Talk:Project 2025

Trump has nothing to do with this 2025

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)

It looks like there are a number of organizations listed on their website that are absent from their publication. That likely accounts for much, if not all, of the discrepancy between Contorno's total and my own.

Trackerwannabe (talk) 12:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

mate don't embarrass yourself, citing a left wing newspaper just makes you look indoctrinated, maybe try something less radical next time? 2601:19E:427E:5210:81DD:A6DC:D7BC:9D68 (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, as opposed to Trumpist outlets, "reliable" is not defined as "agrees with everything Trump says". Instead, it is defined as "you can rely on it". Also, you can stop pretending now, the election is over. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Donald Trump has explicitly mentioned that he is nothing to do with Prj25 but these editors can read his brain. Don't worry these pseudo-secular, self-proclaimed liberal editors are nothing rather a junta of jihadists combined with communists funded by big corporates to ensure their profit are intact and working relentlessly killing the very basic principle of Wikipedia that it can be edited by mass thus few cannot control. But lock on this article and many others is a testimonial that Wikipedia is nothing else rather a propaganda machine, with no freedom of speech or facts, as a handful of these propagandists decide on their own so called fabricated "reliable sources".

They forgot that you can fool some people some time but not all people all time. 2024 US Election result is a tight slap on these propagandists. It is win of common Americans who know their priorities. These moderators are paid through project or funds and they are running families. I hope they introspect and correct their path before it is too late. They think they are invincible and have demigods over them what they don't know that they are a small cell on spreadsheet serving to a corporate and are dispensable anytime if there is a need. 118.189.49.2 (talk) 09:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Donald Trump has explicitly mentioned Your mistake is the false assumption that Trump is a reliable source (and not a pathological liar). --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

"these pseudo-secular, self-proclaimed liberal editors are nothing rather a junta of jihadists combined with communists funded by big corporates to ensure their profit are intact and working relentlessly killing the very basic principle of Wikipedia that it can be edited by mass thus few cannot control"

Is there some sort of Wikipedia Hall of Fame? Like can we make this the Wikipedia splash page? A sentence of such literary aptitude should be preserved for all time. Lostsandwich (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I wish I was getting paid LunaHasArrived (talk) 01:06, 9 November 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)

You can see in this Politico article published today, that Trump is blacklisting staff who are linked to Project 2025, providing further evidence that the lead section in this Wiki article attempting to link Trump to Project 2025 is nothing more than a smear attempt and is NOT factual. Fpbear (talk) 06:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

You need to show that the stuff in the lead is not in the quoted sources. Showing that there are other sources that made you personally draw the conclusion that what the sources say is false, is not enough. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

all P25 staff and exclusively them? Others have voiced scepticism, pointing out that an estimated 18,000 Republicans and 100 thinktanks have had some involvement with creating the document, meaning that a total ban would complicate staffing efforts. soibangla (talk) 05:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

That Politico article says this:

"Clearly people working on Project 2025 are blacklisted,” said a second former official. But a sweeping ban on contributors to that project — which boasts the support of more than 100 conservative organizations — could complicate efforts to staff up a Republican administration, and it’s unclear whether a future Trump administration would stick to such a ban." (bold added)

Trump and his campaign cannot be trusted to literally go through with this claimed blacklisting. It is more likely a temporary and strategic distancing from the project just to avoid problems, not because of any real disagreement with the agenda written for him by his own people. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

We can't conclude that. It's OR. Riposte97 (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Of course. OR is not allowed in articles, but it is allowed in discussions. My comment is for Fpbear, to bring them back down to earth. We should not be naive and then add content based on that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Content is added to Wikipedia based on reliable references, and the Wiki assessment is that Politico "is considered generally reliable for American politics." What you're doing Valjean is to insert your Original Research opinion into whether to include information from a reliable source. It is clear that, if we intend to follow Wiki policies and procedures, this information about Trump blacklisting Project 2025 staff should be added somewhere in the lead section. Currently the information in the lead is very cherry picked. Fpbear (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Valjean is simply sharing their views on the parts of the Politico article you claim to be DUE, while you set aside the parts you don't like. The lead in the article already makes clear that P25 is not even legally allowed to endorse Trump. It also says that Trump "knew nothing about project 2025". The blacklisting aspect seems to only pile onto that statement adding more weight to what is essentially a claim. The last paragraph in the lead says:

• Trump said he knew "nothing about it" and that "some of the things [Project 2025 says] are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal". In response, Heritage president Kevin Roberts said that no one at Project 2025 has hard feelings for Trump because they know "he's making a political tactical decision there". Critics have dismissed Trump's claims, pointing to the various people close to Trump who helped draft the project, the many contributors who are expected to get leadership roles in a future Trump administration, his endorsement of the Heritage Foundation's plans for his administration in 2022, and the 300 times Trump himself is mentioned in the plans.

Content is based on many aspects, and since his tacit denial is already in the article (including the lead), and is in many ways less relevant, it seems UNDUE. DN (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Section heading was a BLP violation, I've edited it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 08:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks like we'll soon find out for sure if Project 2025 is on Trump's agenda:

Republicans Celebrate by Admitting They Can't Wait for Project 2025:

"The former president spent the campaign distancing himself from the draconian policy package. He and his allies no longer need to hide ..."

Rolling Stone article.

After Win, Trump Fans Admit "Project 2025 Is the Agenda":

"Now that the election is over I think we can finally say that yeah actually Project 2025 is the agenda. Lol."

Mother Jones article. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

wow this is unbelievably biased

Why is every source a clearly left-leaning media article? Why isn't the source the actual page in the document that states the claim?

For example the article claims that project 25 seeks to instill Christian values, and then links to a very clearly biased article as the source.

Why not just add the page(s) in the document that in fact state this, as the source?

This happens with almost every claim. Every "source" is a biased article. JUST PUT THE PAGE OF THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT THAT CONTAINS THE CLAIM.

I came to Wikipedia To get an UNBIASED fact-based overview of this project because every other article I read is so biased, and I genuinely want to see the PARTS OF THE ACTUAL document (as in, the direct quotes) that supposedly are pushing the things that the media claim it is.

I was hoping Wikipedia would be where I could could just find the clear facts and quotes from the actual document. Nope.

Please change every "source" to AN ACTUAL QUOTE FROM THE DOCUMENT that shows it in fact proposes what this entry claims it proposes. 2604:2D80:EC89:B600:386C:11E4:68AD:7674 (talk) 04:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

If you want to read information from the project itself, you might as well go to the website here rather than going to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is built upon secondary sources that have been concieved to be reliable over years of consensus building (look at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard if you want). I doubt that ignoring Wikipedia:PRIMARYSOURCE for such a divisive and political subject will happen any time soon. TheWikiToby (talk) 05:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I was hoping the wikipedia entry would be Like the cliff notes version so i didn't have to read the whole thing. I just wanted a list of cut and dry factual statements of the proposals, with the page in the document on which they were stated.

I didn't want to read another opinion piece, or be linked to more opinion pieces as sources.

I honestly don't want to read this huge document, and I was hoping I could get a better idea of what's actually contained in it from the Internet's encyclopedia. Sadly no such luck. 2604:2D80:EC89:B600:386C:11E4:68AD:7674 (talk) 05:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

You think an awful lot of Yourself. 67.163.184.44 (talk) 00:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok. TheWikiToby (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Wikipedia reflects high-quality sourcing (which, generally speaking, means mainstream + academic coverage.) If you believe that coverage is biased, then Wikipedia is only going to reflect that bias; it would be WP:FALSEBALANCE or WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS for us to correct it. If you think there are high-quality sources we're not covering, go ahead and suggest them, but a complaint of "wow this looks biased, all these sources are biased" in a vacuum isn't enough because the question isn't whether the sources meet your personal opinion on what balance should look like, but whether they are representative of what high-quality coverage is saying overall. And we can't rely on the document itself for anything important; it is a WP:PRIMARY source and over-reliance on it would lead to original research. --Aquillion (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

This article does not just state the facts. Every sentence is laced with opinion, interpretation, and editorial bias. Readers should be able to know what the 2025 says and make their own decisions about its merits. 2600:1702:59B0:8AF0:FCA3:68A9:7863:172 (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

They can. There is a reference to the Project 2025 document in the philosophical outlook section, and there is a link to the Project 2025 website in the infobox.

Do you really mean that every sentence "is laced with opinion, interpretation, and editorial bias?" If that was hyperbole, I get it. But I encourage you point out some specific sentences with which you take issue, describe in what way(s) you find them problematic, and maybe suggest how they might be improved. Hopefully they can be addressed.

Trackerwannabe (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

There are indexes available to find out what page a topic is on in the document. You can then go to the document and just read the section on the topic. One such index is https://indexersguidetoproject2025.com/. There are others available, too. Infonet4all (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Useful source "“Put Them in Trauma”: Inside a Key MAGA Leader’s Plans for a New Trump Agenda"

And reliable according to RSNP. See [1] Doug Weller talk 10:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit War - Organization Infobox Purpose (Upper Righthand Side)

I've been in an edit war on the upper righthand side, the infobox stated the purpose of Project 2025 as:

WAS: Reshape the U.S. federal government to support the agenda and ideologies of the Donald Trump. <Citation Missing>

IS: Reshape the U.S. federal government to support the agenda and ideologies of the Heritage Foundation.

Why this is an error is that the Project 2025 president has been very clear that it is not about Donald Trump, it was written without his consultation or endorsement, and created prior to his announcement that he would run for another presidential term. By their own admission, Trump is not aligned with roughly 1/3 of Heritage Foundation agenda put forth in Project 2025. To say that its purpose is to support Trump's agenda and ideologies is a dishonest attempt to conflate Agenda 47 with Project 2025 - if you just read the two policy agendas, one directly from Trump, and the other from the Heritage Foundation you can easily see there are massive contradictions, they're not aligned on ideologies at all.

The only reason given for undoing my citied contribution was that there is "long standing consensus", there's no discussions on this and just like every other wiki article, just because an error has endured for a long time doesn't free it from the need to cite sources. Jadon (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Heritage has been closely aligned with the GOP since its 1973 founding. they don't exist just for their own amusement, they exist to drive GOP policy. they have published their Mandate since Reagan. this edition was written for the "the next conservative Administration," and that officially became Trump upon his nomination, though it was written for him from the start because they knew he was running again, dozens of his people were involved and the document names him 312 times. the only reason he wasn't explicitly promoted in the document is because it would violate Heritage's 501c3 tax exemption. Roberts said he understood why Trump disavowed it: not necessarily that he opposed it, but that it was politically too hot to handle. this has been extensively discussed and why it was longstanding consensus and should remain so. soibangla (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Longstanding discussion notwithstanding, it's OR, and potentially a BLP violation. Besides, my understanding is that it is trying at least in part to influence a prospective second Trump Administration, making Jadon's wording more accurate. Riposte97 (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

what I just wrote is nothing of what you describe. I will bow out now so others can run with this. soibangla (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, I don't see what the issue is about if what Jadon wrote has reputable sources. Plasticwonder (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I do not see what exactly is the problem with Jadon's edits, as they are backed by sources from what I can tell. Plasticwonder (talk) 01:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Jadon's addition cites only primary sources, which in this case I believe are too close to the source to be reliable. Look at how many reliable sources cite 'loyalty to Trump' as a main qualification heritage is looking for when recruiting future employees Superb Owl (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  I see what you mean. I am in total agreement with you. Plasticwonder (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Request to set page to “Pending Changes” protection

I believe this page has a high potential of vandalism and misinformed edits in the future, and should receive more protection. Jetpackjbd (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Trump won

The networks have called the race for Trump. Shouldn’t that be mentioned in the article? 2601:18C:8384:7ED0:99FE:D08A:EEA6:952F (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

No. Trump is only tangentially pertinent to this article, making his victory tangential to that tangent. Marcus Markup (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2024

Add Category:Future vision statements of countries 94.252.74.157 (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Myrealnamm (💬pros · 📜cons) 00:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

And I've removed it. The statement is not made by the country, it's made by a private foundation. Not the same thing at all. Skyerise (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Trump denial in lead

Well I made a one sentence edit and ive come back to this edit war shit show over it.

Judging by a few comments ive seen in the edit history, i suggest amending trumps denial to add that some of his former associates had a role in the project. That should appeal everyone. People OK with this idea? Im gonna respectfully ping a few people involved in the discussion. @Skyerise @Just10A @Esowteric DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 07:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The article is currently overloaded with attributions and tangents on how his associates and former associates are associated with the Project. I am in favor of, at least once, simply stating his stated position, without having to load it up and surround it with the actions and statements of others. Marcus Markup (talk) 08:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. The association bit is overstated, but I just dont think these revert editors are gonna let his position just sit there without some sort of personal attack on him to counter it. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 10:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@DeadlyRampage26: The current lead was established through long discussions (check the talk page archives). When the consensus for the lead is developed though such long discussions, it should not be changed until another long discussion reaches a consensus. The lead will continue to be reverted by those who participated in developing the current consensus unless you take the time to cultivate a new consensus through talk page proposals, which you have not done. For the lead, it is discuss first, achieve consensus, then implement consensus. Expect discussion to take at least a week before a clear consensus for change becomes apparent. Leads of controversial articles are not so easily changed as the body, and that's how it should be. You don't just come in as a new editor of a controversial article and just change the lead without discussion. There is a warning at the top of the talk page about this. Skyerise (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Potentially Pertinent Article

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-team-turns-project-2025-disavowing-effort-campaign-rcna180689

https://apnews.com/article/trump-project-2025-administration-nominees-843f5ff20131ccba5f056e7ccc5baf23

A lot of staffing picks appear to be adhering to Project 2025's recommendations, in spite of previous attempts by Trump's administration to distance themselves from it. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)