are all network participants (or wallet holders here) always considered nodes?
As Andrew Chow's answer suggests, this is really a terminological question about how we define node. One way to answer this is to look at Satoshi Nakamoto's original whitepaper where Nakamoto writes:
8. Simplified Payment Verification
It is possible to verify payments without running a full network node. A user only needs to keep
a copy of the block headers of the longest proof-of-work chain, which he can get by querying
network nodes until he's convinced he has the longest chain, and obtain the Merkle branch
linking the transaction to the block it's timestamped in. He can't check the transaction for
himself, but by linking it to a place in the chain, he can see that a network node has accepted it,
and blocks added after it further confirm the network has accepted it.
(my emphasis)
So it seems to me that Nakamoto is describing a node in the way Andrew suggests - Nakamoto is saying that an SPV wallet communicates with network nodes but I think his wording strongly suggests an SPV wallet is not considered to be a network node itself.
Personally, I find it a little surprising that a computer that uses a specific protocol to communicate with other computers is not considered a node in the network of computers using that protocol. However I can see that the distinction Nakamoto makes, between a node (full network node or network node) and a simplified payment verifier, is an important one. Either way, it is probably best to adopt the terminology used by Nakamoto unless there is very good reason not to.