Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:48, 25 May 2024

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Deep state in the United States. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Deep state in the United States at the Reference desk.

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 July 2017. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Presidential elections / Presidents / Government / Governors Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. governors (assessed as Mid-importance). This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Military history: North America / United States This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met Associated task forces: /  North American military history task force United States military history task force Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative views Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Donald Trump

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Deep state in the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 6 months

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Misplaced Pages policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Misplaced Pages are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

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

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

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

Lead sentence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, I think I see your issue:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's examine this statement by Philomathes2357:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Politics, government, and law Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

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

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

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

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

Several counterarguments have been presented, such as...

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

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

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

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

• Yes. I came here from the RfC notice, and I don't want to vouch for whether or not the page cites all the sources that it should, but I've read the talk section directly above this one, and it seems obvious to me that there is sufficient sourcing "out there" to describe it as a "conspiracy theory". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. Only RS lend weight to a POV here. For example, thousands of fringe sources do not weigh more than two RS. There is no good evidence for the existence of any form of effective deep state in the United States. The existence of an extensive free press and lack of a dictatorship make it impossible. We have leaks, and they would undermine attempts to establish such a deep state. Therefore, the claims by Trump and Co. (that they are the victims of a deep state) are a conspiracy theory, and that's what this article is about. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. Surely there would be leaks from the massive number of people it would require to hide the “fact” that the country is controlled by a cabal. I don’t see any RS subscribing to this theory and some specifically use the term “conspiracy theory”, presumably because it is a theory about a vast conspiracy. For editorial style reasons, some may use different words. But what RS say it is true or even plausible? Do we now suggest that Trump’s repetitive claims that Biden has instructed the FBI to assassinate him is possibly true? This meets DUE and the body text passes NPOV. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

• Yes. Reliable sources that do not mention those terms do not cancel those that do. Such canceling could only be done by reliable sources that explicitly say the terms do not apply. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Start-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• Start-Class United States presidential elections articles
• Mid-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• United States presidential elections articles needing attention
• Start-Class United States Presidents articles
• Mid-importance United States Presidents articles
• WikiProject United States Presidents articles
• United States Presidents articles needing attention
• Start-Class United States Government articles
• High-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• United States Government articles needing attention
• Start-Class United States governors articles
• Mid-importance United States governors articles
• WikiProject United States governors articles
• United States governors articles needing attention
• United States articles needing attention
• WikiProject United States articles
• Start-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• Start-Class American politics articles
• Mid-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class North American military history articles
• North American military history task force articles
• Start-Class United States military history articles
• United States military history task force articles
• Start-Class Skepticism articles
• Low-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Start-Class Alternative views articles
• Low-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment