This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rugby union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I see no need to use [Sic], or else we should include it in every article. According to Sic:
"Sic is a Latin word meaning "thus", "so", "as such", or "in such a manner". In writing, it is placed within square brackets and usually italicized – [sic] – to indicate that an incorrect or unusual spelling, phrase, punctuation, and/or other preceding quoted material has been reproduced verbatim from the quoted original and is not a transcription error."
"Arabian Gulf" is not and incorrect or unusual spelling (even tough it is an unusual name for that geographical feature). That IS the name of the team. If someone decides to call it "The Gulf of Mickey Mouse" we still should not include a [Sic]. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
The Arabian Gulf dispute is a pain in the... It is NOT usually referred to by this name in English, hence the need for [sic]. You will find that this page will soon be subject to a minor edit war as Iranian patriots take offence at this. I would remind you this is a political issue which some people take strong offence to.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
MacRusgail, even if they are offended by it, WP must keep it, as said in WP:Content_disclaimer. You can include a section in the text, just like other arabian gulf articles saying that the name of the geographical feature, like Arabian Gulf rugby union team. Also, the article is not about the gulf, but about the team, and the name of the team not spelled in an incorrect or unusual way, so there should not be a [sic]. And once again it IS NOT a quo, as explained in the Sic article:
"preceding quoted material has been reproduced verbatim from the quoted original"
If you want, place the "Name" section in the article, but remove the [Sic], it has no place in the article. And if someone is offended by it, it´s not wikipedia´s problem. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 18:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually it is wikipedia's problem. You have fun with any future edit wars.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
MacRusgail, you fail to make a sound argument for the stay of sic, therefore, I'm removing. The name is a proper name, not an attempt at scientific terminolgy. Whether it's usually called this in English or not is irrelevant. --Caseyallen0 (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)