Talk:Down syndrome/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Removal of promotioonal-sounding materials

A novel test for Down syndrome, as of yet not published (epub ahead of print), is a thin basis for an addition to an article. A primary source is not ideal for inclusion. Normally, we wait for review articles, but in this case, inclusion is based solely on the fact that it has reputable news coverage. Using the company's indications would be like putting a advertiser's suggestion to "get an extra for each your kids" into the article. When a relevant group (e.g. ACOG, IOM) comes up with indications, such indications will belong in the article, just as the competing test will be listed as they come to market, either by name if there is a limited set, or as a group designation. Wikipedia avoids phrases like "there is now", because we are writing an encyclopedia to stand the test of time, now a giant press release.Novangelis (talk) 14:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 15 November 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

under the "history" heading, the word "pejorative" is spelled wrong. Buppy506 (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

 DoneNovangelis (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Description of main picture is inappropriate

The uploader of the photo wrote the following in the description:

"Stupid retard about to hurt himself"

The user Excalibur was the person who uploaded this photo and possibly wrote that description. Someone please change that, because it's inappropriate and offensive. --Bobjonespie (My talk) 01:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The photo is attributed to one user but was uploaded by a different user. Either way, this is not an issue with the article, and should not be discussed here.Novangelis (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It's OK! Some idiot (and I mean idiot) had vandalised the caption on Wiki Commons. It was uploaded by the boy's father under an appropriate description. Amandajm (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Global English usage

WP:GOOGLETESTing for "Down Syndrome" in the top ten English-speaking countries (as chosen by being in the top six countries by total English speakers or by native English speakers), the following top hits occur:

AU>Down Syndrome Victoria

CA>Canadian Down Syndrome Society

DE>innovations report

GB>Down's Syndrome Association

IE>Down Syndrome Ireland

IN>Down Syndrome Federation of India & DNA India

NG>Down Syndrome Association of Nigeria

PH>Down Syndrome Association of the Philippines, Inc

US>National Down Syndrome Society

ZA>Down Syndrome South Africa

GB is the only one to not have an instance of "Down Syndrome" rather than "Down's Syndrome" in its top ten list. The IN sites seem to use both spellings in the same page. In the other eight countries, "Down Syndrome" seems to be more common than "Down's Syndrome" or "Downs Syndrome".

Warmest Regards, :)--thecurran let it off your chest 12:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

What is your point? This can't be included in the article, as it is original research. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 15:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

My point is that despite what may have been the case yesteryear, currently Down Syndrome is not only an Americanism but Down's Syndrome is only a Briticism. I believe for such a purpose, this is a completely valid use of WP:GOOGLETEST and that it not un-encyclopaedic WP:OR at all. Warmest Regards, :)--thecurran let it off your chest 17:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting stuff. I just corrected my nephew for NOT spelling it 'Down's'. Oops. I suspect the change to 'Down Syndrome' is a recent one, and another great example of the dreaded 'Yanklish Creep' (my term), as it has been "Down's" here in Australia my entire life. (actually, it was 'Mongolism' when I was a wee kid). But my issue is not with most popular use, but the most SENSIBLE use, and it seems to make MORE sense that the name refers to Dr Down who did most of the early work on the syndrome. Calling it Down syndrome disables the eponym and implies as much negativity (to me) as Mongoliod. Anyone who has had contact with Down's kids knows they're anything BUT 'down'!. my two cents - which is currentyl worth more than two cents in the USA ;-) Regards, --matthk (pardon my lack of wiki notation knowledge). —Preceding undated comment added 00:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC).

There is a lot to be said for migrating to "DS" as a universal acronym, this is catching on, conforms to much common everyday practice (as in MS, ME, etc) and solves the apostrophe problem for most parents, wherever we live in the world. But as usual, we parents are always one jump ahead of the so-called professionals.Excalibur (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

While not touching the primary usage of "Down Syndrome" in the lede, I've removed the fairly questionable claim that the usage "Down's Syndrome" is primarily found in the UK. Neither source provided supported that claim. (And it doesn't particularly gibe with my own experience, which is why it so immediately stuck out as an odd claim.) If a verifiable secondary source exists to make that claim, feel free to restore the deletion. Grandpallama (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 18 November 2011

Within the bibliography: change "Down Syndrome Research Foundation (2005). Bright Beginnings: A Guide for New Parents. Buckinghamshire, UK: Down Syndrome Research Foundation.[dead link]" to "Down Syndrome Research Foundation UK (2005). Bright Beginnings: A Guide for New Parents. Buckinghamshire, UK: Down Syndrome Research Foundation UK."

Reasons:

We are "Down Syndrome Research Foundation UK"

Also the links are out of date. New links are:

Bright Beginnings: A Guide for New Parents http://www.dsrf-uk.org/PDF/BrightBeginnings_3.pdf Our site is now: http://www.dsrf-uk.org/

Thank you for amending this Liz Elliott Chair of the DSRF UK

Lize169 (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Working on it. The link can be updated. Arguably, however, the name of the foundation should not: the publication was done by the Down's Syndrome Research Foundation, as styled in the text, or referred to once as Down's Syndrome Research Foundation in the UK. —C.Fred (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the link. I've changed the publisher and author to agree with the styling of of their names at the time of the publication, as printed in the publication. —C.Fred (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Picture

We're talking about Down Syndrome and what Down Syndrome looks like--so let's SEE IT. One cannot look at that picture of the boy with the drill and walk away with even the slightest idea of the general facial features inherent in Down Syndrome. Seriously...you could post a picture of a potted plant there and it would be no less informative than the current picture. Change the picture already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.211.2 (talk) 03:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that the picture of the child with Down's syndrome is ridiculous. Children are not supposed to use drills, children with Down's syndrome should definately not use power drills. Who was smart enough to give this child a drill, really, you might as well have given him a loaded gun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.229.146 (talk)

I love the photo, and the above user is apparently not retarted, just dumb. The child is using a drill, under the close supervision of his parents. It's a battery powered drill with a clutch on it, what is he going to do, drill a hole in his own head? People with down's syndrome have the right to do whatever they want in life, and if this child wants to learn carpentry, then so be it. He obviously is using it under close supervision and therefore the danger is minimal or non existant. It's not like he's sticking his tongue into a jointer. idiot.ReignMan (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length. Please check the Talk page articles above. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Geez, that guy should "definately" not have been given a loaded computer. He's just going to hurt himself or someone else. alteripse 03:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Guess — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.229.146 (talk) is either not a parent or has very weird views about disability...sometimes I wonder what some folk are doing on this page in the first place. Universal adult (semi) literacy has its downside! Excalibur 17:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have some beautiful pictures of Down children at the school where I work in Ghana, The Volta School for the Mentally Challenged. I think that a picture of one of them would better fit the spot of leading photograph in the article, such as a picture of my student Mansa colouring or something like that. I even have headshots of all of the kids from their school records and I feel those would be more demonstrative. --Allie 16:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That is incredibly illegal. You don't have the right to use pictures of other people's children without their consent. I used a photo of someone else's dog once, and still got their consent!ReignMan (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Allison - As a teacher you have no authority to use the "headshots" of children in your class in this way on a public forum without full and informed parental consent. With respect, I have been to Ghana too, and most folk there have absolutely no idea what submitting their child's image to this wiki might imply in terms of the various uses to which it might be put by people with other motives than public enlightenment. Excalibur 17:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The picture really is a poor one. It might be good for an article on children or tools but it totally fails to add any information to an article on Down's. Given that one of the distinctive features is the facial appearance then surely a photo facing the camera is required. Mtpaley 21:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I am confused about the current picture right now. Unless one of the members of this music group has Down Syndrome, I find it inappropriate. Even if one of the members does have Down syndrome, I do not find the picture representative of Down Syndrome at all. 66.188.210.136 22:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Sarah

OK, this is a more recent shot of the same guy facing the camera, taken five minutes ago, no kidding, this was his idea, not mine. Look, that's just the way he is, he likes helping me out with power tools and dressing up as the King of Thieves...would you prefer a drooling overweight stereotype to suit the medical folk on this site? I can only photograph him the way he really is, not the way you want him to be...this is his idea of fun and I would far rather he was in bed by now but he's a teenager and does what he wants, not what you want. People with DS are the same as everyone else, just go figure ;-) Excalibur 23:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Drill photo is definately better!ReignMan (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahyhh!!! OMG! it's a ninja!!! everybody panic!!! Jivesucka (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the photo is great and very much adds to the article. It shows the distinct facial features and the short stubby fingers, but in a dynamic shot (also illustrating the capacity to develop interests and skills) rather than a "here is a pathology specimen" shot. Which is as it should be, since people with DS are people, not pathology specimens. In other words the photo shows the stigmata without stigmatizing. Though it would be nice if more photos were included to illustrate the distinct physical traits. 24.145.5.68 (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The photo of a DS child using a power tool to assemble a bookcase should be replaced with a more appropriate picture of a sufferer of this horrific, incurable, lifelong condition. The large majority of DS adults, let alone children, are incapable of sucessfully assembling furniture. Did the child pictured actually succeed in completing the assembly? If he did, he is an unusual case, not representative of DS people in general. It gives the misleading impression that DS sufferers are productive and capable of carrying out tasks which many normal adults are unable to do, in comparison to the reality of them being uncontrolled wrecks (yes, I have had the misfortune of encountering them in person). Some people may even interpret the picture as: "we must create far more Down Syndrome children, they are more capable than the rest of us!". The fact is that DS sufferers are severely retarded and cannot live normal lives - most never learn to do basic things such as reading and writing properly, because they are incapable of doing so. There are tests to determine whether or not a foetus has DS, which enables their prenatal diagnosis and termination. The article is already biased against the necessary implementation of eugenics; the picture makes that situation significantly worse. If anyone disagrees with what I've typed, don't use ridiculous reductio ad Hitlerum statements, or the scientifically disproven 'everyone's equal' left-wing dogma. Answer this: can anyone name even one DS person who has (had) a productive or useful life; not had a life of suffering, severe disability and been a massive burden to those around him/her? Do the authorities allow DS adults to adopt children? Why not, if they are the same as the rest of us? It astounds me that some of the same people who complain of high taxation also demand the massive increase in births of severely disabled children by preventing their abortion. Do they really not see that the large-scale production of incurable severely disabled children contributes massively to the need for so much taxation?Werdnawerdna (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

One person who's had a productive and useful life: my sister Brigid, who works for her living. Now fuck off. Manormadman (talk) 05:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that I have seen many people with DS with useful and happy lives. I also have seen a clerk at a store with no arms -- functioning quite well, thank you. Collect (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The primary illustration does not clearly depict the idiosyncratic traits indicative of the condition and does not well serve the purpose for which this first example should be employed. While the picture may serve a useful roll by challenging preconceptions of this condition, that function is secondary to the aim of addressing the subject concisely. The preference of the 'drill image' over a clearer representation amounts to position advocacy. I recommend the image be retained, but not as the first image offered for consideration.Mavigogun (talk) 09:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In response to "Answer this: can anyone name even one DS person who has (had) a productive or useful life; not had a life of suffering, severe disability and been a massive burden to those around him/her?" by User:Werdnawerdna: Chris Burke (actor). Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that an actor can be described as useful. But seriously, the photo of an unsupervised child with a power tool was pointless and quite possibly inappopriate. To the poster who commented that the boy was supervised- well that may have been so, but only a psychic looking at the photo would know that!JohnC (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Somebody had to be there to take the pictureLRT24 (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

the photograph is fantastic, in a good way. the young man is doing something he loves to do, and being productive and participating. this is not after all an article about "how to identify someone with DS", it is "about" DS, and this is reality shown in the photo. obviously, it works against people's stereotypes, but then, a photo of someone with DS doing practically anything at all goes against the stereotypes. guess what? the stereotypes are wrong. people that know someone with DS well will attest that even they do not know all the capabilities of people with DS, because they are regularly surprised by something they do and the capabilities they have. it is vitally important to remember that the communication difficulties that are often present disguise how much understanding someone with DS has. certainly in my experience, the most frustrating thing i have to deal with in having a family member who has DS, is other people's faith in their own ignorant misconceptions. my brother is far happier than anyone i have ever met, does not suffer, and has a great attitude towards life which inspires everyone around him-- not "a great attitude about dealing with his condition", but a great attitude, period. he's also a better and more soulful singer than other performers i have heard, and (to the responder directly above) yes, i consider singing and acting (which he also does) to be useful. certainly his audiences think so. he is not a massive burden on anyone, he is easy to please, ready to work hard, very polite, and desires to participate in life. the writer above may think it's "crazy", but my brother is the center of our family, and we stand on his shoulders. he has taught us most of what we know. he also does not talk about things he knows next to nothing about. it is a great example to try to follow.Fewerthanzero (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

While I have no issue with the photo per se, I do worry that it may come across as being - and I'm struggling to explain this properly - a little "political". Why not just an neutral front photo of someone with Down's, which would also be more informative in conveying the physical aspects of Down's than this profile view? What I'm trying to say is I actually find the picture a little bit condescending - as if it's assumed that a reader has to be shown that someone with Down's can be capable at skilled tasks. If that's ever the case, the problem is with the reader, not the article. I've taken out the "assembling a bookcase" part of the caption for this reason. I have no doubt it will be reverted, but I believe the issue of the photo needs more consideration. Imagine if the article on homosexuality showed a man at a sporting event with the caption "Homosexual man not attending musical theatre". David (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I am indeed about to revert the change, but will quantify it here first: Your analogy is incorrect - by your train of thought, the image should be changed to show a profile, and the comment should then read something along the lines of "Child with Downs Syndrome not assembling a book case" - which is far more degrading (to me, anyway). There is nothing wrong with the article image, nor implication - indeed as you point out, any assumption is that of the reader, and might I be so bold as to suggest that you include yourself in that category? To apply your logic to the rest of Wikipedia, we should also remove all Fashion model images from catwalks, as that's also reinforcing a stereotype. Typed in a rush, as I'm off on the school run now - excuse any errors. a_man_alone (talk) 08:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Back from the run, and back to the computer: Despite our personal feelings about DS, stereotypes surrounding it, or gross motor skills regarding power tools, the issue at hand is the picture - not the caption: You can't change one without changing the other - the caption is supposed to describe the picture, in this case the picture is of a boy with Downs syndrome assembling a bookcase - the caption should also describe the scene. Therefore anybody who has either images turned off, or for some other reason cannot see the image knows what the picture is. I'll concede that you say it's the picture that is causing you offence, but I reiterate - you can't change one without changing the other. Chenge the picture, if you can find a better one, but note that the picture has been changed several times in the past, and always reverted back to this as by consensus, it's the best available. a_man_alone (talk) 09:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Your point regarding the descriptive nature of the caption is well taken. I still stand by my other reservations (which is not the same as the supposed "offence" you believe I've taken - I don't find the image the slightest bit offensive, I just don't think it is as informative as it could be, in the context of the article). I don't follow your logic that this is the same as removing images of fashion models from an article on catwalks - how is that a stereotype, or an anti-stereotype? Catwalks do, by and large, feature fashion models. I wouldn't advocate the removal of an image of (to turn your example the other way) a catwalk show from an article on modelling, but I would have reservations about putting up an image of a model, say, reading a book on quantum physics, because it just feels like protesting too much over the perpetuation of a disagreeable stereotype. Maybe I just worry that people will look at the image/caption currently here and get the feeling that the submitter has a point to make/an agenda to push - maybe I just find it too sad that we even have to consider reminding people that those with Down's and other conditions are no greater or lesser than anyone else (my ex-neighbour has Down's and he's been starring in films while I fritter my hours away on Wikipedia ;) ). As for your idea that my idea of a more suitable picture would have a quote saying "Child with Downs Syndrome not assembling a book case" - that's just silly. It'd just say "Child with Down Syndrome", wouldn't it? Neutral. David (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

There needs to be a front-view shot of a down syndrome kid. We need to see the shape of their eyes and mouth, as this is characteristic of the condition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.131.13 (talk) 02:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The poster's response of "that's just how my kid is" is fine and dandy, but only if this where his website/blog. However, the first picture of someone with an affliction/syndrome/disease/whatever in an encyclopedia article should clearly show and describe the characteristics of the affliction/syndrome/disease/whatever, and the current picture and caption spectacularly fails at that. There's nothing wrong with moving the picture further down to complement "quality of life" stuff.76.120.66.57 (talk) 05:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Its funny how this debate about this photo still won't go away, and in the meantime my boy has grown (almost) into a man. Full of all the things that this main article about "this dreaded syndrome" still utterly fails to mention: mischief, intelligence, love, a strong sense of justice and compassion for those who are weaker than himself, kindness to animals, technological skills (well he understands his iMac which is more than I can do) and lots of other things that are mundane but helpful, like emptying the dishwasher and making a fine cup of tea. At 16, he travels independently to college in another town by public bus, uses his mobile phone, is chatty and sometimes morose like any other teenager, and falls in love with teenage pin-ups like any spotty lad his age. He skis, he has a paid part time job at a local printers, he horse rides, he climbs mountains, he writes and reads, he loves to draw, he surfs the net, he listens to pop music. Sometimes he is defiant, sometimes sad, he is happy, he steals and lies, he is destructive and sloppy, he is cuddly and charming. All these things. The thing I find frustrating is that this article is still about classifying my son as one of "them" rather than celebrating our shared humanity, our diversity, our huge human potential to overcome and defy classification. Human first: Downs Syndrome secondary. Well, thats how I see it !Excalibur (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sir, the various faculties that you ascribe to your offspring are entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Furthermore, Wikipedia does not exist to spread political messages, which is why the article, as you perceive it, classifies your progeny as "one of them", and not "one of us", as it were. The article exists as an informative collection of data pertaining to Down's syndrome and it is not permitted to make emotional pleas to readers.

I,E ^{• Wouldst thou speak?} 16:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice imperious soapbox there. If you have a better picture, please upload, discuss, and replace. a_man_alone (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Sir, I am sorry that you feel it necessary to thus malign me with spurious, hypocritical accusations of imperiousness. I understand that you have a vested moral interest in this case, but it really does not concern or interest me. Good day.

I,E ^{• Wouldst thou speak?} 18:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

If it doesn't concern or interest you, why are you here? a_man_alone (talk) 07:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Sir, I have no intention fo playing your childish games. You have now twice insulted me without provocation, and all because I corrected somebody who was using a talk page inappropriately as a means to spread a political message. What does not interest me is your moral indignation, which has quite clearly clouded your judgement.

I,E ^{• Wouldst thou speak?} 07:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You may have intended to correct what you saw as a political message, but what with your upper-class parody mode of speech it's hard to take anything you are saying seriously. Therefore I stand by my conclusion that you're a troll, and will stop feeding you. Parting shot: If you have a better image, upload it, discuss its merits, and replace the existing one. Otherwise you (and ironically me as well now,) are not helping in any way. a_man_alone (talk) 10:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

So I am to understand, sir, that you find it difficult to take what I am saying seriously because of how I say it? And upon this ground, which is composed of no more than your own ignorance, you call me a troll and otherwise insult me? Perhaps you should look at my account and observe that I have been constructively contributing to Wikipedia for some time now, before you gratify your inane desire to think badly of somebody with whose opinion, expressed above, you so patently disagree. Your ridiculous classist attitude is deplorable, and I am under no obligation to format my speech in a manner that pleases you, so drop the officious act and go bother somebody who is interested in your whining.

I,E ^{• Wouldst thou speak?} 16:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Parting shot: If you have a better image, upload it, discuss its merits, and replace the existing one. Otherwise you (and ironically me as well now,) are not helping in any way. a_man_alone (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to be childish and cowardly, go ahead.

I,E ^{• Wouldst thou speak?} 22:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I, Englishman wants to go out with me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.253.81 (talk) 03:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

What the hell is with the picture, what relevance does it have to Down's Syndrome, you can hardly even see the boy in it. Its just a pathetic attempt to show disabilities in a positive light, but its taking it too far... --78.146.181.168 (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not a drill, it's a screwdriver, people. Perfectly safe for a kid.Buffalowing (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)