Talk:Agenda 47

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 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)

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)

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)