Talk:Sovereign citizen movement

Missing SovCit leader

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)

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)

Gould definitely belongs in this article, as he is currently one of the main advocates of "Quantum grammar". There is indeed a mention of him, which I included a mention based on what I could find in reliable sources. However, unlike David Wynn Miller, the sources centered on Gould alone are perhaps too few to warrant an article about him. Since the "notable individuals" section includes people who are the subjects of Wikipedia articles, the fact that he doesn't have one explains his absence.

However, if we ever have enough sources, it would certainly be interesting to create a page about Gould. Psychloppos (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Lack of verifiable evidence

This article describes the Sovereign citizen movement with derogatory statements, generalizations and opinions which are not substantiated with verifiable evidence. It sounds more like a government propaganda piece than a neutral document. Readers should be informed with facts and not indoctrinated with vitriol. For example, phrases like “financial scammers”, “conspiracy theorists”, “pseudolegal belief system”, “misinterpretation of common law”, and “perceived government oppression” should be supported with evidence that this is the case with a majority of members. 174.90.104.46 (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

You mean the 227 references? The article is about the movement as described in reliable sources, not a demographic survey of adherents' views. Acroterion (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

If references are being used correctly, they only provide factual information. A correct way to invoke references in characterizing the Sovereign Citizen movement would be to say something along the lines of 'JM Berger in a study published by George Washington University Press, characterizes the Sovereign Citizen movement as pseudolegal, racist, radical, (etc)'. Numerous of these, particularly the characterization as radical or extremist, are ultimately subjective characterizations. Not factual. To provide a factual account of the Sovereign Citizens Movement ought to be the goal of this wiki. Not to lend voice to discrediting the movement, rightly or wrongly. 108.21.99.26 (talk) 04:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree, and I checked one of the sources which characterizes this movement as having originated from "racist anti-government movements". I did not find any reference to white supremacist or racist political movements in the source material that was being used as a reference for this claim. This article is writted with extreme bias. It does not express the views of this group in a neutral and factual voice, but is rife with subtextual condemnations. 108.21.99.26 (talk) 04:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I partially retract this reply. The reference does supposedly make a case for certain elements of the sovereign citizen movement to find precedent among white nationalist movements of the 1870s, but I would maintain that these are not deductively reasoned, and even if they were, this is a historiographical characterization, which derives from a certain historical narrative. To maintain neutrality in this article, the conclusions drawn from the historiography of the Soveriegn Citizens Movement ought to be presented as historiographical, rather than as robust or innate factual account of the movement. The multiple layers of distance from primary documents, I would argue, further supply reasoning why the conclusions derived from these historical analyses ought to be presented as the historical work of XYZ institution or historian. They are arguments, not facts. 108.21.99.26 (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Some of what you describe is a virtue rather than a vice. Wikipedia has chosen to base itself off of reliable secondary sources, and so primary sources are to be used with care if at all. When there is a clear consensus among secondary sources as to a fact or conclusion, then it is appropriate to state that in Wikivoice. You seem much closer to talking about original research, which is a wonderful thing, but not why Wikipedia is here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)