|
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = Talk:Project 2025/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 23
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|archiveheader = {{tan}}
{{WikiProject Sexuality|importance=low}}
}}
{{American English}}
{{Top 25 Report|Jun 9 2024|until|Jul 7 2024}}
{{Top 25 Report|Jun 9 2024|until|Jul 14 2024}}
{{annual readership}}
{{old move|date=13 June 2024|destination=Project 2025/Presidential Transition Project|result=not moved|link=Special:Permalink/1229088136#Requested move 13 June 2024}}
::More than 90% of sources describe it as a conservative project. What should be discussed here? And in any case, both conservatism and right-wing should be named. [[User:Esterau16|Esterau16]] ([[User talk:Esterau16|talk]]) 18:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
:::(updated) I started a running list of how various reliable sources describe the project/policies [[User:Superb%20Owl/sandbox/Project 2025#Conservative descriptor| here]]. I don't know where the 90% estimate comes from but it's not born out in the data I've started collecting [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk:Superb Owl|talk]]) 05:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
== Why are most sources news articles ? ==
Many lines describing extreme proposals using heated language are sourced to news sites reporting on the Projects plans? Why is the source not the project itself and what it claims to do? [[Special:Contributions/85.76.118.181|85.76.118.181]] ([[User talk:85.76.118.181|talk]]) 12:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
:
:The project itself and their mandate are primary sources. Wikipedia instead needs independent, secondary [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] that give significant coverage of the subject (whether they are "for", "against", or more neutral). See [[WP:GOLDENRULE]]. <b>[[User:Esowteric|<span style="color: green;">Esowteric</span>]]<small> + [[User talk:Esowteric|<span style="color: blue;">Talk</span>]] + [[Special:Contributions/Esowteric|<span style="color: red;">Breadcrumbs</span>]]</small></b> 13:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
:
::In general, we should ignore the headlines except for the key words and pay closer attention to the body, assuming that the news article comes from a reliable source. As Wikipedia editors, we should then extract as much usable information from them and leave aside the opinions, except when such opinions come from notable persons, such as, in this case, those involved in Project 2025. [[User:Nerd271|Nerd271]] ([[User talk:Nerd271|talk]]) 13:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
:::I have seen several Wikipedia discussions over the last couple of years that headlines must be ignored since a) they often do not accurately summarize an article's content b) they are not provided by the journalists, but by their editors. [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 14:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
::The aim is to write an article from a [[WP:NEUTRAL|neutral point of view]], giving due weight to differing viewpoints expressed in the available reliable sources. <b>[[User:Esowteric|<span style="color: green;">Esowteric</span>]]<small> + [[User talk:Esowteric|<span style="color: blue;">Talk</span>]] + [[Special:Contributions/Esowteric|<span style="color: red;">Breadcrumbs</span>]]</small></b> 13:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
:"Why is the source not the project"
:Because… that's how Wikipedia works. [[User:NewkirkPlaza|NewkirkPlaza]] ([[User talk:NewkirkPlaza|talk]]) 20:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [[User:NewkirkPlaza|NewkirkPlaza]] ([[User talk:NewkirkPlaza|talk]]) 20:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
::And that's a good way to excuse a biased article. Only left-leaning news is talking about this, so all the sources are from left-leaning newspapers like New Republic. Especially some of the language the header uses, like "many legal experts say" when it cites political opinion columns by investigative journalists, is dreadfully misleading. Also, you can use primary sources on Wikipedia if the quotation is direct and descriptive. Just not primary sources alone. --[[User:IronMaidenRocks|IronMaidenRocks]] ([[User talk:IronMaidenRocks|talk]]) 00:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tq|"Only left-leaning news is talking about this..."}}
:::* [https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/commentary/project-2025 Heritage.org]
:::* [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/presidential/3073203/former-pence-adviser-blasts-trump-distance-project-2025-ludicrous/ Washington Examiner]
:::* [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-slams-heritage-foundation-transition-plan-claims-parts-ridiculous-abysmal FOX NEWS]
:::* [https://nypost.com/2024/07/05/us-news/trump-disavows-abysmal-hard-right-project-2025-agenda-for-second-term-pushed-by-conservative-think-tank/ New York Post]
:::* [https://www.nationalreview.com/news/trump-disavows-the-heritage-foundations-high-profile-plan-for-a-second-term/ National Review]
:::*[https://www.oann.com/newsroom/trump-says-he-has-nothing-to-do-with-project-2025-after-detractors-accuse-him-of-puppeteering-its-goals/ OAN]
:::* [https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/donald-trump-project-2025-dcd4ad47 Wallstreet Journal]
:::* Breitbart '''"Biden assails Project 2025, a plan to transform government, and Trump’s claim to be unaware of it"''' July 7th 2024
:::[[User:Darknipples|DN]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 02:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::::None of these sources are quoted in the article. All the sources are from left-leaning newspapers. Suddenly you pullout these sources when the bias is called out, but the coverage bias is still in the article. Also, every single one of those except the primary source is denying the former president's involvement, and are a reaction to the left-leaning coverage in the news cycle on this issue. To deny my statement, you're pulling out information that would not have existed just three days ago, months into that news cycle. Furthermore, users in other discussions noted that these statements are not newsworthy on the issue, but now that they're convenient, I guess they're suddenly newsworthy again. And yes, quoting a user and spamming unrelated links in response to contradict them, and masking the nature of those links by using text display reads as bad faith. But I'll assume you simply searched the topic in right-wing news and pulled every seemingly relevant article you could find without considering the subject or chronological context. --[[User:IronMaidenRocks|IronMaidenRocks]] ([[User talk:IronMaidenRocks|talk]]) 17:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::"All told, journalist Judd Legum documented how 31 of the 38 people who helped write or edit the project served in some manner in Trump’s administration or transition." [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/09/project-2025-trump-connections-similarities Project 2025: inside Trump’s ties to the rightwing policy playbook: Trump has disavowed the manifesto, but his goals for civil service cuts, deportation and more show a shared vision]. <b>[[User:Esowteric|<span style="color: green;">Esowteric</span>]]<small> + [[User talk:Esowteric|<span style="color: blue;">Talk</span>]] + [[Special:Contributions/Esowteric|<span style="color: red;">Breadcrumbs</span>]]</small></b> 18:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::Sorry? I'm not sure what that has to do with an incidental coverage slant, and whether the article underutilizes primary sources. --[[User:IronMaidenRocks|IronMaidenRocks]] ([[User talk:IronMaidenRocks|talk]]) 18:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Well, it illustrates one of the reasons that we don't automatically trust what primary sources have to say about themselves, and illustrates the way that reports and investigative journalism in the so-called "fake media" (secondary sources) may help us discover the actual truth of a matter. <b>[[User:Esowteric|<span style="color: green;">Esowteric</span>]]<small> + [[User talk:Esowteric|<span style="color: blue;">Talk</span>]] + [[Special:Contributions/Esowteric|<span style="color: red;">Breadcrumbs</span>]]</small></b> 19:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Primary sources can be used to give an accurate picture of the topic. Or, for example, it can make sure a quote is accurate. The Op was talking about heated language, and I agree with them there. A quotation should not be made of a primary source from a secondary source in order to make the primary source say something it does not nominally intend. Our job isn't to make sure nobody falls for misrepresentation of intention by the primary source, but that information is presented encyclopedically. There seems to be an overabundance of caution here about what the narrative is, rather than a priority on sharing the facts. In that case, I think readers who come here wanting to learn more about the issue want to know if claims from secondary sources are demonstrably true. It's easy enough to find secondary sources anywhere else, and people come to Wikipedia looking for a brief on the facts. [[User:IronMaidenRocks|IronMaidenRocks]] ([[User talk:IronMaidenRocks|talk]]) 19:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
== Charts/graphs proposal ==
:::There is no direct citation for POV and tone when it's so pervasive. [[Special:Contributions/100.8.96.142|100.8.96.142]] ([[User talk:100.8.96.142|talk]]) 02:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
:::100% [[User:JBrownIII|JBrownIII]] ([[User talk:JBrownIII|talk]]) 19:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
== Project 2025's legality and constitutionality ==
''[https://static.project2025.org/2025%20MandateForLeadership%20FULL.pdf Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise]'' is over 900 pages, so it's hard for me to quickly determine the legality and constitutionality of each of its proposals. Should we have a new section in [[Project 2025]] specifically for its proposals' legality and constitutionality? [[User:Ss0jse|Ss0jse]] ([[User talk:Ss0jse|talk]]) 20:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
:I think it would be really helpful to have reliable sources discussing how likely certain aspects are to be legal. <br>I started a draft [[User:Superb_Owl/sandbox/Project_2025#Implementation|here]] that anyone can edit [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk:Superb Owl|talk]]) 20:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
::Thank you, although how does a Wikipedia editor determine a source's reputability? Please let me know which articles within the [[Wikipedia:Project namespace]] to refer to. [[User:Ss0jse|Ss0jse]] ([[User talk:Ss0jse|talk]]) 21:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:::See, for example: [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. <b>[[User:Esowteric|<span style="color: green;">Esowteric</span>]]<small> + [[User talk:Esowteric|<span style="color: blue;">Talk</span>]] + [[Special:Contributions/Esowteric|<span style="color: red;">Breadcrumbs</span>]]</small></b> 21:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Thank you, [[User:Esowteric|Esowteric]]. [[User:Ss0jse|Ss0jse]] ([[User talk:Ss0jse|talk]]) 21:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Or if that's too advanced, maybe start by reading [[Help:Getting started]]. <b>[[User:Esowteric|<span style="color: green;">Esowteric</span>]]<small> + [[User talk:Esowteric|<span style="color: blue;">Talk</span>]] + [[Special:Contributions/Esowteric|<span style="color: red;">Breadcrumbs</span>]]</small></b> 21:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Got it. [[User:Ss0jse|Ss0jse]] ([[User talk:Ss0jse|talk]]) 21:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:It's not up to Wikipedia to determine the legality or Constitutionality of anything— that's what secondary sources are for. [[User:NewkirkPlaza|NewkirkPlaza]] ([[User talk:NewkirkPlaza|talk]]) 21:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
::"Secondary sources"? In the context of Wikipedia edits, what does that term mean? Please let me know which articles within the [[Wikipedia:Project namespace]] to refer to. [[User:Ss0jse|Ss0jse]] ([[User talk:Ss0jse|talk]]) 21:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
::If such a determination is not to be made by Wikipedia, then, instead of having quotes (and multiple uses of the phrase "many legal experts") scattered throughout this article, should we have a section that contains such secondary sources' analyses, thus putting all of those analyses into one dedicated section? If so, should we make the new section a ''sub''-section of the "Reactions and responses" section? [[User:Ss0jse|Ss0jse]] ([[User talk:Ss0jse|talk]]) 21:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
== Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2024 ==
:::If we include at all, I '''support''' @[[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] idea of only including if there are reliable secondary sources that have evaluated the claim and including them alongside it [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk:Superb Owl|talk]]) 21:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
:I believe the original edit request is {{Already done}}. Any further discussions should probably have their own topic(s) added. <br />— [[User:Urropean|Urro]]<sup>[[User_talk:Urropean|<nowiki>[</nowiki>''talk''<nowiki>]</nowiki>]][[Special:Contributions/Urropean|<nowiki>[</nowiki>''edits''<nowiki>]</nowiki>]]</sup> ⋮ 21:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
== Criticisms should not be in summary ==
The statement “Critics have characterized Project 2025 as an authoritarian, Christian nationalist plan to transform the U.S. into an autocracy” should not be in the summary. Criticism should be in the responses section where the criticism can be described and the arguments discussed. As is, there is no information as to why critics say this. This appears like an attempt to characterize the project in frightening terms rather than to describe the context around it. This leads the appearance of political bias making the article less credible. [[User:Johnbradleywood|Johnbradleywood]] ([[User talk:Johnbradleywood|talk]]) 12:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:Not so. The leading section is a neutral summary of important points that feature in the body of the article, giving due weight to different perspectives, and that includes the large amount of criticism and sparse support for Project 2025. <b>[[User:Esowteric|<span style="color: green;">Esowteric</span>]]<small> + [[User talk:Esowteric|<span style="color: blue;">Talk</span>]] + [[Special:Contributions/Esowteric|<span style="color: red;">Breadcrumbs</span>]]</small></b> 12:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
::So then why are the expressed criticisms of the work, being treated as the purpose of the work? [[User:Ummreally?|Ummreally?]] ([[User talk:Ummreally?|talk]]) 14:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
::Critiques are by definition not neutral. If project 2025 laid out such plans then summarize those plans. Summarizing the nature of critics, supporters, and popularity would all be appropriate. But that is not what that sentence is doing. [[User:Johnbradleywood|Johnbradleywood]] ([[User talk:Johnbradleywood|talk]]) 20:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Johnbradleywood}} Then provide citations to ''supporting articles''. Critics of the current article have repeatedly been asked to provide secondary sources that support the project, but so far no one has done so. I have myself searched and not found any. If the ''only'' secondary sources available are critiques, then that is what the article ''has to be based on''. The [[WP:BURDEN|burden]] is on those who claim the article doesn't follow the sources in a balanced manner to find and provide sources that would allow the article to be rebalanced. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 20:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Wikipedia is written by volunteers like ourselves. If you can find reliable sources that show Project 2025 in a positive light, then feel free to contribute. Here's a [[Help:Getting started|guide to getting started]]. <b>[[User:Esowteric|<span style="color: green;">Esowteric</span>]]<small> + [[User talk:Esowteric|<span style="color: blue;">Talk</span>]] + [[Special:Contributions/Esowteric|<span style="color: red;">Breadcrumbs</span>]]</small></b> 21:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
== Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2024 ==
"The Trump campaign has attempted to distance itself from the effort and in July 2024, Trump denied knowledge of the project and said "some" of their policies were unacceptable, even though many of his advisors and former officials of his presidential administration drafted and endorsed it." [[User:Josepheg33|Josepheg33]] ([[User talk:Josepheg33|talk]]) 18:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:[[File:Pictogram voting comment.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Note:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> The referenced text is no longer in the article. – [[User:Macaddct1984|macaddct1984]] <sup>([[User talk:Macaddct1984|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Macaddct1984|contribs]])</sup> 14:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
== Roberts and Dans quotes ==
{{u|JSwift49}}, I believe the paragraph with the Roberts and Dans quotes should remain as the second paragraph in the lead
what do others think?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Project_2025&diff=prev&oldid=1233404057 [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 22:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:I do not believe it should be in the intro. The purpose of the intro is to summarize what Project 2025 is. Just a Heritage guy saying the next revolution will be bloodless doesn't fall into that. The Dans quote is closer to a description by a proponent but I still think it works better in the 'Advisory board and leadership' section, where it sheds more light on what the Project 2025 leadership have said. [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 22:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
::but you think it belongs under ''Advisory board and leadership''? really? [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 22:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Makes more sense. Another option could be inserting the Dans quote into the Philosophy section.
:::Project 2025's director is Paul Dans, who served as chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management during the Trump administration. Spencer Chretien, a former special assistant to Trump, serves as associate director. Dans, also an editor of the project's guiding document, has described Project 2025 as "systematically preparing to march into office and bring a new army [of] aligned, trained, and essentially weaponized conservatives ready to do battle against the [[Deep state in the United States|deep state]]."<ref>{{Cite web |title=Paul Dans |url=https://www.heritage.org/staff/paul-dans |access-date=2024-04-28 |website=Heritage.org |archive-date=April 25, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240425171805/https://www.heritage.org/staff/paul-dans |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Gira Grant |first=Melissa |date=January 4, 2024 |title=The Right Is Winning Its War on Schools |url=https://newrepublic.com/article/177563/right-winning-war-schools |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240113215004/https://newrepublic.com/article/177563/right-winning-war-schools |archive-date=January 13, 2024 |access-date=January 13, 2024 |magazine=[[The New Republic]]}}</ref> He has said that Project 2025 is "built on four pillars": [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 22:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
::::My impression is the Dans quote has generated less coverage and if so, belongs in the Advisory Board and Leadership section, whereas the Roberts quote being as notable and newsworthy as it has been, actually belongs in the lede. Generally don't like quotes in the lead either, but this seems to be a useful exception. [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk:Superb Owl|talk]]) 22:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::I agree it is a very notable quote, but it's not really a description of Project 2025, is it? It's just someone stating his broad worldview. So that's why I felt it should go into the leadership section because it's giving us more broad insight into who Heritage is. [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 22:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::I propose summarizing the quote like this in the lede: "The strongest effort by the Trump campaign to distance themselves came after a July 2 interview of President Kevin Roberts that was interpreted by some as threatening political violence." (see full proposed lede rewrite [[User:Superb Owl/sandbox/Project 2025|here]]) [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk:Superb Owl|talk]]) 22:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::That works for me, if it's clarified that the distancing happened immediately after that comment. And then the quote in its entirety can still be in the article elsewhere. [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 22:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Or at the end of the last paragraph: "The disavowal followed a July 2 interview of Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts that was interpreted by some as threatening political violence". [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 22:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Latest draft that closely follows a Reuters article wording: "The strongest effort by the Trump campaign to distance themselves came days after a July 2nd interview of Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts was criticized for containing a veiled threat of violence." [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk:Superb Owl|talk]]) 22:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Hmm if this [https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-seeks-disavow-project-2025-despite-ties-conservative-group-2024-07-05/] is the article I think we'd need to be careful about the wording bc the article says "criticized what they viewed as a veiled threat of violence", and this would be stating that it was a threat of violence as a fact. And why mince words, why not just say 'The disavowal' came after the interview? [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 22:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::good catch re: the 'what they viewed' and per Soibangla's comments emphasizing the second american revolution below, here's the latest draft:<br>The strongest effort by the Trump campaign to distance themselves came days after Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts suggested there would be a second American revolution. His comments were criticized by Democrats and others for containing what they viewed as a veiled threat of violence. [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk:Superb Owl|talk]]) 23:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::I still have an issue with 'the strongest effort to distance', that implies Trump had been attempting to distance before, and do we know that? Why not just say 'The disavowal'? We already make clear that the disavowal is in spite of Trump's staff/former admin working on this. [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 23:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::It makes more sense in context in the article with the sentence it follows. I'll give it a shot adding it in with citations and then see what you think. [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk:Superb Owl|talk]]) 23:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I still prefer 'the disavowal'. The AP article says "Donald Trump has distanced himself from Project 2025", not that it's his greatest effort to so far.
::::::::::::::The Reuters article says "tried to distance himself" and also "Trump's move to create distance".
::::::::::::::Is there one where it says Trump has actually made previous efforts to distance himself, and that this is his strongest effort yet? [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 23:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{outdent|9}} Yeah let me track it down [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk:Superb Owl|talk]]) 23:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::OK. I strongly believe we should explicitly mention that Trump disavowed it. We are already including information that calls the veracity of his disavowal into question. But we have to report the facts. [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 23:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I say we put the Trump stuff into the third paragraph (since having the second paragraph actually describe what it is makes more sense).
:::::::How about:
:::::::While the Trump campaign initially said the project aligned well with its Agenda 47 proposals, the project has increasingly caused friction with the Trump campaign, which has often sought to avoid specific policy proposals that could be used against him. Trump publicly disavowed Project 2025 on July 5, 2024. This occurred days after Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts suggested there would be a second American Revolution, which was criticized by Democrats and others for what they viewed as a veiled threat of violence. [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 23:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I agree with @[[User:Soibangla|Soibangla]] that this belongs in the second paragraph. This seems more notable than the various policy proposals to scrap certain departments that arise every four years.<br>He didn't disavow the whole project and all of their policies - I want to make sure we get that part right. He disavowed 'some' policies and statements without specifying which. [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk:Superb Owl|talk]]) 00:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::That's a fair point. Replace "Trump publicly disavowed" with "Trump publicly distanced himself from"? [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 00:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Though as far as paragraph order goes I would not say what Trump said about it is more central to the summary than what the Project 2025 actually proposes. So on that point I disagree. IMO it makes sense to first actually explain what it is, and then discuss its relationship to others. [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 00:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I like 'publicly distanced himself from' even though some say 'disavowed' it seems more precise. As for paragraph order, I think it also makes sense to mirror the article by discussing leadership and the organization first and the policies second. That is very typical. [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk:Superb Owl|talk]]) 00:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::I'll put that in and let me know what you think. [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 00:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I'll defer to your experience on the paragraph order. The last thing that gives me pause is saying Heritage is 'closely aligned' with Trump, the CNN article does not state that directly, I would replace it with 'aligned with Republican causes'. [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 00:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::"Former President Donald Trump on Friday sought to distance himself from a closely aligned conservative group’s plans to radically reshape the federal government and American life should the former president win a second term." [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk:Superb Owl|talk]]) 00:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Oh got it I missed that :) [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 00:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::::BTW, you changed the date of the "march into office" quote from April 2023 to April 2024. Yet the second citation from January 2024 somehow quoted him saying this. <b>[[User:Esowteric|<span style="color: green;">Esowteric</span>]]<small> + [[User talk:Esowteric|<span style="color: blue;">Talk</span>]] + [[Special:Contributions/Esowteric|<span style="color: red;">Breadcrumbs</span>]]</small></b> 22:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::Oh that was my bad then. I thought I'd seen April 2024 on the citation [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 22:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
::::it does not make more sense there, not even remotely [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 22:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
{{u|JSwift49}} I ''strongly'' disagree with what you just did here in the midst of this discussion. The quotes belong in the second paragraph of the lead. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Project_2025&diff=prev&oldid=1233411598
:I agree with @[[User:Soibangla|Soibangla]] - we do not have consensus yet and should wait for other to weigh-in [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk:Superb Owl|talk]]) 22:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:No worries, I had put them in so they weren't totally removed. Also @[[User:Soibangla|Soibangla]] could you explain your argument more re. why the quotes belong in the lead? [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 23:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
::1) Roberts says it's the ''second American Revolution''
::2) the militancy of it: "march, army, weaponized, battle," deploying the military on civilians [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 23:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:::But Roberts said the country is in the midst of the second American revolution, not that Project 2025 is that revolution. [https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/04/leader-of-the-pro-trump-project-2025-suggests-there-will-be-a-new-american-revolution-00166583] That's why I agree with @[[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] in that it is worth summarizing as a reason for Trump's disavowal, and mentioning later in the article, but it's too tangential to just quote without context.
:::The Dans militancy quote did not receive as much coverage, and the lead already describes what would happen/that the military would be involved, since we should generally avoid quotes in the lead I say put it in the body, in the same section where Dans is discussed. [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 23:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
::::{{u|JSwift49}} Roberts: "We are in ''the process'' of the second American Revolution"
::::who is "we?" [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 04:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::It probably makes more sense to replace the Dans quote in the lede saying something like:<br>The project has employed warlike rhetoric and apocalyptic language in describing a "battle plan" to regain control of the government. [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk:Superb Owl|talk]]) 23:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Works for me. [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 23:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
::::as long as it paraphrases Roberts and mentions deployment, as the second paragraph of the lead, not buried in the body [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 23:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::Are you referring to Dans or Roberts? Again, I agree paraphrasing Roberts' mention of the 'second American revolution' in the Trump disavowal section makes sense as it's a notable quote. But paraphrasing the Dans quote is to me undue weight, and it's better to summarize as 'warlike rhetoric and apocalyptic language' while including the Dans quote in the body.
:::::The purpose of the lead is not to promote specific quotes it is to summarize. [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 23:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::I am not proposing paraphrasing Dans
::::::1) The project has employed warlike rhetoric and apocalyptic language in describing a "battle plan" to regain control of the government (or such)
::::::2) paraphrase Roberts
::::::3) deploying military
::::::4) second paragraph [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 23:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Warlike rhetoric is good.
:::::::Paraphrasing Roberts, I think, only makes sense in the Trump disavowal paragraph. Because Roberts is not talking about Project 2025 specifically. His comments and association with Project 2025 are mainly significant because they are what led Trump to disavow.
:::::::Deploying military works in the paragraph describing widespread changes in government (it's currently there). [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 23:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::A lot of commentators have noted the dark, apocalyptic and militaristic language beyond simply the Dans quote. If you aren't satisfied with the coverage shown in the citations, please flag as 'additional citations needed' and I can check and see if there are enough to justify it in the lead [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk:Superb Owl|talk]]) 23:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::''please'' stop rewriting the lead in the midst of this discussion [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 23:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::sorry for jumping the gun - was trying to visualize since we seemed so close to consensus. [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk:Superb Owl|talk]]) 23:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::your action gives me great pause. I cannot say more here without resorting to cussing. [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 23:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::There was no consensus for deleting the entire section as you did. It's a work in progress. [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 23:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I followed BRD, you should too and discuss rather than edit war [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 23:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{u|JSwift49}} you have edit warred to force content that is being discussed and no consensus has been reached. {{u|Superb Owl}} [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 00:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I ask that you remove the addition that the other editor just restored [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 23:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I think it now reflects the consensus we built. Not sure what we gain by going back - are there issues with the lead as it now stands? [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk:Superb Owl|talk]]) 23:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I strongly believe we should explicitly mention that Trump disavowed it. We are already including information that calls the veracity of his disavowal into question.
:::::::::::I say we put the Trump stuff into the third paragraph (since having the second paragraph actually describe what it is makes more sense).
:::::::::::How about:
:::::::::::While the Trump campaign initially said the project aligned well with its Agenda 47 proposals, the project has increasingly caused friction with the Trump campaign, which has often sought to avoid specific policy proposals that could be used against him. Trump publicly disavowed Project 2025 on July 5, 2024. This occurred days after Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts suggested there would be a second American Revolution, which was criticized by Democrats and others for what they viewed as a veiled threat of violence.
:::::::::::Also this article [https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/05/politics/trump-distance-project-2025/index.html] doesn't explicitly state Heritage is "closely-aligned" with Trump, just that they broadly support each other politically? [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 00:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::there is no consensus for this, you have a tendency to conclude a consensus when you find one editor who agrees with you, then you rush to implement. I find this tendency problematic. [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 00:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Happy to take it back to my sandbox to play around with. You want us to delete the second paragraph for now? [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk:Superb Owl|talk]]) 00:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Truly, I think we should keep and change it... I think the second paragraph is a good compromise of all that we have said. Just as I agree jumping the gun is problematic (and I apologize for the time I did that), so too in my view is deleting entire existing sections. [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 00:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::But if we're deleting, mind if I join you there? [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 00:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::{{u|JSwift49}} {{u|Superb Owl}} I believe these discussions should be conducted here rather than an editor's sandbox [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 01:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::{{outdent|12}} No discussions are happening there - just nice to have a space to save our drafts before posting back here [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk:Superb Owl|talk]]) 02:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::[[User:Superb Owl/sandbox/Project 2025|come on over!]] [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk:Superb Owl|talk]]) 00:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::I added the Trump stuff from the end of Paragraph 4. Not sure if the John McEntee quote should be in lead or body. [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 00:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::::How about we put the McEntee line in this paragraph?
::::Axios reported that while Heritage had briefed other 2024 Republican presidential primaries candidates on the project, it is "undeniably a Trump-driven operation", pointing to the involvement of Trump's "most fervent internal loyalty enforcer" Johnny McEntee as a senior advisor to the project. The 2024 Trump campaign said no outside group speaks for Trump and that its "Agenda 47" is the only official plan for a second Trump presidency. Two top Trump campaign officials later issued a statement seeking to distance the campaign from what unspecified outside groups were planning, although many of those plans reflected Trump's own words. [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 00:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::Added draft 2nd paragraph with McEntee line included [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 00:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::Your draft looks good to me. I like adding McEntee into it. Well-integrated and much smoother. Maybe post it here for feedback from others? [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk:Superb Owl|talk]]) 01:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Thank you; will do. [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 01:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::I agree with most of @[[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] findings. The original quotes were being given way too much attention at the top of the page and overly-incendiary. Most of his suggestions are neutral and unproblematic. [[User:Just10A|Just10A]] ([[User talk:Just10A|talk]]) 01:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
INITIAL CONSENSUS DRAFT:<br>[[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 01:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Although Project 2025 cannot, [[Johnson Amendment|by law]], promote a specific presidential candidate, many contributors have close ties to [[Donald Trump]] and his [[Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign|2024 presidential campaign]].<ref name="Klawans-2024">{{Cite news |last=Klawans |first=Justin |date=February 26, 2024 |title=The Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 wants to reshape America under Trump |url=https://theweek.com/politics/heritage-foundation-2025-donald-trump |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240515122437/https://theweek.com/politics/heritage-foundation-2025-donald-trump |archive-date=May 15, 2024 |access-date=May 16, 2024 |work=The Week}}</ref><ref name="Doyle 2023">{{Cite news |last=Doyle |first=Katherine |date=November 17, 2023 |title=Donations Have Surged to Groups Linked to Conservative Project 2025 |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/donations-surged-groups-linked-conservative-project-2025-rcna125638 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231118071504/https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/donations-surged-groups-linked-conservative-project-2025-rcna125638 |archive-date=November 18, 2023 |access-date=November 18, 2023 |work=[[NBC News]]}}</ref> [[The Heritage Foundation]], a think tank closely-aligned with Trump,<ref name=":322">{{Cite web |last=Treene |first=Alayna |last2=Contorno |first2=Steve |last3=Sullivan |first3=Kate |date=2024-07-05 |title=Trump seeks to distance himself from pro-Trump Project 2025 {{!}} CNN Politics |url=https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/05/politics/trump-distance-project-2025/index.html |access-date=2024-07-06 |website=CNN |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-07-08 |title=Trump seeks to distance himself from Project 2025, a plan to transform government |url=https://abc7.com/post/donald-trumps-claim-unaware-project-2025-plan-transform-government/15042798/ |access-date=2024-07-09 |website=ABC7 Los Angeles |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Contorno |first=Steve |date=2024-05-15 |title=Trump’s playboy past is in the spotlight. His allies are readying a new fight against pornography {{!}} CNN Politics |url=https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/15/politics/trump-conservatives-pornography-fight/index.html |access-date=2024-07-09 |website=CNN |language=en}}</ref> coordinates the initiative with a constellation of conservative groups run by Trump allies.<ref name="Ward-20243">{{Cite news |last1=Ward |first1=Alexander |last2=Przybyla |first2=Heidi |date=February 20, 2024 |title=Trump Allies Prepare to Infuse 'Christian Nationalism' in Second Administration |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/20/donald-trump-allies-christian-nationalism-00142086 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240224064541/https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/20/donald-trump-allies-christian-nationalism-00142086 |archive-date=February 24, 2024 |access-date=February 24, 2024 |work=[[Politico]]}}</ref> The Trump campaign initially said the project aligned well with its [[Agenda 47|Agenda{{nbsp}}47]] proposals,<ref name="Hirsh-20232">{{Cite news |last=Hirsh |first=Michael |date=September 19, 2023 |title=Inside the Next Republican Revolution |url=https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/09/19/project-2025-trump-reagan-00115811 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231106072647/https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/09/19/project-2025-trump-reagan-00115811 |archive-date=November 6, 2023 |access-date=November 6, 2023 |work=Politico}}</ref> and in April 2024, Project 2025 senior advisor [[John McEntee (political aide)|John McEntee]] stated that they and the Trump campaign planned to "integrate a lot of our work" by summer.<ref name="Axios20240705">{{cite news |last1=Allen |first1=Mike |last2=Basu |first2=Zachary |date=July 5, 2024 |title=Trump disavows Heritage Foundation's Project 2025, despite MAGA ties |url=https://www.axios.com/2024/07/05/trump-project-2025-heritage-foundation |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240705215915/https://www.axios.com/2024/07/05/trump-project-2025-heritage-foundation |archive-date=July 5, 2024 |access-date=July 5, 2024 |publisher=[[Axios (website)|Axios]]}}</ref>. However, the project has increasingly caused friction with the Trump campaign, which has often sought to avoid specific policy proposals that could be used against him.<ref name="Bump-2024">{{Cite news |last=Bump |first=Philip |date=June 18, 2024 |title=Trump has unveiled an agenda of his own. He just doesn't mention it much. |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/18/trump-has-unveiled-an-agenda-his-own-he-just-doesnt-mention-it-much/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240628085237/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/18/trump-has-unveiled-an-agenda-his-own-he-just-doesnt-mention-it-much/ |archive-date=June 28, 2024 |access-date=June 25, 2024 |newspaper=The Washington Post}}</ref> On July 5, 2024, Trump publicly distanced himself from Project 2025.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Layne |first=Nathan |date=July 5, 2024 |title=Trump seeks to disavow 'Project 2025' despite ties to conservative group |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-seeks-disavow-project-2025-despite-ties-conservative-group-2024-07-05/ |work=Reuters |quote=Trump's post came three days after Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts' comments on Steve Bannon's 'War Room' podcast about a second American Revolution. Democrats and others criticized what they viewed as a veiled threat of violence.}}</ref> This came days after Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts suggested in an interview that there would be a second American Revolution, which was criticized by Democrats and others for containing what they viewed as a veiled threat of violence.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Licon |first=Adriana Gomez |date=2024-07-05 |title=Biden assails Project 2025, a plan to transform government, and Trump's claim to be unaware of it |url=https://apnews.com/article/trump-project-2025-biden-9d372469033d23e1e3aef5cf0470a2e6 |access-date=2024-07-08 |website=AP News |language=en |quote=Donald Trump has distanced himself from Project 2025, a massive proposed overhaul of the federal government drafted by longtime allies and former officials in his administration, days after the head of the think tank responsible for the program suggested there would be a second American Revolution.}}</ref><ref name="Axios202407052">{{cite news |last1=Allen |first1=Mike |last2=Basu |first2=Zachary |date=July 5, 2024 |title=Trump disavows Heritage Foundation's Project 2025, despite MAGA ties |url=https://www.axios.com/2024/07/05/trump-project-2025-heritage-foundation |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240705215915/https://www.axios.com/2024/07/05/trump-project-2025-heritage-foundation |archive-date=July 5, 2024 |access-date=July 5, 2024 |publisher=[[Axios (website)|Axios]]}}</ref><ref name="Bloodless">{{Cite news |date=July 4, 2024 |title=Leader of the pro-Trump Project 2025 suggests there will be a new American Revolution: Kevin Roberts said the revolution will be bloodless 'if the left allows it to be.' |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/04/leader-of-the-pro-trump-project-2025-suggests-there-will-be-a-new-american-revolution-00166583 |via=Politico |quote=His call for revolution and vague reference to violence also unnerved some Democrats who interpreted it as threatening. |agency=Associated Press}}</ref> The project has employed warlike rhetoric and apocalyptic language<ref name="Mascaro-20232">{{Cite news |last=Mascaro |first=Lisa |date=August 29, 2023 |title=Conservative Groups Draw Up Plan to Dismantle the US Government and Replace It with Trump's Vision |url=https://apnews.com/article/election-2024-conservatives-trump-heritage-857eb794e505f1c6710eb03fd5b58981 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230922112031/https://apnews.com/article/election-2024-conservatives-trump-heritage-857eb794e505f1c6710eb03fd5b58981 |archive-date=September 22, 2023 |access-date=September 21, 2023 |work=[[Associated Press News]]}}</ref> in describing a "battle plan" to regain control of the government.{{Efn|<ref name="Mascaro-2023" /><ref>{{cite news |last1=Luciano |first1=Michael |date=July 2, 2024 |title=Conservative Leader Issues Cryptic Threat to Liberals, Says 'Second American Revolution' Will Be 'Bloodless If the Left Allows It to Be' |url=https://www.mediaite.com/tv/conservative-leader-issues-cryptic-threat-to-liberals-says-second-american-revolution-will-be-bloodless-if-the-left-allows-it-to-be/ |publisher=[[Mediaite]] |quote="we are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be."}}</ref><ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Gira Grant |first=Melissa |date=January 4, 2024 |title=The Right Is Winning Its War on Schools |url=https://newrepublic.com/article/177563/right-winning-war-schools |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240113215004/https://newrepublic.com/article/177563/right-winning-war-schools |archive-date=January 13, 2024 |access-date=January 13, 2024 |magazine=[[The New Republic]]}} "systematically preparing to march into office and bring a new army, [of] aligned, trained, and essentially weaponized conservatives ready to do battle against the deep state."</ref><ref name="Friedman 2023" /><ref>{{Cite news |date=July 4, 2024 |title=Leader of the pro-Trump Project 2025 suggests there will be a new American Revolution: Kevin Roberts said the revolution will be bloodless “if the left allows it to be.” |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/04/leader-of-the-pro-trump-project-2025-suggests-there-will-be-a-new-american-revolution-00166583 |work=Associated Press |via=Politico |quote=His call for revolution and vague reference to violence also unnerved some Democrats who interpreted it as threatening.}}</ref>}}
:I like it, but i think we should add Trump's quote after we say he distanced himself from it. [[User:Just10A|Just10A]] ([[User talk:Just10A|talk]]) 01:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::On July 5, 2024, Trump publicly distanced himself from Project 2025, claiming that he knew nothing about the organization, and that some of their proposals were "absolutely ridiculous and abysmal". [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 01:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::This is good. Greenlight from me. [[User:Just10A|Just10A]] ([[User talk:Just10A|talk]]) 01:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:too verbose for lead imo [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 01:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::It's no more verbose than the other three lead paragraphs... [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 01:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::so let's not make it even more verbose [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 01:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Replace:
:::However, the project has increasingly caused friction with the Trump campaign, which has often sought to avoid specific policy proposals that could be used against him.
:::However, the project's controversial proposals increasingly caused friction with the Trump campaign. [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 01:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::I agree. The idea that the paragraph/quote is too verbose for the lead but "the 2nd American revolution will be as bloodless as the left allows it to be" isn't doesn't really match up. I think that paragraph with that additional language is acceptable. [[User:Just10A|Just10A]] ([[User talk:Just10A|talk]]) 01:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::::please clarify [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 01:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::The paragraph written by @[[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] along with the trump quote he added at 1:16 UTC is good and acceptable. [[User:Just10A|Just10A]] ([[User talk:Just10A|talk]]) 01:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::Given that there is consensus from me, @[[User:Just10A|Just10A]] and @[[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]], and also, we incorporated several proposals of @[[User:Soibangla|Soibangla]], I'll add it in? [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 01:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::we are early in this discussion, there is no consensus. if you add it, I will revert it. let's not go this way [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 01:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::I agree with @[[User:Soibangla|Soibangla]] here and prefer the shorter summaries as well (will try to find article that says it's the strongest denial yet). The last thing I want is to start trying to understand or contextualize an angry Trump quote in a lede paragraph. [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk:Superb Owl|talk]]) 01:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I'll try to cut it down; one sec [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 01:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::How about "On July 5, 2024, Trump publicly distanced himself from Project 2025 and criticized some of its proposals."? [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 01:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::See, thats ok, but clearly overly vague and nice compared to what Trump's actual quote was. Furthermore, the idea that having that quote makes it "too verbose" or makes for a poor lead when this conversation was legitimately started by a party adding an even more incendiary quote, to me, is clearly inconsistent. [[User:Just10A|Just10A]] ([[User talk:Just10A|talk]]) 01:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I'm "a party?"
::::::::::I believe all the Trump denial stuff belongs in the last lead paragraph [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 01:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I am having questions about your commitment to neutrality, your point in doing this has been to elevate the most incindiary quotes about Project 2025 as high as possible, and then move the Trump denial from its logical place alongside that subject to the bottom, I think it's reasonable to question if you are acting in good faith. [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 01:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::then bring it to my Talk page. otherwise, I recommend striking your aspersions on me [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 01:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I'm happy to keep the quote but I'm not too fussed about it either way. Main thing we should convey IMO is that he distanced himself and potentially condemned some of their ideas [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 01:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{u|JSwift49}} Trump's denial is late and ancillary to what P25 has been since April 2023 and we should treat it accordingly, chronologically at the end of the lead, where it was before by the work of multiple editors, but you allege I am acting in bad faith by arguing this. [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 05:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::I agree with @[[User:Soibangla|Soibangla]] here and am seeing the logic to that aspect of the prior consensus. We can always revisit as new sources emerge.<br>Also, I think Soiblanga is arguing in good faith, for the record. [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk:Superb Owl|talk]]) 05:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I am concerned that some newly-arrived editors may have been oblivious to the existence of P25 before Trump's Friday denial exploded it into public view. By monitoring internet chatter, I am aware many/most had never heard of P25 before. Trump is not the central story of this article. What Roberts and Dans have said about their mission is central, particularly their violent and militaristic rhetoric, supplemented by the aggressive rhetoric of P25 advocates such as Bannon and Patel as described in the article, and that's what belongs up top in the lead. ''Per asserted maximal unitary executive'', P25 is not proposing a traditional, negotiable legislative agenda subject to congressional and judicial consent; rather it is proposing an outright seizure of the government, by force if necessary, and threatening violence against dissent. This is the central thrust of P25, so it must not be downplayed in the lead. And I say this with the full confidence that the body and its reliable sources fully support it. All anyone needs to do is read it, ''all'' of it. This is not bias or partisanship, JSwift49, it is empirical reality. [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 07:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Hi; one of the reasons I did not believe you were acting in good faith was that you did not explain your arguments and you just said things were wrong. This is a step in the right direction. However, I disagree. If we are going to make a paragraph about the links to Trump we should not omit that Trump distanced himself. The quotes also do not have consensus from me or @[[User:Just10A|Just10A]] for the same reason. [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 10:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::I have always explained my arguments. striking your baseless aspersions is all you gotta do, then you and I will get along just fine, no worries. [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 11:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Also, the goal of Project 2025 is in no way downplayed by putting the quotes in the body, as again, Robert’s’ is not specifically describing Project 2025, and Dans’ quote is not particularly notable, the intro already describes the gist of it. [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 10:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::{{u|JSwift49}} you misrepresented what Roberts actually said. he did not say:
:::::::::::::::{{tq|the country is in the midst of the second American revolution}}
:::::::::::::::as you claimed, he actually said:
:::::::::::::::"We are in the process of the second American Revolution"
:::::::::::::::who is "we?"
:::::::::::::::yet you accuse me of bad faith. all you gotta do is strike it, that's really all you gotta do. easy! [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 11:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::New York Times: [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/03/us/politics/heritage-foundation-2025-policy-america.html]
::::::::::::::::"The president of the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank that has developed a prominent series of policy plans to overhaul the federal government under a Republican president, said on Tuesday that '''the country''' was “in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.” [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 11:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::CNN [https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/05/politics/trump-distance-project-2025/index.html]
::::::::::::::::"Kevin Roberts, drew widespread backlash from Democrats for saying in an interview that '''the country''' was “in the process of the second American Revolution..."
::::::::::::::::Financial Times [https://www.ft.com/content/08fd4b82-144d-485d-8374-663741bf871e]
::::::::::::::::Trump’s comments came days after the Heritage Foundation’s president, Kevin Roberts, said '''the US''' was “in the process of the second American Revolution,..."
::::::::::::::::News sources attribute Roberts' quote to referring to the United States, not Project 2025. Therefore, the quote is not relevant enough to include in the lead unless, as the initial consensus draft proposed, in discussion about why Trump distanced himself. [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 11:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::@[[User:Soibangla|Soibangla]] What do you think about putting Superb Owl's draft [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Superb_Owl/sandbox/Project_2025], which is about Trump's connection to and later distancing from Project 2025, at the end of the lead? That seems like a compromise to what you are saying, that the Trump stuff would be later, and I would support that.
::::::::::::CC'ing @[[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] because we had discussed the positioning of this paragraph earlier [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 12:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::striking it might make it more likely I would engage you. easy! [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 12:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I'm willing to work with you on this in good faith and for you to prove my misgivings wrong. However if you do not explain/back up your arguments and act in an uncivil manner I will challenge that, as I would anyone. [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 12:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::I needn't prove anything to you. You baselessly cast aspersions upon me. All you gotta do is strike it and everything will be fine. [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 12:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I prefer "On July 5, 2024, Trump publicly distanced himself from some aspects of Project 2025." because he is not criticizing any specific proposals and is also criticizing some of the things they said (beyond proposals and into public comments a la Kevin Roberts) but again is vague and not specific, so 'some aspects' covers both of those criticisms. Most analysis does not believe his assertion that he has no idea who they are, so I do not see any reason to put likely falsehoods in the lead [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk:Superb Owl|talk]]) 01:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Hmm. I think it's more accurate to say he distanced himself from them as he basically said I have nothing to do with them (even though it's false the paragraph establishes that). That's why I prefer distanced himself from Project 2025 (I don't know who they are) and criticized some of their policies (some policies are ridiculous and abysmal). It is more a complete picture is what I'm trying to say. Wdyt? [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 01:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::How about "criticized some of their rhetoric"? [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 01:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Reuters article says "assertions". "adding some of their assertions were "absolutely ridiculous and abysmal." [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 02:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I think we are getting into trying to summarize Trump as a primary source when we should lean more heavily into how secondary sources interpreting his comments. He's not the most reliable source even on things he believes and supports, so let's look at the articles from the most reliable outlets and use their analysis (not their quotations). This is why I wanted to keep that section short - it can be a huge headache to try and find consensus on a Trump quote [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk:Superb Owl|talk]]) 02:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Reuters:
::::::::::::"The Republican presidential candidate renounced any connection with Project 2025"
::::::::::::""I disagree with some of the things they're saying," he continued, adding some of their assertions were "absolutely ridiculous and abysmal."
::::::::::::On July 5, 2024, Trump publicly distanced himself from Project 2025 and criticized some of its assertions.? [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 02:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I was thinking: "On July 5, 2024, Trump tried to publicly distanced himself from some aspects of Project 2025. This came days after Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts..." Since it's not clear that he succeeded in distancing himself [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk:Superb Owl|talk]]) 02:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::But many reports say he distanced himself? I don't think distancing depends on how other people view it.
::::::::::::::"Former President Donald Trump distanced himself on Friday from Project 2025" (Forbes)[https://www.forbes.com/sites/caileygleeson/2024/07/05/trump-disavows-project-2025-calls-some-of-conservative-groups-ideas-absolutely-ridiculous-and-abysmal/]
::::::::::::::"Donald Trump distanced himself Friday from Project 2025" (TIME)
::::::::::::::[https://time.com/6995370/trump-disavows-project-2025-transition-plan/]
::::::::::::::"Donald Trump has distanced himself from Project 2025" (AP)
::::::::::::::[https://apnews.com/article/trump-project-2025-biden-9d372469033d23e1e3aef5cf0470a2e6] [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 02:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::The Time article is the same article as AP (syndicated). I finally had time to investigate and start a running list [[User:Superb_Owl/sandbox/Project_2025#Distanced_vs._tried_to_distance...| here]] and have 7 articles saying 'tried to/sought to distance' and only 2 saying 'distanced.' I also think it is more verifiable to say 'try to distance.' [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk:Superb Owl|talk]]) 18:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::How about this: "On July 5, 2024, Trump publicly distanced himself from Project 2025 and criticized some of its aspects?" [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 02:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::{{outdent|2}} I think you're right to removed 'tried' if that's what the sources are saying. I get that it was an emphatic denial of the organization, but I want to make sure what we add is substantive too and not redundant (by distancing himself from the project, that seems to imply the policies too)<br>(update: [[User:Superb_Owl/sandbox/Project_2025#Distanced_vs._tried_to_distance...|more sources]] actually appear to be saying 'tried to/sought to distance' than simply 'distanced') [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk:Superb Owl|talk]]) 02:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Fair. That tbh is why i like 'Ideas'. (which Forbes uses) [https://www.forbes.com/sites/caileygleeson/2024/07/05/trump-disavows-project-2025-calls-some-of-conservative-groups-ideas-absolutely-ridiculous-and-abysmal/]
::::::::::::::So that tells us: Trump distanced himself from the organization, but he only criticized some of the ideas, and these ideas may not necessarily be policies. [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 02:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Your draft as is is all good with me. Happy to publish if you are. [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 02:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::{{u|JSwift49}} previously, {{u|Superb Owl}} published a major change that remained under discussion, without achieving consensus. you later apologized for similarly "jumping the gun." why is this happening again when there remains no consensus for this? [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 02:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I agree. The comments/draft look good to me. As for @[[User:Soibangla|Soibangla]], you probably don't think a "consensus was reached" because you explicitly refused to engage in the dialogue that reached said consensus. That's a personal choice. [[User:Just10A|Just10A]] ([[User talk:Just10A|talk]]) 14:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::your edit was unjustified and unnecessary [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 23:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::NBC: [https://www.nbcnews.com/now/video/trump-distances-himself-from-controversial-project-2025-plan-214443589611]
::::::::::::"Trump distances himself from controversial 'Project 2025' plan"
::::::::::::"former President Trump called portions of the 'Project 2025' proposal aimed at overhauling the federal government... "ridiculous and abysmal." [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 02:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
{{notelist-talk}}
{{reflist-talk}}
== Ask for help to fix cite errors for several <ref> ==
Hello, I noticed there are several citation errors in the reference section. After investigating the edit history, it seems that that errors started appeared after this revision: [[en:Special:Redirect/revision/1233412453]]
I found it difficult to recover and link the original citation for me. It would be nice if @[[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] or someone could help to fix these errors.
Thanks! [[User:TAKAHASHI Shuuji|shuuji3]] ([[User talk:TAKAHASHI Shuuji|talk]]) 03:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:Done! Thanks for catching that [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk:Superb Owl|talk]]) 04:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::Great! Thanks for the quick fix :) [[User:TAKAHASHI Shuuji|shuuji3]] ([[User talk:TAKAHASHI Shuuji|talk]]) 05:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
== Paragraph order of lead ==
This unfinished discussion may have gotten lost in the avalanche thread above, so I propose continuing it here:<br>
@[[User:Soibangla|Soibangla]] and myself ''strongly'' support discussing the Heritage foundation and associated controversies in the second paragraph, moving Trump denial to the fourth (with reactions/etc.) and having policies in the third. This, in my opinion, adheres most closely to the order of the article (LeadFollowsBody), notability, and scope.<br>
@[[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] has preferred the policy paragraph second and elevating Trump denial higher.<br>
Anything I missed? Other thoughts? [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk:Superb Owl|talk]]) 15:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:I think the article is good as it currently is and @[[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] did a good job of being neutral. Soibangla earlier stated that "Trump's denial is late and ancillary to what P25 has been since April 2023 and we should treat it accordingly." The same logic applies to the Roberts quote and issues. It is within days of the Trump statement (aka "late" by his standards) and [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] has already shown that the "we" in the quote has been interpreted by sources as referring to the country as a whole, not P25 (aka it is ancillary). As a result, the Heritage issues should be given similar treatment and placement as the Trump issues and I think no more changes regarding this issue are needed. The paragraph & article's structure/wording is good and neutral as it is. [[User:Just10A|Just10A]] ([[User talk:Just10A|talk]]) 16:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::{{u|Just10A}} thanks for the ping while talking about me.
<s>::where has JSwift49 shown that {{tq|the "we" in the quote has been interpreted by sources as referring to the country as a whole, not P25}}?[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Project_2025&diff=prev&oldid=1233499322]</s>[[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 22:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:I agree with @[[User:Just10A|Just10A]]. I think Heritage and Trump go together and should be in the same paragraph. The Roberts “revolution” quote demonsttably refers to the United States and not Project 2025, so its relevance is mainly in that it preceded Trump (publicly) distancing himself.
:Therefore I strongly oppose splitting the Trump distancing from the Roberts quote, or giving more weight to the Roberts quote in the lead. But I’d be OK with the Trump/Heritage paragraph being second instead of at the end. [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 16:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
<s>::have you demonstrated {{tq|The Roberts “revolution” quote demonsttably refers to the United States and not Project 2025}}? maybe I missed that. could you show me?[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Project_2025&diff=prev&oldid=1233499322] [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 22:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)</s>
so it appears three of us agree there needs to be a second parapraph while a fourth says the article is fine right now, is that right?
:@[[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] No, that's a misrepresentation of what I said. I think the article is good as it is. If the entire last paragraph (including the Trump ties and Trump distancing) was moved second, I wouldn't have an issue either, but the paragraphs themselves would be the same. [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 01:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
:However I still have a preference for keeping the order completely as-is, because it flows nicely and chronologically. Describes what it is, and then the "ancillary" comments at the end. Makes more sense for readers. [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 01:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
::perhaps you can try to write less ambiguously
::{{tq|But I’d be OK with the Trump/Heritage paragraph being second instead of at the end}} [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 01:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Hi! Glad we are engaging again. As I explained, I oppose your proposal of a second paragraph solely devoted to Heritage. I also said would not mind the ''order'' of the existing paragraphs be changed provided the ''content/grouping stays the same''. But that's minor. So for simplicity's sake: count me as agreeing with @[[User:Just10A|Just10A]], don't change the lead paragraphs. [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 01:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
::::{{tq|But I’d be OK with the Trump/Heritage paragraph being second instead of at the end}}
::::hey, see how I struck my error in this thread? see how easy it is to acknowledge an error? see how it demonstrates my integrity? [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 01:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
::::you said to me
::::{{tq2|I am having questions about your commitment to neutrality, your point in doing this has been to elevate the most incindiary quotes about Project 2025 as high as possible, and then move the Trump denial from its logical place alongside that subject to the bottom, I think it's reasonable to question if you are acting in good faith}}
::::now that {{u|Superb Owl}} said in this thread
::::{{tq2|''strongly'' support discussing the Heritage foundation and associated controversies in the second paragraph, moving Trump denial to the fourth}}
::::are you prepared to impugn that editor's integrity as well? [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 02:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::Not at all; Superb Owl and I haven't agreed on everything but we were able to civilly work together, and explain/listen to each others' arguments. You on the other hand have rarely explained your arguments or engaged with mine, and you have also misrepresented what I've said. That comes across as pushing an agenda. Based on your Talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Soibangla] I'm not the first to raise doubts about your neutrality/civility. So... I will leave this conversation at that. You are of course always welcome to contribute your perspective on the article in a professional way. [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 02:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::please cite specific examples of "rarely explained your arguments," because it is flatly false. "or engaged with mine," after you falsely impugned my integrity, of course, which does not promote civility. I did not misrepresent what you said, I quoted you. "I'm not the first to raise doubts about your neutrality/civility," so cite specific examples from my Talk page. all sorts of people whinge about all sorts of things over the course of a decade, which are often refuted. if I was actually a problem, I'd have a lengthy sanctions history. "So... I will leave this conversation at that" well color me shocked [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 02:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
== Biased ==
As much as I dislike Republicans, this article is very biased against them, focusing solely on the cons of the plan. [[User:Jacobacademy|Jacobacademy]] ([[User talk:Jacobacademy|talk]]) 21:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|Jacobacademy}} Can you provide sources which treat the subject in a positive manner? I've looked and can't find any. We follow the sources. If nobody is writing positive articles about the plan, then there is nothing positive we can say about it. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 22:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] Perhaps, but you could at least try to phrase the info in a neutral manner. A good step to take would be to talk more about the intended effects of the plan more and try to exclude criticism from the summary. I don't know how to edit, I am merely a user concerned about maintaining the neutrality of Wikipedia. [[User:Jacobacademy|Jacobacademy]] ([[User talk:Jacobacademy|talk]]) 22:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Jacobacademy}} there are quite a few editors collaborating on the article representing both sides. The article represents these editors current consensus as to how to present what the ''sources'' say. The sources are almost uniformly critical. We can't just make up praise or whitewash criticism! [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 22:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] There is nothing wrong with you accurately representing the sources, but you have to have more context. For example, instead of saying that the plan was criticized in a newspaper, you could include the name of the newspaper, writer of the article, and a quote, thus accurately representing the source well remaining impartial. [[User:Jacobacademy|Jacobacademy]] ([[User talk:Jacobacademy|talk]]) 22:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Jacobacademy}} Feel free to join the discussions above where editors have already been discussing that. They are of different opinions, the article goes back and forth, eventually a consensus emerges. If you look at the history, you will see the article is under active development. If you read the talk page you will see that it is under active discussion. Yet instead of joining those active discussions to lend weight to those who believe as you do, you just come and create a brand-new section to criticize the "current" state of the article. The article you viewed is probably already changed! [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 22:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] My apologies, I was not aware of that. Thank you for being so patient with me. I'm new to Wikipedia. [[User:Jacobacademy|Jacobacademy]] ([[User talk:Jacobacademy|talk]]) 22:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{ping|Jacobacademy}} No problem. Always best to read the whole talk page before jumping in. I know it's long - but any section that hasn't had a response in 30 days gets archived. So pretty much all the separate discussion sections above are or have recently been active. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 22:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
== Am I getting this right? ==
"It proposes reclassifying tens of thousands of federal civil service workers as political appointees in order to replace them with loyalists more willing to enable the next Republican president's policies"
They want to classify civil servants as political appointees so they can fire them and replace them with ACTUAL political appointees? But only if a Republican is President? [[User:Cfortunato|Carlo]] ([[User talk:Cfortunato|talk]]) 00:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
:{{tq|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.}} Yep, pretty much. [[User:Largely Legible Layman|Largely Legible Layman]] ([[User talk:Largely Legible Layman|talk]]) 00:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
::{{tq|Dans, also an editor of the project's guiding document, has described Project 2025 as "systematically preparing to march into office and bring a new army [of] aligned, trained, and essentially weaponized conservatives ready to do battle against the '[[Deep state in the United States|deep state]]'."}} Sorry, this was the quote I meant to post. [[User:Largely Legible Layman|Largely Legible Layman]] ([[User talk:Largely Legible Layman|talk]]) 00:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
== Trump 'Distanced' vs. 'Tried to distance' himself from Project 2025 ==
I count ([[User:Superb_Owl/sandbox/Project_2025#Distanced_vs._tried_to_distance...|running list]])<br>
16 sources saying 'Tried to distance' (or equivalent)<br>
4 sources saying 'Distanced' (or equivalent)
in addition, 'tried to distance' is more [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|WP:Verifiable]] given that whether or not he succeeded is so difficult to verify [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk:Superb Owl|talk]]) 03:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
:Going through the 16 'tried to distance', I would not give the same weight to New Republic, Mother Jones or The Intercept as they are all considered "biased or opinionated" by most editors. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources] I'd also remove this article [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/marco-rubio-trump-vp-project-2025-b2575644.html] and this one [https://www.axios.com/2024/07/07/rubio-trump-distance-project-2025] as they are about Rubio trying to distance Trump, not Trump distancing himself. Also there are a couple of articles from the same sources.
:Then it's tricky because a lot of the articles use both phrases.
:*[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-project-2025-ads-b2574948.html] "Trump wants to distance" and "Trump’s disavowal of the plan"
:*[https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-seeks-disavow-project-2025-despite-ties-conservative-group-2024-07-05/] "Trump seeks to disavow" and "The Republican presidential candidate renounced any connection"
:*[https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/07/politics/video/trump-distance-project-2025-olivia-troye-nr-digvid] This one actually just says "Trump distancing himself"
:*[https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4756929-michael-steele-donald-trump-project-2025-remarks/] "criticized former President Trump’s attempt to distance himself" and "The former president took to Truth Social earlier Friday to disavow the project"
:*[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/08/trump-project-2025] "Trump tried to disown" and "Trump’s move to distance himself"
:*[https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/05/politics/trump-distance-project-2025/index.html] "sought to distance himself" and "Trump’s post disavowing the group"
:I personally like the language Trump *publicly* distanced himself, (because that doesn't imply anything about how he feels privately), and also following that with how critics said they didn't believe him.
:Also might be worth including that Project 2025 "emphasized it was independent from the Trump campaign." but not sure. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/05/trump-project-2025-disavowal/] [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 03:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
::The issue I also have with “tried to distance” is, much like saying “Trump distanced” implies he was successful, “tried to distance” implies he was unsuccessful. If we can’t verify success, we can’t verify unsuccess either. [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 03:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
::This is really helpful - thanks for improving the scan by checking some of these for duplicates or contradictory phrasing. I updated my list according to some of these suggestions, including adding a section for 'both' and separating out the more biased sources you mentioned along with separating out the two Rubio articles. I am not sure that disavow and renouncing any connection are the same as distancing but do not want to spend more time trying to parse something. <br>I also appreciate the 'publicly' qualifier as maybe a good way to split the difference here given that there seems to be coverage using both phrases. [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk:Superb Owl|talk]]) 06:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
::{{tq|because that doesn't imply anything about how he feels privately}} It implies that there may be an unaccounted for difference between his public and private views... an implication not present in the sources. [[User:Marcus Markup|Marcus Markup]] ([[User talk:Marcus Markup|talk]]) 07:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Hmm point taken. I have found some sources that specifically use “publicly distanced” so we could add those?
:::*[https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2024/07/09/what-is-the-heritage-foundation-the-think-tank-behind-project-2025/?outputType=amp] “Trump, meanwhile, has publicly distanced himself” -Dallas Morning News
:::*[https://www.thetimes.com/world/us-world/article/what-is-project-2025-trump-republican-election-0rbfngv8k] “While Donald Trump has publicly distanced himself” -The Times
:::If we can’t build consensus around the verb, another option would be to say “On July 5, 2024, Trump posted to Truth Social that…” and then quote him. [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 10:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
:Thank you for researching this. I say go with the strong preponderance of reliable sources as designated solid green at RSP, regardless of the views of some that they may be opinionated. This not the place or time to challenge RSP. [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 03:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
::I would normally agree, but given that we are discussing use of language (as opposed to truth/falsehood) this is precisely where bias comes into play. So IMO we should take into account if most editors view a source as biased. [[User:JSwift49|JSwift49]] 03:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Indeed. A source's appearance on RSP only says the source is considered "reliable". It says nothing about whether or not it is "biased"... appearance there only vouches for its integrity, not it's choice of phraseology. Per [[WP:BIASED]] "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." Reliable sources are permitted to be biased, and are allowed to use inflammatory language which would be inappropriate for use in an encyclopedia. It is our job as editors to take their purport and make it presentable and encyclopedic, not just blindly copy-paste their verbiage based on how often it is used in popular media. [[User:Marcus Markup|Marcus Markup]] ([[User talk:Marcus Markup|talk]]) 08:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
== Blurred "Qanon Jesus" image ==
In the "Christian nationalism" section, there is currently an image of a January 6th rioter holding an poster of Jesus wearing a MAGA hat. The artwork itself is blurred. According to the file's description, it is blurred because it is copyrighted.
I know it is not the intention, but I think a reasonable person might think the image is being censored due to its political content. It gives the article a less neutral feel.
I find the artwork nauseating, but blurring it sends the wrong message. [[User:LibreLearner|LibreLearner]] ([[User talk:LibreLearner|talk]]) 03:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
:The content is deliberately blurred because it contained copyrighted imagery in an otherwise licensed photo. No blurring, no licensed photo. <b>[[User:Esowteric|<span style="color: green;">Esowteric</span>]]<small> + [[User talk:Esowteric|<span style="color: blue;">Talk</span>]] + [[Special:Contributions/Esowteric|<span style="color: red;">Breadcrumbs</span>]]</small></b> 07:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
:I agree, it is jarring. It implies Wikipedia does not fully grok the concept of [[fair use]]. [[User:Marcus Markup|Marcus Markup]] ([[User talk:Marcus Markup|talk]]) 08:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
== This is an example of why Wikipedia is becoming a farse ==
:One of the more important reasons and benefits of Wikipedia generally requiring secondary sources is to ensure a thing really deserves inclusion. If a thing is not being discussed or listed outside of the Wikiverse, that is strong indication it does not belong here. [[User:Marcus Markup|Marcus Markup]] ([[User talk:Marcus Markup|talk]]) 07:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
== Speculative and opinionated wording in the opening paragraph should be removed. ==
"It proposes reclassifying tens of thousands of federal civil service workers as political appointees in order to replace them with loyalists more willing to enable the next Republican president's policies."
This language is biased and speculative. When you click on the source, it states this is a claim Critics are making, it does not verify the validity of the claim at all. This produces biased language which is not helpful for this page. [[Special:Contributions/68.184.222.27|68.184.222.27]] ([[User talk:68.184.222.27|talk]]) 16:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
:Nope, it is in fact a claim that Project 2025's own creators are making: {{tq|Dans, also an editor of the project's guiding document, has described Project 2025 as "systematically preparing to march into office and bring a new army [of] aligned, trained, and essentially weaponized conservatives ready to do battle against the '[[Deep state in the United States|deep state]]'."}} [[User:Largely Legible Layman|Largely Legible Layman]] ([[User talk:Largely Legible Layman|talk]]) 18:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
== NPOV ==
:::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]]. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 04:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
:::A few more sources for y'all: [https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2024/07/15/on-eve-of-gop-convention-faith-leaders-warn-against-white-christian-nationalism/ Wisconsin Examiner], [https://web.archive.org/web/20240712185744/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/12/project-2025-summary-trump/ Washington Post], [https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2024/07/09/christian-nationalism WBUR], [https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/inside-project-2025s-plan-to-reprogram-the-government/ Boston Review] [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk: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. {{tq|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. [[User:Walsh90210|Walsh90210]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Walsh90210|Walsh90210]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk:Superb Owl|talk]]) 17:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
== second paragraph ==
:Are you referring to the [[Conservative Partnership Institute]], perhaps? [[User:Largely Legible Layman|Largely Legible Layman]] ([[User talk:Largely Legible Layman|talk]]) 23:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
== Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2024 ==
{{edit semi-protected|Project 2025|answered=no}}
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. [[User:JosephiacSherman|JosephiacSherman]] ([[User talk:JosephiacSherman|talk]]) 07:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
:Sounds like original research. [[User:Darknipples|DN]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 07:57, 24 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: ''[https://www.amazon.co.uk/Dawns-Early-Light-Burning-Washington/dp/0063353504 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. [https://newrepublic.com/post/184182/jd-vance-trouble-heritage-foundation-project-2025-book-foreword ''New Republic'' confirms this].<b>[[User:Esowteric|<span style="color: green;">Esowteric</span>]]<small> + [[User talk:Esowteric|<span style="color: blue;">Talk</span>]] + [[Special:Contributions/Esowteric|<span style="color: red;">Breadcrumbs</span>]]</small></b> 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? [[User:Oktayey|Oktayey]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk: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]]. [[User:Riposte97|Riposte97]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Oktayey|Oktayey]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:Superb Owl|Superb Owl]] ([[User talk:Superb Owl|talk]]) 03:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
:it is properly placed in the lead [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 02:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
::Yes. Leave it be. [[User:Johnsosd|Johnsosd]] ([[User talk:Johnsosd|talk]]) 05:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
| 