The Cunctator wrote:
Considering both Wikipedia's mission and Wikipedia's methods, having a bias towards scientific (objective, confirmable, empirical, etc.) language and methods in constructing articles is right and (I believe) necessary.
If we do not use specific, empirical language, we cannot express confirmable statements. We will instead use sentences that muddle meaning and issues. This fails Wikipedia's mission and leads to a breakdown in Wikipedia's methods, as the hammerings of multiple authors will not lead inexorably to one result.
Another way of putting the same idea: Wikipedia needs to be biased towards language based on consensual thought, such as scientific language, because Wikipedia is a consensual product.
I don't in general agree with this: there is very good reason Ethics journals do not use scientific terminology exclusively when discussion the abortion issue, because such terminology, while well-suited to discussing specific medical procedures, is ill-suited to discussing ethical issues. I think when discussing ethical issues we should make current accepted practice in the field of Ethics our model, not current accepted practice in the largely unrelated scientific fields. I've suggested the Journal of Applied Ethics as a good model, but I'm open to other suggestions as well.
A specific recommendation for the article at hand: the discussion of the medical procedures and the political debate about the medical procedures need to be mde distinct.
One thing this means is that the language of anti-abortion proponents can't be used to describe the medical procedures, as that language expressly disallows such a distinction.
This I agree with. There should be a section (or separate article) that describes only the medical procedure, using medical terminology (but with an attempt to keep it from becoming dry and jargon-filled so that it's not comprehensible to a layperson).
-Mark