Talk:Sic

removal

I've removed here what may be merely intentional offensiveness, and in any case is not useful for editing the article.
--Jerzy•t 21:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Second Example

I think the second example, "Dan Quayle famously changed a student's spelling to 'potatoe' [sic]", might be a bit of a stretch. The fact that 'potatoe' is in quotes and that the sentence is about an instance of misspelling makes the [sic] completely superfluous. Sic is an editorial tool for improving clarity. I think the example demonstrates poor usage. A better example might be something like the "bear-back ride" one below. Comments?

I agree, I don't think it's necessarily an incorrect usage but as an example it's not great and I would advocate a change. In contrast I think the last sentence of the article is very amusing and imaginative. blankfrackis 22:22, 30 September 2006 (GMT)

I've replaced it with a clearer one captured in the wild. I have qualms about naming-and-shaming the ridiculed party, but I think in linguistics an actual example is always preferable to a custom-built synthetic one. jnestorius^(talk) 03:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the new example is perfect either. "...clean and individual, with its [sic] finger on the fashion pulse." This is not an incorrect spelling of the word "its" in this context. This word is used here as a posessional pronoun, rather than a contraction. The point about ridicule and irony certainly comes across, and I know that this quote was taken from another website; however, to demonstrate the proper use of [sic], it would be appropriate to use a word which is actually misspelled or misused. TWCarlson 21:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That's because someone has helpfully "corrected" the quote! Uncorrected it back. -- Ian Dalziel 21:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't check the history or I would've seen that. When I checked the reference, I misread it and thought that it, too, used "its" instead of "it's". Thus, I thought whoever wrote the reference article did not know the correct usage. I thus judged it as a poor selection of a reference. Thanks for the correction! TWCarlson 05:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Brackets

In the article, this 'graph:

For example in writing "I was amused to be invited for a 'bear-back [sic] ride' into town", the sic implies an error by the who-ever wrote 'bear-back ride' and is placed inside square brackets to show it is your insertion. If you were genuinely invited to ride on a bear, you might write "I was amused to be invited for a bear-back (sic) ride into town."

whose grammar symptomatically suggests that a word is capable of writing, is so unclear that i got 75% done rewriting it more clearly (and without using second-person, and indenting rather than using quotation marks), and realized that i still didn't get it myself. I hope someone else will try.
--Jerzy•t 21:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe this round vs. square bracket distinction. I just checked the online editions of The Concise Oxford English Dictionary, The New Oxford American Dictionary, The Oxford Dictionary of English, The Oxford American Dictionary of Current English, and the Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage. All of them define "sic", but none of them mention any convention for brackets. Tearlach 21:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Theoretically square brackets would be preferred where "sic" is an interpolation by an editor - the convention is hardly ever followed in practice. -- Ian Dalziel 23:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Umm ... it's not theoretical. Every major style guide I've ever read has noted that it is used within square brackets. I've NEVER seen a reference to using it within parentheses.

• http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/s.html (US)
• http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/doc/punctuation/node30.html (UK)
• http://www.jcu.edu.au/studying/services/studyskills/writing/references.html (Australia)
• http://www.ucalgary.ca/UofC/eduweb/grammar/course/punctuation/3_6.htm (Canada)
• http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/cmosfaq/cmosfaq.Quotations.html Chicago Manual of Style
• http://www.viterbo.edu/perspgs/faculty/RSamuels/squarebracketsandquotes.html (gratuitous additional reference)

This convention is followed on both sides of the pond, so it's not a U.S. vs. British thing. ⇒ B.Rossow ^talk_contr [[Thursday]], [[April 20]], [[2006]] @ 12:55 (UTC)

Quite agree that it is the preferred usage. However, in practice it just isn't used that way. It is widely used without italics and with round brackets in exactly the sense described. The previously discussed and removed paragraph - see "bear-back" above - was correct in saying that square brackets should be used by the editor, round by the author. Would you buy something like "which should be in italics and square brackets"? -- Ian Dalziel 14:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the fact that some people use it incorrectly should dictate that the description here be compromised. In proper practice it is used that way — that is, with square brackets and italicized. The above paragraph you cited is not correct in stating that parentheses ("round brackets") should be used by the author. In that example, a much more proper way would be to write it as this: I was amused to be invited for a "bear"-back ride into town. The quotes indicate the author intends the unusual usage; the use of sic is entirely inappropriate in original (i.e. unquoted) material. To the best of my knowledge and (brief) research, no legitimate reference exists to support the claim that parentheses and sic would be used as suggested above. If such a reference exists, I for one would love to see it and would be glad to be proven wrong. If we are going to let a common incorrect practice trump documented proper usage, then we should just as legitimately move all of the so-called "incorrect" interpretations of sic back to the top as accepted meanings as well and not limit it to the "correct" Latin definition. Right? ⇒ B.Rossow ^talk_contr [[Thursday]], [[April 20]], [[2006]] @ 18:49 (UTC)

Oh very well - the example was clumsy and unlikely, I admit. It was correct in that a parenthetic comment by the author should have round brackets, unlikely though "sic" would be as such a comment, though.

I'm quite happy to see correct usage documented - what I dislike is the implication that "sic" only has the meaning specified when it is italicised and enclosed in square brackets. It has no other meaning in text.

Entirely agree with the rest of your clean-up, by the way. -- Ian Dalziel 19:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The only place I've ever seen (sic) instead of [sic] is on Wikipedia pages. All usage guides I've read suggest using square brackets. http://www.protrainco.com/info/essays/usage.htm#_1_11 Prometheus^-X303- 23:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you didn't look very hard, then - Google turned up three examples on the first page when I tried. There is no argument about the fact that square brackets are correct for any interpolation by an editor. Round brackets are widely - and incorrectly - used, though, and the word is still being used to mean exactly the same thing. The current wording suggests to me that the meaning is somehow different if square brackets are not used. -- Ian Dalziel 08:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

---

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 10:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Sic (Latin) → Sic – Sic exists as a redirect to SIC. Why not have the more well-known Latin term be at Sic and note the the reader may be looking for SIC at the top of the article? Case is enough of a difference. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 05:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

Support. Simpler is generally better, as is avoiding unnecessary redirs. 24.17.48.241 07:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Support. -Silence 10:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Suppport. Sounds fine to me. QuartierLatin1968 18:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Support reflexive redirect --Lox (t,c) 20:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pronunciation

How is sic pronounced? I have hear it pronounced like "sick" and like "Sikh" -- what's correct? With my luck, it's probably neither of those.... Anyway, I don't know if it's necessary to put in an IPA pronunciation guide, but it could be useful. Opinions? -Phoenixrod 10:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

As this word need only be used in writing, and as it is a latin word, for which there are no correct pronunciations (if my Latin education was correct!) I suspect it can be pronounced either way (although I prefer 'sick') Boldymumbles 09:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I have just checked in a Latin dictionary, and it is entered "sīc"; it is pronounced as "seek". Daniel 21:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't a long I not the same as a long E? I'm pretty sure a long I would sound like the letter I. 96.242.150.238 (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

According to Merriam-Webster both pronunciations are correct: [1]. Argel1200 (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Formatting argument

The above "Brackets" discussion makes a number of contradicting assertions about the formatting of "sic". Several professional guidelines are mentioned, but their relevant passages are not cited. User B. Rossow includes a number of specific citations, all of which support square brackets, but which disagree on italicization (see table below). Personally, I've always thought it should be [sic] (square brackets and Latin word italicized), the idea being that any text not in the original should be typographically offset from the original. I freely admit I could be wrong, and am willing to follow official practice, assuming one can be firmly established by citations from prominent style guidelines.

I decided to check the cited links for their actual statements and their authority, and found they didn't exactly address the whole issue. Here's what I've found:

Link	Source	Usage	Observations
http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/s.html (US)	Rutgers English professor Jack Lynch's "Guide to Grammar and Style	[sic]	expert, but no formal style guide citation; no explanation of why unitalicized brackets
http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/doc/punctuation/node30.html (UK)	U of Sussex Informatics' "Quotation Marks and Direct Quotations"	[sic]	Comp Sci dept, no clear authority; no stated formal guide; no expl of unitalicized brackets
http://www.jcu.edu.au/studying/services/studyskills/writing/references.html (Australia)	James Cook U, "Academic Writing: References"	[sic]	apparently U-wide guideline, but no stated authority; contradicts text by not italicizing "sic"
http://www.ucalgary.ca/UofC/eduweb/grammar/course/punctuation/3_6.htm (Canada)	U of Calgary English Department's "Punctuation 3.6: Parentheses and Square Brackets"	[sic]	expert org, but no formal guide cited; contradicts text by not italicizing "sic"
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/cmosfaq/cmosfaq.Quotations.html Chicago Manual of Style	U of Chicago Press: "Quotations"	[sic]	authoritative professional style guide; no explanation of details; cites CMOS 11.4, 11.8, and 11.69 w/o details
http://www.viterbo.edu/perspgs/faculty/RSamuels/squarebracketsandquotes.html (gratuitous additional reference)	Viterbo U English professor Rolf Samuels' "Using Square Brackets with Quotations"	[sic]	expert, but no formal style guide citation; contradicts text by not italicizing "sic"

The guidelines cited by the universities, their English departments, and/or their English instructors could be considered authoritative, but even in this argument being made by someone specifically to support square brackets, there is disagreement over italics. It is unclear whether the absence of counter arguments is because there are none, or because the citer didn't find or choose to include any. (Where are Oxford, Harvard, or Yale? Why a Comp Sci department?) Furthermore, there is only one professional style guide cited, and only for a brief statement that offers no explanation but cautions the need for "considerable editorial judgment".

There are very few, if any, iron-clad style rules in English-language publication. At least with publishers' style guides, we limit the scope to a few dozen prominent publishers instead of tens of thousands of universities and hundreds of thousands of English professors. More research must be done on this to claim any clear direction in the matter of brackets and italicization of either or both of the term and the brackets. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

A Recent Phenomenon?

I swear I never saw the "[sic]" notation anywhere before the mid to late 1980's, and then it started to show up in every magazine. Before then, I guess that readers were supposed to know that a misspelling in a direct quote was a mistake of the quoted, not the quoter. I allways thought that there was a little bit of meanness in the use of this notation, which I think is sometimes used in an attempt to depict the quoted source as ignorant or stupid.--Drvanthorp 03:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I have seen [sic] used in academic journals from at least as far back as the forties. 173.22.123.35 (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Latin

Isn't it an abbreviation of the Latin word "sicut" meaning "thus" (as in, like this, or "he really said it like this"? I'm not aware of any actual Latin word spelled "sic" [sic]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.179.17.107 (talk • contribs)

Sic transit gloria mundi. I believe "sic" in Latin is indeed a form or abbreviation of "sicut", but it certainly does exist on its own. -- Ian Dalziel 06:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we need a good citation for the idea that sic is a shortening of sicut. My understanding was that sic or ita was an adverb and "ut[i]" was a conjuction. They can be combined as sicut or ita ut. For example: ita/sic rogas, "so you propose"; sicut rogas / uti rogas, "as you propose" (i.e. "yes", on Roman voting tablets); [sic]ut roges, "so that you propose" / "in order for you to propose". — Chameleon 17:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That sic is the derivative of 'yes', in other languages doesn't seem relevant to me, given that the word is also the derivative of words retaining the original meaning, of 'thus', in these language. Our current English entry prattles, "In the Italo-Western Romance languages it was the basis for their word for 'yes': sí (Catalan), sí (Spanish), sim (Portuguese), sì (Italian), si (French for 'yes, on the contrary'). Medieval Latin sometimes used sic as 'yes', reflecting the Romance usage. In Romanian language, belonging to the Eastern Branch of Latin sic became synonymous with 'and' (in Romanian şi)." See the Spanish, French, and Portugese entries, which begin by pointing out the relation of sic to así, ainsi, and assim respectively. Also, Romanian has 'aşa', which I assume is also related to Latin 'sic'. This talk of it being the heritage of words meaning 'yes' seems beside the point to me. Doctorcolossus (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The section is discussing the derivation of "si", not the derivation of "sic". I think it is misplaced and confusing, and should be removed. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 06:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Irrelevant section now deleted! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"in another way"

Someone recently added "in another way" to the Latin meanings of sic. Doesn't that contradict the others ("thus", "so", or "just as that")? Prometheus^-X303- 22:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sic and dialects

Hrm... dialects weren't explicitly mentioned on the page. I'm assuming it's within standard usage to say "sic" after quoting something written in a differnt dialect; it also seems appropriate to use the term after (for example) quoting something from British English while the rest of a work is written using American English (and vice versa). Or is it more common just to "translate" a quote from British to American, either not noting the translation, or by use of brackets

(The following is based on a sentence written in BE, "The family were going on holiday." cited in an otherwise AE text. Clearly, I'm using a simple example, rather than an academic one.)

• The family were going on holiday. [sic]
• The family was going on vacation. (change without reference)
• The family [was] going on [vacation].

What seems the most natural/appropriate? samwaltz 14:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What is most natural is to leave it alone, since "The family were going on holiday" is perfectly good English. If, however, you quote something dialectal (such as "They've went on vacation"), it is appropriate to add a sic after it. — Chameleon 17:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This list

"spelling is correct", "same in copy", "spelled incorrectly", "spelling incompetent", "said in context", "spoken in context", "stupid in context", "stand incorrect", "spelling intentionally changed", or "sans intent comique".

---

Are these actually genuine? I had a search on the internet and can't find many citations other than those quoted from this actual article. The last one is particularly fanciful.--Christopher Denman 09:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

What does "genuine" mean? They're all rubbish, but they're as genuine as one another. Everyone seems to want to add what he thought it meant - and there is obviously a near-infinite set of expressions for which "sic" doesn't stand. The only point I can see in a list is that it may discourage the next editor who wants to change the article to say that it's an acronym! By all means prune the list again - it'll be sprouting in Spring, no doubt. -- Ian Dalziel 18:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I agree though, many times I haven't found an error in the sentence itself. I was then always lead to believe that it meant "spelling is corrected." I'll have to pay more attention next time... Ucla1989 (talk) 10:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Latin Acronym

I was told by an actual Latin teacher that it was, in fact, an acronym: signum in cartam, translated "in accordance with the image on the paper" or in other words "as it was written." This seems more reasonable than the actual Latin word "sic" which appears as such in a dictionary:
sic ADV,POS
sic ADV
thus, so; as follows; in another way; in such a way;
Which doesn't seem to indicate in any sort of direct manner that the error is intentional and a reflection of the original source.
Lumbergh 19:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"Thus" means it was thus in the quoted text. That's all it means. It is not any kind of acronym - there are no Latin acronyms. -- Ian Dalziel 22:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Acronyms were known in the classical world. I haven't found one in Latin yet, but there were a few in Greek, including Ichthys. The Sator square certainly incorporates acronyms in Latin. samwaltz 21:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC) (link fixed - Ian Dalziel 06:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC))

That's an acrostic - which words are you saying are acronyms? -- Ian Dalziel 06:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Ichthys isn't an acronym - the word isn't derived from the initial letters. The article says it is - that needs rewriting. -- Ian Dalziel 06:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

According to Merriam-Webster the etymology is "Latin, so, thus": [2]. Argel1200 (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Why do people use this when quoting online sources?

Ever since the invention of the copy/paste function, there has been absolutely no need to transcribe something in order to quote it. However, people still feel the need to mention “[sic]” when making a verbatim copy/paste of, e.g., online news articles, ancestor posts/comments, etc. What is with this practise? My web browser has a built-in spell-check, and I don't append “[sic]” after every spelling mistake and localisation difference (e.g., -ize vs. -ise) in the relevant quoted text. Maybe I'm just annoyed at the people on Slashdot who do this? P.S., sorry for using so many Latin acronyms... -Matt 15:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

People do it to be snide, thence the frequency on /.. Also to show they're not so dumb not to spot the misspelling, but conserve it for accuracy and/or teh lulz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.18.193 (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

1960s and 1970s informal usage of "sic"

I recall seeing old student newspapers and yearbooks from the 1960s and 1970s using "sic" in either brackets or parentheses to mean "just kidding" or "joking around" or "yeah, right", occasionally with an exclamation point after the "sic". (The interpretation of "sic" was given verbally by a Baby Boomer or two, so I can't exactly vouch for it.) Can someone find any evidence out there of such a usage? — Rickyrab | Talk 03:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to the word psyche.(Joshtek (talk) 12:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)).

I don't. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 13:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Example Correct?

The article quotes: "The House of Representatives shall chuse [sic] their [sic] Speaker..."

Why the second [sic]? --Tomathy 20:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It's just been added. I think the suggestion is that the word should have been "its". I don't think that's necessarily true - I think a collective noun can be treated as plural - but I haven't got round to looking for evidence yet. In any case, I think it obscures the explanation of "sic" and should be removed. -- Ian Dalziel 21:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

In the style formats I've used for school, sic goes at the end of a quoted sentence before the punctuation and quotation marks.173.22.123.35 (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Relation to "cadit quaestio"?

The [cq] tag in newspapers seems very related, perhaps worthwhile to mention it or at least include a link in the See Also section? Kjetilho (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Could this also mean

sine correctione? --Pizzahut2 (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Next? -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Feminist and Other Uses

Is it worth noting that it is common in academic texts in the social sciences and humanities to see "sic" after instances of Man being used for Human (or Mankind for Humankind) as well as after the pronoun "he" when "he" is being used as a default pronoun? For example, "Since the dawn of Man [sic]..."

I realize this sort of using of "sic" to insert editorial commentary is alluded to, but the gender issue seems special to me.

I also see it used in cases when the author doing the quoting doesn't like the word choice. For example, "Men of the Sambia tribe regularly engage in homosexual [sic] acts." This use of "sic" irritates me because it feels like the author is too lazy to write out a criticism of the original language. Am I wrong? Is this kind of "sic" valid?

98.193.95.156 (talk) 05:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC) LFB

I can see nothing unusual or deserving of special mention in those particluar uses. What you call the feminist use is a perfectly standard use of sic - as the article already says, "to show that an uncommon or archaic usage is reported faithfully" and/or "to highlight an error, sometimes for the purpose of ridicule or irony". Your other example also fits exactly within the standard description. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Redundant?

Whenever you quote something, isn't it generally assumed that you haven't made transcription errors, and are quoting the source word-for-word? If so, then why do we add this to the quote, when it doesn't really need to be added since the quote has already been copied properly.205.250.75.55 (talk) 07:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If the quote is from the 16th Century and has many archaeic spellings, it should be obvious that misspellings are in deed archaeic, and should be left alone.

If the quote is more recent and has only one or two apparent misspellings, it may not be clear that they are real quotes and not misspellings. The "sic" then confirms this.

Tabletop (talk) 09:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sic/Sig?

Removed from the page pending sources :

The expression is also used by physicians to communicate to pharmacists that a prescription is to be filled "just so," i.e. precisely as described, for example when the dosage or volume is atypical or when the pharmacist should not substitute one brand for another even when the active ingredient is the same.

This last paragraph in this "Usage" section is incorrect. The correct expression, which is "sig", is short for the Latin signetur, which means "let it be labeled". It is correctly stated here that "sig" is "...used by physicians to communicate to pharmacists that a prescription is to be filled "just so," i.e. precisely as described...", but has nothing whatsoever to do in regard to not allowing the substitution of one brand of drug for another, or not allowing the substitution of a brand-name drug for a generic, therapeutically-equivalent drug. It simply means "dispense as written", and some physicians in the U.S. write it as a matter of course while others leave it out altogether. If "sig" is used, it is placed at the very beginning of the written prescription's instructions and the first letter is capitalized, e.g. "Sig: i or ii t PO TID..."

Ian Dalziel (talk) 12:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation--again...

"It had a long vowel in Latin (sīc), meaning that it was pronounced like the English word "seek";...." Which is it? If it's pronounced (sīc), then that means it's pronounced like "psych". If it's pronounced "seek", it should have a long "e", not a long "i"... I personally don't know which it is--but I know the current post is wrong... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.132.232.13 (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is correct. A long i is pronounced ee in Latin (and in virtually every language other than English - see Great Vowel Shift). In case it helps, I have add an IPA version of "seek" to the article. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)