Talk:Posse Comitatus (organization)

Purported cult
This material is from the article List of purported cults, which we are paring down to a pure list. Editors here can best evaluate its statements and decide how to integrate it into this article. Thanks, -Willmcw 21:11, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * ''Posse Comitatus
 * ''Posse Comitatus is a right wing group in the United States that considers the U.S. federal government illegitimate and does not recognize the authority of any government body below the county level.

The Posse is not a cult. It is a right-wing social movement. I know of no serious scholarly treatment of the Posse that calls it a cult. It does not belong on the list. --Cberlet 23:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think that anyone regards the Posse as a religious movement. Unfortunately, the definitions of harmful cults and hate groups overlap. Al Qaeda is also on the list even though it is more similar to the Posse than to a "new religious movement". The material move from above is part of a re-structuring of the list based on a taxonomy of sources. Having descriptions of groups at that article created a set of "POV forks", where editors were making assertions about groups that, like this one, would not stand up to review by editors familiar with the groups. In fact, I added the Posse myself because it is included in a series done by the Washington Post on cults. And then another editor came in and added the description, which I think is actually pretty good. I'll go back and reread the exact citation, which could say that the Posse is not a cult at all but instead a hate group. Al Qaeda is almost certain to be removed because it lost its source and because it doesn't fit the description well. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:26, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * See also: Talk:List of purported cults for taxonomy. -W


 * I wouldn't call Posse Commitatus a hate group, though I'm sure there are bigots who are members, given its right wingness and lack of membership criteria, but if we count the fact that David Duke got 10,000 Democrat votes in the 1992 NH primary (and 57 republican votes), should we label the Democratic Party a hate group? Unless the movement itself clearly expouses intolerance of races, religion, etc. it shouldn't be called a hate group.69.173.101.181 04:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One of the reasons these people hate the federal government is that they beleive that it is run by Jews, who are an evil race in leauge with the devil. They also beleive that white Europeans are superior to the colored "mud" races. What else do they really need to be classified as a hate group? - AMD

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Posse Comitatus (organization). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.adl.org/mwd/privlien.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014194401/http://adl.org/mwd/common.asp to http://www.adl.org/mwd/common.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130113231828/http://www.adl.org/mwd/students.asp to http://www.adl.org/mwd/students.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130113231828/http://www.adl.org/mwd/students.asp to http://www.adl.org/mwd/students.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.possecomitatus.us/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Sovereign citizen movement
I removed the following form this section:

"... and the movement is dominated by adherents of the Christian Identity religion."

as it had a tag since 2014. User:Beyond My Ken very kindly supplied three references, unfortunately they refer to Posse Comitatus relationship with Christian Identity, a matter covered in the section Posse Comitatus.

What we would need here are references that show that the sovereign citizen movement is dominated by Christian Identity.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC).


 * New references provided. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Minor problem, they don't support the statement.
 * Says " The sovereign citizen movement is also associated with other fringe groups such as the Patriot, Tax Protest, and Christian Identity movements"
 * Says "The so-called Sovereign Citizen Movement appears to have been launched by people fixated on the noxious concept of Christian Identity on the West Coast around 1970. The progenitors called themselves posse comitatus"
 * Says "Current sovereign ideology is spawned, in part, from varied doctrines, embracing extremist elements of diverse groups, including: anti-tax protesters, militias, Christian Identity and Posse Comitatus. Noteworthy, though, a significant segment of sovereigns do not follow any religious doctrine as part of their sovereign stance."
 * I found a slightly stronger claim at ADL Christian Identity also found a welcome home in extreme anti-government activism, notably the tax protest movement, the sovereign citizen movement (descended from Gale's Posse Comitatus) and the militia movement. but conversely a Start study says Although most organizations group Sovereign Citizens with other right wing groups, they are quite unique. Sovereigns do not specifically share the “supremacist” views of the Klan, etc. Their focus is not on individuals (e.g., minorities, Jews, etc.) rather their focus is on government dysfunction and abuse of authority. Their anti-government ideology is arguably more akin to left wing anarchists than right wing Klansmen
 * It's fairly clear that the audience for Sovereign Citizen ideas is far wider than the cluster of mainly white, mainly racist, mainly anti-semitic entities that form its roots via the Posse Comitatus, and that the promulgation of the ideas by scammers and con artists is neutral to the politics of the recruits/marks.
 * You are welcome to look for better cites if you wish, but it seems that the preponderance of evidence is against this random half sentence. Even if you find something more compelling, given the above, it would probably belong in the Sovereign Citizen article as a more nuanced statement.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC).


 * I'm not sure if you are reverting because of the lack of good faith you espouse, because you think Sovereign Citizens ought to be dominated by Christian Identity, because you believe the cites you found actually do support the statement or for some other reason.
 * I do appreciate your valiant effort to find sources, I hope you appreciate that I spent the time and effort to read both the first set and the second set, and indeed to find any other sources that support this statement.
 * I am reverting you again, contrary to my long standing practice, primarily because there is no supporting evidence for the claim as worded, and because you have failed to engage in discussion.
 * I hope you will look critically at the sources, and agree with me. If not I hope you will at least engage in discussion and explain how these (or any other RS) support the statement.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC).

2012 Shooting
I reverted the edit adding detail about the 2012 shooting incident for a number of reasons. First, there's already a paragraph immediately above it - either expand on that or replace it, but don't simply add redundant information. The additional information was extremely detailed yet provided with no supporting sources. The current sources in the preceding paragraph (one of which is a dead link) do not support the newly added information. For example, the current source says the weapon was "an assault rifle," but the additional content says "AK-47." Maybe it was, but you need a source to back that up - you can't just add details that are not verifiable by reliable sources. Lastly, the current source only states that one of the people involved was "suspected" of having ties to Posse Comitatus. Unlike other incidents, such as Gordon Kahl's noted standoff, there isn't any solid information that indicates these were Posse. More evidence exists that they were Sovereign Citizen adherents, but that's not an automatic equivalency. I'm not saying don't bring it back, but it's got to meld with the current paragraph (or replace it) and it has to be reliably sourced (and more info that these people were more than just "suspected" as Posse Comitatus). If there's enough detail and it's notable, then it would be better to have its own article, which this could link to. Butlerblog (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)