Talk:Project 2025

Remove Christian nationalism

This section is poorly written. I have consolidated the info on Vought in the prior Partner network section. I propose that the remainder of the info is incorporated to the philosophy section. Christian nationalism is not a policy it is a philosophy.Czarking0 (talk) 08:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

The section states... "The Washington Post described the plan as "infusing Christian nationalism into every facet of government policy". The influence of Christian nationalist ideology seems to be backed up by RS. Are there more sources that discuss this?

• "Vought sees his and his organization’s mission as “renew[ing] a consensus of America as a nation under God,” per a statement on CRA’s website, and reshaping the government’s contract with the governed. Freedom of religion would remain a protected right, but Vought and his ideological brethren would not shy from using their administration positions to promote Christian doctrine and imbue public policy with it, according to both people familiar with the matter, granted anonymity to avoid retaliation. He makes clear reference to human rights being defined by God, not man." Politico
• "This is the scenario Americans could face in Trump’s second term. Under Trump, Christian nationalists will have unprecedented access to the power of the federal government. Trump’s GOP has unified control of Congress. And a conservative supermajority, which has already blurred the line between separation of church and state in a series of decisions favoring Christian interests, controls the US Supreme Court." CNN

Cheers. DN (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think Czarking0 is disputing that The influence of Christian nationalist ideology seems to be backed up by RS. It's a matter of where it belongs in the article. I tend to agree that -- with the content as it is now -- it makes more sense in the philosophical outlook section. Putting aside the terms, when we're talking about something "infused into every facet of policy" that's more an overall philosophy than concrete policy (which is what the rest of the "policies" section is). I'm also noticing we have "Christian values" in the lead but not in the body right now. That needs to be addressed ASAP if it's to remain in the lead, and probably in that philosophical outlook section. That provides an easy lead-in to a line about its characterization as Christian nationalism. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Agree with this as well. I've noticed over time that the "Christian values" line in the lead is just a leftover-line from when the lead was written extremely differently many months ago. It's a little awkward as it is, and needs more discussion in the body or it should be modified. Just10A (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this is where I was going. Czarking0 (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@Czarking0 I would disagree with calling it a philosophy though. It's a political movement. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I see your point, though I think there is a bit of a venn diagram between those terms. Either way, it is not a policy? Czarking0 (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Does Project 2025 have a significant component of Christian nationalism? From the wikipedia article on Christian nationalism: "Christian nationalism asserts that the United States is a country founded by and for Christians. Christian nationalists in the United States advocate 'a fusion of identitarian Christian identity and cultural conservatism with American civic belonging.'" Some examples of Christian nationalism are Dominion theology, the Seven Mountain Mandate movement and the New Apostolic Reformation. The word "Christian" only appears 6 times in the Project 2025 document. The word "God" only appears 8 times. The word "Jesus" appears not at all. The word "Bible" only appears once, in discussing a document that is a "policy bible" for an organization. The word "gospel" does not appear. The words "sinner" and "heaven" do not appear. The word "hell" only appears once, in the phrase "regulatory Hell." They don't quote any Bible verses. They are not asking for the Ten Commandments to be displayed in classrooms or other public displays of the Christian religion. Yes, the document is strongly socially conservative, with anti-transgender and anti-abortion views, which yes, are elements of Christian nationalism, but these are also elements of mainstream conservative Christian theology and fundamentalist Christianity. Some of the authors have biographies (even on Wikipedia) and can be looked up on the Internet. Yes, Project 2025 is strongly influenced by right-wing socially conservative values and probably right-wing Christian values but does it really belong in the same category as Christian nationalists? T g7 (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Here is Kevin Roberts speaking at the National Religious Broadcasters conference. I think that is at least marginal evidence of a Christian Nationalist component to the project. I am not saying that one piece of evidence demonstrates it just that I would use it among other pieces if I was making that argument. Czarking0 (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, the Heritage Foundation published Project 2025. Here is what a Heritage Foundation publication says about religious freedom:

"Religious freedom prevents the cultural majority from using the power of the state to impose their beliefs on others. This protects everyone—religious and nonreligious alike—from the government becoming so powerful that it can tell people what to think and how to act. Conscience has been considered the individual’s most sacred right. A government that intrudes on conscience will not hesitate to intrude on our other freedoms...

Ultimately, everyone benefits from religious freedom.

It covers all people equally—Christians, Jews, Muslims, agnostics, and atheists. Religious freedom preserves America’s diversity, where people of different faiths, worldviews, and beliefs can peacefully live together without fear of punishment from the government.

Efforts to repress religious freedom is not just an attack on individual liberty and human dignity, but on the very foundation that has made America strong."

from https://www.heritage.org/religious-liberty/heritage-explains/religious-freedom-whats-stake-if-we-lose-it . Note they refer to "diversity" positively; not sure how they would square that with opposition to DEI. T g7 (talk) 04:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Even tertiary sources such as Britannica identify Christian nationalist views in P2025...

• "While not explicitly endorsing Christian nationalism, Project 2025 shares the Christian nationalist views that “families comprised [sic] of a married mother, father, and their children are the foundation of a well-ordered nation and healthy society.” The Project calls upon the government to “maintain a biblically based, social science–reinforced definition of marriage and family” and contends that laws protecting the rights and freedoms of LGBTQ persons have effectively violated or at least disrespected the religious freedom of Christians. Christian nationalist values are reflected in the project’s recommendation that the religious convictions of employers and health care providers should permit them to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, among other factors, and that the government should “require that workers be paid time and a half for hours worked on the Sabbath.”

"The word "God" only appears 8 times. The word "Jesus" appears not at all. The word "Bible" only appears once, in discussing a document that is a "policy bible" for an organization. The word "gospel" does not appear. The words "sinner" and "heaven" do not appear. The word "hell" only appears once...etc...etc...They are not asking for the Ten Commandments to be displayed in classrooms or other public displays of the Christian religion."

And?... Russell Vought is a self described Christian nationalist [1]. There are somewhere around 200 mentions of the word abortion... but so what?

Compared to what reliable sources plainly say, these types of correlations do not equate to reasonable evidence for or against Christian nationalist influence on P2025. Using such correlations to make assumptions typically falls under the umbrella of original research and WP:SYNTH. DN (talk) 08:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

last year Kevin Roberts said to Seb Gorka:

The basis of the plan is public ... There are parts of the plan that we will not share with the Left, the executive orders, the rules and regulations. Just like a good football team, we don't want to tip off our playbook to the Left.[2]

and part of that playbook is Christian dominionism. one does not need to read a whole lot to know that "restoring America as the Christian nation the Founders intended" is a top priority in their world; they see that world fading and this is their last/best chance to save it, so they don't want to derail it by publicly suggesting we're heading to biblical law. this is why we must rely on reliable secondary sources for nearly everything significant we include here. sometimes what is left unsaid, with just a nod and a wink to insiders, is more important than what is explicitly stated.

Lance Wallnau of the New Apostolic Reformation said in 2011:

If you're talking to a secular audience you don't talk about having dominion over them. This whole idea of taking over and that language of takeover, it doesn't actually help. It's good for preaching to the choir and it's shorthand if we interpret it right, but it's very bad for media.

soibangla (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

The implication of that logic seems to be that Project 2025 is covertly Christian nationalist, that they are engaged in a conspiracy to implement Christian nationalism in the US. (edited) T g7 (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@T g7:@Soibangla:@Darknipples: I appreciate the points you all bring up. Can we come to some consensus on what the article should say, where it should say it, and what sources should be used to back those claims? Czarking0 (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

On further reading, I only found two sources, that are heavily biased towards conservatism, that say Project 2025 is not Christian nationalist, while many sources say it is Christian nationalist. So although my personal opinion is that the document as a whole is not Christian nationalist, my viewpoint is not supported by reliable sources. However, I did want to point to one thing -- in the "Philosophical outlook" section, I think that in the sentence "Project 2025 plans to infuse every aspect of federal government with Christian nationalism", the phrase "every aspect" is problematic. "Every aspect" includes a lot of things -- from policy changes that affect millions of people and diplomacy that could prevent or provoke war to copy machines, office furniture, buildings, parking lots, and millions of employees. How would "every" aspect of the government be infused with Christian nationalism? How would office furniture be infused with it? Maybe "many aspects" is better. T g7 (talk) 04:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Every aspect was chosen because the source says "every facet of government policy" Czarking0 (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I have been away for a bit and I think the current revision of the lead vis a vis Christian nationalism is very good. Thank you. T g7 (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

The article speaks a good deal about Christian nationalism but it does not really explore the Catholic element. First, I think it is unclear that Christian nationalism as it is used in this context includes Catholicism. Second, I think the Cathloic influence is notable in and of itself. Kevin Roberts is Catholic, as are several other Mandate authors. Leonard Leo brings additional Catholic influence. Here's one related RS.Czarking0 (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

References

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)

Well I was basically just using the advisory board as a list of partners. I don't see how to have a list of partners with RS other than their own stated advisory board. On the other hand, I could be interested in just changing the terminology to say "advisory board members" instead of partners throughout. Czarking0 (talk) 01:48, 9 March 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)

Ok I appreciate the insight here. I am going to make some bold edits in this space along the lines of what I wrote above. if people have issues with them then we can discuss them case by case. Czarking0 (talk) 07:12, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

SiegedSec

Is there more to this story? Czarking0 (talk) 07:16, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Mother Jones Quoting

WP:MOTHERJONES, I think the mother jones quotes are undue weight given the litany of real experts and academics providing comment. Some journalist opinion is just not on the same caliber of notable. Czarking0 (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2025

Change "and the withdrawal of a pending Biden administration ban on PFAS in drinking water.[240]" to "and the withdrawal of a pending Biden administration proposal to set limits on the industrial discharge amounts of PFAS.[240]"

• • The reference is regarding limits on industrial discharge amounts, not drinking water** 98.29.133.191 (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done Czarking0 (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Citation addition in 'Immigration reforms'

"The admission of refugees would be curtailed, and processing fees for asylum seekers would increase, something the Project deems "an opportunity for a significant influx of money".^{[citation needed]}"

Could this cite reference [95]? The part it's quoting is the third paragraph under 'Budget' on pg. 146. (The 179th page of the PDF, to be clear.) Shroom (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Done. 1101 (talk) 06:30, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Democracy Rules. Vote now on this topic.

Opener is "Project 2025 (also known as the 2025 Presidential Transition Project) is a political initiative to reshape the federal government of the United States and consolidate executive power in favor of right-wing policies."

Should we modify it by changing the ending of the sentence from "in favor of right-wing policies" to "in favor of anti-democratic and right-wing policies"?

Reason being is that a large section of Project 2025 advocates for anti-democratic, autocratic, and authoritarian measures. The administration has also shown disregard to the Constitution and judges' decisions, making people weary about the fact that supporters of Project 2025 in office are ignoring separation of powers and checks and balance.

All in favor, say aye. Summerfell1978 (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources that describe "anti-democratic policies"? —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 19:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, these sources all directly say "anti-democratic".

https://ldad.org/letters-briefs/project-2025-talking-points

https://democracyforward.org/the-peoples-guide-to-project-2025/underway-in-the-states/

https://americanoversight.org/newsletter/newsletter-project-2025s-anti-democracy-guidebook/

https://tminstituteldf.org/what-project-2025-means-for-black-communities/

https://nwlc.org/russell-vought-the-project-2025-architect-and-omb-nominee-coming-for-our-democracy/

http://kamlager-dove.house.gov/media/press-releases/kamlager-dove-joins-democratic-efforts-put-spotlight-project-2025-new

http://globalequality.org/storage/documents/cge-project2025-digital.pdf

https://www.rfsu.se/globalassets/pdf/global-impacts-of-project-2025.pdf Summerfell1978 (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@Eyer: Summerfell1978 (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

At first glance, those don't look like reliable secondary sources. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 19:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

So you should take a second glance before responding, I think. Summerfell1978 (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but which of the sources you listed above is a secondary source? I'm looking for scholarship or sources from news organizations. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 20:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Summerfell1978, opinionated press releases by politicians aren't the same as fact-based reporting. 1101 (talk) 08:14, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Given the odd title I want to point out wikipedia is not a democracy. WP:NOTDEMOCRACY

For this article, Project 2025 is not the Trump administration. In general WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY so if you point out where is the body of the article it is stated that Project 2025 is anti democratic and it is due weight to say that in the lead then go for it. Czarking0 (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

This is text straight from the article, but I can't proceed with changing it because FMSky stalks me and reverts me on various pages. I already added it recently and it was reverted, so I don't want to edit war: Critics have called it an authoritarian, Christian nationalist plan that would steer the U.S. toward autocracy. Legal experts say it would undermine the rule of law, separation of powers, separation of church and state, and civil liberties. Summerfell1978 (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

He probably just has this page on his watchlist…… Just10A (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

As I've told you before, FMSky is a longtime contributor who I unofficially consider to have seniority on many issues. If FMSky reverts you, it's usually because your revisions need improvement. The "stalks me" accusation can be inflammatory — I don't recommend it. 1101 (talk) 08:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Don’t know what that title is, but that doesn’t seem to be supported in the body in a way to justify that type of wording in the very first sentence. Anything like that is usually attributed, and so probably not appropriate in this instance. Just10A (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Text straight from the article: Critics have called it an authoritarian, Christian nationalist plan that would steer the U.S. toward autocracy. Legal experts say it would undermine the rule of law, separation of powers, separation of church and state, and civil liberties. Summerfell1978 (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Exactly, it attributes “by critics” for half of it, and the other half it’s talking about its possible effects, and attributes as well to legal experts. Either way it’s not the fundamental definition in wikivoice. Just10A (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

"Legal experts say it would undermine the rule of law, separation of powers, separation of church and state, and civil liberties."

I think this is pretty consensus. When physics experts say the theory of gravity is real, we don't say they're critics. Summerfell1978 (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOTDEMOCRACY? Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 20:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I think a fair criticism could be that consolidate executive power is a little unclear for readers who maybe do not read about politics a lot. Maybe Sumerfell's suggestion is too strongly worded but I could see "expand the power of the executive branch" as better wording? Czarking0 (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

"anti-democratic, autocratic, and authoritarian" That is what right-wing politics stands for anyway. "anti-democratic and right-wing " is saying the same thing twice. Dimadick (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Many people don't know that. Many Americans think right-wing just means conservative. Hence my request to add 'anti-democratic' because it's quite clear. I mean they are, the actions have been very anti-democratic and we are facing a constitutional crisis in the nation at the moment. Summerfell1978 (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Extended content

This reminds me of a discussion we had in a different article, the one on Curtis Yarvin. As always, the answer is to go back to the sources and look for better supported adjectives. Step one: gather sources. Step two: prune sources. Are they actual news articles, or just press-releases by think-tanks? Are they opinion columns, or fact-based reporting? Have any well-known reliable sources such as the NYT, WP, AP, Reuters, NPR, BBC, or PBS covered it, or is it mostly more marginal sources? Is there academic scholarship on the issue? When I want an edit made, I take the time to bring the best sources to the table. Don't just search Google, search Google Scholar, click the news tab, read existing sources in the article, and use your local library (it probably has a website). Then, I would look at what adjectives seem most widely used across sources before adding them. Edits supported by multiple sources are less likely to be removed. I might try to do this for you or help you with this, but understand that the word "anti-democratic", while it appears to be true given recent developments, must be well-sourced to make it into Wikipedia. Sometimes I bypass certain processes, like renaming pages without substantial discussion. But I'm not at all taken aback when such edits are reverted — I just go back and try to source my edits better, or even adjust their location to a more appropriate part of the article. We're an encyclopedia, not a news outlet or opinion website. Like you, I am very politically engaged, but the outcome of this process may be some adjective other than "anti-democratic". As other users pointed out, we want to avoid repetition, both verbally and conceptually. But if you think the sentence needs work, I'll be interested in looking into it, for sure. Anyway, although I don't think right-wing is necessarily synonymous with anti-democratic or authoritarian, there's certainly a correlation. This repetition may create the perception of undue emphasis on a particular part of Project 2025. My advice is that the word "anti-democratic" may well belong in the article, but we should be mindful of where in the article it's placed to avoid repetition, and we must also not jump into making the edit before we've done some research on the sources we're using.

1. The libertarian right does exist.

2. I do think that authoritarian and anti-democratic are already close enough in meaning that using them in the same sentence risks reading as too conceptually repetitive.

3. It's worth recognizing the social context of Wikipedia, while not apolitical, is more scholarly and less activist. 1101 (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

First source I found

"[…] Still, election denial poses an ongoing and evolving threat." "Project 2025 threatens to amplify attacks on election officials and throw the weight of the federal government behind those antidemocratic efforts." "Project 2025 threatens to reverse progress made over the last four years by stripping crucial federal resources from election officials and weaponizing the Department of Justice against officials who make decisions the administration disagrees with." Expert breif by Eric Petry (who "earned his JD with honors from the University of Chicago Law School, where he was executive editor of the University of Chicago Law Review") and Daniel I. Weiner (who "writes and comments regularly for media outlets such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, Politico, Slate, the Daily Beast, CNN, MSNBC, ABC News, and NPR." and "testified before Congress") in the Research & Reports section of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law website. The Brennan Center is a well-respected law and policy institute affiliated with NYU School of Law, known for its rigorous, non-partisan research and advocacy on issues of voting rights and civil liberties, and has been a leading source for analyses of threats to democracy. The "research & reports" section indicates a focus on factual, data-driven, scholarly analysis — its "expert briefs" are typically grounded in thorough research and evidence. (There are two pages [3] [4] in the "opinion & analysis" section of the website that didn't make it through the process by which I attempt to arrive at the best sources, but which may also be worth a read.) The subject matter, concerning election officials, is directly within the organization's area of expertise. Given its institutional credibility and the expert authors involved, this source is reliable.

Here's the first source, and also here's hoping this collapse template doesn't mess up the talk page (again). Two more sources on their way.

1101 (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Second extended reply on sourcing the word "antidemocratic" and its relation to Trumpism according to both sides of the (oversimplified) linear political spectrum

"Perhaps the most fundamental and far-reaching recommendation advanced in Project 2025 concerns the so-called “administrative” (or “deep”) state, the body of relatively independent administrative agencies that are empowered under federal law to create and enforce their own regulations—agencies whose leadership generally cannot be removed without cause, thereby preventing political interference in their operations. Conservatives have long characterized the administrative state as an antidemocratic federal bureaucracy intent on left-wing social engineering. Accordingly, one of the central goals of Project 2025 is to “dismantle the administrative state” by reinstating Schedule F, a Trump-era executive order that effectively enabled the classification of tens of thousands of career civil servants as political appointees, thus enabling their replacement with officers who would accept the conservative president’s direct control of their agencies. […]" and "[…] Although the project does not explicitly identify itself as a program for a second Trump administration it is widely understood as a blueprint that Trump may use to radically transform the federal government should he win the 2024 presidential election. Trump himself, however, has disavowed the project. Critics of Project 2025 have argued that the structural and policy changes it calls for would create an authoritarian and Christian nationalist state by massively expanding presidential power and aggressively promoting conservative Christian values. Even some conservatives have come to regard Project 2025 as a serious threat to democracy, the rule of law, civil rights, and the separation of church and state." (Written by Brian Duignan, "a senior editor at Encyclopædia Britannica" writing on "philosophy, law, social science, politics, political theory, and religion"; fact-checked by The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica; last updated today.) Britannica is a well-established and authoritative general-knowledge encyclopedia with a long history of rigorous editorial standards. Brian Duignan has clear expertise in the relevant fields of philosophy, law, and politics. The statements are well balanced, and contain information from both sides of the political spectrum, as should Wikipedia. Britannica is a credible and neutral source, which is why it states both accusations of being "antidemocratic"; in truth, the accusation is thrown both ways. The quoted statements show the interpretations of both sides, and shouldn't be taken out of context to imply that the POV endorsed by parts of either quote are the POV of Wikipedia or Britannica. The points of view contradict each other because they come from opposing sides, and its worth it for both us and our readers to understand the ideology of both sides — isn't that the very purpose of the Trumpism article? It appears to be the Trumpist view that, because Trump won the election, his consolidation of power is a consolidation of democratic power. They view a check on his power as a check on democracy. (Of course one might, and probably should, point out that, as stated by Jan-Werner Müller in his 2016 book What Is Populism, "[…] The danger is populism — a degraded form of democracy that promises to make good on democracy's highest ideals ("Let the people rule!"). The danger comes, in other words, from within the democratic world — the political actors posing the danger speak the language of democratic values. That the end result is a form of politics that is blatantly antidemocratic should trouble us all — and demonstrate the need for nuanced political judgement to help us determine precisely where democracy ends and populist peril begins.") Of course, those quoted statements are more opinionated, and such analysis — even when coming from an expert — must be attributed to an author if inserted into an article in order to maintain encyclopedic tone. Wikipedia isn't a place for original analysis or research. (Well, talk pages might include some, but the articles themselves shouldn't.)

Here's the second source, and also here's hoping this collapse template doesn't mess up the talk page (again). One more source is on its way.

1101 (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Final source on "anti-democratic tendencies"

"[…] Numerous state officials, including Republican state officials, have said the election was fair and there was no significant election fraud. Yet, Trump continues to deny the 2020 election results and to make false claims about election fraud. Election fraud is a context where lies intersect with anti-democratic tendencies." (Frank S. Ravitch, Professor of Law, Walter H. Stowers Chair in Law and Religion, and Director, Japan Program, Michigan State University College of Law, writing in an essay for the Nanzan Review of American Studies) The Nanzan Review of American Studies is a peer-reviewed academic journal published anually with an established reputation in its field of modern perspectives on history, which implies peer review and scholarly rigor. Frank S. Ravitch is a Professor of Law at MSU, an educational institution accredited by the Higher Learning Commission, relevant expertise, lending his work here some serious credibility. I don't think his statement here is objectionable; Trump did, as widely-reported, lie about election fraud and deny election results. And it's hardly a leap in analysis to say that's an anti-democratic tendency.

I hope this helps. The next step will be checking which of these sources are already in the article, updating their citation templates if necessary, and figuring out which parts of the article these ideas belong in, including whether to quote them directly, paraphrase, or even (very carefully) synthesizing them. 1101 (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, some of this content is more relevant to Trumpism while other is more relevant to Project 2025, which aren't the same thing, albeit related (though the relation has been publicly denied by Trump who said he knows "nothing" about it). 1101 (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Excellent work, good sir. Summerfell1978 (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Remove Elections section

@Talib1101: I think creating a whole section of a single source is not warranted. This probably goes for any of the other sections that might have a single source. Also the social media stuff you added to this section does not really fit. Czarking0 (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Citing Salon for a quote from Salon

I spotted a quote attributed in text to Salon and accordingly cited. It had been tagged as {{better source needed}}. I removed the tag saying Salon seems the ideal source for what the magazine says.[5] I was reverted for a reason restoring a reference to WP:SALON.COM but which I don't feel is too relevant[6] but I now wish I'd either replaced the original tag with {{Unreliable source?}} or instead had come here raising the possibility of removing the whole quote (or had just ignored the situation). Thincat (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok I think I have resolved this now by adding better sources Czarking0 (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I think you have. Thincat (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)