" 
 ::While I agree that using typesetters-style quotation marks, which are near-universal in American usage would make sense as the article is written in American English, the current Manual of Style calls explicitly for so-called ""logical quotation"" in all circumstances. So reverting your change to match that is well within another editor's purview. And he did explain himself, in that he included a link to the MOS, so your reversion of his reversion was unnecessary, as a) your initial edits were an unneeded change, and b) it's not considered an acceptable style here. (Frankly I think it's stupid. The rarity of so-called ""logical"" style in standard American English means that people are forced to use an unfamiliar non-standard grammar when writing in American English. And there is nothing inherently superior about so called ""logical"" style. The supposed accuracy it provides is based on a false idea that every single character between the quote marks must be part of the original material, which treats all quotes as a string of characters, which is not actual English, just a machine-like format. But I digress.)   "