- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. Having recently gained consensus via RfC to describe this topic as a conspiracy theory, it was proposed to move the title to reference the topic as such. Aside from the clear numerical advantage in !votes here supporting such a move, opposition was also well refuted by supporters. WP:CONCISE was initially invoked that was countered with contextual arguments based loosely on WP:FRINGE as well as common naming conventions. Previous failed RMs were referenced, noting that these were not to the proposed title, nor reflect the recent change in consensus over how to describe the topic. The main opposition focused around the sourcing of the article that, according to opposers, failed to affirm the topic as primarily fringe. This again contradicts the previously established consensus that the topic is indeed a conspiracy theory, as noted by suppoters. In conclusion, there is strong consensus for such a move. (non-admin closure) CNC (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Deep state in the United States → Deep state conspiracy theory in the United States – As provided by the numerous sources in a prior RfC on this article's talk page (and a simple Google search), multiple reliable sources are calling the deep state in the United States a political conspiracy theory. While the page for deep state itself discusses use of the term in historical and contemporary instances where there is and is not an actual "deep state", the overwhelming number of sources in regards to the United States explicitly state that such claims are a conspiracy theory. A brief paragraph in a background section can discuss use of the term in pre-Trump years, but such discussion is eclipsed by the amount of sources describing its use in more contemporary sources. I propose that the article title be renamed to better reflect the consensus of reliable sources. BootsED (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose per WP:CONCISE. That's something for the body of the article to discuss in depth. Not every fact about a topic must appear in the title. There is no other article about a deep state in the United States that is not a conspiracy theory, so the title is not ambiguous. Station1 (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
- But we do often put "conspiracy theory" or "hoax" or "claims" or "allegations" or something similar in the titles of articles that are about similarly fringe topics, as we don't want to give readers the impression that the subject is generally accepted as valid. — BarrelProof (talk) 07:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
- Yes, we do sometimes, but looking at List of conspiracy theories, it seems mixed. Sometimes it's necessary for disambiguation, such as John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories vs John F. Kennedy assassination, or New World Order conspiracy theory vs things on the New world order dab page. Other times we have titles like Black helicopter and International Jewish conspiracy. I don't see many where a more concise title just redirects back to a longer title. Station1 (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
- One that I recall is that Bosnian pyramid is a redirect to Bosnian pyramid claims (to make it clear that the idea of such pyramids existing is a fringe theory, i.e., that Bosnian pyramids are not something that exists). — BarrelProof (talk) 10:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose. Scrolling through the 65 reference titles, nearly half, 31, use the term "Deep State" alone to describe the topic and only 5 have "Deep State" and "conspiracy." 5Q5|✉ 12:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
- See the RfC above, which presents numerous sources that describe it as a conspiracy theory. Also, are you simply looking at headlines? BootsED (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
- An article title is analogous to a headline, a brief phrase in bold at the top of the article that simply gives the reader a basic idea of details that follow. Station1 (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
- @PackMecEng We don't use headlines as sources. Often they are not written by the journalist writing the article, always they are written to catch the readers eye. We only use the content. I used to write them for the Miami Herald. Doug Weller talk 16:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
- @Doug Weller Did you mean to ping me? PackMecEng (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
- Oops, no. My reply was meant to be for User:Station1. Apologies. Doug Weller talk 18:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
- @Doug Weller Oh, I agree 100% and didn't mean to imply otherwise. In fact, I've made that same point in other discussions. While a headline should never be a source for content, I was just trying to make the analogy that just as, say, the Miami Herald might use shorthand "Deep State..." in a headline on an article that delves into the politics of conspiracy theories, so Wikipedia often uses concise phrasing for article titles for the same reasons. Station1 (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
- No problem, but thanks for the explanation. Doug Weller talk 09:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
- Support we should be clear this is fringe—blindlynx 02:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
- Support – For clarity's sake. Having the article title merely as "Deep state in the United States" makes its existence sound definitive. Yue🌙 08:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
- Support. I agree that the article name it directly conspiracy, and create redirect. Onikaburgers (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
- Also, the fact that some reliable sources on the "Deep state in the United States" use synonyms or paraphrases when discussing the conspiratorial or polemical nature of popular "deep state" discourse isn't relevant to the article name, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
- Relisting comment: Relisting for additional perspectives with no present consensus. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
- The Deep State should refer to the un-elected bureaucrats in The United States Government that generally have Left Leaning Politics, and is not an Un-Biased agency that represents ALL Americans 2605:59C0:2036:C410:1C55:595F:15DC:9388 (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
- Support. Conspiracy theories should never be presented as facts. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
- Support per extensive documentation in the above RfC supporting the widespread consensus that this is a conspiracy theory. This article deals primarily with the topic as such and not the broader deep state concept/phenomenon. As others have stated, the term conspiracy theory does not need to appear in every single reference; other sources that use synonymous terms and descriptions that are consistent with this being a conspiracy theory add support to the sources that do explicitly label this. It's true that titles can be too long and titles can't do all the explanatory work but this is a case where the title is necessary to clearly define the scope of the article.--MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk 03:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
- Support per Necrothesp and my prior comments. — BarrelProof (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
- Support per Necrothesp and Myceteae, it's a CT, so it should be named properly. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 09:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose: The vast majority of sources currently in the article don't discuss the deep state in the context of a conspiracy theory. -- 77.22.43.229 (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
- Support - The RFC was convincing enough for me, not that I needed convincing. That this is the third time we've tried this (technically fourth if we count the RFC) is mildly disappointing, but not surprising. ASUKITE 15:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.