Jump to content

Talk:Down syndrome/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 12

Autism

Why are Down syndrome kids more likely to be autistic? I thought autism was separate, a condition in itself. Also, do all Down syndrome kids have light hair and skin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.248.227 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a current trend to label all kids who have patterns of behaviour that are perceived as similar to autism as "autistic". Thus if a kids with D.S. is cheerful and friendly, it isn't considered autistic. If it is shy and clinging it is likely to have the autistic label applied. I think that "autism" is over-applied when other diagnosable conditions are present. Amandajm (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Your opinions are clouded by your use of "it" to refer to a person.Buffalowing (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Down Syndrome

How to I help a child with Down Syndrome? How to we fix them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.236.125.180 (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 January 2012

Hello, I would like to add a link in the external links part :

Thank you very much Catywalk (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

How would this link improve the article? If there is useful information at the site, it might be better added to the article, using the site as a reference. See the external links guidelines, specifically the first point.-gadfium 19:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Up Syndrome

I have down syndrome I call it up syndrome. I am happy but I think the name can be pejorative sometimes. Theres nothing to be down about and being called retard is dumb because retard just means slow and everyone is slow in some way or another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.197.229 (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"Dr. Weihs", Sources?

I stumbled across a certain "Dr. Weihs" who is repeatedly cited in the text (in inappropriate fashion, the "Dr." should be omitted in any case). Surprisingly, the source referenced in these cases is "Richards, M.C. Toward wholeness: Rudolf Steiner education in America. 1980. University Press of New England, N.H." Not being an expert in the field, this sounds a bit fishy to me. First of all, the book is not about Down Syndrome; and second, I am doubtful whether anthroposophical categorizations should be part of the main text on a clinical condition. Would be great if somebody with more background knowledge than myself could check that. --Simon Columbus (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Structural - Research

I'd like to move more of the 'Research section into the subarticle - would anyone mind if I did this?

Fayedizard (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Glee

Becky (Lauren Potter) is mentioned in the article but not Jean Sylvester played by Robin Trocki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.196.194 (talk) 05:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

GA

Hope nobody minds, but I'm going to nominate this article for GA as the first step on a road to get it back the FA class it lost in 2010, if anyone has a problem with this nomination, let me know and I'll withdraw it :) Fayedizard (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Slightly embarrassing change of plan - I've been poking at the article and I think I'd like to do a lot more work on it before it faces GA - there are a few bits that I'd like to tinker with... Fayedizard (talk) 10:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

LISTEN DID THEY GENETICALLY MATCH THEIR PARENTS?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.166.79.88 (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

movement of sections (also now world view)

Hi all - I'd us to consider moving the 'Abortion rates' and 'Ethical issues' sections from the Down_syndrome to the Disability_rights article - reasons include that the sections contain information and arguments that are common to many different forms of disability, and it would be nice if they where more centrally dealt with. Fayedizard (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

As there was no objection - I've moved this over, as a result I've also removed the worldview template because I think that a side effect of the move was to make the section less US-centric... :) Fayedizard (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I restored the two sections. They are two lengthy sections, very relevant to this article, they can't just be deleted like that. You say what they contain is "common to many different forms of disability"-well no, they are dealing specifically with Down Syndrome. The "abortion rates" section is about the abortion rate for Down Syndrome, not for pregnancies tested positive for disability in general. And the "ethics" section deals specifically with abortion/screening for Down Syndrome-it even quotes Claire Rayner, then a patron of the Down's Syndrome Association. Some of it is general, but 90% of it is specifically about Down Syndrome, those quoted mention it directly. Of course the same arguments can be applied to other disability (though it depends because "disability" is a very broad term and it can include anything from conditions incompatible with life where the baby is likely to die during the first days after birth, to conditions where those affected can lead a relatively 'normal' life), however just because the arguments can be applied to other conditions doesn't mean they shouldn't be discussed at all here, although the section might need some trimming. The two sections are very relevant- the abortion rates for Down Syndrome and the ethics surrounding them and the screening are things which are very important and can't just be omitted from the article. In any circumstances, you can't just delete them by yourself, the deletion of two lengthy sections requires an extensive discussion and a strong consensus from several people.

Skydeepblue (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

So I think there may be some confusion here... the sections were not deleted, they were moved to Disability_rights a certain amount of time after the proposal was made. I certainly see your points and they largely reflect my own feelings when I proposed the move to Disability_rights article. I'm quite happy to take consensus from WP - but unfortunately at the moment we are stuck between two points. The move also involved the addition of the content at Disability_rights and various template additions to let other editors know the provence of the content. At the moment you've only undone the deletion and so we are at risk some unpleasant Wikipedia:Content_forking when people start to edit the content in two places. We can certainly talk about reversing the other parts of the move, but I'd like to propose the compromise of holding the move in place but adding a note to the section directing readers to Disability_rights - how does that sound? Fayedizard (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
These two sections belong in this article (Down syndrome) much more then in the Disability_rights for two reasons: 1) they are very relevant to this article, and the article would be incomplete without them; 2) they are too specific for the Disability_rights article, because they only deal with one condition -Down Syndrome- rather than discussing things in general terms.
The abortion rates for Down Syndrome clearly belong here, are very important to the topic, and must remain in this article. Now the "Ethical issues" section may be too long, but I think that touching the subject of the ethics surrounding the abortions is definitely necessary for this article, because discussions about the morality surrounding this (both prenatal testing and aborting) are a very important part of the public discourse about Down Syndrome. Maybe the two sections should be merged into a single one called "Abortion rates and ethical issues" with the content from "Abortion rates" section remaining unchanged and the content from "Ethical issues" being shortened and summarized and reduced to one long paragraph if possible.
The Disability_rights article clearly has to discuss abortions of pregnancies tested positive for a condition and the ethics surrounding them, but it has to discuss this in general terms, referring to all disabilities, not only to Down Syndrome. Down Syndrome is one of many disabilities, and there is no reason why the Disability_rights sections about the abortions and ethics should focus only or mainly on it. So those sections from that article must be re-written and can also be expanded to be much longer.Skydeepblue (talk) 06:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, you're clearly very certain - I've rolled back the changes to disability rights and also removed the relevant templates from both talk pages. Fayedizard (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

And another thing

Something else I'd like to bring up - I'd like to propose dropping the section Down_syndrome#Portrayal_in_fiction on the grounds that it's very unsourced and and full of really quite tenuous links - any objections? Fayedizard (talk) 20:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a useful short reference and a start to what could in time become an interesting article, why not leave it for a bit and see if someone wants to migrate it? Excalibur (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I have seen many such section in articles. As refs are nearly impossible to find and IMO no one is interested in improving them I typically move them to the talk page per WP:Trivia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Article should be organized per WP:MEDMOS also I have removed the following due to a lack of references to show notability.

===Portrayal in fiction===

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

History

Is it possible for someone to add some details to the history section about the occurance of Down Syndrome in the past, has it always existed or developed as health or fertility changed.Owain meurig (talk) 09:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to. Google books and google scholar are often a good place to find references. Happy editing. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Stigma of the older women false

That older women have a higher rate of DS is false, thats what I have found out in research Valkyrie 06 (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It's great to hear from you Valkyrie - do you have a source we can use to add the information to the article? Wikipedia generally requires that statements can be traced back to a source… Fayedizard (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Correction needed with the use of "Down's"

Children who have Down Syndrome do not have "Down's". Referring to a child who has Down Syndrome as a child with Down's completely violates the concept of People First Language, which is the concept used in the disability culture to stress that no matter what disability a person may have, they are first and foremost a person, or a child. Down's is a slang term that is inappropriate when referring to a child or a person who has Down Syndrome.

Verified from Smile on Down Syndrome, a website for parents of children with Down Syndrome http://www.smileondownsyndrome.org/smile11/?page_id=229 "Spelling The correct spelling is Down syndrome. There is no apostrophe ‘s’ following Down. Dr. John Langdon Down provided the first formal description of the syndrome and therefore no possessive is used. Also, the ‘s’ in syndrome in not capitalized. People First Language Individuals with Down syndrome are people first. The emphasis should be on the individual, not the disability. For example: a baby, child or adult with Down syndrome, not ‘Down syndrome child’ or ‘Downs’ baby’. If mentioning Down syndrome is not relevant to the conversation, why even bring it up at all?"

Thank you for your help to correctly educate people on individuals with disabilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.97.253 (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, thank you for bringing these issues to our attention - I've had a look through the article, most of the time that "Down's" is used is when it's in a quotation from something other people have said or written - there's also the issue that the syndrome is referred to differently in the UK - are there any particular sentences you were referring to? Fayedizard (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Of course, the IP user has confused two different issues and seems confused in general about the source page he/she cited. Yes, the use of "Down" or "Down's" should always be used in a manner that emphasizes personhood (e.g., a child with Down's) rather than as a defining characteristic (e.g., a Down's baby). However, the use of "Down's" over "Down" is not tied to any sort of pejorative use. "Down syndrome" may be the technically correct usage, but as the lede makes clear, "Down's syndrome" is commonly used. The assertion made that "referring to a child who has Down Syndrome as a child with Down's completely violates the concept of People First Language" misses the point of People First language. Grandpallama (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

This is just US political corectness. In the UK it is called Down'syndrome. My uncle has Down's syndrome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.40.31 (talk) 08:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

George Will

There is a mention of George Will calling the abortion of babies with Down syndrome 'eugenics.' I feel that it should be mentioned that he is the father of a man (Jon Will) that has DS. Without that caveat, because of opinions that go along with the phrase "conservative commentator," it comes across as sensationalism. If the reader is aware of his experience with the disease, they will be more likely to understand his sentiment.

[1]

Added --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

38-90%

In general there hearing impairment and otological problems are found in 38-90% of children with Down syndrome compared to 2.5% for normal children

The number 38-90% looks like a typo, can someone sort these numbers out. If the number is unclear that itself needs to be clarified. JoshuSasori (talk) 10:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Only one of the sources mentioned is available online, and that states 38-78%, so I've changed it. Also the poor formatting which looks to be a leftover from a previous edit. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for doing that job. JoshuSasori (talk) 01:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

DS for Down syndrome

We should assimilate the abbreviation "DS" into the lead to establish knowledge and awareness of the abbreviation. I have done it twice and it was reverted without explicit reason. The abbreviation "DS" is used several times within the body of the article with nothing stating it as the abbreviation for Down syndrome. This will remove incoherence for the non astute or versed reader on the topic. Ziggypowe (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

What I suggest is putting something like "commonly abbreviated as DS" along with a source. --NeilN talk to me 21:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Why must I search for a source when it is allowed to be used several times in the body of the article? We should be able to put it in parenthesis next to Down syndrome in the lead as follows: Down syndrome (DS) Ziggypowe (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm just suggesting something that would help make the change "stick". You're free to disregard. --NeilN talk to me 21:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Anyways, I added it back in with an edit summary explaining why. --NeilN talk to me 21:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Thankyou. This will be beneficial to the article. Ziggypowe (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Joyce Greenman is now died

http://www.obitoftheday.com/post/19398043296/bertholbrook — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.72.24 (talk) 01:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

False positive rate for amniocentesis

Please change

Confirmation of screen positive is normally accomplished with amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling (CVS). Amniocentesis is an invasive procedure and involves taking amniotic fluid from the amniotic sac and identifying fetal cells. The lab work can take several weeks but will detect over 99.8% of all numerical chromosomal problems with a very low false positive rate.[65]

to

Confirmation of screen positive is normally accomplished with amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling (CVS).

Amniocentesis is an invasive procedure and involves taking amniotic fluid from the amniotic sac and identifying fetal cells. The lab work can take several weeks but will detect over 99.8% of all numerical chromosomal problems.[65]

This accomplishes three things:

1. Adding the paragraph break clarifies that the last sentence in the above quote refers just to amniocentesis, not also to CVS.

2. Removing the phrase "with a very low false positive rate" is good because the phrase sounds meaningful, but doesn't include a numeric quantification.

(Note that a false positive rate that sounds low can still have a tremendous effect, depending on how it compares to the true positive rate. For example, if a particular test has a true positive rate of 0.5% and a false positive rate of 2.0%, that means a person who tests positive has just a 1/5 chance of having the condition. The point being that even if you consider phrases like "a lot" or "very low" to be generally meaningful in the absence of a number, false positive rates are kind of a special case because people's interpretations are likely to be much more diverse than usual.)

3. Most importantly, removing the phrase "with a very low false positive rate" is good because the phrase not supported by footnote 65.

The link is to http://web.archive.org/web/20070911123204/http://health.yahoo.com/topic/children/baby/article/healthwise/hw167989. Among other things, this Yahoo! article says:

Amniocentesis has less than a 1% risk of causing miscarriage and is 99.8% accurate in detecting Down syndrome. Results of amniocentesis usually take about 2 weeks.

I don't find any mention of false positive rates for either amniocentesis or CVS in the Yahoo! article.

Thanks. 174.25.9.195 (talk) 05:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


Done. Only took 9 days! Egg Centric 17:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Lauren Potter

I don't know who edits this article, but I came here to look for notable cases and noticed that Lauren Potter, a famous woman with Down's Syndrome wasn't mentioned. She's famous for two things. She plays Becky Jackson on the American TV show Glee and on November 4, 2011, she was appointed by President Barack Obamato the President's Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities, where she will advise the White House on issues related to that population. She also attends college. Can somebody make sure she ends up in the notable cases section? 76.108.101.22 (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

You edit the article. Wikipedia is built by individuals. Centerone (talk) 09:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Media invokes Trigg Palin into likeability of Palin during 2012 Presidential election season

I, as many, feel that children are off limits in campaigns. However, I see this reintroduction of Sarah Palin's Down Syndrome child as a relaunch of the social issue into the 2012 presidential election. This is essentially the dog whistle for Rick Santorum to ignite the issue. I would like to propose an article section for Palin, taking this idea from a hunch, or opinion, to a NPOV; The bias of my interest, and expression of, in this topic is being held in check. I would like input on this as I await the anticipated more reputable coverage of the issue than the Fox News August 12, 2012 interview with Palin. Further more, an accurate or appropriate description of the difficulties of families with Down's children has not done justice. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/08/12/palin_on_media_scrutinizing_paul_ryan_a_lot_of_us_will_have_his_back.html Wikipietime (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the info is more suited for inclusion on Palin's or Santorum's page, rather than this one. While there may be weaknesses to the current article, it will not be improved by adding in anecdotal experiences of a single individual. There is a lot of other coverage out there from families with children who have Down syndrome on both sides of the debate. Canada Hky (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Good point. I am only soliciting opinions at this time. Frankly, I was taken back that on a Monday morning following the selection of Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney's Vice Presidential running mate. The vitriol expressed by Sarah Palin toward the media and then solicitation of compassion by exploiting her son's Down condition was beyond the pale; further implicating Fox news as an orchestration entertainment channel. Wikipietime (talk) 23:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

just whanted to mantion that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinodactyly states a different probabillety, but i dont have tim to check the correct source

Shouldn't the common name "Mongolism" be mentionned?

Many people know trisomy 21 only by it's popular name mongolism.

So I added it as a synonym. But this change was undone by Chaheel Riens(talk | contribs)‎ with the following comment: (Undid revision 498515222 by Deselliers (talk) good faith, but the term "mongol" and variations are no longer in common (or acceptable) use, hence inapplicable.)

Saying that the term "mongol" and variations are no longer in common use is wrong: again, many people know trisomy 21 only by it's popular name mongolism. Not mentioning it is very confusing for readers like me: I had to do further research to understand that trisomy 21 is what I know as mongolism.

I can accept that the term "mongol" and variations are no longer in acceptable use if this is the consensus. However, the role of Wikipedia is to bring knowledge, not to hide it.

I therefore suggest adding back the synonym mongolism and mentioning that this synonym is no longer acceptable. --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 08:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Considering mongolism brings up only 50,000 or so hits on google, with most of them being very old sources, as opposed to 13.5 million for Down syndrome suggests to me that it is only a fringe term these days. Unless you can provide convincing evidence that this is not the case I don't see any reason to add it.
Incidentally, there is mention of the term in the article in a historical context which seems appropriate and sufficient. Watermelon mang (talk) 08:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Certainly it is important historically, and it's definately worth haaving the discussion. I think Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Naming_conventions is fairly clear on the matter - I suspect that 'people first language' is a key thing about having Mogolism as part of the history, rather than a current name. Fayedizard (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I have no issue with the term being included or discussed in both article and talk page, and think that it's a valid and important part of the history of Down Syndrome - my issue is that it is no longer a common enough term to warrant inclusion in the lede as an acceptable term for the condition.
The criteria for inclusion under the lede as a name should be "Is this a term I can use in everyday society and conversation to describe the subject of the article?" In the past, up until say 30-40 years ago the answer would have been "Yes" but that's no longer the case. If the term "mongol" or variant is used now, it's considered perjorative, and generally unacceptable. Moreover, there are an increasing number of people who will have no idea what the term means, as it's no longer in common use.
I'm aware that I'm coming dangerously close to committing Godwin's law, but (for example) the Negro article doesn't include the term "nigger", which was (and probably still is) in far more common usage than Mongol ever was. (Yes, yes, I know; WP:OTHERSTUFF) Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Term is already mentioned 14 times in this article. Both in the signs and symtoms and history sections. Not important enough for the lead IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email)(please leave replies on my talk page) 17:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
No, it is not in common use in secondary sources. Try searching Nature News, Science Mag, New York Times, LA Times and so on. And so it shouldn't be in the lead.Churn and change (talk) 05:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Picture of boy needs to go with immediate effect

We have no way of verifying who that is, or that he has Down's syndrome. Also, just as with text the picture too has to be from a reliable source, not a personal upload. Churn and change (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to confirm - this is the picture, whose inclusion includes the comment " <!--- Do not change this picture without discussing it in the Down syndrome discussion page. Because of continued vandalism, pictures will be immediately reverted. ---> and which is discussed heavily at Talk:Down_syndrome/Archive_7#Picture Talk:Down_syndrome/Archive_5#First_picture_.28boy_with_drill.29? Fayedizard (talk) 06:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
That discussion didn't focus on the WP:BLP issue. Think about it—this is a picture of some boy. We have no way of verifying whose kid that is. We have no way of verifying whether the boy has Down syndrome. Is it okay to put up some unnamed but clearly identified boy's photo as an example of somebody with Down syndrome, when we have no idea and no way of verifying the facts? All text requires reliable sourcing. Why would photos be any different? Immediate removal was warranted because this is the picture of a live person, and there are both legal and ethical issues. A Wikipedian proving this is his or her son won't be enough either—how do we know the other parent or legal custodians have agreed? None of these issues seem to be addressed in the prior discussion.
So, basically there are two issues: WP:BLP and WP:RS. The WP:BLP one is the use of the image of a living person in an article about a disorder, possibly without consent. A Wikipedian claims this is his/her son. We have no proof. Even if proof were supplied, we need to know if the other legal custodians have consented to using a public photo of the boy this way; there is a good chance such consent is needed. We cannot possibly be in the business of straightening all this out.
Even if the WP:BLP issue were straightened out, there is the question of reliability. How do we know the boy has DS? This is self-published information, unacceptable for text. The Wikipedian being an expert in the field doesn't count (we don't allow blog entries from Noble laureates in the article text; fact-checking and opinion-weeding by others—the peer review or editorial process—matters). Again, even if a doctor's note were produced in evidence, that is still equivalent to a single non-peer-reviewed case study in a primary source. By no means would that be an allowed source. Churn and change (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Reverted. The current licensing for the image is indeed sufficient, however I congratulate you on a novel and so far unused reason to have the image removed. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I have brought up the BLP issue at the BLP noticeboard; that discussion can continue there; I notice you haven't responded to the WP:RS issue; that has to be discussed here. Why would standards for reliable sourcing of a photo be lower than for text? Churn and change (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Because the user agrees to terms and conditions upon upload. How do we know that this image really is of a bride, and not of fancy dress? How do we know that this image really is of a model, and that she really has signed model release papers? Because the image license terms dictate that the description is accurate. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
So if a self-publishing site has the same criteria, we accept text from it? Just the author's word is good enough that the child has Down's syndrome? No peer-review, editorial check, nothing needed? If I am willing to stand by my words, they can be included in an encyclopedia? After all, the user could have acted in good faith, but be wrong or not correct about the implications. May be this is a milder-than-normal case of DS, or maybe this is a severer-than-normal case of DS. Pulling data from a non-self-published reliable source helps address all these questions. For text and for photos. Churn and change (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Not lower - different. It would also be polite to link to the BLP discussion in question - not everybody here may know how to find it. Also, what does the severity have to do with it? Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
If we are accepting self-published, self-verified, information on photos our quality criterion is indeed lower. And I don't see any guideline saying that is acceptable. WP:OTS is no argument; we don't know the context elsewhere. The self-verification may help for legal purposes (passing the legal-responsibility buck), but it is not going to help improve the standard of the data. As to severity, that is just an example. Down syndrome isn't an all-or-none thing. Pulling an image off a reliable site, with a fair-use claim, avoids arguments about whether the image is of a prototypical person with DS; what secondary sources consider prototypical, we can just accept. I personally would ask for a photo that is non-negative and shows that a person with DS is basically a person with a disorder. Churn and change (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Also here is an alternate I suggest: http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/03/a-safer-way-to-spot-down-syndrom.html ScienceMag is a strong secondary source. Fair-use should hold since reliability is higher in priority on WP than preference for Public Domain. Churn and change (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

There are certainly some interesting issues raised here - and certainly if I applied the same standards to images on wikipedia articles as I do to text then there would be many fewer images on my articles... but given the copyright concerns this does appear sensible - I would be interested in finding out more about the issue if anyone can point me in the direction of the correct policies or noticeboards... Fayedizard (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean the image of the little girl with the chromosomes? I don't see that image as an improvement at all. There are very few obvious markers to show the girl has DS, although I'll grant that the chromosome illustration is quite useful. So useful that there is already an image on the page showing just that. Also, I think the ScienceMag's copyright denies such use, so we can't use the image anyway. Finally, you still haven't clarified why severity of DS is an issue to be concerned with. I don't get that one at all, and your answer is no help either. An example of what? Finally, I've let it slide for a couple of days, but the inaccuracy of the statement has annoyed me, so... There is no varying severity of Down Syndrome. You either have it or you don't. (Mosiac notwithstanding.) There's no "only a little bit of chromosome duplication" - it's there, or it isn't, black or white with no grey inbetween. What varies is the level of mental and physical retardation that is associated with the chromosome error. I know it's a small and subtle point, but it needs to be acknowledged. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Images are original research and there is no way to get around this. The verifiability requirements are different for images than they are for text. When I upload an image of strep throat or anaphylaxis they are strep and anaphylaxis simply because I say so and that when others with knowledge of the subject look they do not disagree.
I have looked at the side profile of this child with a drill and as an expert agree that his features are consistent with Down syndrome. We cannot use medical images from others via a justification of fair us. We must either get them released under a CC BY SA license or take our own. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jon-will-40-years-and-going-with-down-syndrome/2012/05/02/gIQAdGiNxT_story.html?wpisrc=emailtoafriend
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Down_syndrome/Archive_8&oldid=1086314033"