Talk:Project 2025

Article Exhibits Bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The criticisms are fused into the main body of information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The whole text is biased. And with weak sources.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I second this. This article completely disregards the guidelines that are normally applied to other pages, most specifically biases and twisted interpretations of the material sourced.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Each thing in this article is not covered.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bias? Are you serious?

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

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

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

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

Aaron Liu (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

New DeSmog analysis of funding

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

• The Coors Family: At least $2.7 million to Project 2025 groups since 2020
• Charles G. Koch: At least $9.6 million to Project 2025 groups since 2020
• Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein: At least $13 million to Project 2025 groups since 2020
• The Scaife Family: At least $21.5 million to Project 2025 groups since 2020
• Barre Seid: At least $22.4 million to Project 2025 groups since 2020
• The Bradley Family: At least $52.9 million to Project 2025 groups since 2020

Viriditas (talk) 22:06, 14 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)

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)

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)

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)

Notes

• Zachary Albert, Brandeis University, is an active researcher in this field
• Jane Mayer, journalist who is notable for covering conservative funding networks

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?[5] 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 [6]. 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[7] 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)