Talk:Deep state

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Additional information:
/
	No existing task force includes this article in its scope; to propose a new one, please leave a message on the main project talk page.

Politics C‑class Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

older concepts, e.g. in Germany

According to the German Wiki, the idea of the «deep state» = Staat im Staate has explicitly been mentioned in Germany for the first time in 1764. --Werfur (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanon's Hezbollah.

I don't think they are really a state within a state. They are too public. Officially a political party. The electoral system in Lebanon encourages organizations like Hezballah. They are really a so called Non State Actor.

Imperium in imperio?

My understandings of "state within a state" and imperium in imperio are quite different.

A "state within a state" is found, as the article says, when there's a breakdown of civilian control of the military or something like that: an entity exists within a modern state; it isn't supposed to have governing authority in its own right (if at all), but because of a failure of the government, the other entity becomes a power unto itself. Also, it's the entity itself that is the "state".

By contrast, the condition of imperium in imperio exists when the legitimate powers of government are divided between two levels, such as the principalities within the Holy Roman Empire or the states within the United States. It's supposedly impossible, as shown by the example where the Holy Roman Empire had no imperium (power of command) over the principalities. My impression matches what this writer says:

“Imperium in imperio” was a stock phrase in eighteenth-century Anglo-American political talk. It was uttered to insist that there cannot be a sovereign body within a sovereign body. To allow otherwise, it was said, would be a “solecism” or a contradiction in terms. This conventional wisdom was variously deployed for nationalist, centralizing, or anti-feudal projects. The self-evident logic of indivisible sovereignty was undermined over time, of course, or else we wouldn’t have inherited the new kind of federalism that's embodied in the U.S. constitution (by which states can be sovereign over some subjects while the federal government is supreme over areas within its jurisdiction).[1] --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 03:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

US Intelligence Community as a state within a state

The sources cited for this appear to be opinion pieces. Perhaps a more rigorous definition would help to dispel ambiguity for this example and others (see above comment by another user about Lebanon's Hezbollah).2601:7:8080:DD4:7971:D75F:751:E817 (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes agree, we need better refs. The issue is that The Deep state controls a lot of media. SaintAviator lets talk 21:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Communist Party in Communist Countries

Would would this description apply to Communist parties, such as those of the USSR or China? They are basically above the law and are main effective agencies, with the power to depose civilian leaders, as with Khrushchev. 216.15.11.65 (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The US Deep state

[2] SaintAviator lets talk 21:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be expanded comparably to other sections? -- including, e.g., links to Eisenhower re MIC, MIC influence on legislation humanengr (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OR

Most links on the page are WP:OR. If these subjects have been described as "state within a state", this should be sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that they are Original Research, as there are no RS provided. I will delete some, which seem very arbitrary or partisan:

Philippines' Iglesia ni Cristo Poland's Jaroslaw Kaczynski Vietnam's Communist Party ...

Zezen (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't cover the entire subject

This article ignores the anti-semitic origins of the "deep state" theory. It is not a state within a state but an international conspiracy, related to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and other such. Read the conspiracy theory sites, if you can stomach them, and you will find that its about the banks and an international cabal that is actually running things. Conscientia (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it would be useful to add some details about the origins of the term "deep state". Any chance you could do so? You'd need to cite at least one reliable source which discusses it. Thanks, Meticulo (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 October 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Deep state. Favonian (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

State within a state → Deep State – Currently this is the alternate name for this article. But Deep State seems to be the more well known term. 1 Million web hits for "State within a state", 6.9 Million for "Deep state". 937 thousand news hits for "Deep state" and 13 thousand for "State within a state" Obsidi (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A google ngram comparion shows "state within a state" is more prevalent, but not dominantly so. On Google Scholar, deep state is 13.4k (but definitely tainted with unrelated non-political topics), state within a state is 11.8k. -- Netoholic @ 06:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that nGram also isn't catching a substantial increase in the worldwide use of the term "deep state" in the last two years (as shown by Google Trends) as nGram's most recent data is 2008. -Obsidi (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:COMMONNAME, but the title spelling should be "Deep state", not "Deep State" as proposed. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Deep state" is fine by me. -Obsidi (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Deep state capitalization. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - "Deep state" per WP:COMMONNAME with lower case "s" in "state". Meatsgains^(talk) 00:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECENTISM. Please see Google ngram, where "State within a state" is far more dominant, while "deep state" line consists mostly of "deep state of" expressions (shown in green): [3]. On this basis, I'm opposing. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. That's ok with me, don't see anything bad to oppose to. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 10:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support, "deep state" seems to be more commonly used and is referenced more on educational sites than the other term. Also, "a state within a state" might look a little too accurate that it could mean, for example, "a country within a country", which is misleading. Flooded with them hundreds 11:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Popular understanding "Controversy"

Many hits for the deep state page will be people interested in how the term is used in news media and social media. As this usage differs substantially and crucially from academic literature which studies similar state functions, it is absolutely vital that this page mention the difference between popular and academic/expert understandings.

However, by it's very nature, this may be controversial for ideological (liberal/conservative or Democratic Party/Republican Party) reasons as well as because it places a focus on the United States. Yet the very reason for this page's existence and current salience is affected by these social realities and it is noteworthy and central to the understanding of how the concept is (mis)used in many contemporary conversations.

While article content does not need to meet Wikipedia:Notability standards (only the article itself does), the fact that a major portion of the deep state's notability is due to its current salience within the US context (and wider "rise of the right" narrative in Political Science) means that we should keep and develop this section. Icy13 💬 ✏️ 02:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]