Jump to content

Talk:Project 2025

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CVDX (talk | contribs) at 17:45, 28 March 2024 (→‎Regarding attribution for the Insurrection Act claim). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Conspiracy theory

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

It's an alt-left conspiracy theory. Those just seem to get promoted more here. 2A00:23C7:80C:8201:A54A:D65D:1635:524D (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alt-left conspiracy theory? This article's primary sources are The Guardian, a centrist newspaper, The Washington Post, a gently right-leaning newspaper, and the Heritage Foundation itself saying "here's what we intend to do". 207.164.2.98 (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's one crappy proprosla from one crappy conservative think-tank. STOP acting like it's official policy. 71.89.70.233 (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the Project 25 website you will see that it is a consortium of many well known right wing groups. It's the expressed policy prescriptions of the movement. Any new conservative president will be pressured to adopt it. 74.69.130.29 (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this is all of what Trump ran on in 2016, recycled talking points to manipulate the social outcry of a trump presidency 2600:1702:59E0:F050:5195:FFB6:90A9:B024 (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be absolutely clear with everyone here, Project 2025 is simply the latest Mandate Of Leadership proposal from the Heritage Foundation. Every Republican President since Reagan has received and followed their Mandate Of Leadership proposal from the Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation has gone on record to say that Reagan, the Bush's, and Trump have all followed their previous Mandate Of Leadership proposals. Not "to the T", but to a reasonable degree that "satisfies" the organization.
To call this a conspiracy theory would be to ignore the past actions of both the organization and Presidents. Does it come off as sensationalizing in some places? Yes. The proposals laid out in the published 900 page document that you can read on the Heritage Foundations website is patently absurd to read through, but the Mandate Of Leadership itself does not fall under a "alt-left" (not a real political tendency far left people just call themselves communists or whatever tendency they fall under) conspiracy theory. For it to be a conspiracy theory it would need to meet certain criteria of lacking in legitimacy that this document does not. Yeastmobile (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this

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

You might be interested in reading Project 2025#References, which contains 57 citations. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page is mainly speculation and innuendo. Citing second hand sources. I do not think it is worthy of being an page here. I have been looking for information on Project 2025 and could not find much except what people are speculating about what it is. The references you cite are not really references, but other posts and articles that are also speculating. 114.24.203.71 (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide details on the inaccuracies or unsubstantiated claims? For further reference you can read the information directly at project2025.org where you can read the book online. 2601:CD:C600:CC00:89E4:A98A:7AE2:A442 (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the section "Mass deportation of immigrants". Those claims I did not see substantiated by Project 2025. I looked at "Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise", I assume that is the book you referenced on their site.
That section talked about "deputizing National Guard" and deputizing DEA, ATF local police and sheriffs. There was only one footnote that even mentioned the "Drug Enforcement Administration" in the whole thing.
The section talked about deportation, yet deportation was only mentioned twice in the document. I looked for similar terms like 'removal' and saw nothing like what was described.
Claims about Project2025 should be taken from the book or from statements put out by the organization. What we have here is editors speculation on what could , possibly, maybe be happening in a project from some other people speculating on the internet. 114.24.203.71 (talk) 09:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you fellow wikipedian that if you go to the site, read through the proposals, and simply read the documents as they are nothing in this article is a "claim". If you would like to propose specific edits or corrects to the article please quote the documents related to the relevant department and how it conflicts with the text of the article. Each Federal Department is a separate document on the project2025.org website and they are each pdfs that you need to click through and read. Yeastmobile (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy? Or is it true?

I honestly think it's a conspiracy and I've never seen this, even when Trump left the presidency from,we haven't seen this in 2022 Kilrk0 (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know why it's impossible to find any background information, or just general information, on the 3 people who comprise the "Project 2025 Team" (Paul Dans, Spencer Chretien, Troup Hemenway)
https://www.project2025.org/about/about-project-2025/
That seems pretty odd to me... Any thoughts? 2600:6C51:437F:F9E2:F88A:E1F9:6568:47A6 (talk) 08:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a forum to discuss the article topic, it's a place to discuss changes to or improving of the article. XeCyranium (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to propose changing the article to attribute project 2025 as being a conspiracy theory, then please provide a credible source clarifying that it is so and the source will be reviewed. Yeastmobile (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions section

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

I looked for positive reactions but could not find any. I encourage others to try. it's interesting that the Trump campaign seems to have asked the Project to stop talking about it. soibangla (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it appears Biden is preparing to use it against Trump[1] soibangla (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'it' in this sentence

refers to the project, not the project document

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

please restore the content, Bringjustthefactsplease

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

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

Where may we view the source of this comment from Dans?
Previously you provided the direct quote "systematically preparing to march into office and bring a new army, aligned, trained, and essentially weaponized conservatives ready to do battle against the deep state."
I'm struggling to find the source of this quote, thank you Bringjustthefactsplease (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it is in this edit that I made in response to your removal
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Project_2025&diff=prev&oldid=1215459274
search the article on deep state and you will find the quote and source were already further down in the lead
soibangla (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) the AP source does not provide this as a direct quote from Dans
2)the new republic source links to a CSPAN video, located here, where they claim this quote originated
3) reading and searching the transcript of his interview does not yield a result for keywords of this alleged quote (like 'army' or 'battle' or 'march') or, from what I can see, the quote that New Republic has cited. It appears the quote they provided in that op-ed does not appear in the source New Republic provides as evidence.
I cannot find evidence of Dans making this statement in the provided citations. Please provide a timestamp of when this quote was uttered in the cited material if I have overlooked this. Bringjustthefactsplease (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TNR is a reliable source, it quotes Dans, and the piece is not an op-ed.
also, in ref #2 you cited a project document, a primary rather than a secondary source, which is particularly inappropriate here. and the ref is mangled, btw. soibangla (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity:
The source TNR(acknowledged as very biased)links to as evidence of the quote in question does not actually contain the quote.
The TNR article's quote they attribute to Dans is not supported by the source they provide. There is currently no evidence Dans made that statement outside of this article. Bringjustthefactsplease (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ensuring that the deep state cannot disrupt the work that the American people elected a president to do is precisely one of the top aims of Project 2025.[2]

soibangla (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That article is indeed quite clear. Propose this link be used as a reference for that language and not the other two links Bringjustthefactsplease (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bringjustthefactsplease please would you replace your ref #2 with a properly formatted secondary source? soibangla (talk) 06:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding attribution for the Insurrection Act claim

As far as I know, the only source for this is WaPo. An editor previously raised the challenge [3] that this was not enough for the lead section, considering no such plans were included in the released project.

Considering this is a WP:CONTENTIOUS topic, I've changed the text to include attribution of the source, and date, as per WP:ATT. What do you make of this? CVDX (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Project_2025&oldid=1216040694"