Bdtyk

I assumed you would use dots to show left-out unnecessary text in a quote, such as in

The definition of used oil is "oil ... that is xyz".

The deleted portion is non-useful text that would confuse my readers, but I want to show them that the cited passage is a direct quote from regulations except for leaving out some words. Are dots the correct way to do this?

The sequence of "dots" to which you refer are called an ellipsis. Although it's common to write it as three periods ..., note that strictly it's a special typographic character ….

A proper ellipsis is always three dots, no more, no less.

Different style guides have different guidelines. If you are writing for a specific publication, use what is in their style guide (or trust their subeditors). If you have no style guide, pick a style and be consistent.

There are really only two options:

1. Just the ellipsis on its own: "oil … that has been…"


2. The ellipsis in square brackets: "oil […] that has been…"

I personally prefer the version with square brackets, since it is then clear that the ellipsis is not part of the original quote.

The Modern Language Association's style guide has changed its position, to that of recommending no square brackets.

Please see the Chicago Style Guide on this topic. Given my advanced degree in English, my work as a professional editor, and my experience both as a teacher and as an attorney at law, I strongly advocate applying the simplest and most basic rule. In this case--given the variations suggested--the best solution is to use the ellipsis within brackets. That very clearly indicates that you have substituted something of your own for a portion of the quote: in the original situation where the writer intends to omit a word or phrase, the "something of your own" is the DELETION or ABSENCE of the omitted word or phrase. Where you are quoting something that already contains an ellipsis, it is appropriate to include in your citation the information that the omission was in the original from which you are quoting if such information is relevant to the reason for your quoting the material in the first place. Let's keep it real; the point is not to overload with detail but to enhance the point you are trying to make. That having been offered, I also send kudos to those who recognize the distinction between the ellipsis and a group of dots! While the growth of new vocabulary (dot-com comes immediately to mind as an example) certainly keeps the language lively, it is important as well to recall the rudiments necessary to keep the language ALIVE.

Dots should be used to indicate removed text that doesn't alter the meaning of the quote. This is important — especially in regulatory or other formal/legal wording. You should also only use dots for reasonably short deletions — definitely not over a paragraph, and only over a sentence if really needed.

The other option, where it is too convoluted to use dots, and you only need the context is to use:

it seems that "[oil] that has been ......."

implying that the phrase "oil" is what is referred to, but without having to always find the word somewhere.

I see that the Federal Register www.federalregister.gov uses two versions of the ellipsis when indicating omissions from regulatory references.

- The omission of an entire section is indicated with five asterisks, four spaces between each:
* * * * *
- The omission of a specific paragraph is indicated by the following the paragraph number with three double spaced asterisks:
b) * * *