Talk:Project 2025

Article Exhibits Bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

it's not alleged when the architects of project 2025 are extremists, you bootlicker 2404:4402:3306:3800:38F3:7B54:747:B04A (talk) 02:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Be civil. Don't call 'em a "bootlicker". TheWikiToby (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The criticisms are fused into the main body of information.

Since the criticisms are a matter of second party opinion, they should be separated from informational purely portion of text.

The annotation is too prominent. Ummreally? (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

If sources we trust present their opinions as fact, then they simply are facts. Please list some facts presented you think are "opinion". Aaron Liu (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

If sources we trust give opinion as fact you treat them as facts? That's literally the opposite of how facts work... 50.204.198.17 (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Aaron worded it a little poorly. Taken from WP:RS, Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. TheWikiToby (talk) 01:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Criticisms are arguably supposed to be fused into the body. WP:CRITICISM 106.102.129.92 (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The whole text is biased. And with weak sources.

wiki: “ Project 2025 is a collection of conservative and right-wing policy proposals from the Heritage Foundation to reshape the United States federal government and consolidate executive power should the Republican nominee, presumably Donald Trump, win the 2024 presidential election.”

Project: “The 2025 Presidential Transition Project paves the way for an effective conservative Administration based on four pillars: a policy agenda, Presidential Personnel Database, Presidential Administration Academy, and playbook for the first 180 days of the next Administration.”

The Project is not tied directly to Trumps name, or right wing from the official sources. 72.199.230.29 (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, no think tank (and in fact no source, unless it's a journal review) is more reliable than news. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

the Mandate is not the only P25 source document. there is also this[1] which asserts dubious things like "The Left wants to eliminate the family and replace it with the state." At least 140 people who worked in the Trump administration had a hand in Project 2025[2] and 81% of the Mandate's creators held formal roles in Trump's presidency[3] and it mentions Trump 312 times.[4] soibangla (talk) 03:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I 100% agree its extremely biased and misleading. Define what it is in basics and let it go. If you've been to, and read, heritage foundations website and project 2025 and then read the Wiki, its being twisted to allege its something developed by and for Trump. In simple words, Its a manifesto/conservative recommendations from conservatives, for future conservative leaders, period. The Mandate was released decades before while Reagan was president, for Petes sake. Go to project 2025 on the Heritage foundations' website. Too many people think Wiki is fully factual and what you find there is solid truth and this article is far from that. People with ulterior motives are counting on that. This description is inflammatory in its description and written with full intent to point negativity at a specific president elect. It really needs to be rewritten with unbiased facts and locked or just replaced with a link to Heritage Foundations website. To many people are using this as a mode to misinform during an election year. Disgraceful and unprofessional. 2600:100C:B246:48DC:56D:A372:7698:AB7E (talk) 03:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Why are you reading Wikipedia then. If you want us to replace the article with a link to the website, then why not just go to the website yourself? TheWikiToby (talk) 03:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Because I care about the truth, good or bad. Unfortunately people I care about use Wiki as their foundation for educating themselves. While doing so, they dont understand that anyone at any time can edit articles to put their own twist, opinions and beliefs in print. Diwitt (talk) 03:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

So, because Heritage and Wikipedia disagree, you assume that Heritage tells the truth and Wikipedia does not. (Maybe you should rethink that logic.)

Heritage follows their own ideology. Wikipedia follows what reliable sources say; it does not blindly regurgitate what unreliable ones say, and Heritage has proven unreliable in the past, for example by denying the scientific fact of man-made climate change.

You will not change Wikipedia's policy by complaining about it on an article talk page. Those are for improving the article based on the current policies; anything else falls under WP:NOTFORUM. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't remember Wikipedia's policies stating that political topics should all be written in a liberal perspective either.

Why do you refuse to be politically neutral on Wikipedia? 221.168.30.164 (talk) 01:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

If this page is liberally biased, blame the media. If it is not the media's fault, how do we make the article better? You are not helping us. TheWikiToby (talk) 02:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Reliable source or not, sources are owned and operated by humans, and humans lie, especially when it comes to the tribalistic and mundane practice of protecting one's given politics. Reliable sources are a good starting point, but they're not a be-all end-all to anything. Personally, as someone who has neither a stake or party preference in the upcoming election, and as someone who has completely read the official site's literature and mission statement, there are some serious issues of biases and misinformation within this Wikipedia article; In particular, the suggested religious accommodations, and pinpointing these planned changes solely on Trump rather than changes that would apply to every sitting president going forward. Секретное общество (talk) 07:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

We trust these sources because they don’t lie. Here at Wikipedia, we believe that no editors can sit above everything and dictate the truth for themselves. If we allow that, then articles will be full of strongly biased rhetoric and edit wars over which bias is better. Let the journalists journal. If you think a source frequently lies, take a look at WP:RSN.

The document was self-described to be the next Republican nominee, who has been confirmed to be Trump. Reliable sources report it as such. Also, obviously, many presidents will endure whatever changes a predecessor made unless they overturn it. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

We trust these sources because they don’t lie. That is not the case. When a source is deemed 'reliable' it is not because we feel they "don't lie" but because they have attributes that reliable sources have...things like an editorial board, and editors, and a history of issuing corrections when they have been demonstrated to have been wrong in the past (which happens with every source, eventually).

It is our responsibility as editors to judge the purport and quality of everything that is presented to us, even if it comes from a 'reliable source'. Just because a source was deemed 'reliable at WP:RSN yesterday does not mean that their work today is therefore immune from being rejected as being out-of-hand for a varity of reasons. We are not automatons and are expected to use our own personal judgement in every case. Marcus Markup (talk) 06:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but I was responding to sources are owned and operated by humans, and humans lie. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu Wikipedia's idea of "reliable sources" is random blog posts and news websites that existed for 24hrs and then disappeared. Or my personal favorite, buried links and references from one site to another so convoluted you can't tell where the original quote or reference came from. 104.35.207.163 (talk) 11:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

"for 24hrs"? Aren't all of these pages still up?

so convoluted you can't tell where the original quote or reference came from Would you like to provide an example within this article? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey! I am new here so please bear with me. I do find it odd that you are arguing that a news site is a better reference than the source material. Literally, source 116 is an opinion piece as it says so in the title. This kind of nonsense makes me wonder if I should continue to support this site especially if bias entries such as the one on Project 2025 are allowed to go unchecked. I came to learn about the project itself, not get opinions on the project. There is your specific example on a specific entry with a dubious, unreliable source. IronwolfRacing (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

1 opinion out 246 references doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Furthermore, that specific reference is being used primarily to directly quote Project 2025 itself and its authors, not for opinions. Finally, news sites are almost always better references than the source itself for all things except quotations. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 14:17, 23 August 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)

And in these comments we can find all source for the bias… 72.199.230.29 (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

This reliance on secondary sources reveals how opinions are laundered as facts.

The information, presented as fact, is nested in links, which are nested in agenda driven biases.

The simple truth-seeker is being persuaded. Ummreally? (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

This is why i take Wikipedia articles with a grain of salt. Sometimes the edits are done by people who clearly have a bias, right or left and done by people who don't know how to conduct proper research and understanding what a reliable source is for that matter. It's quite strange that CNN can be reliable while Fox News can't. JBurris123 (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Some further reading for you: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. You'll find CNN and Fox News (politics and science) listed there, among others, with an explanation and links to prior discussions about the reliability of such sources. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Please tell us which sources you consider "editorial"s. Nearly none of the sources cited are labeled as opinions, and yes, we would use them to cite the Magna Carta. Due to their extreme bias and potential to misrepresent facts, 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 second this. This article completely disregards the guidelines that are normally applied to other pages, most specifically biases and twisted interpretations of the material sourced.

And people wonder why most secondary schools bar their students from using Wikipedia as a reference point. What could have been the best source on the internet has simply become a playground for armchair activists with control issues. It's sad. Секретное общество (talk) 04:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Секретное общество, please provide an example of how This article completely disregards the guidelines that are normally applied to other pages

the reason modern-day teachers discourage students from using Wikipedia is the same reason they discouraged students of my youth from using the World Book Encyclopedia. they are teaching research and critical reasoning skills, not copying skills. soibangla (talk) 05:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LLL, rebutting the inclusion of those points in the lead by reference to their political purpose as you have done appears to be WP:SYNTH. Riposte97 (talk) 09:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

We have offered much stronger rebuttals already. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Your going to have to go redefine Christian Nationalism for us all. CPAC and the heritage foundation are expressing values that were written up as main stream conservative 15 years ago in the same sources. Wikipedia pushes through the emotional state sources have after SCOTUS stuck down Roe. That the media sources has moved a direction, may we say the leaned in, must be considered before putting in Heritage Foundation in yet another bucket, other than a conservative think tank focused on public policy. 2601:248:C000:147A:65ED:6A88:446:6D35 (talk) 09:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but all Wikipedia does is summarize those mainstream sources you hate. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

These "pundits" are all 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)

Reliable sources, and many people on the CIA payroll, gave us Hunter Laptop is Disinformation. Perhaps we should put this article on hold until 2027 and use the sources about that material after they actualy see is what is Project 2025. You know the republicans have to pass Project 2025 so you can see what is in Project 2025. 2601:248:C000:147A:65ED:6A88:446:6D35 (talk) 09:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED Aaron Liu (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

Agree, this is heavily biased article and the context is more of an op-ed vs. factual in several areas. Reverend tdeath (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, the answer to that is: find some independent, secondary reliable sources that give the subject significant mention, and that are supportive of Project 2025. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a bias opinion.There are also no articles to back this up. 2601:CD:C500:CB30:30A6:F231:4FE4:AAF8 (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Completely biased and ridiculously left leaning 208.65.15.81 (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Bias? Are you serious?

There is absolutely no certainty in the entire so-called project, just another publication from a minuscule far-right entity like there are so many in the USA. The entire article is based on nothing concrete and has no actual ground, it's all about "might", "would", "could" (see RFC 2119) and absolutely nothing realistic. The only ones talking are obvious left-wing members of the "uniparty" that see their jobs directly threatened if Trump waere to be elected, and they react by blending their function to their person and their executive decisions.

The entire article is scarecrow propaganda and there should be a header to the article reminding Wikipedia doesn't adhere to such one-sided defamation for political goals.

To be fair, I made donations to Wikipedia in the past, but publishing such article without warning and presenting its contents as factual is going to be a deterrent for me to make such a mistake again if no measure is taken. If Wikipedia doesn't act on that, they're taking the risk I might not the only one. popq %rsi (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

1. RFC 2119 does not cover any of these words, especially not the future tense.
2. The Heritage Foundation is one of the largest conservative forces in US politics. They definitely have their due weight here.
3. There's a video of Trump saying the document is what his movement would do in April 2022. His campaign has been speaking favorable of it until 2024.

Aaron Liu (talk) 21:53, 2 August 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)

I think it is sad how this article tells you all these horrible things project 2025 will do without one reference or source so they're basically just asking you to take their word for it and for my experience I usually means are being biased and hiding something. I came to Wikipedia because I wanted to view project 2025 and decide for myself instead I got an article of bias from some left wing nut. and who knows he made me right but since I can't be the article myself and he has no sources no references I guess I'll never know. 76.27.69.61 (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The sources are linked in numbered brackets after sentences. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Ever checked the references section to any article before? TheWikiToby (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Mention Trump's disavowal in lede?

The current lede strongly associates Project 2025 with Trump, and I think it could lead readers to believe he supports it. Shouldn't a mention of Trump's disavowal be put up in the lede to make it more visible in order to avoid confusion? Oktayey (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I see in the New Republic today that Vance wrote the foreword for the forthcoming book on Project 2025. Maybe T. just missed that in his vetting? Skyerise (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the disavowal does need to be in the lead. The fact that the raison d'être of the project is an anticipated Trump presidency, and most of the commentary cited in the article speculates about Trump implementing it, his disavowal is highly WP:DUE. Riposte97 (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused, it's already in the lead in the fourth paragraph - do you want it higher up? I think the lead is a good place to summarize the full picture of how many of his close allies are leading it but no evidence of his direct involvement with commentary that he is likely aware of the project. I think there should be as few quotations as possible (if any) in a lead section Superb Owl (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Huh, it appears I was mistaken. The lede is so monstrously long that since it was at the very bottom, I didn't realize it was still part of the lede. Although it's still four paragraphs, it's so bloated with details that are more fit for the article's body. Would you agree that it needs to be abridged? Oktayey (talk) 03:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Any suggestions on how to make some sentences more succinct and remove excessive detail would be great but consensus is tough on changing the lead so I would start small with lower-hanging fruit Superb Owl (talk) 03:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

it is properly placed in the lead soibangla (talk) 02:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Leave it be. Johnsosd (talk) 05:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I shifted it upwards. As it was written, it definitely seemed to imply that the "plan" is from Trump and/or his campaign, which I don't think is accurate. NickCT (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I reverted this manually since there is no consensus for this and some of the wording is redundant Superb Owl (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. I see several people here suggesting it should be presented high up in the lead, and no one apparently opposing that. Do you see someone who opposes that? NickCT (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@NickCT, I oppose it as does @Johnsosd and @Soibangla. That is the majority on this thread. You are welcome to tally up past threads if you want. Superb Owl (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I think Soibangla was saying it should go in the lead paragraph. I wasn't really sure whether to consider John's input, as he's got 5 edits.

What's your objection?

The problem w/ the lead as written, is that it seems to suggest or imply that this is somekind of Trump plot. I'm sure there are some PizzaGate type folks who may endorse that POV, but unless there's some RS supporting a clear and direct link it would be WP:DUE to make sure the reader promptly understands that there is no direct link. Otherwise the article reads like a fring-y WP:COATRACK.

A larger problem with the lead is probably its length. It's really sorta a mess. Parsing it down piecemeal might be harder than just TNTing it. NickCT (talk) 02:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Before you 'TNT' anything, perhaps you will give others a chance to weigh-in? Some of us have been discussing the lead for a while and are familiar with where the consensus is (I get that it is a lot to read through so I don't blame you for not reading it all). In the meantime, are there any other parts of the lead you think should be trimmed or reworded more succinctly? Superb Owl (talk) 02:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

If discussing the lead for a while has left it in this condition, do you feel further discussion is the solution?

You're inferring a consensus that isn't there. I've skimmed through the archive. It looks like there's been a lot of folks dropping-in and complaining that this article looks conspiratorial and biased, and a small cadre of curious characters sticking around on the talk page who insist it's not. This is a common problem w/ fring-y articles like this. You get a few fringe enthuists who stick around, while most "normal" editors can't be bothered to clean up an article whose 15 minutes of fame has passed.

In terms of trimming, I'd probably just push most of the current lead into the "Philosophical outlook" section (though the title of that section needs to change). NickCT (talk) 02:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Disagree that it suggests it's a Trump plot. It's pretty explicit that it was created with Trump in mind, but not by Trump. Trump's name only appears in the first sentence and last paragraph of the lead and half of the last paragraph is about Trump distancing/disavowing/criticizing it. Seems adequate to me. As an aside, that "drop-in" vs. "stick around" dynamic is the inverse of what my experience has been watching lots of fringe topics over the years. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Really? So you don't see that sentences like "though criticism of the project's controversial proposals have led Trump and his campaign to distance himself from the project" infer that his campaign was once associated with the project?

It obviously does. It's also bad grammar.

I don't see anywhere an explicit statement saying Trump disavowed and criticized the plans. Where do you see that? NickCT (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the need for any large, drawn out discussion in the lead about it. However, something short/direct at the end of the first paragraph, such as something like "Despite significant personnel overlaps, Trump has repeatedly disavowed the project." could be useful. Its clearly correct and relevant; and I have a hard time seeing how someone could have an issue with that, given his disavowals have now grown repeatedly. Just10A (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Like this? NickCT (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

So you don't see that sentences like "though criticism of the project's controversial proposals have led Trump and his campaign to distance himself from the project" infer that his campaign was once associated with the project? No. The context makes clear that the distance is between him and something created for him by people around him, and not between him and something he did himself. It's also bad grammar. - Good point. Made a couple fixes just now. I don't see anywhere an explicit statement saying Trump disavowed and criticized the plans. - Including, in addition to the "distance" bit, direct quotes from him that he doesn't know anything about it and that he called [parts of] it "ridiculous and abysmal" ... isn't a disavowal? The first two results that popped up when I googled Trump disavowel project 2025 were Reuters and AP via Time, which both use the word disavowal (or "seeks to disavow" in one case) in the headline and then use "distance" in the body, along with the quotes we include. i.e. we're covering the "disavowal" in the same way, more or less. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue the distancing thing with you, b/c you are arguing against English. You can't "distance" yourself from something unless you were close to it at some point.

You're right that "ridiculous and abysmal" thing probably is a straight forward disavowal. You see how it's buried at the end of an overly long sentance, which itself, is at the end of an overly long lead. If you like, cut and paste "(Trump said he) knows "nothing about it" and calling unspecified parts of it "ridiculous and abysmal"" and put it in the lead paragraph, and I think we're good. NickCT (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

You can't "distance" yourself from something unless you were close to it at some point - You said above that the lead makes it sound (and shouldn't) that his campaign was once associated with the project. I argued that the lead does not. Now you're saying that the lead makes it sound like Trump and his campaign were close to it at some point. Well, yes. It does do that. As the lead makes clear, it was made for Trump by people close to Trump, and his campaign said it aligned with their own agenda. That's all in the lead. That is a closeness that one can try to create distance from. I think that's about all I have to say on the "distance" stuff, though. I don't see his disavowal as unclear, and it makes the most sense in the final paragraph (as in "here it is. here's what it does. here's who was involved. trump has distanced himself from it.") — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

1.) You guys are really getting close to arguing silly semantics. Trying to thread the needle of "It doesn't say he was associated with it, it just says he was close to it!" is pretty weak by itself, but much less can we assume a normal cursory reader is going to thread that needle perfectly instead of us just having clearer language.

2.) I agree that it makes sense at the bottom, but at the same time, the way the article is currently structured orders it so that Trump is attached to the project at the very beginning, and then the reader goes through whole, very long, lead with them mentally attaching Trump to the project and everything it does the entire time and then at the very end we're just kinda like "Oh yeah and btw every single thing you just read that you mentally attached Trump to, he explicitly denies." That doesn't make for a very NPOV, nor is it reflective of the positions. I think we should either a.) have a very short sentence as already discussed that just explicitly acknowledges that he denies it at the top or b.) keep it mostly the same, but remove Trump from the beginning and just say "the next republican president" or something like that, and then bring up how trump has been attached to it at the beginning of the last paragraph, which is mostly about him. Either way, we shouldn't be planting seeds in reader's heads that we're later going to reverse at the last second of the lead. Just10A (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from but let me explain some of my issues with the lead to see if we can come to some sort of consensus. There are a number of other oversimplifications in the lead like the project being published by the Heritage Foundation that makes it seem like a standard conservative plan not at all related to Trump when it is run by hundreds of MAGA aligned-organizations and Trump operatives that were once and would be again in his administration. These are the views of future Trump personnel and while some views may not be Trump's, they are the views of much of the leadership of a future Trump administration. Superb Owl (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I totally understand that position, which was the initial justification of my earlier post (I'll just re-paste it): "Despite significant personnel overlaps, Trump has repeatedly disavowed the project," (or something like that, I'm not married to that exact language at all, just more or less that kind of message) Just10A (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Superb Owl +1. Project 2025 and Trump are irreversibly linked through his past and presumed future administration and as a consequence of his being the presumed Republican candidate regardless of his denial of knowledge or involvement. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. This statement, however, does not address the main point of this thread, which is the addition of contextual statements, not removal. Just10A (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I see people above saying that the lede makes the reader think Trump supports Project 2025 and then flips around to him having nothing to do with it. The problem I have is that I don't see that at all. The lede says Project 2025 was written by members of Trump's former administration at the Heritage Foundation's request in order to support the next Republican administration, which at present can only mean Trump. Trump publicly not supporting Project 2025 in no way changes that Project 2025 was created to and intends to support Trump.

Can you make more clear what context you think needs to be added? Largely Legible Layman (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I've believe its already been stated in previous comments, but I'll try to clarify. We all seem to more or less be in agreement with this following statement(s): Trump has quite clearly disavowed Project 2025. Additionally(/Despite this), Trump quite clearly has significant personnel overlap & design connections to Project 2025 to the point that, in many ways, one could say it was made for him.

Again, I think we can all agree that those statements summarize the message that needs to be conveyed. (Generally, don't nitpick over exact wording) The problem is, the 1st statement of that message is at best being conveyed as a backdrop/afterthought at the very end on the lead, and at worst isn't conveyed at all because the vast majority of the lead is basically operating under the premise that the first statement doesn't exist because the reader hasn't gotten there yet. It's poor encyclopedic writing. And since, more or less, we agree on the above statement(s) that need to be conveyed, I don't see why a single sentence or so conveying that exact message from the jump can possibly be seen as a negative thing. If we agree on the overall message that needs to be conveyed, why are we waiting until nearly the last sentence of a giant lead to convey it? Prefaces exist in writing for a reason. We can give the reader the general, neutral, and summary message, and then go into the details. That is currently not being done, and that is the issue that needs remedy. I think there is little to no disagreement on the actual substance of the content. Just10A (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

So you're saying the lede needs a lede? As far as I see the lede tells the story as it happened and as it is, so far as RSs know at this time. All sources indicate that Trump's disavowal is, at best extremely late and weak, or at worst empty and insincere. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

No, I’m not saying “the lede needs a lede” and the lede is not a timeline. The timing of it is not the deciding factor of placement. The relevance is the factor. Further, you’ve yet to refute the content of the posts. Clear strawman fallacies are neither constructive nor helpful. If that's all you're going to contribute I suggest you go somewhere else. There’s not much I can tell you to do other than re-read, because you clearly are either interpreting in bad faith or aren’t comprehending the comments. Just10A (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why a single sentence or so conveying that exact message from the jump can possibly be seen as a negative thing. If we agree on the overall message that needs to be conveyed, why are we waiting until nearly the last sentence of a giant lead to convey it? Prefaces exist in writing for a reason. We can give the reader the general, neutral, and summary message, and then go into the details. = Lede needs a lede. But if you insist this a strawman I shall recuse myself. Further, Trump's disavowal is not relevant to the substance of what Project 2025 is, only how its subject has publicly reacted to it. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 01:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying "the lede needs a lede" I'm saying "the lede should be structured like a lede and not a full article (and even then it's erroneous). Glad I could assist.

Is "how its subject has publicly reacted to it" not relevant to the topic? Just10A (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

My position is that Trump's reaction and disavowal are not relevant without the full context of the lede's fourth paragraph. So any mention of Trump's disavowal in the first paragraph would be unachievably difficult to cram into a single sentence. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 02:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

No come on repost the 9/11 comment I want people to see. His denial is altogether "not relevant?" really? Just10A (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

No I don't think it's relevant without the full context that most sources agree that his denial looks an awful lot like a fig leaf. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, unlike 9/11's significance to the world trade center, I see no evidence that Trump's denial has had any effect on Project 2025's existence or future so far. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The person whom the project's implementation solely relies upon isn't relevant to its future? Again, really? Just10A (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

In full context of Project 2025's origins, its broad agreement with Trump's rhetoric, his substantial history of lies and half-truths and his denial's general lack of credibility? No, it does not seem 'first paragraph' relevant at this moment in time. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The goalposts continue to move lol. Further, there is plenty of RS that does not dismiss his disavowal. You've presented nothing of substance, just conjecture and/or fallacious strawman reasoning. Just10A (talk) 03:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Then actually make a specific edit recommendation in the format of a sentence to add so that it can be properly discussed. That's it, that's all I have left to offer, I'm done with this conversation. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 03:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

This has already explicitly been done in my 1st and 3rd comments. Again, I think the solution here is just re-reading with an open-mind instead of just eagerly trying to defend your point. (So much so, that it leads you to stating clear falsehoods, such as the statement about the world trade center article that you then deleted.) Honestly, I'm trying to be civil, but I can't hold your hand through the posts. Just10A (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Having reread some more of the discussion in the fresh light of a new day, I see now that I completely missed your first comment and then became so hung up on the language in Nick's posts and your second post that I then missed your third post as well.

My subsequent behavior was unacceptable, and I apologize.

Although I maintain that Trump's denial is not yet significant enough for the first paragraph. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 14:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Trump has quite clearly disavowed Project 2025 more than a year after it was published, and three days after Roberts made an incendiary remark that exploded P25 into public view to create political discomfort soibangla (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Correct. So, in other words, Trump clearly disavowed it? Further, He's done it multiple times. Again, this doesn't refute the content of the posts and the lede is not necessarily a timeline. Just10A (talk) 01:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

the lede is not necessarily a timeline

but it is, as Trump did not disavow it until long after it had been published and only days after the Roberts remark brought it to public attention in a negative way. soibangla (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

But is isn't. If you're writing a lede for the the world trade center, is your position going to be to NEVER mention 9/11 until the last sentence of the lede because it's last in the timeline? Surely not. This is weak. Just10A (talk) 02:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not find your analogy at all compelling soibangla (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I bet you don't, because it proves your postiion silly and contrary to policy lol. Do you have anything of substance to refute the position? Just10A (talk) 02:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The fact that people who used to work for Trump made this "project", does not mean that Trump and/or his campaign are "close" to the project. If someone who worked for Barack started pole dancing at a strip close, would say Barack was "close" to strip clubs? These inferences you're making are lame and clearly aimed at pushing a POV. NickCT (talk) 12:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

your argument might be plausible if we were talking about one individual, but the fact we're talking about 200 former Trump officials makes the argument ludicrous soibangla (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The number was 140. And it was 140 out 1,200 "contributors".

If I went into DC right now and randomly picked 1,200 conservative think-tank people, chances are 140 would end up being former Trump officials.

Outside of the fever-dreams of the alt-left, the fact 140 of these guys happened to work for Trump at one point is completely meaningless. NickCT (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Project 2025 partners employ over 200 former Trump administration officials.

where do you get 1,200?

would you also insist "the fact 140 of these guys happened to work for Trump Hillary at one point is completely meaningless?" soibangla (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Review the source the numbers came from. Paragraph starting "To quantify the scope of the involvement....".

If 140 Hillary people had worked on Project 2025, I'd be extremely surprised b/c I'd have a tough time understanding why Hillary people would be calling for Trump to seize power.

If, however, Hillary was running for president again, and some kind of "Her Project 2025" plan came to light w/ 140 Hillary people on the contributors list, then yes. I'd say that was just a coincidence.

You're aware that when presidents leave office, half their people go to PACs, and Think Tanks, right? NickCT (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

another article source says 200 and I don't see 1,200 anywhere

you might be more persuasive if you did not say things like "Outside of the fever-dreams of the alt-left" and refer to those who disagree with you as the "Q crew" soibangla (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

You see where the CNN article says "LinkedIn profiles .... for more than 1,000 people .... as well as the 200-plus names"? 1,000 + 200 = 1,200. CNN looked at 1,200 names on Project 2025, and found 140 of them came from Trump.

Bro. I promise I'm not trying to be mean. But the stuff you're pushing here, is only a step away from what the PizzaGate people are hawking. Remember, if you start embracing nonsense, you'll be no position to criticize the other side when they do the same. You're only better if you hold yourself to a higher standard. NickCT (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

the stuff you're pushing here, is only a step away from what the PizzaGate people are hawking

for your own good, I strongly advise you to stop talking to people like that. soibangla (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not rescinding that. That statement is accurate. Infering that Trump came up with Project 2025 (as you are doing in this article) is little different from ideas put forth in the Pizzagate conspiracy theory. If that upsets you, I'm happy to meet you in ANI.

What you are doing on this article is WP:SOAPBOXING about WP:FRINGE theories. Several people are pointing this out to you, and you are not stopping. NickCT (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Infering that Trump came up with Project 2025 (as you are doing in this article) has never remotely happened. soibangla (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Weird that a bunch of folks seem to be saying that that's what happened, huh? NickCT (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

a bunch of folks where? this is not Facebook soibangla (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

You're not seeing the comments about this article reading "like an alt right conspiracy theory"? Or looking like "it was taken directly from the OpEd pages of the NYT/WaPo"?

I'm not really interested in continuing here. This seems like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and you don't seem interested in focusing on facts. NickCT (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

there are always partisans who don't like a political CT article and complain it's biased, unfair, sourced to opinion pieces, reads like an editorial etc. twas ever thus. soibangla (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

"There's always criticism, so therefore all criticism of me, no matter how justified, can be dismissed." Just10A (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I've been fielding complaints of bias in this article well before most people had even heard of P25, I have always been receptive to criticisms and asked editors to provide specific examples to illustrate what they mean, but most of the time it's strictly crickets because it's typically just WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and it isn't constructive or persuasive to compare people to Pizzagate conspiracy theorists. that really jumps the shark. soibangla (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Of course. You're just so benevolent, that must be why your talk page is riddled with disciplinary action. Please, sell it somewhere else. This thread has reached its use. Just10A (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

your talk page is riddled with disciplinary action

is it really? soibangla (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

narrator: soibangla's talk page is not riddled with disciplinary action soibangla (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Infering that Trump came up with Project 2025 (as you are doing in this article) ??? Nowhere is anyone or anything saying or inferring that Trump came up with Project 2025. I think we all may be seriously misunderstanding and misreading each other here. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

So why, after a bunch of folks have pushed to make a clear statement that Trump denied association with Project 2025, is this small cadre of editors insisting that factoid be buried? NickCT (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

1. It's not buried, it's right there in the lead, and even has an entire paragraph dedicated to it.

2. Factoid: noun: a brief or trivial item of news or information. an assumption or speculation that is reported and repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

one might wonder the converse: why do you insist it be up top when it is in neither logical nor chronological order there, as I have previously explained and I believe others have as well? soibangla (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

If being at the end of an overly long sentence, which itself is at the end of an overly long lead doesn't strike you as "buried", we're not going to get anywhere here.

There's currently a lot of content in the lead pushing the idea the plan is associated w/ Trump. Putting something right at top would provide WP:NEUTRALITY by making it clear he says its not.

Basically, we're dedicated 200 words of the lead to suggesting or infering it's probably a Trump thing, then 10 words right at the very end to his denial.

The lack of WP:BALANCE here is sorta blatant. NickCT (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Theres seems to have been a fundamental loss of constructive debate here. I suggest you guys move this to dispute resolution, as there seems to be significant support/opposition on both sides. Or, at the very least, return to making actual suggestions of edits. Just10A (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. Agreed. Time to move on. NickCT (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Still feels WP:Undue weight to put that so much emphasis on a vague partial denial of some unspecified policies and some unspecified comments by unspecified people. Superb Owl (talk) 01:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

How is it a partial denial? I'm really trying not be argumentative, truly, but seriously, what more could this guy do before you actually consider it a "full denial?" I'm with you, there's definitely some sketchy stuff involved. But censorship clearly isn't the correct answer. We should include as much info and context as possible. Just10A (talk) 02:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

But censorship clearly isn't the correct answer

and that most certainly is not happening here soibangla (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I continue to believe it is properly placed and phrased in the lead soibangla (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

There are other conspiracy theory articles that need your attention. NickCT (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Please keep things civil. That being said, yes, your earlier link of a short/direct reference to his disavowal is good. Just10A (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Is interest in conspiracy theories a bad thing? I think they're pretty neat...

Regardless, this crew isn't going for the short/direct reference. NickCT (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• Hidden-camera video shows Project 2025 co-author discussing his secret work preparing for a second Trump term; CNN Vought said he was unfazed by Trump’s repeated denials of any connection with Project 2025, dismissing such public statements as politics. “I see what he’s doing is just very, very conscious distancing himself from a brand,” Vought said. “It’s interesting, he’s in fact not even opposing himself to a particular policy.” – Muboshgu (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Acknowledging this debate is a little stale, I wanted to respond to this point, b/c I think its interesting. Obviously Vought's comments here are highly speculative. If I developed a "plan" to take over Wikipedia, it would be super easy and super meaningless for me to say something like "Even though Jimbo Wales has denied affiliating with my plan, he secretly thinks it's a great idea and supports me". I'm sure there are lots of DC think-tank wonks who like to imagine their political heros are fans of their ideas. NickCT (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Move Trumps official disavowment, but indirect affiliation with, Project 2025 to the first paragraph

While the intro does explicitly say that Trump officially disavowed it doesn't do it until near the end of the bottom paragraph in what seems an already overly verbose opener to me. Given how people often only scan the first few lines of things it's quite possible they never get to or fully read the part about Trumps official disavowment of the topic, as evidenced by how many times there have seen topics on this talk page saying that the article claims trump is affiliated with the project from people who presumably didn't read far enough to see that isn't the case.

Given that project 2025 is only really noteworthy due to claims that trump may support it when he's in office I feel his connection to it is the most noteworthy aspect of the project and should be the first thing addressed in the article.

As I see it the most important points that must be expressed as quickly as possible are:

1. The project is a list of suggestions of things trump could do if he becomes president

2. It was created by a third party not officially associated with Trump but many people who worked on it have/had ties to Trump.

3. Trump has officially disavowed it but there are some expressing concern that he may still act on it's suggestions if he becomes president despite this official disavowing (I presume we could find a noteworthy source to cite for the last part...)

I think all three of the above should be in the first paragraph, and that's all that should be in the first paragraph. Everything after the first sentence in the current article could be moved to it's own paragraph after the main summary above is covered. Some of the debate about how closely Trump is tied to the project in the last paragraph of the header might make sense to moved out of the header and into it's own section in the main article to avoid cluttering the header as well.

Sorry I'm not a good enough wordsmith to suggest exact phrasing. Hopefully someone smarter then me could come up with such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.51.12.162 (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Moved this up to here btw. TheWikiToby (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Trump has nothing to do with this 2025, it is rather a Harris campaign lie.

This needs to be removed, and corrected. Trump has stated he wants nothing to do with this ridiculous proj3ct 2025. 172.72.235.7 (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Trump claims not to know who is behind Project 2025. A CNN review found at least 140 people who worked for him are involved – Muboshgu (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

140 out of the 1,200 people who contributed to the plan. If you randomly picked 1,200 conservative think tank people in DC right now, 140 of them would have worked for trump. It's a random co-incidence. Not a smoking gun. NickCT (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

If you're aware of 1,200 people who contributed to Project 2025, I invite you to use that knowledge to augment Draft:List of contributors to Project 2025. Many people have contributed to the plan, but I haven't managed to identify even a third of that number.

As for the relationship with Trump, it's clear that the policy recommendations delineated in the plan did not originate with him. And despite his connections with a number of its participants, and the fact that he has previously adopted policy recommendations from the Heritage Foundation, it has not (as far as I know) received his blessing. Indeed his selection of Linda McMahon, to be co-chair of his transition team, could be interpreted as a preference for the transition plan and policies of the America First Policy Institute.

Trackerwannabe (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The 1,200 number I mentioned comes from CNN. I don't think they call out exactly how those people are.

Do we really need a List of contributors to Project 2025? It that really notable? This whole thing has occuppied too much space already. NickCT (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Re: Number of contributors

I presume you are referencing

“To quantify the scope of the involvement from Trump’s orbit, CNN reviewed online biographies, LinkedIn profiles and news clippings for more than 1,000 people listed on published directories for the 110 organizations on Project 2025’s advisory board, as well as the 200-plus names credited with working on ‘Mandate for Leadership.’”

If so, it seems that you and I are interpreting it differently. I do not assume that all 1,000 people associated with the 110 organizations on Project 2025’s advisory board (and who have publicly available online biographies, LinkedIn profiles, and/or news clippings) are involved, or were involved, with Project 2025. Whatever that number might be, it seems reasonable to me that it would include many of those who are credited with its working on “Mandate for Leadership.” Thus, that article gives me only enough information to surmise that the number of contributors is somewhere in the range of 200 to 1,200. It gives me no reason to reach a more specific number.

Re: Notability

Yes, I do feel that a list of specific contributors is notable. For good and ill, this has become part of the national discourse in the U.S. Rather than leaving people dependent on articles referencing numbers of contributors (with each article typically specifying a subset of names) and their supposed connections to Donald Trump, I would prefer to provide a summary list, allowing folks to draw their own conclusions. I would also like to see (though I am not volunteering to create) articles listing contributors to

• Agenda 47
• America First Policy Institute's America First Transition Project
• The 2024 Republican Party Platform
• The 2024 Democratic Party Platform

In cases where such a list is relatively short, I would be fine including it within an article on the broader topic.

Trackerwannabe (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I mean, I guess if you don't know wheather the 1,200 were involved, then by the same token, you don't know if the 140 linked to Trump were actually involved. NickCT (talk) 02:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The article states pretty clearly that

"at least 140 people who worked in the Trump administration had a hand in Project 2025, a CNN review found, including more than half of the people listed as authors, editors and contributors to 'Mandate for Leadership,' the project’s extensive manifesto for overhauling the executive branch."

I suppose that the accuracy of that review could be questioned but, on what, I don't know.

The authors and contributors are listed clearly (on pages xv–xxiii and xxv–xxxi respectively) in Mandate for Leadership 2025: The Conservative Promise. Some of their roles in the Trump administration are listed right in the publication. Others can be determined with a little research. I don't know, yet, whether or not CNN's figure of 140 is accurate; but there appear to be at least several dozen. What may be more relevant is the fact that (if I counted accurately) 24 of the 40 primary authors had some role in the Trump administration.

Trackerwannabe (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I mean, the criteria CNN used for what "had a hand in Project 2025" means for the 140, is the same one that they applied to the 1,200. So either you accept that it was 140 Trumpers out of 1,200 total people, or you say we don't really know if all of those 140 worked on it, as we don't really know if all of the 1,200 worked on it.

I agree that we can't really know how accurate the figures are, but personally, I'd just take the numbers at face value. It was 140 out 1,200. NickCT (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I wonder where Steve Contorno (the author of the CNN article) came up with the figure of 110 for the number of organizations on Project 2025's advisory board. I count only 54.

Trackerwannabe (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Great question! I'm afraid I'm not interested in this topic enough to dig. NickCT (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing to remove. The lead does not say Trump wrote it or that he has endorsed it. The rest is backed up by reliable sources. Try reading those. DN (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

If I wrote a "plan" for how DN is going to conduct an armed take over of wikipedia, would you want it mentioned early or late in discussions of that plan that you didn't endorse it? NickCT (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Depends on the amount of RS to that effect. DN (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

By the way, are there any reliable sources stating that it's a "Harris campaign lie", or is that a fabrication? DN (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

"radical political initiative"

@HolyJabronie wishes [5] to change the first sentence, "Project 2025 (also known as the 2025 Presidential Transition Project) is a political initiative... to, Project 2025 (also known as the 2025 Presidential Transition Project) is a radical political initiative.... They've already been reverted twice (by me and @Soibangla) and were directed to find consensus before adding it again, but they did so anyway.[6] Maybe they can discuss why the term "radical" should be added here. TheWikiToby (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

They've been blocked now. TheWikiToby (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Purpose

The intention behind this initiative is not to endorse the agenda or ideologies of Donald Trump; instead, it seeks to support all conservatives whose values resonate with the conservative or classical liberal framework. It is important to clarify that it is inaccurate to suggest that this project exclusively promotes the views of the former president. Furthermore, claiming that it is designed to advance his agenda is misleading, particularly given that he has publicly stated he is not involved with Project 2025. Such assertions may be perceived as tactics used by far-left liberals to instill fear. In fact, his current initiative is Agenda 47, and he is not associated with this project. Matthew4100002 (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Matthew4100002 Just because Trump may not support P25 doesn't mean P25 doesn't support Trump. They are not interchangeable. You should also explain how the 247 reliable sources are wrong about how Trump isn't associated with P25. TheWikiToby (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, then Move Trumps official disavowment, but maybe an indirect affiliation with, Project 2025 to the first paragraph. Matthew4100002 (talk) 01:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I would consider moving what is currently in the third paragraph...

• "The project's controversial proposals led Trump and his campaign to distance themselves from the project in 2024, saying he knew "nothing about it" and that "some of the things [Project 2025 says] are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal"

...to end of the first paragraph, if there is a consensus. I think it may help improve clarity for readers that don't read much past that, and assume it isn't mentioned. DN (talk) 02:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Matthew4100002 (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

this was discussed at length at least once before and the consensus was keeping the status quo. The Roberts quote, especially, calls into question the sincerity of Trump's denial. P25 was and still is getting very bad press, and I surmise this is why some insist the Trump denial be placed right up top. soibangla (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

If there is already consensus for the current form, then it seems a moot point. DN (talk) 23:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The 247 unreliable sources are from political opinions from MSNBC. Matthew4100002 (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

That's a start. Which ones in particular? DN (talk) 01:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Opinion pieces typically don't make for quality RS although exceptions do exist, that said, MSNBC is still considered generally reliable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

Cheers. DN (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Fox News is also on this list. Matthew4100002 (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

See WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS...Their opinion pieces are considered generally unreliable for politics...This change was made after the Dominion lawsuit, I believe. DN (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

there are 247 MSNBC citations? soibangla (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Could you also be more succinct and specific as to what policy issues you perceive there to be and how your previous edits [7] [8] address those issues? For example, you say that "it is inaccurate to suggest that this project exclusively promotes the views of the former president", which might be interpreted as a WP:NPOV issue or an WP:OR issue, but without pointing to the specific context, we have no point of reference. DN (talk) 01:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

DAVID MARCUS: Project 2025 lies make it to Hershey before the truth can get its pants on | Fox News Matthew4100002 (talk) 01:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The statement appears to be in line with WP:NPOV. While there are numerous references available, it seems that some may not be fully represented by Wikipedia editors. Matthew4100002 (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

You are referring to this? https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/david-marcus-democrat-media-lies-about-project-2025-inundating-country DN (talk) 02:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Marcus is a Fox News opinion columnist. Are you aware of WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS? soibangla (talk) 02:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Why locked page to editing

this is a one sided anti profect2025 bias view. Why is Wiki letting this page stand? I dont care but i was trying to read about it with open eyes. But, is the anti version. 189.202.144.130 (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)