Talk:The Agenda Project

Latest comment: 5 months ago by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:18E5:A7F2:ECD3:F403 in topic Defunct

Untitled

edit

This page is written in the style of a press release, even once lapsing into the voice of the organization itself: "While this campaign was multipronged like our Defending American Values campaign." Jra (talk) 07:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Controversial political lobbying organization

edit

An organization best known for its outrageous ad of Speaker Ryan pushing granny over a cliff, based on lies, must be designated with "controversial", "far-Left", "biased", "partisan politics", etc. for their serial distortions to slander and fear-monger.

For instance, they just released the creepiest ad in history--showing a beautiful baby girl's first movements and declaring that she should be a "choice". In other words, it's OK to kill the beautiful baby right in front of you in the video. And call it "choice". It's revolting to anyone, regardless of their political view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:6B87:CE00:89F7:B694:685E:6EE3 (talk) 09:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is Wikipedia though. On social issues it varies between moderately progressive and very progressive/Left for a couple reasons:

  1. The editors are disproportionately religiously unaffiliated and non-theist. (In Britain you have both non-theists who identify as Christian and, like in the US, theists who do not identify with a religion. Hence I'm specifying people who are both non-theistic and religiously unaffiliated.) Religiously unaffiliated non-theists tend to be socially liberal and mostly are going to use socially liberal sourcing because that's what they read.
  2. They tend to be based on a consensus of academics from leading Universities. Whatever the editor is politically the leading Universities in the English speaking world tend to be socially progressive. I believe this is most true in humanities departments (language, art, history), psychology, and sociology. So if one goes by the consensus of academics that means leaning Left on things involving psychology, sociology, and history. (See Arming_America#Emory_investigation_and_resignation on the Left-lean of some departments.)

In fairness another issue is this article looks like it might be somewhat ignored as it's had a cleanup thing on it for five years.T. Anthony (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

edit
  • The link to the Agenda Project leads to Not Found.
  • The Practical Progress link opens the Agenda Project home page.
  • I'm not sure what is correct. Please fix this if you know.

Dawnvawn (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Defunct

edit

This organization is apparently defunct. Their website URL is gone. They have no tax returns filed with the IRS for multiple years. 2600:1700:D591:5F10:18E5:A7F2:ECD3:F403 (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply