Talk:Project 2025

Trump has nothing to do with this 2025, it is rather a Harris campaign lie.

This needs to be removed, and corrected. Trump has stated he wants nothing to do with this ridiculous proj3ct 2025. 172.72.235.7 (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Trump claims not to know who is behind Project 2025. A CNN review found at least 140 people who worked for him are involved – Muboshgu (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

140 out of the 1,200 people who contributed to the plan. If you randomly picked 1,200 conservative think tank people in DC right now, 140 of them would have worked for trump. It's a random co-incidence. Not a smoking gun. NickCT (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

If you're aware of 1,200 people who contributed to Project 2025, I invite you to use that knowledge to augment Draft:List of contributors to Project 2025. Many people have contributed to the plan, but I haven't managed to identify even a third of that number.

As for the relationship with Trump, it's clear that the policy recommendations delineated in the plan did not originate with him. And despite his connections with a number of its participants, and the fact that he has previously adopted policy recommendations from the Heritage Foundation, it has not (as far as I know) received his blessing. Indeed his selection of Linda McMahon, to be co-chair of his transition team, could be interpreted as a preference for the transition plan and policies of the America First Policy Institute.

Trackerwannabe (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The 1,200 number I mentioned comes from CNN. I don't think they call out exactly how those people are.

Do we really need a List of contributors to Project 2025? It that really notable? This whole thing has occuppied too much space already. NickCT (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Re: Number of contributors

I presume you are referencing

“To quantify the scope of the involvement from Trump’s orbit, CNN reviewed online biographies, LinkedIn profiles and news clippings for more than 1,000 people listed on published directories for the 110 organizations on Project 2025’s advisory board, as well as the 200-plus names credited with working on ‘Mandate for Leadership.’”

If so, it seems that you and I are interpreting it differently. I do not assume that all 1,000 people associated with the 110 organizations on Project 2025’s advisory board (and who have publicly available online biographies, LinkedIn profiles, and/or news clippings) are involved, or were involved, with Project 2025. Whatever that number might be, it seems reasonable to me that it would include many of those who are credited with its working on “Mandate for Leadership.” Thus, that article gives me only enough information to surmise that the number of contributors is somewhere in the range of 200 to 1,200. It gives me no reason to reach a more specific number.

Re: Notability

Yes, I do feel that a list of specific contributors is notable. For good and ill, this has become part of the national discourse in the U.S. Rather than leaving people dependent on articles referencing numbers of contributors (with each article typically specifying a subset of names) and their supposed connections to Donald Trump, I would prefer to provide a summary list, allowing folks to draw their own conclusions. I would also like to see (though I am not volunteering to create) articles listing contributors to

• Agenda 47
• America First Policy Institute's America First Transition Project
• The 2024 Republican Party Platform
• The 2024 Democratic Party Platform

In cases where such a list is relatively short, I would be fine including it within an article on the broader topic.

Trackerwannabe (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I mean, I guess if you don't know wheather the 1,200 were involved, then by the same token, you don't know if the 140 linked to Trump were actually involved. NickCT (talk) 02:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The article states pretty clearly that

"at least 140 people who worked in the Trump administration had a hand in Project 2025, a CNN review found, including more than half of the people listed as authors, editors and contributors to 'Mandate for Leadership,' the project’s extensive manifesto for overhauling the executive branch."

I suppose that the accuracy of that review could be questioned but, on what, I don't know.

The authors and contributors are listed clearly (on pages xv–xxiii and xxv–xxxi respectively) in Mandate for Leadership 2025: The Conservative Promise. Some of their roles in the Trump administration are listed right in the publication. Others can be determined with a little research. I don't know, yet, whether or not CNN's figure of 140 is accurate; but there appear to be at least several dozen. What may be more relevant is the fact that (if I counted accurately) 24 of the 40 primary authors had some role in the Trump administration.

Trackerwannabe (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I mean, the criteria CNN used for what "had a hand in Project 2025" means for the 140, is the same one that they applied to the 1,200. So either you accept that it was 140 Trumpers out of 1,200 total people, or you say we don't really know if all of those 140 worked on it, as we don't really know if all of the 1,200 worked on it.

I agree that we can't really know how accurate the figures are, but personally, I'd just take the numbers at face value. It was 140 out 1,200. NickCT (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I wonder where Steve Contorno (the author of the CNN article) came up with the figure of 110 for the number of organizations on Project 2025's advisory board. I count only 54.

Trackerwannabe (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Great question! I'm afraid I'm not interested in this topic enough to dig. NickCT (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

There is nothing to remove. The lead does not say Trump wrote it or that he has endorsed it. The rest is backed up by reliable sources. Try reading those. DN (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

If I wrote a "plan" for how DN is going to conduct an armed take over of wikipedia, would you want it mentioned early or late in discussions of that plan that you didn't endorse it? NickCT (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Depends on the amount of RS to that effect. DN (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

By the way, are there any reliable sources stating that it's a "Harris campaign lie", or is that a fabrication? DN (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Purpose

The intention behind this initiative is not to endorse the agenda or ideologies of Donald Trump; instead, it seeks to support all conservatives whose values resonate with the conservative or classical liberal framework. It is important to clarify that it is inaccurate to suggest that this project exclusively promotes the views of the former president. Furthermore, claiming that it is designed to advance his agenda is misleading, particularly given that he has publicly stated he is not involved with Project 2025. Such assertions may be perceived as tactics used by far-left liberals to instill fear. In fact, his current initiative is Agenda 47, and he is not associated with this project. Matthew4100002 (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Matthew4100002 Just because Trump may not support P25 doesn't mean P25 doesn't support Trump. They are not interchangeable. You should also explain how the 247 reliable sources are wrong about how Trump isn't associated with P25. TheWikiToby (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, then Move Trumps official disavowment, but maybe an indirect affiliation with, Project 2025 to the first paragraph. Matthew4100002 (talk) 01:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I would consider moving what is currently in the third paragraph...

• "The project's controversial proposals led Trump and his campaign to distance themselves from the project in 2024, saying he knew "nothing about it" and that "some of the things [Project 2025 says] are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal"

...to end of the first paragraph, if there is a consensus. I think it may help improve clarity for readers that don't read much past that, and assume it isn't mentioned. DN (talk) 02:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Matthew4100002 (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

this was discussed at length at least once before and the consensus was keeping the status quo. The Roberts quote, especially, calls into question the sincerity of Trump's denial. P25 was and still is getting very bad press, and I surmise this is why some insist the Trump denial be placed right up top. soibangla (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

If there is already consensus for the current form, then it seems a moot point. DN (talk) 23:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The 247 unreliable sources are from political opinions from MSNBC. Matthew4100002 (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

That's a start. Which ones in particular? DN (talk) 01:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Opinion pieces typically don't make for quality RS although exceptions do exist, that said, MSNBC is still considered generally reliable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

Cheers. DN (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Fox News is also on this list. Matthew4100002 (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

See WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS...Their opinion pieces are considered generally unreliable for politics...This change was made after the Dominion lawsuit, I believe. DN (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

there are 247 MSNBC citations? soibangla (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Could you also be more succinct and specific as to what policy issues you perceive there to be and how your previous edits [1] [2] address those issues? For example, you say that "it is inaccurate to suggest that this project exclusively promotes the views of the former president", which might be interpreted as a WP:NPOV issue or an WP:OR issue, but without pointing to the specific context, we have no point of reference. DN (talk) 01:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

DAVID MARCUS: Project 2025 lies make it to Hershey before the truth can get its pants on | Fox News Matthew4100002 (talk) 01:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The statement appears to be in line with WP:NPOV. While there are numerous references available, it seems that some may not be fully represented by Wikipedia editors. Matthew4100002 (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

You are referring to this? https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/david-marcus-democrat-media-lies-about-project-2025-inundating-country DN (talk) 02:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Marcus is a Fox News opinion columnist. Are you aware of WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS? soibangla (talk) 02:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Why locked page to editing

this is a one sided anti profect2025 bias view. Why is Wiki letting this page stand? I dont care but i was trying to read about it with open eyes. But, is the anti version. 189.202.144.130 (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree. I am neither republican nor a Trump fan, but I am sick of only reading extremely biased and intentionally provoking news from either side.

I was hoping Wikipedia would be a respite from the crazed polarization we have in politics, and just present a factual article, CITING THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT as its source for each claim.

Instead, every single source is an extremely biased and anti-project article.

I'm honestly so disheartened that we can't even get non-partisanship on Wikipedia anymore :'( 2604:2D80:EC89:B600:386C:11E4:68AD:7674 (talk) 05:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

"CITING THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT" We can't do that. Wikipedia avoids using primary sources. We can quote what others say about Project 2025, not what Project 2025 says about itself. Dimadick (talk) 06:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

This is extremely bias

This needs to mention immediately that Project 2025 is part of the Mandate series, and has been around since 1981. It also needs to immediately mention that this has been used for the Regan and Bush administrations as well. This is incredibly one sided and shameful from Wikipedia. 200.118.240.4 (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I see eight references (exclusive of footnotes) to the Mandate for Leadership in the article, half of which have a link to its Wikipedia page. Were you referring to something else?

Trackerwannabe (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

It needs to be stated immediately in the first paragraph, not buried in the text. It’s the 9th edition to the Series. The BMW M3 Wikipedia page states this at the top::::

“The BMW M3 is a high-performance version of the BMW 3 Series, developed by BMW's in-house motorsport division, BMW M GmbH. M3 models have been produced for every generation of 3 Series since the E30 M3 was introduced in 1986.”

Linking the series in which Project 2025 is apart of follows a uniform layout that other pages on Wikipedia also follow.

as it is right now, this page is not uniform among other pages and leaves out key details that are relevant in the first paragraph. 200.118.240.4 (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

What if the first sentence were altered to read something like the following?

Project 2025 (also known as the 2025 Presidential Transition Project, as well as Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise), the ninth in a series of such policy proposals, is a political initiative published by the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation in 2023.

Would that adequately address your concerns?

Trackerwannabe (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes this is better. It should also include the date in which these books began getting published (1981) but I will take this at least. Also, someone blocked my IP address, no idea why.

For context, if people are being told by presidential candidates to "Google Project 2025" they are already rolling into this page with a skewed perception, so when things like "The project also seeks to infuse the government and society with conservative Christian values. Critics have characterized Project 2025 as an authoritarian, Christian nationalist plan to steer the U.S. toward autocracy." It not only steers that perception further away from the reality, but it misleads readers around the fact that the framework for this was built in the late 1970s, when Christianity was a prominent thing at the time. MrCommonSenz (talk) 12:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC) — MrCommonSenz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Perhaps you can come up with some reliable sources supporting the idea that there is a direct line from previous versions of Mandate for Leadership and the current one (and refuting the notion that this version represents a radical departure from previous ones), and write a section on that relationship. While it looks like you are not yet a extended confirmed user, you could ask someone else to do the edits on your behalf. If well-written and well-sourced, I expect there would be a fair likelihood of those edits being accepted.

Trackerwannabe (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

As said above, Mandate for Leadership has a separate article you can read yourself. It's even linked in the infobox and happens to be in the first sentence in P25's background section. TheWikiToby (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

No one clicks the info box. Hyper link the mandate series in the first paragraph, in blue lettering, and mention the date of 1981. This follow a uniform pattern on many Wikipedia pages.

Here is a list of liberal “Project 2025s” also not on Wikipedia.

Why don’t we add all of these as well?

**Change for America: A Progressive Blueprint for the 44th President (2009)**: A guide for the Obama administration, focusing on progressive reforms.

- **The Progressive Blueprint for 2012 (2011)**: Policy recommendations for Obama’s second term, including healthcare and social justice reforms.

- **Medicare Extra for All (2018)**: A public health insurance proposal.

- **Blueprint for the 21st Century (2018)**: Large-scale public investments to reduce inequality.

- **A Progressive Agenda for the States (2017)**: A framework for progressive state policies.

- **The Blueprint for Stronger Social Security (2016)**: Expanding Social Security benefits.

- **The Blueprint for Tax Reform (2016)**: Proposals for tax reform.

- **The Climate 2020 Plan (2015)**: A strategy for combating climate change.

- **Our Homes, Our Voices: The Blueprint for Housing Justice (2018)**: Addressing the housing crisis.

- **The Race Equity and Justice Initiative (2020)**: Systemic racism reforms post-2020. 200.118.240.4 (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

In response to the nonexistent "liberal Project 25's" there's nothing stopping you from making those articles yourself. As long as you have a multitude of reliable sources with a neutral, non-partisan tone, you can submit it for review at AFC for publication.

In response to "no one clicking the infoboxes".... you sure? If you're missing context from the article, isn't it the reader's responsibility to actually... read the article... plus the infoboxes? TheWikiToby (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

How about instead of arguing about it just highlight the mandate series in blue at the top of the page, like every other page does on Wikipedia? 200.118.240.4 (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

This guy is right, and the others are promoting propaganda. Matthew4100002 (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Neutral, non partisan tone? The first source for this page is titled "Project 2025 Has a Radical Agenda for Trump. He Has Other Plans"

sounds real partisan and neutral huh? This is propaganda. 200.118.240.4 (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

"Project 2025 Has a Radical Agenda for Trump. He Has Other Plans" was published by The Wall Street Journal, a newspaper owned by the Murdochs. If you want to claim that WSJ has a liberal bias, that would be a first. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay? Ignoring the fact that the Wall Street Journal is right leaning, that specific citation is used to cite the date of P25's creation. There is nothing partisan about that. TheWikiToby (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

this has come up before and it's been settled before

the infobox and the body make it abundantly clear P25 is the 2023 edition of the Mandate, and that's perfectly appropriate in structuring the article that contains lots of new information that needs to be prioritized, particularly because this Mandate edition is considerably more controversial than its predecessors. after all, Trump disavowed it and there aren't a whole lot of conservatives rushing to support it, right? this Mandate is different soibangla (talk) 03:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

"particularly because this Mandate edition is considerably more controversial than its predecessors". This statement is false. It was much conservative in the 80s and 90s than it is now. Consider the fact that these are policy frameworks that adjust over time based on public need and perception.

"Trump disavowed it and there aren't a whole lot of conservatives rushing to support it, right?" True, so why not include this in the top paragraph as well, so readers are not jumping on this page assuming it is endorsed by Trump as Walz and Harris are currently suggesting. MrCommonSenz (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC) — MrCommonSenz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

do you have a source for "It was much conservative in the 80s and 90s than it is now?" soibangla (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

https://www.amazon.com/Mandate-Leadership-Management-Conservative-Administration/dp/0891950281

Do you have a source for "particularly because this Mandate edition is considerably more controversial than its predecessors" MrCommonSenz (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@MrCommonSenz First of all, that looks like a primary source, which is not especially helpful. Secondly, the WP:BURDEN is on you, the one who wants change, to provide the sources, not us who want to keep the status quo. TheWikiToby (talk) 23:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

So whoever astroturfs a page first is not held to the same standard as someone who may have to refute misleading or false information possibly intended to distort perception and skew public sentiment? Interesting.

Thanks for the insight on primary sources. I think what you mean is a primary source has the potential to be distorted as there may not be a witness or additional information to substantiate such a source as prestigious as the primary. If I claim I saw a ghost, I am the primary source, but if no one else saw the ghost how useful am I really as a primary source, right? Unfortunately for your argument in this case, a primary source should be the only citation used in the content shared here as a secondary source, especially around a document being heavily politicized and campaigned on by a presidential candidate. While also not forgetting that the topic at hand, is a tangible thing that can be read, touched, smelled, and most importantly, lead us to a conclusion of reality unlike the ghost, which is always distorted based on that specific individual which we deem to be whatever type of source they are.

Using common sense, it is nearly impossible to take a secondary source, let alone anonymous users on the internet, to act in good faith when attempting to provide information that may be consciously or unconsciously skewed by that individual's bias, leading to a projection upon millions of unaware readers that instead of catching the other person's cold, they just caught their bias.

The layman's version of what I am saying here is if you claim to be a car guru, and you know the car you just test drove has 345 horsepower based on your self proclaimed car knowledge, does that make you the primary or secondary source? The answer is neither. The car, being a tangible object you can measure and see is the primary source. The secondary source is the engineer who built the car. The tertiary source, is you, the car guru.

Applying the traditional tertiary methodology in cases like this, especially when they are polarizing is a slippery slope due to the likelihood of falling into an abyss of human error. This human error is what we would call groupthink or confirmation bias, not good.

For example, just because 8/10 secondary sources agree, does not substantiate the formation of a tertiary source used for reinforcement. Because well, human bias/error. Anyways sense you got me going on this, and since Heritage seems to be useless at correcting the contributions being shared here, as it is obvious they are not in good faith and clearly skewed by some type of bias, I will be the good samaritan of the night and clean this up. Hang tight. MrCommonSenz (talk) 07:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, you mentioned the status quo. The status quo is Heritage competes with The Center For American Progress every election cycle, Republicans vs Liberals. They each bring their own value propositions, Heritage has the Mandate books, and CAP has the Blueprint to the 21st Century. CAPs blueprint advocates for universal healthcare, open borders, abolishing ICE, and encourages a streamlined path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. It could be equated to just as radical as the Project 2025 chapter in Mandate.

But after 20 years of this tacit agreement amongst the two groups, and not attempting to fear monger on some of the radical donor initiated requests in each book, it seems CAP decided to go low and pull the plug on how these Think Tanks operate with each other, which was always respectful and professional until now, and only after CAP cherry picked a couple pages out of a 1,000 page text to campaign on.

It reminds me when race relations in the US were at their best, and hate crimes were at their lowest in decades, when suddenly CAP leveraged their media arms to drum up the BLM movement and without evidence supporting a trend of systemic oppression or disproportionate police brutality amongst Blacks in the US, decided to put this very controversial and polarizing issue that MLK and Lincoln lost their lives over front and center yet again. Essentially starting us all over again.

Anyways okay I will get to work on this page, and might just create a Wiki page for CAPs Blueprint later. MrCommonSenz (talk) 08:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

See WP:STATISTA.

Cheers. DN (talk) 08:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@200.118.240.4 @Trackerwannabe In response to this IP user's concerns, which I found to be reasonable, I added a short sentence to the lead mentioning the connection to the long running Mandate for Leadership series. I thought it would be an uncontroversial change to reference the series, but please review it and give me feedback! CVDX (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@CVDX I think your edit is an improvement. In addition to the contextual information you added, I like that you chose to break the first paragraph in two.

My issues (or at least confusion) pertain only to text that was present prior to your edit.

I don't know whether or not the initial version was predicated on the assumption "that Donald Trump [win] the 2024 presidential election." (Though it seems clear that, in its present form, it is.) The fact that the phrase "the next conservative president" occurs 28 times in the document, especially given that it was unclear until 2024 that Trump would be the Republican nominee, leads me to believe that it was not.

My other issue/confusion relates to the 2022 being given as when the initiative was published. (The copyright date of the document is 2023.) I see that the infobox states the project was established April 21, 2022. As a number of us (including me) have no access to the WSJ used for the associated citation, it would be nice to have a short relevant quote in that citation.

Trackerwannabe (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to change first sentence of second paragraph for clarity

The first sentence of second paragraph of this article currently states:

The project asserts a controversial interpretation of the unitary executive theory, according to which the entire executive branch is under the complete control of the president.

I suggest the following for clarity:

The project’s suggestions for the executive branch include an expansive interpretation of the controversial unitary executive theory, according to which the entire executive branch is under the complete control of the president.

The reason this would improve clarity is because controversial modifies unitary executive theory rather than the interpretation of unitary executive theory. In other words, there is no uncontroversial interpretation of unitary executive theory and the proposed language better reflects that.

The suggested edit was reverted so this is a proposal/request for consensus. I am a Leaf (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

This was already the source of multiple talk page discussions that decided on the current sentence. Long story short, "unitary executive theory" describes a range of views, some call them "weak" vs "strong" versions of the theory. However, more restrictive versions of UE theory (aka "weak) are not particularly controversial. The more expansive interpretations (aka "strong") are the ones that draw controversy.

You can read more about this on the actual unitary executive theory page. Academic scholars have made statements such as: "No one denies that in some sense the framers created a unitary executive; the question is in what sense."

So it is more of the interpretations that are controversial than the entire theory itself necessarily. Hence the current language that the talk previously agreed upon. Just10A (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The unitary executive page is largely dubious and outdated (with grievances I will take to those talk pages). The idea of a "weak" unitary executive makes the "unitary" aspect entirely superfluous. Perhaps this will take longer than expected. Thank you for the summary. I am a Leaf (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

"Purpose" is misleading, and clearly false

This is not a forum EvergreenFir (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Purpose: Reshape the U.S. federal government to support the agenda and ideologies of Donald Trump" FACT CHECK: FALSE Project 2025 is meant to help transition any conservative president into the White House as the endeavor is extensive. As a reference point, Obama's transition was an overhaul of 400 staff including private citizens not vetted by traditional methods, lobbyists, donors, loyalists, and career White House advisors at the highest ranks, such as John Podesta, who has held senior positions in the Clinton, Obama, and Biden administrations. "Members of Barack Obama's presidential transition team weren't necessarily selected solely on their résumés and expertise-some may have scored positions over similarly qualified individuals because they supported the president-elect by bundling money for his presidential campaign or opening their own wallets to him. And although Obama prohibits registered lobbyists from making financial contributions to his transition, influence peddlers past and present are showing up on the team that's building the foundation for the next administration. The Obama transition office announced nearly 400 individuals who have been dispatched to review the workings of federal agencies. Researchers at OpenSecrets are working to match these individuals to our databases of contributors, bundlers and lobbyists. Our findings are in the table below." https://www.opensecrets.org/obama/transition.php MrCommonSenz (talk) 08:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC) I also recommend the following actions be taken by the Wiki team based on the egregiousness of this claim: 1) Confirm this individual is based in the United States, as interference by foreign agents undermines our election integrity, but has also become a consistent and prominent theme in our elections. The matter is being taken at the highest levels of severity by the U.S. as these bad actors are being charged by the US Department of State for such attempts at undermining our Democracy. 2) If the Wiki team concludes this is not a foreign agent sticking their nose where it does not belong, they can proceed next in the process by confirming this individual is not a minor, as not only is this topic a complex one that can severely separate a persons capacity to identify facts from divisive rhetoric used to incite division among the populous and pull us further away from reality; our youth are much more vulnerable to targeted disinformation campaigns like this. As MI Senator Mallory Mccormick argues, our children need to be safe and have the opportunity to come forward if their living situations are not sufficient for their development. Although gun control is important, we can expedite these efforts to healthy living for our youth by recognizing the root cause. Which is mental illness that goes untreated, ultimately to be exacerbated by radical rhetoric used to turn relatively innocent and normal individuals into imaginary martyrs, as we have seen happen twice during this election cycle when two lost individuals fell victim to the exact same radical rhetoric. Let's not expose our children to such dangerous language, and advocate they stand up and report radical households similiar to Mallory's stance on reporting improper gun storage. MrCommonSenz (talk) 08:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC) Which source calls it false? I see someone has already mentioned WP:PRIMARY above. Are you familiar with WP:OR? Cheers. DN (talk) 09:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC) I would much rather be name calling people on Call of Duty right now. I discovered this "talk" page last week. I do not know the niche, and most likely unnecessary acronyms used to gate keep people from telling the truth on here. Are you suggesting my claim about the purpose being false is original research, therefore not adequate to be considered? If so, couldn't I just astroturf a page with original research I know so is absurd that there are no sources to refute it since no one took the time to predict such an absurd claim? MrCommonSenz (talk) 09:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC) See WP:FORUM. Cheers. DN (talk) 09:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC) I am so exhausted with anonymous Europeans that all, somehow find themselves trying to be involved in American politics, and trying to join the club via these forums while actively pushing some weird agenda that does not align with a single American, their education, upbringing, and values. Hint: Whenever someone says fascist, it confuses us because we associate fascism with Liberals, and when you tie it into Nationalism, we associate it with freedom and conservatives. No one thinks Nationalism is a bad thing. We just think you don't know what you are talking about. Being proud is a good thing here in America. It means we aren't so bitter we are focusing our energy on other countries. It is something that you Europeans can't comprehend because you don't live here. Just like 99% of us know nothing about the Holocaust. Guess how many Americans can tell you who Ann Frank is? We typically confuse her with Helen Keller. No one cares about the EU, or Hitler here, and we do not understand what your fetish is with involving yourselves in our politics. We have no desire to now, or ever, know who your presidential candidates are; sorry to break it to you. The only news I have even heard about EU is the French first lady is a dude. Your EU desire to censor facts, spreading 1940s EU buzzwords around the place that no one knows resonates with no one. Your overall attempt to inconvenience us is what creates your definition of Fascism. You are your own worst enemy. Irony. Pro-tip: The gun show loophole is only relevant in TX. Pro-tip 2: There are 49 other states you have failed to recognize that do not care about the gun show loophole. Please stick to EU politics. Since you are choosing to be difficult, and can't separate your bias from the reality, I will gladly peel this entire page apart in a couple days. But first we need to come to reality on what the purpose of Project 2025 is. I know you spent a lot of time with your ideology guiding this page, and you are proud of it, but it is time to come down to Earth and get a grip. Intentionally adding misleading, out of context quotes like "building a governing agenda, not just for next January but long into the future". and "we are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be." does not do anything aside from riling up a group of 13 year olds on Reddit and encouraging mentally ill, vulnerable members of society to take action. Hint: Every American knows the left sponsored 500 different riots during the Floyd events. And everyone knows that since Trump would be in office for only four years, the document would be extended to what an 8 year term would look like after Trump leaves. This is not rocket science, you are not fooling anyone, just pissing us off. You are the problem. The argument I am having with user 'Darknipples' right now is no different than trying to convince you the sky is blue and grass is green. It is an irrefutable fact because it is a tangible, measurable, touchable thing, just like the Project 2025 document. Yes, I know, it sucks when after all these years of creating boogeyman based on emotion and fairy tails you finally have no where to go, and nothing to gaslight on. Probably don't pick a publicly available text anyone can read next time. Here is your primary source, from the very real, very tangible, very measurable, very readable Project 2025 that clearly proves that the "purpose" you have falsely posted on this page, is fake news. It does not entertain the idea of pandering to Trump, or reshaping the government. Reshaping would be a completely new concept, not the same thing for the last 70 years. How do I know? A 2 party system means there is not a whole lot of variety in what to expect: "We want you! The 2025 Presidential Transition Project is the conservative movement’s unified effort to be ready for the next conservative Administration to govern at 12:00 noon, January 20, 2025. Welcome to the mission. By opening this book, you are now a part of it. Indeed, one set of eyes reading these passages will be those of the 47th President of the United States, and we hope every other reader will join in making the incoming Administration a success. History teaches that a President’s power to implement an agenda is at its apex during the Administration’s opening days. To execute requires a well-conceived, coordinated, unified plan and a trained and committed cadre of personnel to implement it. In recent election cycles, presidential candidates normally began transition planning in the late spring of election year or even after the party’s nomination was secured. That is too late. The federal government’s complexity and growth advance at a seemingly logarithmic rate every four years. For conservatives to have a fighting chance to take on the Administrative State and reform our federal government, the work must start now. The entirety of this effort is to support the next conservative President, whoever he or she may be. In the winter of 1980, the fledging Heritage Foundation handed to President-elect Ronald Reagan the inaugural Mandate for Leadership. This collective work by conservative thought leaders and former government hands—most of whom were not part of Heritage—set out policy prescriptions, agency by agency for the incoming President. The book literally put the conservative movement and Reagan on the same page, and the revolution that followed might never have been, save for this band of committed and volunteer activists. With this volume, we have gone back to the future—and then some." See you tomorrow, enjoy your tea and krumpets or whatever the miserable soul sucking food is you guys eat over there. Good night, and don't forget to actually read the text at some point, you clearly have not. MrCommonSenz (talk) 11:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC) that's a lotta words for "WP:NOTFORUM violation" ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 11:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC) You should also see WP:OWN, brother. No one owns content, but no one is inherently banned from any article either. Your essay here is bordering on WP:PERSONALATTACKS, and if not, has already violated it. TheWikiToby (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Mention of a fictional company

"Some Project 2025 contributors, including Vought, promote Christian nationalism." seriously? A company from the universe of The Boys? 204.48.76.18 (talk) 11:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

lol nah. It'd be funny if so, but it refers to Russell Vought. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

wow this is unbelievably biased

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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