Talk:Mpox

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Johnbod (talk | contribs) at 19:00, 11 March 2023 (→‎Lead edit warring: sign, adj). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Is the image of a diseased penis with monkeypox pustules necessary for inclusion here as part of this article?

Is the image of a diseased penis with monkeypox lesions and pustules necessary here as part of this article? I contend that it is unnecessary for a commonly traversed wikipedia article and provides no additional value added given the information is already presented in written form and two other images are already presented in this section. Images on wikipedia are not required for articles and as such removing them or adding them is discretionary unless there has been discussion consensus that a certain image for sure belongs or does not belong in a certain article/section. As such, what are your thoughts about this image? Is it necessary and should it be kept or should it be removed? Agent123456789 (talk) 18:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC

I am nauseated by it personally. To the picture author's credit, discretion is used and some parts of the picture are cut off. Notwithstanding the great care and discretion that is used, young children could be looking at this article and see something which could chip away at their innocence. Wikipedia isn't censored; we'll probably hear that argument until the end of time, but I don't personally consider an omission of this picture censorship. It would be a discretionary measure to protect innocent eyes which could stumble upon this. Could I go so far as to state some of our adult eyes don't need this (mine included)? Are there any drawings or diagrams available which could serve the same purpose? I'm in the same camp as Agent123456789, I'd be perfectly fine without this picture. However, if a picture was insisted upon, my vote would be a drawing, diagram, medical visual depiction--rather than something this realistic. Cheers, 63.248.183.50 (talk) 09:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the one who reverted the edit removing the image, I'm neutral on this status. I am strongly against censorship, but the arguments of 63.248.183.50 do make sense. For me, I do not advocate for the removal, but if a consensus wildly emerges saying "yes, this should be removed", then I will not oppose. Thanks. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 15:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Count me as part of the consensus to remove it. Baller McGee (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be perfectly ok with it being removed or switched to some other image. Wikipedia is not censored, but I believe a valid discussion can be had to remove an image or switch an image.
    talk) 17:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • 4 in favor, 0 against, 1 abstain. I removed it. Baller McGee (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated information in sections

The "Definitions and types" section and the "Causes" section repeat the same information regarding virology. I have removed the former section as it has less information that the latter. Thanks, ArcMachaon (talk) 13:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Monkeypox or Mpox?

The new name may be used in parallel with the old, for the next 12 months. How to manage this? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-63782514 Bob (talk) 13:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAMECHANGES is the policy here. We follow what the reliable sources use. For the next 12 months or so, we should keep using monkeypox and only consider changing to mpox if reliable sources stop using the name monkeypox after that point. Iffy★Chat -- 16:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@Iffy this has actually been made as announcement by the WHO (see here), I think something in the line of a request move in the next couple of days would be a good idea. Your thoughts? X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 16:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We also need to take
WHO, it is still monkeypox virus. Graham Beards (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@Graham Beards That is a good point. We should refrain from now, although a redirect from mpox to monkeypox in the meantime wouldn't hurt, would it? X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 18:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect Mpox was created back in August. Iffy★Chat -- 18:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's great! We have shown that we are aware of the proposed nomenclature, but are still taking into account the needs of our lay readers. Graham Beards (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFAIK, the principal guideline for the title here is
    WP:COMMONNAME. MEDTITLE says: The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name). It's the reason why myocardial infarction isn't titled "heart attack", even though every lay person calls it a heart attack. So I think the right thing to do is to leave it as monkeypox for now, and wait and see if Mpox becomes the dominant name used in medical sources. Endwise (talk) 03:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Yes, I agree but bear in mind we have
variola major. Medical sources use both and I doubt that Mpox will predominate. Perhaps Colin can comment.Graham Beards (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@Graham Beards Can someone please update the "History " section, I'm on the road at the moment no time to do it properly. Bob (talk) 09:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bob, I've updated the History section. -- Colin°Talk 17:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We are rather inconsistent, which suggests a degree of
common sense at play. We also have polio, not "Poliomyelitis", and other examples. There is more from WHO here including their comments that ICTV were already considering a rename of orthopoxvirus species, and on the existing renames of the clades to avoid stigma. CBS News
report that the US government will adopt the new name: "We welcome the change by the World Health Organization. We must do all we can to break down barriers to public health, and reducing stigma associated with disease is one critical step in our work to end mpox"
The WHO note that the outbreak provoked "racist and stigmatizing language" and recognised the name played a role in that. All sources agree that avoiding stigma is the primary motivating reason (the old name is inaccurate but that didn't motivate anyone enough to change it). The New York Times gives more commentary on the reasons for the change: Critics said monkeypox reinforced ugly Western stereotypes about Africa as a reservoir of pestilence and sexually transmitted pathogens. Some critics said it also played into racist stereotypes, deeply rooted in American culture, that compare Black people to primates. and Critics also took aim at media coverage of the outbreak, noting that some Western outlets had initially selected photos of lesion-pocked Africans to illustrate an outbreak that was almost entirely affecting white men. Wikipedia/Wikimedia was not only guilty on that last part (our article on the outbreak included photos of black African patients unrelated to the outbreak) but I believe played a role in it as a source of free content for the press to use. We removed the offending images following those complaints and afterwards were able to get more suitable ones.
My point is that while we continue use the old name, we are complicit in perpetuating the stigma and we cannot forget that we are a major publisher wrt health information for the general reader (and listener, when you ask Alexa). I recently wrote an essay about word choice in body text: Wikipedia:Use our own words, criticising the claim by a vocal few that our word choices are compelled to follow our source author's word choices. For body text, that has no basis in policy or guideline or actual writing practice. For article titles, we are more explicit about sources' influence, though in the end accept that "there is often more than one appropriate title for an article" and this is decided by consensus. Since the motivating reason for the word change was a widespread acceptance that the old name "reinforced ugly Western stereotypes" and encouraged racism comparing "Black people to primates" it is arguably not a neutral name. Our editing model absolutely compels us to follow sources for facts, but it does not do so for word choices, even article title word choices, as the policy page confirms. We as editors must weigh neutrality/stigmatising/racist concerns against the various other title guidelines that would more naturally currently pick "monkeypox". The fact that WHO anticipate a transition suggests there are practical difficulties that might influence us too.
Wrt sources, remember that journal articles can take months (sometimes many months) to go from submission to publication, and so I wouldn't look to them as examples just yet. I think it is more relevant how public health websites react. I note that Healthwatch Coventry (local government website) switched over yesterday. As has California Department of Public Health.
I looked at the coverage in the Daily Mail and The Telegraph (taking care to wash my PC and eyeballs afterwards) and found no evidence of an "anti-woke" backlash.
I think we can wait a little while to see what the reaction is. If there is no serious backlash or refusal to accept the change, and merely inertia, then I say we should follow through with this change. We are responsible for the title we pick and we should own that choice. -- Colin°Talk 10:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "Monkeypox" is non-neutral, at least not
as Wikipedia defines neutral. Additionally, even if "we are responsible for the title we pick and we should own that choice", that does not mean we can ignore article titling policy and the sources they compel us to follow. Endwise (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
If titling policy "compelled" us to follow the sources, it would be a few sentences long, rather than several pages long. We have a lot of article titles with (characteristic) disambiguation suffixes that no source ever had to worry about (what source ever wrote "Conservative Party (UK)" or "Jon Snow (journalist)"). Titles like
WP:IAR
, which does in fact permit us to "ignore" something in P&G if it prevents us making Wikipedia better.
I think
WP:NAMECHANGES is good advice, but I also think we need to add into the mix that the current name is considered stigmatising and promotes racist stereotypes and language. And that's not just the opinion of some wee pressure group but as close to a global consensus of experts, lay people and governments as you are likely to find. -- Colin°Talk 16:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
(
racoonpox, skunkpox, volepox and the others, which I have forgotten. But that aside, as an editor, I agree we should wait in the wings a while. I have no objection to the change since redirects can lead our readers to the page they are seeking. But I guess we might end up having "monkeypox" in the Lead with a "formerly called" caveat.Graham Beards (talk) 11:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Is everyone happy with waiting? Graham Beards (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The WHO is waiting a year, which seems an adequate time to reassess. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to wait. If MEDRS-compliant sources largely switch to mpox sooner than in a year, I think it would be appropriate for the article title to switch sooner. Bondegezou (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WHO is not waiting a year. They just think it will take them a year to make the change, and they will be making some changes "online in the coming days". They are also concerned with changes to their literature in the middle of a pandemic. We are a wiki, which means "quick". We don't have to wait for some committee to agree on "the official 2023 release of ICD-11". It was only announced yesterday, so I agree we don't need to act right now. But I suspect we'll see WHO and CDC online materials change pretty quickly. -- Colin°Talk 16:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There's
WP:NORUSH, but if we see these changes coming through over the next couple of months or even weeks, I think we should follow them. Bondegezou (talk) 13:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
It is interesting (to me any anyway) to see it spread across websites, like a virus! Here's the change to OurWorldInData yesterday: before after. Also American Public Health Association. Human Rights Campaign: before after. The CDC and all their related websites now have a banner declaring a change is underway. So far, mainly a US thing, which isn't surprising as it seems a big push to get WHO to change quickly came from the US government, which threatened to go it alone. -- Colin°Talk 16:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update

It looks like the CDC has completed the revision of their website to use "mpox". Their mpox page and sub-pages all refer preferentially to "mpox". You can see the UK Government switching over on this page where their epidemiological reports swtich in December from "Monkeypox" to "Mpox (monkeypox)". Other UK governement publications include this and this and their this guidance which all suggest to me that the UK health department has switched over.

  • Searching the domain "nhs.uk" returns a lot of pages now referring to "mpox", but many still using the old name. It is a lot of work to revise pages, and the NHS right now is a little bit broken, so...
  • Terrence Higgins Trust "Information and advice on the signs and symptoms of mpox (monkeypox), and what to do if you think you have mpox."
  • Wired "By mid-December, mpox, as the World Health Organization has now renamed it, had appeared in 110 countries..."
  • Politico: "deputy coordinator for its response to mpox, the virus known then as monkeypox."
  • Gavi: "Has the mpox (monkeypox) epidemic disappeared? Monkeypox – now renamed mpox to avoid the racist and stigmatising language used for the disease that originated in Africa – seems to have disappeared from the headlines.... Mpox was discovered in humans in 1970 in... "
  • ISDA (Infectious Diseases Society of America): "Mpox: What You Need to Know" (they have posted a banner, like the CDC, saying they are in the process of updating their website to the new name).
  • Buzzfeed News: "How We Stopped Mpox This Year And What’s Next For The Disease Formerly Known As Monkeypox"
  • United Nations: "2022 Year In health: New Ebola and cholera outbreaks, mpox emergency, COVID-19 ‘not over’" (the article explains the name change along with reporting).
  • Stat News: "Jynneos mpox vaccine provided strong protection against infection, new CDC data show"
  • NPR: "The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced it would not renew mpox, the virus formerly known as monkeypox, as a public health emergency after January 31, 2023, following a drop in cases"

There are other examples from US State health websites and the WHO itself of course. Looking through the "News" as reported by Google for both terms, I can't find any resistance to the new name and strong adoption among the media. It looks like this has been a win for WHO, where their message about the name change received widespread coverage and acceptance.

I think we are at the stage where governments, public health and media have adopted "mpox" as the primary name they use to discuss the disease. I don't think there is any risk the name won't be near universal in 2023 for material (including scientific papers) written since December 2022. I think that given this evidence and given the issues there are with the old name, we should now adopt it as the article title and throughout the article. I note however, we need to be careful as the virus itself is still known as "monkeypox virus". What do you think? -- Colin°Talk 10:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and especially with your caveat regarding the name virus. Quite often on WP, editors think the name of the virus and the name of the disease are synonyms and this gives rise to confused edits. I saw this recently with
corynebacterium diptheriae). The ICTV will have to decide what to name the virus, if they decide a change is needed. The outbreak is pretty much over and I think the disease mpox will disappear from the media. As an aside, it will be a useful teaching aid to compare a non-reverse transcribing virus for which we have a vaccine (monkeypox virus) and which doesn't have chronic carriers, with a one for which the opposites are the case (HIV), but both causing outbreaks in the same demographic group (gay men). Graham Beards (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree with this Point of View. I would back the move of the page name to Mpox. Agent123456789 (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Iffy, Endwise, Robertpedley, and Bondegezou:, do you guys have an opinion now. I think we should rename now. -- Colin°Talk 16:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin thank you for your ping.
Google search reveals that most health information websites are now using the name "mpox", although often followed with the previous name in brackets.
I support the suggestion to rename/move this page to mpox The former name should be mentioned in the subtitle, and the first paragraph .
Bob (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be in a terrible rush to do this, and it feels more like a political campaign than a scientific one. I have been doing a bit of searching today, and very few places are using MPOX. Your sources, apart from the U.N., which does not name viruses, are in fact mostly political and technology (or both) commentary and analysis. Someone searching for Monkeypox, which at this point is all anyone will do, unless they have a personal distaste for the name for various reasons, should find Monkeypox here until it is officially renamed.
I also question the actual amount of "stigma" regarding the word "monkey" being used as a pejorative for certain groups of people. The disease, much like cow pox, chicken pox, etc, is named for an animal known to harbor and spread the disease. The fact that the areas which appear to have this disease listed as "endemic" happen to be in Africa is really beside the point.
I say it makes sense to wait.65.51.135.154 (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't really here to discuss why you personally don't find the old name offensive. That's a dead end. -- Colin°Talk 22:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"We aren't really here to discuss why" is antithetical to a section on a talk page to discussing the actual topic at hand. There is nothing "personal" about it, for me. On the contrary, it seems like it is *very personal* to others, as all of the aforementioned disease related organizations still refer to Monkeypox, and the general public does as well. I think that since you are so intent on changing this, it should be something you can demonstrate has widespread adoption. The vast, and overwhelming, majority of sources of information for this disease refer to it as Monkeypox.65.51.135.154 (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You argue the name change is political but not scientific. The scientists have pointed out that monkeys are not the main host or reservoir of the virus. It only got that name because some European researchers found it in some lab monkeys. You also seem to be claiming that government health websites are "political" rather than written by actual doctors treating patients or scientists studying epidemics and in public health departments. And the rest of your argument is why you personally are unconvinced about the stigma aspect, which I suspect is driving you to make the other claims, and for which Wikipedia does not care. That there is a stigma generated by the name is widely documented, even if you personally can't understand it. Your last claim is likely only true if one deliberately includes all the possible sources published before 2023. It isn't yet possible to analyse academic papers, as the publication lag is considerable. I don't think you'll find a single major "source of information for this disease" which has chosen not to adopt the new name, though there may be some who haven't got round to updating their existing material. -- Colin°Talk 08:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Someone searching for Monkeypox" will automatically find the page because we will leave a redirect. Of course "majority of sources of information for this disease refer to it as Mmonkeypox". That's because they are old and out-of-date. Graham Beards (talk) 10:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the research community has switched over to mpox, therefore so should this article. We're submitting papers on mpox (this is one I'm on) and we just call it mpox now when we're writing papers. We began that paper "Mpox (also known as monkeypox)". The one we're working on now, the current draft begins, "Human mpox (previously known as monkeypox)". Bondegezou (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to make the switch. We usually follow what's happening now, not what happened in older sources. Just because the real world has made a change rather abruptly, rather than through a multi-year consultation process a la ICD codes, doesn't argue for dragging our feet. It will end up there in the end, and we might as well start now as we mean to go on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Graham/WhatamIdoing/others, what are the practicalities of the rename. I know there is an existing redirect and a previous attempt at rename, which wasn't 100% successful (the talk page didn't get renamed IIRC). Do we just use the [move] button and/or are there any complications to watch out for? -- Colin°Talk 10:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but since the current redirect has two edits to it, it probably requires an admin. If you're concerned about it, then we can use Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting technical moves. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to request Mpox be deleted to make way for the move. I can't do it because I have relinquished my admin tools. Perhaps Silk Tork can help? I would be most grateful. Graham Beards (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the above there is a consensus to move the page to Mpox, so I'll action that. SilkTork (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SilkTork. -- Colin°Talk 18:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SilkTork from me too. Graham Beards (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Graham, I think we should update the body text to use "monkeypox" when referring to the infection/illness. Do you agree. I can give it a go if you are happy to review. -- Colin°Talk 09:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Colin, did you mean to say update to use "mpox" when referring to the disease? The virus is still monkeypox virus (at least for the time being). Graham Beards (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I wrote the wrong word. And I'm conscious that we need to use the monkeypox term to refer to the virus. So we'd still write "infected with monkeypox" but not "Monkeypox symptoms tend to begin" or "the 2022 monkeypox outbreak" (it is an outbreak of disease, not of virus particles). That's why I'm suggesting one person fixes it and another reviews carefully. -- Colin°Talk 19:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to review or vice versa. I should have time to spare tomorrow. Graham Beards (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm out of time tonight and probably tomorrow too (there are over two hundred "monkeypox"s to examine). There's no rush. There's also the
2022–2023 monkeypox outbreak}}. Quite a job. -- Colin°Talk 20:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I have just completed the first pass through this article. Graham Beards (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll have a look later. I did wonder whether this was something easier to do with the Visual Editor, since you can see the bodytext "monkeypox" separate from all the citations and infoboxes and other stuff. What shall we do with the related articles. I'm wondering if we should leave a note on the talk page of ALL those articles pointing at this discussion and asking them if they agree with spreading the change over the whole set. I see
2022–2023 monkeypox outbreak
had a premature RFC back in November.
Related to a rename, I also note that User:HueMan1 renamed all those outbreak articles to include 2023 on 2nd and 5th January, and I can't find any discussion of that, nor in fact, any 2023 material to suggest the outbreak is significantly continuing or spreading further in 2023. That seems inappropriate at this time. -- Colin°Talk 08:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The outbreak is pretty much over and out, thanks to the vaccine. The articles are getting inaccurate: User:Rreagan007 has renamed the virus article [1] but the ICTV hasn't even met to consider a name change yet. And if they do, it is just as likely to be changed to "rodentpox virus". (But I see the CDC have also jumped the gun [2]). These problems occur when changes are not discussed. Going back to your question. Yes, we should leave a note on the Talk Pages of the related articles. Graham Beards (talk) 09:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Graham Beards I would support a revert. It seems I can't do it. I'd also support a revert of the 2022-2023 change back to just 2022. I think that outbreak will be notable for being a 2022 event. -- Colin°Talk 09:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Graham Beards, I forgot to mention that I did review your renames wrt monkeypox/mpox in the body text and it all looked fine. The only inconsistently I found was "American travelers contracting mpox" and "is believed to have contracted monkeypox in Nigeria". I think both should be mpox, as you contract an infectious disease, but what do you think? -- Colin°Talk 10:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Colin, yes you are right, I missed that one. Now fixed. Graham Beards (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Related articles

I propose we rename the related disease/outbreak articles to "mpox" per the above discussion. Note that the virus article and any text referring to the virus must remain at "monkeypox" for now, as "the ICTV hasn't even met to consider a name change yet". (a recent undiscussed change to that is likely to be reverted soon) I also propose the recent undiscussed change that added "–2023" to the outbreak names be reverted. This outbreak was associated with 2022 and was effectively over before 2023 began. So, for example,

2022 mpox outbreak. -- Colin°Talk 10:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

I agree with this. We need to get these name changes reverted. Graham Beards (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be specific about which name changes you want reverted, just so that people visiting this discussion are clear. I think the virus article should be reverted until the ICTV agree on a change. But the outbreak articles will be renamed if we all agree on "mpox" and so we might as well drop the "–2023" at the same time, to avoid too much disruption. -- Colin°Talk 11:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the
Mpox virus move should be reverted. I have posted a request on the Talk Page. The others should be moved to "Mpox" if there is a consensus and the "-2023 not included", since the outbreak was pretty much over at the end of 2022.Graham Beards (talk) 11:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I also agree with this, per Colin's statement above. Ajpolino (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that
2022-2023 mpox outbreak (as WHO still considers it a Public health emergency of international concern). Bondegezou (talk) 11:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
User:Bondegezou, do you have a source for that. I know they declared that back in the Summer 2022, but that doesn't mean they "still" consider it an emergency. Have they actually made any announcement in 2023. For example Outbreak News ended in 27 June and their page for the outbreak Mpox (monkeypox) outbreak 2022 very much calls it a 2022 outbreak in their title. I think we should do likewise unless WHO or a similar major body starts calling it the 2022-23 outbreak. -- Colin°Talk 11:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Best I know, whether something remains a Public health emergency of international concern is reviewed 3-monthly and if mpox was no longer a PHEIC, we would be able to find an announcement to that effect, ergo it presumably still is a PHEIC. The WHO homepage still lists it under "Emergencies". Their latest situation report is from this month: [3]. Bondegezou (talk) 11:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, I couldn't find more recent reports. On p8 of the linked document it twice calls it the "2022 multi-country outbreak". The chart on p3 shows the outbreak peaked in the summer. I'm not sure "outbreak" would be what you would call the long-tail or endemic residue, but really what matter for our article title is what people call it. I don't think there is any evidence yet that people are calling it a 2022-23 outbreak. -- Colin°Talk 12:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you're publishing situation reports, then the outbreak is still ongoing. The outbreak started in 2022, so some references will just use 2022, just as we call COVID-19 "COVID-19" because it started in 2019.
It's only just February 2023, so there isn't a huge amount of 2023 material to go on. This UK govt strategy document was published in Dec 2022, but lays out a strategy into 2023. The UK govt is also still offering contact tracing guidance, as here. This Welsh govt page from Jan 2023 talks about the outbreak in the present tense. And here's a Feb 2023 document from the NHS talking about "the current outbreak". Bondegezou (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is how the outbreak is named in our sources [4][5] which is relevant here: not how long it drags on or when it is declared over. With regard to the published charts, these show when infections were reported, not when they were contracted and there is always a significant difference that epidemiologists will eventually take into account. As Colin has said, no one is arguing that "COVID-19" should be renamed "COVID-19-23" because there are still new cases.Graham Beards (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, the name was changed without discussion and
WP:CRYSTALBALL suggests we shouldn't be calling it the 2022-23 outbreak if nobody else is, even if we personally can see data that shows continued cases. That's getting into OR too. UK government in 25 Jan 2023 were still calling this "the 2022 global outbreak". Even their UK strategy for mpox control, 2022 to 2023
(published 8 dec) calls it "the 2022 global outbreak of mpox".
I had a look at other WHO outbreaks that have years on them. The Ebola ones seem to be a case all by themselves in that they have clear start and end of outbreak declarations. I think that's due to the peculiar nature of that disease and transmission. The flu example I found I couldn't see an end of outbreak declaration. Perhaps for diseases that have community transmission, there is no end declaration? After all, nobody is predicting COVID-19 will disappear. COVID-19 is a little different as that is its actual name. -- Colin°Talk 15:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that
2022–2023 United Kingdom Group A streptococcus outbreak and 2022–2023 pediatric care crisis. Bondegezou (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, we are predicting what people call it.
WP:TITLE says "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources", and we don't have any sticking the -23 on it, and they may decide never to, if the disease remains in transmission between humans. -- Colin°Talk 20:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Calling it (anything) "2022–2023" seems to imply that it will end this year, if it hasn't already. If it's still going on next January, are we going to rename it to "2022–2024" then? And "2022–2025" the next year? I tend to agree with Colin on this point. The name is supposed to be what it's called, not a description of some fact(s). How long it lasts/whether it's ongoing is something that should be described in the first paragraph, but not necessarily in the title itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tried looking at what other Wikipedia articles have done, and it does not appear to be consistent. I think most do follow the "2022-2023" pattern in that they have titles that give the years the outbreak was ongoing (
2012 MERS outbreak covers events through to at least 2021; 2012 Sierra Leonean cholera outbreak says the outbreak is still ongoing; 1977 Russian flu ran until 1979). There are lots of articles that just mention one year, but they mostly do seem to be describing things that did only take place in one calendar year (2019 dengue outbreak in Pakistan, 2012 yellow fever outbreak in Darfur, Sudan, 1993 Milwaukee cryptosporidiosis outbreak, 1967 United Kingdom foot-and-mouth outbreak, 1976 Zaire Ebola virus outbreak, 1976 swine flu outbreak, 1947 New York City smallpox outbreak). Some articles don't use a year in their title (New England Compounding Center meningitis outbreak, Shimla jaundice outbreak, Hong Kong flu). The 2016 United States Elizabethkingia outbreak
ran from 2015-6, but it seems it only started getting attention in 2016.
Lots of Wikipedia articles are descriptions of some facts. In the bit just before the quote
WP:NDESC says In some cases a descriptive phrase (such as Restoration of the Everglades) is best as the title. These are often invented specifically for articles. Bondegezou (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I think falling back on using a descriptive is fine if the article topic hasn't been given a name by anyone. And there may well be examples of editors just making names up that aren't used by any source. But we have sources for this calling it the "2022 global outbreak of mpox" (and similar). I don't deny that some outbreaks are multi-year and are described as such in sources and our article titles. But this does not yet seem to be one. If we get that WHO/CDC/etc start calling it the 2022-23 outbreak, then of course that is fine, but for example, the CDC is still calling this the "2022 outbreak" with updates this year. -- Colin°Talk 17:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am now seeing a few sources use the 2022-23 name. For example, WHO is calling it the "2022-23 mpox outbreak". CNN called it "the 2022-23 outbreak", while noting that the US government has declared the emergency over. Infection Control Today called it "the 2022-2023 outbreak". Nature initially reported that WHO may declare the emergency over but updated to say "At a 15 February press conference, the WHO’s director-general said that mpox would remain a public-health emergency. The agency’s emergency committee will reconvene in three months to reassess the situation." These are signs that the official title will include -23. -- Colin°Talk 12:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested a move for

Talk:2022–2023_monkeypox_outbreak#Requested_move_28_February_2023. Please go comment there. Bondegezou (talk) 09:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Move protected

I have move protected this article. In order to now change the name there will need to be a Requested move, and if successful an admin will make the move. SilkTork (talk) 10:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I really don't think this was the right move, your move is premature and undiscussed. You manipulate the discourse by locking up the page right after moving it without consulting someone else. @SilkTork:--Ortizesp (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ortizesp. There was a long and carefully considered discussion on moving the article from Monkeypox to Mpox. See Talk:Mpox#Monkeypox_or_Mpox?. The discussion started on 28 November 2022, and by 28 January 2023 a consensus was arrived at after carefully considering over 15 reliable sources - see Talk:Mpox#Update for a list of some of them. There were something like ten different users involved in the discussion, including an IP editor. I actioned the consensus, and moved the page on 28 January 2023. Yesterday (27 Feb 2023) a user moved the article back to Monkeypox: User_talk:Unknown0124#Monkeypox. It was moved back to Mpox today by Bondegezou:[6]. As there had been careful consideration before the move to Mpox, and that move had consensus, I then move protected the article to prevent any more accidental moves by people who were not aware of the full history of the article. SilkTork (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think since it's a controversial move, it would have made more sense to put this on WP:RM. This way there's more eyes on the discussion instead of the handful of editors lurking in the talk pages. Ortizesp (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of editors' disagreeing is hardly a controversy! Graham Beards (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You and I both know this topic is plainly controversial, any move should have been discussed with the greater community. Ortizesp (talk) 05:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ortizesp, you've already been told that the medical project was asked for comment. Plus I notified nearly forty article talk pages of these discussions. Your continued misrepresentation of the truth isn't helping. -- Colin°Talk 21:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (in other words, it stays at Mpox).

First, procedurally, the longstanding name is Monkeypox, so a consensus needed to be formed in order to keep the name at Mpox. "No consensus" means a move back to the long name.[a]

Second, there was a legitimate discussion previously, but not a requested move; WP:RM isn't just a piece of red tape, but it's an opportunity for scores of editors who know Wikipedia very well to weigh in. A lot of drama could've been avoided had that discussion merely been an RM.[b]

Third, very little credit was given to arguments like "monkeypox is offensive" (debatable!) or "we should follow the official name" (that's not policy). Make no mistake, WP:COMMONNAME (tempered by WP:NAMECHANGES) controls here. And...

Fourth, despite many editors' blind assertions to the contrary, and much to my surprise, a lot of evidence eventually came out to support that in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ 2023, "mpox" actually is the common name for this vile viral disease. If you disagree with this, you should've provided sources, because blind assertions just are not going to cut it here. Common name does control, and it requires the "mpox" title.

Fifth, I have no comment about the other move linked by Barrelproof and will not be closing it. I haven't even looked at the move request. I would suggest that WP:CONSISTENT would support a move even if COMMONNAME doesn't, but maybe there are some things in play that make the best title there different.

Sixth and finally, I strongly recommend a full discussion on the wording of the lead sentence, specifically regarding how the word "monkeypox" should be included. There was a great mini-discussion here but I would hate for it to die just because the RM is over. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 08:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ If the discussion below had come to a separate consensus as the discussion above, things could've been a bit dicier. Fortunately they both arrived at the same conclusion, which was--given the weight of high-quality evidence below--nearly inevitable in this case.
  2. ^ (Modestly reworded per request and further discussion)


Mpox → Monkeypox – This move is premature and undiscussed, the overwhelming COMMONNAME for the disease remains Monkeypox, and the vast majority of references use that version of the name. The move to mpox was undiscussed, unreviewed, and then locked which I think is an attempt to blatantly manipulate the discourse and should be looked at, even if consensus to not move is somehow met. Previous attempts to move have been rejected.Ortizesp (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A closely related RM discussion was opened a few hours before this one and is taking place at
Talk:2022–2023 monkeypox outbreak#Requested move 28 February 2023. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Oppose The move to "mpox" was extensively discussed and agreed above (Talk:Mpox#Update). There were 6 editors in favour of moving to just one IP editor against. The move was made a month ago. The claim that This move is premature and undiscussed is incorrect and should be struck. Someone yesterday then moved the article back to "monkeypox" without discussion, so I reverted and article moves where then blocked. Accusations that there has been an attempt to blatantly manipulate the discourse seem inappropriate to me under
    WP:COMMONNAME now. Bondegezou (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Ortizesp has now acknowledged that they had missed seeing the earlier discussion when they started this RM: see User_talk:Ortizesp#Close. Bondegezou (talk) 09:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the reasons I gave above, but I will repeat here for the record: There was a long and carefully considered discussion on moving the article from Monkeypox to Mpox. See Talk:Mpox#Monkeypox_or_Mpox?. The discussion started on 28 November 2022, and by 28 January 2023 a consensus was arrived at after carefully considering over 15 reliable sources - see Talk:Mpox#Update for a list of some of them. There were something like ten different users involved in the discussion, including an IP editor. I actioned the consensus, and moved the page on 28 January 2023. Yesterday (27 Feb 2023) a user moved the article back to Monkeypox: User_talk:Unknown0124#Monkeypox. It was moved back to Mpox today by Bondegezou:[7]. As there had been careful consideration before the move to Mpox, and that move had consensus, I then move protected the article to prevent any more accidental moves by people who were not aware of the full history of the article. SilkTork (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment: If there was a consensus to move the page, it was only a consensus among the people who were aware the discussion was taking place. The way to make people aware that the renaming of an article is being considered is to use the
    WP:RM process. That process was not followed, so those who have a general interest in the naming of Wikpedia articles would not be aware that such a discussion was taking place. In my opinion, if there is a lack of consensus in this RM, the page name should revert to Monkeypox. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
There is no general requirement for moves to go through
WP:WL. Bondegezou (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
As you pointed out, the RM process is not mandatory. However, if an RM takes place (which is what is happening now) and fails to reach a consensus, I believe the name should revert to the previous stable name, which was Monkeypox. One month (a month that included further back-and-forth moving and move protection to prevent it from happening again) is not enough to claim long-term stability. Just to be clear, I have not expressed a personal opinion about which title I prefer, and I dislike being told what to do. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and suggest snowball close. Ortizesp, when you say this was "undiscussed", you are wrong. It has been discussed for months and nearly 40 article talk pages were notified of the change and the proposal to change the related articles. The
    WP:MED was asked for their input. It has been reviewed by many editors, including a virologist. That "the vast majority of references" use the old name is not concerning: that's what happens when names change. There are nearly 2000 articles indexed by PubMed on monkeypox/mpox so it will take years for that number to be outnumbered by those with the new name. We examined whether authorities and other publications had adopted the name and they have. It was appropriate for us to follow suit. Colin°Talk 20:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
OPPOSE - I rather resent the term "clique" which was used somewhere in this discussion. I rarely edit articles. When I do, I aim for conciseness and accuracy, and to dispel disinformation.
The body with global responsibility for naming diseases has stated that mpox is the correct name for this one. The term "monkeypox" is now a form of disinformation.
After considered discussion, a group of editors who had spent considerable effort keeping this page up to date and accurate agreed on the move, in the light of developments over the last year.
There are no valid grounds for questioning the move.
Bob (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note to editors joining this discussion The opening comments by Ortizesp are untrue. Look further up this page and you will see this matter has been discussed since November last year, the Medical Project were notified and asked for comment and nearly 40 article talk pages had noticed posted. If you wish to add to the comments here, respectfully please start reading at the #Monkeypox or Mpox? section above. -- Colin°Talk 21:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reminding us of
WP:IAR has its place, when invoking IAR, it is generally recommended to give a reason why we should ignore the rule in this case. Bondegezou (talk) 08:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
A potentially relevant RM discussion can be found at
Varicella). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you for finding those examples. If you look at them, they describe situations were duelling different names have been in widespread use for centuries. Mpox, in contrast, was obscure until last year and now the WHO and other bodies have instituted a name change, which seems a rather different context to polio/poliomyelitis. It makes me think that the better comparisons are the decisions at
WP:NAMECHANGES that focus on usage since a name change and focus on the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term [...] or an historical eponym that has been superseded. Bondegezou (talk) 08:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
  • There seems to be a misconception among a few editors that "mpox" is the scientific or medical name and "monkeypox" the common or lay name. This is untrue. The name was changed after pressure from scientists, health workers, politicians, patient and other campaign groups groups. It isn't just that "monkeypox" was scientifically incorrect, but that the old name "reinforces stigma about African countries as a source of disease, and encourages racist stereotypes that compared Black people with primates". The only place where the new name appears controversial is with the handful of editors who have turned up here apparently annoyed that their noticeboard wasn't informed. Even the Daily Mail and Fox News reported on the name change in entirely positive terms, without a hint of woke-bashing. The lay media are reporting about this disease as "mpox" and all note to their readers that it was "formerly known as monkeypox".
Recent lay usage:
Have I repeated the words "formerly known as" enough times to convince people that "monkeypox" is a stigmatising historical name and "mpox" the COMMONNAME in 2023. -- Colin°Talk 08:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. This appears to be entirely
WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS for the pertinent policy. Either way, the very fact that mpox's definition must be clarified to lay readers demonstrates its use is uncommon. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
It really wasn't cherry picking. I searched for both terms with Google News and there were literally a handful in 2023 using the old name. Compared to hundreds using mpox in 2023. And that's just news.
And on and on and on. As well as of course WHO. Your link to
WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is a classic example of WP:UPPERCASE. That explanatory essay is about Wikipedians making factual claims they believe are true but are not supported by sources. It isn't in fact about picking article names or about international organisations and politicians agreeing on a new name for something. I get that you saw the word "stigmatising" and jumped in with RGW, but that isn't relevant. And anyway which part of "on Wikipedia, you'll have to wait until it's been reported in mainstream media (reliable)" didn't we follow? The media in 2023 call it mpox. Please stop digging. -- Colin°Talk 10:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Mpox does not even register on Google Ngrams as a name used by anyone. The media may have started calling it mpox, but it is years too soon to determine whether it has been integrated into culture at large. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"integrated into culture at large" and "years too soon" what utter balderdash! We didn't wait for "COVID", we adopted it straight away. Graham Beards (talk) 10:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The page COVID-19 was created in Feb. 2020, the same month the WHO decided to start using the name, but the article was only moved there in March 2021, more than a year after the WHO started using the name. If that is "right away" to you, then your memory seems selective. In comparison, "Mpox" was created as a name only several months ago. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So thirteen months is ok for COVID but five months is too soon for mpox? You will have to come up with something better than this balderdash. Graham Beards (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Coronavirus disease 2019 to COVID-19, so from the long-form to the short-form of the WHO name. There is no equivalent here. The COVID-19 pandemic article was moved there on 4 May 2020, as I pointed out earlier. That's about two and a half months after the WHO name change. We are now 3 months from the WHO announcement of the name "mpox". By these precedents, we should be using "mpox". Bondegezou (talk) 09:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose. Stay as is, so as not to be out-of-date. The false statements given for this RfC (about lack of discussion) are concerning. Bon courage (talk) 09:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on two fronts. Procedurally, this should have been a formal RM discussion, rather than an unadvertised, lightly-attended discussion among regulars. Second,
    WP:COMMONNAME, a policy. "Mpox" is not widely used. ValarianB (talk) 13:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
"Not widely used" is nonsense, "Mpox" is now the preferred name of the
Health Security Agency [15] and others including the Australian Government [16] and European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control [17]. Graham Beards (talk) 13:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Would you like an icecream sundae with your cherry-picking? Medical and government sources aren't the only ones that count, we go by the totality of reliable sources, i.e. mainstream media. ValarianB (talk) 14:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No you are wrong, we often avoid mainstream media for medical articles. We prefer Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) where possible. I was not cherry-picking at all. I am following a respected guideline. So, no thanks for the offer of the sundae. Graham Beards (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. We should be emphasizing the use in major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals (per COMMONNAME). The old racist-y name may still be the popular choice on reddit etc. but this is a serious encyclopedia. Bon courage (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not wrong. You don't get to override policy with a style guide, in regards to choosing article titles. ValarianB (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was quoting COMMONNAME, which is policy. Bon courage (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of your two points, this is the RM discussion you claim to want, so that in itself isn't a supporting argument for one name or the other. Second, mpox does conform to
WP:COMMONNAME
policy in 2023. The media and the academic community wholeheartedly use "mpox" as the common everyday name to refer to this disease in 2023. It isn't like "monkeypox" is preferred by anyone or still used by any serious publisher in new work. That name was dropped like a stone. All the sources I gave above called that one the "former" name, not the "common name".
I get it I really do get it that regulars of RM noticeboard want to poke WP:MED in the eye for not posting a notice there in January. Consider our eyes duly poked. You are not gatekeepers of articles names. The new name is not controversial anywhere other than with some editors here who seem upset we didn't ask them first. -- Colin°Talk 15:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An accusation of gatekeeping from a member of a local clique bludgeoning this discussion is quite some chutzpah. ValarianB (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per arguments submitted in the two-decade
Kiev → Kyiv. The name change should obviously receive considerable "extra weight" within the text of this article and associated Wikipedia articles but, since this RM is centered upon a proposed move of the article's main title header, such a move should wait until agreement by the style guides which will hopefully provide consensus in November. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
But that's not what the policy requires. Shouldn't we be following the high-quality sources as it says? Bon courage (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
High-quality sources should be indeed followed as far as article text is concerned and, in instances where the sourced content refers to the viral disease as "mpox", the article should of course use that term. However, there may not be consensus for "mpox" as this article's main title header until the style guides that govern mass media terminology come to something approaching unanimity regarding the dropping of "monkeypox" in favor of "mpox" in a way similar to the unanimity achieved when the use of "Kiev" was dropped in favor of "Kyiv". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you keep failing to address the explicit policy requirement. I give up and leave it the closing admin to see. Bon courage (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has been overwhelmingly established in the above list of news reports and in the earlier discussion listing health websites, that reliable sources were surprisingly quick to adopt the new name, quicker than WHO anticipated, and there has been no pushback at all. Given that the mpox global oubreak occurred during 2022 and was effectively over when the name change was announced, it is not at all surprising that the majority of all existing sources use the old name (which was in use since 1958). There is not one iota of any doubt that the world will continue to use "mpox" as the name for this disease. Quite why anyone here is voting that Wikipedia should be the only publication on planet earth to go back to the old name, is boggling to be honest. -- Colin°Talk 14:14, 2 March 2023 (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.

Comment on closure

With one exception, which makes no practical difference, I concur with this closure. The exception being that as the original discussion and decision to move was made in accordance with policy and guidance, by editors who are well familiar with both the naming conventions and the topic, based on adequate evidence, as demonstrated by the discussion, and with due diligence, reasoned discussion, and proper consideration of the guidelines, there was in fact no need to make a move request, which is an option, not a reqirement, This should not have been contentious, as the evidence for it being a well motivated move is on this page. Any reasonable doubt could have been settled by asking for clarification. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The close was utter shite in every respect apart from being right in final effect. The closer should probably refrain from any closes ever again, especially in non-trival areas.
WP:CIR Bon courage (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
bruh even if it were bad, calling for someone to have a perma-moratorium for having the gall to... checks notes ... explain why he reached the conclusion that he reached ... that's a bit much, isn't it? Red Slash 21:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Explaining was good, the reasoning, not so much. Learn and move on. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 03:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, a lot of editors have an area that they love working in and believe to be more important than other editors might think. Based on him starting Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Make Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions a guideline a little while ago, I'd guess that Red happens to enjoy the RM process and would like to see it get used more. Most moves happen outside of it, and it's never been mandatory, but now this one is done, and it will now be extra difficult for someone to move it back to the old name next week. (And for politicized topics like this, you know that's a risk.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair comment. Move requests can be useful, but they tend to attract comment from the left side of the Dunning-Kruger curve. The ability to detect and discount the unhelpful and just plain wrong input is necessary for a good close. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 03:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbsouthwood: My primary question is that, if you confirm that the closure is accurate, Red Slash did not explain how they arrived at the conclusion that Mpox was the obvious common name, while discounting the assertions that the evidence in the article was largely cherry picked to support that argument.
The closing statement states that "Fourth, despite many editors' blind assertions to the contrary, and much to my surprise, a lot of evidence eventually came out to support that in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ 2023, "mpox" actually is the common name for this vile viral disease. If you disagree with this, you should've provided sources". Sources were actually provided, such as articles like this. I am not sure why they were considered INsufficient proof that the original name was still not only still official, but in use, and maybe that could be explained. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There were, as far as I could find, no sources given anywhere that suggested that monkeypox was still the common name. Sure, you could argue that the sources by the mpox people were "cherrypicked" but you sure didn't provide counterexamples to show that monkeypox is the common name. Red Slash 07:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zxcvbnm, I did and do confirm again that the closure had the correct result. Red Slash has explained their motivation adequately, I will not repeat it. Assertions without evidence are worthless in a rational discussion about facts. "An assertion without evidence can be ignored without explanation". Learn from the experience and move on. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad Peter Southwood made the comments they did. However, I think we've now reached a point where what needs to be said about the RM process and the closure has been said. There were also discussion on User talk:Red Slash and Wikipedia talk:Move review. As someone who has been involved in the naming discussion from the start, and raised concerns about the closure and complaints that RM should have been used, I think we've all made our points and little value from arguing more. I thank Red Slash for the edits they made to the closure. They weren't all that I asked for, but they weren't nothing either.

We've got a

Talk:2022–2023 monkeypox outbreak#Requested move 28 February 2023 to finish first and then the tedious task of updating the body text of all those articles, and then reviewing those changes to make sure someone hasn't accidentally renamed a source paper or misnamed the virus, which is still "monkeypox virus" for now. -- Colin°Talk 09:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Lead edit warring

I've made an edit notice request at

NHS and the US NLM
. But it seems this is not enough to stop editors who seem surprised at the name change, and haven't researched either the talk page or reliable sources.

Btw, the idea of a notice to editors was suggested by User:Randy Kryn after a discussion I had on their talk page. -- Colin°Talk 15:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that this proposed edit notice seeks to enforce the position of one side in a dispute that has not yet reached a clear consensus conclusion here on the article talk page and in the edit history of the article itself. Is that correct? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. What, frankly, will satisfy you, BarrelProof? Are 30 sources not enough. Are WHO/NHS/NLM wrong? Really, has there not been enough time wasting disruption by editors who don't know the facts and didn't do any research? The whole point of the edit notice is to prevent more of this kind of thing. -- Colin°Talk 20:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've no opinion on an edit notice. Sure, there has been a bit of back-and-forth on lead wording in the days after a well-attended RM; but I'm hopeful that things will settle down within a week. On the wording itself, I don't see a "controversy". Does anyone dispute that the disease was called "monkeypox", that the name was changed by the global health body, and that it is currently called "mpox"? Many sources support this version of events. The fact that occasionally someone calls it by the old name (i.e. the undisputed name, prior to the name change) doesn't mean the old name isn't, well, old. If it becomes controversial, we can hold an RfC on it. But I'm hopeful that we won't need to waste our time/breath on the matter. Ajpolino (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that the sources should be placed like this: Mpox (formerly[1][2][3] known as monkeypox)
Years ago, with the Wikipedia:External links guideline, we had a problem with getting questions about reliable sources. After a while, every time someone asked about a reliable source, I added another note to the guideline saying that it did not apply to reliable sources used to support article content. I think it took about eight edits to spam that point enough into the guideline, but we almost never get that now. Perhaps every time someone removes "formerly", it should go back with an additional source – an ugly case of Wikipedia:Citation overkill, but if they can't see the first three, maybe they'll be able to see the fourth. Or eighth, if WP:EL is typical. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have been extremely tempted to add thirty sources just to make a
point
but held back. On an esthetic point of view, I'm not keen on citations in the middle of a sentence clause, and the current location supports the entire parenthetical remark. Moving it to where you suggest seems to be more for the benefit of preventing Wikipedians doing daft things than for the benefit of readers. Let's see if the disruption continues. And maybe we'll get that edit notice.
I must admit to being rather shocked by all the above, as I thought Wikipedians would generally be overjoyed to be "surprised" to "learn" something on Wikipedia, rather than angrily insisting on whatever old facts are floating about their heads from some news report they vaguely paid attention to last summer. We have a "did you know" on the front page for a reason. -- Colin°Talk 07:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can list multiple sources under a single citation numeral for something less ugly. Bondegezou (talk) 09:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think WAIDs point is that editors need to "see" a big list of citations, not just one. I wonder how many things are like this, though, where one is having to act defensively against other editors rather than working in the best interests of readers.-- Colin°Talk 10:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't think the number of sources cited that use the word "formerly" makes any difference whatsoever. All this discussion about increasing the number of sources cited that use the word "formerly" seems unnecessary, since I believe no one has ever disputed whether there are sources that use that word or not. The question is not whether there are sources that say "formerly", but rather whether the disease sometimes continues to be known by the other name or not. And implicit in the notion of what something is "known as" is the question of whose knowing is being described (e.g. is that describing the knowing of the most authoritative medical organizations or the knowing of the general public?). I'm not suggesting this seriously, but to illustrate the point, the opening sentence could easily say "Mpox (formerly[1][2][3] and sometimes currently[4][5][6] known as monkeypox)", citing some sources [4][5][6] that exist that currently refer to the disease by that name. I have not participated in the recent editing of that phrasing, but the question was identified as unresolved in the RM closure summary (which I know some people disliked, but it did happen and was only three days ago). From the comments here so far, perhaps there is no real remaining disagreement, but when I made my most recent remark above, the lead sentence had been unstable within 7 hours and AFAICT there had been no clear indication of a consensus on the matter (and the most recent stable version had said "also", not "formerly"). There should only be an edit notice about something after there is clear there is a consensus about it. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BarrelProof, you do realise you are the only person complaining about this and even you accept that reliable sources support "formerly". You can't say "formerly" and "currently" at the same time since they contradict and there are no sources, zero, saying that "monkeypox" is the "current" name. You are, using original research, supposing that because you can find a source using "monkeypox" without qualification, that they are declaring that it is the current name.
Here's an example. When the queen died and we got a king instead, all the living lawyers with QC (
Queen's Counsel) after their name became KC (King's Counsel). The queen died on 8th September and somebody moved the page that very same day. No RM discussion. Bang. And presumably people went around renaming or editing lots of lawyer articles. And if you google you will still find reliable sources referring to current lawyers as QC. Habits die hard. But QC is very much those lawyers former title and KC the new one. And you won't find a single source saying differently. -- Colin°Talk 15:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
What I said is that increasing the number of sources that are cited that use the word "formerly" does not seem helpful since it does not seem relevant. I also think a bit of time is needed to determine whether a consensus has been reached. Thank you for the analogy, but I don't think the question of who is the current monarch of a country is quite the same as the question of what something is "known as". I do not expect to comment further here soon. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a perfect analogy. Sorry to be blunt, but you are coming across as disruptive. Graham Beards (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't think the number of sources cited that use the word "formerly" makes any difference whatsoever
Why would the sources not matter? Sources determine how we write our language here on Wikipedia. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you could find equally good sources that directly supported a claim that the old name is still the current name, then the matter would change. But I think what he meant is that he doesn't need more sources saying the same thing because he's already accepted those, and just believes that there might be other sources contradicting them somewhere.
The challenge, of course, would be finding a source that says something remarkably similar to "Even though they changed the name, the right name is still the old name". It's not enough to find someone using the old name; you'd have to find a reliable source saying that the old name is the right name. Consider, e.g., that we'd never move
Facebook, Inc. just because some people (most?) still use the old name for that corporation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
proposed edit notice seeks to enforce the position of one side in a dispute that has not yet reached a clear consensus
I would counter that it appears this is a few disgruntled editors unhappy with a consensus that has already been established, attempting to contravene it. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have never seen a discussion where editors so thoroughly wikilawyer and argue without reference to sources rather than their own outdated opinions. I can understand someone doing that because of activism, say, they are pushing an agenda. But what on earth is the agenda here? The only one I can think of is that having hastily argued a position, one finds it hard to back down. This arguing certainly isn't serving our readers, who if they actually read newspapers or the NHS or NLM, already know monkeypox is the former name and mpox is the new name, and would be surprised that Wikipedia might claim otherwise. I mean, I've recently been arguing with editors in highly contentious articles about sentences sourced to only one highly biased article, and yet here we have several dozen sources, all unbiased, clearly explicitly stating what we've written in article text, and not a single source explicitly contradicting it. Why on earth would that need "a little time". -- Colin°Talk 09:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I've never seen such a display of bludgeoning in such a discussion - you realize you've made 60 edits and added 56k bytes in just over 3 months. Next time you invite editors to a discussion, as you did me here, don't forget to add "Editors disagreeing with me on any point can expect relentless bludgeoning". Of course the regulars probably know this already. Johnbod (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's more the thought that uppity editors who dare change article titles without the galaxy brains of RM need to be kept in line. Bon courage (talk) 10:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Well, they often do. Johnbod (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Getting back to the topic, I still think an edit notice is the best way to guard against edits by the uninformed, and less disruptive to readers than a
WP:CITEKILL approach. The old approach of embedding HTML comments doesn't I think work with the Visual Editor, and may not be spotted anyway, in all the clutter with citation templates. I don't know how the process at Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Mpox works, but it might benefit from editors agreeing or disagreeing with the proposal, or maybe suggesting some wiser words to stick in the notice? -- Colin°Talk 15:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mpox&oldid=1144083927"