Talk:Deep state in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Relevance and validity of arguments

The article discusses a theory or belief some may have and thus should be presented as a theory. This is evidenced by the varied definitions of members included in the theory based on who is writing about the article's subject. The evidence and cohesion of the theory are weak and make it relevant only in so much as to describe a belief some have (which is perhaps a minority view). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.75.158.166 (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I mostly agree with you, however whether it is a "minority" view or not would be entirely irrelevant. 81.225.40.25 (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Puzzling Theme

The example supporting the argument is that Obama's policy on counterterrorism is not exactly as he promised before the elections? Maybe as president he knows classified information that he didn't know before, and that what made him change his mind? This whole thing is about an issue the writer has no way to tell. Very weird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.50.4.76 (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

This is not and should certainly not be made the theme of the entire article. Theories and evidence for a "deep state" (however weak or influential) have been around since even before JFK was assassinated. 81.225.40.25 (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The Huffington Post misattributed a quote from this page to The New York Times

In this article in the Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/deep-throat-deep-state-and-an-app-called-confide_us_58aa29e6e4b026a89a7a2d23 as accessed on 2/20/2017.

The piece writes that "“’’Deep state’ has historically been associated with countries like Turkey, where sophisticated shadow governments allegedly control or influence key aspects of state policy,” notes Amanda Taub in the New York Times."

The quote didn't come from Amanda Taub, it came from my edit with a citation to Amanda Taub's piece in The New York Times. I say this out of concern that some in the public may believe that I plagiarized The New York Times. Let the record show that this was a misattribution on the part of HuffPo. J TerMaat (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

This article needs to be expanded

By a lot. Democracy now is reporting on it. The intercept. This article reads like it is some right wing conspiracy theory when it is far from it. Just more neoliberal disinformation. Probably coming from the deep state. Allanana79 (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I can agree that it needs to be expanded on. It isn't some fringe conspiracy theory ("right wing" or not), but you sure make it sound like one when you talk of "neoliberal disinformation" and how it "probably" is coming from the deep state. What evidence do you have for any of that? 81.225.40.25 (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand the argument for expanding this page considering how much media attention "deep state" has received this week. But the question is, what would the expansion look like at this point? Several days ago I added a section devoted to "deep state" as it's been been used with regard to Trump. If you read the media coverage out there, there isn't a whole lot that falls outside the summary provided. I believe the section as it stands does a pretty good job outlining the issue and maintaining neutrality. If there are specific suggestions for how this section could be expanded without compromising neutrality, I (and I'm sure other editors out there) would be open to hearing them. J TerMaat (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

This definitely needs expanding. Its highly notable. SaintAviator lets talk 21:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree the article needs to be expanded -- perhaps most helpfully by working backwards in time. As a start, per NY Times: "At intelligence agencies, there was a push to process as much raw intelligence as possible into analyses, and to keep the reports at a relatively low classification level to ensure as wide a readership as possible across the government — and, in some cases, among European allies. This allowed the upload of as much intelligence as possible to Intellipedia, a secret wiki used by American analysts to share information. … Former senior Obama administration officials said that none of the efforts were directed by Mr. Obama." Thoughts? humanengr (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

“Deep state” during Obama administration

@User:Neutrality deleted this section. Re WP:SYNTH, the section I cited:

It also reflected the suspicion among many in the Obama White House that the Trump campaign might have colluded with Russia on election email hacks — a suspicion that American officials say has not been confirmed. Former senior Obama administration officials said that none of the efforts were directed by Mr. Obama.

Sean Spicer, the Trump White House spokesman, said, “The only new piece of information that has come to light is that political appointees in the Obama administration have sought to create a false narrative to make an excuse for their own defeat in the election.” He added, “There continues to be no there, there.”

As Inauguration Day approached, Obama White House officials grew convinced that the intelligence was damning and that they needed to ensure that as many people as possible inside government could see it, even if people without security clearances could not. Some officials began asking specific questions at intelligence briefings, knowing the answers would be archived and could be easily unearthed by investigators — including the Senate Intelligence Committee, which in early January announced an inquiry into Russian efforts to influence the election.

At intelligence agencies, there was a push to process as much raw intelligence as possible into analyses, and to keep the reports at a relatively low classification level to ensure as wide a readership as possible across the government — and, in some cases, among European allies.

Humanengr (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

So, the cited source (this extract here), doesn't mention the phrase "deep state" or anything close to it. So it's WP:SYNTH. Neutrality^talk 16:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

You are right that this excerpt does not address the label 'deep state'. It addresses the concept as an example of the last para of the intro: "Political scientist Michael J. Glennon believes that this trend is the result of policy being made by government bureaucracies instead of by elected officials." I'm not clear on which aspect of WP:SYNTH is at issue here. Is the concern that the § title begins with the label 'Deep state'? Humanengr (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality is correct. It's misleading and inaccurate to have a section on the Obama administration because the actions taken in the nytimes piece are relevant only with regard to preparing for the Trump administration, and for something to qualify as "deep state" it has to occur under the administration being undermined. Otherwise it's just government activity. The idea that bureaucrats are taking actions to affect Trump administration business is the relevant part, and it's already covered in this page. J TerMaat (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for "for something to qualify as "deep state" it has to occur under the administration being undermined"? The article lead has multiple cites for "… exerts influence and control over public and foreign policy, regardless of which political party controls the country's democratic institutions". Also, how does this qualify as "preparing for the Trump administration"? Humanengr (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Per the New York Times, a deep state by definition is "coercing" or "undermining" the elected government. If Obama's staff took actions to spread intelligence information PRIOR to Trump's inauguration, they weren't undermining the active elected government, they were, if anything, conducting business that would undermine a future administration. Ultimately I think the question is, what administration was being influenced? Since it was the Trump administration that was the subject of concern among these intelligence officials, I think it would be misleading to add a section on the Obama administration. If there was a story about bureaucrats undermining the Obama administration, then that could warrant a new section. The term "deep state" can be so widely construed based on what definition you use that I think we should err on the side of not including content that isn't clearly and directly linked to the term. The safe approach in this case, I believe, is to consider that the term "deep state" was not in the article, so it's probably outside the scope of this page. J TerMaat (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Cite for "Per the New York Times, a deep state by definition is 'coercing' or 'undermining' the elected government"? As I wrote to Neutrality, the section addresses, as does the Wiki intro, "policy being made by government bureaucracies instead of by elected officials". Humanengr (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm basing it off this article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/world/americas/deep-state-leaks-trump.html?_r=0 But honestly, I don't think we can find a "consensus" definition; this is a term that's been broadly interpreted in the media depending on context. Our task in maintaining this page is to provide a definition for readers, and the best way to do that is to observe usages of the term itself in the sources that we use.

I'd focus on two points:

1. "What administration was being influenced?" As long as it's the Trump administration that's being "influenced," "undermined," "coerced," or whatever we want to call it, then I see that as fitting into the existing section on the Trump administration. The section on Trump defines deep state as "intelligence officials and executive branch bureaucrats guiding policy through leaking or other internal means." To me, the NYTimes piece you cited fits into that existing definition, insofar as it's relevant to the term "deep state". Whether it happened during the Obama administration or during the Trump administration is less relevant than which administration is being influenced, which is still the Trump administration. Do you disagree? Can you explain why you believe there should be a separate section for The Obama administration? How would that aid a reader's understanding of the subject?

2. How can we determine what's in the scope of this page? I think we should rely on sources that use the term "deep state." That's how we can best educate readers on a subject with a very nebulous definition. As previously mentioned, we are providing a definition, so we should rely on sources that use the term. I believe that is why Neutrality reverted your edit. It's WP:SYNTH because the edit presumes that this news story is relevant to the term "deep state" only based on interpretations of "deep state" provided in other sources. I can't think of a better way to limit the scope of this page than by use of the term in sources cited. J TerMaat (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

1. Interesting idea to organize by administration being targeted. To comport with that, the § heading would need to be changed.
2. But I’m not sure why you want to limit focus to a term rather than the concept. The lead para speaks of "… the existence of a 'deep state' or state within a state …” — so the article is not limited to the term. It’s the concept not the term(s).
3. The 2/16 article does not provide a definition of ‘deep state’ limited to “elected government” (though that is the focus of that article). A state within a state could as easily target a “government-elect”.
4. Given the Wikipedia:Recentism template, it seems the article should reasonably include earlier historical examples -- correct? Humanengr (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@User:Neutrality Do you care to respond to my question above re which aspect of WP:SYNTH is at issue? Humanengr (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Others have said all that really needs to be said. The article doesn't use the phrase itself. The connection to this topic is highly attenuated and is apparently based on a handful of sentence. I understand that this phrase is vague and could encompass a lot, but Wikipedia:No original research bars us from doing so. There are articles where this topic could be written about (Russian interference with the 2016 United States elections)., but this ain't it. Neutrality^talk 16:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Two follow-on qqs if I may: 1) Would it be appropriate to add sections on historical material (e.g., the Eisenhower quote) that are directly cited with reference to the phrase 'deep state'? 2) Is there policy that says quotes and cites must use the phrase in the article title? (Re the connection -- to explain: The quote describes actions by unelected officials and explicitly states these actions were not directed by the President, the two Glennon points in the intro.) Humanengr (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. As to (1): Yes, historical material/analysis is good if it is proper weight, is directly supported by the cited source, and is relevant. As to (2): This is an implication of WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH. The source material doesn't always need to exactly match the article title, but it needs to be very close in terms of connection. This is doubly true when we are dealing with a vague, flexible, or contentious label (and "Deep state" is all three of those). See also WP:TOPIC and Wikipedia:Out of scope (essays). Neutrality^talk 20:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@User:Neutrality, @J TerMaat, Thank you both. And a request for further guidance: The State within a state article includes, under a heading "Alleged cases of state within a state", a bullet point "United States' Intelligence Community, military–industrial complex, CIA or NSA" (where each of those is a separate link) with cites to articles that address 'state within a state' issues. However, the specific issues from those cites are nowhere indicated in those WP articles. Where on WP should the specific (reliably sourced) issues be collected and presented? Similarly, Deep state in the United States indicates "Professor Peter Dale Scott also mentions … the media as key players" but no mention is made of the specific claims made by that author, 'deep state', or 'state within a state' in Media bias in the United States. Where should those issues be collected and presented? Humanengr (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@User:Humanengr I will defer to Neutrality for the final word on these matters, but I think it's worth noting this line from WP:REL: "If a fact is not relevant to the topic of the article, it should not be mentioned in that article. This does not mean it can not be mentioned in some other article." So just because the CIA is a relevant subject in State within a state doesn't necessarily mean that State within a state is relevant to the page on the CIA. Likewise with media bias and the deep state. And thanks to you as well for a serious discussion on how to improve this page. J TerMaat (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense. The question then becomes whether separate pages on each of these issues might be appropriate. Is there some other place in WP where I should be asking that question? Humanengr (talk) 05:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@User:Neutrality Did you have any thoughts on my last q above re where (new articles?) to collect specific claims? @J TerMaat FYI, I realized the NY Times article I cited might be better suited (without the 'deep state' connection) to Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections and posted on the Talk page there if you'd care to comment. Humanengr (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The Deep State vs Trump

This is a topic that is getting some attention in the media. Im going to look for decent refs. The trouble is if the Deep State is real, which I think it is, it controls the media. SaintAviator lets talk 21:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

[http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/01/13/virgil-deep-state-strikes-back-permanent-campaign-donald-trump/] [1] [2]SaintAviator lets talk 21:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

"if the Deep State is real, which I think it is, it controls the media." That's false. Even in countries that have real deep states, like Turkey, the media is not controlled by the deep state. Deep state is about government, not the media. If this is a serious comment it would be relevant to the page on "propaganda" or "media manipulation". But I see no evidence or reason to take this notion seriously, it sounds like a casual conspiracy theory. J TerMaat (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Who do you think controlled the government until recently? Allanana79 (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Removing list of media references

Since this term has become so ubiquitous in the media, listing the mainstream outlets that have used the term no longer serves the purpose it did before. I'm removing the listing of media outlets and adding this talk section in case people want to discuss that further. However, I'm leaving the reference to Breitbart because other independent sources refer to it when they discuss "deep state," including The New York Times here: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/us/politics/deep-state-trump.html J TerMaat (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Section heading for usage under Trump

@User:Volunteer Marek I agree with most of the edits you recently made to this page, but I find the section heading "Donald Trump's use of the term" to be quite misleading. First off, Trump has not used the term in public. If anything, the White House frenzy revolves around Steve Bannon's obsession with the term. Second, it seems like more of a media phenomenon than a "Trump" phenomenon. Personally I believe the old section header was close to accurate. It's certainly a debate by definition, The Nytimes, WaPo, and plenty of other mainstream sources have done explainers on the subject, and many on both sides have made a case for why it's either appropriate or inappropriate, which is what defines a debate. At least, let's not imply that Donald Trump himself has used the term since there's really no evidence of that. I propose finding consensus by changing the section title to "Use of the term under the Trump administration," or "Appropriation of the term during the Trump presidency." Although again, I think the old section header was appropriate with the context provided by the section's content. J TerMaat (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

You're right - the previous section title was inaccurate as well though. I'm fine with "Use of the term under the Trump administration" (the second one is a bit ORish).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I added following fragment based on publication by respected political scholar published in early 2016 about deep state in USA

I am re-adding it below, in case anyone wants to discuss it or propose changes.

Mike Lofgren, a former Republican U.S. Congressional aide with B.A. and M.A. in history from the University of Akron who completed the strategy and policy curriculum at the Naval War College wrote an analysis of what deep state means in USA in his book The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government, published on January 2016. According to Lofgren the Deep State does not consist of the entire government, but is a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies plus key parts of other branches. Lofgren includes The Department of Defense, Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, Central Intelligence Agency and Justice Department within the Deep State.He also includes Department of Treasury due to its control over economic sanctions and cooperation with Wall Street. Judiciary components of the Deep State according to Lofrgren include Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and vital federal trial courts such as Eastern District of Virginia and Southern District of Manhattan. Congressional leaders and members of defense and intelligence communities compose their own committees which Lafgren describes as "rump Congress" This "deep state" is according to Lofgren connected by various private contracts and relationships to military-industrial complex, Wall Street and Silicon Valley(on which spy agencies are dependent in their operations)

What is important is that the term Deep state in USA was used before Trump Administration-this should be mentioned in the article. Also the above scholar Mike Lofgren seems neutral, widely cited and can't be accused of being conspiracy theorist. The term deep state is discussed in political science and certainly is not as disputed as it would seem from current version of the article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@MyMoloboaccount: Perhaps prepend Lofgren's intensional definition: "I use the term to mean a hybrid association of elements of government and parts of top-level finance and industry that is effectively able to govern the United States without reference to the consent of the governed as expressed through the formal political process." Humanengr (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Another interesting publication. The fight against "deep state" seem to be a "deconstruction" of the USA ["administrative state"]. My very best wishes (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Undue recentism-the term Deep State in regards to USA existed long before Trump was elected President

I think this article focuses on current US President too much. The term deep state and discussion on its role in US politics existed long before Trump was elected president. I also wouldn't say that it is a complete conspiracy theory, the fact that certain intelligence and judicial agencies start a life on their own isn't something unique or unheard of in political science. There are numerous publications about what deep state means and criticism of agencies that were published years before last years election. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it's cute that you're pretending this is the most important bias going on here. That the problem is temporal and not partisan. Or not simply Wikipedia being itself. --BenMcLean (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Alternate accounts

Perhaps information on alt(insert agency handle here), should be included in this article, such as this one discussed in his WaEx article. Or has it already been covered elsewhere?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The topic has been widely covered by CNN, NPR, WaPo, and elsewhere.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Criticism

This content was removed in a drive-by deletion by an IP editor. It appears to be appropriately sourced. Can we please see if we can get a consensus to restore it? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Definition under political science needs revamp

The section on the term's definition in political science is not very informative. It tells us more about the three writers who are cited than it does about "deep state in the United States." I think this section should be incorporated into a section called "Origin and use in political science" which could discuss how the term went from referring to Turkey / Pakistan / Egypt, with some fringe theories related to the U.S., into a full-blown political / media discussion. Even as an esoteric term, there's a lot to tell with thorough citations about where the term originates and what it has historically meant, which goes far beyond the quotes and snippets in that section currently. - J TerMaat (talk) 00:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Then do it. The article is needs work anyway, hopefully by somebody with a neutral point of view. Nobody outside of New Zealand cares what The New Zealand Herald determines is a conspiracy or not, and Time Magazine was more than just a modest donor to the Clinton campaign - i.e. not impartial. It is one thing to say this is what source x says, it is another to take such biased or globally irrelevant sources and use them to proclaim that "this is the truth", thereby taking the sources for their word. --Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhno (talk) 03:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I deleted the section on Mills (1956) because it is not about "Deep State" structures, but rather, about a revolving door system of government where elites move in and out government, business, and the military. He does not use the term Deep State at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keh428 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

A Revised Definition of the Deep State

Wikipedia is neither a discussion forum nor a soapbox or platform for self-promotion. Please base content proposals on our policies and guidelines. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Rather than list all the reasons why I disagree with the definitions in the entry, I will simply link to this piece that I published on Medium: Redefining the Deep State https://medium.com/@estebantrujillodegutierrez/redefining-the-deep-state-785158b4b708 "Dynamic conspiratorial cabals and singletons drawn from persistent factions of government, former government employees and appointees, and elite members of finance, media and industry, that exploit the cult of secrecy and collude, often serving as sources for anonymous leaks of classified information to the media in order to influence the policies of the United States, often in defiance of the formal political process." Estéban (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Dennis Kucinich should be mentioned...

Im from Sweden but follow the American debate quite closely. And regarding this issue I assume that Dennis Kucinich support of the concept should be mentioned. He is critical of course. --Mats33 (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not so sure it should be mentioned. Lots of Trump supporters have talked about the deep state, and Kucinich is a Trump supporter. Our article does not say that belief in the deep state is limited to Republicans. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Dennis Kucinich is definitelly NOT a republican. He is VERY MUCH a democrat. --Mats33 (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Ron Paul and Cynthia Mckinney

I also recommend Ron Paul and Cynthia Mckinney to be mentioned. --Mats33 (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Deep State

This is a philosophical conspiratorial view of American law, not a fact or system based on anything outside of conjecture. While it deserves a wiki article, it doesn't deserve to be stated as a matter of fact. Let's keep it neutral. Upon looking up contributions on this I found at least one previously sanctioned troll banned from editing political pages for six months already trolling on this. Heads up everyone.129.19.1.10 (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

If that's your view why are you making edits like this? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Pretty sure this is yet another Oneshotofwhiskey sockpuppet; Oneshot being an indeffed sockpuppeteer and vandal that should be reverted on sight. Oneshot has a disturbing personal obsession with me, and has attempted to impersonate me on numerous occasions—including via the confirmed sockpuppets AllWeKnowAreTheFacts,Ma'am and You'llNeverCare—which would explain this "random" IP's interest in my person. In addition, the IP's blind revert, use of terms such as "troll," and overall writing style are all highly reminiscent of Oneshot's behavior, with which I am (unfortunately) intimately familiar.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

People associated with the American "deep state debate...

Ok. I made this on the page:

"People associated with the American "deep state debate" And put the names that I know for sure are in the debate on the list. References can easily be added.

Names that could be added include: Alex Jones, Phil Giraldi, Glenn Greenwald, Robert David Steele, Peter Dale Scott, Raghida Dergham and probably a dozen or two or three more.

--Mats33 (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

The list of people who are associated with the debate about "deep state in the United States" was removed today or yesterday. However, I question this removal. All the names on the list is worth mentioning, Alex Jones, Dennis Kucinich, Cynthia Mckinney, Ron Paul and so on. Those that dont yet had a reference can quickly get one. See also the article about "basic income". There is both a description of the theory AND a list of well known people who are associated with the idea/proponents of the idea. --Mats33 (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

No - we need sources at the same time text is added. Not afterward. See WP:V, WP:BURDEN. Neutrality^talk 23:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

So, good, then I guess you move back those names that already had references. Which were some of them. And that we then take the rest one by one. --Mats33 (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you ok with these names, once there are references?

• Donald Trump, President
• Roger Stone, advicer to Trump - see the article "Roger Stone Versus the “Deep State”, as an example
• Steve Bannon, Republican
• Dennis Kucinich, Democrat - see the article "Kucinich: 'Deep State' Trying to 'Destroy The Trump Presidency'", as an example
• Cynthia McKinney, Democrat/Green - there are many many references to choose from
• Bill Still, film maker and bank reformer etc - I think he could be mentioned, but he is not a top priority, even though I think English WP at least should have an article on him.
• Alex Jones, (radical) radio-host etc - many references I guess
• Phil Giraldi, author etc - seems to be central in the issue
• Glenn Greenwald, journalist etc - also seem to be in the core debate
• Robert David Steele - ref. exist
• Peter Dale Scott - ref. exist. He seems to be the one who started the theory/conspiracy by the way, when he wrote some books about "deep politics". For example the book about the JFK assassination. He argued that it wasnt just an isolated case...
• Raghida Dergham - ref. exist
• Sean Hannity and Newt Gingrich - see article "Trump loyalists lash out at deep state gone rough"

Other names?

--Mats33 (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory is neutral?

This seems like a very biased term to use based on a few sources (Rolling Stone, Salon) which are not typically regarded as neutral. Is the idea that civil servants and military officers "exert influence and control over public and foreign policy, regardless of which political party controls the country's democratic institutions" really a conspiracy theory?

Because they carry out that policy, it seems pretty obvious that they exert at least some influence and control. It seems that the alternative would be " the civil servants and military have no significant influence and control over public and foreign policy," which seems obviously silly.

That is a blatant violation of NPOV. The citations are op/eds, so instead of an encyclopedia article, we have one big opinion piece. It needs to be removed. It should say "theory" with the citations removed all together. 97.102.184.22 (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

What is the best first sentence?

The first sentence, now, is the following:

"The concept of a deep state is a conspiracy theory."

Alternative ways of expressing the same thing, but slightly less hard, is:

"The deep state in the United States is often described as a conspiracy theory"... or something like that.

--Mats33 (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

That's a better way of putting it than dismissing a very real governmental entity that operates separately of the presidency (and is in charge of most of the government) as an outright conspiracy theory by right-wing pundits. Zakawer (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

'entity' and 'coordinated' in lede sentence?

Is either of these terms necessary or appropriate for the lede sentence? Are they essential to the construct of 'deep state' in the U.S.? The former term is not used elsewhere in the article and the latter in only a limited manner. Dorkenergy (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Subtitles

Subtitling the page in four places as "Concerns during..." is WP:NPOV, for it makes an implicit assumption that there is a real threat (or only threats) rather in the manner of "Concerns about the resurgence of polio"; and obscures the fact that it is largely conspiracy theory and politically-motivated waffle (including comments by Donald Jr!). Cpaaoi (talk) 10:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I added the subtitles "Concerns during..." because the article at the time only contained info on the current admin and was suffering from WP:Recentism, and I thought it was WP:NPOV. "Concerns" usage was "to be a care, trouble, or distress to" which lies in the person with the fear and does not state reality in the rest of the world. I think it has been a concern since the country's creation. Even Washington was concerned about the potential problem with the political parties in George Washington's Farewell Address.

Visible political actors

Is it unwarranted to mention that the failure of a politician's agenda (in this case Obama's) is explained in reliable sources by the actions of visible and/or elected persons as a contrast to those who claim that it is due to unidentified persons working in secret co-ordination? Cpaaoi (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Anyone find this article a joke?

First it claims the deep state isnt real then just starts attacking trump ironically what the deep state has been doing since early 2016 against trump, so the article in fact is proving the article itself is a lie.172.58.35.59 (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

FISA Documents

The NSA Memo, with information about illegal Section 702 requests is now hitting the mainstream news sources. This information should be included in the article as it shows unelected people within the government actively working against the elected people in the government. Isn't that what "deep state" is? 192.107.156.196 (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

IP Editor: please cite us some WP:Reliable sources for the information to which you are referring.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not encyclopedic to prescribe a world view to wikipedia's readers

"The term has been appropriated by Breitbart News and other conservative and right-wing news outlets, where supporters of the Trump Administration have used it to support a variety of conspiracy theories."

This paragraph is literally shaming readers into believing what the mainstream media reports, despite their increasing unreliability and outright partisaness.

It clearly violates the neutral point of view policy, as well as the tone policy.

So, either reword it (tho I don't know how you'd manage to make any of that neutral when the entire perspective it's written from is assigning the content of the article to an undesirable social group), or remove it entirely.

User:KalHolmann — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:4200:D8A1:355E:247A:4C48:CAE7 (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• I oppose removal of the sourced content in dispute. In my opinion, it does not violate WP:NPOV. Please, let's await discussion by other editors and allow consensus to form. KalHolmann (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I have corrected what can be drawn from the Time article, clearly an RS. The two mentions of Breitbart News are similar. I have included a direct quote of David Gergen's comment in the citation template so that third-parties can verify the current version. Philip Cross (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

What Snowden said applies to the whole civil service

The article quotes Edward Snowden ⛄ that the deep state comprises "the career bureaucracy of government. These are officials who sit in powerful positions, who don't leave when presidents do, who watch presidents come and go." Doesn't that describe any federal position unaffected by the spoils system, whose appointment shifted to merit under the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act and its successors? And if so, would it be worthwhile to mention the rollback of spoils near that quote as the reason that officials don't leave along with presidents? --Damian Yerrick (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Yet another NYT related section

So at this point there is little choice but to address that opinion article that has gotten all the buzz. I would not go as far as saying it confirms or denies that a deep state is a thing, but at the same time it is talked about in relation to the idea of a deep state. Here are a few RS that talk about it Vox, Independent, and NY Times. Plus many more going either way saying nope nope not a thing and yup yup totally a thing. We should work on a little section covering the event here. We could also cover the Steady State idea that the article brought up as well. PackMecEng (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC) Also to add to it that article does have it's own wiki page already for notability. I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration that did not take very long. PackMecEng (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

It can't.

Both the POTUS, the anonymous deep state operative, the NYT and thousands of spilled words in media confirm the existence, exactly as described, by the "conspiracy theory." Even the negative connotations of the term are point-blank proven in public record now. How much conversation counts as "consensus" here? The article needs to reflect proven reality. That's the whole point of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.252.56 (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

There is no evidence of a deep state. The NYT editorial contains no evidence of it. No one else, including the POTUS, have ever provided evidence of its existence. So it is obviously a conspiracy theory. Closeclouds (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

New York Times op-ed pretty much confirms it. Not a "conspiracy theory"

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html

Quote: "On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable."

Whether you agree on Russia here or not: The author admits that there are forces in the White House, who are actively working against the president's decisions. This is THE definition of a deep state: Unknown forces in the background steering the wheel, not the elected official.

And this is from the NY Times, not Infowars. How can the "deep state" be labeled as a conspiracy theory in light of this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.64.43.38 (talk)

An anonymous editorial is not evidence of anything. Closeclouds (talk) 01:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The New York Times says that they confirmed that the author is a senior official in the administration. The NYT is considered, without any doubt, as a reliable source.

That is not the point. Opinion pieces or editorials are not sufficient evidence. Even then, the author does not claim that a deep state exists anywhere in the article - stretching the author's words to fit a vague definition is silly. Legedevin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Less POV intro

I have changed the intro to read as follows... It is less POV, describing "deep state" as a concept used in discussion of political theory, including that there are those who assume it be be true and others who think it conspiracy.... "In the United States, the term "deep state" is used in discussions of politics and civics to describe the premise that there are influential decision-making bodies and individuals within government who are relatively permanent and whose policies and long-term plans are unaffected by changing administrations. There is a great deal of disagreement on the topic. Some believe such a thing to be self evident where as others consider it a conspiracy theory." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:C202:AFFB:0:0:0:7097 (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

No. You're introducing POV. If it's not described as a conspiracy theory primarily held by Republicans, we are lying. Closeclouds (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

And don't write "some believe" anything. If you can't identify the some, then don't write it at all. Closeclouds (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

You have no citations proving 1)that it is conspiracy 2) who uses it most 3) what their motivations are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:C202:AFFB:0:0:0:7097 (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Your intro statement was meaningless fluff that wasn't based on anything. Closeclouds (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I fundamentally changed what was said... Rather than describing it as a Conspiracy Theory which holds very negative connotations and the presumption of non existence, I have changed it to premise, which is similar to supposition. Neither supporting or disparaging it as a topic suitable for legitimate discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:C202:AFFB:0:0:0:7097 (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Until other editors chime in on one side or another it should stay with what has been the standard text for a long time. If there's consensus against my position I'll abide by it, but there is not consensus for your position. And there will definitely not be consensus for what you've written if you include the silly "some believe" phrases. If you don't know who believes it, leave it out or write it a different way. I'm not going to be the only one challenging that kind of bad writing. Closeclouds (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

You have attributed it to groups of people without citation. You have dismissed it as conspiracy theory without citation. Who believes this is covered in more depth later in the article under polls. If you would like to include the stats up top, fine, but that seems bulky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:C202:AFFB:0:0:0:7097 (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Also , there does not need to be evidence of a deep state for it to not be a conspiracy theory. Deep state is a term of art. It does not have to have proof of existence to have valid use in discussion. We don't describe Plato's Forms as a conspiracy theory because they are a rhetorical tool for critical discussion. Deep State is the same. It is part of changing vernacular and this wiki must describe it as it exists as an idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:C202:AFFB:0:0:0:7097 (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Redirect to proper title

I've created a redirect Deep state conspiracy theory to what should be the proper title for this article. Why hasn't this title been adopted yet? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

That's a great idea! Please do it. Closeclouds (talk) 01:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

There are other possibilities, so we need to discuss which option is best:

1. Deep state conspiracy theory
2. Deep state (conspiracy theory)
3. Deep state (American conspiracy theory)

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• I vote for #3 because this article is lengthy enough without throwing in ideas about government in other countries. Closeclouds (talk) 01:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer you are correct that the current title is very... problematic. Option 3 seems the best remedy. Why don't we get the ball rolling? --Calthinus (talk) 04:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Closeclouds and Calthinus, an RM has been started below. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy

JFK assassination section needs to be added. CIA in particular was and still is to this day blamed by many for his death. Or hes death cant be added until all government documents are not released ?MrStefanWolf (talk) 13:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I added it last year[3] but it got deleted a while ago. I was trying to step away from "recent events". Had planned to go all the way back to George Washington and his farewell speech with concerns about political parties but RSs tended to fade using the term "deep state". StrayBolt (talk) 03:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Changing the first line.

1. The current first line does not define deep state according to the RS. All the reliable sources I have seen define this as a "government and military officials who secretly manipulate or direct national policy." There is nothing about "decision-making bodies" within the government in the meaning of that term. Wiktionary defines the term as "A large group of people, typically members of government agencies and the military, believed to have long-lasting political influence that is difficult for an administration voted into power to counter." No where is there "decision-making bodies" in that definition. Look at the very polls on this page which, in the text of this page describe it as "military, intelligence and government officials who try to secretly manipulate government" and "a group of unelected government and military officials who secretly manipulate or direct national policy." I suggest we follow the definition given by RS that is the polls on this very page.
2. It includes the text "Republican and conservative political messaging" as a clear violation of WP:NPOV to suggest that this isn't something that actually exists. When not only do the polls as explained on this very page suggest most people do believe that it exists, we have actual evidence of it from members of the conspiracy. According to the NYT's, there exists an individual who is a a senior official in the Trump administration, and this individual says that he and many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and steer the administration. This is literally a written confession by a member of the deep state, of which the NYT's has independently verified that they are actually in a position of authority to do so. This is covered in a variety of RS including even Vox (about as far from a pro-Trump source as you can get) that says Apparently President Donald Trump is right: There really is a “deep state” of top government officials conspiring to thwart his will. And now, one of them is taking to the pages of the New York Times to brag about it. [4]. This is so notable that it has its own WP page I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration.
3. The "Republican and conservative political messaging" isn't even used in the rest of the article, so it violates WP:LEAD, which should summarize the articles contents.

-Obsidi (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Also going over the edit history it looks like Closeclouds and the IP 2601:243:c202:affb::7097 were edit warring over the lead (Closeclouds [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]; and the IP [10], [11], [12],[13], [14], [15]), and all those edits were within the same 24 hours making this an egregious violation of the WP:1RR editing restrictions on this page for which you should both be lucky you were not blocked. Including accusations of vandalism that to me seem completely unsubstantiated. -Obsidi (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• @94.113.246.126: Please come and explain this edit on why you think that the statements that it was a conspiracy theory are fact, but that it was proven to be true are not facts. -Obsidi (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

On and while your at it, explain why this is not a signficant opinion even if it was an opinion? -Obsidi (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit

Agreeing with this revert: [16]. This is indeed a conspiracy theory. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: You have reverted my edit, but you have failed to explain why in terms of policy how my edit made the article worse. I would remind you that per WP:Status quo stonewalling it is disruptive behavior in opposition to a change by acting as if what the status quo rule used to say were still applicable: "If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change.". You must present a policy based reason why my edit was in violation of policy. I cited what I claim are RS for the facts that I edited. Do you dispute that these are RS? If not, do you dispute that I acuratly reflected the RS? If not, then this passes WP:V. Do you consider this a view that an extremely tiny minorty hold (including no prominent adherants)? If not, then this is at least a minority view that must be included in the article. Do you have other RS that claim despite this oped it is still a conspiracy theory? (Even if you did, we would need to balance and explain both the opinions that this is and that this isn’t a conspiracy theory). So please tell me, what policy bases do you have against my edit? (And K.e.coffman, your response is nothing more than WP:ILIKEIT for the revert, and as such has no weight, explain why you support the reversion for policy reasons.) -Obsidi (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

——————-

@BullRangifer: Ok, so now BullRangifer has reverted me again. But this time he has added a policy rational. He claimed that the sentance “What started as a conspiracy theory, was actually proven true.” And cited to this Vox article is original research. In addition to the new section I added including cites to the NYTs. So for the question of WP:OR, the question is was the sentance I added supported by the underlying reliable source. But it doesn’t seem like he objects to that from his edit summary instead claiming that “ONE event doesn't prove enough to completely change an article.” But one event, if it changes the facts according to a reliable source can change an article. And this isn’t an OR objection at all. It seems like he is disputing if the RS is correct that this one event changes things. But that isn’t an OR objection at all. As long as the sentances I added are reflections of what the cited RS is saying then it isn’t OR. So can you please explain WHY you think the sentance I added doesn’t reflect the source cited? -Obsidi (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The normal understanding of a "deep state", as described in this article, is not covered by the disconnected and uncoordinated obstruction and dysfunction described by what's happening in the White House, although there are superficial resemblances. What's happening there is better described as forms of independent and very patriotic sabotage by the "adults in the room", which save the country and world from the worst mistakes of an ignorant bull in a china closet. (There are reasons why parents don't let small children play with loaded guns, or give them flamethrowers as gifts.) Maybe the article devoted to that subject would be better suited for a short entry of a few sentences, wherein you describe, using multiple RS, how some RS consider those disconnected actions to be "deep state" actions. Just a suggestion so you can move forward with this, since you seem intent on making something of it. Give it a try there and see what response you get. If it flies there, then it may fly here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Using this search, you'll find interesting stuff. The first find is the New York Times article about it: "This isn't the work of the so-called deep state. It's the work of the steady state." The author disavows any contact with any "deep state". Have fun. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok now we are getting somewhere. In my edit I changed the definition of the term “deep state” from what was on this page to one that I thought better reflected the RS. Now, neither this page nor my edits cited specific RS for the definition, but I had mentioned in talk where my definition came from this ABC News Poll. I assume you agree that ABC News is a RS for such a definition? If so are there other RS for your definition? (I’m editing this article right now, maybe I’ll go edit that one later, but their opinions have no relevance here.)-Obsidi (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Obsidi:: I think you are misreading the Vox article. There's nothing in there to say that the theory was proven true. For example, this passage:

In theory, this article could be written by a career government employee at a federal agency — which would hew much closer to Trump’s own theory of the “deep state,” and blunt the implication that Trump’s own hand-picked appointees think he is “half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless.” That said, the piece’s author sounds like a traditional mainstream Republican...

--K.e.coffman (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I specificlly quoted the part of the article I was relying on and it is the very first line: There really is a “deep state” of top government officials conspiring to thwart his will. Do you really disagree that states the “deep state” really exists?

The full quote is:

Apparently President Donald Trump is right: There really is a “deep state” of top government officials conspiring to thwart his will. And now, one of them is taking to the pages of the New York Times to brag about it.

I think that's sarcasm; not "apparently". K.e.coffman (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

LOL! Hint..."Trump is right", ergo it can't be true. It's one of the many conspiracy theories (IOW unproven) he believes. He'd rather blame others for his self-inflicted wounds. It sounds like joking, but even if it isn't, it must be attributed as the opinion of that ONE author. We don't radically change the direction of an article based on one or two sources, which happen to go against all the others already used. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

So your saying when the source says there “apparently” is such a deep state that they really did’t mean it and were just joking sarcasticly? I find that a highly unnatural reading of the source and if that is really what BullRangifer meant, I’d be happy to go to ORN and see if a broader consensus of editors agrees with that reading. Is that what you meant BullRangifer when you said this line was OR? -Obsidi (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Correct, if the author of the Vox article believed that "deep state" existed, she would not be using scare quotes throughout. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I took the quotes to be used because it was a term of art. Maybe I could believe it was sarcastic if it was only them. For instance I could have used this vanity fair article as a RS which states If the Deep State didn’t exist before, Trump has brought it into being. And a variety of other people have openly said this oped proves the deep state is real [17] [18] and then there are a varirty of political actors who have said the same such as the House Majority Leader in the NYTs [19]: “If you didn’t believe in the Deep State before, it just took out an advertisement in The New York Times“. I’ll wait to see if I lack local consensus on this point, if so I’ll go to a notice board for broader consensus on this question. -Obsidi (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disputes that a number of mostly right-wingers like Trump and his allies claim this proves their conspiracy theory about a deep state is true. One can easily create a paragraph, based only on RS, which documents that such is their opinion. That doesn't make it so, but we can document their fringe opinion and give it the fringe weight it deserves, which is that of a minority opinion. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

You have substantially misstated basic NPOV policy. A viewpoint is either a majority viewpoint, a minority viewpoint, or a fringe viewpoint (it cannot be a minority and fringe point of view, these are separate categories in WP policy). We include all majority and minority viewpoints in the article impartially. A fringe viewpoint is one held by an extremely small minority of which there are no prominent adherents (think that we didn't land on the moon), and as such that viewpoint can be completely left out of the article. We cannot express a minority viewpoint in the article and express in WP voice that viewpoint is wrong, that would violate WP:IMPARTIAL. Even if we decided that these are minority viewpoints (and not actually factually true), we could not also express they were wrong and this was actually a conspiracy theory in WP voice. -Obsidi (talk) 03:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Reinstate The OR trying to say the Vox article was a joke, is a joke. Also no idea why the New York Times article cannot be mentioned. It has widely been described in the context of the deep state. It sounds like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT at this point trying really hard not to include RS material. PackMecEng (talk) 23:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• The objection was mostly to taking opinions, not attributing them, and making them change the whole direction of the article. This can be documented as I describe immediately above. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

You have not provided any reliable source as to why you think these are opinions and not facts. -Obsidi (talk) 03:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, I tried to resolve this locally, but we are split 2-2, so I have posted this to the noticeboard here: Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Deep_state_in_the_United_States.-Obsidi (talk) 04:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Need Verifiability for first line

So lets ignore for the moment if my edit accurately reflected the Vox article (that debate will continue at the noticeboard). We still need a definition for the term "Deep State". I provided what I think is a RS that defines the term ABC News. If you think this definition is wrong @BullRangifer:, can you please provide a RS for what you think is the correct definition? (currently there is no cite for the definition in the lead of the article.) -Obsidi (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer:Yet again you revert me with nothing more than WP:Status quo stonewalling, without any policy basis cited for the basis of this reversion. You are insisting on including a statement making claims that are in violation of WP:VERIFICATION policy competently uncited to any source. I have asked you for a definition cited to a RS and you have not responded. You must provide a policy rational of some kind for this revision or I will consider it to not be actually challenged and revert it. I would remind you that WP:V requires that Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. You have violated this policy in this this reversion. I suggest you self-revert. -Obsidi (talk) 03:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

You MUST have a consensus for changes that so fundamentally reverse the entire direction of the article. The lead must be a summary of the article contents, which are about the deep state as a conspiracy theory held by Trump and others on the right wing. Keep in mind that "The president is possibly the single most unreliable source for any claim of fact ever to grace the pages of WP." Just because he says there is a deep state, well, the fact that it's him that says it should cause you to start by rejecting the idea. Be skeptical. If he says something, it's most likely not true.

BTW, I actually did use your source in the lead, but did it in the proper manner. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The problem isn't if my source is used or not. The problem is your adding a sentence without a citation after I specifically challenged the verification of that line. You are free to remove my source entirely, as long as you provide a RS for the sentence you restored. -Obsidi (talk) 03:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't "add" it, just restored your deletion (again), without any consensus. Your slow edit warring is getting tiring. You've done this several times, yet keep trying. That's disruptive and blockable, in and of itself, without any warning, per the DS sanctions. Stop it.

We don't need to use the sources in the lead, since they are in the body, so I don't need to satisfy your failure to read the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say you added it, I saidMy mistake, I meant to say you restored it after I removed it challenging the WP:Verifiability of that line. Per WP:V: Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Now in the lead we don't always need specific citations if it is elsewhere included in the article, but that it is "used in Republican and conservative political messaging" and that the definition of the term is "influential decision-making bodies believed to be within government who are relatively permanent and whose policies and long-term plans are unaffected by changing administrations" is nowhere else in the article. If you think it is, tell me where it is. -Obsidi (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

For anyone else reading this, we have apparently resolved this dispute at User_talk:BullRangifer#Verifiability. -Obsidi (talk) 05:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)