Talk:Deep state in the United States/Archive 2

"Deep State" is not just "Republican" conspiracy theory
During the George W. Bush administration, it was a pretty common "conspiracy theory" in "leftist" circles that Bush is nothing but a puppet for Halliburton, KBR, the "military industrial complex" and the like. Basically controlled by a deep state (Dick Cheney being his "handler"). Everyone who followed political newsgroups or forums at that time can surely remember that sentiment.

i.e.: http://www.phawker.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/cheneypuppetmaster.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/54/89/ba/5489ba4b051a78c207212f627991c0b3.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.78.136 (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It's used by both rightists and (far-)leftists. Openlydialectic (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I share your (undocumented) opinion that there has been (haven't heard much lately) a very small and very extreme left-wing grouping which believes in an American deep state. It's very unlike the right-wing, where most Republicans believe in it. Does this article document it with RS? Not that I can see, hence your edit is contrary to policy, and I'll revert it. You may have "heard the far left people use it multiple times, and even some realists use it," but that's not a RS.
 * Your edit summary even refers to this opinion article which rebuts the idea of a deep state. The article says nothing about the left wing, and very clearly states there is no deep state:
 * "As with any good drama, the first three episodes can be interpreted in many ways. It is become fashionable in recent years to talk about the “deep state” (and some clever wags were quick to dub the writer of the anonymous op-ed “Deep State Throat”), but to me that label doesn’t really fit. Yes, there is a foreign-policy elite, but it is not the sort of shadowy, secretive cabal that some have described in countries such as Turkey or Pakistan or that one might find in a Robert Ludlum novel.... There’s no secret conspiracy or deep state running U.S. foreign policy; to the extent that there is a bipartisan foreign-policy elite, it is hiding in plain sight." (My bolding)
 * Bottom line: There really is no policy basis for that edit, and there is no real "deep state" in America, but there is a conspiracy theory pushed by Trump and believed by most Republicans. That's what this article is about. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Believed by most people, not just Republicans. PackMecEng (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The 2017 poll indicates it is bi-partisian bi-wing conspiracy:
 * In a rare show of bipartisan suspicion, 45 percent of Democrats think there’s a deep state at work, as do 46 percent of Republicans. It nips up to 51 percent of independents. Ideologically, the story is similar: Forty-seven percent of liberals, 48 percent of conservatives and 52 percent of moderates see a deep state afoot.
 * The party/ideology should be removed from the lead. If this article is only about Trump, then it should be renamed appropriately "Deep state (Trump's conspiracy theory) StrayBolt (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Interesting tidbits from this ONE poll: BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "Republicans and independents were more likely to respond that they believe in the existence of the deep state, with 31 percent and 33 percent respectively. Only 19 percent of Democrats said the deep state definitely exists."
 * "But the Trump administration means something a bit more specific by “deep state.” They’re referring to career federal government officials, particularly in intelligence and national security agencies, who are actively working to undermine the administration’s policy priorities."
 * True Democrats are well in the minority there with Republicans and independents on the same page. PackMecEng (talk) 10:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The Monmouth poll that the Politico article is based on said something "somewhat" different:
 * Belief in the probable existence of a Deep State comes from more than 7-in-10 Americans in each partisan group, although Republicans (31%) and independents (33%) are somewhat more likely than Democrats (19%) to say that the Deep State definitely exists.
 * The poll does say NRA members are significant:
 * NRA members (43%) are significantly more likely than other Americans (25%) to definitely believe in the existence of a Deep State operation in DC.
 * So maybe that difference should be mentioned. StrayBolt (talk) 05:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 16 October 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. A lot of good arguments on both sides. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 17:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Deep state in the United States → Deep state (American conspiracy theory) – The article is about the conspiracy theory. Please also see Talk:Deep state in the United States. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. This defines the scope of this article. It's about the right-wing conspiracy. The Deep state article already deals with the general subject, and the I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration article covers a somewhat similar topic, better termed patriotic "damage control" by the "adults in the room" in the White House. It's not really a "deep state", as confirmed by the author of the original op-ed, who disavowed any resemblance to the so-called "deep state": "This isn't the work of the so-called deep state. It's the work of the steady state." -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "Steady state" is not a thing. PackMecEng (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, but it is a VERY real thing. It's actually the status quo, the way things normally function and are supposed to function. If we had literally ANY other president than Trump, including any GOP candidate, we would not see this situation AT ALL. Anyone else is a reasonably normal person.
 * We're seeing a president who is widely regarded, especially by the intelligence community, to be compromised, practically a Manchurian Candidate, who is more loyal to Putin and the FSB than to America and the FBI and CIA. No sane person in government trusts him, and they are trying to keep government functioning, in spite of his serious efforts to disrupt and weaken most functions. Naturally he sees this as counterproductive to his goals, and attacks it all with his "deep state" conspiracy theories, when HE is the problem, not them. Don't confuse the alleged conspirator with the investigators of the alleged conspiracy. They are the resisters to that alleged conspiracy. They are the patriots. "The Resistance" (to Trump) is not the "Deep State", it's the Steady State. They are resisting the chaos he creates. They're trying to keep things steady and on course. That's why they steal documents from his desk. It's not safe to allow an unruly and destructive child to be alone in an antique store. The adults in the room have to do something. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. PackMecEng (talk) 03:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support This article is about the conspiracy theory, not the supposed conspiracy or "deep state" entity itself. That phenomenon has DUE discussion for the countries the theory was originally crafted to describe (Egypt, Turkey...). There is essentially no discussion of it in the US that is DUE, on the other hand-- so this article can only describe the discourse about it, not the referent. --Calthinus (talk) 03:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is plenty of non-conspiracy theory viewpoints out there in RS. All this will do is create a POV fork as we have both a non-conspiracy theory and a conspiracy theory POV version of the same topic. Probably that will end up getting merged back together at some point in a AfD. -Obsidi (talk) 05:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Bingo! "we have both a non-conspiracy theory and a conspiracy theory POV version of the same topic." That's exactly why we have two articles. One deals with the real deep state, and this one deals with the American conspiracy theory version. There are true believers who insist that there is no such a thing as a conspiracy theory about the deep state, but that it's all the deep state. We can see the difference, even if they don't. Mixing the two in one article is just too confusing, especially since we already have the deep state and other article. Put that stuff in the right articles. Don't bring it here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:POVFORK is against policy, are you trying to make a IAR argument? Under the current name this is spinoff of the larger deep state article (and that article links to this one as a sub-article) which is allowed under policy. -Obsidi (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Far from it. We're just making clear what this article is about. This article isn't a POVFORK, but about the conspiracy theory. Two different subjects. You even confirm that this is proper: "...this one as a sub-article) which is allowed under policy." You need to take your attempts to the proper article: I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration. That's the proper place for it. Stop trying to change this one to a different subject. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This (with the current title) is a sub-article of the larger Deep State article (this one is meant to focus on the Deep State specific to the United States). Whether the Deep State is a conspiracy theory or real is a POV. -Obsidi (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether the Deep State is a conspiracy theory or real is a disjunction that pits WP:DUE sources on one side and rabidly WP:UNDUE sources like Alex Jones on the other.--Calthinus (talk) 04:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Then this article should express that without needing to change the title. But I disagree that it is WP:FRINGE, it is at worse a minority view. Per WP:DUE, a WP:FRINGE view is an "extremely small minority" one without "prominent adherents." At least when "deep state" is defined according to the polls on this page, it is not a view held only by an "extremely small minority", it is a view held by somewhere between 48% of people and 74% of the people (depending on if you include "probably exists"). And it is a view held by the House Majority Leader . That means it is neither "extremely small minority" nor lack of prominent adherants, meaning it cannot be considered a fringe viewpoint. -Obsidi (talk) 06:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually the views of the House Majority Leader have no bearing on whether it is WP:FRINGE. He is not WP:RS. "Adherents" in the policy refers to sources, not individuals. Hence, flat earthism is WP:FRINGE despite large numbers of adherents. --Calthinus (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You need to re-read WP:DUE If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents. Notice the link between the size of the number of people which hold the viewpoint and the ease of identifying a prominent adherent, the adherent referred to here is an individual. Now of course that viewpoint must be expressed in a reliable source. We show all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. His view was published by a reliable source, specifically the NYT. The only question is (1) is he a prominent person (I think the answer to this is obvious), (2) is this viewpoint significant? (Is this the same as everyone else that is already in the article?) Now if it is a very small minority viewpoint it might only be expressed in a single line or some small amount, but it is still a minority viewpoint of which someone who holds it should be in the article. -Obsidi (talk) 00:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. This move would make the article clearer. Closeclouds (talk) 11:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Over simplification and not necessary. The current title is just fine and describes the material in an appropriate matter. PackMecEng (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It is necessary because we have an editor determined to completely change the subject here based on what's happened in another article (the NYT op-ed). There is a real deep state, and American conspiracy theories about it (this article), and the I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration article (a third article). They are all different. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What we have is deep state which is a world overview of deep states, this article which is a spin off of deep state for the USA, and the resistance article which I am not sure why it even exists. So not sure why we would need to change. PackMecEng (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:NPOVTITLE. -- Netoholic @ 14:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense. Are you proposing that all of our articles about conspiracy theories are renamed to remove their identification as "Blah blah (conspiracy theory)"? We have plenty of them, and they don't violate NPOVTITLE. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I do think in general that we over-apply that label in article titles in ways which violate NPOVTITLE, but I am not proposing they all be renamed, only that this one should not be. -- Netoholic @ 16:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This is an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument.--Calthinus (talk) 04:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support This topic is widely referred to in reliable sources as a conspiracy theory and the move would differentiate the conspiracy theory from the broader political concept. AusLondonder (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It is already differentiated, the broader concept has it's own article deep state. PackMecEng (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. Per Closeclouds comment, This move would make the article more clear.  X1\ (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I think that a page split is necessary. There certainly is a "deep state" in the United States; the FBI/CIA/NSA as they are intended to function would likely qualify under most definitions of the term, and there is quite a bit of discussion (such as I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration) about other parts of the government that may be acting that way under this president.  There are also many conspiracy theories that ascribe to the deep state wide-ranging powers that either are not supported by reliable sources or are physically impossible. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 02:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Many people suspect the "deep state" reference in I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration was more than a bit tongue-in-cheek. The popular recent usage of the term, borrowing from the Turkish case, does actually differ from State within a state --as Deep state in Turkey should make clear. Both that and the Egyptian case are clearly connected to, among other things, coup attempts, etc. The usage on this page is directly analogical to the Turkish case, and the current American iteration of the concept was intended that way, just as the Egyptian one (which is much more credible) -- i.e. that its (alleged) primary purpose is pursuing objectives even if they are in direct contravention of the popular will of voters. By the way Deep state in Turkey is also a pretty trashy page, with some questionable sources in use... --Calthinus (talk) 02:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Egypt had both a revolution and a coup in fairly recent memory; I'm not sure that's comparable to other countries with stable governments in that time (was Talleyrand the deep state in Revolutionary France?). I agree that the Deep state in Turkey page is bad; much of that reads like a conspiracy theory. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 03:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed it states in Wikipedia's voice that the Turkish "deep state" tried to assassinate the Pope based on one sketchy source... and that is the sibling to this page, with the same title format and some cross-referencing. --Calthinus (talk) 03:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Support we can barely get articles written about the nature of Government and Governance; it's going to be virtually impossible to write a neutral article about when and how stakeholders other than the elected government take a role in governance of the United States, or how certain parts of the government are intended to not subject to the whims of the presidency. On the other hand, it's very easy to summarize news articles about conspiracy theories.  If we're going to discuss how the military-industrial complex, the media, (and probably the Jews and the illuminati) really secretly control America here, we're well into "conspiracy theory" territory. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 03:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - There is no "deep state" - but there are millions of civil servants faithfully executing the laws of the United States even when those laws are inconvenient for the present occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania. Most of this conspiracy theory is nothing more than a failure to understand that Donald Trump is not a god-emperor and those who work for the federal government swore an oath to serve the American people. Civil servants are beholden to the law, not to Donald Trump. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support unless some better title is suggested. The article title should not present the thing as unequivocal fact (which the current title now does), without comment or condition. Softlavender (talk) 05:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per WP:NATURALDIS, natural disambiguation is preferred to parenthetical.  Λυδ α  cιτγ  06:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * How about American deep state conspiracy theory? Regards So  Why  15:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose When this article was created (revision of the article as of 8 January 2016), the meaning was mostly about left-wing perspectives of a deep-state, such as the military-industrial complex or the oil industry pulling strings. For instance, professor emeritus Peter Dale Scott of the University of California, Berkeley, has written books about the deep-state from this perspective. But now the article has been completely spun to only cover recent usage by some Trump supporters. This move would only cement that error. --Pudeo (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I'd also rewrite the article completely to make it explicitly clear it's a pure conspiracy theory (like aliens, q-anonymous, etc) and nothing else. Openlydialectic (talk) 11:21, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, unless a better title is forthcoming. accuracy is important. Guy (Help!) 14:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The proposed re-titling assumes that there is a clear-cut distinction between the academic definition of Deep state - as widely discussed in works of political science by both right and left leaning analysts - and the so-called 'conspiracy theory' of a deep state. Nobody advocating this clear distinction has - as of yet - adequately defined the difference between the two as it pertains to the United States. Rather, - as others have noted elsewhere on this page - the purpose of spinning the existence of a Deep state in America as a 'conspiracy theory' is simply to discourage popular enquiry into these mattters or to serve some party-political agenda. 82.27.90.157 (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * support absolutely. "deep state" is conspiracy-mongering talk. Of course stable nations (and organizations) have functional bureaucracies and these are always slow to change and always have been  - the old phrase "turning a battleship" comes to mind, and this is something that is discussed in bizschool and the public service equivalent and thinktanks etc.  "Deep state" is another animal.Jytdog (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Let's look at a parallelism to explain this. There are normally understood terms, and then Trump's misuse of those terms to mean something else, including to undermine the original term.
 * Trump's "deep state" conspiracy theory is to the real "deep state" what Trump's "alternative facts" (falsehoods) are to real "facts", and Trump's "fake news" slur is to real "fake news". Trump's uses are deceptive and misleading, but they borrow just enough from the authenticity of the real terms to give his misuse an aura of undeserved "legitimacy" that fools his uninformed followers. They don't realize he's lying to them, and they consider the real terms to be fake news. It's an effective disinformation tactic. Here we keep these things distinct and separated. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. In order to combat WP:recentism, I had created sections: "Concerns during the * administration", showing how the usage had changed over time. It didn't say there was a deep state, just that each administration had its own concerns, internally or externally. StrayBolt (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * While certainly in good faith, this raises issues of WP:SYNTH.--Calthinus (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.222.171.33 (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Why now ? It looks like the US government bureaucrats want to discredit this page. Since JFK and Eisenhower talked about this topic - were those 2 presidents "not normal to liberals' standards too


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Calling something a "conspiracy theory" in the first sentence misleads readers.
"Conspiracy theory" is an inherently negative term, as it brings to mind the idea of a bunch of crazy people just making stuff up about the world. It's not okay to label an idea a conspiracy theory in the first sentence, because this conditions the reader to automatically disbelieve the rest of the article. Using loaded terms like "conspiracy theory" is not a fair or neutral way to present a topic; it is a biased suppression tactic used to discredit and dehumanize one point of view (that of the "conspiracy theorists" aka "the crazy guys that make stuff up") while exonerating everyone else. 206.152.128.33 (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The actual well-documented deep state in the U.S.A. is completely ignored in Wikipedia
The claims made in the Request Move closed log are complete bogus: Defendants of the current name claim that this article is only about the conspiracy theory, while the article Deep state would be covering the broader, more generally-accepted definitions of deep state. However that article's section on the United States were - until today - only a single unsourced sentence about the conspiracy theory, and a link to "Deep state in the United States", which just redirects here. It seems to me like there are a lot of editors believing that "deep state" means a global conspiracy of satan-worshipping aliens, while ignoring the very real rise of disagreements between the current U.S. president and american intelligence agencies. Which is, as you all know, a well-documented instance of deep state in its sober definition. Wikipedia has almost zero information on this, while forcing all links to the conspiracy theory. Please, don't discredit years of political analysis by reducing the term to its less-neutral definition. I recommend the reading of this article, which offers a rational view on the subject: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/world/americas/deep-state-leaks-trump.html

YuriNikolai (talk) 02:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Page move
I noticed moved the page against the outcome of the recent request move on the subject. Would you please move it back. PackMecEng (talk) 03:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support move (to "Deep_state_(American_conspiracy_theory)"). The previous discussion closed as "No consensus to move"; so it was not decided one way or another. One of the "oppose" voters is now indef-blocked editing this topic disruptively. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No consensus to move is a no move. PackMecEng (talk) 03:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The police for that is covered under WP:TITLECHANGES. PackMecEng (talk) 03:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Against the consensus?! I counted 11 votes in support and 6 in opposition in that vote above. Apparently some non-admin just closed an obvious support vote as a non-consensus one (probably in bad faith), and nobody bothered to check! Openlydialectic (talk) 03:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You can challenge the close, but until then it stands. PackMecEng (talk) 03:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the move. A 11-6 discussion can both be closed as no-consensus or consensus to move (or, since this is not a vote, even consensus against moving)., there are procedures if you think that a close was improper; you first ask the closer to reconsider and then you go to WP:MRV. What you don't do, is move the page by yourself as if you are the one arbiter of consensus with the ability to override closes that you don't like; that is disruptive editing. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Example of usage of term
Sen. Rand Paul: “Do you want to know what the deep state is? The CIA Director is coming to the US Senate and only briefing a select few members of the Senate. Why shouldn’t every senator know what is going on? The deep state wants to keep everyone in the dark. This is just ridiculous!” Thoughts on inclusion? Humanengr (talk) 02:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Given the "Do you want to know what the deep state is?", I've put this in the definition section. Humanengr (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 9 February 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus against move. (closed by non-admin page mover) feminist (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Deep state in the United States → Deep state (American conspiracy theory) – The article is about the conspiracy theory. Please also see and the previous RM, which closed as no consensus but was leaning towards the suggested title:. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment What has changed in the past 3 months that you feel this should be brought up again? PackMecEng (talk) 04:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The previous discussion closed as no consensus, so it's perfectly reasonable to revisit. Please also see, which is relevant. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand that it is not against policy, I am asking why people should reconsider their positions from before. Has there been new information? PackMecEng (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There's still no such thing as "Deep state in the United States"; our articles names should reflect reality. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose - The existence of deep state structures is largely accepted. Certainly, it can be plain to see that within any government, a certain level of persistent structure is commonplace, and some might say necessary, to facilitate continuity. Now, what does spawn conspiracy theories is the degree to which those structures exert influence. But those distinctions can only be handled in a fair, neutral, and complete way if the title and scope of the article remains broad. Changing the title in this way would limit coverage and not to the full subject justice. Also support speedy close, as we just went through this. -- Netoholic @ 05:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Seems a far more appropriate title -- Whats new?(talk) 07:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is plenty of pre-Trump 'deep state' coverage. For instance, professor emeritus Peter Dale Scott of the University of California, Berkeley, has written books about the deep-state from a left-wing perspective. Also I think it's waste of time to re-visit this move discussion so soon after the first no-consensus. --Pudeo (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This exact proposal was discussed in October and there is no assertion anything has changed since then. Station1 (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The current title is fine. We should not be introducing a parenthetical disambiguator into the title when it is not needed. Generally, parenthetical disambiguation are used when multiple articles have the same title and there needs to be a way to differentiate them from each other. That is not the case here. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. The current title is fine, since it's WP treating a fringe topic as if it's fact.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The current title is fine the way it is. As mentioned above there are plenty of sources about it before now from different perspectives. Also Netoholic makes a good point about it as well. The question is not if it exists but to what extent. I believe the purposed title would cause NPOV issues because of that. Finally as mentioned by almost everyone, nothing has changed since the last time you purposed this perhaps drop the stick? PackMecEng (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Once again - Why now ? It seems like these senior US government bureaucrats are trying to discredit this page. President JFK, His brother Attorney General RFK and President Eisenhower talked about existence of Deep state in USA- were those 2 presidents and a US attorney General " conspiracists too ? Just yesterday Former Acting FBI Director Andy McCabe has confirmed that Deep state is real and that they together with Rod Rosenstein and others at US Justice Department conspired to overthrow President Trump. They are the un-elected US Government senior bureaucrats (the real government), they do not believe in democracy and elections.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buyabetty (talk • contribs) 04:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Allegedly, the Civil Service is the Deep State
Per the cited article, the Deep State is a very real thing that has been in place since 1871 and continues beneath the federal government, controlling and frequently reshaping policies. Reportedly, the entity, called the civil service, was created to limit the power of the president. Prior to 1871, the president could select federal employees, all of whom served at the pleasure of the president. This is no longer true.

There is a layer of employees who have ambitions far beyond their jobs. This layer of employees, particularly those approaching retirement, see themselves as the guardians of ancient truths.

Examples mentioned in the article:


 * the anger at President John F. Kennedy’s false news about a missile gap in the military-industrial complex and then the Bay of Pigs fiasco in the 1960's


 * the rage in the Department of Labor at President Ronald Reagan after the firing of air traffic controllers in the 1980's


 * The Deep State Is A Very Real Thing, https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-deep-state_us_58c94a64e4b01d0d473bcfa3, George Friedman | Huffinton Post, March 15, 2017

~ Bought the farm (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)