"state national"

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

One reference isn't sufficient to demonstrate that this is an alternative term that merits mention. Whether SCs prefer the term or not is irrelevant. VQuakr (talk) 22:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The term is already mentioned here among other denominations. Psychloppos (talk) 12:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The term "State National" falls in line with the descriptions and definitions of Sovereign Citizen. Actions and beliefs of "State Nationals" are exactly the same as Sovereign Citizens and therefore rightly belong as a synonym.
@ 2601:281:D47F:4010:122B:8DCC:18E5:73BD (talk) 05:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you need a reliable source showing this is a synonym, not just a one-off term this particular subgroup uses. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With this already included in the "Denominations and symbols" section, barring sources that can show widespread usage of the term across the spectrum of sovcit groups, I think it's being handled appropriately. Ravensfire (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME would suggest that we continue to use "sovereign citizen". TarnishedPathtalk 03:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed but I also think we can include the other terms sovereign citizens may use to describe themselves in the lead paragraph. G o m m e h 15:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see why we would. It would strke me as being a bit WP:UNDUE. TarnishedPathtalk 23:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The USA is not a common law country.

The first sentence makes it sound like the USA is a common law country. It should be reformulated with something like mainly observed in the United States as well as some common law countries: Canada, UK, Australia. 24.212.14.201 (talk) 03:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thompson Reuters says that:
"There are many countries throughout the world that use common law legal systems, including the United States, which originally based its common law rules on English common law.
In fact, every U.S. state — with the exception of Louisiana — has a common law legal system". TarnishedPathtalk 03:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct. I feel stupid, but I was thinking of the Commonwealth. 24.212.14.201 (talk) 07:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All former British colonies have legal systems based on common law. This is explicitly called out with respect to the US in the Federalist papers. I know that in the current judicial climate you could be forgiven for thinking that precedent means nothing, but that's a relatively recent complete rewriting of history by activists. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but doesn't Canada have a similar system except for Quebec? G o m m e h 15:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Claim of roots in white supremacy?

That sovereign citizens is supposedly rooted in white supremacy is news to me. One of the "references" refers to a case involving four black men, one of whom goes all sovcit on the court. Is that white supremacy? It goes on to refer to some allegedly racist guy named Gale who concocted this hare-brained dogma.

To say that it is rooted in white supremacy is a stretch when the reality is that crazy people come up with crazy things and other crazies who hear it buy in wholeheartedly. Besides, the movement preceded Gale by decades and had nothing to do with race, it was about taxation. He only gave it a name and even that is hearsay. That black defendants in a primarily black Baltimore invoked it, says all you need to know about the roots in "white supremacy." 47.202.154.230 (talk) 13:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt you can back up your personal analysis with sources? The SovCit movement did in fact originate in the 1970s among white supremacists. That doesn't prevent the fundamental ideas from being adopted by black people, or for SovCit to lose its overall racist character, or to prevent racists from continuing to adhere to it because there are black people who've adopted it. You are demanding logic and consistency from a movement that rejects logic. We stick to the sources and actual history; articles aren't obligated to fit your framing of once-racist, always-racist. Acroterion (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No tags for this post.