Talk:Sovereign citizen movement/Archive 2

This case is rather glorious
It certainly deserves a mention somewhere, but I'm not sure where.

http://www.loweringthebar.net/2014/10/whom-the-gods-would-destroy-they-first-make-mad.html

In short, it's a rare example of someone trying a sovereign citizen defence and winning. He won despite the defence, not because of it, though. Ironically, the chap was on trial for resisting arrest, but it turned out that the arrest actually was unlawful, and that wasn't just a SovCit fantasy for once. The whole judgment is well worth a read. 77.96.230.11 (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)dave


 * It's interesting to learn that in Canada there remains a right to resist an invalid arrest. —Tamfang (talk) 23:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2014
In reference to the Final sentence of "Theories" section, nowhere in Federalist 15 does Hamilton express the view that the Constitution "placed everyone personally under federal authority." The entire foundation of our government is based on a federal government strictly limited by enumerated powers. “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” (Madison, Federalist 45). Hamilton does indicate, "There is nothing absurd or impracticable in the idea of a league or alliance between independent nations for certain defined purposes precisely stated in a treaty regulating all the details of time, place, circumstance, and quantity; leaving nothing to future discretion." Nowhere in those defined purposes listed in Article 1, Section 8 Powers of Congress is there any one among those powers that apply federal authority to anyone personally, much less within any one of the several States, with the possible exception of bankruptcy, counterfeiting, or taxation, and even that latter taxation was intending to be applied over the populace of a state according to the census. This reference to Hamilton claiming federal powers over the individual should be removed as it is nowhere present in Hamilton's writings, nor anywhere among the enumerated powers of the federal government. This would reduce the author's statement to unsupported opinion involving only a vague reference to case law,and it should not be present in objective reference.

TJMcCann (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The referencing in that section isn't good. From a quick check, the comment is from a review of a book by Richard Abanes in the periodical Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith published by American Scientific Affiliation.  The book I've got no doubts about being a reliable source.  I'm not familiar with either the journal and hopefully someone can comment on it's viability as a source.  The best option would probably be for someone who owns or has access to the book to see if they can find support for that statement in Abanes's book and update the reference to that. (note - this comment has been significantly edited) Ravensfire ( talk ) 01:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The journal and the underlying organization are both conservative/fundamentalist Christian in affiliation, and all works they publish must conform to that worldview. I would not consider them reliable sources for anything except what their writers believe. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  02:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Queen and diplomats may be sovereign
How is that possible that diplomats/aristocrats can enjoy the diplomatic immunity while ordinary people are criminalized and can not enjoy the same privileges? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.226.248.129 (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Because if the state gave that courtesy to more than a few it would no longer be a state. —Tamfang (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Diplomatic immunity doesn't imply an unlimited right to do whatever you want with no consequences. Diplomats can be expelled from the country if their crimes are serious enough, and it embarrasses their entire country. They can also be subjected to trial in their home country for their crimes. Diplomatic immunity merely means that such incidents are to be dealt with diplomatically, rather than with the unilateral application of legal force by the host country on the diplomat. It's a special privilege we grant to representatives of sovereign states merely because sovereign states are a big deal, they have armies, and maintaining communication with them and not offending them by application of our legal norms on their representatives is more important to society than the occasional breach of law by this handful of people. If diplomatic immunity were granted to a "sovereign citizen", where could we expel them to should their continued presence in our country become noxious to us? Their own property (isn't that part of our country)? Who would be the responsible party that could try them for their crimes? Themselves? Clearly this is absurd. Moreover, as they don't have armies, it's not even in our interest.75.137.184.182 (talk) 02:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Legal theories
The legal theories section is way too long for an encyclopedia article and borders on original research. It is arguing the facts, instead of summarizing them. The whole section should be reduced to "Courts have repeatedly found these arguments to be frivolous." with a ton of citations. 23.240.177.235 (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I would disagree. First of all, the essence of the subject -- the sovereign citizen movement -- is the subject of legal theories. And no, the section isn't "arguing" anything, much less about "facts." Instead, the section summarizes actual court cases involving the subject of the article: the sovereign citizen movement.


 * Second, the section is not prohibited original research as that term is used in Wikipedia, nor does it "border" on prohibited original research. One of the dangers of engaging in prohibited original research involves taking a statement from Source A and a statement from Source B and drawing Conclusion C -- where Conclusion C was not a conclusion drawn by Source A and Source B. We don't have that problem in this article. We do not see that in the section on legal theories or anywhere else in the article. Wikipedia is simply reporting on the sovereign citizen theories, and reporting on how the courts have ruled on those theories. Wikipedia itself is not taking a stand as to who is right and who is wrong, and Wikipedia itself is not falsely using Source A and Source B to arrive at Conclusion C.


 * Many, many articles in Wikipedia deal with the subject of law and legal theories. This article deals appropriately with a fringe theory about the law. Famspear (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * PS: Dear user at IP 23.240.177.235; A point of clarification here: What you might have picked up on from the text of the article are some references to the arguments made by the litigants in the cases cited in the section on legal theories. Those aren't arguments made by Wikipedia itself. By definition, virtually all adversarial court proceedings in the United States involve arguments. But the arguments were made by the parties to the case. The references in the Wikipedia article are to the litigants' arguments -- and to what the courts decided in those cases. And for the most part, the arguments mentioned in the citations to the cases in this article are not arguments about what we call "facts". They're arguments about legal issues -- about what the law is, not about facts. Famspear (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Another Wikipedia article on fringe legal theories is Freemen on the land. Same scenario. Look at the citations to court cases in that article. Particularly in many Wikipedia articles on subjects involving the legal systems of nations where the systems came from English common law (such as England, the United States, and Canada), summaries of court cases are inevitable, because common law systems rely so heavily on the doctrines of judicial precedent and stare decisis. Famspear (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Court decisions are primary, not secondary sources. Citations should be made to articles and treatises that interpret them, not to decisions which may have been over turned or anomalous. Understanding the difference between holdings and obiter dicta, especially in panel decisions, is not a laymen's task. 23.240.177.235 (talk) 03:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The actual verbatim texts of court decisions are primary authority in legal analysis. However, we're not writing legal briefs here, and we're not in court. For purposes of Wikipedia, some editors had contended that court decisions are in some cases secondary sources.


 * You are correct to the extent that understanding the difference between holdings and obiter dicta indeed is not a layman's task. However, contrary to what many Wikipedia editors seem to feel, the use of primary sources is not prohibited in Wikipedia.


 * None of the decisions cited in the article has been overturned. Indeed, there is no known instance of a sovereign citizen argument ever having been ruled correct in an American court of law. Ever. Not even once.


 * If we were to change the rules in Wikipedia and we were to start taking out citations to (and quotes from) actual court decisions, we would be making a major change in Wikipedia. I doubt that we are going to do that. Famspear (talk) 04:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

U.S. government responses
I'm new, so please bear with me. I added the above section. It was deleted twice (by a bot and a user). I missed the opportunity to write a comment as to why I undid the last deletion of the section; and I don't know how to change that, or message VQuakr, etc. Sorry! I believe much the edits I made are relevant to the topic, as the sources I used referenced sovereign citizens. I hope you see this, VQuakr. Thanks for all you do. :) Sarah.stark (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * you can click on. The word "talk" next to VQuakr's name on the article history, or wherever you clicked to undo the change. That will allow you to post a message on his/her personal talk page just as you did here. Or you can use the template I'm using to (look at this section in edit mode to see the format). However, since you've already reverted twice, you might just as well present your case for inclusion in a new section here, where more editors are likely to see it and participate. 2600:1006:B119:F71A:59F:BBA0:64EA:CE63 (talk) 00:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Sarah.stark (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I have created a new section to this article: U.S. government responses. It has been deleted twice. I have undone the deletes, as two of the sources I used, Eric Holder and John P. Carlin, specifically highlighted anti-government animus and/or the sovereign citizen movement in the works I cited.

Sarah.stark (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * But the subject of this article isn't domestic terrorism; it is a tax/litigation scheme. The two are also related, but the content you are proposing adding doesn't discuss the topic of this article at all. VQuakr (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

MSTA should NOT be on the "See also" list
Greetings. The Moorish Science Temple of America is a bona fide religious organization that teaches those things that makes our people BETTER CITIZENS and also the uplifting of fallen humanity.

The Moorish Science Temple of America in NO WAY shape, form, or fashion, teaches ANY sovereignty, anarchist, or antigovernment rhetoric whatsoever. Acts four and five of our Divine Constitution and Bylaws SPECIFICALLY STATE:

Act 4. All members must preserve these Holy and Divine laws, and all members must obey the laws of the government, because by being a Moorish American, you are a part and partial of the government, and must live the life accordingly.

Act 5. This organization of the Moorish Science Temple of America is not to cause any confusion or to overthrow the laws and constitution of the said government but to obey hereby.

On the Southern Poverty Law Center's website we read from one of the acting officials of one of the groups of the Moorish Science Temple of America that:

"Unlike the white-dominated sovereign citizen movement today, however, MSTA was explicitly not antigovernment. Asserting their noble Moorish heritage was supposed to enable blacks to gain the government’s recognition and respect as full citizens rather than second-class descendants of slaves. Drew Ali exhorted young MSTA members to “see the duty and wisdom of at all times upholding … obedience to law, respect and loyalty to government,” and “not to use any assertion against the American flag.”

Today, the head of MSTA is none too happy to see its prophet’s words used to encourage antigovernment activity.

MSTA’s grand sheik, Brother R. Jones Bey, is arbiter of orthodoxy for the movement’s members. He believes the behavior of groups like Gaines’ is utterly out of line with the prophet’s teachings.

“We do not follow ‘sovereignty.’ The prophet never talked about that,” he told the Intelligence Report. “Our organization has been misunderstood by people who see the value of our religion but don’t want to conform,” he said. “They are not members of our organization. I don’t know what they’re doing, because they’re misrepresenting the Moorish Science Temple of America.”

Jones Bey said that the proliferation of non-members claiming ties to the MSTA and Noble Drew Ali and imbued with sovereign ideas came to his attention about a year ago. MSTA immediately added to its website a note stating that it does not endorse sovereign ideas or behavior. “We are citizens of the United States of America, and we want to make our contribution to the United States of America, not tear it down,” Jones Bey said."

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2011/‘sovereigns’-black

On the organization's website, we can find the distancing of the organization of the Moorish Science Temple of America from these anarchist ideas.

www.moorishsciencetemple.org/faqs/

Please remove the name of the Moorish Science Temple of America from your list because it puts this reputable organization in a false light which will discourage potential members. Sheik Way-El 16:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheik Way-El (talk • contribs)

Adding alternatives to your "See also" list
There are many groups purporting to be "Moors" whom actually follow these crackpot sovereignty ideals. I will list a few of these groups with links to their websites so that you may take the Moorish Science Temple of America OFF of this list as we do not promote any of this:

Moors Order of the Roundtable - R V Bey publications rvbeypublications.com

Sheik Deshawn Way El is not a member of the Moorish Science Temple of America. Prior to his affiliation with the Moorish Science Temple of America he was into filing all types of bogus Sovereign Citizen documents in effort to circumvent his obligation to pay bills etc.

Dr. Alim El-Bey Washitaw www.dralimelbey.com

Moorish American National Republic http://moorishamericannationalrepublic.com

Clock Of Destiny Moorish International Order Of The Great Seal http://www.clockofdestiny.com

United Nuwaubian Nation of Moors http://www.unnm.org

THE EMPIRE WASHITAW DE DUGDAHMOUNDYAH http://empirewashitaw.org

Aboriginal Republic of North America (formerly called ISIS) http://www.governmentreparations.org

Amexem Moor Empire (no website) here are youtube videos of this sovereignty group purporting to be Moors

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TmPj2fkE1sY

The above represents an extensive list of groups purporting to be "Moors" who if, you review their websites, you will in fact see all of the elements that comprise sovereign citizen jargon and antigovernment rhetoric.

We ask, again, that you remove the Moorish Science Temple of America from your "see also" listing/references as none of our teachings reflect sovereignty ideals in the least. Thank you in advance. Peace Sheik Way-El 17:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheik Way-El (talk • contribs)

Bundy militia's demand(s)
Regarding our article about the Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge please consider commenting at that article's talk page on the question "Should we say anything more about Public Lands Privatization and demand feds cede ownership?"NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored
Wikipedia is not censored. Therefore, just because you are an administrator, it does not mean that you should revert a justifiable NPOV template and labeling my edit as "unconstructive" and "disruptive". Abusing your administrator privilege and making a threat to users is not good citizenship.

If you look the Talk page, it is clear that neutrality of this article is in dispute. Alonso McLaren (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Seems to be your personal opinion, you are of course welcome to post references to discount any specific claims the article might make. P.S. Please do not edit using two different accounts. Cheers,  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 15:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Account has been blocked by another Admin. I didn't warn the account for disruptive editing, someone else did that. I warned one of the 2 IP addresses. Doug Weller  talk 16:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * When your block expires, you are free to propose specific edits based on reliable independent sources, but your understanding of "not censored" could use some work. That policy means we do not bowdlerise and we do not shy away from saying something just because it might offend people. We do not censor the Jyllands-Posten cartoons, though there has been a substantial campaign by Muslim groups to demand that we remove them. It does not mean that we pretend fringe views are anything else. We call it like it is, representing the subject as reliable independent sources do. You are welcome to identify inaccuracies in the article, but if these "inaccuracies" are differences between your interpretation of the facts and that in the sources we cite then you need to fix the outside world first, and then Wikipedia will follow. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs or correct what you perceive to be errors in the way sources represent a subject. Guy (Help!) 17:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

External Links, Sovereign Citizen Organizations, History, Demographics
I think the article could be improved by listing urls of sovereign citizen organizations in the External Links section. It shouldn't be too hard, as among the 160 (!) footnotes there is at least 1 ("Welcome to the State Citizen's Service Center").

Also a little more history would be helpful, and perhaps more and more refined demographics. There are 5 sentences arranged in 3 short paragraphs in history currently. Is there any connection between these people and (e.g.) the Whiskey Rebellion of the 18th century? How do they fit in with other Anarchist movements in American History (or are they Anarchists at all?)? As to the demographics, the numbers seem surprisingly large. How can there be 100,000 "hard core" "litigants, commentators, tax protesters and financial-scheme promoters" with another 200,000 budding ones? Are there any sources besides the SPLC, and is their definition the same as the one in the article? (I also don't get the Canadian or New Zealand connection. Surely nobody in those countries is all tied up in knots over the American 14th amendment.)

And a listing of the main organizations would also be helpful (unless of course there aren't any, which would again seem very strange).

Other clean up would be useful as well (in the long, long listing of murderers, attempted murderers, rapists etc under "Incidents" the connection of some of them, such as Anson Chi, to the "Sovereign citizens movement" is not explained; and is it really necessary to be so cumulative in the section on tax cases?), but just getting more of the more fundamental facts exposed would improve the article a great deal already.

Son of eugene (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You have advocated using external links as a directory of sorts to organizations, and at same time including in the article "a listing of the main organizations". I'm part in favor and part opposed.   What I mean is....  first off, it might make sense to embed a list (under this MOS guideline) of the main organizations.  Second, if an organization is not a "main" organization, then good faith inclusion in external links still looks a lot like accidental promotion of minor groups, so let's not do that.   Third, in the list of main groups, anything we do along these lines must be verified with wikipedia-style citation to what wikipedia calls "reliable sources".    All such lists start by defining the criteria for inclusion.   What do you propose? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality
''Originally added to an ancient stale thread and cut out verbatim to a new section by me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)''

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. 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." 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. 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. 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. 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... 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? Beingsshepherd (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

You would have to ask the people who participated in the survey. 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. 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. 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. Famspear (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Why? It's not at all obvious. 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. 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. 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). -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  23:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * That appears to be your unsourced perception, which is not even alluded to in the article. 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. 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. 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. 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". Famspear (talk) 01:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:13, 26 September 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  Related is something about it being illegal to vote. Doug Weller talk 15:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I think those have more to do with the Freeman on the land movement. So far as I have been able to discern (and I could be wrong), the two movements are similar to one another, and mutually influence one another, but Soverign Citizens are in the U.S. and Freemen on the land are in the U.K. Canada seems to have an odd hybrid. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 20:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Classification
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 neglect those people who study the common law and who understand the relationship of common law to statute as those people that are part of the pro se problem whenever sovereignty and the constitution are mentioned in court. 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. The article doesn't even explain why they call themselves sovereign citizens.

When people read this article, bias is formed when sovereignty is mentioned and this is akin to a type of propaganda. Law abiding people do exist that understand the notions of the people's 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.

While this article is written by a "neutral" authoritarian interested in maintaining the validity of statute, the People are the authority over the authoritarian when statute under strict practice is abhorrent to the people. e.g., prohibition Roninmd (talk) 08:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you suggest some text based on what wikipedia calls a WP:Reliable source then we can talk.  No one is interested in your opinion, nor mine.  Only on what is found in what wikipedia calls a reliable source. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Dear Roninmd: Wikipedia operates based on reliable previously published third party sources. In the United States, the sovereign citizen movement, in general, is not really based on the idea that the people are "sovereign." The sovereign citizen movement (at least in the United States) is instead based in part on the false idea that an individual person can be "sovereign." Our ancestors fought the American Revolution for the purpose of ridding ourselves of political subservience to an individual sovereign (namely King George III). This is a not-so-subtle distinction ("people" versus "individual") that appears to be lost on the adherents to the sovereign citizen movement. The beliefs described in the article are nonsense, and the courts in the United States correctly treat those beliefs as nonsense under our laws. If you have Reliable Sources that you feel should be reflected in the article, please discuss. Famspear (talk) 12:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Everyone, please see WP:FORUM and WP:SOAP. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Dear Famspear: Then I suggest the article make that distinction between plural sovereignty versus the sovereignty of the individual.  Individual personal sovereignty is just as valid a concept when we relate this to the confines of the individuals jurisdiction (i.e., in their own dwelling) and how this relates to the state.


 * In the constitution of any real republic the operative word is "establish." The People existed in their own individual sovereignty before the constitution was enabled. When the People "establish" a constitution, there is nothing in the word "establish" that signifies that they have yielded any of their sovereignty to the agency they have created. To interpret otherwise would convert the republic into a democracy (see Republic vs. Democracy; also see conditions of admission of any state to the union).  This is not a mere opinion.


 * For example, see the legislated notice from the People to the government written in the California Government Codes 11120 and 54950. In these codes you will see language such as


 * "..The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know..." -CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54950 et seq. (how is this not a reliable previously published third party source?)


 * To deprive the People of their sovereignty it is first necessary to get the People to agree to submit to the authority of the entity they have created. As individuals, people have the choice to submit their authority or not. It is a matter semantics whether you call them criminals and is relative upon who the reader considers the higher authority (i.e., the people or the state.)  Roninmd (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Roninmd: No.

I notice that you posted, and then removed, a citation to the case of Bond v. United States. I’ll address that case anyway. That case did not deal with individual sovereignty, nor did the U.S. Supreme Court recognize "individual" sovereignty as a valid legal concept. The issue presented was whether a person who had been indicted for violating a federal statute had standing to challenge validity of the statute on grounds that, by enacting it, Congress impermissibly intruded upon state sovereignty. Individual standing and state sovereignty are not the same.

The text you cited from the California Government Code is "the people of this State do not yield their sovereignty..." The statute does not say that an individual has "sovereignty." It says the people. People -- not a person as an individual. This is not rocket science.

The right of an individual to be secure in his dwelling is not a sovereignty concept in the sense in which you and "sovereign citizens" may think. The term sovereignty has specific legal meanings.

This is an example of why Wikipedia has a rule against Original Research by Wikipedia editors.

It's not enough to find a reliable source. As a Wikipedia editor, you have to conform to what the reliable source says -- and not impute your own interpretation of what you believe the material means.

No, under the U.S. legal system, to "deprive" (as you put it) the People of their "sovereignty" it is NOT first necessary to get the "People" to agree to submit to the authority of the entity they have created. That's an example of "sovereign citizen" gibberish ranting. And no, as an individual, you do NOT have the LEGAL choice to "submit authority or not." That's another example of nonsense gibberish. You're here in the United States, and you're legally bound by the laws, whether you've agree to those laws or not.

The law is not what you want the law to be. Again, look for reliable, previously published sources, and conform to what THEY say, not to what YOU believe. Famspear (talk) 20:21, 9 August 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  Related is something about it being illegal to vote. Doug Weller talk 15:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I think those have more to do with the Freeman on the land movement. So far as I have been able to discern (and I could be wrong), the two movements are similar to one another, and mutually influence one another, but Soverign Citizens are in the U.S. and Freemen on the land are in the U.K. Canada seems to have an odd hybrid. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 20:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

person has no identification due to no birth record
A person is born in a rural area where there are no hospitals, and no birth certificates are recorded or kept, and this person has no identification due to no birth record, Shouldn't they be allowed to vote? Authoritarians believe laws should apply to everyone, but these natural people aren't represented. That's why requiring identification before being allowed to vote should be illegal because such a requirement marginalizes natural born people. Roninmd (talk) 09:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Rural and home births are recorded, and birth certificates issued, just like any others. I used to record these all the time when I worked for the relevant state agency. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  20:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about areas of complete isolation, where there is no county clerk. The person grows up and leaves the area and get's cited for vagrancy at the next town when he was merely passing through.


 * Dear Roninmd: Good grief. The purpose of this talk page is to discuss ways to improve the article, not to put forth your views on voting rights and their relation to birth certificates. Let's keep it on topic. Famspear (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just think the article misses the point about the Sovereign Citizen Movement. We are supposed to be a government that governs itself through the consent of the governed.  Instead I see a litany of how law enforcement has treated real people who do not have their consent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roninmd (talk • contribs) 09:33, April 17, 2017 (UTC)
 * the issue is that we are en encyclopedia - we summarize what reliable sources have to say about a topic. Since your hypothetical above doesn't appear to be considered in a reliable source (if it is, please link to the source) it isn't usable for the article. VQuakr (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Incidents
Do we really need to list every time that someone has tried to invoke sovereignty as a defense? Seems like this section could be pared down to a few notable incidents. Dlthewave (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * My take on this: The current article length and level of detail may be about right in terms of notability of specific incidents. I would agree that from now on we could restrict the addition of descriptions of new incidents. In particular, future incidents might be considered notable if the violence recurs. Famspear (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It seems like there has been increasing secondary coverage on this movement in general. If my perception is correct, then it would make sense to refocus the article on such secondary sources and provide less focus on individual incidents. VQuakr (talk) 01:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Not very balanced
To start off, I am no supporter of this movement, but giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming that they are coming from a valid, if mistaken political viewpoint, this article mostly depicts them as a criminal element, intent on twisting the constitution in order to get away with as many crimes as possible. Is there another point of view to be depicted here? Kortoso (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * From a legal standpoint not really (to my knowledge). Attempts to use Sovereign citizen claims in any legal setting have consistently been found to be not just invalid, but frivolous. If an American wants to call themselves "sovereign" but still pays taxes and shows up to court when subpoenaed, then I guess it is more of a If a tree falls in a forest... sort of self-declaration. That sort of explains why cases are associated with crime. WP:FRINGE requires us to call silly bunk, silly bunk. VQuakr (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep. I was in court over a property dispute with one 'em once.   They sent me, and all the officials involved, copies of fake reports they filed with IRS claiming we had each received million of dollars in (nonexistent) cash.  The whole proceeding was utter rubbish.  But that said, every fringe group attracts lots of whackos and hypocrites.  There can still be principled believers, and if RSs support that among this group then we should treat it as neutrally as any other subject, with due nod to WP:Weight and WP:Fringe NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Freemen on the Land treats incidents/court cases more neutrally by explaining how each one relates to the beliefs of the movement and how the courts responded. I think this would be a good model to follow instead of listing a crime and stating that it was committed by a sovereign citizen with no other context. The History section also probably has room for more balanced content. Dlthewave (talk) 02:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * From a legal and political standpoint, there really isn't another point of view that isn't already depicted in the article, any more than there would be in the case of tax protesters. There is absolutely no correct legal or political basis for the core beliefs of these people. The main concern is to present the material neutrally, without Wikipedia itself straining to give undue weight.


 * "Sovereign citizen" beliefs are the legal equivalent of what I call "Green Cheese" arguments. In an article on The Moon, we should not strain to give undue balance or equal weight to the theory that The Moon is made of green cheese -- even if there were a society of people called "The Green Cheese Society" whose members honestly believed that 99.9% of all the scientists are wrong, and that The Moon is made of green cheese.


 * More to the point: In a Wikipedia article specifically entitled "The Green Cheese Society," we should not strain to give undue balance or equal weight to the beliefs of such people, regardless of how fervently or honestly some of those people might hold those beliefs. A belief in a delusion is made no less a delusional belief by the fact that the belief is a "principled" one.


 * In Wikipedia, Neutral Point of View means presenting all significant points of view without having Wikipedia itself take sides as to who is right. Neutral Point of View does not, however, mean straining to provide "balance" to what is clearly a WP:Fringe viewpoint and, in this case, views which, if actually acted upon and followed to their "logical" conclusion, would -- with virtual certainty -- lead the actor into criminal conduct. Famspear (talk) 03:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * PS: An expansion of the History section to make room for "more balanced content" is possible but, if such an expansion were done properly, the result would be no change in the impression that the average reader probably obtains from the article: the correct impression that people who actually act on the core values and beliefs of the Sovereign Citizen Movement are delusional and are committing crime. There isn't another "reality" here. Green Cheese beliefs can't be dressed up to be something other than what they are. Famspear (talk) 03:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Reference question
We're using this page as a reference in this article, attributing it to "JJ MacNab who writes for Forbes". The forbes.com/sites really shouldn't be attributed to forbes - they're hosting it, but don't have editorial control over the content. From the author's bio, there's no question this is an expert on this matter and does constitute a reliable source, but I think the attribution is wrong and the mention of Forbes should be removed.  Ravensfire  (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with that setup at Forbes too. We need inline attribution that this is McNab's opinion and all is well.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Sheriffs authority
This sentence is found in the article. "JJ MacNab, who writes for Forbes about anti-government extremism, has described the sovereign-citizen movement as consisting of individuals who believe that the county sheriff is the most powerful law-enforcement officer in the country, with authority superior to that of any federal agent, elected official, or local law-enforcement official." This implies that these beliefs are all false. In fact, the last belief is entirely legally true. Namely, that "...the county sheriff...[has] authority superior to that of any...local law-enforcement official." This is even confirmed by Wikipedia's own entry for "Sheriffs in the United States", [which says] Under the subsection "Sheriff types by state," many states' entries (such as the first, for Alabama) state the following - "...a sheriff is...the chief law enforcement officer in any given county." This legal fact should be reflected, rather than implicitly denied, in this entry for "Sovereign citizen movement." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.196.204 (talk • contribs)


 * Depends at least in part on what is meant by the term "chief law enforcement officer." Arguably, the chief law enforcement officer in any given county is the district attorney for that county -- not the sheriff.


 * Certainly, the sheriff's authority is NOT superior to that of the district attorney in a given county. The sheriff (or his deputy) can only make arrests. The sheriff has no authority beyond that; the decision on whether to prosecute someone is up to the district attorney in the county, not the sheriff.


 * Similarly, at the Federal level, the chief law enforcement officer of the United States is the Attorney General (not the head of the U.S. Marshals Service, not the Director of the FBI, not the head of the IRS Criminal Investigation unit, or someone like that). Famspear (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

In Texas, for example, the power of a sheriff does not include the power to prosecute a criminal defendant in court. By contrast, an investigator working under the authority of the prosecuting attorney can make arrests -- and is not under the control of the sheriff. The Texas statute reads (in part):


 * "Sec. 41.109. AUTHORITY OF INVESTIGATOR. (a) An investigator appointed by a prosecuting attorney has the same authority as the sheriff of the county to make arrests anywhere in the county and to serve anywhere in the state warrants, capiases, subpoenas in criminal cases, and all other processes in civil or criminal cases issued by a district court, county court, or justice court of this state.


 * (b) "An investigator is under the exclusive authority and direction of the prosecuting attorney and is not under the authority and direction of the sheriff. [ . . . ]"

--from Texas Government Code sec. 41.109. Famspear (talk) 04:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality
I strongly challenge the NPOV of this article. I see nothing showing the sovereign citizens side of things. Also as someone fimilar with the movement some of this information is plain wrong. LordFluffington454 (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read the Gude to addressing bias in articles. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Difference between a sovereign citizen and a freeman on the land
Both articles, sovereign citizen and freeman on the land, should be expanded to clarify what is different between the two. For example, I do not know if the difference is geographical, or based on the type of law that the country uses (e.g. common or civil). Best --Marianian(talk) 07:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There's some overlap between the two, since they're both based on similar misunderstandings of law. But primarily, Sovereigns are a North American thing and Freemen are a European/Commonwealth thing. Each one has peculiarities unique to the culture they're litigating against, but mostly based on the same misguided ideas of how the law works. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this article also needs to be expanded to cover people claiming to follow the Moorish Science Temple as an excuse to not follow the law of the land. Overall, the leads of the sovereign citizen and freeman on the land need to be revised to clarify the difference and overlap with the two. --Marianian(talk) 10:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That would require a source comparing & contrasting the two, and I'm not aware of one. As for the Moorish Science Temple, that's probably better dealt with in an article about them. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Term
Sovereigns use this term because people used to be called sovereigns hundreds of years ago. Sovereign is “a : one possessing or held to possess supreme political power or sovereignty b : one that exercises supreme authority within a limited sphere  c : an acknowledged leader : arbiter”[ https ://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sovereign ] People are referred to as sovereign in current law. Here are some of the many examples: “The fundamental principle, on which it rests, that the empire [U.S.A. nation] is a community of sovereigns; that the Diet [legislature] is a representation of sovereigns; and that the laws are addressed to sovereigns; …”[ James Madison in Federalist Paper 19] “Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but, in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power.”[ Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/118/356] “In the United States, Sovereignty resides in the people, who act through the organs established by the Constitution.”[ Chisholm vs. Georgia, 2 Dall 419, 471; Penhallow vs. Doane’s Administrators, 3 Dall 54, 93; McCullock vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316, 404, 405. ] “The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign and independent state; and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they may deem it necessary to their safety and happiness, provided, such change be not repugnant to the constitution of the United States.”[ Colorado Constitution, article II, section 2] “Sovereignty of the people. All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government of right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.”[ North Carolina State Constitution, article I, section 2 - https ://www.ncleg.net/Legislation/constitution/ncconstitution.html “The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”[ California Government Code, sections 100, 11120 and 54950 ] “… Government to undermine the sovereignty of the People, the States and the Union itself …” – Articles of Freedom, article I.[ https ://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/sites/default/files/Articles%20of%20Freedom.pdf] Franko888 (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You're kind of cherry-picking that James Madison quote. The full quote (speaking about the Germanic empire, not the US) is The fundamental principle on which it rests, that the empire is a community of sovereigns, that the diet is a representation of sovereigns and that the laws are addressed to sovereigns, renders the empire a nerveless body, incapable of regulating its own members, insecure against external dangers, and agitated with unceasing fermentations in its own bowels. Schazjmd (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Balancing
It may help with balancing to include some coverage of the more rational side of arguments against taxation and certain government actions. There's some relevant material at Taxing and Spending Clause among other places. TheDragonFire (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * nothing there mentions this movement. This isn't an article about taxation. Doug Weller  talk 12:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That would be like including material from Ethics, Morality, Life, Biogenesis, Cosmology and Chronology of the universe in our article on Christianity. Yes, Christianity is heavily rooted in those subjects and includes many aspects of and references to those subjects, but us doing that would accomplish nothing except severely distorting how we portray Christianity (by, for example, making abiogenesis and evolution look like important doctrinal elements of Christianity, when the truth is that mere acceptance of those notions is highly controversial among Christians). We have to stick to sources that cover this subject, we can't use sources that cover related subjects without shooting ourselves in the foot. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I see now, after reviewing the talk archives, that there is a significant burden of proof required before reopening this discussion, so I certainly apologise. I was responding to a reader complaint which was, as expected, alleging that we're missing coverage of certain more rational parts of this "loose grouping". In this case, it sounds like I should either provide this sourcing or go away, and simply suggesting it as an avenue for further research is unhelpful. I understand, of course, how our sourcing policies work, and didn't mean to imply that we should include coverage without reliable sources specifically talking about these things in the context of the sovereign citizen movement. TheDragonFire (talk) 07:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem, Drag. A call for further research by Wikipedians goes against our "no original research" policy. What I've found on looking into these folks (I used to work for state Revenue; and later at the state center for health statistics was the lucky recipient of a letter from a guy who wanted to revoke his birth certificate): the problem is that the actual serious scholars who look into the claims of this movement all come away shaking their heads in various mixtures of contempt, anger, dismay and/or amusement. This isn't like libertarianism, where if you accept certain premises you can come to some fairly shocking conclusions: there's just no "there" there. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  22:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I tend to use "research" to refer to searching for sources, but perhaps this terminology is confusing. TheDragonFire (talk) 10:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * One of these people once tried to get me in hot water with IRS by filing fake forms making it look like I had not reported huge amounts of money passing through my hands. I met with a revenue agent who just laughed and apologized.   For awhile I had one of the forms in a cheap frame in my office but after awhile it wasn't funny any more.  Just sad  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There's a court finding from Canada (still common law, so it may well be cited here) that makes for a fascinating (and sometimes humorous) primer on the subject and -without trying really at all- shows just how irrational most of the beliefs of the movement are. You can read it here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  00:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * @ That is really good stuff. I think I have my reading assignment for tonight. Thanks for the link. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed! there is no closed list. In the absence of a better moniker, I have collectively labelled them as Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants...for what they literally are.  Perfect description of my experience. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Significant News Story
FYI the NY Times has a lengthy story dealing with financial crimes linked to the SC movement. Lots of interesting background. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2019
Under the section 2018, where it states "On April 21, 2018, Travis Reinking, who police said had several past confrontations with authorities and had shown signs of mental instability, carried out a mass shooting rampage in a Nashville Waffle House in which four people were killed and four were wounded.", the date that the Nashville Waffle House shooting occurred should be changed to April 22. April 21 is actually incorrect. 98.210.124.96 (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done NiciVampireHeart 21:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Both sides
90+% of the sovereign citizen content is wrong. Provide the other side. Allow coments and edits from the other side. Search "freedom movement" Jjbonner (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Short version: No.
 * Less short version: Wikipedia is not here to present "both sides," especially when one side is so blatantly wrong it's almost laughable. We present what reliable, independent sources say about the subject. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Also relevant would be WP:FALSEBALANCE — Paleo Neonate  – 19:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Incidents Section
This section seems excessive. At most, a selection of notable incidents should be summarized, and perhaps a separate list article created. However, we don't make list articles for many types of interactions, so this seems excessive as well. Closetsingle (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Y'know, you're right. Spinning out that section into another article might be a good idea, though it would need rewritten to read more like an article & define the scope of what's appropriate. As it stands, it's basically just a list of court cases & police incidents. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think creating a new article sounds great. It isn't a list right now, and shouldn't be so either. Just move the whole section. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 18:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, you could put a bullet point in front of each of those "On DATE, (X happened)." There's no effective difference between that section and a list, at this point. So it all needs rewritten to be more encyclopedic, whether it stays here or is spun off to its own article. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking a WP:SPLIT would be appropriate here. Will create a pertinent discussion below. Muzilon (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

In Popular Media: Addendum
The Sovereign Citizens Movement was referenced and played a major role in the CBS show S.W.A.T. Season 1 Episode 12 “Contamination.” RSN90 (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * There is no third-party reliable source discussing the episode. There wasn't one for the other entry so I deleted the section. Generating a list of depictions is trivia. Being able to discuss depictions in popular media (for example, what the shows get right or wrong) without using individual editors' interpretations or analyses would be a useful discussion of the subject, but the sources are not there, at least, as far as my non-exhaustive search went. BiologicalMe (talk) 05:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Splitting proposal
I'd suggest that the subheading "Incidents" should be split into a separate page called Incidents involving the Sovereign citizen movement (or similar). Current article size is 94kb per WP:SIZESPLIT, and this lengthy section could easily be split off into a separate article. Muzilon (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I generally favor the idea, but would prefer to see a more detailed suggestion before saying "split". I think that some examples will help, but every instance muddies the water and is disproportionate. What I am most concerned with is the criteria for selecting the examples, and the inclusion criteria for a list-like article or list. I keep waiting on the book The Seditionists by J.J. MacNab to appear, hoping it might be a reliable source to generate a big-picture blueprint. It now has a scheduled release date of June 2020, and I will not count on it. Provide a good plan, and I'm in. BiologicalMe (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think a split of the article is a good idea. Rather, we should probably establish inclusion criteria & whittle this list down to the notable or relevant incidents, then rewrite the section to be more prose than a list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HandThatFeeds (talk • contribs) 12:12, July 11, 2019 (UTC)
 * Using good examples of each aspect (e.g. paper terrorism, homemade license plates, etc.) and avoiding a list of incidents would solve the problem of creating inclusion criteria for a list. There is no uniformity of the beliefs or terminology. In several cases, it isn't clear if the underlying incident had anything to do with sovereign citizen ideology; some cases may be people who were exposed to the idea in jail after arrest and employed the movement's legal arguments. As you can see, I'm fairly wishy-washy on this. I do agree that an unbounded list does not belong in the article. BiologicalMe (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose as this article is not yet large enough to warrant a split. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The current article size is 95kb. Per WP:SIZESPLIT, any article over 60kB should "probably" be split, and anything over 100kB should "almost certainly" be split. Muzilon (talk) 09:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * At the moment I'm with User:HandThatFeeds and User:BiologicalMe. I certainly wouldn't want to see a split without clear criteria for inclusion, and the incidents do help clarify the movement. Doug Weller  talk 12:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to look over the examples and establish what is salient and what is trivial. It's not a bright line. Some entries focus on trivial details of potentially important content. For example, the arrests of three people linked to the Guardians of the Free Republics are detailed in three separate entries in 2011 & 2012 sections. The individual arrest details are not as important as the group activities. Since there are relevant articles such as the one on the Guardians or 2010 West Memphis police shootings, I'm less inclined towards splitting. It may be possible to handle this judicious paring and an article list or categorization. BiologicalMe (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * CONVERT TO EMBEDDED LIST First there is no SIZESPLIT reason. SIZESPLIT cares about readable text... if you copy paste the text to notepad and save you'll find the readable text (no citations, no formatting, no images) is only 49KB.   Moreover, if an event is sufficiently notable to have its own wikipedia page, we can just provide a naked link to that event, or maybe a link and one sentence.  If its not that notable then just delete it here altogehter.  In other words, turn this whole section into an embedded list. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I think we have too many examples for an embedded list to work as-is. I'd prefer to cut down the examples to a few major cases, in prose form. If that gust too much, we can have two or three other examples as an embedded list. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed listings
This is my attempted distillation of the section, plus a few imports from the "see also" section

Incidents (chronological)

 * 1995 Oklahoma City bombing
 * 2010 West Memphis police shootings
 * 2016 Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge
 * 2017 Nashville Waffle House shooting

Groups

 * Embassy of Heaven
 * Guardians of the Free Republics
 * Oath Keepers
 * Patriot movement

Individuals

 * Anson Chi not self-identifying; RS describes "kinship" with the movement
 * Schaeffer Cox could be added as self-identifying with suitable RS reference at the target article which I didn't copy over
 * Glenn Unger-- not self-identifying, but Guardians of the Free Republics & Redemption movement; "sovereign citizen" in "see also" section; supporting RS

Rationale
I'm writing here so that I can sign after the lists. If someone wants to edit the lists, they can be boxed off for editing. I used two specific criteria--no red links, explicit RS use of the term "sovereign citizen". I haven't formalized further. I applied the WP:ALSO criterion of not listing entries in body text to Groups and Individuals, but not Incidents. They could be qualified as "Other". I used the heading, "Groups" because "Organizations" may not best describe some looser affiliations. BiologicalMe (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am ok with the above proposed list. Looks neat and tidy to me. I am not a regular editor of this article, so my comments should probably be taken with a grain of salt as I admit I dont know much about this subject. But as for formatting it looks ok. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Can some of these 'See Also' be integrated into the prose? Looks like a long list to me. I now understand what was being proposed. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Partially, as a long-term goal. I think the list of incidents that merit an article make an informative list that might persist. On the other hand, I hope enough of the individuals will be absorbed into the prose to make that section disappear. (I have one in mind for an edit I'm researching.) I don't know what will happen with groups or concepts. BiologicalMe (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Seeking closure
,, , , (I hope I listed everyone that contributed to the discussion):

It has been close to six months, and there has not been ongoing discussion. I have just made an effort to bring this to a close. The list in my version is not identical to my proposal, but close. If you want to add or delete, feel free. If you want to restore the text and resume discussion, please do so. For the full list you can review at the to my actions. BiologicalMe (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * looks good to me. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, yeah, that looks much cleaner. I like it, consider this an endorsement of your change. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No complaints from me! Muzilon (talk) 08:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Formal request has been received to merge: Freeman on the Land into Sovereign citizen movement; dated: March 4, 2020. Proposer's rationale: ''These are two names for what is essentially the same concept, and are often used interchangeably. The articles are very similar and use many of the same sources.'' Pinging proposer discuss below. Richard3120 (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose While there has been significant cross-adoption of ideas and terminology, the loosely organized groups have different histories and the misinterpreted laws are English vs. US. As a consequence, the laws protecting against their actions are different; for example, the "Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument" ruling has no direct impact on the sovereign citizen movement. BiologicalMe (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - no, they're distinct varieties of the idea, each sufficient to have their own article. They're very different manifestations - David Gerard (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Though they have similar ideas, the two groups are culturally different and have different origins, as well as different pseudo-legal arguments. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Similar but not identical absurdity, based on perverse malinterpretation not only of different laws but different legal systems altogether. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  22:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - For reasons adequately described above. Emeraude (talk) 10:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Apples and oranges. Both are fruit, but very different. Doug Weller  talk 11:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Bundy Standoff
IIRC, the Bundys won in court rather resoundingly, which would suggest their claims were legitimate. It seems a mischaracterization to include them with obvious charlatans. Not the least for which they may be used as an example by fraudsters as a veil of credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.139.226 (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * No, that would not suggest that their claims were legitimate. That's not how the American legal system works. For example, a not guilty verdict in a criminal case does not constitute a ruling that the defendant was correct about some nonsensical theory that the defendant presented -- whether the theory was presented in that particular case or anywhere else. Famspear (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

If the courts found them not guilty how would their claims not be legitimate? I would also suggest removing them from the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.26.77.245 (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The government did not secure a guilty verdict. That does not mean the case was invalid or that the defendants were innocent or right. That is beyond the scope of the jury's charge. BiologicalMe (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

What in the Bundy Case makes it characterized as Sovereign citizen? Because the media said so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.26.77.245 (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Multiple reliable sources. The one about Ryan Bundy filing motions in court declaring himself a "sovereign citizen" is enough to end this discussion. BiologicalMe (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And I should add that in addition to general interest sources, academic and law journals are available for support. BiologicalMe (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Sovereign_citizen_vs_Self_Ownership
Why are these separate articles? Please comment at the other article Talk:Self-ownership.

Intro lacks balance
I dont like to use the word "biased", because I dont think Wikipedia is biased. But balance? The intro is not balanced. Sure there are "extremists" in the SC movement, but there are also a lot of people who simply believe the police, for example, over-step their powers via government legislation. The whole "Defund the police" movement is about that. Police need to step back and not be allowed to take on ever more power. The intro could do with balance. 92.184.105.43 (talk) 10:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What, you have anti-bias bias? (humor alert)
 * As police derive their authority from government, the notion that legislation is the means by which police "over-step their powers" is something of an oxymoron. The intro is called a WP:LEAD and in a perfect article its supposed to summarize whats in the articles main body of text.  So let's start there.  What specific changes do you want to see?  Anyone can edit the article.  But you need to follow WP:Neutrality and only add material that can be verified using WP:Reliable sources. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Defund the police has nothing to do with sovereign citizens. Sovereign citizens believe that all modern law is optional and attempt to use complicated (and false) legal schemes to do things like occupy land and withdraw money and evade taxes and government regulations (and sometimes the "extremists" break stuff and kill people), and they believe they can do so without reprisal because they have not consented to the law. That's the definition. This article isn't about people who simply believe that police over-step their powers via government legislation, it's about people who believe the police have no legitimate power because the sovereign citizen has not consented to the law. We don't need to talk about defund the police here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well to be honest, that's my view too. I just figured to wait to see if the IP cares enough to try, since that's the best way to learn stuff NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Are we being detained? Guy (help! - typo?) 14:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , ARE YOU NOT BEING DETAINED?!?!  Ravensfire  (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Political position
I found this comment by, stating that "[s]everal sources describe them as [anti-government far-right], including Vox and The New York Times. The SPLC notes that the movement is rooted in racism and antisemitism." rightly stated that this is "[p]robably a better conversation to have [here]." And since I could not find any thread about it, I decided to open one myself. Is there some consensus among sources? Or are any of those sources (if not already in the article) to be added? If so, how to word it? —Davide King (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * While the title reflects the general description in the media in the singular, there is no strong consensus on what the "sovereign citizen movement" is. A lot of the current sovereign citizen ideations were developed by far-right groups, but the "memeplex", the ever-mutating collection of fantastical ideas, has jumped from group to group. As the BBC said succinctly, "their ideas travel".  The NYT article describes a sovereign "guru" whose target group was New Age, not far-right. The Freeman on the land movement is more left-wing. Are US-based, freeman-derived groups sovereign citizens? As an academic source says, "the term 'sovereign citizen' refers to a wide variety of groups and individuals." Defining sovereign citizens is like herding cats. BiologicalMe (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Moorish Nation
This article explicitly states on several occasions that this group of ideas has "roots/ties in white nationalist and militia groups", and throughout seems to suggest it's basically a bunch of white right wing nutjobs, even the "Moorish Nation" that is mentioned. Which makes the reader wonder "why do a bunch of white nationalists call themselves 'Moors'? Is that supposed to be ironic?" But a quick few minutes watching videos on Youtube shows that these "Moors" are mostly, or all, persons of color. It seems to be an ethnic division of the original theme, and it would appear that the theme is no longer exclusively white nationalist or right wing. Why is this not relevant information to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.90.67 (talk) 03:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The roots of the concept are among white nationalists and militia groups. The fact that the "Moorish Nation" group has imitated the idea, doesn't change the origin and ties of the movement. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  03:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Please replace American with worldwide
Many videos are from England, Canada, Australia and other countries and to focus on America is misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:585:8501:F0A0:9C1E:96B4:25F4:FB6D (talk) 11:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Lede tone could be improved for NPOV
This is my first time learning about this subject, but the lede right now sounds a bit un-encyclopedic. Perhaps its the excessive use of the word "they" that makes it sound pov. --Pythagimedes (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The lede just summarizes the article contents. It doesn't have to be quite as specific as the rest of the article. And I'm not sure how "they" makes it sound POV. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 13:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)