Talk:Project 2025: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 13:22, 6 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Project 2025 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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

Article policies

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6: 30 days

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Project 2025. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Project 2025 at the Reference desk.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

United States: Presidential elections / Presidents Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Mid-importance).

Politics: American High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance).

Conservatism Mid‑importance

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

Christianity Mid‑importance

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

Human rights High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

Pornography Mid‑importance

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

Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2024, when it received 20,215,406 views.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 8 times. The weeks in which this happened:

On 13 June 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Project 2025/Presidential Transition Project. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Reversion

@Just10A Can you explain how the edit you reverted [1] was "not an improvement"? Also pinging @83d40m. TheWikiToby (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also would like to know how leaving out a significant portion of the historical record could be preferred as an impartial discussion. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was a monstrously long, grammatically incorrect, and awkwardly forced sentence. Clearly not an improvement on that alone. Furthermore, it casts doubt by its language to the point of it probably being WP:Undue (especially if we’re gonna remove his explicit disavowal of the project from the first paragraph like it previously was).

Let me know if there’s anything else I can help you with Just10A (talk) 03:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:Just10A, but my request was not for your personal view of the style of another editor — it was regarding the provision of an impartial discussion in WP with a reference. I note that another editor, TheWikiToby questioned justification as well. Unfortunately, it appears that supression of the facts in the quote is being argued rather, as a personal dislike of style. If you replace my edit with another edit at this point in the article for Project 2025 with the same facts and reference — meeting that standard — I will not pursue reintroduchtion of the balance needed:

Public disapproval of the project's controversial proposals led Trump and his campaign to distance themselves from it in 2024 although at a 2022 dinner for the Heritage Foundation Trump said that the group was "going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do … when the American people give us a colossal mandate",^[1] when the negative reactions arose, Trump began to say that he knew "nothing about it" and that "some of the things [Project 2025 says] are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal".

It seems that supression of the facts in the quote is being argued rather, as a personal dislike of style. Please provide an edit to correct the stylistic aspects to that which you would prefer. So long as the balance is re-established and the facts and reference are included — there would be no need for me to pursue coverage of what seems needed for impartial balance presentation to complete the existing discussion. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC) 83d40m (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. My reply wasn't to you, it was to the original poster asking for an explanation for why it was "not an improvement." That's what I was addressing.

Secondly, there is no suppression going on here. To my knowledge, similar info is already in the body of the article and, if it is not, you a more than welcome to add it provided it meets requirements.

However, that's not the issue here, and I think that's where the confusion is. The standard for something being included in the lead is not whether something is part of an "impartial discussion in WP with a reference". On the contrary, verifiability does not equal inclusion for the entire article, and the requirements for the lead are even more strenuous. The lead of this article is already much longer than what is usually considered ideal (250 to 400 words, this page's lead is already 650+) and the lead needs to conform to MOS:INTRO by simply "briefly summariz[ing] the most important points covered in an article." Long story short, as already stated, injecting an extremely long and extremely awkward sentence that is not one of the main points of the article does not adhere to those standards.

Additionally, (again as already stated), there would also probably be WP:UNDUE/balance issues as well since his explicit disavowal in the first paragraph was removed and the wording would be casting even more doubt on his statements. This would be a little over the edge, but that's secondary anyway. Let me know if there’s anything else I can help you with. Just10A (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change

It seeks to eliminate coverage of emergency contraception^[2] and use the Comstock Act to prosecute those who send and receive contraceptives and abortion pills.^[3]^[4]

to

It seeks to use the Comstock Act to prosecute providers and distributors of abortion pills.^[5]^: 562

Because

The Barron-Lopez-2024 article did not mention contraception.
Project 2025 says they intend to prosecute providers and distributors, not receivers of abortion pills.
Congress amended Comstock_Act_of_1873 to remove the prohibition on contraceptives in 1971.

Please change

The project seeks to restore Trump-era "religious and moral exemptions" to contraceptive requirements under the Affordable Care Act, including emergency contraception (Plan B), which it deems an abortifacient,^[6]^[2]

to

The project seeks to restore Trump-era "religious and moral exemptions" to contraceptive requirements under the Affordable Care Act,

Because

Attributed quotes are required for Rolling Stone on political topics. See WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS
The Rolling Stone article says
Students for Life, one of the largest anti-abortion groups in the country and a prominent lobbying force for anti-choice policies, lists virtually all forms of hormonal contraception as being “abortifacient” medication on their website.
Student For Life does not represent the views of Project 2025.

Xiruizhao (talk) 00:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Durkee, Alison. "Project 2025 Explained: What To Know About The Controversial Right-Wing Policy Map For Trump—As Director Steps Down". Forbes. Archived from the original on August 3, 2024. Retrieved August 3, 2024. Trump has also seemingly endorsed Heritage's policy work in the past, saying at a 2022 dinner for the Heritage Foundation that the group was "going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do … when the American people give us a colossal mandate."
^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference Barron-Lopez-2024 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference Ollstein was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference Yang-Zahn-March242024 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference Dans & Groves 2023 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Ramirez, Nikki McCann (February 23, 2024). "The Right Is Cracking Down on Abortion and IVF. Is 'Recreational Sex' Next?". Rolling Stone. Archived from the original on May 15, 2024. Retrieved May 14, 2024.

Not done: This is not Simple.Wikipedia - FlightTime (open channel) 00:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

['''Durkee'''-1] Durkee, Alison. "Project 2025 Explained: What To Know About The Controversial Right-Wing Policy Map For Trump—As Director Steps Down". Forbes. Archived from the original on August 3, 2024. Retrieved August 3, 2024. Trump has also seemingly endorsed Heritage's policy work in the past, saying at a 2022 dinner for the Heritage Foundation that the group was "going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do … when the American people give us a colossal mandate."

[Barron-Lopez-2024-2] Cite error: The named reference Barron-Lopez-2024 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Ollstein-3] Cite error: The named reference Ollstein was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Yang-Zahn-March242024-4] Cite error: The named reference Yang-Zahn-March242024 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Dans_&_Groves_2023-5] Cite error: The named reference Dans & Groves 2023 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[6] Ramirez, Nikki McCann (February 23, 2024). "The Right Is Cracking Down on Abortion and IVF. Is 'Recreational Sex' Next?". Rolling Stone. Archived from the original on May 15, 2024. Retrieved May 14, 2024.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]