Talk:Project 2025/Archive 1

tags and protection
I believe these are premature. What I see thus far is WP:IDONTLIKEIT which is its own POV. I suggest the editors who believe the tags are applicable promptly provide specific examples of purported bias/POV so the tags and protection can be removed. I intend to remove the tags if concrete progress is not promptly forthcoming. is the article designated as WP:CT/AP? I don't see a banner shell for it on Talk. ping:  soibangla (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. Sorry for the delay in adding the WP:CTOP notice, I was distracted by an issue on another article. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The intro has changed many times with both left and right wing bias. In addition I have added {POV} due to a large discussion ongoing about the bias of the article. See examples, 1 2 3 there are many more examples but there are some of the bigger ones. Ironically while requesting for protection, this there was another example of a reason for protection. In addition the  major discussion has been on the page. LuxembourgLover (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * this article is new and lots of initial changes are common in new articles. the fact some have chosen to clamp down on this article so quickly suggests to me they are displeased that the article does not reflect their POV, without identifying specific objectionable content. let's see some examples so we can resolve this and remove the tags. soibangla (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have removed the tags, nobody provided any justification for them on the talk page. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Link on Reddit front page
so the editors are aware, it has reached the top of the front page of Reddit so it'll need some extra attention 192.0.182.43 (talk) 12:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Bad citation
The claim that Project 2025 was motivated by a desire to use lethal force on Floyd protestors doesn’t have a good citation. It links to another Wikipedia page where Trump talked about possibly using lethal force on LOOTERS, not on protestors. Unless the writers of this article think that all the Floyd protestors were “looters,” it’s erroneous to claim that Trump called for lethal force against protestors. 2601:19B:67F:D0A0:B9CC:F294:CA7E:33AC (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The source cited says "When Trump called for shooting protesters, a member of the national security apparatus objected." To say that the order was only for the immediate killing of members of a crowd if police judged that they had stolen anything, would be original research. DS (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Bias
Isn't it interesting how certain power users (e.g. soibangla) are all but guaranteed to show up on any remotely politicized topic to gatekeep framing and gaslight good faith editors regarding bias and source reliability? The chronically online dedication is impressive. I only wonder what proportion of this effort is financially motivated vs true belief. Its a damn shame, what wikipedia could have been, before these rabid ideologues co-opted the institution and trashed its credibility. The long march through the institutions continues: Onward! Paidshill0 (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not actually interested in any of this stuff, it's just that Soros and the deep state pay better than the other guys. soibangla (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

This article seems to have to been written entirely by individuals who oppose Project 2025 and solely includes information about it's downsides and Trump's failures. Nedmath (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * feel free to add well-sourced information soibangla (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I tried to help a while ago, came back to check how it is going and god damn. "Project 2025 is a far-right plan to purge and reshape the U.S. Federal government in the event of a Republican victory in the 2024 United States presidential election." Jesus Christ what happened to NPOV? Are people even trying? This sort of talk belongs in the "Reactions" section not the opening paragraph.
 * The entire project is no different from dozens of other presidential transition plans going back decades, like Biden's team and their actions and Trump's first term and Obama's 2009 innauguration and Bush's 2001 start. The final paragraph of the opening is also weird with the overt single out of climate policy for criticism feeling tacked on, again this is something that doesn't belong on the opening. There is literally a subsection on "Overview" to talk just about climate policy already. NocturnalLizard (talk) 12:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The entire project is no different from dozens of other presidential transition plans going back decades except this one seeks to roll back the Great Society and the New Deal and the civil service and oversight of the executive branch. But apart from that, it's just business as usual. soibangla (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and? "They want to do something big about the american government" isn't really a argument or disproving the point that it is no different from other transition plans. Again: you are mixing up opinions about the thing with the facts of what it is. Last I checked the New Deal and Great Society aren't exactly some sort of bedrock foundation you aren't allowed to touch and modify. NocturnalLizard (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It is unprecedented in its scope and magnitude to dismantle the federal government soibangla (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * One can argue that New Deal and Great Society were unprecedented in expanding the federal government, until they happened and set a precedent. No reason a similar precedent can't be set on the opposite way.
 * Again: Nothing here is illegal, or not allowed in the law and constitution, or different from many similar grandiose plans proposed by other presidential hopefuls in the past. These are all opinions and criticisms, which belong later on the article if they can be addressed in a NPOV way and not on the opening of the article. This is what this is meant to be: an encyclopedic article, not a opinion piece or a news report. NocturnalLizard (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * this is not like anything anyone has ever seen before, it is a radical departure and its proponents openly, even proudly, acknowledge it because it's the culmination of what they've sought for several decades soibangla (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Again: same could be said about New Deal and Great Society and indeed the 2021 American Rescue Plan from Biden's presidency. It's not relevant, it does not justify breaking NPOV and you can just put such concerns in the "reactions" tab. The overview should be as factual, succinct and neutral as possible. NocturnalLizard (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What others may say about other programs is not relevant to the fact this project is a radical departure from what Americans have known for generations, and the lead must reflect that soibangla (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What others may say about other programs is fully relevant, it sets the tone one should go for when speaking of these matters. You are ignoring the standards set by encyclopedic articles to instead editorialize this one based on opinions. I am not going to go into the article for the American Rescue Plan and start talking shit about it on the opening paragraph. the same courtesy should be given back here. NocturnalLizard (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no shittalk in the lead, nor was there before your changes. No WP:WHATABOUT. Note the lead does not cast judgment on the project, nor have I, but rather reflects the reality it is a very big deal, like it or not. I suspect some far-right readers might read the earlier lead and think "sounds good to me!" Perhaps consider the POV here may be yours. soibangla (talk) 16:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @NocturnalLizard Unfortunately, you appear to be a WP:SPA, you've only edited this page and provided some rather incendiary comments on Talk:Disclose.tv. I am going to ask you to take a moment and step back, reflect on why you feel so strongly about this.Throughout your argument, I really only parsed a couple of actionable issues/clarifications:
 * POV: I can see where you're coming from, but with reservation. There are some lines I'd write better myself, but at the same time, it's really nitpicky. I agree with your edit here.
 * Criticism in the Lead: Please review MOS:LEAD, the lead is a summary of the article, and it is perfectly acceptable to pull from the reactions section. The New Deal article, since you want to cite it, has a criticism section, mentions criticism in the lead, and even has two separate articles dedicated to it's critics.
 * Please read WP:WHATABOUTX, wikipedia is not a monolith
 * As a whole, to really should take a look at WP:CIVIL, accusing people of malfeasance isn't appropriate.
 * I don't understand your comment: "The entire project is no different from dozens of other presidential transition plans going back decades." It is demonstrably false and almost implies that this topic isn't WP:NOTEABLE enough for its own article.
 * Just breathe, its not the end of the world. We don't have to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, just enjoy the process of editing. I agree with some of your points but not with others, but please be more civil/understanding when raising issues. You'll just piss off people otherwise and get nowhere. 🏵️ Etrius ( Us) 22:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I made a account to get started on the Disclose.Tv page after seeing how atrocious it was. I found this page later and tried to help since unlike the Disclose.Tv page this one was barely started and could be fixed with ease.
 * I am not acusing people of malfeasance, I am acusing them of bad faith and being deliberately dense because that is what I observe. I have seen people time and time again use false civility as a way to push arguments, by being overly polite and shutting down any attempt at a argument with false platitudes or extreme misunderstanding and deliberately ignoring obvious conclusions counting on the party with grievances to either give up out of a desire not to be combatitive, or banking on making them angry enough to get mad and allow for the smug false civil party to bring out a ban hammer under the guise of "civility."
 * As for the last point, that isn't that I meant. I mean that it is not that different in substance from similar presidential transition projects and as such does not deserve the alarmist and hysterical tone that was applied in some of the revisions that implied the project was some never done before, experimental political theory being tried for the first time without any prescedent. NocturnalLizard (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Project 2025 is unprecedented in its breadth and depth. It is a radical departure from a century of American policy. soibangla (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We have been over this. It isn't. Stop it. NocturnalLizard (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Seeing your replies on Talk:Diagolon, Talk:Disclose.tv and here, it sure seems like you love to defend/whitewash fascism. Would you also happen to believe that Europa: The Last Battle is a legitimate documentary? Isi96 (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The current version of the Reactions section, which is the longest section, is entirely composed of negative reactions to the plan, from critics - zero reactions from its supporters. Clearly, it's written with an agenda, anyone can detect that, and attacking other users with ad hominems doesn't change that.Frellthat (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Frellthat See WP:NONAZIS. Also, no one's stopping you from adding sourced reactions. Isi96 (talk) 09:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The Executive Branch is not the entire Federal Government. This error is made several times in the article. LimaMonk (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @NocturnalLizard "Project 2025 is a far-right plan to purge and reshape the U.S. Federal government in the event of a Republican victory in the 2024 United States presidential election."
 * please specify what specifically in this sentence you think is biased to the point of being incorrect. 173.23.72.34 (talk) 08:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have seen 3 different intros to this page and yes it some of them have been bias, I think we should have extended protection, as the 2024 election is coming up. I do see both sides and have added    to the main page. LuxembourgLover (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have not seen any specific sentence, phrase or word that has been cited as biased. What I see so far is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. soibangla (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The intro has changed many times with both left and right wing bias. In addition I have added {POV} due to a large discussion ongoing about the bias of the article. See examples, 1 2 3 there are many more examples but there are some of the bigger ones. Ironically while requesting for protection, this there was another example of a reason for protection. In addition a major discussion is ongoing on the page. LuxembourgLover (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The currently cited media sources for this article, in order of reference number, are: Salon, Axios, AP News, Politico, The New York Times, MSNBC, The Washington Post, The Hill, The Guardian, NPR, The Atlantic, Mother Jones, PinkNews, LGBTQ Nation. Shockingly every single one of these 14 media sources are ones listed as "leans left" or "far left" by allsides.com Media Bias research. It is impossible for an article with this lineup of sources to be NPOV. Belovedeagle (talk) 03:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * you should examine our community consensus of sources at WP:RSP, rather than Allsides and Media Bias (which themselves are shown at RSP). Every source you list here except Salon, PinkNews and LGBTQ Nation is deemed fully reliable at RSP. If you don't think a source there should be used, you can challenge it at WP:RSN. I think we should use better sources than PinkNews and LGBTQ Nation, and if we can't find them we should remove the content they support, and I will tag them accordingly. Personally I generally avoid using Salon, but maybe someone else will tag it. soibangla (talk) 04:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:RSP and allsides lists serve two entirely different purposes so it makes no sense to compare them. RSP rates reliability while allsides rates bias. Reliable sources can, do, and must definitionally have a certain bias, so a rating on allsides does not have any bearing on reliability. Therefore I'm not claiming that the sources of this article are unreliable; I'm pointing out that even among reliable sources, they all share the same bias, and that makes it nearly impossible for an article sourced this way to be NPOV. (Reasoning: articles should only have cited facts, and so under the assumption that this article is well-cited, then all of its facts must come from the cited sources. But if all of the facts in an article come from one particular point of view to the exclusion of competing points of view, then it is not NPOV.) RSP and NPOV are not the same thing. Also please note I'm not citing allsides as a source so its own rating on WP:RSP is completely irrelevant. It shouldn't even be on the list since it's essentially a tertiary source for claims of the form "___ is a biased source", which would not be appropriate to cite in any article. Belovedeagle (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * can you cite specific content from the reliable sources that violates NPOV? soibangla (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "The plan also includes directing the Justice Department to pursue those Trump considers ... political adversaries." That appears to be a characterization claim originating with Washington Post rather than something that actually appears in the project documents.
 * But mainly, it's a question of tone. The entire article (some of these examples have been edited out) is colored in derogatory language. You use words like "purge" instead of "replace," "takeover" instead of "inauguration" or "election," and "Trumpism" when you are just describing what would normally be called "Republican policies."
 * On top of that, the Reactions section is currently composed entirely of negative reactions and characterizations of the plan, from its critics - zero positive ones from its supporters.
 * I'm sure you believe that you're just telling the truth. But I wish that people with strong activist opinions/affiliations could just, out of responsibility, recognize that those qualities should not be reflected in Wikipedia edits. The public needs sources of information they can trust if civil government is going to survive. Politicizing of Wikipedia edits undermines that.Frellthat (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As always, I encourage editors to edit articles to ensure NPOV, and you are certainly entitled to do that, bearing in mind that we rely on secondary sources rather than primaries such as project documents. As far as Reactions, I have looked but not seen much of any positive reactions in reliable sources, but I encourage others to seek and include them. But it is a fact that this project, for the better or the worse, without casting judgment here, is a radical departure from many decades of American policy, from what several generations of Americans have known, and that might explain the apparent dearth of positive reactions to it. soibangla (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Project 2025 has 75 coalition partners across the US conservative movement. If we can't find any positive (conservative) reactions, then we'd better remove the Reactions section altogether, since it's hardly N:POV in its current form.Frellthat (talk) 01:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I encourage you to edit the article to include positive reactions using reliable sources. soibangla (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And I encourage you, as have many others, to stop writing biased articles that others then have to clean up.Frellthat (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have asked for but have not seen evidence presented that this article is biased. Rather, I have seen evidence of WP:IDONTLIKEIT that appears to be POV in itself. Please edit the article with reliable secondary sources. That's all I got here. soibangla (talk) 02:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.project2025.org/policy/ NoTimeForBS (talk) 16:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Is this what wikipedia has become
The links do not support the conclusions reported on this page even when taking into account the extreme bias of the sources. There is no link between the 501(c)3 Heritage Foundation and any political party and to link it to a political party is incorrect. You are creating an echo chamber and making Wiki unreliable. 38.40.57.60 (talk) 11:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 *  Bluerasberry  (talk)  14:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but since when do far-right extremists seeking to over throw the US government get to have a seat at the table? Honestly I wish it was an echo chamber, it be less terrifying than a fascist take over of the US. 199.168.95.209 (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but since when do far-right extremists seeking to over throw the US government get to have a seat at the table? Honestly I wish it was an echo chamber, it be less terrifying than a fascist take over of the US. 199.168.95.209 (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes there is a direct link, https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/commentary/project-2025 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.237.212.149 (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2023
Please fix typo "rule of raw" to "rule of law" Can be found in the third paragraph of the page YourUsernameIsTaken (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Liu1126 (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

grouping lgbt and pornography
I find the grouping of lgbt rights and pornography together into one section deeply misleading, as if pornography is somehow tied to being gay or trans. I understand this is very likely not what the editor intended, but naming this section this way only serves to validate bigoted viewpoints. The name of this section needs to be amended. GermanicLanguageBranch (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I think it's worded that way, because that's how the far-right is aligning trans/queer people. As per Project 2025 (from what I can gather) the aim is to tie those two (trans/queer people and porn) together to further remove trans/queer people from society. But that's just how I've read it. 199.168.95.209 (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I read it in a similar way. Right now a heading separates both. Now the second paragraph of the LGBTQ+ section should be moved to pornography. It is out of context in the former. FlorianWehner (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on Jan 4 2024
Please change year the US left the Paris climate agreement from 2015 to 2017, per the linked Wikipedia article. The agreement was signed in 2015 under Obama, US left it in 2017 under Trump. 75.161.132.114 (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ soibangla (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2024
change > has absolute power of the executive branch to > has absolute power over the executive branch 2601:1C0:5E81:BB0:986C:367:863B:151 (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my formatting didn't come through legibly. I mean:  please change "of" to "over" in "... has absolute power of the executive branch ..." 2601:1C0:5E81:BB0:986C:367:863B:151 (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Sam Sailor 19:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2024
Grammar fix.

Under the section "Separation of Church and State", the fragment before the quote says "A tenant of the project is: ", but it should be "A tenet of the project is: "

> A tenet is a principle held as being true, especially by an organization or a group of people. A tenant is (1) someone who pays rent to occupy property; (2) a dweller in a place; and, (3) in law, one who holds or possesses lands, tenements, or property by any kind of title. Toddvw (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅. Correction made. Good catch. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit article summary
It's probably not here where an edit needs to be made but I've forgotten how these things work -- basically somewhere there's data that describes the topic of the article, and when you link to this article on certain platforms then it generates a preview and pulls a summary from that data. I think it's on a different Wikimedia site?

Anyway, the current summary says the topic of this article is a "project to reform the US federal government to support Trumpism". I read this article and it seems that summary is... less than neutral and accurate. I'm hoping someone more familiar with this whole thing can fix it somehow, I don't know what I would write there instead. 82.147.162.90 (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, that's what I meant: https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Q122382481 82.147.162.90 (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Reactions section
There may be WP:UNDUE weight given to criticism in the reactions section. Every single reaction mentioned is critical. It seems unlikely that no sources have had anything else to say about it. 71.255.142.122 (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I looked for positive reactions but could not find any. I encourage others to try. it's interesting that the Trump campaign seems to have asked the Project to stop talking about it. soibangla (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * it appears Biden is preparing to use it against Trump soibangla (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

'it' in this sentence
refers to the project, not the project document

I did not "add the opinion of a former offical describing this as such," I added the current Project director Paul Dans describing it as such quite emphatically. and it was already further down in the lead anyway.

please restore the content,

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Project_2025&diff=prev&oldid=1215510692

soibangla (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Where may we view the source of this comment from Dans?
 * Previously you provided the direct quote "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."
 * I'm struggling to find the source of this quote, thank you Bringjustthefactsplease (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * it is in this edit that I made in response to your removal
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Project_2025&diff=prev&oldid=1215459274
 * search the article on deep state and you will find the quote and source were already further down in the lead
 * soibangla (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) the AP source does not provide this as a direct quote from Dans
 * 2)the new republic source links to a CSPAN video, located here, where they claim this quote originated
 * 3) reading and searching the transcript of his interview does not yield a result for keywords of this alleged quote (like 'army' or 'battle' or 'march') or, from what I can see, the quote that New Republic has cited. It appears the quote they provided in that op-ed does not appear in the source New Republic provides as evidence.
 * I cannot find evidence of Dans making this statement in the provided citations. Please provide a timestamp of when this quote was uttered in the cited material if I have overlooked this. Bringjustthefactsplease (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * TNR is a reliable source, it quotes Dans, and the piece is not an op-ed.
 * also, in ref #2 you cited a project document, a primary rather than a secondary source, which is particularly inappropriate here. and the ref is mangled, btw. soibangla (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * For clarity:
 * The source TNR(acknowledged as very biased)links to as evidence of the quote in question does not actually contain the quote.
 * The TNR article's quote they attribute to Dans is not supported by the source they provide. There is currently no evidence Dans made that statement outside of this article. Bringjustthefactsplease (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * soibangla (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That article is indeed quite clear. Propose this link be used as a reference for that language and not the other two links Bringjustthefactsplease (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * please would you replace your ref #2 with a properly formatted secondary source? soibangla (talk) 06:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Propaganda
This article is just left wing propaganda. The first linked "citation" I clicked was an interview with Trump that was taken totally out of context. In that interview, he stated that Biden's administration has turned the executive branch into a political assassination operation. He used himself as an example, "If I were president I could go after my political enemies." The article's author(s) used that single out-of-context quote as evidence that Trump plans to go after his political enemies, even though it was clear that he was actually indicating how out of control the Biden administration has been. 2601:985:4A81:F060:3064:2D57:176B:878A (talk) 06:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * ok, I think I see what you're getting at here. his narrative all along is that he is being wrongfully prosecuted persecuted and it's election interference, and in the Univision interview he says this has set a precedent ("the genie out of the box") that allows him to respond in kind if he is reelected ("they have done something that allows the next party. I mean, if somebody if I happen to be president and I see somebody who's doing well and beating me very badly, I say go down and indict them").
 * but he is being legitimately prosecuted by Bragg, Smith and Willis based on evidence, a compelling amount of which is in plain public view, and there is no indication of "a political assassination operation" by Biden or anyone else, despite his insistence there is. he insists on many things, including the election was stolen, which is just plain false. that's not a particularly surprising defense from someone who is facing multiple criminal charges that could send him to prison like he is, and his base is the primary audience for that argument.
 * but he has said "I am your retribution" and a key part of P25 is eliminating DOJ independence and placing it under direct control of the White House so, as WaPo reports, "Donald Trump and his allies have begun mapping out specific plans for using the federal government to punish critics and opponents should he win a second term, with the former president naming individuals he wants to investigate or prosecute..." soibangla (talk) 08:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Trump has "civil" charges why most of the trials he goes to apart from being biased clearly Trump will not go to prison why one thing is a civil trial and another is the criminal lawsuit why You are risking your freedom, Trump will not go to jail but they will confiscate his properties in New York 190.167.249.170 (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * he is criminally charged in NYC, Georgia and Florida. soibangla (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding attribution for the Insurrection Act claim and other instances of third-party sources as only source
As far as I know, the only source for this is WaPo. An editor previously raised the challenge that this was not enough for the lead section, considering no such plans were included in the released project.

Considering this is a WP:CONTENTIOUS topic, I've changed the text to include attribution of the source, and date, as per WP:ATT. What do you make of this?

I believe there's an overarching problem with this article: the overview section includes numerous sections referenced with sources reporting on the behind-the-scenes machinations of Project 2025, but in some nearly no content referencing the actual text of the proposal is present. I think it would be wise to add content based on it as well.

For example, regarding the immigration policy sections, a cursory glance of the Project itself finds nearly no mentions of deportation, and none that would substantiate the other sources, but this is not stated in the article.

CVDX (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * , your edit in November 2023, prior to the project's release is incorrect. It was released in April 2023. Please revert.
 * Odd that two editors are independently making the same assertion that is quickly and easily disproven. Both editors have also shown a preference for citing the P25 document, a primary source, rather than secondary sources. For precisely the reason this topic is contentious, quality secondaries are far more preferable here. soibangla (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not at all odd that a supposed WP GREL source is not at all reliably describing something political. I've outlined the issue further just above in "Delete this" section. It boils down to two options: WP needs to have a real and honest discussion about how so many of their GREL sources are actually not reliable at all on modern politics, or delete all modern politics articles like this one, since the sources used are publishing broad swaths of false information and innuendo. 76.178.169.118 (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory
Why does this page read like an alt right conspiracy theory? 153.33.235.26 (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * It's an alt-left conspiracy theory. Those just seem to get promoted more here. 2A00:23C7:80C:8201:A54A:D65D:1635:524D (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Alt-left conspiracy theory? This article's primary sources are The Guardian, a centrist newspaper, The Washington Post, a gently right-leaning newspaper, and the Heritage Foundation itself saying "here's what we intend to do". 207.164.2.98 (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Because it's one crappy proprosla from one crappy conservative think-tank. STOP acting like it's official policy. 71.89.70.233 (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If you look at the Project 25 website you will see that it is a consortium of many well known right wing groups. It's the expressed policy prescriptions of the movement. Any new conservative president will be pressured to adopt it. 74.69.130.29 (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * this is all of what Trump ran on in 2016, recycled talking points to manipulate the social outcry of a trump presidency 2600:1702:59E0:F050:5195:FFB6:90A9:B024 (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * To be absolutely clear with everyone here, Project 2025 is simply the latest Mandate Of Leadership proposal from the Heritage Foundation. Every Republican President since Reagan has received and followed their Mandate Of Leadership proposal from the Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation has gone on record to say that Reagan, the Bush's, and Trump have all followed their previous Mandate Of Leadership proposals. Not "to the T", but to a reasonable degree that "satisfies" the organization.
 * To call this a conspiracy theory would be to ignore the past actions of both the organization and Presidents. Does it come off as sensationalizing in some places? Yes. The proposals laid out in the published 900 page document that you can read on the Heritage Foundations website is patently absurd to read through, but the Mandate Of Leadership itself does not fall under a "alt-left" (not a real political tendency far left people just call themselves communists or whatever tendency they fall under) conspiracy theory. For it to be a conspiracy theory it would need to meet certain criteria of lacking in legitimacy that this document does not. Yeastmobile (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the complaint here is not that Project 2025 is itself a conspiracy theory that doesn't exist, but that the claims this article makes about what it will do are. Indeed, when I read this article, and when I read through the Project's documents and website, I don't find anything remotely similar. I tried to talk about this issue more here. In short, there's a huge disconnect between what these sources on this article claim and what appears to be reality. There's quite a few talk page messages about this, but nothing is being done about it. 76.178.169.118 (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * WaPo is certainly not a gently right leaning media. Suggesting it is gives some kind of false balance to your argument. Guardian is also not particularly centrist, IMO, but I do realize that some people think it is. 76.178.169.118 (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete this
How is this even an official Wikipedia page? “Project 2025” doesn’t exist. There is no factual evidence proving anything said in this summary, and this Wikipedia page is the only online source besides the actual website that spouts this nonsense. 2600:1700:FFD0:57A0:6022:B893:1438:E1E3 (talk) 01:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)


 * You might be interested in reading Project 2025, which contains 57 citations. – Novem Linguae (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This page is mainly speculation and innuendo. Citing second hand sources. I do not think it is worthy of being an page here. I have been looking for information on Project 2025 and could not find much except what people are speculating about what it is. The references you cite are not really references, but other posts and articles that are also speculating. 114.24.203.71 (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you provide details on the inaccuracies or unsubstantiated claims? For further reference you can read the information directly at project2025.org where you can read the book online. 2601:CD:C600:CC00:89E4:A98A:7AE2:A442 (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I looked at the section "Mass deportation of immigrants". Those claims I did not see substantiated by Project 2025. I looked at "Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise", I assume that is the book you referenced on their site.
 * That section talked about "deputizing National Guard" and deputizing DEA, ATF local police and sheriffs. There was only one footnote that even mentioned the "Drug Enforcement Administration" in the whole thing.
 * The section talked about deportation, yet deportation was only mentioned twice in the document. I looked for similar terms like 'removal' and saw nothing like what was described.
 * Claims about Project2025 should be taken from the book or from statements put out by the organization. What we have here is editors speculation on what could, possibly, maybe be happening in a project from some other people speculating on the internet. 114.24.203.71 (talk) 09:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I assure you fellow wikipedian that if you go to the site, read through the proposals, and simply read the documents as they are nothing in this article is a "claim". If you would like to propose specific edits or corrects to the article please quote the documents related to the relevant department and how it conflicts with the text of the article. Each Federal Department is a separate document on the project2025.org website and they are each pdfs that you need to click through and read. Yeastmobile (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You can read it in full in one link: https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf.
 * Taking IP user 114.24.203.71's words on the "Mass deportation" section as an example: When you search that document for key terms like "National Guard", "deport", "deputize", "homeless", "police", "sheriff", etc. (and grammatical variants), you do not find anything like the claims of this article's section. This section is apparently based on Axios's innuendo-filled article "this guy said this, and then he was talking to this guy, who's an advisor on project 2025" at so on. They don't even try to summarize Project as it defines itself. Then there's the Atlantic, which is paywalled, and looks like from the intro that it's about Trump having said something once, which is not the topic "Project 2025".
 * As I usually tend to say in these situations, what WP consistently calls GREL is really unbelievable sometimes. The section does state what Axios says, but Axios is full of shit. Nowhere does anything in that massive Project 2025 tome does it say anything close to the claims Axios makes. They is playing games, like mere association that one guy says something once casually, and the audience was an advisor on the project, then they go "coincidence???" It's really very silly.
 * When I scroll through the topics in that book, I see some pretty ho-hum conservative talking points and policy wants. What's different about the project itself, as compared to other conservative policy statements, is the explicit ambition to "conversatize" the government, in response to it having been "liberalized" over the previous decades. This is certainly a paradigm shift in conservative thinking, from belief in non-partisan bureaucratic operation to belief that it is not possible, therefore it should be conservative. It's really not all that surprising, and can be easily juxtaposed with the fact that numerous liberal politicians have been talking about and doing this for years when they were able to do it. WP leaves you with your hands tied, because none of your precious GREL sources are talking about that. So much of this article highlights WP's biggest issue: most of your GREL sources are in fact not GREL, and SYNTH, SECONDARY, and VERIFY work against you from just writing an article about reality.
 * But what you can do is have an honest conversation about this. WP is 90% discussion. Unfortunately, when it comes to this specific issue, you all plug your ears. I can understand it, since it looks pretty existential, but it's really not. There's still a massive number of articles that WP is actually good at. Modern politics ain't one of them. 76.178.169.118 (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please provide us with specific instances where the claims conflict with the book/wesbite source, so we can review it. CVDX (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, he did ... But I've illustrated it further above, if you'd like to "review it". 76.178.169.118 (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I saw your reply on my deleted talk page on this article, i'm 100% sure its the same IP address. excuse me but "lets give change a chance?" Nothing about here are positive changes for democracy and America.
 * If you want to complain about the quality do it out of pure critiscm and not dishonest talking points, it clearly shows where you stand and why you want this article deleted.
 * I'm proposing this article to be mantained no matter what. Theres no other way to let people know what and from where are these vile plans came from. Benfor445 (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I read through this entire article, and I'm astonished this is even allowed to be here. The "citations" are sketchy and based off mere opinion pieces and editorials. So now we can write something and use our own writings to back it up? What a joke. This entire article is garbage. 2600:1702:4FCF:1900:BDDA:DA69:3042:BBA7 (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Conspiracy? Or is it true?
I honestly think it's a conspiracy and I've never seen this, even when Trump left the presidency from,we haven't seen this in 2022 Kilrk0 (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I would like to know why it's impossible to find any background information, or just general information, on the 3 people who comprise the "Project 2025 Team" (Paul Dans, Spencer Chretien, Troup Hemenway)
 * https://www.project2025.org/about/about-project-2025/
 * That seems pretty odd to me... Any thoughts? 2600:6C51:437F:F9E2:F88A:E1F9:6568:47A6 (talk) 08:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I added links to Heritage Foundation's bios of team members mentioned in the article. While cursory, they're better than nothing; I'm sure internet and, conceivably, LinkedIn searches provide further insight on those two.  A quick google search located several references on Troup Hemenway (the third principal - whom the article doesn't mention), noting his work with the Trump administration, his recent graduation from college and an article that provides some background on his admiration for Viktor Orban:  https://www.hungarianconservative.com/articles/interview/troup-hemenway-trump-would-give-back-to-the-americans-what-the-democrats-took-away/ Jetpower (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum to discuss the article topic, it's a place to discuss changes to or improving of the article. XeCyranium (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If you would like to propose changing the article to attribute project 2025 as being a conspiracy theory, then please provide a credible source clarifying that it is so and the source will be reviewed. Yeastmobile (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Your reply to someone alleging that Project 2025 is a conspiracy theory is to tell the poster to prove it's a conspiracy, rather than telling the writer of the article to prove that it is NOT a conspiracy? How does that make sense? 2601:985:4A81:F060:3064:2D57:176B:878A (talk) 07:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I only wrote here for you to debate if it's conspiracy or reality but I don't think you understood a bit. 190.167.249.170 (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don’t think anything will happen. I don’t like this article; if you ask me, 2028 is going to come around and this will be a useless article about a plan that never happened. LuxembourgLover (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Article contains inaccuracies/inconsistencies on Project objectives
The lead states that The plan proposes slashing U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) funding, dismantling the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, gutting environmental and climate change regulations to favor fossil fuel production, and eliminating the cabinet Departments of Education and Commerce.

This is sourced to a Guardian article that states: Key components of Project 2025 include slashing funding for the Department of Justice, dismantling the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, and killing the education and commerce departments

The problem is that these statements regarding the FBI and the departments are misleading, inconsistent, or downright inaccurate. We can see this within the Guardian article itself, which simultaneously claims that the project will be dismantling the FBI yet will try to install trusted loyalists in top posts at the DoJ and the FBI, permitting Trump more leeway to exact revenge on foes. This inconsistency is repeated within the rest of the Wiki article, which quotes Michael Bromwich stating that the supposedly dismantled FBI will somehow also be weaponized against political rivals, based on the same Guardian article. There is no mention of the FBI (or any of the departments mentioned as getting dismantled/eliminated) getting dismantled in the body, which goes against MOS:LEAD.

The reason for that may be because, looking at the Mandate for Leadership, there isn't much backing to support a dismantled FBI, nor an eliminated Department of Commerce. There is backing for a dismantled/eliminated Department of Homeland Security and Department of Education. The article should be reworded to only include Homeland and Commerce.

The Mandate states wrt 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.

For an actual dismantling, the Mandate states wrt Homeland: Our primary recommendation is that the President pursue legislation to dismantle the Department of Homeland Security, where a number of proposals to move offices to other areas are made.

The Mandate states wrt 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.

For an actual elimination, the Mandate states wrt Education: the federal Department of Education should be eliminated, with proposals to move offices to other areas. KiharaNoukan (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


 * hot off the wire
 * What Trump’s war on the ‘Deep State’ could mean: ‘An army of suck-ups’ soibangla (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This seems akin to citogenesis moment, given the near complete parallels in wording, with no exploration of policy proposals. This doesn't resolve the contradictory claims of "dismantled" agencies that are somehow also being used to pursue lawfare against political opponents. KiharaNoukan (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

The entire article is an abomination to the NPV
This is grotesque. This entry is an object lesson in why people don't trust Wikipedia when it comes to any political topic.

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

LewisChessman (talk) 11:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * , what do you think the article is missing? it lays out what reliable secondary sources have reported, as well as what P25 itself says. then it lays out the reactions, which are overwhelmingly negative. I've tried mightily to find positive reactions, but all I can find is Steve Bannon, Jeffrey Clark and others involved in the Project. I have yet to see a single Republican politician promote it, anywhere, and I'm looking for it.
 * it's interesting that the NYT reported it appears the Trump campaign told P25 to stop talking about it. did they do polling on it and discover a nationwide abortion ban, discrimination based on sexuality/gender, Christian nationalism, taking everyone's porn away, rounding up and deporting eleven million people and giving unprecedented power to one man just aren't very popular? soibangla (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually the NYT referred to it as the "so-called Project 2025" and compared it to LinkedIn, noting that the Heritage Foundation has been creating policy papers and staffing suggestions since before the Reagan administration took office. But hey, thanks for proving my point about neutrality with your grotesque and parodic rhetorical question.
 * LewisChessman (talk) 12:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see how your first sentence is relevant to anything, and I didn't prove any point you made, but if you think I'm wrong, perhaps edit the article yourself to rectify the injustice you perceive soibangla (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you not seeing how it's relevant might be a problem of itself Antiparcialidade (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Mandate for Leadership link
Why does External Links link to an archived version of Mandate for Leadership? The live version is still available and linked on the Project 2025 site. Trivialist (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


 * after various criticisms of the Project since its introduction, who has the resources to verify the original 920-page April 2023 document has not since been modified? the document is on their server and can be altered at any time at their discretion. soibangla (talk) 03:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is why file hashing exists... 76.178.169.118 (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

A "List of Proposals" would be beneficial to the reader.
The article for Agenda 47 has a section that is lifted directly from the primary source without any synth. Very straightforward and matter of fact. I wonder why we can't do that here? Numerous editors here have noted that the claims in the sources used on this article don't appear to be in the material put out by Project 2025 itself. Especially in light of that, a "list of proposals" would be a great move toward NPOV for this article. After that, it would be nice to have a source or two noting that these sources' claims don't appear to be in the Project's own documents. 76.178.169.118 (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Per WP:RSPRIMARY, Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document that relates to or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  03:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Except none of them do that. They just clutch pearls. Maybe ... expand what "reliable" means here, and perhaps tighten it at the same time. 76.178.169.118 (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * what "reliable" means should be addressed at WP:RSN, not here soibangla (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * False. A source's reliability is assessed with each use, and "reliability status" is assessed at WP:RSN for general guidance. What is discussed at RSN does not become gospel, and in fact, the encouragement is that sources are actually accurate with each use, not just "generally reliable". So, "expand" what reliable means here, by not hiding behind your false assertion that reliability is not assessed with each case, and "tighten" it to recognize that many WP:GREL sources are actually not that generally reliable. 76.178.169.118 (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Conservative competitors?
I assume that if you are a national conservative organization and you want to be quite relevant, and you view yourself to some extent as competing with Heritage for donor dollars and media attention, you might have a similar project. Here's an article in today's (May 15) Washington Post about a different organization that covers some of the same ground as Project 2025. "The Courage Under Fire Legal Defense Fund, which has not been previously reported, is a project of a nonprofit known as Personnel Policy Operations, or PPO. The group is vetting and recommending staff for a potential second Trump administration, drawing on the experience of former administration aides, people familiar with the effort said." With that said, would it be valuable to include a new section in this article about efforts like that? If Trump is elected, who really knows which group(s) he would turn to for ideas on policies to pursue and people to hire? If there is more than one contender, and Trump himself leans into one of those instead of Project 2025, it would be good for WP readers to know something about them, as well. Novellasyes (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I suppose one could add a brief mention. But anything more than that would be off-topic. Nerd271 (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I suppose one could add a brief mention. But anything more than that would be off-topic. Nerd271 (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Policy proposals versus list of people
The intro sentence says, "Project 2025 (officially the Presidential Transition Project) is a collection of policy proposals to reshape the executive branch of the U.S. federal government in the event of a Republican victory in the 2024 U.S. presidential election." There are two different things: (a) a collection of policy proposals; (b) a list of conservatives around which an effort will occur to get them installed in the federal gov't in a new administration. Is Project 2025 both of those, or is it more the list of people, while Mandate for Leadership is the collection of policy proposals. Novellasyes (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Its the first only. If it does happen (which seems fanciful), the "list of conservatives" would be fluid, shrinking and depending on how far the individuals wish to go. Ceoil (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I hadn't previously looked at the Project 2025 website, but FWIW they claim that Project 2025 consists of four pillars. The four pillars are (a) a policy agenda, which is the "Mandate for Leadership", (b) a personnel database, (c) training, which they call their "Presidential Administration Academy" and (d) a 180-day playbook. The introductory sentence as it currently stands only refers to one of these four pillars, namely, the part that has to do with "a collection of policy proposals". Novellasyes (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly certain those four pillars are all examples of policy proposals, so the existing wording is accurate. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  02:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * . I'm not seeing how a personnel database, which is one of the four pillars, is an example of a policy proposal. Novellasyes (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, the problem has been fixed. The introduction now contains many of the key policy proposals. Nerd271 (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

AI interpretations of Project 2025
Instagram's Meta AI gives "an outright endorsement of the Project's 180-day playbook, saying it will 'bring quick relief to Americans suffering from the Left's devastating policies.' Meta AI links to a Bing search for 'Project 2025 latest updates' as its source for this information."

The Meta AI website (meta.ai) "when asked 'What's the latest on Project 2025?,' cited Wikipedia instead of the Heritage Foundation website, which enabled it to give a more factual response ..."

https://globalextremism.org/post/metas-ai-companion-returns-inaccurate-information-about-project-2025/ soibangla (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Well, if even Google and other search engines have not been able to replace libraries and librarians, despite having been around for a couple decades, then I doubt AI would supplant humans reading and thinking for themselves anytime soon. But I am glad to learn that we have done an alright job in making this article factually accurate. This is important because Wikipedia does have a large footprint in the public consciousness. Nerd271 (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Possible replacement for that blurred out image
In case that photograph is removed, I found an artistic representation of that copyrighted artwork. Nerd271 (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

"...freedom is defined by God, not man."
I know that this is quoted in a number of secondary sources, such as Politico. However, I have not been able to find this in the primary sources, including the Mandate for Leadership as well as the leaflet 5 Reasons Leftists HATE Project 2025. The Politico article is dated February 2024. My copy of the Mandate is from July 2023, which is no different from the current version available for download from the official website of Project 2024. (Check the properties of your PDFs.) Nerd271 (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't realise that your edit summary of Can't find that quote. referred to your own research in not being able to locate it in the primary source; I thought you were referring to not being able to find it in the independent, reliable, secondary sources.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   15:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't locate the origin of the quote (nor can ChatGPT, which points the querent to broader Christian Nationalist rhetoric). It seems to have gone viral due to both the Politico article and Wikipedia.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   16:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see it in the Mandate and the link to it in the Politico story fails. I contacted the authors weeks ago, and subsequently their editor; no response, no correction. It should be removed. soibangla (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Can ChatGPT read PDF files? Anyway, I am glad I spotted that error. It is consistent with everything else publicly known about Project 2025. But it is not a quote from the Mandate and so should be clarified as such. Nerd271 (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Removing the quote works, too. Nerd271 (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Let’s be careful with words
This article is very important, as Donald Trump is a very likely winner in the upcoming election, and this document will be largely influential in his policy. The words we use in describing these policies matter, and they must be the words used by the people proposing the policy, and not the words of people reacting to the policy (unless we are citing such reactions). Let's not devolve into chaos and partisan bickering and take a look at specifics to make this page shine by its objectivity, as it is of existential importance for the future of this country that sources like Wikipedia maintain the trust of the public. This is the only way the policies will be coherently discussed and, if needed, amended and pushed back against. I plea with everyone taking care of this page to leave your personal opinions at the door, and to attempt to consider the policies in a neutral way, as they are proposed.

I thank you for reading that preamble. My specific suggestion is we change the wording used in the sentence "gutting environmental and climate change regulations in favor of fossil fuel production". Words are important, and we all know that while "gutting" is an accurate term, it is also a word that is clearly and unequivocally negative. While I understand the sentiment and I can see the downsides of attacking environmental regulations, I also can see that environmental policy is a political issue and as such alternative views must be portrayed objectively and neutrally in a purely informational document like a Wikipedia article. As such, I recommend the use of

"This policy entails the substantial rollback of environmental and climate change regulations to prioritize fossil fuel production."

In this revision, I replaced "gutting" with "rollback," which conveys the idea of reversing or reducing regulations without the negative connotation associated with "gutting."

I urge everyone else currently working on this page to take a step of good faith and attack other biased language in the article; to be precise, fair, and transparent.

Project 2025 is a very controversial issue that is already being discussed at length in the public square. If you are part of that discussion in your personal life and social media, I applaud your courage and activism. However, for that discussion to be fruitful, it is of vital importance to keep the discussion in the discussion forums and to keep Wikipedia neutral and apolitical. 2600:8804:2106:ED00:60F3:6320:CFD4:367D (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "and they must be the words used by the people proposing the policy, and not the words of people reacting to the policy" Why would we quote a primary source, instead of something reliable? Wikipedia is based on third-party sources, not the words of propagandists. Dimadick (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * While I do agree that Wikipedia editors should strive to be neutral, this does not mean regurgitating what the people behind Project 2025 are saying. They are promoting this program, remember? Nerd271 (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I totally understand, and agree. However you are not attacking the point I made. The question you are attempting to answer is "What is Project 2025 proposing?" The answer to this question should be provided using neutral language to address that question, not biased language to impose your reaction or the reaction you favor on the reader (That would actually be propaganda). The two answers provided to my comment are proof of why the comment is important. I am not advocating for the use of propagandistic language here, just the use of neutral language.
 * The word I pointed to, "gutting" is an example of non-neutral language used specifically to provoke a visceral reaction on the reader that this is a bad policy choice (This point is debatable, as most policy choices are). By using it you are unequivocally tarnishing the article with bias.
 * The term "substantial rollback" on the other hand maintains the intent of the policy while leaving the value judgement to the reader, which is why we should strive for here.
 * There are many examples like this sprinkled throughout the article, and it is vital to weed them out, because they do not belong there. I encourage anyone reading this and my previous reply to act in accordance with Wikipedia's mission to educate and explain rather than personal bias or opinions.
 * It's pretty much common sense that I am referring to specific policy descriptions (the "what is") and not policy objectives or inspirations of the individual authors of Project 2025 (the "why we need this"/ "what ought to be"). I lay out my reasoning and provide a specific example on my original comment, so attempting to say that I proposed this page to be regurgitating propaganda is disingenuous and a very weak straw man. 2600:8804:2106:ED00:FC85:6ADC:DB73:815C (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The word "gutting" has been replaced by "sharply reducing" at the time of writing. Do you have any specific suggestions for edits or just vague complaints? Nerd271 (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No need to be salty about it. I had not seen the edit was made, but I'm glad my critique may have been accurate in this case. This page is to talk about the article, and if you can't manage a little pushback, maybe it's time to get a new hobby. My sincere greetings to you, if/when I get time I'll be sure to bring more suggestions. In the meantime I believe my comment does have value and points to a specific issue and is not a vague complaint. 2600:8804:2106:ED00:934:B113:F988:588A (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you couldn't be bothered to check the page's history, then may I suggest you refrain from repeating outdated complains. (Somebody else made that change.) If you couldn't be specific, then perhaps it's time to get a new hobby. Nerd271 (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * contains "gut":
 * The Left Is Right To Fear Our Plan To Gut the Federal Bureaucracy - Heritage
 * Heritage Foundation Makes Plans to Staff Next G.O.P. Administration - NYT
 * ‘Project 2025’: plan to dismantle US climate policy for next Republican president - Guardian
 * Conservative groups draw up plan to dismantle the US government and replace it with Trump’s vision - AP
 * Trump Allies Plan to Gut Climate Research if He Is Reelected - Scientific American
 * Conservatives have already written a climate plan for Trump’s second term - Politico
 * Trump’s radical second-term agenda would wield executive power in unprecedented ways - CNN
 * Inside the Republican Plot to Dismantle US Environmental Policy - Mother Jones
 * soibangla (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, if the Heritage Foundation themselves use that word, I suppose the IP's complaint is moot. But to make sure, I checked with the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. They were right to use that verb. Still, I think replacing it with "sharply reducing" (or "reducing") is fine. Let's leave it in place. Nerd271 (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Very sad 2603:900B:A06:EEB5:1023:72A5:F1D3:A017 (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Conservatives have already written a climate plan for Trump’s second term - Politico
 * Trump’s radical second-term agenda would wield executive power in unprecedented ways - CNN
 * Inside the Republican Plot to Dismantle US Environmental Policy - Mother Jones
 * soibangla (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, if the Heritage Foundation themselves use that word, I suppose the IP's complaint is moot. But to make sure, I checked with the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. They were right to use that verb. Still, I think replacing it with "sharply reducing" (or "reducing") is fine. Let's leave it in place. Nerd271 (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Very sad 2603:900B:A06:EEB5:1023:72A5:F1D3:A017 (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)