Talk:Down syndrome/Archive 4

message: 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)
replies: text: 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.  TedTalk/Contributions 14:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simian crease - phrase usage 

message: 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)
thread_title:  EastEnders/The Sun 

message: 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)
thread_title:  external link 26 

message: Thanks to whomever fixed the vandalism on this page. It was vile.
64.241.242.18 00:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism fixed 

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

message: Can anyone remove the picture of male anatomy from the article?
Jamesmack1 01:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be gone now. --W.marsh 01:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! --Jamesmack1 01:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offensive picture 

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Please set protection. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Great thanks
Uhhh, no it still there. 71.126.231.215 02:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Looks like they already did 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Thoroughy disappointed and appalled! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Karyotype Image 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Good job! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

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

message: Something on vocational opportunities would be good.Anthony717 14:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Down Syndrome and employment

message: 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)
thread_title: Chimps

message: 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)
thread_title:  why is he using a drill 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Name 

message: 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)
thread_title: Citations

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  vandalism? 

message: In Genetic research section, trying to add PMIDs, can't reconcile  with 
Sandy (Talk) 21:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the journal website, the date of publication is in fact 1990. Fvasconcellos 21:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly a better reference is , it is a more general reference to the area. Genetics411 21:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Another PMID mismatch

message: 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)
thread_title:  stop silly edit war 

message: 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)
thread_title:  can someone please revert? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Unsourced addition to lead