This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
No quarter article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
The result of the move request was: not moved, and thus the song remains the same. Favonian ( talk) 20:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
– Notability. Plant's Strider ( talk) 02:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Consumption of victory was a similar used term.-- 46.125.249.50 ( talk) 18:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
See MOS:REFERS and the bullet point:
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)
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)
The phrase no quarter was generally used during military conflict to imply combatants would not be taken prisoner, but killedreads 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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
No quarter article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
The result of the move request was: not moved, and thus the song remains the same. Favonian ( talk) 20:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
– Notability. Plant's Strider ( talk) 02:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Consumption of victory was a similar used term.-- 46.125.249.50 ( talk) 18:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
See MOS:REFERS and the bullet point:
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)
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)
The phrase no quarter was generally used during military conflict to imply combatants would not be taken prisoner, but killedreads 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)
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)