Talk:Project 2025/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Article Exhibits Bias

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

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

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

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

this wiki is essentially lying to people. 2600:1008:B090:385F:8637:598C:9C0F:80F5 (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The criticisms are fused into the main body of information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The whole text is biased. And with weak sources.

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

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

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

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

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

I 100% agree its extremely biased and misleading. Define what it is in basics and let it go. If you've been to, and read, heritage foundations website and project 2025 and then read the Wiki, its being twisted to allege its something developed by and for Trump. In simple words, Its a manifesto/conservative recommendations from conservatives, for future conservative leaders, period. The Mandate was released decades before while Reagan was president, for Petes sake. Go to project 2025 on the Heritage foundations' website. Too many people think Wiki is fully factual and what you find there is solid truth and this article is far from that. People with ulterior motives are counting on that. This description is inflammatory in its description and written with full intent to point negativity at a specific president elect. It really needs to be rewritten with unbiased facts and locked or just replaced with a link to Heritage Foundations website. To many people are using this as a mode to misinform during an election year. Disgraceful and unprofessional. 2600:100C:B246:48DC:56D:A372:7698:AB7E (talk) 03:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Why are you reading Wikipedia then. If you want us to replace the article with a link to the website, then why not just go to the website yourself? TheWikiToby (talk) 03:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Because I care about the truth, good or bad. Unfortunately people I care about use Wiki as their foundation for educating themselves. While doing so, they dont understand that anyone at any time can edit articles to put their own twist, opinions and beliefs in print. Diwitt (talk) 03:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

So, because Heritage and Wikipedia disagree, you assume that Heritage tells the truth and Wikipedia does not. (Maybe you should rethink that logic.)

Heritage follows their own ideology. Wikipedia follows what reliable sources say; it does not blindly regurgitate what unreliable ones say, and Heritage has proven unreliable in the past, for example by denying the scientific fact of man-made climate change.

You will not change Wikipedia's policy by complaining about it on an article talk page. Those are for improving the article based on the current policies; anything else falls under WP:NOTFORUM. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't remember Wikipedia's policies stating that political topics should all be written in a liberal perspective either.

Why do you refuse to be politically neutral on Wikipedia? 221.168.30.164 (talk) 01:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

If this page is liberally biased, blame the media. If it is not the media's fault, how do we make the article better? You are not helping us. TheWikiToby (talk) 02:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

We trust these sources because they don’t lie. That is not the case. When a source is deemed 'reliable' it is not because we feel they "don't lie" but because they have attributes that reliable sources have...things like an editorial board, and editors, and a history of issuing corrections when they have been demonstrated to have been wrong in the past (which happens with every source, eventually).

It is our responsibility as editors to judge the purport and quality of everything that is presented to us, even if it comes from a 'reliable source'. Just because a source was deemed 'reliable at WP:RSN yesterday does not mean that their work today is therefore immune from being rejected as being out-of-hand for a varity of reasons. We are not automatons and are expected to use our own personal judgement in every case. Marcus Markup (talk) 06:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but I was responding to sources are owned and operated by humans, and humans lie. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Hey! I am new here so please bear with me. I do find it odd that you are arguing that a news site is a better reference than the source material. Literally, source 116 is an opinion piece as it says so in the title. This kind of nonsense makes me wonder if I should continue to support this site especially if bias entries such as the one on Project 2025 are allowed to go unchecked. I came to learn about the project itself, not get opinions on the project. There is your specific example on a specific entry with a dubious, unreliable source. IronwolfRacing (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

1 opinion out 246 references doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Furthermore, that specific reference is being used primarily to directly quote Project 2025 itself and its authors, not for opinions. Finally, news sites are almost always better references than the source itself for all things except quotations. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Each thing in this article is not covered.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bias? Are you serious?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think it is sad how this article tells you all these horrible things project 2025 will do without one reference or source so they're basically just asking you to take their word for it and for my experience I usually means are being biased and hiding something. I came to Wikipedia because I wanted to view project 2025 and decide for myself instead I got an article of bias from some left wing nut. and who knows he made me right but since I can't be the article myself and he has no sources no references I guess I'll never know. 76.27.69.61 (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The sources are linked in numbered brackets after sentences. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Ever checked the references section to any article before? TheWikiToby (talk) 15:28, 19 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 [5] [6] 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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2024

Change Donald Trump to Anyone can use Project 2025 for guidelines in forming their policies. DonnaFlorida (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. What specific claim are you referring to in the article? TheWikiToby (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2024

In Responses and Reactions section: Add paragraph mentioning "The Project 2025 Song" by Jason Kravits. Hit song on Youtube slamming the Project 2025 agenda through the use of a school house rock theme. Psarge12 (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. TheWikiToby (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit

It should be noted that Trump does not support Project 2025. Please edit the page 2600:1002:B110:11AE:F59D:9D1E:86A8:7466 (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Read the final paragraph of the lead. It's already in there. TheWikiToby (talk) 02:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Where? It's not there. Matthew4100002 (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Read the final paragraph of the lead. It's already in there. Ditto to that. The project's controversial proposals led Trump and his campaign to distance themselves from it in 2024, with Trump saying he knew "nothing about it" and that "some of the things [Project 2025 says] are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal".[46][53][54][55] In response, ... Esowteric Talk Breadcrumbs 18:39, 17 October 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)

And what is being cited is extremely one-sided, hence the above complaints. Could there maybe be some sources on the other side(s) to make this a more balanced article? 130.76.24.28 (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

What sides are there? The closest thing to a "side" we have is dictated by WP:RELIABLESOURCES. TheWikiToby (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Index

A group of indexers (real people) collaborated on an index to the document that could be a helpful addition to the page as a way to see all topics covered in a list. https://indexersguidetoproject2025.com/. Infonet4all (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)