Talk:Project 2025

Project 2025 never says to appoint personnel that will break the law.

The first paragraph of the personnel change section says that it's proposed trump appoint people who "who would be more willing to bend or break protocol, or in some cases violate laws, to achieve his goals"

No where in project 2025 does it say anything about appointing people to break the law. The citation doesn't say anything about it either, the closest it gets is saying that trump was thwarted from enacting policy changes by people who refused to violate laws during his last presidency which is different from claiming that there is an intent to put people in place who would violate the law in the future.

Given it's not backed up by citation I propose simply removing the section in commas about violating laws. If you want to include it then someone needs to find better citation where someone does explicitly making the claim. It also needs to be made clear the difference between people accusing project 2025 of having an intent of putting people willing to break law in power and project 2025 explicitly stating they believe trump should do that, as the current reading makes it sound as if project 2025 literally says they should appoint law breakers. 144.51.12.162 (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the source, I agree: that's a misrepresentation (albeit one that seems to have been made in good faith) of what the AP article said. I have removed that specific statement. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with this reasoning because of "The goal is to avoid the pitfalls of Trump’s first years in office" in an article named "Conservative groups draw up plan to dismantle the US government and replace it with Trump’s vision." we have a president who pardoned over 1,000 J6 people, as well as his political associates Flynn, Stone and Manafort, so I don't see why he would hesitate to pardon someone who broke federal law to advance his agenda. soibangla (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

"asserting to restore merit-based federal hiring"

AlsoWukai I included asserting because Trump's order does the exact opposite of restoring merit-based federal hiring. merit-based never went away, and Trump's teams are replacing merit-based with loyalty-based hiring. Trump is effectively redefining merit as loyalty to him. it is really quite Orwellian. soibangla (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Addressing Lead Too Long

• First two sentences say conservative twice. I am going to remove the second one.Czarking0 (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

   Done Czarking0 (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

• Project 2025 envisions sweeping changes to economic and social policies and the federal government and its agencies. This sentence is redundant.Czarking0 (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

   Done Czarking0 (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

• Although Project 2025 cannot legally promote presidential candidates without endangering this is exactly the kind of detail that does not belong in the lead. Also it is probably wrong. I don't Project 2025 is a 501c3 organization to start with. I don't even think it is a legal entity. From one source "The Heritage Foundation and many of the other organizations collaborating on Project 2025 and promoting its policy agenda are 501c3 organizations"Czarking0 (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

   Done Czarking0 (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

• many contributors are associated with Trump and his 2024 presidential campaign.[43][44][45][46] The Heritage Foundation employs many people closely aligned with Trump,[47][48][49] including members of his 2017–2021 administration,[50] and coordinates the initiative with conservative groups run by Trump allies.[12] Some Trump campaign officials have had regular contact with Project 2025, and told Politico in 2023 that the project aligned well with their Agenda 47 program, though they have since said that Project 2025 does not speak for Trump or his campaign. This is exactly what a bad summary looks like. I propose this is one sentence, like: Six of Trump's former cabinet secretaries co-authored the Mandate For Leadership.Czarking0 (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

   Done Czarking0 (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

currently being implemented

Need to augment the statement that Project 2025 is "currently being implemented". Not all parts are being implemented. Need to specify which parts are being implemented and need references. T g7 (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I added citations to strengthen evidence for this statement but an editor had my updates undone. Considering it's time sensitive and we are seeing changes in real-time, I think it's crucial to discuss this and decide what will be appropriate. Because many readers are coming to this wiki article and they should know the truth. Summerfell1978 (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

May want to consider placing this in the "Implementation" section with appropriate references. T g7 (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I think it's important to have it listed in the main paragraph. Is it a problem to finish the original sentence by adding that it is currently being implemented by the Trump administration? If we were in the 1940s writing an article describing the documents of the Final Solution, would we leave out that it was being implemented by the National Socialist Party? Summerfell1978 (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to really think it through and elaborate the facts in the "implementation" section, take some time to build your evidence there, then try again to place a concise summary statement in the beginning. The first paragraphs have to be very concise and noncontroversial. We have room farther down in the article to discuss at more length. Note this is all supposed to be encyclopedic - WP:ENC - in times like these we especially need to observe this.

Before we ask whether it belongs in the first paragraph, we need to ask, Is it true? What is the evidence? Does it belong in Wikipedia? We answer those questions collectively. After that, we can ask what location in the article it merits.

I like your question about Nazi Germany - the underground resistance were true heroes. T g7 (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, we can't just say "it's being implemented". We have to say "according to so and so and such and such, published in the This and That Tribune, it's being implemented." T g7 (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

But isn't that what the citations are for? We write the statement and add [4][5][6]etc at the end. It would be too wordy if we have to explain each one in a different sentence. And per the recommendation, the introduction is already too long and is recommended by long-term wikipedia editors to shorten it.

For me it's fair to continue that sentence with a comma and add at the end of the sentence that it is being implemented by the trump administration. The details will of course be in further reading as they continue. Summerfell1978 (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

As I reread the third paragraph, I think there is a very strong case to be made that indeed it is being implemented in several ways. But we have to find other people who have written that. T g7 (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. Regarding your comment of " we have to find other people who have written that": [2025&oldid=1273495794|Citations 4 through 14] were provided as evidence, but undone as another editor recommended to discuss it on the talk page first. The evidence is out there and very open. It is not controversial to say this. Summerfell1978 (talk) 20:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

please ignore the link above, it was in error. Here is what I was trying to link. http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Project_2025&oldid=1273495794 Summerfell1978 (talk) 20:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Great work on those references! I stand corrected. Note MOS:LEAD "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." This counts as significant information. It is not basic facts. So what could be done is that in the "Implementation" section, those 11 references could be detailed regarding which part of Project 2025 each discusses. Like "several journalists have noted that it appeared that significant parts of Project 2025 were being implemented as of January and February 2025: the immigration policy [1,2], the LGBTQ policy [1,3,4]..." using Czarking0 (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Remove QAnon Jesus Photo

There is nothing linking the contents of this photo to Project 2025. I do not believe there is any direct connection between QAnon and Project 2025. This photo is really deceptive of a specific time (Jan 6) and political imagery QAnon MAGA Jesus. Project 2025 operates at a much more controlled and professional level of both Christian nationalism and right wing politics. A better photo for the same idea would be like Kevin Roberts or Paul Dans in a church or holding a cross/bible. Czarking0 (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree. T g7 (talk) 01:56, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

agreed, irrelevant, removed soibangla (talk) 11:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

 Done Czarking0 (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

for the record I just realized I wrote "deceptive" when I meant "depictive" my browser says this is a typo so maybe I don't know how to spell this or it is not a word? Czarking0 (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Paul Dans Philosophy 4 points of OR

Do the sources actually say these four points? The citation is just a 900 page book that has like 100 co-authors so it seems like presenting this list has 4 bullet points and attributing it as his personal viewpoint is WP:OR. Also are the bullets actually good style? Would prose be better? Czarking0 (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

If you are talking about the "4 pillars" in the "Philosophical outlook" section, I added the reference. It is https://washingtonstand.com/news/project-2025-aims-to-equip-the-next-conservative-presidential-administration-on-day-1 . T g7 (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for adding. I still tagged as needing a better source because this is WP:NOTRS Czarking0 (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I think the reference is basically a primary source and we need a secondary source. See https://www.propublica.org/article/project-2025-trump-campaign-heritage-foundation-paul-dans or https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-is-project-2025-trump-conservative-blueprint-heritage-foundation/ . I would keep the Washington Stand source and add another. T g7 (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Use page numbers

@T g7 please stop citing the mandate without page numbers. It and another other book source needs page numbers Czarking0 (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

OK will do, thank you. T g7 (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@Czarking0 and @T g7 which format do you like for adding page numbers to citations? I like the Named References format, because there are so many citations for the mandate throughout this article. Thoughts? Merlinderhindergrinder (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Whichever one gets people to add it, I don't care that they are all the same. I think rp is the fastest and looks the worst. So I always use that one. If the article ever goes for GAN then this stuff matters. Czarking0 (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Extensive primary source question

In April 2024, responding to criticism of the project, Heritage released a 13-page document titled "5 Reasons Leftists HATE Project 2025". Restating many of its previously published objectives, the document asserted that "the radical Left hates families" and "wants to eliminate the family and replace it with the state"; that Leftist "elites use the 'climate crisis' as a tool for scaring Americans into giving up their freedom"; that the "radical Left wants our country to travel down [the] same dark path" toward becoming the Soviet Union, North Korea, and Cuba; and that "woke propaganda" should be eliminated at every level of government. Is entirely primary sourced. I question why this should be included in the article? Czarking0 (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I think that "In April 2024, responding to criticism of the project, Heritage released a 13-page document titled '5 Reasons Leftists HATE Project 2025'" should not be deleted, because it gives Heritage's viewpoint. T g7 (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

But is their viewpoint here notable and how much weight should it be given? I am not saying your wrong I was just trying to understand the reasoning. If your reasoning for Notability is that Heritage is a core player in the article subject and the reader that wants to know about P25 needs to know about Heritages viewpoints then I see where you are coming from. However I question if this source is the right one to represent their views here or the only source that should be used in a paragraph about their response to criticism. I am not familiar enough with their publications to make that call but this is where secondary sources are recommended for determining which primary sources are to be given weight. Czarking0 (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that is my reasoning, and I agree with you that we should get a better source. I dont know if a good secondary source exists, but here are more of Heritage's responses: https://www.heritage.org/press/project-2025-responds-house-democrats-unserious-and-misleading-task-force https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/commentary/harris-wrong-about-project-2025-our-plan-good-america T g7 (talk) 05:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Restore Paul Dans quote in "Philosophical outlook" section

The quote from Paul Dans has been removed:

"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'"

Now it reads "Dans, also an editor of the project's guiding document, described Project 2025 as preparing a staff of conservatives to fight the deep state with their training from partner organizations."

I think that quote should be restored, as it is a candid comment that represents the intention of the Project 2025 organizer in a meaningful, colorful way. It gives insight into the motivations for Project 2025. It is more interesting to read than the replacement, too. The ideas of an "army" of "weaponized" people who will "do battle" is much more interesting than saying "fight". T g7 (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I am not opposed to restoring this quote per se. However, I think this article as a whole runs afoul of MOS:QUOT excessive use of quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style. Especially article sentences like "According to, <journal> <entity> has said <quote>". Are not encyclopedic style. I would be more open to restoring this if you proposed another quote to remove. Czarking0 (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with T g7 here. DN (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

march, army and weaponized are the militant terms that jump out and the quote should be restored soibangla (talk) 05:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

To the extent that my changes here are really about reducing quotes. I would like to remove

In Vox, journalist Andrew Prokop wrote: Roberts also adds that pornography is "manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children", suggesting that he may define "pornography" much more broadly than is typical—that he may view any attempt to explain or teach about trans people as worthy of outlawing and imprisonment.

I assume that the above was written by Czarking0. I agree that the Prokop quote should be removed.T g7 (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Yep, messed yup the sig. Thanks Czarking0 (talk) 05:34, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Rework Reactions and responses

This is like having a criticism section by another name. WP:CRIT for why that is a bad idea. This article is about Project 2025 not about what journalists think about Project 2025. I propose looking to incorporate anything from this section that should be given due weight in other sections. Then reflecting on what remains and either changing it into another/multiple other sections or deleting it entirely. Czarking0 (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree. The section on "LGBTQ+" could just be cut and pasted into the "Identity" section. (I would advocate that the "Identity" section be renamed to something like "Diversity, equity and inclusion" or "LGBTQ and racial/ethnic identity" because when reading the present title, it is not immediately evident to the reader what the section discusses.) The "Allegations of authoritarianism" section could be cut and pasted into the "Expansion of presidential powers" section. T g7 (talk) 05:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Remove Anti-white racism from the lead

RS show how Mandate author Gene Hamilton and P25 partner org America First Legal is advancing this anti-white racism movement. However this is only one sentence in the body so it should not be included in the lead Czarking0 (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if these are exactly relevant to Anti-white racism, but there does not seem to be much mention of reactions from or possible effects of P2025 in relation to the black community. Perhaps I missed them somewhere?

NAACP:Addressing the Disastrous Impacts of Project 2025 on the Black Community

Axios: Trump allies plot anti-racism protections — for white people "The Heritage Foundation's well-funded "Project 2025" envisions a second Trump administration ending what it calls "affirmative discrimination."

Reuters: Trump vows to fight 'anti-white feeling' in the United States "Programs and policies ... that deny benefits or employment to Americans solely because of their race or their sex or anything of the sort is violative of that central tenet that has held the country together," said Hamilton, who laid out his views in a policy book published by a consortium of Trump-friendly think tanks known as Project 2025.

The Hill & The Guardian: Project 2025 will ‘upend’ the lives of Black Americans, new report shows... " The Legal Defense Fund (LDF), an organization that fights for racial justice, recently released the most in-depth legal analysis of Project 2025’s impact on Black communities. It highlights how Black Americans would be harmed due to policies that would weaken anti-discrimination laws; dismantle the Department of Education; threaten Black political power; increase the use of the death penalty (which disproportionately affects Black people); and exacerbate health disparities caused by environmental racism."

Cheers. DN (talk) 02:13, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

You are right this is not relevant to what comes in the lead. Only is in the article is relevant to what goes in the lead. Czarking0 (talk) 02:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Add supreme court decisions to background

Article the supreme court has overturned some precedents limiting Project 2025's vision of executive power. This would make good background material on why unitary executive theory is more important now than previously. I would appreciate if editors helped summarize these decisions in the background. Czarking0 (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Propose significant lead reduction

I propose the entire paragraph starting with Project 2025 is closely connected to Donald Trump is removed from the lead. First, this is not really a summary as it basically restates what the article says on this point. Second, we already have anticipation of Donald Trump winning the 2024 presidential election. Third, given everything in this article body only one or sentences on the connection between Trump and P25 are justified in the lead. Czarking0 (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

In a manner of speaking, a summary is not that dissimilar from a restatement. The phrases... "Project 2025 is closely connected to Donald Trump" and "anticipation of Donald Trump winning the 2024 presidential election" do not convey the same message. The paragraph also mentions his notable denial of any connection, critic's dismissal etc...At this point I object to it's removal from the lead.

• "Project 2025 is closely connected to Donald Trump, with many contributors and Heritage Foundation employees associated with him, his 2024 campaign, his first administration, and his allies. Trump campaign officials had regular contact with Project 2025, seeing its goals as aligned with their Agenda 47 program. But amid media scrutiny during the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump distanced himself from it, calling some of its proposals "ridiculous and abysmal". Critics dismissed Trump's denials, pointing to the many people close to him directly involved, the many contributors expected to be appointed to leadership roles during Trump's second presidency, his endorsement of the Heritage Foundation's plans in 2022, and the 300 times Trump is mentioned in the plans.

DN (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

The paragraph you quote here is 115 words. The Connections to Trump section in the article is 118 words. According to WP:SS the lead contains a quick summary of the article's most important points. I agree that the connection between Trump and P25 is one of the most important points. I think a quick summary of this point can be done in one or two sentences and less than 58 words. I propose deleting this paragraph and adding the following to the end of the first paragraph. "The Heritage Foundation is closely aligned with Trump. Despite significant evidence to the contrary, Trump has claimed he does not know what Project 2025 is." That is 25 words.Czarking0 (talk) 05:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

This doesn't address the issues I raised earlier. There are other mentions of Trumps "connections" throughout the article, not just in "The Connections to Trump" sub-section, which also includes reactions by critics, Trump's denial, key P2025 contributors being assigned roles in his administration, comparisons to Agenda 47, the 300 times Trump is mentioned etc...etc...etc... You have offered no supplement for these.

For example, under the "Leadership" sub-section, it says...

In July 2024, Trump reiterated his disavowal of Project 2025, but in the same month Project 2025 Director Paul Dans confirmed that his team had ongoing connections with Trump's campaign. The removal of this entire paragraph includes more than just "Project 2025 is closely connected to Donald Trump" (7-8 words), and does not seem in line with WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. DN (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree the 7-8 words will not sufficiently present a quick summary of the article's most important point. I amended my suggestion to the 25 word example. I think that presents a quick summary of the article's most important points. The fact that he reiterated his disavowal does not need to be included in the lead. Even the 115 word current text does not mention that. Czarking0 (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with replacing the paragraph, but I think we should keep all 16 references in this section. "The Heritage Foundation is closely aligned with Trump. Despite significant evidence to the contrary, Trump has claimed he does not know what Project 2025 is," is a nice concise summary and carries the appropriate amount of force. But this statement is extremely likely to be challenged, so I think we should keep all the references. I know it will look funny, but without the references, this statement would be easy to delete. My proposal would look something like this: "The Heritage Foundation is closely aligned with Trump.[28][29][30][31] Despite significant evidence to the contrary,[32][33][34] Trump has claimed he does not know what Project 2025 is.[35][36][37][38][39]..." And, of course, we should make sure that none of the other information is lost - make sure that all the other facts are stated elsewhere in the article. T g7 (talk) 12:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

You are probably familiar with it but I want to bring up WP:CITEKILL obviously not a guideline. Even for a controversial statement likely to be challenged 3 citations is sufficient or at most 4 for a true WP:REDFLAG (guideline). Assuming the source material supports this, I propose: "Heritage Foundation is closely aligned with Trump <4 sources>. Despite significant evidence to the contrary,<4 sources> Trump has claimed he does not know what Project 2025 is< 2 sources>." The later statement is very plainly communicated in RS such that it would be ridiculous to challenge it. Czarking0 (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Your suggested version...

• "The Heritage Foundation is closely aligned with Trump.[28][29][30][31] Despite significant evidence to the contrary,[32][33][34] Trump has claimed he does not know what Project 2025 is.[35][36][37][38][39]..."

...seems to create a MOS:CLAIM issue by using that term.

This also seems to alter the context that the sources attempt to convey, creating a possible WP:POV issue. Trump's connection to P2025 seems to be the focus, Heritage's connection to the project was not in doubt. Simply adding "...Trump has claimed he does not know what project 2025 is" at the end makes it appear to be more of an afterthought rather than the focus.

The current version of the first sentence seems very difficult to improve upon.

• "Project 2025 is closely connected to Donald Trump, with many contributors and Heritage Foundation employees associated with him, his 2024 campaign, his first administration, and his allies.

However, I would be open to condensing and trimming the latter half of the paragraph

• "But amid media scrutiny during the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump distanced himself from it, calling some of its proposals "ridiculous and abysmal". Critics dismissed Trump's denials, pointing to the many people close to him directly involved, the many contributors expected to be appointed to leadership roles during Trump's second presidency, his endorsement of the Heritage Foundation's plans in 2022, and the 300 times Trump is mentioned in the plans."

Cheers. DN (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I think you are right about MOS:CLAIM though to be fair I am trying to cast doubt on his claim since it is neutral to cast doubt on a claim made against overwhelming evidence. However, I want to respect the guidelines here. I think what I wrote and switching "claimed' to "said" is better than what you are suggesting. IMO Project 2025 is closely connected to Donald Trump, with many contributors and Heritage Foundation employees associated with him, his 2024 campaign, his first administration, and his allies is obviously over-wordy. I would prefer to find consensus for my proposal, but if it does not exist I could compromise on using this wording but cutting it off at him. Czarking0 (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I've only just seen this after trimming the lede and coming here to say I was going to remove the length tag. Sorry about that. I think it still keeps the main info but is much condensed now. Does it look okay to you? I'm happy to discuss changes and tweaks. Lewisguile (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

So far so good, I'll take a closer look tomorrow. Thanks for working on it. Cheers. DN (talk) 11:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Great. Thank you! Lewisguile (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Leonard Leo

The article currently singles him out as an important donor. There is not much information beyond that. If you are lookingto contribute then more info on him may be a good place. Czarking0 (talk) 06:22, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

One sentence on him being an important donor, with multiple RS, doesn't seem unreasonable or UNDUE. Why remove that particular context?

"that man is Leonard Leo and is seen by many as being one of the architects behind the Trump 2.0 era. He has links to the controversial Project 2025 – drafted by dozens of Donald Trump’s former administration officials and other loyalists, nearly half of which have been the recipients of dark money contributions from groups tied to Leo." Independent

"Recent beneficiaries include a number of organizations that collaborate on Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation–led blueprint for a potential second Trump administration...The biggest beneficiary of the 85 Fund by far ($92 million in 2022) is Donors Trust, the dark-money behemoth founded in 1999 with the goal of “safeguarding the intent of libertarian and conservative donors,” and which disburses over $2 billion a year. But precisely because the 85 Fund is such a big donor, Donors Trust is in some regards a pass-through for Project 2025. On account of Supreme Court rulings, of course, we don’t know exactly who is providing the money that flows from the 85 Fund through Donors Trust and into Project 2025." The New Republic

"Since 2021, Leo’s network and groups that have gotten funding from it have funneled over $50.7 million to the groups advising the 2025 Presidential Transition Project as part of its “Project 2025 advisory board,” according to tax documents reviewed as part of the analysis by Accountable.US, a progressive advocacy group. That sum includes donations from The 85 Fund, a donor-advised nonprofit group that funnels money from wealthy financiers to other groups, and the Concord Fund, a public-facing organization, which are part of Leo's network of organizations that seek to influence policy." NBC

Cheers. DN (talk) 09:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I am asking for more info on him not less Czarking0 (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh, apologies if I mistook your request or intentions there. DN (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Did any of the context from these quotes help with adding more details? DN (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

"Leo is a conservative activist who has led the Republican mission to install the rightwing majority in the supreme court and finances many of the groups signed on to Project 2025. Like Roberts, Leo also has links to the Opus Dei-linked CIC. The Guardian

"Leo has already donated over $50 million to groups that advised on Project 2025, which produced an ultraconservative policy manifesto, tailored exclusively to a future Trump administration, that recommends gutting federal agencies while also instituting a national abortion ban." Slate (I didn't see Slate listed at RSP, so I'm not sure about it's current status)

Cheers. DN (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Does knock on the door belong?

This source seems to just be talking about Trump's policies not P25 or Heritage. I don't have full atlantic access to confirm. Thoughts on removing it? Czarking0 (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Could you specify where it is used in the article? Cheers. DN (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I guess to put it a different way, Trump's policies seem to include P25 and Heritage, and if it does not mention P25 specifically, his policies and P25/Heritage aren't in any way mutually exclusive. DN (talk) 06:26, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Mutually exclusive is not the standard used to determine if an subject goes in an article. Connection via RS is. Biden's policies are not necessarily mutually exclusive with project 2025. For example tariffs on Chinese goods and the ban of advanced semiconductor sales to China are places they agree. The standard we should use is if RS are giving significant coverage to the subject matter. If an RS does not give significant coverage to P25, the heritage foundation, or one of the members of P25 in connection to their work at P25 then we should seriously question its use in the article. There are other article's for Trump's policies this one is about P25 policies. Czarking0 (talk) 06:47, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

This reference, Brownstein "Knock on the door", is an excellent article. It does not belong in the intro so I deleted that instance. Whether it belongs in the "Immigration" section is debatable, since it is evidence for what S. Miller says in interviews and indeed does not mention Project 2025. I would keep it. T g7 (talk) 12:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Ya Steve Miller is a bit of an enigma. I think anything talking about him is worth keeping unless there is a strong argument against. How are you accessing the article? You have Atlantic? When I go through the wayback link the paywall is still up? Czarking0 (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Sectioning discussions

I propose that the paragraph beginning with By June 2024, the American Accountability Foundation fits better in the Partner network section. Thoughts? Czarking0 (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Right now the paragraph only connects AAF to Heritage, not directly to Project 2025. I would propose incorporating the phrase "the American Accountability Foundation, which is on the advisory board for Project 2025 (ref)https://www.newsweek.com/dei-watchlist-reddit-american-accountability-foundation-donald-trump-2026802 "

However, I don't think the paragraph should be moved from the "Federal staffing" section because 1) this paragraph narrowly focuses on AAF's effort to name federal workers, and 2) it seems like AAF is not really "partners" with Heritage. Rather, they are a much less influential organization that got a grant from Heritage and got a spot on the advisory board which contains more than 50 organizations. T g7 (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Public database

The article, and several sources, say that the "Presidential Personnel Database" is accessible to the public. Is it actually? If not we should remove that statement. If so where? I am probably in favor of linking it as external media in the article, but if we some reason we cannot do that then accessing it would still be helpful for writing the article. Like how many people are actually in the database? Czarking0 (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

https://www.project2025.org/personnel/ "Presidential Personnel Database. Want to be considered for positions in a presidential Administration? Submit your resume today to be included in the personnel database." It is accessible to the public in that members of the public can submit their information to the database but the names in the database are not publicly accessible. T g7 (talk) 04:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Haha are you sure? I found this before my post. If that is the case we should change the article Czarking0 (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with changing the article to clarify this. T g7 (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

League of Conservation Voters Due Weight?

Is it really due weight to give league of conservation voters space in the Environment and climate section? I think balance says we should include sources from the RS that give more context to the significance of the project; however, League of Conservation Voters is a political advocacy group. I worry that there are more notable and reliable opinions that should be represented here instead? For example the same RS has a quote from Union of Concerned Scientists which is at least 501c3. I think other RS from this section could have notable opinions as well. Czarking0 (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Heritage Targeting

Slight abuse of the talk page but I wanted editors here to see this Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-01-15/In the media Czarking0 (talk) 05:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Heritage was blacklisted the other day[1] soibangla (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

What does this actually mean though? I just clicked on a link to heritage from an article and it still took me there Czarking0 (talk) 06:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

there was some discussion of how/whether existing Heritage links might be removed, but I don't know how that might proceed soibangla (talk) 06:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I think the main article seems to be here? http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2025-01-15/In_the_media T g7 (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Talk Page for Kevin Roberts (political strategist)

For several weeks, editors have been unable to edit the article page for clarification, because two users keep reverting changes. If someone would like to participate in the discussion, we are happy to hear new voices. The background of the problem is mentioned in the previous topics. The users who are reverting have a very right-wing bias due to their post history and are attempting to hide the fact that Project 2025 is anti-democratic and autocratic in favor of removing checks on executive power to consolidate power for right-wing policies.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Kevin_Roberts_(political_strategist)#FMSky's_Edit_to_Undo_this_sentence,_despite_it_being_the_opening_sentence_on_the_Project_2025_Article_Page Summerfell1978 (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Above user has been blocked twice for edit warring on Kevin Roberts' article and ignoring talk page posts http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Kevin_Roberts_(political_strategist)#Lead_issue_describing_Project_2025 - FMSky (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

The user was blocked, for 1 month. [2] Just10A (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Unclear EO Info

It also calls for the President to reinstate Executive Orders 13836, 13837 and 13839, which related to how federal agencies address labor unions, grievances and seniority. This is not at all clear to any non expert reader. Can someone elaborate what this means? Czarking0 (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Standard for what POV is notable

Is it possible to make a consensus on what POVs are notable for inclusion in the article? Is this better argued on a case by case basis? When I see people like Donald Ayer I think ya this is a notable opinion on a conservative plan. Peole like Brynn Tannehill make me think this is probably not generally a notable person to have an opinion but it is probably good to have one or two opinions from queer leaders on parts that are specific to queerness. I question Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons further but maybe there is a similar argument about religion? I personally don't think "progressive Christianity" is a notable group to represent here but maybe there is a good RS argument on this? I think Jared Huffman are pretty much meaningless. Of course opposition politicians have opposition and say that the plan is terrible. Then there is Matt Walsh, podcast host, I don't think there is any justification for calling podcast hosts opinions notable? Emma Shortis is an interesting one. At first I think she is not notable but there is very little coverage on international opinions which may be notable. It's possible she is a good POV in that context? Czarking0 (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Case by case may sound slower, but results are usually more accurate and come more quickly since there is less conflation and convolution to wade through. Lumping POVs into groups to say some have weight while other don't typically becomes an exercise of redundancy IMO, ie context matters. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)