Talk:Deep state conspiracy theory in the United States

This statement is unsupported in the provided sources and should be removed, unless someone can provide a credible source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DustWolf (talk • contribs) 08:24, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

{{Edit semi-protected|Deep state conspiracy theory in the United States|answered=yes}}

Request “False” to be removed due to the fact that you cannot disprove the existence of a deep state. 97.216.82.222 (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

:File:X mark.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn't "controversial" be a more accurate descriptor than "false"? Nomenclaturist (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

{{Edit semi-protected|Deep state conspiracy theory in the United States|answered=yes}}

The deep state conspiracy theory in the United States is a TRUE American political conspiracy theory that posits the existence of the deep state, a clandestine network of members of the federal government (especially within the FBI and CIA). The theory solidifies that there exist networks of collaborators within the leadership of the high-level financial and industrial entities, which exercise power alongside or within the elected United States government.[1] 76.203.140.9 (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

:File:X mark.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I would like to seriously question the neutrality of this article which claims that this is a conspiracy theory and has been proven to be false.

What evidence is there that this is the case? With so much being done in classified settings and by people with security clearances which won't allow them to share information with the general public, isn't there a high likelihood (or opportunity) of government corruption?

We know that politicians are politically influenced by donors and powerful corporations / lobbies / individuals in their states, why would it be a leap to suggest that this is also going on at a deeper, less visible level?

Perhaps we don't have conclusive proof that the conspiracy theory is real, but I don't think we have enough proof that it is false to boldly proclaim that to be the case. 2A06:5906:1207:F600:AC90:9C56:BCE1:5B53 (talk) 09:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC) — 2A06:5906:1207:F600:AC90:9C56:BCE1:5B53 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. {{#if:|A sockpuppet investigation is open at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/{{{spi}}}.{{sp}}|}}

:@2A06:5906:1207:F600:AC90:9C56:BCE1:5B53 This comment calls for original research that is out of scope for Wikipedia editors. Newimpartial (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, many journalists and academics have called it true in the rest of the article. Take a look at Deep state conspiracy theory in the United States#Usage by journalists and academics, and that entire section contains people who say it's true. Even in the criticism section one of the scholars say: {{tq|Michaels argues that the American 'deep state', which is really the 'American bureaucracy', includes federal agencies responsible for regulation, welfare, crime prevention, and defense, and the employees who operate them}} (and then he goes on to talk about how Trump sees it wrong, and the way we see it should be different, but still acknowledges its' reality nonetheless).

By all of this (and some other reasons), calling it false in the first sentence doesn't seem objective. Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:Well, it’s good to know that you are so certain it is false instead of maybe, probably or could be false. By calling it false you immediately call your credibility into question. 67.20.1.30 (talk) 03:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC) — 67.20.1.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. {{#if:|A sockpuppet investigation is open at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/{{{spi}}}.{{sp}}|}}

::??? I was arguing that we should remove the word "false" from there. Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

:::So you believe that " that posits the existence of the deep state, a clandestine network of members of the federal government (especially within the FBI and CIA). The theory argues that there exist networks of collaborators within the leadership of the high-level financial and industrial entities, which exercise power alongside or within the elected United States government." is true? Doug Weller talk 08:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

::::It's not about what the OP believes is or isn't true. It's about the concern that SEVERAL people in the talk page of this article have with the world "false," myself among them. I wouldn't bat an eye if there was a full and rounding refutation of the idea somewhere within the text, but as there isn't, the statement "proven false" simply cannot be used in this article without it being incorrect. Period. End of statement. 172.110.26.90 (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC) — 172.110.26.90 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. {{#if:|A sockpuppet investigation is open at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/{{{spi}}}.{{sp}}|}}

:::::Agreed. Saying "false" there goes beyond any evidence. I think the right word is "controversial". Nomenclaturist (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::Or we could just remove the world false from the sentence without substituting it. Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::If you want to do that you need to start an WP:RfC. Doug Weller talk 08:29, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Are you sure? RfCs are a lot of work, and they recommend having community discussions first... Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Neither a community discussion nor a RFC has much chance of reaching the result you're asking for. The other option is to just accept that and walk away. MrOllie (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

:@Wikieditor662 The relevant question isn't what "many journalists and academics" say; it is what the quality sources state that is relevant to this article's topic. This article describes what the best sources mean by the "deep state" in the United States and then point out that these sources describe its false claims and label it as a conspiracy theory. There are other understandings about the role of bureaucrats and their relationships to private interests, but the COMMONNAME of those in the context of the United States isn't "the deep state", and therefore they aren't the topic of this article. Since 2015 or so, the primary meaning of the "Deep State" in the US is a set of false claims, as documented pretty much unanimously in quality sources. Newimpartial (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

::I mean, even if they don't see the deep state as the same thing as most people do, many of them still acknowledge the deep state's existence... Are these journalists and academics just not considered reliable or something? Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

:::There is always a minority of people who spread conspiracy theories. That such a minority exists does not mean that the conspiracy theory isn't false - also this article is about a specific conspiracy theory. If there are sources out there that have happened to use the words 'deep state' to refer to something else, that doesn't have much bearing on this article. MrOllie (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Agreed. No need to change the wording. Doug Weller talk 20:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

::::But if it's a minority view, then why is it included in the article in the first place? Wouldn't that be WP:FRINGE WP:UNDUE? Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Because the article is literally about this minority view? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I wasn't referring to the Deep state conspiracy theory in the United States. If I remember correctly, I was referring specifically about those who didn't see it as false. Wikieditor662 (talk) 08:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Not seeing the Deep state conspiracy theory in the United States as false is pretty much the same as defending the Deep state conspiracy theory in the United States. Conspiracy theorists emphasize all the time that they are "just asking questions". I don't think this line of reasoning is productive. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Well then, my question was (again if I recall rightly, this was a bit ago), if not seeing it as false is fringe, why was that included in the first place? Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::This is the article about the conspiracy theory - pretty much the only place on Wikipedia were it is permissible to include this stuff in the interest of explaining what the conspiracy theory is and who supports it. That is not the same thing as going for WP:FALSEBALANCE (for example, by failing to explain that the mainstream view is that this is all nonsense). MrOllie (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@Wikieditor662 Nobody has shown RS that state that the Deep State as defined in this article - a clandestine network of bureaucrats, financiers, and industrialists - is anything other than a conspiracy theory.

:::Now we may be watching a network of public officials, financiers and industrialists forming in the United States in real time, and this network might evolve into a covert or overt alternative to electoral democratic norms. If this happens, we will of course follow the quality sources in how they label and analyze the US federal state going forward. Newimpartial (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Deep state conspiracy theory in the United States|answered=yes}}

The theory of the deep state has never been proven false, the sources listed provide no such evidence. 173.206.105.194 (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{not done}} Please formulate a more specific request, as in "change the part that says X to say Y, because reasons and/or reference" Cambalachero (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

As recommended by WP:CRITS, I've moved most of the "criticism" of this conspiracy theory under the more neutral heading {{Alink|Analysis}}. Explaining that a WP:FRINGE conspiracy theory is indeed a conspiracy theory should be integrated with the main narrative of the article, not quarantined in its own section as though to give the conspiracy theory itself more WP:WEIGHT. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)