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. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | 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. |
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 August 2024
edit | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your 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)
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)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 August 2024
edit| | 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)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 September 2024
edit| | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)