Wikipedia

Talk:Deep state in the United States/Archive 3

< Talk:Deep state in the United States
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Jibal in topic History section
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Seditious Conspiracy and Attempted Bureaucratic Coup against the Trump Administration

Latest comment: 5 years ago21 comments4 people in discussion

on February 17th Trump quoted Rush Limbaugh in a tweet directly discussing elements of the Seditious conspiracy Deep State activities 

Donald J. Trump‏@realDonaldTrump · 23h23 hours ago “These guys, the investigators, ought to be in jail. What they have done, working with the Obama intelligence agencies, is simply unprecedented. This is one of the greatest political hoaxes ever perpetrated on the people of this Country, and Mueller is a coverup.”  Rush Limbaugh

As tweeted by President Trump on February 18, 2019: 

Donald J. Trump‏@realDonaldTrump · 3h3 hours ago.  “This was an illegal coup attempt on the President of the United States.” Dan Bongino on @foxandfriends  True!

Donald J. Trump‏@realDonaldTrump · 4h4 hours ago Wow, so many lies by now disgraced acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe. He was fired for lying, and now his story gets even more deranged. He and Rod Rosenstein, who was hired by Jeff Sessions (another beauty), look like they were planning a very illegal act, and got caught.....

Donald J. Trump‏@realDonaldTrump · 8h8 hours ago ....There is a lot of explaining to do to the millions of people who had just elected a president who they really like and who has done a great job for them with the Military, Vets, Economy and so much more. This was the illegal and treasonous “insurance policy” in full action!

Trump is referring to the Obama Administrations' DOJ and FBI actions leading up to and following the 2016 election. The conspirators: Rosenstein, McCabe, Comey, Lynch, Strozk, Page, Brennan, etc. The misguided efforts meet the definition of aSeditious conspiracy expose the Deep State which is present and active within the United States.

Some reports on the subject by RS's:

Per the Seditious conspiracy articles' description: "For a seditious conspiracy charge to be effected, a crime need only be planned, it need not be actually attempted." There is evidence that plans were made, and based merely on suspicions and hatred, investigations, discussions, plans and options were being discussed how to remove Trump from his Presidency. All evidence of the Deep state in the United States.

Propose to add content to the article. Let's discuss, form consensus. ~ Bought the farm (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment - Agreed to add some of this info to article, oppose naming it a "seditious conspiracy" because there is no evidence that they planned to remove him or hinder his administration by use of force, which is a necessary part of that term's definition. Clearly not a definition, but clearly some mundane deep state happening, as in the type of deep state that opposes elected officials, very similar to what can be seen in the UK. You can't be a bureaucratic coup and a seditious conspiracy perpetrator at the same time. YuriNikolai (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
OK, I did a strike-thru edit of the seditious conspiracy in the original proposal. So what content shall we actually add to the article? Perhaps new subtitles under the U.S. Politics section for each administration starting with the Eisenhower Administration? ~ Bought the farm (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
More unreliable sources: Trump, Bongino, Fox & Friends, Limbaugh, Daily Stormer.... Seriously, Trump's claim makes no sense at all. The Constitution provides a legal means to remove an incapacitated president, so discussing whether there might be enough Cabinet members who would use the 25th Amendment to do that isn't anywhere close to illegal or a coup. Trump's actions often show he is incapacitated, IOW unfit for the job, because they are often unhinged, make no sense, are based on ignorance, seem treasonous, etc. His actions at the time were so alarming that there was (and still is) no question that he was acting in the interests of Russia, not America. The only question left is whether he's a witting or unwitting Russian asset. Either way, the effect on America and democracy is the same. He divides and disrupts, which happens to be the reason Putin helped him become president. That's why Putin interfered in the election. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
YuriNikolai, could there not have been a simultaneous effort at both a planned seditious conspiracy and a bureaucratic coup? I think there was... Would like to document all this! ~ Bought the farm (talk) 03:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
@Bought the farm:, it's always in the realm of possibility, but we can't add these things to the wiki unless there is solid evidence from reliable sources. I enjoy documenting some things which aren't encyclopedic content, but for those i use other websites or even an article post on Medium (website). I don't think there is enough solid evidence to warrant an inclusion in the article, we'll have to wait and see how future developments bring more things into view. YuriNikolai (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Kennedy Administration

Seems that there are articles regarding the JFK assassination linked to the Deep State

During a 2017 Megyn Kelly interview, Vladimir Putin referred to the Deep State: "There is a theory that Kennedy's assassination was arranged by the United States intelligence services. So if this theory is correct, and that can't be ruled out, then what could be easier in this day and age than using all the technical means at the disposal of the intelligence services and using those means to organize some attacks, and then pointing the finger at Russia." ~ Bought the farm (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Putin is not a RS for American politics. He's a source of disinformation which Trump believes, ergo Trump isn't a RS either, but also a source of much fake news and disinformation. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@Bought the farm: why was Zero Hedge considered for your reference list? See my edit at Wikipedia talk:RSP. X1\ (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
X1\ strikethrough complete ~ Bought the farm (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@Bought the farm: I agree strikethrough is appropriate, but why was it even there? X1\ (talk) 01:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
X1\, I was just searching for addition coverage of the topic. I was not aware of their status as "Alt-Right" or Russia influenced, now I do. it seems that many RS's accepted here are very Left-leaning ie: NYT, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, The New Yorker, etc. - very Pro-Democrat Party and very anti-Trump/Republican in every way.
RS's that fail to report on the positives of Trump's Administration, I guess... Guess we'll do it here on Wiki when they occur. ~ Bought the farm (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@Bought the farm: please provide RSs for your very comments. X1\ (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
X1\, I added RS's above showing stats from 2014 and the 2017 Harvard study article stating "Harvard study: Media has been largely negative on Trump". Let's starting editing the actual article... ~ Bought the farm (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@Bought the farm: do you see The Daily Stormer (dailystormer.name) as an RS? X1\ (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@Bought the farm: google search of "theleaflet.in" gives "An Imprint of Lawyers Collective”, the legal NGO that the duo founded way back in 1980.", is this intended to be an RS? X1\ (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@Bought the farm: Oliver Stone, the director of the JFK (film), calls it a "counter-myth", so why are referring to it? X1\ (talk) 01:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Are there any RS's that report on the interview and what Putin said? ~ Bought the farm (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Despite Putin not being a RS for american politics (and sometimes not even for Russian politics), it is still encyclopedia-worthy to include his views on the Deep State, but perhaps only on his article page and not here. We'd still need the actual interview in order to correctly cite it. YuriNikolai (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
YuriNikolai, Here is the relevant excerpt from the interview: Megyn Kelly: "You had said for months that Russia had nothing to do with the interference of the American election, and then this week you floated the idea of patriotic hackers doing it. Why the change and why now?" Vladimir Putin replied, "It’s just that the French journalists asked me about those hackers, and just like I told them, I can tell you, that hackers may be anywhere. They may be in Russia, in Asia, in America, in Latin America. There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can’t you imagine such a scenario? In the middle of an internal political fight, it was convenient for them, whatever the reason, to put out that information. And put it out they did. And, doing it, they made a reference to Russia. Can’t you imagine it happening? I can. Let us recall the assassination of President Kennedy. There is a theory that Kennedy’s assassination was arranged by the United States special services. If this theory is correct, and one cannot rule it out, so what can be easier in today’s context, being able to rely on the entire technical capabilities available to special services than to organise some kind of attacks in the appropriate manner while making a reference to Russia in the process. Now, the candidate for the Democratic Party, is this candidate universally beloved in the United States? Was it such a popular person? That candidate, too, had political opponents and rivals." The full transcript, which came from the Kremlin, can be found here:

Nixon Administration

In an opinion piece published in the Wasington Post in August 2018, it was opined that Richard M. Nixon did not complain about the deep state during his presidency, that Nixon "understood government and policy." Reportedly, Nixon was the first "environmental" President who pursued "concrete policies, many of which have had lasting benefits."

The piece basically compares and contrasts Nixon and Trump while painting a very negative view of Donald Trump and claims that by his own admissions, "also suggests more ominously his complicity with Russian President Vladi­mir Putin’s plan to help Trump win the 2016 election." ~ Bought the farm (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Page move

Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

Beyond My Ken, I don't understand why you moved the page from Deep state in the United States to Deep State in the United States. It's not the name of a rock band (though that would be kind of cool). R2 (bleep) 23:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The concept is almost always double capped as "Deep State". Yes, one can find instances where it's only single capped ("Deep state"), but the latter is much more prevalent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Are you sure? A Google News search for "deep state" government seems to indicate otherwise. R2 (bleep) 23:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Google's search engine deals with "Deep State" and "Deep state" (and "deep state", for that matter) as equivalent, so I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
This should be moved back per MOS:TITLECASE unless a move request is closed indicating otherwise. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Titlecase doesn't apply when the name of the concept itself is capped. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
...but what sourcing are you using to justify capitalizing the concept? That's where you've lost me. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, read the references in the article. I believe the majority of them capitalize the concept. In any case, it's not an issue I want to expend much energy on, so I'll move it back and the titlte can just be wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Restored to original title. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate that!   –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
The irony is that all I actually set out to do was make a redirect from the capped version, which is how we've ended up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

"Lead too long" tag

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

@Emir of Wikipedia: The body of the article is about 20 paragraphs long, give or take. The lede is 3 paragraphs long. In what way is the lede too long? {{WP:LEAD]] -- which, incidentally, is a style guideline and not a policy, therefore not mandatory -- says:

As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate.

This current lede is 3 grafs, which is perfectly acceptable for the size of the article, and within style recommendations.

Please remove the tag. Beyond My Ken (talk)

R2 removed the and the quote, so hopefully that satisfies the concern somewhat. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
R2 has removed legitimate sourced information from the article without a consensus on this talk page to do so, a viiolation of policy, and therefore the situation here has been brought to the attention of admin at ANI. I will no longer be editing this article as long as editors who blatantly and deliberate violate policy in order to enforce their POV are editing here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

New quotes in lead section

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Does anyone else think that these recently added quotes don't belong in the lead section? R2 (bleep) 22:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

They should have been moved, not deleted. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The Lede is a flaming dumpster fire

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

It is rife with the stench of someone pushing an agenda, indicated by the stuffing of a bunch of people's names without any involvement in the rest of the article. The Lede is a summation of the entire article, nothing more and nothing less. This Lede doesn't meet that criteria. Either incorporate the statements from the Lede in the body of the article or take them out. I will wait about a week before the Swift Sword of Doom trims this article from stem to stern. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I would oppose any such cuts without consensus. What would you cut? R2 (bleep) 17:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I see one name in the lead that should be cut or added to the body. I'd ask you for the other names -- but that would mean you would have to respond and would no longer have a perfect 11111 number of edits. O3000 (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

Latest comment: 4 years ago30 comments6 people in discussion

Is this article about a conspiracy theory? I'm not sure, but without any verifiable content in the article saying that, I don't think we can categorize it as such. See WP:CATV. R2 (bleep) 20:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Please read the lede again. I've added content - taken directly from the first two sources referenced in the article - to make it explicit that this is a conspiracy theory, and could easily add more. Even without that, though, the article is clearly about a conspiracy theory, and the concept is referred to by multiple sources and multiple people as being conspiratorial in nature. The idea that is is anything but a conspiracy theory is simply counter-factual. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
None of what you added verifies that it's a conspiracy theory. if it's so obvious that the deep state is a conspiracy theory then there should be plenty of better sources. Also, I object to the inclusion of quotes from unreliable whack job opinion writers in the lead section. R2 (bleep) 23:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you are incorrect. Statements from reliable sources which call it a conspiracy theory means that we call it a comspiracy theory, that's fundamentally how Wikipedia works. Conspiracy theories, by their very nature, cannot be "proven", as any evidence of the absence of the conspiracy is ignored by the theory's adgerents, who will then often move the goal posts. Belief in conspiracy theories is not a rational thing, instead it serves an emotional need. This can be verified in any of our articles about the many and various current conspiracy theorries, and in the article Conspiracy theory. If you wish a conspiracy theory to be presented in our article as actual, verifiable fact, then you will have to provide citations from numerous reliable sources which site it as a fact and not a factually ungrounded theory (i.e. a conspiracy theory). We do not have that now, what we have are numerous citations from reliable sources which say that the existence of a "Deep State" (in anything but the most trivial sense) which controls the government is a conspiracy theory. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral pointers to this discussion -- per WP:Canvassing -- have been placed on the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ahrtoodeetoo: On Awilley's talk page [1], you say that you are not claiming that the belief in a malevolent "Deep State" is not a conspiracy theory, meaning therefore that you believe it is. If that's the case, why did you restore Wumbolo's removal of Category:Conspiracy theories in the United States? Wumbolo's removal of that cat and of Category:Conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump was on the basis of "not described as such in article, conspiracy theorists talking about it don't make it such", and on my talk page they mentioned BLP concerns (which are unfounded, I believe). Since I added information which explicitly calls the "Deep State" concept a conspiracy theory, even if you agree with Wumbolo and believe there to be BLP issues, why haven't you re-instated "Conspiracy theories in the United States" as a cat? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm pretty clear about this. I don't know whether the deep state theory is a conspiracy theory. Nor does it really matter. My agenda here is verifiability. R2 (bleep) 18:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Due to the additional sourcing, I have now re-added the categories. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that, I'll add them to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Of course! I'm also of the opinion that the categories probably should be kept/re-added if that is something at dispute here. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with you, but I can't re-add them because of Discretionary Sanctions, although any other editor who hasn't made a revert to the article in the last 24 hours certainly can. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Disagree it is a conspiracy theory. I also disagree with this article in linking it primarily to military-industrial complex. I share view of Amanda Taub and Max Fisher: "Though the deep state is sometimes discussed as a shadowy conspiracy, it helps to think of it instead as a political conflict between a nation’s leader and its governing institutions." Deep state. Aocdnw (talk) 12:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Julian Castro “I think there should be accountability all the way around. … I will say also though, Rachel, I know, because I led a federal department, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, I know that there are career officials that are not a part of this agenda. They are our great hope in those departments to do the right thing, to expose the cruelty and the evil that is happening, to do what they can to call attention to what they see. We see that with some of the things that are happening, the leaks that happened out of the White House. We’ve seen that with the Department of Homeland Security, in addition to the work of the inspector general. And I call upon them, those career officials, to do what they can to push back to stop this cruel agenda of the president.” [7]. Aocdnw (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • You might want to read the article again. Castro is talking about the trivial case. The conspiracy theory is about a permanent shadow government secretly in control. Not the same thing at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • There are three very different scenarios to keep in mind.
1. Beyond My Ken makes a good point. A true "deep state" shadow government is a very political entity which misuses the public political process and allied politicians for its own ends, usually in conflict with the will of the voting public. Currently, we have a president who sits there against the will of the majority of voters, and that situation creates its own tensions.
2. When you have "a political conflict between a nation’s leader and its governing institutions" you have chaos, disruption, a crippled government, and accusations of treason against that leader, especially when that leader is doing what is favorable to, and in the interests of, a foreign enemy. The president is not supposed to interfere with civil servants, the courts, or the intelligence agencies when they are doing their jobs. The president is not supposed to politicize those processes. Dictators do that.
3. When the president calls the proper functions of government, and those performing those functions, a "deep state" which is working against him, then you have a conspiracy theory designed to undermine the government and gain sympathy. If the leader finds himself in conflict with the normal functions of government, the fault is with the leader, not with those doing their jobs. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The sources helpfully provided by MJL are informative, but they actually don't verify that the deep state theory is a conspiracy theory. For example, the Vox source discusses Trump's "'deep state' FBI conspiracy theory". Trump's theory about the FBI was a conspiracy theory, and he referred to the deep state. That is a "'deep state' FBI conspiracy theory." It doesn't mean that the broader deep state theory is a conspiracy theory. The only source MJL provided that says that deep state is a conspiracy theory is the FP source, but I think that's unreliable opinion. (The full context: "That is why, while it is easy to simply be angry or to laugh at a president who doesn’t read or to be distracted by half-baked conspiracy theories like the deep state, we must recognize that the shallow state is much more pernicious.")
I think Aocdnw's quote from the NY Times is more telling. It doesn't say whether deep state is or isn't a conspiracy theory, but says it "helps" to think of it as something else. The Times had an opportunity to call it a conspiracy theory and declined to. This reinforces my view that this article shouldn't be categorized as a conspiracy theory. R2 (bleep) 18:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
(R2, if you don't mind pinging me, I'd appreciate it btw. Just my preference ¯\_(ツ)_/¯) I think the issue you point out is a valid one, and the disagreement here is not what I originally thought it was. Deep state as a concept is a thing, but I contend that its usage in America has been associated strongly with the FBI/Department of Justice conspiracy theory. I would say that the NY Times article takes a more nuanced approach than simply saying "it's not a conspiracy theory" (in fact, it says multiple times that currently there is no deep state at present time). If it would help achieve consensus, I would propose we call it in the lead an alleged conspiracy theory as to satisfy your concerns. For navigational purposes though, it should remain categorized as a conspiracy theory to avoid WP:SMALLCAT. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
MJL, I don't think SMALLCAT is a concern. There are lots of articles here about subjects that have been expressly identified as conspiracy theories by reliable sources. I also wouldn't support "alleged conspiracy theory," as that doesn't reflect the reliable sources either, and it would be awfully milquetoast to boot. The first sentence should describe what the subject is, not what it's alleged to be. R2 (bleep) 20:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
[Thank you for the ping] Fair point, that'd (calling it alleged) probably be best considered a false compromise. Well, I have a new round of sources for you, though.[8][9][10] However, I think I found the golden source; it's one that could probably put this whole dispute to rest. In an article for the Atlantic; Russell Muirhead, Professor for Democracy and Politics at Dartmouth College, and Nancy L. Rosenblum, Professor of Ethics in Politics and Government at Harvard University, wrote up an in depth analysis of the style of which President Trump makes false assertions. In the first paragraph, the article says "When swirling charges of... a coup plotted by the "deep state" are referred to as "conspiracy theory," this is not just a misnomer but a misunderstanding, one with consequences. Conspiracy and theory have been decoupled; we face the distinctively malignant phenomenon of conspiracy without the theory" (2019).[11] Certainly something from this article is useful for our coverage. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The issue here is extremely simple. "Deep State" as used by Trump et al. refers to a shadowy, hidden permanent government-within-the-government. As there is absolutely zero evidence of that existing, and, in particular, no such evidence of such an entity cited to reliable sources has been presented in this article, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it does not exist. Given that, the belief is the existence in such an entity, in which people within the government conspire with each other to undermine the actions of the legitimately elected government, is by definition a conspiracy theory. For the article to not describe this as a conspiracy theory would require actual hard evidence of the existence of such an entity cited to neutral reliable sources. Since that evidence does not exist, it is impossible for the article to not call it a conspiracy theory and still uphold the principles of neutrality and verifiability. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
All perfectly logical. So go find some sources that confirm your position. R2 (bleep) 21:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
The sources which confirm my position -- that it is a conspiracy theory -- are already in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
As explained here, the sources you added don’t verify the content. That’s why I added the failed verification tag. You removed the tag saying it was false, but you didn’t respond to my concerns. That’s disruptive. R2 (bleep) 23:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you are entirely and utterly incorrect. The citations clearly and obviously refer to it as a conspiracy theory. That you don't want it to be a conspiracy theory is irrelevant.
I would advise you not to make edits to the article unless they are the addition of information supported by a reliable source. Any other edits will result in a report to ANI for the violation of Wikipedia policies, including WP:NPOV. WP:Disruptive editing and WP:IDHT. Articles such as this, under Discretionary Sanctions, are much more tightly policed, and admin action is almost certain to result from such a report.
My participation in this discussion is at an end. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "The issue here is extremely simple. "Deep State" as used by Trump et al." says user BeyondMyKen. I think we have misunderstanding, this article is not about what Trump says and his notion of deep state, it is about Deep state in the United States. Making it about Trump's notion would be incredibly Undue and would require renaming article. Deep state according to Trump, or something similar. Aocdnw (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the additional sources MJL. We're close but not quite there. The Atlantic source kind-of, sort-of suggests that deep state is a conspiracy theory but, in a tongue-in-cheek manner, actually says the opposite. As I read it, they're basically saying that Trump's deep state statements would reflect a conspiracy theory, but they're not a theory because Trump presents them as settled fact. So frustrating. The other three don't come that close. The NPR source is quite illuminating however and deserves to be incorporated into our article. R2 (bleep) 00:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
    @Ahrtoodeetoo: [Thank you for the ping] Sorry, I got distracted with other articles and stuff. Here's my latest round of sourcing.[12][13][14][15][16] Cheers, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate you digging up these sources, but you have to actually read them.   None of those sources expressly say that the deep state theory is a conspiracy theory. Two of them are unreliable opinion sources. R2 (bleep) 17:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The deep states (a state within a state) obviously existed in many countries like the USSR (even Nikita Khrushev referred this way to the Soviet KGB). The question is: does it really exist in the USA, or this is just a conspiracy theory? Good question. I guess that depends on the definition. For example, when governmental servivemen do not support the orders by the POTUS, do they belong to the "deep state"? According to the current POTUS, the answer is "yes". So, he is fighting with his own state, which is really a very real and serious problem - see this article. My very best wishes (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Closely related concepts

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

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?

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)

Why was my added links removed?

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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)

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

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)

Resolving NPOV tag

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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)

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

Latest comment: 4 years ago15 comments3 people in discussion

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)

Deep state conspiracies that turned out to be true

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 4 years ago18 comments4 people in discussion

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. Neutralitytalk 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). Neutralitytalk 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)

NPOV tag

Latest comment: 3 years ago26 comments6 people in discussion

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)
Please post a diff or a link to a discussion where the consensu was to add a NPOV tag. If you cannot, please remove the tag. Beyond My Ken (talk)
Sorry, not going to do anything more on this article. I've requested sanctions on the NPOV noticeboard. I'll be escalating beyond that if that sanctions request gets pulled down improperly. But since this page is under special rules, I'm done with editing it for awhile. I've demonstrated that this is not "drive by tagging" which is what the NPOV template talks about so I'll also be declining to jump to meet your private standards. TMLutas (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
But you have not shown that there is a consensus for your tag, so I'll be removing it in 24 hours. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
If you comply with the instructions on when it is appropriate to remove the NPOV tag, then fine, I have no problems. If you want to assert that a one month discussion is "drive by editing" as the NPOV template describes it, then sanctions will be requested for whoever is removing the tag improperly. It's not a personal thing. The page is being edited improperly and it's a problem of longstanding. I don't really care about the ephemera of whether the tag is up or not in any given hour. I'll be putting it up until the issues are properly run through according the rules as written and not as the rules as invented by individual editors. If you want to impose a different set of criteria in that one has to have consensus to put up an NPOV tag, the correct course is to put it in the NPOV instructions. Let me know if you do that. I like to watch a good train wreck now and then. I promise I won't even participate in that conversation. TMLutas (talk) 15:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, the key passage of the template documentation is the following This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public. Are there any - I mean any - high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources suggesting that the "deep state" is anything other than a conspiracy theory/FRINGE POV? Because I haven't seen any presented. Newimpartial (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I listed these a few weeks back in the RfC that was engaged specifically to try to avoid an NPOV tag. I was game for the attempt but it didn't result in any movement, nor much more than a rehash of the regular positions:
  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)
Just a note, you yourself deleted one of these references, an hour and a half symposium by an American Historical society covering the page topic with a deeply inaccurate explanation comment that "The c-span panel, in particular, does not produce any clear evidence of 20th-century use of the term" which is just not even close to reality. The majority of the discussion is about 20th century references in the first place and in the second place, we just went through an argument over putting in a history section because supposedly all the references are in the Trump administration and are conspiracy theory not deserving any historical discussion. You can't have it both ways. TMLutas (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Please stop repeating the same long set of text. O3000 (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't have listed them if it were not relevant. As Newimpartial claimed not to have seen any references, I supplied some that were already in the discussion to demonstrate a lack of care in his supposed search. I guess I could have just said go back and read the talk page, they're there but I thought that would have been rude. TMLutas (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
TMLutas, first of all, the panel itself is not a Reliable Source, and as far as I can tell only the panel's title relates directly to the use it was put in the article, which is against policy. None of the published work of the panelists supports the use of the "deep state" concept as a other than a conspiracy theory as far as I can tell.
You don't seem to have actually viewed the video which is published by CSPAN and is a presentation by independent subject matter experts (history professors in American Universities) and a followup discussion. It covers both conspiracy uses of the term the Deep State as used in the United States as well as non-conspiracy uses. You are simply not accurately relating the content of the video. Please stop that. TMLutas (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Also, George Friedman is not a reliable source on this topic, nor does your politico citation support your point. Perhaps give it a rest, now? Newimpartial (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
George Friedman is a subject matter expert on analyzing countries and how they will act in future. Of necessity, this would require a deep knowledge of how they operate both in formal and informal structures of power as the Deep State is supposed to be. You also would have to be able to understand how rumor and conspiracy theory affect policy. He's been doing this at two companies for 24 years, Stratfor 1996-2015 and Geopolitical Futures 2015-present. If 24 years of doing this for a living at a high level does not make someone a relevant expert, I'd like to know the standard so I can apply it elsewhere. The idea that Friedman is not a reliable source based on a simple assertion without any sort of reason given is a joke. TMLutas (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
George Friedman has been described by RS as a Magic 8 ball. The nature of this description suggests quite elegantly that his predictions are not based on any informed understanding of how things work, but rather some kind of savant effect. He also has no relevant credentials or respected (non-FRINGE and relevant) publications. So tell me again why he should be a citable authority that this article's topic is not, in fact, a conspiracy theory? Newimpartial (talk) 23:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
You seem to be making little effort to actually look things up and are just throwing stuff out there. A PhD in government from Cornell would seem to be a relevant credential for someone to speak about this page's topic as a subject matter expert on this government phenomenon. Did you miss that or do you believe that it is not a relevant qualification? He has others. TMLutas (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Separately, I do have to ask, when you say "George Friedman has been described by RS as a Magic 8 ball." I have no understanding about who or what is RS and why that should matter. So who is RS? TMLutas (talk) 01:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
"RS" is Wikipedia short hand for a "reliable source", per the mandatory Wikipedia policy WP:Reliable sources. All information on Wikipedia should be verifiable by way of citations to reliable sources. If someone says somothing, but they are not a reliable source, that information cannot be used in Wikipedia articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
This is the source. As far as a Ph.D. in Government and no related publications - that and $5 might have got you a coffee, in the pre-pandemic world. I have no idea what it gets you now. Newimpartial (talk) 02:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I feel the need to point out that Friedman co-authored "The Coming War with Japan" which predicted armed conflict between the U.S. and Japan within 20 years. This book was published in 1991. Just a point of interest. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
His co-author is his wife. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

History section

Latest comment: 3 years ago27 comments6 people in discussion

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)
"a general treatment of the Deep state in the United States"--there is no such thing--it's a baseless conspiracy theory. -- Jibal (talk) 04:56, 20 May 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)
And the author didn't say that they were thwarting Trump administration policies--they said they were members of the Trump administration trying to keep the President's impulses in check so that the administration didn't go off the rails. And what's very revealing here is that TMLucas keeps trying to get the lede changed to refer to non-conspiracy "theories" of the "Deep State", but is here asserting the conspiratorial view. -- Jibal (talk) 05:08, 20 May 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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deep_state_in_the_United_States/Archive_3&oldid=1009772933"