Talk:Project 2025

The list of leading scholars supporting Project 2025 was listed in the new book from Princeton University Press which I've tried to add to the article. User Czarking0 appears to be reverting multiple times for fully sourced material on the Project 2025 page. The use of tables and list of names and subjects is common to Wikipedia which is not limited to Prose expression alone. See the Kissinger article for his 'Awards and honors' section which presents a list of his accomplishments using a similar double column format. Your next revert will be three reverts which is against Wikipedia without your starting Talk on this issue. The list is fully cited. The list looks like it should be added to the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Article talk pages are not for discussing conduct issues. If you wish to discuss conduct please follow WP:DR.

I agree the list is cited. However, I think it is not an improvement to the article. I think a separate listicle on Project 2025 Staff could be warranted. However, this bulleted list is not great style in this case per WP:PROSE. The summary style here calls for the discussion of the immediate project leaders in a dedicated sub section. A broader discussion of all the staff could be warranted but is not certainly not well done as a bulleted list within the leaders subsection. The book you cite is good but contains many details beyond what is appropriate in WP:SUMMARY style for an article. If multiple/briefer sources also highlight these people as leaders on par with the existing ones in the section then my mind would be changed. Czarking0 (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

The BRD page seems to state things the other way around stating: “Your edit might be reverted. The editor reverting you should be specific about their reasons in the edit summary or on the talk page.“ Since you are the editor reverting and you have not started Talk page since Jan 17 then appropriate DR can be started. You have now required me to start the discussion for you and I'll try to respond.

This list is the format used in what you acknowledge as a reliable source. Prose is not the only way to add edits to Wikipedia articles; its perfectly normal to add well-written lists like the one cited to Princeton University Press. I've already asked you to look at the example on the Kissinger page of a comparable list but you appear not to have looked at it. The edited list and prose added here is from a reliable source and should be added to the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Not everything from reliable sources should be added. Books are apt to contain a lot of information that should not be in a summary article on the topic. Czarking0 (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• The main issue with structuring it this way is due weight; devoting an entire section and table to a list from a single book would be giving that author's definition of who is central in Project 2025 a massive amount of weight relative to all other coverage. If you look at the table for Kissinger you mentioned, for comparison, it cites 38 different sources. That doesn't mean we need to omit Field's list entirely, but for now it would make more sense to cover it more briefly in prose; something like a sentence in the background section saying that Laura K. Field, in The Making of the MAGA New Right, identified several key figures who influenced Project 2025, including Sohrab Ahmari, Costin Alamariu, Michael Anton, Larry P. Arnn, Steve Bannon,Darren Beattie, Allan Bloom, Tucker Carlson, Charles Cornish-Dale, Chris Demouth, Patrick Deneen, Ron DeSantis, John C. Eastman, Samuel T. Francis, Robert P. George, Paul Gottfried, Josh Hammer, Yoram Hazony, Harry V. Jaffa, and Leo Strauss. That said, even that is a bit bloated and clunky; we might want focus on the ones she identifies as most important, and perhaps combine this with other sources to produce a paragraph on who influenced Project 2025 and how. --Aquillion (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  This seems to me to be the sort of thing that is better accomplished through a navbox or something. It is essentially a list of names. I totally agree on the how. Czarking0 (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• Princeton University Press is a reliable source for academic material and the article would be stronger by using high quality sources. One suggestion might be to shorten the list by half-a-dozen names to make the list as a whole smaller. In case you haven't noticed, then nearly all of those names are blue linked and already have their own articles on Wikipedia; it should be relatively easy to add second cites for the individual names if needed. As providing some workable middle ground, I'll suggest shortening the list by a half-a-dozen scholars (note that the original list in Field's book is even longer). Many readers of this article do not have a grasp of Project 2025, and including some of these names as reference points would help orient readers better to the material discussed in this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• Pings to editors Aquillion, Czarking0, ToBeFree. Further comments, or, can I follow through on my offer to trim a further half dozen names as trying to find some middle ground for everyone involved in this Talk. The list is already half of the 35 names in the full list from Laura Field's book, and I'm offering to take another half dozen off if I could restore the edit and move forward? ErnestKrause (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  I have no opinion on this, but if you want to be on the safe side, it may help to describe exactly what you're going to do ("I'll remove the text ..., and I'll add the text ...") and see if there are objections to either part of that. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:31, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Pings to editors Aquillion, Czarking0, ToBeFree. Thanks for the suggetion, no answers yet from Czarking0. My offer of some middle ground is to offer some consensus position which would shorten the list by a half-dozen names by taking out Costin Alamariu, Michael Anton, Charles Cornish-Dale, Chris Demouth, John C. Eastman, Samuel T. Francis. If the shortened list is sufficient for the concerns raised in this discussion, then I'll restore the edit with the abridgements as stated. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  If I understand correctly (but I didn't read through all of this) the name removals would be uncontroversial. If that's the case (perhaps give the others a few more days to reply) you could make that edit first, and make the restoration of the other content a second edit that can be discussed separately. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  The names are not in the article. They are proposing adding a list of names to the leadership section Czarking0 (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• If I'm understanding the current status of the edit after Czarking0's comment, then he is stating that he has reverted the entire list of the 17 names in my original edit as his BRD revert. I've then offered to remove 6 more names from the list as trying to present a middle ground edit that might gain his support and Aquillion's support for inclusion in the article by restoring the original version of the edit and then make the deletions listed; waiting to hear from them if there is an ok from them to do this? ErnestKrause (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  Will there be clear attribution to Field as well? DN (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Full citation with page number for the list of names. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  Right, but will it attribute Field in the text, such as "acording to" etc...? DN (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I have discussed in this thread, I still oppose your suggestion. I am not required to respond to all of your comments for my opposition to stand. Czarking0 (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the start of the opening sentence reads as follows: "Laura K. Field in her 2025 book titled The Making of the MAGA New Right...". The wording of this in the original edit can be read on this link: . Does that look ok? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I think Czarking0 and Aquillion made salient points and suggestions. The Leaders section is relatively brief, and adding a table with names of influencers may stand out unnecessarily, to wit, PROSE and SUMMARY are legitimate concerns when looking at how it will effect the quality of this section. The source is good, but I'm not sure we should give this context so much prominence in this section. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Aquillion presents this idea of switching it to prose format above and I'm thinking whether DN agrees. It can be done with either the full list of scholars names, or, the list of scholars names could be shortened by a half dozen of the scholars names. Does the Aquillion version of the prose format for this edit work? ErnestKrause (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I think it's more appropriate than the original proposal, but it could be more succinct still, as to fit in equally with the other material, just a thought. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

You might convince me here; do you mean if the list is limited to the top 7-8 scholars names then it might work that way as a useful edit from your viewpoint? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Aquillion; This seems to circle back to your suggestion that even in prose format that the list of names is too long; what about if the list is shortened down to 7-8 scholars in order to make the list more readable? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2026 (UTC)