Talk:Down syndrome/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

References for the individuals and fiction sections

I think that the article needs to provide references for the individuals and fiction sections. Currently it is not possible to verify any of the information in those sections. For instance, my memory of Sound and the Fury does not include a discussion of Benjamin Compson's Down syndrome. Yes, he was portrayed as having a lower than average IQ. However, is he truly identifiable as Down syndrome? I did a search through the full text for the common synonyms for DS and for some of the physical characteristics and did not come up with any hits. If there are not sources which can cite passages which support a diagnosis of DS, we should remove them! InvictaHOG 17:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, to a large extent. For real individuals, the only ones we have listed have Wikipedia entries that specifically mention Down syndrome. For characteristics such as Tourette syndrome or CAIS, it is easy to sling around suspected names. I'm comfortable that we haven't done that with Down syndrome (which is more physically obvious).

For works of fiction, I think we should only include those that specifically mention Down syndrome. I spent about an hour looking around the internet concerning Compson. Many people mention Down syndrome, but I am no literary critic. I'd be willing to pare it down considerably -- including only those works that are in Wikipedia and specifically mention Down syndrome, or where we can find verifiable sources outside Wikipedia. If there is no objections, I'll do that in a day or so. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It sounds great. Compson may well have Down syndrome - my google search only revealed one person who didn't seem to support from the primary text and just sorta assumed. The text itself doesn't say, to my memory. I will ask my wife - she's re-reading it now! InvictaHOG 09:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

some suggestions for edits

I've edited text where I know the answer, but had following other comments:

• in this sentence, the word "present" is used in the manner of medical jargon, and "concrete thinking" is not defined: "but generally will present with some amount of developmental disability such as a tendency toward concrete thinking or naivete"
• I'm guessing this sentence means that physical features typical of Down syndrome are found in the general population, but not as frequently? "The common physical features of Down syndrome also appear in people with a standard set of chromosomes"
• the word "excessive" implies a pathology? is the flexibility in joints and space between toes pathological, or merely unusual? "excessive flexibility in joints, congenital heart defects, excessive space between large and second toe,"
• In "Trisomy 21", 8%+88% is not 95%. I assume there's rounding error, but what are the original numbers?
• The notation like "47,XX,+21" is not explained

Simian crease - phrase usage

The phrase "simian crease" is used repeatedly in the article, although at one point the article states this phrase is no longer acceptable. Should "single palmar fold" replace "simian crease" in this article? LLP 23:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The statement about the use of the word "simian" is a recent change. This is not true -- a quick Google Scholar search from 2000-2006 shows 239 hits, not all necessarily unique, and not limited to Down syndrome. In addition, simian crease is the entry name in Wikipedia. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

EastEnders/The Sun

Because of the current EastEnders storyline about Billy, Honey and their daughter Janet, who has Down syndrome, there have been a few articles in The Sun about it. I wondered if they might be of any use. Here's the links:

• Down's baby in EastEnders
• Living with Down's Syndrome (part 1)
• Living with Down's Syndrome (part 2)
• Living with Down's Syndrome (part 3)
• TV tot's parents speak out

-- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

"Retardation"

Perhaps this is me being oversensitive but i dont think that the sentence "There is also a small number of individuals with Down syndrome with severe to profound mental retardation." I think perhaps a less offensive word should be used so that people who have the condition dont think they're deranged or something. Discuss Ahadland 16:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This issue has been extensively discussed on the mental retardation talk page. The term is latin for "delay" and has no intrinsic pejorative meaning. It has acquired pejorative connotations because insensitive and ignorant people have treated it as a pejorative. At some point the term will have become so misused as to need replacement, until the morons, cretins, and idiots (note that all threee of those terms began life as neutral medical terms as well) ruin the new term. A specific challenge for wikipedia is that the turning point does not occur simultaneously throughout the english-speaking world and apparently the term "mental retardation" has been more thoroughly abandoned in the UK than it has in the US. My own opinion is that as long as the term is widely used in both ways, sensitive intelligent people have no trouble using it in non-pejorative ways and being understood as using it that way. Why should we cater to the bigoted and ignorant? alteripse 17:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Point taken, I just thought some patients with downs may have taken offence

That's like saying gay people would take offense at the mention that their sexual activity can't result in reproduction. I am wholeheartedly against editing Wikipedia to make it more politically correct than accurate. And to be frank, people with Down syndrome are "deranged" in the biological sense. I wouldn't use the term "deranged" in the article because it's unscientific, but saying anything as PC as "mentally different" (or equivalent) glosses over the fact that there's (at least sometimes) deficient neural functionality. --Davidstrauss 07:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

As a mother of a child with Down syndrome/Trisomy 21, the word "retardation" is not offensive when used in proper context. Very few of us parents object to its proper use. The politically correct terminology may serve in more social and editorial venues, but in a technical article, the word "retardation" seems preferable. Jeannedb 18:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think some of this might stem from the immature taunt "retard". I think that when it is explained to children that calling someone "a retard" is offensive and wrong, they often grow up assuming incorrectly that any use of the terms "retardation" or "retarded" is offensive. --thirty-seven 21:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

When it comes to science, there are no offensive words. It is the scietnific word.

That's the word for it. Jesus rode to Jerusalem on an ass. Somebody with down syndrome is retarted. That's how it is, nothing offensive about it.

external link 26

This is only a small thing, but the external link 26 'a guide to parenting' (the first link of the two) comes up as 'file not found' would there be any objections if I deleted the link? I ask this because there may be a way to restore the link or perhaps if anybody knew of an alternative guide, --Mikeoman 19:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Newbie here, be gentle

Hi. I am a new member, was browsing this because my child has DS. Nice job, everyone, you managed to do what many sites have not, leaving a fairly positive outlook for our kids. I made some very general edits, as follows:

Characteristics “white spots on the iris” These are known as Brushfield’s Spots. I have not yet figured out how to add the link, and recognize I cant post another webpages words directly. Here is the explanation of Brushfields spots from http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6570

Speckled iris. Little white spots that slightly elevated on the surface of the iris arranged in a ring concentric with the pupil. These spots occur in normal children but are far more frequent in Down's syndrome (trisomy 21). They were described in 1924 by Thomas Brushfield and are due to aggregation of a normal iris element (connective tissue). Mome23kjnc 18:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Robertsonian translocation

“It is the cause of 2-3% of the observed Down syndromes”

should use people first language, “2-3% of observed cases of Down syndrome”

Prenatal screening

“suggesting a Down syndrome fetus”

again, people first language. Most of your article uses PFL, “child with DS”, this should be corrected.

Your video box showing the ultrasound refers to the fetus as an “embryo”. Looks more like a fetus to me ;)

Cognitive Development

“cognitive problems that are found among children with Down syndrome can also be found among children without Down syndrome”

could be made less wordy by saying “among typical children”.

Hope I did ok. I'm sure you will let me know if I didn't. Michelle Mome23kjnc 17:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mome23kjnc, thanks for your very positive contributions to the article. To add a reference to a website, you can do this:

<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6570 |title=Definition of Brushfield's Spots}}</ref>

Good luck, Gwernol 18:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added the photo of Brushfield’s Spots from the uploaded photo on the commons: Image:Brushfield.jpg --apers0n 19:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Info box

Hi, I was reading the article and I realized that I didn't quite understand anything from info box. Although it says 'Classifications and external resources', links have no explanation. For example first line says "ICD-10 Q90.". Also, the Q90 link doesn't explain much. Maybe it would be better to reorganize this box and explain what these really are. Otherwise it looks confusing. Of course it may be just me :)

Vandalism fixed

Thanks to whomever fixed the vandalism on this page. It was vile.

64.241.242.18 00:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)daltong@mindspring.com

If you are talking about the modified legend for the image, it was quite bad indeed. The article just appeared on the Main page so one would expect it to become heavily vandalised for the next 24 hours... Schutz 00:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Offensive Caption on the First Picture

Hi there,

I was just reading through the article as Wikipedia is my home page and I usually take a moment to read the main article of the day and I noticed that someone had edited the caption of the first picture in the article, that of the little boy with the screwdriver, to say something incredibly offensive- along the lines of 'mental retard using power tools- bad idea'. I just though someone should know so it can be changed. Especially as it looks like the picture was donated by the parent of the child who I do not believe would appreciate the remark.

Thanks, 00:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Becca Martinson

Wikipedia is constantly and consistently pwned by vandalism, this page should be protected before anymore harm is done. Especially with a sensitive topic such as this one, I'm surprised it wasn't protected before being featured on the main page.

--70.49.56.83 00:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Wiki has a strange policy of not protecting main page articles: vandalism just has to be reverted. Sandy (Talk) 00:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I second the motion of protecting this page... KeineLust90

Vandalism reappeared... when will this be protected?

Wiki has a policy of not protecting main page articles, and admins hesitate to do it: just keep reverting. Sandy (Talk) 01:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please seeWikipedia:Don't protect Main Page featured articlesBorisblue 01:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with the policy, by the way. Getting hammered more than once a minute is STUPID. Sandy (Talk) 01:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Dude, you really need to protect this page. They switched the picture of a kid with a drill into a penis... come on. OMG -- 172.151.140.66 01:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I am extremely offended. OMG -- 172.132.182.10 01:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This might sound heretical, but I think it should be considered-- vandalism seems to be unusually frequent and often offensive to people with this condition. Unfortunately, many people viewing the page will happen to have opened it up while one of these comments was still up and then unexpectedly run across it. Dar-Ape 01:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

We raised the issue on AN/I and got semi-protection, which per policy, will only be temporary. Sandy (Talk) 01:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright. I guess the issue is settled for now. Dar-Ape 01:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how long protection will stay. I asked on An/I. Sandy (Talk) 01:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The mentality of the individual who perpetrated the vandalism compares VERY unfavourably with the people with Downs I have known. Awien 01:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Not always, this one was gold http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Down_syndrome&oldid=92139457

It compares unfavorably with just about anyone's. But Wikipedians have to weigh the benefit of locking these clowns out with the risk of losing a valuable contribution from an unregistered user. There's a long and florid history of debates on this issue, and to paraphrase an oddly relevant Larry King impersonator on Saturday Night Live, both the debates and vandals will continue, no matter how many penises you stick on WP. --zenohockey 02:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Lock 'em out. People can contribute to the page next week. You're not adding to knowledge about what amounts to a birth defect by entertaining troglodytes who want to amuse themselves by mocking the victims. Some pages are permanently locked because of vandalism. There's no reason why this one can't be temporarily locked.

Bob99 23:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC) (DS parent)

First picture

Section moved. Please go here for further discussion of this picture. /skagedal^... 20:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Offensive picture

Can anyone remove the picture of male anatomy from the article? Jamesmack1 01:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be gone now. --W.marsh 01:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! --Jamesmack1 01:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please set protection.

I believe some time ago, the main page article was protected. Now there isn't any protection.

PLEASE consider to semi-protect the page, or it will be a long day for us. xeryus 02:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

A LOT of people are at work on this, and watching the articles. Rest easy, Sandy (Talk) 02:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree Sandy. :) I'm not targetting this at you, as I came here to muse...

If there are exceptions to every rule, then it's time to protect this article. I can't imagine being a relative of a family member with Down syndrome, perhaps looking to understand the topic better, and finding something like this. Even if it lasts for 30 seconds. A person's impression of Wikipedia, destroyed forever, to support a stubborn philosophy that says that the copy improvements that occur by being featured outweigh an absurd level of vandalism that no doubt drives away many visitors who don't really understand (I have to assume) what goes on behind the scenes to make Wikipedia. It's almost a form of wiki-selfishness when editors promulgate the "anyone can edit" party line over the ostensible mission of creating an encyclopedic user experience. Which is the higher value? Hmmm... </rhetoric> –Outriggr § 04:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No argument from me, Outriggr - I don't support the policy at all (which was only recently made policy, by the way), and was just trying to reassure editors here. We put WAY too much work into every word, reference, and image on these articles at project review, peer review, and FAC to sit by and watch them torn apart during a stint on the main page, and I'm very surprised to see that TedE isn't around to care for the article. When numerous medical editors have scrutinized every word, I'm not reassured by changes made in the name of "anyone can edit". I was just telling people what the policy is, and that admins were now watching the vandalism. I actually worry more about what happens to the integrity of the text. Sandy (Talk) 10:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops—I guess I thought your reply to Xeryus said something it didn't. I'm glad you feel the same way. I didn't realize this was a recent policy. –Outriggr § 01:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Can someone please remove the huge photos of hands someone dumped in this article? Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Torus (talk • contribs) 02:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Looks like they already did

Great thanks

Uhhh, no it still there. 71.126.231.215 02:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! Generally, articles on the main page tend to be quite dynamic, so if you find an obvious problem like this, your best bet is probably to be bold and revert it or fix it yourself-- messages left on the talk page for this kind of thing may be outdated quickly. But again, this is just in general for extremely bad edits or obvious vandalism; there is of course no problem in posting here. Best, Dar-Ape 02:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thoroughy disappointed and appalled!

Down syndrome is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

Is that how Wikipedia wants to be seen? Middle schoolers adding "funny" pictures to articles of a serious nature that ultimately misrepresents an entire population and demeans them? How can this be one of the best when so many people find the image so offensive? I suggest changing the picture immediately in order to save Wikipedia's reputation.

Jessyfish 04:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to sign.

• What's wrong with the picture? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-12-05 04:31Z

Karyotype Image

While the idea of including a Down's Syndrome karyotype is excellent, I think the "photographic" sort, rather than the "drawn illustration" sort currently in the article, would be preferable, something similar to this:

http://www.miscarriage.com.au/images/pages/t21karyo.jpg

JDS2005 04:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Seriously, can we make an exception to this policy of leaving featured articles open to unregistered editing? This is really absurd, over the past hour we've had coprophilia, racism, and a completely useless stream-of-consciousness anecdote. If people (including myself) have useful things to say, they should be willing to register to say them if an article is protected. JDS2005 05:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

the semi-protect will block newly registered users. I think it the account has to be four days old or so to get past the protection. Anyway, the vandalism seems to have died down. Borisblue 05:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it seems they've switched to vandalizing the talk page itself:

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADown_syndrome&diff=92172422&oldid=92170551

That's a problem, though, about blocking newly registered users...I see why it's necessary, but it could also cause problems...I suppose I should register already.

JDS2005 05:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

pictures

Section moved. Please go here for further discussion of this picture. /skagedal^... 20:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Political correctness in medical terminology

Why is it the current fashion to refer to Down's syndrome as "Down syndrome"? The article claims that the former usage is "British English", but there are many Americans who still use it because it is an eponymous word taken from the name of the physician who first described it, as in "Alzheimer's disease", "Parkinson's disease", and so on. I don't quite see the reason to depart from medical terminological tradition here. Are someone's feelings being hurt, or what? Writtenright 06:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree (although I don't know about the "politically correct" business -- I have never heard it called "Down Syndrome" - who calls it that? The label as "British" is absurd - unless British includes "virtually all English Speaking Americans who use the term". Where did this "Down Syndrome" syndrome come from? This article needs to be renamed.

I have no expertise in the field, but I note a Google search on "Down syndrome" returns approximately 6.7M entries, and a search on "Down's syndrome" returns 7.3M entries. I have only ever heard it called Down's syndrome, but by this crude yardstick the singular term seems fairly common too. Legis 08:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

My genetics lecturer at (a British) University told us that diseases named after the individual who discovered them are never referred to as "Person's syndrome", but "Person syndrome", there was one exception I can't recall at the moment, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't Down syndrome. -Obli (Talk)^? 09:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It has to do with a published convention regarding eponymous titles, and neither can I remember what medical body published the guideline, but eponymous diseases are no longer stated in the possessive. It might be mentioned at WP:MEDMOS. On a personal level, I disagree, since the ICD-9 and 10 codes include the possessive eponym, but it's medical convention, not British/US. Sandy (Talk) 10:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It is officially called "Down's Syndrome" - if one were too look at the Down's Syndrome Association you would see that it does not use the singular. I have a brother with down's and I am always appalled when someone is rude - to vandalise this site is just sickening. I have to say, thank you to everyone who has properly contributed to this article. Also, thanks to whoever wrote the first picture's caption for the correct usuage, i.e. not a "Down Syndrome Child" which is completely incorrect (and I might add that Extra's got this completely wrong".

one final thing, why is the first sentance now someones name? can we change this? Earthwormjim2001 16:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There is some confusion here that the name has something to do with British/US english. Can someone with access to the full-text please explain the use of naming conventions with respect to eponyms ? The non-possessive form is the current convention in medical writing:

1. McKusick VA. On the naming of clinical disorders, with particular reference to eponyms. Medicine (Baltimore). 1998 Jan;77(1):1-2. PMID 9465859
2. Jacoby R, Oppenheimer C. Naming of syndromes. Lancet. 1996 Dec 14;348(9042):1662. PMID 8962012
3. Shevell M. Naming of syndromes. Lancet. 1996 Dec 14;348(9042):1662. PMID 8962011
4. Morrison P. Naming of syndromes. Lancet. 1996 Dec 14;348(9042):1662. PMID 8962010

Sandy (Talk) 16:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the list of Syndrome articles. Use of the non-possessive also appears to be a Wikipedia convention. Links such as Asperger's Syndrome and Tourette's Syndrome redirect to the singular of the name. -- BlueNight

I've known about Tourette's Syndrome for quite a while, as I was diagnosed with it a long time ago, and I have ALWAYS heard it referred to in the possessive. The disorder is referred to simply as Tourette's for short (yes, the possessive) all the time, by psychiatric professions, patients, and families. I have NEVER heard of it referred to as "Tourette Syndrome". I don't know if this is the exception Obli referred to, but it's certainly the one example I know of which contradicts this idea that the universal convention is to not use the possessive. JDS2005 03:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

While I fully concur that most families and professionals knowing and working with people with TS do refer to it most often as the shorthand Tourette's, the rest of your statement isn't entirely correct. Some examples: Tourette Syndrome Association (formed in the 70s), Tourette Syndrome Foundation of Canada, and the two Advances in Neurology series on Tourette Syndrome, vol 85 and vol 99.[1] Also, go to Pubmed and search on tourette - you'll see that almost every new published article refers to Tourette not Tourette's. Also, I was seriously berated by a DS group once for using the phrase "Down's". Sandy (Talk) 15:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Replying to Sandy's request: I've looked at the first article in Medicine (Baltimore). Not sure how much I can reasonably cut and paste, but it's quite helpful on the subject:

The fact that an eponym is mainly a handle, in accord with the Hermogenes principle of naming, is in part the reason for use of the nonpossessive form; the "person behind the eponym" has no proprietary claim on the entity. I strongly recommend use of the nonpossessive form of eponyms and have consistently followed this practice since 1955 when I was indoctrinated in it by Dr. J. Earle Moore who edited my Heritable Disorders of Connective Tissue for serialization in the Journal of Chronic Diseases, November 1955 to May 1956, and subsequent publication as a monograph [1]. In this, Dr. Moore followed the recommendations of Morris Fishbein, long-term editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association, and his AMA Manual of Style. That and other manuals have not persisted in recommending the nonpossessive, and both practice and recommendations vary. The Council of Biology Editors manual [4] has been strongest in its position: "It is recommended that the possessive form be eliminated altogether from eponymic terms so that they can be clearly differentiated from true possessives."

Certainly it would seem unnecessary to use the possessive before a sibilant, as in Marfan syndrome, Chvostek sign, Looser zone, Laennec cirrhosis, Erdheim cystic medical necrosis, Leydig cell....

No one uses the possessive with a compound eponym, such as Lesch-Nyhan syndrome...

Why not eliminate the possessive entirely? On first use, Hodgkin disease, Huntington disease, and Wilson disease may seem to roll awkwardly off the tongue, but both the ear and the tongue, as well as the eye, become rather quickly accustomed to the nonpossessive.

- from McKusick VA. On the naming of clinical disorders, with particular reference to eponyms. Medicine (Baltimore). 1998 Jan;77(1):1-2. PMID 9465859

With the variety of sources mentioned here, the non-possessive sounds well recommended. –Outriggr § 04:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the work, Outriggr. Sandy (Talk) 15:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect the exception mentioned previously is Lou Gehrig's disease (ALS). In this case, Lou Gehrig had the disease, so the possessive is appropriate. Also, the way Google works, the first entries for "Down's syndrome" are actually "Down syndrome". They automatically consider possessives. Look at the national societies that are "Down's syndrome" and those that are "Down syndrome". The former are nearly entirely UK, India, and maybe a couple others. The latter are US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. Genetics411 22:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth? Most parents of kids with DS prefer People First Language and prefer Down syndrome to "Down's syndrome". Dr Down did not have DS. It is a bone of contention for some of us to hear our children referred to as "Down's kids, Downies, Downsies," etc. Someone asked if we were trying to be too politically correct. Perhaps so, but as other words have evolved to mean things less than polite, so has "Downs kids". My daughter is a child first, DS is but a little spect of who she is. Thanks for really thinking hard about this, it really IS important. Mome23kjnc 22:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Good job!

You wrote a GREAT article! Good job!!! You are great! We are so proud of you. GOOD JOB! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.235.37.237 (talk) 09:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Vandalism

Hello Can someone remove the AIDS banner sitting at the top of the page? I do not know how to Thx 220.240.55.95 11:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Increased incidence of further children with DS

Hi

As a parent of a young boy with DS, I'm surprised there isn't any content around the statistics (oft quoted) that the incidence of conceiving a child DS for parents who already have one child with DS is approximately 1% irrespective of maternal age indicators (e.g. see http://www.hon.ch/Dossier/MotherChild/birth_disorders/down_syndrome.html). Now, this may be just heresay on the part of genetic counsellors, but it was certainly presented to my wife and I as fact when we were considering having an additional child.

Has this been an issue discussed and now ingored, or is it factually disputed?

Matt Larkim 11:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That article's statement looks wrong, possibly due to simplifying things. How can they say:

The probability that another child with Down syndrome will be born in a subsequent pregnancy is about 1 percent, regardless of maternal age.

if the risk is > 1% for anyone over 40. If there is any truth in this, then surely it would be "no less than 1 percent". Colin°^Talk 12:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed; if we take the case of a 45 years old mother, it is hard to imagine that the incidence would actually decrease from 5% to 1% just because she has already had a child with DS. However, if we are talking about a mother for which the age indicates a risk below 1%, I would not be surprised if the fact that she has already had a child with DS would increase this risk to 1%. In both cases, a good reference would be required to clarify this and add it to the article. Schutz 12:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, which is actually what I was reading to try to understand from the article. Unfortunately I am parent and not a geneticist (sp?) so I don't know where to start to find the information. It raises all sorts of questions about statements which purport to say "DS is a random occurrence" when there is this claimed pre-disposition once a child has been conceived with DS. I agree about the statistical analysis above (Colin), but the same phrase is used elsewhere on generally reputable sites (e.g. http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/downsyndrome.cfm) so whilst it seems illogical there is also the possibility that the statistic is right at the 1% figure for all. Larkim 12:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

A quick Google for "another child with Down Syndrome" brings up some pages (not necessary good enough to be sources) that indicate that the 1% is on top of any age-related-risk. Also, the "translocation" form may greatly increase the risk of another child, making genetic councelling vital. Colin°^Talk 14:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The recurrent risk for trisomy 21 is 1% until age 35. ("AAP issues guidelines on health supervision for children with Down syndrome - Committee on Genetics of the American Academy of Pediatrics", American Family Physician, Sept 1, 1994 -- there is probably a primary source somewhere). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Genetics411 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

OK, I'm convinced by the discussion here - can I suggest someone adds to the text. I think it is a really interesting aspect of DS that on one hand the incidence is apparently random, but that any parental combination that has produced one Trisomy 21 DS baby then has a significantly increased risk of producing a second (indicating that there must be some environmental or "biological" predisposition of some parents to have children with Trisomy 21). Larkim 08:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we find a primary source before adding this in, especially given the disagreement of secondary sources implied by Genetics411. Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

About : "Expand medical section"

About : "Expand medical section" you can see at: http://AtlasGeneticsOncology.org/Educ/PolyTri21Eng.html Jlhuret 12:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

History

This large block of poorly referenced text was added: what should we do with it?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

John Langdon Down was ambivalent about Darwinism and uncomfortable that it was being used by some to justify racial discrimination. Langdon Down was himself of the opinion that the human race was universal and he stated that "these examples of the results of degeneracy among mankind appear to me to furnish some arguments in favour of the unity of the human species."

Professor O'Connor Ward states in his book 'Dr John Langdon Down And Normansfield' (updated and reprinted 2006) that:

"After his initial identification of the specific picture of the Mongolian Idiot, Langdon Down moved away from the concept of facial and other characteristics of other races representing evidence of degenerative genetic inheritance, leading to physical characteristics appropriate to another racial stock. Speaking in a discussion on a paper by B.W. Richardson in 1867 on 'Physical Disease from Mental Strain', Langdon Down said that he had abandoned his belief in phrenology after 10 years of study. He had turned his back on the view that a person's character and intelligence could be deduced from the outer appearance and shape of the skull.

They could estimate quantity of the brain, but owing to not being able to ascertain the quality on the failure of phrenology, which had received due attention from those who paid great attention to psychiatric subjects and had been tried and found wanting."

When Langdon Down was invited to write for the section on idiocy in Quain's Dictionary of Medicine in 1882, he made no mention of racial characteristics as being important in the diagnosis. His Mongolian group were simply listed as strumous. He had, for practical purposes, abandoned the ethnic concept. The dictionary appeared again in 1894 and once more Langdon Down wrote the section on idiocy. He again left the ethnic concept in abeyance.' Citation: Stuart Mills, Information Officer, http://www.downs-syndrome.org.uk/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stevenfruitsmaak (talk • contribs) 14:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Referencing something to a support organization website isn't good enough for best reliable sources per WP:MEDMOS: unless someone has the book and can properly write and cite the text, I'd remove it from the article until someone who has the book can do so. Parts of it seem off-topic for this article, as well. Sandy (Talk) 15:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No one objected, it was never better source, so I deleted it. If anyone is extremely attached to that text, perhaps it can be incorporated at History of Down syndrome. Sandy (Talk) 04:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am confused as to why this section that I added was removed? I have cited Stuart Mills the Information Manager at the Downs Syndrome Society and the book that he referenced. I felt it was important for readers to realise that Dr Down went back on his original slightly racist assertions of Mongols as being genetic throwbacks. User:jdavies555 20 December 2006

Down Syndrome and employment

Something on vocational opportunities would be good.Anthony717 14:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Chimps

I converted this inserted external jump to a PMID ref, but someone needs to check the accuracy, as there is no abstract. The part about mice is unreferenced.

The effects of the extra copy vary greatly among individuals, depending on the extent of the extra copy, genetic background, environmental factors, and random chance. Down syndrome occurs in all human populations, and analogous effects have been found in other species such as chimpanzees and mice.

Sandy (Talk) 16:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

External jumps in Genetic research section

The external jumps in this text need to removed and converted to references or wikilinks, but with the convoluted parentheses, I'm not sure how to re-write it:

Recent use of transgenic mice to study specific genes in the Down syndrome critical region has yielded some results. APP (Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM): 104760, located at 21q21) is an Amyloid beta A4 precursor protein. It is suspected to have a major role in cognitive difficulties. Another gene, ETS2 (Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM): 164740, located at 21q22.3) is Avian Erythroblastosis Virus E26 Oncogene Homolog 2. Researchers have "demonstrated that overexpression of ETS2 results in apoptosis.

Sandy (Talk) 16:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd just convert them to notes, i.e.:

Recent use of transgenic mice to study specific genes in the Down syndrome critical region has yielded some results. APP is an Amyloid beta A4 precursor protein. It is suspected to have a major role in cognitive difficulties. Another gene, ETS2 is Avian Erythroblastosis Virus E26 Oncogene Homolog 2. Researchers have "demonstrated that overexpression of ETS2 results in apoptosis.

Do you think this would cause much of a mix-up? Fvasconcellos 16:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That looks good to me, but I don't know the territory well. Go ahead, if you're confident, but websites should include last access dates. Sandy (Talk) 19:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll go ahead then. The paragraph itself still reads a bit awkwardly, but I'm not sure what to do with it. Fvasconcellos 19:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

why is he using a drill

why is the Subject using a drill? Is this in any way relevant? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sidecrab (talk • contribs) 16:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

• He's using an electric drill so he can put the bookcase together, that's why. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 16:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There must be a barnstar for that :-)) Sandy (Talk) 16:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I second sidecrab.martianlostinspace 18:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please go here for further discussion of this picture. /skagedal^... 20:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Name

I have never ever heard it referred to as "Down Syndrome", it's always "Down's Syndrome" or "Downs Syndrome". I take this to be an Americanism

It is not - see Lancet publications discussed above. (Lancet is British.) Sandy (Talk) 16:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Locked

Where is the topic on this being locked in here? I thought that main page articles where not supposed to be locked except for a short period, and where they where locked, a notice was to be put onto the talk page. This has now been locked for about 30 minutes. I know that there has been heavy vandalism, but mostly it has be reverted quite quickly. Please can this lock now be removed.

thanks *Drem* (from 212.85.28.67 17:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC))

edit

For reference, Semi-protection should not be used:

• To prevent vandalism on the day's Featured Article. Semi-protection for a very brief period is acceptable to remove excessive vandalism from the page, or to combat an unusually high level of vandalism from multiple IPs or accounts. For a rationale of this, see Wikipedia:Don't protect Main Page featured articles. Other pages linked from the Main Page may be protected if under attack, though more leeway should be given with these than with most articles.

Citations

I started working on some of the citations (I was traveling when this article came up on WP:FAC, or I would have raised these items there), but this work is probably better left for after the article is off the main page. Many of the journal articles don't include PMIDs (I added some). Several of the footnotes are just blue links which need to be expanded. And all too many statements are referenced to support organizations or other non-medical sources, and need close examination or better (medical, peer-reviewed) sources. Sandy (Talk) 18:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Using the drill

I am going to remove the phrase "Using an electric drill" because it's junk. Any objections, please say why. Also provide citations. 86.135.97.73 18:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Go further: Remove the entire picture. It's far too random an example, and vague. That's like saying Person with a stammer getting on a bus..

The links beneath it also appear pointless.martianlostinspace 18:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree on all counts (see many discussions above), and the links below it are per WP:MEDMOS and the standard infobox. Sandy (Talk) 18:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

When this got its featured star on 13th September, the text said "Child with Down syndrome". Every change to the text since then (ignoring vandalism) has been by anonymous editors. I agree with the idea of dropping the "using an electric drill" since (a) it is incidental and (b) he is using a screwdriver bit in the drill, so it is actually being used as a screwdriver – this is a distraction from the point. An alternative to the as-featured text would be "A child with Down syndrome" (Note the lower-case "s"). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Colin (talk • contribs) 20:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

OK, Colin, sounds good to me (deleting the drill part, but not the links below), since that was the FA version. Sandy (Talk) 20:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

May we please consent to leave the caption alone while this article is on the Main Page? The vicious vandalism it is receiving takes precedence over this minor point of contention, let's not allow this to deteriorate into a revert war... Fvasconcellos 20:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologies. I didn't notice discussion here. I'll leave it alone.--Kchase T 20:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone else changed the caption. - 86.135.214.219 07:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please go here for further discussion of this picture. /skagedal^... 20:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Incidence

I put a cite tag on a new sentence that needs to be evaluated. Also,

The original statment in the FA version has been changed - the cited, deleted sentence bolded (by me) needs review:

Although the risk increases with maternal age, 80% of children with Down syndrome are born to women under the age of 35,[15] reflecting the overall fertility of that age group. Other than maternal age, no other risk factors are known. However, in up to 12% of trisomy 21 cases, the extra chromosome comes from the paternal gamete.[16] There does not appear to be a paternal age effect.

Margareta Mikkelsen, Hanne Poulsen, Kim G. Nielsen (2006). "Incidence, survival, and mortality in Down syndrome in Denmark". American Journal of Medical Genetics. 37 (S2): 75–78. Retrieved 2006-07-03.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

There seem to be problems with the citation - I found this PMID 2149979 abstract. Sandy (Talk) 19:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

vandalism?

On Dec. 5, 2006, the Down syndrome article was linked to the Wikipedia main page. When you click on "more" to access the rest of the article, it appears that it has been vandalised. The page that comes up has the correct title, but the only content is the message "haha...GONE!" --206.246.248.224 20:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was vandalism. This page has been getting vandalized non-stop; it always gets reverted quickly though. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't we have the page semi-protected, then? Honalululand 20:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have semi-protected it. The page is also currently linked from Wonkette, making fun of the vandalism. -- Infrogmation 20:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Another PMID mismatch

In Genetic research section, trying to add PMIDs, can't reconcile PMID 2149984 with Zohra Rahmani, Jean-Louis Blouin, Nicole Créau-Goldberg, Paul C. Watkins, Jean-François Mattei, Marc Poissonnier, Marguerite Prieur, Zoubida Chettouh, Annie Nicole, Alain Aurias, Pierre-Marie Sinet, Jean-Maurice Delabar (2005). "Down syndrome critical region around D21S55 on proximal 21q22.3". American Journal of Medical Genetics. 37 (S2): 98–103.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Sandy (Talk) 21:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

According to the journal website, the date of publication is in fact 1990. Fvasconcellos 21:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Possibly a better reference is PMID 2143053, it is a more general reference to the area. Genetics411 21:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know DS, so I defer to you. I'm just generally concerned about cleaning up the references, and not pleased with the amount of non-peer-reviewed sources used. Sandy (Talk) 21:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

stop silly edit war

warring over picture caption "Child with Down syndrome using an electric drill" to "8 years old child with Down syndrome using an electric drill to make a bookshelf for his dad 40th birthday present" the age and the father's age is not relevant. IT's distracting cut it out. I'm sprotecting the page as the warrior is IP jumping and don't want to throw some more rangeblocks. -- Drini 05:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

can someone please revert?

someone keeps deleting the article in favor of a random reference to free willy.

unfortunate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.14.222.241 (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Unsourced addition to lead

I've removed this addition to the talk page because 1) it is unsourced, and 2) it was added to the WP:LEAD, which should be a summary of the article, not introducing material not already discussed in the article. If the information can be sourced, it will need to be added to the appropriate section(s) in the article.

Health benefits of Down syndrome include reduced incidence of many common cancers. Fertility rates appear to be very low, with only three recorded instances of males with Down syndrome fathering children.

Sandy (Talk) 15:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Can Borisblue 06:19, 5 December 2006 please stop talking about folk "suffering" from DS? You dont suffer from DS, its not an illness - you just have it! Excalibur

It's a British thing: I too, wish they didn't use that particular POV language, and am constantly removing it from articles. Excalibur, can you please source the text above? Sandy (Talk) 15:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

OK I'll try to track them both down - the third known case of paternity was only recently reported from India on a discussion group, apparently the father has DS but the mother not, and the literature isnt especially sound on this issue. I guess there are also cases of Mosaic DS which makes it al quite tricky. Excalibur

Keeping in mind that discussion groups aren't reliable sources ... we need to maintain the FA standard. :-) Sandy (Talk) 15:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I know, but this post came from Len leshin, who (though I hate to make him blush) is a leading authority in this field:

>FYI:

To date, there had been only two documented cases of men with DS fathering pregnancies. There is now a third. A paper was just published from India about a 26 year old man with nonmosaic DS married to a 22 year old female with normal chromosomes. They had a normal baby boy.

Len Leshin, M.D., F.A.A.P. Father to Avi, 13 y/o with DS Down Syndrome: Health Issues [2] <

is that good enough? Sorry I'm not good at the protocols for citation. Excalibur

The link you gave as the source doesn't point towards the text you supplied, or the Indian paper? Perhaps the abstracts you give below are one of those papers? You can just list the PMID: I'll try to track them down. Sandy (Talk) 17:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Pregnancy

Significantly impaired fertility of both sexes is evident in the Down syndrome population (Rogers and Coleman, 1992). While males have long been assumed to be sterile, Sheridan reports one case of a cytogenetically normal male infant that was fathered by a man with Down syndrome (Sheridan et al, 1980). Women have impaired but still significant fertility: a number of reviews document women with Down syndrome carrying pregnancy to term and delivering infants with and without Down syndrome (Bovicelli et al, 1982; Rani et al, 1990). Infants born to mothers with Down syndrome are at increased risk for premature delivery and low birth weight (Bovicelli et al, 1982). Pregnancy outcomes obtained from a study of mothers with Down syndrome are displayed in Table 5. Whether a woman with Down syndrome constitutes a high risk pregnancy depends largely on cognitive level and medical status. Obviously, the presence of maternal cardiac, thyroid, or hepatic disease, as well as seizure disorder, complicates a pregnancy. The high incidence of congenital heart disease in any offspring with Down syndrome contributes to pregnancy risk, including stillbirth and neonatal death (Gordon, 1990). Offspring without Down syndrome have a greater than average number of congenital anomalies (Bovicelli et al 1982) (see Table 5).Table 5. Reported results of pregnancy in Down syndrome Paper Parent Offspring Sheridan et al, 1989 1 man with Down syndrome 1 normal male Bovicelli et al, 1982 26 women with Down syndrome 10 normal 10 Down syndrome 2 mentally retarded 1 set of premature, nonviable normal twins 3 malformed 1 slightly microcephaly 1 still born 2 abortion, phenotype unknown Rani et al, 1990 1 woman with Down syndrome 1 normal 32 pregnancies total Ref: Sheridan et al, 1989; Bovicelli et al, 1982; Rani et al, 1990.

Excalibur

Replacing text with direct link to PMID 11937181 on cancer study, for brevity: hope you don't mind, Excalibur. Sandy (Talk) 17:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)