Talk:David Wynn Miller

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In the truth" section[edit]

The "In the truth" section of this article makes unclear claims, citing even more unclear language from Miller to "explain" it, e.g. "the people who do not use Truth-language are in fiction = no fact." The "Selected Cases" section talks about people being convicted "despite" using Miller's theories, which non-neutrally suggests that Miller's theories should have kept them from being convicted.

Less formally: Miller is a crackpot. (You could make an argument for removing his page entirely, except that he keeps showing up in court cases, which makes him borderline notable.) The page, however, is written from an almost "in-universe" point of view, i.e. as if anything he says makes sense at all. I'd clean it up myself, but I have to admit I'm not even sure where to start. Tahnan (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took a stab at it. Famspear (talk) 04:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
strong work, Jokestress. Special thanks for cleaning up my refs (I'm new to this, and the syntax can be tough to remember)--Mark Asread 11:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Asread (talk • contribs)

I (an anonymous user) changed the name in this article to the correct given name as the previous name is written in a way that would not be valid on a certificate of birth or citizenship name change (such as social security). This would not meet a high quality of standards in encyclopedic work, hence the change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.248.242 (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Suggestion of death of Miller[edit]

In Sept 2018 one of Miller's adherents posted an announcement of a memorial service for David Wynn Miller to be held in Las Vegas, with the oblique mention that Miller had died in the summer of 2018, but not specifying the place or circumstances. About a year before, a video had been posted on the internet featuring some people who evidently adhered to Miller's grammatical theories but saying that he had been kicked out of his own organization for some trifling offense. Sussmanbern (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to Get this Into Some Semblance of Shape[edit]

Continuing to try and make something accurate and useful out of this weak, muddled, and sketchy article. The two pieces I could find online on Miller are unsympathetic, and I would like balance this with corresponding positive opinions, but I can't seem to find any.

The section on Millers theory of language is confusing and strange. My guess is that it was written by the subject himself. Certainly the previous heading (see the page history) points to that. I'm not sure if it's possible to write a neutral POV explication of his linguistic theories.

Any other editors who'd like to make a good-faith effort to do something with this?

--Mark Asread 03:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Asread (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your work wading through this, Mark and Jokestress. I think we should remove the second two quotes from Miller. One quote is plenty to demonstrate what his writing looks like. The introductions to the second two supposedly summarize their meanings, but I think it's a stretch to provide a summary of their meaning without an independent reference. (And looking at the history, I don't think that section was written by the subject... this small edit in particular might have made it look that way.) --Allen (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with this proposal. One quotation gives a sense of the style used, and the others are linked in the reference for those interested in more examples. Jokestress (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have decided to be bold and move the two quotations in question here for further discussion.
Miller says the people who do not use Truth-Language are in Fiction = no fact. He states:

FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE WRONG-SYNTAX-COMMUNICATION-TEACHINGS ARE WITH THE CLAIM OF THE TEACHINGS WITH THE LODIO-CONTRACT-VOID = AILING BY THE RULING-CLASS, GOV, KING, QUEEN, JUDGE, ATTORNEY, LAWYER, TEACHER, PRIEST, DOCTOR AND [PEOPLE JUST DO NOT KNOW!!!] OF EVERY-NATION ON EARTH WITH THE SLAVERY OF THE PEOPLE WITH THE CONTROL OF THE LICENSING-USURY AND TAXATION OF THE WATER, AIR, EARTH AND FIRE.[1]

Miller says that the people who use Truth-language are in the right. He states:

FOR THE CORRECTION OF THESE WRONGS IS WITH THE CLAIM OF THIS NO-CITIZEN=UNITED(ADJECTIVE) STATES(PRONOUN) OF(ADVERB) AMERICA(VERB-FICTION) WITH THE LAW OF THE TITLE~42: C.-S.-C.-S.-~1986 FOR THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW AND FACTS AND WITH THE RIGHT OF THE CORRECTION WITH THE VOIDANCE OF THE PERJURY BY THE CITIZEN.[1]

I believe the remaining quotation in the article gives a sense of the syntax and summarizes his views adequately. The two quotations above appear in the same page linked in the references for those who wish to learn more. Jokestress (talk)

References

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Comm_Methods was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Please be careful when alleging a Jared Loughner connection[edit]

I know that a commentators are speculating on this, but I haven't seen it in mainstream news reports, and most speculation about Loughner "connections" is just that, speculation. I'm not claiming to know that there is no connection, only that it's speculative at this point. Unless there are reliable sources reporting on evidence of a connection, such speculation frankly doesn't belong here. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the New York Times is a mainstream news report, as is the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. You removed citations from both. The reason several thousand people have read this in the last few days is the notability due to similarities between some ideas espoused by both men. We aim for verifiability, not truth. I am reverting unless there is an objection to including the recent New York Times and Journal-Sentinel coverage. Jokestress (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to revert war, but I don't think that sourced speculation is much better than unsourced speculation in matters like this. Believe me, I understand exactly how the speculation comes about, but without anything concrete it is just speculation, and implying that there's anything more to it is not good. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think our coverage is quite fair. We report on his sudden increase in notability, and we cite another reliable source with Miller's direct response to the speculation. If you think it needs to be more clear that it is just speculation, we should definitely revise. Jokestress (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And a guy from the Southern Poverty Law Center was on Keith Olbermann's show on MSNBC and suggested there might be a similarity between some of the ideas expressed by Loughner's YouTube videos and the ideas of David Wynn Miller. Not sure if that counts as a WP:RS or whatever, but just thought I'd throw it in there. —Tom Morris 21:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag and proposed split[edit]

An editor has tagged the section on newspaper reports of legal cases involving Miller's grammar. I don't think they merit a separate article. Because the cases are relevant to the article and appear in reliable secondary sources, I believe they acceptable to use here. There has not been any discussion since the tag was placed, so barring any discussion in the next week, I plan to remove the tags after that time. Jokestress (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the NPOV tag, I haven't a strong opinion. It seems like a convenient suggestion to say it is NPOV as with other "pseudolawyers" because this section doesn't include listings of cases where Miller's bizarre legal-grammatical theories have been successful. The solution to that is for the person who added the NPOV tag to follow SOFIXIT! Add them! Stick 'em on the talk page!
The split suggestion seems completely pointless. If this were a much longer article and this added a huge amount of bulk to an otherwise bulky article, splitting it off into a separate list article or something similar would be appropriate. As it is, it doesn't need splitting.
Unless someone is willing to step up and give reasons for the tags, removing them after a week seems reasonable. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I let this stand for several months without anything happening, so I am going to remove the tags. The cases discussed are all the ones that have appeared in reliable sources. If there are any cases where his strategies prevailed, they have not been mentioned in reliable sources. If anyone finds one, we can certainly add it. Jokestress (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First Paragraph, Last Sentence, Needs Citation[edit]

The last sentence of the first paragraph needs a citation. The reason is that the nature of a properly configured lawful response under :David-Wynn: Miller's system results in "no record of transaction" because the initiating cause of litigation is negated and therefore withdrawn from public record. If the originator of that sentence does not understand this concept then please rebut it here. Thanks. PiPhD (talk) 02:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC[edit]

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Wynn Miller. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syntax[edit]

From the lead:

People seeking remedy with Miller's syntax in court apparently profit nothing from the change in style.

This suggests that it does no harm...???--Jack Upland (talk) 07:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reported dead[edit]

Miller's followers/co-delusionists have reported that he died (again) on June 22, 2018. No reliable confirmation as of yet. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Thirdgen: In relation to this, YouTube is generally discouraged as a source (depends on the channel/person of course), so I tried to look for better sources but am having a hard time. This video appears to be mostly promotional, it seems, but does include the mention. —PaleoNeonate – 18:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While Miller could indeed be dead in the natural sense, this could just as well be an opinion by other postal-court nuts that he has "died" in some pseudolegal sense by not following the necessary procedures, misplacing a hyphen, etc. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, a judge in Canada has mentioned him in a Memorandum and said he's dead.
"BGD also identified the recently deceased self-proclaimed judge David Wynn Miller […]" --158.181.77.138 (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Read wp:primary, I am not sure this is quite good enough.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign Citizen Movement[edit]

I see this description often whilst reading articles and watching video presentations. What is it?

I believe the phrase "Sovereign Citizen" is grammatically incorrect, an oxymoron because one cannot simultaneously be sovereign and a citizen. It seems to be frequently used in a derogatory manner towards anyone investigating, then acting on information regarding the use of maritime law in western society courts.

The spread of the use of phrases of this type is rife and needs to be curtailed.

The correct term, I believe, is "Sovereign".

This is just my observation, but I believe all Wikipedia articles containing the phrase "Sovereign Citizen" should be amended to read "Sovereign". — Preceding unsigned comment added by UKKiwi57 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@UKKiwi57: the term is nonsense but it's the one that is used in the sources, so we use it. See WP:VERIFY. People can call themselves whatever silly thing they wish. Doug Weller talk 10:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Much of this seems to rely on SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IN fact if we take out the SPS, and material about other peoples court cases what is left?Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth[edit]

He states his date of birth as September 17, 1949 25 seconds into https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8QYMNGukxc. Is this considered a reliable reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.40.155.142 (talk) 23:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Wynn_Miller&oldid=1195559101"