Talk:Mpox

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I just came across this article having recently read a news article about "mpox" and wanting to know what it was. I think having pronunciation in the lede would be useful- it's an extremely unusual word beginning in English orthography so there's no natural pronunciation; I had assumed it was probably either /məˈpɒks/ or /əmˈpɒks/ and wouldn't have even considered /ˈɛmpɒks/. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 02:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Mpox (Monkeypox)

That's how a ton of medical sources including the WHO and CDC are writing it right now. The hate crime issue that prompted the initial change didn't end up happening, and while they're sticking with the new name as it fits the 2013 onward naming scheme for new germs(albeit most old diseases aren't being renamed for obvious reasons) they've seemingly eased off with the old name, they're fine using both since it's not a hot topic.

I also want to note Monkeypox was still the most used name monthly until super super recently, like June 2024 was the first month Mpox was searched more and just barely.

So using that as the title as I wrote it above seems fine. With the newer scientific name in front and the older dead-backronym(the M technically stands for Monkeypox Virus so...yeah) that's more widely known AND being used in titles even by official sources. If they can use both we can use both, official in the front, common in the back. The Mullet of Monkey Titles 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:C6A:333:4CD6:D80D (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Perusing the academic literature, focusing on papers published in 2024, “mpox” is far commoner in titles than “monkeypox” (with “monkeypox” largely used in the phrase “monkeypox virus”). I’m not seeing journal papers calling it “mpox (monkeypox)” in their titles. So “mpox” seems fine to me. If people look for “monkeypox” on Wikipedia, they’ll be redirected here. The article itself explains the new and old names. Bondegezou (talk) 06:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/monkeypox

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/monkeypox

https://www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/mpox/about/index.html

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/22371-monkeypox

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/mpox/health-professionals.html

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/infectious-diseases/expert-answers/monkeypox-faq/faq-20533608

https://www.ontario.ca/page/mpox-monkeypox

Here's a ton of sources using Mpox(Monkeypox) or something similar.Both in the title for clarity.

Also now that we have a new outbreak you see both names in the headlines again, and a TON of people like "Mpox? Is this Monkeypox?".

And again, Google Trends showed Monkeypox ahead until May 2024 and it's still pretty close. 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:5C6F:6104:EB5F:388D (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:C6A:333:4CD6:D80D I tried Google search for "monkeypox OR mpox". In the news tab, majority of occurrences were mpox. No need to change the article. Bob (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm just chiming in to note that - since the article is protected and us regular community members can't edit it - there are still a number of instances where "monkeypox" remains in the text of the article and hasn't been reverted to the now "proper" name of mpox (Transmission: "natural reservoir..."; Prevention: "non-human mammals (dead or alive)..."; Future threat: "natural reservoir..."

While I note these instances all use the full form "monkeypox virus" - as a rule, an informative article should stick to a single form of nomenclature for a specific topic throughout its text. As the entire purpose of creating "mpox" as a form was to remove the implied stigma of the full form "monkeypox virus", it stands to reason that, to maintain both conformity and credibility, the additional instances in the body where "monkeypox virus" appears should be corrected to "mpox". 57.140.16.1 (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@57.140.16.1 There has been extensive discussion of this already - check the talk page archive. In summary, WHO is responsible for disease naming, hence mpox but the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses is sticking with monkeypox at the moment. Bob (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

WHO is not responsible for general disease naming. WHO only provides one name, but there may be others established by other official or non-official organisations. Monkeypox is not a former name, it is still used! 2001:4BC9:804:67BD:9179:E457:1E5F:F774 (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

August 2024 emergency in Africa

Alarmed by mpox surge, Africa CDC is poised to declare a 'continental emergency' https://www.npr.org/sections/goats-and-soda/2024/08/09/nx-s1-5068572/mpox-virus-emergency-africa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelhurwicz (talk • contribs) 00:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you asking if this is worth adding, or asking for someone to add it? I think it is worth mentioning (and even more so once it actually happens), but there is no reason you can't add this yourself. Meters (talk) 02:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Here's a ton of sources using both names, usually formatted Mpox (Monkeypox) or something similar

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/monkeypox https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/monkeypox https://www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/mpox/about/index.html https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/22371-monkeypox https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/mpox/health-professionals.html https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/infectious-diseases/expert-answers/monkeypox-faq/faq-20533608 https://www.ontario.ca/page/mpox-monkeypox

Also as I've noted prior, Monkeypox was more common in google trends until May 2024 and is still very close, and there's a ton of people confused who learned the name during the prior outbreak and didn't hear about the name change being like "Mpox? Is that Monkeypox" or similar. That combined with the fact Mpox is a backronym with zero meaning according to WHO (The M stands for nothing) and that the ICTV is refusing to rename the virus itself makes a compelling case for including both in the title just as these credible sources do. Mpox (Monkeypox) 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:5C6F:6104:EB5F:388D (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The redirect from monkeypox to the current title means people end up in the right place, and the opening sentence notes the previous name which should address confusion. Sources may use the format 'Mpox (Monkeypox) because that is the simplest tool at their disposal to resolve confusion, but would be unnecessary in this article's title. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

right then 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:5C6F:6104:EB5F:388D (talk) 00:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you should do a requested move per WP:COMMONNAME.Wheatley2 (talk) 04:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

formerly vs also

Could we replace “formerly known as monkeypox” with “also known as monkeypox”? “formerly“ is misleading because it is still known as monkeypox and many organisations (incl. official ones), media, and people are referring to it as “monkeypox”. 2001:4BC9:825:2ED3:88DC:FBD3:D7C5:DA7D (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

It is not "formerly" known as monkeypox, it IS monkeypox. The disease has never been called "mpox". 2600:1009:B117:BB91:0:3E:9B8F:8701 (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Not only misleading, but false. It's more than a little concerning that wikipedia editors are comfortable subbing in newspeak terms and abruptly referring to the continued use of the now ungood term in the past tense to advance a POV. 24.237.159.220 (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello everyone this was extensively discussed a couple of years ago, the debate can be found in the talk archive. Here's the source:

Based on these consultations, and further discussions with WHO's Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO recommends the following: Adoption of the new synonym mpox in English for the disease. Mpox will become a preferred term, replacing monkeypox, after a transition period of one year.

https://www.who.int/news/item/28-11-2022-who-recommends-new-name-for-monkeypox-disease Bob (talk) 06:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I have restored the term "formerly"..... Because this word indicates to our readers that there has been a change in usage over them being used interchangeably. This indicates how the academic community has moves forward progressively in it's naming..... well emphasizing which is the preferred term currently. The old term should remain for research purposes for our readers. Source. Moxy🍁 23:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

The "preferred" term is already emphasized. The factually incorrect statement "formerly known as Monkeypox" is what was disputed. It is not sensible to say, both linguistically and logically, that a word is formerly used, when it is still used. Again, all the editing of my grammar revision has had no explanation as to why my choice of grammar is incorrect. I wasn't referring to anything on the medical side of it, but on the fact of the matter. And the fact is that people still (often and all over) refer to Monkeypox by it's original name. This is not helpful "indicating" of how health organizations changed the way they refer to the disease, as that is already covered elsewhere in the article. Misleading people about something being in the former when it is in fact in the present, to indicate something entirely unrelated, isn't what should inspire "edit wars". I'll stipulate that the taxonomy in the medical field has chosen to use mPox instead. Show me the part where the *present* is actually now the *former*, because presently, it is also known as Monkeypox. This part isn't disputed, so people should knock off the petty edits. 65.51.135.154 (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Source is pretty clear as to why we don't want to use this derogatory term anymore. Formerly has a distinctive meaning..... as does also. Wikipedia's purpose is as an educational tool for our readers, thus we should indicate to them the change.... with a source educating them further so they can avoid a racist position in their terminology. As for a source pls review thisMoxy🍁 00:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Source doesn't cite any guidelines. Actually it doesn't cite much of anything, including the word being derogatory. Also source doesn't apply any guidelines to the name "Monkeypox". Monkeypox isn't derogatory. It is just a factual name, based on how it was discovered. (I'll give you a hint, it's related to the word ;-) )

The word mpox derives from monkeypox. If monkeypox is derogatory (see above) then so is mpox. If someone has something that is factual (not formerly) that is better suited than "also", I'm open to ideas. Anything informative can be covered under "Nomenclature" in the article. Monkeypox is named after the virus that causes it, found originally in Monkeys. It is even more relevant than using "Chickenpox".

Also, Monkeypox isn't a racist position. It is not even a position . It's a word based on science, not race. Let's be correct with our language now. Anything else is merely fallacious rhetoric

The name change is already indicated in "Nomenclature". 65.51.135.154 (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're reading the sources this one explains why it was phased out indicating a timeline and this one shows the wording used in an introduction of the topic. I've asked for outside opinions see if we can make this more clear for our readers. Moxy🍁 01:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I am reading the sources you are providing. I see an opinion piece and a cdc webpage. These are still about changing the name. The CDC one uses the phrase formally, but that's not accurate either. The other one doesn't specify that MPox is no longer known as Monkeypox. So the point which still isn't addressed, is that the use of the word former is just wrong. It would be wrong to say "mpox, no longer known as Monkeypox" or "mpox used to be known as Monkeypox, but is no longer known by that name". These are all the same thing as saying "formerly known as Monkeypox". I'm not saying people don't have good intentions in renaming. I'm pointing out the misleading and factually incorrect wording. 65.51.135.154 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Professor Clarissa R Damaso and world health organization and below more academics vs random IP trying to chnage this for years to no avail.

• Ulaeto, David; Agafonov, Alexander; Burchfield, Jennifer; Carter, Lisa; Happi, Christian; Jakob, Robert; Krpelanova, Eva; Kuppalli, Krutika; Lefkowitz, Elliot J; Mauldin, Matthew R; de Oliveira, Tulio; Onoja, Bernard; Otieno, James; Rambaut, Andrew; Subissi, Lorenzo; Yinka-Ogunleye, Adesola; Lewis, Rosamund F (2023). "New nomenclature for mpox (monkeypox) and monkeypox virus clades". The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 23 (3). Elsevier BV: 273–275. doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(23)00055-5. ISSN 1473-3099. In May, 2015, WHO recommended best practices for naming new infectious diseases to avoid offense or economic effect for any ethnic, regional, or other groups. Although mpox (formerly known as monkeypox) is not new, WHO has endorsed mpox as the new name for this re-emerging disease and backed the scientific community to agree on neutral nomenclature for variants of viruses.

Moxy🍁 15:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

First case outside Africa discovered in Sweden

Se link below: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/who-confirms-first-case-new-mpox-strain-outside-africa-outbreak-spreads-2024-08-15/ 94.255.242.194 (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Remove "mpox" language

The virus is known as monkeypox, not mpox. Article appears to be vandalized. 2600:1009:B117:6BA4:0:2:6794:BC01 (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah it is monkeypox, not mpox. 100.14.45.114 (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2024

It's spread through say gex. 178.138.98.35 (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, sex is a transmission route. This is already in the article. Tollens (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

airborne transmission can't be excluded in certain settings

Assuming this is not outdated yet, it might be worthwhile to consider

• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9977328/
• https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(23)00034-4

--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Kmhkmh Yes, but "not excluded" does not equate to "should be included"! Various Wiki policies (WP:OR , WP:NOTEVERYTHING ) apply.Bob (talk) 18:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing to equate those 2 formulations. The question is more about scope and detail of the current knowledge about Mpox in the article. WP:OR is not really an issue here as far as I can see, the first article maybe partially OR (but is also a review of the research, the second review article and survey of the current research. With regard to WP:NOTEVERYTHING i don't really see an issue here either. However i'm not arguing it must be in the article (otherwise i would have included it already), but it simply that it is worth of editorial consideration, hence I posted it here.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)