/view/96/62/

Pedro.Gonnet 16:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a stunning sidgrace[edit]

Oh yes its those goddam "zionists" again smearing a true muslim reformer who only calls for gays to be stoned to death in muslim countrys rather that in the streets of Paris.

How is this allowed to stand?

jucifer 12:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What are you taking about?! --Irishpunktom\talk 16:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I challenge this man to demonstrate beyond any doubt that Ramadan has ever called for the stoning of gays anywhere.


Who cares about Tariq Ramadan calling for such a thing! He's not a khaliph! He's not an imam! He's a scholar and writer! He has no authority over Muslims accept as an advisor.Scader 07:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad and thank God for this man. He has ALREADY planted the seed and the tree is growing on its own without him now. Alhamdulillah. We all are empowered and energized by these Muslims who are fighting against a zillion demons. Thank you and Thank you our dearest brother in Islam- TARIQ. May Allah (swt) grant you, your parents, family and your supportes the HIGHEST SCHOLARSHIP which is the eternal gift of Jannah. Aameen. Scader 07:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His father was the founder of "The Muslim Brotherhood", an organization that has been fairly open in their distaste for Jews and their call for the elimination of Israel [1]. I do not believe that the sins of the father should be passed to the son, but, neither should they be dismissed. And by the way, he called for a moratorium on stoning. Edward_Creed —Preceding undated comment added 23:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Use of phrase "Zionist proponents"[edit]

Rather than use this odd expression, why not identify the individuals to whom you refer? If, in fact, they are Zionists, and if their beliefs in this area are central to understanding who they are and why they oppose Mr. Ramadan, then bring out those points in your article. Otherwise, your odd phrase merely draws attention to your biases. Adam Holland 20:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality Disputed[edit]

I would like that this page has a The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see discussion on the talk page. message included, as to me this page apears to have some serious disputable points. As for example the point that mr. Ramadans opinion:

Other charges levelled against him in French media is that he is sexist, and a reactionary Islamist. More fundamentally, his attitude towards European legal and democratic institutions is dubious at best because of his insistence that Muslims should literally respect the Qur'an and sharia, and that there would be no incompatibility between those and the secular democratic society. This conflict is nevertheless quite explicitly recognised by the European Court of Human Rights, which said that "The Court concurs. . .that sharia is incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy" (13/02/2003).

In my opinion the European Court of Human Rights is not the appointed authority to judge about Sharia law, as any Sharia court would not be the appointed authority to judge on European Laws. If both enitities would like to formulate any opinion on the other, they should do so in cooperation. Ameer™

Plain rubbish: in a democracy, the universal human rights should be respected, and that means in practice that civil law MUST have priority over religious law! Therefore, in the public space within a democracy, it is right, and good that the universal rights and democratic principles are used as a criteroin to evaluate EVERYTHING's legality. --Rudi Dierick 21:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And as such, including a solitairy verdict of the European Court of Human Rights is inserting biased opinion within this article! It's funny though to see in the very next paragraph that there was a Hijab discussion in France, without mentioning anything about the limitation of freedom of religion or dressing in reference to the very same European Court of Human Rights! Ameer™

Thanks for such a clear, political statement. In a secular democracy, EVERYone is to respect the civil laws aqs the highest laws. You clearly refuse that. That makes that you are positioning yourself outside democracy.
In addition, Wikipedia as a project clearly wishes to remain within the limits of civil law. As such, you place yourself also outside the rules of Wikipedia. Regards, Lucas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.201.32.220 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 1 June 2006 - Please sign your posts!

Interesting is also that within this article there is critisim against mr Ramadan, but not against the people who are alledging him of many things, as for example having connections with al-Qeda. An accusation which can prevent you these days of being able to enter the USA. I am not aware of the reason why mr Ramadan was refused a visum, as the link is a dead link. I can however imagine that the accusation of the so called terrorist expert mr Piper is part of the reason.

To summarize my mainpoint, I would like to suggest this page get some clean-up and is in the meanwhile marked as biased! As well as this discussion page take another turn, I don't see any reason to include Zionism or anti-semitism in this discussion. Don't people know that Jews and Arabs both are semites? so anti-semitism would include both jewish and muslim people!

I believe that there should be more focus on the critisim, since the article covers his views. and IF the critism is right, those views should also contain radical islamic views.
Further more it is nearly impossible to write a neutral articel about a guy who has been accused for saing diffrent thinks to diffrent channels (and by channels i of cource don't mean tv channels ). since that is an obvious reason for divided images of this man
--User:Thinkpad-101 00:11, 25 December 2008 (+01:00 GMT)

--Ameer™ 21:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship[edit]

references ? anyone ? the references link nowhere ? is it vandalism ? Nobel prize 4 peace 22:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very valid and legitimate links were removed by User:Juicifer. Please monitor this user concerning this article. Holon67 20:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please see anonymous removal in this very discussion of earlier harsh statement by User:Juicifer. Holon67 20:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reversed the attempt by an anonymous contributor to remove harsh comments made by User:Juicifer on this very discussion. Action should be taken I believe to monitor this user's actions for the good of wikipedia. Holon67 21:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reported abuse to abuse@proxad.net after running whois on 82.239.173.81. Holon67 21:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


wasn't sure where to put this..the section mentions he's been called the islamic martin luther? wasnt it martin.l.king?ive read mlk a few times andy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.200.39.87 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 16 September 2006 - Please sign your posts!

NB Martin Luther King was named after Martin Luther. Read some history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.32.22 (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther was the guy responsible for the Reformation. You know "95 theses on the old wooden door..." Phyesalis 07:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crap advertisement[edit]

Someone put up an advertisement at the top of the discussion page. I don't think this is anywhere near acceptable. Killua 21:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism Allegations by Jean-Charles Brisard[edit]

Jean-Charles Brisard's allegations tying Ramadan to terrorism are both very relevant and current. In addition, he has several articles at the Terror Finance Blog about Ramadan that are well-researched and current, and frequently referred to in other reports on Ramadan. Therefore I am including them in the article. If someone has detailed rebuttals of Brisard's well-researched allegations, then you are free to include information or a link to them.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frankroyce74 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 3 October 2006 - Please sign your posts!


Ramadan's Answer To Visa Affair[edit]

This article recently appeared on Ramadan's Website and other outlets: here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pedro.Gonnet (talk • contribs) 02:22, 4 October 2006 - Please sign your posts!

Visa controversy[edit]

Most of the section about the U.S. decision to revoke his visa is arguments about whether the decision was correct or incorrect. These arguments focus on the POV that the decision was incorrect.

Can we provide more facts (so it can be called the "Visa affair")? And how about some balance, i.e. the POV that the revocation was justifiable? --Uncle Ed 16:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the section is quite clear on this, first they accused him of terrorist associations, then when pressed in court, they switched tracks and excluded him on the basis of his financial contributions to two charities suspected as terrorist groups since 1995, even though the U.S. didn't ban the charities until 2003. But, if you would like some more info included, you're free to do so yourself. It might be that there is no additional info on this matter to be found. Maybe because there is none, maybe because the feds didn't want to release it. I don't know. Frankly, I don't see why this section is flagged. Can someone explain what the issues are with this? It seems pretty factual, NPOV, and referenced. Thanks. Phyesalis 09:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Views[edit]

I'm not sure the article represents his views accurately. Here is a quote:

  • He argues for a large role for religion in Arab-Muslim states and an assertion of Muslim identity alongside citizenship in Western democracies. [2]

Diana West wrote:

  • ... arguing for "a large role for religion in Arab-Muslim states" (sounds like Shariah to me) and "an assertion of Muslim identity alongside citizenship in the West" (ditto).

So is he saying U.S. Muslims should be governed by Islam's Sharia law, or by the U.S. Constitution? This reminds me of the Diane Ravitch's ideas about Multiculturalism: particularism vs. pluralism. --Uncle Ed 15:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


When I visited the page on Friday, April 15, 2011, the first paragraph under the heading "Views" read

Ramadan works primarily on Islamic theology and the position of Muslims in the West and within Muslim majority countries. In general he believes in the need to continue to interpret the Qur'an,in order to correctly understand the meaning rather than just to read the Arabic, which the majority Muslims whom do not speak the Arabic language do Islamic philosophy.[37] He also emphasizes the difference between religion and culture, which he believes are too often confused, arguing that citizenship and religion are separate concepts which should not be mixed. He claims that there is no conflict between being both a Muslim and a European; a Muslim must accept the laws of his country. But he's opposed to some politicians or people who try to circumvent or to give a new sense of their own laws.

The second sentence here is simply incoherent, so I have changed it to provide a degree of readability. I am not sure that I understand the original author's point, however, and I would wish to see this part of the article clarified by someone who understands the subject better than I do. I would wish, further, for the paragraph to be made considerably more direct and specific. At present it is very vague. — pdbowman 10:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Quite right - it's a generally very poor article indeed. The Views and Criticisms sections in particular are awful - full of strangely unconnected links, and links to blogs; allegations and counter-allegations, much of it of limited value or consequence. In relation to the point somebody has posted at the bottom of the thread, it's certainly too long an article, and needs a lot of cleaning up.Marty jar (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Islamic scholar Tariq Ramadan has been accused in the 1990s' of anti-Semitism,[2] and criticized for injecting false 'victimhood'[3][4] in Arab-Islamic jihadist Mohamed Merah's[5] racist[6] Jewish school massacre in March 2012 described as "Nazi-like crimes," in Al-arabiya.[7]
  1. ^ "http://en.rian.ru/world/20110203/162433368.html"
  2. ^ Philip Carmel, "Muslim fundamentalist hero of anti-global crowd," JTA, November 30, 1999
  3. ^ Paul Sheehan, "It's wrong to make victim of child killer," Sydney Morning Herald, March 29, 2012
  4. ^ Manfred Gerstenfeld, "Killer becomes a 'victim.'" Op-ed: False notion of 'Muslim victimhood' raises its head in wake of Toulouse murders. Ynet, March 29, 2012
  5. ^ Roi Simyoni, "Merah felt 'endless pleasure' during school massacre." Ynetnews, March 25, 2012
  6. ^ "France shootings siege: Live Report," AFP, Mar 21, 2012 [1]
  7. ^ Randa Takieddine, "Protecting secularism in France," Al Arabiya, 29 March 2012

--

What is wrong with quoting JTA, Ynet and SMH, criticizng Tariq Ramadan?

Tarassin (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I was removing the links I messaged you directly with what I felt was a polite comment explaining clearly why they were removed, and referring you to guidelines on when to include links, but didn't receive a reply, so it's unfortunate that this is an issue. As you're relatively new to Wiki editing, I should also point out that if you disagree with somebody on whether something should be included or not, it isn't really appropriate to claim they didn't provide an explanation, and put up a headline on the Talk section accusing them of vandalism. I apologise if I offended with my description of the links' inclusion as 'bizarre' - that was a poor choice of word used before I'd spotted when they were updated.
Now to go through the issue of removed links, as I stated in the comment to you, links aren't needed to prove events tangental to the subject exist, so in this case if he faced criticism for his opinion on X, you don't then need a raft of links to show that X existed - just the criticisms themselves. If you use the 'View History' tab on the article you can compare the version after your edit and after mine. You'll see that both the SMH and JTA articles were left in (despite being quite limited) as examples of the criticism; it should be appearing in your screen highlighted in red. It appears that FIVE references were removed. The references from AFP; France24; Al-Arabiya, and one of the YNET references made no reference whatsoever to the subject, and all related to the Merah killing, and in no way to Tariq Ramadan. The other was a quite limited internet opinion piece which replicated the SMH reference. If you'd like to make the case for replacing the SMH reference, for example, please feel free to do so, but hopefully discussions can be held without unnecessary conflict. Marty jar (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Tariq Ramadan profile in the NYT by Ian Buruma[edit]

Tariq Ramadan Has an Identity Issue. Really great article. It can be useful in improving the article. --70.51.230.186 17:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the author of the article is known to have a quite strong pro-Muslim and anti-Israeli bias. he also includes some factual errors (e/g/ T. Ramadan was professor at a local school in Geneva, but not dean of any official school). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudi Dierick (talk • contribs) 21:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction Needed[edit]

I corrected the grammar on the preceding sentence, but this sentence should be taken out at least until it is written in a way that can be understood: "The polemic and manipulative nature of Ramadan's doctrine was nicely illustrated by the fact that one of those accused bim him over overley defending his 'Jewish brothes' was not a Jew himself, as Ramadan had claimed.[citation needed]" And it didn't really go with the preceding sentence, as best I can tell. Olav Smith 18:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some things that need to be addressed[edit]

- There are ongoing allegations that Ramadan writes out of his family legacy -- i.e. rehashes the work of grandfather.

- He has NEVER condemned his grandfather for his terrorist activities, which included the murder of Boutros-Ghali's father.

There needs to be links and discussion of these uncomfortable facts in the piece. The bottom line for Mr. Ramadan is to ask, very honestly, why does he say one thing in Arabic and another in Western languages.--Jackkalpakian 23:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it disturbing that while this article mentions the important book by Paul Berman about R. ("The Flight of the Intellectuals,"), the book is not adequately described or discussed. I take this to be a pro-R bias. 74.66.82.195 (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

renounces dutch chair[edit]

Regarding the Professorial Chair of Islamic Studies at the University of Leiden --tickle me 01:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SELFPUB[edit]

WP:SELFPUB says: Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

  • it is relevant to their notability;
  • it is not contentious;
  • it is not unduly self-serving;
  • it does not involve claims about third parties;
  • it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
  • the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Thus if there is any self-published content, that meets the above guideline it should be removed. This includes Ramadan making exceedingly good comments about himself. This also includes Daniel Pipes making contentious comments about Ramadan.Bless sins (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it has been a month, and no one responded, I went ahead and removed the inappropriate sourcing.Bless sins (talk) 06:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


why does the article say he want to "reinterpret" islam when he says we do not need a reformation? can we have a citation for the word "reinterpret"72.70.1.221 (talk) 05:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'll tag it for now and remove it from the lead.Bless sins (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarkozy[edit]

"A French television debate in 2003 with Nicolas Sarkozy (well known for his description of rioters in poor immigrant neighborhoods as “scum”)" This seems trying to bias the reader in a pretty clear direction. Many people have controversial quotes when we describe them in a debate do we have to mention this? The debate seems to be about women's rights anyway.--T. Anthony (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Name merely sounded Jewish?[edit]

by accusing Jewish and non Jewish philosophers whose name merely sounded Jewish, [Ramadan] opened himself to the charge of anti-Semitism

Who were the "non Jewish philosophers whose name merely sounded Jewish?" All of the listed philosophers are Jewish by ethnicity. EvanHarper (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the line in question. Nobody has explained who these philosophers were; having checked the original article I can find no "non Jewish philosophers" mentioned. Furthermore, the wording was uncomfortably close to the cited New York Times Magazine article; not enough copying to be outright plagiarism, but close. Furthermore, the text was clearly Ian Buruma / NYTmag's opinion or judgment -- "opened himself to the charge" implying he deserved it -- rather than NPOV language. Finally, the sentence was redundant. EvanHarper (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A top intellectual[edit]

The following sentence needs an extremely strong health warning, if it is to be mentioned at all, because it seems to misrepresent its source material: "An online poll provided by The British Prospect and the American Foreign Policy magazines placed him eighth in a list of the world’s top 100 contemporary intellectuals in 2008." To be clear, the survey in question was an internet poll that was hijacked by the Turkish press, which campaigned for those associated with the Gülen movement. I presume the reason for linking to the Guardian, rather than Prospect's own website, is to avoid drawing attention to the accompanying article ("The efficiency and discipline of the Fethullahçi is legendary—so in retrospect, for them, a poll like ours was simple to hijack. The temptation for Gülen’s followers to elevate their man to the top of a poll organised by two influential western magazines will have been a strong one. In one respect, then, Gülen’s crushing win tells us little about what the world thinks about its intellectuals; it merely exhibits the organisational ability of one movement’s followers.") --188.221.105.68 (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing: length[edit]

This article seems rather long. What could be done to make it more concise? RJFJR (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Islamism[edit]

Why is he listed under islamism? he doesn't seem to support forcing religion on people.

This article seems to be very partial. Please recheck the information and add the cross references. Tariq Ramadan isn't a saint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.205.134.94 (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tariq Ramadan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My recent edits[edit]

Hello, today I have removed a number of unreferenced passages, based on Wikipedia's direction on BLP articles: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of rape[edit]

WP:LEAD says: “The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies”.

So, the presence of the phrase “In October 2017, he was accused of rape by two women in France.” In the lead is quite justified.

--Chrismagnus (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where you're coming from, but I think it might be wise to let this run for a bit longer before rushing content into the lead. If he's convicted it absolutely belongs there; if he's arrested it almost certainly belongs there. But at the moment these are just allegations, and including them in the lead is excessive. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would put it a bit differently: we should be cautious about WP:RECENTISM, particularly in BLPs. These accusations dominate coverage of Ramadan in current news, but they aren't necessarily a prominent feature in the body of RSs about him. Only time will tell whether or not they will ultimately acquire prominence that would merit their inclusion into an encyclopedic summary, which may be because of a conviction or for another reason. Eperoton (talk) 04:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since no one has actually linked it yet, the relevant policy is WP:BLP, particularly WP:BLPCRIME. The BLP policy requires that negative or contentious content be accompanies with a reliable, inline citation - including in the lead section. Unsourced or inadequately sourced content about the accusations must be removed immediately without discussion.
The decision about whether to include a brief summary of the section in the lead is editorial (within the constraints of BLPCRIME linked above). In my opinion the version restored [3] by @Mezigue: looks reasonable to include, provided the restored version is impeccably sourced. VQuakr (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And the grammar at "having sexuals relationships" is fixed. VQuakr (talk) 04:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that it is not necessary to provide an inline citation in the lead section so long as the source is included in the relevant section, but I now see I had this wrong. However, this is now a huge scandal and Ramadan has been suspended from Oxford University, so I do not think it is reasonable to keep these events out of the lead section.Mezigue (talk) 12:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whether references are needed in the lead when references are included in the main body is a much debated point, but rough consensus seems to be that they are highly desirable for contentious material in BLPs. More importantly, Ramadan has not been suspended from Oxford; he has taken leave by mutual agreement ("an agreed period of absence"). It's important to be careful with phrasing here, on talk pages as well as the article. Personally I think it's still to early to add this to the lead, but it's a step nearer to being appropriate. (If he had been suspended against his will that would cross my personal threshold for inclusion.) Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is important to phrase it as per sources in the article, yes. But that does not mean we have to pretend in this discussion that he has not been suspended. Obviously he has. Mezigue (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He has not been suspended, and if you don't understand why it's important that you don't make false statements about living people, even on talk pages, then frankly you shouldn't even think about editing this article. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely with Jonathan A Jones. Let's wait until a process has unfolded and the allegations have been proven/disproven before we add this to the lead. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 01:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to Ayari's allegations[edit]

Reactions by third parties to Ayari's allegations against Ramadan are nothing to do with Ramadan himself, unless they are demonstrably organized by or supported by him. As such they do not belong on this page. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan A Jones, your position is very reasonable. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 15:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reactions by third parties towards a directly involved party are relevant to these allegations, as are for instance opinions by notable third parties. As the statements deleted by JAJ never claimed the threats were organised by TR, this is an invalid reason to delete. The threats against Charlie Hebdo are in the section - how are they different? AadaamS (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As you say reports of the threats against Charlie Hebdo don't belong there either so I have removed them. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that the threats 1) are relevant to the section about the allegations and 2) the removed statements (or sources) never claimed that TR had organised the threats. Since the sources say the threats are connected to the allegations, enwp should accurately represent the sources. If TR was satirised by CH it could be mentioned somewhere in this article. The threats against CH then belong in he [[Charlie Hebdo] article, add them there instead of deleting them outright. AadaamS (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to put this material at Charlie Hebdo then do so. It possibly belongs there, but it certainly doesn't belong here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Tariq Ramadan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tariq Ramadan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Denial[edit]

@Jonathan A Jones:, I think it is important to state that he continues to deny the allegations even after he was charged. Please stop removing content you don't like on the pretense of brevity. 18:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:AGF please stop making statements about the supposed basis of my edits which have absolutely no basis in fact. Indeed I request that you immediately strike out the allegations above. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about rape related convictions?[edit]

He has been convicted by a French court and fined already.

This should be in

https://www.arabnews.com/node/1759306 Rustygecko (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a fine for a minor offense. The bulk of the allegations are quite extensively covered in the article.--Gorpik (talk) 07:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tariq_Ramadan&oldid=1194430878"