Talk:No quarter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Stub-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Surrender at discretion[edit]

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[edit]

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)

– 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. -- (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)
  • 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)
  • 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[edit]

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. -- (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Removing Category:Laws of war[edit]

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)