Talk:Agenda 21/Archive 1

Archive 1

comparative study on the french wikipedia on Agenda21 and this English version

In the English language Agenda 21 Article one it reads " It is a comprehensive blueprint of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the UN, governments, and major groups in every area in which humans impact on the environment." I want to focus on the "major groups". In the French language Agenda 21 Article , it reads:"Avec ses 40 chapitres, ce plan d'action décrit les secteurs où le développement durable doit s’appliquer dans le cadre des collectivités territoriales." So: the English indicate that Agenda21 is an important blueprint for "major groups" ... to me that is from top to down: the federation of Financial Sector, Industrial Sector, Educational Sector, ... down to every single member=company of these federations... and to me as manager at www.COREN.be - implementing Agenda21 in schools and managing the federation of Agenda21/Eco-Auditors in the Educational & Not for Profit Sector" it goes down to the individual level. Whereas in the french Agenda21 it is as if Agenda21 only has implications to : "collectivités territoriales". ... and that's referring only to "La constitution de la République française reconnaît les collectivités suivantes : Région, Département, Commune, Collectivité à statut particulier, Collectivité d'outre-mer." http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivités_territoriales Question: Don't we have to determine what is right here ? And ... how to correct this? Let the discussion start: ... I have copy pasted this also in the French Agenda21 discussion page.

Suggestion to add years to the titles

1989-1992-Development of Agenda 21 1997 - Rio+5 2002 - The Johannesburg Summit --SvenAERTS (talk) 06:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Can I just do that or is it a good thing to discuss that first at the discussion page? Is there some group responsible in deciding on this? PS I feel priviledged to be reading and contributing on Agenda21 here and at the wikipedia in general. I just took a look at Agenda21 in Youtube ... so few views on youtubes on Agenda21, e.g. Obama on Track For Agenda 21: 8 months ago 16,268 views. I feel privilidged to be part of a wave-makers and being on top of the wave as it is building-up. As a "Kyoto Protocol" Consultant, I feel like riding a wave already. I specialise in Chapter IV, more specifically on how to bring money from the "Low Carbon Economy" to the public and participating in Strategic Planning Sessions" in all actors in society.

Moved Comments

Links should be moved to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development page. --Uncle Ed 17:03, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Should this whole page be moved to High production volume chemicals? I am still not sure what it is about. Rmhermen 17:37, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)

---

I dont see what the HPVC has to do with Agenda 21. It's the 19th chapter, so not high relevance here.... --DaniëlMeijers 09:36, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New Comments

Agenda 21 is still talked about - we still have Local Agenda 21 in the UK, for example. Secretlondon 20:08, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC) Yes of course Agenda21 is still talked about ... during the yearly open doors of the EU's Directorate General of Environment = Greenweek, you can see what the results are and actions undertaken by local governments and "major groups" under their local Agenda21. I think in e.g. Belgium about every region and town has a local Agenda21. As a "Kyoto Protocol" Consultant, I'm specialised in Chapter IV, more specifically on how to bring "Low Carbon Economy" money to "the people". It was thanks to embedding my knowledge in the blueprint framework offered Agenda21, that I was able to make more holistic/coherent lectures and workshops on "How to increase welfare, attract financiers, develop business, implement eco-innovations, thanks to the "Kyoto Protocol" and the link between Agenda21, CO2e-Certificates, Green-, White- and future Certificates, new money's and the impact on Strategical Planning in your company and organisation." Even as an individual, I find that Agenda21 gives a blueprint for personal life, helping in sifting through info, deciding what is important and not, understanding at what level you are working in a private life situation with kids, in a working situation to make money and in a strategical management session related to time-frames in which effects must be visible for the peers you are working with at that stage and being able to say/contribute something meaningfull to just about every group-even individual, organisation or company I come in contact with. Agenda21 = God, or just about ... :) --SvenAERTS (talk) 06:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

eradicating poverty

Agenda 21 has develpoed numerous programmes to eradicate poverty, yet there has been no visual changes. Instead poverty has been increasing worldwide. Why are these programmes failing?

Are the goals of Article 21 meant to fail???

There is a reason why the stated goals of Article 21 are not working. They are very likely meant to fail, part of the push towards a world government under a guise of promising a utopian society. Can we include at the bottom of this page some independent opinions about Article 21 so people have some links to explore this for themselves. It's important to look at who's funding United Nations projects. Here is one that I found. I will try to find others. http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/la21_198.html Thanks. Lakeshorebaby 19:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC) 2:42 PM, Feb. 10, 2007

My impression is that Agenda 21 is fairly controversial, especially among what is called conspiracy theorists. The controversy around Agenda 21 might be relevant to mention in the article. 62.16.241.36 00:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There are many who see neutral/balanced knowledge from Wiki, so please be careful with loaded language like Conspiracy Theory... even the first line in the Conspiracy Theory page describes the term as modernly pejorative. Yes, I do understand the purpose of a discussion page. This is just a note of caution. --Dymaxion (talk) 04:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer to apply Hanlon's Razor, never attribute to malice that which can be more easily attributed to stupidity. It's not meant to fail, it's meant to work, but the governments of the world are incompetent. 98.163.21.16 (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Agenda21 dubious intent - How to debunk or confirm conspiracies / conspiracy theories ?

Very little of this agenda seems towards actually protecting the environment. Much of its aims look Anthropocentric and possibly corrupt. More criticism should be in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.150.128 (talk) 07:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I read this article and still have no idea what Agenda 21 constitutes. Shouldn't we be informing readers more than that it "relates to sustainable development"?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.124.182 (talk)

It's intentionally vague for two reasons. First, being vague avoids the issue of accountability. Second, being vague allows governments implementing it to pull the wool over the eyes of the unsuspecting while fostering an atmosphere of plausible deniability.04:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.224.202 (talk)

Shut it conspiracy nuts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.66.141.63 (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"Shut it conspiracy nuts." -- Oh! the tyrant speaks! Be silent! Question nothing! Think not! Shut up!

All over the Internet, there is "buzz" that Agenda 21 calls for radical population reduction, in the area of 80-93% in the next 30 years. I have searched the UN web site, and I can't find a complete searchable copy of Agenda 21. Who has the PAGE, chapter, and paragraphd in which the specific figures for population reduction are spelled out:  % of population and # of years to carry it out. Please publish at Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.131.188 (talk) 05:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

--SvenAERTS (talk) 11:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC) sais: I agree that the article here must have an opening towards:

* interaction with, discussion on and interaction with  Agenda21
* criticisms on Agenda21
** Conspiracy theories and practices or attempts and attempts to sink/get Agenda21 removed from the table

What you read below is a start to develop text on these topics, I'm sure you'll find them interesting and you'll find tools that you will be able to apply to other situations too. If I may continue on the "Conspiracy" topic. How to deal with conspiracy, calls upon a deeper request for assistance on how to make-up your mind in complex topics. Complex because their field of action/influence may be near to global or even beyond global, may have a huge impact on the way we live today or on Life itself. Complex because of the multitude of actors that need to be involved, topics needing to be addressed at the same time, interaction between topics/actors. Fortunately there is a good way to make-up your mind in such situations, a.o. giving you tools to make-up your mind on confirming or debunking if you are confronted with a "Conspiracy Theory". It is indeed not the first time that "people" were/are confronted with complex situations that require taking into account a lot of factors at the same time, and some have made it their near full-time profession in scouting for such situations, analysing them, distilling successfull strategies on dealing with them, discovering patterns that help to accellerate solving similar situations. Let us apply this to e.g. Agenda21 - Conspiracy or not ?

List with people confronted with complex situations that made them crash into a nervous breakdown, to the point of suicide eventually, yet who overcame and found a solution:

• Einstein: that time and distance, speed are not the same in every reference frame, yet relative and allow openings to get around e.g. Newtonian Physics, helping to get a step closer to explain some of the unsolved questions on the origines of matter and eventually Life.
• [1] - A science teacher who gives tools to make-up your mind on wether Climate Change is real or not, and in doing so, gives a tool/technique on how to deal with/make up your mind in complex situations, eventually if you are faced with a conspiracy or not. The video series can be seen on YouTube: [2]

Applied to "Agenda21 - a conspiracy or not ?", this comes down to the following simple solution: 1. Look at who supports Agenda21. 2. What is at stake when choosing for either one extreme: it is a conspiracy or ... it is not a conspiracy.

Cf. 1. Look at who supports Agenda21: 1 ordinary person, a specialist on the topic, or a group of scientists, or a federation of scientists, supported by other groups in society that are not sceintists per se but are elected from and by the people in well working democracies, ... the more you shift to the last part of the phrase, the more unlikely you are confronted with a conspiracy.... the more you go to the beginning of the phrase, the more likely you are confronted with an individual or group of individuals shouting out or just looking to find out if this is a conpiracy without actually saying there is a conspiracy or lacking even the basic tools of how to make-up your mind in dealing with comlex subjects ... and if they even lack that knowledge ... well, it's safe to say to these individuals or groups they are just making a lot of noise/smoke ... or just for the same: not a lot of smoke and noise at all. I do think it is fair to give them the advantage of the doubt and handing them the techniques to make-up their minds themselves and then decide if they want to stay in that position or want to change their vision.

Cf. 2. What is at stake when choosing for either one extreme: it is a conspiracy or ... it is not a conspiracy. This give 4 options: conspiracy: yes / no and You undertake action: yes / no 2.1. Conspiracy: Yes / Action: Yes - What are the results ? 2.2.: Conspiracy: Yes / Action: No - What are the results ? 2.3.: Conspiracy: No / Action: No - What are the results ? 2.2.: Conspiracy: No / Action: Yes - What are the results ?

Decision Table: Agenda21 is a conspiracy or no? Consequences ?	Conspiracy: Yes	Conspiracy: No
Action: Yes - What are the results ?	Result: It's a conspiracy and we take successfull action exposing it is a conspiracy. Ouf, we prevented billions of € to be deviated and fall into the hands of crooks, and we prevented from being let into a form of unconsciount slavery for ourselves and our children. We continue living our lives in a fossile fuel based economy and keep on expanding and promoting our life style world wide, our planet knows no limits, there is no Global Climate Destabilisation, fossile fuels are endless, putting large amounts of CO2e in the atmosphere is not harmfull at all, somehow this gets absorbed by the planets ecosystem or so, there is also e.g. nuclear material in endless supply if we really need to get away from burning coal/fossile fuels... we have enough back-up plans/alternatives ... humans are smart enough and we have time enough to act. So...world as we know it and continuing on that road.	So, Agenda21 is not a conspiracy after all. The Agenda21 Action Plan is really made by the best of humanity: the best scientists, supported and confirmed by their scientific federations, the best of the "People", i.e. Grassroot Organisations have sent their smartest and best to collaborate in drafting a rescue plan, so the the formal best of the "People", i.e. the best of the politicians, elected by "the people"... If everybody implements this Agenda21 Plan of Action in their own Plans of Actions / Strategical Plans / Mission Statements ... humanity has the best chance to make it beyond the year 2100, we'll have come to terms with an eventual and Life-threatening Global Climate Destabilisation and we have moved our economies away from a 65 Trillion $ fossile based economy via a complete overhaul affecting some 45 Trillion $ part of that 65 Trillion $ economy into a sustainable economy, there is no more need to protect oil fields as we all produce our own energy with renewable energy technologies, there is no severe increase in surface of the seas, no increased desertification beyond imagination, etc. A sustainable and equitable economy and world for all poeple and life to live in... Ecotopia has become reality.
Action: No	row 2, cell 2: It's a conspiracy and we don't do anything: Disaster: we're all in slavery... and we didn't do anything when there was time... also our kids are born in slavery... an elite has all the wealth and we're like chickens, cows and pigs in industrial farms.	row 2, cell 3:It's not a conspiracy, but we didn't do anything either: Disaster again ... Get rid of that boring Agenda21 calling for action and change... stay in front of the television... whilst desert storms, tyfoons, increase of water levels decimate populations all over the world... just a matter of time untill you and your offspring gets affected and eventually killed too ... either by natural disasters, or by groups of eco-catastrophy-refugees coming to pillage your food- and energy supplies: think Mad-Max world by Tina Turner and Mell Gibson.

Conclusion: Can we come to some conclusions with this grid / with this tool to handle complex issues ... does this help us make-up our mind on the initial question: Is there a conspiracy or not ? Or does it help us to put this question into perspective .. is this the right question ? And ... how much time to spent on this question and each option?

Let us see.

1. It seems like the option not taking action results in 2 scenario's in which we're ... death. So ... not taking action is certainly not preferable. So conclusion 1: we do take action... shouting is better than not shouting. 2. Now which of the 2 do we shout about, do we give our energy, our microphone to: we help reinforcing "it's a conspiracy ... don't do anything" but that's contradicting to conclusion 1. Or do we support: no ... it's not a conspiracy: look nearly 4 years of debating, all actors in society have been involved: scientists, backed up by their federations, financiers, backed-up by their federations, universtities, professors, politicians, NGO's ... and all have come to the same conclusions: that IF we have to take action ... that the Action Plan to put your Action Plan against is the Agenda21 Action Plan ... it's intelligent, it's submitted to regular control, etc. and eventually it leads to a sustainble economy where at the same time we'll probably also solve a lot of problems that we're in now because of our fossile based economy.

So, conclusion: we take action and support that Agenda21 is a genuine effort to move us forward as humanity, to improve the world as we know it... but is there really no chance that this is not a conspiracy ? Well... just like in science ... we are for 99,9999% certain that of the 4 options, that option is the one we want to go for... but there is indeed a 0,0001% chance that 1 lonely conspiracy group had it right after all. Einstein, in the beginning stood all alone, and the vast majority supported Newtonian physics and hold it as absolute truth, and Gallileo was also completely alone when he stated as some before him: the planet is not flat .. it's a globe ... that would solve and explain a lot of the phenomena we see around us ... and through the process / filters that are build in into science, a democratic society, reasoning, freedom of speech ... after a short while or not such a short while, their theories where picked-up by unbiased peers, specialists on the topic, politicians or equivalents, the general public .... untill a tipping-point was reached and what first was a theory became the accepted and perceived truth. Many brilliant visionaires have killed themselves, gone through enormous amounts of pain, depressions, people have been left in a "jungle" becoming fanatics ... and to avoid this, to the best of my abilities, I have applied this tool that was explained to me by wonderingmind41, a brilliant science teacher, to the issue of debunking or confirming the conspiracy theory of Agenda21. I hope it has helped you. I hope it was an interesting read. I am sure you will find the tool/technique usefull to be put in practise into many other situations and eventually you will call upon my services to help out in Strategical Management exercise as where this came from ... there's a lot more ingenuity. :) --SvenAERTS (talk) 11:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Since when does believing Agenda 21 has a nefarious raison d'etre mean one is against the development of, for starters, alternative energy sources? I'm afraid someone's clear bias has undermined their little "novel". There are many ways to reach Rome (or rather, Ecotopia). One particular rejected trail doesn't preclude many others.

Lets try for #1 - It's a conspiracy and we take successfull action exposing it is a conspiracy. Ouf, we prevented billions of € to be deviated and fall into the hands of crooks, and we prevented ourselves (missing word) from being let (presumably "led") into a form of unconsciount (presumably "unconscious") slavery for ourselves and our children. Having rejected the UN plan, the people demand - since the people recognise doing nothing is not an option - a more transparent initiative free from the tentacles of either corporate interests or the interests of unwieldy (& potentially untrustworthy) political institutions, being left instead to a world-wide grouping of the experts in the fields concerned to come to a consensus freed from non-expert interference, and with the guarantee that what they put forward as their best answers be accepted by governments unconditionally.

Unrealistic? undoubtedly, but it's simply another potential pathway to Rome/Ecotopia, and one certainly more attractive than what's been offered initially as (seemingly) the only possibility for option #1. There's plenty more pathways besides (not only for #1), in such numbers that 4 measly options on a grid are in no way sufficient to deal with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.99.98 (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the wrong way to analyze anthropogenic climate change. Instead, risk management principle should be used. See, for example, [3], which is a tool for determine the likelihood of an event occurring and the consequences of the risk, then developing a risk mitigation plan. Which methods of dealing with the risks associated with climate change will most effectively mitigate the consequences? What are the trade offs of the various options? Squ1rr3l (talk) 03:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

were there earlier agendas like e.g agenda 20 downwards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.14.226.140 (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there were earlier agendas like e.g agenda 20; I'ts my understanding that Agenda 21 referes to the 21st Century agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.130.4.38 (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello - I came here to try and find out what Agenda 21 is, possibly the actual TEXT of it. That would probably label me a conspiracy theorist, but please guys, could you not just give it to us straight please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.186.57 (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a host of primary source material, and in any case posting such text would be a copyright violation. There should be a link to the text at the bottom of the article under "External links", but here is a direct link anyway. CT Cooper · talk 10:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

U.N. Resources for Decision Making

I cannot confirm specifics, but the listing re: Agenda 21 doesn't give the consulting resources, i.e., architects, urban designers, environmental professionals in the natural sciences,and the like. I doubt that the delegates and officials at the U.N. have the inclination nor expertise to initiate a program like Agenda 21 on their own (although some paid staffers may), and that significant up-front lobbying from activists at both national and global levels proceeded U.N. action. Wikipedia should include information on the genesis of Agenda 21 in order to give a more complete perspective of its beginnings and sources of political energy. I do not have any specifics myself, but I would imagine the information is available and readily accessible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.161.232 (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Why is this discussion page being used as a forum?

I think it's clear that in wikipedia the discussion portion is to be used to discuss the article and not the subject. If it's not clear to you i'd suggest you read the top of every discussion page. Woods01 (talk) 07:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Intro

Agenda 21 is an action plan of the United Nations (UN) related to sustainable development and was an outcome of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992'.'

An action plan of what? That's not a very good intro, and any grade 8 teacher would dock points off of any paper handed in like that. This needs to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acid 1 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

What... is it?

I mean, I know it's "an action plan of the United Nations (UN) related to sustainable development", but what does it actually do? I see lots of vague and sweeping references to the thing it's concerned with, but close to nothing on how it actually is supposed to achieve this high-minded goals. An article that's almost a decade old should not be this vague. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 09:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

While the article does need work, vagueness is possibly inherent to the topic. In short, it's an agenda, and not much more. It's up to the countries themselves to implement it, though the article could contain more detail about attempts at implementation. CT Cooper · talk 01:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Agenda 21 conspiracy theories

If they're politically significant, there should be something about them in the article. See http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/us/activists-fight-green-projects-seeing-un-plot.html , etc. AnonMoos (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that criticism and conspiracy theories should probably be mentioned somewhere, as long as such content is probably sourced and follows WP:WEIGHT. CT Cooper · talk 01:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

[removed comment irrelevant to article improvement, as requested --A bit iffy (talk) 07:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)]

Add Criticism/Opposition Section

I suggest we add a criticism section. There are whole books written against this UN policy: http://www.amazon.com/BEHIND-GREEN-MASK-U-N-Agenda/dp/0615494544. A criticism section can be written in an unbiased way. The view opposing the agenda must be exposed because it is relevant and large. There are even news articles written about the opposition to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coching (talk • contribs) 01:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I concur. Be bold and add it! Ashanda (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it. It's tin foil hat territory and even in the United States nobody takes this seriously. --TS 12:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Eh...while the first part of that may or may not be true, the latter is certainly not. It might not be that people you are familiar with take an interest in it, but there are a number of "Conspiracy Theorists" who believe it. Regardless, it seems pretty lame to remove a section about criticism from an article about Government Policy, even if it's in "tin foil hat territory". If it is relevant, it is relevant...and it IS relevant. I would suppose that more people are familiar with that Agenda 21 than this one, at any rate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.16.65 (talk • contribs)

While most people would regard this opposition as loopy, it undoubtedly exists, as shown by the strong refs supplied. So the section should be in the article.--A bit iffy (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I removed one re-added section which was very poorly written, however I have made clear several times that I have no objection to such a section in principle. The recently re-added section is better, and I'm not removing it, but it is far from ideal. CT Cooper · talk 10:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yet another resource: http://americanfreedomwatchradio.com/ (I apologize for the lack of a properly-formatted link).04:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.224.202 (talk)

This weekend, I'll add an opposition section with solid sources and eloquence. Just getting everyone ready for the onslaught --Coching (talk) 05:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Why was opposition within the United States removed?

Agenda 21 is viewed by some on the American right as a plan to stealthily impose world-wide centralised control over people, attacking private property and energy usage. A resolution approved by the Republican National Committee on 13 January 2012 asserted that Agenda 21 "is a comprehensive plan of extreme environmentalism, social engineering, and global political control"

The Tea Party movement maybe considered as an example. 108.195.138.200 (talk) 04:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The Republican National Convention and the Tea Party are two separate entities. While they have some overlapping values, they have some conflicting values, as well. Neither receives their marching orders from the other.04:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.224.202 (talk)

Of what relevance is this observation? 74.72.122.148 (talk), —Preceding undated comment added 22:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC).

Problems with opposition section

I've gone through the opposition section, and removed content not properly supported by the sources (just providing links to home pages is no good). The section only talks about US opposition, and fails to provide a worldwide view of the subject. However, I have been unable to find anything on opposition outside the US yet. I find it doubtful that some links such as this one would pass WP:IRS, given that it was created with Weebly so could have been made by anyone, and given WP:BURDEN I think it is reasonable to make a rebuttable presumption that such websites are unreliable. Such a section should also have some dialogue on the issues raised, including a response to the criticisms levied - some of the sources given actually provide such content already. Some further context and history on opposition and Agenda 21 conspiracy theories in general would also be helpful. CT Cooper · talk 17:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Removed conspiracy sentence that didn't have RS

There was no RS for the statement below so it was removed. If you have a reliable source, please cite it.

"In the United States, many conservatives view Agenda 21 as a conspiracy or plot by the UN."

174.49.84.214 (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

That sentence fairly summarises wording and sources that appear later on in the paragraph, so I have reinstated it. Also, I have duplicated one of the relevant refs so that it's immediately after the sentence. The ref to the NYT (here) — a reliable source — brings up "Across the country, activists with ties to the Tea Party are railing against all sorts of local and state efforts to control sprawl and conserve energy. They brand government action for things like expanding public transportation routes and preserving open space as part of a United Nations-led conspiracy to deny property rights and herd citizens toward cities." —A bit iffy (talk) 21:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the citation. The reference you cite is to tea party movements so I've cleaned it up to make the statement reflect what the citation says. I've also linked to conspiracy and tea party movement.174.49.84.214 (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The article doesn't talk about plots so I removed that. Conspiracy appears to be used in the political sense so I liked to that definition of conspiracy. Thank you. 174.49.84.214 (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, in rereading the article, the word plot is used once but in Wikipedia plot is s synonym and redirects to conspiracy so removed the double word. The internal link should suffice to define the type of activity. 174.49.84.214 (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Opposition Section Deficiency

The Opposition Section is very unbalanced, only the United States is mentioned. I suppose that is because we enjoy free press and articles are easy to find. It would be more useful to have a global map with level of global penetration if the data exists. Does China oppose Agenda 21 locally? what about Germany, Spain, Namibia, North Korea? The way the article is written, it appears that only the United States has a vocal dissent but I suspect that is not the case. At a minimum, a header showing that this needs cleanup should be put in to alert the reader to incomplete nature of this narrative.174.49.84.214 (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I have yet to see any sources on opposition outside the US, and search for some has found nothing, and while I am limited to English language and online sources for the most part, I think a banner is inappropriate unless there is some kind of evidence that such sources do indeed exist, and the section should include them. While universal support for Agenda 21 seems unlikely there is also a "don't care"/"don't bother" option, which may be the path some countries have taken given its voluntary nature. CT Cooper · talk 22:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is one article on opposition by a municipality in France calling Agenda 21 a Sham. It's in French. That was found in 1 minute searching through French sites which I picked at random. Based on your criteria, the banner is appropriate. 174.49.84.214 (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

There, since I found some opposition in other countries doing a cursory search, I added the opposition I found in France, created subheaders and added a cleanup tag. Please feel free to drop in dissent to agenda 21 found in other countries. Let's make it better. 174.49.84.214 (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Good work, but I think it is going to need more than one source from a country to justify a sub-section on that country. If little more turns up from France or Australia perhaps there should be a miscellaneousness non-US section. CT Cooper · talk 12:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's wait a week and see if anybody else contributes anything.174.49.84.214 (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Out of Date Tag

I noticed the article didn't have Rio +20 output findings. I started putting in details pertaining to the outcome but I haven't combed through all outcomes so the article might still be out of date. Please keep the tag in place as a warning to readers until the article fully incorporates all relevant Rio +20 inputs.174.49.84.214 (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Order and groupings

I altered the order and changed the nested groupings for the article. It was getting clumsy and disordered. No disrespect intended to those that worked hard on it justtrying to make it flow better. I hope this helps.--174.49.84.214 (talk) 02:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Opposition in other countries - notable?

I question whether the links given for the political opposition in other countries are notable. One seems to be a single French town (unless my translated version is incorrect...), so I'm not sure where the "groups" comes from in the sentence. A single French town or group does not to me constitute a notable opposition. The same for the Australian link...a single, not-in-themselves notable group doesn't seem to me to fit in the scope of the overall article. The US links seem fine. I thought I'd throw that out here before I did any editing, since I see it's been discussed before. Without further references, I have a real hard time defending this section. I fear, even assuming good faith, this bears the APPEARANCE (if not reality) of editors cherry-picking a few random, non-notable declarations and selling them as if they represented notable opposition. I think it gives an incorrect (or at least badly referenced) view of attitudes in those countries, or the size and scope of the opposition.204.65.34.34 (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the US section is fine, and there is enough coverage to justify a section under WP:WEIGHT. The other countries section was only recently added as part of an effort to find out if there were any non-US sources available - on the whole they are few and far between. However, I don't see a problem with a brief one sentence mention of non-US opposition, particularly without its own section, if the content stays as bare as it is. CT Cooper · talk 18:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

That being the case, why not just merge all of the content into one paragraph/section and not use geo-specific subheads? Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess my question is where the opposition in other countries is notable enough per WP:WEIGHT. It's certainly the case in the US, but a few random examples of what I'd argue are insignificant sources are being given the same textual weight as much broader pieces of the article. If anything, I'd recommend changing the sentence to something like "There is a lack of evidence of any appreciable opposition to Agenda 21 outside of the US, although there have been some minor etc etc etc". However, even in that, I think we're overstepping (absence of evidence doesn't equal evidence of absence.). I think it best to simple weigh the two and not include the opposition outside the US unless we have some sources indicating there is some sort of appreciable opposition, or a source indicating there is not.204.65.34.34 (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Outdent. Many factors are going to influence whether simple internet research surfaces opposition on any topic:

1. internet penetration into the country
2. freedom of press
3. political inclination of populations (liberalism, conservatism, socialism etc)
4. governance models (top down, bottom up)
5. political ideology (views on core items like private property, global governance, etc)

The issue that surfaces for me is that it's easy to find opposition on virtually any political position or Agenda in the United States because internet penetration is high, people are very politically active, and we have a bottom up philosopy (fiercely independent). We will not find opposition to almost anything in North Korea or Syria because any dissent is stifled - sometimes violently (look at Syria).

Overall, it's important that we don't single out one country simply because its population engages in political discourse and because they're free and because they invented Ggoogle. It makes Wikipedia unbalanced. Sometimes hard research is needed to provide a balanced view. Otherwise we present a jaded perspective and it seems like the US is the lone opposer to something like this.

The US is a signatory to Agenda 21. Perhaps instead of listing opposition, we can have a map that denotes which countries have signed on to Agenda 21. I can try to give that a go in the next few weeks. - Justanonymous (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not getting into a philosophical or political discussion on why the US is unique in the level of opposition to Agenda 21, as it will not report improve the article and may conflict with WP:NOTAFORUM. As an encyclopedia Wikipedia should simply report what sources say and not draw conclusions itself on the issues discussed, per WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. On Wikipedia a neutral point of view does not mean giving equal time to all viewpoints or issues, it instead means that each viewpoint or issue should have its coverage weighted to the amount of coverage from reliable published sources on that viewpoint or issue per WP:WEIGHT. In the case of Agenda 21 opposition, if 60% of the sources found on Agenda 21 opposition are US related, then 60% of any opposition section will be about the US. Similarly, if 95% of sources are on the US, and only 5% non-US, then almost all the opposition section will be about the US, and it could reasonably judged that non-US coverage is so low that it shouldn't be mentioned at all. How exactly WP:WEIGHT is implemented with this section is open to debate, but will mainly be dictated by the sources presented.

Creating a map on who signed/ratified Agenda 21 would be appropriate, but it cannot replace coverage of opposition. CT Cooper · talk 08:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

How about this. In the US there is a healthy amount of published support for Agenda 21 by various groups. Can we cover the support and the opposition and make the sections more generic like "agenda 21 in the United States?" that would be more fair vs just having a opposition section.--Justanonymous (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Having by country sections seems like a good idea, and I'm open to giving it a go, since it would integrate opposition content better into the wider article. However, such a section on the US or any other country would have to cover sources on implementation and those that give a more positive reception, on top of opposition, so some new additions will be needed. CT Cooper · talk 19:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I've started rewriting the section so that its more balanced covering both support and opposition at the various levels. I've heard Senator Kerry and Congresswoman Pelosi speak in the support of Agenda 21 but I need to find the citations. I'll do that shortly. I'll also add more comprehensive commentary from other countries. I know Australia enjoys the second largest membership in ICLEI so there is support there.--Justanonymous (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Removed RNC and JBS Comments due to RS Issues

Sorry about being nitpicky but this topic is fairly hot with a lot of propaganda on both sides out there so I'm being a bit hard on the reliable sources. Please see below for my rationale behind two contentious edits. If you have the reliable sources, feel free to reinstate otherwise let's leave out. They can be libelious to the RNC and the JBS society.Justanonymous (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

RNC Resolution I tried to verify whether the RNC had ever adopted a resolution against Agenda 21. The RNC site makes no mention of it. A site called the NFRA cites the text but it's questionable whether it is a reliable source. It seems to be similar to the text introduced in the Tennessee State assembly but that doesn't mean the RNC approved the resolution at their national level. Many sites with agendas have picked up and reported on this. We need a reliable source like a credible journalistic source (CBS, NBC, etc) or an original source like the RNC directly, etc. If you have the correct reliable source, please reinstate the text along with updated citation. Here is the text:

In 2012 the Republican National Committee (RNC), which is not a government organization, drafted a resolution opposing Agenda 21, calling it "a comprehensive plan of extreme environmentalism, social engineering, and global political control."

Justanonymous (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

JBS Reference I tried to verify whether the source of the resolutions against Agenda 21 originated from the JBS. The citation provided is to a site with an agenda so it's not RS and their reference to the JBS is only to the main page of the JBS site. A search on the JBS site and Google turns up no framework text. Therefore, we're lacking a reliable source. If you have one like CBS, NBC, etc (not blogs) or if you have the JBS original source, please reinstate the text along with updated citation. I added a reference that JBS is an opponent of Agenda 21 with reference to their anti Agenda 21 page but I can't find their framework text the reference below makes reference to. Here is the text:

The language for this resolution, and others introduced in various state houses around the country, was drafted by the John Birch Society as a "model resolution" to oppose Agenda 21.

Justanonymous (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Add criticism?

• John Birch Society's New American Sustainable Freedom: Surging Opposition to Agenda 21, “Sustainable Development” 11 July 2012 written by Alex Newman

99.109.124.90 (talk) 05:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

To what end did we add the additional link to the New American? The points raised in the article are already integrated into the section on dissent and there are a few unverified statements in the article that we really can't use without finding the RS. The New American can also be seen as an "agenda driven" publication and not seen as a reliable source. I'm thinking of removing the additional link. Justanonymous (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

golf courses banned ?

many right wing websites and politicians, such as the GOP nominee for the Senate seat in Texas, seem to think that agenda 21 will ban golf courses. Is there any reason to think this is real ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.121.54 (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion on Agenda 21. It is a talk page to discuss edits to the article. SorryJustanonymous (talk) 22:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. It also bans paved roads, cars, and free speech. We should probably put those things into the article. Zach Vega (talk to me) 19:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Why the section about "Opposition" section?

I do not see the point of having an "opposition" section, in particular because it represents such a fringe view. Instead of that we should have a much extensive section in the contents of the Agenda and the operation of the local chapters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GatoLoco (talk • contribs) 07:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The article clearly needs to expand, but the current section, despite my criticisms, does cite reliable sources on the subject. The "fringe view" argument does have some merit given that opposition seems to be limited to one country, but the fact that the Republican National Convention has endorsed this opposition, arguably brings into the mainstream, at least in US domestic politics. I think the debate should move onto how much of a mention opposition gets, not whether they get a mention at all. CT Cooper · talk 11:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It's clearly some parochial phenomenon which would perhaps best be discussed in the article about the relevant American subculture. I've removed it from this article where it is not relevant. --TS 14:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of Agenda 21 is not relevant in an article about Agenda 21. Sorry, I'm not following. CT Cooper · talk 15:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Was surprised that there is no mention of criticism or opposition in the article, only a mention here shouting down opposing viewpoints as "fringe" or "tin foil hat." Reasonable people can oppose Agenda 21 both in substance and in the method of its attempted implementation. Article should be NPOV. Mbstone (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Where'd the opposition section go? And how is it a "fringe" theory? Here's some sources: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] Zach Vega (talk to me) 17:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

That was a rather sorry mix of fringe web sites (New American & Canada Free Press), emails/articles from non-journalistic sources, and duplicate references to the same AP source. One of the article does go into detail, expressly referring to the paranoia behind the opposition to what is an entirely voluntary set of guidelines.Stringfold (talk) 05:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I still think this is probably inappropriate but let's work on it for now. I've summarised the information so as to avoid giving undue weight to this material. There is also a problem with use of primary sources. If this isn't cleared up in a week or two I suggest we just ditch the primaries anyway. It's impossible to tell in some cases whether it's just a case of one local politician advancing a hobby horse in a state or city legislature, or whether the motion or ordinance actually passed and went to the mayor or governor (if indeed this has ever happened). --TS 17:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

There were some non-primary sources in the previous version which could be used. While I don't have time to work on this right now, some of my suggestions at #Problems with opposition section still apply. CT Cooper · talk 20:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

If we cover the US opposition we cover it accurately. The opposition motions refer to a radical agenda being pushed "covertly", not something well intentioned but misguided. I have removed wording recently introduced that misled the reader as to the extreme, inflammatory, and conspiracy-oriented nature of this opposition. --TS 16:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Conservative Glenn Beck's book Agenda 21 is released today (online half price [15] today only.) — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Overemphasis of US

We're still devoting far too much space to the US context, and in particular to the wild conspiracy theories of the US extreme right. I've reordered and rename the national section in order to start removing this strong bias, but more needs to be done. One particular statement concerning the executive branch, I removed outright because it constituted a vague bit of original research and was also completely unsourced. --TS 18:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that "Agenda 21 in the United States" can be removed as somewhat irrelevant, but the political opposition section is relevant. I removed the part about the John Birch society as arbitrary (why not write about any other organization's stance on Agenda 21?). As far as wild conspiracies of the extreme right, I must point out that there is some opposition on the left as well, and they're not short on conspiracy theories, whether true or false. See: http://www.amazon.com/BEHIND-THE-GREEN-MASK-Agenda/dp/0615494544, whose author is a democrat. --Coching (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:Weight and WP:NPOV require that we cover these topics fairly and in an unbiased fashion. If the opposition in the US is going to be covered then the support should also be covered. To do otherwise is to present a biased point of view to the reader. I'm ok with shortening both the support and the opposition but we need to cover both with WP:Weight and the broader WP:NPOV in mind. I like the way it is now and how it has been reshaped but let's not unbalance the article. Justanonymous (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm also ok with removing the US section altogether - both support and opposition. The challenge is that people keep adding the "opposition" section without ever putting in the "support" section. Let's keep the article balanced and make it better.Justanonymous (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there is overemphasis on the US, though the obvious solution is to increase coverage of implementation in other countries. CT Cooper · talk 14:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

If "overemphasis of the US" is the problem you all decry, then start over again and publish this topic in the primary language of the UN, which is French. This will dissuade all of us "Tea Party Extremists" from contributing, which is the primary goal anyway, is it not? Why did the original poster choose to publish it in American English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.63.241 (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, so all articles are in English; there are other language Wikipedias and the French language Wikipedia have their own Agenda 21 article. WP:ENGVAR explains why certain articles are written in a particular variety of English - this article just happens to be in American English because the first person to use a word with regional variations was in American style, and I added the tag because there had been some silent edit warring over the issue. In any case, while in practice the contents of articles on a certain topic various considerably across different langauge Wikipedias, ideally the only difference would be the language of the content. CT Cooper · talk 05:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Move To Rewrite "Opposition"

As is now the wording indicates that people who disagree or criticize Agenda 21 are linked to the Tea Party. I believe a previous version worded it that only the "Far Right" believed it was a conspiracy. This wording is inserted by people who wish to downplay any criticism of Agenda 21 and to make non-supporters appear foolish.BoyintheMachine (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Be bold! feel free to rewrite, never permission needed from me. From my vantage, we should attempt to keep the article balanced and descriptive. With that, I generally take exception to phrasing like "far right, tea party, liberals, far left, progressives, etc" precisely because they are politically charged terms used to marginalize an opposition view. I take exception to the term "conspiracy theory" because it is generally not descriptive and it's also marginalizing jargon' alerting people to think that the concerns are vacous groundless made up conspiracy theor. I prefer if we are descriptive in what certain groups object to - which in this case the matter seems pretty straightforward.....the debate appears to be between collective rights of a society and the individual rights of the individual person. That is at the core of this struggle and disagreement in the US. Environmental groups have aligned on the collective sustainability side of Agenda 21 while people who are being impacted object to the infringement on their individual personal property rights....neither side is radical, they just share different world views and are both valid. I also care that the article remains balanced insofar as support and opposition. There is quite a bit of support in the US for Agenda 21 and it's unfair to cover the opposition without covering the support with equal zeal. Further, I think we need to keep the coverage of Agenda 21 around the world and any help there is much appreciated. The US is not the only country on earth so a bit disheartening when I come to the page to find reference only to the US and then only in the negative....violations of WP:NPOV and WP:Weight. Let's make this better. Justanonymous (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The last two sentences of the comments by BoyintheMachine (talk · contribs) indicate a failure assume good faith on others' motives and the wording in the article indicates no such thing anyway; it states that some tea party activities oppose it but there is nothing there which says they are the only group to do so. The wording is also very bland on the merits of this opposition, so I'm not following how it makes opponents look "foolish". Offense is irrelevant per WP:NOTCENSORED; some sources, such as the New York Times article, have reported some opposition to be driven by conspiracy theories related to the UN, so that wording should be there somewhere - though with the caveat that sweeping statements stating that all opposition is conspiracy theory related is inappropriate.

I think I should also re-emphasize that WP:WEIGHT does not mean giving equal time to support and opposition - it means giving an appropriate amount of weight to each view based on coverage by reliable sources. I believe that does mean giving some weight to opposition in the US, but definitely no more than what US support is getting, in fact although opposition has now entered the mainstream there, it still probably deserves less weight than US support. From a worldwide point of view, which the article should reflect as a whole, opposition is fringe (based on the evidence presented so far) except in the US, so support undoubtedly deserves more weight. CT Cooper · talk 15:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to be flexible with the content of the opposition section, and as a result the section has changed substantially. While I'm sure all changes are made in good faith, I have drawn a red line at attempts to replace accurate reporting of what sources state with more vague versions. The main example being attempts to remove all references to the Tea Party Movement in the opposition section, and to replace such references with weasel words such as "some activities" or "some people". I think this issue goes to the heart of WP:V: "[Wikipedia's] content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." This means that if sources say that opposition is Tea Party linked, that's what Wikipedia says - whether editors agree with that view or not. This principle also extends to conspiracy and property rights related content. The current wording is already very cautious, in that it treats it as a viewpoint of two newspapers, rather than state it as a fact. However, these two sources are effectively just samples - Google reveals there are many others that also make similar statements.

The only possible WP:NPOV issue here would be that reliable sources with a different view are not being given fair representation. Editors who think reliable sources with an opposing view exist are welcome to add them to the article - this better than watering down existing content. However, I'm not aware of any sources which deny a connection to the tea party and Agenda 21 opposition or conspiracy theories. There have been attempts to state that Democrats are also opposed, which while this may be true, this appears to be fringe and no reliable sources have been presented to back this up. CT Cooper · talk 17:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Sources in the lead

At the risk of starting a political discussion, I would argue that the fact that it's non-binding/voluntary implemented and not a treaty is so legally obvious that it does not require citation, though obviousness is subjective and there is a potential WP:POPE situation here. Failing that, one will find at least a couple of pre-existing sources in the article which mention that it was a UN resolution and that it was non-binding. However, some redundancy isn't a bad thing. CT Cooper · talk 22:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree for several reasons:

• the lead section is a summary of the body so references there are generally not necessary, it clutters the top and just make a lot of rework by forcing us to double cite everything.
• Agenda 21 is not a treaty, and it is not binding. It is blindingly obvious because it has never been treated as such and nobody has every stated otherwise so there is ZERO disagreement over that. Nobody can provide a single verifiable reference to the contrary. There is zero contention on that statement and as such doesn't require a bunch of make-work for editors. The example I can think of is WP:BLUESKY. We don't need a citation reference to the fact that the sky is blue. It just is, type it and move on. Agenda 21 is not a treaty and it is nonbinding - I'm telling you. I'm an expert. Move on.
• I'm all for providing citations and WP:Verifiability. At the same time, I'm also for sanity and for having our editors come and stay. Demanding that we verify with citations that the sky is blue quite frankly creates an unpleasant work environment for Wikipedia editors. If you care, go dig it up and provide the citation vs asking me to do it. Do some work. Contribute! You have editor skills, you can google. Go find it and add it. Help me make it better.
• To me this whole trend we're seeing just leaves a bad taste in my mouth everytime I find it especially when some mindless malfunctioning bot adds it. To me it's bad protocol. It creates a bad work environment and it's not collaborative. It's Wikipedia. You found a typo - great! FIX IT! Dont' point at it and tell ME to fix it. It's Wikipedia, anybody can fix things. If I find a broken link, I fix it. If I find something that needs a reference, I insert it. Here, I added the reference so I can move on. What would've been helpful is if Wahrmund had gone and fixed the error he perceived vs giving me the equivalent of a citation for not mowing my lawn. I probably wouldn't have said a thing.
• I think it's a fair point to be made that the top should be relatively uncluttered though.

Let's go make this better. We need solid contributors and we need an environment that brings out the best. Giving me a traffic citation vs just adding it yourself, frankly makes me just want to leave. No disrespect intended to my esteemed editors, it's been a long day. Justanonymous (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't remove citations

Someone has twice removed the citation supporting the fact that Glenn Beck co-authored/published a book relevant to Agenda 21. That statement is supported by an article in Salon (written by an editor of the book). Salon.com is a reliable web site. If someone wants to supply more or better citations, go ahead, but don't remove the only source and leave the sentence un-cited. --Noleander (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Being that the author of the Salon article is making an exceptional claim not otherwise covered by secondary sources (and in an opinion piece, no less), in my opinion it is inappropriate to state outright that Beck purchased the rights to a preexisting book. I have removed the claim and the citation and replaced it with a more neutral one, stating that Beck published the book, which is neither an exceptional nor a controversial claim (and thus actually doesn't need a citation per WP:SOURCE). If someone wants to add a sentence or two summarizing and attributing the claim, there would be no problem with that. And I also only did it once, but whatever... Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, the Salon article is not a WP:RS a supposed editor makes an allegation on the piece. What Mr. Beck and Ms Parke agreed to is between them, their contracts, and their lawyers. If a court finds someone guilty of something, we can report that. Otherwise it needs to stay out of Wikipedia. The citation to the Salon opinion piece should not be on Wikipedia. On a broader note, I went to Amazon.com and found 9 books that are either pro or anti or neutral to agenda 21. Why is the Glenn Beck book in any way notable here? At best, it can be an entry under further reading. To me, making reference to this book detracts from what is a very solid closing sentence. The way it is, this doesn't read like an encylopaedic article (which it's supposed to be) rather, it's starting to read like a bunch of random sentences dumped on here by people with agendas. Can we keep this NPOV? I propose removing entirely the reference to the Beck Book. Wikipedia should not be a dumping ground for statements with citations. Wikipedia needs to present a cohesive article. It's very hard when people just dump stuff on the pages.Justanonymous (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed the Glenn Beck book entry. It's not notable, there are multiple books out there which are for or against Agenda 21. The Glenn Beck book is just one out there. Also. the Wikipedia article paragraph as written before is much stronger without the dangling reference to some random book. The closing with the survey is strong and completes the paragraph that I think CT Cooper worked hard to write. Feel free to talk about the decision here but the best we should do is add any books out there as external links to further reading.Justanonymous (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Conspiracy Entry on Lede

I've been removing an entry that conspiracy theorists see Agenda 21 as a mechanism to bring about the new world order from the lede of the section. More often than not the entry does not have a citation, but the most recent one had a link to the Blaze. It's a violation of WP:RS and WP:FRINGE I'm afraid. Embracing WP:BRD, I've reverted the entry, made entries on the two editor's pages and opened up this discussion page for us to reach consensus on what the phrasing if any should be in that section. I personally don't think any entry is needed, the opposition is covered towards the bottom of the article currently. Please feel free to discuss this topic here. Let's reach consensus before making another entry on the main page.-Justanonymous (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey Justanonymous, I just wanted to clear up that the edit I made to the lede was to replace "Many people believe" (paraphrased) with "Some conspiracy theorists believe" and added a citation to an article which advances that position. That original sentence violated WP:A and WP:CITE. My edit may have violated WP:NPOV, but I'm not sure how else to describe the group, as I'm not sure if there's any other unifying theme between the proponents. (I notice that this has been a running problem on this page). To a degree, I agree that it would be ok to omit the 'conspiracy' entry entirely, but that feels somewhat like omitting alien landing conspiracy theories from the Roswell, NM page. I'll keep thinking about language to replace "conspiracy theorists." I'd love to hear anyone else's suggestions for alternative language as well. Jwhite85 (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Frankly I'm torn because with this whole issue there does appear to be almost a "grassy knoll" / "Roswell" level of activity out there regarding the perceived conspiracy so it might very well be citable and merely citing factually the existence of conspiracy theories does not mean that the statement is not WP:NPOV. The Republican Party in the US has stated that it erodes democracy! So there is some kind of backlash that might merit inclusion in the lede. I'm torn on whether to include the link to conspiracy theories and I'm also torn on how to make mention of it if the consensus is to include. If the decision is to include, it needs to be WP:RS so that it can be defended. Let's see what others think and we can round back about this in a week or two depending on the thinking. Thank you for the help.-Justanonymous (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's any question that it's a conspiracy theory in the U.S. It's been identified as such in plenty of places, including The Atlantic, Esquire, Grist, Mother Jones, The New York Times, and Salon. Call a spade a spade. - Eureka Lott 21:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

these are great references. Thank you for the input and hard work.-Justanonymous (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Would you say pointing out the "unintended consequences of Liberalism" is a conspiracy theory? Just asking, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

does it merit it's own article? We've been putting up articles for various conspiracy theories and this one is fairly fleshed out. I'm just wondering over here.-Justanonymous (talk) 13:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Lacking information

I just read the entire article and still have no idea what Agenda 21 is. There is no mention of ANY specific policy advocated by the document. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.132.128 (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I personally apologize that you didn't get what you were looking for. I'll work with others on here to be more descriptive. Under the contents the article states, "Includes atmospheric protection, combating deforestation, protecting fragile environments, conservation of biological diversity (biodiversity), control of pollution and the management of biotechnology, and radioactive wastes," and the article explicitly states that this work is about sustainable development with a hyperlink to the definitions. Is there something in particular that you were looking for? The subject matter can be very contentious in some circles so we have to be very descriptive and neutral in how we describe Agenda 21 and we can't have contentious material that could appear that wikipedia is promoting a viewpoint - that could result in edit warring which luckily we haven't had. We have good links to the full text and other materials that should give you an in depth view into the article.-Justanonymous (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Having read parts of the Agenda 21 text, I wonder if I should retract my criticism of this wiki article. The reason I came to the page was because of a strange email that was sent out by Free and Equal Elections spreading FUD about Agenda 21. So I wanted to understand the controversy, if you will, but nothing on the page seemed to explain it. However, I now see that the text of Agenda 21 itself is so broad in scope, and at the same time vague and platitudinous, that it's making my brain hurt. Consequently, I have lost interest in the matter. Thank you. 67.246.132.128 (talk) 04:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Glenn Beck Novel - Agenda 21

Glenn Beck released a novel titled Agenda 21. It's not further reading per se. It's a work of fiction. Can we link to some disambiguation and its own page - if that exists. There are numerous nonfiction works that describe Agenda 21, they would go under further reading and would make the article stronger.--Justanonymous (talk) 17:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Although it is creative writing (with a ghost writer doing the original writing) it is a projection of the possibilities (carrying ultra-Liberalism to the extreme) in the view of ultra-Conservatives (or whatever you would call Glenn Beck and those that follow him, like myself.) Hence, it is more than 'fiction' in the usual sense of the word 'fiction'. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

That's great, Charles Edwin Shipp. As you know, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, and your response states your opinion. You failed to answer the question presented (should there be a disambig to the novel of the same name?). To answer the question, yes, there should probably be a disambig, seeing as there are disambigs in similar situations. Further reason for a disambig is that they are both published writings with the same name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.92.164 (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Considering there is no page on Wikipedia for Glenn Beck's novel titled "Agenda 21," I don't think a disambiguation page would be appropriate. What, would it link to a non-existent page? Yes, there are disambiguation pages and hatnotes in similar situations, but they link to pages that actually exist. I'd say that, if you want to see a disambiguation page or hatnote, get together with WikiProject Novels. Havensfire (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Agenda 21 Conspiracy Theory Article Proposal

Esteemed editors. On a very regular basis this article suffers from the insertion of conspiracy theory related content which is sadly out of place in this article about a United Nations Programme and I wind up removing. To be fair, there is considerable activity and documentation on 'Agenda 21 Conspiracy Theories Please see previous thread.' What say you on the creation of an Agenda 21 Conspiracy Theory Page? Please vote below with any sources you would like cited and if we get enough votes and a reasonable rationale, I can take a stab at creating the article. Also if you want to volunteer to help create such an article, please note that in your vote. conspiracy articles tend to be nominated for speedy deletion so if a decision is made to create one, it has to reach critical mass very quickly or it will be deleted. Thank you much and hope this proposal might satisfy a constituency that is trying to find a place in Wikipedia.-Justanonymous (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree - I think that the conspiracy theory documentation by reliable sources and this topic has reached grassy knoll roswell level of maturity that it merits its own article and that way this article on Agenda 21 can remain discretely about the UN programme.-16:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced, to be honest. There is a decent amount of content on conspiracy theories/opposition, but it's not overwhelming the article and I don't think it is large enough to justify its own article. If there is a sub-article on opposition then a summary would have to remain in this article, but even with that we are opening ourselves up to accusations that opposition content is being buried in a sub-article, whether that be true or not. CT Cooper · talk 17:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I have 100% retention record for articles that I have created on the Wiki and I definitely don't want to break my winning streak with a marginal contribution. On the other hand the video you removed came from some www.infowarscom/ann-bressington-exposes-agenda-21-club-of-rome/ Lord Monckton meeting in Australia and Ann Bressington a former elected official from the South Australia Legislative Council (a real political body in Australia)?] There appears to be quite a cottage industry out there of stuff like this and politicians are joining in. From Amazon I was able to turn up about a dozen actual books devoted to some form of Agenda 21 conspiracy or opposition:

• Agenda 21: An Expose of the United Nations' Sustainable Development Initiative and the Forfeiture of American Sovereignty and Liberties by Ron Taylor (Dec 17, 2010)
• BEHIND THE GREEN MASK: U.N. Agenda 21 by Rosa Koire,(Sep 2, 2011)
• Living with Agenda 21: Surrendering Our Freedoms by Dr. H. Lawrence Zillmer (Sep 13, 2012)
• U.N. Agenda 21: Environmental Piracy by Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh (Oct 23, 2012)
• The Overton Window by Glenn Beck
• Demented Agitprop: the Myth and Madness of Agenda 21 Conspiracy Theories: The story behind the groups that believe bike lanes and smart growth are here to steal our land and send us all to the gulag by Llewellyn Hinkes-Jones (Aug 29, 2012)
• Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom by Andrew P. Napolitano (Nov 13, 2012)
• Eco-Tyranny: How the Left's Green Agenda will Dismantle America by Brian Sussman (Apr 17, 2012)
• Barack Obama and the Enemies Within by Trevor Loudon and Rodney R Stubbs (Oct 19, 2011)

It seems to me that the actual opposition to Agenda 21 based on the denial of property rights combined with some kind of sustainable collectivist vision morphs into Conspiracy Theory at some point and so forth. The worry that I have is that with all these books, with the US Republican Party being opposed to this, with some former British & Australian legislators and the eminent Lord Monckton out there against this AND with entire sites like infowars.com vehemently claiming conspiracy - it seems unfair that little more than a couple of sentences are devoted to this here. Even Republican Candidate Newt Gingrich mentioned it at one of the national debates. Hence the proposal for perhaps a separate conspiracy page. I do worry about starting to open the floodgates to all kinds of WP:FRINGE stuff but when you have a dozen books out there and the US Republican Party against it, I think the dam is entirely full and we're seeing the cracks develop - we're moving from fringe into mainstream conspiracy. Thoughts?-Justanonymous (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

There has certainly been a massive upsurge in anti-Agenda 21 material in recent years, though I would still urge caution as Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written from an historical perspective. While this seems something worthy of a lot of coverage now, it may not be in the longterm - while not strictly applicable, as this article isn't an event, WP:EVENT does hold some relevance here. CT Cooper · talk 04:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I hear you and am in no hurry to create something like this. Just looking for a way to vent some of this continous vandalism of the conspiratorial variety on this page. Let's wait and see what others think. We're in no rush-Justanonymous (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

If the republican party in america does not count as mainstream, what does? It's clear that the governing body of the world, weak as it may be, is pushing a rather large agenda which is why it has a page here. The fact that the most of the information in this article relates to what progressives say this means indicates that this is written not on what this agneda means but what progressives say it means. The only counter point being a "conspiracy theory". People rarely say what they mean in their self published materials, rather they push a narriative that furthers an agenda, good or bad. Example: The present chapter consists of one programme area, the integrated approach to the planning and management of land resources, which deals with the reorganization and, where necessary, some strengthening of the decision-making structure, including existing policies, planning and management procedures and methods that can assist in putting in place an integrated approach to land resources" and later "Review the regulatory framework, including laws, regulations and enforcement procedures, in order to identify improvements needed to support sustainable land use and management of land resources and restricts the transfer of productive arable land to other uses;. That's what they say but what do they mean? "Make laws to take land" would be a succinct explaination. The point is not that this is an evil conspiracy, they might want to do nice things with the land they take, like build parks, the point is that there is a lot of published analysis on this and the only analysis in this article, save for a small section, seems to be pro-agenda 21. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.21.145.13 (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

This talk page is not for debating Agenda 21 or US domestic politics in general, it is discuss improvements to the article. This article provides a satisfactory summary of opposition and I haven't seen any arguments or evidence which suggest otherwise. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be about summarising the topic - not providing exhaustive details on every argument every opponent and every supporter has ever made. Also, the function of Wikipedia is only to report what sources say, user's personal analysis "what are they really saying" and other commentary, including putting information from multiple sources together to reach a conclusion, is considered original research and is not permitted. CT Cooper · talk 14:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Support Anecdotal, but I just had a friend who is prone to conspiracy theories mention Agenda 21 to me. He then advised me to watch videos on Youtube rather than read the Wikipedia article. I suspected some sort of conspiracy theory type thing going on, and based on that and the discussion above, I would support the creation of an article about it, or at least giving it its own section labelled as such. Zell Faze (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Controversy

I indicated that the description of the plan as "non-binding" comes from ICLEI - which is its chief supporter. I hope no one minds my revealing this source. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

So what? Unless you have a source that shows it to be binding, your opinion doesn't matter. 194.75.171.33 (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

That's like, your opinion man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.15.203 (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

ICLEI citation was added for the sole purpose of appeasing those who insisted on adding a {{citation needed}} tag to lead - see Talk:Agenda 21/Archive 1#Re: Sources in the lead. There are plenty of sources, many of which are already in the article, which refer to it as voluntary/non-binding. Given the obvious lack of evidence that Agenda 21 has legal force or the UN has the power to force implementation, I think treating it as a factual statement is justified. That said, I think the lead should either open with either the words "voluntary" or "non-binding" - both is overkill in my opinion. I also note that the opening was changed to say Agenda 21 was a "proposal" - calling it a proposal implies it just some document that has been put out there and nothing has been done with it yet, and I would not accept that wording unless it was established to be the term used by most sources. CT Cooper · talk 12:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I assumed that the subject heading above had gotten everyone's attention.

There is another side to Agenda 21, i.e., people who believe that it will come to have legal force or that the UN will get the power to force implementation. Therefore I propose that we summarize the views of opponents to the agenda (who don't want it forced on them).

Before doing so, I wanted to make it clear that the originators or proponents of the agenda have declared that it is non-binding.

Also it is not up to us editors to decide whether this declaration is credible. We need merely provide a verifiable reference to it. Any doubters or skeptics? We can provide sources for their views as well. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

As previous discussion demonstrates, it is not a 50:50 split - opposition is only a minority of sources which are almost entirely restricted to the United States, and an even smaller number subscribe to conspiracy theories. Any discussion over the article content has to be taken in that light. Yes we have tread carefully with WP:NOR, but ultimately whether it is binding or not is a matter of fact, not viewpoint. I don't accept that only proponents call it non-binding - many reliable sources without close links to Agenda 21 do so. The issue of whether the content of the treaty will become binding e.t.c. in the future is arguably irrelevant since the opening is in present tense and is talking about Agenda 21 now, and in any case this viewpoint is too small from a worldwide perspective to justify consideration in the opening sentence. I would however accept that as long as there is discussion of opposition in the article, which I think there should be, then opposition should be mentioned somewhere in the lead. Also, speculation of what Agenda 21 will become in the future could be discussed further in the wider article but only with reliable sources and only inline with WP:CRYSTALBALL. CT Cooper · talk 22:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, CT Cooper. I didn't want to mention opposition in the lead. Let's first see if we can work together to find and significant, verifiable sources who claim (or fear?) that the agenda is likely (intended?) to become binding. Only if you agree that the "Fears of binding" section is properly sourced should we mention these fears in the intro.

Add a section; then and only then mention a point from that section in the intro. --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I wrote the lede a while back and added the non-binding for clarity and because some people in te us thought it was a treaty that the UN was imposing on the world. Ninbinding was intended by me to just mean that the document is not a treaty and doesn't carry the force of law and as such wasn't ratified. Apologies to all for the logos problems it might have caused. It was a workproduct of the conference and intended as a blueprint. If we are hung up on non-binding, I'm happy to adjust the lede to read that it is simply not a treaty and leave out the contentious language. Perhaps that will satisfy a minority constituency?-Justanonymous (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Agenda 21 and the Tea Party

As was clearly indicated in my edit summary, this has been brought-up before; perceived grammar errors are irrelevant - please review Talk:Agenda 21/Archive 1#Move To Rewrite "Opposition" where this issue has been dealt with previously. Nothing wrong with bringing it up again although some new arguments would be appreciated, and I will deal with them when I get them. It is also called the bold-revert-discuss cycle, not the bold-revert-revert cycle, but regardless, someone had to bring to the talk page. CT Cooper · talk 16:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

criticisms section added to article ?

May I suggest adding a criticisms section to this article?... Surely there is enough information out there thats opposed to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 14:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Previous discussion has determined that at the present time only criticism from the United States is worthy of any coverage in the article, and that is covered in the "U.S. opposition" section. Critism and controversy are seen by many as an indication of a poorly written article, as they are often used as dumping grounds for anything negative – see WP:CRITICISM. CT Cooper · talk 22:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. We found some isolated opposition in Australia and France but they literally consisted of one article or one small group that opposed this. Most populations tend to not be aware of what this is. Even in the US most people don't know but in the US there are groups that support as well as groups that oppose Agenda 21.-Justanonymous (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

New content in the United States section

It has come to my attention that SGT-Craig (talk · contribs) has attempted to add new material to the article, and has persistent in re-adding similar content after removal, despite opposition from myself, and the citation of multiple content policies. I acknowledge that some effort has been made to address the concerns I have raised, but such efforts have only made the content superficially better. I must first point out that the issue of how Agenda 21 criticism/controversy should be covered in this article has been subject to detailed discussion in the past, and some level of consensus on various issues has been established, so all new editors who are interested in this issue should review the talk page archive.

The sentence in dispute has been added to the United States sub-section and is as follows:

Due to the lack of keeping the public informed, Agenda 21 contains several clauses that affect Americans constitutional rights.

I dispute the addition as it fails to give any meaningful information to the reader. What clauses? What constitutional rights? Who is not keeping the public informed? The sentence is currently far too vague to be useful or to meet encyclopedic standards for accuracy. I must also point out that the English Wikipedia is not the United States Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles are aimed at a general audience and this sentence is practically meaningless to a person unfamiliar with US domestic politics. The United States opposition sub-section contains far more substantive information by stating clearly who opposes Agenda 21 and why they oppose it, though it perhaps could do with updating. Other problems with this addition, include, but are not necessary limited to:

• It fails verification. The cited article makes no reference whatsoever to "constitutional rights" and does not advance any claim that such rights are in danger due to public ignorance. The poll described in adjoining content is present, but nothing more.
• It's original research. Given the failure of verification, I think it it justified to conclude that this content is an original opinion/analysis by an editor, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Attempting to argue that the poll shows x, y, or z is synthesis, a specific form or original research, unless it can be demonstrated that such arguments are being made by reliable and published sources.
• It's compromising article neutrality. The sentence presents the viewpoint that Agenda 21 is an attack on the civil liberties as an uncontested factual statement. A five minute review of Google and the sources used in this article shows that it isn't. Per WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:SUBSTANTIATE, opinions can be given in articles but it must be made clear where such opinions are from, such as "Source X says Y about Z". It must also be taken into account that sources which take a strongly negative attitude to Agenda 21 are restricted almost entirely to the United States and so will make-up only a minority of worldwide reliable published sources, meaning such viewpoints should be presented in the article as a minority view, as per WP:UNDUE.

I have added templates to the offending content as appropriate to highlight the issues presented here – these must not be removed until this dispute is settled or the content is removed. Unless more of an effort is made to either resolve the problems highlighted above or to provide a detailed explanation on why this content does not in fact violate any policy or guideline, then the new sentence will be re-removed shortly. CT Cooper · talk 23:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Almost a week has now passed and my concerns have not been answered, despite a direct invitation to do so. I am therefore going to presume that it has been accepted that the content does not follow policy and remove it. If an attempt is made to add the same or similar content back into the article, I will direct the editors involved here. CT Cooper · talk 23:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Cooper, I provided a reference to a newspaper as requested. Other than that I've been busy. I'm not about to waste time fighting an editor as its just a losing battle. Why not put the references I gave in the opposition area and merge the constitutional issues into that area? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SGT-Craig (talk • contribs) 06:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The Huffington Post reference is already present in the opposition section and was in fact added long before your recent additions. I rejected it as a reference for the content you tried to add for the reasons cited above. This is a collaborative project which means that all editors are required to work with other editors when adding content and occasional disagreements are inevitable. That said, I think the core problem here is not that you are fighting me, it is that you are fighting policy, and time would have been better spent reviewing and understanding policies rather than fighting to keep content which clearly goes against them. CT Cooper · talk 19:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

You wanted a citation from a source. I provided what you required. Clearly this is a waste of time trying to keep this article fair and showing both sides of the argument. Enjoy your censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SGT-Craig (talk • contribs) 22:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

You have been told why you're additions and source were rejected, but unfortunately, rather than taking the time to review my reasoning and to read-up on the policies and guidelines provided, you've instead decided to simply repeat yourself endlessly and refuse to get the point. Frankly, I've come to the conclusion you came here to play games and not to help build build an encyclopedia. Well I'm afraid the game is up. CT Cooper · talk 17:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Agenda 21. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090722181929/http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk:80/eae/sustainability/Older/Local_Agenda21.html to http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/sustainability/Older/Local_Agenda21.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120801094839/http://www.ci.colfax.ca.us/3-Docs/PDF/Agenda/4-11-12%20Agenda.pdf to http://www.ci.colfax.ca.us/3-Docs/PDF/Agenda/4-11-12%20Agenda.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/bill_status.aspx?lsr=2669&sy=2012&txtsessionyear=2012&txtbillnumber=HB1634

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Agenda 21. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120725211037/http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=11454 to http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=11454

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions for Improvement

Although you list "Neutral Content" as a policy, I have found over years that your political entries are often full of non-neutral language, pushing a certain POV. The article on Agenda 21 is one of those. Under "Opposition" the article veers into some fairly judgmental proclamations - such as the basic ridiculous assumption that any point of view that doesn't agree that AGenda 21 is a good thing must be a "conspiracy-theory" generated by "Tea Party" activists. This is the type of garbage that makes people laugh and roll their eyes at Wikipedia. The truth in this case is that many intelligent, educated people do not embrace the globalist philosophy that generated Agenda 21, and do not agree with its own stated aims as being a good thing. This is a legitimate point of view and should be treated as such. I challenge you as a long-time Wikipedia user and frequent skeptic of its quality, to clean up the language in this article to be truly "neutral" as per your own stated policy. Momspack4 (talk) 21:22, 22 Oct 2018 (UTC)

Hello there!
This is a fantastic article that helped to give me a general understanding of what exactly Agenda 21 is.
I do have a few suggestions in improving, though:

• I really liked the introduction; it was very concise and gave a great summary of just what the article is about. However, there are a few, nitpicky things that might warrant changing. For instance, in these sentences, “The "21" in Agenda 21 refers to the 21st Century. Although it is also the area code for Greater Rio de Janeiro…” you might want to consider combining the two into one. Also, in this sentence, “By this cause, it is a number generally…” you might want to clarify it to read like: “Because of this, it is a number generally…”
• Under the category Development and evolution, the section about the 1997 meeting (Rio+5) should probably have a source.
• Under the Nation Level header, this sentence seems like it’s either an opinion, or it needs a source; “In Africa, national support for Agenda 21 is strong and most countries are signatories.”
• The last sentence of the article seems a bit out of place and with hardly an explanation of what it was; “Baltic nations formed the Baltic 21 coalition as a regional expression of Agenda 21.” It’s at the very bottom of the page, under the Opposition header, when it seems like (with a bit more explanation) it should go under the Support header.
• Last, but not least, the article seems like it should have a bit more summary as to what exactly Agenda 21 is/how it is going to implemented. For instance, the document itself outlines issues, goals, and challenges with atmosphere quality, biodiversity, drought, etc.

Anyway, that’s all.
Thanks!
Chickenlover19 (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Be bold! Your proposed improvements sound good. Wikipedia encourages anyone to participate and make helpful changes. I encourage you to try making some of these changes and see what happens :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Howdy,
In the "Local level" section, the oddly-placed sentence, "In many North American cases, an un-elected Regional Mayor will sign on with ICLEI, thereby agreeing to the terms of Agenda 21", seems to me to violate the Neutral Point of View policy. Why specifically mention that Regional Mayors who "sign on" with ICLEI are unelected? Are there no elected regional mayors who do so? What does "sign on" mean? It is also missing a footnote, which violates the No Original Research policy. I suggest that it be eliminated or changed to adhere to the policies mentioned.
Thanks for your attention!
Freemanf (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Minor Edit

The link to the actual Agenda 21 pdf document, which was at the very bottom of the article within the external references section, was never actually cited or pointed to within the article. A lot of people will come to wikipedia looking for quick access to the actual information rather than a derivative of it, as I did. Believe it or not it took me 20 minutes to find it. I revised the article so that the link appears at the first mention of Agenda 21, where it should properly have been anyway. Llewkcalbyram (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories?

I'm surprised to see there is no discussion of the various conspiracy theories being propagated about Agenda 21. I'm going to add some later on today, as I think they're relevant to the article. A quick web search will reveal probably more information on the Agenda 21 conspiracy theories than on the actual and real nature of the UN action plan. Jamutaq (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The conspiracy theories are neither notable nor relevant. Crazy people believe crazy things about everything. Best just stick to the facts 2001:44B8:6117:B100:3505:B773:CB44:970D (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Lede Fails to Inform the Reader what "It" Is.

It says it's an "action plan" which is meaningless. A lot of other meaningless detail, but no MEAT in terms of what "it" is. No summation, no "basic idea", no nothing other than a whole bunch of meaningless detail that might have something to do with "action". Does not "invite the Reader" to continue reading. Coupled with the conspiracy theories, the Lede looks very complicit in them, whatever they might be. I have no idea and so am a very good "representative sample" of the average Reader at this point. I just read something about Agenda 21 online, and it sounded a bit "conspiracy-ish", so I came here to find out what the real story is and the Lede served only to perpetuate the idea that there actually IS some kind of conspiracy, due to the glaringly obvious omission in the Lede in describing, in general terms, what this Agenda 21 thing is all about. Not reading the body of the Article. If the Lede is this poorly constructed, the body promises to be even worse. At this point I regard this Article to be an artificial and non-informative placeholder where a real and substantive Article is supposed to be.

Tym Whittier (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC).

What is "Lede"? 2.31.166.187 (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The lede is the opening section of the article, basically everything before the table of contents.

And to address Tym's comments, "action plan" is linked to that article, which says "An action plan is a detailed plan outlining actions needed to reach one or more goals. Alternatively, businessdictionary.com defines an action plan as a "sequence of steps that must be taken, or activities that must be performed well, for a strategy to succeed"." That seems pretty clear to me: Agenda 21 is "a detailed plan outlining actions needed to reach [...] goals" of sustainable development. --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Excessive "[citation needed]" tags

After eliminating – properly, I think – the "[citation needed]" tags under "Structure", I noticed the many other ones throughout the article. Isn't there any knowledgeable person following this article who can clean these up? Like maybe the original editor, I'm thinking? Or anyone. I never heard about Agenda 21 until the last couple of days, so I'm not competent to do this myself. –Roy McCoy (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

The conspiracy theory section describes far-right groups perpetuating an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory as "sensible". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.207.114.130 (talk) 08:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

It says "Far right-wing groups, including the John Birch Society, assert that Agenda 21 is part of a scheme using environmental protection as a cover to impose a worldwide dictatorship." I'm not sure how you are reading "sensible" into that. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)