Talk:Down syndrome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Down syndrome article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Featured article star Down syndrome is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 5, 2006.
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
To-do: edit · history · watch · refresh
Priority 3  

Contents


The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. DrKiernan (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Down's Syndrome is in use by the WHO (ICD-10 and ICD-9), UK and Australia. The syndrome is named after a British doctor, and is therefore British in origin. This fact combined with the use by the WHO means that this article should be located at "Down's Syndrome". The only people who seem to be asserting that it is actually "Down syndrome" are the US/North American contributors. Barry m (talk) 03:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Move. For reasons as explained by the proposer.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Move. My only surprise is that this hasn't been actioned before now. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I use Down's Syndrome, but according to the Manual of Style the existing spelling should be retained unless there is strong national ties for the article. Down's Syndrome does not have anything to do with any country other than where the doctor that described it was from. People from all countries are subject to the disorder. Since the first major contributor wrote it as Down Syndrome should we be moving it now? Jons63 (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment See Epinephrine. The international name is the one used for the article. Barry m (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Move per nom. Snocrates 23:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Leave it, and find something more important to worry about. The linked history page says: "While both the possessive and non-possessive forms are used in the general population, Down syndrome is the accepted term among professionals in the USA, Canada and other countries, while Down's syndrome continues to be used in the United Kingdom and other areas.[1]" Both names are equally valid. Therefore we default to whatever's already in use. Furthermore, Down's Syndrome is always wrong: the possessive should be Down's syndrome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Even in the UK many people refer to this as "Down syndrome". The present form wins in a Googlefight by a factor 10 (3.6 million versus 240,000). We don't normally move US to UK spellings barring specific circumstances, which I cannot see here. JFW | T@lk 00:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support When things are tied between UK and US, I think we should go with what the official designation is...and a google books search shows the two mostly the same. So, we look to the international body that handles this, the joyous WHO (Or OMS if you want to be all Swiss-French about it). Narson (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Down Syndrome is correct as the syndrome is named for Down. Down's syndrome would be correct if he had the syndrome himself. That's the rationale for "Down Syndrome" commonly used in the US, and it seems to make sense to me. Fratprez (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. According to the Manual of Style, stick with the existing name. Down is also acceptable in the UK. Present form clearly wins the Googlefight. Plus, as noted above, Down himself did not have it. Doczilla (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I previously just commented now looking more at this, I oppose. The original proposal was made on the premise that WHO uses Down's Syndrome along with ICD9 and ICD10. After looking at the WHO website, it appears that WHO uses Down Syndrome also.[1] This along with the information in my comment above. Jons63 (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment In the UK it's only ever referred to as "Down syndrome" when spoken as saying "Down's Syndrome" correctly leaves an unnecessarily long pause between the words. Also ICD's the WHO's quasi-bible and is probably their best known publication, and they only ever use "Down syndrome" when referring to it in some research and not in official pubications. Barry m (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Google and get back to work instead of wasting time on this.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Down syndrome" is more widely used in the UK. Axl (talk) 11:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Additional commentary 2 months later...

Oppose. Down Syndrome is correct as the syndrome is named for Down. Down's syndrome would be correct if he had the syndrome himself. That's the rationale for "Down Syndrome" commonly used in the US, and it seems to make sense to me. Fratprez (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out what a complete moron the above poster is. Calling it "Down's Syndrome" means it was first discovered/described by someone named Down, not that someone named Down had it first and it was named after him because of that. Look at any list of medical conditions, illnesses, diseases, etc, and you'll find many examples of the same type, e.g. Ewing's sarcoma, Bell's palsy, and Askin's tumor. The possessive case denotes scientific credit. In rare instances you will find a disease or condition named for a patient- Lou Gehrig's disease-but such is, as stated, very rare.

As for the rest of you and your peurile discussion about whether "Down" or "Down's" is correct, keep in mind that just because a spelling, pronunciation, or usage is commonly or widely heard/read doesn't mean it's correct. The proper name for the condition is Down's syndrome, and no amount of "everybody says it that way", "I hear it like that all the time", or anything else in the same vein matters a damn. Uncle Bubba (talk) 06:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Please take some time to read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. --Onorem♠Dil 22:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] concrete thinking

What does "concrete thinking" mean, as mentioned in this article? Is this a common phrase? Bl4h 01:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It refers to a limited ability to think abstractly. People who think concretely take most sentences literally and have trouble understanding analogies, metaphors, figures of speech, etc. alteripse 04:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Concrete (philosophy) redirects to Abstract object, i added a link--12.199.113.4 17:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of Action to Prevent Vandalism

This article is being vandalised on a daily basis. Can it be placed on limited editing privilages to prevent the constant reversion? I'm afraid I haven't a clue how to formally request this, but I think it needs doing. Anyone agree or disagree? Shinji nishizono 19:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Content dispute

I have made some edits recently, which have been reverted by Buddhipriya:[2]

I assert that my edits are improvements because:

  • On the issue of male fertility, I point out that for there to be only 3 instances of males fathering children proves that fertility is almost entirely absent. 1 in 733 American males have Down syndrome - and that's in a country where 90% of Down syndrome fetuses are aborted before birth. There must be many millions of men with Down syndrome, of whom precisely three have managed to reproduce. Those 3 males, by the way, are likely to not have Down syndrome throughout their body - it's possible to have patches of flesh that are affected or not affected, so I reckon those 3 are not true Down syndrome patients.
  • On the issue of whether it should be called Down or Down's syndrome, I work as a doctor in Australia and the commonest name for it is Down's. A more formal citation is already given at the end of the article. Maybe it's wrong to call it Down's, but that's the way it is, and I think it should go at the start of the article. I also note that Parkinson's syndrome, Klinefelter's syndrome and Cushing's syndrome are absolutely standard medical terminology.
    • Common usage in the US is "Down syndrome" (note the lower case s). In Britain (and I assume Australia), the usage is "Down's syndrome".

What say you? I ask that you vote 'keep' or 'delete' for my edits. -Richardcavell 01:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this content question. I reverted your changes not because I felt them to be wrong, but because they were not sourced, and you made a change to a statement that was sourced. By all means, if you have additional or even conflicting content, you are welcome to add it, so long as you do so in a manner consisted with the policies for Wikipedia:Attribution. Making a change to a sentence that already has a reference is problematic unless you are alleging that the source does not say what is attributed to it. If you wish to add additional point of view, please do so and cite your references. Since Wikipedia has no process for checking credentials, arguments from personal authority are not considered valid, which can be frustrating to editors who may be experts in their fields. Thank you for contributing, don't hesitate to use the talk pages to develop consensus around any new ideas you wish to present.
On the issue of calling it Down's Syndrome, since some of the national web sites use that variant, it is not likely to be controversial. E.g. [3] Perhaps "Down's" is British usage? Buddhipriya 02:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Alright, no one seems to want to talk about this so I'll just give up. Content dispute closed. - Richard Cavell 23:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mental retardation

I think this sentence should be re-written:

"Individuals with Down syndrome can have a lower than average cognitive ability"

This sounds like "usually, Down's Syndrome individuals have average cognitive ability". Unfortunately, individuals with down's syndrome usually have a lower cognitive ability. Can someone edit this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vollkorn (talk • contribs) 21:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Early intervention with cognitive exercises can greatly increase intelligence. Unfortunately, most early intervention is targeted at development of physical skills, such as walking, and the cognitive side is neglected. I have a nephew with Down Syndrome, so I know more about this than the average person. Speech therapy plus constant contact with people who talked with him resulted in his demonstrating a level of language development of 5 years, at the age of 3 1/2. He showed he was able to carry on involved conversations at that age. Subsequent lack of education caused him to lose much of this, but at the present time, he is expressing an interest (at age 17) in learning foreign languages, and has an aptitude for vocabulary. In addition to this, he has an unusually well developed memory for remembering dialog in movies, songs, and so forth. Lack of attention to helping him learn how to reason has also held him back. I learned that the primary problem with any development in a person with DS is that they are very laid back. Basically, they don't care. This is coupled with flaccid muscles. Mothers don't get the normal feedback when they interact with their DS children, and consequently, do not provide as much intellectual stimulation. Attention to this is sorely needed. At least some of the normal mental retardation is a result of our failure to provide an educational environment suited to their needs. Femcofounder 12:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] refs in "Genetic research"

I moved the works cited out of this section and User:Cinik moved them back without any explaination. This is totally outside MOS. These works cited need to be formatted properly and not just stuck in with the text. --DanielCD 18:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

I think that the picture of the child with Down's syndrome is ridiculous. Children are not supposed to use drills, children with Down's syndrome should definately not use power drills. Who was smart enough to give this child a drill, really, you might as well have given him a loaded gun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.229.146 (talk)

I love the photo, and the above user is apparently not retarted, just dumb. The child is using a drill, under the close supervision of his parents. It's a battery powered drill with a clutch on it, what is he going to do, drill a hole in his own head? People with down's syndrome have the right to do whatever they want in life, and if this child wants to learn carpentry, then so be it. He obviously is using it under close supervision and therefore the danger is minimal or non existant. It's not like he's sticking his tongue into a jointer. idiot.ReignMan (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
This has been discussed at length. Please check the Talk page articles above. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Geez, that guy should "definately" not have been given a loaded computer. He's just going to hurt himself or someone else. alteripse 03:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Guess —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.229.146 (talk) is either not a parent or has very weird views about disability...sometimes I wonder what some folk are doing on this page in the first place. Universal adult (semi) literacy has its downside! Excalibur 17:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have some beautiful pictures of Down children at the school where I work in Ghana, The Volta School for the Mentally Challenged. I think that a picture of one of them would better fit the spot of leading photograph in the article, such as a picture of my student Mansa colouring or something like that. I even have headshots of all of the kids from their school records and I feel those would be more demonstrative. --Allie 16:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That is incredibly illegal. You don't have the right to use pictures of other people's children without their consent. I used a photo of someone else's dog once, and still got their consent!ReignMan (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Allison - As a teacher you have no authority to use the "headshots" of children in your class in this way on a public forum without full and informed parental consent. With respect, I have been to Ghana too, and most folk there have absolutely no idea what submitting their child's image to this wiki might imply in terms of the various uses to which it might be put by people with other motives than public enlightenment. Excalibur 17:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The picture really is a poor one. It might be good for an article on children or tools but it totally fails to add any information to an article on Down's. Given that one of the distinctive features is the facial appearance then surely a photo facing the camera is required. Mtpaley 21:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I am confused about the current picture right now. Unless one of the members of this music group has Down Syndrome, I find it inappropriate. Even if one of the members does have Down syndrome, I do not find the picture representative of Down Syndrome at all. 66.188.210.136 22:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Sarah

OK, this is a more recent shot of the same guy facing the camera, taken five minutes ago, no kidding, this was his idea, not mine. Look, that's just the way he is, he likes helping me out with power tools and dressing up as the King of Thieves...would you prefer a drooling overweight stereotype to suit the medical folk on this site? I can only photograph him the way he really is, not the way you want him to be...this is his idea of fun and I would far rather he was in bed by now but he's a teenager and does what he wants, not what you want. People with DS are the same as everyone else, just go figure ;-) Excalibur 23:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Kingofthieves.JPG

Drill photo is definately better!ReignMan (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahyhh!!! OMG! it's a ninja!!! everybody panic!!! Jivesucka (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the photo is great and very much adds to the article. It shows the distinct facial features and the short stubby fingers, but in a dynamic shot (also illustrating the capacity to develop interests and skills) rather than a "here is a pathology specimen" shot. Which is as it should be, since people with DS are people, not pathology specimens. In other words the photo shows the stigmata without stigmatizing. Though it would be nice if more photos were included to illustrate the distinct physical traits. 24.145.5.68 (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Organisations

see EDSA, [4] European Down Syndrom Association

[edit] Why all the pictures of African children?

Why are there so many pictures of children from the same Volta School for the Mentally Challenged in Gbi Kledjo, Volta Region, Ghana in this article? I think the article would benefit from showing pictures of children from a bit larger diversity of ethnicities. Really: One picture of an African child with Down syndrome is enough, especially when none of the images right now seem to serve no other point than to show what an African child with Down syndrome looks like. One such picture should be enough. Any additional pictures of the same kids just do not have any added value for the article. I'm going to remove all but one of them. --The Wild Falcon 18:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why are the pictures all of children?

Seriously, there are adults with Down's Syndrome. Why do all the pictures portray children? JDS2005 20:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Down Syndrome

Hi Gantuya eng. I absolutely agree with your sentiments about 'mongolism'. I discovered the persistence of this pejorative term nearly 40 years after WHO officially dropped reference (more so in leading medical texts!) and decided to make it known. It appears others do not take seriously the heritage of fellow humans - if they consider us to be humans. Part 09:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this rationale. But it would be enough to mention the wrong term once, not repeating it so many times. Gantuya eng 09:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi there Thank you for reverting your changes to Down syndrome. I'm sorry for any ill impression the article may cause, but that term is present precisely because it provides historical context. Thank you again for understanding; many editors would simply turn this into an edit war, and it's always nice to come across someone sensible! :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of recent addition

I've removed the following text, recently added by Jessspiz (talk · contribs), due to a pretty obvious POV issue and copyright infringement of the source website. I'll leave it to other editors to discuss whether or not the actual study (free full text) should be added.

The risks of amniocentesis to the unborn child have long been known but now a new (2007) analysis by a British doctor has shown that using the tests in seek-and-destroy missions for Down's syndrome and other genetic abnormalities results in the deaths of hundreds of healthy babies every year in Britain.

Dr. Hylton Meire, the retired physician and author of texts on ultrasound, calculates that for every 50 children with Down's Syndrome successfully identified and killed by abortion, 160 non-affected babies are lost by miscarriage after the test. His paper, published in the Journal of the British Medical Ultrasound Society, mainly emphasizes that the non-invasive test, called the foetal 'nuchal thickness' measurement, is not as useful as is widely thought because of the high incidents of false positives it gives.<link redacted, available in diff>

—Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've tried the link and I'm getting "Your authentication to this fulltext delivery has expired. Please go back and try again by logging back into the site and requesting the document. " Actually this looks pretty interesting and I think should be included. Where's the POV? Either its true or it isnt? Excalibur 22:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"...for every 50 children with Down's Syndrome successfully identified and killed by abortion" is not a neutral statement. Also came from a partisan source. Here's the link to the actual article, which is of course not POV at all :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, fair point, and I do understand what you mean. But the paper itself seems valuable - is there any way this information could be put into plain non-POV text to explain the very high risk of destroying a "normal" fetus: I do think that would-be parents need to be aware of this information:

"In the 1998 paper from Nicolaides’ group39 they reported the findings of a multicentre trial in which 96,127 patients were recruited from 22 separate centres. Of these 8428 patients (8.77%) were reported as being ultrasound positive for increased nuchal thickness. As all of these patients received a confirmatory CVS it is likely that about 170 fetuses were lost as a result of the procedure. Since the aneuploidy rate in the screen positive subjects in this paper was 6.1% about 10 of these lost fetuses would be aneuploid, leaving 160 normal fetuses lost due to the procedure. However, as we have seen above, the aneuploidy rate at 13 weeks is reported as between 0.85 and 2.5% while at term it is less than 0.2%, thus about 9 out of every ten aneuploid fetuses identified during the first trimester will later abort spontaneously. Therefore, in the above study, only about 50 of the 513 aneuploid fetuses would have gone to term. In order to diagnose these 50 aneuploid fetuses 160 normal fetuses will have been lost. One has to ask whether or not this is a price worth paying and whether, in this context, nuchal thickness measurement can be considered to be a clinically valid tool." Excalibur 23:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection

I've semi-protected the page for a week, as it seems to be getting hit frequently by IP vandalism. It's being reverted quickly, but there's still quite a bit; the only productive edits in the past week or so were from registered users. If anyone thinks protection is unnecessary, please feel free to let me know or ask at WP:RFPP. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This article was semi protected in Sept 07, but it appears it is still constantly receiving vandalism. I agree with Shinji nishizono that it needs to be protected. I am going to request indefinite semi-protection as most are from unregistered users and the ips are varied and always new. Quickmythril (talk) 12:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notable individuals with DS

I'm wondering about removing references to people with DS who are notable only by association - such as

  1. Charles Waring Darwin son of Charles Darwin (retrospective speculation).[75]

What do editors think should the criteria be for inclusion in this list to avoid it getting too long? I would personally opt for notable people with DS who have achieved something in their own right (like Paula Sage ) rather than the children of famous people - of whom there must be hundreds of possible candidates, some of whom sadly died very young or achieved very little of note. Alternatively maybe there should be a separate list of the children of famous people? Excalibur (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Image:Paulasage.jpg

Only those people who have Down's Syndrome and are notable in their own right should be included. If their only claim to notability is they are the child of someone who is famous, they are not notable. There should not even be a separate list for those individuals who are notable in their own right. Jons63 (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The usual test of notability is the presence (or reasonable hope of) a Wikipedia article. Charles Waring Darwin has an article, but many currently in the list do not. I'd support the removal (to the talk page) of the redlinked names. An argument for removing CW Darwin is that it is a retrospective "diagnosis". There are good arguments for and against including such uncertain entries, so I'm neutral there. Colin°Talk 17:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, well here are the two that really aren't notable. I'll take them off the main list.


Cheers, Excalibur (talk) 11:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello everyone, just a gnome here. I wanted to add that Miguel Tomasín is not only the singer, but the drumer of Reynols. I hope this is a good place to ask for that, as I can't edit the page myself. I'll try to make an article about him and/or the band soon Or at least translate the one in spanish. Keep up the good work! 190.3.82.11 (talk) 04:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Title - Down's syndrome

Why isn't the tile of this article Down's syndrome? Is it only in the United States that it is called "Down syndrome"? If so, shouldn't we use the WHO's official title? Mrtea (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see the first section on this talk page for one of the most recent discussions. --Onorem♠Dil 14:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Right. I went through the archives but missed the first section on this page. Thanks, Mrtea (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "For example"

In the current text, near the beginning of the article, there is a reference to someone who supposedly suffers from Down (or Down's) Syndrome. I won't write the full name for reasons I will explain, but the first name is "Matthew". There is no further reference to them in the article or in the appendices. I suspect that this inclusion is vandalism performed by someone who knows "Matthew" and is attempting puerile humor at Matthew's expense. Any chance someone could either expand on this reference if it is a valid one, or delete it as it is pointless and potentially libelous?147.56.244.32 (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Dustin

I removed, you are right it did not belong there at all. Jons63 (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I did some web searching and couldn't find anyone notable with Down syndrome with that name. I agree it is a form of vandalism Quickmythril (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sociological or cultural aspects paragraph or history paragraph

I would like to suggest that you add mention of the Mongoloid Development Council which was started in 1960 by my mother, Kay McGee. It was the first organization in the country and probably the world to provide support to parents of children with mongolism. The name was later changed to National Association for Down Syndrome. My mother also started the National Down Syndrome Congress in 1973 with others. I have a history if you would like me to send it to you.

Thanks Marty McGee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.49.240 (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Overstated risk factors

In the 'Incidence paragraph', the article quotes reference #15 as saying "At maternal age 20 to 24, the probability is 1/1490; at age 40 the probability is 1/60, and at age 49 the probability is 1/11."

The article abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6455611 clearly states that these numbers are for "all clinically significant abnormalities", and not just Down syndrome.

The graph to the right seems to say 0.8% or about 1/125 for age 40, instead of 1/60.

If someone can see the fulltext of the article, we could add the correct numbers.

-Nayrb 128.100.71.61 (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent spotting! I changed the numbers and reference to something much newer. It is a population based sample out of Atlanta and Ohio. Is it any better? AmiBebbington (talk) 07:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph at the bottom of the incidence: Current research (as of 02-19-2008) has shown that Down syndrome is due to a random event during the formation of sex cells or pregnancy. There has been no evidence that it is due to parental behavior or environmental factors. has uncited assertions that need citation - especially since it serves to calm people seeking to blame parental behavior or environment.

[edit] Note #15

Does note #15 really support the datat about the age groups of mothers and incident of Downs births? 98.199.198.22 (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Short Answer: Yes, it does. It is the reference for the numbers provided in the Incidence paragraph. AmiBebbington (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Additions to Notable Individuals with Down Syndrome

5/21/2008

I would like to see Carrie Bergeron and Sujeet Desai added to the list of notable individuals with Down Syndrome. Carrie Bergeron is a motivational speaker and Sujeet Desai is a musician who plays several instruments. They are married and have been interviewed by Oprah and ABC News (I believe it was 20/20). It is easy to find links.

I would add them myself but there's no "edit this page" tab showing up for the main page and I do not want to create an account.

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.76.235 (talk) 06:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This has probably already been brought up, but...

"Notable individuals -Joey Moss, Edmonton Oilers locker room attendant.[63]"

A great feel-good moment, honouring a poor down syndrome afflicted locker room attendant with the title 'notable'. Hardly seems apt, even if it is the Edmonton Oilers which bestow the prestigious task upon him.

Might as well make it into a Disney movie. Forgive my cynicism.123.243.186.223 (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)