Talk:Civilian/Archive 1

Collateral damage
The notions expressed here with regard to it being ok to kill civilians as long as theres a military objective, smacks of murderous moral relativism, which is situational ethics - and this is contradictory to any moral code - not the course a warrior caste is developing toward, especially in the usa, where we attempt at least to strive for principle. ---Sv 23:27, 8 January 2003‎ (UTC)

Actually, relative to civilian police... The term should be "citizen" rather than "civilian". - Curt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.129.152.139 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 14 March 2006‎


 * Hmm. to whomever... please read the part on collateral damage in the Atrocity article and see if you have a disagreement. if you do, please say so on the talk page there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsoniensis (talk • contribs) 08:00, 1 July 2014

First Paragraph
Who says that the police are not civilians? GCIII does not list them as lawful combatants, there for they must be civilians. --PBS 12:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The only source cited for including LEO as non-civilian is Meriam Webster's dictionary, this is shaky at best. Cpflieger (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Civilians and war
protected person. The article curruntly says
 * ''Under the Fourth Geneva Convention it is a war crime to deliberately attack a non-combatant civilian or wantonly and unnecessarily destroy or take the property of a civilian

Under Which article is this protection given? I think this is wrong because the Fourth Geneva Convention relates to the protection of civilians during times of war "in the hands" of an enemy and under any occupation by a foreign power. --PBS 12:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Police and Firefighters are civilians because they come under the Civil Court System
The definition of civilian comes from the court system under which an individual is tried for crimes. The only people NOT civilians are members of the military (tried in the military court system) and the sometimes clergy (traditionally tried in an ecclesiastical court system). It is very important in a democracy that police and firefighters are ultimately recognized as civilians who are tried in a civil court system, otherwise there is an implication that they are somehow above civilian law.

There is a move among some progressive dictionary editors to match the definition of a term to its current colloquial usage, regardless of how it was previously defined or the reasons for its definition. In the case of the word 'civilian' the reasoning is clear, and the geneva definition, for all its wordiness, upholds this.

Comradery among those putting their lives at risk is one thing, but men and women with power and guns, regardless of the situations they face, sometimes need a real world check; that they are held responsible to the same laws as everyone else. The fact that the definition of 'civilian' is at risk by some who are told, or feel, that they are apart from it should be of great concern. It is not a trivial concept, as the fall of the Republican form of the Roman government came in parallel with the rise in importance of their police forces, in particular the Praetorian Guard. American Democracy is made up of a civilian population, governed by civilian organizations, and headed by a civilian president, a concept which is critical. There were choices being made when our country was being formed, and the President and our leaders as well as Police and Fire COULD have been exempted from the laws of the general population and held accountable to different standards, but to our founders credit they were all put on an equal footing.

This is the talk page of wikipedia, I believe that the inclusion of police and firefighters as being exceptions to civilians on the lead definition page should be changed as it is wrong and promotes an serious inconsistency of perception that is growing. DrewGregory (talk) 12:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Police and fire
Under international law, a civilian is only a member of the armed forces. Notably, in wartime, belligerents have the right to kill and imprison (as POWs) members of the opposing forces, but they do not have the right to do that with civilians, including police and firefighters. This article clearly lays that out, referring to the relevant sections of the updated Geneva Conventions (1977).

There is also a broader definition of "civilian" used in the context of US police and fire departments which calls those who aren't police or firefighters civilians. There is no question that this usage exists, but it is a different usage, which shouldn't be confused with usage under international law. This usage even exists in some formal settings, for example, "civilian review boards". The article clearly needs to cover this meaning as well.

I tried to make this distinction clearer in the lead, but has reverted my efforts. What would be a better way to make this distinction clear?

XXzoomamiXX has also restored to the article a reference to an online article by Lance Peeples, "Warfighting for Firefighters", which uses the metaphor of firefighting as a war against fire. The article does not use the word "civilian" even once. What exactly is the relevance of that article? President Johnson also called legislation intended to reduce poverty the "War on poverty", but that surely doesn't mean that we should now call social workers and Head Start teachers "combatants". They're metaphors.

XXzoomamiXX also claims that criminals are not considered civilians, supposedly on the basis of a book 400 Things Cops Know. I could not find such a passage in that book. --Macrakis (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * International law is already mentioned in the second paragraph of the intro since we have two different definitions in peacetime and wartime circumstances. You're using the international law as a basis that actually covered armed conflicts, when we're talking about definition in general to avoid confusion between the two things. You have no international law that specifically covers the definition of a civilian in peacetime. That's why I revert your edits as I see your argument as extremely one-sided and outdated. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 23:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I am trying to clarify the two definitions. What is your proposal for clarifying the difference? The current text mixes them up. I don't know what you mean by "one-sided" and even less what you mean by "outdated". The meaning in international law has not changed recently.
 * The definition of non-civilians as "persons whose duties involve risking their lives to protect the public at large from hazardous situations such as terrorism, riots, conflagrations, and war" does not appear to be sourced reliably. The Plantinga one doesn't say that, and the Peeples one doesn't mention civilians at all.
 * There is also no basis for the claim that criminals are not civilians. The cited source doesn't say that. In fact, making that distinction probably contradicts the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Criminals have rights like everyone else, and it is bizarre to suggest that they are not civilians. --Macrakis (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You're giving yourself way too much benefit of a doubt that no doubt it sounds rather arrogant. Your argument revolves mainly about the international definition of a civilian, which you largely ignore again and again it only applies to armed conflicts (whether international or internal). The fact you try to place "armed forces" in one sentence, then "cops" and "firefighters" in the next shows you're emphazing the first one and the other two being less important, reinforcing of what many considered to be same one that borrows from the definitions contained in laws of war convention. I'm trying to make sure all three occupations (soldier, cop, and firefighter) have equal status by being next together rather than seperate sentences in terms of general, and your recent edits have proven the opposite of what this definition is supposed to be about. There's already two intro paragraphs that covers both issues (both general and laws of war/international law perspective), especially since many newspaper and media publication have already distguished between civilians, cops, and firefighters. If you want to think civilians only apply to armed forces, fine, but don't change the current definition that resolves the ambiguity as such. Let readers decide for themselves what their opinions/feelings are. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 02:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The core problem is that the article is exclusively about military / combat usage of the term, yet the lead contains a somewhat out-of-the-blue paragraph about the dictionary definition or casual usage. I feel the best way to resolve the issue is to remove that paragraph per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY; if the body only discusses military usage then the lead should as well. But at the very least it shouldn't be the first paragraph, since that fails to accurately summarize the article and gives a distorted perception of its contents (ie. people reading that paragraph could come away with the mistaken perception that it is related to other parts of the article, which it is not; it is a self-contained aside, mentioning a secondary definition of the term that the rest of the article does not reflect.) EDIT:  Also, the cites to 400 Things Cops Know: Street-Smart Lessons from a Veteran Patrolman failed verification - I dug up the book and none of the material cited to it seems to be present.  The word "civilian" appears only three times in the entire book, each time only in passing, and none support the material cited here.  Even if it did contain the relevant material it seems like a plainly low-quality source (it's a pop-culture "ain't it cool" sort of book, not a reputable reference work or anything like that), but at a quick search it doesn't even contain anything remotely reflecting the material cited to it. --Aquillion (talk) 14:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , since you didn't respond to this section. Per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, the lead of an article must reflect its body, and the body of this article is solely about the usage of the term in warfare; it is inappropriate to drop a WP:DICDEF in the first sentence of the lead that is not reflective of the focus of the rest of the article.  I have no objection to leaving a sentence noting the dictionary definitions in at the end of the lead as a compromise, but it is inappropriate to start with those when the rest of the article is about a different topic. Note that I am not saying (as you suggested below) that police are necessarily civilians (or not) in the peacetime world; the point is that the article, aside from the bit you added to the lead, is entirely about the legal definition in warfare, so the lead must reflect that, ie. we must swap the definitions to put the legal one first. Note that the version I edited carefully stated it was talking about the formal definition under international humanitarian law; it is just that that needs to be the primary focus of the lead, since that is the primary focus of the body. I will note, in passing, that the version you prefer does not appear to be a compromise as you claimed below, nor does it seem to have ever had a consensus supporting it - looking over the article's history, I see numerous people objecting to it and only you supporting it. --Aquillion (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Protection
I have locked the page because of the edit warring. Count yourselves lucky that you weren't blocked for WP:EW. You both kept saying "take it to the talk page" but neither of you did. Now is the time to actually talk. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Definition
The definition of civilian as excluding police, fire fighters, etc., appears to be a culturally specific one. The US often uses the term this way. Do other countries? Unless there's evidence that the usage is more or less universal, there ought to be a qualifier that the usage is common in certain countries.

Also, there ought to be references to any legal basis for the usage, if such exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.54.48.20 (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * It's more of a colloquialism I believe, and extremely context-specific. I'm not aware of any legal basis for a grey area between military/civilian. That being said, reference to "common usage" is not entirely unwarranted - dictionaries will cheerfully admit that they do not control language, merely it's usage - and they will routinely update definitions for words that change. However, I do agree the opening paragraph of this article is wide of the mark and seems to be very regionally specific.


 * In the UK it is common to refer to "Civilian Staff" in the context of administrators and other non-uniformed employees of Police forces - i.e. not warranted Constables/Officers. However, nobody would actually try and argue that the Police (or indeed Fire Service) are anything other than civilian agencies. Police Officers are still civilians and use the phrase "member of the public" in preference to "civilian" when referring to someone who is not Police. At public events such as Remembrance Day the military will parades alongside "the other uniformed services". The Oxford English Dictionary offers the more restrictive definition of b. A person who is not professionally employed in the armed forces; a non-military person. (alas, paywalled).


 * This interpretation is supported by US Federal law which I believe defines a civilian as anyone not subject to UCMJ - which would include any Police or Firefighter who was not a reservist or otherwise attached to the military. This further undermines the current paragraph, which has been defended on the basis of "common usage, never mind about international law". I'm afraid domestic US law also supports the "anyone who isn't military" definition.


 * I have a strong opinion on this since in the UK of course, Police are notionally bound to Peelian Principles, under which police officers are regarded as citizens in uniform:


 * 7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.


 * This model is not followed globally. Nonetheless, there is almost always a clear demarcation between Police and Military Hemmers (talk) 11:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Cops are civilans
Cpflieger, you are correct. Police officers are civilians. They like to pretend they are military and call people civilians but they are civilians themselves, which is why one of them probably included them in the first sentence of the article, which I will promptly remove as they aren't military. - A VET — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.35.68.130 (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * | Like it or not, most definitions of civilian strongly disagrees with you. You are entitled to your opinion, but not by the facts. Just because you're a vet doesn't mean you can rewrite anything simply because you want. There are plenty of reason as to why this kind of seperation happens. In a general context, the people whom the police are supposed to protect and serve are civilians. Similiarly, people who are worked in police departments, but not sworn as police officers, are also civilians. Police often make that seperation as to distiguish between law-abiding citizens and those who are dedicated criminals. Police have the power to use deadly force, to make arrest, conduct investigation, or conduct raids that private citizens don't have the power to do. Please don't do that again without any full proof/evidence. Personal feelings has no place in Wikipedia articles at all. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Citing a dictionary is poor support for an argument about the meaning of a word. Dictionaries exist to help a reader understand what an author was trying to say, regardless of whether the author used a word correctly. The listing in a dictionary's monograph of policemen and firemen as other-than-civilian classes of people simply means that you might encounter an author who uses the word "civilian" that way. Legally and practically speaking, police are civilians. I appreciate that a single, commonly understood noun or adjective is a convenient way to indicate someone's status. Someone should come up with something less clunky than non-police or non-sworn police and yet less inaccurate than "civilian" to describe those us us that don't have a badge or a gun and yet are not in the military. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.128.4.5 (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, cops are civilians. Only when "Off-Duty". While "On-Duty" they are "Sworn Officers" and they no longer are civilians, the uniform, badge, and the ability to carry firearms makes them NOT Civilians anymore. When they are Off-Duty, they are civilians like everyone else obeying every traffic law and regulations just like everyone else. This includes judges and military ranks, you do not have to call them "Your Honor" if you see them in the local supermarket, or do a "military salute" to a general in civilian clothing.Neoking (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Off duty cops are still part of the cop family, as much as on-duty cops. As long they are still employed by law enforcement, they are no longer civilians, regardless of being on duty or not. If an off-duty cop gets killed, he's classified as "officer down". XXzoonamiXX (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Police officers are civilians whether on- or off- duty. When going on duty they are granted special powers just as a doctor is entitled to prescribe controlled drugs in the course of their work. They are nonetheless bound by civil (and only civil) law, not Military Discipline nor any intermediate law. If (for example) they shoot someone without clear justification then they will be convicted of murder just like any other member of the public. Police officers may get a slight "credit" in court due to their specialist training but in most nations are fundamentally bound by the exact same laws as the rest of the public. It should be made clearer in the opening paragraph that Police are a civilian agency and Police officers are civilians (in domestic law, not just international law). The idea that "off duty cops are part of the cop family" encapsulates much of what is wrong with Policing in the USA. An off-duty cop is a member of the public. They have no warranted powers of arrest other than normal "citizen's arrest". They have none of the powers that are entitled to wield when in uniform. They are civilian through and through.

Cops are legally civilians, although it is common and convenient for police to refer to members of the public as civilians, aping military usage. I think we need to make this clear. International law, as exemplified by the Geneva Conventions, essentially defines civilians as those who are not part of armed forces or militias. Military police are not civilians and when captured are treated as prisoners of war. Non-military police are civilians and not entitled to such protections. --Pete (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed first paragraph
More or less the entire Talk page is devoted to the opening of this article. The current opening is being guarded by a single user despite significant dispute. I invite discussion and a straw-poll on the following:

"A civilian is a person who is not employed in the armed forces or subject to military law.  In the United States, civilian is sometimes used to refer to individuals not part of the police or a fire department.'  This use distinguishes sworn officers from police support staff ('civilian staff'), but does not affect their legal status as civilians.

Retain current paragraph on IHL"

I believe this offers a reasonable compromise to all parties. The first sentence lays down a good and legal definition with a dictionary citation, two references to domestic law and one to IHL. The second sentence notes the regional use of 'civilian' by some police forces. It is not appropriate to use that definition as the leading sentence since this is en.wikipedia, not us.wikipedia and the use of 'civilian' is far stricter in many nations. The citation to "400 things" is omitted since it does not support the statement it was attached to.

Hemmers (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I basically agree, though I think "military justice" might be clearer than "military law", which risks being confused with martial law.
 * As far as I can tell, User:XXzoonamiXX is the only one who disagrees on this talk page or in the edit history. The consensus is clear, and if XXzoonamiXX continues to ignore this consensus and beat a dead horse, we should report them for Disruptive editing. --Macrakis (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback. Yes, military justice or possibly "service law" (to use the UK term) might avoid possible misreading as "martial law".
 * Thanks for your feedback. Yes, military justice or possibly "service law" (to use the UK term) might avoid possible misreading as "martial law".


 * International humanitarian law in both arguments and Wikipedia references for the leading sentence that seems to say things without any explicit reference to war only applies to armed conflicts not time in peace. That's already covered in the second paragraph, so why bother creating two paragraphs of the same definition when the definition of a civilian is viewed differently in peacetime than it is for wartime? There's nothing in international law in general as to the definition of a civilian in time of peace. There's no international convention definition of a civilian in peacetime like say, torture. If the Geneva Conventions say that you can't torture in war, but there's no convention in general that says you can't torture in peace, then it's a flawed argument to apply the Geneva Conventions or any other IHL to the LAPD torture in normal suspects in the city of Los Angeles while in court. Would any sane person apply the Geneva Conventions in that kind of circumstance? The UN Convention against Torture had to be written to address the issue so states are required to prohibit torture in both peacetime and wartime. Saying the definition of a civilian should apply automatically to police and firemen just because IHL (which only applies to time of armed conflicts) says so is so flawed that it's no way to be taken seriously. The reason for this differentiation because the definition of a civilian in peacetime is very different than armed conflict, and has no legal terms except when it comes to military context. The leading paragraph I had to make in the first place had to differentiate the definition of a civilian in time of peace and war since they're both viewed very differently because not only police and firefighters differentiate themselves from civilians, but even the mass media uses such differentiation as well. I don't think you can ignore that, and such such differentiation in this article had to be made clear to the users as to why. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there a clear source for this we can use? The above sounds a bit convoluted to me, and I like to think that I've got more years and knowledge than the average high school student using Wikipedia. --Pete (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What's so convulting about this argument? That IHL only applies in time of armed conflict and not time of peace and thereby definitions can apply differently in regards to war and peacetime? Also, calling me an average high school student when you have no legitimate counter-argument is ad-hominem considering I'm a bit older than a high school student and have not use any insults. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you missed a couple of points. We're writing an encyclopaedia and our audience includes high school students. Anybody seeking knowledge, but you got to agree that students are a prime audience for us. And if we say something in Wikivoice, we really need to have a source saying that, otherwise we are engaging in synthesis by either connecting the dots to come up with something that no reliable source said directly, or worse, asking our readers to draw their own conclusions. If we say something and we don't have a good source for it but instead have to cobble together a bunch of stuff then we're not doing our job as editors. So, do you have a source? --Pete (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * My point is you trying to say you got more years and knowledge than the average high school student using Wikipedia when it's clear what the statement when talking to me is insulting to one's character even in disagreement. And I know what IHL really means, it's not that complicated to know that trying to apply the definition to peacetime as well is not appropriate nor legally binding to peacetime, and I pointed other examples of why this was a bad idea. You got the source, but there's a strict application to what the definition of a certain person actually in a specific kind of circumstance rather than apply broadly. That's why using IHL as the first-header reference is seriously flawed and is not applicable when the current second paragraph already coveres it. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, okay, whatever. I'm just asking if there's a reliable source for what you want Wikipedia to say. --Pete (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A reliable source that strictly applies broadly when talking about that rather than a specific circumstance like IHL. And we got a bunch of legal definitions that civilians excludes police and firefighters that most mass media definitively uses to distinguish those who risk their lives that non-sworn personnel don't have to deal with. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Nobody is suggesting that IHL applies during times of peace, and I'm very confused as to what relevance the hypotheticals about LAPD and Los Angeles courts have. They border on straw man. However, in times of peace domestic law in most nations supports a definition compatible with IHL - you're either military or civilian and unless a Police officer is also a military reservist, then they're civilian. QED. Examples include the USMCJ (in the US); Armed Forces Act (in the UK) or indeed the German Federal Constitution, which forbids the active deployment of military troops in Germany during peace time - so German Police are definitely civilian (this of course caused all sorts of issues in 1972 during the Munich Massacre because they couldn't request SF intervention as UK Police did when the SAS ended the Iranian Embassy siege). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemmers (talk • contribs) Revision as of 11:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * That looks good to me, yes. It covers the variety of ways the term is used according to the sources without being too strident about any one definition. --Aquillion (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Trim further to reduce the "non-cop" usage. WP:Lede says "As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources."If it barely appears in the body of the article, it certainly shouldn't dominate the lede. Civilians are non-military, and therefore police are civilians. It may be popular with police to portray themselves as members of the military in some battle against defined sectors of the community, or even to equate themselves with emergency services such as firefighters, but the reality differs. --Pete (talk) 19:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I was invited to take part here by user:Hemmers. My last edit to this page was Revision as of 13:43, 8 September 2015. It put in place a definition based on International Law (basically what is now the second paragraph). My change to the lead was altered by user:XXzoonamiXX with Revision as of 20:57, 21 October 2015 to what is now basically the first paragraph.


 * The proposed wording is an improvement on the current wording which seems close to user:XXzoonamiXX preferred wording. However the second sentence falls foul of WP:GLOBAL (see also Template:Globalize) and would need Template:Globalize-inline at the end of that sentence! The problem is that Wikipedia is not Wiktionary and as such American usage ought not to be in the first paragraph of the lead. Also it does not cover the interesting issue of what is the status under different jurisdictions of different types of police. In Britain and in the rest Angloshpere much emphasis is placed on the police being civilians (One rule by the Christmas banning Major-Generals was enough for all time!), but in other jurisdictions there can be different types of police who are often called "paramilitary police" (see Gendarmerie)" are they civilians? There is also the case of coast guards and border guards what is their legal status in different countries?


 * As the lead is supposed to be a summary of the text there should be no need for any citations in the lead. Therefore I would suggest that all the facts in the lead are moved down into the following sections and that the lead consists sentences summing up the content of each major section. For example the first sentence laying out the IHL and then a second on colloquial usage.


 * To aid with this summary style: make "Colloquial Usage" a full section not a subsection. Move the proposed second sentence (for the US) down into "Colloquial Usage". Rename the "Legal usage in war" to "International humanitarian law". Move the current large IHL paragraph down into the renamed section "International humanitarian law". It can then be merged into the text in that section. Now that the lead is empty, write a summary of the article in the lead. Start with IHL but as summary of the content of the section, and then a summary of the "Colloquial Usage"/"peace time usage". Then a brief mention of the other sections. All this follows the advise in WP:LEAD and should result in no need for citations in the lead. For example the proposed first sentence (at the start of this talk section) as a summary of the current content does not need any citations.


 * If there is enough information to support it and enough differences in different countries, then create a section on "paramilitary police" (Gendarmerie). If not then add mention of this type of force to either "Colloquial Usage" or "International humanitarian law" which ever is more appropriate. Either way then  mention  of these forces and their legal status can be added to the lead. PBS (talk) 22:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for your feedback user:PBS. Fair point that US usage should not be leading per Globalize. I was trying to be a little accommodating to user:XXzoonamiXX and not too strident in my definition since wikipedia is not a dictionary and there are colloquial uses. I wonder if there is a better way of wording this since it is the case that Police forces elsewhere (notably the UK) use the phrase "Civilian staff". But they are not trying to pretend that Police aren't civilians, just differentiating warranted constables from support staff. There aren't the cultural issues that seem to plague the US. Or perhaps it is better to have a one-sentence lead and leave all discussion of regional usage and IHL for the article body.
 * Gendarmerie are fairly straightforward - a military force tasked with domestic law enforcement (usually higher risk tasks like organised crime, drug smuggling, people trafficking, etc). In France and Italy they are managed by the Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Armed Forces respectively. They are definitely not civilians. The French Gendarmerie sit alongside the Police Nationale who are civilian, as Italy's Carabinieri sit alongside the civilian Polizia di Stato. I feel pretty comfortable saying "Police are civilians", but gendarmerie type groups are a legitimate source of confusion who deserve a line of explanation since they're military working in the civilian realm. Coast and border guards are also an interesting one but to some extent not relevant as nobody is trying to define them one way or the other in the article. If in a given nation a coastguard is attached to the Navy or the armed force then by definition it's not civilian. If not military-attached then it is civilian. The issue at hand is really the more basic definition of "civilian" and claiming police and firefighters to be something they are not. Hemmers (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I used the paramilitary police force as an example to try to explain to doubters that there is a separation of the concept of civilian and military police in many countries which helps to clarify what are and are not civilians (thanks to the Rule of the Major Generals the Anglosphere countries do not make this distinction). However with boader guards and cost guards the Anglosphere differ. For example in Britain the Border Force is "law enforcement command within the Home Office". While the Her Majesty's Coastguard (under the secretary of state for transport!!) is according to the Wikipedia article "not a military force nor law enforcement agency, with coastal defence being the responsibility of the Royal Navy, law enforcement being the responsibility of the local territorial police force" while in the United States Coast Guard "is the maritime security, search and rescue, and law enforcement service branch of the United States Armed Forces". This neatly highlights the difference which if mention in the body of the article would help clarify the difference between the formal (IHL) and informal (colloquial) use of the term civilian in the lead. -- PBS (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've updated the lead to reflect the clear consensus here. No doubt it can be improved further, but I see no reason to leave the previous tendentious version up any longer. --Macrakis (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Gonna have to remove this statement that "A civilian is a person who is not......subject to military justice". Very inaccurate. https://www.lawsuitlegal.com/military-law/can-civilians-be-tried-in-military-court.php and https://www.justia.com/military-law/ XXzoonamiXX (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. The first sentence is fine. I'm not sure about the second."In the United States, a civilian is sometimes considered a person who is not a uniformed agent of a police or a fire department."I'd put it the other way about. "In the United States, uniformed agents of a police or a fire department often refer to members of the public as civilians." This is because it is generally the police themselves choosing language which inflates their role, as if they were members of the armed forces who are generally extremely well-regarded in the USA, whereas police per se, not so much. --Pete (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. You could have gone ahead and edited the article... I'll do so now. --Macrakis (talk) 23:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not that police and firemen think themselves as members of the armed forces, their occupation involves risk that no average person would willing to ensure. Both occupations involves protecting the general population at risk when dangers threatens them in the public, like preventing crime and fire that threatens life and property because they're trained that kind of job. It isn't just police and firemen referring themselves that way, mass media even refers the differentiation between police and civilians among a couple of example links here. So the idea that police and firefighters themselves and only themselves referring to members of the public as civilians is not entirely accurate. Still needs to have the first leading paragraph and the Colloquial Usage section tweaked. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 02:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Until the 1980 the death rate among colaminers in Britain was far higher than policemen. Did that mean that in Britain proir to the clousure of the mines police were civilians while coalminers were not? The lead has hadly changed. It is still making the same claims with footnotes attached and it still contains the parochial sentence. I suggest that the first thing to do is expand the body of the article and then summarise it in the lead without footnotes. That expansion will allow for the creation of the lead I am proposing. -- PBS (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I did a search on police and civilian on sites ending "uk" the first none goverment site (which were about civilians in the police force) was an article in the Mail on Sunday by Peter Hitchens who blogs:
 * food for thought, because the secondary usage in the lead may have WP:POV issues. -- PBS (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about a number of deaths because certain occupations themselves are dangerous, but there's no organization that is devoted to to protecting the general population like police and firefighters are. Their duties and responsibilities are also greatly important in the matter certain occupation deaths like the ones involving coal miners and nuclear workers are specifically limited to their own line of work and does not involve everyday risk to the general population. Also, Hitchen's article is an opinion piece and Daily Mail is always blacklisted here on Wikipedia. None of this changed the fact the term excluding police and firefighters is widely used colloquially and most definitions online does exclude police and firefighters from falling under the civilian definition. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 10:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You bought up risk (which I quoted in green) as a issue, I was pointing out that is not a factor because there are other jobs with high occupational health hazards. "". NHS and the NHS staff, see the British newspaper articles on "clapping for the NHS"; and on the 5 July 2021, the Queen awarded the NHS the George Cross the highest British award for civilian gallantry and only third collective award (the people of Malta (1942) and the Royal Ulster Constabulary (1999) are the others). -- PBS (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see what the risks taken by police and firefighters have to do with the term "civilian". Crossing guards also take everyday risk in order to protect others -- in fact, their occupational death rate is apparently somewhat higher than that of police.
 * The word "civilian" is also used informally to mean "layman" or "non-member of a given profession" in other cases as well. See OED definition A4c. Some examples:
 * Show gals are smarter and keener than most 'civilians'.
 * The listening public—civilians, we call them—its composers, critics and conductors are indeed fortunate that so many excellent instrumentalists spend so much time practicing and producing music.
 * When you're a football player, you're a football player, not a civilian.
 * meaningful to both scientists and civilians
 * --Macrakis (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Police and firefighters protect societies. Coal miners and other occupations you listed improve certain sectors of societies not protecting them especially as a whole. Take away coal miners and other occupation hazards you listed and societies as a whole won't feel a thing physically and would likely stay the same. Take away law enforcement officers and firefighters, and do you think taking away these occupations are exactly the same as taking away coal miners and other occupations you listed in terms of societal impact as a whole? There's a reason why police and firefighters shows up when it comes to definitions of civilian, as well as the mass media, which is why listing other occupation hazards the same vein as police and firefighters are flawed and not comparable in terms of responsibilities. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Police and firefighters protect societies. Coal miners and other occupations you listed improve certain sectors of societies not protecting them especially as a whole. Take away coal miners and other occupation hazards you listed and societies as a whole won't feel a thing physically and would likely stay the same. Take away law enforcement officers and firefighters, and do you think taking away these occupations are exactly the same as taking away coal miners and other occupations you listed in terms of societal impact as a whole? There's a reason why police and firefighters shows up when it comes to definitions of civilian, as well as the mass media, which is why listing other occupation hazards the same vein as police and firefighters are flawed and not comparable in terms of responsibilities. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I never mentioned coal miners. But that's irrelevant. "Civilian" means "non-military", not "working in a dangerous occupation protecting society".
 * I also pointed out that "civilian" as an informal way of talking about non-professionals, lay people, or outsiders has been used for many other professions, including show girls, musicians, football players, and scientists... and police officers. --Macrakis (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thew New York City Police Department (largest in USA) makes a sharp distinction -- it ALSO has civilian employees in addition to its officers: "NYPD civilian employees play a vital role in supporting uniformed members of the service in reducing crime and keeping New Yorkers and visitors safe. Civilian employees perform a variety of exciting and diverse jobs." from https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/careers/civilians/civilians-landing.page Rjensen (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand that. The word "civilian" is ambiguous. The primary meaning is non-military, but it has been applied to other "lay people", including non-show girls, non-musicians, non-football players, non-scientists... and non-police. That's a natural sense extension, but makes it hard to distinguish between "civilian police" (i.e. civil servants working for cities, states, etc.; not military police) and "employees of police departments who are not sworn uniformed officers". Another amusing permutation is the Department of the Army Civilian Police, who are civil servants and not military personnel. --Macrakis (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

There are two meanings of the word, it seems. The primary longstanding meaning of "those who are not members of the military" and a more recent arrival of "those who are not of our kind"; the "muggle" sense of the word. The second is definitely a minor sense, but it should be mentioned for NPOV purposes regardless of what we might think of a bunch of silly constables imagining themselves to be equivalent to the military. --Pete (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The widespread informal way of who is not a civilian is always been referred to police and firefighters and have been for a long time. There's not a lot of professions I know that constantly use the distinction like police and fire departments. You can think that civilian always means non-military, but the widespread informal use in regards police and firefighters are very common not just among police and fire departments, but also mass media as well (as demonstrated by my recent links). XXzoonamiXX (talk) 21:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * American police departments. We're looking at a broader picture here. I accept the usage you champion but it is a minor and local one. And it is one that can only be used in that sense by civilian police forces. Obviously military police regard members of the public as civilians under the primary definition of the term. --Pete (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact is there's widespread informal usage doesn't mean it's minor and local and should not be downplayed. There's also no proof that only American police officers refer to themselves as non-civilians. Here's the RCMP Civilian Employee page, London Police Civilian Page, National Police (Japan) civilian one, and Belfast one and even France24 article that also references the distinction, among many others. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Um, the London you mention is in Ontario, and the Belfast you mention is in Maine, so both North American, like the RCMP. Articles translated from Japanese and French aren't great evidence for English usage.
 * On the other hand, I disagree with the notion that this is a "minor" usage. For better or worse, it seems to be fairly common in North America. The phrasing "civilian (police) review/oversight board" seems to be more common than community/independent/citizen. (see Civilian oversight) But it's important to distinguish this meaning from the "non-military" meaning.
 * The terminology is just a mess. Besides "civilian" meaning "non-police officers", it is also used in the phrase "civilian police" to distinguish ordinary municipal/state police from military police. Even the military uses that phrase!
 * The best we can do is to be clear about the different meanings and not fall into the trap of false syllogisms like "a policeman is not a civilian; those who are not civilians are military; therefore the police are military" -- which confuses two quite distinct meanings of the term. --Macrakis (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * He brought up the idea that only American police officers refers themselves as non-civilians. I simply put out the fact that's not the case at all. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't qualify it as only American. Your sources for non-American aren't great. The police here in Australia don't use "civilian" to mean "non-police", at least not in any public communications, though they may do so informally. And definitely a minor or secondary use compared to the primary meaning of "non-military". --Pete (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you did, you specifically singled out "American" and I point out other cases that it's not. If you don't really mean that, then you should have been clear about that at the beginning earlier to me. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I most certainly did not. Your perception is wrong and your input here is disruptive. --Pete (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "American police departments. We're talking about a broader picture here." are the main sentences you use. You clearly singled one country out, I point out the others that it's clear as crystal as day and you're attempting to argue you way out that you did not. And if you think Australian police and media doesn't use the distinction at all, then you're wrong., , , , . XXzoonamiXX (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If you can please be so good as to point out exactly where I said "only" as you have claimed…? Your sources above come from police, not any general usage. The only non-police source there is from a researcher talking about the growing militarisation of Australian police, in line with the American experience of police at war with citizens. It is not an inappropriate usage in that context. --Pete (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Your direct arguments and words do matter and are a clear communications of what you mean, even if you don't think it is like/meant it. My point is you can argue what you like, but you have no reliable sources to collaborate with your claims, which is why it's hard for me to take you seriously. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I think we need to tease out the difference between use of civilian as in and "civilian employees" (or "civilian staff") of a police force and the use of civilian when referring to a "member of the [general] public". See for example this snipit from The Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2012 (on the www.legislation.gov.uk website):

-- PBS (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

All this time, I thought there were just two types of police. A) Military Police & B) Police. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I think it's been established pretty clearly that "civilian" is used to mean "people who are not police officers" fairly commonly in North America. In particular, there are lots of RS (not yet in the article) about "civilian review boards" and so on, meaning organizations composed of non-police who review the policies and actions of police.
 * It is also quite clear that the North American police forces we are talking about are all civilian police, as opposed to military police. In particular, even though the RCMP is called the gendarmerie royale in French, it is a civilian organization, unlike the gendarmeries in many other countries, which are branches of the military with civilian law enforcement duties. (Though the Swiss Gendarmerie is also civilian.)
 * So there are really two topics here: civilians as non-military, and civilians as non-police (both in the sense of non-uniformed members of police departments and in the sense of the general public). Given that WP is not a dictionary, and that these are two quite distinct meanings with no overlap, they need two articles: Civilian and Civilian (non-police), where that second article would start off with the Civilian content. There would of course be a dab note. The more general sense of civilians as laypeople/muggles isn't really an encyclopedic topic, just a dictionary definition, and doesn't need an article. --Macrakis (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "I think it's been established pretty clearly that "civilian" is used to mean "people who are not police officers" fairly commonly in North America." Yes, and we show that as a secondary meaning. See WP:LEDE for guidance as to how much weight we should give this meaning in the opening paragraph. --Pete (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would disagree that we require two articles. Based on Wikipedia is not a dictionary, I think there's a limited case for such a granular breakdown. It is quite sufficient to state within the article that civilian has a specific legal meaning as well as a common/colloquial usage, particularly since it is important to illustrate that the colloquial usage has no legal implication and Police do not inhabit some middle ground of being not-civilian but also not-military. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemmers (talk • contribs) Revision as of 11:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

400 Things Cops Know
This text was cited for two statements that I couldn't find any support for in the text. For reference, it was used to cite: ...and... As mentioned above, I think it's a low-quality source regardless; it's a set of personal musings from a lifetime on the force - WP:RSOPINION for the opinions of one particular cop at best, not appropriate to cite for statements of fact - but it doesn't seem to support these two cited statements at all. The only uses of the word 'civilian' in the book are as follows: None of these support the statements that were cited above. I've removed them until / unless someone can find a specific quote in that book that supports them, or, more ideally, another source. (Also, I note that someone above pointed out this issue, but the mistaken citations somehow got restored to the article?) --Aquillion (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This use distinguishes from persons whose duties involve risking their lives to protect the public at large from hazardous situations such as terrorism, riots, conflagrations, and wars.
 * Criminals are also excluded from the category, as members of the public, politicians, and the media want to distinguish between those who are law-abiding and those who are not.
 * But fully automatic weapons are illegal in more states than not, and federal law prohibits all civilians from owning machine guns manufactured after 1986.
 * When someone dials 911 in the city, they typically reach a civilian telecommunicator who then relays the call to the police dispatcher.
 * You do see some things out there that make you still believe in people. Like the four-year-old girl who shyly hands you a Little Mermaid Valentine’s Day card at the gentle urging of her mother. A civilian risking his own life to help rescue a motorist from a burning vehicle.
 * , please see the above, since I noticed you restored the text without responding here. The cited text (as far as I can tell) contains nothing to support the material you're trying to cite to it, nor anything that could reasonably be construed as supporting it.  If I overlooked something, or if you disagree, go ahead and point me to what part of it supports the stuff you added to the article. EDIT:  as well, since they were the one who first pointed out the problem with citation, and this is something that definitely needs to be resolved.  We can't cite a major chunk of the lead to a source that fails to support the text it's citing. --Aquillion (talk) 09:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You need to cite actual proof that supports your actual definition that police and firemen are civilians in a peacetime world. The media commonly notes the differentiation between civilians and policemen/firemen. Policemen, firemen, and military are never referred to by the media in general as civilians except those in the military and in the context of war. The current text is a compromise and in spite of this, you still clutch to the strictly military motion instead of somewhat a general term as shown by the media and politicians. That's not enough reason to remove the entire context and dismiss them as second-rate arguments. The current context is to differentiate between the two worlds, which is a compromise enough. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not the point of this section (I'm focusing on one very specific thing here.) What part of the book 400 Things Cops Know supports the precise statements that This use distinguishes from persons whose duties involve risking their lives to protect the public at large from hazardous situations such as terrorism, riots, conflagrations, and wars and Criminals are also excluded from the category, as members of the public, politicians, and the media want to distinguish between those who are law-abiding and those who are not?  I could find nothing about those things in that book. Do you believe that that citation actually supports those claims?  If so, what part of it?  I have it in front of me now and can easily find whatever part you believe supports those statements, but if you cannot find a valid citation then they will have to be removed. The other parts of this long-running dispute will probably require an WP:RFC to resolve, but this part is clear-cut - everything in the article must have a valid citation, and 400 Things Cops Know flatly does  not seem to support the material you are trying to cite to it. --Aquillion (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Even that is true (and maybe you're right about that one problem), just blanket removing the entire leading statement that has properly cited sources (including the definitions from other sites)is not a constructive way to go, especially to the definitions provided, and you have provided no proof/evidence whatsoever that police and firemen are strictly civilians and nothing else except those in the military and in the context of war. The current one is a general that is attempts to differentiate between the civilian in a non-military world and a military/wartime context with their own variations. Your attempting to do so pretty much give away your intentions that you're using a source that you believe is wrong as an excuse. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please look at the version you reverted more closely. I left the dictionary definitions in, I merely put it second instead of first and reworded to make it clear it was talking about a dictionary definition (since that's all those sources support.)  Nothing in that version states or implies that police and firemen are strictly civilians and nothing else; it still carefully states in the first paragraph that it is talking about the legal definition, then notes the dictionary definitions in the second paragraph.  It merely puts the legal definition first, because that is the focus of the rest of the article, and is more cautious about the wording of the dictionary definitions, since the dictionary definitions don't state general use specifically. Anyway, we should at least resolve this part first, since it's more clear-cut - you agree to removing the two sentences in question (the ones I put verification failed tags on), at least, since they lack a valid citation? --Aquillion (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you still don't have any crucial evidence that police and firemen are civilians in the non-military world (except those in military/wartime context). The ones you're trying to portray looks like second-rate arguments and/or actually disputes the notion whether they should be a differentiation between people who are not police/firemen/military and people who are in these respective professions, which gives readers an indication police and firemen are absolutely civilians in a non-military world in that kind of disputed version. I kinda get what you're going at, but it's absolutely going wrong all the way. I know what the definitions in the sources are too, that doesn't mean you should dismiss the definition of a civilian not to include police and firemen. The common notion that police and firemen are "civilians" are not universal as some others note their professions of risking their lives that no other non-military person in a non-military world can do. For decades, the media has always said that people not police/firemen/military in general/colloquial terms are civilian, and it doesn't hurt anyone to notice the differentiation and see media reports online of such differentiation. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Webster Unabridged Dictionary: "Civilian" = a) : a resident of a country who is not on active duty in one of the armed services b) : a resident not an active member of a police or fire-fighting force organized with ranks like military ranks. Rjensen (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Unless you're in the armed forces, you're a civilian. Period. It is common to speak of "civilian law enforcement", as opposed to military law enforcement. Police may enjoy protections that ordinary citizens do not, but they're still tried in civilian courts. WP Ludicer (talk) 13:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Wrong Etymology
The word civilian dates back to Latin spoken in ancient Rome from the word 'Civitas' meaning citizen. It doesn't derive from Old French. That portion on etymology needs to be changed Warlightyahoo (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2021

Lead
Wikipedia has a policy document for article leads, called WP:LEDE. It is worth studying, especially in light of those who wish to ignore it and do their own thing without supplying any good reason."Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.""According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article."The lead is essentially a summary of the article. The body of the article is where all the heavy lifting is done, where good reliable sources abound, explanations are full, diagrams and maps and quotes assist in understanding, the topic is explained and illuminated at length. We don't need to cram a whole bunch of sources and stuff into the lead to support a sentence or a few words. Do it in the body and then summarise in the lead, making it as clear and simple as possible.

We accept that "civilian" has some local colloquial usage in America. It is secondary to the established "non-military" meaning of the word. We cover this and we source it. We came to a consensus in a straw-poll to mention the term in the lead with due regard for WP:LEDE and the weight given in the article body. I quote from the opening of the straw poll section:"The current opening is being guarded by a single user despite significant dispute."The dispute and the disruption continues, again, just the one user pushing their own view.

Perhaps it is time to end the disruption with some heavier metal. An RFC would be one way, or we could aim for a topic ban. It seems to me that this article is perfectly capable of being maintained by the regular editors in the regular way, i.e. according to policy rather than personal opinion. --Pete (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in the two sources (Cambridge and Merriam) that directly stated to be in a limited geographic area like you did. We have already gone over this many times that it's not only an American thing to distinction, yet time ago, you simply ignore it under the guise of consensus when something doesn't accept up. You accept that, but you offer no reliable sources to back up your assertions. Blatantly false information is still blatantly false information no matter if it's based on "consensus" or not, and you just add it just because you feel like it, not because you have a reliable source. Adding a limited geographic area as if it's a fact, for example, when the two previous sources don't directly provide anything you say, is blatantly misleading and false that one could easily see it being removed in the future. And your "consensus" is violated a few days ago when you revert back to your preferred wording that I previously reverted almost two weeks ago with the other user Carlmaster2020. You don't have anything else to back up for when I'm doing that to illustrate a point to balance the article with opposing views like yourself. It's one thing to remove a piece of information that doesn't really contribute anything, it's another to remove the entire article filled with many reliable sources and balanced viewpoints. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What on earth has all that got to do with the WP:LEDE? We're trying to write an encyclopaedia here and you seem to be doing something else. --Pete (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I know what WP:LEDE is and that's exactly what I did. For no reason, you again removed without any actual reason or any counter-source to the material you provide. You did not answer a question in regards to the "civilian" definition being limited to only America, when other sources I provided say otherwise. You haven't got that properly sourced. Your leading manual style writing in such a manner is extremely ambiguous that it's hard to define what it really is (when it's seemingly strictly based on your own image due to your recent edits), and WP:Reliable sources is still the most important thing defining Wikipedia articles, which you again have removed without a real reason. If you have any arguments, then feel free to offer a counter-source to prove your point. Otherwise, it's tantamount to WP:Vandalism (including your revert to mines a few days ago when reverting User:Carlmaster2020's work), one that can get easily get you banned and should be refrained from doing so. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You are edit-warring against consensus. You also seem to be confusing comments here on the discussion page with material in our article. Please address the points made re WP:LEDE. Here is the position. The primary meaning of Civilian - one that is well sourced and explained - is that a civilian is a person not a member of the military. The second meaning - a colloquial meaning equivalent to "muggle" in the sense of "not one of us guys" - is a person not a cop. If you have any sources for this definition, place them in the body of the article in the "Colloquial Usage" section. In the lede, the secondary meaning is given a secondary prominence in clear and concise terms. I'll restore the consensus wording - see discussion above - and you may add your sources into the body and we can discuss those, if anyone actually cares about them; the material appears adequately sourced to me already. --Pete (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "In the United States, uniformed agents of a police or fire department referred to members of the public as civilians", and yet the two previous sources you cited does NOT provide any direct collaboration to anything you say that only the U.S. says that, one of which happened to be a British source CambridgeMerriam Where does these sources directly say that he asserts? Readers/editors can easily identify the mistake and such information would be removed in the future for being blatantly false. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Where are those words coming from? I know where "only" comes from. You made it up out of your own head. Look up Strawman --Pete (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not strawman. You clearly trying to dodge the question, these sources doesn't lie, and we're talking about the authenticity of the sources that doesn't provide anything you say in the leading paragraph. You're the one inserted the limited geographic location next to these sources that don't provide anything you say then have the nerve to talk about having adequately sources. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Just answer the question, brother. You copied those words from somewhere. Where? --Pete (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I asked you a question first, you refuse to provide a direct answer as you have repeatedly done so. Answer this question again: cite me anything in the two sources that that stated that implicating in the U.S., that country made such a distinction and no where else. They have real meanings of what you're actually communicating and these sources actually made no geographical distinction at all. If you accept the fact these sources made no geographical distinction at all, this wouldn't be a problem at all. Otherwise, prove me wrong. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't cram words into my mouth. I didn't write what you quoted. You are constructing a strawman and wasting my time and that of others. --Pete (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You specifically nitpick the words in various statements in attempt to dodge the actual question I simply asked you for, then invent new arguments out of thin air like you're doing. You're violating WP:Reliable Sources by adding something that the two sources don't provide for in the leading paragraph no matter how strong your beliefs are. So answer the question that I asked you first. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Warning for those who have recently been editing this article. I have opend an edit warring notice here — PBS (talk) 20:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll hold off on any edits until the process there is concluded. --Pete (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like that has happened. XXzoonamiXX, how about you start an RfC as several experienced editors have suggested, given that you didn't like the recent straw poll results? First step should be to gain input as to how the question might be framed, because the question distinguishes a good RfC from a sucky one. A good RfC attracts wide input without canvassing and gives a result that can be accepted by those with various views. --Pete (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Look at what happened when Pete couldn't give a precise answer to the question I simply asked for, then invent new arguments out of thin air so he could make himself look good and not have to proper address the inaccuracy he caused in this talk page. He's clearly in violation of WP:Reliable Sources. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, why don't you quit griping about it here, and seek support through due wikiprocess? I didn't write the words you say I did, they don't add up to your claimed interpretation anyway, and you are being disruptive. End of discussion. --Pete (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Why don't you quit gripping about your preferred version when you're not answering a direct question? The fact you haven't done so makes it clear you want to silent others from making improvement to the current article. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 18:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I have restored the consensus wording. Please, can any changes be discussed here first? I'm in favour of well-supported wording, as per policy, and we can always work towards improving the article together. --Pete (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * None of this changes the fact the two sources cited doesn't directly address the U.S. and needs to be adequately sourced as you put it, which placed this in violation of WP:Reliable Sources. And don't use the word "consensus" ever again because you're overused it as an excuse to add false information in which the two sources don't provide. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 18:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Consensus is an important behavioral norm here on WP. You need to persuade others that you are improving the article, not just assert it. --Macrakis (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Then do so by directly answering the question I gave you for. Your arguments means nothing unless you directly address the question I gave you. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could point to specific improvements that could be made? Step by step? --Pete (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Simply Address the question involving a specific geographical location and two sources (Cambridge and Merriam) in the last leading paragraph. There's no actual consensus in this talk page for any information that sources directly doesn't provide for. The lasting leading paragraph is clearly as bright as day and the only person who could not see that is you. Even you "think" in a widespread belief way just because some others said is not a fact itself, and it seems to me you're adding such info based on such beliefs rather than having adequate sources to back them up while trying to refute others. That is not "in favour of well-supported wording, as per policy" as you put it. It's the key core of Wikipedia that reliable sources are very important and also holds weight equal or against the other depending on the variety of certain situations/sources. Also, my version is the way of balancing things for people like yourself, one distinctly military vs. civilian, and the other is informal usage, but also importantly these are backed up by reliable sources per Reliable Sources. Some of my sources aren't perfect, but these are clearly direct and are way better than the last leading paragraph. Also, you haven't completely break down what's wrong with my version, all you did is point out "this is clearly undue weight", but you haven't gotten deep into what went wrong. Undoing my entire work just because you have certain problems with my statements rather than actually pointing out my wording/sentences while claiming to support well-supported wording/sources makes it appear you're actually engaging in Vandalism while using hiding behind legitimate meaning as an excuse to cover your activities. Please heed more concerns about your fellow peers instead of pointing things out generally and not go deep into enough of what really went wrong and build a reasonable satisfactory of all parties involved. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have a specific improvement to the article in mind? Rewording? A source? I'm growing weary of your generalised griping. Happy to work with you on specific improvements but I'm not a bloody mind-reader. --Pete (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You tell me what "specific" improvement you need. You're the most person that keeps undoing other people's work because you simply didn't like the version you preferred without having to address them properly and there's no actual consensus for false information, and the current article is clearly balanced towards one's side rather than viewing them from both sides. What is wrong with this statement I provided: "In a colloquial context, the term typically refers to anyone who is not only a non-military member, but also not a sworn employee of a law enforcement agency or fire department." These are also backed up by reliable sources. The lasting leading paragraph, as I already pointed out, does not have any sources indicating specific geographical location, and is clear violation of Reliable Sources. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with the current version of the lead? then open an RFC on the matter, for more input. GoodDay (talk) 00:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)