Talk:Deep state in the United States/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

RfC: Should the lead paragraph include explicit mention of non-conspiracy theories of the Deep state in the United State as detailed in existing body text and footnotes?

The consensus is against the proposed change.

Cunard (talk) 07:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the lead paragraph include explicit mention of non-conspiracy theories of the Deep state in the United State as detailed in existing body text and footnotes? TMLutas (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

body:

1. According to political scientist George Friedman, the Deep State has been in place since 1871 and continues beneath the federal government, controlling and frequently reshaping policies; in this view the U.S. civil service, was created to limit the power of the president. Prior to 1871, the president could select federal employees, all of whom served at the pleasure of the president. This is no longer the case.
2. Writing in a piece for the Moyers & Company website, John Light asserts that the term deep state "has been used for decades abroad to describe any network of entrenched government officials who function independently from elected politicians and work toward their own ends," but during the era of Trump the term has been twisted to mean "a sub rosa part of the liberal establishment, that crowd resistant to the reality TV star’s insurgent candidacy all along."
3. Michael Crowley, senior foreign affairs correspondent for Politico wrote, "Beneath the politics of convenience is the reality that a large segment of the United States government really does operate without much transparency or public scrutiny, and has abused its awesome powers in myriad ways."
4. The term "deep state" has been associated with the "military–industrial complex" by several of the authors on the subject.

footnotes:

1. Friedman, George (March 15, 2017). "The Deep State Is A Very Real Thing". The HuffingtonPost.
2. Light, John (March 31, 2017). "The Deep State, Explained". Moyers & Company. Retrieved July 6, 2019.
3. Crowley, Michael {September/October 2017) "The Deep State is Real: But it might not be what you think" Politico Magazine
4. ""Deep State" in American History | C-SPAN.org". www.c-span.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TMLutas (talk • contribs)

---

• TMLutas - Above is where you actually articulate your proposal, argument or viewpoint. You have to do more than just post raw information with no context or commentary and expect any changes to be made. The instructions at WP:RFC are straightforward, I'm not sure why this is proving so difficult for you. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Since I don't have a specific wording that I'm pushing but just want to form consensus that the article and the lead are not in accord and that we should have some mention of the non-conspiracy variants in the lead, the current form seems both adequate and very much like the OANN RfC, the Wikiproject Politics RfC, and the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States currently active. That's three out of the four RfCs. I started off just wanting a nice discussion on this and was immediately branded as pushing a fringe topic. You can't really get very far from there, which is why I tried NPOV and now RfC. TMLutas (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• May I suggest that you look at other RfC's to see how they are formatted. Here is a list in this subject area: [1]. O3000 (talk) 01:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. I did that. By my count, three out of the four others currently active don't have a specific proposal but just a question as does mine. I'm not seeking to do anything other than to start a conversation unburdened by the idea that it's fringe to talk about non-conspiracy variants of the deep state in America. How we recognize that is the subject of consensus building to come. TMLutas (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I have a specific proposal: Leave the text as it is. The consensus text. O3000 (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Since the major reason that we are having an RfC at all is your refusal to have a reasonable discussion on resolving the current contradictions between the RS sources included in the body and the summary that ignores them in the article without a formal process such as an RfC, your continuation of the theme here is unsurprising. TMLutas (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

You will never gain a consensus for anything by resorting to attacks and bad faith assumptions. I and others here see no problem with the correct text as per WP:BALASP. I have explained my position quite clearly. The fact that you have a different opinion does not in any way mean obstinance on my part. People have different opinions. Get used to it. O3000 (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The problem with the lead paragraph is exactly that it doesn't recognize the diversity of opinion already included in the body text. It's almost funny that you're arguing for nonrecognition of points of view in the lead based on the idea that "People have different opinions". When I suggested laying out ground rules of how steep the hill would need to be to climb in order to justify a change, you immediately jumped in with the idea that a non-conspiracy theory idea of the deep state is a fringe theory and there's no need for discussion on the point of how much evidence would justify a change of opinion because of WP:Fringe and WP:Undue. You've stuck to that line consistently. It's a misuse to start off with that in a discussion over standards of proof and if you'd simply stop doing that and at least allow the discussion over what standards of proof are necessary for a change, we wouldn't be having this RfC. TMLutas (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

For the fourth time, I'm not obstructing anything whatsoever. I simply don't agree that this is WP:DUE for the lead. WP:BALASP I'm tired of repeating myself and won't again. O3000 (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Since I really am trying to be accommodating, I tried to figure out what your positive contributions were to this page in order to preserve that line of thought. After a thorough review of the entire page's history of your contributions I literally found nothing at time of writing. You have never had a positive contribution to this page. Literally, all your contributions to the article consist of reversions of other people who try to move the page forward. I remain without a clue as to what you are trying to accomplish other than repeatedly telling other people that they're doing it wrong. Consensus with someone whose only contribution is reversion is a skill that escapes me. TMLutas (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:FOC O3000 (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Let me try to explain this as clearly as I can. Wikipedia functions via WP:CONSENSUS. You are suggesting a change to the focus of this article. That cannot occur without consensus for such. If you look over your posts in this thread, they basically criticize instead of convince. You are now simply reducing your argument to, in essence, stating that I’m a crappy, useless editor who contributes nothing. OK, I’ll admit to being a crappy, useless editor who contributes nothing. Now that that’s out of the way, how does this in any way help you gain consensus? WP:FOC is not just designed to make the editing process more pleasant, but to make it more productive. If you want to make a change in the focus of the article, you must convince other editors that you have a case. You haven’t done that, and frankly, aren’t likely to with your sources, argument, or attitude. Just my humble opinion. O3000 (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be under the false idea that there is some sort of disagreement about the rules of Wikipedia here. There is not. You have engaged in no constructive edits to further the article and exclusively in reverting the contribution of other editors. You literally have nothing positive to say. You have engaged in a campaign to disrupt my attempts at forging a consensus by disruptive participation. On the advice of other editors/administrators, I am going through, step by step the process necessary to document what is the appropriate course forward and you are the majority respondent to that process. That would be fine if you were doing something other than misapplying Wikipedia guidelines over and over again. In this RfC you are, once again, the loudest, most dominant participant and you have made the same, repetitive point five times. Please stop digging a hole by repeating yourself yet again and let some other people talk, if there's anyone left that you haven't scared away. TMLutas (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Pot/kettle/black. If you have a complaint, make it at the correct venue. O3000 (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support - per WP:LEAD The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. Since a large part of the article is about it just being used as defined in Cambridge, Lexico or Webster.... the lead should mention such serious use of the term. (p.s. I note that pre-2016 instances exist, e.g. NYT article reviewing essay by Philip Giraldi.) I think the lead currently has a problem of starting the initial line with a judgement prior to any definition. That just looks like a blind labeling, a prejudice and an explicit bias to the article. A general judgement view should be stated as the second line or later and be per LEAD be due to significant body content. And there is some content - but it's rambling mislocated in the Definition section. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - This article is about the deep state conspiracy theory which has garnered massive media attention. Some historical uses belong in the body, where they currently reside. Metaphorical references in some current articles/papers belong nowhere in this article. The may belong in the Deep state article, which is far more broad. O3000 (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for finally laying your cards on the table. You should have asked for a page split along conspiracy/nonconspiracy lines before I showed up if you think that this page is only about the conpsiracy theory. I can work with that. TMLutas (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Good grief. O3000 (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

So are we done here? This article can be renamed +(conspiracy theory} via the move function. SPECIFICO talk 01:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support The deep state is used to describe real observable phenomenon, as well as conspiracy theories. Globalism is similarly used to describe an economic, cultural and political phenomenon, and conspiracies to bring about world government. In fact, I would put the conspiracy theory later, since its less of an interest for serious and factual study. Francis1867 (talk) 09:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposal is based on false presuppositions, because there is no serious non-conspiratorial discussion of a "deep state". George Friedman for example, is not accurately described as a "political scientist" but rather a "Magic 8-ball", and the other proposed sources are all self-published. The "deep state is real" perspective is paradigmatically FRINGE, and is less widely believed than young earth creationism or, indeed, the flat earth itself. Newimpartial (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Francis1867 ~ HAL333 16:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Newimpartial Gamaliel (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - The theory that the apolitical career civil service - first instituted 130 years ago with the Pendleton Act after President James Garfield was assassinated by an angry office-seeker and thus brought wide attention to the multiple problems created by the spoils system - is a "deep state" thwarting the powers of elected officials is, in short, a fringe conspiracy theory, and giving it more credence here would be just one of the problems created by this proposal. (Please name one functioning modern society where every employee of the national government is a political appointee. You can't, because it's an absurd and insane idea.) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The cited references offered in support by OP are weak and off-topic. The artilce is about a recent conspiracy theory. Adding content related to the normal workings of the civil service since George Washington's time would be like having a lenghty section on Icarus in the article about the Wright Brothers. SPECIFICO talk 20:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The cited material does not support the change; quite the opposite, in fact ... it suggests that a line should be added to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_service#United_States mentioning that conspiracy theorists have referred to it as "the Deep State", linking to this article. -- Jibal (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - There is no evidence of the existence of a "Deep State" which is not related to some kind of conspiracy-theory. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article quality

Controversy aside, this article is extremely confusing descriptively. First, the “deep state” is an alleged set of actors and networks (that is, it refers to an alleged real-world phenomenon). Saying that “the deep state is a conspiracy theory” is a grammatically useless confusion of map and territory, where the signifier (the term “deep state”) has been substituted for the signified (the network it alleges as existing) in order to discredit the signifier itself. (It would be like saying “George Bush is a conspiracy theory,” when George Bush is in fact a person.) This ends up being a complete obfuscation that leaves the reader (or at least this reader) confused.

Second, the fact that the term “deep state” in the first sentence links to a separate article about the deep state (again in place of an actual definition of the term) renders this article circular.

I would edit this myself, but this is obviously a matter of partisan fervor and I’m sure my edits would be reverted immediately. But the big-brained positivists reverting edits here should perhaps figure out some basics of the English language before trying to go around discrediting what they consider to be idiotic conspiracies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerysonga (talk • contribs) 06:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Split the Article

There seems to be a disconnect on this page. The opening calls it a conspiracy theory, but then it list a bunch of people saying how it is reasonable to believe in it. I think we should simply create a new section, based around the conspiracy theory that it is actively going after Trump, as opposed to a simple observation of the inner workings of the US Government. 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

First-sentence text deletion

The segment "exist within the U.S. political system and" should be deleted. Beyond any reasonable doubt, unless you're a naive five-year-old called Polly-Anna, collusion and cronyism are pervasive within the system (as evidenced by the influence of corporate donors). What is up for debate is whether this is so extensive and deep as to enable a covert level of governance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.37.83 (talk) 11:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2021

Spelling correction: change "Statesments" to "Statements", in the title of the main article. 4.31.134.18 (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2021

AJC WARRIOR90210 (talk) 12:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

More specifically, the "Deep State" has been used as an Anti-Semitic trope accusing wealthy American Jewish Oligarchs of somehow controlling both parties, Democrat and Republican, to always suit their needs at the expense of the rest of the American people.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Heartmusic678 (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Terrible sourcing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The opening sourcing is so bad that the whole section should maybe be nuked from orbit. They're entirely from opinion columns, which are not considered by Wikipedia to be reliable sources of fact except for facts about the author of those opinions. Furthermore, if you actually read the (opinion) sources, they don't make the same claims that are asserted in the article. One of them that supposedly supports the assertion that the Deep State as a conspiracy theory is literally titled, "The 'deep state' is real." There is also a major conflict between the way the phrase is used by all of the sources, which seem to be about either the fact that there are a lot of unelected people in government who try to influence policy, and that there is a secret network of people trying to undermine Donald Trump. I suggest that the article be split into two. I'm also going to add an unreliable sources warning until all of these terrible opinion articles can be replaced.

Miserlou (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I have removed that tag. Your justification is not based in a good understanding of our RS policy. Read my edit summary. Other issues with possible misuse of a source should be fixed by carefully resolving the misuse. See WP:PRESERVE for how to do that.

No, Wikipedia is very clear on this. Opinion articles can only be used for facts about the opinions of the author of those opinion columns, not for assertions of fact they way they are used here. It's clear that somebody just wanted to add citations to their claim and used Google news to cite the first few things they found without even reading them. Wikipedia policy is very clear about this, it's indisputable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations Miserlou (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

We agree on policy, but your solution is wrong. Fix the issues one by one, and don't edit war no matter how right you might be. I'm not your enemy, so slow down and discuss each example of misuse so it can be fixed. -- Valjean (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I really think that's working backwards though. There's no value in trying to find away to shoehorn in these low-quality opinion sources just because we can. I'm sure there are ten thousand low-quality opinion articles from the 2016-2020 era that reference the term but there's no reason to include everybody's opinion. It would be much better to remove them entirely and replace them with academic primary/secondary sources. Perhaps it would be better to focus concentrate on the split first, as that's really the heart of the problem with this article. I think there is plenty of well sourced and academic content suggesting that there _is_ an unelected aspect of the government which has an influence on policy (to the point that this is often lampooned in the media, for instance the show Yes, Minister), but then there are also the largely unfounded claims made by Donald Trump that those people were engaged in active conspiracy to undermine and "steal the election" from him. Until those two concepts are disentangled, there's no way for this article to be of any use to anybody. Miserlou (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Like I said below, I think the idea of a split is good. Go ahead and start the process by following the "Procedure" at WP:Split. -- Valjean (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I favor the idea of a split. -- Valjean (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Don't edit war. Follow BRD and ONLY discuss. Change the framing so it's clearly framed as opinion. Tagging the whole article is not specific enough to be useful. Now discuss this. -- Valjean (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, this article is completely biased and might be an opinion column itself. It is an aggregator of takes from news sources which doesn't have scholarly concept or politology about Deep State into account, which is an active area of research in academic circles and not a so-called "discredited conspiracy theory". --181.166.162.36 (talk) 11:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Laughtably biased article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

First off, it has to say "conspiracy theory it's a conspiracy theory" in the first sentence twice. What does this even mean and why so much "emphasis"? This isn't a neutral point of view, since accredited authors in politology have validated the existence of the deep state around the world. See: China’s Deep State: The Communist Party and the Coronavirus, the return of Egypt's Deep State and Government of the Shadows: Parapolitics and Criminal Sovereignty.

Furthermore Wikipedia policies state that the wiki needs to provide a worldwide view of the topic. This speaks almost exclusively about the USA, while the toppic is global and Deep State theory is based in that every State has a "Deep State".

The emphasis in Donald Trump, which is the first entry and occupies most of the article, is also completely unwarranted - since Trump isn't a scholar, and furthermore, he didn't invent the concept of the Deep State or wrote political theory about it.

First off, remove "IT'S A CONSPIRACY THEORY!" histeria from the header, since this is a seriously studied topic within political science. Second off, relagate Donald Trump to a "in popular culture" or such section, since he isn't a valid interlocutor in scholarly debate.

Use scholarly sources instead of news sources. News outlets aren't valid explanations of academic concepts.

Also, ban government sockpuppets and lobbies, though this is more of a general proposal; surely this is a losing battle... --181.166.162.36 (talk) 11:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comparison with Turkey article

Look at Deep_state_in_Turkey:

"The deep state in Turkey is an alleged group of influential anti-democratic coalitions within the Turkish political system, that is composed of high-level elements within the intelligence services (domestic and foreign), the Turkish military, security agencies, the judiciary, and mafia"

The equivalent United States article is astounding in its bias — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.196.13.132 (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2022

Please capitalize InfoWars per Wikipedia page. Repszeus (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Done. Kleinpecan (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Restructure with History section

As the article stands, there's a section about the history of the deep state in the context of the Trump administration, and there's a separate section that's just a list of miscellaneous statements. There doesn't seem to be any real distinction between which facts go in which section, and I think this article would be better served if both of these sections were condensed into a single prose History section where all of the relevant information is displayed in chronological order. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I've restructured the article to better organize information and comply with the MoS. Changes made: integrated list of statements into the article and changed headings to accommodate them; changed lede to refer to subject as a conspiracy theory; reworded the Bill Moyers interview to ensure that it was supported by the source; paraphrased direct quotes to reduce length and better fit MoS; added context for DoJ allegation as per source; removed John Light and Michael Crowley examples as redundant; removed redundant links in see also section; minor copyediting throughout. More copyediting is still needed. The article might still suffer from excessive or redundant examples, and it would be advantageous to expand information in areas other than allegations and criticism. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Split discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

So, someone apparently had the idea to split the article into two, one that would be called the Deep State in the US, and another that the editor called Deep State (Trump conspiracy theory). I'm personally opposed to this, but you can vote down below --Daikido (talk) 09:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Now, I don't have an opinion on how valid the Deep State as a theory is, this article certainly gave me an impression that it's a conspiracy theory that probably should be described as such on Wikipedia, however I can say that I definitely don't see a reason to split the article. Why? Because when I go onto google and type "deep state US" literally almost every single link that shows up mentions Trump, and not just mentions him but primarily talks about how Trump spearheaded this theory and how it's associated with him. Thus, I think splitting another article is a no go, but that's just my opinion. --Daikido (talk) 09:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there needs to be another article, but this article could use a little more NPOV help and neutrality. I see "deep state" as both part of conspiracy theories, but also a means of criticizing a very real set of government institutions. There is demonstrably a very large portion of the federal government with regard to money, employment, and authority vested in bureaucratic systems that have changed the dynamic between the three main branches. This is basic information that is taught in universities and law schools. The federal government has had to begin adapting to this much bigger system than previously existed, such as the creation of special courts that are held by the bureaucratic institutions themselves. They present a real question about separation of powers because generally a federal agency is established and authorized by Congress, but is overseen by the executive, while their scope can be challenged in the judicial. However as bureaucracies have grown, so have their powers and their accountability diminished. It is now common practice for federal agencies to write their own laws, employ their own law enforcement, and then hold their own courts independent of the judicial branch in disputes or prosecutions of their authority.

It's easy to jump on Trump because he's been saying nutty things for decades, but it didn't start with Trump and there are valid points to his criticism about a bureaucratic system that decreasingly has any accountability under the executive. The ability to fire people or demand policy changes used to be the purview of the president, but this has been diminished in recent decades. The individual complaints by President Trump are reflective of similar complaints made by President Obama and President Bush. There's a reason the president is elected, and why there are checks and balances. We assume, by default, people will act in biased ways. Bureaucrats aren't special. They're just becoming less accountable. Our system intended for presidents to be able to change the course of federal policy. But increasingly bureaucrats can ignore the president and set their own agenda. This isn't a theory. It's objective reality. This aspect should be acknowledged in this article. If only that "deep state" is a pejorative for the aspects of bureaucracy that have become less regulated or grown beyond the scope of the old models. J1DW (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@J1DW: "Recent decades"? Bruh, civil service laws have been in place in the United States for nearly a century and a half. The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act was enacted in 1883. If you want to go back to the spoils system, be honest about what you want - rampant political corruption last seen in the 19th century. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't know how I'm supposed to respond to your complaint. I said Presidential authority in firing has diminished in recent decades. You reply that the president hasn't had dictatorial power and that laws have existed for centuries. That's utterly non sequitur, both things can and are true simultaneously. I wasn't speaking in absolutes, so your example is irrelevant. My personal worry isn't about a president being able to fire some mid-level bureaucrat, but being unable to fire the actual heads of the departments under the executive branch. "be honest about what you want - rampant political corruption last seen in the 19th century." Why does everyone else on Wikipedia get to be a complete asshole but anytime I point it out I get admins up my ass and in my inbox? How is this even an honest or civil discussion when you accuse me of "wanting" "rampant political corruption". This isn't fair, I want to have an honest discussion and you can just jump right to an asshole conclusion with absolutely no argument or reasoning. The issue of handling corruption or power in governance is nuanced. You're pretending it's utterly straightforward. It's not. It's complicated. The balances of power are complicated. Just because I don't necessarily agree with an exact tool of balance that you might, doesn't mean I want corruption you jackass. p.s. Good job admins. J1DW (talk) 11:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copyedit +

I responded to the copyedit request with the usual changes to grammar, sentence structure and organization.

I then continued with some content changes:

- Given the pre-Trump history of the concept (as presented in the article), which has not generally been attributed to conspiracy theorists, I adjusted the lede to focus the latter on the Trump era.

- I added well-sourced material to explain some of the basis for the alleged conspiracy, but did not position that material as justification for the conspiracy, including a Rhode quote that explicitly said that.

@NorthBySouthBaranof reverted all my changes with a "I do not agree" explanation, without providing any specifics about what was wrong with the changes. I can sort of understand objecting to the substantive changes (although I would like to understand the objection), but what the heck was wrong with the copyedits?

Help! Lfstevens (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

In deep : the FBI, the CIA, and the truth about America's "deep state"

Perhaps this book by David S. Rohde could be used to improve the quality and sourcing of this article, both of which are currently appalling, even by the dreadful standards of Wikipedia politics articles.  Tewdar  20:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, perhaps not. I see that previous RfCs and talk page discussions have somehow determined that The artilce [sic] is about a recent conspiracy theory to the exclusion of all other usages, presumably including information from sources already presented in the article. Sounds familiar... I'm off...  Tewdar  11:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Page move

Shouldn't this page be moved to Deep state in the United States (conspiracy theory)?. SPECIFICO talk 14:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

No, because there is no other article about a deep state in the United States that is not a conspiracy theory, therefore nothing to disambiguate from. Station1 (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said Deep state in the United States conspiracy theory. Opinions? SPECIFICO talk 22:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Re-writes to the lead

The recent reverts I performed were due to serious issues of false balance, attempting to portray the conspiracy theory as being promoted by Democrats and Republicans, instead of the almost exclusively right-wing phenomenon which it is.

Edits such as this do not adhere to the neutral point of view, nor do they accurately reflect what it is in the body of the article, which is the purpose of the lead section. @LordParsifal, if you wish to keep these edits, you should make an effort to gain consensus for them before reverting again. Happy (Slap me) 22:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

For the record, LordParsifal was indeffed for Disruptive editing, edit warring and POV-pushing at several articles. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I just checked their user talk page, and wow.

I'm not that surprised, however. I noticed that edit because I checked their contributions after they were engaged in what appeared to be agenda-driven editing on the article Conspiracy theory. I guess this matter has been resolved. Happy (Slap me) 17:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a conspiracy theory

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please don't remove parts saying it's a conspiracy theory. It's well sourced by Rolling Stone music magazine and salon.com - RaymondHatstand (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Also - Time Magazine or time.com - look up "Secret History of the Shadow Campaign that saved the 2020 election". Not that saved is the right word;. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almagest88 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

?? It's still there. -- Valjean (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Since when is salon.com in any way a reliable source for anything? And RS isn't much better, not to mention that as you stated it's a music magazine. Both are opinion sites, with very obvious biases. -- 70.234.248.169 (talk) 11:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Rolling Stone and salon.com are not reliable sources of information, they are incredibly biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmajchrz (talk • contribs) 05:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

For this article to claim this as a discredited conspiracy theory it needs far more than Rolling Stone and Salon. RS has been rated as biased left (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rolling-stone/) and Salon is explicitly so. The reference should be removed if only because one of the references actually says it’s “real”, doesn’t anyone find that a little odd? This whole article is in serious need of rescuing, it’s a legitimate question as to whether the basic definition of “deep state” has any merit. That means if Federal workers, at different levels, are politically biased and use regulatory power, which is considerable, to effect their views. Sych (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problems with lead section

Currently, the lead section states in its first sentence:

According to a discredited American political conspiracy theory promoted by Donald Trump and his supporters, the deep state is a clandestine network of actors in the federal government, high-level finance, and high-level industry operating as a hidden government that exercises power alongside or within the elected United States government.

There are some problems with its current state:

1. Of reference 1 (Rolling Stone), WP:RSP says: There is unanimous consensus among editors that Rolling Stone is generally unreliable for politically and societally sensitive issues. [...] Most editors say that Rolling Stone is a partisan source in the field of politics, and that their statements in this field should be attributed.
2. Of reference 2 (Salon), WP:RSP says: Editors consider Salon biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed.
3. Reference 3 says the deep state is real, not "discredited":

America doesn’t have coups or tanks in the street. But a deep state of sorts exists here and it includes national security bureaucrats who use secretly collected information to shape or curb the actions of elected officials. [...]

The truth is that the deep state, which is a real phenomenon, has long been both a threat to democratic politics and a savior of it. The problem is that it is hard to maintain its savior role without also accepting its threatening role. The two go hand in hand, and are difficult to untangle. [...]

But even if we focus narrowly on the intelligence bureaucracies that conduct and use information collected secretly in the homeland, including the FBI, National Security Agency (NSA), and National Security Council, there is significant evidence that the deep state has used secretly collected information opportunistically and illegally to sabotage the president and his senior officials – either as part of a concerted movement or via individuals acting more or less independently. [...]

Since Trump was elected, unusually sensitive leaks of intelligence information designed to discredit him and his senior leadership have poured forth from current and former intelligence officials in the deep state. [...]

But while Hoover did many awful things in quiet, neither during his reign nor at any other time in American history have we seen such a profusion of sensitive leaks from the deep state with such an overtly political aim to bring down senior leadership. [...]

As deep state officials get a taste for the power that inheres in the selective revelation of such information, and if the leaks are not responded to with severe punishments, it is easy to imagine the tools that brought down Flynn being used in other contexts by national security bureaucrats with different commitments and interests.

Even the most severe critics of Trump should worry about this subtle form of anti-democratic abuse. The big loser in all this will probably be the national security bureaucracy itself and, to the extent it is weakened, the security of the American people.

1. Reference 4 does not say the deep state is "discredited". Instead, it quotes:

Clearly there is government, and then there is government. The former is the tip of the iceberg that the public who watches C-SPAN sees daily and which is theoretically controllable via elections. The subsurface part is the Deep State, which operates on its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power. The Deep State is a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies, key nodes of the judiciary (like FISC, the Eastern District of Virginia, and the Southern District of Manhattan); cleared contractors, Silicon Valley (whose cooperation is critical), and Wall Street.

This combination of procedural impotence on the one hand and unaccountable government by fiat on the other is clearly paradoxical, but any honest observer of the American state must attempt to come to grips with it. I will note in conclusion that in order for the Senate to pass major "social" legislation like immigration reform, it was necessary to grant an additional $38-billion tribute to Deep State elements, i.e., military and homeland security contractors. Clearly the GOP wanted it, but the Democrats didn't object; the $38 billion had been an internal "wish list" of the Deep State node called the Department of Homeland Security.

Overall, the lead section is currently POV-pushing rather than accurately reflecting sources. Indeed, it is actively misleading readers about what some of those sources say. 2601:547:501:8F90:29A9:845D:5F47:5764 (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2022

I believe the first line of of the article, which currently reads "According to an American political conspiracy theory, which some authorities discredit," should be removed as it seems to push an opinion. In addition, the source for this (The Guardian) seems to be considered a relatively left-wing magazine according to AllSides.com, TheFactual.com, and Wikipedia (The Guardian). PotatoKugel (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

"In addition, the source for this (The Guardian) seems to be considered a relatively left-wing magazine" So what? Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources determines whether a source is considered reliable or not. Per the current ranking: "There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable." Dimadick (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I've skimmed the article and it doesn't seem to have anything related to the statement, so I've removed it. Additionally, while I agree with your point about the reliability of The Guardian, the source is an opinion piece, on which there is no consensus. See "The Guardian blogs", which is right below the entry on The Guardian. ARandomName123 (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Should "conspiracy theory" be in the title?

Should "conspiracy theory" be in the title? SPECIFICO talk 20:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Considering the common use over the last several years, which is getting nuttier and nuttier, absolutely in some manner. I would say that it has "become" a label for conspiracy theories. Clearly, RS is needed. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey how are you?

I had a thought I wanted to suggest and I'm curious about your feedback.

My impression is that deep state did exist in the United States at some point. See Church Committee (although the article does not call the committee's findings as uncovering a deep state, it seems reasonable to call it that. Also from this website it seems that David Rohde refers to the findings as uncovering a deep state). As such, while it may be a conspiracy theory today, I don't know if it makes sense to have the opening line call it a conspiracy theory. I think that might imply that deep state has always been a conspiracy theory when it would seem that in fact it has not been. PotatoKugel (talk) 06:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

EDIT REQUEST: fix typo in second sentence of the lede

Second sentence reads: "The theory posits that the conglomerate of individuals and entiries, work together in a secret allegiance to exercise power alongside or within the elected United States government."

I assume that should be entities not "entiries", correct? Thanks! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 05:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to UConnHusky7 for making the edit! Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 03:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Motivation for Undermining Government

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article seems to state only one reason for this "conglomerate of individuals and entities" to exercise their power is to "protect its own preservation and remain in power." However, from the main deep state article it says more broadly "A deep state is a type of governance made up of potentially secret and unauthorized networks of power operating independently of a state's political leadership in pursuit of their own agenda and goals." Perhaps we should simply remove the whole line of "According to the theory, the deep state is a government bureaucracy, an administrative state that violates the rights of Americans and whose sole goal is to protect its own preservation and remain in power". If the line would be edited to agree with the main deep state article then it would seemingly be redundant. And if it would remain different, that would seem rather odd. Why would deep state refer only to a specific kind of motivation in the United States from anywhere else? PotatoKugel (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

More importantly, the term "deep state" derives from Turkey, where a "secret network of military officers and their civilian allies" were pursuing an agenda that extended to political decisions and to orchestrating assassinations of dissidents. The concept is more similar to what is described in the military–industrial complex article and its parallels in fascist regimes:

• • "an informal and changing coalition of groups with vested psychological, moral, and material interests in the continuous development and maintenance of high levels of weaponry, in preservation of colonial markets and in military-strategic conceptions of internal affairs." Dimadick (talk) 06:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  Are you saying that the main deep state article didn't quite get it right? PotatoKugel (talk) 07:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  Also, I'm not sure I fully understand the comparison. It sounds like the military-industrial complex involves producing lots of weapons as well as preserving colonial markets. I'm not getting how Turkey was doing that. Are you saying that some of the political decisions that this secret group in Turkey tried to push involved producing weapons and producing colonial markets? (This isn't a trap question. I happen to not know much about Turkish history). PotatoKugel (talk) 07:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the text on the deep state in Turkey comes directly from the main article which specifies that "Turkish "military officers and their civilian allies" who, for decades, "suppressed and sometimes murdered dissidents, Communists, reporters, Islamists, Christian missionaries, and members of minority groups—anyone thought to pose a threat to the secular order". " Which is what the term "deep state" described in the first place. The main article's see also section then includes links to the military–industrial complex, involving the way that the complex typically functioned in fascist regimes: "A thesis similar to the military–industrial complex was originally expressed by Daniel Guérin, in his 1936 book Fascism and Big Business, about the fascist government ties to heavy industry. It can be defined as, "an informal and changing coalition of groups with vested psychological, moral, and material interests in the continuous development and maintenance of high levels of weaponry, in preservation of colonial markets and in military-strategic conceptions of internal affairs." " Both cases involved the clandestine ties and activities of the armed forces. Dimadick (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. I hear what you are saying. Thanks for the clarification!

Now about this article, are you saying that you agree with my suggested edit to remove the whole line "According to the theory, the deep state is a government bureaucracy, an administrative state that violates the rights of Americans and whose sole goal is to protect its own preservation and remain in power" for the reasons stated in the original post? PotatoKugel (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the definition seems too narrow. Dimadick (talk) 10:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Instead of “deep state” we better use the term “deep state effect” as it’s not an intentional hierarchy but more likely a combined result or large number of independent actions.

To say “deep state” is a conspiracy to undermine elected government is to say that coral reef is a conspiracy to sink ships.

We have a thick unelected bureaucracy layer under the elected officials where each microscopic organism has a good knowledge of its surroundings, decent administrative competency and independent incentive to prolong its individual existence and income.

All these millions of independent whirlpools of egotism and greed create a powerful Brownian motion that may result in a current not coinciding with official government policies and the broader interests of the society thus the “deep state effect”. No need of evil minds lurking in the shadows.

Sometimes few of the bureaucratic organisms may act in conjunction, creating short lived situational cliques but that is still not a traditional conspiracy.

We can not fight against laws of physics, we can however create systems that negate the effect of certain laws.

To decrease Brownian motion we deprive a fluid of energy. In case of the “deep state” effect we can simply outlaw lobbying this depriving the bureaucracy fluid of free money. That single step is enough to drastically lower the deep state effect in about a decade. 91.139.231.232 (talk) 04:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

You are describing loyal civil servants doing necessary work. The only ones threatened by their work are would be dictators and those more interested in being corrupt and abusing their political power than remaining loyal to their oaths to abide by the Constitution. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Full fledged conspiracy

No, we are not required to Prove the conspiracy, not the theory. This is not how Wikipedia works. Given this has descended into demands and nonsense statements, we can move on. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It doesn't look like a theory anymore. Should get documented as a church-state WIP, and titled "The Deep State Conspiracy." https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8408463/Catholic-archbishop-tells-Trump-protests-virus-deep-state-plot.html https://aristeia.news/archbishop-carlo-maria-vigano-open-letter-to-president-donald-trump/ https://online.wsj.com/media/Viganos-letter.pdf Coda Sapiens (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC) Vigano appears to be a replacement for José María Caro Rodríguez — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coda Sapiens (talk • contribs) 22:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC) Conspiratorial nonsense from unacceptable sources. WP:IRS O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC) The previous round has a lot of sense. They have acceptable sources too; books, encyclicals etc. Perhaps "deep state" is only code for "freemasons" or the likes. Coda Sapiens (talk) 10:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC) Irrelevnt personal opinion which contradicts Wikipedia rules. Encyclicals are not reliable sources, and neither are all books. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC) It's not the only one obviously. https://www.amazon.com/Voice-Wilderness-Archbishop-Vigan%C3%B2-America/dp/1621386961 Coda Sapiens (talk) 12:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC) This is not an article about religion and conflict in the Catholic church. And articles/books by the same guy are not multiple sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC) Too many references in other languages piling up for this to stay theory. They're unto something. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89tat_profond https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estado_profundo Coda Sapiens (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. I suggest you start reading policies, starting with WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC) Adding more worthless sources does not help. x times zero is always zero. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC) It's about the conspirational genre, not the particular cleric's position and intent. Wikipedia can and is apparently used to at least report the status of the operations, rather than an unreliable source of policies. Coda Sapiens (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC) What does "status of the operations" mean and what "unreliable source of policies" are you talking about? O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. I suggest you start reading policies, starting with WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) Coda Sapiens (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC) What is your point? O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC) It's a conspiracy. Not a theory that is. It should just get a startup page as such and see what happens. The literary genre conspirators employ is called "theory" or "fiction", but the conspiracy is a real activity carried out by one or more groups interested in (political) power. https://en.unesco.org/courier/2021-2/conspiracy-theories-linked-literature https://www.uni-muenster.de/Religion-und-Politik/en/aktuelles/schwerpunkte/epidemien/05_thema_verschwoerung.html Coda Sapiens (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC) Or otherwise, disproof it's a conspiracy by trying to prove it it, and find the missing parts. If any. Coda Sapiens (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC) All of the sources you have cited are either unreliable, or do not actually support your claims and are irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a venue for anyone to try to prove (or disprove) this conspiracy theory. See WP:NOR. Given that there are no sources that meet our standards (and it is very unlikely that there ever will be), Wikipedia is simply not going to put up an article endorsing this theory. MrOllie (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC) Prove the conspiracy, not the theory. And skip no biscuits, our pumpkin. Coda Sapiens (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The Criticism section seems to show an implicit bias

The first sentence of the "Criticism" section says: Critics of Trump's use of the term 'deep state' maintain that it is a conspiracy theory with no basis in reality.

Why is Trump mentioned immediately? This is an article titled "Deep State in the United States". It was already established that the term "Deep State" originated in the 90s and began to be used in the US during the Obama administration. If there is a main section called "Criticisms", it should be criticisms of the THEORY of the deep state... not Criticisms of a political figure who pushed the deep state. The criticism section has turned into a criticism of Donald Trump's opinion on the deep state. 2603:9001:5A00:703D:1142:C0F6:1159:816C (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)