"

 WP:PROF revision draft - move to proceed with the replacement 

I would like to try to give another try and make a motion to proceed with the preplacement of the WP:PROF guideline by the revised version. I made a post to the talk page of WP:PROF to that effect and I'd appreciate if you comment there, one way or the other. Thanks,   
Any further suggestions? Thanks,   
Do you have any further modifications to WP:PROF revision draft? I see that you made a few changes (they all look fine to me), but your last message at my talk page mentioned Tuesday night, so I'd like to double-check with you before moving further. Also, if you are done, please leave a note at the WP:PROF talk page. Thanks,   
still at itdoing more than I though  i would at first, so its taking longer. '  
Sorry to bug you again, but could you please give some idea when you might be done with WP:PROF draft revisions. It has been a week since your last edit there... Thanks,   

New policy proposal and draft help

Wikipedia:Scientific standards

I have drafted a new proposal and would like help in clarifying, adjusting, adapting, and improving it. It is based on five years of work here at Wikipedia (not always the prettiest, I might add). I think it summarizes the opinions of a great majority of editors as to how to handle scientific situations. This proposal serves as a nexus between WP:NPOV and WP:RS for cases where we are dealing with observable reality. It is needed because there are a lot of editors who don't seem to understand what entails best-practices when writing a reliable reference work about observable reality. I don't pretend that this version is perfect, and would appreciate any and all additions, suggestions people may have for getting to some well-regarded scientific standards.

Note that these standards would apply only when discussing matters directly related to observable reality. These standards are inspired in part by WP:SPOV but avoid some of the major pitfalls of that particular proposal. In particular, the idea that SPOV even exists is a real problem. However, I think it is undeniable that we should have some standards for writing about scientific topics.

See also WP:SCI for another failed proposal that dovetails with this one. I hope this particular proposal is more in-line with the hole I see in policy/guidelines for dealing with these situations.

  

I have added a section that I think necessary for balance. I doubt you will like it, but I think it necessary to express the rue meaning of POV. I have not yet attempted to harmonize it with the discordant elements in some of the previous sections, some of which I consider rather clearly remarkable violations of NPOV, pojectivity, and the way i think a properly skeptical scientist looks at the world.   '  

Actually, I find nothing wrong with the content of what you are writing and essentially I think the same thing. One bit I do find strange is this ""primary approach"" issue. My idea is the following:

A religious/philosophical/spiritual/metaphysical/etc. article should discuss all ideas about a subject relevant to the main approach to the article. Virgin Mary is the Christian ideas about the Virgin Mary; Reincarnation is about the various reincarnation-believing groups' approach to reincarnation and so on. 
Most ideas are utterly irrelevant to science because they will deal with things other than observable reality
If and when such an article happens in the natural course of development to discuss a particular idea that is contradicted by or is supported by scientific evidence, the idea is first presented from the perspective of the main approach to the article. 
Issues which have scientific evidence should have the scientific evidence that is directly relevant to the issue and nothing more. The evidence should be presented simply and straightforwardly without attempts to exaggerate, inflate, marginalize, or eliminate it.
Article continues on, unaffected by the scientific evidence presented.

That's what I envision. I think it is very close to what you envision too.

Now, I do have some issues with your particular choice in