Talk:Kevin Roberts (political strategist)

Some sources

If this article survives the pending AfD, here are some sources that could be integrated into an expanded article:
As a college president, he was an advocate for rejecting federal aid in order to retain independence. He's quoted in the New York Times about it here and he wrote an opinion piece for The Federalist here.
He also filed suit on behalf of his college to oppose the contraceptive mandate in the ACA. Please see this article from the Caspar Star-Tribune.
After that he was appointed to be executive v.p. of the Texas Public Policy Foundation. His appointment was covered in the Caspar Tribune (same article) and in the Austin Business Journal here.
He's interviewed about prison reform on a Texas radio station (KFYO) here David in DC (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

What makes this guy an academic?

Being an education administrator isn't at all the same as being an academic. Being an officer of a so-called think tank doesn't make one an academic, either.

Furthermore, in addition to a lack of professional research or teaching cited, Roberts' public statements as an individual and as president of Heritage Foundation demonstrate his scientific illiteracy, poor reasoning skills, and intentionally manipulative false statements.

Frankly, it is laughable that Wikipedia tolerates describing the president of the Heritage Foundation as an academic. Roberts is a leader among religious zealots who deny secular advancements. For crying out loud... 2601:5C4:200:5C40:B959:F7B2:9F50:1A00 (talk) 00:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I also made your observation (where is the academic?). Roberts was president of Wyoming Catholic College (2013-2016), but I still see your point. Is being president of a college the same as being an academic? Or is there something else in this man's bio that is not present in the article? L.Smithfield (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm a novice to this medium, so I have know Idea who you are in your 'Ho Hum' day to day, minute by minute life, but I know this - your comment: "Roberts is a leader among religious zealots who deny secular advancements" tells me a great deal about you! You also (If Roberts is a religious zealot) are a religious zealot, just a different religion. I suggest that you try eating sweet, firm, fresh Grapes; 86 your Sour Grapes, try engaging in a positive discourse, leave your carping (i.e. to find fault or complain querulously), look for the positive. Engage! Allow the sun to shine on your face, not just your back. It's Warm, Uplifting, and Refreshing. 98.186.133.4 (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

he's not an academic. what should he be called? "think tank leader?" I dunno soibangla (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Kevin Roberts taught at New Mexico State U for 2 years and also did a little bit of adjuncting for community colleges before that. He published a book called "African-American Issues" with Westport Press (Now Bloomsbury Academic) in 2006. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.249.67.33 (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC) Sorry, that was me directly above, commenting. None of that makes him an academic in the traditional sense.

I changed it to 'President of the Heritage Foundation and Heritage Action' - a bit unsure of whether to include 'conservative,' 'right-wing' or some other descriptor Superb Owl (talk) 07:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Kevin Roberts, architect of Project 2025, has close ties to radical Catholic group Opus Dei

This doesn't seem to be mentioned in the Wikipedia article.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/26/kevin-roberts-project-2025-opus-dei

Here is the source. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 03:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

"Opus Dei said in a communication provided to the Guardian post-publication that neither it nor its members are engaged in any sort of “secret” or “shrouded” project, political or otherwise. It said Opus Dei directors “never impose a political or professional criterion on other members” and that any attempts to impose such a criterion would lead to “expulsion” from Opus Dei. The group said it does not disclose names of members because Opus Dei has faced “widespread opposition and oppression throughout its whole history” and that it “does not seek out political power or influence”." (from cited article)

Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article Kevin Roberts's call to "burn" the FBI, Boy Scouts of America, New York Times, "every Ivy League college," various public school systems in the U.S., and many other institutions. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/08/project-2025-kevin-roberts-book-burning-fbi-new-york-times 76.189.135.48 (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Project 2025

How much of Project 2025 needs to be included in the biography? While I understand the criticism and concerns, there's an entire Project 2025 Wiki page where those sources can be linked...I find it unnecessary to include that information in this specific biography since that information isn't particular to it. (@Summerfell1978) Corsair91 (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Considering Kevin Roberts is the president of the organization that provided the blueprint (Project 2025), the statement is highly relevant and significant, and will stay. Please refrain from edit warring or I will escalate this. Summerfell1978 (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I just want to ensure that the page has information that's particular to it. That said, and since we both disagree and won't come to a solution, is it possible to get a 3rd party to determine whether or not the information should stay? Corsair91 (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it should not be in. The user was blocked for their edit warring. Just10A (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I think it should generally be in just so people understand the nature of the criticism for project 2025. I added it as part of that sentence to give it context to the criticism (otherwise no one knows what the criticism is). Remember (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm confused why we can't clarify why Project 2025 is "controversial". What is wrong with the following sentence in the lead if it is well-sourced: "Soon after Roberts joined Heritage in December 2021, the organization established the highly controversial Project 2025, an expansive plan to overhaul the government under the new Republican administration that was criticized for being unconstitutional, anti-democratic, and pro-authoritarian."? Remember (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Addition of Project 2025

What are the objections to having this statement on his article page? "Project 2025 has been criticized for being unconstitutional, anti-democratic, and pro-authoritarian."

The citations included ACLU, Democracy Docket, The Guardian, Notre Dame's Rooney Center, Center for American Progress, National Women's Law Center, and LDAD.

1) I think it's quite evident that Project 2025 is all three adjectives listed above. 2) He is the president of the organization that drafted and published this blueprint. 3) A large part of his notability is tied directly to Project 2025's popularity in the media. Summerfell1978 (talk) 11:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Appears some people think it is too much about Project 2025. So then my suggestion is just to revise the first sentence to read: "Soon after Roberts joined Heritage in December 2021, the organization established the highly controversial Project 2025, an expansive plan to overhaul the government under the new Republican administration that was criticized for being unconstitutional, anti-democratic, and pro-authoritarian." I see no reason not to add that. Remember (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I revised the intro as suggested. Happy to discuss. Remember (talk) 13:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for participating in this discussion. Apparently a single short sentence I added was quite problematic for some editors, that I was referred to the admins to block me. So for now, I'll wait and see if they find your proposal acceptable. Summerfell1978 (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. Well, happy to help out and happy to find consensus about how to discuss in the lede on this talk page. Remember (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

If we want to try to find consensus, do it on this talk. Don't add something in knowingly after people have objected, even if you modify it. Just10A (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

What exactly are your objections? You haven't answered this in any of our interactions. The statement is quite valid and backed. Summerfell1978 (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

It's not just me, it's many. And such content isn't even in the body. That eliminates it on MOS:LEAD alone. Nor is it primarily about him. Just10A (talk) 15:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Great! I will accept your recommendation and I will create a new paragraph in the body to go into detail about this sentence in the lead, so that the sentence in the lead can be parallel with MOS:LEAD as you prefer it. Summerfell1978 (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Put it on the talk page please. Just10A (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

You're replying to the Talk thread. Summerfell1978 (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I know, I'm telling you to put your draft into the talk page instead of just injecting it straight into the main article space. Also, I'd be mindful of WP:COATRACK, which is essentially what the other editors are saying. This article isn't about P25. Just10A (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler's article isn't about the Nazi Party, Holocaust, or fascism, yet there are more than enough paragaphs about all listed in the body. I find your reasons to be insincere. You are trying to find methods to stop this sentence from being posted. Because it seems that you have a bias and don't want people to read that it is in fact anti-democratic and right-wing. Summerfell1978 (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:GODWIN. Just10A (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

So I take it you want more discussion of project 2025 on his page. Happy to add further information. Remember (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Again, I would put a draft in the talk page, per other thread. Just10A (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I created a subheading for Project 2025, as there already is a subheading for Heritage Foundation. @Just10A @Remember @others, please feel free to revise it in good faith. Summerfell1978 (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Dude. I just told you to put a draft in the talk page so others could contribute. Just10A (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@Corsair91 @FMSky, I'm somewhat busy so please contribute here. I'd rather not have to report them to admin noticeboard again. Same issue as past. Just10A (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. You protested that you can't add information to the lead regarding Project 2025 since its not in the body of the article. Now your saying you can't add information to the body of the article about 2025 without discussing it here first? What information that has been added in the body of the article is incorrect or shouldn't be in the article? Remember (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree that we need to agree on a draft on this talk page. I’m completely fine with short criticisms of Project 2025 in this biography, but I don’t think we need an entire subheading with criticisms, since Project 2025 already has its own page.

The subheading in this biography is essentially just repeating information that’s already on the Project 2025 page. Corsair91 (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

You want the information for Project 2025 more individualized to Kevin Roberts? Ok. I think that is possible given the sources. Remember (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

First, we want you to draft on the talk page, as repeatedly requested and called for by norms such as WP:BRD. Secondly, yes we can discuss Roberts's actions, but it should probably just be under "heritage foundation" and should first obtain consensus. Just10A (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Where is it required that we have to draft well-sourced information on the talk page first? Remember (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:CONACHIEVE, people have voiced opposition to the proposal(s). They don't have consensus. Just10A (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

To which proposal? No one else objected to the Project 2025 information that you deleted? Remember (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@Corsair91 Also said to draft it first? The other editors you haven't even given time to respond. Just10A (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

You have still failed to answer any questions relating to what exactly your objections are.

You first said you disagree with the lead concluding sentence because it's not included in the body. I wrote in detail how Kevin Roberts spearheaded Project 2025, I spent quality time finding valid and reliable sources to accomodate to you. You still disagree with it for unknown reasons. I am sorry but you have repeatedly engaged in unconstructive behavior and I will be reporting this now. Summerfell1978 (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@Just10A and @FMsky continue to undo edits regarding the following concluding sentence in the lead: "Soon after Roberts joined Heritage in December 2021, the organization established the highly controversial Project 2025, an expansive plan to overhaul the government under the new Republican administration that was criticized for being unconstitutional, anti-democratic, and pro-authoritarian". An exhausted amount of valid and reputable cituations were included.

@Just10A claims that we shouldn't have this in the lead because there's nothing about Project 2025 in the body. Per MOS:LEAD as he referred to, I obliged and took his offer to write a detailed body about Project 2025, as Roberts spearheaded this blueprint an has been the strongest advocate. The body is relevant because a large factor for Kevin Roberts notability is Project 2025, which has been his rise to fame.

@Just10A continues to object and says the body should be removed, then threatened to have admins involved. There have been no solutions proposed, nor have we seen any single statement yet why there is an objection to these cited sentences in the new body paragraph. Summerfell1978 (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS is on you. We're telling you to draft on the talk page first, and you're refusing. Just10A (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Are you saying everything has to be brought to the talk page first? Or just everything with project 2025? What exactly are the restrictions you are imposing and where are you getting this imposition from? Remember (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I suggested that we discuss the inclusion of Project 2025 criticisms on Talk, based on WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. I don't want anyone to be banned and I think we can come to mutual agreement, and better understand the reasons for including or excluding the information, if we discuss it here, rather than engage in edit warring. That's my rationale, at least. Corsair91 (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Well as long as people are allowing notable information from reliable sources to the wikipedia page, then I am happy to discuss here first. Remember (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Me too. Thank you for being reasonable. I'm glad we were able to come to mutual agreement. Corsair91 (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Remember (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I also agree. Unfortunately, Summer reported me for "edit warring" and might get boomeranged.

Also, in response to your question Are you saying everything has to be brought to the talk page first?": No, I'm just saying that the stuff that is added and then disputed by other editors needs to be brought to talk, per WP:CONACHIEVE and WP:BRD.

I see we're already discussing it as a draft though in the next talk post, so we're already on our way. Just10A (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Link to Project 2025

Based on User:Just10A's request that we have more individualized information about Roberts relation to Project 2025 and add information to the talk page first, I have drafted the following sentence. Please tell me any problems with this addition. Remember (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Kevin Roberts has been called the "Project 2025 chief", an "architect of Project 2025", the Project 2025 "mastermind", and "the force behind Project 2025". Remember (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't have any problems with this, since the information is much more individualized and particular to this biography, rather than broad criticisms of the Project. Corsair91 (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Great. Adding to the article. Remember (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I was going to add something similar to the lead since the lead doesn't establish how he is linked at all to Project 2025 other than he was the president of the organization. So how is this: "Soon after Roberts joined Heritage in December 2021, the organization established the highly controversial Project 2025, an expansive plan to overhaul the government under the new Republican administration, and Roberts himself has been called the mastermind of Project 2025." Remember (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

That's definitely reasonable to add. Thank you. Corsair91 (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Will do. Remember (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Lead issue describing Project 2025

Previously there have been some fights regarding the description of the issues associated with Project 2025 that people have requested be brought to the talk page. So I am bringing it here and starting a discussion. So who would be opposed to changing the lead to read as follows and please state why (changed parts in bold). Remember (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Suggested text: Soon after Roberts joined Heritage in December 2021, the organization created Project 2025, a controversial expansive plan to overhaul the government under the new Republican administration that critics accused of being unconstitutional, anti-democratic, and pro-authoritarian. Roberts himself has been called the "mastermind of Project 2025."

That description is completely fine with me. Corsair91 (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Current one is better as it avoids a possible WP:COATRACK: Soon after Roberts joined Heritage in December 2021, the organization established the highly controversial Project 2025, an expansive plan to overhaul the government under the new Republican administration, and Roberts himself has been called the "mastermind of Project 2025.". The organization created the project, not Roberts alone. Criticism can go into the main article, not into the lead of one of its co-creators --FMSky (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Disagree. In the current version, no one knows what its controversial in the current lead. We just allege it is controversial with no explanation about why we are stating that. Remember (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

They can read that in the section below https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Roberts_(political_strategist)#Project_2025 --FMSky (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with FM, I think your current statement is close to perfect. Just10A (talk) 02:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)