Talk:Project 2025/Archive 2

Content in lede
We currently have this content in the lede. It says "Basic research would only be funded if it suits conservative principles." The sources are an opinion editorial and what appears to be the group's own publication, that is appearing as a dead link. Neither an opinion editorial or the group's own publication is a sufficient source for this statement, especially in the lede. See WP:RSEDITORIAL: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." The group appears to have published a 920 page document of ideas. It is WP:UNDUE to single any of these 920 pages worth of self-published ideas out in the lede absent any WP:INDEPENDENT sources establishing their particular noteworthiness. Marquardtika (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Since no one disputed my policy explanations above, I'm going to remove the problematic content. Marquardtika (talk) 13:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I do. And I have already stated my view. What this organization claims to want to do is perfectly reasonable to include. The NYT article merely reflects that. Nerd271 (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The NYT "article" is an opinion editorial. It's not a reliable source. There is no policy-based reason this content should be in the article, let alone the lede. Marquardtika (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree that those are low quality sources that don't justify including this content in the lede. Is there a reliable secondary source that covers this that we can use instead? –– Formal Dude (talk) 04:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

We have to wait for (more) secondary sources to tell us what Project 2025 would like to do when their PDF is free to download? This is relevant and verifiable information. Even the page number is given. And while we are at it, it is not a "lede" but rather an introduction. The lede of a news article entices the reader to read more; the introduction of an encyclopedic article merely summarizes the contents. Nerd271 (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * You don't have to wait, you can go and find them now. If they don't exist, then picking one part out of a 920 page document to present in the lede would be lending an undue amount of weight to it. We cannot and will not simply regurgitate everything Project 2025 says about itself, that's not how Wikipedia works. You say it's relevant, but until it's covered by reliable secondary sources, that's just your opinion. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. And by the way, I do know what a WP:LEDE is. –– Formal Dude (talk) 10:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * If the information is relevant and verifiable, it deserves to be included. And by the way, I do know what a "lede" is. Nerd271 (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * "Relevant" is in the eye of the beholder. That's why we need coverage in reliable secondary sources. They published a whopping 920 page document. We can't simply put something in our article, especially the lede, because they published it themselves. Why not just republish their entire 920 page document in our article? Your opinion of what is "relevant" is not the standard here. What reliable sources say about Project 2025 is the standard. Marquardtika (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Conveniently, the full PDF is linked so that readers can verify for themselves. Nerd271 (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Project 2025 is subversive
I thought it was illegal to advocate the overthrow of the U.S. Government, so how can a document which outlines such a conspiracy be allowed to continue on Wikipedia? What can concerned citizens do about this? SympatheticCitizen (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   20:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What has just said, plus the fact that it is the job of an encyclopedia to inform people, not to tell them what to think. Editorial decisions made concerning whether or not to include something takes notability into account, not unpleasantness. Nerd271 (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @SympatheticCitizen You cannot overthrow a government by legally electing representatives and firing those within the purview.
 * And neither is it considered overthrowing a government by publishing what you believe should be the governments focus. 2605:8D80:6C4:49A8:9953:3D48:7B17:5DA7 (talk) 06:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @SympatheticCitizen You cannot overthrow a government by legally electing representatives and firing those within the purview.
 * And neither is it considered overthrowing a government by publishing what you believe should be the governments focus. 2605:8D80:6C4:49A8:9953:3D48:7B17:5DA7 (talk) 06:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Lead too long
Seven full paragraphs is way too long for a lead and it needs to be cut down. We don't need to go into so much detail with specific policy proposals in the lead, that's what the body is for. The lead should be slimmed down just to express the overall plan, who is for it and how people are are generally reacting to it. It should be 5 paragraphs max, but 3 or 4 would likely be enough. JDDJS ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 00:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern and I might be inclined to trim the lead at a later time, but I would oppose it right now soibangla (talk) 02:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Why? JDDJS  ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 14:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, @User:Tpbradbury, has already done a good job of trimming the lead. While it's still longer than I would like, I think that's more of a personal preference rather than an actual issue like the previous length was. As long as the lead stays at its current length, I consider this issue to be resolved. JDDJS  ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 14:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think did a fine job shortening the introduction. But 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. Nerd271 (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Non-encyclopedic language and unsourced assertions
Specifically "However, he did not fulfill this promise. But despite former President Trump's connection to adult-film star Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal, Roberts is unencumbered." in the 'Outlawing Pornography' section. Issues: How did Trump fail to uphold his anti-internet pornography pledge, what relevance is Trump and Stormy Daniel's affair have on the above, and how is Kevin Roberts unencumbered. Not requesting removal, but clarification. As is, it reads of an opinion piece. BlindWatcher9 (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The source is at the end of the paragraph. Trump did not fulfill his promise because there was no federal study on the "public health impact of Internet pornography on youth, families and the American culture." Nor was there a ban. Given Trump's associations with a former pornographer and a former Playboy model, people and journalists were naturally curious why Roberts, a Trump supporter, would still support him and hope that he will ban pornography. And that was Roberts' response. Nerd271 (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The source is at the end of the paragraph. Trump did not fulfill his promise because there was no federal study on the "public health impact of Internet pornography on youth, families and the American culture." Nor was there a ban. Given Trump's associations with a former pornographer and a former Playboy model, people and journalists were naturally curious why Roberts, a Trump supporter, would still support him and hope that he will ban pornography. And that was Roberts' response. Nerd271 (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

A mistake or just my inability to comprehend
There's a sentence in the second paragraph that goes: "The blueprint seeks to institute tax cuts, though its writers disagree on the wisdom of protectionism.". Now English isn't my first language, but a quick Google search says that protectionism is the things you do to limit other countries stuff's sales to protect your country stuff's sales (such as taxation). But from the sentence above it's more like "the writers disagree with protectionism so they should've raised the tax, but they want to have tax cuts instead" - quite paradoxical. Shouldn't it be something like: "The blueprint seeks to institute tax cuts, since its writers disagree on the wisdom of protectionism.". Is what I'm understanding and saying correct? Is this a good place to ask these type of questions? I'm quite new here. Andykhang404 (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * In the PDF detailing Project 2025, which you can download from their website, you will find two different takes on free trade, with one person advocating for tariffs and the other promoting more free trade with other (free) countries. (No one, not even the Democrats, supports more free trade with China.) This article section titled "Economy" has a summary of their positions. The other taxes they talk about, and want to cut are things like income and corporate taxes, not tariffs. Nerd271 (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 13 June 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. It was already closed per WP:SNOW. But the IP decided to revert it. (closed by non-admin page mover)  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 20:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Project 2025 → Project 2025/Presidential Transition Project – change name to Project 2025/Presidential Transition Project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.3.91 (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * why? soibangla (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "Project 2025/Presidential Transition Project" is not the name of the collection of policy proposals. "Project 2025" is also known as the "Presidential Transition Project", but that is a reason to make a redirect, not to put both names into the article title. - Brian Kendig (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The current name is the common name. Killuminator (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Brian Kendig and Killuminator above. See CRITERIA and COMMONNAME.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   18:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment. new name more descriptive — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.3.91 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RM, nomination already implies support – there should be no separate bulleted support made by the nominator.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 19:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, already at WP:COMMONNAME. Skyerise (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The status quo works just fine. Nerd271 (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Keep the article alive
While i can understand the grievance of some of the spectrum of people who virulently despise the content and tone of the article at describing the project and wanted it to be outright deleted, for all that is holy keep it intact.

I for one would like to point out some minor much needed addition of wording after Reaction section to describe despite how niche it is and less known, it is broadly circling around far right and conservative Trumpist circles alike that such thing are broadly supported if happened. There should be simmiliar article mentioning how such project characterize such movements already.

And explains why alot of no name troll ip accounts wanting this article gets outright deleted without hesitation disregarding all the precedents and facts at hand that the article provided. Benfor445 (talk) 08:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The article is well-sourced, now well-established, and very much "alive". There may be arguments about specific content, but there is zero chance that the article will be deleted. And no, Wikipedia is definitely not for sale, so there will be no hostile takeover.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   09:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2024
There is a picture that states as fact that Project 2025 is linked to Trump’s 2024 campaign. This is not factual, verified, or referenced and should be removed. 2600:1700:76F3:2230:9DC7:DD6B:E21E:9EA6 (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Have tagged the image and caption as citation needed. May be original research or synthesis.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   20:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not OR. I've cited a fact-check that verifies that multiple sources have made this connection. Skyerise (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I will not edit war
please bring it to Talk soibangla (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I asked you a question, but you open a talk page section without answering it? Skyerise (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I opened a Talk to discuss rather than edit war. The source is a partisan political org and should be avoided. soibangla (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Except that all its content consisted of media quotations (I suppose the emphasis added is the problem?). I've now cited 3 media sources directly. Ok? Skyerise (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll take your omission as a yes, that you'd rather have me quote six sources extensively in a footnote. Don't say I didn't ask. Skyerise (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Order of policies
Apart from the initial sub-section, "Philosophical outlook", the others look like they're in alphabetical order. If that is deliberate, then "Journalism" is out of order.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   10:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Philosophical outlook" comes first for obvious reasons; it talks about the broader worldview of the participants of Project 2025. "Journalism" has been relocated. Nerd271 (talk) 10:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Philosophical outlook" comes first for obvious reasons; it talks about the broader worldview of the participants of Project 2025. "Journalism" has been relocated. Nerd271 (talk) 10:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

See also link to reactions of Trump's first term
I propose adding a 'see also' link to: Presidency of Donald Trump in the 'Reactions' section, since it links to reactions from the first administration. Superb Owl (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose - off-topic, should be restricted to reactions to the topic of the article. Skyerise (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's obviously off-topic. Nerd271 (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category." - WP:See also Superb Owl (talk) 23:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And your link doesn't meet that criteria. It would be completely appropriate on Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign, which is already linked from this article, but not directly on this article. Skyerise (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's not really relevant to this article, at least unless there's far more future coverage of Trump's link to the project. We can't just shoe-horn or editorialise Trump into the article, much as we might like to.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   10:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I respect the consensus so far to not include it but am still a bit confused about it. All the coverage I have seen (at least since Trump won the nomination) has described the project as being for Trump if he wins a second term, including noting its leadership served in his last administration. Superb Owl (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The insurrection act passage is incorrect
The article mentions that Trump and his allies are considering using the Insurrection Act to deploy the military to suppress civil unrest. However, it does not explicitly state that he will use it to prosecute his opponents. The focus is on how Trump might use federal power to punish critics and consolidate control over the Justice Department, which could include various actions but is not limited to the Insurrection Act for prosecutions. Mmueller918 (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * you are correct, the sentence should be rephrased soibangla (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Why did you revert back to my edit, then undo it? Mmueller918 (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

"Communist" China
We need to discuss whether to repeat the primary source's repeated use of "Communist China" as a rhetorical device outside of quotations. I do not think it should be included. Skyerise (talk) 11:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It helps further explain why some people consider that country to be a threat, especially in the context of the ongoing Second Cold War. Whatever people think of "true communism," there is no denying that China's ruling class is the Chinese Communist Party. Some people may want to distinguish it from Nationalist China or modern-day Taiwan. Nerd271 (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It helps further explain why some people consider that country to be a threat, especially in the context of the ongoing Second Cold War. Whatever people think of "true communism," there is no denying that China's ruling class is the Chinese Communist Party. Some people may want to distinguish it from Nationalist China or modern-day Taiwan. Nerd271 (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * We wouldn't follow their lead if they repeatedly referred to Joe Biden as "Sleepy Joe".  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   11:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a nickname, not his real name which is clearly Amtrak Joe or Uncle Joe . China is officially run by the CCP. But I get your point. Nerd271 (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't think that we should refer to China as Communist China in wikivoice. It has negative connotations, and putting "Communist" China in quotes may be seen as editorialised disdain rather than as a quotation.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   11:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So we either say "Communist China" or just "China" instead of putting only "Communist" in quotation marks, which strikes me as weird. Nerd271 (talk) 11:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The fact that China is communist is common knowledge and does not need to be stated. If you want to include a quote from p. 11 which uses the term in the footnote, by all means do so; oh, but I guess you are against quotes in footnotes. Oops. Skyerise (talk) 11:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That would be a justified use of footnotes. I am against having empty sections. Nerd271 (talk) 11:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Section wasn't empty until you emptied it. You're crusing for a block, aren't you? Skyerise (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What? I replaced the notes you gave by the very sources you selected. All three of them. The section was empty. Nerd271 (talk) 11:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You disputed my source. It is common practice, when a source is disputed by another editor, to include supporting quotations. You removal smacks of WP:CENSORSHIP. Skyerise (talk) 12:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, you re-used two out of three sources that various contributors have added to this article. I am not disputing your sources; I put all of them back after removing the note. Instead of having a note, we could reuse existing citations. That's why I said it was simpler. That's not censorship. If you want a quote, the last article by the Associated Press is enough. In fact, that is the only new source out of the three. The other two are in use elsewhere in the article. In any case, that Project 2025 is connected to Donald Trump is not in dispute. Nerd271 (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

why was this content removed?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Project_2025&diff=prev&oldid=1230855890 soibangla (talk) 03:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * unless you have a removal rationale, I will restore it soibangla (talk) 03:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Fat-finger syndrome. Apologies. I put it back. Nerd271 (talk) 03:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

"According to an anonymous source"
I remain unpersuaded that we need this qualifier. It essentially says in wikivoice "we can't be sure this reliable source should be trusted here." I am not aware of such a precedent on Wikipedia and it is included at the insistence of just one editor.

All we should say is that WaPo reported it, at first exclusively, later confirmed by CNN. Reliable sources are reliable because they don't have a history of making stuff up, such as fake sources. Deep Throat turned out to be Mark Felt, after all. soibangla (talk) 04:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Removed. Nerd271 (talk) 04:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Agendy 47
The text says: "While the Trump campaign initially said the project aligned well with their Agendy 47 proposals". Is that supposed to read "Agendy" and not "Agenda"? Capturts (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * thank you soibangla (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

edit request
in the "issues of identity" part of the article the article "state-sanctioned racism" is put in quotes, however none of the secondary articles nor the primary article has this quote directly in them. am i misunderstanding something or should this be changed? Lolife47 (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I found it in the secondary article, i apologize for asking so quickly before thoroughly reading Lolife47 (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In the future, you can use this template on talk pages to request changes. If you do, you should also read this. TheWikiToby (talk) 03:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

"website critical of Project 2025"
Thanks for adding this, Soibangla. Does the site have a title or do you have the URL?  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   20:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Forget it, the site is https://joebiden.com/project2025/.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   20:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course it's him! Nerd271 (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Concern around some sections simply summarizing the plan
For example, the reproductive rights section just quotes officials for the project without any analysis by secondary sources of what that means. This seems like WP:undue weight. Maybe we should move some reactions into specific sections when the reactions are specific to that policy area? Superb Owl (talk) 03:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Another example, I added 'Expansion of Presidential powers' above the Policies section since it's not so much a policy but an accumulation of power to enact policy and most importantly, it receives the vast majority of the coverage on this topic and should receive proportionate coverage on this article Superb Owl (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This (shunting around content from the original "Policies" section) could get messy. The lines around "expansion of Presidential powers" are blurred.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   16:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've finished combing through the policies section and adding the topics to the 'Expansion of presidential powers' section if you want to take a look and see what you think. I have a little cleanup I'm about to do in Foreign affairs from the sentences I moved Superb Owl (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Alphabetical ordering makes more sense. Different aspects of Project 2025 will inevitably receive different levels of media coverage. Instead of gauging that, why not just use something more automatic and convenient for editors as well as readers? Nerd271 (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Removal of quotations and notes section
We need a consensus on whether the removal of the notes section and quotation used in a citation was appropriate. I am for including the detailed quotations and the notes section. Other opinions? Skyerise (talk) 11:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think this was a good edit. Why add more text and make the article longer, when the same citations can be given the way I did? By the way, this is a well-known connection, and sources supporting this are easy to find. In fact, within this article alone, you can find even more sources. I don't think we need a detailed notes section with quotations, as the page current stands. Nerd271 (talk) 11:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think this was a good edit. Why add more text and make the article longer, when the same citations can be given the way I did? By the way, this is a well-known connection, and sources supporting this are easy to find. In fact, within this article alone, you can find even more sources. I don't think we need a detailed notes section with quotations, as the page current stands. Nerd271 (talk) 11:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I added the material, and you have not shown that there is any consensus to change the way I presented it. It stays as it is until you can do so. Skyerise (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In the edit you reverted, I actually added a new source with a new quote. Again, this is not in dispute and two sources with two quotes are perfectly adequate. The sources and the quotes can be in the References section. There is no need for a separate Notes section. But let's ask some of the frequent editors. @Soibangla and @Esowteric, what do you guys think? Nerd271 (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with having a notes section, and it is a well-established principle on Wikipedia that editors do not get to impose their personal styling preferences on material added by another editor just because it happens to be in a different style than they prefer. Skyerise (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Why have an extra section when another can be used without trouble? Again, including three quotes for something not in dispute is just excessive. Nerd271 (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Because you don't have a consensus to change it. Skyerise (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with having a Notes section, when you actually need it. You wrote, Perhaps this from WP:5P3 is in order. It is not a matter of malice. Some of us actually try to make things better. If an article can be made shorter without sacrificing quality, we should do so. As Strunk and White would advise, "Vigorous writing is concise." Nerd271 (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * See WP:REFVAR, which covers notes and references specifically: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style, merely on the grounds of personal preference or to make it match other articles, without first seeking consensus for the change". I've got no problem with it being changed, as long as you can show that there is a consensus to do so. There's not even a third opinion here, much less a consensus, so we maintain the status quo. This is a non-issue, because nobody cares about it but you. You don't like it. I get it. But I do and it's a style issue, not a content issue, so it doesn't get changed without consensus. Skyerise (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)