Talk:Non-combatant

are civilians considered "noncombatants"?

The section entitled "Civilians" (the title given by me, when I moved it from below "See also") says civilians are not "noncombatants", but the 1st paragraph says civilians are noncombatants .... Which is correct? Eagle4000 (talk) 04:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Its saying that in order to ensure you receive non-combatant status, you do not take up arms to fight. If you do take up arms and are not part of the lawful military, then you violate this provision, and have become a combatant, even though you never actually lost your "civilian" status, since you are not part of the authorized military force. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 12:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Examples Civilian Noncombatants

Can examples of Civilian Noncombatants be listed. For example is John Lennon a civilian noncombatant or is he a member of Al Qaida that needs to be shot? Is an official with a gun who failed to protect John Lennon a Civilian Noncombatant or is he a member of Al Qaida that needs to be shot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.67.17.194 (talk) 07:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Members of the American Red Cross, in the Service to the Armed Forces section, served at US military installations during the Viet Nam War, but were Civilian Noncombatants, and carried an identification card indicating this and the statement "This person is not permitted to bear arms on a field of battle." I know this because my father was with ARC in Viet Nam 1967-68, and I saw his noncombatant card. The card was issued by an NGO in Geneva, but I don't recall what that was now. Unfortunately I don't have adequate references to edit this into the main article at this time, though. (I assume this sort of arrangement held also during World War 2 and the Korean War, but I don't know that for certain, and again I have no citable reference. BSVulturis (talk) 03:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Neutral civilians

From the edit history :

• 16:53, 23 April 2014‎ XXzoonamiXX "(Neutral citizens are definitely non-combatants unless they joined with the belligerent forces.)"

Citizens of a belligerent are also non-combatants unless they joined with the belligerent forces. The differences between civilians who are nationals of a belligerent and those of a neutral exist, but not in whether they are combatants or non-combatants (For example their treatment in GCIV differs and whether they can be conscripted into the armed forces of a belligerent by be affected if they are citizens of a neutral state). So given that fact what is the difference between:

• "Non-combatant is [a] civilians who are not taking a direct part in hostilities"

and

• "citizens of neutral states who are not [taking a direct part in hostilities].

As to those who train one side in a conflict they may or may not be treated as non-combatants by the opposing side, it depends on how close their training takes them to the front lines and the state of diplomatic relations between the powers. In the case of foreign military observers, they will be treated a non-combatants if captured and not detained a POWs, but I do not think that these complexities belongs in the first paragraph of this article. -- PBS (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Group Project

Hello! I'm just giving anyone checking on this page a heads up that we will be updating and adding to this article as part of a school project. If anyone wants to discuss said changes please get in touch! Thanks in advance, Raebruno (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The grammar in the "Vietnam War" section, which you added, is so bad that it's virtually unreadable. 47.7.136.252 (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)