Talk:Agenda 47

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Agenda 47 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 30 days

Politics: American

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force.

United States: Presidents

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as High-importance).

Conservatism

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 July 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Why does this need to bring up project 2025 something the trump campaign has purposely distanced itself from. Please keep Wikipedia educational. No need to fear monger. My suggestion is to remove mentions of project 2025 as they are irrelevant. 72.22.225.98 (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agenda 47 shares similarities with Project 2025, as described. Mention of Project 2025 is cited in reliable sources. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unitary Executive Theory is NOT part of Trump's platform. 2A00:1110:225:D7A0:F88B:8337:352C:CE69 (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the trump campaign dishonestly distancing itself from project 2025 despite it's clear and overt links is worth noting because trump is inherently dishonest. 2404:4402:3306:3800:34B7:A83F:B744:1ABF (talk) 00:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an extremely subjective statement without any relevant references. This comment lacks any coherent relevance to this article. 12.26.246.251 (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page puts elements of Project 2025 as part of Trumps Agenda 47 platform and there is no evidence for it. One can simply read here: https://rncplatform.donaldjtrump.com/ and see that Unitary Executive Theory is NOT on the agenda. This is incredibly dishonest. 2A00:1110:225:D7A0:F88B:8337:352C:CE69 (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heavily editorialized, fails NPOV

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Page should separately address what Agenda 47 entails, and what other people (many of them in the political opposition and so incentivized to engage in false statements and fear mongering) think about it. For example, this paragraph: "The main critiques of the platform have focused on it increasing climate change[3][4], it worsening public health[5], its legality[6], its feasibility, the risk of more inflation, and threat of authoritarianism" belongs in the section about "Reception." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Empact (talk • contribs) 15:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"manifesto"

It has not been called a "manifesto" that is loaded language and has a negative connotation. 24.163.10.230 (talk) 01:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary definition of manifesto: 1. (government) a public declaration of intentions (as issued by a political party or government). Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 07:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Denotation vs connotation. The generally accepted term for a statement of planned intentions by an American political party is "Platform" The language should be changed to "platform" to A) aim for the most neutral language possible, and B) harmonize the description with the body of the 2024 Republican National convention wiki page that describes it as "a separate, but similar, platform called Agenda 47" 72.128.81.110 (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect information in the article

It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Agenda 47. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

With the election approaching I think it’s important that people have the opportunity to come here and at least receive correct information. You don’t have to agree with it, but it shouldn’t be incorrectly summarized. I’ve found a couple of things that have been misattributed in this article

1) Under "Journalism and information" section: This will be achieved by banning every federal agency from performing that action, firing federal officials who have done it (and depriving them of their vote). The section I've highlighted in bold is completely false and should be removed. It should be changed to: "This will be achieved by banning every federal agency from performing that action, firing federal officials who have done it..."

It misattributes a quote from source [58]. The quote states, "We should also enact new laws laying out clear criminal penalties for federal bureaucrats who partner with private entities to do an end-run around the Constitution and deprive Americans of their First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights. In other words, deprive them of their vote." He clearly was saying that federal bureaucrats are depriving private citizens of their right to vote, not that he would deprive federal bureaucrats of their right to vote. None of the other sources support this argument

2) Under "Transgender and LGBT Rights" section, the first two bullet points state:

Proposition of terminating all manner of gender affirming care, instructing every federal agency to cease all programs that promote the concept of sex and gender transition "at any age," stopping their federal funding, and declaring that any hospital or healthcare provider participating in it will no longer meet federal health and safety standards for Medicaid and Medicare, terminating them from the program.
Creating ways to sue physicians who have performed those procedures, and directing the Department of Justice to investigate pharmaceutical companies and hospitals to determine whether they have covered "horrific long-term side-effects of “sex transitions” to get rich at the expense of vulnerable patients," and whether they have illegally marketed hormones and puberty blockers.

Both of these are very misleading. The current text in the article implies that this applies to all gender affirming surgery. However, the referenced source says this only applies to hospitals performing gender affirming care to minor youth (Source [56], bullet points 5, 6, 7). Also, the sourced article makes no reference to "terminating all manner of gender affirming care."

I propose this section be reworded as follows, which better aligns with the source. For clarity, I've italicized new text:

Proposition ~~of terminating all manner of gender affirming care,~~ instructing every federal agency to cease all programs that promote the concept of sex and gender transition "at any age," stopping ~~their~~ federal funding of gender affirming care, and declaring that any hospital or healthcare provider ~~participating in it~~ providing gender affirming care to minors will no longer meet federal health and safety standards for Medicaid and Medicare, terminating them from the program.
Creating ways to sue physicians who have performed "chemical or physical mutilation to minor youth", and directing the Department of Justice to investigate pharmaceutical companies and hospitals to determine whether they have covered "horrific long-term side-effects of “sex transitions” to get rich at the expense of vulnerable patients," and whether they have illegally marketed hormones and puberty blockers.

ZachofMS (talk) 09:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Everything in this is 10000% wrong

Obviously this was written by a 3rd grader who didn't actually read agenda 47. Read it: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/platform Kroberts1140 (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article is leading and not at all neutral.

This is written like a Republican propaganda piece. Needs balance, neutrality. 50.220.209.194 (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove "Manifesto" from description.

The use of Manifesto is meant to make Project 47 look like a crazy proposal. It sounds like Democrat Propaganda. Much the same way mass killers have Manifestoes. It simply should be called a plan. 4.53.83.137 (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 August 2024

It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Agenda 47. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

In the introductory paragraph, there is a thinly veiled opinion that has no source. The sentence "Some have described it as fascist or authoritarian" should be deleted, as it does not contain a source nor do any of the sourced articles support this statement.

In the first section, change "The platform has been criticized for its approach to climate change[3] and public health;[4] its legality and feasibility;[5] and the risk that it will increase inflation. Some have described it as fascist or authoritarian." to "The platform has been criticized for its approach to climate change[3] and public health;[4] its legality and feasibility;[5] and the risk that it will increase inflation." ZachofMS (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Per MOS:LEAD, that statement does accurately reflect and summarize the content of the article. See also WP:LEADCITE EvergreenFir (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the thousands of words in this article, the word "authoritarian" and "fascist" are mentioned twice—once in the lead and once in the last sentence in the article (in the Reception section). At no point does the article expand upon this statement. In fact, the mention of it in the Reception section is just the first sentence copied and pasted with the word "columnists" added. How could you call this a summary, as defined in MOS:LEAD, when the article never explores this topic? ZachofMS (talk) 09:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 August 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The "started" in the following sentence fragment should be changed to "stated": It also started that "unilaterally zero[ing] out any program he doesn't like, or whose recipient has angered him Mofembot (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Kingsmasher678 (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]