Talk:Project 2025/Archive 1

Archive 1

tags and protection

I believe these are premature. What I see thus far is WP:IDONTLIKEIT which is its own POV. I suggest the editors who believe the tags are applicable promptly provide specific examples of purported bias/POV so the tags and protection can be removed. I intend to remove the tags if concrete progress is not promptly forthcoming. Daniel Quinlan is the article designated as WP:CT/AP? I don't see a banner shell for it on Talk. ping: NocturnalLizard LuxembourgLover soibangla (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Sorry for the delay in adding the WP:CTOP notice, I was distracted by an issue on another article. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The intro has changed many times with both left and right wing bias. In addition I have added {POV} due to a large discussion ongoing about the bias of the article. See examples, 1 2 3 there are many more examples but there are some of the bigger ones. Ironically while requesting for protection, this there was another example of a reason for protection. In addition the major discussion has been on the page. LuxembourgLover (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

this article is new and lots of initial changes are common in new articles. the fact some have chosen to clamp down on this article so quickly suggests to me they are displeased that the article does not reflect their POV, without identifying specific objectionable content. let's see some examples so we can resolve this and remove the tags. soibangla (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the tags, nobody provided any justification for them on the talk page. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Link on Reddit front page

so the editors are aware, it has reached the top of the front page of Reddit so it'll need some extra attention 192.0.182.43 (talk) 12:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Bad citation

The claim that Project 2025 was motivated by a desire to use lethal force on Floyd protestors doesn’t have a good citation. It links to another Wikipedia page where Trump talked about possibly using lethal force on LOOTERS, not on protestors. Unless the writers of this article think that all the Floyd protestors were “looters,” it’s erroneous to claim that Trump called for lethal force against protestors. 2601:19B:67F:D0A0:B9CC:F294:CA7E:33AC (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The source cited says "When Trump called for shooting protesters, a member of the national security apparatus objected." To say that the order was only for the immediate killing of members of a crowd if police judged that they had stolen anything, would be original research. DS (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Bias

Isn't it interesting how certain power users (e.g. soibangla) are all but guaranteed to show up on any remotely politicized topic to gatekeep framing and gaslight good faith editors regarding bias and source reliability? The chronically online dedication is impressive. I only wonder what proportion of this effort is financially motivated vs true belief. Its a damn shame, what wikipedia could have been, before these rabid ideologues co-opted the institution and trashed its credibility. The long march through the institutions continues: Onward! Paidshill0 (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not actually interested in any of this stuff, it's just that Soros and the deep state pay better than the other guys. soibangla (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

This article seems to have to been written entirely by individuals who oppose Project 2025 and solely includes information about it's downsides and Trump's failures. Nedmath (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

feel free to add well-sourced information soibangla (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I tried to help a while ago, came back to check how it is going and god damn. "Project 2025 is a far-right plan to purge and reshape the U.S. Federal government in the event of a Republican victory in the 2024 United States presidential election." Jesus Christ what happened to NPOV? Are people even trying? This sort of talk belongs in the "Reactions" section not the opening paragraph.

The entire project is no different from dozens of other presidential transition plans going back decades, like Biden's team and their actions and Trump's first term and Obama's 2009 innauguration and Bush's 2001 start. The final paragraph of the opening is also weird with the overt single out of climate policy for criticism feeling tacked on, again this is something that doesn't belong on the opening. There is literally a subsection on "Overview" to talk just about climate policy already. NocturnalLizard (talk) 12:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The entire project is no different from dozens of other presidential transition plans going back decades except this one seeks to roll back the Great Society and the New Deal and the civil service and oversight of the executive branch. But apart from that, it's just business as usual. soibangla (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, and? "They want to do something big about the american government" isn't really a argument or disproving the point that it is no different from other transition plans. Again: you are mixing up opinions about the thing with the facts of what it is. Last I checked the New Deal and Great Society aren't exactly some sort of bedrock foundation you aren't allowed to touch and modify. NocturnalLizard (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

It is unprecedented in its scope and magnitude to dismantle the federal government soibangla (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

One can argue that New Deal and Great Society were unprecedented in expanding the federal government, until they happened and set a precedent. No reason a similar precedent can't be set on the opposite way.

Again: Nothing here is illegal, or not allowed in the law and constitution, or different from many similar grandiose plans proposed by other presidential hopefuls in the past. These are all opinions and criticisms, which belong later on the article if they can be addressed in a NPOV way and not on the opening of the article. This is what this is meant to be: an encyclopedic article, not a opinion piece or a news report. NocturnalLizard (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

this is not like anything anyone has ever seen before, it is a radical departure and its proponents openly, even proudly, acknowledge it because it's the culmination of what they've sought for several decades soibangla (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Again: same could be said about New Deal and Great Society and indeed the 2021 American Rescue Plan from Biden's presidency. It's not relevant, it does not justify breaking NPOV and you can just put such concerns in the "reactions" tab. The overview should be as factual, succinct and neutral as possible. NocturnalLizard (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

What others may say about other programs is not relevant to the fact this project is a radical departure from what Americans have known for generations, and the lead must reflect that soibangla (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

What others may say about other programs is fully relevant, it sets the tone one should go for when speaking of these matters. You are ignoring the standards set by encyclopedic articles to instead editorialize this one based on opinions. I am not going to go into the article for the American Rescue Plan and start talking shit about it on the opening paragraph. the same courtesy should be given back here. NocturnalLizard (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

There is no shittalk in the lead, nor was there before your changes. No WP:WHATABOUT. Note the lead does not cast judgment on the project, nor have I, but rather reflects the reality it is a very big deal, like it or not. I suspect some far-right readers might read the earlier lead and think "sounds good to me!"[1] Perhaps consider the POV here may be yours. soibangla (talk) 16:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@NocturnalLizard Unfortunately, you appear to be a WP:SPA, you've only edited this page and provided some rather incendiary comments on Talk:Disclose.tv. I am going to ask you to take a moment and step back, reflect on why you feel so strongly about this.Throughout your argument, I really only parsed a couple of actionable issues/clarifications:

• POV: I can see where you're coming from, but with reservation. There are some lines I'd write better myself, but at the same time, it's really nitpicky. I agree with your edit here.
• Criticism in the Lead: Please review MOS:LEAD, the lead is a summary of the article, and it is perfectly acceptable to pull from the reactions section. The New Deal article, since you want to cite it, has a criticism section, mentions criticism in the lead, and even has two separate articles dedicated to it's critics.
• Please read WP:WHATABOUTX, wikipedia is not a monolith
• As a whole, to really should take a look at WP:CIVIL, accusing people of malfeasance isn't appropriate.
• I don't understand your comment: "The entire project is no different from dozens of other presidential transition plans going back decades." It is demonstrably false and almost implies that this topic isn't WP:NOTEABLE enough for its own article.

Just breathe, its not the end of the world. We don't have to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, just enjoy the process of editing. I agree with some of your points but not with others, but please be more civil/understanding when raising issues. You'll just piss off people otherwise and get nowhere. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 22:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I made a account to get started on the Disclose.Tv page after seeing how atrocious it was. I found this page later and tried to help since unlike the Disclose.Tv page this one was barely started and could be fixed with ease.

I am not acusing people of malfeasance, I am acusing them of bad faith and being deliberately dense because that is what I observe. I have seen people time and time again use false civility as a way to push arguments, by being overly polite and shutting down any attempt at a argument with false platitudes or extreme misunderstanding and deliberately ignoring obvious conclusions counting on the party with grievances to either give up out of a desire not to be combatitive, or banking on making them angry enough to get mad and allow for the smug false civil party to bring out a ban hammer under the guise of "civility."

As for the last point, that isn't that I meant. I mean that it is not that different in substance from similar presidential transition projects and as such does not deserve the alarmist and hysterical tone that was applied in some of the revisions that implied the project was some never done before, experimental political theory being tried for the first time without any prescedent. NocturnalLizard (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Project 2025 is unprecedented in its breadth and depth. It is a radical departure from a century of American policy. soibangla (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

We have been over this. It isn't. Stop it. NocturnalLizard (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Seeing your replies on Talk:Diagolon, Talk:Disclose.tv and here, it sure seems like you love to defend/whitewash fascism. Would you also happen to believe that Europa: The Last Battle is a legitimate documentary? Isi96 (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The current version of the Reactions section, which is the longest section, is entirely composed of negative reactions to the plan, from critics - zero reactions from its supporters. Clearly, it's written with an agenda, anyone can detect that, and attacking other users with ad hominems doesn't change that.Frellthat (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@Frellthat See WP:NONAZIS. Also, no one's stopping you from adding sourced reactions. Isi96 (talk) 09:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The Executive Branch is not the entire Federal Government. This error is made several times in the article. LimaMonk (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@NocturnalLizard "Project 2025 is a far-right plan to purge and reshape the U.S. Federal government in the event of a Republican victory in the 2024 United States presidential election."

please specify what specifically in this sentence you think is biased to the point of being incorrect. 173.23.72.34 (talk) 08:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I have seen 3 different intros to this page and yes it some of them have been bias, I think we should have extended protection, as the 2024 election is coming up. I do see both sides and have added {{POV}} to the main page. LuxembourgLover (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I have not seen any specific sentence, phrase or word that has been cited as biased. What I see so far is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. soibangla (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The intro has changed many times with both left and right wing bias. In addition I have added {POV} due to a large discussion ongoing about the bias of the article. See examples, 1 2 3 there are many more examples but there are some of the bigger ones. Ironically while requesting for protection, this there was another example of a reason for protection. In addition a major discussion is ongoing on the page. LuxembourgLover (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The currently cited media sources for this article, in order of reference number, are: Salon, Axios, AP News, Politico, The New York Times, MSNBC, The Washington Post, The Hill, The Guardian, NPR, The Atlantic, Mother Jones, PinkNews, LGBTQ Nation. Shockingly every single one of these 14 media sources are ones listed as "leans left" or "far left" by allsides.com Media Bias research. It is impossible for an article with this lineup of sources to be NPOV. Belovedeagle (talk) 03:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

you should examine our community consensus of sources at WP:RSP, rather than Allsides and Media Bias (which themselves are shown at RSP). Every source you list here except Salon, PinkNews and LGBTQ Nation is deemed fully reliable at RSP. If you don't think a source there should be used, you can challenge it at WP:RSN. I think we should use better sources than PinkNews and LGBTQ Nation, and if we can't find them we should remove the content they support, and I will tag them accordingly. Personally I generally avoid using Salon, but maybe someone else will tag it. soibangla (talk) 04:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:RSP and allsides lists serve two entirely different purposes so it makes no sense to compare them. RSP rates reliability while allsides rates bias. Reliable sources can, do, and must definitionally have a certain bias, so a rating on allsides does not have any bearing on reliability. Therefore I'm not claiming that the sources of this article are unreliable; I'm pointing out that even among reliable sources, they all share the same bias, and that makes it nearly impossible for an article sourced this way to be NPOV. (Reasoning: articles should only have cited facts, and so under the assumption that this article is well-cited, then all of its facts must come from the cited sources. But if all of the facts in an article come from one particular point of view to the exclusion of competing points of view, then it is not NPOV.) RSP and NPOV are not the same thing. Also please note I'm not citing allsides as a source so its own rating on WP:RSP is completely irrelevant. It shouldn't even be on the list since it's essentially a tertiary source for claims of the form "___ is a biased source", which would not be appropriate to cite in any article. Belovedeagle (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

can you cite specific content from the reliable sources that violates NPOV? soibangla (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

"The plan also includes directing the Justice Department to pursue those Trump considers ... political adversaries." That appears to be a characterization claim originating with Washington Post rather than something that actually appears in the project documents.

But mainly, it's a question of tone. The entire article (some of these examples have been edited out) is colored in derogatory language. You use words like "purge" instead of "replace," "takeover" instead of "inauguration" or "election," and "Trumpism" when you are just describing what would normally be called "Republican policies."

On top of that, the Reactions section is currently composed entirely of negative reactions and characterizations of the plan, from its critics - zero positive ones from its supporters.

I'm sure you believe that you're just telling the truth. But I wish that people with strong activist opinions/affiliations could just, out of responsibility, recognize that those qualities should not be reflected in Wikipedia edits. The public needs sources of information they can trust if civil government is going to survive. Politicizing of Wikipedia edits undermines that.Frellthat (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

As always, I encourage editors to edit articles to ensure NPOV, and you are certainly entitled to do that, bearing in mind that we rely on secondary sources rather than primaries such as project documents. As far as Reactions, I have looked but not seen much of any positive reactions in reliable sources, but I encourage others to seek and include them. But it is a fact that this project, for the better or the worse, without casting judgment here, is a radical departure from many decades of American policy, from what several generations of Americans have known, and that might explain the apparent dearth of positive reactions to it. soibangla (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Project 2025 has 75 coalition partners across the US conservative movement. If we can't find any positive (conservative) reactions, then we'd better remove the Reactions section altogether, since it's hardly N:POV in its current form.Frellthat (talk) 01:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I encourage you to edit the article to include positive reactions using reliable sources. soibangla (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

And I encourage you, as have many others, to stop writing biased articles that others then have to clean up.Frellthat (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I have asked for but have not seen evidence presented that this article is biased. Rather, I have seen evidence of WP:IDONTLIKEIT that appears to be POV in itself. Please edit the article with reliable secondary sources. That's all I got here. soibangla (talk) 02:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

https://www.project2025.org/policy/ NoTimeForBS (talk) 16:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Is this what wikipedia has become

The links do not support the conclusions reported on this page even when taking into account the extreme bias of the sources. There is no link between the 501(c)3 Heritage Foundation and any political party and to link it to a political party is incorrect. You are creating an echo chamber and making Wiki unreliable. 38.40.57.60 (talk) 11:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Swan, Jonathan; Haberman, Maggie (April 20, 2023). "Heritage Foundation Makes Plans to Staff Next G.O.P. Administration". The New York Times.

Bluerasberry (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but since when do far-right extremists seeking to over throw the US government get to have a seat at the table? Honestly I wish it was an echo chamber, it be less terrifying than a fascist take over of the US. 199.168.95.209 (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes there is a direct link, https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/commentary/project-2025 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.237.212.149 (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2023

Please fix typo "rule of raw" to "rule of law" Can be found in the third paragraph of the page YourUsernameIsTaken (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Liu1126 (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

grouping lgbt and pornography

I find the grouping of lgbt rights and pornography together into one section deeply misleading, as if pornography is somehow tied to being gay or trans. I understand this is very likely not what the editor intended, but naming this section this way only serves to validate bigoted viewpoints. The name of this section needs to be amended. GermanicLanguageBranch (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it's worded that way, because that's how the far-right is aligning trans/queer people. As per Project 2025 (from what I can gather) the aim is to tie those two (trans/queer people and porn) together to further remove trans/queer people from society. But that's just how I've read it. 199.168.95.209 (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I read it in a similar way. Right now a heading separates both. Now the second paragraph of the LGBTQ+ section should be moved to pornography. It is out of context in the former. FlorianWehner (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on Jan 4 2024

Please change year the US left the Paris climate agreement from 2015 to 2017, per the linked Wikipedia article. The agreement was signed in 2015 under Obama, US left it in 2017 under Trump. 75.161.132.114 (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done soibangla (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2024

change > has absolute power of the executive branch to > has absolute power over the executive branch 2601:1C0:5E81:BB0:986C:367:863B:151 (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, my formatting didn't come through legibly. I mean: please change "of" to "over" in "... has absolute power of the executive branch ..." 2601:1C0:5E81:BB0:986C:367:863B:151 (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done Sam Sailor 19:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2024

Grammar fix.

Under the section "Separation of Church and State", the fragment before the quote says "A tenant of the project is: ", but it should be "A tenet of the project is: "

> A tenet is a principle held as being true, especially by an organization or a group of people. A tenant is (1) someone who pays rent to occupy property; (2) a dweller in a place; and, (3) in law, one who holds or possesses lands, tenements, or property by any kind of title. Toddvw (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Correction made. Good catch. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit article summary

It's probably not here where an edit needs to be made but I've forgotten how these things work -- basically somewhere there's data that describes the topic of the article, and when you link to this article on certain platforms then it generates a preview and pulls a summary from that data. I think it's on a different Wikimedia site?

Anyway, the current summary says the topic of this article is a "project to reform the US federal government to support Trumpism". I read this article and it seems that summary is... less than neutral and accurate. I'm hoping someone more familiar with this whole thing can fix it somehow, I don't know what I would write there instead. 82.147.162.90 (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, that's what I meant: https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Q122382481 82.147.162.90 (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Reactions section

There may be WP:UNDUE weight given to criticism in the reactions section. Every single reaction mentioned is critical. It seems unlikely that no sources have had anything else to say about it. 71.255.142.122 (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I looked for positive reactions but could not find any. I encourage others to try. it's interesting that the Trump campaign seems to have asked the Project to stop talking about it. soibangla (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

it appears Biden is preparing to use it against Trump[2] soibangla (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

'it' in this sentence

refers to the project, not the project document

I did not "add the opinion of a former offical describing this as such," I added the current Project director Paul Dans describing it as such quite emphatically. and it was already further down in the lead anyway.

please restore the content, Bringjustthefactsplease

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Project_2025&diff=prev&oldid=1215510692

soibangla (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Where may we view the source of this comment from Dans?

Previously you provided the direct quote "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."

I'm struggling to find the source of this quote, thank you Bringjustthefactsplease (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

it is in this edit that I made in response to your removal

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Project_2025&diff=prev&oldid=1215459274

search the article on deep state and you will find the quote and source were already further down in the lead

soibangla (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

1) the AP source does not provide this as a direct quote from Dans

2)the new republic source links to a CSPAN video, located here, where they claim this quote originated

3) reading and searching the transcript of his interview does not yield a result for keywords of this alleged quote (like 'army' or 'battle' or 'march') or, from what I can see, the quote that New Republic has cited. It appears the quote they provided in that op-ed does not appear in the source New Republic provides as evidence.

I cannot find evidence of Dans making this statement in the provided citations. Please provide a timestamp of when this quote was uttered in the cited material if I have overlooked this. Bringjustthefactsplease (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

TNR is a reliable source, it quotes Dans, and the piece is not an op-ed.

also, in ref #2 you cited a project document, a primary rather than a secondary source, which is particularly inappropriate here. and the ref is mangled, btw. soibangla (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

For clarity:

The source TNR(acknowledged as very biased)links to as evidence of the quote in question does not actually contain the quote.

The TNR article's quote they attribute to Dans is not supported by the source they provide. There is currently no evidence Dans made that statement outside of this article. Bringjustthefactsplease (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Ensuring that the deep state cannot disrupt the work that the American people elected a president to do is precisely one of the top aims of Project 2025.[3]

soibangla (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

That article is indeed quite clear. Propose this link be used as a reference for that language and not the other two links Bringjustthefactsplease (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Bringjustthefactsplease please would you replace your ref #2 with a properly formatted secondary source? soibangla (talk) 06:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Propaganda

This article is just left wing propaganda. The first linked "citation" I clicked was an interview with Trump that was taken totally out of context. In that interview, he stated that Biden's administration has turned the executive branch into a political assassination operation. He used himself as an example, "If I were president I could go after my political enemies." The article's author(s) used that single out-of-context quote as evidence that Trump plans to go after his political enemies, even though it was clear that he was actually indicating how out of control the Biden administration has been. 2601:985:4A81:F060:3064:2D57:176B:878A (talk) 06:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

ok, I think I see what you're getting at here. his narrative all along is that he is being wrongfully prosecuted persecuted and it's election interference, and in the Univision interview[4] he says this has set a precedent ("the genie out of the box") that allows him to respond in kind if he is reelected ("they have done something that allows the next party. I mean, if somebody if I happen to be president and I see somebody who's doing well and beating me very badly, I say go down and indict them").

but he is being legitimately prosecuted by Bragg, Smith and Willis based on evidence, a compelling amount of which is in plain public view, and there is no indication of "a political assassination operation" by Biden or anyone else, despite his insistence there is. he insists on many things, including the election was stolen, which is just plain false. that's not a particularly surprising defense from someone who is facing multiple criminal charges that could send him to prison like he is, and his base is the primary audience for that argument.

but he has said "I am your retribution" and a key part of P25 is eliminating DOJ independence and placing it under direct control of the White House so, as WaPo reports, "Donald Trump and his allies have begun mapping out specific plans for using the federal government to punish critics and opponents should he win a second term, with the former president naming individuals he wants to investigate or prosecute..."[5] soibangla (talk) 08:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Trump has "civil" charges why most of the trials he goes to apart from being biased clearly Trump will not go to prison why one thing is a civil trial and another is the criminal lawsuit why You are risking your freedom, Trump will not go to jail but they will confiscate his properties in New York 190.167.249.170 (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

he is criminally charged in NYC, Georgia and Florida. soibangla (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding attribution for the Insurrection Act claim and other instances of third-party sources as only source

As far as I know, the only source for this is WaPo. An editor previously raised the challenge [6] that this was not enough for the lead section, considering no such plans were included in the released project.

Considering this is a WP:CONTENTIOUS topic, I've changed the text to include attribution of the source, and date, as per WP:ATT. What do you make of this?

I believe there's an overarching problem with this article: the overview section includes numerous sections referenced with sources reporting on the behind-the-scenes machinations of Project 2025, but in some nearly no content referencing the actual text of the proposal is present. I think it would be wise to add content based on it as well.

For example, regarding the immigration policy sections, a cursory glance of the Project itself finds nearly no mentions of deportation, and none that would substantiate the other sources, but this is not stated in the article.

CVDX (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

CVDX, your edit in November 2023, prior to the project's release[7] is incorrect. It was released in April 2023.[8] Please revert.

Odd that two editors are independently making the same assertion that is quickly and easily disproven.[9] Both editors have also shown a preference for citing the P25 document, a primary source, rather than secondary sources. For precisely the reason this topic is contentious, quality secondaries are far more preferable here. soibangla (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not at all odd that a supposed WP GREL source is not at all reliably describing something political. I've outlined the issue further just above in "Delete this" section. It boils down to two options: WP needs to have a real and honest discussion about how so many of their GREL sources are actually not reliable at all on modern politics, or delete all modern politics articles like this one, since the sources used are publishing broad swaths of false information and innuendo. 76.178.169.118 (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

Why does this page read like an alt right conspiracy theory? 153.33.235.26 (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

It's an alt-left conspiracy theory. Those just seem to get promoted more here. 2A00:23C7:80C:8201:A54A:D65D:1635:524D (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Alt-left conspiracy theory? This article's primary sources are The Guardian, a centrist newspaper, The Washington Post, a gently right-leaning newspaper, and the Heritage Foundation itself saying "here's what we intend to do". 207.164.2.98 (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Because it's one crappy proprosla from one crappy conservative think-tank. STOP acting like it's official policy. 71.89.70.233 (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

If you look at the Project 25 website you will see that it is a consortium of many well known right wing groups. It's the expressed policy prescriptions of the movement. Any new conservative president will be pressured to adopt it. 74.69.130.29 (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

this is all of what Trump ran on in 2016, recycled talking points to manipulate the social outcry of a trump presidency 2600:1702:59E0:F050:5195:FFB6:90A9:B024 (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

To be absolutely clear with everyone here, Project 2025 is simply the latest Mandate Of Leadership proposal from the Heritage Foundation. Every Republican President since Reagan has received and followed their Mandate Of Leadership proposal from the Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation has gone on record to say that Reagan, the Bush's, and Trump have all followed their previous Mandate Of Leadership proposals. Not "to the T", but to a reasonable degree that "satisfies" the organization.

To call this a conspiracy theory would be to ignore the past actions of both the organization and Presidents. Does it come off as sensationalizing in some places? Yes. The proposals laid out in the published 900 page document that you can read on the Heritage Foundations website is patently absurd to read through, but the Mandate Of Leadership itself does not fall under a "alt-left" (not a real political tendency far left people just call themselves communists or whatever tendency they fall under) conspiracy theory. For it to be a conspiracy theory it would need to meet certain criteria of lacking in legitimacy that this document does not. Yeastmobile (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the complaint here is not that Project 2025 is itself a conspiracy theory that doesn't exist, but that the claims this article makes about what it will do are. Indeed, when I read this article, and when I read through the Project's documents and website, I don't find anything remotely similar. I tried to talk about this issue more here. In short, there's a huge disconnect between what these sources on this article claim and what appears to be reality. There's quite a few talk page messages about this, but nothing is being done about it. 76.178.169.118 (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

WaPo is certainly not a gently right leaning media. Suggesting it is gives some kind of false balance to your argument. Guardian is also not particularly centrist, IMO, but I do realize that some people think it is. 76.178.169.118 (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete this

How is this even an official Wikipedia page? “Project 2025” doesn’t exist. There is no factual evidence proving anything said in this summary, and this Wikipedia page is the only online source besides the actual website that spouts this nonsense. 2600:1700:FFD0:57A0:6022:B893:1438:E1E3 (talk) 01:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

You might be interested in reading Project 2025#References, which contains 57 citations. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

This page is mainly speculation and innuendo. Citing second hand sources. I do not think it is worthy of being an page here. I have been looking for information on Project 2025 and could not find much except what people are speculating about what it is. The references you cite are not really references, but other posts and articles that are also speculating. 114.24.203.71 (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide details on the inaccuracies or unsubstantiated claims? For further reference you can read the information directly at project2025.org where you can read the book online. 2601:CD:C600:CC00:89E4:A98A:7AE2:A442 (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the section "Mass deportation of immigrants". Those claims I did not see substantiated by Project 2025. I looked at "Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise", I assume that is the book you referenced on their site.

That section talked about "deputizing National Guard" and deputizing DEA, ATF local police and sheriffs. There was only one footnote that even mentioned the "Drug Enforcement Administration" in the whole thing.

The section talked about deportation, yet deportation was only mentioned twice in the document. I looked for similar terms like 'removal' and saw nothing like what was described.

Claims about Project2025 should be taken from the book or from statements put out by the organization. What we have here is editors speculation on what could , possibly, maybe be happening in a project from some other people speculating on the internet. 114.24.203.71 (talk) 09:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I assure you fellow wikipedian that if you go to the site, read through the proposals, and simply read the documents as they are nothing in this article is a "claim". If you would like to propose specific edits or corrects to the article please quote the documents related to the relevant department and how it conflicts with the text of the article. Each Federal Department is a separate document on the project2025.org website and they are each pdfs that you need to click through and read. Yeastmobile (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

You can read it in full in one link: https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf.

Taking IP user 114.24.203.71's words on the "Mass deportation" section as an example: When you search that document for key terms like "National Guard", "deport", "deputize", "homeless", "police", "sheriff", etc. (and grammatical variants), you do not find anything like the claims of this article's section. This section is apparently based on Axios's innuendo-filled article "this guy said this, and then he was talking to this guy, who's an advisor on project 2025" at so on. They don't even try to summarize Project as it defines itself. Then there's the Atlantic, which is paywalled, and looks like from the intro that it's about Trump having said something once, which is not the topic "Project 2025".

As I usually tend to say in these situations, what WP consistently calls GREL is really unbelievable sometimes. The section does state what Axios says, but Axios is full of shit. Nowhere does anything in that massive Project 2025 tome does it say anything close to the claims Axios makes. They is playing games, like mere association that one guy says something once casually, and the audience was an advisor on the project, then they go "coincidence???" It's really very silly.

When I scroll through the topics in that book, I see some pretty ho-hum conservative talking points and policy wants. What's different about the project itself, as compared to other conservative policy statements, is the explicit ambition to "conversatize" the government, in response to it having been "liberalized" over the previous decades. This is certainly a paradigm shift in conservative thinking, from belief in non-partisan bureaucratic operation to belief that it is not possible, therefore it should be conservative. It's really not all that surprising, and can be easily juxtaposed with the fact that numerous liberal politicians have been talking about and doing this for years when they were able to do it. WP leaves you with your hands tied, because none of your precious GREL sources are talking about that. So much of this article highlights WP's biggest issue: most of your GREL sources are in fact not GREL, and SYNTH, SECONDARY, and VERIFY work against you from just writing an article about reality.

But what you can do is have an honest conversation about this. WP is 90% discussion. Unfortunately, when it comes to this specific issue, you all plug your ears. I can understand it, since it looks pretty existential, but it's really not. There's still a massive number of articles that WP is actually good at. Modern politics ain't one of them. 76.178.169.118 (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Please provide us with specific instances where the claims conflict with the book/wesbite source, so we can review it. CVDX (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, he did ... But I've illustrated it further above, if you'd like to "review it". 76.178.169.118 (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I saw your reply on my deleted talk page on this article, i'm 100% sure its the same IP address. excuse me but "lets give change a chance?" Nothing about here are positive changes for democracy and America.

If you want to complain about the quality do it out of pure critiscm and not dishonest talking points, it clearly shows where you stand and why you want this article deleted.

I'm proposing this article to be mantained no matter what. Theres no other way to let people know what and from where are these vile plans came from. Benfor445 (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I read through this entire article, and I'm astonished this is even allowed to be here. The "citations" are sketchy and based off mere opinion pieces and editorials. So now we can write something and use our own writings to back it up? What a joke. This entire article is garbage. 2600:1702:4FCF:1900:BDDA:DA69:3042:BBA7 (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)