Jump to content

Talk:Down syndrome

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cunard (talk | contribs) at 07:33, 22 May 2020 (→‎RfC on the first part of the first sentence: procedurally closing this expired RfC). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured articleDown syndrome is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good articleDown syndrome has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 5, 2006.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 4, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
September 12, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
November 1, 2010Featured article reviewDemoted
September 7, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
March 25, 2014Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Former featured article, current good article

Template:Vital article


Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2019

Fefedefeq (talk) 08:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid ambiguity, the last title says "Other animals", then the text says "Down syndrome may also occur in animals". I suggest the title to be "In other animals", and the next text to say "Down syndrome may also occur in other animals"

 Done I tweaked your wording a bit, but humans are animals too. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Other animals" is the heading we use in hundreds of articles and is suggested per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Diseases_or_disorders_or_syndromes Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Testing

"If Down syndrome occurs in one in 500 pregnancies and the test used has a 5% false-positive rate, this means, of 26 women who test positive on screening, only one will have Down syndrome confirmed.[1] If the screening test has a 2% false-positive rate, this means one of eleven who test positive on screening have a fetus with DS.[1]"

So basically you test 500 pregnancies. In reality 499 have no DS and one has DS.

Of the 500 tests 5% are falsely positive which is 25 women. One is truly positive.

The rate in a population is critical when looking at false positive tests.

Please see[3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Canick, J (Jun 2012). "Prenatal screening for trisomy 21: recent advances and guidelines". Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine : CCLM / FESCC. 50 (6): 1003–08. doi:10.1515/cclm.2011.671. PMID 21790505.

Changing image in infobox

Current image
Proposed image

I'm proposing that the image in the infobox should be changed. The current image of the boy assembling the bookcase doesn't show much about the characteristics of the condition. The image from the CDC displaying the facial features of Down syndrome seems to gives more incite into the condition, therefore should be put in the infobox. - Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yah not unreasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

's

There are hundreds of diseases that can be written with and without the "'s". This minor variation can go in the infobox and be discussed in the body of the text. Does not need to go in the first sentence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The UK name for "Down syndrome" is "Down's syndrome". It is quite different and should be mentioned in the first sentence. Alternate names used commonly always go in the first sentence. It is quite apparent that you, a North American, are trying to bury the UK name. Jenny Jankel (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No this is not a UK, US thing. It is simple a possessive versus none possessive thing. Both countries use both.
The document from the UK also uses "Down syndrome" here[4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is very much a US/UK thing. The difference between "Down's" and "Down" is not a "minor variation", but a completely different way of expressing the condition. It may be a minor spelling difference, but not in expression. It is the name of a condition, the name does not have to conform to grammatical rules because it's a noun which can take any necessary form given to it. I doubt anybody has taken issue with the username "Doc James" demanding that you change it to "Doctor James" because they don't like the contraction. This is essentially the same thing. A name can be anything you want, and although it is correct to be non-possessive that doesn't automatically make it incorrect to include the possessive. I like to think that the UK is inclusive and accepts that "Down" is used by other countries, but I fear it's not an inclusion shared by many other countries - by which I mean predominantly the US, many of whom are rabid about "Down's" being incorrect, usually backed up by a link to the relevant section of the (American) NDSS. The issue is predominantly that John Langdon Down was a British physician, and the work was carried out in England at Normansfield, and "Down's Syndrome" is how it was first described.
Incidentally, that booklet is not an NHS exclusive form, but one produced by a 3rd party - Eurofins - in partnership with the NHS. Eurofins is a European company, based in Luxembourg, so cannot be considered a particularly good example. I'm sure you could find others - don't view such a statement as a challenge to be risen to - I'm just pointing out that it's not as simple as you make it out to be. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. You worded it better than I could, and you are 100% correct. Jenny Jankel (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have sources that discuss this, with this being the significance of spelling differences between the US and the UK for this condition?
Currently what we have is "In 1975, the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) convened a conference to standardize the naming and recommended replacing the possessive form, "Down's syndrome" with "Down syndrome".[135] However, both the possessive and nonpossessive forms remain in use by the general population.[136]" This is a minor spelling variation. Not all minor variations belong in the first sentence. They can also be discussed in the body.
We have dozens of conditions like this for example Parkinson's disease and we do not include the non possessive in first sentence of the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
agree w/ Doc James on this point--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean much, since you and Doc James have a history. Jenny Jankel (talk) 13:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes User:Jenny Jankel we have a history of being the two most prolific medical editors on English Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bad thing for Wikipedia when its most prolific editors suffer from blatant national bias. Jenny Jankel (talk) 20:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's noteworthy that many authoritative sources have dropped the possessive form and deem it incorrect in contrast to the "it's a name" arguments made above (e.g., we don't say Nobel's prize, we say the Nobel prize). The AMA Style manual doesn't use it (used by the very high impact journal JAMA). Neither do Dorland's Dictionary, the National Down Syndrome Society, OMIM, the Council of Scientific Editors (granted, these are mainly United States based organizations), and the World Health Organization (international). Personally, I don't think it's particularly relevant where the person used for the eponym is from when determining how to properly use eponyms. That could lead to a lot of confusion since eponyms for diseases come from all over the world and they may all have differing opinions on the matter. I would definitely advocate for consistency. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Parkinson's disease is known primarily as such throughout the Anglosphere. Down syndrome is not. It may well be "Down syndrome" in several countries, but the primary title used in the UK is "Down's syndrome", as evidenced by the NHS website, the Down's Syndrome Association, Mencap, BBC, and just about any other British reliable source. The evidence is clear that the UK primarily uses the term "Down's syndrome", and as such, this alternative title needs to be offered in the first sentence. Jenny Jankel (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"(granted, these are mainly United States based organizations)" - that's precisely the point. You are using US sources to explain why the usage of a country that is not the US should not be included in the lede. I don't doubt that the US calls it something else - as do many other countries, but the UK categorically calls it "Down's Syndrome". The argument used against inclusion was that it is a "minor variation", which is patronisingly dismissive.

It is being asked that "Down's Syndrome" be included in the lede as a valid and commonly used alternative to "Down Syndrome" - the argument for this is that an entire country primarily uses the term "Down's" rather than "Down" and that the claim of it being a "minor variation" is inaccurate.

The argument seems to rest on the repetition of the term "minor variation" - it is minor only in the loss of two characters, but the representation and context of those two characters is not minor. If this is a valid argument, why do we include both "DS" and "DNS" in the lede - surely you can't get much more minor variations than those two? Why can't one variation suffice?

There is no request that the term "Down's" replaces, or takes precedence over any other term, just that it is included as an "DS, DNS or Down's Syndrome". There is no loss to the article, only inclusion. The above arguments even support the usage of the term even while calling it incorrect, or deprecated. That may be so - but it is still a commonly used term.

I wonder if this is how the Hells Angels feel when people ask them about their apostrophe. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional - I've just realised we've been going about this all wrong. This is a national variation exclusive to a country, and therefore comes under WP:ENGVAR, and also MOS:LEADALT for an alternate name. Whilst Engvar doesn't specifically cover the issue, Leadalt does say "significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph" There are many articles where this is done (as per MOS,) so I see no argument as to why the same cannot be done here:
All are examples where a national variation - sometimes only used by a single country - is included in the lead as an alternative spelling for the article subject. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of minor variations on the name "Down syndrome". The goal is not to put all possible variations in the first sentence.
Yes it says "significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph" This is a minor spelling variation. It is in the infobox and discussed in the body of the article.
Three oppose its addition to the first sentence well two support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I used the qualified mainly, note that the WHO dropped the 's. That's very noteworthy and an international organization. It feels like that part of my post was conveniently discounted. I also note Down Syndrome International (based in the UK, I might add) [5]. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, there are not lots of minor variations of Down's Syndrome. Apart from "DNS" and "DS" which are minor variations of themselves, but you seem to have no issue with both being in the lead. I'll also add that "Down's Syndrome" after a cursory search seems to be far more commonplace than "Trisomy 21". And as has been stressed, this is not a minor variation anyway, this is a national variation. The fact that it is a minor spelling change is not the issue, the issue - that is also conveniently discounted - is that this is the spelling for an entire nation. It may appear minor, but the context is major. "Aluminum" and "Aluminium" only have a single character difference - due to a national difference, but both variations are included in the lede. Also color and colour, "neighbourhood" and "neighborhood", etc, I think this should be taken to DR. Just as one side is being accused of "conveniently discounting" sections, I feel that the same behaviour is being levelled by those very same accusers as well.
There has never been any dispute over who (no pun intended) has or hasn't dropped the 's, only that those who include the 's are not a minor spelling category, but as was realised later on, a national variation, and there is enough significant usage and relevance to include it in the lead, more so than both "DNS" & "DS", and possibly more relevance than "Trisomy 21". Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty obvious that Doc James is trying to bury what isn't North American. His argument is almost laughable. There is no precedent to back up his argument and we will keep going in circles if the debate remains here. Jenny Jankel (talk) 20:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
no one is trying to 'bury' anything, the argument is based on logic--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chaheel Riens has very clearly pointed out how there is no logic to Doc James' argument. And you have added nothing to the argument as yet. Jenny Jankel (talk) 22:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, there is logic to Doc James' argument, it's just misplaced. His argument is based solely on the fact that there is a minimal spelling difference between "Down Syndrome" and "Down's Syndrome", and that is all that matters. I have agreed that the spelling difference is minor, but that the context is not. The context of the spelling difference falls into the category of a national variation, and that is not a minor matter. (In my above post I have shown many examples of where a minor spelling difference is included in the lede due to national variations. This is not an unknown logical reasoning for inclusion.) I have pointed out that there are significant national resources to show that "Down's" has major usage, and also that "Down's Syndrome" has a greater common name presence than "Trisomy 21" does, also that we include "DNS" and "DS" in the lede already, one of which logically falls into the minor variation category.

Jenny Jankel also brings up an interesting point - can Doc James (or any other dissenting editor) back up the claim, apart from continual "minor spelling" argument - can you cite policy that says a national variation should be excluded on the grounds of the spelling being too similar to the article subject title? I've given arguments, backed up by policy and precedent, as to why inclusion is not proscribed. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have the FA Parkinson's disease which one can write without the 's. We also have Alzheimer's disease, Crohn's disease, and Huntington's disease which can also be written without 's. The spelling without in each case is in the infobox.
If this article was named "Down's syndrome" I would be against adding "Down syndrome" to the first sentence aswell.
We should not be trying to put all possible names in the first sentence. Have converted it to a "note" which IMO is still excessive as it is in the infobox. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but the note doesn't suffice, and you have ignored everything that Chaheel Riens and I have said/asked, which sums up this whole conversation. Time to take this higher. Jenny Jankel (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the change. As stated in the edit summary - just as we don't get to add in "Down's Syndrome" while we're discussing it, you don't get to add in your own preferred version of the article, especially not when there is considerable discussion surrounding it. If you have a suggestion, that's exactly what you do - you suggest it, rather than implement and assume that all would be happy with it. I'm surprised that an experienced editor would make such an arrogant and obviously contentious edit. I appreciate that Jenny has seemingly done the same thing, but she only has 110 edits to her name, and there had been no response since 29th February even though you've made multiple edits since then, so it's not as though you've been away. I would have personally waited a few more days, before assuming you'd dropped out, but hey ho.
Your examples are not good ones - searching for any of them brings back no individual results, and you are as usual ignoring the primary reason for change - that this is a national usage, and one that garners considerable use - more usage than one of the existing entries, and although it's hard to quantify, probably more than "DNS" and "DS" as well.
Your examples are not good ones - searching for any of them brings back no individual results, and you are as usual ignoring the primary reason for change - that this is a national usage, and one that garners considerable use - more usage than one of the existing entries, and although it's hard to quantify, probably more than "DNS" and "DS" as well.
You'll see that I've duplicated the above section. This is because - as Jenny notes - you're ignoring it, and have refused to address it. Once again, for the record, please can you cite policy that says a national variation should be excluded on the grounds of the spelling being too similar to the article subject title? I've given arguments, backed up by policy and precedent, as to why inclusion is not proscribed.
Oh look - that's three times I've asked the same thing - if you're unable to respond to these particular arguments it would seem reasonable to assume that there is no valid criteria for exclusion. Don't bother to simply state "it's a minor variation and I'm against adding in all names" because I've already explained - backed up by policy - why this is not applicable.
This is not a minor spelling variation - or at least if it is, then it is one that has enough use to elevate it out of the minor spelling context. Chaheel Riens (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with you undoing it. I actually do not think it is really needed.
We have "When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. If there are three or more alternative names – including alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historic names, and significant names in other languages – or there is something notable about the names themselves, a separate name section is recommended."
So we mention "trisomy 21" and the abbreviation "DS" in the first sentence. We than have a section on the other names in the body of the article. There is no mandate that all names must occur in the first sentence.
Here it goes on to say "The editor needs to balance the desire to maximize the information available to the reader with the need to maintain readability." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given the similarity, yet contextual difference between the names, I think readability is better maintained by including "Down's Syndrome" in the lede.

Proposal

I propose that the lede is changed from the current to read:

Down syndrome, also known as D(N)S or Down's Syndrome, is a genetic disorder caused by the presence of all or part of a third copy of chromosome 21....

The reasoning for this is all above, but to summarise:

  • Down's Syndrome is a national variation, not just a simple spelling variation. Given the similarity between the two, and the national usage by an entire country, it is important to clarify the alternative usage in the lede as soon as possible. Multiple examples have been provided to show that national variations are clarified in the lede.
  • There is no need to specify both "DS" and "DNS" in the first sentence - one is quite obviously a minor spelling variation of the other. I would be amenable to either "DS" or "DNS"
  • "Down's Syndrome" has a greater common usage and Google return than "Trisomy 21", and is a more relevant entry in the lede.
  • Removing the lesser-used "Trisomy 21" and one of the "D(N)S" entries will meet your criteria of not naming all forms in the lede.

As you point out, all other names are included elsewhere, so there is no reason not to remove "Trisomy 21" and replace it with "Down's Syndrome" - this would meet everybody's criteria. We get "Down's Syndrome", and you get only a couple of examples - less than current in fact - in the lede sentence. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support this proposal, while suggesting that this edit (with a note) is equally effective. Jenny Jankel (talk) 10:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support this proposal. Rabascius (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No dissenting opinion or argument after a week - and three supports (myself included), so I'm making the change. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You had a full week to make comments here, and managed to make your views known without being pinged before. You may now discuss why it should be changed from the current article to your preferred version. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No one calls it "D(N)S" or writes that ever. Trisomy 21 is actually significantly different not just a minor spelling difference. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal was that it could be listed as "DS" or "DNS" - hence "D(N)S" as a description only. You'll note that "D(N)S" was not one of the listing in the actual article. This should be clear from the proposal, the examples, and the actual implementation. Trsiomy may be a different cause, but the end result is still the same, and it still has less usage than "Down's syndrome". It is a less common usage of the term. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No idea what you mean by "Trsiomy may be a different cause" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add, James, that your modus operandi of editing the article and ignoring the talk page until the main article is reverted, is not going to help anyone. You clearly think that method will make your opposition disappear or forget. It won't. Jenny Jankel (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No I could care less about the typo. I make plenty myself. I have no idea what you mean by "Trsiomy may be a different cause" even if you were to spell it correctly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
you may want to look at Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doc James, if you are genuinely trying to mock a typo where I miss-spell "Trisomy" as "Trsiomy" then that reflects very poorly on you indeed - if the best you can do to defend your position is to belittle a typo, then you are obviously grasping at straws to support your stance, and on very shaky ground. The alternative is that you haven't read the article, which is also not a great way to argue your point. Which is it?
You also seemed to be unable to grasp the meaning of "D(N)S", despite both meaning and implementation being clear in the article. There was no need to ponder the usage and say that nobody uses that form when it wasn't even used in the article. I have to assume that once again you are just using it as an argument against implementation, or as a tool for distraction, despite nobody actually suggesting that usage.
The point - that you have consistently ignored - is that Down's syndrome is not a minor variation, but a regional difference. It is also in greater usage than Trisomy 21. Both "DS" and "DNS" are listed in the lede. All these issues you have not addressed.
After I made the proposal which you would have been alerted to on your talk page, two other editors also commented - both of which would also have been highlighted on your watchlist. You managed to comment enough on the previous discussion without ping, so don't lay the blame for your inaction at our feet there. A week is a long time for discussion - long enough for you to make literally hundreds of edits on Wikipedia elsewhere, so you have not exactly been idle or away from the project.
Rather than simply reiterating the comment "minor variation", or feigning ignorance over blatantly obvious typos and semantics - please address the other arguments brought up. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's all well and good people saying "oppose as per Doc James", but none of this addresses the fact that Doc James, and by proxy all others are not discussing the argument that "Down's syndrome" is not a minor variation, but a national variation - and it is accepted practice to include national variations in the lede - "Aluminium", color, and neighbourhood for example.
Also Doc James has consistently ignored any arguments put forward, simply responding with "better before"[6], feigning ignorance[1] or mockery.[2] None of these are rational arguments or address the poitns raised.
None of the proposals put forward by myself have actually been addressed.
You'll note that I'm repeating myself somewhat - that's because the points I raise have not been answered. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is a minor spelling difference. It is not a completely different name. It is in the infobox and the 's is discussed in the body of the article. Not everything needs to be pushed into the first sentence of the article. The argument over how to spell the disease is minor and trying to put it in the first sentence is WP:UNDUE. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not WP:UNDUE, in the sense of "giving undue weight to a viewpoint", to include one of the two commonly used names for DS in the first sentence. And it's hardly true that "the 's is discussed in the body of the article". The only time "Down's" is mentioned in the article is in reference to the NIH's 1975 recommendation to use "Down", which is kind of begging the question. There is no mention of the fact that DS was previously universally known as "Down's syndrome". It's almost as though the article is trying to suppress it. And while the very next sentence of the article refers to "forms" of the name, the relevant citation (136) treats them not as different forms but as different terms. More importantly, it mentions that "both remain in use by the general population", with "Down's syndrome" being "more commonly used in the UK". The latter form is also current in several other countries, as evidenced by the names of their national DS associations and societies; while even in the US the NDSS admits, in its preferred language guide, that both spellings are "popular". Which is surely the strongest reason for including both names in the lead: it's not our job to decide what name should be used, or which of two names is more "correct", our job is to reflect common usage, and common usage is split, depending on where you are and who you talk to. Lastly, consider this: multiple editors have suggested adding "also known as Down's syndrome" to the first sentence because they feel, for whatever reason, that it ought to be there. In other words a plurality of editors consider that this addition would be an improvement. Unless someone can offer a convincing argument as to why the proposed addition would have the opposite effect (and by convincing I mean something more than simply saying "we can't include all names/variants/spellings", which no one is suggesting and in any case we all know that there are in fact only two names, which is what this is about), then surely action ought to trump inertia. How can it be better to do nothing than to do something? Or do we imagine the article to be perfect as it is? Surely not. Rabascius (talk) 02:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "No one calls it "D(N)S" or writes that ever."
  2. ^ No idea what you mean by "Trsiomy may be a different cause"
Once again, you're still ignoring that fact that this minor spelling difference is - like Aluminum, Colour or Encyclopaedia - a national difference, and as such has a place in the lede. The argument is not how to spell the condition, but that "Down's syndrome" has such widespread use - to the extent that it is more common than Trisomy 21 - that inclusion in the lede is justified.
Rabascius also brings up a good point - in what way does including "Down's syndrome" and removing "DNS" and "Trisomy 21" make the article worse? You used the edit summary of "was better before" suggesting you think this to be the case, but why? Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)\[reply]
It is in the lead. It is in the infobox. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not what is meant, and you know it. However, I'll play your game: If you consider the infobox to be the lede then what's the difference between changing its position in the lede from infobox to first sentence? If you consider both to be the lede then you should have no problem with that. But you are once again distracting from the point which is you have not answered the questions raised in the original proposal: Why does the proposed change make the article worse, and why should a national variation not be listed in the very first sentence as it is on other articles? Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chaheel Riens, could you tone it down a few notches please? This is an editorial discussion about where best to present information in an encyclopedia article, it's not something to get angry about. I see Doc James being quite measured in his responses, and you increasingly turning this into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Accusing him of playing games assumes bad faith - that isn't a road you want to go down. GirthSummit (blether) 07:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing to tone down. If you read through the discussion you'll see it to be an accurate representation of the discussion so far. I'm not angry, merely trying to get a response to my questions and proposals from Doc James. In all of the above I have asked the same question many times, and Doc has refused to answer it, using distraction and digression as a common technique to do so. Do you not agree that so far my questions of "why do the proposed changes make the article worse, and why should a national variation not be listed in the very first sentence as it is on other articles?" have not been answered? Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chaheel Riens, Doc James isn't under any obligation to answer your questions, which could be described as a rhetorical device of your own. You've expressed your view, he's expressed his - you can leave it at that. Seriously though, saying that he is playing games is a personal attack, and the number and length of your posts risks opening you up to an accusation of bludgeoning this discussion. As an uninvolved administrator, I'm advising you to cool it. GirthSummit (blether) 08:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, you're saying that there is no obligation to answer a proposal for inclusion into the article? Please explain what you mean by "rhetorical device"? If the question and answer is so obvious as to be rhetorical, does that not then support the change?
Bludgeon states: "Bludgeoning the process is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. Typically, this means making the same argument over and over, to different people". I have made one comment to the same editor and only because a response has not been forthcoming. You're correct that an answer is not obligated, but this but a request for a response to a very specific and explicit reason behind the proposal, it seems reasonable that a response opposing it should be expected.
I shall take my proposal to DR then, which I suppose should have been done a while ago. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chaheel Riens, this is a request for comment. The idea is that lots of editors will come along, read the discussion so far, and give their opinion. So far, you have replied to every person who has expressed an opinion counter to yours - and you've responded to Doc James multiple times, that's what I'm talking about with the bludgeoning. He's not obliged to answer any question if yours, but whoever closes this RFC will weigh the strengths of your arguments against those of his when determining the consensus. GirthSummit (blether) 14:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doc James may not be required to answer questions, but his failure to do so, when those questions are fundamental to the outcome here, does dismantle his argument. Jenny Jankel (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, happy World Down Syndrome Day everyone! I think it might be useful to take a look back at the history of this article and remind ourselves what it is that we're discussing here. Just to be clear, the debate is NOT about what the article should be called. There was some discussion ([7]) way back in 2002 over whether it should be at "Down's syndrome" or "Down syndrome" but this was inconclusive and it remained at "Down syndrome". Since then, the lead has always included the words "or Down's syndrome" (or a similar formulation such as "also known as Down's syndrome" – more on this later), except during a brief period that lasted from 1 September 2005 until 24 November 2005. The article continued to improve and grow over the years but the lead remained stable, at least as far as the inclusion of both names is concerned. Until 4 March 2016, that is, when Doc James removed the words "or Down's syndrome" with this revision [8]. We don't know what prompted the revision because he omitted to include an edit summary. Since the removal of "or Down's syndrome", a number of editors have attempted to restore it (perhaps in order to bring Wikipedia back into line with such publications as the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Oxford Dictionaries, Merriam-Webster, and so on, all of which include "or Down's syndrome" or "or Down syndrome" as the case may be). What happened next?

  • On 13 May 2016 Royalcourtier restores "or Down's syndrome" and is promptly reverted by Doc James on the grounds that the term is In the infobox (of course it is: it was put there by Doc James on 4 March 2016 moments after removing the restored "or Down's syndrome").
  • On 29 September 2016 GhostOfNoMeme restores "or Down's syndrome" and is reverted the next day by Doc James on the grounds in the infobox already.
  • On 1 December 2016 Picapica restores "or Down's syndrome" and is immediately reverted by Doc James because it's In the infobox.
  • On 14 December 2016 NotThatAnonymous gives it a whirl and is reverted mere hours later by Doc James on the grounds In the infobox which is enough.
  • On 12 February 2017 NotThatAnonymous suggests that The synonyms should be mentioned first, even though they are in the infobox but is reverted a day later by Doc James using the (disingenuous?) edit summary moved minor spelling differences to the infobox.
  • On 20 July 2018 Hippo43 restores "or Down's syndrome", with the edit summary alternative name in lead and is reverted the next day by Doc James with a terse in the infobox.
  • On 16 November 2018 Necrothesp points out that Down's syndrome is still the common name in the UK for starters and is reverted the next day by Doc James with a reluctant-to-engage minor spelling variation moved to infobox.
  • On 2 March 2019 FatherStack "fixes the grammar" by changing "Down" to "Down's" throughout and is understandably reverted by Doc James, who suggests quite rightly that such a change Needs consensus.
  • On 20 February 2020 Jenny Jankel adds "or Down's syndrome (UK)" after "also known as" and is reverted five hours later by Doc James with the somewhat dismissive minor spelling variations can go in the infobox. Jenny Jankel follows up with that's not a minor spelling difference. it's a significant difference between the US and UK names and is told by Doc James that It is a simple "'s", not important enough to be placed in the first sentence, in the infobox and body (that bit about "in the body" is not strictly true, as we will see).

At this point the discussion switches to the talk page, where it has pretty much stalled because what seems to be happening is that those in favour of having the wording of the lead reflect actual usage in English, which is what Wikipedia is supposed to do, by which I mean, in case it isn't clear, having it include both of the two commonly used names for DS, just as the article has done for most of its life and just as reliable sources throughout the Anglosphere continue to do, are being stonewalled by the same user who made the unilateral change, without obtaining (or even seeking) consensus, in the first place! Let's have a look at the arguments against having the lead reflect actual, current usage in English:

  • Fait accompli: "it's in the infobox". Ignoring the fact that it's only in the infobox because Doc James put it there, at the same time as he was deleting it from the lead, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE states that the purpose of an infobox is "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored)." This requirement is not satisfied if "Down's syndrome" does not appear in the article (and it doesn't, except in the section on how some people decided to stop using it! There is no mention at all of the fact that before the NIH recommended "Down syndrome" everyone was calling it "Down's syndrome" (I mean, you can't recommend changing a name to something without changing it from something, can you?), or of the fact that in a bunch of countries around the world people are still calling it Down's syndrome (except when they're calling it "Down syndrome" because people are like that: inconsistent. Real world usage, remember), and even using it in scholarly papers (such as here [9], here [10], or here [11]).
  • Minor variation/spelling variation. Leaving aside the fact that if either of the two commonly used names for DS is a variation, it is surely the more recent name that is a variation of the older name, not the other way round (but let's not split hairs), there is nothing in Wikipedia policy that says that variations should not appear in the lead. Quite the opposite, WP:ENGVAR and MOS:LEADALT specifically provide for this.
  • The 's is discussed in the body of the article. No, it really isn't! And even if it were, what could such a discussion consist of except to say that some people recommend using "Down syndrome" and some other people continue to use "Down's syndrome" regardless? And how would that justify eliminating one of the two commonly used names for DS from the body of the article?
  • We should not be trying to put all possible names in the first sentence. Sure, but nobody is. There are two commonly used names, "Down syndrome" and "Down's syndrome", plus a commonly used abbreviation, "DS". All these things should appear in the first sentence. Apparently "trisomy 21" is used as a synonym, despite the fact that it should probably really be in a section called "Types of Down syndrome", but since the article is supposed to reflect actual usage on the basis of reliable sources rather than prescribe "correct" usage on the basis of personal preference/bias (because that's how Wikipedia works), perhaps "trisomy 21" needs to stay too. Personally, I'm less sure about the need to include "DNS" in the lead, but maybe that's just me. Even so, we end up with a lead sentence that begins "Down syndrome or Down's syndrome (DS), also known as trisomy 21, is a genetic disorder caused by..." Surely this is clear and readable and accurate? MOS:LEADSENTENCE warns us to "be wary of cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthesis", but this doesn't look very cluttered to me, and that parenthesis is downright short.
  • Three oppose its addition to the first sentence. Isn't this overlooking the fact that restoring "or Down's syndrome" isn't adding anything new, it's restoring something that was already uncontroversially there? And the fact that every time anyone has tried to restore it they've been reverted on fairly spurious grounds?
  • Trying to put it in the first sentence is WP:UNDUE. I mentioned this in a comment further up but was ignored. It's not WP:UNDUE, in the sense of "giving undue weight to a viewpoint", to include both of the two commonly used names for DS in the first sentence. It isn't a "viewpoint" that "Down's syndrome" is a commonly used name, it's fact. Just as "Down syndrome" is a commonly used name. Both deserve equal weight in the lead sentence. Both could serve equally well as the title of the article, as Doc James concedes when he says: "If this article was named 'Down's syndrome' I would be against adding 'Down syndrome' to the first sentence as well."

And the arguments for including "or Down's syndrome" in the lead sentence? There's only one:

  • It's one of the two commonly used names for the subject of the article, as used by two out of three of the world's most read online newspapers; it appears alongside "Down syndrome" in reputable dictionaries and encyclopaedias; it is used alongside "Down syndrome" by the international academic and medical communities; it is used by a variety of national DS societies and associations (and is acknowledged to be "popular" even by those national DS societies that opt to use "Down syndrome"). It isn't a variation or an alternative name, it is one of two names that are widely used around the world, today, right now, by lots of people. DS stands for "Down syndrome or Down's syndrome". The Wikipedia article should reflect that, not relegate one of two equally valid names to the infobox because of personal or professional bias or preference.

Final consideration: if several editors over a considerable period have independently arrived at the conclusion that the lead sentence would benefit from the addition/restoration of "or Down's syndrome" and have duly proceeded to edit the article in that sense, only to see their edit swiftly reverted by a single editor who apparently considers their edit unnecessary (and says so), might it not be appropriate to refamiliarise ourselves with WP:DONTREVERT, in that whatever any particular editor's individual preference happens to be, no one can seriously argue that adding/restoring "or Down's syndrome" actually makes the article worse? Thoughts, Doc James, Chaheel Riens, Jenny Jankel? Rabascius (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of people here disagree that it is needed. It is in the infobox and the body of the text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doc James: by "a bunch of people here disagree" do you not perhaps mean "Doc James disagrees"? First of all, "Down syndrome" versus "Down's syndrome" is not just a "spelling difference"; there is also, and more importantly, a pronunciation difference too. Above all, it is the fact that -- regardless of anyone's views as to the merits of the United States National Institutes of Health recommendation concerning nomenclature -- "Down's syndrome" is the name by which this condition is not only very commonly but indeed in many parts of the world primarily known, that makes it appropriate to mention the alternative name in the first sentence. What harm is it doing there? I don't think there is any Wikipedia editorial guidance that says that nothing included in the infobox (which is, by and large, a secondary summary) can appear in an article's opening sentence. If there were, then the start of many thousands of articles would require re-writing! -- Picapica (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Picapica, in this RfC there are currently three 'oppose' !votes opposed to the proposed change, alongside two in favour of it. Feel free to !vote yourself, but there's no need to pour scorn on Doc James for noting that it's not just him who thinks this. GirthSummit (blether) 12:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit: 1) My reading of the contents of this page was that it has consisted very largely of Doc James repeatedly reverting other editors' amendments without ever really addressing why they were making them. That is what made me a little irritated: I do, nevertheless, apologize for the snide tone of my question. 2) I didn't (and still can't) see any mention of any already existing "RfC" concerning this matter. I should also mention (doubtless revealing my ignorance again) that I don't know what a "!vote" is -- which is why I've never cast one. -- Picapica (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Picapica, yeah, that was my mistake - I saw the !votes above (where people are saying Support or Oppose) and just assumed that this was an RfC - had I read the whole thing from the beginning, I'd have realised that it's just a talk page proposal. Below, I've suggested that the OP starts an RfC, which might be a better way to establish a firm consensus as it would attract more editors, instead of just a few people going back and forth and not making much progress. GirthSummit (blether) 16:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse my ignorance, but I can't see this article listed at WP:RFC/A. What am I missing? Jenny Jankel (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts. It's pretty clear from the thorough work by Rabascius that there is a problem editor keeping tabs on this page and consistently ignoring consensus or reason. "or Down's syndrome" needs to be restored to the lead. Jenny Jankel (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jennt Jankel Apologies - it's not a formal RfC, it's just a talk page proposal. The point remains though that there are other editors who have expressed opinions in-line with Doc James's view. GirthSummit (blether) 13:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Double apologies - I mistyped your username and that ping will have failed. Jenny Jankel GirthSummit (blether) 13:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Incorrect tally on the proposal as well - three !votes support and three against not two support and three against. Jenny Jankel hasn't officially !voted, but it's obvious she's a support, which made it four supporting, and it would seem Picapica is supporting the change as well, but also hasn't !voted. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chaheel Riens, you are correct that it is three supports if we include yourself as the nominator. I agree with you that Picapica appears to be in support of the proposal as well, and I invited them to say as much. None of which speaks against the actual point I was making, which was that it is incorrect, and also rather rude, to say that Doc James is alone in his stance here - there are indeed a bunch of people who have voiced their agreement. GirthSummit (blether) 15:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point and acknowledged, although I suspect Picapica's point in response is that only Doc James is actively involved in this discussion, and as evidenced by Rabascius's detailed work above, he was also the editor responsible for removing "Down's syndrome" from the article in the first place - and has been active in keeping it out ever since, despite multiple different editors restoring it over a period of some time. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chaheel Riens, here's a suggestion - why not start a proper RFC? Write two or three alternative opening sentences - the current one, the proposal above, and anything else that seems relevant - and advertise in the standard places. That might establish a strong consensus, and would hopefully put an end to the back and forth here. GirthSummit (blether) 16:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Counting votes is meaningless anyway, especially if certain editors show clear bias or have no rationale for their vote. Jenny Jankel (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course Down's syndrome needs equal weight in the lede with Down syndrome. I don't even know why we're debating this. It's almost like there's a campaign to cut out the usage in many countries around the world because some editors don't like it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly this. It's everything that Wikipedia shouldn't be. Jenny Jankel (talk) 11:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No there is an effect not to try to put all details in the first sentence of articles. Down's syndrome is discussed in this article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a detail, Doc James. If this article were named Down's syndrome instead of Down syndrome, you would insist that Down syndrome be mentioned in the lead. Jenny Jankel (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on the first part of the first sentence

I am procedurally closing this expired RfC. I listed the RfC at WP:ANRFC, and an admin declined the close request with the comment "no formal close needed. Participants on the talk page can judge the outcome themselves." There is more context for the declined close request here.

If any editor would like to close the RfC, they can replace this procedural close with their close. If any editor would like this RfC to be formally closed by an uninvolved editor, they can undo this procedural close and make a close request at WP:ANRFC.

Cunard (talk) 07:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How should we start the first sentence of this article? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1

"Down syndrome (DS or DNS), also known as trisomy 21,"

  • Support Whether an article uses British or American English is basically down to chance — and it is totally inappropriate to have both at the same time, whether that be alternating between them, or even worse: listing them in succession. It is bizarre to, as some do below: state that there is no precedent, when clearly precedent has been stated in the cases of Huntington's and Alzheimer's.
    And no matter how widespread the variation is, it is certainly minor.
    We WP:Don't vote here, and many of the arguments against option 1 are invalid.
    Carl Fredrik talk 18:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to point out that no one is suggesting mixing British and American English or alternating between them. That isn't what this is about. The issue is the removal of one of two equally valid, commonly used names for the subject of the article from the first sentence (its natural position as per Wikipedia policy, the manual of style and the precedent of countless other articles across the project) and its relegation to the infobox on the questionable grounds that it is a "variation" (when in fact it is the older, better established name). Huntington's and Alzheimer's have nothing to do with it: no one calls it "Huntington disease" (the name doesn't even appear in the article) and no one is trying to replace "Alzheimer's disease" with "Alzheimer disease". As you say yourself, whether an article uses British or American English is basically down to chance, and if we're treating "Down's syndrome" as the British English version (although that's only part of the story – see the discussion above), you will admit that the article could have just as easily ended up (or started out) at "Down's syndrome", and we would now be arguing for the inclusion of "or Down syndrome" in the lead sentence because, and this is the point, both commonly used names are equally valid and should therefore be given equal weight in the lead. The rest of the article would then use the name that appears in the title of the article, as is the case here, or rather was until someone decided, unilaterally and without seeking consensus, to change it. Rabascius (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional - precedent has also been set that we do include national variations in the lede, it seems standard behavior behaviour. I included some examples in my own reasoning, but here are a few more: Pants, Braces, Freeway, Motorway and Expressway, Motorbike, Automobile - in fact the list just goes on and on. It would be more of a challenge I suspect to find a national variation that is not included in the lede of the alternative title. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Can you find any national variations from the Anglosphere not included in the lead, Carl Fredrik? Jenny Jankel (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It makes sense to me to remain consistent on this type of style across Wikipedia medical articles. I don't see that an exception is needed in this case. No need to ping me if you reply to me. That stated, we do include the American and English spellings in the lead of some Wikipedia articles, which is allowed per WP:ALTERNATIVETITLE, and I haven't seen it be an issue in those cases. Well, not generally. In a case like the Trousers article, that isn't an alternative spelling issue; it's an issue of a very common alternative name, and there is consistent debate about whether to title that article "Pants." We do include alternative names in the lead of our Wikipedia medical articles when warranted. Heart attack is an example. But, again, this particular case is about a spelling difference. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very common alternative name and national variation that also happens to be a minor spelling difference: Armor, Colour, Aluminum, Aeroplane, Neighbour, Behavior. Myocardial infarction is not necessarily a good example because it doesn't include a geographical alternative name, which is the context of this discussion, unlike Controlled-access highway which has no less than three different geographic alternatives.
Interesting comment about consistency over medical articles. Medicine is not my forte, and I know of very few conditions with different names in the UK and the US: Infectious mononucleosis which lists both Mono (American) and Glandular Fever (UK and elsewhere). Diarrhea and Postpartum depression include both US & UK spellings. Although Rubella also lists alternative names, I don't know if they're geographic. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the counter-reasons given by Rabascius, Jenny Jankel and even myself above - this is not a minor spelling difference but a national variation which is included in other articles. Moreover it's wrong - we don't differentiate Huntington's without the 's in the article specified. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chaheel Riens, you shouldn't be responding to every new person who supports this option. None of the people supporting Option 1 are responding to people supporting the other options - that's because there is a 'discussion' section at the bottom of this RfC, which is where discussion is supposed to happen. The 'survey' sections are simply here for people to voice their opinions. GirthSummit (blether) 11:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in the RFC guidelines that say responses cannot be made just because there is a discussion section as well. In fact, in Separate votes from discussion it specifically states "You can ask people not to add threaded replies to the survey section, although that doesn't always result in good outcomes." That stipulation hasn't been made. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chaheel Riens, indeed - I'm just pointing out that you have literally responded to every person who has expressed an opinion that isn't in agreement with yours, aside from Doc James and Ozzie10aaaa, who you have already discussed this with at length above. Please take a look at WP:BLUDGEON, and consider whether you really need to do this. GirthSummit (blether) 13:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reason no one has responded to the option 2 support is there's no legitimate way to refute the statements. Jenny Jankel (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jenny Jankel, I don't believe that your statement is correct - I believe the reason that they haven't responded is they are happy to allow other people to express views that don't align with their own without badgering them. To disagree with someone is one thing; to say that there is no legitimate view but your own is something else. GirthSummit (blether) 19:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2

"Down syndrome or Down's syndrome (DS or DNS), also known as trisomy 21,"

  • Support - "Down's syndrome" is not a minor variation, but a national variation, and the original usage still used by a considerbale percentage of the population. "Down's syndrome" has a greater and more common usage than "Trisomy 21", and in order to keep the lead shorter we don't need to list both "DS" and "DNS", or "Trisomy 21". National variations are listed in the first lede sentence as per Armor, Colour, Aluminum, Sega Megadrive and others. Chaheel Riens (talk) 04:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "Down's syndrome" is the official and most commonly used name in the UK. It is a joke to suggest that because it is similar in spelling to the North American "Down syndrome" it should be relegated to the infobox. There is absolutely no precedent for that, as detailed in the arguments above and below. Jenny Jankel (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Down's syndrome is the official and common form in the UK, is also used in other countries and was formerly used pretty much everywhere. It is not a "minor variation". This simply appears to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT from a handful of editors. It is usual to put all common variations bolded in the lede in articles. I really don't know why this even needs a discussion as it is patently obvious. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ~ Magna19 (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The two versions of the name continue to be equally valid, as demonstrated by reliable sources (scientific papers, encyclopaedias, newspaper articles, etc.), which is more important than the preference of individual editors, and in fact the article could just as easily be at Down's syndrome (not being proposed here, but the issue is periodically raised on the article's talk page – see the archives). This in itself should be enough to justify giving equal weight to the two names in the lead sentence, rather than relegating one of them to the infobox. Also, "Down's syndrome" is not "discussed in the body of the article". As has already been pointed out, the only mention of it in the article is in the Name section (towards the end) in connection with the recommendation by the NIH not to use it. This is not balanced by any mention of the fact that various national authorities and associations around the world continue to prefer the genitive (not possessive) form, and is therefore misleading. Omitting "Down's syndrome" from the lead further compounds this misleading impression. Rabascius (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is quite an important difference of use. Somebody in the UK looking up Down's syndrome will invariably go to Wikipedia - to see it listed just as Down syndrome. So since Wikipedia is not supposed to be geographically biased this is clearly a case of avoidable confusion.--Iztwoz (talk) 09:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 09:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Patently obvious. --hippo43 (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to avoid giving the impression that "Down syndrome" is correct but "Down's syndrome" is not correct, which is a reasonable inference for a reader if they see only one term listed in the first sentence. We generally list regional variations for a word regardless of which variation is used throughout the rest of the article, per the lists by Chaheel Riens in replies to Option 1 above. — Bilorv (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support current version is neither too long nor difficult to parse. We should make it clear straight away to a reader who's looking up "Down's syndrome" that they're in the right place. Consistent with MOS:LEADSENTENCE. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 06:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

===Option 3=== "Down syndrome, also known as D(N)S or Down's Syndrome, is a genetic disorder..."

Discussion

I have no idea if the national variant claim holds water or not, and I don't feel like wading through the extensive previous discussion to see, but I wanted to point out that there are multiple possible combinations that aren't being considered with the options given. The RfC should probably focus on each question separately:

  1. Should "Down's" be given as an alternate name?
  2. Should "trisomy 21" be given as an alternate name?
  3. Should the DS/DNS abbreviations be given?

For what it's worth, trying to combine the abbreviations as D(N)S is nuts and shouldn't even be considered. DS should be given in the lead because it's being used in the article. However, it probably shouldn't be used in the article – it's a simple two-word phrase that doesn't need to be abbreviated. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fair point, and on consideration, my introduction of Option 3 probably dilutes the argument somewhat. I shall strike that option, and leave it at the two original choices. This, I feel, will give an indication as to whether "Down's syndrome" has the support for inclusion, and while doing so we can establish the actual wording of inclusion here in the discussion section, or talk page in general.
Also, there is no intent to combine "DS" and "DNS" as "D(N)S", the intent there - which seemed obvious to me, but apparently was a mistake on my part - was to say that I would be happy with either "DS" or "DNS" in the lede but not both, hence the bracket to show that the "N" was optional depending on the choice made. Chaheel Riens (talk) 04:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I object to restricted option(s) and poll RFCs. That's not the way to work towards consensus. It just leads to "I support so-and-so" votes and people taking adversarial positions. Firstly I think the lead sentence should be easy to read and pronounce. It gets a lot of use not only by our readers on the web, but also by smart devices. So the "D(N)S" thing is very much a non-starter. I've not come across "DNS" in this context before and if I google it, I just get Wikipedia text back at me, so at present I'm not convinced that's a variant we need concern ourselves with. An initialism like "DS" can be mentioned in the lead, particularly if the article uses it. The Trisomy21 term is the overwhelming cause and the question is whether people use it, rightly or wrongly, as a synonym. I suggest consulting high quality literature (NHS, major charities, etc) who haven't lifted the definition from wikipedia, to see whether they consider this important.

As for apostrophes. Well it really is quite simple, and is how all English words transform over time. The "'s" tends to get removed in syndromes because casual pronunciation loses it. The "'s" tends to get kept in diseases because it flows together easily. When we abbreviate the condition by missing out the "syndrome" or "disease", the "'s" magically reappears. So we will say Down's or Alzheimer's and nobody ever says "Jane was born with Down" or "Archibald developed Alzheimer". The "'s" is clearly used by a significant number of careful writers and belongs as a variant in the lead sentence. The reason Alzheimer's doesn't include Alzheimer as a variant is that it is rare, and not because someone won some Wiki argument about variants in the lead. -- Colin°Talk 08:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of main questions rather than free-form options

  • Yes/Yes/No. I'm going with the assumption that "Down's" is relatively common and a national variant. In this case (and I can be swayed still), both versions should be given. "Trisomy 21" should also be mentioned as a more technical name. The abbreviations are not helpful in the lead, let alone anywhere else. The usage of "DS" in the article body should be removed for style considerations and to avoid the need to mention in the lead. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Deacon Vorbis yah I think it is reasonable to drop the abbreviation either way. There are efforts to 1) move away from possessive forms of disease names 2) naming diseases after people. I imagine the UK will move away from the 's eventually. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you imagine that, Doc James? And "efforts" (by whoever) should not affect Wikipedia. Wikipedians should state the facts, not try to create them. Your agenda worries me. Jenny Jankel (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the replacement of "DS" in the article with "Down syndrome", but with regard to the possessive - as per Jenny Jankel and WP:CRYSTALBALL - we'll cover that when it happens, not before. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the national variation - "Down's syndrome" is the preferred term in the UK:
Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hatting discussion about initial closure by involved party

Chaheel Riens - I just looked in at this page to see whether the discussion had moved on, to find that you had unexpectedly closed the discussion. Have you looked at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs? It's true that there was a numerical majority in favour of your position, but 10 days is not a long time for an RfC to run, and as someone who !voted in the discussion, and one of the main parties to the content dispute that led to it, I can't see how were in a postion to close it. I think that your closure should be overturned, and the discussion relisted - would you be willing to do that? GirthSummit (blether) 15:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I see no reason for that. It wasn't just a numerical advantage, but discussion was also in favour of inclusion. The RfC was closed on 2nd April, and nobody else - including another mop-holder, and even those who were involved and against - have considered the closure to be in error or commented since then. If you think my behaviour was inappropriate then take me to task, but not the decision which is reasonable, and anybody else would have drawn the same conclusion.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chaheel Riens, discussions should be closed by an uninvolved editor - which you are not. I am not saying that I disagree with the outcome, but this is out of process. I'm not looking to take you to task, and I don't accuse you of having done this in bad faith - I only want to see that things are done in the proper way. As it stands, this closure is basically meaningless - anyone could easily argue that it was improperly closed, and that the consensus isn't binding. Again - will you revert yourself and relist? If not, I'll raise a thread at WP:AN for further comment. Best GirthSummit (blether) 19:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see why it matters when nobody else has raised an issue with the outcome. If nobody thinks there is a problem with the result - including you - and you accept that it was done in good faith, then why not take this as an application of WP:IGNORE, and let it be? This just seems like an unnecessary excuse to drag the discussion out for longer and longer. Nobody else (again - including those opposed) is arguing that it was improperly closed. I admit I was unaware of the correct process, but that is something that can be borne in mind for the future, there is no reason to re-raise what seems to be a reasonable conclusion. Why do you think that this is a meaningless close, when there was clear bias to include after several days of non-interaction from anybody - especially if (again) you have no problem with the conclusion, only the way it came about?  Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chaheel Riens, it's entirely possible that nobody else realises you've closed this. 10 days is very short for an RfC. There's no fixed time span, but 30 days is common. I literally just took a look to see what was happening, and was surprised to see it closed so soon - when I saw it was you who had closed it, alarm bells started ringing. As to why it should be done - this consensus now has zero weight. Anyone who wants to ignore it can now do so, and say that the RFC was improperly closed. Then we're back to square one. Again - please revert, relist, and wait for an uninvolved editor to close. If you refuse to do so, I will escalate this - I genuinely don't want to do that, but this is not how things are done. GirthSummit (blether) 20:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you might as well do it, Chaheel Riens, although the outcome is crystal clear, and the conversation was dead. Girth Summit: "Legobot assumes an RfC has been forgotten and automatically ends it (removes the rfc template) 30 days after it begins, to avoid a buildup of stale discussions cluttering the lists and wasting commenters' time. But editors should not wait for that: if one of the reasons listed above applies, someone should end it manually, as soon as it is clear the discussion has run its course." Jenny Jankel (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jenny Jankel, I don't know what point you're trying to make here. There's a big difference between 10 days and 30 days. I have literally never seen a more improper close than this - I can't see how anyone could be expected to respect the outcome. It's in everyone's interest that this be properly closed. GirthSummit (blether) 22:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect Jenny's point is that "There is no required minimum or maximum duration" and, as stated "someone should end it manually, as soon as it is clear the discussion has run its course." If nobody else has noticed that the RfC has been closed 7 days after it happened and 11 after the last !vote, then it's patently clear that nobody else is going to get involved and the discussion has run its course. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chaheel Riens, I'd make two observations. 1: a large proportion of our active medical editing community is very busy at the moment, for reasons which are probably obvious. A discussion like this should perhaps be allowed to run for longer than usual, not cut short because a couple of days have elapsed since the last comment. 2: An RfC isn't a vote, the closer is required to weigh consensus based on the strengths of the arguments in relation to policy. An involved editor can't do that objectively. Thanks though for undoing your close. GirthSummit (blether) 08:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC is posed as an either-or, which is fraught. I agree with neither option listed. I have followed and engaged this article since its 2010 Featured article review, and am aware of the long-standing conflict regarding the apostrophe. Removing it makes no sense, and listing it is not a breach of MOS:FIRST, which is intended to avoid lengthy constructs.
I support what is in the article now, Down syndrome or Down's syndrome, also known as trisomy 21. There is no need for the DS abbreviation; it was used only three times in the article, and I replaced those. DNS is never used in the article.
Here is the first sentence of this article at each stage of its past content review processes (see the article milestones template at the top of the page):
  • 2014 Good article [12]
  • 2012 Peer review [13]
  • 2010 Featured article review [14]
  • 2006 Featured article candidate [15]
  • 2006 Peer review [16]

Considering that history (every instance includes Down's), it is astonishing that there is an attempt to remove the apostrophe. Since this was once a Featured article, it is built upon a solid foundation; considering there are now many involved and interested editors, I hope they will be encouraged to work towards bringing it back to featured status. Please ping me in the future if you would like help on that venture (meaning if and after all citations are in a consistent format, using only the most recent secondary sources, and there has been a serious copyedit). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hearing loss in Down syndrome

•Conductive Hearing loss occurs in 38-78% of DS population •Otitis media with effusion is most common cause of HL •Sensorineural Hearing loss and Mixed Hearing Loss occur in 4-20% of DS population •Treating Sensorineural Hearing loss component is necessary •Hearing loss is more severe depending on comorbid conditions such as epilepsy and seizures. •Children with DS have speech and language learning difficulty, with the help of proper amplification devices and otological intervention children can hear and do more insitu learning •Epilepsy and seizure disorders effect the auditory processing in temporal lobe, and increase the severity of HL •Regular wax removal due to narrow ear canals •Tubes before 2y/o

Kreicher, K. L., Weir, F. W., Nguyen, S. A., & Meyer, T. A. (2018). Characteristics and progression of hearing loss in children with Down syndrome. The Journal of pediatrics, 193, 27-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2017.09.053

•For those with Severe Sensorineural hearing loss, CI is an option. Cognitive impairment is not a contraindication to implant children with DS but should be considered as a major factor. •SLP and aural rehab to help with speech and language learning Heldahl, M. G., Eksveen, B., & Bunne, M. (2019). Cochlear implants in eight children with Down Syndrome–Auditory performance and challenges in assessment. International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology, 126, 109636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2019.109636 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caitheaton (talk • contribs) 20:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Better to go with secondary sources rather than primary sources User:Caitheaton. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IQ

I'm confused. Where did people hear that individuals with down syndrome have a low IQ? I've witnessed students in my school with this disorder who actually scored very high on IQ tests. They don't even talk like how you'd expect someone with a low IQ to. I don't think it's an intelligence disorder. As for equating it to that of an 8 to 9 year old, is that to say that children of those ages can never be smart? I normally only hear of people, normally those who hate any individual that isn't an adult state that all children are unintelligent even when the contrary is proven and child geniuses are revealed to which they'll deny.

Your question is mainly answered with sources in the Neurological section. It sounds as though you're basing your statements on personal experience and opinion which cannot be used in Wikipedia as they fall under original research. There is a wealth of scientific data to corroborate this IQ viewpoint. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Down_syndrome&oldid=958167276"