Talk:Project 2025/Archive 2

Per Kihara's suggestions the lead would look something like this: Largely Legible Layman (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

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.^[1][2] Established in 2022, the project has been most notable for how it aims to achieve its objectives.^[3] 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.^[4] It also adopts a maximalist version of the unitary executive theory, a disputed interpretation of Article II of the Constitution of the United States,^[5][6] which asserts that the president has absolute power over the executive branch upon inauguration.^[2][7] Critics of Project 2025 have described this as an authoritarian, Christian nationalist plan to turn the United States into an autocracy.^[8] Several experts in law and conservatives have indicated that it would undermine the rule of law and the separation of powers^[9][4] and individual rights and freedoms.^[10] The project's authors also admitted that most of the proposals would require controlling both chambers of congress.^[11] 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.^[12]

Project 2025 envisions widespread changes across the government, particularly economic and social policies and the role of the federal government and its agencies. It proposes dismantling the Departments of Education^[13] and Homeland Security, moving most of their offices and duties to other areas of the federal government. On energy and climate policy, Project 2025 favors fossil fuel production and opposes environmental and climate change regulations.^[9][14] The plan would implement multiple tax cuts as fiscal policy;^[15] it advocates for free banking and effectively abolishing the Federal Reserve,^[16][17] though Project 2025 authors are divided on whether to pursue protectionism.^[18] The plan seeks to position federal priorities and policies in opposition to abortion.^[19][20] On foreign policy, Project 2025 advocates for a national interest−focused approach, with a mix of interventionism and isolationism.^[21]

Paul Dans, the project's director, explained that Project 2025 is "systematically preparing to march into office and bring a new army, aligned, trained, and essentially weaponized conservatives ready to do battle against the deep state."^[22][23] Dans admitted it was "counterintuitive" to recruit so many to join the government to shrink it, but pointed out the need for a future president to "regain control" of the government.^[4] Some conservatives and Republicans also criticized the plan for its stance on climate change and foreign trade. Other critics believe Project 2025 is rhetorical window dressing for what would be four years of personal vengeance at any cost.

Although the project cannot promote a specific presidential candidate due to the Johnson Amendment, many contributors have close ties to Donald Trump and his 2024 campaign.^[6][24] The Washington Post called the project the most detailed articulation of what Trump might do in a second term. While initially the Trump campaign said the project aligned well with their Agenda 47 proposals,^[11] the Project has increasingly annoyed the Trump campaign which has generally avoided specific policy proposals that can be used to criticize him.^[25]

Please explain briefly here, in this thread, what has been changed or omitted from the current incarnation of the lede. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Most of second paragraph has been dropped, because the first paragraph basically already summarizes the second.

The last two sentences of the second paragraph have been combined into the first paragraph.

The top half of the third paragraph was removed per Kihara's objections to the Insurrection Act content.(I dispute Kihara's objection, but I personally lack the evidence to refute it.)

A sentence regarding deportations and capital punishment was also removed because it to is broadly covered by the summary in the first paragraph and looked strange without the previously surrounding content.

I also removed one source, this was not intentional; I'm just sloppy and can't figure out how to put it back. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I think some particular high impact items with substantive elaboration in the body can be specified. Two cabinet level departments being dismantled in and their offices shuffled should be due for lead. Broad-level policy summaries, such as climate change proposals for energy/climate, tax cuts for fiscal policy, disputed protectionism on trade policy, support for free banking on monetary policy, opposition to abortion, and national interest-focused foreign policy. Specific policy prescriptions like criminalizing pornography don't belong, they are dime-a-dozen and it makes little sense to choose one over the other to fill the lead. Content like National Institutes of Health (NIH) would be reformed along conservative principles and "taking partisan control" is obviously redundant and demonstrates nothing to someone who read P1.

I would include below as P2, I believe all of these items are generally reflected in the body as it stands. The only wholly new additions to the lead are foreign policy (old lead only had a couple references to foreign trade/protectionism) and the effective abolition of the Federal reserve via Free banking (Like eliminating DOE/DHS, this is significant enough on its own, probably moreso):

Project 2025 envisions widespread changes across the government, particularly economic and social policies and the role of the federal government and its agencies. It proposes dismantling the Departments of Education and Homeland Security, moving their offices and duties to other areas of the federal government. The plan would implement multiple tax cuts as fiscal policy. It advocates for free banking and effectively abolishing Federal Reserve. Project 2025 authors are divided on whether to pursue protectionism. On energy and climate policy, Project 2025 favors fossil fuel production and opposes environmental and climate change regulations. The plan seeks to position federal priorities and policies in opposition to abortion. On foreign policy, Project 2025 advocates for a national-interest focused approach, with a mix of interventionism and isolationism. KiharaNoukan (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a decent paragraph 2. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

To me, it reads like whitewashing. All hint of dissenting voices and dangers have been removed. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 21:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Half of the first paragraph consists of wikivoice and attributed criticism of Project 2025. WRT the more policy focused criticisms, what if they were moved to P3? I think that fits with the Paul Dans quote, Heritage gives its take on what Project 2025 is about, critics give their take on Project 2025. KiharaNoukan (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Esowteric has a good point, the policies trend towards such generic repugnance when viewed from my perspective that I hadn't noticed the loss of dissent. Kihara's compromise to move dissent to paragraph-3 seems like it could be reasonable though. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Well the point is to give an uncolored view of what the policies actually are. Everything I put in is largely reflective of content that is already in the body (and we can recycle the sources from them too). I think the only departure from language is "effectively abolishing the federal reserve" given the major policy implications of free banking that I use here vs body's "critical of the Federal Reserve". I think the existing criticisms can be added in after the Paul Dans quote. The "some conservatives" works for a transition from Dans: Some conservatives and Republicans also criticized the plan for its stance on climate change and foreign trade. Other critics believe Project 2025 is rhetorical window dressing for what would be four years of personal vengeance at any cost. KiharaNoukan (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

So, you'd keep "climate change" and "foreign trade". But then which of the following deserves keeping in your view? And is that still an "uncolored view" if it's largely one-sided?

Project 2025 envisions widespread changes across the government, particularly economic and social policies and the role of the federal government and its agencies. The plan proposes taking partisan control of the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Commerce, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC), dismantling the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and sharply reducing environmental and climate change regulations to favor fossil fuel production.[10][12] The blueprint seeks to institute tax cuts,[13] though its writers disagree on the wisdom of protectionism.[14] Project 2025 recommends abolishing the Department of Education, whose programs would be either transferred to other agencies, or terminated.[15][16] Funding for climate research would be cut while the National Institutes of Health (NIH) would be reformed along conservative principles.[17][18] The Project urges government to explicitly reject abortion as health care[19][20] and eliminate the Affordable Care Act's coverage of emergency contraception.[21] The Project seeks to infuse the government with elements of Christianity.[9] It proposes criminalizing pornography,[22] removing legal protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity,[22][23] and terminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs,[5][23] as well as affirmative action.[24] Some conservatives and Republicans also criticized the plan for its stance on climate change[25] and foreign trade.[14] Other critics believe Project 2025 is rhetorical window dressing for what would be four years of personal vengeance at any cost.[26] Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 21:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Most of that is still there, just slimmed down. The fossil fuels and regs, Deps of education and homeland security, tax cuts, abortion, just to skim a few are all still in there. I think the issue is that we need to try and describe the thing as a whole in broad terms in the lead, only focusing on things of particular note in attendant sources and saving the itemized breakdown of individual policy proposals for the body of the article. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is far more criticism of the project than there is support for it, and that should be fairly represented in the lede. Christianity, health care, contraception, LGBTQ, DEI: these are "big issues" and "hot topics". Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 21:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, I just think the criticism could be more efficiently applied in some fashion, rather than individually presenting criticism of each and every policy. The lead should be a brief overview of the subject, not an entire article of its own. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, the criticism portions can go into P3.

I think the "Christianity" portion is covered in that P1 "Christian nationalist plan" with what we have in the body right now. The body section on Christians is pretty disjointed from general policies, there's no "on the policies of christianity", the content we have now in the body seems to be some general vague "theme" of it, plus namedropping peoples' ties to various christian groups. There is definitely a twinge of christian influence in some of the policies, so I think it can be added in the lead, preferably with modifications to the body section.

I don't know if contraception is a stand-alone big item outside of abortion, which is mentioned repeatedly. This falls into the consistency problem if singular policy proposals can make it into the lead. The Mandate for Leadership has a couple of items removing emergency contraception from the ACA contraception mandate under HRSA. Applied consistently, the lead will balloon massively with every policy it prescribes under the sun. Just a couple pages down we have items like depowering HHS from issuing public health emergencies, and defunding universal day care in favor of home-based childcare. Both of which are also big ticket items.

The LGBT discrimination law provisions mentioned have similar problems, they're related to a plethora of Title VII reforms, such as eliminating disparate impact as a marker of discrimination (way bigger change than anything else Title VII related) and eliminating OFCCP altogether. Again, consistent application of mentioning this would require Paragraph 2 to be bigger than this entire article.

DEI is more generally spread out and proposed for elimination across various agencies/depts, so that could make sense for inclusion. KiharaNoukan (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you'd proposed removing most of paragraph 3 (judging by the new proposal shown at the start of this thread)? It's hard keeping track of what changes you intend making. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 22:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Personally I think content-wise the lead is just fine as it is but could be a little shorter. The proposal above is merely my trying to engage Kihara's objections in good faith, hopefully without compromising the article. To that end the participation and suggestions of more editors, like yourself, nerd271, soibangla etc. would be welcome. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I like the lead as it stands soibangla (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The lead as it stands mentions items like a ban on porn and some vague NIH reform along conservative principles (as opposed to every other agency)

But not the abolition of the federal reserve.

Aight, I'll see if others have ideas on workshopping the lead. KiharaNoukan (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Most of the stuff is there besides items that are redundant for P1, such as partisan control wording that were a stopgap to address contradictory/wrong/unclear one-liners in a couple of sources.

I mostly based it off of content I saw in body that focused on P2025 policy, following the model of LeadFollowsBody. The wording included. If you think that is colored, then it is colored by the body. I don't think it's "one-sided" to plain-english policies. Stuff like abolishing the federal reserve and 2 exec departments probably falls outside the overton window and their raw descriptions would be off-putting if anything. I tried to cut out individual policies in favor of large-scale policy area descriptors I could find in the body, since the already giant paragraph can easily double without covering every potentially major policy change. (Like I pointed out, this current paragraph contains practically nothing on foreign policy, and doesn't even mention arguably the most impactful change - abolishing the Federal Reserve. Both of these items have substantial coverage in the body too). KiharaNoukan (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

In other words, the following would be omitted from the current paragraph 2:

Project 2025 envisions widespread changes across the government, particularly economic and social policies and the role of the federal government and its agencies. The plan proposes taking partisan control of the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Commerce, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC), dismantling the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and sharply reducing environmental and climate change regulations to favor fossil fuel production.[10][12] The blueprint seeks to institute tax cuts,[13] though its writers disagree on the wisdom of protectionism.[14] Project 2025 recommends abolishing the Department of Education, whose programs would be either transferred to other agencies, or terminated.[15][16] Funding for climate research would be cut while the National Institutes of Health (NIH) would be reformed along conservative principles.[17][18] The Project urges government to explicitly reject abortion as health care[19][20] and eliminate the Affordable Care Act's coverage of emergency contraception.[21] The Project seeks to infuse the government with elements of Christianity.[9] It proposes criminalizing pornography,[22] removing legal protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity,[22][23] and terminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs,[5][23] as well as affirmative action.[24] Some conservatives and Republicans also criticized the plan for its stance on climate change[25] and foreign trade.[14] Other critics believe Project 2025 is rhetorical window dressing for what would be four years of personal vengeance at any cost.[26]

And this would be omitted from the current paragraph 3:

The Washington Post reported that Jeffrey Clark, a contributor to the project and a former official within the DOJ, would advise the future president to immediately deploy the military for domestic law enforcement by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807.[28][29] The Project recommends the arrest, detention, and deportation of undocumented immigrants living in the United States.[30] It promotes capital punishment and the speedy "finality" of those sentences.[31]

Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

P3 is also very disjointed on the weird mishmash of

A WIP?/dead? proposal from Jeffrey Clark

Deportation/immigration policy

& capital punishment policy.

And below that is Paul Dans' bravado re-telling of what we have in P1 with 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 quite sure what this paragraph is for. KiharaNoukan (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

In other earlier threads, Nerd271 wrote "we should remember that since this is a detailed plan for political reform, the introduction cannot possibly be short and still capture the key proposals." Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I concur with Nerd271 soibangla (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

We can probably workshop what key proposals are. I think immigration policies can be a key proposal. I don't know about stuff like a porn ban mentioned in the forward and not really elaborated on and ACA non-coverage of morning after pills amongst other items like a general "pro-fertility"/pro-life policy prescription. There are a gazillion policy proposals, P2/P3 should not be a dumping ground for editors who find something verifiable. For comparison, P2 by itself currently has more characters than the 2 - term policy-descriptor paragraphs (P2/P3) article on George W. Bush's presidency KiharaNoukan (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the Paul Dans quote has to stay somewhere on the page because it's basically a 'straight from the horse's mouth' on what Project 2025 is all about. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I guess with a first sentence of "Project 2025 envisions itself as opposing a "deep state" in the federal bureaucracy. or something similar, it can be the paragraph describing how Heritage views the overarching goal on exec bureaucracy reform. KiharaNoukan (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you could be bold about the changes to the lede, and see what happens? I don't want to hold you up with red tape. I'm surprised that, with over 220,000 views on Friday, this place isn't crawling with experienced editors and subject experts.

One final note: perhaps the main reason I'd like to see keywords in the lede like Christianity, health care, contraception, LGBTQ, DEI is that not only are these "big issues" and "hot topics", but many of our readers just read or skim the lede on many articles before they're off elsewhere. So I'm not super thrilled to have those keywords hidden away behind other vague, mumbling, innocuous-looking grey words that don't automatically trigger a reaction from the reader. But maybe that's just me. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

When implementing, remember to preview the entire article so that there are no cite errors. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Personally this seems pretty good! Most of the hotter topics not mentioned are there in the ToC and this shortening is just plain easier to read. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

One problem: I'm not sure why we emphasize "mixture of isolationism and interventionism". The linked source at VoA and the article text says that it favors considering national interests first and foremost. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I ran through this section and implemented this and a number of other proposals into my bold lead change, ie. mention lgbtq in particular, christianity, although I see it has been reverted back to what it was earlier. KiharaNoukan (talk) 14:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Soibangla Any suggestions? Aaron Liu (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Soibangla, are you looking for more discussion or a !vote (once the latest proposed changes are shown at the top of this thread)? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Or are you looking for an RfC? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 17:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I continue to oppose shortening the lead soibangla (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@KiharaNoukan Could you put your alterations into the big block at the top? I see that you didn't include many of my edits. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Diff available here, the ver here is somewhat different from the block at top, I minimized major alterations to p2/p3, only added to p1, so I don't want to replace top as a reference point just yet. KiharaNoukan (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I've been following this page loosely and I want to say I disagree that the lead should be shortened. I think it does a good job of summarizing the content within the body of the article itself. While reading the proposal, all mentions of lgbtq rights were removed along with immigration plans and mention of restrictions on contraception. This is surprising, as these points are quite important to the project itself. For such a large article, I think the current lead being only four paragraphs is fine as is. BootsED (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I also think the lead is fine as it is. It needs to summarize the article in its entirety. We do not omit whole subtopics just to shorten the lead. Skyerise (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

It was never my intention that information should be omitted or obscured, merely made more concise; though I realize now it may be impossible to do one without causing the other. If it truly cannot be made more concise without losing its value then I say keep the lead long. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

As stated elsewhere above, I am happy with the longer lead as it stands, and less happy to see issues left out of the lead or mentioned only in a minor way. I want readers to get a rich picture from the lead. However, I would not hold up or block progress either way. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

If reference definitions had to be copied to sections further down the page — and several were — then that infers that topics mentioned and referenced in the body of the article had been removed from the lead. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I drafted a revised lede to try and organize it with similar topics grouped together and very slightly trimmed by removing redundancies and more technical terms in four paragraphs that respectively cover:
1) (slightly simpler) overview paragraph
2) Heritage Foundation staff commentary/implementation
3) Proposed changes to federal agencies
4) Policy ideas
User:Superb_Owl/sandbox/Project_2025 Superb Owl (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Yankhill, I think Clark and invoking Insurrection should remain at the end of the second paragraph, as it bookends the evident militaristic tone of the Project's leaders. As it stands now, it's buried deep in the body. soibangla (talk) 23:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Yankhill if you do not defend your removal, I plan to restore it soibangla (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

previously the lead began with:

Project 2025, also known as the Presidential Transition Project, 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 Party candidate win the 2024 presidential election.

and

Heritage president Kevin Roberts said ...

now it has been changed to:

Project 2025, also known as the Presidential Transition Project, is one effort to promote conservative and right-wing policies as well as consolidate executive power should the Republican Party candidate win the 2024 presidential election

and

The president of The Heritage Foundation, which has led this initiative, Kevin Roberts, said ...

• why do we now mention "one effort," alluding to other unspecified efforts, when this article is solely about P25?

• why do we now omit "to reshape the United States federal government," which is the key purpose of P25?

• why do we now omit "from the Heritage Foundation" in the first sentence, in favor of writing "The president of The Heritage Foundation, which has led this initiative, Kevin Roberts, said ..." in the second paragraph, when it's much easier to simply write "Heritage president Kevin Roberts said ..." since we already told readers in the first sentence that P25 is from Heritage?

I find this change mystifying soibangla (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

1) 'reshape the federal government' is redundant when we already mention the policy goals and the goal to 'consolidate executive power'
2) yes, this second paragraph is clunky but the idea is to simplify the first sentence/paragraph by introducing the Heritage Foundation content in the second paragraph Superb Owl (talk) 22:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I really disagree with that reasoning. what do others think? soibangla (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The lead sentence should be restored. Only Project 2025 is the topic of this article. Whether or not there are other efforts, what they are, etc., is outside the scope of this article. And incidentally is not sourced. And we certainly don't put capitalized "The" in front of an organization name. Heritage or Heritage Foundation is sufficient for the context. And why so many clauses? Bad writing! Skyerise (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

How about this? Superb Owl (talk) 00:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

it still omits "to reshape the United States federal government." the reshaping and the consolidation are distinct, not redundant. soibangla (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? Superb Owl (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I can, but I see no need to as it seems quite straightforward to me soibangla (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Reshaping and consolidating may seem redundant on an informal level, but in encyclopedic terms, well, the differences are undeniable. Cheers. DN (talk) 04:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks - I added that phrase back in Superb Owl (talk) 04:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Just a friendly request to review Wikipedia:Civility - it's a political topic and tensions seem to have been running high on the talk page and in some edit comments over the past few months Superb Owl (talk) 03:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this, however, it's not clear what the purpose of this section is for. Seems like something that should be relegated to a personal talk page instead of here. DN (talk) 03:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

it seems the OP is referring specifically to me[ soibangla (talk) 04:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah, in that case lets hat this section since it has nothing to do with the article. Cheers. DN (talk) 04:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Among others - I did not want to post on talk pages because the edits/posts seem borderline as to whether or not they warrant a post in most cases but with all the new editors posting on this topic it seemed helpful to have a reminder here. If the protocol however is to post on user talk pages, I will do that and have no issue with removing this section Superb Owl (talk) 04:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

To my knowledge, personal talk pages are the more appropriate venue, but I do not fault you for trying to help mitigate any possible future unpleasantness. Cheers. DN (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

then again, making specious suggestions of incivility might actually have the unintended effect of raising the room temperature soibangla (talk) 04:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

no sense in fighting fire with fire in either case, but point taken. DN (talk) 06:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The article says Trump disavows Project 2025, but here is his Truth Social statement:

I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it ... I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them.

Contradictions to disavowing are:

1. He disagrees with and thinks ridiculous/abysmal something he "knows nothing about".
2. He wishes them luck with anything they do.

Maybe this is one thing where we don't act as stenographers? Besides that, are we engaging in WP:NOTNEWS coverage before all this truly plays out? Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 21:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Also there is reporting of rebuttals to his 'truth' about Trump's connections to this project. A couple samples: Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 21:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

For now, I just completed his statement. Readers can decide what to make of it. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 03:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

What matters is what reliable sources say:

• Axios: Trump disavows Heritage Foundation's Project 2025, despite MAGA ties
• Financial Times: Donald Trump distances himself from right-wing ‘Project 2025’ policy blueprint
• Reuters: Trump seeks to disavow 'Project 2025' despite ties to conservative group
• Bloomberg: Trump Distances Bid From Second-Term Agenda Pushed by Allies

a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Typically, headlines are written to sell: a headline itself is not a reliable source. Per the content of the article, Trump denied involvement with the Project, but he wished it well, which is simply not how one would understand the use of the word "disavowed" in this context, so I changed it to "denied involvement with" in both places, which more accurately reflects the tone and content of his statements reported in the article. Skyerise (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Skyerise (though I'd note that perhaps what they mean but isn't headline material is "disavowed knowledge of ..."). Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not only the headlines:

• Axios: "Former President Trump on Friday disavowed the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025, which has sparked widespread news coverage about policy plans for a potential second Trump administration."
• FT: "Donald Trump has sought to distance himself from a group of influential right-wing policy wonks who have offered a controversial blueprint for the former Republican president should he secure another four years in the White House."
• Reuters: "The Republican presidential candidate renounced any connection with Project 2025, a plan Democrats have been attacking to highlight what they say is Trump's extreme policy agenda for a second term should he beat President Joe Biden in the Nov. 5 election."
• Bloomberg: "Donald Trump denounced a sweeping policy agenda crafted by some of his closest White House advisers that proposes a massive overhaul of the federal government and stacking agencies with loyalists to the former president."

Per the above RS, he did more than just "denied involvement with", he also criticized them and "denounced" their agenda. "disavow" ("deny any responsibility or support for" per Oxford Languages) is therefore more accurate. I'll revert you. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

If there are several different views for what he did, we need to cover them all and attribute the sources. As it is, the "disavowed" and "denounced" presentations are repeated too many times in the article, without any indication of the range of view or the skeptical reactions in most of those places (lead, captions, etc.) This needs to be correct: there should not be strong assertions in image captions that do not reflect the range of views. Skyerise (talk) 12:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the image should be removed altogether. Then are two things: 1/ what he said (he disavowed) and 3/ what the truth is (he still has strong links with Project 2025). The strong links are already largely discussed everywhere in the article. His recent disavowal is just a small addition. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

No, there's no good reason to remove the image. Skyerise (talk) 12:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Skyerise here. We don't remove an obviously pertinent illustration just because a politician says "I don't know them". And when the sources describe an act with language like move to create distance (Reuters) or sought to distance himself (The Hill), then sticking with "denounce" or "disavow" all the way through would violate NPOV. XOR'easter (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

1. We already have an image of Trump in "Background".

2. Trump's image alone holding campaign rally has nothing to do in "Advisory board and leadership": Trump is not and has never been part of the project's "Advisory board and leadership". Acceptable images here could be: people like Kevin Roberts, Ben Carson, Ken Cuccinelli, Rick Dearborn, or Thomas Gilman (or others) alone or together, with or without Trump (with would be ideal ofc). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

A455bcd9 that is a standard expectation all day, every day, everywhere on Wikipedia, otherwise articles would explode in size and complexity

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Project_2025&diff=prev&oldid=1233111167 soibangla (talk) 11:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

It's MOS:WEASEL. We can find a better wording than "several critics". I don't know for the rest of Wikipedia, but this topic is controversial enough to require more details (even if at the cost of size and complexity). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The Guardian says "several critics." I don't see the issue here. soibangla (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

What the Guardian means by "several critics" is CNN's Alayna Treene's and Economist and Guardian columnist Robert Reich's tweets. We could at least add "such as political commentator Robert Reich" after "several critics". Or just say "Political commentator Robert Reich". Basically, attribute the criticism. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

the Guardian cited two examples among several critics, then I added Steele. if you feel strongly about this, you can edit it as you prefer. that way we wouldn't need to have this discussion. what do others think? soibangla (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Michael Steele is a good example of why "several critics" is problematic: he endorsed Biden. I think the best would be a reliable source that directly criticizes Trump's denial explaining that, of course, he knew about the Project and that he might still implement part of it if elected. Do we have such a source? (I'm sure it exists.) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

please edit the sentence to your liking. I am done here. soibangla (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Done. As said above, I think we could do better with another RS, but for now it's OK... a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Here's a rewritten lede. Should we replace the current lede with this draft? Superb Owl (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it looks pretty good; is there any way to see what it would look like with the info boxes added? Largely Legible Layman (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Done! And feel free to edit in the sandbox Superb Owl (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

So long as this paragraph:

Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts said in July 2024 that "we are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be." Paul Dans, the project's director, said in April 2023 that Project 2025 is "systematically preparing to march into office and bring a new army, [of] aligned, trained, and essentially weaponized conservatives ready to do battle against the deep state." Dans acknowledged it was "counterintuitive" to recruit so many to join the government to shrink it, but pointed out the need for a future president to "regain control" of the government.

Is preserved in either the Advisory board and leadership or Philosophical outlook section I'm still in favor of this new lead so far. Anyone else want to chime in here? Largely Legible Layman (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I tried summarizing it but was on the fence of whether to put those quotes back in given how notable they have been - agree they belong somewhere in the article for sure Superb Owl (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the current lead is good as-is. I appreciate the work you've put into this but I think how it currently appears is based on lots of back and forth, is balanced and covers most of the page. BootsED (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I continue to agree soibangla (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

A lot of consensual work has gone into crafting the leading section as it now stands. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 07:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Consensus: leave as-is and get consensus on individual changes as-needed Superb Owl (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

In the leading section, Superb Owl changed in order to replace them with loyalists more willing to enable the next Republican president's policies.

to:

in order to replace them with Trump loyalists.

@Just10A: changed it back again. Rhododendrites reverted back to Superb Owl's "Trump" version. I reverted them, being tempted to agree with Just10A, and asked to take the matter to the talk page.

Bear in mind that the leading sentence reads: Project 2025[a] 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 win the 2024 presidential election.[3][4].

Yes, the source speaks of "Trump loyalists" but they could well be wrong. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Just seemed like a weird euphemism to talk about "the next Republican president" in a plan that's specific to 2025, as though anyone other than Trump could be in that spot (not to mention that the entire background section makes it clear this is a plan about Trump, written by people connected to Trump, specifically for Trump). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I started a running list of reliable secondary sources that used the phrasing to 'Loyal to Trump' here.

(updated) This project is not a static one, but evolving. It initially may have been open to any Republican candidate, but as Trump became more and more inevitable, coverage has shifted to describing 'Trump Loyalists' instead of 'next republican president'. I think we should follow the coverage, not stay stuck in 2023. Superb Owl (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, yes, but these are coming as a result of Trump denying involvement, to make the partisan case that Trump really does know about the project; to tie him to the project. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

"Project 2025 is clearly mobilizing to find Trump loyalists." is a rather vague statement. But even assuming it's totally correct, they are finding Trump loyalists because they are looking for employees in-line with the next republican president, and they think that person will be Trump, not because the project itself is tasked with finding specifically Trump loyalists from the outset. Just10A (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, I suppose we should look toward Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. And yet part of me is actually siding with the originalists, regarding the Project 2025 Mandate. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean, even then, the sources are saying that the "loyalists" will only be installed in the event of Trump winning the presidency. Thus, inherently meeting the "next republican president" requirement set forth by the actual p25 literature. The sources do not contradict the current wording in any way. The question is, whether or not we should change the wikipedia page that is solely concerned with P25 tenets to reflect a word choice that doesn't even contradict its current state and was almost certainly done just for journalistic convenience. I would say pretty strongly that we shouldn't. Just10A (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm concerned that we may easily become embroiled in what is a propaganda war (being fought by both sides), and that we need to maintain our neutrality (which is already being called into question) and stick to our principles as Wikipedians. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with that outlook. Just10A (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your initial analysis. The sources are referring to the P25 language which speaks of replacing federal workers who are currently presumed to be left-leaning and replacing them with employees more in line with the next republican president. The sources (rightfully) are then taking the fact that the next republican president will likely be Trump, and thus using the "trump loyalists" term (more or less for convenience/less complexity). For an encyclopedic page which is only concerned with the actual tenets of P25, however, the project is very clearly not specific to Trump. Rather, it is for whoever the "next republican president" is even if it is not Trump or even in 2025. At worst, the language should remain the same, but we could add "likely Donald Trump" afterwards. But even then, that seems like unnecessary conjecture for a Wikipedia page. Just10A (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise is over 900 pages, so it's hard for me to quickly determine the legality and constitutionality of each of its proposals. Should we have a new section in Project 2025 specifically for its proposals' legality and constitutionality? Ss0jse (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be really helpful to have reliable sources discussing how likely certain aspects are to be legal.
I started a draft here that anyone can edit Superb Owl (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, although how does a Wikipedia editor determine a source's reputability? Please let me know which articles within the Wikipedia:Project namespace to refer to. Ss0jse (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

See, for example: reliable sources. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 21:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Esowteric. Ss0jse (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Or if that's too advanced, maybe start by reading Help:Getting started. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 21:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Got it. Ss0jse (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not up to Wikipedia to determine the legality or Constitutionality of anything— that's what secondary sources are for. NewkirkPlaza (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

"Secondary sources"? In the context of Wikipedia edits, what does that term mean? Please let me know which articles within the Wikipedia:Project namespace to refer to. Ss0jse (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

If such a determination is not to be made by Wikipedia, then, instead of having quotes (and multiple uses of the phrase "many legal experts") scattered throughout this article, should we have a section that contains such secondary sources' analyses, thus putting all of those analyses into one dedicated section? If so, should we make the new section a sub-section of the "Reactions and responses" section? Ss0jse (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed there are several citation errors in the reference section. After investigating the edit history, it seems that that errors started appeared after this revision: en:Special:Redirect/revision/1233412453

I found it difficult to recover and link the original citation for me. It would be nice if @Superb Owl or someone could help to fix these errors.

Thanks! shuuji3 (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for catching that Superb Owl (talk) 04:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for the quick fix :) shuuji3 (talk) 05:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Many lines describing extreme proposals using heated language are sourced to news sites reporting on the Projects plans? Why is the source not the project itself and what it claims to do? 85.76.118.181 (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The project itself and their mandate are primary sources. Wikipedia instead needs independent, secondary reliable sources that give significant coverage of the subject (whether they are "for", "against", or more neutral). See WP:GOLDENRULE. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

In general, we should ignore the headlines except for the key words and pay closer attention to the body, assuming that the news article comes from a reliable source. As Wikipedia editors, we should then extract as much usable information from them and leave aside the opinions, except when such opinions come from notable persons, such as, in this case, those involved in Project 2025. Nerd271 (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I have seen several Wikipedia discussions over the last couple of years that headlines must be ignored since a) they often do not accurately summarize an article's content b) they are not provided by the journalists, but by their editors. Dimadick (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The aim is to write an article from a neutral point of view, giving due weight to differing viewpoints expressed in the available reliable sources. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

"Why is the source not the project"

Because… that's how Wikipedia works. NewkirkPlaza (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC) NewkirkPlaza (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

And that's a good way to excuse a biased article. Only left-leaning news is talking about this, so all the sources are from left-leaning newspapers like New Republic. Especially some of the language the header uses, like "many legal experts say" when it cites political opinion columns by investigative journalists, is dreadfully misleading. Also, you can use primary sources on Wikipedia if the quotation is direct and descriptive. Just not primary sources alone. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

"Only left-leaning news is talking about this..."

• Heritage.org
• Washington Examiner
• FOX NEWS
• New York Post
• National Review
• OAN
• Wallstreet Journal
• Breitbart "Biden assails Project 2025, a plan to transform government, and Trump’s claim to be unaware of it" July 7th 2024

DN (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

None of these sources are quoted in the article. All the sources are from left-leaning newspapers. Suddenly you pullout these sources when the bias is called out, but the coverage bias is still in the article. Also, every single one of those except the primary source is denying the former president's involvement, and are a reaction to the left-leaning coverage in the news cycle on this issue. To deny my statement, you're pulling out information that would not have existed just three days ago, months into that news cycle. Furthermore, users in other discussions noted that these statements are not newsworthy on the issue, but now that they're convenient, I guess they're suddenly newsworthy again. And yes, quoting a user and spamming unrelated links in response to contradict them, and masking the nature of those links by using text display reads as bad faith. But I'll assume you simply searched the topic in right-wing news and pulled every seemingly relevant article you could find without considering the subject or chronological context. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

"All told, journalist Judd Legum documented how 31 of the 38 people who helped write or edit the project served in some manner in Trump’s administration or transition." Project 2025: inside Trump’s ties to the rightwing policy playbook: Trump has disavowed the manifesto, but his goals for civil service cuts, deportation and more show a shared vision. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry? I'm not sure what that has to do with an incidental coverage slant, and whether the article underutilizes primary sources. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, it illustrates one of the reasons that we don't automatically trust what primary sources have to say about themselves, and illustrates the way that reports and investigative journalism in the so-called "fake media" (secondary sources) may help us discover the actual truth of a matter. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used to give an accurate picture of the topic. Or, for example, it can make sure a quote is accurate. The Op was talking about heated language, and I agree with them there. A quotation should not be made of a primary source from a secondary source in order to make the primary source say something it does not nominally intend. Our job isn't to make sure nobody falls for misrepresentation of intention by the primary source, but that information is presented encyclopedically. There seems to be an overabundance of caution here about what the narrative is, rather than a priority on sharing the facts. In that case, I think readers who come here wanting to learn more about the issue want to know if claims from secondary sources are demonstrably true. It's easy enough to find secondary sources anywhere else, and people come to Wikipedia looking for a brief on the facts. IronMaidenRocks (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

As much as I dislike Republicans, this article is very biased against them, focusing solely on the cons of the plan. Jacobacademy (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jacobacademy: Can you provide sources which treat the subject in a positive manner? I've looked and can't find any. We follow the sources. If nobody is writing positive articles about the plan, then there is nothing positive we can say about it. Skyerise (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise Perhaps, but you could at least try to phrase the info in a neutral manner. A good step to take would be to talk more about the intended effects of the plan more and try to exclude criticism from the summary. I don't know how to edit, I am merely a user concerned about maintaining the neutrality of Wikipedia. Jacobacademy (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jacobacademy: there are quite a few editors collaborating on the article representing both sides. The article represents these editors current consensus as to how to present what the sources say. The sources are almost uniformly critical. We can't just make up praise or whitewash criticism! Skyerise (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise There is nothing wrong with you accurately representing the sources, but you have to have more context. For example, instead of saying that the plan was criticized in a newspaper, you could include the name of the newspaper, writer of the article, and a quote, thus accurately representing the source well remaining impartial. Jacobacademy (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jacobacademy: Feel free to join the discussions above where editors have already been discussing that. They are of different opinions, the article goes back and forth, eventually a consensus emerges. If you look at the history, you will see the article is under active development. If you read the talk page you will see that it is under active discussion. Yet instead of joining those active discussions to lend weight to those who believe as you do, you just come and create a brand-new section to criticize the "current" state of the article. The article you viewed is probably already changed! Skyerise (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise My apologies, I was not aware of that. Thank you for being so patient with me. I'm new to Wikipedia. Jacobacademy (talk) 22:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jacobacademy: No problem. Always best to read the whole talk page before jumping in. I know it's long - but any section that hasn't had a response in 30 days gets archived. So pretty much all the separate discussion sections above are or have recently been active. Skyerise (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)