Talk:Down syndrome

Crimson Cheeks

The one with the bell! [[3]] In terms of a determined gaze and focus...

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2016

Please change "Their is no know behavior" to "There is no known behavior". Please also change "Their is no cure for Down syndrome" to "There is no cure for Down syndrome". I am requesting these changes because there is a grammatical error; the wrong form of the word is used.

TillieMae (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Done Thank you for the suggestions that helped improve Wikipedia. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 01:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

What is the original date of publication?

Mandymoo6 (talk) 06:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

False Positive Rates

I am not an expert in medical statistics, but can anyone confirm that the stats re false-positive are correct? A 5% false-positive rate means that only one in 28 would have a confirmed case - surely that would be a false-positive rate of 95%, not 5%? And it would be one in 20 - where does the 28 come from? I haven't got the understanding to interpret the original document in a medical capacity but based on stats those figures seem to go against mainstream maths. 31.53.77.58 (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Totally Agree! This math seems very suspect. A 5% false-positive rate would mean that of 100 fetuses that were predicted by the test to have down syndrome, 5 of them would _not_ have down. The other statistic mentioned is the following: "If the screening test has a 2% false-positive rate, this means one of 10 who test positive on screening have a fetus with DS.[72]". This is completely wrong. If a screening test has a 2% false positive rate then of 100 positive test results only 2 would _not_ have DS. The person who wrote these paragraphs needs to review basic math. The author says 1 in 10 positive tests would have DS and by my count that equates to a 90% false-positive rate, not a 2% false positive rate.96.241.142.238 (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Text is "If Down syndrome occurs in one in 500 pregnancies and the test used has a 5% false-positive rate, this means, of 28 women who test positive on screening, only one will have Down syndrome confirmed." So you test 500 pregs and the test is wrongly positive in 5% (500 * 5%) = 25. Than you add the one true positive to that and you get 26 rather than 28 so corrected. If you use 2% * 500 = 10 false positives for one true positive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't the FP rate be the FP/FP+true negatives? So 25FP/25FP+474TN=5.01%?

Also this makes the test sound useless. Perhaps attention should be called to the negative predictive value so people don't recklessly skip the screening?

Not sure what you mean? Screening for a rare condition with a test with a 2 to 5% false positive rate means you end up with a lot of false positives. This means that one than needs to do a confirmatory test to verify that the first test is actually correct.

But basically what it is saying is, if you are not going to have an abortion if the test is positive no mater what they do not have the test. If you do have the test and it is positive than do not just abort before the confirmatory test but realize that the confirmatory test has some risks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

This section (Before birth) still caused me come initial confusion, though it now makes sense. Wondering if it might help to put in a little more intermediate reasoning to help people who are still confused, maybe using some actual rates from most recent studies. E.g. something like "In the study (give ref) of N subjects using diagnostic test, P tested positive, but only TP were confirmed as having Down's syndrome." Simon Grant (talk) 07:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Down's syndrome

In the UK this is always called "Down's syndrome". This needs to be mentioned in the opening sentence. 109.149.189.238 (talk) 03:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

It is in the infobox and can go in the body. All the small alternative spelling differences do not need to go in the first sentence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

It also used to be what it was called in the US, before politically-correct nonsense took hold.136.32.83.232 (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Could someone please add Down's Syndrome to the lede or title.Royalcourtier (talk) 01:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Already in the infobox. Not needed in the first sentence aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Down syndrome and uranium / radon / natural radioactivity

My personal research has led me to reveal a clear link between uranium / radon levels in the environment and Down Syndrome Would be interesting to see if there is possibility to integrate it in the article.--FlorentPirot (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Do we have a WP:MEDRS compliant source? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Down syndrome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130126165543/http://publications.nice.org.uk/antenatal-care-cg62 to http://publications.nice.org.uk/antenatal-care-cg62
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.down-syndrome.eu/files/profiles/edsa_sweden.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Name

In the 'Name' section, 'Mongolian People's Republic' is misspelled as 'Mongolia People's Republic' ('n' missing). I'd correct it myself, but the article lacks an Edit tab, so I'm commenting here in the hope that someone with the necessary technical expertise can make the change (and add an Edit tab). And when I try to enter this comment I'm told to use a Capcha because the comment 'includes new external links' - which is complete nonsense!213.127.210.95 (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

thanks and done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

"Slanted eyes"

Please replace the ambiguous and historically racially tinged description of the eye surface appearance of Downs individuals . Changing "slanted eyes " to the anatomically accurate description that 60% of individuals exhibit a plica palpebronasalis and palpebronasal fold. Or epicanthal fold ( from Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicanthic_fold ) This is accurate , neutral and sensitive.

That would be unnecessarily technical, and the average reader would have no idea what that meant, even if wikilinked. In this case, "slanted eyes" is already linked to Epicanthis fold, and that seems good enough. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I would need to look up "plica palpebronasalis and palpebronasal fold". We use common English. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Chromosomal disease

Down syndrome is not a disease, it's a Syndrome. A disease in medical terms implies there could be a cure through treatment, suffering and a disease is undesirable. Down Syndrome is as the name suggests, is a syndrome, a chromosomal event. It is important to note that people with Down Syndrome do not suffer. It is derogatory to say it is a disease as the current advocacy movement states that the only way to cure Down Syndrome is to kill all those with Down Syndrome. Down Syndrome can be akin to a race of people, where they should be treated like the general population. Although intellectually delayed, they have a typically positive sense of well being, content, and easier to parent. Research by Brian Skotko has founded that parents with children with autism, experience much more stress and family discord as a result of their behaviors. People with Down Syndrome are capable of more than what was expected of them a decade ago. They have jobs, live independently, have relationships, get married, can be sexually intimate with a partner, go to College/University, and self-advocate. People do not die of Down Syndrome but, due to illnesses just like the general population. They have a weaker immune system that may cause susceptibility to illnesses but doesn't mean they are hospitalized often. They die of similar illnesses that the general population experience. One with Down Syndrome only dies of Down Syndrome itself in utero or directly after birth. Not every person with Down Syndrome will have all the characteristics of Down Syndrome. That's why there is such variability in capacities and intelligence. Speech delay or impediment is not indicative or reflective of actual intelligence and often are more intelligent. SWHazlett (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@SWHazlett: That is precisely why this article does not describe Down syndrome as a disease. The phrase "chromosomal disease" does not appear anywhere in the article. Did you have any suggestions for improving the article? General Ization ^Talk 22:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Objectifying pictures

Could we consider the role of the pictures in this article, which seem only to have the function of priveleging physical characeristics? A picture of a person with Down Syndrome which is there for the sole purpose of showing 'what a person with Down Syndrome looks like' seems to me to be rather like putting a picture of a woman up, randomly, on a page about women (caption: 'Woman' - or indeed we could think of numerous categories of people for which illustrative pictures would be somewhat arbitrary). Are there pictures that could be sourced that have some specific function beyond the illustration of physical characteristics?

Graph for "The risk of having a Down syndrome pregnancy in relation to a mother's age" is wrong

The article includes a graph "The risk of having a Down syndrome pregnancy in relation to a mother's age". The graph is said to be taken from "Revised estimates of the maternal age specific live birth prevalence of Down’s syndrome" by Morris et al. However, the graphs in the above paper do not look like the graph in the wikipage. In particular, the wiki graph is declining past age 45 Down_syndrome#/media/File:Down_risk_by_maternal_age.png, whereas the graphs in the original paper stay constant or rise past that age. (See figure 2 in the paper). A better figure would be this:

Risk of Down syndrom vs age of mother

It is true that the data in the paper has a lower rate past age 47, but that is a result of small numbers. In any case, you can not cite a paper for a plot, but then show a plot with different results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mltam (talk • contribs) 18:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — MRD2014 ^Talk 00:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

another issue re: There is no known behavior or environmental factor that changes the risk

To the contrary, there is a well-known and documented behavior that absolutely changes the risk. That is, freezing eggs at a younger age. I'm not really sure what the point of this sentence was, at all, but it is clearly false so it should be changed. WikiAlto (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Wrong statistical sentence

This sentence "It occurs in about one per 1,000 babies born each year." is nonsense. It must be: "It occurs in about one per 1,000 babies born." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.109.200.147 (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Perfectly true, and the nonsensical wording is still in there almost a year later. Could someone fix that please?

Just to illustrate the nonsense: You might just as well say "It occurs in about one per 1,000 babies born each week" or "It occurs in about one per 1,000 babies born each decade", and it would be equally true - and equally nonsensical. --87.150.8.132 (talk) 08:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate Medicalisation of the subject matter

The article commences with the grim warning: "Down syndrome (DS or DNS), also known as trisomy 21, is a genetic disorder caused by the presence of all or part of a third copy of chromosome 21.[2] It is typically associated with physical growth delays, characteristic facial features and mild to moderate intellectual disability.[1] The average IQ of a young adult with Down syndrome is 50, equivalent to the mental ability of an 8- or 9-year-old child, but this can vary widely.[7]

One might as well start a new article on people without DS, starting with some grim medical facts about obesity, average IQ, addiction, average life expectancy, height, and lack of good sense of humour, don't you think? What is normal, and what a disorder? I guess it all depends which side of Trisomy 21 you are looking from, doesnt it?

I tried to change the negative tone of this article many years ago, and gave up, because there was then, and still is, a 'bully element ' of senior wikipedia editors who seem determined that they have the right to decide how to write an article, not people who are personally affected.

I would blow most of this page into smithereens if I could because it is still old fashioned and deeply patronising in tone: but I cannot figure my way through the labyrinthine complaints system and lack the energy or time to take it further. Excalibur (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Down syndrome is associated with lots of health problems. It is a genetic syndrome not a simple variant of "normal". I disagree with the issues you raise. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, let's agree to disagree then, and that is fine: but I am the father of a child with DS: so what exactly are your own qualifications to support this kind of opinion? We are increasingly embracing diversity in so many ways: gender, disability, age, sexual orientation, whatever: we are all minorities now. It was not that long ago that Homosexuality was classified as a mental illness, and Africans or Jews were considered mentally subnormal by substantial elements of mainstream medical opinion. Is this any different, and is it not a self-fulfilling prophecy? Look, you probably know fine well that no person with DS, and none of the parents or siblings, would agree with the terminology used in this page, so why not admit that this article is a form of bullying? Who owns this topic? Excalibur (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

That none of them agree that DS is a syndrome or a genetic disorder? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I'm also the father of a child with Down's Syndrome, and have been for nearly 20 years now. I disagree with pretty much all of your comments, and am astonished that somebody with such a close connection to the subject would deny the realism of a genetic condition being a medical matter. I also asked one of my other sons to read both the article and this talk page, and even though he's only 12 so much of it was beyond him, he found nothing to upset him, or that he found objectionable. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Relocated from my talk page

==Down_syndrome==

Naturally I expected you or someone else to revert my cheerful edit: it was of course made as a mild protest about the inappropriate 'medicalisation' of people with DS. The fact that you (and I) happen to have the usual set of chromosomes (2) does not enable you or anyone else to 'label' someone with a slightly different combination of chromones as a medical case, if for no other reason than that DS is not a disease or an illness.

The article commences with the grim warning: "Down syndrome (DS or DNS), also known as trisomy 21, is a genetic disorder caused by the presence of all or part of a third copy of chromosome 21.[2] It is typically associated with physical growth delays, characteristic facial features and mild to moderate intellectual disability.[1] The average IQ of a young adult with Down syndrome is 50, equivalent to the mental ability of an 8- or 9-year-old child, but this can vary widely.[7]

One might as well start a new article on people without DS, starting with some grim medical facts about obesity, addiction, average life expectancy, and lack of a GSOH, don't you think? What is normal, and what a disorder? I guess it all depends which side of Trisomy 21 you are looking from, doesnt it?

I tried to change the negative tone of this article many years ago, and gave up, because there was then, and still is, a 'bully element ' of senior wikipedia editors who seem determined that they have the right to decide how to write an article, not people who are affected.

I'd be obliged if you could escalate this general complaint to the relevant committee, (n.b, not my specific edit, the whole point, because I would blow most of this page into smithereens if I could) I cannot figure my way through the labyrinthine system and lack the energy or time to take it further. Excalibur (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't really know where to begin with this edit from my talk page. Excalibur is - by all accounts - an experienced editor, but the above section and the edits that prompted it are so at odds with the principles of Wikipedia it's almost reasonable to suspect his account may have been compromised.

By Excalibur's own admission their edit was pointy and done in protest knowing it was to be reverted, seemingly in order to stimulate discussion over the tone of the article. So I've relocated it to this talk page which is obviously the best place to discuss improvements to the article.

For the record I consider Excalibur's edits to have been bordering on vandalism in that they were done not with the intention of improving the article, but to provoke response, and he obviously has an issue with the medical portrayal and categorization of DS - and seems to be attempting to right a great wrong, considering an accurate, factual and sourced description of the condition to be "a grim warning", and by adding inaccurate and stereotypical information - such as under complications "Friendly personality personality, Funny humour, Empathetic Empathy". I see no major issues or problems with the article, and although (like any other) it can be improved - this is not the way to go about it.

Probably not the response Excalibur was hoping for, but they asked me to take action - and that's what I've done. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

NPOV

I have not looked up what edits exactly this was all about, and I am completely uninvolved in the discussion so far, and while I will not comment on those edits, I will say that I can understand Excalibur's point.

A close family member of mine very likely has a certain syndrome (completely unrelated to Down syndrome), and after reading the Wikipedia article which is written in a similar tone as this one, he was so offended that he will never ever have himself diagnosed now.

I am sorry to say this, but there is absolutely NO way a pregnant woman is going to read this article and be informed from a neutral point of view about what she has to expect. I am not a general anti-abortionist, but this whole article simply screams "Go! Have an abortion! Quick!".

That is to say: With all its medical phrasing and political correctness and everything, this article has a huge NPOV issue. --87.150.8.132 (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Just as a minor illustration of that patronizing POV tone, let me quote one sentence:

"Education and proper care have been shown to improve quality of life."

This sentence, first of all, transfers the clear message: People with Down syndrome essentially have a bad quality of life.

Then, we learn some incredibly insightful wisdom: "Education and proper care" can improve that. Wow, who would've thought! You know, this is so wise we really should add this information to the article human being. They completely missed this point so far, and there seems to be evidence that education and proper care can actually improve most human beings' quality of life!

And THIS is the ONLY half-way positive-sounding sentence within four paragraphs of lede horror!

Please do rethink and re-evaluate the POV in this article. --87.150.8.132 (talk) 09:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The sentence says that quality of life can be improved. Better can be made even better - this is what "improved" means. It does not inherently mean that you are starting from a bad, negative or poor position. There is nothing apart from your own inference and opinion that people with DS have a bad quality of life.

I also understand Excalibur's point of view - but that doesn't make it correct for the encyclopedia.

This article, in basically similar form was a Featured Article in 2010, peer reviewed in 2012 and a Good Article in 2014. Additionally it has been used as an academic source for Health: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health, Illness and Medicine. You may not like the lack of fluffy good-news, everything's fine commentary and an assurance that you can still go to Italy not Holland, but that in itself is decidedly POV. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

"Down" or "Down's"

The article uses a mix of "Down syndrome" and "Down's syndrome" throughout. Is there one term that is more common and/or more preferred? -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

We go with the name of the article "Down syndrome". If someone wishes to switch to the other than a move request is required. "Down's" is not used in the text currently. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the consistency. I should have noticed that it was just one recent edit that introduced the partial use of "Down's". -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

No worries User:Edgar181 :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2018

Please review the the phrase "As of 2006, three instances of males with Down syndrome fathering children and 26 cases of females having children have been reported." under the Fertility heading. The phrasing implies that there are only 29 known cases of individuals with Down syndrome having children, but the referenced article referred to a literature search which revealed 29 pregnancies which had been studied in research articles. I do not feel the phrasing is an accurate representation of the article. 2601:1C0:CD00:E350:D477:F3C1:23F5:9EEF (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The part about prognosis is not representative for Down's syndrome and should be redone

The first paragraph under Prognosis:

Between 5 and 15% of children with Down syndrome in Sweden attend regular school.[106] Some graduate from high school; however, most do not.[16] Of those with intellectual disability in the United States who attended high school about 40% graduated.[107] Many learn to read and write and some are able to do paid work.[16] In adulthood about 20% in the United States do paid work in some capacity.[17][108] In Sweden, however, less than 1% have regular jobs.[106] Many are able to live semi-independently,[11] but they often require help with financial, medical, and legal matters.[8] Those with mosaic Down syndrome usually have better outcomes.[60]

Why are statistics from Sweden used? Sweden does not keep statistics on people with Down Syndrome. The whole basis for the Swedish statistics is one single source (from 2006), and that single citation sources its content from the Swedish Down's Syndrome Association. I tried looking for another source without avail, so I chose to go with the facts presented by the Swedish Down Syndrome Association (SDSA from here on out). First of all, let's get one thing clear: this source is full of inherent bias. The data used has been collected by the association sending out surveys to parents who seem to have some connection to the SDSA, e.g. membership. Translated from the third page of the report: "No conclusions about school in relation to all children with Down's Syndrome can be drawn, because the answers presented are not the result of a randomised survey.

Here is some background on how the educational system of Sweden looks like in regards to Down's Syndrome Article on the Swedish Special schools [in Swedish]

- Basically: Sweden has until recently encouraged children with Down's Syndrome to attend special schools. This is why few children with Down's Syndrome attend regular school.

- What is a Swedish special school? The school that I'm referring to has the same content and courses as a regular school would, but it has more resources available and teachers trained in special needs. Special school does not mean that the children are to learn less content.

- Translated quote from the article: "Jan Björklund (previous Swedish Minister of Education) claims that the integration of children with intellectual disabilities is a nice thought that doesn't work – but in other parts of the world it works perfectly, says Judith Timoney."

- This isn't a discussion of whether the Swedish way of doing it is right or not, however. It's clear that the Swedish way of offering education to children with Down's Syndrome is very different from the US way.

- But this has changed in recent years. In the last few years, attempts have been made to integrate these children further. This can be noticed in the statistics on page 6, where you'll see that the regular school attendees has gone up from 15% in 2008-09 to 26% in 2012-13, a number that has probably risen further if current statistics were even available.

" The number of 5-15%"

- Considering that the source used for this number is from 2006, and that it cites SDSA, I'm assuming that this number is 1) based on statistics that are dubious at best and 2) extremely outdated, as evidenced by the updated statistics in my linked report where numbers reach 26%.

"The number of 40%"

- The statistic is for people with intellectual disabilities. Why is it in this paragraph? In what way does it contrast the statistic of Sweden, and why aren't we provided more background or context to get an idea of what the number for people with Down's Syndrome is? I have no idea how big or small the subset of Down's Syndrome people is.

"Some graduate from high school; however, most do not."

- The source here is this book, p. 222 second paragraph. The author seems to cite p. 175 of a book. Problem is, there's no implication nor explication that this is in reference to Sweden. Searching the book for "Sweden", the country does show up three pages later. There seems to be no correlation between that Sweden and the "most do not" from page 222.

- I don't know the exact numbers of graduates from Swedish High School. What I do know is that according to this report, also from SDSA, a whooping 8 people talk about their positive experiences in Swedish special high schools. There is no statistic about how many graduated.

"In adulthood about 20% in the United States do paid work in some capacity.[17][108] In Sweden, however, less than 1% have regular jobs.[106]"

Let's look at the phrasing here. In the US example, you're talking about paid work in some capacity. In the next sentence, we see the word "however", a word often used to contradict or contrast the words that preceded it.

1) those two statements barely relate at all. "work in some capacity" could and likely does include "irregular" jobs, whereas we're comparing with Sweden's regular jobs. I have no idea what constitutes "work in some capacity" and what constitutes "regular jobs", but it's obvious this is not a fair comparison. Furthermore, while I don't know what the figures look like, I know that the disability laws in Sweden provide plenty of assistance to find jobs for people with Down's Syndrome. If they don't find a job, they're legally entitled to either take courses or participate in daily activities. While it may not be regular employment, it is a gross misrepresentation to use the 1% figure as if to claim that 99% of them are sitting at home on the couch.

2) there's no source for the 1% figure.

I don't see the point

Why would you ever think that it would be a good idea to mention Sweden in this context? With the lack of sources, the inconsistency in comparison, and the misleading figures, I don't understand how someone could waste time on typing that up. Sweden and the US differ a lot. With one being a welfare state, and the other probably requiring you to work or you'd end up on the street as a person with Down Syndrome, I don't understand what there is to gain in comparing the two. I definitely don't see the point in comparing them in the prognosis section of Down Syndrome.

I'm not going to request to delete the paragraph yet because I'd prefer a discussion, and my motivation for putting this much time into it is that it is after all an ex-featured and currently good article. Especially considering this information has been here for 4 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ommar365 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Change title of "Neurological" subsection to "Cognitive"

The subheading "neurological", in the "signs and symptoms" section, should be changed to "cognitive", because it doesn't mention anything neurological (i.e., brain structure). It talks entirely about cognitive issues. 2A00:23C4:C100:BF00:FCAD:AA8:4984:9DF (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Human specificity

The article should mention at the beginning it's a human disease. Some may argue its human specificity follows from the fact that it's related to a chromosome, but this might not be evident for laypersons. Also, analogues in other species (such as chimpanzee 22 trisomy) could be mentioned in a section. 189.203.28.238 (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2018

Change picture, "A boy with Down syndrome assembling a bookcase." The boy is holding drill incorrectly--right hand is holding the spinning chuck. 122.53.154.132 (talk) 09:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. The text is fine. It is clear that he is in the process of assembling the bookcase. He is presumably guiding the drill into place before removing his guide hand and then pulling the trigger. You can see that his finger is not on the trigger. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Grammar Check

There is a an obvious error in the following sentence. Due to his perception that children with Down syndrome shared facial similarities with those of Blumenbach's Mongolian race, John Langdon Down used the term "mongoloid".[62][129]

'his' needs correction SethisintheHouse (talk) 13:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I do not see any error. Ruslik_Zero 20:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Addition of Granno et al (2019) and Sullivan et al (2016)

Please note that this addition is NOT self-promotion. Down Syndrome is my prime field of expertise in research and I feel these two recent studies (peer-reviewed and published in reputable journals) are worthy of mention and very relevant to Down syndrome. Please assess them on the basis of their quality before removing. I have spend over half a decade studying this condition so I would appreciate not being written off as simply self-promoting myself. After all these studies are very relevant and I believe their mention to be appropriate, or at least worthy of honest debate. Thank you