Talk:Down syndrome/Archive 5

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

Life Expectancy

Wanted to check life expectancy of people with Down's syndrome, but did not find anything in the article. I did, however, find this: http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s510389.htm

This article states that life expectancy has risen from about 25 in the early 1980s to about 49 in the present. Would someone care to incorporate this into the article? I would do it myself, but just didn't dare touch a featured article! :-) SindreF 23:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This is actually covered in the "Health" section—actually, a New Scientist citation of this exact article, if I'm not mistaken :) Fvasconcellos 01:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

For life expectancy see bottom of page: (removed link to page that will not release browser)(Pollinator 03:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)) 24.182.255.107 03:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Somebody please fix and lock this because of vandalism

Ive noticed some extremely childish vandalism on the "classifications" on the right side, it says "DUHH A CHILDREN WHY DUH DOWN SYNDROM DUHHH *DROOL*." Please, lock this

I've reverted this page to undo vandilism, someone made the whole page read simply "george bush." Who ever did this needs to get a life.--Marvuglia 04:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've requested temporary semi-protection on this article. --apers0n 07:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


Also someone has vandalised the part on genetics

This is still being regularly vandalised - can edits be limited to registered users as most of the random edits are anonymous? Shinji nishizono 15:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yay!

I would just like to congradulate Ted and the contributing writers for a truly excellent article, in my very humble opionion. It is everything wikipedia should be. Good luck on getting featured!

One tiny criticism/ questio: why that first picture? I find the idea of ANY child at that age hammering a nail- seemingly alone- somewhat disturbing. In an article on a mental disability, it's even more jarring, especially since it's the first thing the reader sees. Perhaps it could be replaced with a more generic photo of a child playing or reading. Singlewordedpoem 05:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

How about this picture on the right? It shows most of the physical characteristics of down syndrome. --WS 20:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The picture you shared seems more like a caricature. I think an actual photograph is preferable. Jeannedb 18:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Some comments. The first is this is a drill, not a hammer. Second, how old do you think the child is? While not using a drill, a common Montessori work for 3-6 year olds is to hammer nails into a stump. The child in the picture seems to be older than that. It helps to develop fine motor skills -- something that many children with Down syndrome need to work on. I've seen a few children with Down syndrome use that activity and eventually master it. I believe the child in the picture is using the drill as an electric screwdriver to assemble a bookcase. Overkill on the drill, but it is certainly age-appropriate. Personally, I prefer real pictures, unless it is to help point out some physical features. The picture is the son of an early contributor, so has a Wiki-connection. TedTalk/Contributions 20:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Mia Peterson - Down syndrome advocate testifying before U.S. Senate
I personally couldn't care less about the picture - seems fine to me and I'm a pediatrician with a stake in child safety. However, the issue has been brought up several times so it is worth addressing. I have found an image of Mia Peterson, an individual with DS who is an advocate and success story. It's a little small and I could probably make it look a little nicer if I were home with photoshop. I personally don't care, but it's just another image to offer InvictaHOG 21:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Good point about it coming up more than once. Other eponymous diseases use a picture of the named person (see, for example, Huntington's disease). I've not found a public domain picture yet. I prefer a more personal touch, but I'm not set against any good picture. TedTalk/Contributions 23:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome to use one of the photos of my son from my webpage.Lleshin 14:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)lleshin
Thanks, but Wikipedia is very cautious about using pictures from websites. I cannot add the picture, since I don't have the right. It is actually very easy to add pictures -- I've done several of various diagrams and such.
  1. Go to the page Special:Upload
  2. Browse for the file on your computer
  3. Give it a Wiki-name (lower case except for first letter and proper names)
  4. Give a short description, including the source. Mine say something like "picture taken by me"
  5. Licensing. This is the hard one. A separate picture from the website is much better, since it has no copyright attached to it. For those I choose GFDL (self made) or you created this yourself and release it to the public domain. Once the image is uploaded, it can be referenced in any article or talk page. TedTalk/Contributions 15:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What is it with people and the picture of the kid doing woodworking? I think it's beautiful. And it shows somebody with Down Syndrome going about his business and not as if he's just a pathology specimen. ChristinaDunigan 21:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Strengths?

Surprised that there is no mention of people with Down syndrome, in general, having friendly and warm personalities. This isn't the best source in the world, but could be a start: mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=10332&cn=208

"Just like mental retardation in general, Down syndrome is associated with a broad spectrum of intellectual and adaptive functioning. Each Down case is unique. Some individuals function quite well and demonstrate relatively good social skills, while others face profound challenges in social and intellectual situations. The Down population has a widespread reputation for possessing friendly and loving temperaments. They often express affection openly and are very endearing to other people."

I'd like to see this mentioned not just because it's (evidently) true, but because it's harmful to people with Down syndrome (and indeed any neurological atypicality) to focus excessively on those differences that are maladaptive. Being friendly and warm isn't just "naivete" -- see The Onion for a satire on that sort of thinking. regards, Jim Butler(talk) 07:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I assume it's not mentioned because, while many people with Down's Syndrome may be "warm and friendly", the characteristic of being "warm and friendly" is a characteristic of humans (and many other animals, for that matter), rather than a characteristic that is in any way specific to Down's Syndrome. Hence, it has no real relevance to an encyclopedia article describing the syndrome. JDS2005 07:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
So the source I just cited is simply wrong? Jim Butler(talk) 07:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's WRONG, I'm just saying that it's not really relevant for an encyclopedia article about the syndrome. It's certainly nice that a lot of people with Down's Syndrome are happy and well adjusted, but a friendly smile doesn't come from a third Chromosome 21, which is the subject of this article. It would be an appropriate subject for a non-encyclopedia article, something like "Living with Down's Syndrome" or that sort of thing.
Now if you had a source that said "Down's Syndrome causes warmth and friendliness," (even better if it had a well-described mechanism), it would be an entirely different situation. JDS2005 07:34 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Cause isn't the issue, correlation is; and no proposed mechanism is necessary if it's an observable phenomenon. Genes certainly do correlate with temperament in other genetic syndromes such as Williams ("overly friendly personality")[1] and Angelman (aka "happy puppet syndrome")[2]. I don't know enough about Down to know whether any supposed temperamental difference is really intersubjectively verifiable. Maybe it's just one of those things where people are projecting based on Down kids' facial morphology appearing more "baby-face"-like. Jim Butler(talk) 07:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Here's a study suggesting a behavioral phenotype[3] -- more along the lines of "less disruptive" than "warm", though. Jim Butler(talk) 07:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't saying that mechanism is NECESSARY, I was just saying that it would be better. However, the first article you linked didn't really suggest any correlation at all, but merely a popular notion associating "warmth and friendliness" with Down's Syndrome. While it certainly may be true that any number of people with Down's Syndrome are warm and friendly, it's not relevant for an encyclopedia article until there is scholarly work demonstrating that correlation. While that study you linked isn't the same as "warmth and friendliness", it's exactly the sort of thing that SHOULD go in an encyclopedia article, possibly not as hard fact (one single study is never conclusive proof of anything), but definitely as legitimate evidence that should be presented to readers. JDS2005 08:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the introduction of anecdote to an article which has been carefully reviewed by medical authors for accuracy: if you can find a PMID source which references that as peer reviewed *fact* enjoying widespread medical consensus, then it should be introduced. Please see WP:MEDMOS; mentalhelp.net isn't the highest quality source, and that is anecdote which, to my knowledge, is unfounded. I also agree that it's not relevant to an encyclopedic article, unless there is solid peer-reviewed and published medical evidence which enjoys widespread medical consensus (to my knowledge, that anecodate doesn't). Sandy (Talk) 10:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Under NPOV, a scientific view doesn't have to represent widespread consensus in order to be included; it simply has to be a sig POV and not a tiny minority one. Such views wouldn't be presented as "fact", but simply as what they are: conclusions some scientists have drawn based on their examination of evidence. Here's an example[4] of such a peer-reviewed sec source regarding Down and personality. The picture appears to be more complicated than the "warm" stereotype, but as the abstract says: "Young children with Down syndrome show a general profile of delays in the development of instrumental thinking coupled with emerging relative strengths in social-emotional functioning." They use the latter to compensate for the former. --Jim Butler(talk) 02:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Have you read the full text of that study, including methodology and discussion? Do you know the sample and methodology? Do you know the study shortcomings and limitations? Was it a controlled study on a large sample, or a case study, for example? Do you know how broadly the results can be interpreted? Without reading the full study, and putting it into the context of supporting or refuting studies, it's hard to know how to interpret or what context to give to the abstract. You can find a study on PubMed that says just about anything - the question is context, and how to present the results accurately and responsibly. That abstract doesn't give me enough to be able to say anything that I can be sure is accurate. Sandy (Talk) 03:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Sandy, I don't know how controversial the idea of a behavioral phenotype in Down is, or what the parameters of the putative phenotype are. The issue does appear to be at least of historical interest, and a matter of some debate in the literature today. Dr Down himself suggested that a behavioral phenotype existed, and included exceptional humor and amiability[5], though not all of his ideas bore out:
  • "The first use of such a concept was by Langdon Down in his original description of individuals with Down syndrome. He described a characteristic profile of personality traits. These included strong powers of imitation, a lively sense of humour and the ridiculous, obstinacy and amiability. His proposal has received substantial criticism over the years, not least because of the wide variability in personality profiles witnessed in people who have Down syndrome, just as in the general population. But recent research has supported the notion that there is a greater similarity personality and temperament-wise between people with Down syndrome than would be expected by chance."
Here's a reference[6] challenging the happy/placid stereotype:
  • "The stereotype of people with DS as happy, placid individuals with a gift for mimicry is not borne out by recent behavioural research. "Stubbornness" and obsessional features seem to be over-represented, and many people with DS react adversely in situations involving conflict."
Regarding the review I mentioned above (by D. Fidler), I haven't read the original, but here's a PDF link to a book chapter[7] by the same author covering the same territory. That reference says:
  • "It is argued here that some aspects of the Down syndrome behavioral phenotype are already emerging in infants and toddlers, including emerging relative strengths in some aspects of visual processing, receptive language and nonverbal social functioning, and relative weaknesses in gross motor skills and expressive language skills."
Given the above, it may be reasonable to say something along the lines of what Down originally thought about a behavioral phenotype in Down, and then cite more current research/opinion. Editors more familiar with the subject should have an idea as to where Fidler's view (and that of Collacott et al. cited above[8]) falls relative to other sci views. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 08:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I would be in favor of someone who knows the field well writing up a summary of the issue, but I wouldn't support one of us who isn't very well versed in DS adding something without 1) having read the full text of the studies, and 2) putting it into the broader context of refuting and supporting studies, strength of each study, and medical consensus. I agree that a DS-knowledgeable editor should be able to write something based on the sources listed above, but let's be sure it's an accurate reflection of all published literature, and not based on the abstracts we're able to come up with - I don't even know what is viewed as the best Review article in the field, as I do know, for instance, with TS. I urge that we add something after someone knowledgeable shows up to help, and I just don't know what became of TedE, who mostly authored the FA of this article. Sandy (Talk) 15:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that's a good ending point, Sandy, but too stringent for a starting point. I appreciate the high standards you advocate, but they go beyond WP:BOLD, WP:NPOV and WP:VER. We don't want to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If everyone were as cautious as you advocate, then stuff wouldn't get added to articles at all. There are plenty of scientific questions where widespread consensus doesn't exist, and fields where there is no single "best" review article.
I'm not suggesting putting in my original miconception of Down people having a particular tendency to warmth and friendliness, but rather the stuff I dug up about some scientists believing that a particular behavioral phenotype exists, and what its parameters may be. This can be added without misrepresenting it as consensus. There's enough there to provide a good starting point for more knowledgeable editors to build on and contextualize, and add any opposing POV's. I agree with User JDS2005 that V RS material ought to go in articles, because by putting it there, it will not only inform readers, but attract productive edits. best regards, Jim Butler(talk) 02:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
If you, me, someone hasn't read the full study, and other refuting or validating studies, and can't put the info in the broader context, how do you assess whether you are giving undue weight? Sandy (Talk) 02:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::It depends on the issue, the evidence and how editors frame it. Saying some scientists are studying the existence of a phenomenon and that it remains controversial isn't undue weight unless the idea that that thing exists is a tiny minority view, which the Pubmed stuff above plainly isn't. Jim Butler(talk) 03:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Sandy. Popular (mis)conceptions should not be included, unless they are backed up by hard evidence. It might seem a nice thing to say, but doesn't help the parent of a "difficult" child if everyone expects them to be angels. Colin°Talk 12:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that while many kids with DS are very "sweet and loving", so too are most young kids in general. However, anyone who has ever gotten to know a youngster with DS will know that they are just like other kids, they have tantrums, they can be moody, stubborn seems to come in triplicate, and generally they are just like us. The problem with labeling any group of people anything from "sweet and loving" to "angry and violent" is that we are buying into presumptions, rather than seeing the individual as just that...individual. I would prefer that people who meet my daughter have no preconceptions about who she is based on what they think they know about DS. Allowing her own personality to speak for itself is the safest bet. Sure, she may be sweet and gentle sometimes, (she is) but she has moments just like anyone else when she is no fun to be around, demanding, sullen, or irritated....shes human. I like to remind people that labeling kids with DS as "lovable oafs" is no different than proclaiming all people of color as athleticly gifted. It is a generalization, when what all we human beings want is to be seen as the individuals that we are. Mome23kjnc 23:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC) It would be interesting to ask people with DS what they think about the main Wiki page for humans. they would probably say that humans are irrational, agressive, inexplicable and violent creatures who still have some way to go before they can graduate into the realm of civilisation by evolving an improved genetic structure. People with DS simply dont start wars or torture people, and yes, they are, mostly, harmless and friendly, like most of the rest of us, but that isnt very encylopaedic! Words like "naivete" and "friendly" are POV judgemental pseudoscientific claptrap, not based on any acceptable wisdom or research, and have no place in an objective and scholarly article. Let's get the medical academics who make money by putting people into boxes of their own making off our back - they have an agenda and it isn't always declared, good or right, and likewise with the sentimentalists and do-gooders. My own son Jordan (pictured with the electric screwdriver) is perfectly capable of real, serious mischief, and needs the same degree of parental supervision and control as any other 12 year old boy Excalibur 22:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

u all are being racist

how does the picture drill.jpg shows that the child is having Down syndrome? u making him look bad on the internet he can sue u165.21.155.13 12:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Racist? Are you kidding me. What a f*cking dumb@ss

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.17.120.168 (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Errr... Racist? How? He clearly has Down Syndrome, and it doesn't make him look bad. Plus, his parent was the one who uploaded the photo. Sarg 12:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This is User:Excalibur's son. He put the picture there and helped write the article. Please calm down. --Bridgecross 14:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Neither Down's Syndrome, nor the use of power tools, are a race, so the accusation of racism is completely nonsensical. JDS2005 03:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
To me it likes the kid is holding the drill unsafely, regardless of down syndrome. His hand is too close to the chuck as is his face. His hair could get cautght, or a splinter could go into his eye. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.137.231.43 (talk) 09:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
Its not a drill, its an electric screwdriver...no splinters, sometimes i wonder why I bother!!!Excalibur 22:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


About : Expand medical section see: http://AtlasGeneticsOncology.org/Educ/PolyTri21Eng.html (or maybe to be included at "Down syndrome Classifications and external resources" with OMIM ?
To show that mentally handicapped persons can be artists, you can use if you wish the image (or part of it)from : http://atlasgeneticsoncology.org/Educ/Images/FriendsEng.gif, provided that you cite the source (Courtesy Atlas of Genetics and Cytogenetics in Oncology and Haematology. http://AtlasGeneticsOncology.org)e.g.File:FriendTri21Paint.gif

Why would we want to show that mentally handicapped people can be artists? No part of the article suggests that mentally handicapped people can't be artists. JDS2005 03:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Photograph

What's with the drill?--User:Steven X 13:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The kid is using it to do some sort of woodworking task, obviously. ChristinaDunigan 20:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

POV

Can someone knowledgeable about Down syndrome pls check this edit vis-a-vis POV and original research? Sandy (Talk) 16:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like some things have been formulated more positive, but the results still seems quite neutral to me.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not entirely comfortable with the changes made there. The changes seem to suggest that impairment is not the norm among people with Down's Syndrome, and mention of speech impairment is outright deleted without explanation. JDS2005 03:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Concur with JDS - It seemed an overly optimistic version to me. Sandy (Talk) 15:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


I think other than the deletion of the speech matters, it is fine. Generally speaking, people with DS born these days are doing better in life than their older counterparts. Given the better medical care, schooling, social oppostunities, etc, that makes perfect sense. As an example, my daughter is 8, is in a regular 2nd grade classroom where she does just fine, with minor accomadations. She is a Girl Scout, plays on regular teams for sports, reads at age level, has very good friends, and is generally a pretty typical kid. She is not different from many kids with DS out there. It is just that the old myths about DS are hard to break. Many many people with DS are out in the world, doing well, working, driving, marrying, going to college. Of course, there is a huge variability across the spectrum, just as in typical children. But more often than not these days, optimistic fits just fine. Mome23kjnc 00:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

First picture (boy with drill)

Ok, I don't know if this is considered OK, but I found it silly that the same issue (the first picture on the page) was discussed at three places (at least) on the same page, so I moved them all together so the discussion can be unified. I hope it's good. /skagedal... 20:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Original heading: First picture

I realize the first picture is GFDL and is preferable to using a fair use picture, but honestly, is that the best picture that can be used? It doesn't really identify the subject (Down syndrome) at all. --- RockMFR 01:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What picture would be good to illustrate it? I think the picture of the Down syndrome karyotype will be good personallyBorisblue 02:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I think these pictures on the Turkish edition are some how better than the current http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resim:Downsyndr2.jpg and http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resim:Downbaby.jpg. If no one objects, I will replace that current image with one of these images. xeryus 02:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I object. The editor who brought the article to featured status has not been online today, and I don't see the need to change the picture that passed FAC without a full discussion. I don't know his reasoning for choosing the picture he chose, but I don't see any big reason to change it in a hurry, either. If others agree, it can be done later. Sandy (Talk) 02:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
OK then, let me correct my position on this change as a suggestion. And of course, I respect the editor. xeryus 02:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Those pictures do demonstrate the condition better than the current image. I would support changing it. It's not a big deal to change a picture once it's on the main page- a lot of articles improve dramatically on their featured day. Nobody "owns" an article on wikipedia, so it's not really that big a deal: and I'm sure the original editor will be the person most pleased if an improved image is usedBorisblue 02:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply the original editor "owned" the article, or that his opinion counted more than others, just that there is no hurry, and consensus should be developed to change an image. If others prefer those images, no problem from me ... Sandy (Talk) 02:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I just checked, and TedE hasn't been around for a month, so I support you changing the image to your choice. I'm surprised he's not around, after he put so much into the article, but that's that. Looks like the vandalism is under control, I'm calling it a day here. Regards, Sandy (Talk) 03:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I take it that there's a consensus here to change? Any objections? Borisblue 03:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Wait... hold on- according to the discussion at talk:main page the copyright isn't acceptable. Is there even any evidence that these children really do have down syndrome? Borisblue 03:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, yea, that's why I thought TedE should be consulted and there should be no hurry to change while on the main page - careful consideration goes into images during the FAC process, including examination of copyright status. I also seem to recall (but can't find messages) that people discussed showing accomplishments, rather than just a pretty image. Sandy (Talk) 10:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The boy-with-drill picture has been around a long time, and debated several times. It is the son of an early editor of this article. I like it. It isn't irreplacable but I agree with Sandy that there is no rush. Colin°Talk 12:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Original heading: pictures

I think this article could use a couple of pictures to demonstrate the physical characteristics typical of Down syndrome. What say? - Che Nuevara 06:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This would certainly improve the article, though I would understand why they would be hard to obtain or accept. There is some concern that pictures of the sufferers shouldn't be on wikipedia, as it would seem as though we were expoiting them. Even the existing pictures have met with some opposition (see Image_talk:Drill.jpg) Borisblue 06:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd much rather see the "Drill" image replaced by an image of a person with Down's Syndrome whose face is viewed from the front, rather than the side, and hence makes the physical characteristics (widely-spaced eyes, epicanthic folds, spotted eyes, etc) more easily visible. At first glance the child in the picture does not obviously appear to have Down's Syndrome. JDS2005 6:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry they're not here to defend or explain, but I believe the original thinking was to include an image which showed accomplishment rather than physical traits. Perhaps an image showing physical traits could be included elsewhere in the article. Sandy (Talk) 10:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Why would we want to show accomplishment rather than physical traits? This is an encyclopedia article about Down's Syndrome, so we should try to demonstrate "This is the syndrome", rather than "People who have the syndrome are good". This seems to be a recurring confusion. JDS2005 03:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Though I think we should be sensitive to concerns about exploitation, I don't think we want to avoid being oversensitive. The condition is simply a fact, and merely depicting someone who has it should not be seen as a value judgment by Wikipedia against that person. It's not quite the same as having blue eyes, I'll grant you, but the principle is essentially the same. --Saforrest 06:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
So long as we do not:
(A) harm the person in the picture, or
(B) profit off of the picture because of the likeness of the person it it
there's really no ethical reason not to use such a picture.
Also, Safforest, when you say "I don't think we want to avoid being oversensitive", don't you mean you DO think we want to avoid being oversensitive? Otherwise your argument doesn't make much sense.JDS2005 07:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Right, one too many negations there. The issue with your points A and B is that the photo licensing Wikipedia prefers -- "free" photos in the sense of GFDL or certain kinds of CC licences -- do not come with the strings you'd like to see attached. Because Wikipedia content can be resyndicated anywhere, there's no guarantee that a "free" picture wouldn't some day be used for profit, or be used in a way damaging to the dignity of the original subject. That's the risk we take with every submitted photo. --Saforrest 08:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not exactly talking about legalities here...in fact, I'm not paying any attention to what other people do with the photos in resyndication. I'm just saying there should be no ethical concerns about exploitation so long as WIKIPEDIA does not harm or profit off of the people in the photo. What people do with it afterwards, outside of Wikipedia, is not our concern. JDS2005 03:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
A reading of the talk page and archives seems to indicate there have been at least a half-dozen editors with children who have DS. Any one of those could have uploaded a picture. Why do you suppose they haven't? Given the abuse the article has taken over the past several days, I can see why. The picture has been criticized for several months, and yet noone has uploaded a picture of their child. Under those conditions, I'd be very hesitant to use a random picture. Genetics411 05:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
You might notice above that Dr. Leshin (a pediatrician who happens to have a son with Down syndrome) offered photos of his own son for this page. You're welcome to use one of the photos of my son from my webpage.Lleshin 14:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)lleshin <--- That appears in the discussion towards the top of this page. Perhaps he should be taken up on his offer. His web site is http://www.ds-health.com/ Jeannedb 14:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Original heading: First picture

What does a boy with a drill have to do with Down syndrome? Maybe a photo representing the syndrome would be better.NapoleonAlanparte 22:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please scan the talk page - it's been discussed here a bunch. Sandy (Talk) 22:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Now that this is off the main page, I've found a few possibilities for new pictures. This category of a wee babe is all free enough for us to use. Similarly, this photo is licensed so that it only requires attribution. This photo of the same girl is probably the best I've found because the distinctive features of someone with Downs are clear and she is old enough that she doesn't look like just a baby with a chubby face (which is what some Downs babies look like to me). Your thoughts?--Kchase T 02:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
That third link, labelled "Esther", is perfect. It's exactly the sort of thing I called for yesterday. I nominate that one for the first image on the page. JDS2005 04:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad you're looking for an improved picture, but I'm not enthralled with the photographic quality on either of those. Sandy (Talk) 15:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
then put the drill picture further down the page 86.135.214.219 10:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
In general, Flickr images can't be used. There is a copyright notice on each page. I don't think it would fall under fair use, and pictures of children may run into other problems without the permission of the parents. While some parents may be flattered to have a picture of their child at the top of the article, others would not be. Genetics411 19:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
As Skagedal mentions below, the images I've found can be used. Flickr has lots of images, some of which are fully copyrighted, others of which have non-free Creative Commons licenses, and a few, like the above, that have CC licenses that are free enough for use here. As to the point about parents, I'd be happy to email the poster myself if we get consensus for a particular image.--Kchase T 21:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

My opinion: There are some things I like about the current picture. First, I like that the boy is doing something, in this case using a drill. Second, I like the Wikipediaconnection, that it is the son of an early editor of this article. That also has the advantage that there are no copyright or ethical problems. But there is a strong argument for changing it: it doesn't illustrate the topic very well. The facial features of Down syndrome that are so distinguishing do not show very well. A face shot taken from the front would be preferrable, in my opinion. So, to consider the alternatives:

I agree with some wikipedians above that there is no rush to replace the drill picture, but how about contacting the author of the Esther photos, hear how s/he feels about it illustrating the wp article? /skagedal... 20:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Oh, i forgot one alternative: Trisomy21_Mia.jpg, Mia Peterson, copyright: PD. Not an excellent picture though, IMHO. /skagedal... 20:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand the concern about the current image, but I don't feel any of these are good enough. Sandy (Talk) 21:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As the photographer and father of the boy, can I make a few points here? People with DS come in all shapes, colours, sizes, and have a wide range of features. To choose a picture that conforms to a stereotype - for example a short overweight person with a protruding tongue, would be grossy offensive to the very many people with DS who are attractive and look pretty much like everyone else. yes, you can go for a front face shot as opposed to a profile - it doesnt really make much difference. the fact that the boy is doing something - in this case helping with some DIY - is important because people with DS do pretty much everything that you can do - the old "cabbage" stereotype needs to be vigorously challenged. I'm happy to provide a few more pictures if you like, but they wont solve anything - Maybe we should have a whole gallery, but then those exist elswehere - see for example [9] Excalibur

Because we apparently aren't supposed to change the picture without discussing it, which nobody seems to want to even approach, I have edited the caption to read "This child loves to use screwdrivers!" The child in the picture may or may not have downs, we don't know. This also may or may not be a picture from the original creator of the article, a rumour that appears to have appeared as fact without validation from thin air. As such, the caption has been edited to signify that all we can tell is that the child in the picture is enjoying the use of the power tool. Let's focus on what is definite, not rumours or hearsay of somebody claiming to be the father. Truth, my fellow Wikipedians, shall always prevail. Txtimetraveler 03:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there even any evidence that these children really do have down syndrome? Borisblue

A reading of the talk page and archives seems to indicate there have been at least a half-dozen editors with children who have DS. Any one of those could have uploaded a picture. Why do you suppose they haven't? Given the abuse the article has taken over the past several days, I can see why. The picture has been criticized for several months, and yet noone has uploaded a picture of their child.

The second picture is my daughter, Ciarra, at age 6. She indeed does have DS. There is so much hoopla regarding this picture of the little boy with the drill, which I do not understand. He is likely 8 or 9 yrs old, and like any little boy is learning to use simple tools and help his Dad. I do not get the big deal here. On the other hand, it is true that small minded people seem to target kids with DS by manipulating pictures, etc. It is ridiculous, and unfair, but it happens far more than you realize. I would not be adverse to offering another photo of my daughter, showing facial features, if you think it would help the article. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v602/ciarrasmom/CafePress/CiarraRedCoat.jpg or http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v602/ciarrasmom/CafePress/Cbestbigger.jpg are fairly decent. Im pretty new to this, so maybe someone can add one if they think it works? My vote would be to keep the one of the little boy with the drill, too, as it does show him being a normal little kid. Sorry that was me Mome23kjnc 00:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2007/01/the_disappearan.html browsing online and found this, it is using the picture from here. Kinda made me think. Mome23kjnc 01:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting... I thought they were supposed to give an attribution under the GFDL. --Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 07:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

IQ Scores

The article states that

Most individuals with Down syndrome have mental retardation in the mild (IQ 50–70) to moderate (IQ 35–50) range

Can someone either state which IQ index is being used here or alter the descriptors. And IQ of 50 to 70 on the Wechsler IQ scale (which is the most commonly used scale) is extremely low, not mildly impaired. An IQ of 35-50 is quite exceptionally impaired, not moderate. I'm hesitant to change the article in case this is a valid description of a scale that I'm not familiar with, but if people have no objections I'll change the article to the more widely known Wechsler IQ values. Shinji nishizono 22:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, the classification being used in the article corresponds to levels used in the DSM-IV:
Borderline Intellectual Functioning IQ 71-84
Mild Mental Retardation IQ 50-55 to ~ 70
Moderate Retardation IQ 35-40 to 50-55
Severe Mental Retardation IQ 20-25 to 35-40
Profound Mental Retardation IQ below 20 or 25
Also as far as I know, the DSM-IV is used almost exclusively in a clinical context, while the Wechsler scale is more widely used in educational settings. I am unsure as to which would be more appropriate for this article; perhaps other editors could join in the discussion. Fvasconcellos 22:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent addition

I am removing the following paragraph, added to the "Characteristics" section by Jayaprakash parameswaran (talk · contribs) (diff):

clinical features general: hypotonia with tendency to keep mouth open and protrude the tongue,diastasis recti, central nervous system: mental retardation craniofacial: brachycephaly[small anterioposterior diameter],mild microcephaly,with upslanting palpebral fissure,smallnose with low nasal bridge and inner epicanthic folds eyes: speckling of iris[brushfield spots],fine lens field opacities, myopia,nystagmus,squint, blocked tear duct ear: small,hearing loss dentition: hypoplasia,periodontal disease neck :short,chance of atlantoaxial dislocation hands: single transverse crease[simisn creasr], hypoplasia of middlephalanx of fifth finger with clinodactyly[incurving of finger],distal palmar axial triradius,ulnar loop dermal ridge pattern on all digits feet: wide gap between first and 2nd toes,plantar crease between 1st and 2nd toes pelvis:hypoplasia with outward lateral flare of wings, and shallow acetabular angle cardiac: endocardial cushion defect in 40%,venticular septal defect,patent ductus arteriosus are common skin:loose skin of posterior neck hair: often sparse,soft,and fine genetalia small penis and decreased testicular volume,fertilityis rare but reported in females hemopoietic system: increased incidence of acute leukaemia,neonate with downs can develop transient abnormalities in blood [TAM],transient abnormal myelopoiesis references 1.jones:in smiths recognizable pattern of human malformations,pp7-8 2.beherman,kligman, jenson:in nelson text book of pediatrics,pp1696-1697

While sourced, I believe it does not add anything not already present in both the article and/or Health aspects of Down syndrome. If anyone wishes to add it back, please discuss. Thanks, Fvasconcellos 21:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. You removed valid info that is not contained in the article. There is nothing wrong with a listing of the physical features that are distinctive. For many years the diagnosis was based on these things and they are a likely "look-up" topic. Furthermore, there is a distinction between "physical features" and "health aspects". How about if I put into decent sentences and re-distribute to the proper sections? alteripse 21:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, sorry. IMHO most of the information on this paragraph is indeed already present, and data such as "fertility rare..." and increased incidence of leukemia are already present in the daughter article. Feel free to reformat the paragraph if you think it belongs in the article; it could use some "de-jargonifying" as well. I did not mean to question the validity of the information, I simply felt most of it was redundant. Fvasconcellos 22:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Whilst you have a point that not all the information is present in the article, I fully support Fvasconcellos decision to remove it to the talk page for discussion. This was an unformatted dump of the contents of medical textbooks into the first section of a featured article, with no regard to the existing contents. Besides being unreadable, it is also completely useless. There is no indication of major, minor, pathognomonic, common, rare, etc, etc. The life-threatening is intermingled with the the cosmetic. Jargon is unexplained - this isn't the Latin/Greek Wikipedia! It wasn't a "list of physical features", nor are many of them useful for diagnosis.
Please, please do incorporate any missing information. I know you'll do a good job. BTW, whilst there is a distinction between physical features and health aspects, you might find it hard to separate the two in a useful way. Into which would you place a "protruding tongue"? Colin°Talk 22:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

DS awareness products

There are some beautiful DS awareness products on the market that I think would be of great interest to folks interested in Down Syndrome. They're intended for use in education and awareness and to help new parents develop realistic expectations of their child, but where would they belong? I don't want to turn Wikipedia into an advertising site but these products are top notch, beautiful, and I'm saying that as somebody with no connection whatsoever to the companies that produce them.

DowniCreations makes breathtaking (albeit expensive!) baby dolls with the physical characteristics of a child with Down Syndrome, and Band of Angels makes beautiful calendars, note cards, keepsake books, and such.

It seems that it would be suitable to mention that organizations produce products to promote social acceptance, to enhance self-esteem of kids with Down Syndrome, and to educate new parents, but where does it fit?ChristinaDunigan 21:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There's already a section such as you describe (Down syndrome#Sociological and cultural aspects), but I don't think the websites you mention would be appropriate additions. --Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 06:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


Autism and Down Syndrome

I have read elsewhere that autism maybe common in people with Down Syndrome[10]. I think this is important to mention. Most people have the stereotypical idea that people with Down Syndrome are affectionate and gregarious. This is not always that case and those in particular who are quite withdrawn and behaviourally ridged may be entitled to an autism diagnosis, providing them with tailored support and understanding.

Diamonddavej 18:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't come across this before, an interesting point though. I've heard of a few families where there is an Autistic child and their sibling or close relative has Down's Syndrome, but I've never heard of a anyone with DS and an Autism diagnosis. There may well possibly be a few with Asperger's Syndrome or a related condition though. Natski-asnd8 09:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Dual diagnosis of DS & Autism is about 10%Comorbidity of Down Syndrome and Autism also see seminal article by Glenn Vater Diagnosis of Autism in Children With Down Syndrome 24.182.255.107 03:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What is down Syndrome

Hello, My name is Elizabeth Peek and im doing a Project on the effects of down syndrome. and to learn more about down syndrome you can email me at **Email removed to prevent spam** Thank You, Elizabeth Peek —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.63.191.174 (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

The "Ethical Issues" Paragraph is not NPOV

In fact, it is heavily biased towards one point of view. This needs to be fixed; does anyone want to do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.55.119 (talk) 09:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
There is an ongoing controversy about the parents of the individuals affected by this syndrome campaigning against early diagnostics, since the rarity of the condition (at least 23% of women with an affected fetus choose abortion) would decrease the public awareness and support for individuals that are already affected. The campaign includes playing down the severity of the condition, the associated costs and decrease in the quality of life of family and community members in general, and emphasizing the moral and medical issues of abortion. Perhaps some mentioning of this controversy could decrease the NPOV status of the paragraph and could warn the reader of the article to watch out for possible NPOV issues in other sections.

Alternative treatment

The article claims a specific treatment is alternative without saying WHO claims it. Citations please. --88.104.27.247 (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. DrKiernan (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

I Agree with moving it, because "Down Syndrome" is nonsensical

Some people seem to believe that these things can be examined in a vacuum, and that it is merely a matter of style or something. This idea is most untrue!
The way for naming diseases / syndromes goes like this: Parkinson's Disease, Addison's Disease, Cushing's Syndrome, Crohn's Disease, Graves' Disease, Hashimoto's Syndrome, and so forth.
Once again - examining the issue in a vacuum is not proper. There is a verbal system to these names in the English language. The person for whom the disease is named is almost always the first medical doctor to note the disease / syndrome and find it important enough to write and publish a description of it for the medical community.
Similar things are found in other areas, such as geography where there was once a place called Van Dieman's Land, named for the ocean navigator who discovered it.72.146.42.76 (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Down's Syndrome is in use by the WHO (ICD-10 and ICD-9), UK and Australia. The syndrome is named after a British doctor, and is therefore British in origin. This fact combined with the use by the WHO means that this article should be located at "Down's Syndrome". The only people who seem to be asserting that it is actually "Down syndrome" are the US/North American contributors. Barry m (talk) 03:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Move. For reasons as explained by the proposer.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Move. My only surprise is that this hasn't been actioned before now. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I use Down's Syndrome, but according to the Manual of Style the existing spelling should be retained unless there is strong national ties for the article. Down's Syndrome does not have anything to do with any country other than where the doctor that described it was from. People from all countries are subject to the disorder. Since the first major contributor wrote it as Down Syndrome should we be moving it now? Jons63 (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment See Epinephrine. The international name is the one used for the article. Barry m (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Move per nom. Snocrates 23:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Leave it, and find something more important to worry about. The linked history page says: "While both the possessive and non-possessive forms are used in the general population, Down syndrome is the accepted term among professionals in the USA, Canada and other countries, while Down's syndrome continues to be used in the United Kingdom and other areas.[1]" Both names are equally valid. Therefore we default to whatever's already in use. Furthermore, Down's Syndrome is always wrong: the possessive should be Down's syndrome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Even in the UK many people refer to this as "Down syndrome". The present form wins in a Googlefight by a factor 10 (3.6 million versus 240,000). We don't normally move US to UK spellings barring specific circumstances, which I cannot see here. JFW | T@lk 00:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support When things are tied between UK and US, I think we should go with what the official designation is...and a google books search shows the two mostly the same. So, we look to the international body that handles this, the joyous WHO (Or OMS if you want to be all Swiss-French about it). Narson (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Down Syndrome is correct as the syndrome is named for Down. Down's syndrome would be correct if he had the syndrome himself. That's the rationale for "Down Syndrome" commonly used in the US, and it seems to make sense to me. Fratprez (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. According to the Manual of Style, stick with the existing name. Down is also acceptable in the UK. Present form clearly wins the Googlefight. Plus, as noted above, Down himself did not have it. Doczilla (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I previously just commented now looking more at this, I oppose. The original proposal was made on the premise that WHO uses Down's Syndrome along with ICD9 and ICD10. After looking at the WHO website, it appears that WHO uses Down Syndrome also.[11] This along with the information in my comment above. Jons63 (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment In the UK it's only ever referred to as "Down syndrome" when spoken as saying "Down's Syndrome" correctly leaves an unnecessarily long pause between the words. Also ICD's the WHO's quasi-bible and is probably their best known publication, and they only ever use "Down syndrome" when referring to it in some research and not in official pubications. Barry m (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Google and get back to work instead of wasting time on this.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Down syndrome" is more widely used in the UK. Axl (talk) 11:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Additional commentary two months later...

Oppose. Down Syndrome is correct as the syndrome is named for Down. Down's syndrome would be correct if he had the syndrome himself. That's the rationale for "Down Syndrome" commonly used in the U.S., and it seems to make sense to me. Fratprez (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out what a complete moron the above poster is. Calling it "Down's Syndrome" means it was first discovered/described by someone named Down, not that someone named Down had it first and it was named after him because of that. Look at any list of medical conditions, illnesses, diseases, etc, and you'll find many examples of the same type, e.g. Ewing's sarcoma, Bell's palsy, and Askin's tumor. The possessive case denotes scientific credit. In rare instances you will find a disease or condition named for a patient- Lou Gehrig's disease-but such is, as stated, very rare.
As for the rest of you and your peurile discussion about whether "Down" or "Down's" is correct, keep in mind that just because a spelling, pronunciation, or usage is commonly or widely heard / read doesn't mean that it's correct. The proper name for the condition is Down's syndrome, and no amount of "everybody says it that way", "I hear it like that all the time", or anything else in the same vein matters a damn. Uncle Bubba (talk) 06:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
That's right - there is a linguistic system and a standard format for these things, and just because someone has a puerile opinion to the contrary does not matter a damned bit. Stick to the system. We'll show you 90 examples that do follow the system!72.146.42.76 (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Yup, but all the same, the "reasoning" about it being named after someone meaning it cannot be in the possessive makes absolutely no sense at all. Conditions vary in that regard. It's also simply not true that everybody says "Down syndrome" in the U.K. I cannot remember ever hearing anyone say that, and when they abbreviate (?) it they certainly say "Down's". The official W.H.O. version should be followed, regardless of whether some of their own materials vary. That variation will simply be because they are written by individual doctors or others, and not amended to the official style. Salopian (talk) 09:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Further, the ideal is also for naming of articles to be equivalent across Wikipedia. The only way to achieve that sensibly is to follow neutral standard sources. Salopian (talk) 10:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Once again: Addison's Disease, Bell's Palsy, Cushing's Syndrome, Graves' Disease, Hashimoto's Syndrome, and so forth. Here is an example of what the Wikipedia article says about Addison's Disease:
"The condition is named after Dr. Thomas Addison, the British physician who first described the condition in his 1855 paper On the Constitutional and Local Effects of Disease of the Suprarenal Capsules.72.146.42.76 (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. "Down Syndrome" as an erroneous usage. It may be seen by some as an American usage, although that doesn't justify the perpetuation of the error. It may become more common simply because we do not make any effort to preserve the correct term. It is not a case of moving from US to UK spelling, although it would be justified on those terms, it is changing from an incorrect to a correct spelling. As noted above, the possessive case denotes scientific credit. It is worth noting that even in the United States the correct form of "Down's Symdrome" was used until 1975, when, to quote the history section "the National Institutes of Health convened a conference to standardize the nomenclature of malformations. They recommended eliminating the possessive form: "The possessive use of an eponym should be discontinued, since the author neither had nor owned the disorder." Regrettably the institute made a fundamental error. Because of a false premise and fundamentally flawed logic they recommended that the possessive use of an eponym be removed from the names of all dieaseas. Thankfully other diseases have not been renamed following this illogical decision. (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

i just don't see the importance of this, beyond the normal U.S./anglo language skirmishes. i grew up in a medical family in the U.S. in the '60s, and we always said "Down's syndrome" as a result. since the '80s i hear U.S. citizens regularly saying "Down syndrome" instead. i think it may be the "Z" sound followed by the "S" being a little hard to pronounce, some folks "simplified" it, but that's just a guess. folks mispronounced "pedophile" all the time and now it's the norm, right or wrong. Fewerthanzero (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

concrete thinking

What does "concrete thinking" mean, as mentioned in this article? Is this a common phrase? Bl4h 01:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It refers to a limited ability to think abstractly. People who think concretely take most sentences literally and have trouble understanding analogies, metaphors, figures of speech, etc. alteripse 04:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Concrete (philosophy) redirects to Abstract object, i added a link--12.199.113.4 17:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Lack of Action to Prevent Vandalism

This article is being vandalised on a daily basis. Can it be placed on limited editing privilages to prevent the constant reversion? I'm afraid I haven't a clue how to formally request this, but I think it needs doing. Anyone agree or disagree? Shinji nishizono 19:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Content dispute

I have made some edits recently, which have been reverted by Buddhipriya:[12]

I assert that my edits are improvements because:

  • On the issue of male fertility, I point out that for there to be only 3 instances of males fathering children proves that fertility is almost entirely absent. 1 in 733 American males have Down syndrome - and that's in a country where 90% of Down syndrome fetuses are aborted before birth. There must be many millions of men with Down syndrome, of whom precisely three have managed to reproduce. Those 3 males, by the way, are likely to not have Down syndrome throughout their body - it's possible to have patches of flesh that are affected or not affected, so I reckon those 3 are not true Down syndrome patients.
  • On the issue of whether it should be called Down or Down's syndrome, I work as a doctor in Australia and the commonest name for it is Down's. A more formal citation is already given at the end of the article. Maybe it's wrong to call it Down's, but that's the way it is, and I think it should go at the start of the article. I also note that Parkinson's syndrome, Klinefelter's syndrome and Cushing's syndrome are absolutely standard medical terminology.
    • Common usage in the US is "Down syndrome" (note the lower case s). In Britain (and I assume Australia), the usage is "Down's syndrome".
The adopted usage in the US is Down syndrome. Since wikipedia tends to use US format (go to organisation and you'll be redirected to the US spelling) the page should use the common US usage. Go to amazon and search for books and you will find all of them as Down syndrome.Tgpaul58 (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

What say you? I ask that you vote 'keep' or 'delete' for my edits. -Richardcavell 01:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this content question. I reverted your changes not because I felt them to be wrong, but because they were not sourced, and you made a change to a statement that was sourced. By all means, if you have additional or even conflicting content, you are welcome to add it, so long as you do so in a manner consisted with the policies for Wikipedia:Attribution. Making a change to a sentence that already has a reference is problematic unless you are alleging that the source does not say what is attributed to it. If you wish to add additional point of view, please do so and cite your references. Since Wikipedia has no process for checking credentials, arguments from personal authority are not considered valid, which can be frustrating to editors who may be experts in their fields. Thank you for contributing, don't hesitate to use the talk pages to develop consensus around any new ideas you wish to present.
On the issue of calling it Down's Syndrome, since some of the national web sites use that variant, it is not likely to be controversial. E.g. [13] Perhaps "Down's" is British usage? Buddhipriya 02:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Alright, no one seems to want to talk about this so I'll just give up. Content dispute closed. - Richard Cavell 23:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Mental retardation

I think this sentence should be re-written:

"Individuals with Down syndrome can have a lower than average cognitive ability"

This sounds like "usually, Down's Syndrome individuals have average cognitive ability". Unfortunately, individuals with down's syndrome usually have a lower cognitive ability. Can someone edit this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vollkorn (talk • contribs) 21:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Early intervention with cognitive exercises can greatly increase intelligence. Unfortunately, most early intervention is targeted at development of physical skills, such as walking, and the cognitive side is neglected. I have a nephew with Down Syndrome, so I know more about this than the average person. Speech therapy plus constant contact with people who talked with him resulted in his demonstrating a level of language development of 5 years, at the age of 3 1/2. He showed he was able to carry on involved conversations at that age. Subsequent lack of education caused him to lose much of this, but at the present time, he is expressing an interest (at age 17) in learning foreign languages, and has an aptitude for vocabulary. In addition to this, he has an unusually well developed memory for remembering dialog in movies, songs, and so forth. Lack of attention to helping him learn how to reason has also held him back. I learned that the primary problem with any development in a person with DS is that they are very laid back. Basically, they don't care. This is coupled with flaccid muscles. Mothers don't get the normal feedback when they interact with their DS children, and consequently, do not provide as much intellectual stimulation. Attention to this is sorely needed. At least some of the normal mental retardation is a result of our failure to provide an educational environment suited to their needs. Femcofounder 12:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"...Most individuals with Down syndrome have mental retardation in the mild (IQ 50–70) to moderate (IQ 35–50) range,[3] with individuals having Mosaic Down syndrome typically 10–30 points higher."

I think that IQ 70-85 is considered "mild retardation," while IQ 50-70 is considered "moderate" and less than IQ 50 is regarded as "profound." This should be checked and, if appropriate, amended. Jenab6 (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree "mental retardation" is widely consider offensive, "developmental disability" or one of many other terms that are more accurate and less offense could easily be used.

refs in "Genetic research"

I moved the works cited out of this section and User:Cinik moved them back without any explaination. This is totally outside MOS. These works cited need to be formatted properly and not just stuck in with the text. --DanielCD 18:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


Organisations

see EDSA, [14] European Down Syndrom Association

Why all the pictures of African children?

Why are there so many pictures of children from the same Volta School for the Mentally Challenged in Gbi Kledjo, Volta Region, Ghana in this article? I think the article would benefit from showing pictures of children from a bit larger diversity of ethnicities. Really: One picture of an African child with Down syndrome is enough, especially when none of the images right now seem to serve no other point than to show what an African child with Down syndrome looks like. One such picture should be enough. Any additional pictures of the same kids just do not have any added value for the article. I'm going to remove all but one of them. --The Wild Falcon 18:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Why are the pictures all of children?

Seriously, there are adults with Down's Syndrome. Why do all the pictures portray children? JDS2005 20:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Down Syndrome

Hi Gantuya eng. I absolutely agree with your sentiments about 'mongolism'. I discovered the persistence of this pejorative term nearly 40 years after WHO officially dropped reference (more so in leading medical texts!) and decided to make it known. It appears others do not take seriously the heritage of fellow humans - if they consider us to be humans. Part 09:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this rationale. But it would be enough to mention the wrong term once, not repeating it so many times. Gantuya eng 09:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi there Thank you for reverting your changes to Down syndrome. I'm sorry for any ill impression the article may cause, but that term is present precisely because it provides historical context. Thank you again for understanding; many editors would simply turn this into an edit war, and it's always nice to come across someone sensible! :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of recent addition

I would like to know why my recent addition of "Partners in Policymaking" (www.partnersinpolicymaking.com) was removed with no apparent explanation. This is a free site for parents and adults with disabilities that teaches advocacy skills, how to obtain employment, community living, etc. It is not an "advertisement" under Wikipedia rules. Partners is funded by the U.S. government and the State of Minnesota. It is available at no charge to participants. Similar programs are found in 30 States and are funded abroad by at least four European countries.Edburke317 (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)edburke317

Please see WP:LINKS for Wikipedia's guidelines on external links. The link you added does not meet the criteria listed in What should be linked or Links to be considered. This is an article about Down syndrome with international scope, and there are hundreds of organizations that would be equally deserving of a link here, if not more so. I see that at the same time you added the link to Down syndrome, you also added it to Autism, Mental retardation, Blindness, and Cerebral palsy; this verges on WP:LINKSPAM and is generally frowned on. I see you've asked the same question at Talk:Autism #External link so I'll respond there as well. Eubulides (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, beyond a bureaucratic knowledge of Wikipedia rules, I would like to know what qualifications people might have to judge what is relevant or not to an article on disabilities. I have spent the past 30 years working with and for people with developmental disabilities. I would think that one of the primary purposes to even have an article on a disability, beyond the basic and imperfect description of what it is, would be to discuss possible methods of helping people with disabilities to adjust to society and having society adjust to people with disabilities. While the past 30-40 years have seen the advent of rights and services for people with disabilities in many places, these rights and services have not been brought about as a result of a suddenly "enlightened" society or some global "miracle." Rather, they have been brought about as a result of advocacy on the part of parents and people with disabilities. Beginning with exposes of the terrible conditions faced by people in state facilities, parents have continued to join together as advocates (increasingly with adults with disabilities) and fought to have their family members included as valued participants in everyday settings. THAT is what the Partners in Policymaking program is about.

The Partners program does have equal relevance to other disabilities precisely because advocacy is a cross-disability skill. The suggestion that the posting of this program as an External Link on more than one site constitues "spam" is an insult to the thousands of parents and adults with disabilities who have spent months of their time in training to become proud Partners graduates.

The only purpose in posting the link to the Partners in Policymaking program was to provide parents and adults with disabilities with a source of information and training at no cost. Virtually every other External Link listed on disability-related pages requires people to pay annual dues, if they want the listed group's full array of services. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edburke317 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Autism#External link for a near-clone of the above discussion, along with further followup. Eubulides (talk) 05:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of recent addition re amniocentesis

I've removed the following text, recently added by Jessspiz (talk · contribs), due to a pretty obvious POV issue and copyright infringement of the source website. I'll leave it to other editors to discuss whether or not the actual study (free full text) should be added.

The risks of amniocentesis to the unborn child have long been known but now a new (2007) analysis by a British doctor has shown that using the tests in seek-and-destroy missions for Down's syndrome and other genetic abnormalities results in the deaths of hundreds of healthy babies every year in Britain.

Dr. Hylton Meire, the retired physician and author of texts on ultrasound, calculates that for every 50 children with Down's Syndrome successfully identified and killed by abortion, 160 non-affected babies are lost by miscarriage after the test. His paper, published in the Journal of the British Medical Ultrasound Society, mainly emphasizes that the non-invasive test, called the foetal 'nuchal thickness' measurement, is not as useful as is widely thought because of the high incidents of false positives it gives.<link redacted, available in diff>

—Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've tried the link and I'm getting "Your authentication to this fulltext delivery has expired. Please go back and try again by logging back into the site and requesting the document. " Actually this looks pretty interesting and I think should be included. Where's the POV? Either its true or it isnt? Excalibur 22:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"...for every 50 children with Down's Syndrome successfully identified and killed by abortion" is not a neutral statement. Also came from a partisan source. Here's the link to the actual article, which is of course not POV at all :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, fair point, and I do understand what you mean. But the paper itself seems valuable - is there any way this information could be put into plain non-POV text to explain the very high risk of destroying a "normal" fetus: I do think that would-be parents need to be aware of this information:

"In the 1998 paper from Nicolaides’ group39 they reported the findings of a multicentre trial in which 96,127 patients were recruited from 22 separate centres. Of these 8428 patients (8.77%) were reported as being ultrasound positive for increased nuchal thickness. As all of these patients received a confirmatory CVS it is likely that about 170 fetuses were lost as a result of the procedure. Since the aneuploidy rate in the screen positive subjects in this paper was 6.1% about 10 of these lost fetuses would be aneuploid, leaving 160 normal fetuses lost due to the procedure. However, as we have seen above, the aneuploidy rate at 13 weeks is reported as between 0.85 and 2.5% while at term it is less than 0.2%, thus about 9 out of every ten aneuploid fetuses identified during the first trimester will later abort spontaneously. Therefore, in the above study, only about 50 of the 513 aneuploid fetuses would have gone to term. In order to diagnose these 50 aneuploid fetuses 160 normal fetuses will have been lost. One has to ask whether or not this is a price worth paying and whether, in this context, nuchal thickness measurement can be considered to be a clinically valid tool." Excalibur 23:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I've semi-protected the page for a week, as it seems to be getting hit frequently by IP vandalism. It's being reverted quickly, but there's still quite a bit; the only productive edits in the past week or so were from registered users. If anyone thinks protection is unnecessary, please feel free to let me know or ask at WP:RFPP. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This article was semi protected in Sept 07, but it appears it is still constantly receiving vandalism. I agree with Shinji nishizono that it needs to be protected. I am going to request indefinite semi-protection as most are from unregistered users and the ips are varied and always new. Quickmythril (talk) 12:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Notable individuals with DS

I'm wondering about removing references to people with DS who are notable only by association - such as

  1. Charles Waring Darwin son of Charles Darwin (retrospective speculation).[75]

What do editors think should the criteria be for inclusion in this list to avoid it getting too long? I would personally opt for notable people with DS who have achieved something in their own right (like Paula Sage ) rather than the children of famous people - of whom there must be hundreds of possible candidates, some of whom sadly died very young or achieved very little of note. Alternatively maybe there should be a separate list of the children of famous people? Excalibur (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC) File:Paulasage.jpg

Only those people who have Down's Syndrome and are notable in their own right should be included. If their only claim to notability is they are the child of someone who is famous, they are not notable. There should not even be a separate list for those individuals who are notable in their own right. Jons63 (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The usual test of notability is the presence (or reasonable hope of) a Wikipedia article. Charles Waring Darwin has an article, but many currently in the list do not. I'd support the removal (to the talk page) of the redlinked names. An argument for removing CW Darwin is that it is a retrospective "diagnosis". There are good arguments for and against including such uncertain entries, so I'm neutral there. Colin°Talk 17:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, well here are the two that really aren't notable. I'll take them off the main list.


Cheers, Excalibur (talk) 11:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello everyone, just a gnome here. I wanted to add that Miguel Tomasín is not only the singer, but the drumer of Reynols. I hope this is a good place to ask for that, as I can't edit the page myself. I'll try to make an article about him and/or the band soon Or at least translate the one in spanish. Keep up the good work! 190.3.82.11 (talk) 04:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with removing those people. The list is for people of note, not "people who have achieved something which someone or other is going to decide is apt". They are of note for various reasons, the main one being the inclusion in their families before that was so widely endorsed. In the case of Darwin, it is worth including the speculative diagnosis (assuming that there is a citable source for it) since there couldn't have been a proper diagnosis at that time, in order to highlight people with Down's syndrome presence through history. In the case of de Gaulle, she inspired her parents to create a hospital and brought out a different side of her father. Further, if you deem someone to not be noteworthy, the proper course would be to try to get their entry removed from Wikipedia, not just not mention them here. While they're on Wikipedia, they should be mentioned here. It's especially unclear why Isabella Pujols should be included if Anne de Gaulle shouldn't. Salopian (talk) 10:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Where are Judith Scott and Miguel Tomasin? The notable people who have DS whom are artistic seems small in comparison to the "simple.wikipedia" version of this page, and these two definitely are notable people who have (or had) DS. Their absence seems odd. Participation by people with DS in the artistic sphere of society is the next step for the special-needs community, and these people were pioneers, they made important contributions as artists beyond simply being artistic people who have DS, contributions which were "noted" by the fine art and music communities. They ought to be listed. Thank you.Fewerthanzero (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


I'd like to edit the page so that "Andrea Friedman" references the article on "Andrea_Fay_Friedman", but the article is locked to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tacobell3 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done Fences&Windows 16:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Add: Lauren Potter - she plays the character Becky Jackson in the American television series Glee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.178.222 (talk) 04:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Title - Down's syndrome

Why isn't the tile of this article Down's syndrome? Is it only in the United States that it is called "Down syndrome"? If so, shouldn't we use the WHO's official title? Mrtea (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see the first section on this talk page for one of the most recent discussions. --Onorem♠Dil 14:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Right. I went through the archives but missed the first section on this page. Thanks, Mrtea (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The argument for Down syndrome is that apparently in the US "as a rule, medical geneticists use the nonpossessive form." But Wikipedia has Parkinson's disease, Crohn's disease and Hodgkin's lymphoma. It's stated on the talk pages that these aren't commonly referred to in the non-possessive, so WP should name them as written. However isn't it obvious that the reason Down syndrome, Asperger Syndrome and Tourette Syndrome is becoming more accepted is that "syndrome" starts with an "s" so both forms sound the same? This is why it will probably never be known as Crohn disease no matter what any medical authority recommends. And people using short forms will probably always say Down's and Parkinson's. It's in actuality because most people are sloppy spellers that Down syndrome has been accepted and is in common use in the US. If most people had a written "ear" just as they have an ear for their language when spoken, Down syndrome would be as rare as Hodgkin lymphoma. What is in essence a spelling "mistake" is not a good reason for WP to be inconsistent in the naming of medical eponyms. 193.91.181.142 (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC) (Nick)
Your rationale for the spelling variants is as good as any presented (i.e. people make up a rule that fits their preferred spelling). And yes, those US folk are sloppy spellers -- always missing the 'u' from colour and the 'e' from encyclopaedia! Colin°Talk 08:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, since no counter-argument has been presented in almost three months, I say it's time that someone went through and changed all mentions of Down to Down's, Asperger to Asperger's and Tourette to Tourette's. 193.91.181.142 (talk) 03:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC) (Nick)

By that token, somebody ought to quickly change the Wikipedia title for the article discussing Kaposi's sarcoma. HenryLarsen (talk) 06:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"For example"

In the current text, near the beginning of the article, there is a reference to someone who supposedly suffers from Down (or Down's) Syndrome. I won't write the full name for reasons I will explain, but the first name is "Matthew". There is no further reference to them in the article or in the appendices. I suspect that this inclusion is vandalism performed by someone who knows "Matthew" and is attempting puerile humor at Matthew's expense. Any chance someone could either expand on this reference if it is a valid one, or delete it as it is pointless and potentially libelous?147.56.244.32 (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Dustin

I removed, you are right it did not belong there at all. Jons63 (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I did some web searching and couldn't find anyone notable with Down syndrome with that name. I agree it is a form of vandalism Quickmythril (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sociological or cultural aspects paragraph or history paragraph

I would like to suggest that you add mention of the Mongoloid Development Council which was started in 1960 by my mother, Kay McGee. It was the first organization in the country and probably the world to provide support to parents of children with mongolism. The name was later changed to National Association for Down Syndrome. My mother also started the National Down Syndrome Congress in 1973 with others. I have a history if you would like me to send it to you.

Thanks Marty McGee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.49.240 (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Overstated risk factors

In the 'Incidence paragraph', the article quotes reference #15 as saying "At maternal age 20 to 24, the probability is 1/1490; at age 40 the probability is 1/60, and at age 49 the probability is 1/11."

The article abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6455611 clearly states that these numbers are for "all clinically significant abnormalities", and not just Down syndrome.

The graph to the right seems to say 0.8% or about 1/125 for age 40, instead of 1/60.

If someone can see the fulltext of the article, we could add the correct numbers.

-Nayrb 128.100.71.61 (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent spotting! I changed the numbers and reference to something much newer. It is a population based sample out of Atlanta and Ohio. Is it any better? AmiBebbington (talk) 07:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph at the bottom of the incidence: Current research (as of 02-19-2008) has shown that Down syndrome is due to a random event during the formation of sex cells or pregnancy. There has been no evidence that it is due to parental behavior or environmental factors. has uncited assertions that need citation - especially since it serves to calm people seeking to blame parental behavior or environment.

Note #15

Does note #15 really support the datat about the age groups of mothers and incident of Downs births? 98.199.198.22 (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Short Answer: Yes, it does. It is the reference for the numbers provided in the Incidence paragraph. AmiBebbington (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Additions to Notable Individuals with Down Syndrome

5/21/2008

I would like to see Carrie Bergeron and Sujeet Desai added to the list of notable individuals with Down Syndrome. Carrie Bergeron is a motivational speaker and Sujeet Desai is a musician who plays several instruments. They are married and have been interviewed by Oprah and ABC News (I believe it was 20/20). It is easy to find links.

I would add them myself but there's no "edit this page" tab showing up for the main page and I do not want to create an account.

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.76.235 (talk) 06:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This has probably already been brought up, but...

"Notable individuals -Joey Moss, Edmonton Oilers locker room attendant.[63]"

A great feel-good moment, honouring a poor down syndrome afflicted locker room attendant with the title 'notable'. Hardly seems apt, even if it is the Edmonton Oilers which bestow the prestigious task upon him.

Might as well make it into a Disney movie. Forgive my cynicism.123.243.186.223 (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Foreign slang

In Russian (and possibly other languages) "Doun" (from Down's syndrome) is a common insult akin to 'idiot'. This isn't a particularly palatable observation, but it is indicative of the prejudice that people with DS suffer still in other countries. Is it worth a mention and where? Malick78 (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Environmental effects on nondisjunction

The following paragraph in the Incidence section is false.

Current research (as of 2008) has shown that Down syndrome is due to a random event during the formation of sex cells or pregnancy. There has been no evidence that it is due to parental behavior or environmental factors.

There is a host of teratogens that interfere with spindle fibers and lead to nondisjunction. This paragraph should be marked as requiring a citation -- something I cannot do since the article is protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.99.122 (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Political Bias?

This section:

Ethical Issues

Due to the low incidence of Down syndrome, a vast majority of early screen positives are false.[23] Since false positives typically prompt an amniocentesis to confirm the result, and the amniocentesis carries a small risk of inducing miscarriage, there is a slight risk of miscarrying a healthy fetus. (The added miscarriage risk from an amniocentesis is traditionally quoted as 0.5%, but recent studies suggest that it may be considerably smaller (0.06%), not statistically different from zero.[24])

A 2002 literature review of elective abortion rates found that 91–93% of pregnancies with a diagnosis of Down syndrome were terminated.[25] Physicians and ethicists are concerned about the ethical ramifications of this.[26] Conservative commentator George Will called it "eugenics by abortion".[27] British peer Brian Rix stated that "alas, the birth of a child with Down's syndrome is still considered by many to be an utter tragedy" and that the "ghost of the biologist Sir Francis Galton, who founded the eugenics movement in 1885, still stalks the corridors of many a teaching hospital".[28] Doctor David Mortimer has argued in Ethics & Medicine that "Down's syndrome infants have long been disparaged by some doctors and government bean counters."[29] Some members of the disability rights movement "believe that public support for prenatal diagnosis and abortion based on disability contravenes the movement's basic philosophy and goals."[30]

A 1998 study of Finnish doctors found that "Only very few, pediatricians somewhat more often, thought that Down's syndrome is not a good enough reason for pregnancy termination, but more (15-21%) thought that current prenatal screenings in general are (partly) based on eugenic thinking."[31]

Includes nothing but people who think aborting fetuses at risk for this syndrome is ethically bad. Since clearly many people do not share this view, a rewrite for balance seems in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.115.183 (talk) 06:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

But how? Obviously, the parents wouldn't want to birth a baby with Down's syndrome; I know I would never want to have a child with Down's syndrome, and personally, abortion in this case seems like an act of mercy. But how can that be added to the article? People rarely speak about their own abortions, and I don't think anyone is going to say "I aborted my baby and I'm proud of it!", and even if they did, that'd probably be an op-ed piece, which is unsuitable for Wikipedia. So, though the information is important, I think trying to find a source to counterbalance it in the way you describe it, and say that it's not "ethically bad", is nearly impossible. So, until you either explain something that could "balance" the section, make a more reasonable request, or find information yourself, I'm removing the tag (though feel free to re-add it if something changes). Kevin (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

i don't believe that the idea of aborting a fetus that has tested positive for DS is a new idea, or remarkable in any way, or is in need of "representation" to "balance" the fact that many expecting parents are under-informed about DS. what is not well-known, but should be, is that even many in the medical community (if not the majority) come to this issue with a tremendous amount of ignorance. many parents are told of positive results of DS by medical workers with a sad, long face, and then are given absolutely no literature or information about what it means to raise a child who has DS. this is not the case for a fetus with almost any other medical condition, the possible lives of whom are instead spelled out in great detail so an informed decision might be made with all the available data in hand. instead, the common misconceptions rule the decision thru the void of real information supplied. unfortunately, that means that the (possibly very few) interactions a pregnant couple have had with people with DS are all they may have to go on, plus the stereotype that this is the worst thing they could hear in an OB/GYN office. but talking to someone with DS for five minutes does not give an accurate way to measure that person's abilities or personality. most people with DS have communication difficulties, which can give the impression that there is not much mental activity going on, or even much of a personality there... but these impressions are utterly false, and due to the difficulties communicating verbally. many people with DS have given up a lot of their attempts to communicate verbally in the common, chattering way many of the rest of us do, and instead wait for the moment when something comes up that is very important (to them) to talk about. they also may express themselves in many other ways-- physically, artistically, etc. this is a big part of why I.Q. tests are irrelevant when it comes to people with DS. talking to families and friends of people with DS, that would be most helpful to pregnant couples with a positive result of DS. then they would be getting more real-world and useful knowledge. Fewerthanzero (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit to Footnote Number 11 Please

Hi Just realised can't edit own, so would you please be able to edit the footnote 11 for International Mosaic Down Syndrome Association and change the website to http://www.imdsa.org instead of imdsa.com. We have updated our website and address. Many thanks Lisa ~ IMDSA Secretary & Website Desgin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imdsa (talk • contribs) 22:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

". However, studies by Reeves et al. show that 41% of the genes on chromosome-21 have no functional purpose, and only 54% of functional genes have a known protein sequence. Functionality of genes was determined by a computer using exon prediction analysis (312). Exon sequence was obtained by the same procedures of the chromosome-21 mapping."


This is ridiculous and desparately in need of editing by someone with a scientific background. I think what was intended was "41% of the genes on chromosome-21 have no currently known functional purpose" [date of assertion needed]. Since the human genome was completely sequenced years ago, 100% of all protein coding genes are known from comparative genomics to the other 50 known vertebrate genomes and of course 100% of all protein coding sequences are known. Reference 312 is grossly out of date and irrelevent.

69.71.171.131 (talk) 22:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

First sentence of "Ethical issues" and its supporting footnote

The first sentence of "Ethical issues" currently reads

Due to the low incidence of Down syndrome, a vast majority of early screen positives are false.

There is a footnote that gives an original research argument. Really we shouldn't be using footnotes in this way. If the argument is accepted as valid by reliable sources we should be sourcing it correctly from those sources.

The footnote currently reads:

Assume the false positive rate is 2% (at the low end), the incidence of Down syndrome is 1/500 (on the high side) with 95% detection, and there is no ascertainment bias. Out of 100,000 screens, 200 will have Down syndrome, and the screen will detect 190 of them. From the 99,800 normal pregnancies, 1996 will be given a positive result. So, among the 2,186 positive test results, 91% will be false positives and 9% will be true positives.

I'm not an expert in the field, but my own objection to this is that the footnote assumes that the general population will be screened. At least in my country, screening for Down Syndrome is not universal (not least because the intrusive methods of screening available would carry a risk of provoking the miscarriage of many healthy babies) but is concentrated on known risk groups which have several times the risk factor of the general population. Moreover the decision to abort is left to the pregnant mother, which minimizes ethical issues. So the argument as presented is misleading. This problem needs to be addressed because in its current state the presentation of the ethical argument is not sound and the section's opening sentence contains original research. --82.18.14.143 (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if you are confusing "screening" with diagnosis. Screens by nature can only show a probability of an outcome but cannot give a definitive diagnosis. In spite of their lack of definitiveness, they are done because they are less invasive and carry less risk. An example would be the AFP test, which is done on a maternal blood sample and poses minimal risk to mother or child (a small risk of infection at the phlebotomy site). In the US, these screens are very, very common. Only amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling are diagnostic, that is, can determine with certainty that a fetus has Down Syndrome. These do pose some risk of miscarriage or fetal injuray and in the US are generally saved for cases where known risk factors (advanced maternal age, positive screen test results) exist.192.234.246.206 (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence is original research and is also not relevant. First of all, how are we to know that the author's analysis of the statistical data is accurate? I, for one, think that the analysis is tenuous. How are we to know if the false positive rate is a percentage of all tests done (which would yield 2,000 false positives out of 100,000) or if it's a percentage of all positive results returned (which would yield 4 false positives out of 100,000) or if it's a percentage of positive results returned for normal pregnancies (which would yield 1,996 false positives)? The data doesn't actually tell us what the false positive rate is measuring, and the author is assuming for himself. This is why Wikipedia requires a verifiable, published source for statements such as these. Furthermore, what is the point of this statement, even if it is true? The author is trying to convince the reader that testing for Down Syndrome is controversial, because verifying all of these false positives with an amniocentesis results in a high risk of miscarriage. Then there is a statement directly afterwards that says while the traditional miscarriage rate due to amniocentesis is 0.5%, recent studies show it might be as low as 0.06%. So, out of 100,000 tests, we can expect 1,996 false positives, and out of those false positives, we can expect somewhere between 1-10 miscarriages as a result. The same number of miscarriages probably result from pregnant mothers falling down the stairs. Should we also include that fact in this paragraph? I'll bet there are a lot more miscarriages as a result of mothers age 40+ trying to get pregnant than there are from amniocentesis. Should we also include that fact in this paragraph? Wikipedia:Verifiability states that "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." I am challenging this material. Please provide a reliable, published source for your statement, or delete it. 98.204.77.212 (talk) 11:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

politial bias

The section on ethics is politically biased. I added a template to that effect, but deletion of the section may be in order, Race2thefuture (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

  • I think the issue itself is valid, as DS is probably one of the centrally defining disorders at the heart of the (real world) eugenics debate, however the section definitley needs to be improved. The first paragraph is entirely original research (see: WP:OR#Synthesis_of_published_material_which_advances_a_position). Unless there's a source that ties together those points in that manner, that entire paragraph has to go. We need to create a paragraph that details the pro-side of the screening/abortion position to balance the section. There should probably also be a "see also"/"main article" link to Eugenics or something of the sort, as the DS article isn't the proper place to make all the for/against arguments regarding eugenics. Chaldor (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

prenatal test always effective ?

is it possible for the baby to eventually develop D.S. even if the prenatal test has been negative? what signs should one look out for after birth?

this sydrome is hard to reasearch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.195.79.254 (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Terminology

I feel that some of the language used in this article is derogatory to people with Down Syndrome and sends a negative message to readers as it can only promote ignorance towards the polite and correct terminology. Eg. "88% of down syndromes" People with this condition are not "down syndromes" they are people with down syndrome. As a mother of a child with down syndrome I am offended by this terminology as it encourages use of language that is simply not right. Thank you Catydeman (talk) 11:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with your point, I believe the context in which it was meant was cases of Down syndrome:
"This is the cause of 1–2% of the observed Down syndromes."
I interpret that to mean the cause of 1-2% of Down syndrome cases - the plural simply meaning a number of syndromes. I can fully see why this may be construed to mean a number of individuals with Down syndrome. I honestly don't think that this is deliberately derogatory - but perhaps the article should be changed to avoid ambiguity. Booglamay (talk) - 14:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

i noticed that, too. "s/he is a down syndrome" is horribly derogatory, and was how i first read the usage in the paragraph (i thought it had been vandalized). i had to re-read it several times to understand the real meaning. "DS cases" or something akin to that would be much preferred.Fewerthanzero (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I also must object to at least one use of the word "normal" in this article — specifically, the second to last sentence of the third paragraph of the article. ("The average IQ of children with Down syndrome is around 50, compared to normal children with an IQ of 100.") Uses of "normal" in the rest of the article may be difficult to avoid since the text is discussing specific "norms" for physiology, performance, etc. But this use of the word "normal" is less necessary and more derogatory, stating that the person as a whole is abnormal rather than describing ways in which the performance is abnormal. I recommend removing the word "normal" entirely from this sentence. If you must include it, I recommend rephrasing along these lines: "The average IQ of children with Down syndrome is around 50, compared to a normal IQ of 100." Treesong (talk) 05:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

In what way is your usage of the word "normal" different to the current usage? The implication is exactly the same - you have a normal grouping, and a DS grouping? a_man_alone (talk) 09:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible addition to "Characteristics"

Hello folks who probably know far more about this than I do. In my purely anecdotal experience, I've noticed that people with Down's Syndrome/Down syndrome are shorter than the mean. More specifically, I've noted that they can be significantly shorter than siblings (with the same inherited opportunity for vertical growth). Is there any statistical support to this observation, or is it merely my mind creating patterns where they don't exist? So if one of you folks what knows more about such things could either point out how I'm mistaken, or verify my observations with appropriate source type materials, maybe the height characteristic could be added to the list of common traits. Thank you kindly. - James F. December 2nd, 2008, 23:00 EST

Down Syndrome parents

"Approximately half of the offspring of someone with Down's syndrome also have the syndrome themselves.[42] There have been only three recorded instances of males with Down syndrome fathering children."

So wait - one and a half out of the three children of men with DS have it themselves?

Also, source 42 is about testicular development of men with DS, not the likelihood of their offspring having the disorder.71.194.62.168 (talk) 07:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

yes, that's a great point. "Approximately half of the offspring of women with Down's syndrome also have DS themselves." would be more accurate. obviously, if there are so few recorded cases of men with DS fathering children it isn't possible to write about the percentages for them as the study pool is too small.Fewerthanzero (talk) 22:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Walking

This article claims that some children affected by Down's Syndrome don't walk until they are 4 years old. I understand that the generally accepted "normal" range for children learning to walk is between 12 months and 7.5 years. While most children affected by Down's Syndrome will walk before they are aged 4 I believe the article is misleading as there a still a considerable number that don't walk until they are older and this is still considered normal for Down's syndrome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Affable ke (talk • contribs) 11:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Mongoloid - term offensive

The term mongoloid is no longer used in connection with Down's syndrome, as it is racist. This is not mentioned in the article, and should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by இளவேனில் (talk • contribs) 13:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually this issue is discussed in detail in the History section. Rachel Pearce (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing racist about the term Mongoloid. Just as it is not regarded as racist to describe a White American as being caucasian.JohnC (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

yes. it is racist in that what started as a simple physical description grew into a theory that people with DS were "evolutionary throwbacks", implying that people from Mongolia, and Asia in general, were primitive in comparison to other human "races". at least this is my understanding-- looking up discredited theories on the web for backup isn't helping me on this tho.Fewerthanzero (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

There was nothing racist about the term "Mongoloid". It was simply that Down perceived that the sufferers of DS looked "Mongolian". It was, in his mind, a fact. There was nothing disparaging about it. I can see no basis at all for the grand statement that "Attitudes to Down's syndrome were very much tied to racism until as recently as the 1970s." What is the source for that outlandish claim?

Fewerthanzero, you may believe that people from Mongolia are evolutionary throwbacks. However neither Dr Down nor those treating DS patients would have thought that, or given Mongolians any thought. Down's Syndrome/Mongoloid are medical conditions, and have nothing to do with race.JohnC (talk) 04:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but according to "The Face That Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution", copyright 1998 by Hank Hanegraaff, Dr. Down coined the term Mongolism because he believed it to be a throwback to the Mongoloid or oriental phase of human evolution, which he considered to be more primitive than the Caucasoid, though not as much so as the Negroid or African phase. He stated that to illustrate how racist evolutionism is. Whether you believe in evolution or not, it does make the point about Dr. Down's attitude on the subject. Hccrle (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


emerging prenatal screening tests

The Down Syndrome article mentions some of the currently available prenatal screening tests (e.g. Quad test) and provides data on the sensitivity and false-positive rates of these tests. It would be informative to discuss other technologies that are in development and soon to be available that are considerably more accurate, for example Sequenom's SEQureDx test, a blood test which analyzes fetal DNA in maternal blood and has so far shown >99% sensitivity with <1% false-positive rate. The advent of such a test would simplify the screening paradigm and enable women to get a more accurate result will less risk of unnecessary invasive tests (which carry the risk of miscarriage). Please see Prenatal diagnosis for more information on these technologies. The SEQureDx test is expected to become available in June 2009 in most states in the USA, though a few states (CA, NY, and RI) have certification requirements which will delay launch there by 3-6 months.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ne1ofmany (talk • contribs) 21:58, 19 April 2009

Sorry speculating on what a future test will or wont do, and how it might be incorporated into clionical practice is premature. There are no reliable 3rd party evualuations given (just company's weblink which is not independent) and so WP:MEDRS and WP:No original research apply. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but retrospectively notes what has been reported on in the real world after the event. David Ruben Talk 02:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The information from Sequenom represents original research from a biased source. This should be removed. It is obviously straight from the company. Wikipedia should not sound like a pamphlet from a drug company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twk111 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

about robertsonian dislocation

as mentioned in this article , it is 45,XX,t(14;21) is it correct/ or should it be 46,XX,t(14;21) source- page 47 of davidson's principles and practice of medicine-20th ed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.31.54.239 (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The translocation moves a portion of the long arm of chromosome 21 to chromosome 14. The short arm and centromere are lost, leaving the individual with 45 chromosomes. The notation is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.19.26.250 (talk) 05:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Incidence of Down Syndrome in pregnancies, not live births

According to the article, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated the rate as one per 733 live births. The article also states that the abortion rate for Down Syndrome is around 92 percent. If my math is correct, this makes the rate of Down Syndrome in pregnancy as one per 59 pregnancies. This seems like a significant statistic and should in some way be noted in the article, since it shows how common it is for a fetus to have Trisomy 21. I did not edit the article yet, since I got these numbers from combining sources. In order to put something like this in here, it would be best to have a source that states prevalence in pregnancy, not just in live births. Does anyone have a source that states the incidence of Down Syndrome in pregnancies?--Minimidgy (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that you are falsely assuming that all cases of Down Syndrome are diagnosed during pregnancy. That is simply not the case. The abortion rate statistic is only meant to reflect the decisions made by parents who become aware of the syndrome while they are still legally allowed to terminate the child's life. It would not surprise me if a large majority of parents either are not financially capable of affording such a diagnosis, do not live in areas where such medical advancements are readily available, or simply do not pursue such medical research (as in the case of parents who employ traditional birthing methods). Given these very likely possibilities, there is not sufficient reason to consider the two statistics to be conflicting. If both numbers are accurate, then it would indicate that approximately 20-25% of Down Syndrome cases are detected in the prenatal phase of the child's life, and that in 92% of that 20-25% of the total, the parents chose to terminate the child's life before birth. Blendenzo (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
As I understand it, women under 35 are not normally offered screening, and many women over 35 opt out of it. Women who would not consider abortion under the circumstances would be unlikely to put themselves through prenatal screening, especially given the risk of miscarriage --Fionah (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

this is information i am very much interested in. i believe that the "live births" statistic may actually refer to how many babies are born alive, as opposed to stillbirths, and has nothing to do with abortion. i could be wrong, but i just can't find enough data one way or the other. the number of people with DS living in the world today, combined with the abortion statistic, comined with the 1 in 800 'live births' statistic... well, the numbers do not seem to add up correctly at all. i know that most countries and pregnancies have no prenatal screening, but that still doesn't help. i just can't seem to get good data to clear it up.Fewerthanzero (talk) 23:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Addition of image

Addition of this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Frensis_Down.jpg to the article. Read description for more info--ISEETRUTH (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Who is it a picture of, and why does it improve the article? --RobertG ♬ talk 20:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
It's someone I know who suffers from the Down Syndrome (with a slight variation, I think). I think it'll improve the article because it shows the difficulty that people with the syndrome have with showing expressions, for example, in this case, happiness.--ISEETRUTH (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
But a smile seems to me to be a good way to show happiness, so how does it demonstrate "difficulty"? Do others have a view? --RobertG ♬ talk 21:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
It's a nice photo, but does not appear to indicate the symptoms ascribed to it. Not effective here. JNW (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

people with DS have absolutely no problem making facial expressions that show happiness. that is pure ignorance. how can you not see the person's happiness in their face in that photo? that's what i don't understand; it seems obvious to me. perhaps the phrase "suffers from the Down Syndrome" reveals an underlying attitude about DS-- not to be offensive, friend, it is just odd for someone that is friends with someone who has DS to write, as "suffers" is not an appropriate verb for observing what they seem to experience. now, regarding some subtle expressions, you may have a point, but this still seems to be on very flimsy ground, and has more to do, possibly, with the person who is doing the viewing and judging, and the inexperience they may have in being around people with DS. in my brother's face, i recognize expressions of boredom, sadness, excitement, frustration, etc. some common emotions in others (without DS), such as jealousy and anger, well, he does not have these emotions at all in my experience with him. perhaps this is what you mean?Fewerthanzero (talk) 23:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Retard syndrome

Please remove the reference to "Retard syndrome" at the beginning of the article. It is offensive and not an accurate description of Down's syndrome. It is also not used elsewhere in the article, further illustrating that it doesn't belong. {{editsemiprotected}} The first sentence could read: Down syndrome (the most common term in US English) , Down's syndrome (standard in British English), technically known as trisomy 21 is a chromosomal disorder caused by the presence of all or part of an extra 21st chromosome.

It's still not a great sentence, but at least it's not offensive. 64.142.95.254 (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That was just vandalism. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

missing section

it seems to me more must be included about ending pregnentcies. Is the population going down now? If it is I don't think people know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.160.185 (talk) 07:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

if the elder brother suffering will it affect the other brother and sisters —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.204.144.158 (talk) 04:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

do you mean, "if an oldest sibling has DS, will it affect the younger siblings?" if so, the answer is: physically, no, the younger siblings will not 'develop' DS, which is either present at birth or it isn't... and otherwise, yes, siblings of people with DS are often known to be more compassionate people, or so i have read.Fewerthanzero (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ethical issues

This section seems imbalanced; it focuses on voices criticising the ethics of abortion without presenting the case of why selective abortion of fetuses with Down syndrome might be ethical. I know that Peter Singer and Ronald Green have written on this area, Singer from a utilitarian standpoint and Green arguing that parents have an obligation to avoid 'genetic harm' to offspring, e.g. Green RM: Parental autonomy and the obligation not to harm one's child genetically. J Law Med Ethics. 1997 Spring;25(1):5-15. Claire Rayner defended testing and abortion, saying "The hard facts are that it is costly in terms of human effort, compassion, energy, and finite resources such as money, to care for individuals with handicaps... People who are not yet parents should ask themselves if they have the right to inflict such burdens on others, however willing they are themselves to take their share of the burden in the beginning."[15] Fences&Windows 02:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

3 Refs in the lead.

Please fix this. And try and add some more global data to the article. Thanks.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Robertsonian translocations NOT the only way translocations occur

Robertsonian translocations, where a parent is a "balanced carrier" is by far the least common mode of translocation Down Syndrome occurence. It is the rarest of the rare. Most translocation cases are 'de novo' arrangements, happening spontaneously, and neither parent is a carrier. Most cases occur during a non-disjunction error during first cell division, much as regular trisomy occurs during that cell division phase; mosaicism happens after first division. There are also other chromosomes that can be involved in a translocation of the extra copy of #21, not just the #14 chromosome; that just happens to be the most common site for it to occur. The genes on and near the telomere end of the involved translocation pairing are/can be also affected, and can affect expression or symptoms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.157.1.114 (talk) 02:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ Leshin, Len (2003). "What's in a name". Retrieved 2006-05-12.
  2. ^ Jenny Vaughan. "Charles de Gaulle". Channel 4 – History. Channel4.com. Retrieved 2006-12-08.
  3. ^ Steensma D (2005). "Down syndrome in Down House: trisomy 21, GATA1 mutations, and Charles Darwin". Blood. 105 (6): 2614–6. PMID 15746086.
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Down_syndrome/Archive_5"