Talk:Down syndrome/Archive 3

message: One of the peer review comments is to expand the lead material, WP:LEAD.  The article is currently about 30K long, and the recommendation is 3 or 4 paragraphs.  One quick way to do this is to merge the Overview section into the Lead material.  Does this seem reasonable?  Is there a better solution? Ted 19:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overview 

message: After a short discussion with Alterprise (), I decided to do a short survey of names for various genetics disorders/syndromes.  I looked for genetic disorders with only one name (ignoring, for example, Prader-Willi syndrome), which may follow different rules.  For each of them, I looked to see if they gave alternate "possessiveness" in the lead paragraph.  Without exception, they did not.  I then looked to see which form they used.  Without exception, they used the form for wherever the article was located.  All of them, except one, had a redirection from the other form.  The one exception was Edwards syndrome.  I suspect it is because "Edwards" already has a trailing "s".  It did, however, include a redirect from Edward's syndrome, which is incorrect in any case.  Following are the articles I surveyed, which have both possessive and nonpossessive forms:
*Turner syndrome
*Crohn's disease
*Patau syndrome
*Edwards syndrome
*Alzheimer's disease
*Huntington's disease (which also give Huntington's chorea)
*Klinefelter's syndrome
*Hirschsprung's disease
*Angelman syndrome
Some of the article names follow the NIH/Chicago Manual of Style guidelines, others do not.  While I have been in favor of giving both forms in the lead, I am convinced by Alterprise's argument of simplicity.  I have changed the lead paragraph.  If we need to change the History section, then we can do that. Ted 20:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Down syndrome in lead paragraph 

message: I tried to make this section a little clearer in terms of timing of the eugenics movement and de-institutionalization. It was a force in public policy with medical and scientific backing mainly from about 1910 to about 1945, and not when Dr Down originally wrote about it. I hope no one thinks I have removed useful info. alteripse 19:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Relating to the context under History my opinion is that the expression "mongolian idiocy" should not be used and be replaced with it or this: By the 20th century, ‘’this’’ had become the most recognizable form of mental retardation”, as both expressions have been used sufficiently in the sentences above, thus avoiding overusing what has become a negatively charged expression and emphasizing the correct one – even if the dispute and change is described further down (no pun intended). --Profero 16:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also concerned that the paragraph has both "mongolian idiocy" and "Down syndrome".  The actual diagnosis was mongolian idiocy at the time, but I'm sure that any such diagnosis is now considered Down syndrome.  Normally, I'd stay with historical diagnosis, but I'm not sure it is required in this instance.  Whichever way it goes, it should be consistent within a paragraph. TedTalk/Contributions 05:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: history changes

message: After someone added the ultrasound, I looked back over and thought it would be nice to have pictures for most of the sections.  I blew it and missed the Special Olympics this past weekend here.  It would be nice to have some more pictures of individuals. Ted 00:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've only blocked anonymous or newly-registered users (less than four days), to stop the anonymous AOL blanking.  You can either wait another three days and then edit the article yourself, or upload the pictures and let us know on the talk page, and someone else can insert them.  Thanks for the offer, some more pictures would be great.  --ajn (talk) 05:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: :allowed to use powertools - ouch !. In my hometown there are numerous sheltered workshops with Downs afflicted people working - using power drills, drill presses and other power tools. the picture is appropriate and a better one than my attempts- Peripitus (Talk) 09:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The comment is a good enough reason to keep the picture.  It is a picture of the son of one of the early editors and is quite good. TedTalk/Contributions 16:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest unregistered Jackman69 apologizes to  Mayor Westfall and the rest of the Wikipedia community for using such language, and I hope for consensus to remove the comment of Jackman. --Profero 09:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: A little while ago, an editor changed "chance" to "risk."  As a statistician, I have no problems with either way.  However, earlier this year the change was made from "risk" to "chance" by some other editor (I forget who made the changes), feeling that the word "risk" carried unneeded connotations.  The change from "chance" to "risk" was made without regard to the construction of sentences, so it will either have to be fixed or changed back to "chance."
What is the feeling now about the preference for either of these two words? TedTalk/Contributions 16:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Risk ''vs'' Chance 

message: While working on the lead paragraphs, I discovered that a large part of it is also found here: .  This material used to be part of the, now defunct, Overview section.  If you look back at that section as it existed in March, it is nearly word-for-word identical.  I don't know if this website took the material from Wikipedia without attributing it, or we plagiarized from them.  I have deleted most of the lead section and reworded the remaining paragraph (the first paragraph seems to be OK).  If there is useful information that should be reinserted, we should do so without using that language. TedTalk/Contributions 20:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violation 

message: As was asked in the peer review, I found some rates for elective abortions.  It is in the section on prenatal testing.
My question is, Is it useful to keep?  Does it improve the article, or just act as a lightening rod? TedTalk/Contributions 18:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, what a bundle of offensive and unwarranted assumptions you can create out of thin air! alteripse 23:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abortion 

message: There is some evidence that individuals with Down syndrome have a much lower rate of lung cancer than others, as is expected for all cancers caused by tumor suppressor genes. . This isn´t explained on the page  tumor suppressor gene. Are the genes responsible for the cancer (that woulnd´t be logical), or is a failure/ mutation of the genes responsible for the cancer happening. This is not clear for me, and I´d be happy if someone could clarify in the article. regards Sean Heron 21:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not really sure how useful it is to explain it in detail.  Tumor suppressor genes follow the "two-hit" model -- they have to have two mutations to cause cancers.  With trisomy 21, it becomes a "three-hit" model. TedTalk/Contributions 19:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You may wish to reword this paragraph since the incidence of all cancers except leukemia and testicular cancer are reduced in people with Down syndrome, rather than singling out lung cancer.--Lleshin 02:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome#Health health] 

message: Mainstreaming is actually a pretty outdated form of education when it comes to disabled children.  The new trend is towards "inclusion".  My son with Down Syndrome goes to a full inclusion school and is in a class with both gifted children, autistic children, and children with behavioural problems since all these groups benefit from special education.  
Maybe there should be a section on inclusion schools even though they are fairly uncommon in the public education system.  In New York they are common but I don't know about the rest of the country.  
Inclusion usually involves a one-on-one aid to assist the more severly disabled children but also allow them to be fully integrated into the classrooms.  
An example of a full inclusion school is the Child Development Center of the Hamptons in East Hampton, NY.
My son is also removed from class for his individual therapy sessions when they are scheduled. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.116.136 (talk • contribs) .
:Go for it.  Write up a section.  Or, add to the section on mainstreaming.  The hardest part is getting citations, although I have access to several. TedTalk/Contributions 01:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mainstreaming

message: Someone removed this with the accusation it is biased:
Despite this change, the reduced abilities of people with Down syndrome pose a challenge to their parents and families. While living with their parents is preferable to institutionalization for most adults with Down syndrome, they often encounter patronising attitudes and discrimination in the wider community. 
The paragraph consists of 2 relatively uncontroversial statements of fact, and 1 statement of value preference.
#Reduced abilities of people w DS pose a challenge for their families.
#Living with parents is preferable to institutionalization for most adults with DS.
#People with DS often encounter patronising attitudes and discrimination in the community.
So which statement is biased? Should we assume our anon deleter feels that institutionalization is preferable for the majority? alteripse 23:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: restored paragraph accused of bias

message: I'm trying to figure out the POV issue for prenatal screening.  I presume it has to do with the last paragraph, unless there an issue with even presenting prenatal screening.  Rather than guess about the issue, it would help to address it here.  I look forward to your presenting your concerns. TedTalk/Contributions 01:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how it is pushing any position.  Prenatal diagnosis is a part of Down syndrome.  All but the last paragraph is typical fare for articles in medical genetics.  So, what is your problem with the last paragraph?  The first paragraph mentions the fact of abortion rates.  The rest of the paragraph gives resources concerning the ethical ramifications.  If you have more or better citations, then add them.  I'll check out the lifenews page you suggested. TedTalk/Contributions 02:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to find a good citation for physician pressure that doesn't come from an advocacy group.  If you have one, that would be great.  In the United States, much prenatal screening is done through genetic counselors, where nondirective genetic counseling is the rule. TedTalk/Contributions 02:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did find this:  I haven't read it yet.  I'll see what it has. TedTalk/Contributions 03:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: False alarm.  I'm searched out.  None of my usual search engines gave up anything. TedTalk/Contributions 04:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that the article does a fantastic job of addressing the medical reality while remaining NPOV as to any value judgment. Like it or not, many people choose not to have children with trisomy 21. InvictaHOG 13:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV for prenatal screening 

message: It should be featured. What are we waiting for? Could I nominate it? NCurse  work 20:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was waiting for the health article (Health aspects of Down syndrome) to be expanded some. TedTalk/Contributions 23:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I have been focusing on uploading images and starting a few new articles which I wanted to get underway. I'll work on the health aspects over the weekend InvictaHOG 02:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean that as a criticism.  I just wanted more in the sub-articles than in the main article.  I'm also busy grading papers & some time away from the heat ! There is no need to rush it, we've tried to be very patient with the process.  TedTalk/Contributions 04:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please let me know when I can nominate it. NCurse  work 19:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It might be nice if Ted got to nominate it. Either way, I'll let you know when I'm done. I've started arranging my thoughts on paper for the expansion article and when I'm done I will condense it into summary style. InvictaHOG 21:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA