Talk:Deep state

Lebanon's Hezbollah.

I don't think they are really a state within a state. They are too public. Officially a political party. The electoral system in Lebanon encourages organizations like Hezballah. They are really a so called Non State Actor. Comment: I disagree: See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah_social_services - If a party has it's own military/Terror group, they are funded by a foreign country with foreign policies and foreign interests out side of Lebanon, they have their own social services only for their own, and have their own medical system ... Guess what: They are a state within a state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgberg (talk • contribs) 10:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

They effectively run (or rather, ran) southern Lebanon for most of the past two decades. Thats what the concept is referring to, but now the page has been redirected, so it doesnt make sense. Hezbollah is a state within a state, but not a deep state. Metallurgist (talk) 01:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

And in addition to Hezbollah not being a deep state, more importantly, this article does not ever define "Deep state" as meaning "state within a state." In fact the phrase "state within a state" only appears in two mentions in our entire article, both referring to the "speculation" of a single German poet from 1788; neither of which either state or imply that this is a definition or even widely accepted terminology. Unless reliable sources explicitly refer to Hezbollah as a "deep state", it's not suitable for inclusion.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:08, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Romania missing

There were a lot of lies thrown around by Dragnea that he is hounded down by the deep state (translated in Romanian by "parallel state") and of course, that assassins tried to kill him, also implying Soros was behind it (but let's ignore that). Of course all were victimizing lies meant to tighten his control until he was sent to jail and then magically, all deep state references were gone (by this I mean the news agencies paid by his Party would propagate this propaganda, but once he lost power and was sentenced, all those so-called-news were gone, no more "deep state"). As a final mention, the only reason Dragnea combined "deep state" and "Soros" theories was because they were "trendy" at that time, and as many know, dictators love having "enemies", even made up ones

State within a state

I am not sure that redirecting state within a state to this page is accurate or a good idea. There are numerous examples, such as Hezbollah above, and a more obscure reference I am using to refer to a substate or parastate, that should probably be a separate article, with perhaps a for template. Metallurgist (talk) 01:33, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Deep Alid State a historical example

We can add Abbasid Caliphate in this article in which Imam Musa al Kadhim has many devotees in the Caliphate, Ali ibn Yaqtin Vizer of al Hadi and treasurer of al Rashid, Jafar ibn Muhammad ibn al Ash'ath ruler of al Mashriq province (greater Khorasan) 788 - 792 and many others, even Muhammad ibn Ismail said to Harun al Rashid that there is two Caliphs on Empire al Rashid and Kadhim who has many official paying them both equal taxes. 46.213.145.122 (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Political connotations illustration

@EducatedRedneck You say this edit was unsourced and thus subject to reversion. Please cite the policy or guideline that supports reversion. All content must be verifiable; not verified. Are you challenging the material or saying that it's likely to be challenged? If so, a more appropriate remedy might be to add a citation to the caption rather than removing the material. The source is cited at the Commons page.

You say you don't see the relevancy. David S. Rohde begs to differ, given that he uses a similar illustration in the introduction to his book on the concept of the deep state in America. This usage by a two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize would seem to indicate that the illustration is in fact quite relevant. Uhoj (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't have to cite the guideline, because you just did: WP:V starts: In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means that people can check that facts or claims correspond to reliable sources. Meaning, the READERS have to be able to verify it. For editors, we must ensure it IS verified. Later in that same section, it says: Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. In the very next section, WP:BURDEN, it states, The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. (bolding original). And yes, removing something is challenging it. Since I expect you'll ask about this as well, WP:ONUS (also from the verifiability policy you cited) states, The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

I don't know David S. Rhode from Adam. Maybe he is a reliable source, but that doesn't matter because you didn't cite him. Even if you did, adding it isn't relevant to this article just because the phrase "deep state" appears. There are 27 terms in that figure, and only one is relevant. The article is about the concept of "deep state", not "how Americans view government workers". Maybe it is a good fit for this page, but you'll have to explain why; name dropping is not going to convince anyone that the graph belongs. I hope this clears things up. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

You say that you're challenging verifiability. I take it this is a challenge of the verifiability of the caption since the image itself is verified in the already linked description at Commons.

What specifically in "Political connotations of terms used in American poltics to refer to government workers." do you challenge as unverifiable? To me it appears to be a simple summary of the image. If what you want is addition of inline citation to the caption I have no problem with that.

I never made any argument regarding relevance based on text in the figure. Our job is to summarize what sources say. I found a book about deep state. The content of the book is summarized by its introduction. The introduction includes the information depicted by this graphic. The graphic is relevant because it summarizes a key point of the book: that the term deep state carries a specific political valence relative to other terms that refer to government workers.

That this is a key point of the book is apparent from the text and from interviews given by the author. Uhoj (talk) 00:45, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

The edit you made did not have an inline citation. Therefore, it was not verified. So I removed it. That's it. It's pretty simple. I didn't need any other reason, though I had another (see below). There was nothing in your edit that said where the graph came from. And no, looking the image up on commons is not an inline citation.

If you're not arguing that the figure is relevant, then why are we talking? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information. Something being true isn't enough to go into an article. It has to fit into the article, which means its purpose there must be clear. I actually don't need any reason beyond "it doesn't improve the article" per WP:ONUS, but to make it even more clear, MOS:IMAGE discusses when an image is appropriate. Yours added nothing to the article.

I'm also now starting to wonder if this is just a reproduction of the graph found in the book. In that case, there may be copyright issues. If not, then it's WP:OR. Either way, there are some problems here. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

References

March 2026 changes

A temp account has made several changes which I've reverted. My chief complaint is that they obscure what the article is about. For instance, changing a description of a deep state as "real or imaginary" to "real or perceived" makes it sound as if such things are purely actual (contrary to the description of conspiracy theories), and changing it to "alleged" makes it sound as if the existence of any are unproven (contrary to examples listed in the article).

The edits also present "state within a state" as synonymous with deep state. My reading is that they are not; many state within a state would be deep states, but not all.

Finally, the edits to the Trump portion remove the pejorative connotations and make it sound like a fad. That it was used pretty exclusively as a negative should not be removed from the article. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for being willing to discuss. "Imagined" is not used an any dictionary I've read, I think because it carries a certain dismissive connotation. I will, however, concede that "real or imagined" probably fits better than "alleged," but I'd love to hear your thoughts.

I added "state within a state" to the lede because the article links to state within a state twice, and it redirects to this article. If it is not synonymous, should the redirect be deleted?

The use of "Scurrilously" does not seem neutral, perhaps we could just delete that one word? ~2026-19788-51 (talk) 03:08, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

To be clear I don't think we should give undue weight to the conspiracy theories. But I think its better to state the facts simply (and we already do label them as conspiracy theories) instead of using a word like "scurrilously." ~2026-19788-51 (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

An objection I have to "alleged" is that it's passive voice. Who is alleging? Are they correct or not? It implies a binary truth state, that either deep states exist, or they do not. "real or imagined" makes it clear that this concept applies to all variants, whether they exist in reality or not.

Regarding the redirect, removing the wikilinked "sate within a state" is good, but I don't think the term is prevalent enough to be given as an alternative name. The original move discussion noted this. I'll also point out things like Apollo missions; the redirect leads to Apollo program, but doesn't repeat an incorrect name in the lead.

Can you elaborate on "scurrilously"? It seems very appropriate to me. Is it just that it's an uncommon word? (Which would be fair; we're not writing David Mammet's Faustus here, and get no bonus points for obscure words.) If so, do you have an alternative suggestion? Perhaps "...alluding to a conspiracy theory in the United States falsely promoted by both the Donald Trump administration and conservative-leaning media outlets in order to delegitimize criticism of Trump."? I'll also have to rework some of those wikilinks per MOS:EGG, but I'll do those uncontroversial tweaks after we sort out this more thorny issue. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll admit that "alleged" is unspecific and we shouldn't use it due to MOS:DOUBT.

I think I'm confused about your point about Apollo missions. It redirects to List of Apollo missions, not Apollo program.

Although it's not explicitly listed, "scurrilously" is probably also a MOS:DOUBT word, which tells us that "detailed and attributed explanations are preferable." "Scurrilously" is a vague accusation. Maybe we could borrow from the body of the article, which is more specific:

The term had been used by... supporters of the Trump administration in order to delegitimize critics of the Trump presidency... the deep state theory was dismissed by authors for The New York Times, as well as The New York Observer.

~2026-19788-51 (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Re: Apollo missions: Whoops, I meant Apollo mission. Added the extra plural there.

Re: Scurrilously: That sounds good! The lead is supposed to summarize the body anyway, so reusing the body language is a good idea. What do you think of this proposed change:

From:

|"...alluding to a conspiracy theory in the United States scurrilously promoted by both the Donald Trump administration and conservative-leaning media outlets."

To:

"...alluding to a conspiracy theory in the United States falsely promoted by both the Donald Trump administration and conservative-leaning media outlets in order to delegitimize criticism of Trump."

The "falsely" doesn't feel 100% to me, but I might be overthinking it. What are your thoughts? Also, thank you for a good discussion; I feel like we're improving the article in our own small ways through this. EducatedRedneck (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

"Falsely" has the same issue. The body of the article does not say his promotion of the deep state theory is "false." In fact, the article does not even make clear what his "deep state theory" is, which makes it impossible to say exactly what is false about it.

Certainly the article need more improvement. But for the lead, is there any reason why we couldn't use the body of the article exactly the way I quoted it in my previous reply? ~2026-19788-51 (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

We could do that for now (I assume it's your italicized quote, but with the ellipses omitted) but it's fairly cumbersome and presents only part of the picture. I agree that the article doesn't make it clear what Trump's notion of the deep state is, likely because he has given no such explanation that I'm aware of.

The lead is supposed to summarize the body, and the body makes it clear that the "deep state" claims were false. The Times piece cited in the "...deligitimize critics..." passage makes it pretty clear. I suppose it could be more precise to say "baselessly" (notes lack of evidence) rather than "falsely" (asserts contradiction) but I think it's important that the lead reflects that the body finds no supporting evidence for the claims as they were used. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

"Baselessly" has the same effect as "scurriously." It's negatively loaded language which should be avoided per MOS:PUFFERY.

The body does not make it clear what, exactly, Trump has said which is false. The body also leans upon loaded language instead of just stating the facts. ~2026-19788-51 (talk) 07:45, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I think you meant to reference MOS:DOUBT which, I note, does not include any of the disputed terms. Baselessly and falsely are both descriptions of fact; one refers to the lack of evidence, the other to not being true. Even scurriously was used correctly; false with the intent to damage reputation.

I don't have an objection to another word, but the lead should reflect, succinctly, the content which does make it clear. It notes experts that disagree, and contains no assertion of agreement.

We seem to be having trouble coming to an agreement. What would you think of a WP:3O? I expect that would be quicker than us trying to convince each other. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:02, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes I am open to WP:3O.

I was referring to the part of MOS:PUFFERY which says "negatively loaded language should be avoided."

I don't think we can make a broad assertion in the lead that Donald Trump falsely promoted a conspiracy theory since there currently doesn't seem to be anything in the United States section that clearly states exactly what Donald Trump has falsely promoted. The closest thing I can find is "the deep state theory was dismissed by authors for The New York Times, as well as The New York Observer" (but even that should probably be revised because the New York Times article doesn't dismiss it, but frames it as a "political conflict between a nation’s leader and its governing institutions.") The article even goes on to say "The New York Times gave credence to the general idea."

Instead of relying on broad, charged assertions that Trump has used the term falsely, the body of the article can and should be revised to state the facts. For example this news article from a reputable source could be used to say something along the lines of "Without evidence, Trump accused members of the FDA of working with the deep state. This accusation was rejected by the FDA commissioner." But even if the body of the article was revised, the lead should not make assertions which are more broad that what is explained in the body. "Do not synthesize meaning from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of those sources" (WP:SYNTH). ~2026-19788-51 (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I'll post a WP:3O presently. I think we both have points that are sliding past each other. (E.g., your point of not making an assertion in the lead which isn't also made in the body.) I still feel that "Without evidence, he said X" is functionally identical to "He baselessly said X", and we shouldn't mince words to create a WP:FALSEBALANCE. (In particular, Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship.)

Hopefully the 3O will give some clarity. I'll say now that if they agree with you, I'll let the matter drop; I don't want to waste too much of everyone's time on this, and even if I disagree, I really appreciate you engaging, and engaging substantively, on this. I hope I haven't frustrated you by missing your points, as I've found our discussion to be refreshingly productive. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Third opinion

Moritoriko (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Passage subject to disagreement

In the final paragraph of the lead, ...deep state became much more widely used as a pejorative term alluding to a conspiracy theory in the United States scurrilously promoted by both the Donald Trump administration and conservative-leaning media outlets.

Viewpoint by EducatedRedneck

The passage as-written is acceptable, though alternative formulations that succinctly acknowledge that the deep state accusations had no evidence and are considered false by WP:RS (and not considered true by any presented in the body). It is important that the accusations made without evidence are not given the same consideration as the considered opinions of WP:RS, per WP:FALSEBALANCE. This content policy is more important than the stylistic guideline MOS:PUFFERY. Stripping the passage of a succinct descriptor (falsely, scurrilously, baselessly, etc.) has the effect of giving weight to the accusations that is WP:UNDUE. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Viewpoint by ~2026-19788-51

The passage should be revised to "...the Donald Trump administration and some of its supporters have promoted without evidence that the nation's governing bodies contain all of the elements that the term implies."

The body of this article and the sources it cites present viewpoints that are more complex than just "Trump's supporters falsely promoted the deep state conspiracy theory." The sources actually describe certain parallels between the nation and the original idea of a deep state, but conclude that the use of the term is inaccurate because there aren't enough similarities. The passage as it presently appears in the lead oversimplifies the viewpoints at risk of WP:SYNTH.

"Scurrilously" should not be used per MOS:PUFFERY because it is a negatively loaded term. "Without evidence" is more effective at stating the facts simply, and is used by WP:RS including the TIME article referenced by the body and Reuters. "Inaccurately" may also better capture the intent of the cited sources.

"Conservative-leaning media outlets" is far too broad when the cited sources only refer to "certain Trump supporters."

~2026-19788-51 (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Third opinion by Moritoriko

• First, as much as I love words that are exact, "scurrilously" is a tad sesquipedalian for a wikipedia article and it should be substituted with something more broadly understandable if wordier. This opinion is rendered in reference to the spirit of WP:TECHNICAL.
• Second, the Time link posted by IP editor says that it was promoted by Breitbart, which is a conservative media outlet so I don't think that is too broad.It could be qualified by "some" or "far-right" but I think even Fox News has hosted opinion pieces talking about it.
• To that end my opinion is: ...deep state became much more widely used as a pejorative term after the conspiracy theory in the United States was promoted by both conservative-leaning media outlets and the first Donald Trump administration. Reasoning: clearly referring to it as a conspiracy theory makes sure we are not giving it undue false balance and linking to that article does a much better job of explaining it better than trying to fit the whole conversation in half a sentence here. The Time article clearly states that even Trump got it from conservative media so putting the media first in the list matches its temporal emergence. Finally the sentence starts "became much more widely used" so the reader expects to learn the time when it changed so I changed the rest of the sentence to reflect that. I also enlarged the text that is linked because previously I thought the linked words United States led to United States but they didn't. Courtesy ping @EducatedRedneck (talk) ^{I hope this non-binding volunteer outside opinion has been helpful and thank you for engaging in productive discussion to improve one of humanity's greatest resources} Moritoriko (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

The proposed edit works for me. It acknowledges the mainstream consensus that the accusations were false succintly. IP/Temp Account, does that alleviate your concerns as well? I also want to thank you both for the participation in 3O. I really appreciate that this entire discussion has been with a clear intent to find a solution acceptable to all; it's a breath of fresh air. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

That works. Thanks everyone for your time. ~2026-19788-51 (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

References