Talk:Quotation marks in English

Code is not English

I have "logical" issues with the following bit:

Logical quotation differs from British style in its treatment of colons and semicolons. British and American styles both place them outside the quote marks all the time, while logical-technical style allows them to be placed inside. (An example would be a reference to the C programming language statement, 'printf("Hello, world");'.)

Anything that is written in code cannot automatically be regarded as English (except in the sense that English itself is a species of code). Code is literally a set of instructions to a processor; for computers, code is formatted in such a way that a compiler can readily translate it into machine language. So the example given is misleading because C uses the semicolon as an operator rather than as a punctuation mark. I'd even argue that the single quotes that buttress the C command line should be double quotes because (again) the double quotes inside the command line are operators, not punctuation.

A better example of the use of a semicolon or colon before an end-quote would be, 'The encyclopedist wrote "Common punctuation errors;" instead of "Common punctuation errors:".' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.19.169 (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not whether something is code or not but rather whether the period or comma could confuse the reader. I prefer "To write a long dash on Wikipedia, type in '—'." It serves a double purpose. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

We need better sources for LQ

We need more sources for so-called logical punctuation, WP:LQ. The instructions described in the WP:MoS differ from British style, so we can't just use Cambridge or Hart. I might be able to get my hands on a copy of the ACS style guide, but it would take a few days. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm contemplating removing the entire passage on LQ until we can find some better sources for it. There is a discussion on WT:MoS about it. Any input? Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we should not write anything anywhere that isn't supported by good sources—and I don't mean random websites. Who calls it "logical quotation," for example? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There are a few sources that call it "logical punctuation." While I would personally prefer to downplay this name because it erroneously implies that British practice is better than American, people do use it. "A printed handbook" "And a text on early modern English" I'm skeptical about Language Log. It's a blog written by professionals, but there's a lot of ranting. We should probably cite anything we see on LL as the specific professional opinion (these guys are mostly professors with PhDs) of each specific blogger.

Also, we should mention the U.S. and Canada specifically if that's what we mean. North America also includes Mexico and there are people there who speak English. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, logical punctuation I'm aware of, but you're calling it logical quotation (and your second source above is about a different issue). We need to stick to what good style guides say. No blogs, no personal opinions from Wikipedians, no terms not found in style guides. Source everything correctly and there will be less confusion. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 03:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Not any more I'm not. Changed this article's LQ to LP days ago.

We should include the terms "American style" and "British style." They are common and easy to understand. We can see "here" that the Chicago MoS refers to them as such. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

They're not British or American style, though, and that link doesn't work. Could we please avoid websites and stick to the traditional style guides? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 03:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Try this one then. The relevant text is identical. [1] Both websites are quoting the Chicago Manual of Style.

From The Chicago Manual of Style: The British style of positioning periods and commas in relation to the closing quotation mark is based on the same logic that in the American system governs the placement of question marks and exclamation points: if they belong to the quoted material, they are placed within the closing quotation mark; if they belong to the including sentence as a whole, they are placed after the quotation mark. The British style is strongly advocated by some American language experts. In defense of nearly a century and a half of the American style, however, it may be said that it seems to have been working fairly well and has not resulted in serious miscommunication. Whereas there clearly is some risk with question marks and exclamation points, there seems little likelihood that readers will be misled concerning the period or comma. There may be some risk in such specialized material as textual criticism, but in that case authors and editors may take care to avoid the danger by alternative phrasing or by employing, in this exacting field, the exacting British system. In linguistic and philosophical works, specialized terms are regularly punctuated the British way, along with the use of single quotation marks. With these qualifications, the University of Chicago Press continues to recommend the American style for periods and commas.

If CMoS refers to it as "British style," "American style," "the British way" and "the American way," then it's a safe bet that it's okay for Wikipedia to do so as well. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If one style came into existence in Britain and is still used by the overwhelming majority of writers there and the other style is used by the overwhelming majority of writers in the U.S., then it is safe to say that the first style is British and that the second is American even if they're other things too.

Look at it this way, just because I can also call it "deep dish pizza" doesn't mean I have to stop calling it "Chicago-style." It's a food item with more than one name. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Darkfrog, I'm requesting better sources, per WP:V, which is policy. No more random websites, please, and no personal opinions. It doesn't matter what you or I believe. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 04:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sitting here with the Chicago Manual of Style open in front of me. It doesn't say what you are claiming it says. If you want to quote or very carefully paraphrase, fine, but please stick to the sources very closely. And use the sources directly, not websites that say they're quoting them! SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 04:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The quote is not from the fifteenth edition, which you seem to have been using. According to Wilbers, it is from the fourteenth edition, pp. 160-61. That the two forms are commonly called "American style" and "British style" is not only my opinion but an observable fact.

In the meantime, we have another issue. While American rules, as per style guides such as MLA and Chicago, allow the placement of periods and commas outside the quotation marks in cases of keyboard entries and web addresses (etc.), this is not typographic punctuation. We should not refer to the practice as such.

Do your sources say "North America" or do they only discuss the style in question? It is not right to equate the U.S. and Canada with North America. There is more to the continent than those two (albeit large) countries. The style sheet that I provided may have been available online, but it did specifically mention Canada. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Chicago does say it's sometimes called British style, but it says nothing about American, and traditional punctuation is used in British fiction and by British journalists, so it's wrong to divide this rigidly along nationality, as many people have pointed out. The page now makes clear who tends to use what. Best to use the current version of Chicago. But please, two things (a) no more original research and (b) only really good sources, closely paraphrased. Doing those two things will solve all disputes. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 05:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Example of the problem here: when you say things like "While American rules, as per style guides such as MLA and Chicago, allow the placement of periods and commas outside the quotation marks in cases of keyboard entries and web addresses (etc.), this is not typographic punctuation," I have no idea what you mean. No idea what American rules are, or who is saying it's not typographic punctuation, and who (apart from you) is making that distinction. Please cite your sources with page numbers, then I can look it up. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 05:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

While it may be best to use recent editions, that does not mean that previous ones become unreliable, especially not on an issue that later editions don't actively change. For something like "Is this called X?" observing that the Chicago Manual of Style calls something X should be valid. On that particular point, even "random" websites are valid. Perhaps we need a request for comment on this one.

American rules=what Chicago calls "American style," or American practice in its entirety. Typographic punctuation, as you've explained in the "history" section is the practice of putting periods and commas inside the quotation marks, originally so that the type wouldn't break. It seems to be that TP is something that American style does most of the time but not all the time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Question about sources

Darkfrog, are you willing to stop using websites and start consulting the style guides directly? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 05:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As a practical matter, Slim, I don't have all of those books in front of me. Consulting a reliable website is appropriate. This article already has many websites as sources. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Then please go to a library and borrow them. A huge amount of confusion is being caused by imprecise use of terms, both here and on the MoS, and I'm sorry to say this, but you are the cause of a fair bit of it. Also please note what this page says: "References: Chicago Manual of Style, 15th edition; Hart's Rules for Compositors and Readers at the University Press, Oxford; Merriam-Webster's Guide to Punctuation and Style, second edition."

Yes, and I was careful to use the book citation template that had a space for me to note that this point was from the fourteenth edition. Do you believe that the fourteenth edition of the Chicago Manual of Style used the terms less precisely than the fifteenth used "British style"? Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, I haven't seen it. The problem is, nor have you. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 05:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No, but I have seen the exact same text in multiple online sources, which I have no reason to believe do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliability. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Also bear in mind that if Chicago changed that section (and it's a big if at present), they did so for a reason. Why would you not want to respect that? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 05:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Did Chicago say "This isn't called 'American style' and 'British style'"? If it corrected or otherwise directly contradicted the previous edition, then yes, the newer one would take precedence. But if it simply declines to mention it, then there is no reason not to hold the previous information as valid, especially when the information is "Chicago called this X." 05:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is an online source—the Chicago MoS website Q&A section. [2] The CMoS answer refers to the practice in question as "American-style punctuation."

For British: [3]Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The link to TJHSST regarding colons and semi-colons inside a quotation mark is dead . Alaphlosiam (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment, previous edition via the Internet

There are two questions: 1. Does a previous edition of a source become unsuitable for Wikipedia when a newer edition is published? and 2. Is it acceptable to cite this source through an intermediary, such as a website?

In this particular case, one user has found multiple websites that include the same direct quotation of the fourteenth edition of the Chicago Manual of Style (the fifteenth edition is the most current). This quotation is used to source the assertion that the Chicago Manual of Style refers to two specific sets of punctuation practices as "American style" and "British style." Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is twofold: (1) with style guides it's always better to consult the latest edition, and this article does rely on the latest edition as a key source, so we shouldn't be mixing editions; (2) Darkfrog hasn't consulted any of the sources, yet is trying to use them sourced to websites that may or may not be reporting them accurately, and may be using older editions. Darkfrog needs to read the style guides he wants to cite. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 05:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Just because one source is better than another doesn't mean that the lesser source does not meet Wikipedia's criteria. In this case, it isn't as if the fifteenth edition contradicts the information that I got from the fourteenth. Thousands of Wikipedia articles use websites as sources. The question is not whether copying directly from book would be better; I agree that it would be. It is about whether copying from a web page meets Wikipedia's standards; I believe it does. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You didn't get any information from the 14th edition, because you haven't seen it. I am challenging your use of random websites, some of them perhaps self-published, as sources. Per V, please produce a good source that you have seen with your own eyes. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 05:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I have seen the websites with my own eyes. They are not random. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

But I am disputing them, so please provide the original source. I would like to know what it says, with a page number and a quote, per V. It is policy. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 06:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

[4] [5] [6] These three websites all attribute the exact same words to the Chicago Manual of Style. The third gives the edition and page number. I do not suppose that it would be any more difficult for you to track down the paper copy than it would be for me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Considering that Wikipedia has a policy, WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, on how to cite sources indirectly, it is safe to say that Wikipedia does allow us to cite sources indirectly. As an example, it uses a website that quotes a book. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

"North America" or "U.S. and Canada"?

Unless our sources specifically say "North America"—the ones I've seen don't—we should say "the U.S. and Canada" or "Canada and the U.S." There are millions of North Americans who are neither American nor Canadian. I realize that in an article about English, many readers will assume that we are discussing the two major English-speaking North American countries, but I feel that equating "North America" with "North America but not Mexico" may offend Mexican readers. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Original research

Darkfrog, please stop adding your own opinions; see WP:NOR. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 06:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Funny how they're my opinions when I keep showing you sources. A lot of them don't use any other term for these practices but "British" and "American."[7]

That the styles are commonly referred to as British and American is like saying that William Jefferson Clinton is known as "Bill Clinton." While we're on the topic, how about, if you want to downplay the styles' connections to British English and American English, you provide a source for that? The line "Although these practices are generally known as British and American, respectively, some American organizations, such as the American Chemical Society, use British conventions and some British organizations use American" would improve the article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

In case it's of any interrest, I'll mention here that Cambridge University Press talks of "Cambridge" (British) & "International" (American). I don't know whether this appears in reliable sources. Maybe it's purely internal. I know about it from having worked for them. Peter jackson (talk) 11:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Great. However, I also recall seeing "international" used to mean "British/logical/that one." Adding the info would need a source (CUP manual of style would do) and a mention of that complication. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Irony

If you write what the article refers to as Irony at the end of a sentence, does the period go in or out of the quotes?

Ie: He shared his "wisdom". or He shared his "wisdom."

Bioniclepluslotr (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

In the American system, periods go inside regardless of why the quotation marks are used.

In the British/computer programmer system, the period would go outside in this case because the stop applies to the whole sentence rather than to just the word "wisdom." Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Curly quotes for this article

Just a few minutes ago an anonymous IP changed all the quotation marks in this article from straight to curly. This is against the current MOS but IMO it improves the clarity of the information in this particular article. I hope it will not reverted. It’s a very careful and thorough edit, and I wish it had been done by a registered user in case of disagreement. MJ (t • c) 16:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It is against the MoS, but not for (solely) aesthetic reasons. Curly quotes can mess with browser search features. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The search example at MOS is of a keyword with an apostrophe. Looking over this article, I can’t imagine anyone searching for any of the words with internal apostrophes. Also the caution is regarding mixed use, which is not a problem here. I think the bigger issue is that an explanation may be wanted for why this one article should be allowed to break with MOS. MJ (t • c) 05:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with that.

Someone might search for something like "Gagan,' greet." I do that a lot when I'm trying to get back to my place in a document that I'd broken off reading.

Why do you feel that curly quotes improve clarity of information? They don't seem to make the reader experience any better (or worse, apart from technical issues) from over here. Changing straight to curly doesn't seem much different from changing the font. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Because they distinguish opening and closing, especially helpful in the examples of nesting quotations. It may not make much visual difference when a single word is quoted, but when it’s more than a few words, they speed perception of beginnings and endings, especially when there’s other punctuation adjacent. MJ (t • c) 05:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Have there been any studies done on this or is this your own assessment? Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I imagine it’s been studied lots of places, but that is my own assessment, which is why I’m discussing it here. Anyone else? By the way, I have since noticed some useful occurrences of curly quotes in other punctuation articles, so this one isn’t a lone exception. MJ (t • c) 17:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want other people with whom to discuss this matter in general, WT:MoS would be the place. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Elaboration on reasoning behind putting "." and "," inside of quotation marks

I was wondering about how the sorts for quotation marks were better protection than the sorts for spaces. The line would be filled up with sorts for spaces anyway, thus making the pressure on the commas and full stops identical, or am I mistaken here? The sourcing for this particular bit is from a newsgroup FAQ that mentions one person with an email address as the originator of this information. The email address, however, is dead. I believe that further explanation and verification is necessary, as otherwise – and especially in such brevity – the explanation is not utterly convincing. EDIT: In fact, aren't commas and full stops in most cases followed by a space anyway? How are they protected then? DonSqueak (talk) 02:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it's a reference to the physical bits of metal that people would use in old printing presses. What I've heard is that the metal bits for "." and "," were more slender and narrow than the ones for letters or wider typographical marks and that, if they were ever placed at the end of a line, they'd be more likely to break. Putting a thicker piece, like the one for ", after them prevented this. From what I'm guessing, they didn't use pieces to represent spaces; they just left them blank.

Maybe you should look for a book on the history of printing presses or the history of the written word.

I don't have any source on this but I imagine that, before the advent of printing presses, people just wrote their periods and commas underneath the quotation marks.

Here are some other websites that mention printing presses. I just did a quick Google search: a blog post. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks DarkFrog24. I understand the argument presented in the FAQ post (and I also mentioned the "sorts" in my question, which are the actual pieces you move into place in a printing press). I just dispute the validity, as seemingly this FAQ is the only source repeated all over the internet.

Spaces indeed also require sorts, since you fill the line from the side, and if you left it blank, the next letter would just be pushed in, hence eliminating the space. Also, the printing press is pressed on the paper from *above*, not from the side, so against what pressure would the sorts have to be protected? I hope you understand where my doubts are coming from. Also, in German, commas would *never* go inside quotation marks, so this is hardly a universal typesetters' rule (example from German: „Ich glaube nicht, dass das so stimmt“, sagte er.).

Long story short, I have searched Google for quite some time now, but nothing on the internet has so far been convincingly arguing this case. As I don't have access to a library with English books on typesetting here in Japan, I wonder if anybody in the rest of the world could find a convincing source. DonSqueak (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If you feel that the information about the history of American style is insufficiently sourced, DonSqueak, then it would be appropriate for you to remove it until someone can find a new source. For my own curiosity, though, are you describing a modern printing press or the type of press that would have been around hundreds of years ago? (Huh, here's another blog source... But how can we know that they're not all quoting each other? Hey! The blog is just quoting Wikipedia!)

Please note that we do have sources for the American system also being called "typesetter's rules," even though it is not, as you have pointed out, universal to typesetting in all languages. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Valid use of two end marks?

In 'Typographical Considerations' it is mentioned that one cannot end a sentence with two end marks, but how do you construct:

Did Kennedy really say, "Ich bin ein Berliner!"?

I can see that if we question a question we could do without two question marks although this is flatly contradicted by which absolutely recommends using two question marks if it is logical. With the one exclamation and a question about it, surely one must use both? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billben74 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of "Irony"

I'm surprised that no one yet has caught the misuse of the word "irony" in this article. Irony does not mean what this article is using it to mean, Alanis Morissette notwithstanding. It does not mean to use a word in a sarcastic, skeptical, dubious sense at all. I'll have to get out my Thesaurus and see what is the best word to use for this heading.Wjhonson (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Why, what do you think irony means, if not this? I looked it up again to be sure, and that’s exactly what it means: stating the opposite of the intended meaning. MJ (t • c) 22:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Not only are you correct, but to change section headings for anything short of a serious problem is unacceptable. I am reverting the change. JonRichfield (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but Wjhonson's comment not only mistakes the meaning of irony but misuses the word sarcastic and misreads Alanis Morissette's mistake to boot. Sarcasm's primary characteristic is the intent to demean and wound and only incidentally often employs irony to do so. Ms. Morissette's song uses ironic to mean contrary to expectations or hopes, if I infer correctly, and not at all to mean contrary to meaning. (How else to interpret rain on one's wedding day as ironic?)LINKBook (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)LINKBook

Quotation marks and commas (proper order)

This article should be correct. Some examples improperly put the comma at the end of quoations, inside the quotation marks ("'Good morning, Frank,' greeted HAL.") The last comma does not belong to the quoted text and therefore does not belong inside the quotation marks. It should be: "Good morning, Frank", said HAL. Improper quotation of important people can end up in criminal charges, even if you added only a comma. I request the rewriting of this article. 217.234.55.254 (talk) 18:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, in both British and American English, dialogue for fictional conversations goes inside the quotation marks, as shown. (HAL is a fictional character from the film 2001: A Space Odyssey). This is according to Butcher's Copy Editing, as listed on the article's list of sources. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Use in repeated lines

What about the use of vertical quotation marks when they mean "same as line before - just look above". I usually see about 1-3 of them per line, spread out depending on the line length. Is there any specific terminology for this use, and how should it be added to this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.0.200.59 (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You're thinking of ditto marks; same symbol, usually, as double quotes, but different use completely. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 08:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Reported Speech

Is there a source for this sentence ~ [h]owever, another convention when quoting text in the body of a paragraph or sentence—for example, in an essay—is to recognize double quotation marks as marking an exact quotation, and single quotation marks as marking a paraphrased quotation or a quotation where grammar, pronouns, or plurality have been changed in order to fit the sentence containing the quotation ~ which is currently unsourced? I ask because it is quite radically in opposition to the usual (and previous in the article) explanations of quote marks as being for exactly quoted material. I fully realise that we use WP:V, not WP:IVENEVERHEARDOFTHAT, but i have to say that the only acceptable way i have ever run across, in academic institutions in the UK, Canada, and the USA, to change "grammar, pronouns, or plurality" has been the use of square brackets, as i do earlier in this query. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 09:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The sentence in question has been in the article for some time ~ since this diff ~ but that doesn't make it accurate. I'd ask the person who put it in, but it was an IP, so i'm not sure there's any value going there. Nevertheless, i am adding a {{fact}} request, as i maintain that this completely contrary statement needs verification. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 17:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

A couple of general sources for this:

• Fowler says, "Some ... also use the single marks for isolated words, short phrases, and anything that can hardly be called a formal quotation; this avoids giving much emphasis to such expressions, which is an advantage." Although this doesn't explicitly address words that have been very minorly paraphrased, I'd argue that this falls into the gray area Fowler describes of something that partakes of quotation but "can hardly be called a formal quotation". Fowler himself goes on to comment that this is a subjective area.
• In this Q & A column from the CBC, a correspondent states that "to add emphasis, show unusual or novel terminology and provide an indirect quote, the inverted comas (' ') are to be used." The columnist implicitly endorses this (along with the rest of the letter, not quoted), with the statement, "Your preferences are shared by a lot of people, especially in Britain."

I follow this convention myself, although I can't say quite where I picked it up from. JudahH (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources of the quotes

I feel like the source of the quotes should be cited - the first few are from 2001: A Space Odyssey, right? Also, I'm not sure that encyclopedic should use a movie source, instead of a generic sentence (eg. 'Hello,' said John.). --67.87.36.128 (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Error correction or clarification perhaps needed

Regarding Quotation_mark#Punctuation: What's the difference between:

• “Today”, said former Prime Minister Tony Blair, “I feel free from care and anxiety.” (British non-fiction only)
• “I feel happy,” said Björk, “carefree, and well.” (both major styles)

I can't help but wonder if one (or both) of these is broken. Since the article says: "In non-fiction, British publishers may permit placing punctuation that is not part of the person’s speech inside the quotation marks but prefer that it be placed outside." I'm guessing that the first example should have the final period outside the quotation marks. But really, I'm not sure what needs to happen.

Even (especially) if the examples are correctly punctuated, some sort of clarification, I think, would be in order. — gogobera (talk) 01:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Bjork would have said "I feel happy, carefree and well." The comma is present in the original quotation, so there is no issue with allowing it inside quotation marks. Blair would have said "Today I feel free from care and anxiety," so there could be such an issue. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Confusing wording

This part of the page contains wording that can be a bit confusing. Could someone clear it up a bit?

Quotation marks are written as a pair of opening and closing marks in either of two styles: single (‘…’) or double (“…”). Both styles are common in the English language; however, the single and double styling is considered to be the standard in British and American English respectively.

Especially this part:

Both styles are common in the English language; however, the single and double styling is considered to be the standard in British and American English respectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayhaymate (talk • contribs) 14:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

my qoutation marks an the article r — and ———. Y?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.83.81 (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what the confusion is; seems clear enough to me. In English considered generally, we see both styles. The first, single quote marks, is considered standard in British English and the second, double quotation marks, is considered standard in American English.

Possibly the use of respectively is unfamiliar to you. It functions to associate one sequence of words one at a time with another sequence of words:

(1) single → (2) double styling

(1) British → (2 American English.

LINKBook (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)LINKBook

Polish (and other languages?)

Some languages put the first mark low, the second high, like ,this'. It deserves a mention (especially because Poles (and maybe others) keep this form when writing in English because they're not aware of the difference. It'd be good to start a section but it'd be better to have more languages if it's true for others too. Malick78 (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree it would be an interesting section. Does anyone know how it works with asian languages, such as manderin?MilkStraw532 (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

There is already a whole article Non-English usage of quotation marks that includes Polish and many other languages.--Azarien (talk) 09:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

"Misnomer" claim removed as OR. Other statements kept

Okay, whoever put in the claim that "American style" is a misnomer, sorry, but that's WP:OR. If you want that to be part of the article, you have to find a source that says something to the effect of "'American style' is a misnomer." Personally, I don't believe that the fact that some Brits use American style and some Americans use British is enough to justify calling it a misnomer. I deleted the claim itself but kept the part about how not all American writers use American style; there were more enough sources to justify that (I even added another one). Also, if you can find a web site citing the style guide of the American Chemical Society, they use British style too. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's a copy of my response to your filing at WP:No original research/Noticeboard:

I've sourced this to the bejeezus belt, far more than is actually needed in the article, here: User:SMcCandlish/Logical quotation, though any/all of these sources could be added to the article. The WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV, which is far more serious, is the pushing of typesetters' a.k.a. printers' a.k.a. etc., etc., quotation marks as "American", and logical quotation as "British" (I've PROVEN that these labels are false). It's a blatant agenda. Wikipedia has been directly attacked in the British press for being inaccurate on this. (See essay; I cited that, too). My edits brought the article into line with actual reality. I don't need a source to say "American-style is a misnomer", though the Slate piece essentially does this, as do others I've cited in the essay. It's just wording expressing the cited facts; if someone doesn't like them exactly as they are, they can be tweaked, but reverting everything back to "American" is a falsification of the facts. Proponents of this hyper-nationalistic label, on whom the burden of proof lies, have to show reliable and independent sources for this term. The vast majority of published style guides are neither, because their authors and publisher have a very strong, vested monetary interest in falsely nationalizing punctuation and other grammar points, because this is what sells style guides. Those that do falsely patrioticize the issue do so only by ignoring demonstrable facts (which I've provided citations to in the essay), so they're not reliable as well as not independent of the subject. It's a bit like quoting guidebooks on American vs. British "psychics" for "facts" about the veracity of the claims made by the practitioners.

I dispute, based on the evidence I've gathered at User:SMcCandlish/Logical quotation, that the term "American quotation" can be taken seriously in this article. I have no issue with it being mentioned and noted as an inaccurate term, but it's use as the principal name of typesetters' quotation, a.k.a. printers' quotation a.k.a. traditional journalism quotation, etc., is a transgression of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:SOAPBOX. The sources for it are neither reliable nor independent. (NB: I am an American.) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 00:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Revision: The text as of my writing isn't all that bad, but it still takes the nationalistic labels seriously, when they cannot actually be taken seriously, and there's a pile of evidence I'm amassed that they're misleading. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ I take that back. While the "American-pumping" isn't as awful as it could be, reverting everything back to "British" has actually published blatant falsehoods. The whole section is screwed. ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 00:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Wait a second, why do you think that the Chicago MoS and APA are not reliable, independent sources? This is not a rhetorical question. I actually want to know. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

We got a response over at the OR notice board: [8]

This person seems to feel that secondary sources should be given precedence over style guides but that you would actually have to find one that refers to the term as inaccurate/misnomers.

Frankly, I'm surprised we got one. I thought no one cared about this issue but us. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Entire "Punctuation" section has to be rewritten

We can put aside the argument about "American" for the time being, but the "British" bit has to go. The sources I've found (see above) conclusively prove that there is no "British style", there are several British styles, mostly similar but sometimes not, and all with different rationales, and most of them are, necessarily, not logical quotation. They're somewhere between logical and typesetters'/American quotation. I'm tempted to revert to what I wrote before, and then partially self-rv to use Darkfrog24's "American" instead of "typesetters'" until that separate issue is settled. But for the short term, this article is just factually incorrect on British punctuation, and a major British newspaper has laughed at us for it in public. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 00:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The sources that other editors and myself have provided refer to it as "British."[9] [10] [11] [12] Kindly provide sources of comparable or better quality showing that these sources are wrong. How about we start with a link to the newspaper article that you've just mentioned? EDIT: Okay, I read it. 1. He's not mocking Wikipedia and 2. he doesn't actually seem to be saying that we should stop calling it "British."

Your claim regarding "American" is that the fact that most American writers use it isn't enough, that 100% compliance is required for the term to be accurate. Well, not 100% of typesetters use it either. If 100% compliance were required, then neither "American" nor "typesetters" would be okay. Even if the terms "American" and "British" don't perfectly reflect what everyone does, this article should still use them because that's what the sources call them. It's kind of like how "Chicago-style pizza" can be baked in a restaurant in London or Paris and be listed on the menu as Chicago-style pizza.

At least we seem to agree on one thing: The article should say that not all Americans use American style etc. That is the truth. The difference seems to be that you think that makes "American" a misnomer and I don't. Why not just write the article using the terms that the sources use, state, as it currently states, that usage can cross national lines, and let the readers conclude for themselves.

You think that I'm disconnected from reality because I believe these styles are American and British and I find you to be disconnected from reality because you don't. We need a RFC on this. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment: Should the article use the terms "American" and "British"?

Should Wikipedia refer to two punctuation systems as "American" and "British" even if not all American/British writers and style guides use/require them?

One editor added the statement "The term 'American style' is a misnomer because..." to the article quotation mark. As sources, this editor referenced American style guides that require "British style" punctuation. A second editor removed the misnomer statement as original research.

Both parties agree that the article should say plainly that not all Americans use "American" style, etc., but the first editor believes that the article should also state that the terms "American style" and "British style" are inaccurate/misnomers. The second editor does not, believing that the article should not claim that the terms are inaccurate unless a reputable source that explicitly says so can be found.

Someone please come in and look at the sources, look at the article, and help us out. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

And now my own POV: I believe that the terms "American style" and "British style" are accurate because they describe what most American and British writers do. If 100% compliance were required, then we'd have to put "misnomer" next to "typesetters" and "logical" and "printers rules" too. The names "American" and "British" don't make the claim that every American writer does A and every British writer does B; rather, they make the claim that American style is associated with the U.S. and British style with the U.K. Even if this were not the case, these are the terms used by most of the most reputable sources, such as the APA Style Web Site and Chicago Manual of Style and others [13] [14].

Even if "American" style were no more American than a "French kiss" is French, we should still use the term because that is the name by which this practice is best known and the term used by the best-quality sources. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Disagree Although your point is well taken, there seems to be too much wooliness in the British and American sources to identify one style as "British" and the other "American"; having to delineate all the exceptions defeats the purpose of making the distinction in the first place. As for the contention of original research, the quotation referenced above doesn't seem to bear that out. If a word seems to indicate something it does not, then it is inaccurate and a misnomer. I think it's just semantics.--Miniapolis (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to make sure we understand you correctly, with what are you disagreeing? To which quotation do you refer? The one saying "This is a misnomer because..." or the sources that SMC used to justify that statement? Do you think the article should read "The terms 'American' and 'British' are misnomers"? Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I just don't understand what's so bad about using the word "misnomer", since there is some disagreement about exactly what constitutes American and British usage; frankly, I don't think this fine point justifies so much disagreement.--Miniapolis (talk) 01:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, there's some background here. SMC is one of a couple of linguistic revisionists who are out to "improve" the English language by, among other things, trying to get everyone to abandon American style punctuation for British. The main tactic is to pretend that American rules don't really require commas-in, that it's just a quirk or a tradition. Flip side: I want Wikipedia's MoS to change its rule requiring British punctuation only (WP:LQ) and permit American punctuation on an ENGVAR basis.

SMC is trying to frame American punctuation as old-fashioned with words like "typesetters" and thinks that I'm trying to frame it as national with terms like "American" and "British." The difference is that American punctuation actually is American, at least in that it is what the overwhelming majority of American writers do and what the overwhelming majority of American style guides require. "British" is accurate for the same reasons and also because the British style was invented in Britain in 1906.

So you could make the case either way. You could say "The term 'American' is inaccurate because not 100% of Americans do this" or you could say "The term 'American' is accurate because 98% of Americans do this." (Stat not drawn to scale.) The question is whether Wikipedia editors are supposed to make cases themselves or cite sources that make those cases. I think that SMC should have to find a source referring to these terms as inaccurate rather than place his own conclusions in the article.

You could accuse either SMC or myself of POV, but the sources agree with me. Most of them use the terms "American" and "British." Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Follow sources If reliable sources refer to them as American and British, the article should do so. The terms should not be labeled 'a misnomer' unless reliable sources also call them so. FurrySings (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
• Change focus I cannot really see why it is necessary to label the two different uses, particularly when there is some dispute about those labels. It seems to me that it would be just as accurate ~ possibly even more so ~ to say a majority of American writers use this style or this is general usage in the UK, though many authors choose not to or the frequent guidance by US style guides is this pattern. This would avoid the dispute about whether either one is or is not Foovian.

On a slightly different note, Darkfrog, i'd suggest that you might reread what you wrote in reply to Miniapolis and redact or retract the portion in which you ascribe character and motives to another editor. At all times, perhaps especially during an RfC, it's best practice to refrain from commenting on the editor (and his motives). Please don't consider this an admonition, just a reminder. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 14:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

That was my point; this seems to be more of an editing conflict than an editing disagreement. It would be great if SMC would respond to this RFC.--Miniapolis (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Lindsay, that solution might work if we only had a paragraph saying that there were two different styles, but the article goes on to explain how they are different, giving examples. It helps to have something to call them. The paragraphs that introduce those examples already say something very close to what you're describing—as SMC and I both seem to believe that they should. Do you think that the examples would make more sense if grouped by style rather than by usage? (Right now they're organized more or less as follows: "For sentence fragments, style A does this and style B does that. For short-form works, style A does this and style B does that. For fiction dialogue, they both do this. For non-fiction dialogue, A does this and B does that." If we rearranged it as "A does this for fragments, this for short-form works, this for fiction dialogue and this for non-fiction dialogue. B does that for fragments, that for short-form works, this for fiction dialogue and that for non-fiction dialogue," then we could get around this problem, but the article might become less informative.)

It's my understanding that it's the RFC tag itself that must be neutral and that I may give my own assessments and conclusions in my own comments. After all, Miniapolis did specifically ask why this was a big deal. I've worked with SMC long enough to be able to make a reasonably educated guess about what's motivating these edits. We just had a long talk about it on SMC's talk page and SMC did just write a Wikipedia essay on this very topic. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The more I thought about your idea, Lindsay, the less impractical it seemed. I gave it a shot and reorganized the section to minimize the need for labels. Please take a look. Frankly, I think the article was easier to read before, and this doesn't completely solve our problem. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

RFC response: As the article stands at present it strikes me (speaking as an editor that happens to be neither British nor American, and who has not seen either the article or the discussion to date) as thoroughly comprehensible, plausible, inoffensive, natural and coherent. Firstly, given the explanation in the article, the term "misnomer" is unnecessary at best, because it is quite clear in context that "British" and "American" are not represented as being definitive but rather as terms of convenience. The use of quotation marks in the text stresses the point adequately, possibly even slightly excessively (though, given the disagreement, that seems justifiable). Secondly, given that the terms are indicative rather than definitive, I should regard "misnomer" itself as a misnomer in context — no categorical terminology is under consideration. I support omission of the term absolutely; in context it is quite unnecessary, somewhat excessive, and slightly undesirable. JonRichfield (talk) 09:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Will remove dispute tag tomorrow

This matter seems to have been dealt with. If there are no further comments, I will remove the dispute tag tomorrow. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

improve this example?

your example:

If Hal says: "All systems are functional," then:

   Incorrect: Hal said "everything was going extremely well."
   Correct: Hal said that everything was going extremely well. 

could be much improved by changing it to:

If Hal said: "All systems are functional," then he meant "everything was going extremely well." (incorrect)

everything was going extremely well. (correct)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.168.75.9 (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC) 

Missing discussion for multiple paragraph quotations

Where is any discussion of the application of quotation marks to distinguish multiple-paragraph quotation - and of course vs. the alternative of setting off the entire multi-paragraph section with double indents on both margins to separate from the main body.Danleywolfe (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

History

The History section does not enlighten us at all - nor does Quotation mark glyphs Wiki q.v. The major alternative glyph, the Guillemet (q.v. Wiki) *does* tell us about a typesetter in 1525-1598 AD and which languages use it. By comparison, where did the 66/99 marks come from; what was their inspiration - does anyone know anything about any of this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.158.30.10 (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Do other languages use "American-style" quotes?

This is an issue that had been confusing me for some time... And just right now I could understand why certain English texts use a norm like that of Brazilian Portuguese (i.e. the "English" one), and some don't (originally I thought a group out of the two was misspelling it, but then I realised it had to be an amazingly widespread 'error' out of such conclusion). How many languages, if any, use comma before the last quotation mark as in the USA? 177.65.15.49 (talk) 23:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, the norm in Brazilian Portuguese is to use quotation marks before dots, but in this case I think it is part of a wider rule in languages other than English... And c'mon people, post something here. It's been a week. 177.65.15.49 (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Brands

When refering brand names do we use quotes or capital letters? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FoxxyFuyumi (talk • contribs) 14:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Treat a brand name as an ordinary proper noun. —Tamfang (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Why does this article only discuss English use of quotation marks?

I don't understand why Wikipedia's main article about quotation marks is written from an Anglocentric viewpoint, instead of discussing the use of quotation marks in general, in all languages. If this article is only about the use of quotation marks in English, then why isn't it titled Use of quotation marks in English? Jarble (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. What is your beef? –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 20:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is the Wikipedia written in English, but it should not be the Wikipedia that ignores the existence of everything non-English. I agree that the article should either be expanded or renamed (e.g. to "Quotation marks in English"). —BarrelProof (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

American Bar Association no longer uses logical quotation

I have removed the reference to the ABA Journal requiring the use of logical quotation (a.k.a. British style) punctuation. While this was true in 1951, and some point in the past decades, the American Bar Association (ABA) decided that it would use the overwhelming majority quotation punctuation practices prevalent in the United States in the ABA Journal, as well as its many other publications. As of 2013, the ABA does not maintain a separate internal style guide for its publications, but on its webpage for attorney submissions for publication, it makes a crystal clear statement that it relies on The Chicago Manual of Style "for all style, punctuation, and capitalization matters in written text as well as general rules of book making." (Please see [15].) I also provide two links to current ABA Journal articles that clearly demonstrate that the Journal is using traditional quotation punctuation in its flagship monthly publication, and not logical quotation. (Please see [16] and [17].) Anyone who wishes to further verify this is welcome to browse other online articles of the ABA Journal from the links provided. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

article need some Guillemet citation and explain

see Guillemet --Krauss (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

American quotations - why

Kinda needs an explanation about how this could have occurred in the first place... Turkeyphan^t 02:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

What, you mean why American punctuation is the way it is? Why do the British spell "center" as if it were pronounced "senn-treh"—because it doesn't work any worse than doing it the other way.

I heard once that it's from printing, that the narrow period and comma keys would break if they were placed on the end of a line, but the only source for that was something that someone said in a forum once. As for British style, it was first advocated by Fowler and Fowler in their book The King's English in 1906. Before that, everyone used American style.

If you can find a better source, then we could certainly do a section on the history of American and British punctuation styles, but it would be phrased neutrally. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Answer: We British spell it as centre because it comes from the Latin centrum, from Ancient Greek κέντρον (kéntron, “centre”). So which is the more correct? — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 19:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Neither. That's the point. The British spelling is closer to the root word's spelling but the American spelling is closer to the current word's pronunciation. The British put a unnecessary U in "harbor" as well. But the only people who pronounce the words "cen-treh" instead of "center" or "har-boor" instead of "harbor" are those who are still learning how to read. Both spelling systems work. In the same way, American punctuation, despite the assumption that it less logical than British style, has never caused even one reported case of miscommunication on Wikipedia and none that I've seen off it. There is no logical reason to prefer one style to the other from a functionality perspective. It is solely a matter of habit and personal taste.

If you or Turkey want to write a section on the origins of these two styles, you're free to look up sources and draft it. If you want to write a section about professional criticism of either or both styles, which is what I'm guessing that Turkey really wants, you are also free to look up sources and draft one, but its tone must be neutral. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

LOL. There is no noticeboard for "reporting" confusion on Wikipedia caused by non-MoS-readers using typographers' ("American") quotation. I encounter such problems regularly, fix them as best I can and move on with my gnoming, just like everyone else does. No one on WP obsesses about this American punctuation thing. Oh, well there is one editor who does.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I haven't been clear. "It is solely a matter of habit and personal taste." I guess that's where we disagree. There is a logical reason to prefer one over the other (even implicitly acknowledged in their names). And one can only assume the less logical version came after the other, and hence there was a decision made to adopt it. Given there are only negatives and no positives, it would be useful for the article to address the reasoning behind using this and even perpetuating it now it's simple to become aware of the alternative. Turkeyphan^t 14:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding: I see now that apparently the switch to the less logical version actually came later (at least in printed form). In this case, the question should be why did the American version change to the more sensible option when the British version did? What's the reason for not adopting a change that was widespread elsewhere? Turkeyphan^t 14:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You have it backwards. Everyone used to use American style. Then Fowler and Fowler wrote their 1906 book and the British started leaving their commas untucked.

There are actually several logical reasons to prefer American style. For one, American style is easier to teach, easier to learn, easier to use and easier to copy-edit. Whether that is more or less important than appealing to an abstract sense of "Well using the same rule that we use for question marks makes more sense to me" is solely a matter of habit and taste. People tend to prefer the style that they are more used to.

If British style really were better, then it would work better than American style in practice, and it doesn't. There's been no study showing either to be associated with differences in reading comprehension or later typos, and a bit of evidence to the contrary. If you study the way the human brain processes images, you will not find this surprising. Our readers aren't computers; they don't parse text character-for-character: Csae in pnoit.

The main issue, though, is the article. Is there something that you want to add to or remove from the article? Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Read my correct. As for claims that they are "easier to teach, easier to learn, easier to use and easier to copy-edit" - surely you have this the wrong way round? The more logical version is, if it's not obvious already, logically easier to teach, easier to learn, easier to use and easier to copy-edit. Of course people prefer the more usual style but that doesn't answer the question I've asked. And it's clearly false to claim "If British style really were better, then it would work better than American style in practice, and it doesn't." See the discussion above about the CMoS for example.

Re: the article. See my original talk comment. After reading I had more questions than answers. I feel it's appropriate to address as best we can. Turkeyphan^t 16:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Darkfrog24 is correct; a system with only one pattern is easier than a system with multiple patterns. I also do not fully understand what issue the original talk comment ("Kinda needs an explanation...") is addressing in the article. Doremo (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Clearly ease is subjective. But I'd still claim the logical choice is "easier to teach, easier to learn, easier to use and easier to copy-edit" and at the very worst, equal. Turkeyphan^t 17:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It's also worth mentioning that both systems have only "one" pattern. It depends how you define the pattern. Turkeyphan^t 17:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

No I don't have it the wrong way around. You only think British style is easier because you are used to it. But if you take someone not familiar with either style and say, "Keep periods and commas inside all the time," they will find that easier than "figure out whether the period or comma 'belongs' to the words inside the quotation marks using complex grammatical rules; here, it might be easier if you do it with question marks first." This actually isn't subjective. You can go to elementary schools and ESL schools and observe it. The idea that British style is more logical is subjective.

I think Turkeyphan just doesn't like American style and wants to talk about that for a bit. For now, I don't mind obliging. I like to talk about this issue too. TP, if I'm wrong and you want to talk about the article, why don't you say which specific sentences troubled you? Then we can work out a clearer way to phrase the information. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Quotation marks in English. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150402231935/http://www.tjhsst.edu/~rgreen/grammar/quotes.htm to http://www.tjhsst.edu/~rgreen/grammar/quotes.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Logical and British quotation are not the same thing

While various sources lump them together and gloss over the differences, they're easily and clearly distinguishable, and have a different rationale. LQ always puts outside the final quotation mark any terminal punctuation that was not in the original source, and does not modify the quoted punctuation (except in a square-bracketed interpolation), while British (i.e. Oxford/Hart's/Fowler's) usually puts it outside, but permits exceptions for both inserting extraneous punctuation and modifying the quoted punctuation, within the quotation, if the writer feels it serves the "sense" of the sentence better. Neither are possible in logical quotation, which is always faithful to the source material. I'll source this in detail after I finish the citation digging and formatting.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

According to the sources, they are two names for the same thing:

There are a few sources that refer to the system "British" and "logical" in the same passage.

• Grammar Commnet "But in England you would write: My favorite poem is Robert Frost's 'Design'. The placement of marks other than periods and commas follows the logic that quotation marks should accompany (be right next to) the text being quoted or set apart as a title."
• David Marsh writing in The Guardian:'the British style', which 'rules on message and bulletin boards'. Jolly good."
• Ben Yagoda in Slate referring to others: "copious examples of the 'outside' technique—which readers of Virginia Woolf and The Guardian will recognize as the British style" (It's also Yagoda's own opinion but, like Marsh and CMoS I'm skeptical about his understanding of the matter.)
• Mark Nichol

Far more common are sources that use either the name "British" or "logical" but describe the same system:

• Chicago Manual of Style: "The British style of positioning periods and commas in relation to the closing quotation mark is based on the same logic that in the American system governs the placement of question marks and exclamation points"
• Journal of Irish and Scottish Studies: "Punctuation marks are placed inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation; this system is referred to as logical quotation."
• Scientific Style and Format: "In the British style (OUP 1983), all signs of punctuation used with words and quotation marks must be placed according to the sense."

If anyone wants to see more sources that deal with this issue, there is a large list compiled here: [18]

SmC, I understand that you think your assertions are true and feel strongly about them, but on Wikipedia, it's verifiability, not truth. Sources have been provided showing that these are two names for the same practice and that they are used interchangeably by RS. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Been over this 50-odd times with you already. It doesn't matter how many sources you find that gloss over the distinction between logical and British quotation because getting into the distinction isn't relevant to their immediately context, it does nothing to magically erase the fact that the style guides that define these styles clearly distinguish two distinct styles, one called logical, one called (most often) British, and that they are significantly different. No amount of ignoring sources you don't like will ever make that fact go away. I'm not sure why this is not getting through to you. Let's make it simple: If I write a book that says liberals and communists (or conservatives and fascists) are the same thing, this doesn't make it true, no matter how many other sources also blur the distinction, because other reliable sources distinguish them in detail. Your deletion of my dispute tag (along with deletion of a reliable soruce and insertion of a self-published one) are disruptive.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

SmC, remember over in the animate vs inanimate discussion, when you said the distinction was to use animate pronouns for fictional characters in-universe and inanimate out-of-universe, but really you just thought that was the way it worked? This could be what's going on here. You're drawing a distinction—a perfectly logical distinction—but according to the sources, that isn't how English really works.

Here's a thought. There are lots of sources that say. "There's American style; it goes like this. There's British style; it goes like that," clearly showing that they're talking about two different systems (by putting them in different paragraphs, etc.). Do you have one that says, "There's British style; it goes like this. There's logical style; it goes like that" while clearly showing that they're two different things and not the same thing that works in more than one way? Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Remember over on another page, you tried the same bogus ad hominem tactic, and it made you look silly, because you farcically misrepresented my position in that earlier debate, and you come across as if you can't differentiate between two arguments about different things? Oh, wait, that seems to directly mirror what's going on in all of these debates; you simply aren't rationally parsing them. How about that? (Don't like this tone? Stop using it with me.) Direct comparison source: Of course we have a source that does that, the Guardian article already cited. But of course that article doesn't exist, or doesn't say what it says, as long as you don't want it to.

It wouldn't matter anyway. If we have RS that say "cars do not have truck beds" and other RS that say "pick-up trucks are like cars, but have truck beds", it doesn't matter how many sources you can find that, for whatever convenience reason they may have, lump trucks in with cars (e.g. because they're all about water vehicles and mention land vehicles in passing, as "cars", only to distinguish them from water vehicles). The fact that cars are distinguishable in reliable sources, per specific features of them, cannot be magically erased. It's perfectly fine to say that some sources lump trucks in with cars; it's not okay to say in WP's voice that trucks and cars are identical, that "car" and "truck" are two names for exactly the same thing, and deny any mention of their distinction. That's precisely what you're trying to do. We also don't need any direct-comparison sources, since the style guides publish definitions, and they're clearly distinguishable. I don't need a source that directly compares a pool ball and 1/8 ounce of cocaine, side by side, to write about how the word "8-ball" has more than one meaning, and to write about those meanings separately, nor to prevent you from trying to change pool articles to say that the games are played with drug baggies, not balls. That's also exactly what you're trying to do here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

What ad hominem attack? Pointing out that you've read too much into things before? You've said far worse and far less substantiated things about me.

SmC, you think the sources are wrong. You're allowed to have an opinion, but you need to stop pretending that I'm doing something wrong by preferring sourced material to whatever conclusions you've drawn on your own. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I've never said the sources are wrong, only what you're doing with them. I never claimed you attacked me; ad homimen is logic fallacy. That's twice in one post you've falsified my statements. Just like you're doing with the sources.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

SmC, it is not civil to call people liars. You misinterpret me fairly often and I don't call you a liar, do I?

But yes, when you say things like, "Just because some sources use the terms interchangeably doesn't mean they really are the same thing," it does look like you think they're wrong. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

It is entirely possible that some reliable sources draw a distinction between these two terms and others do not. It is important to keep in mind that a term does not necessarily have a single meaning that is the true and correct meaning bestowed by the masters of the language and that all other uses of the term are incorrect. Please remember that English is a descriptive language, not a prescriptive one. In this situation, the article should say something like "some authors draw a distinction between these two terms, using "logical quotation to mean ... and using "British quotation to mean ...", rather than something like "Properly, logical quotation means ... and British quotation has a different meaning which is ..., although some authors make the mistake of confusing them." —BarrelProof (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

If it could be shown that some sources do distinguish between them and others do not, then it would probably would be reasonable to say something like that—though considering the number and quality of sources that do consider them the same, referring to doing so as a "mistake" would probably be too much. Do you know of any sources that say "logical is X and British is Y" or "logical and British differ from each other in manner Z"? Another way to show that sources distinguish between them would be to find a group of sources that say "logical" and describe the system one way and another group that say "British" and describe it a different way.

As for whether English is descriptive or prescriptive, I'd say it's more relevant that this article is meant to be descriptive. If you mean using descriptive or prescriptive sources, though, then we should of course use both style guides and any sociolinguistic studies that apply. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying there are no cited reliable sources that say they are different? —BarrelProof (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

None that I've ever seen, no. Do you know of any? Did Language Log ever address this? If so, we could say something like, "Professor Smartness, writing in Language Log says these are best considered two different systems." Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

And just to head off anything that might trouble anyone's blood pressure, SMC believes that he has provided sources that say this, but I read them, and they don't. For example, the Guardian article that I cited in my first post of this thread, SMC seems to think this author says they're different, but I read it and I found that it says they're the same. So please, anything that either of us cites, just look at it for yourself. That's what the links are for. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Then we have nothing to discuss here. I'm removing the unsupported tag from the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE weight and source deletion

Darkfrog24 (talk · contribs), presently engaged in a three-day editwarring campaign at WP:MOS and WT:MOS, just deleted a reliable and properly cited source here at Quotation marks in English [19] (cite of a neutral article about logical quotation by a language professor and well-known writer on English language usage, that was used for multiple citations in the article, which DF broke by doing so), and replaced it with an anti-LQ rant from someone's blog. Classic WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. This should be reverted, but I don't want to do it myself any time soon, lest I be seen as editwarring, too.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

SmC, I replaced the Yagoda source because you said that it wasn't good enough.[20] It's also been criticized by Marsh and CMoS, but no, it wouldn't be edit warring if you put it back alongside the other sources.

As for the Nichol article, if you click the "About Us" link you'll see that Nichol, like Yagoda, is an expert in this field, so it is usable per WP:SPS. Frankly, I'm a little insulted. Of course I checked it out before I used it in the article space. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Please stop making up things about what I said. Here's a direct quote of what I said in that diff: "Logical and British are not the same, just similar." Here's another about the Yagoda article: "neutral source" [21], and I have three more like it I can dig up (professor notable for language publication, etc.), along with you trying to rely on it as a reliable source, at WT:MOS, when it suits you. My criticism relating to the Yagoda source is you using OR to say things it doesn't actually say, and to treat it like something it isn't (what it is, is an op-ed for a general audience, on a language usage trend, nothing more, and certain not a style guide nor any authoritative source on what names of things and how they differ in fine details that he does not get into). Being an expert doesn't automatically everything someone puts out reliable, and whether it's a usable source depends on how it's used in what context. This problem here is undue weight and misuse of a source to push a PoV agenda. The same one you've been disrupting MoS with for three days (well, 6 years, really).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not making it up. SMcC, it is entirely possible to misinterpret what someone is saying without being malicious. You do it to me all the time. My belief that you thought the Yagoda source was no good was based on your edit summary: [22] If that's not what you meant, that's one thing, but don't act like I'm some wrongdoer for failing to read your mind. You presumably read my own edit summary, which said "removing contested Yagoda source," and didn't figure out that I thought you were contesting it. Does that mean you're making things up? And I removed your dispute tag because it looked like you were asking for better sources, which I provided. You've been snarling at nothing in the shadows for weeks now. Take a break if you need to.

What OR? If you're going to throw accusations at me, then be clear about what you're talking about. It's starting to look like you're just scattering your posts with unsubstantiated accusations just to make me look bad.

Of course the propriety of using sources depends on context. That's why you shouldn't object to the Nichol article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Making things up does not require malice, just unreality. My edit summary said "disputing incorrect assertion that logical and British are identical". Given that we've been arguing round in circles for three days about WP saying in WP's voice that they are the same is false, my meaning was obvious (and should have been anyway; I didn't say "disputing unreliable source" or anything to that effect. Twice you're trying to make me feel guilty for misleading you, but I didn't mislead you, you just made up some notion in your own head. If we were take this "I was doing it because you wanted me to" spiel seriously. No one deletes a reliable source to insert another source; you add the new source. This is one of the least effective attempts at gaslighting I've ever encountered. My objection, however, was that you deleted the source without consensus or discussion to make a WP:POINTy insertion of a biased SPS in an inappropriate place, breaking multiple citations in the process. The Yagoda source would have had to go back in no matter what, because other passages cited it. I've already explained what your OR is, about a dozen times. I don't have to go into it on every page you want to ask again after already being told. Your explanation for why you removed my dispute tag is bogus, since you reverted two of them in a row flagging different problems. This "who, me?" act is not going to convince anyone of anything. Skipping the rest of this because it's nothing to do with this article and improving it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, right there, see where you say, "you're trying to make me feel guilty for misleading you"? No I'm not. What I'm actually trying to do is get you to see that even if "I don't like the Yagoda source" isn't what you meant, it is still not that out there for me to think that it was. Notice: You were wrong about what I meant. Does that make you a liar? No. Does it make you a vicious edit warrer? No. What did I do about it? Tell you what I actually meant because it was just an honest mistake, which you made because you're not a mind-reader. Now it's a non-issue. Now you try.

No, but it is reasonable to replace a source that has been contested as unreliable, which is what I thought you were doing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I am also puzzled by the need to insert an anti-logical punctuation source in the article at this point. It seems needlessly combative and distracting. All we need/should want is a source that defines logical punctuation and not one that rants about it. SQGibbon (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

That might bear up if the source were being used to say negative things about British/logical style, but it isn't. The Nichol article is being used as a source for "logical punctuation is another word for British style." This is the same statement that the pro-British/logical Yagoda article was supporting. If anything, the fact that these two writers with opposite opinions of the system agree about the facts should give them more weight.

As for sources that define British style without giving value judgments, there's the Journal of Irish and Scottish Studies under the name "logical" and SSF under "British." Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Whatever your circular reasoning, multiple editors now object, so you don't have consensus to insert it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

You mean one person with an ongoing grudge-match content dispute objected on reflex, someone else asked a question about it (which may have been answered to his or her satisfaction), and one other person does want it in? No consensus to remove it either. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

SQGibbon did not ask a question. Why do you insist on distorting what people say in every damned discussion? And accusing of bad faith when people raise objections? This gives the lie, by the way, to your "oh, I'm only deleting dispute tags because I thought I resolved them for you." You are flip-flopping back and forth between "I'm just being helpful" and "go screw yourself" modes. Get your act straight, LOL. The source is disputed by multiple editors, and you have not addressed anything about their objections. It comes out. (Maybe it could go back in later, in a more appropriate way, as a primary source for something, if there's a need for it, and it's cited for the limited things primary sources can be used for, and directly attributed. Right now, though, it's a WP:PSTS policy violation. That's an additional objection, BTW.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

If you think I'm wrong about what SQG meant, just ping SQG and ask.

SMC, you've gotten pretty invested in this multi-front attack of yours, and one other guy came in with one other issue, which I've addressed. That's not exactly consensus to remove. But if you want to take it to NPOVN, that's fine with me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

We're up [23]. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)