Talk:Billy Graham rule

Logical quotation in this article
As Walter Görlitz refuses to discuss this, I've brought the discussion here, per WP:BRD.

With regard to MOS:LQ, we do not include terminal punctuation inside quotation when they are sentence fragments. The sentence fragments that are being quoted—


 * "avoid any situation that would have even the appearance of compromise or suspicion"


 * and
 * "the kind of environment where inappropriate relating is more likely to occur"

These are not complete grammatical sentences in and of themselves and therefore cannot, in and of themselves, be terminated.

superficially appears like a complete sentence, if you toss out all context. It is a sentence fragment because:


 * it is presented as one:
 * It is not the original complete sentence: "We pledged among ourselves to avoid any situation that would have even the appearance of compromise or suspicion."
 * presenting it as a "complete sentence" changes the grammar: is in imperative form.  The original is not in imperative form; the fragment requires the containing sentence to give it the grammar it has in the original.

So, no, the first sentence is not "a complete sentence".

The second is not a complete sentence by any stretch of the imagination—not even superficially like the first. MOS:LQ requires both the punctuation in both sentence fragments to appear outsie the quotemarks, as the punctuate the containing sentences. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not that I refused to discuss it. I made valid points and you refused to read, or if you did, you ignored my edit notice on my talk page. I tired of your insistence that only your interpretation was correct. It's not. The first was a clear sentence. The second, may not be. Let's see what other editors think. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "It's not" is not an argument, and I've refuted "The first was a clear sentence" rather thoroughly, to which your response was immediately archiving the discussion. You've clearly misunderstood both MOS:LQ and basic English grammar, and refuse to discuss it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You think you refuted it. I responded and realized that I had humoured you for long enough. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And now you're editwarring while the discussion is in progress. You should be blocked for editwarring and tendentious editing while a discussion is underway that you refuse to participate in. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I echo Curly Turkey's rationale; MOS:LQ's pretty clear about not adding periods in quotations that are incomplete sentences. Walter Görlitz, hopefully you're willing to admit that now. Slightlymad 13:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think MOS:LQ pretty clearly agrees with Curly Turkey here. And of course, there can be exceptions, but no rationale has been made for an exception here, and I don't think there really is one.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 14:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No the exception was made on my talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ...which you removed before anyone had a chance to read. In any case, you weren't arguing for an exception; you were trying to argue that MOS:LQ supported you directly, but it clearly doesn't.  Curly's analysis is correct here.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 14:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Which was linked to here. First line. I'm not sure how you can comment on an issue without having done the necessary reading. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that the first sentence could be a complete sentence is exactly why it needs terminating punctuation outside the quotes, to distinguish it as a fragment. Primergrey (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Concur with Curly Turkey (who refute), and especially with Primgergrey who nails it right on the nose. Walter, please see WP:1AM.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Did anyone actually see the self-revert? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks you. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Incomplete
I don't see a statement of the plain fact that this rule is, by definition, sexual discrimination. Outside of work, it is not only common, but generally accepted practice to treat men and women differently, but in work situations (in the U.S.) it is illegal. (According to the EEOC)40.142.185.108 (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's because there are no reliable sources that affirm that it meets the legal definition of sexual discrimination. If someone is prevented from doing something because of their sex, then it meets the legal definition of sexual discrimination. If someone determines that they must chaperone themselves, that is not sexual discrimination. The woman is not being discriminated against. Feel free to cite a legal source that supports your claim though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * A different anon indicated that the German-language article has additional details that we could implement here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)