Jump to content

Talk:Sovereign citizen movement: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Roninmd (talk | contribs)
29 edits
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Sovereign citizen movement/Archive 3) (bot
 
(618 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject Law|class=C|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProject United States|class=Start|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Australia|importance=low|crime=yes|crime-importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Canada|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Law|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject New Zealand|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=low||American=yes |American-importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=mid|Social movements=yes}}
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low}}
}}
{{annual readership|scale=log}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo=old(90d)
| algo=old(90d)
| archive=Talk:Sovereign citizen movement/Archive %(counter)d
| archive=Talk:Sovereign citizen movement/Archive %(counter)d
| counter=2
| counter=3
| maxarchivesize=150K
| maxarchivesize=100K
| archiveheader={{tan}}
| archiveheader={{tan}}
| minthreadsleft=1
| minthreadsleft=1
| minthreadstoarchive=1
| minthreadstoarchive=1
}}
}}
{{auto archiving notice
|bot = lowercase sigmabot III
|age = 90
|small=
}}

== Neutrality ==
<small>''Originally added to an ancient stale thread and cut out verbatim to a new section by me. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy|talk]]) 17:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)''</small>

This article is very biased and is basically a list of crimes committed by some of the radical sovereign movement participants. But you don't see the same thing for [[Black Lives Matter]]. [[Special:Contributions/160.39.203.39|160.39.203.39]] ([[User talk:160.39.203.39|talk]]) 14:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

::Dear user at IP 160.39.203.39: No, the article is not biased. The article accurately and neutrally reports on the subject matter.

::What you may be picking up on is the fact that people who adhere to the "sovereign citizen" philosophy are, almost by definition, rejecting established law -- including criminal law. Obviously, those who reject the validity of criminal law are more likely to commit crimes than those who accept the validity of the law, and those who commit crimes are somewhat likely to be arrested, charged, tried, convicted, sentenced, and so on. The article reflects that reality, using reliable sources, but the article itself does not "take sides" as to who is "right" and who is "wrong." [[User:Famspear|Famspear]] ([[User talk:Famspear|talk]]) 14:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

:::'Obviously, those who reject the validity of criminal law are more likely to commit crimes than those who accept the validity of the law ...'

:::I don't accept that reasoning. Those who admit validity aren't necessarily ''law-abiding'' and those who reject, are not rendered reckless. Plus, there's the possibility that such people are prone to greater scrutiny/persecution by law enforcers. [[User:Beingsshepherd|Beingsshepherd]] ([[User talk:Beingsshepherd|talk]]) 00:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

That's not what the passage says. The passage says that "those who reject the validity of criminal law are '''more likely''' to commit crimes than those who accept the validity of the law ..." It doesn't matter whether you accept that reasoning or not. [[User:Famspear|Famspear]] ([[User talk:Famspear|talk]]) 00:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

PS: Sorry, I don't mean to be grumpy. You are correct that those who admit the validity of the law aren't necessarily law abiding, etc. The point is that I was talking about probabilities and generalities, not specific cases. People who reject the validity of criminal law are indeed '''more likely''' to commit crimes, etc. Whether a particular person who rejects the validity of criminal law will actually commit crimes is a separate issue. [[User:Famspear|Famspear]] ([[User talk:Famspear|talk]]) 01:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
:People who reject the validity of criminal law are '''more likely''' to ignore that law, which necessarily encompasses situations considered crimes under said law. Most of sovereign citizen rhetoric revolves around selling people a scheme or theory under which they are not subject to a certain law - thus creating the situation where they commit a crime, even if they are deluded enough to believe they aren't because they have filed some weird (and not actually legally valid) paperwork somewhere, or taken the license plates off their vehicle, or burned their birth certificate while spelling their name in a weird capitalization and hyphenation scheme and doing the hokey pokey... [[User:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz|Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz]] ([[User talk:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz|talk]]) 01:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

== Greatest Threats ==

'... a survey of law-enforcement officials and agencies across the United States concluded that the movement was the single greatest threat to their communities, '''ranking above Islamic terrorists and jihadists.''' '

Why give prominence to those two, or ANY other? [[User:Beingsshepherd|Beingsshepherd]] ([[User talk:Beingsshepherd|talk]]) 00:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

You would have to ask the people who participated in the survey. [[User:Famspear|Famspear]] ([[User talk:Famspear|talk]]) 00:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
:Try reading the source, Beingsshepherd. "Islamic Terrorists/Jihadists", Table 2 in the survey report, was rated the 2nd greatest threat. The notation is valid. [[User:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz|Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz]] ([[User talk:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz|talk]]) 01:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
::That's a matter of opinion, I never doubted its inclusion, I'm questioning the relevance to this article. [[User:Beingsshepherd|Beingsshepherd]] ([[User talk:Beingsshepherd|talk]]) 17:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, it's relevant to the subject of the article: the sovereign citizen movement. Law enforcement officers identify members of the movement as a greater threat to their communities than Islamic terrorists, that is a significant point, especially for Americans. [[User:Famspear|Famspear]] ([[User talk:Famspear|talk]]) 20:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

:Why? It's not at all obvious. [[User:Beingsshepherd|Beingsshepherd]] ([[User talk:Beingsshepherd|talk]]) 21:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear Beingsshepherd: Yes, it is obvious, and you see that it is obvious. I suspect that you understand the meaning of the term ''relevant''. Obviously, the threat from sovereign citizens is relevant to the subject of the article, and a comparison of the threat from those people to the threat from other groups, especially Islamic terrorists and jihadists, is also relevant to the article. You're being needlessly argumentative.

Note: If your purpose is to disagree with the conclusion of law enforcement, people, etc., about the level of the threat from the sovereign citizen movement, as cited in the article, then Wikipedia (or this talk page in particular) is not the proper place for you to do that. Further, if your purpose is to object to the fact that law enforcement people were comparing the threat from the "sovereigns" to the threat from Islamic terrorists, etc., then Wikipedia (or this talk page) is not the proper place for you to do that, either. [[User:Famspear|Famspear]] ([[User talk:Famspear|talk]]) 22:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

:I do wish that you'd answer my question.
:If this article were about the '''second''' greatest anything, then saying: "they are second only to X (the number one)" would be pertinent, standard-fare; e.g.

:' ''Worldwide, Back in Black is the second best-selling album of all time, behind only Michael Jackson's Thriller.'' ' ~
:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_in_Black#Commercial_performance

:But here, someone has seen fit to go the other way AND IN THE INTRODUCTION.
:You hint at this being '... a significant point, especially for Americans.' but seem evasive when pressed to elaborate. [[User:Beingsshepherd|Beingsshepherd]] ([[User talk:Beingsshepherd|talk]]) 22:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
::Coverage here and in the U.S. press mentions this over and over because a majority of Americans who are ''not'' in law enforcement or security reportedly believe that Islamic terrorists and jihadists are the biggest threat to the security of the U.S. and its citizens. Thus, the fact that this is not the case is important anough to make the ledes of this article, as it did the ledes of most U.S. press coverage on the topic (can't say about other countries' press, to the extent they might have even noticed this study). --[[User:Orangemike|<span style="color:#F80">Orange Mike</span>]] &#124; [[User talk:Orangemike|<span style="color:#FA0">Talk</span>]] 23:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

:::That appears to be your unsourced perception, which is not even alluded to in the article. [[User:Beingsshepherd|Beingsshepherd]] ([[User talk:Beingsshepherd|talk]]) 01:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

::::Dear Beingsshepherd: Orange Mike doesn't need a "source". He's not putting his own "perception" into the article. This is the talk page, not the article itself. He's responding your own comments on this talk page. If you don't want to hear answers, then stop asking questions.

::::By contrast, the ''article'' reference is to a survey of law enforcement, which is clearly cited in the article. It's a reliable source. If you don't like what the source is saying, that's just too bad. You have not come up with a coherent reason for objecting to the material in the article.

::::No, I don't seem "evasive" to you. You're just being argumentative. And, no, I am not "hinting" at something being a "significant point." Indeed, I am ''very clearly and directly'' making my points.

::::You, on the other hand, ''are'' being evasive.

::::Also, you are belaboring and needlessly agonizing over what is very obvious to many or most Americans. As Orange Mike noted, many Americans would be surprised to learn the results of the study mentioned in the article, as most Americans probably do view Islamic terrorists and jihadists as being the greatest current threat to Americans. Perhaps you disagree with that assessment. If so, this talk page is not the proper place to vent your feelings. [[User:Famspear|Famspear]] ([[User talk:Famspear|talk]]) 01:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
:::::I have noting to add to what Famspear and Orangemike said, but I '''100% support''' and agree with their points, in case we need to establish that there is a consensus here. [[User:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz|Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz]] ([[User talk:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz|talk]]) 02:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

My dear Famspear, Talk pages ARE the proper forum for discussing the propriety of an article's content and I thank you for finally furnishing me with an answer to my question, though I sincerely hope that Orange Mike will not also misinterpret my reply above.
I don't suppose that I, a humble editor, would ever be permitted the unsubstantiated ''most people would agree'' defence, but, as the adage goes, ''might makes right.'' Cheerio. [[User:Beingsshepherd|Beingsshepherd]] ([[User talk:Beingsshepherd|talk]]) 00:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

::No, "discussing the propriety of an article's content" does not mean merely expressing your own displeasure -- in this case, your displeasure with the fact that law enforcement officials ranked the threat of sovereign citizens above that of Islamic terrorists, etc. And I did answer your question (which was "why give prominence" to the Islamic terrorists, etc.) very directly in my very first post. I said that you would have to ask the people who ''gave them that prominence'' -- namely, the law enforcement people who participated in the survey.

::However, your question was really a sort of rhetorical one. You weren't looking for an answer.

::Initially, you were really arguing with the propriety of the assessment made by the law enforcement people who participated in the survey. That is not your proper role as an editor. "Discussing the propriety" of the article's content (in the broad sense that you apparently mean) is a bit too loose a description of the proper purpose of the talk page. Instead of expressing your own objection to the assessment made by the sources, go look for additional, reliable sources that (perhaps) take some other view. Report on what ''reliable, previously published third party sources'' say.

::You then switched the form of your objection to an argument that the law enforcement officers' assessment was not ''relevant'' to the article. That objection was not taken seriously. It was obvious to us that you were trying to find another way to object to the use of the phrase "Islamic terrorists and jihadists". [[User:Famspear|Famspear]] ([[User talk:Famspear|talk]]) 01:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

== Legal name billboards in the UK ==

I just noticed on of these - a large billboard announcing that it is illegal to use a legal name, eg [http://www.essexchronicle.co.uk/Legal-Fraud-s-truth-billboards/story-29365553-detail/story.html] [http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/the-truth-story-behind-those-11418097] Related is something about it being illegal to vote. [http://losethename.com/its-illegal-to-vote/] [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 15:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

== Classification ==


== "state national" ==
This article fails to mention that the sovereign citizen movement is a subset of the general common law movement that attempts to bind our government agents to the oaths that they swore to uphold. The article seems to mis-characterize those people who study the common law and who understand the relationship of common law to statute. Common law is not just case law. Case law is a record of common law as it is being practiced in a court of record where due process and court procedure are followed.


According to {{cite web|url=https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/12/15/interview-sovereign-judge-anna%E2%80%99s-world|title=Interview with a sovereign: Judge Anna’s world}}: "It should be noted Riezinger and the majority of her ilk reject the term “sovereign citizen,” considering it an oxymoron; the term she uses is “state national.”". Should this be mentioned in the lead as an alternative term, though much rarer? [[Special:Contributions/2603:6011:9440:D700:DD73:11A6:D89F:BF16|2603:6011:9440:D700:DD73:11A6:D89F:BF16]] ([[User talk:2603:6011:9440:D700:DD73:11A6:D89F:BF16|talk]]) 20:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
When people read this article, bias is formed when sovereignty is mentioned and this is akin to a type of propaganda. Law abiding citizens do exist that understand the notions of the people sovereignty and it's importance in making law. The sovereignty of the people is what empowers government and also has the ability to dissolve government. [[User:Roninmd|Roninmd]] ([[User talk:Roninmd|talk]]) 08:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
:One reference isn't sufficient to demonstrate that this is an alternative term that merits mention. Whether SCs prefer the term or not is irrelevant. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 22:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::The term is already mentioned [[Sovereign_citizen_movement#Denominations_and_symbols|here]] among other denominations. [[User:Psychloppos|Psychloppos]] ([[User talk:Psychloppos|talk]]) 12:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:::The term "State National" falls in line with the descriptions and definitions of Sovereign Citizen. Actions and beliefs of "State Nationals" are exactly the same as Sovereign Citizens and therefore rightly belong as a synonym.
:::@ [[Special:Contributions/2601:281:D47F:4010:122B:8DCC:18E5:73BD|2601:281:D47F:4010:122B:8DCC:18E5:73BD]] ([[User talk:2601:281:D47F:4010:122B:8DCC:18E5:73BD|talk]]) 05:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Again, you need a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] showing this is a synonym, not just a one-off term this particular subgroup uses. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 13:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::::With this already included in the "Denominations and symbols" section, barring sources that can show widespread usage of the term across the spectrum of sovcit groups, I think it's being handled appropriately. '''[[User talk:Ravensfire|<span style="color: darkred;">Ravensfire</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Ravensfire|talk]]) 18:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:00, 15 December 2024

"state national"

[edit]

According to "Interview with a sovereign: Judge Anna's world".: "It should be noted Riezinger and the majority of her ilk reject the term “sovereign citizen,” considering it an oxymoron; the term she uses is “state national.”". Should this be mentioned in the lead as an alternative term, though much rarer? 2603:6011:9440:D700:DD73:11A6:D89F:BF16 (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One reference isn't sufficient to demonstrate that this is an alternative term that merits mention. Whether SCs prefer the term or not is irrelevant. VQuakr (talk) 22:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The term is already mentioned here among other denominations. Psychloppos (talk) 12:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The term "State National" falls in line with the descriptions and definitions of Sovereign Citizen. Actions and beliefs of "State Nationals" are exactly the same as Sovereign Citizens and therefore rightly belong as a synonym.
@ 2601:281:D47F:4010:122B:8DCC:18E5:73BD (talk) 05:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you need a reliable source showing this is a synonym, not just a one-off term this particular subgroup uses. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With this already included in the "Denominations and symbols" section, barring sources that can show widespread usage of the term across the spectrum of sovcit groups, I think it's being handled appropriately. Ravensfire (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sovereign_citizen_movement&oldid=1263259250"