Talk:Project 2025/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"Christian nationalism" is unsupported by facts or RS

The mention of "Christian nationalism" in both the eponymous section and the lede are totally unsupported by RS. Most is supposedly sourced to a Politico article which, while making much of purported "connections" between members of the hundred-odd groups involved in Project 2025 and others (many not involved at all with it), completely fails to reveal any evidence that it is in any way influenced by or an attempt to increase "Christian nationalism". The one specific claim in the Politico smear-job—quoting the Mandate for Leadership as contending that "freedom is defined by God, not man"—turns out to be utterly false, as others have noted. The other five sources make for even thinner gruel: The Week and PBS never once refer to the 2025 Project, the Mandate for Leadership, or even Heritage—while Mother Jones and WaPo fail to mention Christianity, let alone "Christian nationalism". And the Bucks County Beacon piece with its "explosive new evidence" is as much of a dud as the Politico piece, with it's only purported link between Project 2025 and Christian nationalism being that one person involved in the former tweeted something nice about another person who writes about the latter. Color me confused—is Project 2025 supposedly a "stealth" plan to implement Christian nationalism—one so secret that not even obviously hostile, left-wing sources can manage to connect them?

Even more important than the lack of RS is the fact that the entire thesis is garbage; a cursory read of the Mandate for Leadership immediately reveals it has nothing to do with "Christian nationalism". The one policy suggestion that could perhaps be seen to be derived from or to advance Christianity (but hardly "Christian nationalism") is a suggested regulation to ensure employees are paid at time-and-a-half rates on Sundays, which is referred to as "the Sabbath". The rest isn't remotely religious, nor does it advocate for any religion. For example, while many may Americans surely oppose abortion because of their own religious views, that opposition is no more evidence of "Christian nationalism" than opposition to the death penalty, or support of programs to support the sick and needy. Is a Buddhist opposed to abortion who advocates their position, or simply votes their conscience, advancing "Christian nationalism"? The Wikivoice statement in the lede—that the 2025 Project "seeks to infuse the government and society with Christian values"—was clearly cribbed from the Politico headline, and is so utterly anodyne as to be meaningless. Our society, along with our entire criminal-law system, Medicaid, our military, and probably most of what the Federal government does could be said to be "infused with Christian values"—so what? And where's the evidence that Project 2025 "seeks to infuse" it further? The second sentence—"Critics have characterized Project 2025 as an authoritarian, Christian nationalist plan to steer the U.S. toward autocracy"—may well be true, but it's even more asinine than the first claim, given that these critics have absolutely no evidence that Project 2025 is "Christian nationalist" by any reasonable definition of that phrase.

The relevant portions of the lede and the entire "Christian nationalism" section should be immediately excised—there's no excuse for our encyclopedia to repeat this kind of patent and politically-motivated misinformation. Imagine an article on, say, the 2024 DNC platform that's little more than a hatchet job and accuses it of trying to "infuse society and government with communism"—because some DNC members have had "connections" to people who have, in other contexts, lent support to ideas which could be seen as "aligned" with socialism. The sad fact is that this article is an utter embarrassment—one which points to a desperate need for us to change how we cover politically charged current events. Until we do, Wikipedia's neutrality, and thus its credibility are in grave danger. Thanks! Ekpyros (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The links are there, for those with eyes. Here's a piece in New Republic talking about Project 2025 advisor Russell Vought who runs the influential conservative think tank the Center for Renewing America and who "lauded" Christian nationalist William Wolfe's work: Trump's Christian Nationalist Friends Have a Horrifying Plan for a Second Term. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

At NPR, we have: Tracing the rise of Christian nationalism, from Trump to the Ala. Supreme Court:

ONISHI: When it comes to government, I think we're seeing the strategy play out in real time. The goal is to institute people at every level of government who will either act as Christians carrying out God's mission on earth, this mission to colonize or take dominion of every part of human society, or to elect and work with those who are going to carry out that mission, whether or not they are doing so as conscious purveyors of God's plans themselves. So when we think about something like Project 2025, the forecasted ideal of the second Trump term, when we think of ...

GROSS: And this is a project of the conservative Heritage Foundation.

ONISHI: ... [T]he goal is to have people in those cogs of the government's machine that will work to colonize this government for God to return it to glory, to make America great again by instituting a very narrow and hardcore vision for a Christian society. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 21:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

And no, you're not going to find any of this spelt out in the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 Mandate, which forms only a part of the subject matter of this Wikipedia article. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 21:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I can't imagine what you could possibly mean by "[t]he links are there, for those with eyes"—are you suggesting that I'm visually impaired or disabled in some way? I've seen and read the links, and commented on them above—including the fact that 4 out of 6 don't even mention Project 2025 and "Christian nationalism".

I'm afraid neither of the two additional articles you've seen fit to cite supports the section in question any better:

• Bradley Onishi is not a WP:RS, and can be cited only for his own opinion, and only if it's WP:DUE and including it is meets WP:NPOV.
• TNR's article accuses the Project only of trying to advance "Christian nationalist-oriented [sic] goals"—which is hardly the same as "Christian nationalism". As per above, "Christian-nationalist-oriented goals" is a meaningless phrase—many of Project 2025's goals could also be considered "sharia-oriented goals" or "Enlightenment-oriented goals". The article, like the entire section in ours, is nothing more than a rehash of the Politico article to which it links—right down to the use of "infuse". This, despite Politico clearly stating that the "documents… do not outline specific Christian nationalist policies."

Like that article, our section comes down to nothing but a guilt-by-association attack on Russell Vought, who again is the head of one of 100 groups involved with Project 2025. Has anyone actually pointed to one single thing he actually contributed to Project 2025—a single "Christian nationalist" sentence, let alone a "goal"? Even more absurd is the inclusion of this William Wolfe character. Why is he included? Supposedly because he has "a close affiliation" with Vought—despite, as far as I can tell, having no documented connection to Project 2025 at all. Has anyone actually pointed to one single thing he actually contributed to Project 2025—a single "Christian nationalist" sentence, let alone a "goal"? Reproducing such a lame and grasping-at-straws smear—in Wikivoice, no less—doesn't even begin to meet minimal encyclopedic standards.

Last but hardly least, what is the rest of this article's "subject matter", exactly? Ekpyros (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Bradley Onishi does seem to be a RS, they're a published and currently employed professor in good standing in a relevent field. Their qualifications are actually rather astonishing in breadth given their age, I see Azusa Pacific University, Oxford University, Institut catholique de Paris, and UCSB. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

A few more sources for y'all: Wisconsin Examiner, Washington Post, WBUR, Boston Review EvergreenFir (talk) 05:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

This section is beyond unreasonable. There might be something to be said about Christian nationalism and Project 2025, but this isn't it. In February 2024, former Christian nationalist Brad Onishi, who now studies religion and extremism, noted that Lance Wallnau of the New Apostolic Reformation, who has said Trump was "anointed",[clarification needed] had recently announced he was partnering with Charlie Kirk, a Project 2025 member. Onishi observed that Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has direct ties to the New Apostolic Reformation. What does this have to do with Project 2025? Nothing. Nothing at all. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the rest of the material, which is about third-party responses to Project 2025, should be moved to the "Reactions and responses" section? Walsh90210 (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree there needs to be a more direct line for some of this section, including around Mike Johnson. Have started adding quotes to the provided citations to clearly show the connection and adding in-line flags when there are clarifications (or deletions) that may be needed. It needs work regardless of where it ends up Superb Owl (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

(update) - addressed my issues with the section with clearer and more reliable sourcing including notable commentary. Details about leadership/notable contributors were removed since, if included, they probably belong in the leadership section and were not supported by a notable enough source. Hoping to keep this subsection focused on policy since it's in the policy section Superb Owl (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

See Also section contains only irrelevant links such as "Liber OZ"

I have attempted to remove these links (in fact, the whole section, as it now stands) multiple times, and another user keeps reverting my changes. Mosi Nuru (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed that they insist that, because Agenda 47 is disambiguated at the top, that it cannot therefore appear in the "See also" section. So tedious. Marcus Markup (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Yup. I'd be fine with just not having a "See Also" section, it's not clear that we need one; but the links we have now are embarrassingly inappropriate. Mosi Nuru (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I also notice that the user in question seems to be obsessively editing the Liber OZ page--he's responsible for 49 of the last 50 edits on this page. Mosi Nuru (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Got rid of two of these (the most "outlying"). @Skyerise: I'm guessing that the human rights entries are there so readers might discover how Project 2025 could infringe on these rights (?) Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. They are entirely relevant. and by the way @Mosi Nuru:, using the word "obsessively" is a personal attack. The plan attacks civil rights in general, in much the same was as they were attacked during the lifetime of the author of Liber OZ. It's also relevant in the wake of Saturday's events, because it specifically asserts the right to tyrannicide. I'm putting it back. Skyerise (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

"The plan attacks civil rights in general, in much the same was as they were attacked during the lifetime of the author of Liber OZ." - by that logic, Liber OZ is an appropriate "see also" on every Wikipedia page involving authoritarian or claimed-to-be-authoritarian-by-someone political leaders and proposals.

"The plan attacks civil righIt's also relevant in the wake of Saturday's events, because it specifically asserts the right to tyrannicide." - again, by that logic, Liber OZ would be an appropriate "see also" on every article dealing with assassination or attempted assassination. Which still wouldn't make it an appropriate "see also" for this article, which is not about the attempted Trump assassination. Mosi Nuru (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mosi Nuru: Well, please don't remove the link until you can show a consensus on this talk page for removal. You are an editor with a total of 155 edits, so I don't think you know all the relevant policies that might allow for its inclusion. Feel free to check my edit count on my contribs page or user page. Calling me obsessive and then not apologizing when I point it out is not the way to get on my good side. Thanks. Skyerise (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright. Thus far, four editors have weighed in: myself, Skyerise, @Esowteric, and @Marcus Markup.

Is that sufficient to define a consensus on this issue? Mosi Nuru (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Human rights inflation is also relevant, because the arguments for restricting certain types of civil rights are in general based on the belief that civil rights actions have gone "too far". So both are relevant. Skyerise (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Has there been a lot of discussion around Human rights with regard to Project 2025? I removed it because I had not seen much but will restore them if the consensus seems to still be towards keeping Superb Owl (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Superb Owl: Well, based on a Google News search, yes. "Project 2025" +"human rights" yields 90,000 results. That does suggest that "human rights" are discussed in numerous sources. Note: it seems that the Google link reverts to "all" when clicked, so select the news tab to see there are still 90,000+ links returned when filtered for news sites. Skyerise (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's keep them then Superb Owl (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Superb Owl: Sounds like a plan! Thanks for engaging in the discussion once I pointed out that it was here. Skyerise (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

At present there are four links under "See also". Agenda 47 (yes, seems relevant, this and P25 are both proposed agendas for a Trump presidency), Human rights (somewhat relevant), Human rights inflation (somewhat relevant), and Liber OZ (spectacularly irrelevant). I see no justification for the inclusion of Liber OZ on this list that would not suggest putting hundreds of other things on the list. See-also lists should not have hundreds of entries. (WP:MOS: "Links in this section should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number.".) Further, if something like Liber OZ is going to be in the list then it should be accompanied by a brief explanation/justification, which is not there at present. (WP:MOS: "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent".) I think an annotation along the lines of "P25 attacks civil rights, and civil rights were also attacked in the lifetime of the author of Liber OZ" would make it obvious to every reader that the link doesn't belong in the "See also" section. Gareth McCaughan (talk) 11:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I now concede that the consensus is against inclusion of that one particular link and have removed it. Of course, consensus can change, so if it does, the link could be restored. Skyerise (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm glad we could reach a consensus on the removal of Liber OZ.

I continue to believe that the entire section as it now stands is best removed--I agree with Gareth McCaughan that human rights and human rights inflation are only "somewhat relevant." The words "human right(s)" at present appear only in the See Also section, and it's not clear why those items specifically deserve a see also and not civil and political rights or conservatism in the United States or hundreds of other articles. The only article that I see as intuitively meriting a See Also is Agenda 47, which has been included by myself and Marcus Markup and which Skyerise has now reverted twice.

But the removal of Liber OZ was by far the most important point. Mosi Nuru (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Please note that the human rights links were described above as "somewhat relevant" and there does not seem to be any consensus here to remove them. Also please note that our manual of style clearly states that links already in the body of the article should not also be listed in 'See also'. Therefore I have removed your additions, which were already linked from the article lead and infobox. Skyerise (talk) 11:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing to the manual of style. I was unfamiliar with that policy, and concede that my additions were appropriately removed.

It remains clear to me that the articles in the See Also section at present are of low relevance, or at least that there is no obvious reason to justify their inclusion vis-a-vis hundreds of other articles.

To wit, the current see alsos:

-Human rights: This could potentially be linked to any article dealing with authoritarianism, and a quick search for those articles shows that this not the practice on Wikipedia. The concept is either linked in the body of the article, or not linked at all, not dropped in a see also section.

-Human rights inflation: This is a stub article, that appears to be only referenced on the following wikipedia articles: Substantive rights, Human rights, Right to Internet access, Economic, social and cultural rights, International human rights instruments... and Project 2025. One of these things is not like the others.

-Southern strategy: This is the most clearly inappropriate at the moment. If we're going to draw comparisons between two policies 60 years apart, that should get more analysis than a "See also."

Because there is a dispute between two editors, I'd appreciate input from any third party editors dropping by. Mosi Nuru (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I would be happy to concede Southern strategy, but it was not my addition. I restored it because it seemed to be relevant at first glance and I knew it hadn't been discussed. Not sure who added it, but perhaps they could speak up and justify it. I do have to say that, in general, comparing usage on other articles doesn't carry much weight in Wikipedia discussions (WP:WHATABOUTISM). Examples of this include WP:ENGVAR, WP:DATEVAR, and WP:REFVAR, which all prohibit trying to match the style in some other article. Article editorial decisions are almost always either made locally, or are made at the level of the involved WikiProjects. Some projects might prefer tightly related links, other projects might allow more loosely related links. I am not aware of any preferences in any of the Project associated with this page though, so arguments should mostly refer to guidelines, not other pages. Skyerise (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2024

Change in the "purpose" line from "support the agenda of Donald Trump" to "support the agenda of the Republican party"

This page cites news articles that state Project 2025 implements "Christian values" yet the articles themselves have absolutely no evidence to back them up. Additionally citation (11) states in the article "The documents obtained by POLITICO do not outline specific Christian nationalist policies".

Add the additional information that presidents have and have always had the power to appoint whomever they chose to positions within their cabinets. Presidents historically specifically choose only the heads of those cabinets due to the logistical errors of replacing hundreds of thousands of workers each election year. Project 2025 does not do anything to change this principal of our government. Project 2025's purpose is to create a list of appointees that are suitable for the appointments for the sole purpose of efficiency of the Republican party. Project 2025 breaks the bureaucracy that has always existed due to the impracticality of replacing employees that are not, but should be elected. JosephiacSherman (talk) 07:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like original research. DN (talk) 07:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: This edit has been contested by Darknipples which makes it ineligible for the edit request process. Please seek consensus. —Sirdog (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Dans steps down

No RS as yet, but chatter across at Twitter/X is that "Paul Dans, the Heritage Foundation official who leads Project 2025, is stepping down amid heightened scrutiny and condemnation of the plan." Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Here you go. Head of Project 2025 Steps Down Following Trump Criticism. Top front digital Wall Street Journal! Novellasyes (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Foundation President Kevin Roberts said in a statement that the policy work Paul's Dans was involved with was always set to conclude after the RNC convention, anyway, but that the work would continue.

"Our collective efforts to build a personnel apparatus for policymakers of all levels—federal, state, and local—will continue," he wrote. Johnsosd (talk) 04:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Project 2025

wikipedia does not understand p2025. Trump's name should not be in there. It's a right wing initiative, but it is not a Trump initiative. Vannan426 (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Vannan426 Project 2025 may not be written or created by Trump himself, but he is certainly related to it. If our sources say Trump is related to the project, that is what Wikipedia focuses on. TheWikiToby (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@TheWikiToby I think that logic is worse than guilt by association. 104.35.207.163 (talk) 11:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Blame the media. Wikipedia has always been an echo chamber for it since 2005. TheWikiToby (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit of an expert on biases, and I must say that this article is an excellent example of Selection Bias. Whatever happened to NPOV? You say blame the media, TheWikiToby, but this article has cherry picked the selected media ... hence ... selection bias. 174.63.101.77 (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Snopes.com has a vastly better article on p2025, not so loaded with bias. It has a much better NPOV. 174.63.101.77 (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

this article is an excellent example of Selection Bias

how so? soibangla (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@174.63.101.77 Then help us. What sources did we miss? TheWikiToby (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@174.63.101.77, yup. We've repeatedly asked for sources: it ain't cherry-pickin' if the sources you think we should include don't exist. So far, despite repeated requests for sources that take a positive view of the subject, no one has been able to provide them. And you know why? Because all the conservative outlets are afraid of Trump being angry at them if they praise it! This is voluntary conservative suppression of their own views. Can't blame liberals for that! Lol! Skyerise (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

According to RS..."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." ...DN (talk) 03:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Copyediting first sentence

I think the current first sentence is too long and it impacts readability, especially for non-native speakers.

Which version do you think is better?

"Project 2025, also known as the 2025 Presidential Transition Project, is a political initiative by the Heritage Foundation, contingent on Donald Trump winning the 2024 presidential election. It aims to promote conservative and right-wing policies to reshape the United States federal government and consolidate executive power."

"Project 2025, also known as the 2025 Presidential Transition Project, is a political initiative by the Heritage Foundation set to commence if Donald Trump wins the 2024 presidential election. [...]

"Project 2025, also known as the 2025 Presidential Transition Project, is a political initiative by the Heritage Foundation that will be activated if Donald Trump wins the 2024 presidential election. [...]

"Project 2025, also known as the 2025 Presidential Transition Project, is a political initiative by the Heritage Foundation in the event of Donald Trump's victory in the 2024 presidential election. [...] Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I much prefer the currently used sentence structure over your suggested modifications.

"Project 2025, also known as the 2025 Presidential Transition Project, is a political initiative by the Heritage Foundation that aims to promote conservative and right-wing policies to reshape the United States federal government and consolidate executive power if Donald Trump wins the 2024 presidential election."

It is not very long, and clearly summarises the contents of this page in an accurate and easily understood manner. David A (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• There have been a number of recent changes (even today) to summarize the first sentence in wikivoice that this is a Donald Trump driven initiative. Do we have sufficient sources to summarize this way in wikivoice? The recent changes add weight to Trump and reduce weight of the Heritage Foundation. Do we have a preponderance of RS to do this? One or two sources is not enough to summarize like this is the first sentence of the lead. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I personally do not mind if we underscore more clearly that this initiative to overturn the democracy of the United States is strongly directly connected to and embraced by Donald Trump. David A (talk) 05:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not asking you if you 'personally mind', I am asking you if there are a preponderance of sources that support this position. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it is important to be WP:Precise that this initiative is not just by the Heritage Foundation but by a variety of partners. The phrasing seems to be an accurate, due weight reflection of the sources in the body Superb Owl (talk) 09:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Too many references to non Project 2025 details

I've run into many examples of details being included that are not about project 2025, but instead about conservative and/or Trump views in general. Mixing in general conservative views with specific Project 2025 views is misleading and can make it harder to understand what actually is in Project 2025. Some examples:

In November 2023, The Washington Post reported that deploying the military for domestic law and immigration enforcement[38] under the Insurrection Act of 1807 would be an "immediate priority" for a second Trump administration. That aspect of the plan was being led by Jeffrey Clark, a contributor to the project and former official in Trump's Department of Justice.[39][41] Clark is a senior fellow at the Center for Renewing America, a Project 2025 partner.[162] The plan reportedly includes directing the DOJ to pursue those Trump considers disloyal or political adversaries. For his alleged acts while working at the DOJ during the end of Trump's term, Clark has become a Trump co-defendant in the Georgia election racketeering prosecution and an unnamed co-conspirator in the federal prosecution of Trump for alleged election obstruction. After the Post story was published, a Heritage spokesman said Project 2025 contains no plans related to the Insurrection Act or targeting of political enemies.[39][163] Only real connection here seems to be Clark was connected to the plan and Project 2025

By June 2024, the American Accountability Foundation, a conservative opposition research organization led by former aide to Republican senators Tom Jones, was researching certain key high-ranking federal civil servants' backgrounds. Called Project Sovereignty 2025, the undertaking received a $100,000 grant from Heritage, with the objective of posting names on a website of 100 people who might oppose Trump's agenda. Announcing the grant in May 2024, Heritage wrote that the research's purpose was "to alert Congress, a conservative administration, and the American people to the presence of anti-American bad actors burrowed into the administrative state and ensure appropriate action is taken". Some found Project Sovereignty 2025 reminiscent of McCarthyism, when many Americans were persecuted and blacklisted as alleged communists.[170][171][172] The Heritage foundation gave an unrelated group a grant, if this was an article about the heritage foundation that may be relevant, doesn't seem relevant to Project 2025 specifically though.

When the Republican Party nominated him for president in 2016, Trump signed a pledge to examine the "public health impact of Internet pornography on youth, families and the American culture". He did not fulfill this promise.[50] But despite the affairs Trump was alleged to have had in 2006 with adult-film actress Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal,[187] Roberts was unconcerned, telling CNN, "We understand our Lord works with imperfect instruments, including us. While on the surface it seems like a contradiction, on the whole, it may make him a more powerful messenger if he embraces it".[50] What trump did or others said about it doesn't tell me anything about project 2025 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.51.12.130 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I mostly disagree with these specific examples but have seen others that needed to be removed (that I removed) so keep them coming if you see them. Here's why I disagree:
1) This is a reference to the secret draft executive orders (1 of 4 pillars of Project 2025)
2) very relevant considering Heritage's work on personnel (2 of 4 pillars of Project 2025) and its role as a convener of organizations
3) It seems to be trying to see how Trump might view this aspect of the plan, which may not be the most important part of the article but do not object to keeping it as it seems relevant given he is the one who would decide much of what gets implemented or not Superb Owl (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Claim that tax changes would increase deficit is not back up by source, and is difficult to prove

The following claim : taken altogether, these proposals are expected to increase the U.S. government deficit.[134] does not appear to be made in the cited source. It's also nearly impossible to anticipate the proposals impact on the deficit. While it is true the proposal would lower income from yearly taxes the proposal also suggests slashing numerous current expenditures and potentially adding a consumption tax, either of which could compensate for the lower income tax. In the hypothetical extreme case of a 95% sales tax being added and the complete removal of all suggested programs the deficit would likely go down. At most we could claim it would lower expected returns from income taxes (if we found a better source that actually claimed that...). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.51.12.130 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Could not verify either - removed it Superb Owl (talk) 06:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Including Vought international?

"Some Project 2025 contributors, including Vought, promote Christian nationalism. Other commentators and news outlets have also linked Project 2025 to Christian nationalism." 65.74.124.121 (talk) 00:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on what you're asking? Just10A (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the article is talking about Russell Vought, not the fictional corporation of The Boys (TV series). 173.219.64.197 (talk) 04:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Correct. It is, but the page never says otherwise? Just10A (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Fact Check

Debunking the Lies

Project 2025 is a plan from

Trump: FALSE

Even liberal USA Today's fact checkers have rated this claim as false. They wrote unambiguously that "Project 2025 is an effort by the Heritage Foundation, not Donald Trump." BrotherMMabe (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

We agree. Have you read our article's opening sentence? Project 2025, also known as the 2025 Presidential Transition Project, is a political initiative published by the Heritage Foundation that aims to promote conservative and right-wing policies to reshape the United States federal government and consolidate executive power if Donald Trump wins the 2024 presidential election. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Is anyone else starting to think that the number of people coming here to complain about this article being wrong could be an indication that it isn't written clearly enough? If people see the article and think it's saying Trump is behind Project 2025, it desperately needs to be rewritten. Oktayey (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The article is completely clear that Trump isn't behind the project imo. The opening statement as seen above states that the Heritage Foundation was the one who published the plan. Although many of Trump's friends and allies are a part of Project 2025, the article mentions multiple times that Trump himself publicly does not support it. TheWikiToby (talk) 01:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You may find the writing clear enough to your eyes, but isn't the proof in the pudding? If people consistently drop by saying the article claims something that it doesn't, wouldn't you agree it isn't clear enough? Oktayey (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see people saying it's not clear enough. I see people saying it doesn't say things they want it to say or shouldn't say things they don't want it to say. soibangla (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

People don't need to say it's unclear if its failure to accurately convey the facts is being demonstrated. It's like an oil slick on a highway: If you see people hitting it and spinning out, you don't need the drivers to tell you about it to know there's a problem. Oktayey (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

No. See my below example about Tim Walz. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

One person misreading an article is an outlier. When multiple people show up all misreading it in the same way, I think we should turn our attention to the article instead of the readers. Oktayey (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

If we're talking about comments like the one that started this section, I don't think these readers are acting in good faith. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Based on their arguments...no. Cheers. DN (talk) 01:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Oktayey, the other day, somebody posted on Talk:Tim Walz that we needed to correct the article because it said Walz fought in the Korean War, which happened before he was born. Our article on Walz says very clearly that his father fought in the Korean War. I'm pretty sure it's not us. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I could support swapping the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs in the lead, if only because the 3rd paragraph is much more succinct and the 2nd is a nightmarishly long list that, if put at the end, readers can skim or skip more easily. I know this has been shot down before but wanted to publicly change my stance on it Superb Owl (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

unitary executive

we write the Supreme Court strengthened in 2020 and 2024

the BBC does not mention SCOTUS and the Hastings paper is from 2020

and if it's not controversial, it's disputed or contentious or challenged soibangla (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

100% agree - just swapped those 2 for 3 better sources and copyedited the text to try and address those notes Superb Owl (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I can expand on some of this.

1.) As already alluded to, what qualifies as "unitary executive theory" varies in terms of scope from more relaxed "weaker" versions vs more intense (and controversial) "stronger" versions. As already described on the unitary executive theory page, these "stronger" interpretations are more controversial, but the weaker versions are not nearly as much. However, the term itself, without qualification, is not necessarily controversial, as reflected by sources. (See "terminology" section of UE page)

2.) Additionally, there is some sources on the UE page that supported Owl's earlier language of having already embraced it as opposed to "likely to endorse" in the future. I'll port them over.

3.) Lastly, the "conservative justices" language makes it sound like the SCOTUS opinions are the justices writing individually or in concurrences/dissents, as opposed to majority court opinions that speak for the Supreme Court as a whole and are binding legal precedent. I'll try to looks and port some more cases/sources over if need be. Just10A (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

in my view, your version tends to obfuscate rather than clarify, complicates more than simplifies, while my version clarifies and simplifies. what do others think?[1] soibangla (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

So, off the bat, I just want to make clear that "my version" isn't the longer drawn out edit. My first choice is actually to keep the sentence exactly as it was until recently. I agree that we're starting to get a little off topic with the sentence, the article is about P25, not UE theory and I think the original version nicely reflected that. So my first choice is actually the original, most simplified version.

Once we open the can of worms by adding stuff however, I mostly don't have a problem with your most recent version. I think it oveall is much more precise. However, if we're going to insist on having a word like "controversial" or "disputed" then we need to also include that SCOTUS has indicated support for it, as without that, we move into having Wikipedia:UndueWeight problems. The Supreme Court is the sole binding authority of interpreting the U.S. Constitution on earth, if we're gonna delve into what people say about it (aka whether a con law theory is "controversial") their view is needed if they've spoken on it. MOS:LAW further mandates that when discussing legal topics, primary sources (aka SCOTUS in this scenario) take precedent. Beyond that though, as long as its included I like your version. Just10A (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

So something like this:

"The Project asserts a disputed interpretation of the unitary executive theory that the Supreme Court has increasingly embraced in narrow opinions, essentially stating that the entire executive branch is under the direct control of the president."

This pretty much entirely includes your most recent version Just10A (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

What single source says "the Supreme Court has increasingly embraced in narrow opinions". I believe you are engaging in synthesis of multiple sources to make a conclusion not stated by any source. Skyerise (talk) 02:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

to me, it insinuates it's only a matter of time before SCOTUS sides with P25, so we can safely assume the P25 interpretation is correct soibangla (talk) 02:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. It is asserting a POV, and thus breaks WP:NPOV. Skyerise (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd say Just10A need to provide a short quotation from one of the cited sources that explicitly states that. Otherwise it's an editorial opinion. Skyerise (talk) 02:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

What? Did you not read the Harvard law review article or Selia case? "Writing for a 5–4 majority on the constitutional question in Seila, Chief Justice Roberts adopted much of the unitary executive theory’s reasoning." Boom. On the exact page of the citation. The only "synthesis" I possibly could be doing is calling 5-4 decisions "narrow" If that's synthesis feel free to put "5-4." Just10A (talk) 03:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

That's only a single case. How does that support "increasingly embraced"? A source would have to lay out multiple opinions over multiple years and show that each one "embraces" the theory more than each previous opinion does, then it would have to clearly state as a conclusion what you want to write: exactly where does the source make that explicit statement? Even if an article seems to you to imply the conclusion, that's not enough: it has to explicitly state the conclusion. If you are not engaged in interpretation and synthesis, it should be easy to find a short quotation that leaves no room for doubt. Skyerise (talk) 03:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

That exact analysis is literally already on the UE page. All you have to do is look to find it. There are multiple cases. Citing them all would be too numerous, so I cited the main one AND a secondary source saying the court has used it. It does state the conclusion. it literally says the court adopted much of UE theory in a case that is still currently binding and has been applied to other subsequent cases. Just10A (talk) 03:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Then why can't you provide a quotation? The fact that the court "adopted much of UE theory in a case" is not at all equivalent to "has increasingly embraced". What source uses that language? Skyerise (talk) 03:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

[Refering to UE theory and SCOTUS] "When the Supreme Court dramatically expanded presidential power yesterday, it continued a trend that's been going in one direction for a long time." Shapiro, Ari (2024-07-02). "Immunity ruling continues a trend of expanding presidential power, scholar says". WFAE 90.7

In addition to the past quotes and everything on the UE theory page as well. Lastly, you do realize the "embraced" language wasn't added by me right? It was added by Superb Owl. Again, you're either arguing something not in dispute or if it is in dispute, it's certainly not exclusive to me. Thus, your "there is consensus" position is clearly erroneous. Just10A (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Further, @Skyerise how can you possibly justify having the sentence in the current state its in? You originally made that edit under the guise of "this was the status quo" version but it's already been shown and explicitly cited that it isn't the case. Again the "status quo" version, which was essentially up for weeks before this, reads: "The Project asserts that the entire executive branch is under direct control of the president under the unitary executive theory." Not what you have currently on the site. Your "status quo" version wasn't on the page at all until yesterday, when the discussions began. If you want to just revert my edits, fine. But, WP:NOCONSENSUS clearly states that additional content be removed until consensus is reached on talk page. Just10A (talk) 03:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The fact that there is a discussion does not entitle you to revert multiple editors who disagree with you. Skyerise (talk) 03:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Cool. Revert me. I already said that. Now, having done that, is the current state of the article in line with WP:NOCONSENSUS, given that theres a talk page discussion going on about it, Yes or No? Just10A (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that there is no consensus. Consensus does not mean that everybody agrees. It means that the majority of editors discussing and editing the article agree. As far as I can tell, there is a clear agreement among every editor but yourself that there is a problem with what you call the status quo and that they have formed a new WP:EDITCONSENSUS against it, which you reverted multiple times and have now been blocked for edit warring for doing that. Skyerise (talk) 03:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

"A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached. When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal." We are currently in the process now. Several of the editors involved still havent even addressed the most recent possible adoptions and or provided alternatives.

This is really getting ridiculous, you're clearly just clinging on to your points trying to be right without actually reading to discuss. Just10A (talk) 03:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Please don't start engaging in personal attacks. Skyerise (talk) 03:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Thats not a personal attack. I'm not tallking about a personal trait or belief, I am speaking about the actions you are currently doing on Wikipedia, and how they are against policy. Not personal at all. Please go back to the subject. Just10A (talk) 03:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Additionally: "When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. " This clearly applies to the situation at hand. I'm sorry, but your actions are in direct violation of policy. Just10A (talk) 03:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

That is also a personal attack. It's a matter of faith on Wikipedia that different reasonable editors may interpret policies and guidelines differently. The fact that you got blocked should suggest to you that your interpretation of 3RR is not accurate, and that your interpretation of other policies and guidelines may be equally flawed. Accusing other editors of "violating" this or that rule is indeed a form of personal attack. You should note that ignore all rules is also a policy. You might also want to read WP:ASPERSIONS. Skyerise (talk) 03:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I never once said you were in violation of good faith. I do not think you are. Your actions are just inadvertently in violation of clear procedure and policy, as I've cited. You've only said in response raising "personal attack" issues without addressing the the content of the policy citations. This isn't WP: Aspersions because that's importantly without evidence and I've cited multiple plain text policy provisions this is against. Again, please get back to the issue at hand. Just10A (talk) 03:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be engaging in WP:IDONTHEARTHAT with respect to the fact that talk page discussion isn't the only way that consensus is formed. I will once again point out WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Afraid it's past my bedtime so perhaps you can continue the discussing the points other editors have brought up. Skyerise (talk) 03:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Why are you refusing to state who makes up your "consensus?" Just10A (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

So, to get back on track, there are 4 editors currently involved. You, me, soibangla, and Superb Owl. The "embraced" text was not added by me, but by Owl, and he has not been able to participate since. Now, knowing that, can you say that there is a consensus and that WP:NOCONSENSUS isnt being violated? Surely not. The "embraced" language can be tweaked, if need be. If there is a consensus over the "embraced" language, please state who is currently with you and against you on that. I'd love to hear it. Just10A (talk) 03:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with soibangla. The version you seem on the verge of edit-warring to establish doesn't seem to have been implemented based on any consensus in this thread. Skyerise (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you may have misread the edit log, because that version is not the "status quo" the changes included in that version were originally made yesterday [2]. The version before that, which has sat substantively unchanged for weeks and is the actual status quo, reads:

"The Project asserts that the entire executive branch is under direct control of the president under the unitary executive theory."

That's the original, status quo version. When it was originally edited, I was working with the other editors to reach a good consensus and suggested we go to the talk page. (I didn't initally see it as I wasn't tagged) regardless, per WP:NOCONSENSUS, disputed additional content is to be removed until consensus is reached. No party has edit warred or violated the 3 reversion rule. As this is now going into a more drawn out discussion, I'll being the sentence back to it's actual status quo state before any recent edits. (unless your definition of "status quo" is an edit barely being up for 24 hrs) I'll keep the sources cited there for now just so we don't have to redo them. Like I said, I assume you just misread the log. No problem. Just10A (talk) 00:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Unitary Executive Theory

Just making a new thread so things don't get cluttered with additional stuff. @Soibangla @Superb Owl

Would you prefer:

"The Project asserts a disputed interpretation of the unitary executive theory that the Supreme Court has increasingly embraced in narrow opinions by a conservative majority, essentially stating that the entire executive branch is under the direct control of the president."?

or should it be tweaked more?

This may be getting a little to long/wordy for a single sentence. I don't think saying the SCOTUS supports it necessarily says "it has to be right" but I think SCOTUS could probably be included. Just10A (talk) 03:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I would like to include SCOTUS, because I think it is important to note that even while a strong unitary executive theory is mostly seen as a bad idea in academia and especially in every other democracy in the world including in our state/local governments, the Supreme Court has been giving more and more executive power under this theory (overturning 2 precedents to do so) and would not be shocking if they continued that trend to enable much of Project 2025 to be enacted through executive power. Superb Owl (talk) 04:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that is out of scope for this article and and would not be shocking if they continued that trend suggests the strong version is a fait accompli. this is speculative CRYSTALBALL because no one has any way to know if and where SCOTUS might draw a line. it should be enough for us to write that the strong interpretation P25 seeks remains disputed without mentioning any SCOTUS leanings and leave it at that. we are not constitutional attorneys, we cannot interpret court decisions, we cannot read the Roberts court, we cannot engage in synthesis and original research to arrive at a desired destination. soibangla (talk) 04:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I might be able to shed some light on this. I agree that some scholars state its controversial and don't necessarily have a problem with including it. The issue is, from a purely legal standpoint, the actions of SCOTUS are explicitly higher tiers of authority than scholars. Scholarly positions are given the title of persuasive authority while court precedent, particularly the Supreme Court in regards to the constitution, are binding authority. So when we say (correctly) call the action "controversial" or "disputed" by scholars, but don't include what SCOTUS has said on the issue, we are including persuasive authority but excluding binding authority, which is exactly backwards.

This is one of the reasons why MOS:LAW dictates using primary sources and giving them more weight more than normal wiki practices.

It's also one of the reasons I earlier called adding to the sentence "opening a can of worms," because per MOS:LAW and WIKI:undue weight policy, we can't really include persuasive authority while ignoring explicitly higher authority. So, if were going to add that some scholars say its controversial, by necessity we are pretty much required to also mention SCOTUS and their actions, especially when secondary sources corroborate that they are supporting UE theory.

I'll try to even out the sentence, or we can just return it to normal. Just10A (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

MOS:LAW applies to articles on legal topics, which this article is not, and it must not be used as a means to conduct POV original research from primary sources related to complex constitution issues in lieu of solid secondary sources. moreover, while SCOTUS has made incremental movement toward what P25 seeks, we have not seen anything resembling a big NYT front page headline of SCOTUS rules presidents are not subject to congressional oversight or judicial review, upending principles of checks and balances, which would really be quite different. it is not a fait accompli, it must not be suggested as such, it is out of scope, at least certainly in the lead. soibangla (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't apply to the article as a whole, but it applies to UE theory and its page that this sentence is linking to, that we are essentially giving a one sentence summary of when applying it to P25. So when discussing the inherent nature of UE theory and its sources, that MOS is relevant. Maybe not necessarily forcefully binding, but clearly relevant.

Again this isn't "in lieu of secondary sources", it is supported by secondary sources already on the page as well as primary ones. SCOTUS has quite literally said "the entire 'executive Power' belongs to the President alone," (not synthesis, cited in both primary and secondary sources) To my knowledge, @Superb Owl also agrees that SCOTUS needs to be mentioned.

Could this work?:

"The Project asserts a disputed interpretation of the unitary executive theory strengthened by the Supreme Court in recent narrow opinions, essentially stating that the entire executive branch is under the direct control of the president."?

I could go either way, again, we could always revert to its old state that doesn't "open the can of worms" at all:

"The Project asserts that the entire executive branch is under direct control of the president under the unitary executive theory." Just10A (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

"essentially stating"

haha soibangla (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you going to substantively participate? Or are you leaving consensus building of the sentence to me and Superb Owl? Just10A (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

yeah, I haven't said anything on this. haha soibangla (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

But you have not proposed any resolutions or made any counterproposals, per WP:CONSBUILD. You need to be "participat[ing] in a good-faith effort to move the discussion forward" in order to not be a spoiler. You are more than welcome to, but need substance. Just10A (talk) 18:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

haha[3] soibangla (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

That was yesterday and prior to this entire talk page discussion post trying to reach consensus. If you're no longer going to substantively contribute, I cannot assist you. Just10A (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I am retracting support for lead inclusion until we can get language in the body that we can bring back to the talk page for discussion. We are not there yet. Superb Owl (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

What still needs to be done? I can probably go and port some stuff over from the UE page and find sources if need be. Just10A (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

These epic threads do not seem productive at this point. What might be more productive is workshopping some language that is more likely to get consensus. I already started on it in the body and welcome you to join me there. Superb Owl (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2024

In this reference there is clear and overwhelming bias. Opinions stated as fact ignore the facts.

For example it states that the project looks to "remove the department of education" without referencing where their responsibilities would then go.

As stated directly by the project

"Improve education by moving control and funding of education from DC bureaucrats directly to parents and state and local governments"

This is a key example of propaganda and intentional misinformation.

Use the projects own stance.. and words even and then provide references to the opposite view.

Misrepresentation of clearly stated views on a simple point like this clearly calls into question the validity of the whole Wikipedia page and indeed all of Wikipedia.

I do not agree with all aims of project 2025. Didn't even know what they were which is why I came to Wikipedia. After reading looked up the best source materials Wikipedia should have referenced directly. And found them very clearly different than how Wikipedia reads.

We have elected representatives in government tasked with specific duties. These responsibilities have been taken away by clear overreach of power by unelected persons. This is clear. Project 2025 clearly states their idea of how to fix this clear over reaching of powers.

Misrepresentation and ignoring the clearly stated original goals and statements shows clear bias to and past the point of propaganda.

Be better. 108.56.219.201 (talk) 11:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also, please note that we care more about what independent sources say about Project 2025 than what Project 2025 says about itself. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 13:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Purpose

It clearly lies and reads “Reshape the U.S. federal government to support the agenda of Donald Trump”. This is completely false. 2600:1700:6326:B010:A52E:754A:A5C4:CD6E (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2024

Donald Trump does NOT support this!!! 71.70.135.89 (talk) 02:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. TheWikiToby (talk) 03:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Reaction and responses contains only criticism

Looking through all of the "reaction and responses" section I found exactly one line that could be seen as showing any kind of positive response for Project 2025, and it's rather weakly phrased: The project likely has a substantial political base of support, due to dissatisfaction with Washington, D.C.,[10] or support for specific right-wing[228] and conservative policy proposals.[5] that 'likely' in particular seems to imply we can't even prove there is support for project 2025 compared to the many cited examples of criticism.

I get Project 2025 is rather controversial, but as written this header, which suggests it includes all reactions but only seems to include negative reactions, implies there was only negative reactions to Project 2025 and no one is supportive of it.

I'd suggest either expanding this section to include more response from republican voices that may have shown support for it and/or we move most of this section into a separate criticism section and have a much smaller reaction/responses section that only includes things that wouldn't fit as mere criticism, such as the hacktivist attack on the heritage foundation.

I would support that Superb Owl (talk) 16:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

include more response from republican voices, such as? I've looked and looked but can't find any, maybe you can. could it be they find P25 poisonous in an election year? I dunno, just askin' questions. soibangla (talk) 16:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, they find it poisonous. Trump disavowed knowledge of it, lol. Carlstak (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you prove that Project 2025 has received any praise? TheWikiToby (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

In 2023, Reuters wrote, "The Florida governor has also embraced Heritage's "Project 2025."" Superb Owl (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

sure, let's add Ron soibangla (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I would have thought that the best place to look for positive coverage of project 2025 would be their own website. THey have a list of them being in the news: https://www.project2025.org/category/news/in-the-news/ Except the first three or so pages are nothing but fact checks and scanning through the earlier stuff I'm not really seeing any endorsements or praise from anyone that isn't already directly associated with project 2025. It's pretty hard to prove a negative, but if even project 2025 failed to find any news advertising them that seems pretty good evidence there hasn't been much support even in the conservative sphere. I did find a poll indicating less then stellar support even amongst conservatives which is probably noteworthy to be added though: https://www.umass.edu/news/article/americans-widely-oppose-project-2025-according-new-umass-amherst-poll — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.51.12.162 (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

New DeSmog analysis of funding

Fassler, Joe (August 14, 2024). "6 Billionaire Fortunes Bankrolling Project 2025". DeSmog. Retrieved August 14, 2024.

The Bradley Family

• $52.9 million to Project 2025 groups since 2020

Barre Seid

• $22.4 million to Project 2025 groups since 2020

The Scaife Family

• $21.5 million to Project 2025 groups since 2020

Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein

• $13 million to Project 2025 groups since 2020

Charles G. Koch

• $9.6 million to Project 2025 groups since 2020

The Coors Family

• $2.7 million to Project 2025 groups since 2020

Re-sorted. Viriditas (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems very relevant to add this information to this page. David A (talk) 07:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

It would be useful to know what the total amount of contributions to the Project were, and total contributors. I am not sure why the source chooses not to provide that information, other than it would perhaps put things into an undesired perspective; a perspective we as an encyclopedia would need to provide (from another source, it seems) in order to use those numbers, due to weight issues. Marcus Markup (talk) 11:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

If some billionaires are actively financing the near complete dismantling of both all remaining United States democracy and environmental protection, that definitely seems relevant to mention, even if further information is desireable, and will likely appear later. David A (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Just mentioning billionaire contributors, without mentioning any other contributors, would clearly be a matter of due weight, and including it with the rationale of "we'll fix it later" does not cut it IMO.Marcus Markup (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

If there are hundreds or thousands of smaller contributors, we obviously cannot mention all of them, and have to focus on the more significant large contributors. David A (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The fact that there ARE (or may be) "hundreds or thousands of smaller contributors" would probably suffice. I am really having a hard time believing you cannot comprehend the issue of the encyclopedia only saying the Project is funded by billionaires. Seriously now. Marcus Markup (talk) 00:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The entire right-wing movement in the US is funded by billionaires on behalf of billionaires. Scaife and Koch have been at this for almost 50 years, Bradley for much longer. There is no issue with saying the Project is funded by billionaires, it most certainly is. And just to anticipate your "both sides do it" reply, liberal funding sources do not create political will and policies from the top down but rather from the bottom up. In other words, the so-called "left" (which is really the center) promotes a democratic agenda based on the grassroots. The right, on the other hand, promotes an anti-democratic agenda based on the will of the 1%, usually owners and titans of industry who want to be free of taxes and regulation. They aren't the same. Viriditas (talk) 02:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Then quantify it in the article. Just going "Oligarch X contributed amount Y" without context (namely, the total amount of all contributions) is useless. The fact that your source chooses not to do so in its article, when it evidently has those numbers, is peculiar, and belies an agenda. Marcus Markup (talk) 02:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

What is this agenda and what is it hoping to achieve? Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant, and enough with the tangents. This is a simple due weight issue. Marcus Markup (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

It’s entirely relevant, as you seem to think that democratic values of transparency are an "agenda". And let’s not also forget the major implications for the IRS and its enforcement arm, which appears to be ignoring this alleged misuse of the charitable education clause. We all know that this money is dark and dirty, and is being used solely for political lobbying, contrary to the nonprofit rules. Am I to understand that in addition to being opposed to democratic values, you’re also against the rule of law? Sounds like you’re promoting a fringe theory. Viriditas (talk) 03:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Viriditas. We should not attempt to hide extremely relevant information about extreme political corruption. The obfuscation is beginning to turn silly here. Let's just add the information. David A (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I second this. Per the DeSmog article, "Of the 110 nonprofits formally supporting Project 2025, almost 50 received major donations from the same six sources of wealth since 2020." These are the primary donors to the project and certainly should be listed. I see no "due weight" issue here. Carlstak (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. This the way that Wikipedia works as far as I am aware. I think that the information can be added now. The attempt to stop this information from going public has used very strange arguments. David A (talk) 13:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Insisting on following Wikipedia's policy on due weight is not a "strange argument" but foundational. Consensus for insertion of the results of this half-assed source's half-assed research has by no means been obtained. They were the ones who chose not to report on contributions in aggregate, like a scholarly source would, but only on a few who were cherry-picked to maximize outrage, and they are the ones who therefore must be treated with caution by works which hold dispassionate objectivity as a value such as Wikipedia. Marcus Markup (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Your allegations are blatantly false. We have books, articles, and journals that indicate that Bradley, Coors, Koch, and Scaife helped establish the funding for the modern conservative movement. Your claim that this is some kind of cherry picking is so far off the mark that it borders on some kind of MAGA-like dissociative fugue state, and should not seriously be entertained by anyone. You can't just ignore reality at your whim and then create a new one that exists only in your head. Sorry, but reality exists outside of yourself. The idea that this is cherry picking is pure fantasy-land. Viriditas (talk) 20:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Please do not use uncivil language, such as insulting other editors or commenting on their mental state. It would be more helpful to focus on establishing phrasing that editors from all points of view agree is supported by the cited sources, or to find more sources that address these concerns by providing the requested context. -- Beland (talk) 06:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Am I to understand that in addition to being opposed to democratic values, you’re also against the rule of law? Sounds like you’re promoting a fringe theory. You are COMPLETELY out-of-line. Please stop. Marcus Markup (talk) 11:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Don't make claims you can't back up. You said that DeSmog had an agenda. I asked what that agenda was. You declined to substantiate your assertion. I then opined that their agenda is transparency, a touchstone of modern democratic values which Bradley, Coors, Koch, and Scaife oppose with their consistent record of anti-democratic funding of autocratic movements in America. That's not out of line, that's history. Viriditas (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

According to our article, DeSmog is an "activist" website. All activists by definition have agendas. What it is, I don't know and I don't really care... THAT they are agenda-driven was my only point. Marcus Markup (talk) 09:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

More of the same from you. That bit about being an "activist" source isn’t supported by the sources in the article. I would go ahead and remove it right now, but I’m enjoying watching you behave like a clown. Viriditas (talk) 09:58, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

How much did individual small contributors contribute vs billionaires? I'd say *if* we found a source clearly spelling out what percentage of the total funding of the project came from these billionaires and that percentage was sufficiently high to be noteworthy then including them would make sense. If their contribution is not significantly higher then the average think tanks and/or we can't find evidence of what percentage the billionaires provided it would potentially be misleading to call out only the billionaires with the implication that they contributed a disproportionately high amount to this think tank. After all we don't list out which billionaires contributed to any other think tank or similar works as far as I know. 144.51.12.162 (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Are there more notable sources that also are reporting on this? Superb Owl (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

It's doubtful. Most of the sources that report on American oligarchs are either already notable and famous and publish in book form, or are warned about committing career suicide, as these foundations will target any journalist or writer who criticizes them. NPR won't even allow criticism of these right-wing foundations or discussions about their funding for various reasons, but primarily because they could lose their funding. Jane Mayer and other notable critics have been the subject of privately-funded smear campaigns allegedly funded by these foundations involving attempts to destroy their careers. According to the UN, more than 1,600 journalists have been murdered or killed since 1993, with hundreds still in prison. Many of these journalists have been targeted for writing about money in politics. Viriditas (talk) 02:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Have these revisions been applied yet? There is no apparent good reason to avoid doing so. David A (talk) 08:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I would agree in abstract. But in practical terms, Superb Owl raises a good point, and it’s frankly good practice. That is to say, if only one source is reporting something, it’s a good idea to try and find a second one to compare, or to figure out why there’s only one. I would suggest a bit more discussion, as much as I would like to add it now. Viriditas (talk) 08:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I also found it mentioned in the following news page: https://www.nationofchange.org/2024/08/14/6-billionaire-fortunes-bankrolling-project-2025/ David A (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

That is not a "news page", although they do try to make it look like one, so I can understand your confusion. Nation of Change is an activist website which, in this case, is simply citing the work of another activist website (namely, DeSmog). Marcus Markup (talk) 12:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, the oligarchy has bought most news media and is actively sueing the rest for anything that goes against their totalitarian interests, so most journalists are likely afraid of and/or forbidden from publishing the information. David A (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Not using an activist source to imply that only billionaires contribute to the Project is a good reason. Marcus Markup (talk) 09:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The only problem with your statement is 1) the source isn’t an "activist" source, nor does any such classificaiton exist in the reliable source evaluation process; and 2) it is well established in the literature that billionaires like the Kochs, Scaifes, and Bradleys are the primary funding architects of the conservative movement, so this isn’t in dispute anywhere. Please take your alternative fact-laden analysis somewhere else. Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. If Wikipedia does not forbid using an official news source, we can usually use it. David A (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

DeSmog is not an 'official news source' but is an agenda-driven website dedicated to fighting climate change. Our article classifies it as "activist". Marcus Markup (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia prohibit using it? David A (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Marcus Markup, you were just informed that "our" article on DeSmog doesn’t say it is "activist, it says that without sources, which means an editor added that word without any evidence. In spite of that, you went ahead and said it again, even after being told that there’s no such thing as an activist source. Furthermore, Marcus, you have just now said that their agenda is dedicated to fighting climate change when previously asked, except the article, again, says no such thing. Viriditas (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I am an educated man and am able to evaluate the source myself, as can anyone else. It is a activist website. That you cannot see that does not surprise me. Marcus Markup (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

You are very misinformed. No sources in the article say or describe it as "activist". That’s a term that was added by another editor without a source and has now been removed. You are welcome to review the link to the original edit on the talk page. Now that’s been settled, I am sure you will find something else to do with your time. DeSmog is an investigative journalism site. There continues to be no such thing as an activist source, that’s just something you and others made up. Finally, if a news organization corrects the record and counters climate change misinformation and disinformation with information, they are not engaging in activism, they are doing the job of journalists. This particular role is called watchdog journalism. It has nothing to do with activism. Viriditas (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

There continues to be no such thing as an activist source If there is such a thing as "activists", when they get together with a stated goal (aka an "agenda") and make a website, and when they curate their content with an eye towards doing their cause justice, their website could then be properly called an "activist source". Go to Google Books... search for "activist media". You will find tons of books, most of them written by left-leaning authors, with "Activist Media" in their titles, and are rather proud of it. Marcus Markup (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Viriditas, Marcus seems to be trolling via relentless completely unreasonable nonsense arguments, and as such be meaningless to argue with. If this type of stonewalling and obfuscation are characteristical of his behaviour, perhaps gathering information for a report might be a good idea? David A (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

David, you are an astute and thoughtful editor. I suggest we try to ignore him (for the most part, but it may be necessary to address him at certain times), and focus on collecting additional sources about funding. I’m currently doing so now. I could use your help. Viriditas (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, I tried to find additional sources earlier, but the story mostly seems to have been intentionally buried or not have been noticed by more mainstream news providers yet. David A (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for working on finding additional sources. I have no objection to including DeSmog's work, I am just insisting that in needs context, as per WP:DUE. DeSmog is selective in what it reports, and does not seem to report anything which does not further their cause. We as an encylopedia are required to do better than that. Marcus Markup (talk) 17:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree. Please give a single example of problematic reporting by DeSmog. Your assertion that they are selective because they implicate the top funders of Project 2025 is irrational and has no basis in what many of us call "reality". The fact is, it is best practice to have multiple sources for just about everything on Wikipedia, and that's a personal rule I try to follow. However, that's not always going to be possible, so that rule cannot always be applied. Viriditas (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I have re-hashed this again and again but will, once more: the case at hand. They are reporting ONLY on billionaire contributions, not even mentioning or implying that there are any other type of contributors. It would evidently be inconvenient for them if they were to mention that there are grass-roots contributors, but they choose not to. That makes them biased an that means their work requires context. It's basic Wikipedia due-weight policy. Marcus Markup (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no such requirement or policy, nor is there any reliable source that supports your contention. Again, you are making things up. These funders created Heritage, funded it, and direct their policy approach. There is nothing unknown or controversial here. You're just making things up out of thin air and expecting other people to believe it. That's not how this works. Viriditas (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

If this type of stonewalling and obfuscation are characteristical of his behaviour, perhaps gathering information for a report might be a good idea? Nice veiled threat. And a report for what? For not agreeing with you and Viriditas? For defending what I think is a proper interpretation of policy? That was out-of-line. Marcus Markup (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep the chatter off this talk page. Take it to the user pages. Viriditas (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I was responding to David's chatter. If David will keep his chatter about me off the talk page, I'll do the same. How about that. Marcus Markup (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Works for me. Viriditas (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment: fine work, Viriditas, on digging deep into the sources of funding. I gave a shot at it myself, and was completely unable to find the amount of contributions in aggregate. That, to me, says a lot about the quality of reporting these days. Because that's what I, as a reader, was looking for when I came to this subject. I actually found it offensive to go to a source and read about how much people were giving, and expecting me to therefore just go 'OMG, big number!' without any perspective on whether the fat cats are giving 1%, 10%, 50%, or 99% of the total. If you, or anyone can find such a number so that it can be include it with the DeSmog's reporting, I would drop this matter like a hot potato. But as it stand, there is pretty much no mention of funding at all in the article, and going "Billionaires!" to me as a reader seemed like rage bait and an insult to my intelligence when I checked out the sources. Marcus Markup (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

We all know that there are both malevolent and amoral poor people and billionaires in this world, but the evil billionaires have enormously greater resources to cause enormous harm to the fundamental structure of society, which makes these extremely large-scale actions far more relevant to spread awareness about.

Also, as I stated above, the oligarchy has bought up most of the formerly free press, in order to hide their own crimes against humanity, gain massive tools of propaganda for their agendas, and play divide and conquer with the population at large, which is one of the most major reasons for the current state of generally uninformative and divisive clickbait journalism. David A (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I have given this some consideration to this source as it pertains to policy, and I think I may have been mis-applying Wikipedia's policy regarding due weight. The "due weight" policy requires that all viewpoints be covered proportionally. However, as I have discovered, there ARE no "viewpoints" about contributions to the Project in aggregate. There ARE no sources reporting on any "grass roots" contributions. Our policy requires proportional coverage, and when there IS no coverage for a thing, the question of proportionality is moot and the due weight policy does not apply. I will no longer object to including this sources research based on issues of due weight. I will however look forward to more solid sourcing, as Viriditas has acknowledged is needed, is working on, and will hopefully obtain. Marcus Markup (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for attempting to be reasonable. It seems like I misjudged you, so I apologise for that. David A (talk) 06:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Sources

• Colorado Times Reporter. Meets the RS guidelines.
  • " Many groups in both coalitions are funded by just a small handful of multi-billion-dollar private family foundations – like the Bradley Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the network of Koch foundations, and more."[4]
• The Lever. Meets RS.
  • Dark Money Just Got Darker: Wall Street Helped Fund Project 2025 (July 2024)
    • "From 2020 to 2022, the Heritage Foundation received around $14 million in donations from donor-advised funds, according to an analysis set to be published by the Institute for Policy Studies, a progressive think tank, and shared exclusively with The Lever. Contributions from these funds made up six percent of the foundation’s total donations and were second only to donations from private foundations such as the Adolph Coors Foundation, the beer titan’s family charity, which is a Heritage donor."
• Mother Jones
  • Isabela Dias, journalist. Work appears in Mother Jones, Washington Post, Slate, the Nation, Pacific Standard, and Texas Observer
    • "In the Bradley Foundation’s 2023 annual report, the organization disclosed donations of...$100,000 to the sprawling MAGA 'nerve center' known as the Conservative Partnership Institute. The Bradley Impact Fund has provided even more funding to CPI. It funneled more than $1 million in donations to CPI between 2020 and 2022. CPI, as the New York Times reported, has become a policy incubator for a potential second Trump term...In 2021, Trump’s Save America PAC donated $1 million to CPI, which, like its spin-off organizations, is involved in the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025—a roadmap for a future Trump administration to overhaul federal agencies and give unprecedented power to the president."

Notes

• Zachary Albert, Brandeis University, is an active researcher in this field
  • "It is worth mentioning that the causal relationship between research producing organizations [Albert is referring to Heritage here] and partisan polarization is a messy one. These "realists" might not only be reacting to polarization but also driving it, making them active participants rather than passive reactionaries. And, in fact, many of these organizations [Heritage] are funded by individuals and groups – the Koch network is the most notorious example – who are also selecting extreme candidates, financing partisan issue campaigns, and generally contributing to increased partisan polarization."[5]
  • "One Heritage scholar, asked which organizations she frequently collaborates with, listed a number of organizations, all on the center or more extreme right of the ideological spectrum: 'I have allies, some of them more centrist and moderate and then others that are also more steadfast ideologically. So I work closely with the Cato Institute, the Mercatus Center, the [Committee] for a Responsible Federal Budget, I would call that a more centrist-moderate group. Americans for Prosperity, the Koch Network. The National Taxpayers Union, the Coalition to Reduce Spending, a number of smaller groups that work in the same issue areas as I do... And we do occasionally have working groups where we meet every couple of weeks or every month when we trying to organize the coalition toward one particular goal and going in one direction.' These collaborations, then, seem to mix research production and policy advocacy..."[6]
• Andy Kroll, investigative reporter for ProPublica
  • "The DeVoses, Bradleys, and Scaifes are among the most prominent donor families in conservative politics...Bradley is also a long-time funder of the Heritage Foundation, which helped architect the wave of voter suppression bills introduced in state legislatures this year, and True the Vote, a conservative group that trains poll watchers and stokes fears of rampant voter fraud in the past."[7]
• Jane Mayer, journalist who is notable for covering conservative funding networks

Trump has denounced this!

Tell the truth! Trump isn't associated with this. 172.117.190.213 (talk) 03:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The article already says that he denounced it. But he is certainly associated with it. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Not neutral

This article should be SUBJECTIVE. This does little to define Project 2025. 2603:8081:1D00:1545:6D16:574:D2CE:30F8 (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you mean "objective"? It is objective. Our article describes what Project 2025 is. In what way(s) is it not? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

If this article is so subjective, how can we make it better? You're not helping us. TheWikiToby (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Tom Jones

"...a former aide to Republican senator Tom Jones" Who is this? Don't know of any senator, R or otherwise, named Tom Jones. There is a Tom Jones in the PA state legislature. Is that who is meant? Venqax (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed soibangla (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Wording errors are not unusual. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

here we go again

I contend the sources for unitary executive in the lead make it abundantly clear the issue relates to exclusive control, rather than direct control. another editor disagrees.

this distinction is important when considering that many have found P25 might lead to autocracy, which might be possible only if the president has exclusive control of the executive branch, which controls the vast majority of federal assets and operations. this is by far the single most important aspect of P25, as it is effectively the seizure of the entire federal government by one man.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Project_2025&diff=prev&oldid=1242626723 soibangla (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

There is some support for both. As the UE theory page highlights, there are different versions, but the vast majority of versions acknowledge that some amount of executive power can be accessed by congress, which would make it not exclusive. Even in instances such as the recent SCOTUS cases where they've said things like: "the entire 'executive Power' belongs to the President alone," they've been sure to also say that, despite the power belonging to the president, other government officials can and do temporarily wield executive power in his stead.

I'm not necessarily married to the "direct" language, but exclusive is misleading in most contexts. Perhaps "according to which the entire executive branch is under the complete control of the president."? Just10A (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I want to make sure I understand you. do you agree that direct and complete are not synonymous, but exclusive and complete are, thus obviating any further need to discuss this?

I do not find historical SCOTUS findings particularly relevant to this article, compared to what P25 now proposes as reported by reliable sources. this article is not about the evolution of unitary executive theory since 1980, that discussion belongs in unitary executive theory. I see you are a law student, but this is not a law school seminar. soibangla (talk) 01:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think any of them are exactly the same, but of course that are all similar. I am totally fine with both "direct" as well as "complete" if that's what you're asking though. Just10A (talk) 02:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

you just recommended complete, which is synonymous with exclusive. previously you removed exclusive in favor of direct, which is not synonymous.

the NYT says exclusive. I don't see what the problem is. I see no further purpose of this discussion, maybe others do. soibangla (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't mean to talk semantics, but exclusive, as the word suggests, implies exclusivity. As in the only person ever wielding executive power is the president, which isn't always the case. I do not think "complete" does as much. I think we are in agreement on "complete" though, so that sounds good to me. Just10A (talk) 02:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I was under the the impression the president already has "direct" control, and P25 pushes towards a more "exclusive" or "comlpete" interpretation. DN (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Mention Trump's disavowal in lede?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's your objection?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It obviously does. It's also bad grammar.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My subsequent behavior was unacceptable, and I apologize.

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

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

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

the lede is not necessarily a timeline

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project 2025 partners employ over 200 former Trump administration officials.

where do you get 1,200?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

your talk page is riddled with disciplinary action

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But censorship clearly isn't the correct answer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"radical political initiative"

@HolyJabronie wishes [8] to change the first sentence, "Project 2025 (also known as the 2025 Presidential Transition Project) is a political initiative... to, Project 2025 (also known as the 2025 Presidential Transition Project) is a radical political initiative.... They've already been reverted twice (by me and @Soibangla) and were directed to find consensus before adding it again, but they did so anyway.[9] Maybe they can discuss why the term "radical" should be added here. TheWikiToby (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

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