This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the A Rape on Campus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism 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.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism
A Rape on Campus is part of the Fraternities and Sororities WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Greek Life on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to International social societies, local organizations, honor societies, and their members. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project page, where you can join the project, and/or contribute to the discussion.Fraternities and SororitiesWikipedia:WikiProject Fraternities and SororitiesTemplate:WikiProject Fraternities and SororitiesFraternities and Sororities
This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism 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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles 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.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia 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.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
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)[reply]
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".[53] – 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}