A few style guides (including the admittedly idiosyncratic guide I’m currently working with) state that quoted speech is never preceded by ‘that’.
Why? Tradition? Some subtle mechanical reason? Superfluous?
Here’s an example where ‘that’ seems to fit nicely (though I’m sure it can/will be rewritten in several posts):
Is it the same without the ‘that’? Is it redundant with ‘noted’? Is it redundant with any verb (e.g. said, stated) that would precede it?
ETA: Also, what about:
Consider the following two sentences:
John said, “Bill went to the store.”
John said that, “Bill went to the store.”
If you are reading the sentences, the quotation marks make it clear that the words are an actual quote from John. However, if you are listening instead of reading, the word “that” implies a paraphrase of what John said, rather than a direct quote.
In other words,
>>>>>>>>> John said that Bill went to the store.
tells us the CONTENT of what John said, while making no claims as to which WORDS he used.
Perhaps a clearer illustration:
John said, “I am hungry.”
John said that he was hungry.
ETA: Skimmed the OP. Both examples in the OP are OK with “that” included because they are a logical continuation of the rest of the sentence. However, “that” could be omitted in the first example (with a comma after “noted”) but not the second.
But if your style guide says you can’t keep the “that,” you can just “which” instead. Unless your style guide is one of those stupid ones that says that which can only be used for nonrestrictive clauses.
First of all, I don’t think that a style that maintains a distinction between which and that is fairly characterized as “stupid.” It’s a style preference.
Second, I think it’s doubtful that cases in which “that” can be used or not will be amenable to “which” substitution.
I had an English teacher who insisted that you should never use “so” in an essay unless it was immediately followed by “that”. You can put all your superfluous "that"s there!
Did you just tell me to shove ‘that’ up my ‘but also’?!