Talk:Agenda 47

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 August 2024

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)

 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)

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)

 Not done: Focus on providing reliable sources to support your changes please. You'll be more likely to get your edit request through that way. ⸺(Random)staplers 02:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• And for the record, yes, even if there is no citation in the article, (or in the lead, which as you read, is allowed), you should still provide citations in your edit request.⸺(Random)staplers 02:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Are there liberals that do not have raging "Trump Derangement Syndrome"? This is why even liberal institutions like colleges won't accept this as a reliable research source. Get help. Talk to someone. 2600:6C4A:437F:A36F:A6A:B6A:BF02:D033 (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 August 2024

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)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 September 2024

I think you should remove the claim that Trump calls for, "Unitary Executive Theory" because I checked the actual agenda 47 link (https://rncplatform.donaldjtrump.com/?_gl=1*1f2o1j5*_gcl_au*MzE4ODgzNTYuMTcyNDMyNjkyMA..&_ga=2.175610598.515296050.1726839463-898589262.1724326921) and CTRL+F'd, "Unitary Executive theory" and I got nothing. ANS201 (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. There are no fewer than four citations supporting the claim - you'd need to provide adequate secondary sources (not primary) to rebut this. Given that, you'd also need to develop a consensus on this talk page as well. PianoDan (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Overuse of the |quote= parameter

Hello talk page watchers. Just a quick note that I think this article is over-using the |quote= parameter in {{Cite web}} style templates. While it can be tempting to include this for lots of citations or even all citations, I think this is a bad habit. What happens when it is included for lots of citations is that the size of the wikicode balloons to a large size, and the size of the visible references section balloons to a large size, and this size is simply not necessary. Another disadvantage is it makes citation reuse harder. I'd recommend deleting almost all of the |quote= parameters, to bring this article in line with the style of other Wikipedia articles. When I was a newer user I experimented with including |quote= all the time, but nowadays I only include it when someone is confused on the talk page or adds a {{Failed verification}} tag or similar. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 November 2024

In the Overview section, the second paragraph starts with: "In 2023, Trump campaign officials acknowledged the Project 2025 aligned well with Agenda 47." Please change to: "In 2023, Trump campaign officials acknowledged that Project 2025 aligned well with Agenda 47; however, in 2024, Donald Trump repeatedly disclaimed it." Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c977njnvq2do Happyinokc (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Happyinokc  Done Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2024

• −

  Terminating all types of gender affirming care for minors, 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.

  +

  Terminating all types of gender affirming care for minors, instructing every federal agency to cease all programs that promote the concept of sex and gender transition "at any age", stopping federal funding for all gender-affirming procedures, and declaring that any hospital or healthcare provider participating in gender affirming care for minors will no longer meet federal health and safety standards for Medicaid and Medicare, terminating them from the program.

  :
• Original phrasing is misleadingly ambiguous as to whether the disqualification from Medicare and Medicaid would be conditional on offering gender-affirming care for minors or people "at any age." The text of Agenda 47 indicates that it would be conditional on the former. Original phrasing also isn't entirely clear that federal funding is to be revoked for gender-affirming procedures and not federal agencies themselves:
• :

2603:8000:6F00:AD00:A083:D851:F4E8:7A62 (talk) 05:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done -OXYLYPSE (talk) 11:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Reception - NPOV

Given that the Reception section only draws from sources critical of the agenda, would be reasonable to add that the majority of American voters received Agenda 47 by electing Donald Trump? If this sounds fair, this is a request for a qualified editor of this article to do so. Thanks. 125.165.111.204 (talk) 04:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

No OR. Do you have sources stating that the average American voter has even heard of this agenda? Dimadick (talk) 10:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

This agenda was the candidate's platform, as the article states. The fact that elections are referenda for candidates' platforms relies upon common knowledge, not research. Election results relate directly to a platform's reception, regardless of whether a candidate loses or wins, so it would be appropriate to note in this section that American voters received the candidate favorably. For citation, any of the reliables sources that state Donald Trump won both the electoral and popular vote would be sufficient. Readers can draw their own conclusions without the editor having conducted OR. 125.165.111.204 (talk) 13:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, we need reliable sources showing this, not an assumption. Doug Weller talk 14:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

To substantiate that public reception of the Trump agenda is more favorable than the Reception section's slanted media sources make it out to be, are more reliable sources than this one required? If editors controlling the article disagree that voters received Trump's agenda, by "Agenda47" branding or any other term, differed from the quoted media sources, would it be fair to ask that you "edit for the other side" in this respect, given that the section in dispute mischaracterizes how the agenda was received? Thanks. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/11/22/public-narrowly-approves-of-trumps-plans-most-are-skeptical-he-will-unify-the-country/ 125.165.108.38 (talk) 05:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)