Talk:Project 2025

Article Exhibits Bias

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

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

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

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

this wiki is essentially lying to people. 2600:1008:B090:385F: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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Each thing in this article is not covered.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

NPOV

The lede paragraph does not approach WP:NPOV. It is readily apparent that the collective authorship feels strongly negatively about the subject of the article, introducing value judgements and, as above, speculative and lurid writing (e.g., "replace them with loyalists"), vs. a straightforward description of what the subject *claims* to be, followed by analysis and/or reliable source views of same.

Kaisershatner (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Replace with loyalists is used often in many generally reliable sources and you seem to be the first to raise an objection to using the term 'Loyal'. Not sure what a better term would be. If you have more specific issues or suggestions, very happy to dive into them with you and try to find better phrasing Superb Owl (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

As you may imagine, the leading section has received a lot of edits, reversions, talk page discussion and analysis (as shown in the sandbox above) over the last few days, so maybe pull up a chair and have a scan through what's been discussed thus far. Esowteric Talk Breadcrumbs 17:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Your edit, which I reverted, I believe obscures a bit about the project by prioritizing what is "self-described" by the organization rather than what reliable sources have reported about it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Muboshgu, thanks. I'd propose the NPOV approach is generally to report (1) what someone / something says that it is, and (2) what others' opinions are about that. Basically, objectively, "P2025 claims to be X; its critics assert Y, fans claim Z," etc." If we don't start by establishing what it *says* that it is, we are leading with what (many sources) *believe* that it is. Kaisershatner (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I do not like giving up on the idea that there are facts that can be stated in Wikipedia's voice (like the desire by Project 2025 and Trump to appoint loyalists, which seems extremely verifiable) but for now, this might be a workable compromise:
It proposes reclassifying tens of thousands of federal civil service workers as political appointees. In doing so, proponents argue that the change would dismantle what they view as a vast, unaccountable, and mostly liberal government bureaucracy, while critics fear a government filled with Trump loyalists who would be willing to bend or break protocol, or in some cases violate laws, to achieve his goals. Superb Owl (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I could get behind that. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I see that Owl has posted about this in 2 talk posts simultaneously. Please see "Addition to discussion of Schedule F" talk page post to see additional discussion positions. Just10A (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kaisershatner A Christofascist dictatorship wouldn't be all bad. If you read or watch A Handmaid's Tale, there were positive aspects to life in Gilead, at least for the men.

)

Seananony (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello - thanks. "Loyalists" has the connotation of people who put their loyalty over other responsibilities. From a NPOV it is possible to argue the goal of the Project is to remove (Democratic) loyalists in Executive Branch roles who would be an obstacle to achieving the goals of the Administration, correct? I recognize that there are "many" sources that use this, however, NPOV isn't a matter of quantity - it's about objectivity.

In place of "loyalists" I'd advise something more like replacing executive appointees (or whatever the group we are describing is) with "personnel who share the goals of the Administration." Which is literally true, and more neutrally described in contrast to "loyalists."

Kaisershatner (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

And, Esowteric - thanks. I understand and it's not my first highly contentious subject. I will review, however, it is in part the fact that I am more newly arrived that I can see how what I am sure has been a hard-fought consensus here isn't all that NPOV. Respectfully. Kaisershatner (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Kaisershatner, I appreciate that you've been here longer than most. I note that you changed "a collection of conservative and right-wing policy proposals" to a self-described (and let's face it, euphemistic) "along more conservative lines". That probably needs to be part of the discussion here, too. Esowteric Talk Breadcrumbs 18:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Esowteric I appreciate the courtesy and constructive engagement. I am amenable to discussing the above as well, of course - short answer is "right-wing" is used pejoratively here, one might similarly object to describing "liberal" views as "left-wing", for example - and we are striving for NPOV. Something more like simply "conservative proposals" is less objectional. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

What about 'conservative and Trumpian' or 'MAGA conservative' ideas? There are many ideas in the plan that people would generally recognize as conservative but also many that have been described as 'stark' or 'right-wing' or 'radical' or 'authoritarian' and we have so far already tried and failed to come up with a single adjective that accurately portrays what the plan says. I do not support using only 'conservative' for that reason as it papers over very real controversy (widely reported and felt across the political spectrum) that occurs in the 1000 pages actions of Project 2025. (here is a running list of some different descriptors) Superb Owl (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I think "MAGA conservative" works nicely. And I agree that it's probably the best we can do in summarizing the ideology(ies) into a single term (either that or "right-wing," which presents its own issues). This goes for the Schedule F discussion as well along with what was said there. Just10A (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Trump disavows any affiliation with or endorsement of Heritage's framework or battle plan or whatever they call it. That needs to be communicated more clearly, otherwise use of royalists or loyalists is ambiguous. To whom do they hold allegiance, the guy at the Heritage Foundation? Also, Superb Owl just now removed Heritage Foundation from the short article description which is used by Wikidata entity defn and further muddies waters.--FeralOink (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

"Not to be confused with Agenda 47" tag at top of article

I removed this tag, as I contend it "is a politically motivated attempt to divert attention from this article: I am aware from internet chatter that there is a chorus of chants "P25 is not Trump's plan, A47 is his plan". The message of this tag: don't read about this controversial proposal, go over there and read the other one.

Just10A has restored the tag

what do people think? soibangla (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I just think thats way too deep. People confuse them. In case they're looking for something else, have it there. If not, great. Doesn't hurt. End of analysis. Just10A (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, just to note, I'm not the one who originally added it. It was up and not removed when I originally saw it, so it seemingly is accepted by editors. Just10A (talk) 02:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I removed it 4 hours after it was added

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Project_2025&diff=prev&oldid=1233752186 soibangla (talk) 02:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The question is, is there actual or potential confusion which indicates disambiguation? A quick Google yields the following from USA Today's fact checker, which would indicate the answer to that is "yes": "Project 2025 is an effort by the Heritage Foundation, not Donald Trump | Fact check" Also, a quick Google for "Project 2025 is Trump's plan" shows a significant number of occurrences in social media, in what looks like a disinformation campaign. I think the tag is warranted and would do some of our readers a service... I see no harm in it. Marcus Markup (talk) 02:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Must be deleted according to WP:NPOV. In addition is unnecesary. It seems like an attempt to unlink Trump from the 2025 project with the endorsement of Wikipedia. This is even more controversial considering that the Trump campaign initially said that Project 2025 aligned well with its Agenda 47 proposals. Additionally, there is no evidence that there is a common confusion between the two terms. They don't even have similar names, and little or nothing has been heard of agenda 47 Esterau16 (talk) 04:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually, there is quite a bit of evidence of confusion on-line as to which plan is whose, and a lot of it seems to be deliberate. I'm not sure how you can support such a statement.

It seems like an attempt to unlink Trump from the 2025 project That's one way of looking at it. Another would be, your actions are an admitted attempt to maintain a linkage to Trump the person to this project. From your editing history, you seem to be a WP:SPA with a political axe to grind, quite frankly. Marcus Markup (talk) 09:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The user in question who initially added the tag (Enix150) seems to be a perfectly respectable editor with over 8,000 edits. I don't see any attempt to unlink Trump from the 2025 project with the endorsement of Wikipedia from them, though there are such attempts by interested parties online to either link Trump or conversely to unlink Trump; nor do I see evidence of NPOV in that editor's action. I would agree with Marcus Markup that there is much confusion online. Esowteric Talk Breadcrumbs 09:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Does the validity of edits now depend on the number of edits a user has? The user you mention has had 2 blocks. Now where is the evidence that there is a common and widespread confusion between these 2 terms?

It is one thing for some people to ask if project 2025 is authored by Trump and quite another for someone to explicitly ask if the project 2025 is the same as agenda 47.

These 2 terms don't even have the same level of awareness. It is clear that vastly more people have heard the term project 2025 than the term agenda 47, so how would the confusion start in the first place? Also the Project 2025 article mentions at the beginning that it is a project created by the Heritage Foundation. Esterau16 (talk) 11:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

... Their addition of a tag at Agenda 47 pointing to Project 2025 would suggest even-handedness, if we assume good faith. Esowteric Talk Breadcrumbs 09:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with these points. I'd say it's pretty objectively reasonable to include with the article at this point. Just10A (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Just10A, I count you and Marcus Markup as in favor of inclusion, me and Esterau16 opposed, and Esowteric as indeterminate. thus I do not see consensus for inclusion. I don't see how an assertion that the two have had a hisotry of past partisan accusations is disqualifying or relevant. btw, who are those two? there are just five of us in this discussion, so I I do not see how you get 4 in favor, 2 opposed[5] soibangla (talk) 00:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@Esowteric explicitly said “I would agree with Marcus Markup that there is much confusion online.” (The basis for the header) That counts me, the original good faith editor Enix150, Marcus, and Esowteric. Further, the debate stopped after the dissenters points were directly addressed and countered, and then there were no responses or objections to those analyses. Just10A (talk) 01:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I also "agree with Marcus Markup that there is much confusion online," but that does not mean I agree with their assessment of how we handle this issue here. Enix150 has been pinged but has not responded. there were no responses or objections within a day of the last edit does not mean the discussion is settled and closed. the matter remains open and self-reversion is recommended, in compliance with BRD, rather than edit warring. soibangla (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I normally would agree, but 1.) The header actually should never have been removed in the first place. It was a good faith edit, and then you correctly made a talk page about it, did not change it. And then hours later, even after the majority voiced support, Esterau changed it back under the guise of it being discussed. 2.) The majority certainly currently seems to support it. The discussion can continue, but it has clearly met the standard to at least remain while it is being discussed, as it has appropriate support. Although, again, the discussion seems to have ended with twice the amount of people supporting it, and the dissenter’s statements addressed with no further objections voiced. Just10A (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

there were no responses or objections within a day of the last edit does not mean the discussion is settled and closed. this is akin to a political candidate rushing to declare victory after preliminary results show him leading but before all the ballots have been counted. the discussion remains open. soibangla (talk) 01:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Just10A The majority certainly currently seems to support it. The discussion can continue, but it has clearly met the standard to at least remain while it is being discussed (bold mine)

I submit that the discussion remains active and that the good faith action would be to self-revert in light of a legitimately reverted edit pursuant to BRD, to allow others an opportunity to participate. soibangla (talk) 02:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

What do you ask of me? The Agenda 47 article has a not to be confused with tag, so I added one to the corresponding article. The fact that there is so much confusion here leads me to believe that the tag was a necessity. Enix150 (talk) 01:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

thank you for your response soibangla (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that was a Keep from me. Esowteric Talk Breadcrumbs 07:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

thank you, I wasn't quite sure soibangla (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree with your assessment of what is objectively reasonable. soibangla (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

For what little my opinion is worth, I agree with @Esterau16 and @Soibangla for now. It's my understanding that Agenda47 was just a bit of flashy marketing to get Trump onto the ticket and since he's gotten there Agenda47 has lain abandoned and almost forgotten. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I see both sides here but have been leaning against inclusion while Agenda 47 article is in its early stages and has received much less media coverage (anyone know how much article quality/notability is supposed to factor into these discussions?) Superb Owl (talk) 02:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I say strong Keep. It is my understanding that Agenda47 is much more than marketing to get Trump onto the ticket, and that it has NOT been abandoned or forgotten. Instead, it is the candidate's official statement of proposed policies.--FeralOink (talk) 12:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the hatnote, the link is in see also. Hatnotes are for things that could be easily confused because they have similar spellings: if they are clearly different terms unlikely to be confused due to similar spelling, there is no likelihood of confusion and no need for a hatnote. Skyerise (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not exclusive to similar spellings. Please see WP:HATNOTERULES. Just10A (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Any official mention of the irony?

Have any major sources pointed out yet how supremely ironic Project 2025's goals are? If successful, Project 2025 will effectively create a very real conservative cabal within the government, just like the imaginary liberal cabal that Project 2025's backers want to eliminate... Largely Legible Layman (talk) 17:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Will look out for that, LLL.

Taking my wiki hat off for a moment and donning my flat cap: self-awareness and a sensitivity toward irony and nuance are sadly lacking in some quarters where they are most needed. Esowteric Talk Breadcrumbs 18:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure ironic is the right word. I'd go with hypocritical. Skyerise (talk) 11:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

This is getting close to WP:NOTAFORUM territory. Talk pages are not an opportunity to vent. Marcus Markup (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that, but I think Skyerise and I have been here long enough to have the occasional lapse. Esowteric Talk Breadcrumbs 13:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't buy into the "I'm a senior, therefore, I get to have some lapses that a newbie would be reverted for" ethos which is omnipresent on Wikipedia. I am more of the type that thinks that those with more experience should set an example and behave BETTER than newbies, but that's just me. Marcus Markup (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I think that in addition to "Don't bite the newbies" we should also have a "Don't bite the senior editors, either." But that's just me. Skyerise (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I "bite" no one, and am simply citing policy and example. Using talk pages as an opportunity to vent has to be nipped in the bud on articles pertaining to such inflammatory topics, even from (and PARTICULARLY from) editors who should know better. That you disagree is noted. Marcus Markup (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, I could cite a bunch of opinion pieces that say just that, if you like - for improving the article, of course. Skyerise (talk) 13:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

We see comments like this, then comments about how Wikipedia and the article is totally fair and unbiased, and it's quite hilarious to be perfectly honest. Bringjustthefactsplease (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

"Christian nationalism" is unsupported by facts or RS

The mention of "Christian nationalism" in both the eponymous section and the lede are totally unsupported by RS. Most is supposedly sourced to a Politico article which, while making much of purported "connections" between members of the hundred-odd groups involved in Project 2025 and others (many not involved at all with it), completely fails to reveal any evidence that it is in any way influenced by or an attempt to increase "Christian nationalism". The one specific claim in the Politico smear-job—quoting the Mandate for Leadership as contending that "freedom is defined by God, not man"—turns out to be utterly false, as others have noted. The other five sources make for even thinner gruel: The Week and PBS never once refer to the 2025 Project, the Mandate for Leadership, or even Heritage—while Mother Jones and WaPo fail to mention Christianity, let alone "Christian nationalism". And the Bucks County Beacon piece with its "explosive new evidence" is as much of a dud as the Politico piece, with it's only purported link between Project 2025 and Christian nationalism being that one person involved in the former tweeted something nice about another person who writes about the latter. Color me confused—is Project 2025 supposedly a "stealth" plan to implement Christian nationalism—one so secret that not even obviously hostile, left-wing sources can manage to connect them?

Even more important than the lack of RS is the fact that the entire thesis is garbage; a cursory read of the Mandate for Leadership immediately reveals it has nothing to do with "Christian nationalism". The one policy suggestion that could perhaps be seen to be derived from or to advance Christianity (but hardly "Christian nationalism") is a suggested regulation to ensure employees are paid at time-and-a-half rates on Sundays, which is referred to as "the Sabbath". The rest isn't remotely religious, nor does it advocate for any religion. For example, while many may Americans surely oppose abortion because of their own religious views, that opposition is no more evidence of "Christian nationalism" than opposition to the death penalty, or support of programs to support the sick and needy. Is a Buddhist opposed to abortion who advocates their position, or simply votes their conscience, advancing "Christian nationalism"? The Wikivoice statement in the lede—that the 2025 Project "seeks to infuse the government and society with Christian values"—was clearly cribbed from the Politico headline, and is so utterly anodyne as to be meaningless. Our society, along with our entire criminal-law system, Medicaid, our military, and probably most of what the Federal government does could be said to be "infused with Christian values"—so what? And where's the evidence that Project 2025 "seeks to infuse" it further? The second sentence—"Critics have characterized Project 2025 as an authoritarian, Christian nationalist plan to steer the U.S. toward autocracy"—may well be true, but it's even more asinine than the first claim, given that these critics have absolutely no evidence that Project 2025 is "Christian nationalist" by any reasonable definition of that phrase.

The relevant portions of the lede and the entire "Christian nationalism" section should be immediately excised—there's no excuse for our encyclopedia to repeat this kind of patent and politically-motivated misinformation. Imagine an article on, say, the 2024 DNC platform that's little more than a hatchet job and accuses it of trying to "infuse society and government with communism"—because some DNC members have had "connections" to people who have, in other contexts, lent support to ideas which could be seen as "aligned" with socialism. The sad fact is that this article is an utter embarrassment—one which points to a desperate need for us to change how we cover politically charged current events. Until we do, Wikipedia's neutrality, and thus its credibility are in grave danger. Thanks! Ekpyros (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The links are there, for those with eyes. Here's a piece in New Republic talking about Project 2025 advisor Russell Vought who runs the influential conservative think tank the Center for Renewing America and who "lauded" Christian nationalist William Wolfe's work: Trump's Christian Nationalist Friends Have a Horrifying Plan for a Second Term. Esowteric Talk Breadcrumbs 20:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

At NPR, we have: Tracing the rise of Christian nationalism, from Trump to the Ala. Supreme Court:

ONISHI: When it comes to government, I think we're seeing the strategy play out in real time. The goal is to institute people at every level of government who will either act as Christians carrying out God's mission on earth, this mission to colonize or take dominion of every part of human society, or to elect and work with those who are going to carry out that mission, whether or not they are doing so as conscious purveyors of God's plans themselves. So when we think about something like Project 2025, the forecasted ideal of the second Trump term, when we think of ...

GROSS: And this is a project of the conservative Heritage Foundation.

ONISHI: ... [T]he goal is to have people in those cogs of the government's machine that will work to colonize this government for God to return it to glory, to make America great again by instituting a very narrow and hardcore vision for a Christian society. Esowteric Talk Breadcrumbs 21:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

And no, you're not going to find any of this spelt out in the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 Mandate, which forms only a part of the subject matter of this Wikipedia article. Esowteric Talk Breadcrumbs 21:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I can't imagine what you could possibly mean by "[t]he links are there, for those with eyes"—are you suggesting that I'm visually impaired or disabled in some way? I've seen and read the links, and commented on them above—including the fact that 4 out of 6 don't even mention Project 2025 and "Christian nationalism".

I'm afraid neither of the two additional articles you've seen fit to cite supports the section in question any better:

• Bradley Onishi is not a WP:RS, and can be cited only for his own opinion, and only if it's WP:DUE and including it is meets WP:NPOV.
• TNR's article accuses the Project only of trying to advance "Christian nationalist-oriented [sic] goals"—which is hardly the same as "Christian nationalism". As per above, "Christian-nationalist-oriented goals" is a meaningless phrase—many of Project 2025's goals could also be considered "sharia-oriented goals" or "Enlightenment-oriented goals". The article, like the entire section in ours, is nothing more than a rehash of the Politico article to which it links—right down to the use of "infuse". This, despite Politico clearly stating that the "documents… do not outline specific Christian nationalist policies."

Like that article, our section comes down to nothing but a guilt-by-association attack on Russell Vought, who again is the head of one of 100 groups involved with Project 2025. Has anyone actually pointed to one single thing he actually contributed to Project 2025—a single "Christian nationalist" sentence, let alone a "goal"? Even more absurd is the inclusion of this William Wolfe character. Why is he included? Supposedly because he has "a close affiliation" with Vought—despite, as far as I can tell, having no documented connection to Project 2025 at all. Has anyone actually pointed to one single thing he actually contributed to Project 2025—a single "Christian nationalist" sentence, let alone a "goal"? Reproducing such a lame and grasping-at-straws smear—in Wikivoice, no less—doesn't even begin to meet minimal encyclopedic standards.

Last but hardly least, what is the rest of this article's "subject matter", exactly? Ekpyros (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Bradley Onishi does seem to be a RS, they're a published and currently employed professor in good standing in a relevent field. Their qualifications are actually rather astonishing in breadth given their age, I see Azusa Pacific University, Oxford University, Institut catholique de Paris, and UCSB. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

A few more sources for y'all: Wisconsin Examiner, Washington Post, WBUR, Boston Review EvergreenFir (talk) 05:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

This section is beyond unreasonable. There might be something to be said about Christian nationalism and Project 2025, but this isn't it. In February 2024, former Christian nationalist Brad Onishi, who now studies religion and extremism, noted that Lance Wallnau of the New Apostolic Reformation, who has said Trump was "anointed",[clarification needed] had recently announced he was partnering with Charlie Kirk, a Project 2025 member. Onishi observed that Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has direct ties to the New Apostolic Reformation. What does this have to do with Project 2025? Nothing. Nothing at all. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the rest of the material, which is about third-party responses to Project 2025, should be moved to the "Reactions and responses" section? Walsh90210 (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree there needs to be a more direct line for some of this section, including around Mike Johnson. Have started adding quotes to the provided citations to clearly show the connection and adding in-line flags when there are clarifications (or deletions) that may be needed. It needs work regardless of where it ends up Superb Owl (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

(update) - addressed my issues with the section with clearer and more reliable sourcing including notable commentary. Details about leadership/notable contributors were removed since, if included, they probably belong in the leadership section and were not supported by a notable enough source. Hoping to keep this subsection focused on policy since it's in the policy section Superb Owl (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Short description

The latest rendition is Effort to reshape US Federal government and society

Note that a short description is not a definition; it's for disambiguation purposes. See WP:SHORTDESC. Esowteric Talk Breadcrumbs 16:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, the previous short description, Policy proposal by The Heritage Foundation specifically named the foundation. Esowteric Talk Breadcrumbs 16:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we should change it back to the way it was. It is a plan by the Heritage Foundation. They do this every election cycle according to the article. I didn't realize that they had these back when Reagan was president but that's what it says in the article, and I checked. It's accurate. It should have Heritage Foundation in the short description, otherwise it will be confusing.--FeralOink (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

It also says that there is nothing wrong with summarizing/defining it should it meet the other criteria for short-desc. Would love to get it to be precise (though there is still work to do on the lead on this front too, and maybe we should start there).
The Heritage Foundation is coordinating this effort with a group of hundreds of advisers and other organizations. To suggest they alone created it and that it is just a policy proposal and not combined with recruitment and training seems like a missed opportunity. The Mandate for Leadership is not the only part of the project. Superb Owl (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Is it crucial to add ... "and society"? Short descriptions over 40 characters long may be truncated. Esowteric Talk Breadcrumbs 16:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

no it's not crucial if it's too long, but if it's truncated then what is the difference? The most important information is at the front anyway Superb Owl (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh well, leave it as it, then. Sooner or later some "brutalist" editor who scans short descriptions will sort it out. Esowteric Talk Breadcrumbs 16:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

(and it's not meant to be a summary of the leading section). Esowteric Talk Breadcrumbs 16:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

It is one of a series of Heritage Foundation Project xxxx (every four years) if a GOP party member is elected to the presidency. I think we should change it back to the prior short description. Project 2025 is no different than the one done pre Reagan that is mentioned in the article. I guess that was named Project 1981.--FeralOink (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Esowteric. I think it is too long AND misleading to include "society". Obama said he would "fundamentally change America". This is not the same in professed scope.--FeralOink (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I also agree it should be trimmed. The guideline states it should be no more than 40 characters. Skyerise (talk) 12:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

i also prefer the previous definition!

the current one is very misleading, especially if you are not from the us/not a native speaker Lady Pizzzza (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Effort to reshape US federal government and society It's too long. Editors evidently still don't understand the purpose of the short description. It is supposed to be only used for disambiguation purposes, should be as short as possible, and is absolutely NOT intended to define the subject. "Policy proposal" or something similar would be my recommendation. Two words, wham and done. Marcus Markup (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

That's too short and not clear enough. I would suggest, then, "US conservative policy proposals". Esowteric Talk Breadcrumbs 09:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Esowteric love it 👍 Lady Pizzzza (talk) 13:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

"US conservative policy proposals" sounds good to me too.--FeralOink (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

See Also section contains only irrelevant links such as "Liber OZ"

I have attempted to remove these links (in fact, the whole section, as it now stands) multiple times, and another user keeps reverting my changes. Mosi Nuru (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed that they insist that, because Agenda 47 is disambiguated at the top, that it cannot therefore appear in the "See also" section. So tedious. Marcus Markup (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Yup. I'd be fine with just not having a "See Also" section, it's not clear that we need one; but the links we have now are embarrassingly inappropriate. Mosi Nuru (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I also notice that the user in question seems to be obsessively editing the Liber OZ page--he's responsible for 49 of the last 50 edits on this page. Mosi Nuru (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Got rid of two of these (the most "outlying"). @Skyerise: I'm guessing that the human rights entries are there so readers might discover how Project 2025 could infringe on these rights (?) Esowteric Talk Breadcrumbs 18:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. They are entirely relevant. and by the way @Mosi Nuru:, using the word "obsessively" is a personal attack. The plan attacks civil rights in general, in much the same was as they were attacked during the lifetime of the author of Liber OZ. It's also relevant in the wake of Saturday's events, because it specifically asserts the right to tyrannicide. I'm putting it back. Skyerise (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

"The plan attacks civil rights in general, in much the same was as they were attacked during the lifetime of the author of Liber OZ." - by that logic, Liber OZ is an appropriate "see also" on every Wikipedia page involving authoritarian or claimed-to-be-authoritarian-by-someone political leaders and proposals.

"The plan attacks civil righIt's also relevant in the wake of Saturday's events, because it specifically asserts the right to tyrannicide." - again, by that logic, Liber OZ would be an appropriate "see also" on every article dealing with assassination or attempted assassination. Which still wouldn't make it an appropriate "see also" for this article, which is not about the attempted Trump assassination. Mosi Nuru (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mosi Nuru: Well, please don't remove the link until you can show a consensus on this talk page for removal. You are an editor with a total of 155 edits, so I don't think you know all the relevant policies that might allow for its inclusion. Feel free to check my edit count on my contribs page or user page. Calling me obsessive and then not apologizing when I point it out is not the way to get on my good side. Thanks. Skyerise (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright. Thus far, four editors have weighed in: myself, Skyerise, @Esowteric, and @Marcus Markup.

Is that sufficient to define a consensus on this issue? Mosi Nuru (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Human rights inflation is also relevant, because the arguments for restricting certain types of civil rights are in general based on the belief that civil rights actions have gone "too far". So both are relevant. Skyerise (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Has there been a lot of discussion around Human rights with regard to Project 2025? I removed it because I had not seen much but will restore them if the consensus seems to still be towards keeping Superb Owl (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Superb Owl: Well, based on a Google News search, yes. "Project 2025" "human rights" yields 90,000 results. That does suggest that "human rights" are discussed in numerous sources. Note: it seems that the Google link reverts to "all" when clicked, so select the news tab to see there are still 90,000 links returned when filtered for news sites. Skyerise (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's keep them then Superb Owl (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Superb Owl: Sounds like a plan! Thanks for engaging in the discussion once I pointed out that it was here. Skyerise (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

At present there are four links under "See also". Agenda 47 (yes, seems relevant, this and P25 are both proposed agendas for a Trump presidency), Human rights (somewhat relevant), Human rights inflation (somewhat relevant), and Liber OZ (spectacularly irrelevant). I see no justification for the inclusion of Liber OZ on this list that would not suggest putting hundreds of other things on the list. See-also lists should not have hundreds of entries. (WP:MOS: "Links in this section should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number.".) Further, if something like Liber OZ is going to be in the list then it should be accompanied by a brief explanation/justification, which is not there at present. (WP:MOS: "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent".) I think an annotation along the lines of "P25 attacks civil rights, and civil rights were also attacked in the lifetime of the author of Liber OZ" would make it obvious to every reader that the link doesn't belong in the "See also" section. Gareth McCaughan (talk) 11:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I now concede that the consensus is against inclusion of that one particular link and have removed it. Of course, consensus can change, so if it does, the link could be restored. Skyerise (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm glad we could reach a consensus on the removal of Liber OZ.

I continue to believe that the entire section as it now stands is best removed--I agree with Gareth McCaughan that human rights and human rights inflation are only "somewhat relevant." The words "human right(s)" at present appear only in the See Also section, and it's not clear why those items specifically deserve a see also and not civil and political rights or conservatism in the United States or hundreds of other articles. The only article that I see as intuitively meriting a See Also is Agenda 47, which has been included by myself and Marcus Markup and which Skyerise has now reverted twice.

But the removal of Liber OZ was by far the most important point. Mosi Nuru (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Please note that the human rights links were described above as "somewhat relevant" and there does not seem to be any consensus here to remove them. Also please note that our manual of style clearly states that links already in the body of the article should not also be listed in 'See also'. Therefore I have removed your additions, which were already linked from the article lead and infobox. Skyerise (talk) 11:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing to the manual of style. I was unfamiliar with that policy, and concede that my additions were appropriately removed.

It remains clear to me that the articles in the See Also section at present are of low relevance, or at least that there is no obvious reason to justify their inclusion vis-a-vis hundreds of other articles.

To wit, the current see alsos:

-Human rights: This could potentially be linked to any article dealing with authoritarianism, and a quick search for those articles shows that this not the practice on Wikipedia. The concept is either linked in the body of the article, or not linked at all, not dropped in a see also section.

-Human rights inflation: This is a stub article, that appears to be only referenced on the following wikipedia articles: Substantive rights, Human rights, Right to Internet access, Economic, social and cultural rights, International human rights instruments... and Project 2025. One of these things is not like the others.

-Southern strategy: This is the most clearly inappropriate at the moment. If we're going to draw comparisons between two policies 60 years apart, that should get more analysis than a "See also."

Because there is a dispute between two editors, I'd appreciate input from any third party editors dropping by. Mosi Nuru (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I would be happy to concede Southern strategy, but it was not my addition. I restored it because it seemed to be relevant at first glance and I knew it hadn't been discussed. Not sure who added it, but perhaps they could speak up and justify it. I do have to say that, in general, comparing usage on other articles doesn't carry much weight in Wikipedia discussions (WP:WHATABOUTISM). Examples of this include WP:ENGVAR, WP:DATEVAR, and WP:REFVAR, which all prohibit trying to match the style in some other article. Article editorial decisions are almost always either made locally, or are made at the level of the involved WikiProjects. Some projects might prefer tightly related links, other projects might allow more loosely related links. I am not aware of any preferences in any of the Project associated with this page though, so arguments should mostly refer to guidelines, not other pages. Skyerise (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

CPI

Do you include a reference to Conservative Partnership Institutions? I believe they are related. 2603:8000:D500:68D6:3CE2:E468:F164:76CF (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Conservative Partnership Institute, perhaps? Largely Legible Layman (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2024

Change in the "purpose" line from "support the agenda of Donald Trump" to "support the agenda of the Republican party"

This page cites news articles that state Project 2025 implements "Christian values" yet the articles themselves have absolutely no evidence to back them up. Additionally citation (11) states in the article "The documents obtained by POLITICO do not outline specific Christian nationalist policies".

Add the additional information that presidents have and have always had the power to appoint whomever they chose to positions within their cabinets. Presidents historically specifically choose only the heads of those cabinets due to the logistical errors of replacing hundreds of thousands of workers each election year. Project 2025 does not do anything to change this principal of our government. Project 2025's purpose is to create a list of appointees that are suitable for the appointments for the sole purpose of efficiency of the Republican party. Project 2025 breaks the bureaucracy that has always existed due to the impracticality of replacing employees that are not, but should be elected. JosephiacSherman (talk) 07:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like original research. DN (talk) 07:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: This edit has been contested by Darknipples which makes it ineligible for the edit request process. Please seek consensus. —Sirdog (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

New Project 2025-related book

Project 2025 architect Kevin Roberts has a book coming out soon, with a foreword by J.D. Vance: Dawn's Early Light: Taking Back Washington to Save America.

Google image search suggests that the original sub-title was "Burning Down Washington to Save America", with a picture of an unlit match on the cover. New Republic confirms this.Esowteric Talk Breadcrumbs 15:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Mention Trump's disavowal in lede?

The current lede strongly associates Project 2025 with Trump, and I think it could lead readers to believe he supports it. Shouldn't a mention of Trump's disavowal be put up in the lede to make it more visible in order to avoid confusion? Oktayey (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I see in the New Republic today that Vance wrote the foreword for the forthcoming book on Project 2025. Maybe T. just missed that in his vetting? Skyerise (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the disavowal does need to be in the lead. The fact that the raison d'être of the project is an anticipated Trump presidency, and most of the commentary cited in the article speculates about Trump implementing it, his disavowal is highly WP:DUE. Riposte97 (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused, it's already in the lead in the fourth paragraph - do you want it higher up? I think the lead is a good place to summarize the full picture of how many of his close allies are leading it but no evidence of his direct involvement with commentary that he is likely aware of the project. I think there should be as few quotations as possible (if any) in a lead section Superb Owl (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Huh, it appears I was mistaken. The lede is so monstrously long that since it was at the very bottom, I didn't realize it was still part of the lede. Although it's still four paragraphs, it's so bloated with details that are more fit for the article's body. Would you agree that it needs to be abridged? Oktayey (talk) 03:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Any suggestions on how to make some sentences more succinct and remove excessive detail would be great but consensus is tough on changing the lead so I would start small with lower-hanging fruit Superb Owl (talk) 03:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

it is properly placed in the lead soibangla (talk) 02:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Leave it be. Johnsosd (talk) 05:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Project 2025

wikipedia does not understand p2025. Trump's name should not be in there. It's a right wing initiative, but it is not a Trump initiative. Vannan426 (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Vannan426 Project 2025 may not be written or created by Trump himself, but he is certainly related to it. If our sources say Trump is related to the project, that is what Wikipedia focuses on. TheWikiToby (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@TheWikiToby I think that logic is worse than guilt by association. 104.35.207.163 (talk) 11:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Blame the media. Wikipedia has always been an echo chamber for it since 2005. TheWikiToby (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit of an expert on biases, and I must say that this article is an excellent example of Selection Bias. Whatever happened to NPOV? You say blame the media, TheWikiToby, but this article has cherry picked the selected media ... hence ... selection bias. 174.63.101.77 (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Snopes.com has a vastly better article on p2025, not so loaded with bias. It has a much better NPOV. 174.63.101.77 (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

this article is an excellent example of Selection Bias

how so? soibangla (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@174.63.101.77 Then help us. What sources did we miss? TheWikiToby (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

According to RS..."The 922-page plan outlines a dramatic expansion of presidential power and a plan to fire as many as 50,000 government workers to replace them with Trump loyalists." ...DN (talk) 03:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

References