# Talk:A Rape on Campus

Mathglot, "If there is a significant error in the original, follow it with {{sic}} (producing [sic] ) to show that the error was not made by Wikipedia."  Saying "if she allegedly lied" is a significant error, either on ABC's part as a misquote (unlikely), or on the lawyer's part (more likely).  That she allegedly lied isn't in question...as long as someone has alleged her to have lied, then the premise is automatically true, so the lawyer should have simply said "If she lied, ...".  This is going to be confusing to the savvy reader (like myself), and thus needs a [sic].   Do you dispute this?  Furthermore, referring to "[a] perpetrator" instead of "the alleged perpetrators" is also wrong, since it's tacitly assuming guilt by calling them perpetrators (and gets the number wrong).  This also needs a [sic] (and might be a BLP vio).  You also reverted my change from "consultant" to "lawyer" without explanation.  Why?  Frankly, this quote (of a quote) is of such low quality, that I'd be perfectly happy to get rid of it, especially since a quote about what might happen as the story was ongoing isn't so important since it's since already played out.  35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Ping for Mathglot, since I messed up the signature the first time 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
We may not use {{sic}} as a way of disputing attributed assertions in quotations within double quotes, regardless how mistaken or wrong they may appear to us on questions of fact; if it's just a typo or reduplicated term, feel free. It doesn't matter what you think the lawyer should have said, or whether he is wrong or right or lying or mistaken; idem what anybody else should have said; the only thing that matters is what they *did* say, and it doesn't matter whether it is true, false, or logically impossible. Changing that in any way is injecting your editorial point of view into the process. Misuse of {{sic}} in this way is kind of the equivalent of adding scare quotes to cast doubt on someone else's statement, or to indicate one's disbelief or mockery of what someone else said, and we don't do that, either, as Wikipedia editors.
{{Sic}} is typically used for typos to make it clear that the Wikipedia editor who copied the quotation isn't at fault: and that the source actually did write it that way, even if it looks wrong. Here are a couple of legitimate uses of {{sic}}:
"Roger Federer set to to[sic] play Laver Cup followed by Basel with Rafael Nadal ready for his return in Madrid –  from note 288 of Roger Federer;
Melbourne sympathised but said it could be avoided by marriage, which Victoria called a "schocking [sic] alternative". – from Queen Victoria.
Getting rid of the quotation entirely is a separate question; so is the "consultant" vs. "lawyer" issue, and if the source supports "lawyer" then feel free to redo that part of the change without objection from me.  Mathglot (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
You seem to be saying that [sic] is only for typos, but this isn't true.  Even our own article on sic notes (with source): Sic, in its bracketed form, is most often inserted into quoted or reprinted material to indicate meticulous accuracy in reproducing the preceding text, despite appearances to the reader of an incorrect or unusual orthography (spelling, punctuation, grammar, syntax, fact, logic, etc.).[2][10] Several usage guides recommend that a bracketed sic be used primarily as an aid to the reader, not as an indicator of disagreement with the source.[2][11]  I'm not sure why being a quote of a quote is relevant; there's a basic error (two, really) of logic/fact, and it should be pointed out that it's not Wikipedia's copying error.  But regardless, I'd still say we should just go the path of least resistance and remove it for the reasons I gave above (horrible quote, and it was only really relevant as the situation was ongoing anyway).  If no one objects, I'll do so. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)