Talk:Sic

'Sic erat scriptum' redux
The current lead suggests that the use of sic ("thus") derives from the use of the longer phrase sic erat scriptum ("thus is had been written"). However, despite some efforts by Wikipedia editors (cf. talk pages archives here and especially here), no reliable secondary source establishing that this is indeed the case has ever been cited in this article. The claim was added to the article on 10 February 2012 by a since-blocked editor, who cited Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary, which however does not back up the claim.

Searching Google Books for occurrences of the phrase before 10 February 2012 only yields actual Latin texts (e.g., , , , ) that are using it in their own literal narrative contexts (not in our intended editorial context of 'quoting it as it was written'), as well as a book somehow showing a screenshot of the post 10 Feb 2012 Wikipedia page (Google Books version probably revised/updated after the book's original publication in 2009?). Sure, doing a normal Google search for "sic erat scriptum" yields tons of websites repeating that "sic" is short for "sic erat scriptum", but of course none of these cite a source, and it seems very likely that they themselves rely on Wikipedia (and so using them would be WP:CIRCULAR and result in WP:CITOGENESIS).

Given this situation, it is clear that we need a good secondary, pre-February 2012 source to back up the claim. The current reference to the fact that a US federal judge apparently once (in U.S. v. Bryant, Case No. 11-CR-20034, November 15, 2012) used the phrase "sic erat scriptum" in a court document to note that they were using a variant spelling of Bryant's given name does not meet that bar, for several reasons. Of course it's a primary source (which against WP:PSTS we are clearly interpreting to establish something the source does not say), it's post-February 2012 (judges are human too, they read Wikipedia), but it also does not actually back up the claim that "sic" derives from "sic erat scriptum" (the reverse may be true), nor does it show that this judge's use of it is anything more than an idiosyncrasy on their part (i.e. it does not show that anyone else is using it).

I am therefore removing the claim from the article. Per WP:BURDEN, please do not reinstate this without citing a secondary, pre-February 2012, reliable source. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 21:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

"Sic erat scriptum" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sic_erat_scriptum&redirect=no Sic erat scriptum] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 22:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Music Journal ref.
Dear, Apaugasma,

I believe that the reference to the Music journal is irrelevant. The Journal of Seventeenth-Century Music Style Sheet is not an important or field leading journal, and its conventions are not necessarily representative. This seem like journal-promotion / spam with little contribution to the article. What's your take?

Cheersרמרום (talk) 09:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * It's difficult to speculate on the intentions of the user who added it, but as it stands this seems like a piece of useful information that is weakly sourced. The way to improve would be to cite other, better sources rather than to remove it. This would also allow us to remove the explicit mention of  Journal of Seventeenth-Century Music Style Sheet (which is mentioned by name in the main text precisely because it is only the point of view of one source, per WP:YESPOV/WP:INTEXT).
 * Do other journals suggest a different convention? From a Latin language point of view at least it would make idiomatic sense to omit punctuation after recte, but then I can easily imagine that others would prescribe a colon. That's why we can't just write it down as a fact ("There should be no punctuation, for example no colon, before the correct form when using recte."): for this we would need multiple sources all saying the same thing. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 09:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)