Talk:Project 2025

Article Exhibits Bias
The Wikipedia article on Project 2025 exhibits bias through its selective focus and tone. It emphasizes the project's political affiliations and controversial objectives, particularly its connection to Donald Trump. The language used can appear charged, potentially leading readers to question the neutrality of the information presented. Such elements can skew the portrayal of the subject, suggesting a bias in how the information is conveyed. 199.189.240.30 (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's because that's what reliable sources focus on. Aaron Liu  (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No they don’t. The wiki article is flush with opinion that misleads the audience from the facts listed in the documentation at project 2025 itself. Which is the primary source of information.
 * for example, the overhauls recommended for the department of defense as portrayed in the article are grossly misrepresented from the actual text and require revision.
 * this wiki is essentially lying to people. 2600:1008:B090:385F:5947:598C:9C0F:80F5 (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * please be more specific with examples soibangla (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The entire article reads as a hit piece highlighting the alleged extremist opinions of the founders of Project 2025.
 * Reading it would make you forget that the party behind it is a major party and whose candidate has serious chances to win.
 * When a major political party has views and it is a major contender it is untrue to blatantly label them extremist. 2605:8D80:6C4:49A8:9953:3D48:7B17:5DA7 (talk) 06:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * please be more specific with examples soibangla (talk) 07:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * By examples, we mean, for example, which paragraphs (put a quote here) misrepresent the overhauls. Aaron Liu  (talk) 12:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think they're saying, even just a single example would help identify the problematic portions. That's the next best step toward making things more equitable. 2603:9001:6B00:5FC3:7505:47F6:6B4:7ADD (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * it's not alleged when the architects of project 2025 are extremists, you bootlicker 2404:4402:3306:3800:38F3:7B54:747:B04A (talk) 02:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Be civil. Don't call 'em a "bootlicker". TheWikiToby (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The criticisms are fused into the main body of information.
 * Since the criticisms are a matter of second party opinion, they should be separated from informational purely portion of text.
 * The annotation is too prominent. Ummreally? (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If sources we trust present their opinions as fact, then they simply are facts. Please list some facts presented you think are "opinion". Aaron Liu  (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If sources we trust give opinion as fact you treat them as facts? That's literally the opposite of how facts work... 50.204.198.17 (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Aaron worded it a little poorly. Taken from WP:RS, Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. TheWikiToby (talk) 01:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Criticisms are arguably supposed to be fused into the body. WP:CRITICISM 106.102.129.92 (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The whole text is biased. And with weak sources.
 * wiki: “ Project 2025 is a collection of conservative and right-wing policy proposals from the Heritage Foundation to reshape the United States federal government and consolidate executive power should the Republican nominee, presumably Donald Trump, win the 2024 presidential election.”
 * Project: “The 2025 Presidential Transition Project paves the way for an effective conservative Administration based on four pillars: a policy agenda, Presidential Personnel Database, Presidential Administration Academy, and playbook for the first 180 days of the next Administration.”
 * The Project is not tied directly to Trumps name, or right wing from the official sources. 72.199.230.29 (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, no think tank (and in fact no source, unless it's a journal review) is more reliable than news. Aaron Liu  (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * the Mandate is not the only P25 source document. there is also this which asserts dubious things like "The Left wants to eliminate the family and replace it with the state." At least 140 people who worked in the Trump administration had a hand in Project 2025 and 81% of the Mandate's creators held formal roles in Trump's presidency and it  mentions Trump 312 times. soibangla (talk) 03:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Reliable source or not, sources are owned and operated by humans, and humans lie, especially when it comes to the tribalistic and mundane practice of protecting one's given politics. Reliable sources are a good starting point, but they're not a be-all end-all to anything. Personally, as someone who has neither a stake or party preference in the upcoming election, and as someone who has completely read the official site's literature and mission statement, there are some serious issues of biases and misinformation within this Wikipedia article; In particular, the suggested religious accommodations, and pinpointing these planned changes solely on Trump rather than changes that would apply to every sitting president going forward. Секретное общество (talk) 07:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We trust these sources because they don’t lie. Here at Wikipedia, we believe that no editors can sit above everything and dictate the truth for themselves. If we allow that, then articles will be full of strongly biased rhetoric and edit wars over which bias is better. Let the journalists journal. If you think a source frequently lies, take a look at WP:RSN.
 * The document was self-described to be the next Republican nominee, who has been confirmed to be Trump. Reliable sources report it as such. Also, obviously, many presidents will endure whatever changes a predecessor made unless they overturn it.  Aaron Liu  (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * To piggyback on this, the article is completely deficient in Primary sources, or even any real sources at all. The first "Primary" source isn't presented until #30, and that source is only a refutation from the authors to critics of the document in question. The actual document being discussed is referenced only a single time and that's 2 lines regarding its authorship. Without exaggeration, the entire article is just editorials. In no other circumstance would these be accepted as even secondary sources as they're clearly just the opinions of individuals with no serious qualification to issue their opinion on the matter. In my perusal of the sources, I've been unable to identify a single cited author with any meaningful qualification to justify them as source, excluding the Heritage Foundation (the chief author of Project 2025). I don't oppose the existence of this article in principle, but it's clearly slanted in a single direction. Nearly the entire article should be scrapped. The points made by these pundits could, or even should, be used to guide the rewriting of this article, but the points made should still explicitly reference the document at hand. What we have at present is the conjecture of a number of unqualified talking heads, hardly any different than filling the references with someone's Facebook posts. These standards of citation would never be permitted for an article relating to the Magna Carta, the Marshall Plan, or any other historical document. The purpose of this project, of the online Encyclopedia, is to document for posterity the happenings of the past and of today. While it is difficult to remain objective and concise with contemporary issues, it's our responsibility to do so. This article should be significantly trimmed to present the barest facts until a more objective and comprehensive article can be published. 2601:840:8000:99C0:8109:80F9:8BCA:36F6 (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * the article is replete with reliable secondary sources, the meat and potatoes of Wikipedia. I note a conspicuous dearth of reliable secondary sources, or even unreliable secondary sources, praising P25, and I have looked for them. that seems telling, given the Trump campaign's apparent request that P25 stop talking to the press about it. other than the Mandate, what other primary sources might you refer to? please cite specific examples of content you find problematic. soibangla (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Soibangla, just because you can push secondary sources, does not mean that they are unimpeachable and not up for discussion. Example: You added something about Trump's proposal to create a federally funded "American Academy", which appears to be entirely OR. The cited sources are a secondary Conversation article cited that mentions job training program, which doesn't mention the "American Academy" proposed by Trump, and a secondary Politico article about the higher education institution in question, which doesn't mention Project 2025.
 * Now, you ask for specific examples of problematic content? Sure.
 * 1. The lead for instance, claims that Project 2025 plans on dismantling the Federal Bureau of Investigation and eliminating the Department of Commerce. This is blatantly false.
 * Project 2025's Mandate for Leadership on the FBI: Align the FBI’s placement within the department and the federal government with its law enforcement and national security purposes, not "dismantling" it. In fact, it proposes moving offices to the FBI: Office of Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction be moved to the FBI.
 * Project 2025's Mandate on Commerce: The above policies, strategies, and tactics will set a new Administration on firm footing that allows the Department of Commerce to assist the President in implementing a bold agenda that delivers economic prosperity and strong national security to the American people. Again, we see proposals from Proj 2025 to move offices to the supposedly "eliminated" department: Move ED’s statistical office, the National Commission for Education Statistics (NCES), to the Department of Commerce’s Census Bureau.
 * 2. The lead also claims Project 2025 plans on slashing funding for the Department of Justice. This also lacks any basis in the Mandate, which has numerous policy ideas on expanding DOJ focuses that would logically require additional funding, including massive priorities like border security. The most direct reference to any price tag are the billions spent on Office of Justice Programs grants, which the Mandate expresses support for as potentially highly effective in implementing the President’s priorities.
 * 3. The lead claims Project 2025 plans on ending the independence of federal agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC). This is also unsupported. The Project's text on independent regulatory agencies explicitly states they exist, their constitutional legitimacy has generally been upheld by the courts, and there will be an opportunity for the next Administration to use them as forces for good, particularly by making wise appointments. The FCC chapter (Ch28) does not discuss anything about taking away its status as an independent agency, while the FTC chapter (Ch30), directly contradicts the lead's claim and rebuts conservative thinkers who advocate to eliminate independent agencies.
 * 4. The lead mentions content about the Insurrection Act by shoehorning in Jeffery Clark: immediately deploy the military for domestic law enforcement by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807. There's literally nothing in the Mandate about the insurrection Act. Even the cited Wapo article quotes Heritage's spox as saying There are no plans within Project 2025 related to the Insurrection Act. This is at the very least clearly undue and POV-pushing.
 * And all of this is just from picking up a few suspect items in the lead and bothering to trace them down. KiharaNoukan (talk) 10:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, the subject of this article is the project itself, not just the mandate they have released, and about what has been published about the project. Also, we can only use primary sources in a limited way, and sparingly, for establishing basic, uncontroversial facts. We rely instead on independent, secondary reliable sources that give the subject significant mention (be that for, against, or neutrally worded), applying due weight to different viewpoints. It's clear that the aims of those involved in the project go way further than what they're willing to commit to paper in the mandate itself.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   10:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Those involved in the project are fine with admitting that they wish to dismantle and eliminate the Department of Education and Homeland Security, but intrepid journalists found out, with no details or sourcing given, that they hid away their real plans for the FBI and Department of Commerce and completely made up a comprehensive policy outline to mask their true objectives? Secondary RS is a general policy to be applied as a rule of thumb, sure, but as even the RS policy page mentions: Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis.
 * For items 1-3 that fail on issues of basic fact, there is nothing to explain the considerable contradiction given, there is no detail to the claims in any of the sourcing. They're thrown in as a one-liner that is never elaborated on and even seemingly ignored. Let's take the Guardian article being cited for item 1. It claims that Project 2025 prioritizes "dismantling the FBI". It also simultaneously claims that Project 2025 will "install trusted loyalists in top posts at the DoJ and the FBI, permitting Trump more leeway to exact revenge on foes" and quotes Michael Bromwich, who is also quoted in the body of this wikipedia article, as saying "The plans being developed by members of Trump's cult to turn the DOJ and FBI into instruments of his revenge". Somehow, the dismantled FBI is being used as a tool of revenge, and this contradiction is even given play in this very wikipedia article,
 * Given how little focus, elaboration, or even outright contradiction, the articles being cited give to these contentious points, this should at least derank them from a presence in the lead. KiharaNoukan (talk) 11:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no contradiction between dismantling the FBI and using it as an instrument of revenge. The intent is to dismantle the FBI as it currently exists and rebuild it with all Trump/Far-Right loyalists as a dark mockery of its former self. Dismantle to bare bones then rebuild corrupt, no contradiction. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Do any of the sources claim that this is what they mean? Why isn't the DOJ being referred to as "dismantled"? The cited sources say they're being used the same way. Or really all the executive agencies, since they're all being changed from "as they currently exist" and rebuilt with loyalists. Why is the Department of Homeland Security referred to as being dismantled? For DHS, Project 2025 unambiguously and clearly states that they're doing away with it and pushing its offices to other executive departments. I think your speculation is a case in point of the problem I'm pointing out, there's literally nothing of substance behind these bare statements (since they don't accord with reality), and as a result, we have content in the lead that makes little to no sense without reading in equivocation. KiharaNoukan (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the solution is to complicate 'dismantle' to 'fully subvert the FBI to the president's will by purging employees not unquestioningly loyal to the Project 2025 agenda'? Although that seems a bit wordy for an already very long lead. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Scratch previous, 'take partisan control of' is shorter and more accurate to Project 2025's self-stated purpose. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The cited Guardian article's (attributed) criticisms are already covered in the lead's Other critics believe Project 2025 is rhetorical window dressing for what would be four years of personal vengeance at any cost. The inaccurate descriptors should be deleted, wrt the FBI, Commerce, FTC, etc., with an option to reinstate upon an accurate breakdown of what their proposals actually are. Notably, this does exist for DHS, which is mentioned correctly as being targeted for dismantling, and this is in the body of the article, which actually substantively describes how the dismantling occurs with redistribution of its offices, and has RS attesting as much. KiharaNoukan (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So, I think most of these problems can be solved by just converting 'slash funding'/'dismantle'/etc. to 'take partisan control of'. Most of Project 2025's authors and contributors seem to have been pretty transparent about their overall intent to bring the country to within arm's reach of being a Republican controlled one-party state. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Dubbed “Project 2025,” the group is developing a plan, to include draft executive orders, that would deploy the military domestically under the Insurrection Act, according to a person involved in those conversations and internal communications reviewed by The Washington Post. Seems to pretty directly support inclusion of the content regarding the Insurrection Act, the Heritage Foundation's denial on the subject looks 'of course he would say that' to me. Do we have any source that proves, unequivocally, that the Washington Post made up theirs? Largely Legible Layman (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * (FCC) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC)... there will be an opportunity for the next Administration to use them as forces for good, particularly by making wise appointments. Translation in keeping with the language in use throughout Project 2025's distributed materials: take partisan control of. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It would be an improvement sure, but this is covered in paragraph 1 of the lead: Project 2025, also known as the Presidential Transition Project, is a collection of conservative policy proposals from the Heritage Foundation to reshape the United States federal government in the event of a Republican Party victory in the 2024 presidential election. Established in 2022, the project has been most notable for how it aims to achieve its objectives. It proposes reclassifying tens of thousands of merit-based federal civil servant jobs as political appointees in order to replace them with loyal conservatives to further the objectives of the next Republican president. I'm not sure it's particularly due to fill the lead by mentioning that the plan about reshaping the federal government to align with partisan priorities involves federal agency XYZ being reshaped by a new administration to align with partisan priorities. DHS being dismantled is due and prominent, because that is actually what is happening to it and is covered in detail. For other items, they're covered by existing language and can be added if/when RS actually reports on them as a matter of prominence. KiharaNoukan (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable, we could cut out the lead's second paragraph and allow the body of the article to speak for itself, since the first paragraph summarizes the whole plan really. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * cut out the lead's second paragraph: I'd maybe get consensus for such a bold edit first. There are a number of experienced editors working on this article who might advise.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   19:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I oppose efforts to demote secondary sources in favor of a primary source just because one editor thinks reliable sources are somehow unreliable in this specific article. soibangla (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For the proposed dismantling of the lede, see .  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   20:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Paragraph two is definitely very messy right now. I would at least merge P2's The project's authors also admitted that most of the proposals would require controlling both chambers of congress. Other aspects of the plan have recently been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and would face court challenges. While others still are norm-breaking proposals that might survive court challenges. to P1 and cut out a lot of the items that are repeated in the lead, questionably due, questionable in accuracy, or just generally fail to follow or contradict the body. KiharaNoukan (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned, the issues with that are issues of it being due and POV presented in the lead. The WaPo article mentions this as an idea in development at the time of their reviewing, which is not backed up by the blueprint and is rebutted by Heritage. KiharaNoukan (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And in these comments we can find all source for the bias… 72.199.230.29 (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This reliance on secondary sources reveals how opinions are laundered as facts.
 * The information, presented as fact, is nested in links, which are nested in agenda driven biases.
 * The simple truth-seeker is being persuaded. Ummreally? (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is designed as a summary of reliable sources. Thus, we follow what reliable sources say, unless other reliable sources directly contradict. As said below, this has not been shown. If you have a problem with the sources (in the case of dismantling, sources [10] and [12]), take it up with the sources, and ask WP:RSN if needed. Aaron Liu  (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out in my original comment with the OR example in this article of how secondary sourcing can be misused and lead to poor outcomes, simply because you can push a secondary source, that isn't enough to justify its inclusion in the lead of all places in whatever manner one might wish.
 * Wikipedia does indeed follow what the RS says, it also follows WP:DUE, WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, among other items. If you followed along with the discussion prior to your comment, you might note that I pointed out that there is nothing substantive or prominent in RS about the problematic entries for items like how the lead characterizes the FBI and Dept of Commerce, vs say a more accurate characterization for DHS, which has a section in the body with RS that actually explain and focus on just how it is being dismantled. By contrast, the RS that discusses the problematic entries I point out leave them as unexplained and insignificant one-liner blurbs that are clearly not due for the lead, and have nothing of substance to elaborate on.
 * And yes, the RS does contradict. The very Guardian article cited for the point about the FBI contradicts itself, saying it will simultaneously be dismantled and utilized as a tool of revenge. The lead not only fails to follow the body, it contradicts it here, as we have the more substantive claims about FBI weaponization, as well as details about how the FBI should focus on serious crimes and threats to national security clashing with the blurbs featured in the lead about FBI dismantling. KiharaNoukan (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is why i take Wikipedia articles with a grain of salt. Sometimes the edits are done by people who clearly have a bias, right or left and done by people who don't know how to conduct proper research and understanding what a reliable source is for that matter. It's quite strange that CNN can be reliable while Fox News can't. JBurris123 (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Some further reading for you: Reliable sources/Perennial sources. You'll find CNN and Fox News (politics and science) listed there, among others, with an explanation and links to prior discussions about the reliability of such sources.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   14:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please tell us which sources you consider "editorial"s. Nearly none of the sources cited are labeled as opinions, and yes, we would use them to cite the Magna Carta. Due to their extreme bias and potential to misrepresent facts, Primary sources are usually avoided. Even then, reference #2 is a direct link to the Project's website's playbook. Aaron Liu  (talk) 02:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Primary sources should be avoided when reporting on what happened. Conversely, when a PS says, "This is our plan," and a secondary source says, "Yeah, that's what they say, but what they really want is that," the secondary source should be soundly rejected. What makes the secondary source able to read minds? Abrothman (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 *  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   13:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * oftentimes what primary sources don't say can be more important than what they do say, and that is very likely in highly political matters like this. lies of omission. that's why we have journalists to talk to people, examine documents and such. and that's why we rely mostly on secondary sources. soibangla (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I second this. This article completely disregards the guidelines that are normally applied to other pages, most specifically biases and twisted interpretations of the material sourced.
 * And people wonder why most secondary schools bar their students from using Wikipedia as a reference point. What could have been the best source on the internet has simply become a playground for armchair activists with control issues. It's sad. Секретное общество (talk) 04:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , please provide an example of how This article completely disregards the guidelines that are normally applied to other pages
 * the reason modern-day teachers discourage students from using Wikipedia is the same reason they discouraged students of my youth from using the World Book Encyclopedia. they are teaching research and critical reasoning skills, not copying skills. soibangla (talk) 05:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m not a big user of WP. This article alone has made me questioned the credibility and neutrality of its information. I expected an unbiased presentation of facts without shades of bias. Ravogan (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Beyond basic facts in the primary sources, Wikipedia is reliant on significant mention of a subject in independent, secondary reliable sources, and to present it in a neutral manner, giving due weight to different perspectives. In this case, it is hard to find much support in reliable sources. That's just the way it actually is, at this point in time.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   15:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Look at the edits and you will see a clear and open ideologically motivated history. A neutral description of the goals of the article is not allowed to be added and is repeatedly removed for no reason. Bringjustthefactsplease (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * These four goals convey basically no actionable information and have not nearly been covered as much as other aspects picked up in the lede. The "philosophical outlook" is the overview of the aims and goals and where this info belongs. Aaron Liu  (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * An understanding of the primary goals of why the article was written to start with is core to defining and understanding a document.
 * The goals of a document belong early in the description of a document. Its an integral component of describing a document.
 * Waiting to tell the reader what the authors primary aims of a document even are until pages into the article is highly unusual and unacceptable. Bringjustthefactsplease (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. You can already get a general feel of what the thing wants to do in the lede with concrete examples of the most well-known policies, which are way more useful than an organization's mission statement. We have descriptions of changes to the administration, policies against immigration and for border control, etc. 2. We have the table of contents for a reason. If someone wants to check an overview of the goals, they can just click on the section, which by the way is very prominent as the first indented heading. Aaron Liu  (talk) 01:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's absurd to not know what the authors intended goal of a document is until multiple pages into an article. Why are you actually opposed to simply having a neutral description of the goal of the article in the introduction? E.g. You believe it is reasonable to not tell a reader what the authors of the US constitution set out to do when writing until multiple pages in? You believe the goals of the magna Carta should occur multiple pages into an article? Bringjustthefactsplease (talk) 04:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am opposed to having it in the introduction because 1. there are a lot of other, much more important things that made this notable covered widely 2. these are basically the goals of conservatism in the USA, which the introduction already says in the first sentence 3. the main goal of what analysts have found, to consolidate power in the event of an election win, is already in the first sentence. As we have said repeatedly, reliable sources, preferably secondary, shape the truth here at Wikipedia. It's also just two flips in, man, it's not buried that deep. Aaron Liu  (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's absurd to not want to include the goals of a document in the introduction. It launches into what some of the policy proposals without even explaining the goals of the article. Again, this is extremely unusual. Look at any other description of a document on Wikipedia and it will include the aims of the document in the definition. Bringjustthefactsplease (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Apart from anything else, this article is about Project 2025, not just the Mandate they have published.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   19:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The goal of the project is in the very first sentence: reshape the United States federal government and consolidate executive power. The "four points" from the BBC article are just boilerplate conservative platitudes and buzzwords, not the actual goals. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * > The "four points" from the BBC article are just boilerplate conservative platitudes and buzzwords
 * They are quite literally the stated aims of the document: it's in the forward of the document. BBC has simply condensed them. This is literally a neutral description of the goals the authors had in mind as they crafted the document. Bringjustthefactsplease (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The Project 2025 Mandate for Leadership document outlines four main aims: restore the family as the centerpiece of American life; dismantle the administrative state; defend the nation’s sovereignty and borders; and secure God-given individual rights to live freely.
 * Aim one is conservative boilerplate/code for Christian Nationalism, aim two is arguably the document's genuine goal, aim three is definitely conservative boilerplate, and aim four is the same as the first. These are just carrots being dangled in front of far-right-curious Americans to lure them into handing Project 2025's backers a very big stick. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * > These are just carrots being dangled in front of far-right-curious Americans to lure
 * You've just acknowledged that you're quite literally using your own personal opinion as motivation behind these edits. Bringjustthefactsplease (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * One, I have acknowledged no such thing, merely stated fact as presented by Project 2025's own backers. Two, what edits? I have barely touched this article at all. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * LLL, rebutting the inclusion of those points in the lead by reference to their political purpose as you have done appears to be WP:SYNTH. Riposte97 (talk) 09:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We have offered much stronger rebuttals already. Aaron Liu  (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Your going to have to go redefine Christian Nationalism for us all. CPAC and the heritage foundation are expressing values that were written up as main stream conservative 15 years ago in the same sources.  Wikipedia pushes through the emotional state sources have after SCOTUS stuck down Roe.   That the media sources has moved a direction, may we say the leaned in,  must be considered before putting in Heritage Foundation in yet another bucket, other than a conservative think tank focused on public policy. 2601:248:C000:147A:65ED:6A88:446:6D35 (talk) 09:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but all Wikipedia does is summarize those mainstream sources you hate. Aaron Liu  (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * These four points are fine where they now are, at Policies -> Philosophical outlook.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   20:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. While there are dozens of opinions from pundits inserted into the article, yhe article itself has very little neutral information about the project. It didn't even include the four main aims of the project until yesterday. Bringjustthefactsplease (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * These "pundits" are all Reliable sources. Like it or not, we're just an echo chamber of reliable sources as many issues have arisen from not just following reliable sources in the past. Aaron Liu  (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So the article doesn't attempt to give any neutral description or summary of the document in the introduction. At all. I have added a neutral and sourced introduction to the goals of the document and it has been removed twice with no reason given. Bringjustthefactsplease (talk) 21:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Side note: Please assume good faith rather than giving other editors here talk page warnings for "POV Vandalism".  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   21:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Here at Wikipedia, an echo chamber of reliable source, the highest standard of neutrality we can strive for is to cover every single thing proportional to how much they are covered in reliable sources. Everything else is too subjective. Aaron Liu  (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Each thing in this article is not covered.
 * For example A neutral description of the project from BBC has been removed three times with no stated rationale. The centrist statement is cited, from a reputable source, but is not permitted to be included.
 * See revision 1232604299 in which the stated rationale for removing a centrist perspective is "not everything that is sourced belongs in the lede" Bringjustthefactsplease (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please see my reply above. Aaron Liu  (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Your reply did not address why this was removed multiple times. Clear ideological bias in editing is occuring. Bringjustthefactsplease (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please, let's keep discussion on the same thing in one place.As for bias, the way we measure that is to take the average of all reliable sources. So by definition, that isn't biased. Otherwise, we'd have many philosophers arguing over what really is bias with no definite conclusion. Aaron Liu  (talk) 00:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So if a majority of “reliable sources” project a bias then there is no bias? Got it.  Next stop 1984. 2001:48F8:3024:1824:10A0:FBB:EBB1:6A11 (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes.If you want a reason, it's because we don't think we are well-equipped to judge bias ourselves instead of having an opinion delivered by a consensus as a group at WP:RSN. You may see Perennial proposals. Aaron Liu  (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources, and many people on the CIA payroll, gave us Hunter Laptop is Disinformation.  Perhaps we should put this article on hold until 2027 and use the sources about that material after they actualy see is what is Project 2025.  You know the republicans have to pass Project 2025 so you can see what is in Project 2025. 2601:248:C000:147A:65ED:6A88:446:6D35 (talk) 09:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTCENSORED Aaron Liu  (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , if you continue to insist there are dozens of opinions from pundits inserted into the article, I suggest the POV here may be yours. soibangla (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As someone who just came across this today, and who read the article.
 * THIS IS THE MOST BIASED SWILL I'VE SEEN ON WIKIPEDIA. There is absolutely no counter balance here. Right after the first line onward it is only sources which say negative things. There is no alternate view. THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION IS BIG AND JUST AS BIG AS SOME OF THE SOURCES THAT "DEBUNK IT"...
 * This is blatent swill, and whoever keeps editing the article back is committing misinformation. THIS WHOLE ARTICLE BREAKS THE PILLARS. The whole thing is only meant to give FALSE AUTHORITY to the idea that "this plan is bad" with zero consideration to some of the good things that might be in it or about some of the HOTLY CONTESTED POLICY POSITIONS... over 50% of the country supports Trump and the GOP, it's been a close race for YEARS. Why are we biased on something like this so heavily when clearly there is NO AUTHORITATIVE CONSENSUS HERE AT ALL. Why the false objectivity?
 * I don't think I will ever trust wikipedia again... as Ive looked at other articles and noted the same trend. Terrible. Subcomfreak (talk) 03:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I encourage you to contribute reliable sources that include favorable coverage of the project. I have looked and looked but haven't found much of anything. I don't see Republicans holding press conferences to rally behind the project. I don't see podcasters other than Steve Bannon and his guests cheering for it. I have seen Trump campaign managers asking the project to stop talking about it, and now Trump has disavowed it. in my experience this suggests that a proposal just isn't very popular across the spectrum, and might even be considered political poison in an election year. soibangla (talk) 04:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Apparently Wikipedia doesn't actually describe documents in neutral language like a encyclopedia would. They will only permit content written *about* the document. So instead of focusing on what the content of the document is, they only really allow second hand articles describing people talking about the document. Bringjustthefactsplease (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, because it's too easy for an editor to just make stuff up when they claim to be describing something. Aaron Liu  (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree, this is heavily biased article and the context is more of an op-ed vs. factual in several areas. Reverend tdeath (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, the answer to that is: find some independent, secondary reliable sources that give the subject significant mention, and that are supportive of Project 2025.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   15:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a bias opinion.There are also no articles to back this up. 2601:CD:C500:CB30:30A6:F231:4FE4:AAF8 (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Also adding to this, it's very generous to use the term "maximalist" when it should be "radical" regarding the comment on unitary theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.12.96.202 (talk • contribs)

This is more than just exhibiting bias, this is electioneering and phrased like an attack ad. NPOV has been completely discarded Washusama (talk) 07:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The article follows the available sources. Can you provide any news sources which praise the project? I've looked, but right-wing sources seem to be treating it like a hot potato. Nobody seems to want to come out in explicit support for it. Skyerise (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Editing or removing the weasel words and snarl words in non quotes and notes and minimize the use of quotes that use such language would fix much in this article without needing a right wing source (although finding a moderate republican who discusses this would be nice but probably too much to hope for), tone is important for an encyclopedia article it is not a debate it is supposed to be a dispassionate summary of the facts about a subject. Washusama (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting we use scarequotes? They are discouraged on Wikipedia. Quotations should include context. And re your last sentence, no, it's supposed to be a summary of what the secondary sources say about the subject. I think the article does a pretty good job of covering that. If the majority of sources take a particular view of the subject, that will necessarily be reflected in the article. Unless there are other sources which reflect a different view. Certainly the introduction of such sources, if they exist, might make the article more to your liking, but it's up to you to find and suggest them. And there is a moderate Republican source listed in further reading but not cited in the article yet. Guess what? He's agin' it too! Skyerise (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Why are we relying on unverified anonymous sources?
No where in the entire PDF is the insurrection act ever mentioned.

the only mention we have of that is the word of an unverified anonymous source the Washington post said they have. We are putting in there as fact and adding citations that do not match.

use the primary source of what they plan to do don’t make it up. I’ve continually made the edit to clarify and it keeps being removed. Mmueller918 (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * WaPo reported "...according to a person involved in those conversations and internal communications reviewed by The Washington Post."
 * we cannot rely exclusively on what a controversial organization tells us, or does not tell us. that's why we have journalists, and we use them as our sources here. soibangla (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * we also can’t just take an anonymous source as fact, we have to clarify Mmueller918 (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * you are flatly wrong on policy. I recommend you self-revert your removal soibangla (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I will not. The current version speaks as if it’s fact when all we have is an unverified source. This is a wild accusation that should not be listed as fact.
 * If you feel it should be mentioned the caveat that it’s unverified should be mention. I will not be taking your suggestion. Mmueller918 (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * you ignore that WaPo is not relying solely on an unidentified source. the fact an editor dislikes unidentified sources does not negate the reality that WaPo is a reliable source.
 * soibangla (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * they are relying on the unidentified source who supposedly provided them internal documents. we should not be reporting it as fact, when we don't know.
 * say that this is from an anonymous source or don’t use it Mmueller918 (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Why not just use the original source material instead of opinion pieces disguised as news articles? The Project 2025 PDF is widely available. 47.201.30.31 (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please read the thread, and check out Wikipedia policy on reliable sources.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   14:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The Washington Post is a reliable source. Find it listed at WP:RSPSS. The opinions of the contributors of Project 2025 on related matters, even if not found directly in the PDF, is relevant and might be included. Nerd271 (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It reeks of bias by writing it as fact Mmueller918 (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is an opinion of a Project 2025 contributor. Nerd271 (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * According to an anonymous source Mmueller918 (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You are misinterpreting the function of WP:RSPSS. The Washington Post is a reliable source and correctly listed as such. Being listed as a reliable source allows the source to be validly cited on Wikipedia. It does not, however, preclude additional information and context of how the Washington Post obtained their information from being included in the article. The OP's edit on the main page did not in any way call into question the validity of the WP as a source, but only included additional, uncontroversial information that the WP themselves reported as how they obtained the information.
 * There is no reason why his edit should have been removed. It is true information that the Washington Post (a reliable source) reported. The only possible justification would be on the grounds that such information isn't relevant to the article, but it clearly is.
 * This edit should be restored and I will likely do it myself (in some capacity) in the future if not done. Just10A (talk) 23:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Edit: I realize now by the dates that this conversation might have been had due to an orignal, more controversial edit by OP regarding the Washington Post. My above comment only pertains to OPs most recent edit on 6/22/24 regarding the same topic. Just10A (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * "According to an anonymous source with The Washington Post" is only a partial truth, and it was originally reverted by multiple editors and repeatedly reinstated (this was an edit war). At the time, Mmueller918 was also labouring under the misapprehension that such material should not be included because the Insurrection Act was not mentioned in the project's mandate (pdf) and that we should use what the mandate says. It was pointed out that the project and their mandate are primary sources that have limited uncontroversial application; that we rely on independent, reliable, secondary sources; and that, in any case, the article is about the project as a whole, including its mandate, not just the mandate. The reversions were not punative, but used to have these issues discussed on the talk page.
 * If this is to be included, then we should really fully qualify the sentence: "According to an anonymous source and internal communications reviewed by The Washington Post ..." (which implies that the unnamed source was not unverified, as alleged, and the original might be read as casting doubt on the veracity of the report).  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   09:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. Such a sentence completely encapsulates the situation with the Washington Post and gives full context. Just10A (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

"Conservative" vs. "right-wing"
The policy proposals can be more accurately described as "conservative" than "right-wing". The Heritage Foundation is described as "conservative", and "Conservatism in the United States" is the right concept to link to, not "right-wing politics". DenverCoder19 (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Why do you say "conservative" is more accurate than "right wing"? It's my understanding that both are correct but that "right wing" is more general as well as being more neutral TiddiesTiddiesTiddies (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Conservative is traditionally more neutral, I would say, but times change, as does politics alongside it, and "Conservative" has become more of a euphemism used by the right. Speaking only for myself, I would say that Project 2025 is more populist and radical than traditional conservativism, and that "right-wing" would be a more accurate term. But, of course, this is Wikipedia.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   13:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Esowteric makes good points here. The term "Conservative" is used euphemistically these days and the article should avoid using that term for clarity's sake. The report is written with no real definition of what "Conservative" means. There is plenty of tone in the report that seems to equate "Conservative" with "good" and that everything proposed in the plan is truly "Conservative" without substantiation of those assertions. Calling your organization "Conservative" or your report "Conservative" does not mean either characterization is correct. For example, freedom of religious practice without government interference might be considered conservative, while emphasizing the importance of a particular religion might be right-wing. See, for example: "The Judeo-Christian tradition, stretching back to Genesis, has always recognized fruitful work as integral to human dignity, as service to God, neighbor, and family.", Project 2025, p581. Jeffme (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Heritage Foundation is the title sponsor of CPAC  ( Per Wikipedia -- Conservative Political Action Conference, an annual gathering of conservative activists in the United States, and/or associated activities in other countries)
 * Right Wing and Left Wing is another dimension of US politics, you may be mixing the terms with what you think you know about EU parties. 2601:248:C000:147A:65ED:6A88:446:6D35 (talk) 09:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems more like neo-Nazi to me.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 03:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * right-wing - it is a more precise description given the amount of coverage documenting Heritage Foundation's shift farther to the right and away from the more euphemistic conservative label. Will make these changes given this consensus Superb Owl (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Esterau16 and @Bringjustthefactsplease, please discuss here why you think 'conservative' should describe those Project 2025 aims to hire, the project, etc. The consensus so far is that it's not a precise description and more of a euphemism given that while some policies are conservative, others (the ones getting most of the discussion) are more right-wing authoritarian. I am going to remove stand-alone conservative adjectives from the lede (seems ok if paired with right-wing) until this consensus changes. Please do not edit war anymore on this issue. Superb Owl (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * More than 90% of sources describe it as a conservative project. What should be discussed here? And in any case, both conservatism and right-wing should be named. Esterau16 (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * (updated) I started a running list of how various reliable sources describe the project/policies here. I don't know where the 90% estimate comes from but it's not born out in the data I've started collecting Superb Owl (talk) 05:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Why are most sources news articles ?
Many lines describing extreme proposals using heated language are sourced to news sites reporting on the Projects plans? Why is the source not the project itself and what it claims to do? 85.76.118.181 (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The project itself and their mandate are primary sources. Wikipedia instead needs independent, secondary reliable sources that give significant coverage of the subject (whether they are "for", "against", or more neutral). See WP:GOLDENRULE.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   13:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In general, we should ignore the headlines except for the key words and pay closer attention to the body, assuming that the news article comes from a reliable source. As Wikipedia editors, we should then extract as much usable information from them and leave aside the opinions, except when such opinions come from notable persons, such as, in this case, those involved in Project 2025. Nerd271 (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have seen several Wikipedia discussions over the last couple of years that headlines must be ignored since a) they often do not accurately summarize an article's content b) they are not provided by the journalists, but by their editors. Dimadick (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In general, we should ignore the headlines except for the key words and pay closer attention to the body, assuming that the news article comes from a reliable source. As Wikipedia editors, we should then extract as much usable information from them and leave aside the opinions, except when such opinions come from notable persons, such as, in this case, those involved in Project 2025. Nerd271 (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have seen several Wikipedia discussions over the last couple of years that headlines must be ignored since a) they often do not accurately summarize an article's content b) they are not provided by the journalists, but by their editors. Dimadick (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The aim is to write an article from a neutral point of view, giving due weight to differing viewpoints expressed in the available reliable sources.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   13:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Why is the source not the project"
 * Because… that's how Wikipedia works. NewkirkPlaza (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC) NewkirkPlaza (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And that's a good way to excuse a biased article. Only left-leaning news is talking about this, so all the sources are from left-leaning newspapers like New Republic. Especially some of the language the header uses, like "many legal experts say" when it cites political opinion columns by investigative journalists, is dreadfully misleading. Also, you can use primary sources on Wikipedia if the quotation is direct and descriptive. Just not primary sources alone. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "Only left-leaning news is talking about this..."
 * Heritage.org
 * Washington Examiner
 * FOX NEWS
 * New York Post
 * National Review
 * OAN
 * Wallstreet Journal
 * Breitbart "Biden assails Project 2025, a plan to transform government, and Trump’s claim to be unaware of it" July 7th 2024
 * DN (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * None of these sources are quoted in the article. All the sources are from left-leaning newspapers. Suddenly you pullout these sources when the bias is called out, but the coverage bias is still in the article. Also, every single one of those except the primary source is denying the former president's involvement, and are a reaction to the left-leaning coverage in the news cycle on this issue. To deny my statement, you're pulling out information that would not have existed just three days ago, months into that news cycle. Furthermore, users in other discussions noted that these statements are not newsworthy on the issue, but now that they're convenient, I guess they're suddenly newsworthy again. And yes, quoting a user and spamming unrelated links in response to contradict them, and masking the nature of those links by using text display reads as bad faith. But I'll assume you simply searched the topic in right-wing news and pulled every seemingly relevant article you could find without considering the subject or chronological context. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "All told, journalist Judd Legum documented how 31 of the 38 people who helped write or edit the project served in some manner in Trump’s administration or transition." Project 2025: inside Trump’s ties to the rightwing policy playbook: Trump has disavowed the manifesto, but his goals for civil service cuts, deportation and more show a shared vision.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   18:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry? I'm not sure what that has to do with an incidental coverage slant, and whether the article underutilizes primary sources. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, it illustrates one of the reasons that we don't automatically trust what primary sources have to say about themselves, and illustrates the way that reports and investigative journalism in the so-called "fake media" (secondary sources) may help us discover the actual truth of a matter.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   19:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Primary sources can be used to give an accurate picture of the topic. Or, for example, it can make sure a quote is accurate. The Op was talking about heated language, and I agree with them there. A quotation should not be made of a primary source from a secondary source in order to make the primary source say something it does not nominally intend. Our job isn't to make sure nobody falls for misrepresentation of intention by the primary source, but that information is presented encyclopedically. There seems to be an overabundance of caution here about what the narrative is, rather than a priority on sharing the facts. In that case, I think readers who come here wanting to learn more about the issue want to know if claims from secondary sources are demonstrably true. It's easy enough to find secondary sources anywhere else, and people come to Wikipedia looking for a brief on the facts. IronMaidenRocks (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Charts/graphs proposal
Wanted to get support before embarking on a mission to: find charts/graphs that show analysis from reliable sources of what the policies proposed would do (e.g. to the deficit) and not just show the problem they are saying they will solve (e.g. a chart of the growing debt over time).

Is this something that would generally be welcomed? Superb Owl (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Well, with one proviso: We don't hunt around to find material to support our original research or what we want to say. That's backwards and may stray into synthesis and a form of editorialising. We find reliable sources and fairly represent, and build the article using, what they have actually have to say on the subject (Project 2025).  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   08:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I support this opinion. Nerd271 (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * as a passionate chart enthusiast, I tend to think this article is not suitable for charts, or a pic of a lunch tray, for that matter soibangla (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed - it's so difficult to create a chart with a NPOV on a topic like this. Is there consensus for removing the maps and charts already on this article before proposing any replacements? Superb Owl (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I came here to make note of the lunch tray photo - I'd love to hear from @Nerd271 or some of the more motivated editors here as to what they think a photo of a lunch tray is adding to an article about politics. 162.222.63.62 (talk) 12:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It gives an illustration of what a free or subsidized school lunch should look like. I can replace it with a graph of student loan debt if people want. Both school lunches and student debts are mentioned by Project 2025. Nerd271 (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed removal of TikTok Map and Trade deficit chart as WP:Undue weight, notability
TikTok map: the plan called for a ban of TikTok nationwide when released in 2023 but as of 2024 Trump opposes a ban. This does not seem to be one of the most notable aspects of the plan given the lack of alignment.

Trade deficit chart also is one where there is not much coverage, probably in part because the plan offers two completely different paths to take around trade. Superb Owl (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Re. TikTok, if the project plan mentions or infers a nationwide ban on TikTok, then that's what we go with, until they change their plan. What Trump has to say about this or other issues does not alter the content of the actual plan (or reactions and responses to the plan), which is the subject of this article. We shouldn't treat the plan as being written in the past, because it will be "enacted" in the future, in 2025 and beyond. Hence, in certain circumstances (eg reviews, the mandate), it's usual to write "X is of the opinion that ...", "Y writes ...".  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   18:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What we shouldn't do is use graphics where the topic is not mentioned in the project plan or in reactions and responses; and not use graphics to present our own "fact check" of what has been said. But that doesn't preclude the use of neutral material.  Esowteric  +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   18:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed on all accounts - what do you think of removing these two graphics due to the idea that we shouldn't be highlighting particular aspects of a plan that are not the most notable (ie not receiving the most news coverage for this plan)? Superb Owl (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's see what other editors here have to say on this issue first. As for due or undue weight, I think that's something to consider overall, but I don't think we should play down individual policy sub-sections just because they haven't received as much media attention. And I don't think that we should assess each sub-section in terms of notability. Overall notability has been more-than-well established and I don't think it applies to bits and pieces of an article.
 * Not sure how to word this, really, (my mind is elsewhere on other works-in-progress) so hopefully others can help me out here.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   20:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:Bold removal of TikTok map. See related discussion: Talk:Restrictions on TikTok in the United States Superb Owl (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * They should stay. Some participants of Project 2025 (and the person they support, Donald Trump) are concerned about U.S. trade deficits. At the same time, Project 2025 in no uncertain terms call TikTok a threat. That map gives a bit of context. (Is it just Project 2025 or are there more people who think this way?) Nerd271 (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) @Nerd271, the map shows a policy issue that is already implemented at the federal level (banning TikTok on government devices). It does not show the proposed policy of a TikTok ban enacted at the state level (which I agree would be relevant). This seems to be excessive detail or off-topic. 2) It is Original Research - there is not a source that mentions all the states included in the map that categorizes each state by 'enacting official' Superb Owl (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Seriously? You have already asked where the sources in a invisible comment and I have already answered your question. You can find them here. That's where the original creator of the map got the data. Information does not exist in a vacuum. This is why a bit of context here and there is desirable. (A reader not well-versed in the news might ask, "Is Project 2025 alone in its concern over TikTok?") Nerd271 (talk) 23:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Nerd271, those individual sources still represent WP:OR because of how they are being classified by 'enacting official' by the Wikipedia user that made that map but not by secondary sources themselves. Would you be open to requesting a third opinion on this issue? Superb Owl (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You are talking about a single issue on two separate talk pages. Keep it over there, please! Nerd271 (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think these should stay out of the article. In the case of a thumbnail image of a person, for example, the thumbnail is merely illustrating the subject. But in the case of a graph or chart, it is presenting the reader with information. As such, in this case, presenting it to the reader would be a bit of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Encyclopedic information must be verifiable, but there is nothing linking the specific information in these images to the information presented in the article, without WP:SYNTH, which should be avoided. Hist9600 (talk) 01:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Hist9600, @Soibangla and myself have taken a stance against these charts on this talk page (and the trend is against the TikTok map, which was removed from another article for similar reasons). @Nerd271 has advocated for keeping the charts/maps. Is it safe to remove them at this point? Does anyone else want to weigh-in? Superb Owl (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If people are talking about trade deficits, then it makes sense to show a graph of trade deficits. Information does not exist in a vacuum. Without context, things are hard to understand. Nerd271 (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

is there any real sources other than news articles?
I scrolled through the sources and saw news article after news article. I did not see the actual Heratige Foundation, or an interview with anyone named in here. With the thousands of articles I could have overlooked it, so I am here to ask. is this just a compilation of Trump haters in the media? 2601:2C3:CD01:1EC0:CEFF:4386:BD4F:7DA7 (talk) 12:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The news articles used as references are not "fake". They are independent, secondary, reliable sources that give significant mention of the subject (the project, not just their published mandate, and what has been published about the project). They can be for or against or more neutral to the project. The Heritage Foundation and those involved in the project are not "real", independent reliable sources here, they are primary sources, and we can only use primary sources sparingly for basic, uncontroversial facts (unless covered in secondary sources).  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   12:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The official Playbook, Mandate for Leadership, and other sources from the Heritage Foundation are cited 27 times in total either way. We have a "References" section for a reason. Aaron Liu  (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Shortened lead
Per Kihara's suggestions the lead would look something like this: Largely Legible Layman (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Project 2025, also known as the Presidential Transition Project, is a collection of conservative policy proposals from the Heritage Foundation to reshape the United States federal government in the event of a Republican Party victory in the 2024 presidential election. Established in 2022, the project has been most notable for how it aims to achieve its objectives. It proposes reclassifying tens of thousands of merit-based federal civil servant jobs as political appointees in order to replace them with loyal conservatives to further the objectives of the next Republican president. It also adopts a maximalist version of the unitary executive theory, a disputed interpretation of Article II of the Constitution of the United States, which asserts that the president has absolute power over the executive branch upon inauguration. Critics of Project 2025 have described this as an authoritarian, Christian nationalist plan to turn the United States into an autocracy. Several experts in law and conservatives have indicated that it would undermine the rule of law and the separation of powers and individual rights and freedoms. The project's authors also admitted that most of the proposals would require controlling both chambers of congress. Other aspects of the plan have recently been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and would face court challenges. While others still are norm-breaking proposals that might survive court challenges.

Project 2025 envisions widespread changes across the government, particularly economic and social policies and the role of the federal government and its agencies. It proposes dismantling the Departments of Education and Homeland Security, moving most of their offices and duties to other areas of the federal government. On energy and climate policy, Project 2025 favors fossil fuel production and opposes environmental and climate change regulations. The plan would implement multiple tax cuts as fiscal policy; it advocates for free banking and effectively abolishing the Federal Reserve, though Project 2025 authors are divided on whether to pursue protectionism. The plan seeks to position federal priorities and policies in opposition to abortion. On foreign policy, Project 2025 advocates for a national interest−focused approach, with a mix of interventionism and isolationism.

Paul Dans, the project's director, explained that Project 2025 is "systematically preparing to march into office and bring a new army, aligned, trained, and essentially weaponized conservatives ready to do battle against the deep state." Dans admitted it was "counterintuitive" to recruit so many to join the government to shrink it, but pointed out the need for a future president to "regain control" of the government. Some conservatives and Republicans also criticized the plan for its stance on climate change and foreign trade. Other critics believe Project 2025 is rhetorical window dressing for what would be four years of personal vengeance at any cost.

Although the project cannot promote a specific presidential candidate due to the Johnson Amendment, many contributors have close ties to Donald Trump and his 2024 campaign. The Washington Post called the project the most detailed articulation of what Trump might do in a second term. While initially the Trump campaign said the project aligned well with their Agenda 47 proposals, the Project has increasingly annoyed the Trump campaign which has generally avoided specific policy proposals that can be used to criticize him.

Please explain briefly here, in this thread, what has been changed or omitted from the current incarnation of the lede.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   19:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Most of second paragraph has been dropped, because the first paragraph basically already summarizes the second.
 * The last two sentences of the second paragraph have been combined into the first paragraph.
 * The top half of the third paragraph was removed per Kihara's objections to the Insurrection Act content.(I dispute Kihara's objection, but I personally lack the evidence to refute it.)
 * A sentence regarding deportations and capital punishment was also removed because it to is broadly covered by the summary in the first paragraph and looked strange without the previously surrounding content.
 * I also removed one source, this was not intentional; I'm just sloppy and can't figure out how to put it back. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   20:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think some particular high impact items with substantive elaboration in the body can be specified. Two cabinet level departments being dismantled in and their offices shuffled should be due for lead. Broad-level policy summaries, such as climate change proposals for energy/climate, tax cuts for fiscal policy, disputed protectionism on trade policy, support for free banking on monetary policy, opposition to abortion, and national interest-focused foreign policy. Specific policy prescriptions like criminalizing pornography don't belong, they are dime-a-dozen and it makes little sense to choose one over the other to fill the lead. Content like National Institutes of Health (NIH) would be reformed along conservative principles and "taking partisan control" is obviously redundant and demonstrates nothing to someone who read P1.
 * I would include below as P2, I believe all of these items are generally reflected in the body as it stands. The only wholly new additions to the lead are foreign policy (old lead only had a couple references to foreign trade/protectionism) and the effective abolition of the Federal reserve via Free banking (Like eliminating DOE/DHS, this is significant enough on its own, probably moreso):
 * Project 2025 envisions widespread changes across the government, particularly economic and social policies and the role of the federal government and its agencies. It proposes dismantling the Departments of Education and Homeland Security, moving their offices and duties to other areas of the federal government. The plan would implement multiple tax cuts as fiscal policy. It advocates for free banking and effectively abolishing Federal Reserve. Project 2025 authors are divided on whether to pursue protectionism. On energy and climate policy, Project 2025 favors fossil fuel production and opposes environmental and climate change regulations. The plan seeks to position federal priorities and policies in opposition to abortion. On foreign policy, Project 2025 advocates for a national-interest focused approach, with a mix of interventionism and isolationism. KiharaNoukan (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this is a decent paragraph 2. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To me, it reads like whitewashing. All hint of dissenting voices and dangers have been removed.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   21:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Half of the first paragraph consists of wikivoice and attributed criticism of Project 2025. WRT the more policy focused criticisms, what if they were moved to P3? I think that fits with the Paul Dans quote, Heritage gives its take on what Project 2025 is about, critics give their take on Project 2025. KiharaNoukan (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Esowteric has a good point, the policies trend towards such generic repugnance when viewed from my perspective that I hadn't noticed the loss of dissent. Kihara's compromise to move dissent to paragraph-3 seems like it could be reasonable though. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well the point is to give an uncolored view of what the policies actually are. Everything I put in is largely reflective of content that is already in the body (and we can recycle the sources from them too). I think the only departure from language is "effectively abolishing the federal reserve" given the major policy implications of free banking that I use here vs body's "critical of the Federal Reserve". I think the existing criticisms can be added in after the Paul Dans quote. The "some conservatives" works for a transition from Dans: Some conservatives and Republicans also criticized the plan for its stance on climate change and foreign trade. Other critics believe Project 2025 is rhetorical window dressing for what would be four years of personal vengeance at any cost. KiharaNoukan (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So, you'd keep "climate change" and "foreign trade". But then which of the following deserves keeping in your view? And is that still an "uncolored view" if it's largely one-sided?
 * Project 2025 envisions widespread changes across the government, particularly economic and social policies and the role of the federal government and its agencies. The plan proposes taking partisan control of the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Commerce, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC), dismantling the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and sharply reducing environmental and climate change regulations to favor fossil fuel production.[10][12] The blueprint seeks to institute tax cuts,[13] though its writers disagree on the wisdom of protectionism.[14] Project 2025 recommends abolishing the Department of Education, whose programs would be either transferred to other agencies, or terminated.[15][16] Funding for climate research would be cut while the National Institutes of Health (NIH) would be reformed along conservative principles.[17][18] The Project urges government to explicitly reject abortion as health care[19][20] and eliminate the Affordable Care Act's coverage of emergency contraception.[21] The Project seeks to infuse the government with elements of Christianity.[9] It proposes criminalizing pornography,[22] removing legal protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity,[22][23] and terminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs,[5][23] as well as affirmative action.[24] Some conservatives and Republicans also criticized the plan for its stance on climate change[25] and foreign trade.[14] Other critics believe Project 2025 is rhetorical window dressing for what would be four years of personal vengeance at any cost.[26]  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   21:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Most of that is still there, just slimmed down. The fossil fuels and regs, Deps of education and homeland security, tax cuts, abortion, just to skim a few are all still in there. I think the issue is that we need to try and describe the thing as a whole in broad terms in the lead, only focusing on things of particular note in attendant sources and saving the itemized breakdown of individual policy proposals for the body of the article. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that there is far more criticism of the project than there is support for it, and that should be fairly represented in the lede. Christianity, health care, contraception, LGBTQ, DEI: these are "big issues" and "hot topics".  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   21:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree, I just think the criticism could be more efficiently applied in some fashion, rather than individually presenting criticism of each and every policy. The lead should be a brief overview of the subject, not an entire article of its own. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Like I said, the criticism portions can go into P3.
 * I think the "Christianity" portion is covered in that P1 "Christian nationalist plan" with what we have in the body right now. The body section on Christians is pretty disjointed from general policies, there's no "on the policies of christianity", the content we have now in the body seems to be some general vague "theme" of it, plus namedropping peoples' ties to various christian groups. There is definitely a twinge of christian influence in some of the policies, so I think it can be added in the lead, preferably with modifications to the body section.
 * I don't know if contraception is a stand-alone big item outside of abortion, which is mentioned repeatedly. This falls into the consistency problem if singular policy proposals can make it into the lead. The Mandate for Leadership has a couple of items removing emergency contraception from the ACA contraception mandate under HRSA. Applied consistently, the lead will balloon massively with every policy it prescribes under the sun. Just a couple pages down we have items like depowering HHS from issuing public health emergencies, and defunding universal day care in favor of home-based childcare. Both of which are also big ticket items.
 * The LGBT discrimination law provisions mentioned have similar problems, they're related to a plethora of Title VII reforms, such as eliminating disparate impact as a marker of discrimination (way bigger change than anything else Title VII related) and eliminating OFCCP altogether. Again, consistent application of mentioning this would require Paragraph 2 to be bigger than this entire article.
 * DEI is more generally spread out and proposed for elimination across various agencies/depts, so that could make sense for inclusion. KiharaNoukan (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought you'd proposed removing most of paragraph 3 (judging by the new proposal shown at the start of this thread)? It's hard keeping track of what changes you intend making.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   22:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Personally I think content-wise the lead is just fine as it is but could be a little shorter. The proposal above is merely my trying to engage Kihara's objections in good faith, hopefully without compromising the article. To that end the participation and suggestions of more editors, like yourself, nerd271, soibangla etc. would be welcome. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I like the lead as it stands soibangla (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The lead as it stands mentions items like a ban on porn and some vague NIH reform along conservative principles (as opposed to every other agency)
 * But not the abolition of the federal reserve.
 * Aight, I'll see if others have ideas on workshopping the lead. KiharaNoukan (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Most of the stuff is there besides items that are redundant for P1, such as partisan control wording that were a stopgap to address contradictory/wrong/unclear one-liners in a couple of sources.
 * I mostly based it off of content I saw in body that focused on P2025 policy, following the model of LeadFollowsBody. The wording included. If you think that is colored, then it is colored by the body. I don't think it's "one-sided" to plain-english policies. Stuff like abolishing the federal reserve and 2 exec departments probably falls outside the overton window and their raw descriptions would be off-putting if anything. I tried to cut out individual policies in favor of large-scale policy area descriptors I could find in the body, since the already giant paragraph can easily double without covering every potentially major policy change. (Like I pointed out, this current paragraph contains practically nothing on foreign policy, and doesn't even mention arguably the most impactful change - abolishing the Federal Reserve. Both of these items have substantial coverage in the body too). KiharaNoukan (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

In other words, the following would be omitted from the current paragraph 2:

Project 2025 envisions widespread changes across the government, particularly economic and social policies and the role of the federal government and its agencies. The plan proposes taking partisan control of the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Commerce, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC), dismantling the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and sharply reducing environmental and climate change regulations to favor fossil fuel production.[10][12] The blueprint seeks to institute tax cuts,[13] though its writers disagree on the wisdom of protectionism.[14] Project 2025 recommends abolishing the Department of Education, whose programs would be either transferred to other agencies, or terminated.[15][16] Funding for climate research would be cut while the National Institutes of Health (NIH) would be reformed along conservative principles.[17][18] The Project urges government to explicitly reject abortion as health care[19][20] and eliminate the Affordable Care Act's coverage of emergency contraception.[21] The Project seeks to infuse the government with elements of Christianity.[9] It proposes criminalizing pornography,[22] removing legal protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity,[22][23] and terminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs,[5][23] as well as affirmative action.[24] Some conservatives and Republicans also criticized the plan for its stance on climate change[25] and foreign trade.[14] Other critics believe Project 2025 is rhetorical window dressing for what would be four years of personal vengeance at any cost.[26]

And this would be omitted from the current paragraph 3:

The Washington Post reported that Jeffrey Clark, a contributor to the project and a former official within the DOJ, would advise the future president to immediately deploy the military for domestic law enforcement by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807.[28][29] The Project recommends the arrest, detention, and deportation of undocumented immigrants living in the United States.[30] It promotes capital punishment and the speedy "finality" of those sentences.[31]

 Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   20:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * P3 is also very disjointed on the weird mishmash of
 * A WIP?/dead? proposal from Jeffrey Clark
 * Deportation/immigration policy
 * & capital punishment policy.
 * And below that is Paul Dans' bravado re-telling of what we have in P1 with It proposes reclassifying tens of thousands of merit-based federal civil servant jobs as political appointees in order to replace them with loyal conservatives to further the objectives of the next Republican president
 * I'm not quite sure what this paragraph is for. KiharaNoukan (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In other earlier threads, Nerd271 wrote "we should remember that since this is a detailed plan for political reform, the introduction cannot possibly be short and still capture the key proposals."  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   20:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I concur with Nerd271 soibangla (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We can probably workshop what key proposals are. I think immigration policies can be a key proposal. I don't know about stuff like a porn ban mentioned in the forward and not really elaborated on and ACA non-coverage of morning after pills amongst other items like a general "pro-fertility"/pro-life policy prescription. There are a gazillion policy proposals, P2/P3 should not be a dumping ground for editors who find something verifiable. For comparison, P2 by itself currently has more characters than the 2 - term policy-descriptor paragraphs (P2/P3) article on George W. Bush's presidency KiharaNoukan (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the Paul Dans quote has to stay somewhere on the page because it's basically a 'straight from the horse's mouth' on what Project 2025 is all about. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess with a first sentence of "Project 2025 envisions itself as opposing a "deep state" in the federal bureaucracy. or something similar, it can be the paragraph describing how Heritage views the overarching goal on exec bureaucracy reform. KiharaNoukan (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you could be bold about the changes to the lede, and see what happens? I don't want to hold you up with red tape. I'm surprised that, with over 220,000 views on Friday, this place isn't crawling with experienced editors and subject experts.

One final note: perhaps the main reason I'd like to see keywords in the lede like Christianity, health care, contraception, LGBTQ, DEI is that not only are these "big issues" and "hot topics", but many of our readers just read or skim the lede on many articles before they're off elsewhere. So I'm not super thrilled to have those keywords hidden away behind other vague, mumbling, innocuous-looking grey words that don't automatically trigger a reaction from the reader. But maybe that's just me.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   18:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * When implementing, remember to preview the entire article so that there are no cite errors. Aaron Liu  (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Personally this seems pretty good! Most of the hotter topics not mentioned are there in the ToC and this shortening is just plain easier to read. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * One problem: I'm not sure why we emphasize "mixture of isolationism and interventionism". The linked source at VoA and the article text says that it favors considering national interests first and foremost. Aaron Liu  (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I ran through this section and implemented this and a number of other proposals into my bold lead change, ie. mention lgbtq in particular, christianity, although I see it has been reverted back to what it was earlier. KiharaNoukan (talk) 14:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Soibangla Any suggestions? Aaron Liu  (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Soibangla, are you looking for more discussion or a !vote (once the latest proposed changes are shown at the top of this thread)?  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   15:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Or are you looking for an RfC?  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   17:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I continue to oppose shortening the lead soibangla (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @KiharaNoukan Could you put your alterations into the big block at the top? I see that you didn't include many of my edits. Aaron Liu  (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Diff available here, the ver here is somewhat different from the block at top, I minimized major alterations to p2/p3, only added to p1, so I don't want to replace top as a reference point just yet. KiharaNoukan (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I've been following this page loosely and I want to say I disagree that the lead should be shortened. I think it does a good job of summarizing the content within the body of the article itself. While reading the proposal, all mentions of lgbtq rights were removed along with immigration plans and mention of restrictions on contraception. This is surprising, as these points are quite important to the project itself. For such a large article, I think the current lead being only four paragraphs is fine as is. BootsED (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I also think the lead is fine as it is. It needs to summarize the article in its entirety. We do not omit whole subtopics just to shorten the lead. Skyerise (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

It was never my intention that information should be omitted or obscured, merely made more concise; though I realize now it may be impossible to do one without causing the other. If it truly cannot be made more concise without losing its value then I say keep the lead long. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

As stated elsewhere above, I am happy with the longer lead as it stands, and less happy to see issues left out of the lead or mentioned only in a minor way. I want readers to get a rich picture from the lead. However, I would not hold up or block progress either way.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   19:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * If reference definitions had to be copied to sections further down the page — and several were — then that infers that topics mentioned and referenced in the body of the article had been removed from the lead.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   20:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I drafted a revised lede to try and organize it with similar topics grouped together and very slightly trimmed by removing redundancies and more technical terms in four paragraphs that respectively cover: 1) (slightly simpler) overview paragraph 2) Heritage Foundation staff commentary/implementation 3) Proposed changes to federal agencies 4) Policy ideas User:Superb_Owl/sandbox/Project_2025 Superb Owl (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Steve Bannon/2025
I find this article rather bewilderingly complex so I'll just drop this link here for anyone who might know where it might conceivably belong. New York Times, My Unsettling Interview With Steve Bannon (David Brooks). Quote: "Project 2025 and others are working on it — to immediately focus on immigration, the forever wars and on the fiscal and the financial. And simultaneously the deconstruction of the administrative state, and going after the complete, total destruction of the deep state. In the first 100 days — this is going to be different than ’16 — we will have 3,000 political appointees ready to go."Novellasyes (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Immigration reforms Section - False Source
> '"large-scale staging grounds near the border, most likely in Texas" to be held in internment camps prior to deportation. Trump has also spoken of rounding up homeless people in blue cities and detaining them in camps. Funding for the border wall with Mexico would increase.'

Citation 85 doesn't say anything about large-scale staging grounds/Texan Internment Camps. This is going to make people talking about this topic sound mistakenly alarmist. Jpf123 (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * you are looking at the wrong citation, see ref #127
 * soibangla (talk) 07:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So wrong on many points. Wiki has lost any crediability with false edits and clouded truth. As a non partisan, in this 2 party fight, I find the misinformation on both sides disgusting MiddleoftheRoad3452 (talk) 14:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Then come up with some independent, secondary, reliable sources to support your claims.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   14:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The Wikiati is real. They publish and edit... then dismiss objections with arrogance.
 * It has me, once again, longing for an Encyclopedia Britannica monthly subscription.
 * There is no direct citation for POV and tone when it's so pervasive. 100.8.96.142 (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 100% JBrownIII (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Clark
, I think Clark and invoking Insurrection should remain at the end of the second paragraph, as it bookends the evident militaristic tone of the Project's leaders. As it stands now, it's buried deep in the body. soibangla (talk) 23:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * if you do not defend your removal, I plan to restore it soibangla (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Creating 'Implementation' section?
Should we add a section that discusses how the plan would get implemented (consolidating executive power, discussion of how much would have to go through congress, the courts, is currently unconstitutional, etc.)? Maybe even moving the Expansion of presidential powers subsection underneath it? Here's a sandbox draft. Superb Owl (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Project 2025's legality and constitutionality
Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise is over 900 pages, so it's hard for me to quickly determine the legality and constitutionality of each of its proposals. Should we have a new section in Project 2025 specifically for its proposals' legality and constitutionality? Ss0jse (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it would be really helpful to have reliable sources discussing how likely certain aspects are to be legal. I started a draft here that anyone can edit Superb Owl (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, although how does a Wikipedia editor determine a source's reputability? Please let me know which articles within the Project namespace to refer to. Ss0jse (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * See, for example: reliable sources.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   21:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Esowteric. Ss0jse (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Or if that's too advanced, maybe start by reading Help:Getting started.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   21:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Got it. Ss0jse (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not up to Wikipedia to determine the legality or Constitutionality of anything— that's what secondary sources are for. NewkirkPlaza (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "Secondary sources"? In the context of Wikipedia edits, what does that term mean? Please let me know which articles within the Project namespace to refer to. Ss0jse (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If such a determination is not to be made by Wikipedia, then, instead of having quotes (and multiple uses of the phrase "many legal experts") scattered throughout this article, should we have a section that contains such secondary sources' analyses, thus putting all of those analyses into one dedicated section? If so, should we make the new section a sub-section of the "Reactions and responses" section? Ss0jse (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

clunky writing
previously the lead began with:

and

now it has been changed to:

and


 * why do we now mention "one effort," alluding to other unspecified efforts, when this article is solely about P25?


 * why do we now omit "to reshape the United States federal government," which is the key purpose of P25?


 * why do we now omit "from the Heritage Foundation" in the first sentence, in favor of writing "The president of The Heritage Foundation, which has led this initiative, Kevin Roberts, said ..." in the second paragraph, when it's much easier to simply write "Heritage president Kevin Roberts said ..." since we already told readers in the first sentence that P25 is from Heritage?

I find this change mystifying soibangla (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) 'reshape the federal government' is redundant when we already mention the policy goals and the goal to 'consolidate executive power' 2) yes, this second paragraph is clunky but the idea is to simplify the first sentence/paragraph by introducing the Heritage Foundation content in the second paragraph Superb Owl (talk) 22:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I really disagree with that reasoning. what do others think? soibangla (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The lead sentence should be restored. Only Project 2025 is the topic of this article. Whether or not there are other efforts, what they are, etc., is outside the scope of this article. And incidentally is not sourced. And we certainly don't put capitalized "The" in front of an organization name. Heritage or Heritage Foundation is sufficient for the context. And why so many clauses? Bad writing! Skyerise (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * How about this? Superb Owl (talk) 00:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * it still omits "to reshape the United States federal government." the reshaping and the consolidation are distinct, not redundant. soibangla (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate? Superb Owl (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I can, but I see no need to as it seems quite straightforward to me soibangla (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Reshaping and consolidating may seem redundant on an informal level, but in encyclopedic terms, well, the differences are undeniable. Cheers. DN (talk) 04:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I added that phrase back in Superb Owl (talk) 04:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Civility
Just a friendly request to review Civility - it's a political topic and tensions seem to have been running high on the talk page and in some edit comments over the past few months Superb Owl (talk) 03:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree with this, however, it's not clear what the purpose of this section is for. Seems like something that should be relegated to a personal talk page instead of here. DN (talk) 03:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * it seems the OP is referring specifically to me[ [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] (talk) 04:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, in that case lets hat this section since it has nothing to do with the article. Cheers. DN (talk) 04:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Among others - I did not want to post on talk pages because the edits/posts seem borderline as to whether or not they warrant a post in most cases but with all the new editors posting on this topic it seemed helpful to have a reminder here. If the protocol however is to post on user talk pages, I will do that and have no issue with removing this section Superb Owl (talk) 04:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, personal talk pages are the more appropriate venue, but I do not fault you for trying to help mitigate any possible future unpleasantness. Cheers. DN (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * then again, making specious suggestions of incivility might actually have the unintended effect of raising the room temperature soibangla (talk) 04:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * no sense in fighting fire with fire in either case, but point taken. DN (talk) 06:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2024
In the Advisory board and leadership section, The quote expressing disagreement from Former President Trump is incomplete, The full text should read: "I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they're saying and some of the things they're saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them"

excluding the last sentence exhibits bias and characterizes Trump's comments about Project 2025 as entirely negative. Neutral Wikipedia should not be cutting sentences off the end that significantly change the message being communicated Cameron931 (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC) — Urro[ talk ] [ edits ] ⋮ 21:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In general, I think this article uses too many quotations. I'd prefer this quotation be left in the citation and summarized simply as something like 'Former President Trump disavowed Project 2025 and any connection to the group in July 2024" Superb Owl (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This issue is ongoing and the idea that he doesn't know anything about Project 2025 is already being debunked with recorded videos. Hopefully reliable sources will pick up on that, too.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   18:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would say that we should remove any Trumpian quotations which have proven to be false. They should be replaced with something like "Trump disavows knowledge of the project, but ". Skyerise (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If we include at all, I support @Skyerise idea of only including if there are reliable secondary sources that have evaluated the claim and including them alongside it Superb Owl (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe the original edit request is ✔️. Any further discussions should probably have their own topic(s) added.

Is this article reporting a contradiction?
The article says Trump disavows Project 2025, but here is his Truth Social statement:"I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it ... I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them." Contradictions to disavowing are:
 * 1) He disagrees with and thinks ridiculous/abysmal something he "knows nothing about".
 * 2) He wishes them luck with anything they do.

Maybe this is one thing where we don't act as stenographers? Besides that, are we engaging in WP:NOTNEWS coverage before all this truly plays out? Stefen Towers among the rest!  Gab • Gruntwerk 21:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Also there is reporting of rebuttals to his 'truth' about Trump's connections to this project. A couple samples:   Stefen Towers among the rest!   Gab • Gruntwerk 21:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * For now, I just completed his statement. Readers can decide what to make of it. Stefen Towers among the rest!   Gab • Gruntwerk 03:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What matters is what reliable sources say:
 * Axios: Trump disavows Heritage Foundation's Project 2025, despite MAGA ties
 * Financial Times: Donald Trump distances himself from right-wing ‘Project 2025’ policy blueprint
 * Reuters: Trump seeks to disavow 'Project 2025' despite ties to conservative group
 * Bloomberg: Trump Distances Bid From Second-Term Agenda Pushed by Allies
 * a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Typically, headlines are written to sell: a headline itself is not a reliable source. Per the content of the article, Trump denied involvement with the Project, but he wished it well, which is simply not how one would understand the use of the word "disavowed" in this context, so I changed it to "denied involvement with" in both places, which more accurately reflects the tone and content of his statements reported in the article. Skyerise (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree with Skyerise (though I'd note that perhaps what they mean but isn't headline material is "disavowed knowledge of ...").  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   12:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not only the headlines:
 * Axios: "Former President Trump on Friday disavowed the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025, which has sparked widespread news coverage about policy plans for a potential second Trump administration."
 * FT: "Donald Trump has sought to distance himself from a group of influential right-wing policy wonks who have offered a controversial blueprint for the former Republican president should he secure another four years in the White House."
 * Reuters: "The Republican presidential candidate renounced any connection with Project 2025, a plan Democrats have been attacking to highlight what they say is Trump's extreme policy agenda for a second term should he beat President Joe Biden in the Nov. 5 election."
 * Bloomberg: "Donald Trump denounced a sweeping policy agenda crafted by some of his closest White House advisers that proposes a massive overhaul of the federal government and stacking agencies with loyalists to the former president."
 * Per the above RS, he did more than just "denied involvement with", he also criticized them and "denounced" their agenda. "disavow" ("deny any responsibility or support for" per Oxford Languages) is therefore more accurate. I'll revert you. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * If there are several different views for what he did, we need to cover them all and attribute the sources. As it is, the "disavowed" and "denounced" presentations are repeated too many times in the article, without any indication of the range of view or the skeptical reactions in most of those places (lead, captions, etc.) This needs to be correct: there should not be strong assertions in image captions that do not reflect the range of views. Skyerise (talk) 12:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, the image should be removed altogether. Then are two things: 1/ what he said (he disavowed) and 3/ what the truth is (he still has strong links with Project 2025). The strong links are already largely discussed everywhere in the article. His recent disavowal is just a small addition. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, there's no good reason to remove the image. Skyerise (talk) 12:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Skyerise here. We don't remove an obviously pertinent illustration just because a politician says "I don't know them". And when the sources describe an act with language like move to create distance (Reuters) or sought to distance himself (The Hill), then sticking with "denounce" or "disavow" all the way through would violate NPOV. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. We already have an image of Trump in "Background".
 * 2. Trump's image alone holding campaign rally has nothing to do in "Advisory board and leadership": Trump is not and has never been part of the project's "Advisory board and leadership". Acceptable images here could be: people like Kevin Roberts, Ben Carson, Ken Cuccinelli, Rick Dearborn, or Thomas Gilman (or others) alone or together, with or without Trump (with would be ideal ofc). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed new lede
Here's a rewritten lede. Should we replace the current lede with this draft? Superb Owl (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I think it looks pretty good; is there any way to see what it would look like with the info boxes added? Largely Legible Layman (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Done! And feel free to edit in the sandbox Superb Owl (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So long as this paragraph:
 * Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts said in July 2024 that "we are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be." Paul Dans, the project's director, said in April 2023 that Project 2025 is "systematically preparing to march into office and bring a new army, [of] aligned, trained, and essentially weaponized conservatives ready to do battle against the deep state." Dans acknowledged it was "counterintuitive" to recruit so many to join the government to shrink it, but pointed out the need for a future president to "regain control" of the government.
 * Is preserved in either the Advisory board and leadership or Philosophical outlook section I'm still in favor of this new lead so far. Anyone else want to chime in here? Largely Legible Layman (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I tried summarizing it but was on the fence of whether to put those quotes back in given how notable they have been - agree they belong somewhere in the article for sure Superb Owl (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the current lead is good as-is. I appreciate the work you've put into this but I think how it currently appears is based on lots of back and forth, is balanced and covers most of the page. BootsED (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I continue to agree soibangla (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A lot of consensual work has gone into crafting the leading section as it now stands.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   07:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Consensus: leave as-is and get consensus on individual changes as-needed Superb Owl (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

"readers shouldn't have to read the source"
that is a standard expectation all day, every day, everywhere on Wikipedia, otherwise articles would explode in size and complexity

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Project_2025&diff=prev&oldid=1233111167 soibangla (talk) 11:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * It's MOS:WEASEL. We can find a better wording than "several critics". I don't know for the rest of Wikipedia, but this topic is controversial enough to require more details (even if at the cost of size and complexity). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The Guardian says "several critics." I don't see the issue here. soibangla (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What the Guardian means by "several critics" is CNN's Alayna Treene's and Economist and Guardian columnist Robert Reich's tweets. We could at least add "such as political commentator Robert Reich" after "several critics". Or just say "Political commentator Robert Reich". Basically, attribute the criticism. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * the Guardian cited two examples among several critics, then I added Steele. if you feel strongly about this, you can edit it as you prefer. that way we wouldn't need to have this discussion. what do others think? soibangla (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Michael Steele is a good example of why "several critics" is problematic: he endorsed Biden. I think the best would be a reliable source that directly criticizes Trump's denial explaining that, of course, he knew about the Project and that he might still implement part of it if elected. Do we have such a source? (I'm sure it exists.) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * please edit the sentence to your liking. I am done here. soibangla (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. As said above, I think we could do better with another RS, but for now it's OK... a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Criticisms should not be in summary
The statement “Critics have characterized Project 2025 as an authoritarian, Christian nationalist plan to transform the U.S. into an autocracy” should not be in the summary. Criticism should be in the responses section where the criticism can be described and the arguments discussed. As is, there is no information as to why critics say this. This appears like an attempt to characterize the project in frightening terms rather than to describe the context around it. This leads the appearance of political bias making the article less credible. Johnbradleywood (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not so. The leading section is a neutral summary of important points that feature in the body of the article, giving due weight to different perspectives, and that includes the large amount of criticism and sparse support for Project 2025.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   12:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So then why are the expressed criticisms of the work, being treated as the purpose of the work? Ummreally? (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Critiques are by definition not neutral. If project 2025 laid out such plans then summarize those plans. Summarizing the nature of critics, supporters, and popularity would all be appropriate. But that is not what that sentence is doing. Johnbradleywood (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Then provide citations to supporting articles. Critics of the current article have repeatedly been asked to provide secondary sources that support the project, but so far no one has done so. I have myself searched and not found any. If the only secondary sources available are critiques, then that is what the article has to be based on. The burden is on those who claim the article doesn't follow the sources in a balanced manner to find and provide sources that would allow the article to be rebalanced. Skyerise (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is written by volunteers like ourselves. If you can find reliable sources that show Project 2025 in a positive light, then feel free to contribute. Here's a guide to getting started.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   21:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2024
This sentence:

"The Trump campaign has attempted to distance itself from the effort and in July 2024, Trump denied knowledge of the project and disavowed it, even though many of his advisors and former officials of his presidential administration drafted and endorsed it."

Should be tweaked:

"The Trump campaign has attempted to distance itself from the effort and in July 2024, Trump denied knowledge of the project and said "some" of their policies were unacceptable, even though many of his advisors and former officials of his presidential administration drafted and endorsed it." Josepheg33 (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: The referenced text is no longer in the article. – macaddct1984 (talk &#124; contribs) 14:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

"replace them with Trump loyalists"
In the leading section, Superb Owl changed in order to replace them with loyalists more willing to enable the next Republican president's policies.

to:

in order to replace them with Trump loyalists.

changed it back again. Rhododendrites reverted back to Superb Owl's "Trump" version. I reverted them, being tempted to agree with Just10A, and asked to take the matter to the talk page.

Bear in mind that the leading sentence reads: Project 2025[a] is a collection of conservative and right-wing policy proposals from the Heritage Foundation to reshape the United States federal government and consolidate executive power should the Republican nominee win the 2024 presidential election.[3][4].

Yes, the source speaks of "Trump loyalists" but they could well be wrong.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   19:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Just seemed like a weird euphemism to talk about "the next Republican president" in a plan that's specific to 2025, as though anyone other than Trump could be in that spot (not to mention that the entire background section makes it clear this is a plan about Trump, written by people connected to Trump, specifically for Trump). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 19:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I started a running list of reliable secondary sources that used the phrasing to 'Loyal to Trump' here.(updated) This project is not a static one, but evolving. It initially may have been open to any Republican candidate, but as Trump became more and more inevitable, coverage has shifted to describing 'Trump Loyalists' instead of 'next republican president'. I think we should follow the coverage, not stay stuck in 2023. Superb Owl (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, but these are coming as a result of Trump denying involvement, to make the partisan case that Trump really does know about the project; to tie him to the project.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   19:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "Project 2025 is clearly mobilizing to find Trump loyalists." is a rather vague statement. But even assuming it's totally correct, they are finding Trump loyalists because they are looking for employees in-line with the next republican president, and they think that person will be Trump, not because the project itself is tasked with finding specifically Trump loyalists from the outset. Just10A (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose we should look toward Verifiability, not truth. And yet part of me is actually siding with the originalists, regarding the Project 2025 Mandate.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   19:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean, even then, the sources are saying that the "loyalists" will only be installed in the event of Trump winning the presidency. Thus, inherently meeting the "next republican president" requirement set forth by the actual p25 literature. The sources do not contradict the current wording in any way. The question is, whether or not we should change the wikipedia page that is solely concerned with P25 tenets to reflect a word choice that doesn't even contradict its current state and was almost certainly done just for journalistic convenience. I would say pretty strongly that we shouldn't. Just10A (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that we may easily become embroiled in what is a propaganda war (being fought by both sides), and that we need to maintain our neutrality (which is already being called into question) and stick to our principles as Wikipedians.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   20:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with that outlook. Just10A (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with your initial analysis. The sources are referring to the P25 language which speaks of replacing federal workers who are currently presumed to be left-leaning and replacing them with employees more in line with the next republican president. The sources (rightfully) are then taking the fact that the next republican president will likely be Trump, and thus using the "trump loyalists" term (more or less for convenience/less complexity). For an encyclopedic page which is only concerned with the actual tenets of P25, however, the project is very clearly not specific to Trump. Rather, it is for whoever the "next republican president" is even if it is not Trump or even in 2025. At worst, the language should remain the same, but we could add "likely Donald Trump" afterwards. But even then, that seems like unnecessary conjecture for a Wikipedia page. Just10A (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Roberts and Dans quotes
, I believe the paragraph with the Roberts and Dans quotes should remain as the second paragraph in the lead

what do others think?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Project_2025&diff=prev&oldid=1233404057 soibangla (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I do not believe it should be in the intro. The purpose of the intro is to summarize what Project 2025 is. Just a Heritage guy saying the next revolution will be bloodless doesn't fall into that. The Dans quote is closer to a description by a proponent but I still think it works better in the 'Advisory board and leadership' section, where it sheds more light on what the Project 2025 leadership have said. JSwift49 22:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * but you think it belongs under Advisory board and leadership? really? soibangla (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Makes more sense. Another option could be inserting the Dans quote into the Philosophy section.
 * Project 2025's director is Paul Dans, who served as chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management during the Trump administration. Spencer Chretien, a former special assistant to Trump, serves as associate director. Dans, also an editor of the project's guiding document, has described Project 2025 as "systematically preparing to march into office and bring a new army [of] aligned, trained, and essentially weaponized conservatives ready to do battle against the deep state." He has said that Project 2025 is "built on four pillars": JSwift49 22:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My impression is the Dans quote has generated less coverage and if so, belongs in the Advisory Board and Leadership section, whereas the Roberts quote being as notable and newsworthy as it has been, actually belongs in the lede. Generally don't like quotes in the lead either, but this seems to be a useful exception. Superb Owl (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree it is a very notable quote, but it's not really a description of Project 2025, is it? It's just someone stating his broad worldview. So that's why I felt it should go into the leadership section because it's giving us more broad insight into who Heritage is. JSwift49 22:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I propose summarizing the quote like this in the lede: "The strongest effort by the Trump campaign to distance themselves came after a July 2 interview of President Kevin Roberts that was interpreted by some as threatening political violence." (see full proposed lede rewrite here) Superb Owl (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That works for me, if it's clarified that the distancing happened immediately after that comment. And then the quote in its entirety can still be in the article elsewhere. JSwift49 22:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Or at the end of the last paragraph: "The disavowal followed a July 2 interview of Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts that was interpreted by some as threatening political violence". JSwift49 22:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Latest draft that closely follows a Reuters article wording: "The strongest effort by the Trump campaign to distance themselves came days after a July 2nd interview of Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts was criticized for containing a veiled threat of violence." Superb Owl (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm if this is the article I think we'd need to be careful about the wording bc the article says "criticized what they viewed as a veiled threat of violence", and this would be stating that it was a threat of violence as a fact. And why mince words, why not just say 'The disavowal' came after the interview? JSwift49 22:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * good catch re: the 'what they viewed' and per Soibangla's comments emphasizing the second american revolution below, here's the latest draft: The strongest effort by the Trump campaign to distance themselves came days after Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts suggested there would be a second American revolution. His comments were criticized by Democrats and others for containing what they viewed as a veiled threat of violence. Superb Owl (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I still have an issue with 'the strongest effort to distance', that implies Trump had been attempting to distance before, and do we know that? Why not just say 'The disavowal'? We already make clear that the disavowal is in spite of Trump's staff/former admin working on this. JSwift49 23:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It makes more sense in context in the article with the sentence it follows. I'll give it a shot adding it in with citations and then see what you think. Superb Owl (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I still prefer 'the disavowal'. The AP article says "Donald Trump has distanced himself from Project 2025", not that it's his greatest effort to so far.
 * The Reuters article says "tried to distance himself" and also "Trump's move to create distance".
 * Is there one where it says Trump has actually made previous efforts to distance himself, and that this is his strongest effort yet? JSwift49 23:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah let me track it down Superb Owl (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * OK. I strongly believe we should explicitly mention that Trump disavowed it. We are already including information that calls the veracity of his disavowal into question. But we have to report the facts. JSwift49 23:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I say we put the Trump stuff into the third paragraph (since having the second paragraph actually describe what it is makes more sense).
 * How about:
 * While the Trump campaign initially said the project aligned well with its Agenda 47 proposals, the project has increasingly caused friction with the Trump campaign, which has often sought to avoid specific policy proposals that could be used against him. Trump publicly disavowed Project 2025 on July 5, 2024. This occurred days after Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts suggested there would be a second American Revolution, which was criticized by Democrats and others for what they viewed as a veiled threat of violence. JSwift49 23:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with @Soibangla that this belongs in the second paragraph. This seems more notable than the various policy proposals to scrap certain departments that arise every four years. He didn't disavow the whole project and all of their policies - I want to make sure we get that part right. He disavowed 'some' policies and statements without specifying which. Superb Owl (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point. Replace "Trump publicly disavowed" with "Trump publicly distanced himself from"? JSwift49 00:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Though as far as paragraph order goes I would not say what Trump said about it is more central to the summary than what the Project 2025 actually proposes. So on that point I disagree. IMO it makes sense to first actually explain what it is, and then discuss its relationship to others. JSwift49 00:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I like 'publicly distanced himself from' even though some say 'disavowed' it seems more precise. As for paragraph order, I think it also makes sense to mirror the article by discussing leadership and the organization first and the policies second. That is very typical. Superb Owl (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll put that in and let me know what you think. JSwift49 00:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll defer to your experience on the paragraph order. The last thing that gives me pause is saying Heritage is 'closely aligned' with Trump, the CNN article does not state that directly, I would replace it with 'aligned with Republican causes'. JSwift49 00:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "Former President Donald Trump on Friday sought to distance himself from a closely aligned conservative group’s plans to radically reshape the federal government and American life should the former president win a second term." Superb Owl (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh got it I missed that :) JSwift49 00:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * BTW, you changed the date of the "march into office" quote from April 2023 to April 2024. Yet the second citation from January 2024 somehow quoted him saying this.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   22:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh that was my bad then. I thought I'd seen April 2024 on the citation JSwift49 22:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * it does not make more sense there, not even remotely soibangla (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with what you just did here in the midst of this discussion. The quotes belong in the second paragraph of the lead. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Project_2025&diff=prev&oldid=1233411598
 * I agree with @Soibangla - we do not have consensus yet and should wait for other to weigh-in Superb Owl (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries, I had put them in so they weren't totally removed. Also @Soibangla could you explain your argument more re. why the quotes belong in the lead? JSwift49 23:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Roberts says it's the second American Revolution
 * 2) the militancy of it: "march, army, weaponized, battle," deploying the military on civilians soibangla (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But Roberts said the country is in the midst of the second American revolution, not that Project 2025 is that revolution. That's why I agree with @Superb Owl in that it is worth summarizing as a reason for Trump's disavowal, and mentioning later in the article, but it's too tangential to just quote without context.
 * The Dans militancy quote did not receive as much coverage, and the lead already describes what would happen/that the military would be involved, since we should generally avoid quotes in the lead I say put it in the body, in the same section where Dans is discussed. JSwift49 23:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Roberts: "We are in the process of the second American Revolution"
 * who is "we?" soibangla (talk) 04:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It probably makes more sense to replace the Dans quote in the lede saying something like: The project has employed warlike rhetoric and apocalyptic language in describing a "battle plan" to regain control of the government. Superb Owl (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Works for me. JSwift49 23:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * as long as it paraphrases Roberts and mentions deployment, as the second paragraph of the lead, not buried in the body soibangla (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to Dans or Roberts? Again, I agree paraphrasing Roberts' mention of the 'second American revolution' in the Trump disavowal section makes sense as it's a notable quote. But paraphrasing the Dans quote is to me undue weight, and it's better to summarize as 'warlike rhetoric and apocalyptic language' while including the Dans quote in the body.
 * The purpose of the lead is not to promote specific quotes it is to summarize. JSwift49 23:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not proposing paraphrasing Dans
 * 1) The project has employed warlike rhetoric and apocalyptic language in describing a "battle plan" to regain control of the government (or such)
 * 2) paraphrase Roberts
 * 3) deploying military
 * 4) second paragraph soibangla (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Warlike rhetoric is good.
 * Paraphrasing Roberts, I think, only makes sense in the Trump disavowal paragraph. Because Roberts is not talking about Project 2025 specifically. His comments and association with Project 2025 are mainly significant because they are what led Trump to disavow.
 * Deploying military works in the paragraph describing widespread changes in government (it's currently there). JSwift49 23:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A lot of commentators have noted the dark, apocalyptic and militaristic language beyond simply the Dans quote. If you aren't satisfied with the coverage shown in the citations, please flag as 'additional citations needed' and I can check and see if there are enough to justify it in the lead Superb Owl (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * please stop rewriting the lead in the midst of this discussion soibangla (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * sorry for jumping the gun - was trying to visualize since we seemed so close to consensus. Superb Owl (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * your action gives me great pause. I cannot say more here without resorting to cussing. soibangla (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus for deleting the entire section as you did. It's a work in progress. JSwift49 23:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I followed BRD, you should too and discuss rather than edit war soibangla (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * you have edit warred to force content that is being discussed and no consensus has been reached. soibangla (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I ask that you remove the addition that the other editor just restored soibangla (talk) 23:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it now reflects the consensus we built. Not sure what we gain by going back - are there issues with the lead as it now stands? Superb Owl (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I strongly believe we should explicitly mention that Trump disavowed it. We are already including information that calls the veracity of his disavowal into question.
 * I say we put the Trump stuff into the third paragraph (since having the second paragraph actually describe what it is makes more sense).
 * How about:
 * While the Trump campaign initially said the project aligned well with its Agenda 47 proposals, the project has increasingly caused friction with the Trump campaign, which has often sought to avoid specific policy proposals that could be used against him. Trump publicly disavowed Project 2025 on July 5, 2024. This occurred days after Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts suggested there would be a second American Revolution, which was criticized by Democrats and others for what they viewed as a veiled threat of violence.
 * Also this article doesn't explicitly state Heritage is "closely-aligned" with Trump, just that they broadly support each other politically? JSwift49 00:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * there is no consensus for this, you have a tendency to conclude a consensus when you find one editor who agrees with you, then you rush to implement. I find this tendency problematic. soibangla (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Happy to take it back to my sandbox to play around with. You want us to delete the second paragraph for now? Superb Owl (talk) 00:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Truly, I think we should keep and change it... I think the second paragraph is a good compromise of all that we have said. Just as I agree jumping the gun is problematic (and I apologize for the time I did that), so too in my view is deleting entire existing sections. JSwift49 00:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But if we're deleting, mind if I join you there? JSwift49 00:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe these discussions should be conducted here rather than an editor's sandbox soibangla (talk) 01:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No discussions are happening there - just nice to have a space to save our drafts before posting back here Superb Owl (talk) 02:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * come on over! Superb Owl (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I added the Trump stuff from the end of Paragraph 4. Not sure if the John McEntee quote should be in lead or body. JSwift49 00:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * How about we put the McEntee line in this paragraph?
 * Axios reported that while Heritage had briefed other 2024 Republican presidential primaries candidates on the project, it is "undeniably a Trump-driven operation", pointing to the involvement of Trump's "most fervent internal loyalty enforcer" Johnny McEntee as a senior advisor to the project. The 2024 Trump campaign said no outside group speaks for Trump and that its "Agenda 47" is the only official plan for a second Trump presidency. Two top Trump campaign officials later issued a statement seeking to distance the campaign from what unspecified outside groups were planning, although many of those plans reflected Trump's own words. JSwift49 00:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Added draft 2nd paragraph with McEntee line included JSwift49 00:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Your draft looks good to me. I like adding McEntee into it. Well-integrated and much smoother. Maybe post it here for feedback from others? Superb Owl (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you; will do. JSwift49 01:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of @JSwift49 findings. The original quotes were being given way too much attention at the top of the page and overly-incendiary. Most of his suggestions are neutral and unproblematic. Just10A (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

INITIAL CONSENSUS DRAFT: JSwift49 01:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC) Although Project 2025 cannot, by law, promote a specific presidential candidate, many contributors have close ties to Donald Trump and his 2024 presidential campaign. The Heritage Foundation, a think tank closely-aligned with Trump, coordinates the initiative with a constellation of conservative groups run by Trump allies. The Trump campaign initially said the project aligned well with its Agenda47 proposals, and in April 2024, Project 2025 senior advisor John McEntee stated that they and the Trump campaign planned to "integrate a lot of our work" by summer. . However, the project has increasingly caused friction with the Trump campaign, which has often sought to avoid specific policy proposals that could be used against him. On July 5, 2024, Trump publicly distanced himself from Project 2025. This came days after Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts suggested in an interview that there would be a second American Revolution, which was criticized by Democrats and others for containing what they viewed as a veiled threat of violence. The project has employed warlike rhetoric and apocalyptic language in describing a "battle plan" to regain control of the government.


 * I like it, but i think we should add Trump's quote after we say he distanced himself from it. Just10A (talk) 01:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * On July 5, 2024, Trump publicly distanced himself from Project 2025, claiming that he knew nothing about the organization, and that some of their proposals were "absolutely ridiculous and abysmal". JSwift49 01:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is good. Greenlight from me. Just10A (talk) 01:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * too verbose for lead imo soibangla (talk) 01:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's no more verbose than the other three lead paragraphs... JSwift49 01:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * so let's not make it even more verbose soibangla (talk) 01:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Replace:
 * However, the project has increasingly caused friction with the Trump campaign, which has often sought to avoid specific policy proposals that could be used against him.
 * However, the project's controversial proposals increasingly caused friction with the Trump campaign. JSwift49 01:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. The idea that the paragraph/quote is too verbose for the lead but "the 2nd American revolution will be as bloodless as the left allows it to be" isn't doesn't really match up. I think that paragraph with that additional language is acceptable. Just10A (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * please clarify soibangla (talk) 01:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The paragraph written by @JSwift49 along with the trump quote he added at 1:16 UTC is good and acceptable. Just10A (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Given that there is consensus from me, @Just10A and @Superb Owl, and also, we incorporated several proposals of @Soibangla, I'll add it in? JSwift49 01:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * we are early in this discussion, there is no consensus. if you add it, I will revert it. let's not go this way soibangla (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with @Soibangla here and prefer the shorter summaries as well (will try to find article that says it's the strongest denial yet). The last thing I want is to start trying to understand or contextualize an angry Trump quote in a lede paragraph. Superb Owl (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll try to cut it down; one sec JSwift49 01:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * How about "On July 5, 2024, Trump publicly distanced himself from Project 2025 and criticized some of its proposals."? JSwift49 01:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * See, thats ok, but clearly overly vague and nice compared to what Trump's actual quote was. Furthermore, the idea that having that quote makes it "too verbose" or makes for a poor lead when this conversation was legitimately started by a party adding an even more incendiary quote, to me, is clearly inconsistent. Just10A (talk) 01:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm "a party?"
 * I believe all the Trump denial stuff belongs in the last lead paragraph soibangla (talk) 01:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am having questions about your commitment to neutrality, your point in doing this has been to elevate the most incindiary quotes about Project 2025 as high as possible, and then move the Trump denial from its logical place alongside that subject to the bottom, I think it's reasonable to question if you are acting in good faith. JSwift49 01:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * then bring it to my Talk page. otherwise, I recommend striking your aspersions on me soibangla (talk) 01:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to keep the quote but I'm not too fussed about it either way. Main thing we should convey IMO is that he distanced himself and potentially condemned some of their ideas JSwift49 01:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Trump's denial is late and ancillary to what P25 has been since April 2023 and we should treat it accordingly, chronologically at the end of the lead, where it was before by the work of multiple editors, but you allege I am acting in bad faith by arguing this. soibangla (talk) 05:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with @Soibangla here and am seeing the logic to that aspect of the prior consensus. We can always revisit as new sources emerge. Also, I think Soiblanga is arguing in good faith, for the record. Superb Owl (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am concerned that some newly-arrived editors may have been oblivious to the existence of P25 before Trump's Friday denial exploded it into public view. By monitoring internet chatter, I am aware many/most had never heard of P25 before. Trump is not the central story of this article. What Roberts and Dans have said about their mission is central, particularly their violent and militaristic rhetoric, supplemented by the aggressive rhetoric of P25 advocates such as Bannon and Patel as described in the article, and that's what belongs up top in the lead. Per asserted maximal unitary executive, P25 is not proposing a traditional, negotiable legislative agenda subject to congressional and judicial consent; rather it is proposing an outright seizure of the government, by force if necessary, and threatening violence against dissent. This is the central thrust of P25, so it must not be downplayed in the lead. And I say this with the full confidence that the body and its reliable sources fully support it. All anyone needs to do is read it, all of it. This is not bias or partisanship, JSwift49, it is empirical reality. soibangla (talk) 07:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi; one of the reasons I did not believe you were acting in good faith was that you did not explain your arguments and you just said things were wrong. This is a step in the right direction. However, I disagree. If we are going to make a paragraph about the links to Trump we should not omit that Trump distanced himself. The quotes also do not have consensus from me or @Just10A for the same reason. JSwift49 10:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have always explained my arguments. striking your baseless aspersions is all you gotta do, then you and I will get along just fine, no worries. soibangla (talk) 11:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, the goal of Project 2025 is in no way downplayed by putting the quotes in the body, as again, Robert’s’ is not specifically describing Project 2025, and Dans’ quote is not particularly notable, the intro already describes the gist of it. JSwift49 10:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * you misrepresented what Roberts actually said. he did not say:
 * the country is in the midst of the second American revolution
 * as you claimed, he actually said:
 * "We are in the process of the second American Revolution"
 * who is "we?"
 * yet you accuse me of bad faith. all you gotta do is strike it, that's really all you gotta do. easy! soibangla (talk) 11:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * New York Times:
 * "The president of the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank that has developed a prominent series of policy plans to overhaul the federal government under a Republican president, said on Tuesday that the country was “in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.” JSwift49 11:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * CNN
 * "Kevin Roberts, drew widespread backlash from Democrats for saying in an interview that the country was “in the process of the second American Revolution..."
 * Financial Times
 * Trump’s comments came days after the Heritage Foundation’s president, Kevin Roberts, said the US was “in the process of the second American Revolution,..."
 * News sources attribute Roberts' quote to referring to the United States, not Project 2025. Therefore, the quote is not relevant enough to include in the lead unless, as the initial consensus draft proposed, in discussion about why Trump distanced himself. JSwift49 11:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Soibangla What do you think about putting Superb Owl's draft, which is about Trump's connection to and later distancing from Project 2025, at the end of the lead? That seems like a compromise to what you are saying, that the Trump stuff would be later, and I would support that.
 * CC'ing @Superb Owl because we had discussed the positioning of this paragraph earlier JSwift49 12:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * striking it might make it more likely I would engage you. easy! soibangla (talk) 12:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to work with you on this in good faith and for you to prove my misgivings wrong. However if you do not explain/back up your arguments and act in an uncivil manner I will challenge that, as I would anyone. JSwift49 12:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I needn't prove anything to you. You baselessly cast aspersions upon me. All you gotta do is strike it and everything will be fine. soibangla (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I prefer "On July 5, 2024, Trump publicly distanced himself from some aspects of Project 2025." because he is not criticizing any specific proposals and is also criticizing some of the things they said (beyond proposals and into public comments a la Kevin Roberts) but again is vague and not specific, so 'some aspects' covers both of those criticisms. Most analysis does not believe his assertion that he has no idea who they are, so I do not see any reason to put likely falsehoods in the lead Superb Owl (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I think it's more accurate to say he distanced himself from them as he basically said I have nothing to do with them (even though it's false the paragraph establishes that). That's why I prefer distanced himself from Project 2025 (I don't know who they are) and criticized some of their policies (some policies are ridiculous and abysmal). It is more a complete picture is what I'm trying to say. Wdyt? JSwift49 01:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * How about "criticized some of their rhetoric"? JSwift49 01:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Reuters article says "assertions". "adding some of their assertions were "absolutely ridiculous and abysmal." JSwift49 02:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we are getting into trying to summarize Trump as a primary source when we should lean more heavily into how secondary sources interpreting his comments. He's not the most reliable source even on things he believes and supports, so let's look at the articles from the most reliable outlets and use their analysis (not their quotations). This is why I wanted to keep that section short - it can be a huge headache to try and find consensus on a Trump quote Superb Owl (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Reuters:
 * "The Republican presidential candidate renounced any connection with Project 2025"
 * ""I disagree with some of the things they're saying," he continued, adding some of their assertions were "absolutely ridiculous and abysmal."
 * On July 5, 2024, Trump publicly distanced himself from Project 2025 and criticized some of its assertions.? JSwift49 02:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I was thinking: "On July 5, 2024, Trump tried to publicly distanced himself from some aspects of Project 2025. This came days after Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts..." Since it's not clear that he succeeded in distancing himself Superb Owl (talk) 02:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But many reports say he distanced himself? I don't think distancing depends on how other people view it.
 * "Former President Donald Trump distanced himself on Friday from Project 2025" (Forbes)
 * "Donald Trump distanced himself Friday from Project 2025" (TIME)
 * 
 * "Donald Trump has distanced himself from Project 2025" (AP)
 * JSwift49 02:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The Time article is the same article as AP (syndicated). I finally had time to investigate and start a running list here and have 7 articles saying 'tried to/sought to distance' and only 2 saying 'distanced.' I also think it is more verifiable to say 'try to distance.' Superb Owl (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * How about this: "On July 5, 2024, Trump publicly distanced himself from Project 2025 and criticized some of its aspects?" JSwift49 02:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you're right to removed 'tried' if that's what the sources are saying. I get that it was an emphatic denial of the organization, but I want to make sure what we add is substantive too and not redundant (by distancing himself from the project, that seems to imply the policies too) (update: more sources actually appear to be saying 'tried to/sought to distance' than simply 'distanced') Superb Owl (talk) 02:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair. That tbh is why i like 'Ideas'. (which Forbes uses)
 * So that tells us: Trump distanced himself from the organization, but he only criticized some of the ideas, and these ideas may not necessarily be policies. JSwift49 02:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Your draft as is is all good with me. Happy to publish if you are. JSwift49 02:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * previously, published a major change that remained under discussion, without achieving consensus. you later apologized for similarly "jumping the gun." why is this happening again when there remains no consensus for this? soibangla (talk) 02:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. The comments/draft look good to me. As for @Soibangla, you probably don't think a "consensus was reached" because you explicitly refused to engage in the dialogue that reached said consensus. That's a personal choice. Just10A (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * your edit was unjustified and unnecessary soibangla (talk) 23:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * NBC:
 * "Trump distances himself from controversial 'Project 2025' plan"
 * "former President Trump called portions of the 'Project 2025' proposal aimed at overhauling the federal government... "ridiculous and abysmal." JSwift49 02:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Ask for help to fix cite errors for several
Hello, I noticed there are several citation errors in the reference section. After investigating the edit history, it seems that that errors started appeared after this revision: en:Special:Redirect/revision/1233412453

I found it difficult to recover and link the original citation for me. It would be nice if @Superb Owl or someone could help to fix these errors.

Thanks! shuuji3 (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Done! Thanks for catching that Superb Owl (talk) 04:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks for the quick fix :) shuuji3 (talk) 05:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Paragraph order of lead
This unfinished discussion may have gotten lost in the avalanche thread above, so I propose continuing it here: @Soibangla and myself strongly support discussing the Heritage foundation and associated controversies in the second paragraph, moving Trump denial to the fourth (with reactions/etc.) and having policies in the third. This, in my opinion, adheres most closely to the order of the article (LeadFollowsBody), notability, and scope. @JSwift49 has preferred the policy paragraph second and elevating Trump denial higher. Anything I missed? Other thoughts? Superb Owl (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I think the article is good as it currently is and @JSwift49 did a good job of being neutral. Soibangla earlier stated that "Trump's denial is late and ancillary to what P25 has been since April 2023 and we should treat it accordingly." The same logic applies to the Roberts quote and issues. It is within days of the Trump statement (aka "late" by his standards) and JSwift49 has already shown that the "we" in the quote has been interpreted by sources as referring to the country as a whole, not P25 (aka it is ancillary). As a result, the Heritage issues should be given similar treatment and placement as the Trump issues and I think no more changes regarding this issue are needed. The paragraph & article's structure/wording is good and neutral as it is. Just10A (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * thanks for the ping while talking about me.


 * I agree with @Just10A. I think Heritage and Trump go together and should be in the same paragraph. The Roberts “revolution” quote demonsttably refers to the United States and not Project 2025, so its relevance is mainly in that it preceded Trump (publicly) distancing himself.
 * Therefore I strongly oppose splitting the Trump distancing from the Roberts quote, or giving more weight to the Roberts quote in the lead. But I’d be OK with the Trump/Heritage paragraph being second instead of at the end. JSwift49 16:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

maybe I missed that. could you show me? soibangla (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

so it appears three of us agree there needs to be a second parapraph while a fourth says the article is fine right now, is that right?
 * @soibangla No, that's a misrepresentation of what I said. I think the article is good as it is. If the entire last paragraph (including the Trump ties and Trump distancing) was moved second, I wouldn't have an issue either, but the paragraphs themselves would be the same. JSwift49 01:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * However I still have a preference for keeping the order completely as-is, because it flows nicely and chronologically. Describes what it is, and then the "ancillary" comments at the end. Makes more sense for readers. JSwift49 01:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * perhaps you can try to write less ambiguously
 * But I’d be OK with the Trump/Heritage paragraph being second instead of at the end soibangla (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi! Glad we are engaging again. As I explained, I oppose your proposal of a second paragraph solely devoted to Heritage. I also said would not mind the order of the existing paragraphs be changed provided the content/grouping stays the same. But that's minor. So for simplicity's sake: count me as agreeing with @Just10A, don't change the lead paragraphs. JSwift49 01:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But I’d be OK with the Trump/Heritage paragraph being second instead of at the end
 * hey, see how I struck my error in this thread? see how easy it is to acknowledge an error? see how it demonstrates my integrity? soibangla (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * you said to me
 * now that said in this thread
 * are you prepared to impugn that editor's integrity as well? soibangla (talk) 02:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not at all; Superb Owl and I haven't agreed on everything but we were able to civilly work together, and explain/listen to each others' arguments. You on the other hand have rarely explained your arguments or engaged with mine, and you have also misrepresented what I've said. That comes across as pushing an agenda. Based on your Talk page I'm not the first to raise doubts about your neutrality/civility. So... I will leave this conversation at that. You are of course always welcome to contribute your perspective on the article in a professional way. JSwift49 02:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * please cite specific examples of "rarely explained your arguments," because it is flatly false. "or engaged with mine," after you falsely impugned my integrity, of course, which does not promote civility. I did not misrepresent what you said, I quoted you. "I'm not the first to raise doubts about your neutrality/civility," so cite specific examples from my Talk page. all sorts of people whinge about all sorts of things over the course of a decade, which are often refuted. if I was actually a problem, I'd have a lengthy sanctions history. "So... I will leave this conversation at that" well color me shocked soibangla (talk) 02:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not at all; Superb Owl and I haven't agreed on everything but we were able to civilly work together, and explain/listen to each others' arguments. You on the other hand have rarely explained your arguments or engaged with mine, and you have also misrepresented what I've said. That comes across as pushing an agenda. Based on your Talk page I'm not the first to raise doubts about your neutrality/civility. So... I will leave this conversation at that. You are of course always welcome to contribute your perspective on the article in a professional way. JSwift49 02:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * please cite specific examples of "rarely explained your arguments," because it is flatly false. "or engaged with mine," after you falsely impugned my integrity, of course, which does not promote civility. I did not misrepresent what you said, I quoted you. "I'm not the first to raise doubts about your neutrality/civility," so cite specific examples from my Talk page. all sorts of people whinge about all sorts of things over the course of a decade, which are often refuted. if I was actually a problem, I'd have a lengthy sanctions history. "So... I will leave this conversation at that" well color me shocked soibangla (talk) 02:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Biased
As much as I dislike Republicans, this article is very biased against them, focusing solely on the cons of the plan. Jacobacademy (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Can you provide sources which treat the subject in a positive manner? I've looked and can't find any. We follow the sources. If nobody is writing positive articles about the plan, then there is nothing positive we can say about it. Skyerise (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Skyerise Perhaps, but you could at least try to phrase the info in a neutral manner. A good step to take would be to talk more about the intended effects of the plan more and try to exclude criticism from the summary. I don't know how to edit, I am merely a user concerned about maintaining the neutrality of Wikipedia. Jacobacademy (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * there are quite a few editors collaborating on the article representing both sides. The article represents these editors current consensus as to how to present what the sources say. The sources are almost uniformly critical. We can't just make up praise or whitewash criticism! Skyerise (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Skyerise There is nothing wrong with you accurately representing the sources, but you have to have more context. For example, instead of saying that the plan was criticized in a newspaper, you could include the name of the newspaper, writer of the article, and a quote, thus accurately representing the source well remaining impartial. Jacobacademy (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Feel free to join the discussions above where editors have already been discussing that. They are of different opinions, the article goes back and forth, eventually a consensus emerges. If you look at the history, you will see the article is under active development. If you read the talk page you will see that it is under active discussion. Yet instead of joining those active discussions to lend weight to those who believe as you do, you just come and create a brand-new section to criticize the "current" state of the article. The article you viewed is probably already changed! Skyerise (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Skyerise My apologies, I was not aware of that. Thank you for being so patient with me. I'm new to Wikipedia. Jacobacademy (talk) 22:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No problem. Always best to read the whole talk page before jumping in. I know it's long - but any section that hasn't had a response in 30 days gets archived. So pretty much all the separate discussion sections above are or have recently been active. Skyerise (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Am I getting this right?
"It proposes reclassifying tens of thousands of federal civil service workers as political appointees in order to replace them with loyalists more willing to enable the next Republican president's policies"

They want to classify civil servants as political appointees so they can fire them and replace them with ACTUAL political appointees? But only if a Republican is President? Carlo (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The 922-page plan outlines a dramatic expansion of presidential power and a plan to fire as many as 50,000 government workers to replace them with Trump loyalists. Yep, pretty much. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Dans, also an editor of the project's guiding document, has described Project 2025 as "systematically preparing to march into office and bring a new army [of] aligned, trained, and essentially weaponized conservatives ready to do battle against the 'deep state'." Sorry, this was the quote I meant to post. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Trump 'Distanced' vs. 'Tried to distance' himself from Project 2025
I count (running list) 16 sources saying 'Tried to distance' (or equivalent) 4 sources saying 'Distanced' (or equivalent)

in addition, 'tried to distance' is more WP:Verifiable given that whether or not he succeeded is so difficult to verify Superb Owl (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Going through the 16 'tried to distance', I would not give the same weight to New Republic, Mother Jones or The Intercept as they are all considered "biased or opinionated" by most editors. I'd also remove this article  and this one  as they are about Rubio trying to distance Trump, not Trump distancing himself. Also there are a couple of articles from the same sources.
 * Then it's tricky because a lot of the articles use both phrases.
 * "Trump wants to distance" and "Trump’s disavowal of the plan"
 * "Trump seeks to disavow" and "The Republican presidential candidate renounced any connection"
 * This one actually just says "Trump distancing himself"
 * "criticized former President Trump’s attempt to distance himself" and "The former president took to Truth Social earlier Friday to disavow the project"
 * "Trump tried to disown" and "Trump’s move to distance himself"
 * "sought to distance himself" and "Trump’s post disavowing the group"
 * I personally like the language Trump *publicly* distanced himself, (because that doesn't imply anything about how he feels privately), and also following that with how critics said they didn't believe him.
 * Also might be worth including that Project 2025 "emphasized it was independent from the Trump campaign." but not sure. JSwift49 03:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The issue I also have with “tried to distance” is, much like saying “Trump distanced” implies he was successful, “tried to distance” implies he was unsuccessful. If we can’t verify success, we can’t verify unsuccess either. JSwift49 03:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is really helpful - thanks for improving the scan by checking some of these for duplicates or contradictory phrasing. I updated my list according to some of these suggestions, including adding a section for 'both' and separating out the more biased sources you mentioned along with separating out the two Rubio articles. I am not sure that disavow and renouncing any connection are the same as distancing but do not want to spend more time trying to parse something. I also appreciate the 'publicly' qualifier as maybe a good way to split the difference here given that there seems to be coverage using both phrases. Superb Owl (talk) 06:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * because that doesn't imply anything about how he feels privately It implies that there may be an unaccounted for difference between his public and private views... an implication not present in the sources. Marcus Markup (talk) 07:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm point taken. I have found some sources that specifically use “publicly distanced” so we could add those?
 * “Trump, meanwhile, has publicly distanced himself” -Dallas Morning News
 * “While Donald Trump has publicly distanced himself” -The Times
 * If we can’t build consensus around the verb, another option would be to say “On July 5, 2024, Trump posted to Truth Social that…” and then quote him. JSwift49 10:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for researching this. I say go with the strong preponderance of reliable sources as designated solid green at RSP, regardless of the views of some that they may be opinionated. This not the place or time to challenge RSP. soibangla (talk) 03:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would normally agree, but given that we are discussing use of language (as opposed to truth/falsehood) this is precisely where bias comes into play. So IMO we should take into account if most editors view a source as biased. JSwift49 03:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed. A source's appearance on RSP only says the source is considered "reliable".  It says nothing about whether or not it is "biased"... appearance there only vouches for its integrity, not it's choice of phraseology.  Per WP:BIASED "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." Reliable sources are permitted to be biased, and are allowed to use inflammatory language which would be inappropriate for use in an encyclopedia.  It is our job as editors to take their purport and make it presentable and encyclopedic, not just blindly copy-paste their verbiage based on how often it is used in popular media. Marcus Markup (talk) 08:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Blurred "Qanon Jesus" image
In the "Christian nationalism" section, there is currently an image of a January 6th rioter holding an poster of Jesus wearing a MAGA hat. The artwork itself is blurred. According to the file's description, it is blurred because it is copyrighted.

I know it is not the intention, but I think a reasonable person might think the image is being censored due to its political content. It gives the article a less neutral feel.

I find the artwork nauseating, but blurring it sends the wrong message. LibreLearner (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The content is deliberately blurred because it contained copyrighted imagery in an otherwise licensed photo. No blurring, no licensed photo.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   07:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, it is jarring. It implies Wikipedia does not fully grok the concept of fair use.   Marcus Markup (talk) 08:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

This is an example of why Wikipedia is becoming a farse
This 'encyclopedia' entry looks like it was taken directly from the OpEd pages of the NYT/WaPo, after those entities were given direct talking points from political opperatives and/or government employees.

To me, it reads as a joke... not authoritative reference.

Now... que cognitive dissonance. Ummreally? (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Especially now, given that Trump himself has publically and repeatedly disavowed affiliation with it. And Stephen Miller did too. Also, it sees silly that Wikiproject:Pornography assesses it as Mid-importance!--FeralOink (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , I for one, could not agree more… In this age of utter divisiveness in American society, it seems obvious that wiki-editors in general have lost all ability to take sources and make their wording in any article neutral (or even close to neutral). Before I volunteer to help edit articles, I now read ever discussion on the Talk page to judge how bad the shitshow of editing is. If a topic is so divisive that editors argue and revert edits for weeks, I'll definitely step away from that shitshow. It's so bad, there should be a special WP:SHITSHOW article — TadgStirkland401  (TadgTalk) 04:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What? I can't understand anything you wrote here. 2601:1C0:717E:4C0:3C3D:A2E5:AE85:951A (talk) 04:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Advisory board and leadership
why was the list of ~20 Trump administration contributors removed? soibangla (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * now I see removed it
 * can we discuss that? soibangla (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this is original research if all you've done is use the primary document to list the authors of the chapters, which seems useful to me. There's nothing wrong with using a primary source for basic, uncontroversial facts. Maybe remove "Notable" from "Notable authors of the project's Mandate for Leadership include ..."  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   14:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The notability of the authors and their connection to the project, in my understanding, needs secondary sources to establish that notability. That's why I removed it as WP:Excessive detail. Superb Owl (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to remove notable soibangla (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "Authors of the project's Mandate ..." is a set of facts which can be easily verified, and I don't see what that has to do with a person's notability, nor why notability should be a consideration. If this were the plot of a book, we wouldn't worry about secondary sourcing for the plot.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   14:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but how many authors contributed to this project? How much of it is their original thinking or with input from the hundreds of 'advisors'? My understanding was that the notability of their contribution and significance of their involvement needed sourcing to establish. If other contintue to disagree, then it's not a very strongly held position and won't object if ultimately it is restored. Superb Owl (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe others could weigh-in here?
 * (On a related note, I said that secondary sources were needed across at Agenda 47 in the Policy section because that's not a simple, verifiable list of uncontroversial facts: it currently includes extensive interpretation of the content of primary-sourced videos, which is probably WP:OR territory).  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   15:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I thought that listing only names wasn't very informative, without crediting their role in the project (e.g. author, editor, contributor). To be informative, names should be associated with their relationship to Trump.  I'd also like to know what part was their contribution. rootsmusic (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

anybody else wanna contribute here? soibangla (talk) 22:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I think a list of contributors could be informative, particularly if their roles, form of contribution, and degree of connection to Trump, NAR etc. are included. Better still if the contributors are notable enough to have their own linked pages. It could help dispel persistent assertions that these all have nothing to do with each other. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * One of the more important reasons and benefits of Wikipedia generally requiring secondary sources is to ensure a thing really deserves inclusion. If a thing is not being discussed or listed outside of the Wikiverse, that is strong indication it does not belong here. Marcus Markup (talk) 07:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Speculative and opinionated wording in the opening paragraph should be removed.
"It proposes reclassifying tens of thousands of federal civil service workers as political appointees in order to replace them with loyalists more willing to enable the next Republican president's policies."

This language is biased and speculative. When you click on the source, it states this is a claim Critics are making, it does not verify the validity of the claim at all. This produces biased language which is not helpful for this page. 68.184.222.27 (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Nope, it is in fact a claim that Project 2025's own creators are making: Dans, also an editor of the project's guiding document, has described Project 2025 as "systematically preparing to march into office and bring a new army [of] aligned, trained, and essentially weaponized conservatives ready to do battle against the 'deep state'." Largely Legible Layman (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

NPOV
The lede paragraph does not approach WP:NPOV. It is readily apparent that the collective authorship feels strongly negatively about the subject of the article, introducing value judgements and, as above, speculative and lurid writing (e.g., "replace them with loyalists"), vs. a straightforward description of what the subject *claims* to be, followed by analysis and/or reliable source views of same.

Kaisershatner (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Replace with loyalists is used often in many generally reliable sources and you seem to be the first to raise an objection to using the term 'Loyal'. Not sure what a better term would be. If you have more specific issues or suggestions, very happy to dive into them with you and try to find better phrasing Superb Owl (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As you may imagine, the leading section has received a lot of edits, reversions, talk page discussion and analysis (as shown in the sandbox above) over the last few days, so maybe pull up a chair and have a scan through what's been discussed thus far.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   17:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Your edit, which I reverted, I believe obscures a bit about the project by prioritizing what is "self-described" by the organization rather than what reliable sources have reported about it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Muboshgu, thanks. I'd propose the NPOV approach is generally to report (1) what someone / something says that it is, and (2) what others' opinions are about that.  Basically, objectively, "P2025 claims to be X; its critics assert Y, fans claim Z," etc."  If we don't start by establishing what it *says* that it is, we are leading with what (many sources) *believe* that it is.  Kaisershatner (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not like giving up on the idea that there are facts that can be stated in Wikipedia's voice (like the desire by Project 2025 and Trump to appoint loyalists, which seems extremely verifiable) but for now, this might be a workable compromise: It proposes reclassifying tens of thousands of federal civil service workers as political appointees. In doing so, proponents argue that the change would dismantle what they view as a vast, unaccountable, and mostly liberal government bureaucracy, while critics fear a government filled with Trump loyalists who would be willing to bend or break protocol, or in some cases violate laws, to achieve his goals. Superb Owl (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I could get behind that. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I see that Owl has posted about this in 2 talk posts simultaneously. Please see "Addition to discussion of Schedule F" talk page post to see additional discussion positions. Just10A (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Kaisershatner A Christofascist dictatorship wouldn't be all bad. If you read or watch A Handmaid's Tale, there were positive aspects to life in Gilead, at least for the men.
 * Seananony (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Seananony (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello - thanks. "Loyalists" has the connotation of people who put their loyalty over other responsibilities. From a NPOV it is possible to argue the goal of the Project is to remove (Democratic) loyalists in Executive Branch roles who would be an obstacle to achieving the goals of the Administration, correct? I recognize that there are "many" sources that use this, however, NPOV isn't a matter of quantity - it's about objectivity.

In place of "loyalists" I'd advise something more like replacing executive appointees (or whatever the group we are describing is) with "personnel who share the goals of the Administration." Which is literally true, and more neutrally described in contrast to "loyalists."

Kaisershatner (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * And, Esowteric  - thanks.  I understand and it's not my first highly contentious subject.  I will review, however, it is in part the fact that I am more newly arrived that I can see how what I am sure has been a hard-fought consensus here isn't all that NPOV.  Respectfully.  Kaisershatner (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Kaisershatner, I appreciate that you've been here longer than most. I note that you changed "a collection of conservative and right-wing policy proposals" to a self-described (and let's face it, euphemistic) "along more conservative lines". That probably needs to be part of the discussion here, too.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   18:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Esowteric I appreciate the courtesy and constructive engagement.  I am amenable to discussing the above as well, of course - short answer is "right-wing" is used pejoratively here, one might similarly object to describing "liberal" views as "left-wing", for example - and we are striving for NPOV.  Something more like simply "conservative proposals" is less objectional.  Kaisershatner (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What about 'conservative and Trumpian' or 'MAGA conservative' ideas? There are many ideas in the plan that people would generally recognize as conservative but also many that have been described as 'stark' or 'right-wing' or 'radical' or 'authoritarian' and we have so far already tried and failed to come up with a single adjective that accurately portrays what the plan says. I do not support using only 'conservative' for that reason as it papers over very real controversy (widely reported and felt across the political spectrum) that occurs in the 1000 pages + actions of Project 2025. (here is a running list of some different descriptors) Superb Owl (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think "MAGA conservative" works nicely. And I agree that it's probably the best we can do in summarizing the ideology(ies) into a single term (either that or "right-wing," which presents its own issues). This goes for the Schedule F discussion as well along with what was said there. Just10A (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Trump disavows any affiliation with or endorsement of Heritage's framework or battle plan or whatever they call it. That needs to be communicated more clearly, otherwise use of royalists or loyalists is ambiguous. To whom do they hold allegiance, the guy at the Heritage Foundation? Also, Superb Owl just now removed Heritage Foundation from the short article description which is used by Wikidata entity defn and further muddies waters.--FeralOink (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Addition to discussion of Schedule F
I propose adding the underlined portion to the sentence in lead outlining argument of proponents of Schedule F proposal (sourced from the same article):

In doing so, proponents argue that the change would dismantle what they view as a vast, unaccountable, and mostly liberal government bureaucracy, while critics fear a government filled with Trump loyalists who would be willing to bend or break protocol, or in some cases violate laws, to achieve his goals. Superb Owl (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree with the idea of adding something like this to the paragraph with the following critiques:
 * 1.) Have a period after "bureaucracy" and then just start a new sentence about critics. It just reads better than a long multi-clause sentence.
 * 2.) "Trump loyalists" should not be included just because A.)it's a charged term and B.)of the discussions we already had in the "trump loyalist" talk page post. P25 itself does not have installing trump loyalists as their plan. It's installing people in-line to the next republican president, and they think that person will be trump. Another user came earlier today and even had issue with the term "loyalist" (without "trump"). I reverted, but I saw his point. Loyalist by itself is a little charged, but acceptable. Trump loyalist, for the purposes of a P25 tenets page, is borderline false imo.
 * 3.) The term "in some cases violate laws" isn't really accurate to the P25 doctrine. Their whole position is that the president legally has the full power of the executive, and the agencies, as part of the exec branch, bend to his/her will. By definition, in that scenario, they explicitly aren't breaking the law. That's their whole position. I'd like to add that this isn't even particularly controversial legally speaking. Any "breaking the law" language is assuming the workers overstep OUT of the executive branch (aka under the presidents control) and into other branches. That isn't part of the P25 plan, so it's therefore essentially speculation. Also, again, its just charged language.
 * Besides that I'm think a sentence with this idea, but with much more toned-down language is a good idea and I agree with you. Just10A (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And actually, looking at the page now, it would probably be better just to incorporate this point into the last sentence(s) of the paragraph which is already discussing critics. Just10A (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 'Trump loyalists' refers to what critics fear - completely different from Wikipedia:Voice discussion above. The proponents argument is also speculation/opinion and so it seems to include the proponents arguments, you should also include the (more prevalent?) and notable criticism. Superb Owl (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The proponent argument is not speculation. It is what the P25 documents and creators maintain, which is the subject of the page. The fact that P25 maintains that it will "dismantle a vast, unaccountable, and mostly liberal government bureaucracy" is not speculation, it is what P25 tenet(s)/position is which, again, is the subject of the page. You can maybe say that also applies to criticisms, but they aren't as much the main subject of the page, and they certainly aren't official positions.
 * Further, we already have a section sentences later that addresses criticisms. Not every single statement, especially when it explicitly says it's only a proponents POV, has to be immediately countered with a statement saying the opposite. We get posts on this page from (mostly, but certainly not all) good-faith editors all the live-long day about how this page is left-leaning. I have yet to see one say it is too right-leaning. I think we can survive with a single, pretty neutrally-worded sentence describing the proponents views without an immediate "BUT THEYRE WRONG!" in the same sentence. It doesn't look good and will just invite more backlash than we already get. Especially when it's unnecessary due to a criticism section mere sentences later.
 * Lastly, I disagree with the position that we can just say any statement, no matter how defamatory or incendiary, and as long as we put "critics say" in front, it's ok. I think that clearly isn't the standard, and both the current proponent and critics section in the lede are much more neutrally worded than that.
 * I have no problem with adding something like the underlined phrase in the already prevalent critics part in the paragraph. In fact, I probably agree with you and support it. But it has to be more in-line with the rest of the language. Just10A (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Two sentences is fine by me, and while we are it, would be great to combine Schedule F + recruitment + training work done by Project 2025 together. Something like:Asserting that the president has absolute power over the executive branch, Project 2025 has started work to replace tens of thousands of federal civil service workers by recruiting and training potential political appointees. In doing so, proponents argue that the change would dismantle what they view as a vast, unaccountable, and mostly liberal government bureaucracy. Critics fear this effort would create a government of Trump loyalists who would be willing to bend or break protocol, or in some cases violate laws, to achieve his goals. @Muboshgu, @Kaisershatner and @Esowteric - pinging y'all to let you know that our previous thread may have (inadvertently) spilled into this one. (and I am not responding to the discussion on NPOV by @Just10AJust10A because I still do not agree or understand the arguments and do not have something to add at this point.) Superb Owl (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I like the wording of this a lot. Only addition I'd have is to maybe work in some of the current language regarding Article II of the constitution and UE theory into the first sentence or so. I think it adds a lot of context and is enjoyable, but that really isn't even contentious so I could just try to work it in myself later. But thats just me. Also, maybe change "Trump Loyalists" to "Republican loyalists?" or "Conservative Loyalists?" I still think that just makes more sense for a P25 page. Other than that, very well made. Just10A (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello all, I also like this update - it leans on factual reporting (p25 wants to replace civil servants) and provides the views of supporters and detractors - reads as a lot more neutral to me. Thank you.  Kaisershatner (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Need to change Trump loyalists to "conservative loyalists" or "Republican loyalists" as suggested by Just10A. What does Just10A mean by "I think it adds a lot of context and is enjoyable" regarding the entire passage? How is it enjoyable? Thanks.--FeralOink (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

P25 scope
I contend the P25 scope is broader than replacement of the civil service and thus I placed "proponents argue that the change would dismantle what they view as a vast, unaccountable, and mostly liberal government bureaucracy" right up top as the second sentence of the lead.

disagrees and has thus placed the sentence deeper in the lead, after the sentence about replacing the civil service, prefacing it with "In doing so..." so as to limit the scope to replacing the civil service.

what do people think?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Project_2025&diff=prev&oldid=1233809144 soibangla (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * But thats the thing, it's not "the P25 scope." Its "what proponents CONTEND is the P25 scope." Clearly subjective positions only held by one side fall after objective explanations of the policy. Its not "limiting the scope" at all. Just10A (talk) 02:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, they contend a broader scope, not limited to replacement of the civil service. The rest of the article amply demonstrates it.soibangla (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

"Not to be confused with Agenda 47" tag at top of article
I removed this tag, as I contend it "is a politically motivated attempt to divert attention from this article: I am aware from internet chatter that there is a chorus of chants "P25 is not Trump's plan, A47 is his plan". The message of this tag: don't read about this controversial proposal, go over there and read the other one.

has restored the tag

what do people think? soibangla (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah I just think thats way too deep. People confuse them. In case they're looking for something else, have it there. If not, great. Doesn't hurt. End of analysis. Just10A (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, just to note, I'm not the one who originally added it. It was up and not removed when I originally saw it, so it seemingly is accepted by editors. Just10A (talk) 02:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I removed it 4 hours after it was added
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Project_2025&diff=prev&oldid=1233752186 soibangla (talk) 02:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The question is, is there actual or potential confusion which indicates disambiguation? A quick Google yields the following from USA Today's fact checker, which would indicate the answer to that is "yes":  "Project 2025 is an effort by the Heritage Foundation, not Donald Trump | Fact check"  Also, a quick Google for "Project 2025 is Trump's plan" shows a significant number of occurrences in social media, in what looks like a disinformation campaign.  I think the tag is warranted and would do some of our readers a service... I see no harm in it.  Marcus Markup (talk) 02:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Must be deleted according to WP:NPOV. In addition is unnecesary. It seems like an attempt to unlink Trump from the 2025 project with the endorsement of Wikipedia. This is even more controversial considering that the Trump campaign initially said that Project 2025 aligned well with its Agenda 47 proposals. Additionally, there is no evidence that there is a common confusion between the two terms. They don't even have similar names, and little or nothing has been heard of agenda 47 Esterau16 (talk) 04:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is quite a bit of evidence of confusion on-line as to which plan is whose, and a lot of it seems to be deliberate. I'm not sure how you can support such a statement.
 * It seems like an attempt to unlink Trump from the 2025 project That's one way of looking at it. Another would be, your actions are an admitted attempt to maintain a linkage to Trump the person to this project. From your editing history, you seem to be a WP:SPA with a political axe to grind, quite frankly.  Marcus Markup (talk) 09:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The user in question who initially added the tag (Enix150) seems to be a perfectly respectable editor with over 8,000 edits. I don't see any attempt to unlink Trump from the 2025 project with the endorsement of Wikipedia from them, though there are such attempts by interested parties online to either link Trump or conversely to unlink Trump; nor do I see evidence of NPOV in that editor's action. I would agree with Marcus Markup that there is much confusion online.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   09:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Does the validity of edits now depend on the number of edits a user has? The user you mention has had 2 blocks. Now where is the evidence that there is a common and widespread confusion between these 2 terms?
 * It is one thing for some people to ask if project 2025 is authored by Trump and quite another for someone to explicitly ask if the project 2025 is the same as agenda 47.
 * These 2 terms don't even have the same level of awareness. It is clear that vastly more people have heard the term project 2025 than the term agenda 47, so how would the confusion start in the first place? Also the Project 2025 article mentions at the beginning that it is a project created by the Heritage Foundation. Esterau16 (talk) 11:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ... Their addition of a tag at Agenda 47 pointing to Project 2025 would suggest even-handedness, if we assume good faith.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   09:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with these points. I'd say it's pretty objectively reasonable to include with the article at this point. Just10A (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , I count you and as in favor of inclusion, me and  opposed, and  as indeterminate. thus I do not see consensus for inclusion. I don't see how an assertion that the two have had a hisotry of past partisan accusations is disqualifying or relevant. btw, who are those two? there are just five of us in this discussion, so I I do not see how you get 4 in favor, 2 opposed soibangla (talk) 00:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Esowteric explicitly said “I would agree with Marcus Markup that there is much confusion online.” (The basis for the header) That counts me, the original good faith editor Enix150, Marcus, and Esowteric. Further, the debate stopped after the dissenters points were directly addressed and countered, and then there were no responses or objections to those analyses. Just10A (talk) 01:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I also "agree with Marcus Markup that there is much confusion online," but that does not mean I agree with their assessment of how we handle this issue here. has been pinged but has not responded. there were no responses or objections within a day of the last edit does not mean the discussion is settled and closed. the matter remains open and self-reversion is recommended, in compliance with BRD, rather than edit warring. soibangla (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I normally would agree, but 1.) The header actually should never have been removed in the first place. It was a good faith edit, and then you correctly made a talk page about it, did not change it. And then hours later, even after the majority voiced support, Esterau changed it back under the guise of it being discussed. 2.) The majority certainly currently seems to support it. The discussion can continue, but it has clearly met the standard to at least remain while it is being discussed, as it has appropriate support. Although, again, the discussion seems to have ended with twice the amount of people supporting it, and the dissenter’s statements addressed with no further objections voiced. Just10A (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * there were no responses or objections within a day of the last edit does not mean the discussion is settled and closed. this is akin to a political candidate rushing to declare victory after preliminary results show him leading but before all the ballots have been counted. the discussion remains open. soibangla (talk) 01:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The majority certainly currently seems to support it. The discussion can continue, but it has clearly met the standard to at least remain while it is being discussed (bold mine)
 * I submit that the discussion remains active and that the good faith action would be to self-revert in light of a legitimately reverted edit pursuant to BRD, to allow others an opportunity to participate. soibangla (talk) 02:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What do you ask of me? The Agenda 47 article has a not to be confused with tag, so I added one to the corresponding article. The fact that there is so much confusion here leads me to believe that the tag was a necessity. Enix150 (talk) 01:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * thank you for your response soibangla (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was a Keep from me.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   07:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * thank you, I wasn't quite sure soibangla (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I agree with your assessment of what is objectively reasonable. soibangla (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * For what little my opinion is worth, I agree with @Esterau16 and @Soibangla for now. It's my understanding that Agenda47 was just a bit of flashy marketing to get Trump onto the ticket and since he's gotten there Agenda47 has lain abandoned and almost forgotten. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I see both sides here but have been leaning against inclusion while Agenda 47 article is in its early stages and has received much less media coverage (anyone know how much article quality/notability is supposed to factor into these discussions?) Superb Owl (talk) 02:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I say strong Keep. It is my understanding that Agenda47 is much more than marketing to get Trump onto the ticket, and that it has NOT been abandoned or forgotten. Instead, it is the candidate's official statement of proposed policies.--FeralOink (talk) 12:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've removed the hatnote, the link is in see also. Hatnotes are for things that could be easily confused because they have similar spellings: if they are clearly different terms unlikely to be confused due to similar spelling, there is no likelihood of confusion and no need for a hatnote. Skyerise (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not exclusive to similar spellings. Please see WP:HATNOTERULES. Just10A (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Any official mention of the irony?
Have any major sources pointed out yet how supremely ironic Project 2025's goals are? If successful, Project 2025 will effectively create a very real conservative cabal within the government, just like the imaginary liberal cabal that Project 2025's backers want to eliminate... Largely Legible Layman (talk) 17:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Will look out for that, LLL.
 * Taking my wiki hat off for a moment and donning my flat cap: self-awareness and a sensitivity toward irony and nuance are sadly lacking in some quarters where they are most needed.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   18:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure ironic is the right word. I'd go with hypocritical. Skyerise (talk) 11:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * This is getting close to WP:NOTAFORUM territory. Talk pages are not an opportunity to vent. Marcus Markup (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, but I think Skyerise and I have been here long enough to have the occasional lapse.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   13:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't buy into the "I'm a senior, therefore, I get to have some lapses that a newbie would be reverted for" ethos which is omnipresent on Wikipedia. I am more of the type that thinks that those with more experience should set an example and behave BETTER than newbies, but that's just me. Marcus Markup (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think that in addition to "Don't bite the newbies" we should also have a "Don't bite the senior editors, either." But that's just me. Skyerise (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I "bite" no one, and am simply citing policy and example. Using talk pages as an opportunity to vent has to be nipped in the bud on articles pertaining to such inflammatory topics, even from (and PARTICULARLY from) editors who should know better. That you disagree is noted. Marcus Markup (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I could cite a bunch of opinion pieces that say just that, if you like - for improving the article, of course. Skyerise (talk) 13:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We see comments like this, then comments about how Wikipedia and the article is totally fair and unbiased, and it's quite hilarious to be perfectly honest. Bringjustthefactsplease (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

CNN article:"Trump claims not to know who is behind Project 2025. A CNN review found at least 140 people who worked for him are involved"
. Doug Weller talk 18:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * NB Doug these people USED TO work for him, back when he was President of the United States. They don't work for him now. This is no different than PACs which Democrats use too. PACs disavow any affiliation or knowledge or endorsement by actual candidates. Trump has been very busy as a criminal case defendant so he can't possibly know everything that 140 of his former administration people are up to, three years later.--FeralOink (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

"Christian nationalism" is unsupported by facts or RS
The mention of "Christian nationalism" in both the eponymous section and the lede are totally unsupported by RS. Most is supposedly sourced to a Politico article which, while making much of purported "connections" between members of the hundred-odd groups involved in Project 2025 and others (many not involved at all with it), completely fails to reveal any evidence that it is in any way influenced by or an attempt to increase "Christian nationalism". The one specific claim in the Politico smear-job—quoting the Mandate for Leadership as contending that "freedom is defined by God, not man"—turns out to be utterly false, as others have noted. The other five sources make for even thinner gruel: The Week and PBS never once refer to the 2025 Project, the Mandate for Leadership, or even Heritage—while Mother Jones and WaPo fail to mention Christianity, let alone "Christian nationalism". And the Bucks County Beacon piece with its "explosive new evidence" is as much of a dud as the Politico piece, with it's only purported link between Project 2025 and Christian nationalism being that one person involved in the former tweeted something nice about another person who writes about the latter. Color me confused—is Project 2025 supposedly a "stealth" plan to implement Christian nationalism—one so secret that not even obviously hostile, left-wing sources can manage to connect them?

Even more important than the lack of RS is the fact that the entire thesis is garbage; a cursory read of the Mandate for Leadership immediately reveals it has nothing to do with "Christian nationalism". The one policy suggestion that could perhaps be seen to be derived from or to advance Christianity (but hardly "Christian nationalism") is a suggested regulation to ensure employees are paid at time-and-a-half rates on Sundays, which is referred to as "the Sabbath". The rest isn't remotely religious, nor does it advocate for any religion. For example, while many may Americans surely oppose abortion because of their own religious views, that opposition is no more evidence of "Christian nationalism" than opposition to the death penalty, or support of programs to support the sick and needy. Is a Buddhist opposed to abortion who advocates their position, or simply votes their conscience, advancing "Christian nationalism"? The Wikivoice statement in the lede—that the 2025 Project "seeks to infuse the government and society with Christian values"—was clearly cribbed from the Politico headline, and is so utterly anodyne as to be meaningless. Our society, along with our entire criminal-law system, Medicaid, our military, and probably most of what the Federal government does could be said to be "infused with Christian values"—so what? And where's the evidence that Project 2025 "seeks to infuse" it further? The second sentence—"Critics have characterized Project 2025 as an authoritarian, Christian nationalist plan to steer the U.S. toward autocracy"—may well be true, but it's even more asinine than the first claim, given that these critics have absolutely no evidence that Project 2025 is "Christian nationalist" by any reasonable definition of that phrase.

The relevant portions of the lede and the entire "Christian nationalism" section should be immediately excised—there's no excuse for our encyclopedia to repeat this kind of patent and politically-motivated misinformation. Imagine an article on, say, the 2024 DNC platform that's little more than a hatchet job and accuses it of trying to "infuse society and government with communism"—because some DNC members have had "connections" to people who have, in other contexts, lent support to ideas which could be seen as "aligned" with socialism. The sad fact is that this article is an utter embarrassment—one which points to a desperate need for us to change how we cover politically charged current events. Until we do, Wikipedia's neutrality, and thus its credibility are in grave danger. Thanks! Ekpyros (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The links are there, for those with eyes. Here's a piece in New Republic talking about Project 2025 advisor Russell Vought who runs the influential conservative think tank the Center for Renewing America and who "lauded" Christian nationalist William Wolfe's work: Trump's Christian Nationalist Friends Have a Horrifying Plan for a Second Term.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   20:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * At NPR, we have: Tracing the rise of Christian nationalism, from Trump to the Ala. Supreme Court:
 * ONISHI: When it comes to government, I think we're seeing the strategy play out in real time. The goal is to institute people at every level of government who will either act as Christians carrying out God's mission on earth, this mission to colonize or take dominion of every part of human society, or to elect and work with those who are going to carry out that mission, whether or not they are doing so as conscious purveyors of God's plans themselves. So when we think about something like Project 2025, the forecasted ideal of the second Trump term, when we think of ...
 * GROSS: And this is a project of the conservative Heritage Foundation.
 * ONISHI: ... [T]he goal is to have people in those cogs of the government's machine that will work to colonize this government for God to return it to glory, to make America great again by instituting a very narrow and hardcore vision for a Christian society.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   21:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And no, you're not going to find any of this spelt out in the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 Mandate, which forms only a part of the subject matter of this Wikipedia article.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   21:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine what you could possibly mean by "[t]he links are there, for those with eyes"—are you suggesting that I'm visually impaired or disabled in some way? I've seen and read the links, and commented on them above—including the fact that 4 out of 6 don't even mention Project 2025 and "Christian nationalism".
 * I'm afraid neither of the two additional articles you've seen fit to cite supports the section in question any better:
 * Bradley Onishi is not a WP:RS, and can be cited only for his own opinion, and only if it's WP:DUE and including it is meets WP:NPOV.
 * TNR's article accuses the Project only of trying to advance "Christian nationalist-oriented [sic] goals"—which is hardly the same as "Christian nationalism". As per above, "Christian-nationalist-oriented goals" is a meaningless phrase—many of Project 2025's goals could also be considered "sharia-oriented goals" or "Enlightenment-oriented goals". The article, like the entire section in ours, is nothing more than a rehash of the Politico article to which it links—right down to the use of "infuse". This, despite Politico clearly stating that the "documents… do not outline specific Christian nationalist policies."
 * Like that article, our section comes down to nothing but a guilt-by-association attack on Russell Vought, who again is the head of one of 100 groups involved with Project 2025. Has anyone actually pointed to  one single thing  he actually contributed to Project 2025—a single "Christian nationalist" sentence, let alone a "goal"? Even more absurd is the inclusion of this William Wolfe character. Why is he included? Supposedly because he has "a close affiliation" with Vought—despite, as far as I can tell, having  no documented connection to Project 2025  at all. Has anyone actually pointed to  one single thing  he actually contributed to Project 2025—a single "Christian nationalist" sentence, let alone a "goal"? Reproducing such a lame and grasping-at-straws smear—in Wikivoice, no less—doesn't even begin to meet minimal encyclopedic standards.
 * Last but hardly least, what is the rest of this article's "subject matter", exactly? Ekpyros (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Bradley Onishi does seem to be a RS, they're a published and currently employed professor in good standing in a relevent field. Their qualifications are actually rather astonishing in breadth given their age, I see Azusa Pacific University, Oxford University, Institut catholique de Paris, and UCSB. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 04:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A few more sources for y'all: Wisconsin Examiner, Washington Post, WBUR, Boston Review  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

second paragraph
can we circle back to discussing the violent and militaristic rhetoric of Roberts and Dans, the military deployment, etc? it kinda dropped out and faded away. soibangla (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * anyone wanna revisit this? soibangla (talk) 04:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Gay furry hackers leaks
Quite a bit of news coverage. Doug Weller  talk 06:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I thought the furries were pro-Trump. They were in the past.--FeralOink (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing issues
Parts of this article are unsourced. Other parts cite slanted sources (such as Axios) for which attribution is recommended. I intend to try to fix this over the weekend. Riposte97 (talk) 10:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * please cite specific unsourced content. Axios is a reliable source that I have attributed thrice. soibangla (talk) 10:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would also like to add that I have witnessed a number of occasions on WP:CTOP articles when editors challenge the quality of WP:RSP reliable sources. in such cases, I and others have suggested that such challenges belong at WP:RSN rather than in a specific article. soibangla (talk) 10:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * oh, just one more thing: if you come across unsourced content, I recommend making liberal use of the tag rather than removing content, so I and others can hunt down sources. I would greatly appreciate that. soibangla (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

a political tactical decision?
Days after Trump released a statement seeking to distance himself from Project 2025, Roberts said, "So no hard feelings from any of us at Project 2025 about the statement because we understand Trump is the standard bearer and he's making a political tactical decision there."

soibangla (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Pornography is rated "low‑importance" here
Given that Roberts writes:

I would submit Project 2025 poses an existential threat to the porn industry, which isn't exactly of low importance to it. soibangla (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree. Project 2025 would cut off a $100 million dollar industry and 335,000,000 people from porn. I don't think it's of a low-importamce. TheWikiToby (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The guidelines of the pornography project assume almost all of their articles will be actors, and recommend applying importance based on notability. Not sure that standard is appropriate in all cases, though, and they acknowledge it as a starting effort. Poking around, it seems all over the place, and dependent on one's POV.  I would think Mid Importance, but would not object to High Importance. Marcus Markup (talk) 03:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and made it "mid" not to preclude making it "High" (which I'm thinking it deserves), but because it so clearly was not "low" and I found that annoying. Marcus Markup (talk) 11:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am changing it back to Low. This proposed plan by the Heritage Foundation is in no way of Mid or High importance to all global, current, and all historical pornography. The scope of Wikiproject Pornography is NOT localized to the USA in 2024.--FeralOink (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Bad call. "Low" is the lowest possible level of importance one can attribute to an article.  What happens to the pornography industry in America (particularly in California) has an effect world-wide.  That this Project proposes to make it in fact criminal is a BFD and is certainly not of "Low" importance.  Marcus Markup (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I just created a B class article on a book whose originally self-published author has recently shot to mainstream success with over a million sales and translation into more than twenty languages. Project Novels: low importance. Project Ireland: low importance. Project Women writers: low importance. And, for Wikipedia, that sounds right; much as I would like to elevate these evaluations.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   19:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Apples and oranges. Your examples of novels and how they were received do not have the potential to change how writing is practiced today, nor are authors in danger of being jailed as would purveyors of pornography should this Projects proposals be implemented.  Marcus Markup (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In the case of Project 2025, though, these things may become more important should they be actually implemented in 2025.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   19:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * By then, this won't be a "project" any more, but instead The law of the land and the point will be mooted, won't it? This will be a historic document at that point... just sayin'  Marcus Markup (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you feel strongly about such issues, why is "Sexology and sexuality" still low importance and "LGBT studies" still unrated? They are arguably more important than "Pornography" and really do affect many people's lives.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   20:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The "other stuff exists" argument. Nice.  And I don't "feel so strongly", I am simply making my case, and further addressing the issue would serve no purpose other than to raise my blood pressure. Marcus Markup (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, the purpose of categorizing articles based on 'importance' is so that members of the project in question know what to focus on. It is NOT intended to be a commentary on the merits of the subject at hand... it is an editorial tool, and not content, and the standards for how to rate articles vary widely by project... it is not a tool of comparison between projects, in other words.   Marcus Markup (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Short description
The latest rendition is Effort to reshape US Federal government and society

Note that a short description is not a definition; it's for disambiguation purposes. See WP:SHORTDESC.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   16:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, the previous short description, Policy proposal by The Heritage Foundation specifically named the foundation.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   16:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I think we should change it back to the way it was. It is a plan by the Heritage Foundation. They do this every election cycle according to the article. I didn't realize that they had these back when Reagan was president but that's what it says in the article, and I checked. It's accurate. It should have Heritage Foundation in the short description, otherwise it will be confusing.--FeralOink (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It also says that there is nothing wrong with summarizing/defining it should it meet the other criteria for short-desc. Would love to get it to be precise (though there is still work to do on the lead on this front too, and maybe we should start there). The Heritage Foundation is coordinating this effort with a group of hundreds of advisers and other organizations. To suggest they alone created it and that it is just a policy proposal and not combined with recruitment and training seems like a missed opportunity. The Mandate for Leadership is not the only part of the project. Superb Owl (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Is it crucial to add ... "and society"? Short descriptions over 40 characters long may be truncated.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   16:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * no it's not crucial if it's too long, but if it's truncated then what is the difference? The most important information is at the front anyway Superb Owl (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh well, leave it as it, then. Sooner or later some "brutalist" editor who scans short descriptions will sort it out.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   16:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * (and it's not meant to be a summary of the leading section).  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   16:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It is one of a series of Heritage Foundation Project xxxx (every four years) if a GOP party member is elected to the presidency. I think we should change it back to the prior short description. Project 2025 is no different than the one done pre Reagan that is mentioned in the article. I guess that was named Project 1981.--FeralOink (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Esowteric. I think it is too long AND misleading to include "society". Obama said he would "fundamentally change America". This is not the same in professed scope.--FeralOink (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I also agree it should be trimmed. The guideline states it should be no more than 40 characters. Skyerise (talk) 12:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * i also prefer the previous definition!
 * the current one is very misleading, especially if you are not from the us/not a native speaker Lady Pizzzza (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Effort to reshape US federal government and society It's too long. Editors evidently still don't understand the purpose of the short description.  It is supposed to be only used for disambiguation purposes, should be as short as possible, and is absolutely NOT intended to define the subject.  "Policy proposal" or something similar would be my recommendation.  Two words, wham and done. Marcus Markup (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's too short and not clear enough. I would suggest, then, "US conservative policy proposals".  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   09:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Esowteric
 * love it 👍 Lady Pizzzza (talk) 13:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Esowteric
 * love it 👍 Lady Pizzzza (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Please translate into Chinese and Vietnamese
I don't see "project 2025" translated in Chinese or Vietnamese. though I did see Spanish translations of the Project 2025 at other addresses. Please provide this service. Visualeyes108 (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis - Summer Session24
— Assignment last updated by A1iciaF (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

See Also section contains only irrelevant links such as "Liber OZ"
I have attempted to remove these links (in fact, the whole section, as it now stands) multiple times, and another user keeps reverting my changes. Mosi Nuru (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've noticed that they insist that, because Agenda 47 is disambiguated at the top, that it cannot therefore appear in the "See also" section. So tedious.  Marcus Markup (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yup. I'd be fine with just not having a "See Also" section, it's not clear that we need one; but the links we have now are embarrassingly inappropriate. Mosi Nuru (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I also notice that the user in question seems to be obsessively editing the Liber OZ page--he's responsible for 49 of the last 50 edits on this page. Mosi Nuru (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Got rid of two of these (the most "outlying"). I'm guessing that the human rights entries are there so readers might discover how Project 2025 could infringe on these rights (?)  Esowteric  +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   18:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. They are entirely relevant. and by the way, using the word "obsessively" is a personal attack. The plan attacks civil rights in general, in much the same was as they were attacked during the lifetime of the author of Liber OZ. It's also relevant in the wake of Saturday's events, because it specifically asserts the right to tyrannicide. I'm putting it back. Skyerise (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "The plan attacks civil rights in general, in much the same was as they were attacked during the lifetime of the author of Liber OZ." - by that logic, Liber OZ is an appropriate "see also" on every Wikipedia page involving authoritarian or claimed-to-be-authoritarian-by-someone political leaders and proposals.
 * "The plan attacks civil righIt's also relevant in the wake of Saturday's events, because it specifically asserts the right to tyrannicide." - again, by that logic, Liber OZ would be an appropriate "see also" on every article dealing with assassination or attempted assassination. Which still wouldn't make it an appropriate "see also" for this article, which is not about the attempted Trump assassination. Mosi Nuru (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, please don't remove the link until you can show a consensus on this talk page for removal. You are an editor with a total of 155 edits, so I don't think you know all the relevant policies that might allow for its inclusion. Feel free to check my edit count on my contribs page or user page. Calling me obsessive and then not apologizing when I point it out is not the way to get on my good side. Thanks. Skyerise (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright. Thus far, four editors have weighed in: myself, Skyerise, @Esowteric, and @Marcus Markup.
 * Is that sufficient to define a consensus on this issue? Mosi Nuru (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Human rights inflation is also relevant, because the arguments for restricting certain types of civil rights are in general based on the belief that civil rights actions have gone "too far". So both are relevant. Skyerise (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

At present there are four links under "See also". Agenda 47 (yes, seems relevant, this and P25 are both proposed agendas for a Trump presidency), Human rights (somewhat relevant), Human rights inflation (somewhat relevant), and Liber OZ (spectacularly irrelevant). I see no justification for the inclusion of Liber OZ on this list that would not suggest putting hundreds of other things on the list. See-also lists should not have hundreds of entries. (WP:MOS: "Links in this section should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number.".) Further, if something like Liber OZ is going to be in the list then it should be accompanied by a brief explanation/justification, which is not there at present. (WP:MOS: "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent".) I think an annotation along the lines of "P25 attacks civil rights, and civil rights were also attacked in the lifetime of the author of Liber OZ" would make it obvious to every reader that the link doesn't belong in the "See also" section. Gareth McCaughan (talk) 11:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Ok, I now concede that the consensus is against inclusion of that one particular link and have removed it. Of course, consensus can change, so if it does, the link could be restored. Skyerise (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'm glad we could reach a consensus on the removal of Liber OZ.
 * I continue to believe that the entire section as it now stands is best removed--I agree with Gareth McCaughan that human rights and human rights inflation are only "somewhat relevant." The words "human right(s)" at present appear only in the See Also section, and it's not clear why those items specifically deserve a see also and not civil and political rights or conservatism in the United States or hundreds of other articles. The only article that I see as intuitively meriting a See Also is Agenda 47, which has been included by myself and Marcus Markup and which Skyerise has now reverted twice.
 * But the removal of Liber OZ was by far the most important point. Mosi Nuru (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please note that the human rights links were described above as "somewhat relevant" and there does not seem to be any consensus here to remove them. Also please note that our manual of style clearly states that links already in the body of the article should not also be listed in 'See also'. Therefore I have removed your additions, which were already linked from the article lead and infobox. Skyerise (talk) 11:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing to the manual of style. I was unfamiliar with that policy, and concede that my additions were appropriately removed.
 * It remains clear to me that the articles in the See Also section at present are of low relevance, or at least that there is no obvious reason to justify their inclusion vis-a-vis hundreds of other articles.
 * To wit, the current see alsos:
 * -Human rights: This could potentially be linked to any article dealing with authoritarianism, and a quick search for those articles shows that this not the practice on Wikipedia. The concept is either linked in the body of the article, or not linked at all, not dropped in a see also section.
 * -Human rights inflation: This is a stub article, that appears to be only referenced on the following wikipedia articles: Substantive rights, Human rights, Right to Internet access, Economic, social and cultural rights, International human rights instruments... and Project 2025. One of these things is not like the others.
 * -Southern strategy: This is the most clearly inappropriate at the moment. If we're going to draw comparisons between two policies 60 years apart, that should get more analysis than a "See also."
 * Because there is a dispute between two editors, I'd appreciate input from any third party editors dropping by. Mosi Nuru (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to concede Southern strategy, but it was not my addition. I restored it because it seemed to be relevant at first glance and I knew it hadn't been discussed. Not sure who added it, but perhaps they could speak up and justify it. I do have to say that, in general, comparing usage on other articles doesn't carry much weight in Wikipedia discussions (WP:WHATABOUTISM). Examples of this include WP:ENGVAR, WP:DATEVAR, and WP:REFVAR, which all prohibit trying to match the style in some other article. Article editorial decisions are almost always either made locally, or are made at the level of the involved WikiProjects. Some projects might prefer tightly related links, other projects might allow more loosely related links. I am not aware of any preferences in any of the Project associated with this page though, so arguments should mostly refer to guidelines, not other pages. Skyerise (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

CPI
Do you include a reference to Conservative Partnership Institutions? I believe they are related. 2603:8000:D500:68D6:3CE2:E468:F164:76CF (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to the Conservative Partnership Institute, perhaps? Largely Legible Layman (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)