Talk:Project 2025

Article Exhibits Bias

The Wikipedia article on Project 2025 exhibits bias through its selective focus and tone. It emphasizes the project's political affiliations and controversial objectives, particularly its connection to Donald Trump. The language used can appear charged, potentially leading readers to question the neutrality of the information presented. Such elements can skew the portrayal of the subject, suggesting a bias in how the information is conveyed. 199.189.240.30 (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

That's because that's what reliable sources focus on. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

No they don’t. The wiki article is flush with opinion that misleads the audience from the facts listed in the documentation at project 2025 itself. Which is the primary source of information.

for example, the overhauls recommended for the department of defense as portrayed in the article are grossly misrepresented from the actual text and require revision.

this wiki is essentially lying to people. 2600:1008:B090:385F:5947:598C:9C0F:80F5 (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

please be more specific with examples soibangla (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The entire article reads as a hit piece highlighting the alleged extremist opinions of the founders of Project 2025.

Reading it would make you forget that the party behind it is a major party and whose candidate has serious chances to win.

When a major political party has views and it is a major contender it is untrue to blatantly label them extremist. 2605:8D80:6C4:49A8:9953:3D48:7B17:5DA7 (talk) 06:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

please be more specific with examples soibangla (talk) 07:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

By examples, we mean, for example, which paragraphs (put a quote here) misrepresent the overhauls. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I think they're saying, even just a single example would help identify the problematic portions. That's the next best step toward making things more equitable. 2603:9001:6B00:5FC3:7505:47F6:6B4:7ADD (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

To piggyback on this, the article is completely deficient in Primary sources, or even any real sources at all. The first "Primary" source isn't presented until #30, and that source is only a refutation from the authors to critics of the document in question. The actual document being discussed is referenced only a single time and that's 2 lines regarding its authorship. Without exaggeration, the entire article is just editorials. In no other circumstance would these be accepted as even secondary sources as they're clearly just the opinions of individuals with no serious qualification to issue their opinion on the matter. In my perusal of the sources, I've been unable to identify a single cited author with any meaningful qualification to justify them as source, excluding the Heritage Foundation (the chief author of Project 2025). I don't oppose the existence of this article in principle, but it's clearly slanted in a single direction. Nearly the entire article should be scrapped. The points made by these pundits could, or even should, be used to guide the rewriting of this article, but the points made should still explicitly reference the document at hand. What we have at present is the conjecture of a number of unqualified talking heads, hardly any different than filling the references with someone's Facebook posts. These standards of citation would never be permitted for an article relating to the Magna Carta, the Marshall Plan, or any other historical document. The purpose of this project, of the online Encyclopedia, is to document for posterity the happenings of the past and of today. While it is difficult to remain objective and concise with contemporary issues, it's our responsibility to do so. This article should be significantly trimmed to present the barest facts until a more objective and comprehensive article can be published. 2601:840:8000:99C0:8109:80F9:8BCA:36F6 (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

the article is replete with reliable secondary sources, the meat and potatoes of Wikipedia. I note a conspicuous dearth of reliable secondary sources, or even unreliable secondary sources, praising P25, and I have looked for them. that seems telling, given the Trump campaign's apparent request that P25 stop talking to the press about it. other than the Mandate, what other primary sources might you refer to? please cite specific examples of content you find problematic. soibangla (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Soibangla, just because you can push secondary sources, does not mean that they are unimpeachable and not up for discussion. Example: You added something about Trump's proposal to create a federally funded "American Academy", which appears to be entirely OR. The cited sources are a secondary Conversation article cited that mentions job training program, which doesn't mention the "American Academy" proposed by Trump, and a secondary Politico article about the higher education institution in question, which doesn't mention Project 2025.

Now, you ask for specific examples of problematic content? Sure.

1. The lead for instance, claims that Project 2025 plans on dismantling the Federal Bureau of Investigation and eliminating the Department of Commerce. This is blatantly false.

Project 2025's Mandate for Leadership on the FBI: Align the FBI’s placement within the department and the federal government with its law enforcement and national security purposes, not "dismantling" it. In fact, it proposes moving offices to the FBI: Office of Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction be moved to the FBI.

Project 2025's Mandate on Commerce: The above policies, strategies, and tactics will set a new Administration on firm footing that allows the Department of Commerce to assist the President in implementing a bold agenda that delivers economic prosperity and strong national security to the American people. Again, we see proposals from Proj 2025 to move offices to the supposedly "eliminated" department: Move ED’s statistical office, the National Commission for Education Statistics (NCES), to the Department of Commerce’s Census Bureau.

2. The lead also claims Project 2025 plans on slashing funding for the Department of Justice. This also lacks any basis in the Mandate, which has numerous policy ideas on expanding DOJ focuses that would logically require additional funding, including massive priorities like border security. The most direct reference to any price tag are the billions spent on Office of Justice Programs grants, which the Mandate expresses support for as potentially highly effective in implementing the President’s priorities.

3. The lead claims Project 2025 plans on ending the independence of federal agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC). This is also unsupported. The Project's text on independent regulatory agencies explicitly states they exist, their constitutional legitimacy has generally been upheld by the courts, and there will be an opportunity for the next Administration to use them as forces for good, particularly by making wise appointments. The FCC chapter (Ch28) does not discuss anything about taking away its status as an independent agency, while the FTC chapter (Ch30), directly contradicts the lead's claim and rebuts conservative thinkers who advocate to eliminate independent agencies.

4. The lead mentions content about the Insurrection Act by shoehorning in Jeffery Clark: immediately deploy the military for domestic law enforcement by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807. There's literally nothing in the Mandate about the insurrection Act. Even the cited Wapo article quotes Heritage's spox as saying There are no plans within Project 2025 related to the Insurrection Act. This is at the very least clearly undue and POV-pushing.

And all of this is just from picking up a few suspect items in the lead and bothering to trace them down. KiharaNoukan (talk) 10:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the subject of this article is the project itself, not just the mandate they have released, and about what has been published about the project. Also, we can only use primary sources in a limited way, and sparingly, for establishing basic, uncontroversial facts. We rely instead on independent, secondary reliable sources that give the subject significant mention (be that for, against, or neutrally worded), applying due weight to different viewpoints. It's clear that the aims of those involved in the project go way further than what they're willing to commit to paper in the mandate itself. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Those involved in the project are fine with admitting that they wish to dismantle and eliminate the Department of Education and Homeland Security, but intrepid journalists found out, with no details or sourcing given, that they hid away their real plans for the FBI and Department of Commerce and completely made up a comprehensive policy outline to mask their true objectives? Secondary RS is a general policy to be applied as a rule of thumb, sure, but as even the RS policy page mentions: Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis.

For items 1-3 that fail on issues of basic fact, there is nothing to explain the considerable contradiction given, there is no detail to the claims in any of the sourcing. They're thrown in as a one-liner that is never elaborated on and even seemingly ignored. Let's take the Guardian article being cited for item 1. It claims that Project 2025 prioritizes "dismantling the FBI". It also simultaneously claims that Project 2025 will "install trusted loyalists in top posts at the DoJ and the FBI, permitting Trump more leeway to exact revenge on foes" and quotes Michael Bromwich, who is also quoted in the body of this wikipedia article, as saying "The plans being developed by members of Trump's cult to turn the DOJ and FBI into instruments of his revenge". Somehow, the dismantled FBI is being used as a tool of revenge, and this contradiction is even given play in this very wikipedia article,

Given how little focus, elaboration, or even outright contradiction, the articles being cited give to these contentious points, this should at least derank them from a presence in the lead. KiharaNoukan (talk) 11:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

There is no contradiction between dismantling the FBI and using it as an instrument of revenge. The intent is to dismantle the FBI as it currently exists and rebuild it with all Trump/Far-Right loyalists as a dark mockery of its former self. Dismantle to bare bones then rebuild corrupt, no contradiction. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Do any of the sources claim that this is what they mean? Why isn't the DOJ being referred to as "dismantled"? The cited sources say they're being used the same way. Or really all the executive agencies, since they're all being changed from "as they currently exist" and rebuilt with loyalists. Why is the Department of Homeland Security referred to as being dismantled? For DHS, Project 2025 unambiguously and clearly states that they're doing away with it and pushing its offices to other executive departments. I think your speculation is a case in point of the problem I'm pointing out, there's literally nothing of substance behind these bare statements (since they don't accord with reality), and as a result, we have content in the lead that makes little to no sense without reading in equivocation. KiharaNoukan (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the solution is to complicate 'dismantle' to 'fully subvert the FBI to the president's will by purging employees not unquestioningly loyal to the Project 2025 agenda'? Although that seems a bit wordy for an already very long lead. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Scratch previous, 'take partisan control of' is shorter and more accurate to Project 2025's self-stated purpose. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The cited Guardian article's (attributed) criticisms are already covered in the lead's Other critics believe Project 2025 is rhetorical window dressing for what would be four years of personal vengeance at any cost. The inaccurate descriptors should be deleted, wrt the FBI, Commerce, FTC, etc., with an option to reinstate upon an accurate breakdown of what their proposals actually are. Notably, this does exist for DHS, which is mentioned correctly as being targeted for dismantling, and this is in the body of the article, which actually substantively describes how the dismantling occurs with redistribution of its offices, and has RS attesting as much. KiharaNoukan (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

So, I think most of these problems can be solved by just converting 'slash funding'/'dismantle'/etc. to 'take partisan control of'. Most of Project 2025's authors and contributors seem to have been pretty transparent about their overall intent to bring the country to within arm's reach of being a Republican controlled one-party state. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Dubbed “Project 2025,” the group is developing a plan, to include draft executive orders, that would deploy the military domestically under the Insurrection Act, according to a person involved in those conversations and internal communications reviewed by The Washington Post. Seems to pretty directly support inclusion of the content regarding the Insurrection Act, the Heritage Foundation's denial on the subject looks 'of course he would say that' to me. Do we have any source that proves, unequivocally, that the Washington Post made up theirs? Largely Legible Layman (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

(FCC) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC)... there will be an opportunity for the next Administration to use them as forces for good, particularly by making wise appointments. Translation in keeping with the language in use throughout Project 2025's distributed materials: take partisan control of. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

It would be an improvement sure, but this is covered in paragraph 1 of the lead: Project 2025, also known as the Presidential Transition Project, is a collection of conservative policy proposals from the Heritage Foundation to reshape the United States federal government in the event of a Republican Party victory in the 2024 presidential election. Established in 2022, the project has been most notable for how it aims to achieve its objectives. It proposes reclassifying tens of thousands of merit-based federal civil servant jobs as political appointees in order to replace them with loyal conservatives to further the objectives of the next Republican president. I'm not sure it's particularly due to fill the lead by mentioning that the plan about reshaping the federal government to align with partisan priorities involves federal agency XYZ being reshaped by a new administration to align with partisan priorities. DHS being dismantled is due and prominent, because that is actually what is happening to it and is covered in detail. For other items, they're covered by existing language and can be added if/when RS actually reports on them as a matter of prominence. KiharaNoukan (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, we could cut out the lead's second paragraph and allow the body of the article to speak for itself, since the first paragraph summarizes the whole plan really. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

cut out the lead's second paragraph: I'd maybe get consensus for such a bold edit first. There are a number of experienced editors working on this article who might advise. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I oppose efforts to demote secondary sources in favor of a primary source just because one editor thinks reliable sources are somehow unreliable in this specific article. soibangla (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

For the proposed dismantling of the lede, see #Shortened lead. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Paragraph two is definitely very messy right now. I would at least merge P2's The project's authors also admitted that most of the proposals would require controlling both chambers of congress. Other aspects of the plan have recently been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and would face court challenges. While others still are norm-breaking proposals that might survive court challenges. to P1 and cut out a lot of the items that are repeated in the lead, questionably due, questionable in accuracy, or just generally fail to follow or contradict the body. KiharaNoukan (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

As I mentioned, the issues with that are issues of it being due and POV presented in the lead. The WaPo article mentions this as an idea in development at the time of their reviewing, which is not backed up by the blueprint and is rebutted by Heritage. KiharaNoukan (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is designed as a summary of reliable sources. Thus, we follow what reliable sources say, unless other reliable sources directly contradict. As said below, this has not been shown. If you have a problem with the sources (in the case of dismantling, sources [10] and [12]), take it up with the sources, and ask WP:RSN if needed. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

As I pointed out in my original comment with the OR example in this article of how secondary sourcing can be misused and lead to poor outcomes, simply because you can push a secondary source, that isn't enough to justify its inclusion in the lead of all places in whatever manner one might wish.

Wikipedia does indeed follow what the RS says, it also follows WP:DUE, WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, among other items. If you followed along with the discussion prior to your comment, you might note that I pointed out that there is nothing substantive or prominent in RS about the problematic entries for items like how the lead characterizes the FBI and Dept of Commerce, vs say a more accurate characterization for DHS, which has a section in the body with RS that actually explain and focus on just how it is being dismantled. By contrast, the RS that discusses the problematic entries I point out leave them as unexplained and insignificant one-liner blurbs that are clearly not due for the lead, and have nothing of substance to elaborate on.

And yes, the RS does contradict. The very Guardian article cited for the point about the FBI contradicts itself, saying it will simultaneously be dismantled and utilized as a tool of revenge. The lead not only fails to follow the body, it contradicts it here, as we have the more substantive claims about FBI weaponization, as well as details about how the FBI should focus on serious crimes and threats to national security clashing with the blurbs featured in the lead about FBI dismantling. KiharaNoukan (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Please tell us which sources you consider "editorial"s. Nearly none of the sources cited are labeled as opinions, and yes, we would use them to cite the Magna Carta. Due to their extreme bias and potential to misrepresent facts, Wikipedia:Primary sources are usually avoided. Even then, reference #2 is a direct link to the Project's website's playbook. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Primary sources should be avoided when reporting on what happened. Conversely, when a PS says, "This is our plan," and a secondary source says, "Yeah, that's what they say, but what they really want is that," the secondary source should be soundly rejected. What makes the secondary source able to read minds? Abrothman (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

oftentimes what primary sources don't say can be more important than what they do say, and that is very likely in highly political matters like this. lies of omission. that's why we have journalists to talk to people, examine documents and such. and that's why we rely mostly on secondary sources. soibangla (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m not a big user of WP. This article alone has made me questioned the credibility and neutrality of its information. I expected an unbiased presentation of facts without shades of bias. Ravogan (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Beyond basic facts in the primary sources, Wikipedia is reliant on significant mention of a subject in independent, secondary reliable sources, and to present it in a neutral manner, giving due weight to different perspectives. In this case, it is hard to find much support in reliable sources. That's just the way it actually is, at this point in time. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Look at the edits and you will see a clear and open ideologically motivated history. A neutral description of the goals of the article is not allowed to be added and is repeatedly removed for no reason. Bringjustthefactsplease (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

These four goals convey basically no actionable information and have not nearly been covered as much as other aspects picked up in the lede. The "philosophical outlook" is the overview of the aims and goals and where this info belongs. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

An understanding of the primary goals of why the article was written to start with is core to defining and understanding a document.

The goals of a document belong early in the description of a document. Its an integral component of describing a document.

Waiting to tell the reader what the authors primary aims of a document even are until pages into the article is highly unusual and unacceptable. Bringjustthefactsplease (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

1. You can already get a general feel of what the thing wants to do in the lede with concrete examples of the most well-known policies, which are way more useful than an organization's mission statement. We have descriptions of changes to the administration, policies against immigration and for border control, etc.
2. We have the table of contents for a reason. If someone wants to check an overview of the goals, they can just click on the section, which by the way is very prominent as the first indented heading. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It's absurd to not know what the authors intended goal of a document is until multiple pages into an article. Why are you actually opposed to simply having a neutral description of the goal of the article in the introduction? E.g. You believe it is reasonable to not tell a reader what the authors of the US constitution set out to do when writing until multiple pages in? You believe the goals of the magna Carta should occur multiple pages into an article? Bringjustthefactsplease (talk) 04:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I am opposed to having it in the introduction because 1. there are a lot of other, much more important things that made this notable covered widely 2. these are basically the goals of conservatism in the USA, which the introduction already says in the first sentence 3. the main goal of what analysts have found, to consolidate power in the event of an election win, is already in the first sentence. As we have said repeatedly, reliable sources, preferably secondary, shape the truth here at Wikipedia. It's also just two flips in, man, it's not buried that deep. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It's absurd to not want to include the goals of a document in the introduction. It launches into what some of the policy proposals without even explaining the goals of the article. Again, this is extremely unusual. Look at any other description of a document on Wikipedia and it will include the aims of the document in the definition. Bringjustthefactsplease (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Apart from anything else, this article is about Project 2025, not just the Mandate they have published. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The goal of the project is in the very first sentence: reshape the United States federal government and consolidate executive power. The "four points" from the BBC article are just boilerplate conservative platitudes and buzzwords, not the actual goals. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

> The "four points" from the BBC article are just boilerplate conservative platitudes and buzzwords

They are quite literally the stated aims of the document: it's in the forward of the document. BBC has simply condensed them. This is literally a neutral description of the goals the authors had in mind as they crafted the document. Bringjustthefactsplease (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The Project 2025 Mandate for Leadership document outlines four main aims: restore the family as the centerpiece of American life; dismantle the administrative state; defend the nation’s sovereignty and borders; and secure God-given individual rights to live freely.

Aim one is conservative boilerplate/code for Christian Nationalism, aim two is arguably the document's genuine goal, aim three is definitely conservative boilerplate, and aim four is the same as the first. These are just carrots being dangled in front of far-right-curious Americans to lure them into handing Project 2025's backers a very big stick. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

> These are just carrots being dangled in front of far-right-curious Americans to lure

You've just acknowledged that you're quite literally using your own personal opinion as motivation behind these edits. Bringjustthefactsplease (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

One, I have acknowledged no such thing, merely stated fact as presented by Project 2025's own backers. Two, what edits? I have barely touched this article at all. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

These four points are fine where they now are, at Policies -> Philosophical outlook. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. While there are dozens of opinions from pundits inserted into the article, yhe article itself has very little neutral information about the project. It didn't even include the four main aims of the project until yesterday. Bringjustthefactsplease (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

These "pundits" are all Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Like it or not, we're just an echo chamber of reliable sources as many issues have arisen from not just following reliable sources in the past. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

So the article doesn't attempt to give any neutral description or summary of the document in the introduction. At all. I have added a neutral and sourced introduction to the goals of the document and it has been removed twice with no reason given. Bringjustthefactsplease (talk) 21:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Side note: Please assume good faith rather than giving other editors here talk page warnings for "POV Vandalism". Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 21:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Here at Wikipedia, an echo chamber of reliable source, the highest standard of neutrality we can strive for is to cover every single thing proportional to how much they are covered in reliable sources. Everything else is too subjective. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Each thing in this article is not covered.

For example A neutral description of the project from BBC has been removed three times with no stated rationale. The centrist statement is cited, from a reputable source, but is not permitted to be included.

See revision 1232604299 in which the stated rationale for removing a centrist perspective is "not everything that is sourced belongs in the lede" Bringjustthefactsplease (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Please see my reply above. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Your reply did not address why this was removed multiple times. Clear ideological bias in editing is occuring. Bringjustthefactsplease (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Please, let's keep discussion on the same thing in one place.

As for bias, the way we measure that is to take the average of all reliable sources. So by definition, that isn't biased. Otherwise, we'd have many philosophers arguing over what really is bias with no definite conclusion. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

So if a majority of “reliable sources” project a bias then there is no bias? Got it. Next stop 1984. 2001:48F8:3024:1824:10A0:FBB:EBB1:6A11 (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes.

If you want a reason, it's because we don't think we are well-equipped to judge bias ourselves instead of having an opinion delivered by a consensus as a group at WP:RSN. You may see Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Only allow the truth in articles. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Bringjustthefactspleas, if you continue to insist there are dozens of opinions from pundits inserted into the article, I suggest the POV here may be yours. soibangla (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

As someone who just came across this today, and who read the article.

THIS IS THE MOST BIASED SWILL I'VE SEEN ON WIKIPEDIA. There is absolutely no counter balance here. Right after the first line onward it is only sources which say negative things. There is no alternate view. THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION IS BIG AND JUST AS BIG AS SOME OF THE SOURCES THAT "DEBUNK IT"...

This is blatent swill, and whoever keeps editing the article back is committing misinformation. THIS WHOLE ARTICLE BREAKS THE PILLARS. The whole thing is only meant to give FALSE AUTHORITY to the idea that "this plan is bad" with zero consideration to some of the good things that might be in it or about some of the HOTLY CONTESTED POLICY POSITIONS... over 50% of the country supports Trump and the GOP, it's been a close race for YEARS. Why are we biased on something like this so heavily when clearly there is NO AUTHORITATIVE CONSENSUS HERE AT ALL. Why the false objectivity?

I don't think I will ever trust wikipedia again... as Ive looked at other articles and noted the same trend. Terrible. Subcomfreak (talk) 03:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Subcomfreak I encourage you to contribute reliable sources that include favorable coverage of the project. I have looked and looked but haven't found much of anything. I don't see Republicans holding press conferences to rally behind the project. I don't see podcasters other than Steve Bannon and his guests cheering for it. I have seen Trump campaign managers asking the project to stop talking about it, and now Trump has disavowed it. in my experience this suggests that a proposal just isn't very popular across the spectrum, and might even be considered political poison in an election year. soibangla (talk) 04:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Apparently Wikipedia doesn't actually describe documents in neutral language like a encyclopedia would. They will only permit content written *about* the document. So instead of focusing on what the content of the document is, they only really allow second hand articles describing people talking about the document. Bringjustthefactsplease (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, because it's too easy for an editor to just make stuff up when they claim to be describing something. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

@Washusama: The article follows the available sources. Can you provide any news sources which praise the project? I've looked, but right-wing sources seem to be treating it like a hot potato. Nobody seems to want to come out in explicit support for it. Skyerise (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Editing or removing the weasel words and snarl words in non quotes and notes and minimize the use of quotes that use such language would fix much in this article without needing a right wing source (although finding a moderate republican who discusses this would be nice but probably too much to hope for) , tone is important for an encyclopedia article it is not a debate it is supposed to be a dispassionate summary of the facts about a subject. Washusama (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we use scarequotes? They are discouraged on Wikipedia. Quotations should include context. And re your last sentence, no, it's supposed to be a summary of what the secondary sources say about the subject. I think the article does a pretty good job of covering that. If the majority of sources take a particular view of the subject, that will necessarily be reflected in the article. Unless there are other sources which reflect a different view. Certainly the introduction of such sources, if they exist, might make the article more to your liking, but it's up to you to find and suggest them. And there is a moderate Republican source listed in further reading but not cited in the article yet. Guess what? He's agin' it too! Skyerise (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Why are we relying on unverified anonymous sources?

No where in the entire PDF is the insurrection act ever mentioned.

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

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

WaPo reported "...according to a person involved in those conversations and internal communications reviewed by The Washington Post."

we cannot rely exclusively on what a controversial organization tells us, or does not tell us. that's why we have journalists, and we use them as our sources here. soibangla (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

we also can’t just take an anonymous source as fact, we have to clarify Mmueller918 (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

you are flatly wrong on policy. I recommend you self-revert your removal soibangla (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I will not. The current version speaks as if it’s fact when all we have is an unverified source. This is a wild accusation that should not be listed as fact.

If you feel it should be mentioned the caveat that it’s unverified should be mention. I will not be taking your suggestion. Mmueller918 (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

you ignore that WaPo is not relying solely on an unidentified source. the fact an editor dislikes unidentified sources does not negate the reality that WaPo is a reliable source.

and internal communications reviewed by The Washington Post ... The proposal was identified in internal discussions as an immediate priority, the communications showed[1]

soibangla (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

they are relying on the unidentified source who supposedly provided them internal documents. we should not be reporting it as fact, when we don't know.

say that this is from an anonymous source or don’t use it Mmueller918 (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

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

It reeks of bias by writing it as fact Mmueller918 (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

It is an opinion of a Project 2025 contributor. Nerd271 (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

According to an anonymous source Mmueller918 (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting the function of WP:RSPSS. The Washington Post is a reliable source and correctly listed as such. Being listed as a reliable source allows the source to be validly cited on Wikipedia. It does not, however, preclude additional information and context of how the Washington Post obtained their information from being included in the article. The OP's edit on the main page did not in any way call into question the validity of the WP as a source, but only included additional, uncontroversial information that the WP themselves reported as how they obtained the information.

There is no reason why his edit should have been removed. It is true information that the Washington Post (a reliable source) reported. The only possible justification would be on the grounds that such information isn't relevant to the article, but it clearly is.

This edit should be restored and I will likely do it myself (in some capacity) in the future if not done. Just10A (talk) 23:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit: I realize now by the dates that this conversation might have been had due to an orignal, more controversial edit by OP regarding the Washington Post. My above comment only pertains to OPs most recent edit on 6/22/24 regarding the same topic. Just10A (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

"According to an anonymous source with The Washington Post" is only a partial truth, and it was originally reverted by multiple editors and repeatedly reinstated (this was an edit war). At the time, Mmueller918 was also labouring under the misapprehension that such material should not be included because the Insurrection Act was not mentioned in the project's mandate (pdf) and that we should use what the mandate says. It was pointed out that the project and their mandate are primary sources that have limited uncontroversial application; that we rely on independent, reliable, secondary sources; and that, in any case, the article is about the project as a whole, including its mandate, not just the mandate. The reversions were not punative, but used to have these issues discussed on the talk page.

If this is to be included, then we should really fully qualify the sentence: "According to an anonymous source and internal communications reviewed by The Washington Post ..." (which implies that the unnamed source was not unverified, as alleged, and the original might be read as casting doubt on the veracity of the report). Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree. Such a sentence completely encapsulates the situation with the Washington Post and gives full context. Just10A (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

"Conservative" vs. "right-wing"

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

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

Conservative is traditionally more neutral, I would say, but times change, as does politics alongside it, and "Conservative" has become more of a euphemism used by the right. Speaking only for myself, I would say that Project 2025 is more populist and radical than traditional conservativism, and that "right-wing" would be a more accurate term. But, of course, this is Wikipedia. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@Esowteric makes good points here. The term "Conservative" is used euphemistically these days and the article should avoid using that term for clarity's sake. The report is written with no real definition of what "Conservative" means. There is plenty of tone in the report that seems to equate "Conservative" with "good" and that everything proposed in the plan is truly "Conservative" without substantiation of those assertions. Calling your organization "Conservative" or your report "Conservative" does not mean either characterization is correct. For example, freedom of religious practice without government interference might be considered conservative, while emphasizing the importance of a particular religion might be right-wing. See, for example: "The Judeo-Christian tradition, stretching back to Genesis, has always recognized fruitful work as integral to human dignity, as service to God, neighbor, and family.", Project 2025, p581. Jeffme (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Seems more like neo-Nazi to me. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

right-wing - it is a more precise description given the amount of coverage documenting Heritage Foundation's shift farther to the right and away from the more euphemistic conservative label. Will make these changes given this consensus Superb Owl (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Esterau16 and @Bringjustthefactsplease, please discuss here why you think 'conservative' should describe those Project 2025 aims to hire, the project, etc. The consensus so far is that it's not a precise description and more of a euphemism given that while some policies are conservative, others (the ones getting most of the discussion) are more right-wing authoritarian. I am going to remove stand-alone conservative adjectives from the lede (seems ok if paired with right-wing) until this consensus changes. Please do not edit war anymore on this issue. Superb Owl (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

More than 90% of sources describe it as a conservative project. What should be discussed here? And in any case, both conservatism and right-wing should be named. Esterau16 (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

(updated) I started a running list of how various reliable sources describe the project/policies here. I don't know where the 90% estimate comes from but it's not born out in the data I've started collecting Superb Owl (talk) 05:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

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) LilianaUwU ^{(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 Wikipedia:CRITERIA and Wikipedia:COMMONNAME. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Support 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#nom, nomination already implies support – there should be no separate bulleted support made by the nominator. P.I. Ellsworth , 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.

Why are most sources news articles ?

Many lines describing extreme proposals using heated language are sourced to news sites reporting on the Projects plans? Why is the source not the project itself and what it claims to do? 85.76.118.181 (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The project itself and their mandate are primary sources. Wikipedia instead needs independent, secondary reliable sources that give significant coverage of the subject (whether they are "for", "against", or more neutral). See WP:GOLDENRULE. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

In general, we should ignore the headlines except for the key words and pay closer attention to the body, assuming that the news article comes from a reliable source. As Wikipedia editors, we should then extract as much usable information from them and leave aside the opinions, except when such opinions come from notable persons, such as, in this case, those involved in Project 2025. Nerd271 (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I have seen several Wikipedia discussions over the last couple of years that headlines must be ignored since a) they often do not accurately summarize an article's content b) they are not provided by the journalists, but by their editors. Dimadick (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The aim is to write an article from a neutral point of view, giving due weight to differing viewpoints expressed in the available reliable sources. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

"Why is the source not the project"

Because… that's how Wikipedia works. NewkirkPlaza (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC) NewkirkPlaza (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

And that's a good way to excuse a biased article. Only left-leaning news is talking about this, so all the sources are from left-leaning newspapers like New Republic. Especially some of the language the header uses, like "many legal experts say" when it cites political opinion columns by investigative journalists, is dreadfully misleading. Also, you can use primary sources on Wikipedia if the quotation is direct and descriptive. Just not primary sources alone. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

"Only left-leaning news is talking about this..."

• Heritage.org
• Washington Examiner
• FOX NEWS
• New York Post
• National Review
• OAN
• Wallstreet Journal
• Breitbart "Biden assails Project 2025, a plan to transform government, and Trump’s claim to be unaware of it" July 7th 2024

DN (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

See also link to reactions of Trump's first term

I propose adding a 'see also' link to: Presidency of Donald Trump#Historical evaluations and public opinion 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)

I will not edit war

Skyerise 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)

"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)

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)

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)

@Nerd271: 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, 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... Perhaps this from WP:5P3 is in order. ...no editor owns an article – any contributions can and may be mercilessly edited... 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)

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)

"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)

why was this content removed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Project_2025&diff=prev&oldid=1230855890 soibangla (talk) 03:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Nerd271 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)

Charts/graphs proposal

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

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

Well, with one proviso: We don't hunt around to find material to support our original research or what we want to say. That's backwards and may stray into synthesis and a form of editorialising. We find reliable sources and fairly represent, and build the article using, what they have actually have to say on the subject (Project 2025). Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 08:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I support this opinion. Nerd271 (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

as a passionate chart enthusiast, I tend to think this article is not suitable for charts, or a pic of a lunch tray, for that matter soibangla (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed - it's so difficult to create a chart with a NPOV on a topic like this. Is there consensus for removing the maps and charts already on this article before proposing any replacements? Superb Owl (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I came here to make note of the lunch tray photo - I'd love to hear from @Nerd271 or some of the more motivated editors here as to what they think a photo of a lunch tray is adding to an article about politics. 162.222.63.62 (talk) 12:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

Proposed removal of TikTok Map and Trade deficit chart as WP:Undue weight, notability

TikTok map: the plan called for a ban of TikTok nationwide when released in 2023 but as of 2024 Trump opposes a ban. This does not seem to be one of the most notable aspects of the plan given the lack of alignment.

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

Re. TikTok, if the project plan mentions or infers a nationwide ban on TikTok, then that's what we go with, until they change their plan. What Trump has to say about this or other issues does not alter the content of the actual plan (or reactions and responses to the plan), which is the subject of this article. We shouldn't treat the plan as being written in the past, because it will be "enacted" in the future, in 2025 and beyond. Hence, in certain circumstances (eg reviews, the mandate), it's usual to write "X is of the opinion that ...", "Y writes ...". Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

What we shouldn't do is use graphics where the topic is not mentioned in the project plan or in reactions and responses; and not use graphics to present our own "fact check" of what has been said. But that doesn't preclude the use of neutral material. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed on all accounts - what do you think of removing these two graphics due to the idea that we shouldn't be highlighting particular aspects of a plan that are not the most notable (ie not receiving the most news coverage for this plan)? Superb Owl (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Let's see what other editors here have to say on this issue first. As for due or undue weight, I think that's something to consider overall, but I don't think we should play down individual policy sub-sections just because they haven't received as much media attention. And I don't think that we should assess each sub-section in terms of notability. Overall notability has been more-than-well established and I don't think it applies to bits and pieces of an article.

Not sure how to word this, really, (my mind is elsewhere on other works-in-progress) so hopefully others can help me out here. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:Bold removal of TikTok map. See related discussion: Talk:Restrictions on TikTok in the United States#Remove map until it fixes WP:OR issues Superb Owl (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

They should stay. Some participants of Project 2025 (and the person they support, Donald Trump) are concerned about U.S. trade deficits. At the same time, Project 2025 in no uncertain terms call TikTok a threat. That map gives a bit of context. (Is it just Project 2025 or are there more people who think this way?) Nerd271 (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

1) @Nerd271, the map shows a policy issue that is already implemented at the federal level (banning TikTok on government devices). It does not show the proposed policy of a TikTok ban enacted at the state level (which I agree would be relevant). This seems to be excessive detail or off-topic.
2) It is Original Research - there is not a source that mentions all the states included in the map that categorizes each state by 'enacting official' Superb Owl (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Seriously? You have already asked where the sources in a invisible comment and I have already answered your question. You can find them here. That's where the original creator of the map got the data. Information does not exist in a vacuum. This is why a bit of context here and there is desirable. (A reader not well-versed in the news might ask, "Is Project 2025 alone in its concern over TikTok?") Nerd271 (talk) 23:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@Nerd271, those individual sources still represent WP:OR because of how they are being classified by 'enacting official' by the Wikipedia user that made that map but not by secondary sources themselves. Would you be open to requesting a third opinion on this issue? Superb Owl (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

You are talking about a single issue on two separate talk pages. Keep it over there, please! Nerd271 (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I think these should stay out of the article. In the case of a thumbnail image of a person, for example, the thumbnail is merely illustrating the subject. But in the case of a graph or chart, it is presenting the reader with information. As such, in this case, presenting it to the reader would be a bit of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Encyclopedic information must be verifiable, but there is nothing linking the specific information in these images to the information presented in the article, without WP:SYNTH, which should be avoided. Hist9600 (talk) 01:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hist9600, @Soibangla and myself have taken a stance against these charts on this talk page (and the trend is against the TikTok map, which was removed from another article for similar reasons).
@Nerd271 has advocated for keeping the charts/maps.
Is it safe to remove them at this point? Does anyone else want to weigh-in? Superb Owl (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

"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)

is there any real sources other than news articles?

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

The news articles used as references are not "fake". They are independent, secondary, reliable sources that give significant mention of the subject (the project, not just their published mandate, and what has been published about the project). They can be for or against or more neutral to the project. The Heritage Foundation and those involved in the project are not "real", independent reliable sources here, they are primary sources, and we can only use primary sources sparingly for basic, uncontroversial facts (unless covered in secondary sources). Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The official Playbook, Mandate for Leadership, and other sources from the Heritage Foundation are cited 27 times in total either way. We have a "References" section for a reason. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Shortened lead

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

Most of second paragraph has been dropped, because the first paragraph basically already summarizes the second.

The last two sentences of the second paragraph have been combined into the first paragraph.

The top half of the third paragraph was removed per Kihara's objections to the Insurrection Act content.(I dispute Kihara's objection, but I personally lack the evidence to refute it.)

A sentence regarding deportations and capital punishment was also removed because it to is broadly covered by the summary in the first paragraph and looked strange without the previously surrounding content.

I also removed one source, this was not intentional; I'm just sloppy and can't figure out how to put it back. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I think some particular high impact items with substantive elaboration in the body can be specified. Two cabinet level departments being dismantled in and their offices shuffled should be due for lead. Broad-level policy summaries, such as climate change proposals for energy/climate, tax cuts for fiscal policy, disputed protectionism on trade policy, support for free banking on monetary policy, opposition to abortion, and national interest-focused foreign policy. Specific policy prescriptions like criminalizing pornography don't belong, they are dime-a-dozen and it makes little sense to choose one over the other to fill the lead. Content like National Institutes of Health (NIH) would be reformed along conservative principles and "taking partisan control" is obviously redundant and demonstrates nothing to someone who read P1.

I would include below as P2, I believe all of these items are generally reflected in the body as it stands. The only wholly new additions to the lead are foreign policy (old lead only had a couple references to foreign trade/protectionism) and the effective abolition of the Federal reserve via Free banking (Like eliminating DOE/DHS, this is significant enough on its own, probably moreso):

Project 2025 envisions widespread changes across the government, particularly economic and social policies and the role of the federal government and its agencies. It proposes dismantling the Departments of Education and Homeland Security, moving their offices and duties to other areas of the federal government. The plan would implement multiple tax cuts as fiscal policy. It advocates for free banking and effectively abolishing Federal Reserve. Project 2025 authors are divided on whether to pursue protectionism. On energy and climate policy, Project 2025 favors fossil fuel production and opposes environmental and climate change regulations. The plan seeks to position federal priorities and policies in opposition to abortion. On foreign policy, Project 2025 advocates for a national-interest focused approach, with a mix of interventionism and isolationism. KiharaNoukan (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a decent paragraph 2. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

To me, it reads like whitewashing. All hint of dissenting voices and dangers have been removed. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 21:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Half of the first paragraph consists of wikivoice and attributed criticism of Project 2025. WRT the more policy focused criticisms, what if they were moved to P3? I think that fits with the Paul Dans quote, Heritage gives its take on what Project 2025 is about, critics give their take on Project 2025. KiharaNoukan (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Esowteric has a good point, the policies trend towards such generic repugnance when viewed from my perspective that I hadn't noticed the loss of dissent. Kihara's compromise to move dissent to paragraph-3 seems like it could be reasonable though. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Well the point is to give an uncolored view of what the policies actually are. Everything I put in is largely reflective of content that is already in the body (and we can recycle the sources from them too). I think the only departure from language is "effectively abolishing the federal reserve" given the major policy implications of free banking that I use here vs body's "critical of the Federal Reserve". I think the existing criticisms can be added in after the Paul Dans quote. The "some conservatives" works for a transition from Dans: Some conservatives and Republicans also criticized the plan for its stance on climate change and foreign trade. Other critics believe Project 2025 is rhetorical window dressing for what would be four years of personal vengeance at any cost. KiharaNoukan (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

So, you'd keep "climate change" and "foreign trade". But then which of the following deserves keeping in your view? And is that still an "uncolored view" if it's largely one-sided?

Project 2025 envisions widespread changes across the government, particularly economic and social policies and the role of the federal government and its agencies. The plan proposes taking partisan control of the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Commerce, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC), dismantling the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and sharply reducing environmental and climate change regulations to favor fossil fuel production.[10][12] The blueprint seeks to institute tax cuts,[13] though its writers disagree on the wisdom of protectionism.[14] Project 2025 recommends abolishing the Department of Education, whose programs would be either transferred to other agencies, or terminated.[15][16] Funding for climate research would be cut while the National Institutes of Health (NIH) would be reformed along conservative principles.[17][18] The Project urges government to explicitly reject abortion as health care[19][20] and eliminate the Affordable Care Act's coverage of emergency contraception.[21] The Project seeks to infuse the government with elements of Christianity.[9] It proposes criminalizing pornography,[22] removing legal protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity,[22][23] and terminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs,[5][23] as well as affirmative action.[24] Some conservatives and Republicans also criticized the plan for its stance on climate change[25] and foreign trade.[14] Other critics believe Project 2025 is rhetorical window dressing for what would be four years of personal vengeance at any cost.[26] Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 21:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Most of that is still there, just slimmed down. The fossil fuels and regs, Deps of education and homeland security, tax cuts, abortion, just to skim a few are all still in there. I think the issue is that we need to try and describe the thing as a whole in broad terms in the lead, only focusing on things of particular note in attendant sources and saving the itemized breakdown of individual policy proposals for the body of the article. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is far more criticism of the project than there is support for it, and that should be fairly represented in the lede. Christianity, health care, contraception, LGBTQ, DEI: these are "big issues" and "hot topics". Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 21:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, I just think the criticism could be more efficiently applied in some fashion, rather than individually presenting criticism of each and every policy. The lead should be a brief overview of the subject, not an entire article of its own. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, the criticism portions can go into P3.

I think the "Christianity" portion is covered in that P1 "Christian nationalist plan" with what we have in the body right now. The body section on Christians is pretty disjointed from general policies, there's no "on the policies of christianity", the content we have now in the body seems to be some general vague "theme" of it, plus namedropping peoples' ties to various christian groups. There is definitely a twinge of christian influence in some of the policies, so I think it can be added in the lead, preferably with modifications to the body section.

I don't know if contraception is a stand-alone big item outside of abortion, which is mentioned repeatedly. This falls into the consistency problem if singular policy proposals can make it into the lead. The Mandate for Leadership has a couple of items removing emergency contraception from the ACA contraception mandate under HRSA. Applied consistently, the lead will balloon massively with every policy it prescribes under the sun. Just a couple pages down we have items like depowering HHS from issuing public health emergencies, and defunding universal day care in favor of home-based childcare. Both of which are also big ticket items.

The LGBT discrimination law provisions mentioned have similar problems, they're related to a plethora of Title VII reforms, such as eliminating disparate impact as a marker of discrimination (way bigger change than anything else Title VII related) and eliminating OFCCP altogether. Again, consistent application of mentioning this would require Paragraph 2 to be bigger than this entire article.

DEI is more generally spread out and proposed for elimination across various agencies/depts, so that could make sense for inclusion. KiharaNoukan (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you'd proposed removing most of paragraph 3 (judging by the new proposal shown at the start of this thread)? It's hard keeping track of what changes you intend making. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 22:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Personally I think content-wise the lead is just fine as it is but could be a little shorter. The proposal above is merely my trying to engage Kihara's objections in good faith, hopefully without compromising the article. To that end the participation and suggestions of more editors, like yourself, nerd271, soibangla etc. would be welcome. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I like the lead as it stands soibangla (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The lead as it stands mentions items like a ban on porn and some vague NIH reform along conservative principles (as opposed to every other agency)

But not the abolition of the federal reserve.

Aight, I'll see if others have ideas on workshopping the lead. KiharaNoukan (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Most of the stuff is there besides items that are redundant for P1, such as partisan control wording that were a stopgap to address contradictory/wrong/unclear one-liners in a couple of sources.

I mostly based it off of content I saw in body that focused on P2025 policy, following the model of LeadFollowsBody. The wording included. If you think that is colored, then it is colored by the body. I don't think it's "one-sided" to plain-english policies. Stuff like abolishing the federal reserve and 2 exec departments probably falls outside the overton window and their raw descriptions would be off-putting if anything. I tried to cut out individual policies in favor of large-scale policy area descriptors I could find in the body, since the already giant paragraph can easily double without covering every potentially major policy change. (Like I pointed out, this current paragraph contains practically nothing on foreign policy, and doesn't even mention arguably the most impactful change - abolishing the Federal Reserve. Both of these items have substantial coverage in the body too). KiharaNoukan (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

And this would be omitted from the current paragraph 3:

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

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

P3 is also very disjointed on the weird mishmash of

A WIP?/dead? proposal from Jeffrey Clark

Deportation/immigration policy

& capital punishment policy.

And below that is Paul Dans' bravado re-telling of what we have in P1 with It proposes reclassifying tens of thousands of merit-based federal civil servant jobs as political appointees in order to replace them with loyal conservatives to further the objectives of the next Republican president

I'm not quite sure what this paragraph is for. KiharaNoukan (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

In other earlier threads, Nerd271 wrote "we should remember that since this is a detailed plan for political reform, the introduction cannot possibly be short and still capture the key proposals." Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I concur with Nerd271 soibangla (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

We can probably workshop what key proposals are. I think immigration policies can be a key proposal. I don't know about stuff like a porn ban mentioned in the forward and not really elaborated on and ACA non-coverage of morning after pills amongst other items like a general "pro-fertility"/pro-life policy prescription. There are a gazillion policy proposals, P2/P3 should not be a dumping ground for editors who find something verifiable. For comparison, P2 by itself currently has more characters than the 2 - term policy-descriptor paragraphs (P2/P3) article on George W. Bush's presidency KiharaNoukan (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the Paul Dans quote has to stay somewhere on the page because it's basically a 'straight from the horse's mouth' on what Project 2025 is all about. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I guess with a first sentence of "Project 2025 envisions itself as opposing a "deep state" in the federal bureaucracy. or something similar, it can be the paragraph describing how Heritage views the overarching goal on exec bureaucracy reform. KiharaNoukan (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

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

One final note: perhaps the main reason I'd like to see keywords in the lede like Christianity, health care, contraception, LGBTQ, DEI is that not only are these "big issues" and "hot topics", but many of our readers just read or skim the lede on many articles before they're off elsewhere. So I'm not super thrilled to have those keywords hidden away behind other vague, mumbling, innocuous-looking grey words that don't automatically trigger a reaction from the reader. But maybe that's just me. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

When implementing, remember to preview the entire article so that there are no cite errors. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Personally this seems pretty good! Most of the hotter topics not mentioned are there in the ToC and this shortening is just plain easier to read. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

One problem: I'm not sure why we emphasize "mixture of isolationism and interventionism". The linked source at VoA and the article text says that it favors considering national interests first and foremost. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I ran through this section and implemented this and a number of other proposals into my bold lead change, ie. mention lgbtq in particular, christianity, although I see it has been reverted back to what it was earlier. KiharaNoukan (talk) 14:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Soibangla Any suggestions? Aaron Liu (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Soibangla, are you looking for more discussion or a !vote (once the latest proposed changes are shown at the top of this thread)? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Or are you looking for an RfC? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 17:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I continue to oppose shortening the lead soibangla (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@KiharaNoukan Could you put your alterations into the big block at the top? I see that you didn't include many of my edits. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Diff available here, the ver here is somewhat different from the block at top, I minimized major alterations to p2/p3, only added to p1, so I don't want to replace top as a reference point just yet. KiharaNoukan (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

If reference definitions had to be copied to sections further down the page — and several were — then that infers that topics mentioned and referenced in the body of the article had been removed from the lead. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I drafted a revised lede to try and organize it with similar topics grouped together and very slightly trimmed by removing redundancies and more technical terms in four paragraphs that respectively cover:
1) (slightly simpler) overview paragraph
2) Heritage Foundation staff commentary/implementation
3) Proposed changes to federal agencies
4) Policy ideas
User:Superb_Owl/sandbox/Project_2025 Superb Owl (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Steve Bannon/2025

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

Immigration reforms Section - False Source

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

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

you are looking at the wrong citation, see ref #127[2]

To round up those migrants, Miller said, the administration would dispatch forces to “go around the country arresting illegal immigrants in large-scale raids.” Then, he said, it would build “large-scale staging grounds near the border, most likely in Texas,” to serve as internment camps for migrants designated for deportation. From these camps, he said, the administration would schedule near-constant flights returning migrants to their home countries. “So you create this efficiency by having these standing facilities where planes are moving off the runway constantly, probably military aircraft, some existing DHS assets,” Miller told Kirk ... a mass-deportation program staffed partially with red-state National Guard forces is only one of several ideas that Trump has embraced for introducing federal forces into blue jurisdictions over the objections of their local leaders. He’s also talked about sending federal personnel into blue cities to round up homeless people (and place them in camps as well) or just to fight crime.

soibangla (talk) 07:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

So wrong on many points. Wiki has lost any crediability with false edits and clouded truth. As a non partisan, in this 2 party fight, I find the misinformation on both sides disgusting MiddleoftheRoad3452 (talk) 14:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Then come up with some independent, secondary, reliable sources to support your claims. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Clark

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

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

Creating 'Implementation' section?

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

Project 2025's legality and constitutionality

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise is over 900 pages, so it's hard for me to quickly determine the legality and constitutionality of each of its proposals. Should we have a new section in Project 2025 specifically for its proposals' legality and constitutionality? Ss0jse (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be really helpful to have reliable sources discussing how likely certain aspects are to be legal.
I started a draft here that anyone can edit Superb Owl (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, although how does a Wikipedia editor determine a source's reputability? Please let me know which articles within the Wikipedia:Project namespace to refer to. Ss0jse (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

See, for example: reliable sources. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 21:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Esowteric. Ss0jse (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Or if that's too advanced, maybe start by reading Help:Getting started. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 21:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Got it. Ss0jse (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not up to Wikipedia to determine the legality or Constitutionality of anything— that's what secondary sources are for. NewkirkPlaza (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

"Secondary sources"? In the context of Wikipedia edits, what does that term mean? Please let me know which articles within the Wikipedia:Project namespace to refer to. Ss0jse (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

If such a determination is not to be made by Wikipedia, then, instead of having quotes (and multiple uses of the phrase "many legal experts") scattered throughout this article, should we have a section that contains such secondary sources' analyses, thus putting all of those analyses into one dedicated section? If so, should we make the new section a sub-section of the "Reactions and responses" section? Ss0jse (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

clunky writing

previously the lead began with:

Project 2025, also known as the Presidential Transition Project, is a collection of conservative and right-wing policy proposals from the Heritage Foundation to reshape the United States federal government and consolidate executive power should the Republican Party candidate win the 2024 presidential election.

and

Heritage president Kevin Roberts said ...

now it has been changed to:

Project 2025, also known as the Presidential Transition Project, is one effort to promote conservative and right-wing policies as well as consolidate executive power should the Republican Party candidate win the 2024 presidential election

and

The president of The Heritage Foundation, which has led this initiative, Kevin Roberts, said ...

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

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

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

I find this change mystifying soibangla (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

1) 'reshape the federal government' is redundant when we already mention the policy goals and the goal to 'consolidate executive power'
2) yes, this second paragraph is clunky but the idea is to simplify the first sentence/paragraph by introducing the Heritage Foundation content in the second paragraph Superb Owl (talk) 22:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I really disagree with that reasoning. what do others think? soibangla (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The lead sentence should be restored. Only Project 2025 is the topic of this article. Whether or not there are other efforts, what they are, etc., is outside the scope of this article. And incidentally is not sourced. And we certainly don't put capitalized "The" in front of an organization name. Heritage or Heritage Foundation is sufficient for the context. And why so many clauses? Bad writing! Skyerise (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

How about this? Superb Owl (talk) 00:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

it still omits "to reshape the United States federal government." the reshaping and the consolidation are distinct, not redundant. soibangla (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? Superb Owl (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I can, but I see no need to as it seems quite straightforward to me soibangla (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Reshaping and consolidating may seem redundant on an informal level, but in encyclopedic terms, well, the differences are undeniable. Cheers. DN (talk) 04:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks - I added that phrase back in Superb Owl (talk) 04:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Civility

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

I agree with this, however, it's not clear what the purpose of this section is for. Seems like something that should be relegated to a personal talk page instead of here. DN (talk) 03:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

it seems the OP is referring specifically to me[[3] soibangla (talk) 04:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah, in that case lets hat this section since it has nothing to do with the article. Cheers. DN (talk) 04:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Among others - I did not want to post on talk pages because the edits/posts seem borderline as to whether or not they warrant a post in most cases but with all the new editors posting on this topic it seemed helpful to have a reminder here. If the protocol however is to post on user talk pages, I will do that and have no issue with removing this section Superb Owl (talk) 04:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

To my knowledge, personal talk pages are the more appropriate venue, but I do not fault you for trying to help mitigate any possible future unpleasantness. Cheers. DN (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

then again, making specious suggestions of incivility might actually have the unintended effect of raising the room temperature soibangla (talk) 04:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

no sense in fighting fire with fire in either case, but point taken. DN (talk) 06:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2024

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

excluding the last sentence exhibits bias and characterizes Trump's comments about Project 2025 as entirely negative. Neutral Wikipedia should not be cutting sentences off the end that significantly change the message being communicated Cameron931 (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

In general, I think this article uses too many quotations. I'd prefer this quotation be left in the citation and summarized simply as something like 'Former President Trump disavowed Project 2025 and any connection to the group in July 2024" Superb Owl (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

This issue is ongoing and the idea that he doesn't know anything about Project 2025 is already being debunked with recorded videos. Hopefully reliable sources will pick up on that, too. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I would say that we should remove any Trumpian quotations which have proven to be false. They should be replaced with something like "Trump disavows knowledge of the project, but <present the evidence otherwise>". Skyerise (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

If we include at all, I support @Skyerise idea of only including if there are reliable secondary sources that have evaluated the claim and including them alongside it Superb Owl (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Is this article reporting a contradiction?

The article says Trump disavows Project 2025, but here is his Truth Social statement:

I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it ... I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them.

Contradictions to disavowing are:

1. He disagrees with and thinks ridiculous/abysmal something he "knows nothing about".
2. He wishes them luck with anything they do.

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

Also there is reporting of rebuttals to his 'truth' about Trump's connections to this project. A couple samples: [4] [5] Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 21:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

For now, I just completed his statement. Readers can decide what to make of it. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 03:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

What matters is what reliable sources say:

• Axios: Trump disavows Heritage Foundation's Project 2025, despite MAGA ties
• Financial Times: Donald Trump distances himself from right-wing ‘Project 2025’ policy blueprint
• Reuters: Trump seeks to disavow 'Project 2025' despite ties to conservative group
• Bloomberg: Trump Distances Bid From Second-Term Agenda Pushed by Allies

a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

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

I agree with Skyerise (though I'd note that perhaps what they mean but isn't headline material is "disavowed knowledge of ..."). Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not only the headlines:

• Axios: "Former President Trump on Friday disavowed the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025, which has sparked widespread news coverage about policy plans for a potential second Trump administration."
• FT: "Donald Trump has sought to distance himself from a group of influential right-wing policy wonks who have offered a controversial blueprint for the former Republican president should he secure another four years in the White House."
• Reuters: "The Republican presidential candidate renounced any connection with Project 2025, a plan Democrats have been attacking to highlight what they say is Trump's extreme policy agenda for a second term should he beat President Joe Biden in the Nov. 5 election."
• Bloomberg: "Donald Trump denounced a sweeping policy agenda crafted by some of his closest White House advisers that proposes a massive overhaul of the federal government and stacking agencies with loyalists to the former president."

Per the above RS, he did more than just "denied involvement with", he also criticized them and "denounced" their agenda. "disavow" ("deny any responsibility or support for" per Oxford Languages) is therefore more accurate. I'll revert you. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

If there are several different views for what he did, we need to cover them all and attribute the sources. As it is, the "disavowed" and "denounced" presentations are repeated too many times in the article, without any indication of the range of view or the skeptical reactions in most of those places (lead, captions, etc.) This needs to be correct: there should not be strong assertions in image captions that do not reflect the range of views. Skyerise (talk) 12:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the image should be removed altogether. Then are two things: 1/ what he said (he disavowed) and 3/ what the truth is (he still has strong links with Project 2025). The strong links are already largely discussed everywhere in the article. His recent disavowal is just a small addition. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

No, there's no good reason to remove the image. Skyerise (talk) 12:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Skyerise here. We don't remove an obviously pertinent illustration just because a politician says "I don't know them". And when the sources describe an act with language like move to create distance (Reuters) or sought to distance himself (The Hill), then sticking with "denounce" or "disavow" all the way through would violate NPOV. XOR'easter (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

1. We already have an image of Trump in "Background".

2. Trump's image alone holding campaign rally has nothing to do in "Advisory board and leadership": Trump is not and has never been part of the project's "Advisory board and leadership". Acceptable images here could be: people like Kevin Roberts, Ben Carson, Ken Cuccinelli, Rick Dearborn, or Thomas Gilman (or others) alone or together, with or without Trump (with would be ideal ofc). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed new lede

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

I think it looks pretty good; is there any way to see what it would look like with the info boxes added? Largely Legible Layman (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Done! And feel free to edit in the sandbox Superb Owl (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

So long as this paragraph:

Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts said in July 2024 that "we are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be." Paul Dans, the project's director, said in April 2023 that Project 2025 is "systematically preparing to march into office and bring a new army, [of] aligned, trained, and essentially weaponized conservatives ready to do battle against the deep state." Dans acknowledged it was "counterintuitive" to recruit so many to join the government to shrink it, but pointed out the need for a future president to "regain control" of the government.

Is preserved in either the Advisory board and leadership or Philosophical outlook section I'm still in favor of this new lead so far. Anyone else want to chime in here? Largely Legible Layman (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I tried summarizing it but was on the fence of whether to put those quotes back in given how notable they have been - agree they belong somewhere in the article for sure Superb Owl (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the current lead is good as-is. I appreciate the work you've put into this but I think how it currently appears is based on lots of back and forth, is balanced and covers most of the page. BootsED (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I continue to agree[6] soibangla (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

A lot of consensual work has gone into crafting the leading section as it now stands. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 07:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Consensus: leave as-is and get consensus on individual changes as-needed Superb Owl (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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

"readers shouldn't have to read the source"

A455bcd9 that is a standard expectation all day, every day, everywhere on Wikipedia, otherwise articles would explode in size and complexity

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

It's MOS:WEASEL. We can find a better wording than "several critics". I don't know for the rest of Wikipedia, but this topic is controversial enough to require more details (even if at the cost of size and complexity). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The Guardian says "several critics." I don't see the issue here. soibangla (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

What the Guardian means by "several critics" is CNN's Alayna Treene's and Economist and Guardian columnist Robert Reich's tweets. We could at least add "such as political commentator Robert Reich" after "several critics". Or just say "Political commentator Robert Reich". Basically, attribute the criticism. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

the Guardian cited two examples among several critics, then I added Steele. if you feel strongly about this, you can edit it as you prefer. that way we wouldn't need to have this discussion. what do others think? soibangla (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Michael Steele is a good example of why "several critics" is problematic: he endorsed Biden. I think the best would be a reliable source that directly criticizes Trump's denial explaining that, of course, he knew about the Project and that he might still implement part of it if elected. Do we have such a source? (I'm sure it exists.) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

please edit the sentence to your liking. I am done here. soibangla (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Done. As said above, I think we could do better with another RS, but for now it's OK... a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Criticisms should not be in summary

The statement “Critics have characterized Project 2025 as an authoritarian, Christian nationalist plan to transform the U.S. into an autocracy” should not be in the summary. Criticism should be in the responses section where the criticism can be described and the arguments discussed. As is, there is no information as to why critics say this. This appears like an attempt to characterize the project in frightening terms rather than to describe the context around it. This leads the appearance of political bias making the article less credible. Johnbradleywood (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Not so. The leading section is a neutral summary of important points that feature in the body of the article, giving due weight to different perspectives, and that includes the large amount of criticism and sparse support for Project 2025. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2024

This sentence:

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

Should be tweaked:

"The Trump campaign has attempted to distance itself from the effort and in July 2024, Trump denied knowledge of the project and said "some" of their policies were unacceptable, even though many of his advisors and former officials of his presidential administration drafted and endorsed it." Josepheg33 (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

"replace them with Trump loyalists"

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

to:

in order to replace them with Trump loyalists.

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

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

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

Just seemed like a weird euphemism to talk about "the next Republican president" in a plan that's specific to 2025, as though anyone other than Trump could be in that spot (not to mention that the entire background section makes it clear this is a plan about Trump, written by people connected to Trump, specifically for Trump). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I started a running list of reliable secondary sources that used the phrasing to 'Loyal to Trump' here.

(updated) This project is not a static one, but evolving. It initially may have been open to any Republican candidate, but as Trump became more and more inevitable, coverage has shifted to describing 'Trump Loyalists' instead of 'next republican president'. I think we should follow the coverage, not stay stuck in 2023. Superb Owl (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, yes, but these are coming as a result of Trump denying involvement, to make the partisan case that Trump really does know about the project; to tie him to the project. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

"Project 2025 is clearly mobilizing to find Trump loyalists." is a rather vague statement. But even assuming it's totally correct, they are finding Trump loyalists because they are looking for employees in-line with the next republican president, and they think that person will be Trump, not because the project itself is tasked with finding specifically Trump loyalists from the outset. Just10A (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, I suppose we should look toward Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. And yet part of me is actually siding with the originalists, regarding the Project 2025 Mandate. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean, even then, the sources are saying that the "loyalists" will only be installed in the event of Trump winning the presidency. Thus, inherently meeting the "next republican president" requirement set forth by the actual p25 literature. The sources do not contradict the current wording in any way. The question is, whether or not we should change the wikipedia page that is solely concerned with P25 tenets to reflect a word choice that doesn't even contradict its current state and was almost certainly done just for journalistic convenience. I would say pretty strongly that we shouldn't. Just10A (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm concerned that we may easily become embroiled in what is a propaganda war (being fought by both sides), and that we need to maintain our neutrality (which is already being called into question) and stick to our principles as Wikipedians. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with that outlook. Just10A (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your initial analysis. The sources are referring to the P25 language which speaks of replacing federal workers who are currently presumed to be left-leaning and replacing them with employees more in line with the next republican president. The sources (rightfully) are then taking the fact that the next republican president will likely be Trump, and thus using the "trump loyalists" term (more or less for convenience/less complexity). For an encyclopedic page which is only concerned with the actual tenets of P25, however, the project is very clearly not specific to Trump. Rather, it is for whoever the "next republican president" is even if it is not Trump or even in 2025. At worst, the language should remain the same, but we could add "likely Donald Trump" afterwards. But even then, that seems like unnecessary conjecture for a Wikipedia page. Just10A (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Roberts and Dans quotes

JSwift49, I believe the paragraph with the Roberts and Dans quotes should remain as the second paragraph in the lead

what do others think?

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

I do not believe it should be in the intro. The purpose of the intro is to summarize what Project 2025 is. Just a Heritage guy saying the next revolution will be bloodless doesn't fall into that. The Dans quote is closer to a description by a proponent but I still think it works better in the 'Advisory board and leadership' section, where it sheds more light on what the Project 2025 leadership have said. JSwift49 22:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

but you think it belongs under Advisory board and leadership? really? soibangla (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Makes more sense. Another option could be inserting the Dans quote into the Philosophy section.

Project 2025's director is Paul Dans, who served as chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management during the Trump administration. Spencer Chretien, a former special assistant to Trump, serves as associate director. Dans, also an editor of the project's guiding document, has described Project 2025 as "systematically preparing to march into office and bring a new army [of] aligned, trained, and essentially weaponized conservatives ready to do battle against the deep state." He has said that Project 2025 is "built on four pillars": JSwift49 22:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

My impression is the Dans quote has generated less coverage and if so, belongs in the Advisory Board and Leadership section, whereas the Roberts quote being as notable and newsworthy as it has been, actually belongs in the lede. Generally don't like quotes in the lead either, but this seems to be a useful exception. Superb Owl (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree it is a very notable quote, but it's not really a description of Project 2025, is it? It's just someone stating his broad worldview. So that's why I felt it should go into the leadership section because it's giving us more broad insight into who Heritage is. JSwift49 22:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I propose summarizing the quote like this in the lede: "The strongest effort by the Trump campaign to distance themselves came after a July 2 interview of President Kevin Roberts that was interpreted by some as threatening political violence." (see full proposed lede rewrite here) Superb Owl (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

That works for me, if it's clarified that the distancing happened immediately after that comment. And then the quote in its entirety can still be in the article elsewhere. JSwift49 22:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Or at the end of the last paragraph: "The disavowal followed a July 2 interview of Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts that was interpreted by some as threatening political violence". JSwift49 22:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Latest draft that closely follows a Reuters article wording: "The strongest effort by the Trump campaign to distance themselves came days after a July 2nd interview of Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts was criticized for containing a veiled threat of violence." Superb Owl (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Hmm if this [7] is the article I think we'd need to be careful about the wording bc the article says "criticized what they viewed as a veiled threat of violence", and this would be stating that it was a threat of violence as a fact. And why mince words, why not just say 'The disavowal' came after the interview? JSwift49 22:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

good catch re: the 'what they viewed' and per Soibangla's comments emphasizing the second american revolution below, here's the latest draft:
The strongest effort by the Trump campaign to distance themselves came days after Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts suggested there would be a second American revolution. His comments were criticized by Democrats and others for containing what they viewed as a veiled threat of violence. Superb Owl (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I still have an issue with 'the strongest effort to distance', that implies Trump had been attempting to distance before, and do we know that? Why not just say 'The disavowal'? We already make clear that the disavowal is in spite of Trump's staff/former admin working on this. JSwift49 23:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

It makes more sense in context in the article with the sentence it follows. I'll give it a shot adding it in with citations and then see what you think. Superb Owl (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I still prefer 'the disavowal'. The AP article says "Donald Trump has distanced himself from Project 2025", not that it's his greatest effort to so far.

The Reuters article says "tried to distance himself" and also "Trump's move to create distance".

Is there one where it says Trump has actually made previous efforts to distance himself, and that this is his strongest effort yet? JSwift49 23:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah let me track it down Superb Owl (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

OK. I strongly believe we should explicitly mention that Trump disavowed it. We are already including information that calls the veracity of his disavowal into question. But we have to report the facts. JSwift49 23:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I say we put the Trump stuff into the third paragraph (since having the second paragraph actually describe what it is makes more sense).

How about:

While the Trump campaign initially said the project aligned well with its Agenda 47 proposals, the project has increasingly caused friction with the Trump campaign, which has often sought to avoid specific policy proposals that could be used against him. Trump publicly disavowed Project 2025 on July 5, 2024. This occurred days after Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts suggested there would be a second American Revolution, which was criticized by Democrats and others for what they viewed as a veiled threat of violence. JSwift49 23:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Soibangla that this belongs in the second paragraph. This seems more notable than the various policy proposals to scrap certain departments that arise every four years.
He didn't disavow the whole project and all of their policies - I want to make sure we get that part right. He disavowed 'some' policies and statements without specifying which. Superb Owl (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

That's a fair point. Replace "Trump publicly disavowed" with "Trump publicly distanced himself from"? JSwift49 00:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Though as far as paragraph order goes I would not say what Trump said about it is more central to the summary than what the Project 2025 actually proposes. So on that point I disagree. IMO it makes sense to first actually explain what it is, and then discuss its relationship to others. JSwift49 00:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I like 'publicly distanced himself from' even though some say 'disavowed' it seems more precise. As for paragraph order, I think it also makes sense to mirror the article by discussing leadership and the organization first and the policies second. That is very typical. Superb Owl (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll put that in and let me know what you think. JSwift49 00:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll defer to your experience on the paragraph order. The last thing that gives me pause is saying Heritage is 'closely aligned' with Trump, the CNN article does not state that directly, I would replace it with 'aligned with Republican causes'. JSwift49 00:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

"Former President Donald Trump on Friday sought to distance himself from a closely aligned conservative group’s plans to radically reshape the federal government and American life should the former president win a second term." Superb Owl (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh got it I missed that :) JSwift49 00:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

BTW, you changed the date of the "march into office" quote from April 2023 to April 2024. Yet the second citation from January 2024 somehow quoted him saying this. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 22:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh that was my bad then. I thought I'd seen April 2024 on the citation JSwift49 22:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

it does not make more sense there, not even remotely soibangla (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

JSwift49 I strongly disagree with what you just did here in the midst of this discussion. The quotes belong in the second paragraph of the lead. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Project_2025&diff=prev&oldid=1233411598

I agree with @Soibangla - we do not have consensus yet and should wait for other to weigh-in Superb Owl (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

No worries, I had put them in so they weren't totally removed. Also @Soibangla could you explain your argument more re. why the quotes belong in the lead? JSwift49 23:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

1) Roberts says it's the second American Revolution

2) the militancy of it: "march, army, weaponized, battle," deploying the military on civilians soibangla (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

But Roberts said the country is in the midst of the second American revolution, not that Project 2025 is that revolution. [8] That's why I agree with @Superb Owl in that it is worth summarizing as a reason for Trump's disavowal, and mentioning later in the article, but it's too tangential to just quote without context.

The Dans militancy quote did not receive as much coverage, and the lead already describes what would happen/that the military would be involved, since we should generally avoid quotes in the lead I say put it in the body, in the same section where Dans is discussed. JSwift49 23:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

It probably makes more sense to replace the Dans quote in the lede saying something like:
The project has employed warlike rhetoric and apocalyptic language in describing a "battle plan" to regain control of the government. Superb Owl (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Works for me. JSwift49 23:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

as long as it paraphrases Roberts and mentions deployment, as the second paragraph of the lead, not buried in the body soibangla (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you referring to Dans or Roberts? Again, I agree paraphrasing Roberts' mention of the 'second American revolution' in the Trump disavowal section makes sense as it's a notable quote. But paraphrasing the Dans quote is to me undue weight, and it's better to summarize as 'warlike rhetoric and apocalyptic language' while including the Dans quote in the body.

The purpose of the lead is not to promote specific quotes it is to summarize. JSwift49 23:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not proposing paraphrasing Dans

1) The project has employed warlike rhetoric and apocalyptic language in describing a "battle plan" to regain control of the government (or such)

2) paraphrase Roberts

3) deploying military

4) second paragraph soibangla (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Warlike rhetoric is good.

Paraphrasing Roberts, I think, only makes sense in the Trump disavowal paragraph. Because Roberts is not talking about Project 2025 specifically. His comments and association with Project 2025 are mainly significant because they are what led Trump to disavow.

Deploying military works in the paragraph describing widespread changes in government (it's currently there). JSwift49 23:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

A lot of commentators have noted the dark, apocalyptic and militaristic language beyond simply the Dans quote. If you aren't satisfied with the coverage shown in the citations, please flag as 'additional citations needed' and I can check and see if there are enough to justify it in the lead Superb Owl (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

please stop rewriting the lead in the midst of this discussion soibangla (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

sorry for jumping the gun - was trying to visualize since we seemed so close to consensus. Superb Owl (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

your action gives me great pause. I cannot say more here without resorting to cussing. soibangla (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

There was no consensus for deleting the entire section as you did. It's a work in progress. JSwift49 23:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I followed BRD, you should too and discuss rather than edit war soibangla (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

JSwift49 you have edit warred to force content that is being discussed and no consensus has been reached. Superb Owl soibangla (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I ask that you remove the addition that the other editor just restored soibangla (talk) 23:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it now reflects the consensus we built. Not sure what we gain by going back - are there issues with the lead as it now stands? Superb Owl (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I strongly believe we should explicitly mention that Trump disavowed it. We are already including information that calls the veracity of his disavowal into question.

I say we put the Trump stuff into the third paragraph (since having the second paragraph actually describe what it is makes more sense).

How about:

While the Trump campaign initially said the project aligned well with its Agenda 47 proposals, the project has increasingly caused friction with the Trump campaign, which has often sought to avoid specific policy proposals that could be used against him. Trump publicly disavowed Project 2025 on July 5, 2024. This occurred days after Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts suggested there would be a second American Revolution, which was criticized by Democrats and others for what they viewed as a veiled threat of violence.

Also this article [9] doesn't explicitly state Heritage is "closely-aligned" with Trump, just that they broadly support each other politically? JSwift49 00:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

there is no consensus for this, you have a tendency to conclude a consensus when you find one editor who agrees with you, then you rush to implement. I find this tendency problematic. soibangla (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Happy to take it back to my sandbox to play around with. You want us to delete the second paragraph for now? Superb Owl (talk) 00:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Truly, I think we should keep and change it... I think the second paragraph is a good compromise of all that we have said. Just as I agree jumping the gun is problematic (and I apologize for the time I did that), so too in my view is deleting entire existing sections. JSwift49 00:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

But if we're deleting, mind if I join you there? JSwift49 00:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

JSwift49 Superb Owl I believe these discussions should be conducted here rather than an editor's sandbox soibangla (talk) 01:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

No discussions are happening there - just nice to have a space to save our drafts before posting back here Superb Owl (talk) 02:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

come on over! Superb Owl (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I added the Trump stuff from the end of Paragraph 4. Not sure if the John McEntee quote should be in lead or body. JSwift49 00:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

How about we put the McEntee line in this paragraph?

Axios reported that while Heritage had briefed other 2024 Republican presidential primaries candidates on the project, it is "undeniably a Trump-driven operation", pointing to the involvement of Trump's "most fervent internal loyalty enforcer" Johnny McEntee as a senior advisor to the project. The 2024 Trump campaign said no outside group speaks for Trump and that its "Agenda 47" is the only official plan for a second Trump presidency. Two top Trump campaign officials later issued a statement seeking to distance the campaign from what unspecified outside groups were planning, although many of those plans reflected Trump's own words. JSwift49 00:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Added draft 2nd paragraph with McEntee line included JSwift49 00:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Your draft looks good to me. I like adding McEntee into it. Well-integrated and much smoother. Maybe post it here for feedback from others? Superb Owl (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you; will do. JSwift49 01:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with most of @JSwift49 findings. The original quotes were being given way too much attention at the top of the page and overly-incendiary. Most of his suggestions are neutral and unproblematic. Just10A (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

INITIAL CONSENSUS DRAFT:
JSwift49 01:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC) Although Project 2025 cannot, by law, promote a specific presidential candidate, many contributors have close ties to Donald Trump and his 2024 presidential campaign. The Heritage Foundation, a think tank closely-aligned with Trump, coordinates the initiative with a constellation of conservative groups run by Trump allies. The Trump campaign initially said the project aligned well with its Agenda 47 proposals, and in April 2024, Project 2025 senior advisor John McEntee stated that they and the Trump campaign planned to "integrate a lot of our work" by summer.. However, the project has increasingly caused friction with the Trump campaign, which has often sought to avoid specific policy proposals that could be used against him. On July 5, 2024, Trump publicly distanced himself from Project 2025. This came days after Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts suggested in an interview that there would be a second American Revolution, which was criticized by Democrats and others for containing what they viewed as a veiled threat of violence. The project has employed warlike rhetoric and apocalyptic language in describing a "battle plan" to regain control of the government.

I like it, but i think we should add Trump's quote after we say he distanced himself from it. Just10A (talk) 01:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

On July 5, 2024, Trump publicly distanced himself from Project 2025, claiming that he knew nothing about the organization, and that some of their proposals were "absolutely ridiculous and abysmal". JSwift49 01:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

This is good. Greenlight from me. Just10A (talk) 01:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

too verbose for lead imo soibangla (talk) 01:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

It's no more verbose than the other three lead paragraphs... JSwift49 01:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

so let's not make it even more verbose soibangla (talk) 01:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Replace:

However, the project has increasingly caused friction with the Trump campaign, which has often sought to avoid specific policy proposals that could be used against him.

However, the project's controversial proposals increasingly caused friction with the Trump campaign. JSwift49 01:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The idea that the paragraph/quote is too verbose for the lead but "the 2nd American revolution will be as bloodless as the left allows it to be" isn't doesn't really match up. I think that paragraph with that additional language is acceptable. Just10A (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

please clarify soibangla (talk) 01:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The paragraph written by @JSwift49 along with the trump quote he added at 1:16 UTC is good and acceptable. Just10A (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Given that there is consensus from me, @Just10A and @Superb Owl, and also, we incorporated several proposals of @Soibangla, I'll add it in? JSwift49 01:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

we are early in this discussion, there is no consensus. if you add it, I will revert it. let's not go this way soibangla (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Soibangla here and prefer the shorter summaries as well (will try to find article that says it's the strongest denial yet). The last thing I want is to start trying to understand or contextualize an angry Trump quote in a lede paragraph. Superb Owl (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll try to cut it down; one sec JSwift49 01:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

How about "On July 5, 2024, Trump publicly distanced himself from Project 2025 and criticized some of its proposals."? JSwift49 01:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

See, thats ok, but clearly overly vague and nice compared to what Trump's actual quote was. Furthermore, the idea that having that quote makes it "too verbose" or makes for a poor lead when this conversation was legitimately started by a party adding an even more incendiary quote, to me, is clearly inconsistent. Just10A (talk) 01:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm "a party?"

I believe all the Trump denial stuff belongs in the last lead paragraph soibangla (talk) 01:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I am having questions about your commitment to neutrality, your point in doing this has been to elevate the most incindiary quotes about Project 2025 as high as possible, and then move the Trump denial from its logical place alongside that subject to the bottom, I think it's reasonable to question if you are acting in good faith. JSwift49 01:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

then bring it to my Talk page. otherwise, I recommend striking your aspersions on me soibangla (talk) 01:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy to keep the quote but I'm not too fussed about it either way. Main thing we should convey IMO is that he distanced himself and potentially condemned some of their ideas JSwift49 01:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I prefer "On July 5, 2024, Trump publicly distanced himself from some aspects of Project 2025." because he is not criticizing any specific proposals and is also criticizing some of the things they said (beyond proposals and into public comments a la Kevin Roberts) but again is vague and not specific, so 'some aspects' covers both of those criticisms. Most analysis does not believe his assertion that he has no idea who they are, so I do not see any reason to put likely falsehoods in the lead Superb Owl (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. I think it's more accurate to say he distanced himself from them as he basically said I have nothing to do with them (even though it's false the paragraph establishes that). That's why I prefer distanced himself from Project 2025 (I don't know who they are) and criticized some of their policies (some policies are ridiculous and abysmal). It is more a complete picture is what I'm trying to say. Wdyt? JSwift49 01:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

How about "criticized some of their rhetoric"? JSwift49 01:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Reuters article says "assertions". "adding some of their assertions were "absolutely ridiculous and abysmal." JSwift49 02:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we are getting into trying to summarize Trump as a primary source when we should lean more heavily into how secondary sources interpreting his comments. He's not the most reliable source even on things he believes and supports, so let's look at the articles from the most reliable outlets and use their analysis (not their quotations). This is why I wanted to keep that section short - it can be a huge headache to try and find consensus on a Trump quote Superb Owl (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Reuters:

"The Republican presidential candidate renounced any connection with Project 2025"

""I disagree with some of the things they're saying," he continued, adding some of their assertions were "absolutely ridiculous and abysmal."

On July 5, 2024, Trump publicly distanced himself from Project 2025 and criticized some of its assertions.? JSwift49 02:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking: "On July 5, 2024, Trump tried to publicly distanced himself from some aspects of Project 2025. This came days after Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts..." Since it's not clear that he succeeded in distancing himself Superb Owl (talk) 02:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

But many reports say he distanced himself? I don't think distancing depends on how other people view it.

"Former President Donald Trump distanced himself on Friday from Project 2025" (Forbes)[10]

"Donald Trump distanced himself Friday from Project 2025" (TIME)

[11]

"Donald Trump has distanced himself from Project 2025" (AP)

[12] JSwift49 02:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

How about this: "On July 5, 2024, Trump publicly distanced himself from Project 2025 and criticized some of its aspects?" JSwift49 02:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you're right to removed 'tried' if that's what the sources are saying. I get that it was an emphatic denial of the organization, but I want to make sure what we add is substantive too and not redundant (by distancing himself from the project, that seems to imply the policies too) Superb Owl (talk) 02:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair. That tbh is why i like 'Ideas'. (which Forbes uses) [13]

So that tells us: Trump distanced himself from the organization, but he only criticized some of the ideas, and these ideas may not necessarily be policies. JSwift49 02:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Your draft as is is all good with me. Happy to publish if you are. JSwift49 02:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

JSwift49 previously, Superb Owl published a major change that remained under discussion, without achieving consensus. you later apologized for similarly "jumping the gun." why is this happening again when there remains no consensus for this? soibangla (talk) 02:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

NBC: [14]

"Trump distances himself from controversial 'Project 2025' plan"

"former President Trump called portions of the 'Project 2025' proposal aimed at overhauling the federal government... "ridiculous and abysmal." JSwift49 02:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Ask for help to fix cite errors for several <ref>

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

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

Thanks! shuuji3 (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)