Talk:Project 2025/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Roberts and Dans quotes

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

what do others think?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hmm if this [1] is the article I think we'd need to be careful about the wording bc the article says "criticized what they viewed as a veiled threat of violence", and this would be stating that it was a threat of violence as a fact. And why mince words, why not just say 'The disavowal' came after the interview? JSwift49 22:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) Roberts says it's the second American Revolution

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

But Roberts said the country is in the midst of the second American revolution, not that Project 2025 is that revolution. [2] That's why I agree with @Superb Owl in that it is worth summarizing as a reason for Trump's disavowal, and mentioning later in the article, but it's too tangential to just quote without context.

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

JSwift49 Roberts: "We are in the process of the second American Revolution"

who is "we?" soibangla (talk) 04:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I am not proposing paraphrasing Dans

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

2) paraphrase Roberts

3) deploying military

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

Warlike rhetoric is good.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about:

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

Also this article [3] doesn't explicitly state Heritage is "closely-aligned" with Trump, just that they broadly support each other politically? JSwift49 00:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about we put the McEntee line in this paragraph?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Replace:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm "a party?"

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

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

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

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

JSwift49 Trump's denial is late and ancillary to what P25 has been since April 2023 and we should treat it accordingly, chronologically at the end of the lead, where it was before by the work of multiple editors, but you allege I am acting in bad faith by arguing this. soibangla (talk) 05:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Soibangla here and am seeing the logic to that aspect of the prior consensus. We can always revisit as new sources emerge.
Also, I think Soiblanga is arguing in good faith, for the record. Superb Owl (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I am concerned that some newly-arrived editors may have been oblivious to the existence of P25 before Trump's Friday denial exploded it into public view. By monitoring internet chatter, I am aware many/most had never heard of P25 before. Trump is not the central story of this article. What Roberts and Dans have said about their mission is central, particularly their violent and militaristic rhetoric, supplemented by the aggressive rhetoric of P25 advocates such as Bannon and Patel as described in the article, and that's what belongs up top in the lead. Per asserted maximal unitary executive, P25 is not proposing a traditional, negotiable legislative agenda subject to congressional and judicial consent; rather it is proposing an outright seizure of the government, by force if necessary, and threatening violence against dissent. This is the central thrust of P25, so it must not be downplayed in the lead. And I say this with the full confidence that the body and its reliable sources fully support it. All anyone needs to do is read it, all of it. This is not bias or partisanship, JSwift49, it is empirical reality. soibangla (talk) 07:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi; one of the reasons I did not believe you were acting in good faith was that you did not explain your arguments and you just said things were wrong. This is a step in the right direction. However, I disagree. If we are going to make a paragraph about the links to Trump we should not omit that Trump distanced himself. The quotes also do not have consensus from me or @Just10A for the same reason. JSwift49 10:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I have always explained my arguments. striking your baseless aspersions is all you gotta do, then you and I will get along just fine, no worries. soibangla (talk) 11:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, the goal of Project 2025 is in no way downplayed by putting the quotes in the body, as again, Robert’s’ is not specifically describing Project 2025, and Dans’ quote is not particularly notable, the intro already describes the gist of it. JSwift49 10:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

JSwift49 you misrepresented what Roberts actually said. he did not say:

the country is in the midst of the second American revolution

as you claimed, he actually said:

"We are in the process of the second American Revolution"

who is "we?"

yet you accuse me of bad faith. all you gotta do is strike it, that's really all you gotta do. easy! soibangla (talk) 11:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

New York Times: [4]

"The president of the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank that has developed a prominent series of policy plans to overhaul the federal government under a Republican president, said on Tuesday that the country was “in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.” JSwift49 11:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

CNN [5]

"Kevin Roberts, drew widespread backlash from Democrats for saying in an interview that the country was “in the process of the second American Revolution..."

Financial Times [6]

Trump’s comments came days after the Heritage Foundation’s president, Kevin Roberts, said the US was “in the process of the second American Revolution,..."

News sources attribute Roberts' quote to referring to the United States, not Project 2025. Therefore, the quote is not relevant enough to include in the lead unless, as the initial consensus draft proposed, in discussion about why Trump distanced himself. JSwift49 11:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Soibangla What do you think about putting Superb Owl's draft [7], which is about Trump's connection to and later distancing from Project 2025, at the end of the lead? That seems like a compromise to what you are saying, that the Trump stuff would be later, and I would support that.

CC'ing @Superb Owl because we had discussed the positioning of this paragraph earlier JSwift49 12:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

striking it might make it more likely I would engage you. easy! soibangla (talk) 12:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm willing to work with you on this in good faith and for you to prove my misgivings wrong. However if you do not explain/back up your arguments and act in an uncivil manner I will challenge that, as I would anyone. JSwift49 12:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I needn't prove anything to you. You baselessly cast aspersions upon me. All you gotta do is strike it and everything will be fine. soibangla (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Reuters:

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

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

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

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

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

"Former President Donald Trump distanced himself on Friday from Project 2025" (Forbes)[8]

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

[9]

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

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

The Time article is the same article as AP (syndicated). I finally had time to investigate and start a running list here and have 7 articles saying 'tried to/sought to distance' and only 2 saying 'distanced.' I also think it is more verifiable to say 'try to distance.' Superb Owl (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Fair. That tbh is why i like 'Ideas'. (which Forbes uses) [11]

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

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

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

I agree. The comments/draft look good to me. As for @Soibangla, you probably don't think a "consensus was reached" because you explicitly refused to engage in the dialogue that reached said consensus. That's a personal choice. Just10A (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

your edit was unjustified and unnecessary soibangla (talk) 23:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

NBC: [12]

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

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

Notes

References

Am I getting this right?

"It proposes reclassifying tens of thousands of federal civil service workers as political appointees in order to replace them with loyalists more willing to enable the next Republican president's policies"

They want to classify civil servants as political appointees so they can fire them and replace them with ACTUAL political appointees? But only if a Republican is President? Carlo (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The 922-page plan outlines a dramatic expansion of presidential power and a plan to fire as many as 50,000 government workers to replace them with Trump loyalists. Yep, pretty much. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Dans, also an editor of the project's guiding document, has described Project 2025 as "systematically preparing to march into office and bring a new army [of] aligned, trained, and essentially weaponized conservatives ready to do battle against the 'deep state'." Sorry, this was the quote I meant to post. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Paragraph order of lead

This unfinished discussion may have gotten lost in the avalanche thread above, so I propose continuing it here:
@Soibangla and myself strongly support discussing the Heritage foundation and associated controversies in the second paragraph, moving Trump denial to the fourth (with reactions/etc.) and having policies in the third. This, in my opinion, adheres most closely to the order of the article (LeadFollowsBody), notability, and scope.
@JSwift49 has preferred the policy paragraph second and elevating Trump denial higher.
Anything I missed? Other thoughts? Superb Owl (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the article is good as it currently is and @JSwift49 did a good job of being neutral. Soibangla earlier stated that "Trump's denial is late and ancillary to what P25 has been since April 2023 and we should treat it accordingly." The same logic applies to the Roberts quote and issues. It is within days of the Trump statement (aka "late" by his standards) and JSwift49 has already shown that the "we" in the quote has been interpreted by sources as referring to the country as a whole, not P25 (aka it is ancillary). As a result, the Heritage issues should be given similar treatment and placement as the Trump issues and I think no more changes regarding this issue are needed. The paragraph & article's structure/wording is good and neutral as it is. Just10A (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Just10A thanks for the ping while talking about me.

::where has JSwift49 shown that the "we" in the quote has been interpreted by sources as referring to the country as a whole, not P25?[13]soibangla (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Just10A. I think Heritage and Trump go together and should be in the same paragraph. The Roberts “revolution” quote demonsttably refers to the United States and not Project 2025, so its relevance is mainly in that it preceded Trump (publicly) distancing himself.

Therefore I strongly oppose splitting the Trump distancing from the Roberts quote, or giving more weight to the Roberts quote in the lead. But I’d be OK with the Trump/Heritage paragraph being second instead of at the end. JSwift49 16:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

::have you demonstrated The Roberts “revolution” quote demonsttably refers to the United States and not Project 2025? maybe I missed that. could you show me?[14] soibangla (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

so it appears three of us agree there needs to be a second parapraph while a fourth says the article is fine right now, is that right?

@soibangla No, that's a misrepresentation of what I said. I think the article is good as it is. If the entire last paragraph (including the Trump ties and Trump distancing) was moved second, I wouldn't have an issue either, but the paragraphs themselves would be the same. JSwift49 01:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

However I still have a preference for keeping the order completely as-is, because it flows nicely and chronologically. Describes what it is, and then the "ancillary" comments at the end. Makes more sense for readers. JSwift49 01:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

perhaps you can try to write less ambiguously

But I’d be OK with the Trump/Heritage paragraph being second instead of at the end soibangla (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Glad we are engaging again. As I explained, I oppose your proposal of a second paragraph solely devoted to Heritage. I also said would not mind the order of the existing paragraphs be changed provided the content/grouping stays the same. But that's minor. So for simplicity's sake: count me as agreeing with @Just10A, don't change the lead paragraphs. JSwift49 01:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

But I’d be OK with the Trump/Heritage paragraph being second instead of at the end

hey, see how I struck my error in this thread? see how easy it is to acknowledge an error? see how it demonstrates my integrity? soibangla (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

you said to me

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

now that Superb Owl said in this thread

strongly support discussing the Heritage foundation and associated controversies in the second paragraph, moving Trump denial to the fourth

are you prepared to impugn that editor's integrity as well? soibangla (talk) 02:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Not at all; Superb Owl and I haven't agreed on everything but we were able to civilly work together, and explain/listen to each others' arguments. You on the other hand have rarely explained your arguments or engaged with mine, and you have also misrepresented what I've said. That comes across as pushing an agenda. Based on your Talk page [15] I'm not the first to raise doubts about your neutrality/civility. So... I will leave this conversation at that. You are of course always welcome to contribute your perspective on the article in a professional way. JSwift49 02:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

please cite specific examples of "rarely explained your arguments," because it is flatly false. "or engaged with mine," after you falsely impugned my integrity, of course, which does not promote civility. I did not misrepresent what you said, I quoted you. "I'm not the first to raise doubts about your neutrality/civility," so cite specific examples from my Talk page. all sorts of people whinge about all sorts of things over the course of a decade, which are often refuted. if I was actually a problem, I'd have a lengthy sanctions history. "So... I will leave this conversation at that" well color me shocked soibangla (talk) 02:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Blurred "Qanon Jesus" image

In the "Christian nationalism" section, there is currently an image of a January 6th rioter holding an poster of Jesus wearing a MAGA hat. The artwork itself is blurred. According to the file's description, it is blurred because it is copyrighted.

I know it is not the intention, but I think a reasonable person might think the image is being censored due to its political content. It gives the article a less neutral feel.

I find the artwork nauseating, but blurring it sends the wrong message. LibreLearner (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The content is deliberately blurred because it contained copyrighted imagery in an otherwise licensed photo. No blurring, no licensed photo. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 07:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree, it is jarring. It implies Wikipedia does not fully grok the concept of fair use. Marcus Markup (talk) 08:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Trump 'Distanced' vs. 'Tried to distance' himself from Project 2025

I count (running list)
16 sources saying 'Tried to distance' (or equivalent)
4 sources saying 'Distanced' (or equivalent)

in addition, 'tried to distance' is more WP:Verifiable given that whether or not he succeeded is so difficult to verify Superb Owl (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Going through the 16 'tried to distance', I would not give the same weight to New Republic, Mother Jones or The Intercept as they are all considered "biased or opinionated" by most editors. [16] I'd also remove this article [17] and this one [18] as they are about Rubio trying to distance Trump, not Trump distancing himself. Also there are a couple of articles from the same sources.

Then it's tricky because a lot of the articles use both phrases.

• [19] "Trump wants to distance" and "Trump’s disavowal of the plan"
• [20] "Trump seeks to disavow" and "The Republican presidential candidate renounced any connection"
• [21] This one actually just says "Trump distancing himself"
• [22] "criticized former President Trump’s attempt to distance himself" and "The former president took to Truth Social earlier Friday to disavow the project"
• [23] "Trump tried to disown" and "Trump’s move to distance himself"
• [24] "sought to distance himself" and "Trump’s post disavowing the group"

I personally like the language Trump *publicly* distanced himself, (because that doesn't imply anything about how he feels privately), and also following that with how critics said they didn't believe him.

Also might be worth including that Project 2025 "emphasized it was independent from the Trump campaign." but not sure. [25] JSwift49 03:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The issue I also have with “tried to distance” is, much like saying “Trump distanced” implies he was successful, “tried to distance” implies he was unsuccessful. If we can’t verify success, we can’t verify unsuccess either. JSwift49 03:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

This is really helpful - thanks for improving the scan by checking some of these for duplicates or contradictory phrasing. I updated my list according to some of these suggestions, including adding a section for 'both' and separating out the more biased sources you mentioned along with separating out the two Rubio articles. I am not sure that disavow and renouncing any connection are the same as distancing but do not want to spend more time trying to parse something.
I also appreciate the 'publicly' qualifier as maybe a good way to split the difference here given that there seems to be coverage using both phrases. Superb Owl (talk) 06:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

because that doesn't imply anything about how he feels privately It implies that there may be an unaccounted for difference between his public and private views... an implication not present in the sources. Marcus Markup (talk) 07:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Hmm point taken. I have found some sources that specifically use “publicly distanced” so we could add those?

• [26] “Trump, meanwhile, has publicly distanced himself” -Dallas Morning News
• [27] “While Donald Trump has publicly distanced himself” -The Times

If we can’t build consensus around the verb, another option would be to say “On July 5, 2024, Trump posted to Truth Social that…” and then quote him. JSwift49 10:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for researching this. I say go with the strong preponderance of reliable sources as designated solid green at RSP, regardless of the views of some that they may be opinionated. This not the place or time to challenge RSP. soibangla (talk) 03:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I would normally agree, but given that we are discussing use of language (as opposed to truth/falsehood) this is precisely where bias comes into play. So IMO we should take into account if most editors view a source as biased. JSwift49 03:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. A source's appearance on RSP only says the source is considered "reliable". It says nothing about whether or not it is "biased"... appearance there only vouches for its integrity, not it's choice of phraseology. Per WP:BIASED "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." Reliable sources are permitted to be biased, and are allowed to use inflammatory language which would be inappropriate for use in an encyclopedia. It is our job as editors to take their purport and make it presentable and encyclopedic, not just blindly copy-paste their verbiage based on how often it is used in popular media. Marcus Markup (talk) 08:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Speculative and opinionated wording in the opening paragraph should be removed.

"It proposes reclassifying tens of thousands of federal civil service workers as political appointees in order to replace them with loyalists more willing to enable the next Republican president's policies."

This language is biased and speculative. When you click on the source, it states this is a claim Critics are making, it does not verify the validity of the claim at all. This produces biased language which is not helpful for this page. 68.184.222.27 (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Nope, it is in fact a claim that Project 2025's own creators are making: Dans, also an editor of the project's guiding document, has described Project 2025 as "systematically preparing to march into office and bring a new army [of] aligned, trained, and essentially weaponized conservatives ready to do battle against the 'deep state'." Largely Legible Layman (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Criticisms should not be in summary

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

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

So then why are the expressed criticisms of the work, being treated as the purpose of the work? Ummreally? (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Critiques are by definition not neutral. If project 2025 laid out such plans then summarize those plans. Summarizing the nature of critics, supporters, and popularity would all be appropriate. But that is not what that sentence is doing. Johnbradleywood (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Johnbradleywood: Then provide citations to supporting articles. Critics of the current article have repeatedly been asked to provide secondary sources that support the project, but so far no one has done so. I have myself searched and not found any. If the only secondary sources available are critiques, then that is what the article has to be based on. The burden is on those who claim the article doesn't follow the sources in a balanced manner to find and provide sources that would allow the article to be rebalanced. Skyerise (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written by volunteers like ourselves. If you can find reliable sources that show Project 2025 in a positive light, then feel free to contribute. Here's a guide to getting started. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 21:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

P25 scope

I contend the P25 scope is broader than replacement of the civil service and thus I placed "proponents argue that the change would dismantle what they view as a vast, unaccountable, and mostly liberal government bureaucracy" right up top as the second sentence of the lead.

Just10A disagrees and has thus placed the sentence deeper in the lead, after the sentence about replacing the civil service, prefacing it with "In doing so..." so as to limit the scope to replacing the civil service.

what do people think?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Project_2025&diff=prev&oldid=1233809144 soibangla (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

But thats the thing, it's not "the P25 scope." Its "what proponents CONTEND is the P25 scope." Clearly subjective positions only held by one side fall after objective explanations of the policy. Its not "limiting the scope" at all. Just10A (talk) 02:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they contend a broader scope, not limited to replacement of the civil service. The rest of the article amply demonstrates it.soibangla (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Charts/graphs proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It gives an illustration of what a free or subsidized school lunch should look like. I can replace it with a graph of student loan debt if people want. Both school lunches and student debts are mentioned by Project 2025. Nerd271 (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If people are talking about trade deficits, then it makes sense to show a graph of trade deficits. Information does not exist in a vacuum. Without context, things are hard to understand. Nerd271 (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Immigration reforms Section - False Source

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

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

you are looking at the wrong citation, see ref #127[28]

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

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

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

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

The Wikiati is real. They publish and edit... then dismiss objections with arrogance.

It has me, once again, longing for an Encyclopedia Britannica monthly subscription.

There is no direct citation for POV and tone when it's so pervasive. 100.8.96.142 (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

100% JBrownIII (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe the original edit request is  Already done. Any further discussions should probably have their own topic(s) added.
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} ⋮ 21:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

"Conservative" vs. "right-wing"

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

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

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

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

Heritage Foundation is the title sponsor of CPAC ( Per Wikipedia -- Conservative Political Action Conference, an annual gathering of conservative activists in the United States, and/or associated activities in other countries)

Right Wing and Left Wing is another dimension of US politics, you may be mixing the terms with what you think you know about EU parties. 2601:248:C000:147A:65ED:6A88:446:6D35 (talk) 09:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Sourcing issues

Parts of this article are unsourced. Other parts cite slanted sources (such as Axios) for which attribution is recommended. I intend to try to fix this over the weekend. Riposte97 (talk) 10:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

please cite specific unsourced content. Axios is a reliable source that I have attributed thrice. soibangla (talk) 10:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to add that I have witnessed a number of occasions on WP:CTOP articles when editors challenge the quality of WP:RSP reliable sources. in such cases, I and others have suggested that such challenges belong at WP:RSN rather than in a specific article. soibangla (talk) 10:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

oh, just one more thing: if you come across unsourced content, I recommend making liberal use of the tag rather than removing content, so I and others can hunt down sources. I would greatly appreciate that. soibangla (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

a political tactical decision?

Days after Trump released a statement seeking to distance himself from Project 2025, Roberts said, "So no hard feelings from any of us at Project 2025 about the statement because we understand Trump is the standard bearer and he's making a political tactical decision there."

"Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts: "The overlap is tremendous" between Trump's campaign platform and Project 2025". Media Matters. July 11, 2024. soibangla (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

second paragraph

can we circle back to discussing the violent and militaristic rhetoric of Roberts and Dans, the military deployment, etc? it kinda dropped out and faded away. soibangla (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

anyone wanna revisit this? soibangla (talk) 04:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Why are we relying on unverified anonymous sources?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and internal communications reviewed by The Washington Post ... The proposal was identified in internal discussions as an immediate priority, the communications showed[29]

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

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

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

Why not just use the original source material instead of opinion pieces disguised as news articles? The Project 2025 PDF is widely available. 47.201.30.31 (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Please read the thread, and check out Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CNN article:"Trump claims not to know who is behind Project 2025. A CNN review found at least 140 people who worked for him are involved"

[30]. Doug Weller talk 18:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

NB Doug these people USED TO work for him, back when he was President of the United States. They don't work for him now. This is no different than PACs which Democrats use too. PACs disavow any affiliation or knowledge or endorsement by actual candidates. Trump has been very busy as a criminal case defendant so he can't possibly know everything that 140 of his former administration people are up to, three years later.--FeralOink (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Gay furry hackers leaks

Quite a bit of news coverage.[31] Doug Weller talk 06:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I thought the furries were pro-Trump. They were in the past.--FeralOink (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Pornography is rated "low‑importance" here

Given that Roberts writes:

Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned.[32]

I would submit Project 2025 poses an existential threat to the porn industry, which isn't exactly of low importance to it. soibangla (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Project 2025 would cut off a $100 million dollar industry and 335,000,000 people from porn. I don't think it's of a low-importamce. TheWikiToby (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The guidelines of the pornography project assume almost all of their articles will be actors, and recommend applying importance based on notability. Not sure that standard is appropriate in all cases, though, and they acknowledge it as a starting effort. Poking around, it seems all over the place, and dependent on one's POV. I would think Mid Importance, but would not object to High Importance. Marcus Markup (talk) 03:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and made it "mid" not to preclude making it "High" (which I'm thinking it deserves), but because it so clearly was not "low" and I found that annoying. Marcus Markup (talk) 11:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I am changing it back to Low. This proposed plan by the Heritage Foundation is in no way of Mid or High importance to all global, current, and all historical pornography. The scope of Wikiproject Pornography is NOT localized to the USA in 2024.--FeralOink (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Bad call. "Low" is the lowest possible level of importance one can attribute to an article. What happens to the pornography industry in America (particularly in California) has an effect world-wide. That this Project proposes to make it in fact criminal is a BFD and is certainly not of "Low" importance. Marcus Markup (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I just created a B class article on a book whose originally self-published author has recently shot to mainstream success with over a million sales and translation into more than twenty languages. Project Novels: low importance. Project Ireland: low importance. Project Women writers: low importance. And, for Wikipedia, that sounds right; much as I would like to elevate these evaluations. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. Your examples of novels and how they were received do not have the potential to change how writing is practiced today, nor are authors in danger of being jailed as would purveyors of pornography should this Projects proposals be implemented. Marcus Markup (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

In the case of Project 2025, though, these things may become more important should they be actually implemented in 2025. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

By then, this won't be a "project" any more, but instead The law of the land and the point will be mooted, won't it? This will be a historic document at that point... just sayin' Marcus Markup (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

If you feel strongly about such issues, why is "Sexology and sexuality" still low importance and "LGBT studies" still unrated? They are arguably more important than "Pornography" and really do affect many people's lives. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The "other stuff exists" argument. Nice. And I don't "feel so strongly", I am simply making my case, and further addressing the issue would serve no purpose other than to raise my blood pressure. Marcus Markup (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, the purpose of categorizing articles based on 'importance' is so that members of the project in question know what to focus on. It is NOT intended to be a commentary on the merits of the subject at hand... it is an editorial tool, and not content, and the standards for how to rate articles vary widely by project... it is not a tool of comparison between projects, in other words. Marcus Markup (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2024

This sentence:

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

Should be tweaked:

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

 Note: The referenced text is no longer in the article. – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

This is an example of why Wikipedia is becoming a farse

This 'encyclopedia' entry looks like it was taken directly from the OpEd pages of the NYT/WaPo, after those entities were given direct talking points from political opperatives and/or government employees.

To me, it reads as a joke... not authoritative reference.

Now... que cognitive dissonance. Ummreally? (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Especially now, given that Trump himself has publically and repeatedly disavowed affiliation with it. And Stephen Miller did too. Also, it sees silly that Wikiproject:Pornography assesses it as Mid-importance!--FeralOink (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Ummrealy?, I for one, could not agree more… In this age of utter divisiveness in American society, it seems obvious that wiki-editors in general have lost all ability to take sources and make their wording in any article neutral (or even close to neutral). Before I volunteer to help edit articles, I now read ever discussion on the Talk page to judge how bad the shitshow of editing is. If a topic is so divisive that editors argue and revert edits for weeks, I'll definitely step away from that shitshow. It's so bad, there should be a special WP:SHITSHOW article — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 04:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

What? I can't understand anything you wrote here. 2601:1C0:717E:4C0:3C3D:A2E5:AE85:951A (talk) 04:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Advisory board and leadership

why was the list of ~20 Trump administration contributors removed? soibangla (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

now I see Superb Owl removed it

can we discuss that? soibangla (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that this is original research if all you've done is use the primary document to list the authors of the chapters, which seems useful to me. There's nothing wrong with using a primary source for basic, uncontroversial facts. Maybe remove "Notable" from "Notable authors of the project's Mandate for Leadership include ..." Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The notability of the authors and their connection to the project, in my understanding, needs secondary sources to establish that notability. That's why I removed it as WP:Excessive detail. Superb Owl (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy to remove notable soibangla (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

"Authors of the project's Mandate ..." is a set of facts which can be easily verified, and I don't see what that has to do with a person's notability, nor why notability should be a consideration. If this were the plot of a book, we wouldn't worry about secondary sourcing for the plot. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but how many authors contributed to this project? How much of it is their original thinking or with input from the hundreds of 'advisors'? My understanding was that the notability of their contribution and significance of their involvement needed sourcing to establish. If other contintue to disagree, then it's not a very strongly held position and won't object if ultimately it is restored. Superb Owl (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe others could weigh-in here?

(On a related note, I said that secondary sources were needed across at Agenda 47 in the Policy section because that's not a simple, verifiable list of uncontroversial facts: it currently includes extensive interpretation of the content of primary-sourced videos, which is probably WP:OR territory). Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I thought that listing only names wasn't very informative, without crediting their role in the project (e.g. author, editor, contributor). To be informative, names should be associated with their relationship to Trump. I'd also like to know what part was their contribution. rootsmusic (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

anybody else wanna contribute here? soibangla (talk) 22:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I think a list of contributors could be informative, particularly if their roles, form of contribution, and degree of connection to Trump, NAR etc. are included. Better still if the contributors are notable enough to have their own linked pages. It could help dispel persistent assertions that these all have nothing to do with each other. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

One of the more important reasons and benefits of Wikipedia generally requiring secondary sources is to ensure a thing really deserves inclusion. If a thing is not being discussed or listed outside of the Wikiverse, that is strong indication it does not belong here. Marcus Markup (talk) 07:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Addition to discussion of Schedule F

I propose adding the underlined portion to the sentence in lead outlining argument of proponents of Schedule F proposal (sourced from the same article):

In doing so, proponents argue that the change would dismantle what they view as a vast, unaccountable, and mostly liberal government bureaucracy, while critics fear a government filled with Trump loyalists who would be willing to bend or break protocol, or in some cases violate laws, to achieve his goals. Superb Owl (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of adding something like this to the paragraph with the following critiques:

1.) Have a period after "bureaucracy" and then just start a new sentence about critics. It just reads better than a long multi-clause sentence.

2.) "Trump loyalists" should not be included just because A.)it's a charged term and B.)of the discussions we already had in the "trump loyalist" talk page post. P25 itself does not have installing trump loyalists as their plan. It's installing people in-line to the next republican president, and they think that person will be trump. Another user came earlier today and even had issue with the term "loyalist" (without "trump"). I reverted, but I saw his point. Loyalist by itself is a little charged, but acceptable. Trump loyalist, for the purposes of a P25 tenets page, is borderline false imo.

3.) The term "in some cases violate laws" isn't really accurate to the P25 doctrine. Their whole position is that the president legally has the full power of the executive, and the agencies, as part of the exec branch, bend to his/her will. By definition, in that scenario, they explicitly aren't breaking the law. That's their whole position. I'd like to add that this isn't even particularly controversial legally speaking. Any "breaking the law" language is assuming the workers overstep OUT of the executive branch (aka under the presidents control) and into other branches. That isn't part of the P25 plan, so it's therefore essentially speculation. Also, again, its just charged language.

Besides that I'm think a sentence with this idea, but with much more toned-down language is a good idea and I agree with you. Just10A (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

And actually, looking at the page now, it would probably be better just to incorporate this point into the last sentence(s) of the paragraph which is already discussing critics. Just10A (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

'Trump loyalists' refers to what critics fear - completely different from Wikipedia:Voice discussion above.
The proponents argument is also speculation/opinion and so it seems to include the proponents arguments, you should also include the (more prevalent?) and notable criticism. Superb Owl (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The proponent argument is not speculation. It is what the P25 documents and creators maintain, which is the subject of the page. The fact that P25 maintains that it will "dismantle a vast, unaccountable, and mostly liberal government bureaucracy" is not speculation, it is what P25 tenet(s)/position is which, again, is the subject of the page. You can maybe say that also applies to criticisms, but they aren't as much the main subject of the page, and they certainly aren't official positions.

Further, we already have a section sentences later that addresses criticisms. Not every single statement, especially when it explicitly says it's only a proponents POV, has to be immediately countered with a statement saying the opposite. We get posts on this page from (mostly, but certainly not all) good-faith editors all the live-long day about how this page is left-leaning. I have yet to see one say it is too right-leaning. I think we can survive with a single, pretty neutrally-worded sentence describing the proponents views without an immediate "BUT THEYRE WRONG!" in the same sentence. It doesn't look good and will just invite more backlash than we already get. Especially when it's unnecessary due to a criticism section mere sentences later.

Lastly, I disagree with the position that we can just say any statement, no matter how defamatory or incendiary, and as long as we put "critics say" in front, it's ok. I think that clearly isn't the standard, and both the current proponent and critics section in the lede are much more neutrally worded than that.

I have no problem with adding something like the underlined phrase in the already prevalent critics part in the paragraph. In fact, I probably agree with you and support it. But it has to be more in-line with the rest of the language. Just10A (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Two sentences is fine by me, and while we are it, would be great to combine Schedule F + recruitment + training work done by Project 2025 together. Something like:

Asserting that the president has absolute power over the executive branch, Project 2025 has started work to replace tens of thousands of federal civil service workers by recruiting and training potential political appointees. In doing so, proponents argue that the change would dismantle what they view as a vast, unaccountable, and mostly liberal government bureaucracy. Critics fear this effort would create a government of Trump loyalists who would be willing to bend or break protocol, or in some cases violate laws, to achieve his goals.
@Muboshgu, @Kaisershatner and @Esowteric - pinging y'all to let you know that our previous thread may have (inadvertently) spilled into this one.
(and I am not responding to the discussion on NPOV by @Just10AJust10A because I still do not agree or understand the arguments and do not have something to add at this point.) Superb Owl (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I like the wording of this a lot. Only addition I'd have is to maybe work in some of the current language regarding Article II of the constitution and UE theory into the first sentence or so. I think it adds a lot of context and is enjoyable, but that really isn't even contentious so I could just try to work it in myself later. But thats just me. Also, maybe change "Trump Loyalists" to "Republican loyalists?" or "Conservative Loyalists?" I still think that just makes more sense for a P25 page. Other than that, very well made. Just10A (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello all, I also like this update - it leans on factual reporting (p25 wants to replace civil servants) and provides the views of supporters and detractors - reads as a lot more neutral to me. Thank you. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Need to change Trump loyalists to "conservative loyalists" or "Republican loyalists" as suggested by Just10A. What does Just10A mean by "I think it adds a lot of context and is enjoyable" regarding the entire passage? How is it enjoyable? Thanks.--FeralOink (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Please translate into Chinese and Vietnamese

I don't see "project 2025" translated in Chinese or Vietnamese. though I did see Spanish translations of the Project 2025 at other addresses. Please provide this service. Visualeyes108 (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

CPI

Do you include a reference to Conservative Partnership Institutions? I believe they are related. 2603:8000:D500:68D6:3CE2:E468:F164:76CF (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Conservative Partnership Institute, perhaps? Largely Legible Layman (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

"Not to be confused with Agenda 47" tag at top of article

I removed this tag, as I contend it "is a politically motivated attempt to divert attention from this article: I am aware from internet chatter that there is a chorus of chants "P25 is not Trump's plan, A47 is his plan". The message of this tag: don't read about this controversial proposal, go over there and read the other one.

Just10A has restored the tag

what do people think? soibangla (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I just think thats way too deep. People confuse them. In case they're looking for something else, have it there. If not, great. Doesn't hurt. End of analysis. Just10A (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, just to note, I'm not the one who originally added it. It was up and not removed when I originally saw it, so it seemingly is accepted by editors. Just10A (talk) 02:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I removed it 4 hours after it was added

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Project_2025&diff=prev&oldid=1233752186 soibangla (talk) 02:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The question is, is there actual or potential confusion which indicates disambiguation? A quick Google yields the following from USA Today's fact checker, which would indicate the answer to that is "yes": "Project 2025 is an effort by the Heritage Foundation, not Donald Trump | Fact check" Also, a quick Google for "Project 2025 is Trump's plan" shows a significant number of occurrences in social media, in what looks like a disinformation campaign. I think the tag is warranted and would do some of our readers a service... I see no harm in it. Marcus Markup (talk) 02:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Must be deleted according to WP:NPOV. In addition is unnecesary. It seems like an attempt to unlink Trump from the 2025 project with the endorsement of Wikipedia. This is even more controversial considering that the Trump campaign initially said that Project 2025 aligned well with its Agenda 47 proposals. Additionally, there is no evidence that there is a common confusion between the two terms. They don't even have similar names, and little or nothing has been heard of agenda 47 Esterau16 (talk) 04:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually, there is quite a bit of evidence of confusion on-line as to which plan is whose, and a lot of it seems to be deliberate. I'm not sure how you can support such a statement.

It seems like an attempt to unlink Trump from the 2025 project That's one way of looking at it. Another would be, your actions are an admitted attempt to maintain a linkage to Trump the person to this project. From your editing history, you seem to be a WP:SPA with a political axe to grind, quite frankly. Marcus Markup (talk) 09:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The user in question who initially added the tag (Enix150) seems to be a perfectly respectable editor with over 8,000 edits. I don't see any attempt to unlink Trump from the 2025 project with the endorsement of Wikipedia from them, though there are such attempts by interested parties online to either link Trump or conversely to unlink Trump; nor do I see evidence of NPOV in that editor's action. I would agree with Marcus Markup that there is much confusion online. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Does the validity of edits now depend on the number of edits a user has? The user you mention has had 2 blocks. Now where is the evidence that there is a common and widespread confusion between these 2 terms?

It is one thing for some people to ask if project 2025 is authored by Trump and quite another for someone to explicitly ask if the project 2025 is the same as agenda 47.

These 2 terms don't even have the same level of awareness. It is clear that vastly more people have heard the term project 2025 than the term agenda 47, so how would the confusion start in the first place? Also the Project 2025 article mentions at the beginning that it is a project created by the Heritage Foundation. Esterau16 (talk) 11:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

... Their addition of a tag at Agenda 47 pointing to Project 2025 would suggest even-handedness, if we assume good faith. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with these points. I'd say it's pretty objectively reasonable to include with the article at this point. Just10A (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Just10A, I count you and Marcus Markup as in favor of inclusion, me and Esterau16 opposed, and Esowteric as indeterminate. thus I do not see consensus for inclusion. I don't see how an assertion that the two have had a hisotry of past partisan accusations is disqualifying or relevant. btw, who are those two? there are just five of us in this discussion, so I I do not see how you get 4 in favor, 2 opposed[33] soibangla (talk) 00:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@Esowteric explicitly said “I would agree with Marcus Markup that there is much confusion online.” (The basis for the header) That counts me, the original good faith editor Enix150, Marcus, and Esowteric. Further, the debate stopped after the dissenters points were directly addressed and countered, and then there were no responses or objections to those analyses. Just10A (talk) 01:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I also "agree with Marcus Markup that there is much confusion online," but that does not mean I agree with their assessment of how we handle this issue here. Enix150 has been pinged but has not responded. there were no responses or objections within a day of the last edit does not mean the discussion is settled and closed. the matter remains open and self-reversion is recommended, in compliance with BRD, rather than edit warring. soibangla (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I normally would agree, but 1.) The header actually should never have been removed in the first place. It was a good faith edit, and then you correctly made a talk page about it, did not change it. And then hours later, even after the majority voiced support, Esterau changed it back under the guise of it being discussed. 2.) The majority certainly currently seems to support it. The discussion can continue, but it has clearly met the standard to at least remain while it is being discussed, as it has appropriate support. Although, again, the discussion seems to have ended with twice the amount of people supporting it, and the dissenter’s statements addressed with no further objections voiced. Just10A (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

there were no responses or objections within a day of the last edit does not mean the discussion is settled and closed. this is akin to a political candidate rushing to declare victory after preliminary results show him leading but before all the ballots have been counted. the discussion remains open. soibangla (talk) 01:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Just10A The majority certainly currently seems to support it. The discussion can continue, but it has clearly met the standard to at least remain while it is being discussed (bold mine)

I submit that the discussion remains active and that the good faith action would be to self-revert in light of a legitimately reverted edit pursuant to BRD, to allow others an opportunity to participate. soibangla (talk) 02:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

What do you ask of me? The Agenda 47 article has a not to be confused with tag, so I added one to the corresponding article. The fact that there is so much confusion here leads me to believe that the tag was a necessity. Enix150 (talk) 01:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

thank you for your response soibangla (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that was a Keep from me. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 07:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

thank you, I wasn't quite sure soibangla (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree with your assessment of what is objectively reasonable. soibangla (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

For what little my opinion is worth, I agree with @Esterau16 and @Soibangla for now. It's my understanding that Agenda47 was just a bit of flashy marketing to get Trump onto the ticket and since he's gotten there Agenda47 has lain abandoned and almost forgotten. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I see both sides here but have been leaning against inclusion while Agenda 47 article is in its early stages and has received much less media coverage (anyone know how much article quality/notability is supposed to factor into these discussions?) Superb Owl (talk) 02:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I say strong Keep. It is my understanding that Agenda47 is much more than marketing to get Trump onto the ticket, and that it has NOT been abandoned or forgotten. Instead, it is the candidate's official statement of proposed policies.--FeralOink (talk) 12:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the hatnote, the link is in see also. Hatnotes are for things that could be easily confused because they have similar spellings: if they are clearly different terms unlikely to be confused due to similar spelling, there is no likelihood of confusion and no need for a hatnote. Skyerise (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not exclusive to similar spellings. Please see WP:HATNOTERULES. Just10A (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

NPOV

The lede paragraph does not approach WP:NPOV. It is readily apparent that the collective authorship feels strongly negatively about the subject of the article, introducing value judgements and, as above, speculative and lurid writing (e.g., "replace them with loyalists"), vs. a straightforward description of what the subject *claims* to be, followed by analysis and/or reliable source views of same.

Kaisershatner (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Replace with loyalists is used often in many generally reliable sources and you seem to be the first to raise an objection to using the term 'Loyal'. Not sure what a better term would be. If you have more specific issues or suggestions, very happy to dive into them with you and try to find better phrasing Superb Owl (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

As you may imagine, the leading section has received a lot of edits, reversions, talk page discussion and analysis (as shown in the sandbox above) over the last few days, so maybe pull up a chair and have a scan through what's been discussed thus far. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 17:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Your edit, which I reverted, I believe obscures a bit about the project by prioritizing what is "self-described" by the organization rather than what reliable sources have reported about it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Muboshgu, thanks. I'd propose the NPOV approach is generally to report (1) what someone / something says that it is, and (2) what others' opinions are about that. Basically, objectively, "P2025 claims to be X; its critics assert Y, fans claim Z," etc." If we don't start by establishing what it *says* that it is, we are leading with what (many sources) *believe* that it is. Kaisershatner (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I do not like giving up on the idea that there are facts that can be stated in Wikipedia's voice (like the desire by Project 2025 and Trump to appoint loyalists, which seems extremely verifiable) but for now, this might be a workable compromise:
It proposes reclassifying tens of thousands of federal civil service workers as political appointees. In doing so, proponents argue that the change would dismantle what they view as a vast, unaccountable, and mostly liberal government bureaucracy, while critics fear a government filled with Trump loyalists who would be willing to bend or break protocol, or in some cases violate laws, to achieve his goals. Superb Owl (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I could get behind that. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I see that Owl has posted about this in 2 talk posts simultaneously. Please see "Addition to discussion of Schedule F" talk page post to see additional discussion positions. Just10A (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kaisershatner A Christofascist dictatorship wouldn't be all bad. If you read or watch A Handmaid's Tale, there were positive aspects to life in Gilead, at least for the men.

)

Seananony (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello - thanks. "Loyalists" has the connotation of people who put their loyalty over other responsibilities. From a NPOV it is possible to argue the goal of the Project is to remove (Democratic) loyalists in Executive Branch roles who would be an obstacle to achieving the goals of the Administration, correct? I recognize that there are "many" sources that use this, however, NPOV isn't a matter of quantity - it's about objectivity.

In place of "loyalists" I'd advise something more like replacing executive appointees (or whatever the group we are describing is) with "personnel who share the goals of the Administration." Which is literally true, and more neutrally described in contrast to "loyalists."

Kaisershatner (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

And, Esowteric - thanks. I understand and it's not my first highly contentious subject. I will review, however, it is in part the fact that I am more newly arrived that I can see how what I am sure has been a hard-fought consensus here isn't all that NPOV. Respectfully. Kaisershatner (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Kaisershatner, I appreciate that you've been here longer than most. I note that you changed "a collection of conservative and right-wing policy proposals" to a self-described (and let's face it, euphemistic) "along more conservative lines". That probably needs to be part of the discussion here, too. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Esowteric I appreciate the courtesy and constructive engagement. I am amenable to discussing the above as well, of course - short answer is "right-wing" is used pejoratively here, one might similarly object to describing "liberal" views as "left-wing", for example - and we are striving for NPOV. Something more like simply "conservative proposals" is less objectional. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

What about 'conservative and Trumpian' or 'MAGA conservative' ideas? There are many ideas in the plan that people would generally recognize as conservative but also many that have been described as 'stark' or 'right-wing' or 'radical' or 'authoritarian' and we have so far already tried and failed to come up with a single adjective that accurately portrays what the plan says. I do not support using only 'conservative' for that reason as it papers over very real controversy (widely reported and felt across the political spectrum) that occurs in the 1000 pages + actions of Project 2025. (here is a running list of some different descriptors) Superb Owl (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I think "MAGA conservative" works nicely. And I agree that it's probably the best we can do in summarizing the ideology(ies) into a single term (either that or "right-wing," which presents its own issues). This goes for the Schedule F discussion as well along with what was said there. Just10A (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Trump disavows any affiliation with or endorsement of Heritage's framework or battle plan or whatever they call it. That needs to be communicated more clearly, otherwise use of royalists or loyalists is ambiguous. To whom do they hold allegiance, the guy at the Heritage Foundation? Also, Superb Owl just now removed Heritage Foundation from the short article description which is used by Wikidata entity defn and further muddies waters.--FeralOink (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Any official mention of the irony?

Have any major sources pointed out yet how supremely ironic Project 2025's goals are? If successful, Project 2025 will effectively create a very real conservative cabal within the government, just like the imaginary liberal cabal that Project 2025's backers want to eliminate... Largely Legible Layman (talk) 17:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Will look out for that, LLL.

Taking my wiki hat off for a moment and donning my flat cap: self-awareness and a sensitivity toward irony and nuance are sadly lacking in some quarters where they are most needed. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure ironic is the right word. I'd go with hypocritical. Skyerise (talk) 11:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

This is getting close to WP:NOTAFORUM territory. Talk pages are not an opportunity to vent. Marcus Markup (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that, but I think Skyerise and I have been here long enough to have the occasional lapse. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't buy into the "I'm a senior, therefore, I get to have some lapses that a newbie would be reverted for" ethos which is omnipresent on Wikipedia. I am more of the type that thinks that those with more experience should set an example and behave BETTER than newbies, but that's just me. Marcus Markup (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I think that in addition to "Don't bite the newbies" we should also have a "Don't bite the senior editors, either." But that's just me. Skyerise (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I "bite" no one, and am simply citing policy and example. Using talk pages as an opportunity to vent has to be nipped in the bud on articles pertaining to such inflammatory topics, even from (and PARTICULARLY from) editors who should know better. That you disagree is noted. Marcus Markup (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, I could cite a bunch of opinion pieces that say just that, if you like - for improving the article, of course. Skyerise (talk) 13:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

We see comments like this, then comments about how Wikipedia and the article is totally fair and unbiased, and it's quite hilarious to be perfectly honest. Bringjustthefactsplease (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Short description

The latest rendition is Effort to reshape US Federal government and society

Note that a short description is not a definition; it's for disambiguation purposes. See WP:SHORTDESC. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 16:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, the previous short description, Policy proposal by The Heritage Foundation specifically named the foundation. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 16:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we should change it back to the way it was. It is a plan by the Heritage Foundation. They do this every election cycle according to the article. I didn't realize that they had these back when Reagan was president but that's what it says in the article, and I checked. It's accurate. It should have Heritage Foundation in the short description, otherwise it will be confusing.--FeralOink (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

It also says that there is nothing wrong with summarizing/defining it should it meet the other criteria for short-desc. Would love to get it to be precise (though there is still work to do on the lead on this front too, and maybe we should start there).
The Heritage Foundation is coordinating this effort with a group of hundreds of advisers and other organizations. To suggest they alone created it and that it is just a policy proposal and not combined with recruitment and training seems like a missed opportunity. The Mandate for Leadership is not the only part of the project. Superb Owl (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Is it crucial to add ... "and society"? Short descriptions over 40 characters long may be truncated. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 16:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

no it's not crucial if it's too long, but if it's truncated then what is the difference? The most important information is at the front anyway Superb Owl (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh well, leave it as it, then. Sooner or later some "brutalist" editor who scans short descriptions will sort it out. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 16:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

(and it's not meant to be a summary of the leading section). Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 16:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

It is one of a series of Heritage Foundation Project xxxx (every four years) if a GOP party member is elected to the presidency. I think we should change it back to the prior short description. Project 2025 is no different than the one done pre Reagan that is mentioned in the article. I guess that was named Project 1981.--FeralOink (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Esowteric. I think it is too long AND misleading to include "society". Obama said he would "fundamentally change America". This is not the same in professed scope.--FeralOink (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I also agree it should be trimmed. The guideline states it should be no more than 40 characters. Skyerise (talk) 12:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

i also prefer the previous definition!

the current one is very misleading, especially if you are not from the us/not a native speaker Lady Pizzzza (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Effort to reshape US federal government and society It's too long. Editors evidently still don't understand the purpose of the short description. It is supposed to be only used for disambiguation purposes, should be as short as possible, and is absolutely NOT intended to define the subject. "Policy proposal" or something similar would be my recommendation. Two words, wham and done. Marcus Markup (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

That's too short and not clear enough. I would suggest, then, "US conservative policy proposals". Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Esowteric love it 👍 Lady Pizzzza (talk) 13:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

"US conservative policy proposals" sounds good to me too.--FeralOink (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

New Project 2025-related book

Project 2025 architect Kevin Roberts has a book coming out soon, with a foreword by J.D. Vance: Dawn's Early Light: Taking Back Washington to Save America.

Google image search suggests that the original sub-title was "Burning Down Washington to Save America", with a picture of an unlit match on the cover. New Republic confirms this.Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)