From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Monkeypox)

Lead edit warring

I've made an edit notice request at Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Mpox. I haven't done one before so not sure if I did it right. There are dozens of sources listed above (search for "Recent lay usage") and earlier (search for "CDC has completed") and for each of these the quoted source text in bold explicitly supports the lead's "Mpox (formerly known as monkeypox)". The article text cites three highly reliable sources, the World Health Organisation, the UK's 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
bro I feel that so hard, I've done similar things several times. Next time you run into an article with eight citations in the lead sentence, check the history--it may have been me! Red Slash 06:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Johnbod's Law applies here: "5 refs on a line is almost always a sign of trouble". Nothing makes me more suspicious about a statement. Johnbod ( talk) 14:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Sure, just like an IV is a sign of trouble, but it may be the cure instead of the disease Red Slash 17:33, 14 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 Meta Platforms back to Facebook, Inc. just because some people (most?) still use the old name for that corporation. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Just for the record, I never said the sources don't matter. I was just saying that citing a larger number of sources that use the word formerly does not seem helpful. Grammatically, the noun that was the subject of my sentence is the word number, not the word sources. —⁠ ⁠ BarrelProof ( talk) 20:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Well the number is helpful. The main battle here has been that some editors still thought "monkeypox" was the common name, as well as some hadn't read the policy on name changes. They hadn't heard the news, and didn't seem inclined to check before commenting. The way to demonstrate it is the common name, and meets WP:NAMECHANGES, is to show that a large number of sources written after the name change, including those aimed at a lay audience, are using the new name. Citing just one, no matter how reliable or authoritative, wouldn't have worked. One is all you need for WP:V for non-contentious facts (and this isn't contentious outside of this page). But more are needed to argue about the COMMONNAME and NAMECHANGES policies.
And the arguments about not saying "former" in the lead are related to that, in that those unaware and unwilling to accept that the name has already superseded the old one, don't want to say "former" in the lead. Again, one reliable source saying "former" should be enough, because in the real world, this fact is not contentious. It is Wikipedians who needed convincing, not our readers. This has been a problem caused entirely by Wikipedians being stubbornly uninformed about what reliable sources say and about naming policy. It has been a huge waste of time. We should be arguing about genuinely contentious things, not inventing a controversy out of ignorance and stubbornness. -- Colin° Talk 10:25, 15 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
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
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
Brandolini's law. -- Colin° Talk 19:24, 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
If we're concerned about undiscussed moves (is anybody suggesting they'd like to do that?), then setting WP:MOVEPROTECT for a year would be simpler and easier. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:43, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The article already has permanent move protection (since 28 February 2023). —⁠ ⁠ BarrelProof ( talk) 00:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
I think problems with editing over these issues has fortunately died down now. I don't think we need to do anything, other than standard practice of watchlisting the article and monitoring changes. Bondegezou ( talk) 15:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I think one ref at the start concerning the previous name is quite sufficient (if it's a good one). Tony (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Pronunciation

We recently had an edit by User:Smurrayinchester to add "pronounced /ˈɛmpɒks/ EM-poks," to the lead sentence. I reverted with summary "Per MOS:LEADPRON only necessary if not apparent from spelling, and "mpox" was apparently chosen because the pronunciation should be straightforward". The pronouciation has been restored by User:Ost316 with summary "with all due respect to those who chose the name, the pronunciation is not apparent, as it is an uncommon letter combination for starting a word and does not separate the "m" from the "pox". Some may think it's pronounced more like MMMBop".

The dictionaries at Dictionary.com and Collins agree with the above proposed text, but Websters does not. I've not found the term at other dictionaries. I don't know how to pronounce MMMBop but if Ost316 is suggesting mpox might be pronounced without the "e" and just a "mm" sound, then my answer is then: so what. This is a neologism. It will be pronounced how it gets pronounced. I think their suggestion of a "wrong" pronunciation is unlikely, for the reason that "MMMBop" has multiple "m"s to emphasise the mm sound.

We aren't a dictionary. The guidance at MOS:LEADPRON is that the correct (or a reasonable) pronunciation has to be obscure to the unfamiliar reader. It has to be something a reader couldn't have worked out from the spelling. It is not that there are several options, given a spelling, and Wikipedia is here to insist on only one. It is that the reader is most likely to stumble. For example, we don't tell the reader how to pronounce Colin (given name) except for the American politician Colin Powell who had an unusual pronunciation. That "Colin" could be pronounced /ˈkoʊlɪn/ KOHL-in doesn't mean an English reader is likely to do so and misunderstood if they did so (people without English as a first language often do pronounce "Colin" in all sorts of ways, but we don't add pronunciation guides to help Spanish or Chinese readers improve their English accent).

I think here, the reader is either unlikely to so mispronounce mpox that nobody will understand what they are saying or even think they are wrong, rather than just different. Whether they drop the "e" or change the o vowel sound is pretty unimportant, and getting on for the sort of variation we might get in English naturally.

I think we should remove the pronunciation in order to keep the lead sentence, like most Wikipedia articles, focused on information. -- Colin° Talk 07:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I don't think the inclusion of the pronunciation is problematic; it takes up very little space and is not immediately obvious. I think it's fine as-is and would prefer that the pronunciation be retained. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ ping}} me in replies) 09:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Space isn't the problem, nor is there any rule that only one pronunciation is "immediately obvious". Most English words not only could be pronounced in many ways, but most English words are pronounced in many ways by those with different accents. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation#Appropriate use says "Pronunciation should be indicated sparingly, as parenthetical information disturbs the normal flow of the text and introduces clutter". There is already clutter with the former name, so now the reader (or listener) is distracted with two parentheticals before getting to any definition. The pronunciation we now waste our readers time with is "apparent from its spelling", which is the guideline rule. That other pronunciations could be generated from that spelling is entirely normal for English, and not a reason to add it here. If the "m" was silent, you'd have a point. -- Colin° Talk 12:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC) reply
I agree with Colin. The first sentence should be a clear and a concise definition. We don't needed the clutter, which breaks the flow. This is an encyclopedia not a dictionary. Graham Beards ( talk) 13:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC) reply
I find it hard to believe the fact mpox should be pronounced as a hybrid initialism is "apparent from its spelling". Perhaps if it were MPOX, MPox, or even m-pox. There are many proper names, albeit non-English, that begin with "m + consonant" that the common reader may be familiar with such as Mbappé or Mnong, and from the lack of pronunciation notes on their articles their pronunciation is "apparent from its spelling."
A footnote could be used to note the pronunciation without breaking flow, but the field in the infobox is better than nothing. 93 ( talk) 03:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC) reply
I pronounce it like MMMBop, but only in jest with colleagues! I believe "em-pox" is the correct pronunciation. If we have good RS to support that, I think it's worth adding to the article because I can see some readers might be confused. Bondegezou ( talk) 13:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC) reply
Btw, the pronunciation was moved from the lead sentence to the infobox by User:WhatamIdoing on 15 May. This seems to be the ideal compromise. It is there for those who think it is needed and it doesn't clutter the lead sentence. There is a long long history of Wikipedians complaining about lead sentence clutter like this, which is why we only permit such in very exceptional cases. Just because editors can imagine that someone out there someone might find it useful or might possibly get it wrong doesn't mean we need to break the flow of the lead sentence with what is a very minor aspect. There are people who think disease ICD-9, ICD-10, ICD-11 and MeSH codes are useful information (you'll find that right at the bottom of the article). -- Colin° Talk 14:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Update needed in all sections in order to reflect current knowledge

Many of our sources have been updated in the light of research findings over the last few months, which were triggered by the 2022 mpox outbreak. However much of the article as it currently stands reflects the state of knowledge prior to the outbreak (patchy at best!). In some cases we refer to archived versions of sources which have changed enormously in their current version.

This will require a considerable amount of work to bring the article up to date. Bob ( talk) 16:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Mpox&oldid=1213502494"