User talk:Ironic sensibilities

Welcome!
Hi Ironic sensibilities! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Happy editing! Kleuske (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks Kleuske! Ironic sensibilities (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Still, please read MOS:LABEL in connection to your newly created article. Kleuske (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure. Can you be a little more specific about your concern? And actually, which article you mean. I've created a few kind of recently. Ironic sensibilities (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to this edit. "Mosque crawlers" does qualify as a contentious label. Kleuske (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hm... I see. I'm not really sure how contentious it is. It's used in some pretty mainstream sources to describe these informants. The New Yorker, mainstream scholarship like this. It's used by PBS, CBS, NPR, the AP. But anyway. Thanks for your opinion. I'll think about it. Ironic sensibilities (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Mainstream press does not operate under the same rules as Wikipedia. Moreover, your reference to www.taylorfrancis.com is a book and not a peer-reviewed article, and does not use that term. Kleuske (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That book absolutely does use the term. It says: "Police infiltrated Muslim student groups; placed informants—known as mosque crawlers—in mosques to monitor sermons with no evidence of wrongdoing..." It's a reputable publisher with editorial oversight. And I thought Wikipedia was based on what mainstream press said. But maybe I'm missing something. Anyway, I have addressed this on the talk page of the article where you reverted, so maybe it's better if we move the conversation there in case others might have an opinion? Thanks! Ironic sensibilities (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Your cite did not mention the term and I am not going on a wild goose chase through that book for some other chapter that may or may not use that term, as a quote or otherwise. If you provide a cite, it is expected that it supports your claim. If it does not, that's not a good look. Since you have moved the discussion to the article's talk-page, I suggest we centralize the conversation there. Kleuske (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, "academic sources" are peer-reviewed journals. Kleuske (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

For posterity, there is a direct link to the quote I supplied here on page 13. The book is an edited collection used as a textbook in college classes. It has received academic reviews (here) and been cited in academic literature. Ironic sensibilities (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)