Talk:Deep state in the United States

Why was my added links removed?

The stated reason was "unreliable sources"

But i used politico townhall the economist etc. Wich are all reliable sources. Some even more reliable than links already present

The links present claim its a conspiracy theory "yet provide no evidence of this claim" while the links i provided add context and evidence of the term "deep state" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editorman232 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Townhall and several other sources you provided are not RS. The New York Times is a RS. For more about this subject, study this non-partisan chart, then stick to the sources in the green and yellow boxes. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Townhall at time of writing is not placed on the chart you advise editors should rely on. Like a lot of things on the Internet, it's a work in progress. You did, however, say that Townhall was not a reliable source. Since you obviously couldn't have used the chart you said you did, what did you actually use to declare Townhall not RS? TMLutas (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Closely related concepts

I removed the section and then was reverted by BMK.

This is such an awkward section to include here. It primarily uses that one book by Jessop and the citations he used to justify its inclusion (as in, stuff he says is related). I suggest that brings about WP:UNDUE concerns. The Fourth Branch wouldn't be bad for the "See also" section, but I don't see why it should be in the middle of the article like it currently is. Thoughts anyone? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

They all seem to me to be obviously closely related concepts, and therefore should be in the article. I wouldn't object to the section being moved down in the article to give it less prominence, but I don't think they should be removed. The short descriptions are hardly UNDUE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: As a temporary measure, could we agree then to move it directly above the see also section? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure, that would be fine with me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done I'll let other editors weigh in from here. The move down lowers takes placates most of my concerns. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Who is (creating) the Deep State?

Trump?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.82.164.79 (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Stay on target. Any partisan hackery will be dealt with. Severely. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The Lede is obviously not NPV, the Agenda being pushed is obvious

The opening sentence is not nearly nuanced enough for the topic. Older versions where much better. I think it's accurate to say that concept has been appropriated by conspiracy theorists, but to say it *is* a conspiracy theory means that all the people who have used it as merely a shorthand for the permanent bureaucracy are tarred with the use of the term as Breitbart uses it. That's unfortunate, and it's not NPV.

The author or authors of the current revison have stacked up a lot of references of people saying it's a conspiracy theory, but moving down one section in the article there are an equal number of authors using it in the more neutral manner discussed (who could also be foot-noted).

This is what always happens on Wikipedia with contentious article topics, very strident editors force the text into an uncomfortably one-sided, advocacy position, and use their power to lock it in.

I never even try editing stuff like this, people have way too much emotion involved in "winning" the debate, but I do note that this is a very poor lede in my opinion, for these reasons.

Putting this in the lede, after using a more general (and truthful) description of the term would be the way to go, in my estimation.

″According to David Gergen, quoted in Time magazine, the term has been appropriated by Steve Bannon and Breitbart News and other supporters of the Trump Administration in order to delegitimize the critics of the current presidency.[20] The 'deep state' theory has been dismissed by authors for The New York Times[21] and New York Observer.[22] University of Miami Professor Joseph Uscinski says, "The concept has always been very popular among conspiracy theorists, whether they call it a deep state or something else."[23]

ZeroXero (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The term is used conversationally, and non-ironically in the pages of the NY Times: NY Times: "“deep state is alive and well.”

Further evidence, that this article is biased in asserting in the lede that the Deep State is a conspiracy theory. It is not, it's merely a convenient shorthand for the permanent bureaucracy, and shows up frequently in Reliable Sources, including the NY Times.

Someone should update the lede on this article so it's not flagrantly wrong. ZeroXero (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there is a normal bureaucracy which is paid by taxpayers to do their job and keep us safe. They are not evildoers. Trump uses the term "deep state" in a conspiracy theory to smear them as evildoers because they resist his misuse of power and turning over of foreign policy decisions to Putin. They are patriots, not "deep state" evildoers. They are not a "deep state" in the negative sense normally meant by the term. Trump is misusing it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Whether they "keep us safe" or protect powerful interests, or both, is a matter of POV. I agree that it should be reverted to "controversial belief." Selimtheslim (talk) 03:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

Does anyone else find it unusual that the opening paragraph refers to the deep state as a "conspiracy theory", when Rand Paul, Gingrich, Eisenhower, and basically most people with government connections and familiarity acknowledge that there are "military, intelligence and government officials who try to secretly manipulate government"? This entry reads like it has been edited by an "interested party". Can we get a neutral moderator with no government connections to oversee this page?

The disambiguation page says, "Deep state in the United States, the alleged American system" (emphasis mine). Well, it exists, and like the article says, it is not one cohesive unit but more like a patchwork of special interests. Like Rand Paul says, there is little to no oversight of it, aside from a handful of people who don't know where to begin or what to look for.

Adam Miller, South Haven, MI Good day1 (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Good day1: your comment is rather confusing since Rand Paul, Gingrich, Eisenhower and military, intelligence and government officials are or were part of the US government so to imply a nefariousness ("manipulate") is odd. Politicians are put in place exactly to manipulate government, that is their job.

How do we know you don't have government connections, à la false flag? Posting a common name and an address proves nothing. Avoid posting personal information on Wikipedia, if that is who and where you are.

You may want to attempt Wikipedia:Third opinion to get a semi-random person's comment on a specific concern, or go to the Wikipedia:Teahouse, or other various options within Wikipedia.

Since it appears you have made a couple dozen edits; Wikipedia is built on reliable sources, not on editor's opinions. Beware of WP:SOAPBOX and be aware of your own WP:POV. X1\ (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

It is disputed that the deep state is a conspiracy theory. What is the mechanics of resolving the dispute consistent with Wikipedia's rules?

Prior to tagging the page NPOV I think that it would be useful to have some discussion over handling this controversial concept and whether it is a conspiracy theory. We know certain things, like the propensity of the FBI to abuse the FISA system date back to at least the 1990s and now we have evidence from the IG's further investigations beyond Clarence Page that the 2003 patch that was supposed to fix the abuses has not held and is routinely violated. That's not a conspiracy. It's not about Trump per se. It is not going to go away when Trump does (whether that happens in 2025 or earlier).

At a certain point of strength of evidence, it is not consistent with the rules of Wikipedia to call something a conspiracy theory. It becomes an NPOV violation, picking a side. So before kicking over the anthill on that one, what's the requisite level of evidence when calling something a conspiracy theory is no longer acceptable? Without a clear understanding on how to get that label removed, people are just going to revisit this and edit the page to death without moving the page forward. TMLutas (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

It is disputed that the Earth is not flat. WP:FRINGE WP:RS. O3000 (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, knock your self out answering the topic question, which is how does one resolve the dispute within the rules. You started off with a very uninspiring entry that doesn't address the topic at all. I look forward to your more constructive follow on contributions.

It's not like we don't have significant new information recently popping up supporting the construction or even significant older information not included in the article (Chuck Schumer's warning to Trump about intelligence agencies seems on point but isn't included yet). At a certain point it's not a conspiracy theory. It's just a model for describing reality. TMLutas (talk) 01:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I did respond, on point. If you think that "a deep state" exists, you are pushing a conspiracy theory until you provide reliable sources that state otherwise. There are none. O3000 (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I started going through the article looking to see if there were any non-conspiracy RS already included in the article that support a deep state concept that was not conspiratorial. In fact, there are. George Friedman, writing in the Huffington Post lays out such a vision in footnote 27. John Light writes in Moyers and Company laying out an alternate dep state vision in footnote 31. Michael Crowley gives yet another non conspiratorial vision in footnote 33. The Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations hosted a serious talk about the deep state which was broadcast by CSPAN and noted in footnote 34.

There are more than the four I listed here. How many separate references to non-conspiracy theory deep state constructs are necessary for you to concede that there are already sufficient RS to render an uncritical adoption that the US deep state is only a conspiracy theory an NPOV violation? An encyclopedic treatment should cover the conspiratorial approaches and the non-conspiracy ones and note that there are various flavors of this term. TMLutas (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The term is used constantly by the alt-right, Fox, and other Trump supporters to describe a conspiracy within the government to overthrow or thwart the presidency of DJT. The POTUS himself constantly talks about how he sees corruption in the FBI and Justice Department. This is the conspiracy theory covered by this article. Now, there is obviously history to the term and more nuanced definitions; and the article wisely covers these. But, the article is primarily about the conspiracy theory massively covered by RS, not the more complex flows of power within a huge government and how some political analysts view such, in some cases metaphorically. O3000 (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Since you are making political points rather than engaging in conversation to improve the entry, I'll end our talk here. I'm actually not at Wikipedia to engage in politics. You have no answer to the already existing and accepted RS in the article. I'll just go off and put in that NPOV tag now.TMLutas (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course I spoke to politics. This article is heavily about a political subject. O3000 (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with speaking politics. What is wrong is not addressing the topic of the thread which is the mechanics of determining what is sufficient to come to a different conclusion. I have no interest in moving goalposts and changing standards because someone pretending objectivity is dedicated to a particular outcome and willing to put their thumb on the scale. That you are unwilling to engage in standards setting so far speaks volumes.

Wikipedia is built upon WP:CONSENSUS. A stream of insults rarely gains consensus. O3000 (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

A stream of insults? I neither intended to insult you nor do I think I did insult you beyond replying to your unprovoked accusation of bad faith saying that such an act itself was evidence of bad faith. I knew going in that an article under this set of administrative rules was virtually guaranteed to have touchy sensibilities. I asked for the generally accepted standards of evidence so that I knew what the evidentiary standard was and then I could go off and meet it. I've edited too many pages where that never happened and it all ended up in tears with a hot mess that occasionally got into the general press in a way that damaged Wikipedia. I thought perhaps if someone of an established reputation on the page were to lay down an objective standard first, the unnecessary drama could possibly be avoided. You are not interested in doing that. That's fine as far as it goes. But you seem to be offended at the possibility of it happening at all, which I view as contrary to both the rules and the spirit of the rules of this project. TMLutas (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• NPOV is not about "not taking sides", it's about always remaining on the side of the general body of reliable sources. This means that when discussing "fringe" topics, like pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, our articles not only take a position, but a very blunt and strong position and straightforwardly discuss the topic from the point of view that it is not credible without sugarcoating it. It is not brought about by editors "pushing an agenda", but by editors remaining as objective as possible. The tone of an article does not reflect the tone of its editors, but unemotionally reflects information from reliable sources. This is discussed further in WP:GOODBIAS and WP:YESBIAS. A credible NPOV dispute is someone making a coherent argument as to why the article does not accurately reflect the generalized stance of the mainstream body of sources. It is not saying that an article is "pushing an agenda" or has "taken a side". Currently, the article body overwhelmingly discusses the subject as a conspiracy theory, well-supported by sources. Yes, it does acknowledge instances in which the term is used more generally to refer to the non-conspiratorial "entrenched bureaucracy" of government. However these uses are treated as a minor aspect of the topic, in apparent reflection of the generalized body of sources. So what you're proposing, this fundamental change in scope of the article, is actually a fairly huge change and, given the contentious nature, would certainly need to be implemented as a formal proposal. This proposal, in order to have any chance at succeeding, would need to be thoroughly well researched, present an analyzed, weighed, thorough understanding of the general body of sources, provide a well thought out and well articulated argument, and include the actual practical intention to put in the work, by someone, should it be successful. That's just the baseline requirement of a credible proposal to fundamentally rescope a contentious article. It's not as simple as just throwing out some individual sources and deleting an offensive term from the lead sentence because it's "biased". ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 16:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

There needs to be an agreed upon understanding of what is the "side of the general body of reliable sources". When you have different and divergent understandings of what the deep state is and whether there is any conspiracy involved whatsoever, you have a fractured topic on your hands. The already accepted RS talks about deep state as a concept different than you would read about on the infowars website. That doesn't mean that infowars use of the term is not a conspiracy theory, nor does it mean that the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations traffics in conspiracy theories and is no different than infowars. I think that it is reasonable to distinguish between the two but I see no distinction being made in the current page and that's just unreasonable. TMLutas (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Like I said, if you can articulate a convincing argument that the article does not accurately reflect the general body of sources, then by all means, make it, and try to get the "agreement" you seek. The entire system of Wikipedia is governed by consensus, which really is just a system of coming to general agreements. You can easily ask the community to deliver a binding consensus on this topic via an RfC. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 13:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The 'convincing argument' is that the article already has multiple non-conspiracy theory concepts of the deep state already in its RS footnotes but doesn't recognize that fact in its lead which pretends that the deep state in the US is only conspiracy theory. The lead simply doesn't take into account the article's own sources. This is a mistake TMLutas (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't argue to me, I'm uninvolved here. I'm simply answering your question. You asked what to do, I told you, if you have more questions, ask, if not, feel free to start an RfC, if you're not going to, drop it and move on. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 18:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Resolving NPOV tag

I put up an NPOV tag after failing to get any reasonable discussion on how to improve the lead paragraph which now falsely gives the impression that Deep state in the US is only a conspiracy theory. There are, at a minimum, at least four RS footnotes already accepted in the article that provide alternate non-conspiracy theories of the deep state. To say that it is only a conspiracy theory is not encyclopedic and needs to be completed with a recognition in the lead of what is already recognized in the footnotes. TMLutas (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The fact that you disagree with a discussion does not mean that there was no reasonable discussion. This is a personal attack. I responded to you and you ignored my response and tagged the entire article NPOV. Resorting to such an action because you failed to gain consensus is bad faith. I suggest that you remove the tag. WP:CONSENSUS O3000 (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I've just logged in the first time to Wikipedia since putting up the tag and find myself accused of bad faith and the NPOV tag improperly removed. Now *that* is bad faith. I still await your response on what standards would be acceptable for a more nuanced treatment in the lead paragraph to distinguish between conspiracy theories regarding the American deep state and non conspiracy theories of the American deep state. You have yet to articulate any standards by which someone could in good faith work towards. I don't mind a rigorous standard. There's plenty of RS sources that would support such a revision. Bad faith editors will move goalposts and absolutely refuse to lay down objective standards. I hope that the work on this page rises to something better than that. TMLutas (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Deep state conspiracies that turned out to be true

The idea that the IRS was out to get tea party activist groups was labeled a deep state conspiracy theory. We're now a couple of years past the issuance of apologies and compensation checks. The main article is IRS targeting controversy. There's no mention on this page. Why not? TMLutas (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, it certainly is an example of a debunked conspiracy theory pushed by the same people that have pushed the deep state conspiracy theory. O3000 (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Checks to those who were wronged, an apology from the government and you still say that there's nothing there. The theory was debunked according to you. That's a rather high bar you've set there. Yep, we've got an NPOV problem on this page. TMLutas (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

You've been told to start an RfC if you think the scope of this article should be changed. Repeatedly making new posts without actually attempting to resolve the dispute eventually becomes a form of disruption known as bludgeoning. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 18:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Other than the mistaken statement that I'm trying to get the scope of the article changed, the RfC advice looks good, done. TMLutas (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should 'deep state in the United States' be solely described as a conspiracy theory, as it currently is?

Replies:

There are currently four article footnotes describing non-conspiracy theories of what the deep state is.

They are as follows:

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.

It should be recognized in the lead paragraph that conspiracy theories exist in parallel with non-conspiracy theories of the deep state in America. TMLutas (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• An RfC must be stated neutrally. O3000 (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I bring your attention to this previous edition of the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deep_state_in_the_United_States&oldid=949887119 where Swarm brought up the same objection, suggested an alternative, and I substantively accepted that alternative leading to your objection on the same grounds. I give you the same reply I gave Swarm. "I would be fine with replacing the section with an appropriate RfC if I had a clue as to how to satisfy your condition. I do not. You don't like how I phrased it but give no alternative. Perhaps I might surprise you and just accept yours. Perhaps I might be inspired by yours and come up with a superior alternative. Honestly, I think it looks fine as is but you have a problem with it so I'm willing to reasonably compromise. What's your offering?" TMLutas (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

As per the discussion below where Objective3000 declares they don't know what I'm talking about when I wish to find out their version of neutrality for an RfC on this topic, this objection is implicitly withdrawn. TMLutas (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with O3000. Please restate this as a proper RfC, according to the documentation pages about RfC's. BTW, there's nothing in the sources you list that would suggest the article is fundamentally wrong. SPECIFICO talk 19:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I bring your attention to this previous edition of the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deep_state_in_the_United_States&oldid=949887119 where Swarm brought up the same objection, suggested an alternative, and I substantively accepted that alternative leading to your objection on the same grounds. I give you the same reply I gave Swarm. "I would be fine with replacing the section with an appropriate RfC if I had a clue as to how to satisfy your condition. I do not. You don't like how I phrased it but give no alternative. Perhaps I might surprise you and just accept yours. Perhaps I might be inspired by yours and come up with a superior alternative. Honestly, I think it looks fine as is but you have a problem with it so I'm willing to reasonably compromise. What's your offering?" TMLutas (talk) 14:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• This is not a properly stated RfC (and, accordingly, I am removing the RfC header since the bot should not kick off the RfD as stated). For one thing, it is not neutrally stated; for another thing, it does not propose a specific change. Neutrality^talk 20:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I bring your attention to this previous edition of the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deep_state_in_the_United_States&oldid=949887119 where Swarm brought up the same objection, suggested an alternative, and I substantively accepted that alternative leading to your objection on the same grounds. I give you the same reply I gave Swarm. "I would be fine with replacing the section with an appropriate RfC if I had a clue as to how to satisfy your condition. I do not. You don't like how I phrased it but give no alternative. Perhaps I might surprise you and just accept yours. Perhaps I might be inspired by yours and come up with a superior alternative. Honestly, I think it looks fine as is but you have a problem with it so I'm willing to reasonably compromise. What's your offering?" TMLutas (talk) 14:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• I am still not sure what your specific beef with the current article text is, or what specific change you would propose ("change X to Y" format). Neutrality^talk 17:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

My beef with the article is that the lead paragraph does not properly reflect the body of the article, in that the body includes theories that are both conspiracy theories and also include non-conspiracy theories alongside them while the lead does not recognize that explicitly but only recognizes the conspiracy theory RS in the body of the article and thus is not an accurate summary of the body. That's why I previously tried to put an NPOV tag on this and was directed to do an RfC instead. I don't give a hoot which forum or method of discussion we use to discuss the substantive issue that the lead doesn't match the body but it should be hashed out somehow at some point. If you don't like the way that Swarm suggested, I remain perfectly willing to try your method. My pessimistic side believes that it too will be found at fault and we will be mired with more procedural objections but my optimistic side says what do we have to lose by trying? Who knows, there may not be a clique of bad faith editors camped on the page looking to raise procedural objection after procedural objection in order to stifle substantive discussion. So I remain willing to try and look forward to your suggestion as to the best way forward. TMLutas (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The lead briefly summarizes the important points of the body. Past history and metaphorical uses are not important points. WP:DUE O3000 (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I still await *your* good-faith suggestion as to the proper RfC format that would pass your scrutiny. At that point, I would be happy to take up the substantive discussion within the RfC format as to whether your point is correct or not. Until then, this substantive intervention at this point in the conversation with an editor who has issued their own procedural block where you are issuing your separate procedural block is evidence of your bad-faith. Respond to me in the block where I'm talking to you. You have a question pending there which you have declined to answer in favor of going straight to the substance of our disagreement. This is exactly why an RfC needs to be done in the first place as Swarm instructed and why I put up the NPOV tag to begin with. TMLutas (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

You will never gain consensus acting like that. WP:AGF O3000 (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

You raised a procedural point to stop an RfC. You then abort your procedural point and want to move on to substance in your preferred format. You don't get to unilaterally do that all the while making observations on consensus. The reason why you're wrong has to wait until the procedural point is resolved. Otherwise, I might as well just keep putting up the NPOV tag on the page.

Finish your procedural point by actually trying to come to consensus on the procedure for discussing the substance as I'm trying to engage each one of your separate objections (I'm assuming in good faith I'm not dealing with an off-wiki coordinating three-headed monster here that's just pretending to raise separate objections). That's why I gave three separate places for you to each give your separate suggestions as to the proper way to proceed. TMLutas (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I fear I do not know what you are talking about. I aborted nothing. I am fine with the status quo text, as per current consensus. O3000 (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

If you don't know what I'm talking about, I will consider your objection to the RfC withdrawn. TMLutas (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

There is no RfC. If you mean the text at the top of this section, it is not neutrally stated. It states your opinion only. O3000 (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The RfC text was improperly removed and I'm trying to ignore that. If you insist that the subject be examined in detail, it could go up on the appropriate noticeboard. I thought that would be overboard. But not having an RfC text is certainly fixable. TMLutas (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

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?

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)

History section

There probably needs to be a history section laying out the various theories recognized in the article of when the deep state was formed. Is there any objection to a history section before I just pop a skeleton one in? TMLutas (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

A history section refers to some time progression of an entity. The sources do not suggest any such history. Yes, Hoover did some nasty things and was 'unfireable'. Yes, the MI complex is a real thing. Yes, the gov't is a bureaucracy. Power with all governments shift over time. The current usage is about a conspiracy theory. Something for which there is no evidence. Yes, some authors are now referring to past shifts in power as 'deep states' metaphorically to gain more attention. But, none of these relate to the others. And none of these are close to suggesting an effort to thwart the presidency or engage in a coup, as is now suggested. There is no progression from one to another and we shouldn't suggest this. O3000 (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. In some brief past talk page discussions of history there have been references to lobbyists and other phenomena, including "miltiary industrial comoplex", but those refer to overt institutionalized influences on policy and to the functioning of the visible levels of the executive and legislative branches of government. I don't think the current "deep state" talk has anything in common with those earlier (and ongoing) phenomena. The "deep state" as a corrupt, organized undermining of policy and law by the civil service is a separate topic. SPECIFICO talk 22:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

You've raised an important point, which is what is the nature of the article. You seem to be saying that the article is about the Trump era deep state talk. That's not how the article is currently structured and if it were the case, you'd have to do major surgery to kill off a good chunk of the text that's already there. WP:Recent might be useful.

I believe that the article is a general treatment of the Deep state in the United States which includes sane, objective, scholarly examination of the topic, left wing moonbattery, and right wing moonbattery. It should cover it all without undue bias towards the prominence that Donald Trump has given to certain specific variants. TMLutas (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

We have articles on Civil service, Military–industrial complex, Lobbying, Regulatory capture, Crony capitalism, and even Deep state. It seems like you are trying to put this under the umbrella of deep state in the US in this article, which is about a conspiracy theory which suggests that collusion and cronyism currently exists within the US political system constituting a hidden government within the legitimately elected government. It’s OK to mention some other stuff in the body; but not in the lead. And a history leading to this particular conspiracy theory makes no sense here. Perhaps you should be working on the Deep state article instead. It is far more general. O3000 (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we need to move this to Deep State in the U.S. (conspiracy theory) so we don't keep going around in circles. None of the ordinary functioning of government, including licensed lobbying, campaign contributions, Washington think tanks, and all sorts of other controversial activities, falls under this conspiracy theory. SPECIFICO talk 18:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Can't predict how the RfM might be closed. The rest of the stuff belongs in the Deep state article. O3000 (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I tried to lay out a history, based on how it was used for each administrations. Maybe it would go back to George Washington and what he thought about political parties.

Here is a quote from the beginning of "Deep State" in American History:

THIS IS NOT REALLY NEW. TODAY, WE CALL IT THE DEEP STATE. IN EARLIER ERAS, ACTIVISTS TALKED ABOUT THE WASHINGTON ESTABLISHMENT, THE POWER ELITE, THE SYSTEM, AND EVEN THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. ... THEY USUALLY SHARE A LOT IN COMMON. ... THEY ARE ALMOST ALWAYS CONSPIRATORIAL. THEY ALMOST ALWAYS TALK ABOUT A CABAL WITHIN THE GOVERNMENT THAT IS WORKING IN SECRET TO DRIVE POLICY TOWARDS THEIR OWN ENDS, THE CABAL'S OWN END, NOT THE GOOD. THE PEOPLE IN THE DEEP STATE SEEM TO RANGE ALL OVER THE MAP, DEPENDING ON THE POLITICS OF WHOMEVER IS TALKING. THEY CAN BE THE INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES, THE CIA, THE FBI, THE MILITARY, THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL, THE BANKERS, AND THE GLOBALISTS, THE FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES, OR UNSPECIFIED ELITES. BUT THEY ALMOST ALWAYS HAVE OR ARE PURSUING SOME SORT OF EFFORT THAT UNDERMINES THE GOVERNMENT.

StrayBolt (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

That's just some chatter among academics on CSPAN basically a group blog. Please remove it. It's of no use to us. SPECIFICO talk 20:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

You should check WP:SPS, blogs maintained by subject experts are considered to be reliable sources, and academic experts expressing opinions on CSPAN are as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm aware of that but these were not facts. These were theories and narratives and cable TV bull session among 4 academics. There are millions of academics in the world. That doesn't change the fact that George Washington was not a precursor of Steve Bannon. Or even of Ronald Reagan for that matter. SPECIFICO talk 21:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, theories promulgated by subject experts can be presented, as long as they are clearly labeled as the opinions or analysis of those experts. In any case, comparing politicians from two extremely different historical eras is a chump's game, since comparisons are only really valid "all things being equal", and there's no way the politics of the middle 18th century and the late 20th/early 21st centuries are easily equated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

No problem with that. But, not in the lead. And perhaps, in the Deep state article instead of this article. O3000 (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. This article is not about George Washington, etc. Also, this is a pick-up team, not the all star game. SPECIFICO talk 23:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The "deep state" exists in relationship to the elected "leadership" and that is why having a history, divided by administrations, is a reasonable way to describe who, what and how it is thwarting the policies of that leader. StrayBolt (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

You are saying that there is a deep state and it is thwarting the policies of the president. What is your source for this? O3000 (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Would the op-ed announcing that the author was a member of the deep state dedicated to thwarting Trump administration policies published by the New York Times count as a reliable source? TMLutas (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Although that op-ed says "This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state." StrayBolt (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Would an op-ed that says he is not a part of any deep state and puts deep state in scare quotes be RS for saying there is a deep state? Of course not. O3000 (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The cabinet departments, military, and other agencies of government report to the president. So all this conspiracy theory stuff is a conspiracy theory. SPECIFICO talk 23:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

My word, it's like you're not aware of the civil service act and also unaware of Independent agencies of the United States government. This explains a great deal why you're resisting. TMLutas (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

We are certainly resisting calling a conspiracy theory real. There is no secret cabal within the FBI and CIA attempting a coup as claimed by alt-right sites and the POTUS. O3000 (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

My understanding of "DS in US" is that it is not like the DS in Turkey, but a perception from the view of the President and their supporters of what is stopping or opposing the president from doing something, which in many cases is "the law" or inertia or inexperience or ignorance. There is a natural human tendency to personify it, organize it, and turn it into a "conspiracy". There may be an individual leaking info or a small group trying to make sense of an ambiguous order or the head of an organization corrupting the system, but little evidence of a wide cabal. But it can go the opposite direction as with the Iran–Contra affair. StrayBolt (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Iran-Contra was not a deep state. It was government policy set at the highest levels. This article is about the paranoid belief that people in the justice department were secretly attempting to thwart the executive branch to the point of a coup or undermining an election. This has been pushed so heavily in the alternate press (including Fox) that it deserves a separate article. O3000 (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the Deep State in the United States. Your interpretation that there is no such thing is not supported by the article as written and by the sources already included. You're POV pushing and making a very good argument that an NPOV tag needs to go back up. TMLutas (talk) 00:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

NPOV tag

The current article, without any changes, provides theories for the deep state in the United States that are both conspiratorial and non-conspiratorial. The lead sentence does not accurately reflect that and we've got POV pushing that the article is only about the conspiracy theory in contradition to already accepted RS in the article and text in the article. This is textbook NPOV and deserves the tag. TMLutas (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The existence of a "deep state" is a conspiracy theory through and through, and the article is accurate in presenting it as such. Your personal belief in the theory notwithstanding, no NPOV tag is required, and it will be removed if it is added. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Literally the article as currently written does not support that. The talk page above has evidence of multiple non-conspiracy theories about the Deep State in the United States already in the article. Reverting. TMLutas (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Please get a consensus for a NPOV tag before you add one to the article. Your single, personal opinion does is not evidence of a POV problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

BMK you know the article is under 1RR right? PackMecEng (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I just noticed and reverted my last edit a moment ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Cool beans. PackMecEng (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Back to the real issue, however, @TMLutas:, please revert the tag and get a consensus for it before re-adding it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Haven't you read the talk page here for the last several weeks? This is not a case of "drive by tagging" and I've laid out the case that the current "it's only a conspiracy theory" attitude is neither supported by the RS cited in footnotes nor in the text since at least the 4th of April. If a debate over the course of more than a month is insufficient to overcome the "drive by tagging" assertion than the drive by tagging condition is a joke. To my great lack of surprise, the POV pushers who disregard the article as written didn't go along with the idea of an NPOV tag and the RfC method failed to move things in any constructive way. I'm curious how you think that POV pushers are *ever* going to agree to an NPOV tag going. How is that supposed to work? TMLutas (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)