Talk:Agenda 47/Archive 1

Archive 1

List of proposals

I could only get 46 proposals out of the website, including the cartel stuff. Have I missed one? — The Anome (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The website shows only 46 proposals. Personally I don't see much value in just listing the title of each one without any context. As such, I've rewritten the article to provide an overview of the agenda as it is discussed in secondary reliable sources. I also reworked the lede to adhere to WP:LEDEFOLLOWSBODY. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The agenda47 topics should be listed in bullet point

The page does not clearly list what the topics of agenda47 is, instead only a brief summary that isn't objective. A better format would be to have a bullet point paragraph that has the name of the topic, Trump's own words for what the topic covers, and an objective summary of what the topic will do and what has been noted as a concern (with citation). 2605:8D80:4C0:847:7026:69FF:FEC3:E80B (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Only the topics covered by reliable secondary sources should be listed. This is important to establish notability and be able to provide context
@Maykiwi - much of what you are adding might be removed without secondary sources. If you're not sure why, feel free to ask or read up on the policy linked above Superb Owl (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The origin of the name should be explained

The name Agenda 47, in both name and spirit, is an obvious response to UN Agenda 21, which Trump has excoriated.

It's unlikely the Trump campaign has been official about such parallels, but at a minimum there should be broad sourcing of Trump attacking Agenda 21.172.56.169.57 (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

That's an interesting possibility, but to include this topic, we would need to find significant mention in independent, secondary, reliable sources.

Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 July 2024

You should remove any reference to Project 2025. It is not affiliated with Trump. Project 2025 has said this and the Trump campaign has said this. 174.179.15.53 (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Agenda 47 shares similarities with Project 2025, as described. Mention of Project 2025 is cited in reliable sources. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Remove all references to project 2025

This page is disingenuous in its references to project 2025. Agenda 47 and project 2025, while similar in wordings, are not related to each other in any way, and anyone trying to research both can easily conflate one with the other. 24.32.21.210 (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The "Project 2025" See alsos need to be removed for obviously misleading readers

Since Agenda 47 is not Project 2025, those see alsos need to be removed, as having that link there at the start of every section is obviously trying to force a link where there is none (as Trump has disavowed Project 2025, and they are obviously different). Yes, there are similatrities, and they can be talked about earlier in the article, but having them there is obviously trying to undercut that separation.

Agenda 47 needs to be it's own independent thing, at least in the section where you are merely listing the policies. G5bestcfb (talk) 06:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree. I've removed the See alsos from the policy section that point to Project 2025. Have kept "Not to be confused with ..." at the top. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 08:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Links to main pages

Can someone add links to main pages? For example, under the Immigration subsection, it should refer to

Main article: Immigration policy of Donald Trump

.

Also, here's a good quote from the CNN article already quoted there: "Trump is also planning a widespread expansion of his former administration’s hardline immigration policies if elected in 2024 that would restrict both legal and illegal immigration."

Also, there are an extra quotation marks in there.

Thx. Seananony (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Massive conflation

This article conflates project 2025 and Agenda47. The two are NOT the same. For example, project 2025 would outlaw porn, while Agenda47 does no such thing. This article needs to be cleaned up and discuss only Agenda47, NOT project 2025. Trump is on record disavowing project 2025. 2601:840:8001:9500:7199:8E26:E08B:4332 (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@2601:840:8001:9500:7199:8E26:E08B:4332 Where is porn mentioned on this page? Seananony (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Not to be confused with Agenda 21

Add to top? Seananony (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 July 2024

Add the web address for Agenda47 so people can look at it, as well as your Wiki entry. The web address is: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/agenda47 I do not support Trump. I'm running against him, but things should be open. Omitting the web address makes it look like you are biased, politically. 2600:8807:C211:B64E:FCB6:26DF:6C6E:2FFD (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

 Already done: The web address you mention already appears in the external links section, which is the appropriate location for it in Wikipedia articles. Left guide (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Remove Misinformation about Trump 47 and Project 2025

Trump publicly disavowed Project 2025. Source Bradshaw85 (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Uh huh? But his claim he didn't know about it is implausible at best ([1], [2], [3]) EvergreenFir (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

This is highly subjective and lacks any empirical evidence. 12.26.246.251 (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

About secondary sources, consensus needed.

Greetings. The Policies section lists primary sources only, which is a problem. Unfortunately, most secondary sources regarding Trump's proposals are on Project 2025, which Trump just recently disavowed. Agenda 47, which presents the official campaign proposals, has been barely talked about, so, the secondary sources are scarce, and sometimes erroneous. The campaign website has no other order than the chronological one, without any search tool. Therefore, what I did by adding the policies was just extracting the ore: I grouped the propositions by subject and made abstracts of their contents. Now comes the (I hope, collaborative :-) work of polishing the writing and adding the secondary sources, which may appear now that the campaign website's contents are (imperfectly) ordered thematically, and Project 2025 has lost preeminence.
Big question: While verifying the contents of the linked Wikipedia articles, I found sources that didn't mention Agenda 47, but their subjects either supported Agenda 47's assertions or refuted them. Would they be valid as secondary sources? (That is my position, that they are valid) Or, do we wait for new sources that directly mention Agenda 47? Thanks. Maykiwi (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I know that you've invested a lot of time and energy in the section, MayKiwi. How we usually go about writing an article is to first of all find significant mention in independent, secondary reliable sources, then we do our best to faithfully present what those sources are actually saying.

The other way round is to write down what we want to say and then hunt around for citations to back that up. But that is a lot harder to do, and it's backwards.

Primary sources can be used in certain circumstances to establish basic uncontroversial facts, but they should be used sparingly or backed-up with secondary sources. Regards, Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Greetings.
I see your point, and I wish there were more secondary sources (I have looked for them) but the question remains unanswered.
Given that there are still very few sources talking about Agenda 47 (and some take it for/mix it with Project 2025), if I find a reliable source that comments on, supports, or refutes any of the assertions/claims made in it without mentioning it (example, a peer-reviewed paper on the increase of childhood diseases), can it be considered acceptable as a secondary source for this section?
If you search for "Agenda 47," you'll find very few articles on it. If you search for the subjects, you'll find more articles, and that would solve the problem of primary vs. secondary sources in this article faster. Your vote?
(By the way, how many votes/opinions are needed here to achieve a consensus?)
Thanks. Maykiwi (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I also tried but failed to find many secondary sources discussing Agenda 47 items. My instinct is to remove everything that does not have significant coverage (a passing mention in an article doesn't seem to be enough). The Education section seems worth keeping because it has a Nation article on it, for example. If that is the consensus, I recommend @Maykiwi that you create a sandbox to save all the work you have done should other articles come along discussing Agenda 47 so you can build upon the work you started. Superb Owl (talk) 00:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd wish to point out that, given Trump's recent disavowal of Project 2025 (which has not been believed by the media), this is the only place where his own propositions for a next term can be found ordered by subject. This allows comparisons with Project 2025 or any other candidate's propositions.
I wish to mention too, that the policies the forerunner for the United States presidential elections officially wants to implement are of great importance for the American electorate and for the world. Should Wikipedia expect that everyone parse through 46 videos (plus their annexed materials on the website) to find out what to agree or disagree with, instead of providing the service of accurate information supported by reliable sources? Please notice, unreliability of the source is not an issue here. Given that it is the official platform of a presidential candidate, the original source is unavoidably the primary one, and sometimes, the most accurate.
The question of secondary sources that don't mention Agenda 47 directly but do comment on the subjects (either because the same policies are mentioned in Project 2025 or because they have been mentioned in rallies and interviews) remains open. I vote for including every reliable source that comments on Trump's announced policies, be that Agenda 47 is explicitly mentioned or not - because they are the same policies. And that would fulfill the requirement of supporting the officially announced policies with what other people say about them. Thanks. Maykiwi (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

You make some good points and I'm not sure how to proceed in this case. @Esowteric, do you have any thoughts? Superb Owl (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

This Washington Post article may help explain why there is so little coverage "Very few people discuss the elements of Agenda 47, Trump himself very much included. That’s largely because they were created for and targeted at the Republican presidential primaries, not his actual bid to unseat President Biden.":https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/18/trump-has-unveiled-an-agenda-his-own-he-just-doesnt-mention-it-much/ Superb Owl (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The 'Forbes Breaking News Videos' are just replays of the Trump videos. This does not make them secondary sources. The view numbers also don't matter here. I am removing all content without secondary sources associated with it. Superb Owl (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Greetings. This article is not the same thing as a documentary about an actor, in which you certainly need to prove its relevancy by citing a multitude of sources. I know, I created that article. These are still the official propositions of the forerunner for the United States presidential elections, and as long as it is necessary for the public of the United States and the world, this article must remain for their use. You can improve it by checking each and every video and improving the abstracts of the policies.
Of course the Forbes videos are replays of the Trump videos, but the number of views show their relevance to the public. A video with over 2 million views, isn't relevant? Trump is an atypical politician; he decided to make his official policy statements as a series of videos, making inline citations impossible, and it is not the place of Wikipedia editors to decide which ones are the most important to leave in the article.
By the way, I just found that one of the Forbes videos has more content than the website's video, and that, as I suspected, Trump released the videos on social media first, and embedded them in the website afterward.
Again, those are his official propositions. Have you forgotten that during his term he frequently used Twitter to make official announcements? Given that these are official political proposals that might be the politics of the United States of America starting in 2025, the original source is the most reliable one.
Nobody agreed with Superb Owl about taking everything down, and one single WaPo article is no justification to send the public to watch 46 videos: Trump has been giving the same talking points in his rallies, as every TV or Internet channel demonstrates; there is not a written platform. I have multiple sources discussing the policies but scarce time to put them all here, and if the Superb Owl had googled the subjects (now that there are subjects), the majestic bird could have collaborated adding them to the article instead of tearing it down without a consensus. Silence is not the same as approval. Wikipedia is meant to serve. Ordering all the policies by subject is service. Maykiwi (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Very willing to be overruled here but you cannot expect other editors to 'find the sources' if you do not have the time for it. I have tried and struggled to find reliable sources discussing Agenda 47 and have added them when I have. You can try the new USA Today article I found for ideas on how to word the text and maybe that is good enough for a citation for some of them? Superb Owl (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Greetings. Fair enough.
The trick to finding material about Agenda 47 policies is not searching by "Agenda 47" but by 'Trump' plus a keyword, for example, 'accreditation,' and the first thing that appears is the article by The Nation. Also, some of the sources already included in the article's section Reaction discuss the policies; they could be expanded to the specific policies they refer to.
Given the media's focus on Project 2025 and now JD Vance, we cannot expect many articles that discuss Trump's policies will use the term 'Agenda 47,' since he does not say, "As part of my official platform Agenda47, I intend to do (such and such thing,)" but in his rallies, interviews, etc., he mentions the polices often. And the media discuss them in particular.
On my part, I'll do my best to add the material I have already found ASAP.
Regarding the USA Today article, it is a good catch. I suspect, I'd like to imagine, that the author checked Wikipedia before going to the sources :-) Thanks. Maykiwi (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I do not agree with including anything that does directly mention Agenda 47 and the lack of coverage is no reason to stray from that. Take a couple more days and I will work on the wording of things that are actually being discussed in the news, not just the videos rebroadcast by Forbes. You might still have a case even without secondary sources but let's hope someone else chimes in and can help us out here Superb Owl (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Remove incorrect information

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 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) 09:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, Republicans have mainly stated their opposition to procedures for those who are under the age of 18. Banning procedures for legal adults is not the agenda of Donald Trump. There is a vast difference between the two polices. CalvinCoolidge228 (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Only issue I see is that puberty blockers obviously cease to work once puberty has happened. This is “gender affirming care” and by it’s very nature must happen before 18.

So while it is “minors” those minors have rights too, and this agenda is an assault on that as well. 2601:603:5000:D80:61C4:2BF8:EB14:9285 (talk) 05:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

This is untrue. HRT was de facto banned for *adults* in Florida until that ban got overturned recently. It's not correct to claim that Republicans do not seek to restrict access to gender affirng care for legal adults. 98.116.173.242 (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

American Academy

The phrase "American Academy" is being used without a definition or link. There's already an organization called "The American Academy"[4] which does something similar, but it's not clear if that is what is meant. John Nagle (talk) 03:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect information in the article

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)

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)

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 July 2024

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)