This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
Sovereign citizen movement is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Biased reporting of sovereign citizen beliefs[edit]
I question why the addition of the far left groups such as ANTIFA and BLM were conveniently left out of this report. This article clearly targets and depicts white conservatives as the main culprits and believers, all the while both ANTIFA and BLM were shutting out and denouncing the police and the overall respect for our laws. 174.231.208.195 (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have reliable sources that connect antifa or blm to the sovereign citizen movement? Schazjmd(talk) 18:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this person has gone astray and may be criticizing our content about January 6, 2021. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're saying BLM/antifa/ACAB rhetoric led to the SovCit movement, I think there is a timing problem. —Tamfang (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless they're talking about time travel or backwards causation? TarnishedPathtalk 10:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's no longer "mainly based in the United States"[edit]
This is clearly old information, it is present in many countries around the world and it's misleading to portray otherwise. 2601:201:8B81:FA80:50EB:1CC4:BE38:BCC (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, what's happened is that groups in other countries have adopted some of the SovCit's talking points (even when it doesn't apply, like First Amendment arguments). Those groups still have their own histories and political stances, they've just mashed SovCit tactics & talking points into their own agendas. That's documented in this article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so it's completely misleading to say "based mainly in the United States". It should say "originated in the United States"
I'm guessing these edits were made by a non-American in an attempt to downplay other nations involvement. Just a guess 2601:201:8B81:FA80:F45A:6F43:BEE9:AAA6 (talk) 04:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You'd need to provided reliable sources for that. I know that in Australia (where I'm from), groups which make pseudo-legal commercial arguments, object to being called "sovereign citizens". TarnishedPathtalk 10:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked some other language versions of this article (French, Polish, Swedish and German). With the exception of the German Reichsburger movement there doesn't seem to be any groups that pose a threat, engage in armed conflict or engage in "paper terrorism" like members of the US sovereign citizen movement do. I have not found any warnings from the national law enforcement agencies specifically about the local groups, again with the exception of the Reichburger movement. So I agree with the statement in the article that this is mainly a US thing. Sjö (talk) 11:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know the groups here, prop up in the news everyone now and then when one of them refuses to hand their driver's licence to a cop when the get pulled over and it always results in the cop smashing their windows and dragging them from the cars. I've received some of their letters as part of my job, but it's nothing like the US. I agree it's mainly a US thing. TarnishedPathtalk 11:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Both my review of the sources (which matters) and my personal experience (which doesn't) tells me that "mainly based in the U.S." is correct, though the ideas are definitely spreading. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing these edits were made by
Imma stop you right there. Don't go speculating people are editing in a biased manner on purpose without clear evidence of wrongdoing. Making unproven assertions like that is a personal attack. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was skimming the page looking for things missing from the SovCit page I'm writing for a smaller wiki that mostly follows minor players in the American and Canadian movements and noticed that Russell-Jay: Gould was missing from the list of notable individuals. Russel took over most of David-Wynn: Miller's audience and Quantum Grammar after his passing. I also couldn't find a wiki page on Russell which kinda makes sense he has a tendency to drone on and on for hours blowing smoke up his own ass and revising the history of Quantum Grammar. 50.37.85.2 (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am vaguely aware of Gould, IP, but I am not sure he has the sort of notability (yet) for a Wikipedia article. I am not even sure he belongs in this article, but I certainly don't keep tabs as closely as I once did. You could certainly prove me wrong by providing reliable sources about him! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Sov Cit movement never been successful in court' is a subjective statement[edit]
The last sentence in the second paragraph saying, 'Sovereign citizen arguments have no basis in law and have never been successful in any court' is more a truthy statement than a factual one. Not too many sovereign citizen ideologues have been successful in an american court however case law is more complex than a broad blanket statement. John Joe Gray is one example of a court removing an arrest warrant after a 15 year standoff with texas authorities.
This is not an attempt to justify the sov cit movement of course, however I'd like broad blanket statements to be clarified Filthy Peasant (talk) 09:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
John Joe Gray didn't win because of any sovereign citizen argument, but more because the DA thought fifteen years was enough. [1].Sjö (talk) 10:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not subjective at all. There are no WP:RS which document a successful SovCit argument in court. Every "victory" they've claimed is because of actual legal considerations, the SovCit argument was never considered. For instance, SovCits love to claim Cliven Bundy won based on SovCit arguments, but that's flatly untrue: the case was declared a mistrial due to prosecutorial malfeasance. And that's how it always winds up, anytime a SovCit "wins" it had nothing to do with their nonsense. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still, to say so, we need a reliable source saying so; otherwise it's a novel synthesis WP:SYNTH. Nø (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's WP:SKYBLUE. There is no synthesis, because there are zero examples of their strategies working. We don't have to prove there's no invisible unicorn in my backyard, the onus is on those who want to show the SovCits have ever had their strategies upheld by a court. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nø: what are you talking about regarding SYNTH? The statement is already sourced and cited to the SPLC. OP: As others have noted this is an objective statement of fact not a subjective statement as you claim. VQuakr (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the first of the two sources cited at the end of the sentence warrants the statement "... have never been successful in any court". Never and Any are big words. The second source cited I cannot verify. Nø (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're very straightforward words. As I said, the onus is on those who want to show that there has ever been a successful SovCit argument in court. Just present one. Otherwise, this argument is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that sentence and a section further on both clearly say 'Sovereign citizen arguments have no basis in law and have never been successful in any court' not 'movement'—blindlynx 00:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=logo}
.svg){kind=small}