Talk:No quarter

Surrender at discretion

No quarter is given when a surrender at discretion is ignored. The phrase is more accurate as that is the phrase used in the relevant treaties that make giving no quarter a war crime. -- PBS (talk) 12:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved, and thus the song remains the same. Favonian (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

---

• No quarter → No quarter (phrase)
• No Quarter (song) → No Quarter

– Notability. Plant's Strider (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose no evidence given. The phrase has a very long usage history as well. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: The phrase has a long history of usage in the English language, at least as far back as Shakespeare. The song is a few decades old, and is based on the topic of this article. The notability of the song stems in part from the notability of the phrase. Boneyard90 (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per the two editors above. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. "Titles of distinct articles may differ only in their detail," per WP:PRECISION. So the song can be "No Quarter", and the phrase can be "No quarter." Wasn't that easy? Kauffner (talk) 09:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Can I move No Quarter (song) to No Quarter? Plant's Strider (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Redirect No Quarter to No quarter (disambiguation) (Maupassent is at least as important as Led Zep) or Move No Quarter (song) to No Quarter per PS. Rich Farmbrough, 17:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC).
  

• Oppose making the song primary per first three comments. Oppose suggested redirect. I don't see how a single capital letter can meet the criteria of WP:PRECISION. Is there a contrary example? I can understand some people thinking a single song by one of many rock bands is important enough to render neither one primary (not me), so it seems that No quarter should be the disambiguation page, with the song staying where it is and the phrase moved per the suggested move to No quarter (Phrase). --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The guideline gives the example Red Meat and Red meat. Kauffner (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose "no quarter" is a term of art in the laws of war. I also oppose No Quarter redirecting anywhere but here a single letter is too smaller a disambiguation. -- PBS (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose I like Lead Zepplin, there music is awesome, but in all fairness the military has been around a LOT longer than they have. This should, by rights, be the first page visible in regards to the term, not a disambiguation page, and certainly not a song page. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Kauffner compromise would be acceptable, however the primary and more historical use of the phrase refers to the act relating to military action rather than the song.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. No quarter is primary per Boneyard. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose 1st move, 2nd must be supported, or change WP:AT - per WP:AT Red Meat and Red meat examples. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with WP:AT Red Meat and Red meat examples (I couldn't care less) but that's what WP:AT says. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Commando order

I am going to comment out the Commando Order addition for two reasons. The first is "The most famous example" may be true but it needs an expert source or else it is a personal point of view based on original research. The next two sentences introduces several facts into a fully sourced article without any sources to back them up. -- PBS (talk) 10:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

"Commando Order" is in no way related to "No quarter given". Even when they tried to tie that somehow. --105.14.163.19 (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Removing Category:Laws of war

As Category:Laws of war is a hyper-category of Category:War crimes by type, it is redundant here and - in my opinion - should be removed. Stefanomione (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

My objection to the inclusion in this category is that 'no quarter' is not one of the 'laws of war'. It is a case of the 'laws of war' being broken (and thus a 'war crime'). Are categories not for things which directly correspond with the category rather than things merely related to the category? Dubmill (talk) 12:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

It depends on the period in history, up until the 20th century quarter was discretionary. For example to show now quarter when capturing a town by storm was the customary norm. -- PBS (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but while in that era massacring the defenders of a town may have been common, was it really 'customary'? Dubmill (talk) 10:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes there were very elaborate rules over siege warfare from the high middle ages up until at least the Napoleonic wars. See surrender at discretion. For two infamous sieges that did not end well for the defenders see Sack of Magdeburg and the Siege of Drogheda.

See also the military concept of prisoners giving their parole. The classic recent example of this was Allied officers who landed their planes in the Republic of Ireland and then "escaped" to Northern Ireland, the RAF high command ordered them back to Southern Ireland because they were Officers who had given their parole that they would not attempt to escape.[1][2]

-- PBS (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Dubmill (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions

On June 3 2020 I inserted, as the second sentence of the lead: "According to some modern American dictionaries a person who is given no quarter is "not treated kindly" or "treated in a very harsh way" with cites to Collins and Merriam-Webster dictionaries. Subsequently 23.140.0.66 and KBDeL99 and 77.96.53.50 and 184.98.252.200 and 80.6.12.46 and have been removing or re-inserting. I suggest that this can be discussed. The defences of the edit so far have been: (1) "Collins and Merriam-Webster dictionaries are reliable sources for definitions and specify use in military contexts (Collins mentions "war", Merriam-Webster mentions "soldiers") (2) Dictionary definitions provide context of the modern usage of the term whose historical context is covered in the rest of the article. Merriam-Webster has linked interest in the definition to a recent statement by Tom Cotton, in a post titled Trending: ‘no quarter’ Lookups spiked 140,000% on June 1, 2020. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Update: Seeing no reply, I restored the dictionary definitions in the lead. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

"Put to the sword" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Put to the sword. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 31#Put to the sword until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  07:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Similar Term

Consumption of victory was a similar used term.--46.125.249.50 (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

MOS:REFERS

• Revision as of 11:31, 31 March 2021 by PBS "Put back an older lead because Wikipedia does not write articles about a phrase but about the subject"
• Revision as of 16:24, 20 February 2022 by user:Peter Gulutzan "Undid revision as of 11:31, 31 March 2021 by PBS. Error in edit summary, Wikipedia does indeed have articles about phrases, and this is one. I did not restore the 'take no prisoners' sentence in the lead paragraph."

See MOS:REFERS and the bullet point:

• Keep the first sentence focused on the subject by avoiding constructions like "[Subject] refers to..." or "...is a word for..." – the article is about the subject, not a term for the subject..

References

Also see WP:LEAD: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." -- PBS (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Now read the following sentence: "For articles that are actually about terms, italicize the term to indicate the use–mention distinction." That's clearly saying that articles can be about terms, and I have no trouble thinking of examples: Wetback (slur), List of Latin phrases. So MOS and usage support my claim that the edit summary wording, "... Wikipedia does not write articles about a phrase but about the subject", was wrong. But that does not prove that the subject of this particular article is the phrase, I assumed that based on fairly recent history in this article and its talk page, and I restored a fairly recent lead sentence. Therefore I apologize to PBS because my assumption might be wrong, and let's see what others think. Is the article subject the phrase "No quarter" (in which case my reversion of PBS's edit is close to okay), or is the article subject "No quarter" (in which case my reversion should be reverted)? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Third_opinion requested (diff) — PBS (talk) 13:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

This article is about the phrase (the military term) and not the corresponding action. The lead should therefore discuss the phrase, as per WP:Lead. It should identify the topic (which, in this case, is the term). ParticipantObserver (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Unless PBS objects, I believe now that my reversion should not be reverted, but no quarter should be in italics in the lead sentence. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I do disagree, because the name of a subject is always a word or phrase; and so I am going to request further input on the talk page of the MOS Lead to see what people who are interested in the MOS lead think about the lead of this article. -- PBS (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• MOS quibbles aside, the lead sentence should be written clearly and succinctly. The current lead The phrase no quarter was generally used during military conflict to imply combatants would not be taken prisoner, but killed reads just fine (I'd use "conflicts" and insert "enemy combatants"). On the contrary, I find this version very clumsy and I can barely read it. However, the lead section should expand on the subject further than the mere definition, so I would rescue considerations about historical practices and current humanitarian law from it. No such user (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that changing the first sentence to contain "... during military conflicts to imply enemy combatants ..." sounds a bit better. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Additions in lead re Hague etc.

Buidhe on 17 June changed the lead to rephrase the first sentence and add Since the Hague Convention of 1899 it is considered a war crime, and is also prohibited in customary international law and by the Rome Statute. The Hague Convention of 1907 states that "it is especially forbidden … to declare that no quarter will be given", before the bit about dictionaries. I reverted but Buidhe re-inserted. My objection was, and is, "That doesn't apply to no-quarter cases in general, only to military conflicts. Possibly this addition would be okay deep in the article but not as a large lead change." See MOS:LEADREL. Any other opinions? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to summarize the body, which currently is exclusively devoted to the military usage. The dictionary definition, for example, did not summarize any body content and is therefore likely unsuitable for the lead. I now realize there is a discussion above where some editors suggested that the article is supposed to be WP:WORDISSUBJECT, but per that guideline, "In these cases, the word or phrase in and of itself passes Wikipedia's notability criteria as the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources." I am unable to find any sources besides some brief dictionary entries that actually discuss the word or phrase in and of itself, so I do not think such an article would meet the notability guidelines. However, the practice of refusing to take prisoners in military conflict is highly notable. The legal aspect is heavily discussed in RS, particularly as it is relevant to questions such as the legality of drone warfare. (t · c) buidhe 01:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The lead wording was discussed earlier in section MOS:REFERS with partiipants Participants PBS, Peter Gulutzan,ParticipantObserver, No such user. The conclusion involved keeping what we had before buidhe's removals and additions, but before reverting again I will check whether consensus has changed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

A small group of editors is not able to override the sitewide consensus about MOS:LEAD and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. (t · c) buidhe 14:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

If anyone new either supports or opposes Buidhe's changes, it might be helpful if you'd comment here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)