Talk:Project 2025

Bias

Hello --

Overall good article, but there are some bias issues. Generally, the lead and background sections rely a lot on opinion or borderline opinion articles, and the language isn't neutral in some places. (For example the overuse of the word "cuts") I'm also going to do some copyediting in some places to make the reading less stunted. I do not agree with anything in Project 2025, but on Wikipedia we have to maintain NPOV. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 11:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that these changes were an improvement. It's important to understand that what Wikipedia means by "bias" and WP:NPOV is somewhat different than what you might be thinking of - our responsibility is to reflect the sources accurately, not to correct for what editors believe might be bias in their coverage (see WP:FALSEBALANCE.) For example, if secondary coverage emphasizes that the purpose of Project 2025 is to ensure loyalty to Trump, then we have to reflect that coverage; arguing that eg. "well the exact word 'loyalty' only appears seven times in the document" is original research. Likewise, if they use the term "right-wing" then we have to as well, and we can't call it a "policy plan" if that's not generally how they frame it. Adding some and such is potential WP:WEASEL wording (and might run afoul of NPOV's requirement to avoid stating facts as opinions). And if sources emphasize eg. replacing traditionally merit-based civil service with one loyal to Trump, then we have to reflect that, too (this one in particular - the move away from merit-based appointments to ones based on partisan loyalty - is central to most coverage.) Likewise, if they say that it aims to cut medicare, we can't second-guess that based on your personal reading of Project 2025. And if the emphasis in sources is on the notable aspect of how it wants to use the military is that it wants them to assist in law enforcement, then that's what we have to emphasize - it's not surprising that that would be the noteworthy aspect, after all. On less important notes, the Heritage Foundation itself isn't an WP:RS (so there's little value to citing it directly), and it doesn't make sense as a see also because it's already linked in the article. If you think the article doesn't reflect the best available sources, go ahead and break down the places where you feel we're failing and we can either find more sources or tweak the wording; but you have to slow down and engage with the sources, not just your personal feelings about what seems more neutral. Even if you think that you do not agree with anything in Project 2025, the point is that our opinions aren't supposed to matter - we have to reflect the sources as accurately as possible, so your arguments need to be based on that. (I should also point out that many of these things, eg. right-wing in the lead, have been discussed extensively in the past - it might be useful to go back over the talk page archives to see why the article ended up saying what it does now.) --Aquillion (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight. So to change "bias" I'd have to add sources that support that viewpoint. Essentially Wikipedia is a neutral interpretation of sources, right? -- most of my edits are based on articles like this one, this one, this one, this one, this one,, this one,, and this one. I apologize for not citing sources, and thank you for pointing out my errors. One concern that I have for the article, though; many of the sources seem to be opinion articles, or articles with significant liberal bias. Regardless, am I good to make edits based on those sources? AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Additionally here's another source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2024/07/10/trump-project-2025-heritage-foundation-fact-check/74340278007/ AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that those are usable sources for the article as a whole, since they're all dated specifically to during the election and are only covering it in that context; this is a topic where the situation (and resulting coverage) changed rapidly after the election. When older sources contradict current ones, we have to go with the current ones; sources like narrow fact-checks aimed at the election are probably best used for coverage of how Project 2025 was discussed during the election, and even that would be better-cited to more recent sources. If you have concerns about specific sources and how they're used you can raise them individually here or at WP:RSN - opinion sources and WP:BIASED sources are usable, provided they're WP:DUE, but usually with attribution and with caution that we're not relying too much on them. But the key points in the article are, as far as I can see, mostly cited to high-quality mainstream news coverage from comparatively neutral outlets - most of it is cited to paper-of-record types. We do have a few sentences from more opinionated sources but they're brief and attributed. --Aquillion (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

And some more --

National Review

National Review

National Review

National Review

Project 2025 Website (incredibly biased primary source, I know.)

Wall Street Journal

Wall Street Journal

NBC Chicago

USA Today

The Dispatch

USA Today

The Washington Post AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

As I said, most of those are out of date and cover Trump's disavowals during the election, which are no longer current. See eg. [1]. We do cover Trump's disavowals, but only briefly, in the history section, since long-term coverage shifted (especially after he appointed Russell Vought.) Older sources that focus on that aspect are out of date and aren't really useful. Also, per its entry in WP:NATIONALREVIEW, the National Review is considered a partisan source that requires attribution and careful consideration as to whether it is due (as I said above.) It can't be weighed equally to the high-quality news coverage already in the article. Given that you said, earlier, that you don't agree with anything in Project 2025, it shouldn't be so surprising to you that the best experts and the highest-quality sources covering them take the tone they do; neutrality means reflecting that tone and balance and describing the facts as the best sources cover them, not taking a bunch of lower-quality National Review pieces or outdated coverage and trying to use it to "balance the scale." --Aquillion (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok, makes sense. I understand, especially with the partisanship of the National Review. I added the word "some" in the lead because not ALL legal experts agree, and two of the sources, The Guardian and The New Republic, are categorized on the Wikipedia list as biased sources. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

About the civil liberties sections, look at these two sources; the part about limiting civil liberties is contested, and we should mention that.

https://thedispatch.com/article/fact-check-project-2025-women-financial-rights/

https://thedispatch.com/article/viral-claims-about-project-2025-are-mostly-false/ AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate both your concerns here and encourage the use of WP:BRD Czarking0 (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good, and thanks for explaining how we need to interpret sources @Aquillion, sorry for any trouble caused. I'm going to be WP:BOLD and add both sources from the Dispatch, and say something like "the scale of the attacks on civil liberties are contested" or something. Hopefully that leads to WP:BRD or just bold and discussion AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I reviewed these changes and I think Aquillion handled this well Czarking0 (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

What the document says vs what authors have said

Hello -- I think it would be helpful to add clearer distinctions as to what is said in Project 2025, and what authors have said publicly and privately. Like in the policy sections put author viewpoints next to each other and project 2025 viewpoints next to each other, with Project 2025 viewpoints taking precedence. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be original research? —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 19:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

No; I want to separate the reporting by news orgs on the content of project 2025 and the reporting by news orgs on the separate viewpoints of the project's authors. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

"Implementation" section title

Hello -- none of the sources say that parts of Project 2025 are being directly implemented, outside of the headline. They note the similarities and parallels between the ideas in Project 2025 and the Trump Administration. See the article for theDepartment of Government Efficiency -- we switched the title from implementation to emulation, in the section about Project 2025. It is not factually accurate, nor an accurate representation of sources, or the content of the sections themselves, to say that Project 2025 is being directly implemented, as implied by the section title. Let's take an example. The Center for American Progress published Change for America, a plan for Obama's second term. There were many parallels with Obama policies and this plan, and some differences, like Project 2025. Many of the authors, for example Michele Jolin, worked in the Obama administration. Notice how we're not saying "The administration implemented the Change for America plan." We can say that there are significant similarities between the admin's actions and Project 2025, like sources say, but we can't imply or say that Project 2025 itself is being directly implemented. Sorry for the word salad, hope I've made my point. What do you guys think? (I haven't made any edits to this part yet.) AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

"none of the sources say that parts of Project 2025 are being directly implemented"

From the second source mentioned in the section:

“This is exactly the work we set out to do,” Paul Dans, who oversaw Project 2025 at the conservative Heritage Foundation, told CNN in an interview Wednesday. “It’s still in the early first stages of bearing fruit, but we wanted to make sure the president was ready to hit the ground running on day one. The rapidity and the depth of what they’ve rolled out this quickly is a testament to the work done in Project 2025 and other presidential transition projects.”

Emphasis added. Selbsportrait (talk) 12:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

When you say none of the sources are you saying you have read all of all of the sources? Or what are you actually looking for? Czarking0 (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I have not exhaustively read all of the sources, I've done command F searches and read relevant sections. I think that implementation is too strong a word; Project 2025 has definitely influenced the policies of the administration, but its not like they're looking at the Project 2025 document and going off of that. The sources don't say that either; they say dthat many of the architects work on, create and implement administration policy. The sources also say that many administration actions are very similar to ideas in Project 2025, and mirror them, and some were probably drawing some ideas and inspiration from Project 2025. @Selbsportrait Paul Dans was fired and doesn't work on the administration. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The Dispatch as a source

The Dispatch doesn't seem to be listed in the Wikipedia Reliable/Perennial Sources list, but I think it is reliable for the following reasons; tell me if you disagree @Czarking0

• The Dispatch is a news org founded by Jonah Goldberg. Jonah Goldberg was a senior editor at the National Review, and now he's the Dispatch Editor in Chief, occasionally appears on CNN, and has a column in the LA Times. He's a democrat. The other founder is Steve Hayes. Establishing pathos here lol
• The articles referenced are fact-checking articles--The Dispatch lists a nonpartisanship and corrections issuance policy on its website. It's also IFCN (International Fact-Checking Network) accredited, an program run by Poynter (org that runs Politifact, listed by Wikipedia as a reliable source, green box.) It's also is (was, anyway), a registered third party fact checker for Meta.

Sources for my claims --

Dispatch Masthead

Dispatch Fact-checking policies

International Fact-Checking Network

Jonah Goldberg's Wikipedia Page yes, WP:CIRCULAR i know, good sourcing

What do you think? I'll also try to find some other sources that are not The Dispatch. The Dispatch reminds me of sites like The Information or The Conversation or Puck News. Eventually I'll probably go through the whole Wikipedia reliable and perennial sources thing; hopefully I can get Twinkle to do most of the busywork there lol

AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• WP:NATIONALREVIEW is not reliable so I would say your first point counts against them if it means anything.
• Calling something a fact checking article does not make it nay more reliable.
• The corrections issuance and WP:IFCN accredidation are notable. I agree we should take that into account. I see their website says "The Dispatch is accredited by the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN)" however saying on your own website does not mean much. Can we verify that ?
• "It's also is (was, anyway), a registered third party fact checker for Meta." Not sure what to make of that

This is their About page which to me just screams unreliable source: "We launched The Dispatch in 2019 as a digital media company with three primary products: a website, newsletters, and podcasts. The goal was to create a place where thoughtful readers can come for conservative, fact-based news and commentary that doesn’t come either through the filter of the mainstream media or the increasingly boosterish media on the right." Czarking0 (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Edit: I'm also going to add that The Dispatch acquired SCOTUSBlog, another reliable green box sources on Wikipedia. Here

Edit 2: Here's an article in The New Yorker about how "great" the Dispatch is, specifically reliability for SCOTUS related stuff, yes this is an opinion article; it's also The New Yorker, which known for very robust fact checking, and reliable according to consensus. (command f search)/ HereAnonymousScholar49 (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

If anything that hurts the reliability of SCOTUSBlog. When did they acquire it ? Czarking0 (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

This New Yorker article does not say The Dispatch is great. It does not say great at all. Czarking0 (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that; I was tired and my characterization of the New Yorker article was incorrect. I have more time now and I'll verify the IFCN thing; I mentioned that it was a fact checking article because that is relevant to the IFCN thing, sorry for being unclear. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 01:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Back to the main topic -- this fact checking article from PBS partially corroborates some of the things in The Dispatch, plus this one from USA Today, this other USA Today one, and here's something in the Austin American Statesman, that mentions that Project 2025 does not include ending no fault divorce. I can find more too. Again, some corroborations relating to what The Dispatch says about Project 2025. I'll see if there are more. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Also here's the official IFCN profile for The Dispatch -- [2], verifying that The Dispatch is a signatory and has that qualification. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 01:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Here are some Politifact fact checks about claims that project 2025 would limit some civil liberties and other stuff -- [3][4][5][6][7][8] AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't have time to read all this right now but I will hopefully soon and other editors can help come to some consensus. Czarking0 (talk) 03:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

All good lol; sorry for dumping so many pages on you. Hope we can find consensus soon on this AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok I have read all of these including the dispatch articles and it has certainly made me more open to using some of the dispatch fact checking material. However, your phrasing about the impact on civil liberties being disputed is completely misleading. None of these articles are disputing that the impact on civil liberties as a whole is disputed. They are disputing specific claims which largely were just viral on social media and are not mentioned in the article. Certainly if any of these specific claims which are disputed appear in the article you should amend that.

As for the fact that you have presented several fact checking sources here I think there is something else notable that should be mentioned in the article. For now, I suggest making a new subsection of Reactions and responses. I can do so if I have enough time though that is unlikely rn. This subsection should summarize these sources and probably pull in some additional ones. I expect that the main focus section will highlight how Project 20225 received a lot of attention from the Harris campaign. As a note in there we should probably add that a lot of social media users mixed fact and fabrication when discussing what P25 was during that time. Czarking0 (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for checking me there; I didn't intend to be misleading. Later I can write that section. Thanks for looking at The Dispatch sources! AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

added to the reactions and responses section Czarking0 (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)