Talk:unconditional surrender

RFD discussion: August 2021–January 2022
SOP. PUC – 18:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, the "except as provided by international law" saves it from SOP. Facts707 (talk) 09:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. The exception should not have been part of the definition, for two reasons. To start, in many uses international law does not play a role, as when demanded the unconditional surrender of . Moreover, the role of modern international law is not one of imposing conditions, but of providing guarantees ; unconditional simply means that the party whose surrender is demanded is not allowed to negotiate conditions. This meaning has not been changed by any modern legal provisions.  --Lambiam 09:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Leaning towards keep. It also seems to be used by extension in non-military contexts. DonnanZ (talk) 11:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I see this as similar to e.g. change sides, i.e. a set phrase that nevertheless can be explained as SoP. It would be good for us to develop a firm policy on these. Mihia (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

RFD-no consensus. &mdash; Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 20:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)