Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 19

19 September 2009

Sovereign Citizens – Closure endorsed. The redirect maintains the page history and doubts about the best target can still be raised at the respective talk pages. – Tikiwont (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Sovereign Citizens (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore) I am just going to start writing because it is far too complicated to figure out what all this means. You deleted my page sovereign citizens and redirected it to Sovereign Citizen Movement. I simply don't get it. Apparently you are going to deny the greatest invention to come out of the books written during the enlightenment that the Founding Fathers of the USA were reading when when they wrote our constitution. FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY, Sovereignty was vest in the hands of the individual citizen and not a king, dictator nor any other official of the state, elected or otherwise. That is why our elected officials are referred to as "PUBLIC SERVANTS". I dare my opponents in this argument to provide any explanation for the use of the term "public servants" without admitting the Founding Father's vested Sovereignty to the individual citizen. That is whay for the early history of the USA, it was referred to as "The Great American Experiment" The People were the Sovereigns. The persons who want to lump this concept into the Sovereign Citizen Movement cite some book written in 2008 that gives credit to the radical anarchist group, Posse' Comatatus, for first using the term. The Posse' Commitas first chartered in 1969. I provided a video of Ronald Reagan in 1964 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY (@@3:30), using the term "Sovereign People" (American's have a propensity to us "People" interchangeably with "Citizen" do to the use of the phrase "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,..." at the start of our constitution] Even if the 2008 book, the opponents invoke is to be trusted as to its reference that the Posse Commitatus used the term, clearly the 1964 Reagan Speech came before the chartering of the Posse Comitatus group in 1969. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_(organization) Simply, it is defamatory to associate the concept of "Sovereign Citizens" intended by the Founding Fathers, referenced by Ronald Reagan and used by myself and others with radical anarchist groups like the posse comatatus. I am not a member, to the best of my knowledge is Ronald Reagan, nor is it possible that any of the Founding Fathers could have been a member of the Posse' Comatatus. Nor do myself, Ronald Reagan nor the Founding Father's espouse the radical anarchist ideology of the Posse Camatatus or their related anarchist groups. Lastly, to deny that Sovereignty of the Citizens was an invention of the US Founding Fathers directly resulting from the knowledge and philosophy created and elaborated on during the Enlightenment, is to deny one of the greatest inventions in the history of mankind. George Washington was offered to be made king and refused. And whereupon, the Great American Experiment began, with Sovereignty not vested in rulers but the individual citizens. If you deny this, I must conclude that Wikipedia is nothing more than a Progressiveness tool to engage in revisionist history and act accordingly. Please restore my page. Make the corrections that you feel necessary, but the USA's Founding Fathers and Ronald Reagan concept of Sovereign Citizens and Sovereign People cannot simply be lumped into the Sovereign Citizen Movement. (PS - You should send an email to the author of a page before you decide to delete it-I received no such notification prior to the article being deleted) Please act on this promptly [Cynical Patriot - DMashak@aol.com] agreed you seem to be using the term in a somewhat different sense, but you none the less need references that the terminology has been discussed in articles or books the way you use it. I do not see this in any of the references given. DGG ( talk ) 17:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC) WP:TLDR comes to mind when reading the nomination, but that aside, I don't see anything here showing how the deletion process was not properly followed. I endorse the closure. To the specific point of emailing users, as there are thousands of pages deleted each day, it's not viable to email users whose pages are nominated; the vast bulk of users are given a talk page message. Stifle (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Endorse redirect. The previous version of the article is still in the history. If the nominator wants to use that content to create another article, they can do so, but it should be given a different title. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Comment: Malformed DRV fixed. Tim Song (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Comment. I would urge the nominator not to speak in the first person. "We" are not all American. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC) I am impressed that everyone has responded with appropriate decorum to a strongly worded statement from a user that is clearly unfamiliar with our protocols. I linked this page on their talk page, but if someone would e-mail them as a courtesy to make sure they have an opportunity to participate and read the above comments that would be great. I think the courteous replies and discussion are a credit to our project. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Endorse though I'm almost tempted to suggest a speedy close; perhaps the nom is saved by TLDR. Anyway, no error in the closure that I can detect. Tim Song (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC) After reading that tirade, my comment is... the Aristocrats! The proper target of this redirect (XfD also proposed Popular sovereignty) is a subject for a talk page, not DRV. Miami33139 (talk) 04:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.