Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The science is settled

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 16:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The science is settled

The science is settled (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This appears to be an article about a slogan that nobody has ever used, except perhaps as a strawman argument, and even in that context is not particularly common. There's probably a place on Wikipedia for well-known phrases or saying, but this one simply is so esoteric as to be pointless. Most of the article is made up of examples of people saying things similar but not quite like it. At best it should be a small section in the global warming controversy article - I'm not sure it even deserves to be that, though. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 17:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• keep Well I'd never seen the article before, but I found it informative and well written. The fact that the slogan was only used in 'straw man' arguments, which is clearly pointed out in the article, in no way makes this article merit an afd. sbandrews 18:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I read the article, but I just don't see that it's a noteworthy phrase- the ideas that are being discussed are important, but that doesn't make this a 'slogan' that needs its own article. Some of the content can be added to the global warming controversy article if necessary. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's meant to be a catch-all for every goverment official or scientist who has asserted that there are no more reasons to doubt that the science of global warming indicates a strong enough human component to justify the Kyoto Protocol. I originally worked on it because various officials would seem to say that the science was settled, but then turn around and say it's still uncertain. A page that collects all their statements would be useful. --Uncle Ed 19:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • So it's intended to be a collection of quotations which include the words "the science is settled", putting forward by synthesis the argument that this is a slogan? Uncle G 20:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • If this article is supposed to be "a catch-all for every goverment official or scientist who has asserted that there are no more reasons to doubt that the science of global warming indicates a strong enough human component to justify the Kyoto Protocol," then it should be renamed to something such as "opinions of goverment officials and scientists who support the Kyoto Protocol." Ed seems to have forgotten both the spirit and substance of the history of this article. He originally named it, [[Slogan 'The science is settled']. Ed put both the word "slogan" and the quote marks around the phrase into the original name of the article, and to this day it remains an article about that specific phrase. It has been improved somewhat by subsequent edits making it clear that no one actually used that slogan as a slogan, but if its sole purpose is to serve as a collection-point for statements by people who think the scientific evidence warrants the Kyoto Protocol, then its current title is both too specific and also inaccurate. I don't have a strong opinion on whether to delete this article, but I'm leaning toward delete or rename. --Sheldon Rampton 20:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - the NOM is absolutely right. It is not only obscure but factually incorrect. --Lee Vonce 20:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. From slogan: "A slogan is a memorable motto or phrase used in a political, commercial, religious, and other contexts as a repetitive expression of an idea or purpose." This phrase isn't actually used repetitively to express an idea. In fact, a variety of phrases are used to express this idea, as evidenced by the quotes in the article. To put it under this name, or indeed any single name, would be foolish. "The science is settled" is not even a phrase used by those who believe that the science is settled -- instead, it's a common way (but by no means the only way) to set up a straw man argument. This isn't a slogan; it's a sentence, and the typical sentence doesn't deserve articles, even if it's frequently used (should we have articles titled "The climate is changing," "Average global temperatures are projected to increase over the next century," and "Emission of aerosols is estimated to contribute -0.7 Wm^-1 to radiative forcing from direct effects alone"?). The best thing to do would be to redirect to Global warming or something like that. --67.125.30.179 20:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep - its not the worlds greatest page, but its useful. Lee Vonces vote is a good example of the reason for keeping it: the page as it stands is substantially correct, but if it wasn't there the opposite misinformation would accumulate William M. Connolley 21:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It's composed of quotes which are "something like" the science is settled. Not even WikiQuote would take this. --Gwern (contribs) 23:50 8 February 2007 (GMT) 23:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

that is factually incorrect, I suggest you re-read the article, the three instances given - and referenced - of GW opponents using the phrase all contain the exact phrase 'the science is settled', I'm not sure, but your comment could itself be a straw man, kind regards sbandrews 23:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or the World Will Come to a Quick End I am sick to death of the idea in some Wikipedian minds that widely used concepts that affect us all by affecting our public debates do not deserve Wikipedia articles. Gwern's idea that the words need to be exact is exactly the wrong way of looking at it: It's the concept that's obviously what the subject is. This is a salient part of the debate over global warming and serves the purpose of helping people think about that debate, and it does so with a neutral point of view. We need more articles like this. It just needs to always be backed up with citations and remain strictly fair. These articles are also a great exercise for everybody in tolerating disagreement, something we could use more of.Noroton 23:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I rarely comment on other people's views in AFD, and I certainly don't expect to change your mind. But... to my mind this isn't an article about a concept, and it's simply not the case that the concept is "obviously what the subject is". When I read it, it reads as an article about a slogan, and about who has or hasn't used it (or something like it). If someone were to rename it and rewrite it to be about the concept, it would be a very different article, and I wouldn't have nominated it. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel that one weakness this article has is the use of the word slogan, much better to use the word phrase, as there is no evidence (that I know of) that those using the phrase on the climate skeptic side were working together. As for having a wikipedia article about a phrase, to be or not to be was the first one I thought of and that was in ( ok its by the bard, but so what). The science is settled is a phrase (or slogan) that has become symbolic of the (often heated) war of words between scientists who have come to accept global warming as an unpleasent reality we must deal with, and those who, often for reasons of political or economic gain have decided to fight against the theory, and have become known as the climate skeptics. The phrase is used by te skeptics as a (very successful) means of confusing the issue in the minds of the non-expert majority in society. By puporting that their opponents have claimed 'the science is settled' they can then attack their position by showing a single area in which the science is not settled, the classic straw man technique. This is a very common technique in the global warming debate and this is the key reason for me that this is an important article for the general wikipedia reader wanting to get closer to the truth in what is perhaps one of the most important, but also perhaps the most confusing, issues of the 21st century - kind regards sbandrews 18:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Response Sbandrews, if what you say can be footnoted, I'm all for making it part of the article. OpenToppedBus, when I see an article that could be refocused and therefore salvaged, I tend to want to do that rather than delete. My mind is open, and I'll take another look.Noroton 04:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: This is not a phrase, or anyway it's not a phrase according to the normal or technical understanding of "phrase". It has a finite verb/auxiliary, is, and thus is a clause, or a sentence. (If it were a phrase, what kind of phrase would it be? Noun phrase, prepositional phrase...?) -- Hoary 16:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Perhaps some of the contents can move to the article on the global warming controversy article... Count Iblis 22:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - At best, this is an esoteric slogan that does not warrant its own article. At the worst, this is the result of someone looking too hard for patterns in people's comments. Dr. Submillimeter 22:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Material of this type already is spread across too many articles -- we have global warming controversy, scientific opinion on climate change, global warming skeptics, list of scientists opposing global warming consensus, and possibly others that I don't even know about yet. Delete, and move anything worthwhile (doesn't seem to be much) into one of the other articles. Raymond Arritt 22:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless. ~ UBeR
• Delete. No, not useless, but instead a very mildly interesting set of notes for somebody aiming to be a William Safire (in "language maven" rather than Nixonian mode, though come to think of it perhaps the latter too). If it comes to anything, the author is welcome to create an essay out of it. But they'd have to do so elsewhere: this is an encyclopedia, not an essay collection. -- Hoary 00:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete original research. --Trovatore 01:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Trovatore. Unfortunately this is OR. It is a good article but the entire observation that the term is used in general and that it is used only the global warming skeptics and not their opponents is all OR. JoshuaZ 15:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.