Forums
I'd like some clarification on when to use [sic]. For example, I have this citation. The record shows the bride's surname as Denison, but her surname is actually Denson. Would it be better to use [sic] in this case or the correct surname, also in square brackets?
Jackson County, Arkansas, Clerk, “Marriage Record N,” 600, Mays-Denison [Denson], 13 December 1939; imaged, "Arkansas, County Marriages, 1837-1957," FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/en/search/collection/1417439) > image group number (IGN) 4309507 > item 2 > image 306 of 327; citing “Multiple county courthouses, Arkansas.”
Matthew, Either approach is…
Matthew,
Either approach is correct. For newer researchers who are not yet familiar with the term "sic," EE4's glossary, p. 707, defines it this way:
"sic: a Latin term literally translated as so or thus. Placed in square editorial brackets after a word or phrase that is copied from another source, it is used to inform readers that the text has been copied exactly, even though it may appear to be questionable or erroneous."
§ 7.25 CORRECTING ERRORS states the following:
"When a website provider indexes or abstracts a census, if its reading misidentifies a person, you may use the correct name in your citation. However, to ensure the name is relocatable in the database where it is misidentified, you should note the misidentification in an editorial comment."
Because, in this modern era, many people new to research are not familiar with many of the classic Latinisms, the use of the correct spelling rather than the Latinism better ensures that all readers understand our intent.
At the following links, query for the word "sic" and you'll see other usages.
https://www.evidenceexplained.com/quicktips/when-our-love-affair-goes-wrong
https://www.evidenceexplained.com/content/redundant-information-citation
https://www.evidenceexplained.com/content/citing-record-group-and-repository-subsequent-note
https://www.evidenceexplained.com/node/1762
https://www.evidenceexplained.com/content/exlibris-rosetta