Draft:Science Politics

Submission declined on 17 March 2026 by Snowmanonahoe (talk).

This draft's references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for organizations and companies. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:

provide significant coverage: discuss the subject in detail, excluding routine coverage like product launches, staff appointments, or financial reports and listings in databases or listicles;
are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
are independent: not connected to the subject, such as press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.

Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.

This draft is not written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia articles must be written neutrally in a formal, impersonal, and dispassionate way. They should not read like a blog post, advertisement, or fan page. Rewrite the draft to remove:

promotional language: see Words to watch;
personal commentary: opinions or direct addresses to the reader;
informal language.

Instead, only summarize in your own words a range of independent, reliable, published sources that discuss the subject.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you have not resolved the issues listed above, your draft will be declined again and potentially deleted.
If you need extra help, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors.
Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted.

Where to get help

If you need help editing or submitting your draft, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors. These venues are only for help with editing and the submission process, not to get reviews.
If you need feedback on your draft, or if the review is taking a lot of time, you can try asking for help on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject. Some WikiProjects are more active than others so a speedy reply is not guaranteed.

How to improve a draft

Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia – a basic overview on how to edit Wikipedia.
Help:Wikitext – how to use the markup
Help:Referencing for beginners – how to include references
Wikipedia:Article development – how to develop your article
Wikipedia:Writing better articles – how to improve your article
Wikipedia:Verifiability – make sure your article includes reliable third-party sources

You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article.

Improving your odds of a speedy review

To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags.

Add tags to your draft

Editor resources

Easy tools: Citation bot (help) | Advanced: Fix bare URLs

Declined by Snowmanonahoe 3 months ago. Last edited by Snowmanonahoe 3 months ago. Reviewer: Inform author.

Resubmit

Please note that if the issues are not fixed, the draft will be declined again.

Comment: In accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, I disclose that I have been paid by my employer for my contributions to this article. Mendenhallem (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Science Politics, informally abbreviated SciPol, is an American publication that communicates the politics of some of the world’s greatest scientific challenges.^[1] It blends academic rigor with journalistic storytelling to make complex scientific, social, political, and ethical challenges understandable to a broad public.^[2] It considers politics around energy, technology, environment, health, medicine, food, space, and more. It was founded in 2025 by the Science, Technology and International Affairs Program in Georgetown University's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service. Many scientists, including former CDC Director Tom Frieden and Ambassador Batu Kutelia, have contributed articles to Science Politics. It has been highlighted in the New York Times^[3] and Reuters^[4] for publishing an open letter from 28 co-authors of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence where they critiqued the Federal Judicial Center's troubling removal of a chapter on climate science. The chapter was removed based on advocacy of 27 Attorneys General.

Columns

Dagomar Degroot, Horizons of Humanity

Clare Fieseler, Ocean Empire

Sanjay Basu, The Clinical Divide

Meg Leta Jones, Fine Lines

References

^ "Science Politics". Science Politics.
^ Cooney, Siobhan (January 29, 2026). "Science Politics communicates science, tech and policy to a broad audience".
^ Zraick, Karen (March 2, 2026). "Scientists Decry 'Political Attack' on Reference Manual for Judges". New York Times.
^ Raymond, Nate (March 2, 2026). "Co-authors of manual for US judges call climate science chapter's removal 'troubling'". Reuters.

[1] "Science Politics". Science Politics.

[2] Cooney, Siobhan (January 29, 2026). "Science Politics communicates science, tech and policy to a broad audience".

[3] Zraick, Karen (March 2, 2026). "Scientists Decry 'Political Attack' on Reference Manual for Judges". New York Times.

[4] Raymond, Nate (March 2, 2026). "Co-authors of manual for US judges call climate science chapter's removal 'troubling'". Reuters.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]