Talk:The Agenda Project

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force.

United States

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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:

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.
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]

The two links at the bottom of the page are problematic[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]