Talk:Deep state

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1: 12 months

Military history Start‑class

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

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

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

Additional information:
/
	No existing task force includes this article in its scope; to propose a new one, please leave a message on the main project talk page.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Turkey Mid‑importance

	Turkey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lebanon's Hezbollah.

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

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

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

Needs More Background

The article needs to explore the concept of the deep state in greater depth and provide a more thorough examination of its origins. Quickdrew (talk) 06:59, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I created the Foundations of the deep state concept adding a decent amount of research into it. I more focused on the fear of deep states rather than the actual deep states themselves. This wasn't intentional, it may need more arguments or historic examples of deep states in actions. I might return to explore the post-ww2 world order, cold war secrecy, and intelligence agencies. Quickdrew (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Romania missing

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

State within a state

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

Deep Alid State a historical example

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

Political connotations illustration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That this is a key point of the book is apparent from the text and from interviews given by the author.^[1]^[2]^[3] Uhoj (talk) 00:45, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

References

^ Rhode, David (2020). In Deep: The FBI, the CIA, and the Truth about America's "Deep State". W. W. Norton & Company. p. iv. ISBN 9781324003557. To conservatives, the "deep state" is an ever-growing government bureaucracy, an administrative state that they think relentlessly encroaches on the individual rights of Americans and whose highest loyalty is to its own preservation and power. Liberals are less apt to use the term "deep state," but they fear the "military-industrial complex"—a cabal of generals and defense contractors who they believe routinely push the country into endless wars, operate a vast surveillance state, and enrich themselves in the process.
^ Green, Lloyd (26 April 2020). "In Deep review: Trump v intelligence – and Obama v the people". The Guardian. Retrieved 19 October 2025. Name-calling plays both ways.
^ Gross, Terry (19 October 2020). "'In Deep' Challenges President Trump's Notion Of A Deep-State Conspiracy". NPR. Retrieved 19 October 2025. So liberals fear, you know, the military industrial complex; conservatives fear, you know, the administrative state.

[rhode_iv-1] Rhode, David (2020). In Deep: The FBI, the CIA, and the Truth about America's "Deep State". W. W. Norton & Company. p. iv. ISBN 9781324003557. To conservatives, the "deep state" is an ever-growing government bureaucracy, an administrative state that they think relentlessly encroaches on the individual rights of Americans and whose highest loyalty is to its own preservation and power. Liberals are less apt to use the term "deep state," but they fear the "military-industrial complex"—a cabal of generals and defense contractors who they believe routinely push the country into endless wars, operate a vast surveillance state, and enrich themselves in the process.

[green-2] Green, Lloyd (26 April 2020). "In Deep review: Trump v intelligence – and Obama v the people". The Guardian. Retrieved 19 October 2025. Name-calling plays both ways.

[gross-3] Gross, Terry (19 October 2020). "'In Deep' Challenges President Trump's Notion Of A Deep-State Conspiracy". NPR. Retrieved 19 October 2025. So liberals fear, you know, the military industrial complex; conservatives fear, you know, the administrative state.

[1]

[2]

[3]