Talk:Deep state in the United States

The phrase "conspiracy theory" is overused on Wikipedia in articles with the padlock symbol

Including this one. There were public hearings where you could see the extent of quiet backroom communication between the US government and Twitter for example, so why does this padlocked article suggest the very phrase itself is a conspiracy theory? The term is both nebulous and transient, and a more encyclopedic term would be "theory".14.202.215.60 (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

quiet backroom communication between the US government and Twitter. That narrative turns out to have been nonsense and is not reevant to this article anyhow. Do you have any reliable sources for your very broad statement and how the term conspiracy theory is misused in this article? O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Lead sentence

User Pretendus‎ has three times attempted to remove the attribution statement at the start of the article replacing to with a word generally used for those accused of crimes MOS:ALLEGED. The consensus text is closer to Wikipedia style. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with Pretendus, the IP editor above, and many others, who feel that "conspiracy theory" is a juvenile, derisive term that should be avoided in encyclopedic writing. Philomathes2357 (talk) 02:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Then you'll want to make a proposal at WP:VPP to change long-standing Wikipedia consensus. Currently it's an acceptable term used by reliable sources. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It may be "acceptable" to use the term, but common sense should dictate that the term should only be used in Wikivoice when there is overwhelming unanimity in the sources, like at Flat Earth.

However, here, there is not unanimity, or anything close - a number of the cited sources do not refer to the idea of a deep state as a "conspiracy theory". In fact, nobody would ever call it a "conspiracy theory" unless they personally reject the concept as valid, while the article acknowledges that journalists, scholars, politicians from both political parties, and whistleblowers like Edward Snowden have all acknowledged the concept as valid. The New Yorker source cited in the first sentence does not even use the term "conspiracy theory".

So, our choice here to cherry-pick a sub-section of sources, and then use the derisive term "conspiracy theory" in Wikivoice, does not reflect the sources in a neutral, clear-cut way. It reflects the editorial position of the Wikipedia editors who have been active on this article in the past.

Considering there are now at least 3 editors who have objected to that editorial position since late March, I would say a local consensus to use the term no longer exists, and it should be modified to something like "In American political discourse, the deep state is a clandestine network of members of the federal government (especially within the FBI and CIA), working in conjunction with high-level financial and industrial entities and leaders, to exercise power alongside or within the elected United States government."

We could then note in the "criticism" section that some commentators have called the idea a "conspiracy theory". Philomathes2357 (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The proposed language makes it seem like the deep state is a real, extant network. I could not support such a change. I'm open to further discussion on the most NPOV way to characterize the subject, but this swings too far in the wrong direction. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

We do not work on "common sense", since that's entirely subjective to each individual. We also do not require a unanimity of sources, as that would hamstring the entire project. In other words, your personal views of what's acceptable are not compatible with Wikipedia's core values.

The rest of your post is just arguing for your views against established Wikipedia rules and guidelines, so that's going nowhere. Also, the idea that three objections over the years constitutes enough disagreement to overturn consensus is just plain laughable.

As a final note, I have to agree with Firefangledfeathers. The proposed wording is far too credulous. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers, good point. Our goal should be to write the article in such a way that we are neither endorsing nor dismissing the concept of a deep state.

I've seen other editors object to the word "alleged", but it is already used twice in the 2nd line of the article, without objection. So, perhaps a better way of wording the sentence would be:

"In American political discourse, the deep state is an alleged clandestine network of members of the federal government (especially within the FBI and CIA), working in conjunction with high-level financial and industrial entities and leaders, to exercise power alongside or within the elected United States government."

Of course common sense plays a role on Wikipedia - @Valjean and I recently talked about this.

As the article already notes, journalists, scholars, politicians from both sides of the aisle, and whistleblowers have all discussed the "deep state" as a serious concept, not as a "conspiracy theory". The concept, and the discourse around it, predates Donald Trump's use of the term by over half a century. We should find a way of describing the concept that takes this into account, in an NPOV-compliant way.

The current opening sentence is not NPOV compliant, because it 1) is does not accurately reflect the weight of reliable sources, and 2) it makes the personal political opinion of the Wikipedia editors who wrote the sentence abundantly clear. That is never a good thing.

@Firefangledfeathers do you have any thoughts on how to approach this? How do you feel about the use of the word "alleged"? Philomathes2357 (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Our goal should be to write the article in such a way that we are neither endorsing nor dismissing the concept of a deep state.

That is not what our goal should be. When the majority of reliable sources dismiss the concept, Wikipedia follows. You're operating from a position of WP:FALSEBALANCE. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The majority of reliable sources do not describe the concept of a deep state as a "conspiracy theory". There is nowhere near a clear-enough consensus to use the term in the opening sentence in Wikivoice, as if it were a settled matter analogous to the curvature of the Earth.

In addition, almost every reference to the deep state as a "conspiracy theory" is referring to specific claims about the alleged characteristics of the deep state, not to the concept of a deep state per se. We should not draw a false equivalence between those two types of statements.

There is no cognizable argument for referring to the concept of a deep state in the United States as a "conspiracy theory" in Wikivoice. However, I also recognize @Firefangledfeathers' point that implying that the "deep state" is real without qualification is not NPOV compliant or reflective of the totality of sources.

So that leaves us with the question of how to word the first sentence in a more accurate, less POV-pushy way. @HandThatFeeds, how do you feel about the use of the word "alleged"? Philomathes2357 (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but I completely disagree with your assertion. It is a settled matter. The idea there is a "deep state" running things behind the scenes is utter conspiracist nonsense.

However, I think I see your issue:

In addition, almost every reference to the deep state as a "conspiracy theory" is referring to specific claims about the alleged characteristics of the deep state, not to the concept of a deep state per se.

You need to go through the archives of this Talk page, because we've discussed this. This page is about the conspiracy theory, not the concept of a deep state in general. That has its own article. This is not the place to argue about the general concept, this is a page specifically about the conspiracy theory that the USA is actually being run by a "deep state". — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry - that is simply not true on its face. This page is about the concept of a deep state in the United States, in general. It cites statements by George Friedman, Dennis Kucinich, Alfred W. McCoy, Edward Snowden, Mike Lofgren, Michael J. Glennon, and others, none of whom are talking about any of the conspiracy theories about the deep state that have originated in the Trump era.

As for " It is a settled matter. The idea there is a "deep state" running things behind the scenes is utter conspiracist nonsense." - let's keep our own personal opinions out of this. Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Nope. We are not introducing false balance to the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I've just conducted a review of all 59 sources cited in this article.

Out of those 59, Two (2) of them refer to the concept of a "deep state" as a "conspiracy theory": Vox and Newsweek.

A third source does not call the concept of a "deep state" a conspiracy theory - it actually concedes the existence of a type of "deep state" in the USA, but also expresses concern that the term can be used for "fodder for conspiracy mongering".

The Hill does not call the concept of a "deep state" a conspiracy theory either. It hedges the statement within the context of political discourse by saying "To Trump’s critics, the talk of a deep state amounts to a conspiracy theory..."

A couple (2 or 3) other sources include the words "conspiracy" or "conspiratorial" somewhere within, but not to characterize the concept of a deep state in the USA.

So, at best, 3 out of 59 of the cited sources characterize the concept of a deep state in the United States as a conspiracy theory. Yet it is described as such, in Wikivoice no less, in the first sentence, and you're trying to make the case that the article is somehow about a "conspiracy theory".

There are actually (many) more than 3 cited reliable sources that approach the concept of a deep state in the USA seriously, and treat it as, in some way, a real phenomenon worthy of real discussion and study.

What, exactly, is your argument about "false balance"? I'm not sure that I understand. Philomathes2357 (talk) 01:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not the one Philomathes was responding to, but a very shallow dive into the available sourcing tells me that many of the quality sources at hand (though not used in this article) do, indeed, treat "the concept of thr deep state in the USA" unambiguously as a conspiracy theory, actually (many) more than 3. The problem with the article in its current form appears to be much more its selection of sources than its the framing of the deep state as a conspiracy theory. Newimpartial (talk) 01:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm all for including new sources! I'm sure there are many reliable sources from different viewpoints that are not used in the article. Maybe we can start a source list in a new subsection?

Given the number of sources that are already cited that do not characterize the "deep state in the United States" as a conspiracy theory, and instead wrestle seriously with the concept, it would still be problematic in terms of WP:WEIGHT to characterize the concept per se as a conspiracy theory in Wikivoice.

My point is that, in the current version of the article that we are discussing, the weight of cited reliable sources most certainly does not justify framing the concept as a "conspiracy theory" in Wikivoice. Philomathes2357 (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

First of all, the mere fact that a source does not explicitly treat the "deep state" as a conspiracy theory does not imply that that source is treating it as not a conspiracy theory, or that it wrestle(s) seriously with the concept - the position of each source must be evaluated based on what it acfually says about the topic.

So a source list that can be used to assess the WEIGHT of viewpoints would have to determine the position taken by the source, with something like six alternatives:

• states explicitly that it is a conspiracy theory in its own voice
• treats it as a conspiracy theory without using the term
• presents attributed opinion that it is a conspiracy theory without presenting a credible alternative view
• presents the alternatives that it might or might not be conspiracy theory with comparable weight
• wrestles seriously with the concept
• states explicitly that it is not a conspiracy theory (when applied to the US).

A list of sources classified on scale like this could be helpful in assessing how different perspectives should be treated, according to DUE BALANCE. Newimpartial (talk) 01:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you think it would be productive to the conversation for me to go through all 59 existing citations and organize them underneath those 6 sub-headings?

Do you see that as a satisfactory way to establish how, in terms of weight and due balance, the term "conspiracy theory" should be treated? Philomathes2357 (talk) Philomathes2357 (talk) 02:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

No because, as I say, I don't think the sources currently used in the article are a good representation of the better-quality sources. Newimpartial (talk) 09:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Lol, what? The article is written based on the sources in the article, not hypothetical sources that aren't cited. Something's off here. Philomathes2357 (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you see that as a satisfactory way to establish how, in terms of weight and due balance, the term "conspiracy theory" should be treated?

Read the archives. We've hashed that out plenty over the years. The fact you don't like it is not enough to overturn consensus. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

If "consensus" is to blatantly violate our weight policies, that is a problem that is going to have to be solved one way or another. Btw, I did red the archives. I'm concerned about what I see there. Philomathes2357 (talk) 17:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

The only one trying to violate due weight is you. If you disagree, there are dispute resolution systems to follow. Haranguing us isn't going to get you anywhere. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense, per the source review I just laid out. By mentioning dispute resolution, are you suggesting that there is no room for good-faith collaboration here, and that bringing this to the attention of the wider community is the only potential way to resolve this? I had hoped that a thorough examination of the currently cited sources would yield some clarity, but for some reason you're still accusing me of violating WP:DUE. Is there another path forward here that you are open to, short of dispute resolution? Philomathes2357 (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC) Philomathes2357 (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Your "review" has already been refuted above. by NewImpartial. The fact you're still harping on it indicates you're not actually listening to disagreements, you're just going to continue attempting to bulldoze your preferred version into the article.

I have made my position very clear. You have not changed consensus, and are not likely going to. There is no path forward for your edits outside DR, and I personally doubt you'll get consensus that way either. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I am not "bulldozing" anything. I haven't edited the sentence that is being discussed a single time.

I don't consider Newimpartial's point to be anything even close to approaching a "refutation" to my review of the currently cited sources. Weight is determined by the cited sources, not by an editor's subjective gut feeling that there are enough sources out there somewhere to support their POV. That gut feeling is impossible for other editors to measure and assess for WP:WEIGHT.

In order for their point to be salient, the aforementioned un-used sources would have to be discussed, vetted through consensus, and woven into the article - then, after that is done, WP:WEIGHT could be re-assessed. I'm all for that - but until that takes place, it's irrelevant to the current discussion.

Unfortunately, I'm seeing very little chance of a rigorous and good-faith discussion developing from this back-and-forth. I'm seeing some things here that trouble me. I will go ahead and create an RFC about this, to bring it to the attention of a wider swath of editors. Philomathes2357 (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Philomathes2357, you should read your The Hill source again. It talks a lot about the "conspiracy theory" angle and analyzes who takes that view and who rejects it. Those who oppose that view are those who are comfortable with: Trump attacking civil servants for doing their job; Trump taking actions that just enrich himself; Trump endangering national security; Trump giving classified information to Russia, the worst possible ones to get that information; and Trump ruining alliances with our closest allies. It also discusses "deep state" versus "leaks". It covers the subject fairly well. It discusses how one's political alliances affect one's views on the subject, and how those who are disloyal to America tend to consider the "deep state" to be a real problem in America. They fail to realize that the American free press and lack of a dictatorship make it impossible for such a thing to function. What we have is leaks, and that is not a deep state. Your description does not do the article justice. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to describe the article in its totality, only examining whether or not a preponderance of the 59 sources supports the use of "conspiracy theory" in Wikivoice. I mentioned it because it is one of the very few cited sources that does, in some way, use the term.

I 100% agree with your more general implicit point: there is a lot of info in the sources we already cite that could & should be worked into the article.

Right now, the most salient question is: does the WP:WEIGHT of currently cited sources support characterizing the concept of a deep state in the USA as a "conspiracy theory" in Wikivoice?

I think I've pretty conclusively demonstrated that the answer is "no". Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

You've only "conclusively demonstrated" it to yourself. As you see, no one else agrees with you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

To put words to the proposal by Philomathes2357, we could consider changing our PAG:

Our purpose here is to document and give free access to "the sum of all human knowledge" that is mentioned in reliable sources, with the exception of certain parts of reality and human knowledge (like "conspiracy theories", "far right", and "far left") that offend certain people who consider them "juvenile" or "derisive" terms. Wikipedia will exclude some common terms found in any dictionary and deny they exist or have any legitimate meaning. Wikipedia will change its rules and practices out of deference for the feelings of those people, to the exclusion of how all other people feel. It will deny those realities and not mention them, even when reliable sources mention them. The feelings of those people will trump reliable sources and all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Wikipedia will do this out of deference for those who are easily offended.

Does anyone think that will fly here? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Not helpful. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. Sometimes a bit of sarcasm gets the point across better, because that's where these ideas are headed. We can't go there. As you said above: "The proposed wording is far too credulous." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Cute, but misses the point entirely. Let's focus on the merits of the term "conspiracy theory" as it's used in this article. Philomathes2357 (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

As this article describes a theory that there is a conspiracy, I don't see the problem with using plain English to say such. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Objective3000, I respectfully disagree. That is not how the term is typically used, and it ignores the POV connotations of the term. As our own article about "conspiracy theory" says, "The term generally has a negative connotation, implying that the appeal of a conspiracy theory is based in prejudice, emotional conviction, or insufficient evidence."

In fact, the term has such strong connotations that its use is a very strong predictor of one's POV - the only people who call the concept of a deep state in the USA a "conspiracy theory" are those who reject the validity of the concept. The moment someone uses the term "conspiracy theory" in conversation, I instantly know what their political POV is on the issue at hand. So it's not a simple matter of "plain English" at all.

That is why this article's use of "conspiracy theory" in Wikivoice has raised so many objections throughout the history of this article - because the term is not a neutral, dispassionate description, nor is it an accurate synthesis of the weight of cited sources.

To determine whether or not the use of "conspiracy theory" in Wikivoice is justified, we need to look at the cited sources and assess the weight they give to the "conspiracy theory" descriptor. To say "I don't care how the cited sources characterize the topic, let's just call it a conspiracy theory anyway" raises WP:SYNTH concerns, among other issues. I think an RfC may be the best way to explore this further. Philomathes2357 (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

No reliable sources that I have seen say that there is a clandestine network of members of the federal government (especially within the FBI and CIA), working in conjunction with high-level financial and industrial entities and leaders, to exercise power alongside or within the elected United States government. Some don't use the particular term "conspiracy theory". That, in itself, does not mean that they think it is or is not a conspiracy theory. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's examine this statement by Philomathes2357:

"In fact, the term has such strong connotations that its use is a very strong predictor of one's POV - the only people who call the concept of a deep state in the USA a "conspiracy theory" are those who reject the validity of the concept. The moment someone uses the term "conspiracy theory" in conversation, I instantly know what their political POV is on the issue at hand."

Yes, it can indeed be a "predictor of one's POV". It reveals one's beliefs about claims that are made by reliable and unreliable sources regarding certain events. It also reveals the source of one's beliefs. It also reveals one's knowledge or ignorance about a topic. This deals with some important principles that should be applied by all editors in each situation. Let's look at a different example:

1. If someone says that Trump's claims of a stolen election are a Big Lie and there was no significant election fraud, that is a predictor of their POV, and it also reveals their sources are mainstream sources and fact-checkers. Such people, if they are editors, are in harmony with our PAG because they get their POV from RS.
2. If someone says that Trump is correct that the election was stolen from him and that there was significant election fraud, that is a predictor of their POV, and it also reveals they get their POV from unreliable and fringe sources that are contrary to what fact-checkers say. Such people, if they are editors, are not in harmony with our PAG because they get their POV from unreliable sources. They tend to be disruptive and waste our time. They lack the necessary competence to vet sources, a very basic requirement for editing controversial political articles.

So that's how it works. Philomathes2357 is correct. Both sides use the terms "conspiracy theory" and "lies", but with opposite usage about the same events. It works both ways, and one side is usually right and the other wrong. Those who play with bothsidism need to stop it.

Trump supporters claim Democrats push "Russiagate" conspiracy theories that are a witch hunt against Trump, and that there was no collusion at all between Russia and the Trump campaign. That's how the right-wing fringe uses the terms "conspiracy theory" and "lies". Both sides use the same terms but in different ways.

In any given situation, whether one calls something a "conspiracy theory" or a "fact" reveals whether or not one is competent to edit AmPol subjects. If an editor finds they are uncomfortable with, and constantly in conflict with, the content in our articles, it's time for them to take a look in the mirror and decide to radically change their beliefs and totally revise their use of sources. If they aren't willing to change, then Wikipedia is not the place for them to advocate their fringe views and waste the time of other editors. They should be silent about their beliefs and not edit or discuss those subjects. Fortunately, they can still do a lot of good here if they stick to uncontroversial topics and wikignoming.

These are simple principles that apply to all editors, so I'm not about to point any fingers. It's something we should all consider as we examine and reexamine our relationship to reliable sources, facts, unreliable sources, and lies. We should always be willing to follow the scientific method and follow the evidence, IOW to change our beliefs if RS demand we do so. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with all of this, especially "they should be silent about their beliefs" - POV pushing has no place here. So far, I've refrained from pointing it out, out of respect for AGF, but it is worth noting, in general, that it is inappropriate, and, if not voluntarily kept in check, sanctionable.

I'd just add that, with any claim, there is significant room for grey areas between "conspiracy theory" and "fact", so a determination that putting "conspiracy theory" in Wikivoice is not supported by the currently cited sources would not in any way imply that we would have to go to the opposite extreme and refer to the concept as a "fact" in Wikivoice. It would be preferable is to simply describe what the sources say, rather than run into WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH issues by saying things in Wikipedia's voice. Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding, "they should be silent about their beliefs" refers to fringe POV, not mainstream POV found in RS and our articles. It is not POV pushing or forbidden advocacy to express agreement with them. On the contrary, it is forbidden advocacy of fringe beliefs to push views from unreliable sources. It is generally best to keep silent if one does not agree with mainstream RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, things aren't always "black or white", and we don't always have to put things in wikivoice. When in doubt, use attribution. When not in doubt, then wikivoice is okay. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

if not voluntarily kept in check, sanctionable OK, you are WP:1AM. But let us not start drama board threats. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

That's true, and I am precisely following the recommendations at WP:1AM for how to resolve situations like this. One step at a time. If someone presents an ironclad argument that the weight of currently cited reliable sources justifies the use of "conspiracy theory" in Wikivoice, I will immediately acknowledge it and drop the subject. Until then, I will continue following the recommendations at WP:1AM. Philomathes2357 (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

When in doubt, use attribution. When not in doubt, then wikivoice is okay. Clarification: This is not about when a single user is in doubt, or even several users. It is when reliable sources are in doubt or contradict each other. Right? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, I guess I meant both. Editors use common sense when evaluating sources, so every edit is a combination of "what the sources say" and "how editors interpret the sources". Is there any doubt that RS describe the idea of a "deep state in the United States" as ludicrous and a conspiracy theory? No doubt. Instead, RS describe any claimed "deep state" as a legal and open bureaucracy in the government, and any leaks as just that, not evidence of a secret deep state. Do RS make a valid case for the existence of a "deep state in the United States"? No. Only unreliable sources make a serious attempt to do that. Do most editors on this page interpret the matter as I have just described? No doubt. Does an editor who does not agree with the other editors and those RS have a right to trump the consensus formed here? No. Are they duty-bound to accept that consensus, even if they don't like it? Yes. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I feared that a certain kind of user who doubts facts would take the statement When in doubt, use attribution and run with it right toward WP:FALSEBALANCE. But that last contribution should clarify it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is a legitimate concern. Not all opinions are created equal. Some are allowed and others not. Some are simply disruptive and seek to undermine our RS policy by elevating views that come from unreliable sources or give undue weight to the opinions of fringe authors and fringe sources. Unreliable sources have no due weight. While some discussion is usually allowed, there comes a point where it becomes a time sink and is just bothsidism and false balance. We document the existence of fringe POV, if they are mentioned in RS, but we do not advocate them by giving them favorable mention or framing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm very grateful you've laid it out this clearly. I hit my limit years ago, and tend to just tell people "no" when they try to reframe fringe beliefs, because I'm too exhausted to explain it this clearly. But you've summed up my perspective very well here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

After a flurry of additions by Philomathes2357, we are entering WP:UNBALANCED territory. Largely opinion pieces. One from an Italian source I can’t read due to the Italian popups covering the article. One from Salem News, circulation 20,295, also behind a paywall. Several from Asia. One quote by Snowden claiming there is a deep state in the US. Hardly surprising he would say that as he is under indictment for espionage and now living in Moscow where he’s been given citizenship. 16:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC) O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I didn't even realize he'd done that. I've reverted to the last stable version before these additions. Changing the article during an RfC without consensus was just a bad idea. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The mere documentation isn't necessarily a problem. It is the framing. The authors should be clearly identified and linked to, as well as their political persuasion. Many are ultra-conservatives who are openly hostile to the intelligence community, and they magnify abuses as an attempt to make the whole system seem suspect. Some are also Trump supporters=Russophiles. One would expect them to push the Russian/Trump views that seek to undermine a well-functioning civil servant system that undermines attempts to give the president dictatorial powers. They may even see no problem with Trump giving super top classified information to the Russians, the worst imaginable and treasonous thing to do.

We just need to introduce and frame the different forms of content so readers don't get confused. Group it into topical sections with good headings. Descriptive attribution for each entry is essential. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

That's why I undid his changes. It wasn't just the addition of credulous views, it was the reframing of existing content to be more credulous. The attempt to shift the article to be more accepting of this nonsense is concerning. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

...I didn't add the Asia Times source, or the Italian source...they were already cited in the article, but little to no content from them was used in the text, so I added some.

I also added a NYT article that said, roughly, "it may be wise to ignore the concept of a deep state".

The next source I was going to add actually refers to the deep state as a "conspiracy theory", the 3rd source to do so, but also quotes an author saying that the concept is based on something real but has been co-opted in recent years.

In other words, there is no POV issue with the edits, other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT concerns.

All of the quotes I added are attributed to their authors or to the publications that published them. None of the edits make any claims in Wikipedia's voice. Valjean was also making edits to the page after the RFC was opened. It is perfectly acceptable to edit the page while an RFC is ongoing - I did not touch any content relevant to the RFC.

Please do not engage in mass reversions of sourced content based on your personal political opinions - which you've been very open about, to say the least. It's not good to blatantly contradict the cited sources by saying, roughly, "no reliable source lends credence to the concept of a deep state, this is like Russell's Teapot", then mass reverting every edit that does not conform with your opinion. Are you sure you're the one who's properly applying WP policy here? If you are, can you make that case, instead of posting off-topic editorialization about your personal thoughts on the deep state?

Your invocations of WP:WEIGHT and balance do not seem to be in any way tied to an analysis of the sources currently cited in the article, and do not even attempt to address the concerns I raised. They are based on something else. What are they based on? Philomathes2357 (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

We've gone over this a dozen times already. I'm done explaining it to you and being lectured by you in a WP:SEALION fashion. Throwing my words back in my face just makes it blatantly clear you're not engaging here in good faith, you're just trying to force your views into Wikipedia. The RfC is not going in your favor, I suggest you drop the stick. I will not be replying further in this section. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what we've "gone over a dozen times", but you have yet to address my concerns about WP:WEIGHT. What are "my views"? You've made it clear what your personal views are about the deep state, what do you think mine are? Accusations of bad faith, noted. Philomathes2357 (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Alright, final edit:

I'm not sure what we've "gone over a dozen times", but you have yet to address my concerns about WP:WEIGHT.

That is a blatant lie. I've addressed them. The fact you don't like my answers is not relevant. Yes, I'm accusing you of bad faith at this point. I'm also removing this article from my watchlist, because I have enough stressors without dealing with a conspiracist POV-pusher. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed it - can you (or someone else, if you're bowing out) show me where you've addressed my WP:WEIGHT concerns? The closest thing I can find is where you endorsed NewImpartial's comment, which merely alluded to there being uncited sources out there, somewhere, that support your POV - but none of those sources have been provided, so they are irrelevant to the discussion.

OK, sure, I'm the POV pusher here. Are you sure about that? You do realize that it's possible to edit based on sources & policy, in a manner that is not consistent with one's personal opinions, right? Philomathes2357 (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Philomathes, you have suggested above a straw poll of "the sources currently cited in an article" as a valid approach to use to determine WEIGHT for content in this article. How would this be grounded in Wikipedia policy?

Policy suggests that we should use the best available sources to back up specific statements. But the sources used for this - even if they are the best for purpose - may contribute nothing towards top-level questions like, "is the Deep State in the United States a conspiracy theory"? It certainly isn't policy-compliant to suggest that sources used in an article that don't address whether the "deep state" is a conspiracy theory somehow count against it being a conspiracy theory (which is the way your straw poll methodology works in practice).

A more appropriate methodology would look at the WP:HQRS that address the status of the Deep State in detail, in terms of the six categories I set out above. There is no policy basis to exclude good sources not currently used in the article, and there is also no policy basis to includesources that don't address the question "is it a conspiracy theory", even if they are used in the article. Newimpartial (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's the right question. It is not in our purview to attempt to answer "is the deep state in the United States a conspiracy theory?". Instead, we should be asking "do the reliable sources cited in the article provide enough weight to the "conspiracy theory" characterization to put that characterization in Wikivoice in the opening sentence?"

So, the sources that do not characterize the "deep state" as a "conspiracy theory" do not "count as do against it being a conspiracy theory", as you suggest - they simply do not give weight to the claim that it is a conspiracy theory.

I reject the premise that WP:WEIGHT can be determined by sources that are not cited, and I see no basis in policy for such a premise. If a source isn't cited, it hasn't been discussed & vetted by the community, and until that process takes places, it's unknown if it would even be accepted for inclusion, or how it would be weighed, so these hypothetical sources are inadmissible in this conversation. I could take the same route, and simply assert without evidence that there are sources "out there somewhere" that support any number of POVs - that would be (and is) unproductive.

I actually added a 3rd source that uses the term "conspiracy theory", but it was removed to preserve the status quo until the RFC is over. That also implies that we are concerned with the sources cited here now, not hypothetical, unvetted sources that nobody has provided.

In order to include the hypothetical sources you are referring in an assessment of weight for claims made in the current article, they would have to be included in the article - then, their weight could be assessed. Until then, weight for claims made in the article must be determined by the sources used to make those claims.

It really seems pretty straightforward to me, and that's the way it has worked in every discussion I have ever seen over the years. The idea that weight can be determined by vague allusions to un-mentioned sources "out there somewhere" that nobody has been able to vet seems to be a novel interpretation of due weight. what do you think I am missing here?

Perhaps your point is "I am agnostic on the question of weight, because this article is so woefully lacking in reliable sources, that we should table the discussion about weight until the article is significantly expanded with many more sources, at which point it would be appropriate to re-visit the question of weight." Is that your point, or is it something else? Philomathes2357 (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Briefly, my point is that the best practice for answering the question the RfC below attempts to pose would be to create a page for sources that take a position on the question, is the Deep State in the US a conspiracy theory, line them up according to something like the six categories I proposed in the discussion above, and then assess WEIGHT based on a combination of the number and quality of sources in various qualities.

Something like this is the way it has worked in discussions I have seen over the years to resolve difficult questions of characterization in wikivoice. This isn't about determing what anything really is per WP:NOTTRUTH, it is a matter of thoughtfully (not by straw poll) assessing what sources say.

And in spite of what Philomathes says here, in their !vote below they say I have reviewed all 59 sources currently cited in the article. Only two of them refer to the concept of a deep state in the United States as a "conspiracy theory" in the author's voice and Out of the additional 56 sources ... none of them characterize the concept of a deep state in the USA as a "conspiracy theory". Therefore, I think the answer to the RFC is clearly "no". In spite of what they are saying here, that approach absolutely does count the 56 sources as against it being a conspiracy theory. If the two sources used in the article were the only ones (or clearly the best ones) weighing in on whether or not the deep state is a conspiracy theory, then we would be required by policy to refer to it in wikivoice as a conspiracy theory. The relevance of the other sources to the question at hand has simply not been established. Newimpartial (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

So, by analogy, if a reliable source or two were to say something like "Israel is a terrorist state", we would be required to put that characterization in Wikivoice, unless there are sources using the exact same phraseology and explicitly saying "Israel is NOT a terrorist state", while reliable sources saying things like "Israel's actions are legitimate" would be completely irrelevant for determining weight, because they do not use the exact phrase "terrorist state"? That does not sound like very sound logic, and it's not in line with how I've seen Wikivoice characterizations debated in the past. Philomathes2357 (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

To answer your question: not in my view. Sources must be read for content, not for keywords only. But I for one don't have any difficulty determining if a source is talking about the deep-state or not, and if it is treating the deep state as an actual phenomenon, or not. Newimpartial (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

" Sources must be read for content, not for keywords only."

So we should be examining all the cited sources to determine whether sufficient weight exists for the "conspiracy theory" characterization, not just the sources that use that specific phrase - the same way we would examine all sources about Israel to determine if it should be characterized as a "terrorist state", not just the sources that use that specific phrase.

Upon examining all the cited sources, we find that only 2 out of the 59 adopt that characterization.

If 59 sources about Israel were assessed, and 2 of them called Israel a "terrorist state", while the other 57 did not use the phrase and expressed a variety of positions about Israel, would it be advisable to describe Israel as a "terrorist state" in Wikivoice? Could we justify calling Israel a "terrorist state" in Wikivoice because "there are sources out there somewhere that say it"?

If the answer is "no", why would it be advisable to describe the deep state as a "conspiracy theory" in Wikivoice based on 2 out of 59 cited sources? How do those two examples differ, in your view?

I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass, I'm trying to actually understand the underlying logic being used, and parse policy-based arguments from political opinions. Philomathes2357 (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

You are asking me a specific question, but you aren't hearing what I hae already said. Editors should bring the best sources from all viewpoints to the discussion of weight, so they can be assessed as RS or HQRS and categorized in whether or not they support the proposed characterization. And supporting the characterizarion doesn't depend on keywords.

Your hypothetical about Israel doesn't seem relevanr to this discussion, and I see no need to twke a position on it. Newimpartial (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

It's definitely a relevant analogy that cuts to the core of the issue, but we can set it aside for now.

So, would we both agree that if a source does not characterize the concept of a deep state as a "conspiracy theory", the source does not "support" that characterization? Philomathes2357 (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't. If, for example, a high-quality secondary source characterized the deep state in the US as an "far-right trope without a factual basis", that would support the conspiracy theory characterization - even without using precisely the same terms - since the descriptions amount essentially to the same thing. Newimpartial (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

You should probably find another analogy. The current Minister of National Security in Israel, Itamar Ben-Gvir, has been convicted of terrorism related crimes multiple times. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I cannot fathom how that is relevant to the analogy, but OK. Can you name any situation where 2 out of 59 sources would constitute due weight to make a Wikivoice claim? Philomathes2357 (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

If there are actually only 2 out of 59, the article is horribly unbalanced. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

It is actually 2 out of 59, I'm afraid. If you do some WP:SYNTH, you could make an argument for 3 or 4.

I agree with the general premise that adding MANY more sources to the article would improve it. I want more sources that take the concept seriously, AND more sources that are skeptical of it. I want more sources that describe the concept, or elements of it, as a "conspiracy theory", and more sources that describe every other POV that has been expressed in reliable sources. I want all POVs to be represented proportionately. But the problem is, some editors are trying to argue that due weight for "conspiracy theory" in Wikivoice already exists, which is...just...obviously false on its face.

Perhaps a good solution here is to focus the discussion on the current article, rather than a hypothetical future iteration of the article. Then, we can determine WEIGHT based on the current article, followed by a process of focused, collaborative expansion of the source list, at which point WEIGHT could be re-assessed? Philomathes2357 (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

We should not try to balance sources. WP:FALSEBALANCE The sources I added in the discussion are sources WP uses. I didn't have to go to an Italian source I can't read about a man under indictment for espionage and now a Russian citizen living in Moscow. I don't know why you think he's a reliable source. Or a small local paper that does not publish daily. And most skeptical sources are by conspiracy theorists because this is a conspiracy theory. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Of course we should not try to "balance" sources. I'm confused where that remark is coming from, because I have never proposed that, but sure, that's true.

I said "all POVs (should) be represented proportionately", which is the same spirit as NPOV, which puts it "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

My point is - that is currently not being done in the article. Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

RFC on the use of "conspiracy theory" in Wikivoice in the opening sentence

Does the WP:WEIGHT of the currently cited sources support characterizing the concept of a deep state in the United States as a "conspiracy theory" in Wikivoice in the opening sentence? Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• No - The prominence of certain viewpoints within the article should be determined by those viewpoints' representation in the cited sources.

I have reviewed all 59 sources currently cited in the article. Only two of them refer to the concept of a deep state in the United States as a "conspiracy theory" in the author's voice. A 3rd source says that the term is regarded as a conspiracy theory by "Trump's critics", but does apply that label in the author's voice. There are two or three other sources among the 59 that use the words "conspiracy" or "conspiratorial" somewhere within the source, but not as an attempt to characterize the concept of a "deep state" in the United States.

Out of the additional 56 sources, some of them treat the concept with skepticism, while others treat the concept as important and valid. Some take no position (such as presentations of polling data) and others engage with the concept in a serious, thoughtful way without promoting a particular POV on the concept's validity. A variety of potential definitions of a "deep state" in the United States are offered by the sources, with some conceding that the term is conditionally valid while objecting to specific invocations of it. The point is -wide a range of positions is expressed by the sources. However, none of them characterize the concept of a deep state in the USA as a "conspiracy theory".

Therefore, I think the answer to the RFC is clearly "no".

Several counterarguments have been presented, such as...

"well, there are some sources that do not not call it a conspiracy theory, so we can read between the lines and assume that they regard it as such, even though the sources don't say so"

and "there are other sources out there, somewhere, that the article does not cite, and my gut feeling is that, if we assembled all of them in the article, that would change the weight".

I do not find either of those arguments to have any bearing on the specific question posed by the RFC, and I have addressed them both in the above thread, so I will not discuss them further unless they are invoked again in this RFC.

I hope this will lead to a fruitful and nuanced discussion about how to apply WP:WEIGHT. Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. I came here from the RfC notice, and I don't want to vouch for whether or not the page cites all the sources that it should, but I've read the talk section directly above this one, and it seems obvious to me that there is sufficient sourcing "out there" to describe it as a "conspiracy theory". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  I don't understand how WP:WEIGHT can be determined by vague references to unnamed sources that might be "out there somewhere", which hypothetically support a certain POV? No editor, to date, has even offered a single one of these hypothetical sources, except for me. How can that claim be assessed measured by other editors? WP:WEIGHT must be determined by the sources that are currently cited to make the statements currently made in the article. Philomathes2357 (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  Other editors have already explained this below, but the flaw in your argument is that you are claiming that if a source does not refer to whether or not it is a conspiracy theory, that would supposedly count as a source that asserts that it isn't a conspiracy theory. The way to determine weight correctly is to balance reliable sources that say that it is a conspiracy theory against those that say explicitly that calling it a conspiracy theory is incorrect. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  I am not claiming anything even remotely approaching what you've described. I have never said that sources that do not mention the term "conspiracy theory" should be understood as "assert(ing) that it isn't a conspiracy theory". I'm trying to be polite here, but I'm so baffled by how you could reach the conclusion that I have claimed any such thing, so I'm not sure how to engage with that.

  And your theory that weight can only be determined by sources explicitly rejecting the specific phrase "conspiracy theory" was already acknowledged to be faulty reasoning. Sources must be read for content, not just for keywords - that is what I was just told. See the "Israel is a terrorist state" analogy in the preceding discussion. Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. Only RS lend weight to a POV here. For example, thousands of fringe sources do not weigh more than two RS. There is no good evidence for the existence of any form of effective deep state in the United States. The existence of an extensive free press and lack of a dictatorship make it impossible. We have leaks, and they would undermine attempts to establish such a deep state. Therefore, the claims by Trump and Co. (that they are the victims of a deep state) are a conspiracy theory, and that's what this article is about. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that "only RS lend weight to a POV here". That is the whole point of the RFC - the currently cited RS do not lend enough weight to the POV being promoted to make a Wikivoice statement in the opening sentence. As for the rest of your comment, it is an expression of your personal opinions about US politics, and does not address the question posed in the RFC. Philomathes2357 (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. Surely there would be leaks from the massive number of people it would require to hide the “fact” that the country is controlled by a cabal. I don’t see any RS subscribing to this theory and some specifically use the term “conspiracy theory”, presumably because it is a theory about a vast conspiracy. For editorial style reasons, some may use different words. But what RS say it is true or even plausible? Do we now suggest that Trump’s repetitive claims that Biden has instructed the FBI to assassinate him is possibly true? This meets DUE and the body text passes NPOV. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  Do you think it would be helpful to the discussion for me to post a list of the RS that "say it is true or even plausible"? Even though that's not directly relevant to the due weight that should be given to the term "conspiracy theory", perhaps that would help clarify the conversation and move it in a less opinionated, more source-based direction? Philomathes2357 (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  On second thought, this RFC is already drifting from the question posed, and into generalized opinion-sharing about whether or not some form of a deep state is "real". Perhaps the question of how, exactly, the weight of RS should be used to characterize the concept of a deep state in the United States should be left aside for now, until we precisely clarify the question of whether or not the use of "conspiracy theory" in Wikivoice is justified by the currently cited sources. Philomathes2357 (talk) 00:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. Reliable sources that do not mention those terms do not cancel those that do. Such canceling could only be done by reliable sources that explicitly say the terms do not apply. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
• Yes - Reliable sources support the phrasing, and no actual counter-argument has been offered beyond "I don't like it". The most compelling argument is that we need to add more sourcing, but that's easy enough for anyone to add over time. The idea that sources who don't explicitly use the term "conspiracy theory" are supporting the claim that the deep state exists in the United States is ludicrous. People who engage in careful consideration of the concept of a deep state are not endorsing its factual existence, they're treating it as an intellectual exercise, much like those who carefully analyze the concept of Russel's teapot do not claim there is actual pottery orbiting the sun. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, two reliable sources out of 59 support the phrasing. Obviously, a counterargument has been offered beyond "I don't like it" - the counterargument is that 2 out of 59 sources is not sufficient weight to characterize the concept with a Wikivoice statement. That is a very clear and straightforward counterargument. You are choosing to ignore it.

  Nowhere has anyone implied "The idea that sources who don't explicitly use the term "conspiracy theory" are supporting the claim that the deep state exists in the United States." - that would, indeed, be ludicrous, but your comment is a straw man, as that argument has not been made by anyone.

  Numerous reliable, cited sources engage in "careful consideration" of the concept in a manner that is in no way analogous to Russell's Teapot. Your remark is simply untrue and has no relationship to the cited sources.

  In short, your comment does not actually respond to the RFC - it responds to several unrelated ideas that were not brought up in the discussion. Philomathes2357 (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yes - as I noted in my contribution to the discussion in the previous section, Philomathes' methodology is fatally flawed. Their approach excludes sources not used in the article - which is most of the good ones - and then interprets sources in the article that don't address the question whether the Deep State in the US is a conspiracy theory as though they were saying it isn't one. Thus the method produces an outcome convenient to the RfC creator but not grounded in Wikipedia policy or the actual content of relevant sources. The answer to the question posed in the RfC - at least the real question, do the sources support "conspiracy theory" in wikivoice - is therefore "yes".

Also, the RfC mover seems inclined to respond to each !vote with which they disagree. Based on my own experience, this is a bad habit that can lead to editing restrictions and that almost never nudges others towards the intended outcome. The cultivation of healthier habits is difficult but ultimately worthwhile, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

[1] “Deep State in the US: What is the conspiracy theory and what has Donald Trump said?”

[2] “The imaginary 'deep state' conspiracy theorists”

[3] “Conspiracy Theories in Digital Environments " "Deep state phobia”

[4] “the Deep State conspiracy theory.”

[5] “Trump’s obsession with Deep State conspiracy”

[6] “Trump embraces deep state conspiracy theory”

[7] “Team Trump’s ‘deep state’ paranoia fans conspiracy theories”

[8] "Until recently, the fringe conspiracy theory known as QAnon was largely an American phenomenon — a belief that U.S. President Donald Trump is secretly battling a ‘deep state’ cabal of pedophiles that control the world.”

[9] “The ‘deep state’ is President Trump’s most compelling conspiracy theory”

[10] “trump-begins-openly-embracing-and-amplifying-false-fringe-qanon-conspiracy-theory “ “so-called deep state”.

[11] QAnon, conspiracy theory originating in forum posts on the website 4chan in October 2017. Conspiracy adherents believed that U.S. Pres. Donald Trump was waging a secret war against a cabal of satanic cannibalistic pedophiles within Hollywood, the Democratic Party, and the so-called ‘deep state’ within the United States government.”

[12] “what-is-the-qanon-conspiracy-theory” “QAnon exists as a kind of parallel history, in which a "deep state" took over decades ago.”

[13] “The Deep State conspiracy theory is making us all play defense”

[14] “The Deep State A common claim among QAnon conspiracists is that a shadowy network of politicians and bureaucrats secretly collaborate to control the government behind the scenes.”

[15] “Is Fauci A’Deep State’ Doctor?” “The Conspiracy Theory That Is Sickening America” O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The above RFC is about the current stable version of the article, but these sources would be interesting to add to the article once the RFC is over, and might affect weight (although there are many other sources from a variety of POVs that should also be added, so what the hypothetical weight of RS would be in the future is unclear). Philomathes2357 (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

1) - this source makes a distinction between Trump & associates' use of the term "deep state" and other usages - the following passage makes that clear: "Although deep state has been used by some Republicans to avoid taking responsibility for their failings, David Rohde, an editor at the New Yorker and the author of In Deep: The FBI, the CIA, and the Truth About America’s “Deep State,” says it does point to something real. Speaking to Vox, Rhode said that a California Berkeley professor named Peter Dale Scott used the term in his 2007 to describe the military-industrial complex. Rhode said: “Scott wrote about a sense that the military and defence contractors had driven the country repeatedly into wars and maybe helped fuel 9/11 and the wars that followed. “For Scott, it also applied to large financial interests, like Wall Street banks.” However, he said that the term has since been “co-opted and vulgarised into what it is today, which is a shorthand for a conspiracy against Donald Trump.” So, this source supports the statement that many of Trump's statements about the deep state are based on conspiracy theories, but does not support the statement that the concept is, per se a conspiracy theory. The article is careful to distinguish between those two things, and we should follow suit.

2) - this source is written by David Rohde, who wrote the book "In Deep: The FBI, The CIA, and the Truth about America's Deep State". He was also quoted in the above article, so this source appears to further emphasize that there are two different issues at hand - the concept of a deep state in the United States, per se, and Trump's conspiracy-theory based invocations of the term. Again, we should be distinguishing between these two things in the article, by saying something like "Trump's use of the term has been widely characterized as based on conspiracy theories". I would not object to that in the slightest. That would be FAR preferable to the status quo.

3) - interesting source. The quote that addresses the "deep state" concept most directly is this: "The concept of the Deep State, to which it refers, first emerged in Turkey, a country with a long history of coups, as a term for a parallel government of bureaucrats and military officials that exert influence on the elected government later to be used in the American context by the noted conspiracy theorist and Trump supporter Alex Jones (Den Bulk and Hyzen, 2019; Gingeras, 2010). In fact, noted scholars have even gone so far as to claim that, while “continuities persist [with] similar theories of the past […] the Deep State narrative is unique to the Trump era” (Phillips and Milner, 2021: 12). Whether or not this claim is historically correct, it certainly speaks to the centrality of the “deepstate” hashtag within our dataset—and perhaps to the concept of the Deep State more generally, in the post-Trump era." - although it's fairly disingenuous to single out Alex Jones here, given the numerous reliable sources that discussed the "deep state" concept pre-Trump, the thrust of this passage seems to be that, while "continuities persist with similar theories of the past" (i.e. the Turkish deep state), the term has taken on new connotations in the Trump era, many of which are based on conspiracy theories. That is a totally fair point to make, and this is definitely a high-quality academic source, but I still see a lot more subtlety here than a Wikivoice characterization would imply.

4) - this opinion piece discusses the concept of a "deep state" purely within the context of Trump's invocation of it. That implies that the author is ignorant of the term's previous usage. The author also makes the rather novel claim "So when we talk about the Deep State, we are essentially talking about the Illuminati. Because if that's not what we're talking about, there's no way the winking, knowing, saying-it-while-not-saying-it commentaries in defense of Trump can remain coherent". One of the less-compelling sources listed here, in my view, but would be usable for characterizing, specifically, Trump & associates' use of the term.

5) - an interview with retired Republican politician John Boehner. Two passages that stand out to me are: "Donald Trump’s obsession with the Deep State conspiracy theory, which holds that a permanent secret government of bureaucrats and intelligence officials existed to thwart his agenda in office, was destructive and delusional, John Boehner says in a new book." and "Boehner says there is indeed “an entrenched bureaucracy that likes to protect the status quo”. But he says posturing against it took a “nastier turn” under Trump." - so it appears that Boehner is not addressing the concept of a deep state, per se, and even concedes that an "entrenched bureaucracy that likes to protect the status quo" exists. Instead, the article narrowly defines the concept of a deep state as something that "existed to thwart (Trump's) agenda in office". As I've already noted, it is perfectly reasonable to note that many commentators have characterized Trump/MAGA's idiosyncratic use of the term as "conspiracy theory", and we can certainly add John Boehner to that list of commentators. But to characterize the concept of a deep state in the United States purely in terms of Donald Trump erases all journalistic and scholarly commentary on the concept that predates or is unrelated to Trump.

I'll take a look at the other 10 later, and I'll start adding some other sources, too. This is a step in the right direction, for sure. Philomathes2357 (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I read all of the articles in depth and disagree with your synopses. But like user The Hand That Feeds You, I don't find discussions with you useful. I agree with Newimpartial's last comment. Please read WP:BLUDGEON. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

That's fine, you are free to disagree and express your disagreements in a collaborative manner, just as I am free to disagree with you and express those disagreements constructively in order to clarify the matter, as I am currently doing. Trying to push me out of the collaborative process through the use of snark, spurious accusations, and vague allusions to my supposed "POV" is not a good look for anyone here. Rather than focusing on me, how about we focus on the sources that you just posted here - how would you summarize them, if you disagree with my synopses? Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:SEALIONING O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

You've now made a direct accusation of POV pushing. What POV are you accusing me of pushing?

I wish we could have a discussion about the sources you've just posted (under the heading "discussion", no less). What was the purpose of posting these sources, if you're not willing to engage in a "discussion" with someone who might have a different interpretation of them than you do? Philomathes2357 (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)