This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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
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)
protected person. The article curruntly says
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)
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)
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 @ XXzoonamiXX: 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [1] 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)
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. [1] [2] [3] [4] In the United States, civilian is sometimes used to refer to individuals not part of the police or a fire department." [5] [6] 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
A person who is not professionally employed in the armed forces; a non-military person.
(a) The following persons are subject to this chapter: (1) Members of a regular component of the armed forces...
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)
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)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.
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)
I have been objecting for years to the stupid use of the term 'civilians' by some police officers, to describe the public. It reflects a growing and mistaken view in the police that they are a separate semi-military body, rather than - as they were intended to be - citizens in uniform. ( Police and 'Civilians' (2010)- Mail Online - Peter Hitchens)
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)
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):
- “police officer” means a member of a police force or special constable;
- “police staff member” means—
- (a) a member of the civilian staff of a police force, including the metropolitan police force, within the meaning of section 102(4) and (6) of the 2011 [Police Reform and Social Responsibility] Act;
-- 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)
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:
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.
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:
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.
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 warsand
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)
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 usespecifically. 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)
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)
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
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)
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)
As per WP:LEADCITE we should rely on the body of the article to be adequately sourced and the lede should only have direct citations for controversial or BLP material. There shouldn't be too much need for that in this article. Instead of piling more sources into and rewording the lead, perhaps we could edit the body of the article and use the lede as a summary? -- Pete ( talk) 06:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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
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)
protected person. The article curruntly says
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)
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)
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 @ XXzoonamiXX: 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [1] 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)
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. [1] [2] [3] [4] In the United States, civilian is sometimes used to refer to individuals not part of the police or a fire department." [5] [6] 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
A person who is not professionally employed in the armed forces; a non-military person.
(a) The following persons are subject to this chapter: (1) Members of a regular component of the armed forces...
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)
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)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.
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)
I have been objecting for years to the stupid use of the term 'civilians' by some police officers, to describe the public. It reflects a growing and mistaken view in the police that they are a separate semi-military body, rather than - as they were intended to be - citizens in uniform. ( Police and 'Civilians' (2010)- Mail Online - Peter Hitchens)
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)
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):
- “police officer” means a member of a police force or special constable;
- “police staff member” means—
- (a) a member of the civilian staff of a police force, including the metropolitan police force, within the meaning of section 102(4) and (6) of the 2011 [Police Reform and Social Responsibility] Act;
-- 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)
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:
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.
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:
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.
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 warsand
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)
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 usespecifically. 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)
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)
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
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)
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)
As per WP:LEADCITE we should rely on the body of the article to be adequately sourced and the lede should only have direct citations for controversial or BLP material. There shouldn't be too much need for that in this article. Instead of piling more sources into and rewording the lead, perhaps we could edit the body of the article and use the lede as a summary? -- Pete ( talk) 06:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)