Talk:Project 2025/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"Christian nationalism" is unsupported by facts or RS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To wit, the current see alsos:

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2024

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

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

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

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

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

Dans steps down

No RS as yet, but chatter across at Twitter/X is that "Paul Dans, the Heritage Foundation official who leads Project 2025, is stepping down amid heightened scrutiny and condemnation of the plan." Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Here you go. Head of Project 2025 Steps Down Following Trump Criticism. Top front digital Wall Street Journal! Novellasyes (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Foundation President Kevin Roberts said in a statement that the policy work Paul's Dans was involved with was always set to conclude after the RNC convention, anyway, but that the work would continue.

"Our collective efforts to build a personnel apparatus for policymakers of all levels—federal, state, and local—will continue," he wrote. Johnsosd (talk) 04:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)