Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:01, 25 February 2022

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Deep state in the United States. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Deep state in the United States at the Reference desk.

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 July 2017. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Presidential elections / Presidents / Government / Governors Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. governors (assessed as Mid-importance). This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Military history: North America / United States 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 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 Associated task forces: /  North American military history task force United States military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. [REDACTED] Alternative views Low‑importance [REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Deep state in the United States be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. Wikipedians in the United States may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Deep state in the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 6 months

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Misplaced Pages's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

Again

"please see previous discussions" which weren't resolved and were also arbitrarely archived? The page discusses a concept of the Deep state, which has its own page, and Deep_state#United_States has a different view of the facts and doesn't outright say it is a "conspiracy theory" - the term appears in 2013 and other sources before Trump was even a presidential candidate. So, what is the argument for making this whole article about Trump? By the way, that section does cite scholarly sources, such as the Harvard National Security Journal from 2014, the Wall Street Journal in 2013 and even The New York Times in 1963 (surely that isn't about Donald Trump...). It seems now that Harvard university journals are "discredited peddlers of conspiracy theories"? Again, I am not searching these sources myself, they are cited within Misplaced Pages as proponents of the theory of a Deep State in the United States. So, there is scholarly debate, thus this is a scholarly topic. One would think the opinion of trained political scientists has more weight than some opinion column on Rolling Stones. Is the deep state a a "discredited conspiracy theory" about "Donald Trump"? The numerous published sources before he was even on the picture say otherwise. Don't say it has been "discussed before" (which it hasn't to any satisfaction of the parties) and close it, actually respond to the argument - or cede to the proposed changes. --181.166.162.36 (talk) 08:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

It's a conspiracy theory

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

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

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

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

Terrible sourcing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Split discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

References

1. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/25/qanon-conspiracy-theory-explained-trump-what-is
2. https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium.HIGHLIGHT-jewish-gop-senate-candidate-blames-soros-and-deep-state-for-covid-19-1.10285407
3. https://www.ajc.org/translatehate/QAnon

Laughtably biased article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comparison with Turkey article

Look at Deep_state_in_Turkey:

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

Restructure with History section

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

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

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• Start-Class United States presidential elections articles
• Mid-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• United States presidential elections articles needing attention
• Start-Class United States Presidents articles
• Mid-importance United States Presidents articles
• WikiProject United States Presidents articles
• United States Presidents articles needing attention
• Start-Class United States Government articles
• High-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• United States Government articles needing attention
• Start-Class United States governors articles
• Mid-importance United States governors articles
• WikiProject United States governors articles
• United States governors articles needing attention
• United States articles needing attention
• WikiProject United States articles
• Start-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• Start-Class American politics articles
• Mid-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class North American military history articles
• North American military history task force articles
• Start-Class United States military history articles
• United States military history task force articles
• Start-Class Skepticism articles
• Low-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Start-Class Alternative views articles
• Low-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs in the United States