44. Quotation Editing: Rules and Eighteen Repairs

44.1 Define what the quotation promises

A quotation promises that the displayed words are the selected source's words, with visible or expressly disclosed edits. It also promises an honest attribution and context. A literal word match can still mislead when a negative, exception, speaker, or procedural qualification has been removed. Apply two tests: textual fidelity and propositional fidelity. Both must pass.

Citation Code permits disclosed edits for integration and concision. It does not permit an edit that changes the source's meaning. Use brackets for inserted or substituted material and spaced ellipsis points for internal omitted words. Preserve a complete sentence's ending punctuation when quoting that sentence. Use a paraphrase when the quotation would require repeated grammatical reconstruction.

The eighteen repairs below use wholly fictional passages written for this chapter. The displayed source text is the complete stipulated excerpt needed for each exercise. The examples demonstrate editorial choices rather than any court's mandatory quotation style.

44.2 Adopt a small, visible set of editing marks

Use square brackets for the author's insertion: [the clerk], [R]eceipt, or [three]. The bracketed text must be accurate and necessary. It is not an invitation to expand the source. Use [sic] sparingly when an original error must remain visible to preserve exact wording and the reader might otherwise attribute it to the current author. A neutral explanatory sentence is often more helpful than highlighting a minor error.

Use three spaced points, . . ., for an internal omission within a sentence. When an omission crosses a sentence boundary, retain the punctuation that closes the retained sentence and then use the three omission points. This may produce four visible periods: one sentence period and three omission points. Do not let that visual convention obscure whether the retained fragments actually form a complete sentence.

Do not use an ellipsis to hide a negation or material condition. Do not use brackets to manufacture an observation the source never made. If the omitted passage itself discusses an exception, either retain that passage or describe the exception accurately outside the quotation.

44.3 Choose boundaries and layout before making small edits

A quotation that openly begins or ends with a phrase need not show an ellipsis merely because additional words exist outside the selected phrase. The surrounding sentence should make the limited selection clear. An omission between two retained portions does require a visible omission mark under our default. If the selection could falsely appear to be the source's complete sentence, describe it as a phrase or quote enough of the sentence to preserve its scope.

Use inline quotation marks for short extracts. Consider a block when an extract reaches fifty words, spans several source paragraphs, or preserves a list whose structure matters. Fifty words is our layout review trigger, not an asserted filing requirement. In a block, omit the outer quotation marks, preserve meaningful paragraph breaks, and introduce the block with an explanation of its purpose. A quotation inside the block retains its own quotation marks.

For an inline quotation inside another quotation, use single marks for the inner level and double marks for the outer level. Do not add another level merely because the source title is italicized. Place commas and periods belonging to the surrounding sentence according to the house rules in section 46.5; preserve source punctuation when it carries meaning.

44.4 Repairs 1–3: capitalization, reference, and grammar

Repair 1. Changing the initial letter visibly

Source. “The receipt must identify the sender.” Defective draft. The instruction states that “the receipt must identify the sender.” House repair. The instruction states that “[t]he receipt must identify the sender.” Alternatively: The instruction says, “The receipt must identify the sender.” Our strict default discloses a changed initial letter. Rewriting the introduction avoids the alteration and often reads better. Do not capitalize a source word to imply it was a defined term when it was not.

Repair 2. Identifying a pronoun's actual referent

Source. “The clerk handed the folder to the reviewer. She placed it in the intake cabinet.” The packet expressly identifies “She” as the reviewer. Defective draft. “[The clerk] placed it in the intake cabinet.” Repair. “[The reviewer] placed [the folder] in the intake cabinet.” Each insertion has a demonstrated referent. If the packet did not resolve “She,” the editor could not choose the convenient person; quote both sentences or state the ambiguity. Brackets disclose an insertion but do not establish its truth.

Repair 3. Avoiding an unnecessary grammatical rebuild

Source. “The reviewer returns incomplete packets.” Defective draft. Incomplete packets “are returned by the reviewer.” Repair. The policy says that “[t]he reviewer returns incomplete packets.” Better when exact wording adds little: The policy directs the reviewer to return incomplete packets. The defective draft presents a passive reconstruction as the source's wording. Adding brackets around most of the reconstructed sentence would disclose many changes while yielding a cumbersome quotation. A faithful paraphrase retains attribution without making a verbatim promise.

44.5 Repairs 4–6: omissions and sentence boundaries

Repair 4. Showing an internal omission

Source. “The reviewer records the sender's name, the receipt number, and the intake date before assigning a shelf.” Defective draft. “The reviewer records the sender's name before assigning a shelf.” Repair. “The reviewer records the sender's name . . . before assigning a shelf.” The omitted list items are not silently erased. If the proposition concerns every required entry, the abbreviated quotation would be inadequate even with the ellipsis; retain the full list or paraphrase all three items.

Repair 5. Selecting a phrase without pretending it is the whole rule

Source. “If the packet is complete, the reviewer assigns a shelf before the end of the intake session.” Defective draft. The procedure requires assignment of a shelf “before the end of the intake session” for every packet. Repair. For a complete packet, the procedure requires assignment “before the end of the intake session.” No leading or trailing ellipsis is needed around this openly selected phrase. The condition is preserved in the author's sentence, where the reader can see its limiting effect.

Repair 6. Omitting a complete intervening sentence

Source. “The register records receipt. The cover sheet identifies the reviewer. The dispatch log records transfer.” Defective draft. “The register records receipt. The dispatch log records transfer.” Repair. “The register records receipt. . . . The dispatch log records transfer.” The first period ends the first retained sentence; the next three disclose the omitted sentence. If the discussion concerns all three document functions, the omission would impair the explanation. For two independently discussed propositions, two shorter quotations may be clearer than the combined extract.

44.6 Repairs 7–8: conditions and negatives

Repair 7. Retaining the controlling condition

Source. “The clerk may release a duplicate if the requester provides the original receipt number.” Defective draft. The clerk “may release a duplicate.” Repair. The clerk “may release a duplicate if the requester provides the original receipt number.” The condition is central to the stated permission. An ellipsis after “duplicate” would disclose missing words while still leaving the surrounding claim overbroad. If the sentence merely identifies the phrase “duplicate,” a narrower quotation can be appropriate, but the proposition must then concern terminology rather than permission.

Repair 8. Preserving an express refusal to decide

Source. “We do not decide whether a digital acknowledgment satisfies the signed-receipt requirement.” Defective draft. The panel explained that “a digital acknowledgment satisfies the signed-receipt requirement.” Repair. The panel stated, “We do not decide whether a digital acknowledgment satisfies the signed-receipt requirement.” The original draft converts an unresolved issue into a conclusion. No signal, bracket, or parenthetical can preserve that substantive claim. The argument needs another source if it requires an affirmative answer.

44.7 Repair 9: a quotation inside another quotation

Repair 9. Keeping the speakers distinct

Source. The fictional reviewer writes: The clerk described the label as "complete and readable," but I could not confirm the final digit. Defective draft. The reviewer found the label “complete and readable.” Repair. The reviewer wrote that the clerk described the label as “complete and readable,” while the reviewer could not confirm the final digit. If quoting the entire source sentence inline, write: “The clerk described the label as ‘complete and readable,’ but I could not confirm the final digit.” The inner marks preserve the clerk's attributed words; the outer marks identify the reviewer's complete sentence. The repaired paraphrase may be preferable because it makes the two speakers explicit.

44.8 Repairs 10–11: source citations and source footnotes

Repair 10. Disclosing an omitted citation

Source. “The register should preserve both dates. Archive Procedure § 6.” The exercise stipulates that the second sentence is the source's supporting reference. Defective draft. “The register should preserve both dates.” The citation then claims the source originated the instruction. Repair. “The register should preserve both dates,” followed by the source reference and “(source citation omitted).” Also revise any claim of originality: the source attributes the instruction to Procedure §6. If that procedure matters to the argument, obtain and cite it directly when available. The omission notice describes editing, not provenance research completed.

Repair 11. Preserving a substantive footnote qualification

Source. “The reviewer retains the packet for thirty days.” A source footnote says, “This instruction excludes packets transferred to the training archive.” Defective draft. All packets are retained for thirty days, followed by a quotation with the footnote marker silently removed. Repair. The instruction provides thirty-day retention but excludes packets transferred to the training archive; cite the sentence and its source footnote. If quoting the main sentence, disclose “(source footnote omitted)” and state the exception in nearby prose. Merely acknowledging an omitted footnote does not make the universal claim accurate. The author's new citation note must remain distinct from the source's omitted note.

44.9 Repairs 12–14: emphasis

Repair 12. Identifying added emphasis

Source. “The clerk must retain the original receipt,” with no emphasis. Defective draft. “The clerk must retain the original receipt,” without an edit notice. Repair. Retain the bold emphasis and add “(emphasis added)” beside the citation, or remove the added emphasis. The notice tells the reader which layer of presentation belongs to the current author. It does not change the word “must” or expand the provision to other documents. Use one emphasis method consistently in the final publication.

Repair 13. Preserving source emphasis accurately

Source. “Retain the original receipt,” with “original” emphasized in the source. Defective draft. “Retain the original receipt” (emphasis added). Repair. “Retain the original receipt” (source emphasis retained). The source, not the present author, selected that emphasis. If the final display uses italics rather than the source's boldface for accessibility or house production, disclose the normalization when the specific visual method matters; do not imply a visual facsimile. A quotation of a design feature may require reproducing the actual feature rather than normalizing it.

Repair 14. Disclosing removed emphasis

Source. “The form is optional,” with source emphasis. Defective draft. “The form is optional,” presented without notice while arguing that the source treated optionality as an incidental detail. Repair. “The form is optional” (source emphasis omitted), followed by an accurate explanation that the source emphasized the point. Removing the emphasis from display may improve consistency, but it does not justify a contrary description of the source's presentation. If emphasis itself supports the analysis, preserve it instead of stripping it away.

44.10 Repairs 15–16: original errors and transcription errors

Repair 15. Handling an original typographical error

Source. The visible fictional memorandum says, “The reciept is attached.” Defective draft. “The receipt is attached,” presented as exact unedited text. Repair. For an exact-wording discussion: “The reciept [sic] is attached.” For ordinary substantive discussion: The memorandum states that the receipt is attached. A bracketed correction, “The [receipt] is attached,” is also transparent under our house practice, but it may draw more attention to a trivial error than the point warrants. Choose based on whether the wording or the underlying fact matters.

Repair 16. Correcting OCR without inventing a source error

Source. The visible scan says, “File 101 remains open.” OCR extracts “File l0l remains open.” Defective draft. “File l0l [sic] remains open.” Repair. “File 101 remains open.” The author is transcribing the visible source correctly, not altering the source. Keep an internal note if the OCR discrepancy could affect later searches. Do not use [sic] to attribute the extraction program's mistake to the document's author. When the visible scan is genuinely unclear, report the uncertainty or obtain a clearer copy before quoting the disputed identifier.

44.11 Repairs 17–18: translation and structured text

Repair 17. Identifying a translation as a translation

Source. The fictional bilingual packet supplies the French sentence “Le registre indique la date de réception.” It also supplies a translator's rendering, “The register shows the date of receipt,” credited to Camille Rowan. Defective draft. The original French memorandum says, “The register shows the date of receipt,” with no translation information. Repair. “The register shows the date of receipt,” followed by the memorandum citation and “(Camille Rowan translation supplied in the training packet).” The words quoted are the supplied English rendering. If the author makes the translation, identify it as the author's translation and retain the original passage for review. Do not call a translation official without supporting source information.

Repair 18. Preserving a list's cumulative structure

Source. “Required entries: (1) sender; (2) receipt number; and (3) intake date.” Defective draft. The form requires “sender, receipt number, or intake date.” Repair. The form requires all three listed entries: “(1) sender; (2) receipt number; and (3) intake date.” The draft changed a cumulative list into alternatives and silently rewrote punctuation. For a block presentation, retain the three labels and the conjunction. If converting a table into prose, preserve the relationship among its headings and cells; a string of isolated cell values can lose the condition established by the column heading.

44.12 Conduct the final quotation pass against the visible source

Check the quotation after the last substantive edit and again when conversion may affect characters or emphasis. Compare the exact words, meaningful punctuation, original emphasis, bracketed material, omission marks, and locator. Then read the sentence before and after the source passage to test context. Confirm the speaker and writing, especially when the source reproduces someone else's words.

Use a short review record: source version; passage locator; displayed quotation; edits made; context checked; reviewer/date. The record is particularly useful when a quotation appears several times in a document. Correct every occurrence when a source version changes. A global find-and-replace may repair wording while leaving an outdated pinpoint or an incorrect attribution.

Finally ask whether quotation remains the clearest method. Exact wording is valuable for interpretation, disputed language, distinctive reasoning, and criticism of the text itself. A faithful paraphrase is often better for routine factual or procedural description. The choice should make the source's contribution easier to understand, while preserving the reader's ability to inspect it.