Talk:2022–2023 mpox outbreak/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Precise statistics vs. qualitative description for MSM case %

I am creating this section as a place to focalize discussion among regular editors of this page for how to treat the data on MSM cases.

Purpose: This section is exclusively to discuss reporting of this data in light of Wikipedia's standards. It is not a place to discuss whether or not a certain way of treating this data is harmful to MSM. Those interested in exploring the question of whether one form of reporting or another causes harm or stigma can do so in another section. Inclusion of that topic in this thread will be deleted, but again, editors can feel free to create another section on this talk page to raise those issues.

Motivation: this has probably been the most contentious part of the article, at least on the talk page. Now, there appears to be disagreement among the regular editors of the talk page about whether to include the precise published statistics (97% of cases in the MSM community) or the qualitative description (i.e. "most, but not exclusively in the MSM community"). For example, I had included the 97% figure, and other editors had updated it. Then another editor altered it to the qualitative description.

Argument for precise statistics on prevalence in MSM community

I think there is sound reasoning for each choice. However, I think that we ought to prioritize the precise statistic, because it is reported by reputable sources (i.e. the New England Journal of Medicine), and because it is more informative. The lead ought to zero in a reader on the most salient characteristics of the outbreak, and the 97%-98% figure does this much more effectively than the qualitative description.

Note that the qualitative description also implies a percent figure - it's just that the percent figure it implies (excluding decimals) is the range of "51%-99%". So we are really making a choice between whether to include the most accurate and precise reputable data available, or a range that is less precise.

One argument for using the wider range is that the disease may spread through the rest of the population. While this is a real concern, and we could include this point in the lead, we should base the statistic on current prevalence in the MSM population to better reflect the current state of the outbreak, not speculations about its future course. Furthermore, including the more precise statistical information will allow readers to track spread of the outbreak beyond the MSM population, when and if that occurs. By contrast, "most, but not all" would not allow a reader to tell if monkeypox was becoming more prevalent outside the MSM community until cases among the MSM population fell below 50%. It would also require us to make a call on whether and when monkeypox has spread far enough beyond the MSM population to be worthy of comment, while simply reporting the most up-to-date statistics can give a more objective and fine-grained way for the reader to parse that question.

Argument for qualitative description on prevalence in MSM community

A regular editor who supports the qualitative approach can add their viewpoint here. The precise statistic is based on a single primary study that was done early in the outbreak and is based on a limited number of cases. This statistic does not imply any conclusion regarding the disease or the outbreak other than the fact that initially the virus has been spreading among the MSM community. It suffers from severe sample bias and is therefore heavily misleading (most people will think "98% is almost all so it doesn't affect ME" which is false).

Also it is clearly against the WP:MEDRS policy as we are basing this statistic on a single study. We should stick to what the WHO and other reputable WP:MEDRS sources report which is something of the sort: According to the WHO, reported cases so far "have involved mainly, but not exclusively, men who have sex with men".[1].

In general, the fact that the virus initially spread in the MSM community is notable due to the coverage it received but we should give it WP:DUE weight. Anyone can get this virus so is it really medically relevant that initially it spread among MSM? Or should we just keep a reference to this in the History section? I think probably the latter. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC) P.S. the source used for the precise statistic is a "case series" so it falls on the lower end of the WP:MEDASSESS spectrum. Per WP:MEDRS Low-level evidence (such as case reports or series')... are avoided. It is not appropriate for any biomedical information on Wikipedia and should be given due weight. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Precise: For the reasons specified in the "precise statistics" section, I will be rolling back the change to include the original statistical information. Other regular editors should feel free to change it back, but they should also make a note of their reasoning here so that we can continue to debate the most appropriate way of dealing with this data in the article. AllAmericanBreakfast (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Updated facts are needed! The facts produced by @allamericanbreakfast are out of date and no longer acceptable. Ayshdbd (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Was this done just to one up another user in a salty act!? Really!? Why else would you have please explain your irrational force of out of date statistics. Ayshdbd (talk) 00:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Qualitative: For the reasons in the "qualitative description" section above and due to the non compliance with WP:MEDRS I have reverted to the WHO text. WP:MEDRS has priority so the sourcing is not appropriate for this biomedical claim. Let's see how the discussion here goes. If we really want a precise stat we need appropriate sourcing. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS is clear in saying that that policy applies only to text describing health effects, which is not the case. In any case, WP:MEDRS does not ban such sources and they do not contradict one another. You know there's a discussion going on, so please achieve consensus first. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Ftrebien: WP:MEDRS applies to all WP:BMI which includes: Population data and epidemiology: Number of people who have a condition, mortality rates, transmission rates, rates of diagnosis (or misdiagnosis), etc.. So it very much applies here. We need to move this to the history section and away from the section describing transmission if we want to keep it and make it clear why we are indicating this statistic (which is almost certainly a "sample bias" per WHO: The unexpected appearance of monkeypox and the wide geographic spread of cases indicate that the monkeypox virus might have been circulating below levels detectable by the surveillance systems and sustained human-to-human transmission might have been undetected for a period of time. [2]) {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how what you have quoted indicates sampling bias. Quoting from the director-general of the WHO: "Although 98% of cases so far are among men who have sex with men, anyone exposed can get monkeypox...". Regarding Anyone can get this virus so is it really medically relevant that initially it spread among MSM? -- Yes, it is, as they are the group of people most at risk of contracting the virus, so need targeted health messaging and preferential access to vaccines. Endwise (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

To expand on that, from the NHS: currently most cases have been in men who are gay, bisexual or have sex with other men, so it's particularly important to be aware of the symptoms if you're in these groups. Additionally they are one of the at-risk groups who can currently get vaccinated: The NHS is offering smallpox (MVA) vaccination to people who are most likely to be exposed to monkeypox. This includes: gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men at the highest risk of exposure. Endwise (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I totally agree Endwise. All of those statements (WHO + NHS) are much better than what we have in the article and are actually WP:MEDRS compliant! So those would be perfect solutions to this problem. They state that "currently" the cases are "mostly among MSM" but "anyone can get it". Which is correct and not misleading. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

P.S. the source is a case series on 528 infections diagnosed between April 27 and June 24, 2022 so the sampling bias is obvious. We have over 1200 cases a day now and those are only the confirmed cases. Not the actual cases. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Qualitative: Having had a thought about it: given both that the 98% number is becoming rapidly outdated, and that national guidelines prefer to just talk about MSM comprising e.g. the "majority" of cases, I think the precise statistic shouldn't be in the lead. I agree that, for WP:MEDRS (and general Wikipedia) reasons, the bit about transmission/demographic info in the lead should look like a lot more like https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/monkeypox/ and https://www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/monkeypox/transmission.html do. Endwise (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand the concern, but we don't really know if the 98% number is becoming rapidly outdated. If we want to avoid vague terms such as "most" and "the majority", it would make sense to wait for updated statistics. I hoped the Joint ECDC-WHO bulletin[3] would help us here, but they do not have information about the sexual orientation of 55.1% of the cases. 43.4% are among MSM out of the 44.9% with known sexual orientation, so about 96.7% of those with known sexual orientation in their data. Not that different. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Then why do we say 98% if it's not even accurate? It's a random number. Saying the majority is just fine and is more precise. It doesn't change the result unless we are trying to paint this as a MSM only disease which it clearly isn't (and we should avoid making it look that way). Will you change your vote here so we can switch the "98%" with "the majority"? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I certainly won't change my vote yet because I disagree with It's a random number and with is more precise if we want to properly inform lay readers. In most other contexts, a quantity like 95-98%, as stated at the WHO press briefing 6 days ago,[4] would be adequately described qualitatively as the vast majority, as CNN did.[5] --Fernando Trebien (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

We shouldn't make this up. We need to say what high level sources (based on WP:MEDASSESS) say. Let's stick to the latest statements by the WHO/CDC/etc. CNN is not a good source per WP:MEDRS. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Precise: Very well. On 27 July, WHO said it was 98% among MSM and that is our main reference, so nothing needs to be changed for now. It was also at 98% on 24 June, when the NEJM study stopped collecting data. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 13:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually no. That's a passage in a speech by the WHO head referencing an early study. I don't think it is as precise as the main pages describing the outbreak and it is definitely WP:UNDUE for the lead. Also it's from over a week ago and the situation is changing fast. The below sources are much higher in the WP:MEDASSESS scale, are WP:MEDRS and are updated in the last few days so they are more recent and precise.

• On the WHO monkeypox outbreak page they state: Most reported cases so far have been identified through sexual health or other health services in primary or secondary health-care facilities and have involved mainly, but not exclusively, men who have sex with men.
• CDC on the outbreak page doesn't even mention MSM [6]
• ECDC Monkeypox outbreak main page FAQ [7] In addition, it is disproportionally affecting specific groups, i.e. men who have sex with men, probably because of close or sexual contact during recent events.
• ECDC latest situation update: In the current outbreak in non-endemic countries, cases of MPX are still identified primarily among groups of men who have sex with men (MSM) aged 18-50 years of age. Based on the latest ECDC’s risk assessment, the likelihood of MPX spreading further in networks of people with multiple sexual partners in the EU/EEA is considered high and the likelihood of spreading among the broader population is assessed as very low.

No percentages and just general indications to the fact it is mainly affecting those groups or no mentions at all. We need to fix this. There is no reason at all to keep outdated and imprecise information especially in the lead. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide a reference or quote a passage from the current references that support the following of your statements?

• referencing an early study; and
• the situation is changing fast

--Fernando Trebien (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Why? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

If these are mere assumptions, one cannot say with certainty that Tedros was referring to old data, nor that there has been any significant change in the current situation. If we could relativize it this way, we could write anything on Wikipedia, regardless of the content of the sources. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

You've pointed out yourself that the latest data does not match the 98% number for example (although that's WP:OR). And the speech is from over a week ago while the pages above have been updated in the last few days and are constantly kept up to date. None of them mention that statistic. Why are you so keen on having this statistic? Surely it doesn't change much. Why do you want it so much given you are aware it is imprecise and out of date? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 20:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

You've pointed out yourself that the latest data does not match the 98% number I haven't, but maybe I didn't say it clearly. See Talk:2022 monkeypox outbreak § Contradicting statistics. for a breakdown of the data. What I have said is that the numbers probably indicate a similar scenario, depending on how one interprets ECDC cases with unknown sexual orientation.

although that's WP:OR It is, so the part that corresponds to the original research is not included in the article.

And the speech is from over a week ago while the pages above have been updated in the last few days and are constantly kept up to date. This means that new data is missing, not that the situation has changed significantly.

Surely it doesn't change much. This supports the utility of the statistic.

given you are aware it is imprecise and out of date I asked for a reference to support this idea. If you agree that it doesn't change much, it's hard to argue that it's significantly out of date, even more so when it appears in the text along with the date it was released to the public.

Why do you want it so much From MOS:WTW: Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or endorsing of a particular viewpoint.

--Fernando Trebien (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

There have been eight review articles published in MEDLINE-listed journals in the last year. A quick look at several produces these mentions of MSM/transmission during sexual contact:

• PMID 35760647 – "most of the cases"
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9321130/ – "the vast majority of the affected are young or middle-aged men who have sex with men (MSM) and had recent sexual contact with new or multiple partners"
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9278444/ – "mainly involve individuals identified as men who have sex with men"

Since I've found exactly zero MEDRS-style sources that mention specific numbers, I suggest that it might be best for us to follow their lead and also not mention specific numbers. I therefore would classify my current view as qualitative. The other advantage to the qualitative approach is that it won't need to be updated every time a new paper publishes a somewhat different number.

More specifically, I find the longer description appealing, since:

• "vast majority" indicates that relevant range for "majority" is not just anywhere between 50.01% and 99.99%, but somewhere close to top end of the possible range. (Different people could interpret "vast majority" in different ways, but in my experience, it's frequently understood as >90% and never as less than 75%.)
• This source simultaneously indicates two other relevant risk factors: "young or middle-aged" and "recent sexual contact with new or multiple partners". The vast majority aren't MSM; the vast majority are MSM and too young to have been vaccinated against smallpox and in high-risk situations for getting any sexually transmitted disease. People who don't have all three of those characteristics are lower risk.

About age, another source (not labeled as a review in PubMed) says "The sex distribution of cases in the current outbreak shows a strong bias, with more than 95% of cases found in young men (< 40 years). Spread among men who have sex with men (MSM) has been noted, but heterosexual intercourse should also be considered." This source puts more emphasis on age than on sexual orientation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I think now that you, Gtoffoletto, and I have all indicated our support for a qualitative description in the lead, I would say that we have consensus for it. I have implemented the longer description you have suggested with the source it came from and the WHO press release it cites. Endwise (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe ECDC data[8] would be a better source. Adding up their numbers results in about 64% of cases in men aged 40 and under in Europe. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 03:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with vast majority as a good (much less vague) description of the current situation. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 03:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

agree vast majority is much less vague--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@endwise I see what you have quoted is over two weeks old and no longer considered relevant or accurate in a medical situation that is evolving more rapidly and with momentum. Up to date statistics are needed and the updated edit reflects that.

98% is an old, inaccurate, obselete and irrelevant. Ayshdbd (talk) 13:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Add Guadeloupe and Saint Martin

Guadeloupe:

Saint Martin: 73.126.133.15 (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

References

 Done Uhooep (talk) 10:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you 73.126.133.15 (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Lithuania has 6 cases

As of 4 August 2022:

https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1754063/lithuanian-confirms-two-more-cases-of-monkeypox 73.126.133.15 (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I count 3 cases in Lithuania from most recent source.

https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1755390/all-monkeypox-cases-in-lithuania-traced-to-germany

Cases form your source should be already included. Hetsre (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh thank you, one of the edits said Lithuania had 4 cases. 73.126.133.15 (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

No probs, it was a good occasion to verify and update the previous source. Hetsre (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much 73.126.133.15 (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Add Sint Maarten

Sint Maarten reported it's first case.

https://sxmpolice.wordpress.com/2022/08/02/ars-1st-case-of-monkeypox-on-st-maarten/ 73.126.133.15 (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Grammar edit

"As of 7 August, there had been a total of 28,781 confirmed cases in nearly 82 countries most of them seeing there first monkeypox cases."[21][22]

Change to:

As of 7 August, there had been a total of 28,781 confirmed cases in nearly 82 countries[,] most of them seeing [their] first monkeypox cases. Vcaveman (talk) 06:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Does this article really need a picture of penile lesons

Wikipedia isn't censored but that might legitimately be the most disgusting thing I've ever seen and has dissuaded me from further reading this article. Toa Nidhiki05 22:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like you learned a tough 'leson' today... sorry... Andre🚐 23:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Many patients have presented with genital lesions during this outbreak. The picture (from the current outbreak) illustrates this manifestation. Uhooep (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree, wiki not censored Andre🚐 23:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

You can disagree without being a dick about it. Toa Nidhiki05 23:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Nice one Andre🚐 23:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05 Looking at the source material, let's just say are a lot worse images that could have been taken from that document (plus, the image itself is quite far down the article anyhow) QueenofBithynia (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Have a look at HELP:NOSEE. Since the article is about an outbreak, not about the disease itself, it may make sense to move them to Monkeypox. I think they are educational, so I do not think they should be removed, only maybe moved. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 03:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Genital lesions have presented a large number of times during this outbreak, but historically I do not believe that was the case, so it seems particularly relevant in this outbreak. As the article says "novel presentations of human monkeypox... during the 2022 outbreak". Uhooep (talk) 05:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Definitely a bit extreme and unnecessary... the mosaic of lesion stages [9] is much more descriptive and less graphic. We could just keep that one. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 09:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely absurd and made up statistics.

Am I really supposed to believe it only affects gay men? How does know to discriminate on sexuality!

That is right it can not can it no a disease can not discriminate on sexuality and it never will be able to that is now how a disease works

Everybody saw you just silence me and that is censorship and now you are in serious trouble well done. Chez224 (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Your new user has only 5 edits, all in this talk page. Who were you before? --Fernando Trebien (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a source to indicate that 98% of cases are not among homosexual/bisexual men? Regarding the idea that no disease discriminates among sexuality, lessn’t forget that the communities and pools between people that have sex is fairly closed off, in spite of the existence of bisexuals and closeted people. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a source to indicate they are? Backed up with actual factual evidence and not just pushed out by reporters. Chez224 (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Thornhill's New England Journal of Medicine article cited in the same sentence where this statistic is mentioned. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

When have a disease ever, ever been able to discriminate on sexuality? They are not that smart. Chez224 (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

See Sexually transmitted infection § Epidemiology. They don't care about sexual orientation, but they take advantage of different types of contact (including sexual contact) in different ways. It is known, for example, that the chance of transmission of HIV is greater in receptive anal sex than in vaginal sex, among other factors, see HIV/AIDS § Sexual. So if a certain group has a specific type of contact more often, then that group will be affected differently than other groups. Correlation does not imply causation.

Monkeypox seems to more easily infect MSM who are involved with risky sexual behavior, such as having multiple sexual partners in a short amount of time, see 2022 monkeypox outbreak § Outbreak characteristics. It is not the entire group, just a part. The media seems unable to clarify this. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I am documenting screenshots of this in case Wikipedia try to silence me again. Chez224 (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Again? --Fernando Trebien (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Well that's an admission of WP:SOCK. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

You deleted my previous talk post Chez224 (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

That was done by Cullen328 since Wikipedia is not a forum. I highly recommend you read WP:NOTAFORUM. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Disease pathogens do not work by targeting sexuality. That is not factual evidence at most that is hearsay pushed as fact. Where are the medical statistics broken down by area nation etc? Why is it all too oblique and vague!? Chez224 (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

What about all the straight men and women these people are coming in to contact with? How does it know to skip them? Chez224 (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Too many questions and not enough answers. Chez224 (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the precise statistic as I agree it is misleading. We should stick to WP:MEDRS to avoid publishing unconfirmed or incomplete data. What the WHO sais is: Most reported cases so far have been identified through sexual health or other health services in primary or secondary health-care facilities and have involved mainly, but not exclusively, men who have sex with men.. We should stick to that and nothing more especially in the lead. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I rolled back this change, for the reasons stated in the new "precise statistics vs. qualitative description" section below. As stated there, you are welcome to change back to the qualitative description if you think that is appropriate, but please make an effort to discuss your reasoning more fully in that section. The editors of this article need to come to a reasoned consensus about the most appropriate way to describe this information, given Wikipedia's standards. Hopefully we can move toward a consensus-based approach to reporting this information. AllAmericanBreakfast (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I also think that a precise statistic is better as it leaves the subjective interpretation to the reader. I would describe 97% as almost all, which probably does more damage to the discussions than the number itself; most is far from accurate, it can mean anything from 50% + 1 to 100% - 1. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. But let's discuss below in the dedicated section. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to find evidence that this page was ever proclaiming that monkeypox "only affects gay men". This is a common complaint about the article that I have no evidence it ever said. What people have been reading is a sentence which observes that ~97% of cases have been found in men who have sex with men. For multiple reasons, that's a far cry from saying it "only affects gay men", and yet there have been multiple posts on the talk page with people misreading it as such. It's one thing to have disagreements about how to synthesize the information, it's another thing entirely to make claims about the article saying something that it objectively does not. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. We should just be careful not to be misleading and we should stick to WP:MEDRS sources. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 16:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

It is clear that this information whether correct and accurate or not is incredibly and irrevocably damaging to a minority and more care and respect should be taken. It is questionable whether information this questionable should be broadcast so belligerently in the first place. Chez224 (talk) 03:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Chez224: Wikipedia is not a forum. Everything on the article has a source cited. If there is something you believe is "questionable" or incorrect, please ask specifically (like the specific sentence) and provide a source on why is it wrong so it can be corrected. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

No, it's not so clear. The same information is used to support early vaccination for this group which is at highest risk, and doing so has obvious benefits for the group as well as society as a whole. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you just drop the snark please and admit it is absolutely wrong to wade in the way it was with this article?

Thank you for the effort to reword it. It should have been written along those lines in the first place. Have some damn respect this is a public domain so you show the same level of respect to all! Chez224 (talk) 03:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I am still documenting screenshots. Chez224 (talk) 03:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

So you are saying it is "wrong", but not saying what is wrong. Got it. Well, once again, Wikipedia is not a forum to discuss opinions, so without providing a source, you are doing original research with is now allowed on Wikipedia. So I suggest you start providing sources and direct links to what is wrong, or you will most likely be blocked from editing. An admin has previously alerted you to the WP:NOTAFORUM policy, so if you continue to provide opinions (original research) without sources, I will let the admins know. So to save everyone a headache, please just link a source OR to a specific sentence/paragraph that is wrong. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

This is the talk section of the article where users are invited to discuss the subject more freely. Your advice has been noted thank you and Good day. I have no further input for now. Chez224 (talk) 04:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Freely but with civility and assuming gooth faith. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Why is the statistics removed and not there as of yet? What was wrong with the statistic? Wherescitation (talk) 04:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Deaths started in Europe.

Why do you say it’s an African country with no proof of it starting in Africa. You just went on google images and put monkeypox when it first happened and said “yup, I see black hands” that was smallpox. Which is still European. Please state what country it originally started from and how and when it spread to other countries. This is the stuff that makes Wikipedia not Factual when you mislead people. 2601:143:8000:33B0:204A:A1D2:3F8C:2426 (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

China first three cases of monkeypox

According to Our World in Data, China has reported their first three cases of monkeypox

https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/monkeypox?tab=table&facet=none&hideControls=false&Metric=Confirmed+cases&Frequency=Cumulative&Relative+to+population=false&country=~OWID_WRL 73.126.133.15 (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Our World in Data uses global.health [10] data as a source.

Their main source for this is https://worldhealthorg.shinyapps.io/mpx_global/ but there is no mention of China.

It is most probably an error. Hetsre (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

According to [11] Greenland reported their first case yesterday. 73.126.133.15 (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The global map in [11] has China? 73.126.133.15 (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The note says At this time, this figure refers to cases reported in Taipei: the 3 cases assigned to China are under Taiwan in this article. Hetsre (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

What about Greenland? 73.126.133.15 (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Not clear if Denmark dashboard already includes Greenland. I will open a new section in the talk. Hetsre (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay. But WHO is a pretty powerful source. 73.126.133.15 (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but Statens Serum Institute [11] could already include them as Danish cases (their updated total is 135 vs 129 reported by WHO). If Greenland cases are not included in SSI, then they are not in the table and should be added. Hetsre (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay. 73.126.133.15 (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Greenland cases already included in Denmark? If not, they should be added

WHO monkeypox dashboard [12] reports 2 monkeypox cases for Greenland. Are they already included in Denmark as Danish cases in this article? I am not sure about the scope of Statens Serum Institute report available here [13]. Hetsre (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Greenland is technically an autonomous country of Denmark. In the COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory it says so. 73.126.133.15 (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I mean territory not country. sorry 73.126.133.15 (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Sources:

https://nordjyske.dk/nyheder/danmark/abekopper-er-naaet-til-groenland/3350553

https://knr.gl/da/nyheder/landsl%C3%A6ge-om-abekopper-der-kommer-formentlig-flere-smittede%C2%A0#:~:text=I%20g%C3%A5r%20blev%20to%20tilf%C3%A6lde,anden%2C%20siger%20landsl%C3%A6ge%20Henrik%20L. 73.126.133.15 (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

There´s probably hundreds more. 73.126.133.15 (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand, I am wondering if SSI already counts them, to avoid double-counting. I guess they can be removed in case we realize they are already included. Thanks. Hetsre (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

You welcome! 73.126.133.15 (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Macedonia

Macedonia has a suspected case of monkeypox, explanation to be given by next week Balkan Mapping (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Source? 73.126.133.15 (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

https://shqen.mia.mk/no-confirmed-case-of-monkeypox-in-north-macedonia-health-ministry/ 73.126.133.15 (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Source says: "There is no hospitalized patient [...] suspected to have monkeypox." I would not consider it. Hetsre (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I gave a source but it disappeared idk what happened Balkan Mapping (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Timeline of the 2022 Monkeypox PHEIC

Having curated (I believe that's the proper term) Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic & Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, I've gotten this one spun up. Enjoy. kencf0618 (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Update on Macedonia

No monkeypox, the two suspected cases have been cleared as of today Balkan Mapping (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I have merged the endemic and non-endemic country data tables together

I have merged the endemic and non-endemic country data tables together. In order to denote countries whose 2022 monkeypox reporting periods preceded the UK index case on 6 May 2022, I have highlighted these countries in orange. I don't know how to create a key to denote this however. If someone has alternative ideas about how these countries, or historically endemic countries in general should be shaded then feel free to make suggestions/changes accordingly. Uhooep (talk) 10:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2022

The date in the graphs showing the statistics are ill formatted and show up wrong in some browsers including mine.

As per the reference manual of the graph library dates have to inserted as YYYY-MM-DD (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Graph:Chart#Parameters for details). Thus the source code of the page should be changed in all graphs as shown below.

However, the source code also contains duplicated dates (e.g., '11 Jun 22, 12 Jun 22, 8 Jun 22, 9 Jun 22, 10 Jun 22, 11 Jun 22' for the '=== Total confirmed deaths outside of endemic Africa ===' chart). This might raise the question if the data shown are reliable as a whole. Clearly a reference is need for this?

{{Graph:Chart
|width = 700 
|linewidth = 2
|type = line
|xType = date
|yType = number
|colors = #FF6347, #87CEEB
|xAxisTitle = Timeline
|yAxisFormat = s
|yAxisTitle = No. of cumulative cases
|yAxisMax= 25000
|legend = Legend
|x = 6 May 22, 7 May 22, 8 May 22, 9 May 22, 10 May 22, 11 May 22, 12 May 22, 13 May 22, 14 May 22, 15 May 22, 16 May 22, 17 May 22, 18 May 22, 19 May 22, 20 May 22, 21 May 22, 22 May 22, 23 May 22, 23 May 22, 24 May 22, 25 May 22, 26 May 2022, 27 May 22, 28 May 22, 29 May 22, 30 May 22, 31 May 22, 1 Jun 22, 2 Jun 22, 3 Jun 22, 4 Jun 22, 5 Jun 22, 6 Jun 22, 7 Jun 22, 8 Jun 22, 9 Jun 22, 10 Jun 22, 11 Jun 22, 12 Jun 22, 13 Jun 22, 14 Jun 22, 15 Jun 22, 16 Jun 22, 17 Jun 22, 18 Jun 22, 19 Jun 22, 20 Jun 22, 21 Jun 22, 22 Jun 22, 23 Jun 22, 24 Jun 2022, 25 Jun 22, 26 Jun 22, 27 Jun 22, 28 Jun 22, 29 Jun 22, 30 Jun 22, 1 Jul 22, 2 Jul 22, 3 Jul 22, 4 Jul 22, 5 Jul 22, 6 Jul 22, 7 Jul 22, 8 Jul 22, 9 Jul 22, 10 Jul 22, 11 Jul 22, 12 Jul 22, 13 Jul 22, 14 Jul 22, 15 Jul 22, 16 Jul 22, 17 Jul 22, 18 Jul 22, 19 Jul 22, 20 Jul 22, 21 Jul 22, 22 Jul 22, 23 Jul 22, 24 Jul 22, 25 Jul 22, 26 Jul 22, 27 Jul 22, 28 Jul 22, 29 Jul 22, 30 Jul 22, 31 Jul 22, 1 Aug 22,

|y1Title = Confirmed cases
|y1 = 1, 1, 11, 11, 11, 12, 13, 13, 17, 17, 20, 41, 60, 105, 121, 121, 194, 230, 274, 362, 414, 431, 451, 574, 639, 723, 848, 942, 950, 1057, 1172, 1322, 1419, 1565, 1608, 1617, 1731, 1791, 2035, 2182, 2558, 2752, 2757, 2764, 3058, 3340, 3514, 3955, 4276, 4288, 4484, 4871, 5219, 5372, 6179, 6448, 6492, 6532, 7027, 7474, 7706, 8392, 9452, 9574, 9601, 10192, 11066, 11484, 11974, 12983, 12999, 13021, 13557, 15032, 15606, 16248, 16968, 16970, 16989, 18210, 19627, 20883, 21067, 22763, 22882, 23278

|yGrid = | xGrid = 
}}

{{Graph:Chart
|width = 700 
|linewidth = 2
|type = line
|xType = date
|yType = number
|colors = #FF6347, #87CEEB
|xAxisTitle = Timeline
|yAxisFormat = s
|yAxisTitle = No. of cumulative cases
|yAxisMax= 25000
|legend = Legend
|x = 2022-05-06, 2022-05-07, 2022-05-08, 2022-05-09, 2022-05-10, 2022-05-11, 2022-05-12, 2022-05-13, 2022-05-14, 2022-05-15, 2022-05-16, 2022-05-17, 2022-05-18, 2022-05-19, 2022-05-20, 2022-05-21, 2022-05-22, 2022-05-23, 2022-05-23, 2022-05-24, 2022-05-25, 2022-05-26, 2022-05-27, 2022-05-28, 2022-05-29, 2022-05-30, 2022-05-31, 2022-06-01, 2022-06-02, 2022-06-03, 2022-06-04, 2022-06-05, 2022-06-06, 2022-06-07, 2022-06-08, 2022-06-09, 2022-06-10, 2022-06-11, 2022-06-12, 2022-06-13, 2022-06-14, 2022-06-15, 2022-06-16, 2022-06-17, 2022-06-18, 2022-06-19, 2022-06-20, 2022-06-21, 2022-06-22, 2022-06-23, 2022-06-24, 2022-06-25, 2022-06-26, 2022-06-27, 2022-06-28, 2022-06-29, 2022-06-30, 2022-07-01, 2022-07-02, 2022-07-03, 2022-07-04, 2022-07-05, 2022-07-06, 2022-07-07, 2022-07-08, 2022-07-09, 2022-07-10, 2022-07-11, 2022-07-12, 2022-07-13, 2022-07-14, 2022-07-15, 2022-07-16, 2022-07-17, 2022-07-18, 2022-07-19, 2022-07-20, 2022-07-21, 2022-07-22, 2022-07-23, 2022-07-24, 2022-07-25, 2022-07-26, 2022-07-27, 2022-07-28, 2022-07-29, 2022-07-30, 2022-07-31, 2022-08-01,

|y1Title = Confirmed cases
|y1 = 1, 1, 11, 11, 11, 12, 13, 13, 17, 17, 20, 41, 60, 105, 121, 121, 194, 230, 274, 362, 414, 431, 451, 574, 639, 723, 848, 942, 950, 1057, 1172, 1322, 1419, 1565, 1608, 1617, 1731, 1791, 2035, 2182, 2558, 2752, 2757, 2764, 3058, 3340, 3514, 3955, 4276, 4288, 4484, 4871, 5219, 5372, 6179, 6448, 6492, 6532, 7027, 7474, 7706, 8392, 9452, 9574, 9601, 10192, 11066, 11484, 11974, 12983, 12999, 13021, 13557, 15032, 15606, 16248, 16968, 16970, 16989, 18210, 19627, 20883, 21067, 22763, 22882, 23278

|yGrid = | xGrid = 
}}

193.63.216.106 (talk) 08:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the intention is good, but we don't know the data source. The data might have been gathered from the article edit history, a ton of work and maybe original research. I'd like to propose that we replace this with data from Our World in Data.[14] --Fernando Trebien (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Most of the issues seem to be resolved and the article states that it should use dmy dates. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Debating policy on listing endemic vs. non-endemic deaths

The death toll is now listed at 116 people, over 80% of which is due to deaths in DRC. This is based on a report from the African Union CDC. Monkeypox has been in DRC for decades, and it's the country historically worst-affected by the disease.

Simultaneously, the guidance I posted on including only deaths in non-endemic countries due to West African clade MPX has been removed from the talk page, despite a note right at the top asking for it to be left in.

Do any of the regular editors hold the opinion that we ought to be including endemic deaths from MPX, and/or from Congo Basin clade, in this article? Either way, we ought to form a consensus on policy in this regard.

I think only non-endemic West African clade MPX ought to be listed, as this reflects norms in mainstream news coverage. For example, CNN's Aug 12th article opens with " Out of tens of thousands of monkeypox cases around the world this year, there have been a dozen deaths linked to the virus, and for the first time, some of them have been outside Africa, in countries where the virus doesn’t usually spread." No mention of the dozens of deaths from MPX in endemic countries. This to me suggests that, for the public, the MPX outbreak is a distinct phenomenon from endemic MPX, and we ought not conflate deaths from endemic MPX with deaths due to the outbreak. AllAmericanBreakfast (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Death toll should include non-endemic countries only

Please leave this section in place to inform future editors of this article.

Monkeypox has two clades: West African, and Congo Basin. As per the WHO, this outbreak is caused by West African clade, not Congo Basin clade.

Each clade is endemic in a different set of countries. "Endemic" means that the disease is regularly found in that nation.

The current West African clade outbreak, which is the subject of this article, is defined as the spread of monkeypox infections in NON-endemic countries. In other words, what makes this an "outbreak" is that we are finding the disease in countries where it is not usually found.

For this reason, it is incorrect to list infections or deaths in countries where monkeypox is endemic. It is also incorrect to list infections or deaths due to the Congo Basin clade, which is currently limited to countries where Congo Basin is endemic, and is not part of the outbreak. Only deaths caused by West African clade monkeypox in NON-endemic countries should be listed here.

It is important not to mix this up, because it will paint a deeply misleading picture of where, and, by implication, why people are dying.

Note that I have also created a "debate" section on this policy below, as it is being inconsistently followed and I'm not sure whether this is due to a difference of opinion or negligence. AllAmericanBreakfast (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The WHO has changed it so now, their isn´t any confusion between ¨non-endemic¨ and ¨endemic¨ 73.126.133.15 (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

WHO now includes both endemic and non-endemic cases as part of the outbreak

As an anonymous commenter pointed out, the WHO is now covering both endemic and non-endemic MPX cases as part of the outbreak. They show cases in endemic countries on their global case map, health emergencies dashboard, for example. Most mainstream news coverage I've seen recently focuses on the MPX outbreak in non-endemic countries, but it seems like we should probably defer to the WHO rather than CNN? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllAmericanBreakfast (talk • contribs) 21:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Belize has it´s first case of monkeypox according to this Honduras report.

In this source:

https://proceso.hn/viruela-del-mono-arriba-a-honduras-29-meses-despues-de-covid/

It talks about how Honduras has confirmed it´s first case of the virus.

Then we go to a section.

See: Guatemala adds three confirmed cases of monkeypox In Central America, with the exception of Nicaragua, which does not offer information in this regard, and El Salvador, all the countries have confirmed cases of monkeypox.

Guatemala has three confirmed cases of monkeypox since the first case of the disease was made public by the Government of Guatemala on August 3, although it was initially detected on July 27.

For its part, Honduras confirmed its first case of this virus on August 12, just 29 months after confirming the first two cases of COVID-19.

So techincally Belize has had it´s first case of monkeypox. 73.126.133.15 (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Jersey

The source for Jersey says the case is "high probable". However, there is no update for the "confirmed" statement. Therefore, the quantity needs to be transferred from the "Confirmed" column to the "Suspected" column. Or a case-related update resource is required. Nevmit (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@Tol Nevmit (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Nevmit: Uh, hello? I'm not sure why you pinged me. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I think Jersey should be removed from the list. But if I do it, it could turn into an "undo" war. So I think an admin or patroller should do it. Nevmit (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I just added the official website concerning monkeypox by the Government of Jersey to the reference list, which says that there is one known case in Jersey. The website is https://www.gov.je/Government/Departments/StrategicPolicy/PublicHealth/Pages/Monkeypox.aspx. Chbe113 (talk) 09:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

thank you Nevmit (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 23 November 2022

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.

---

result:
Not moved. See strong, policy-based consensus below to not make a title change at this time. No prejudice if a strong policy-based argument can be made in six months to a year from now, then a fresh move request can be made. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; everyone stay healthy! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 00:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

---

2022 monkeypox outbreak → 2022 MPOX outbreak – The WHO is looking to rename Monkeypox to MPOX should we rename PopularGames (talk) 05:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose and speedy close as a non-starter: Regardless of whether that is true or not (and depending on what "looking to" means), Wikipedia is not part of the WHO and does not provide assistance with renaming campaigns. The article doesn't even mention "MPOX". The provided rationale has no evidence of factual validity and no relationship to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

  Sustaining my oppose despite the new announcement, as per Rreagan007. We will need to wait and see whether the renaming campaign eventually becomes accepted by the general public. Lowercase also noted per Tol. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per BarrelProof. YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Should the WHO actually offer a new name for the disease (as they did with covid) as opposed to "looking to" and the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses recommend a new name for the virus, we should leave the article as it is. Graham Beards (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
• (see new position below on 11/29/22) Oppose The effort to update the known virus name has been thoroughly reported on. Though alternate names such as “MPOX” have been prematurely adopted in certain locales, and even seems to be done so with good intentions (destigmatization, harm reduction, misinformation reduction, etc.), the fact remains that the official global source for such a name change has not indicated any change at this time. If Wikipedia were to prematurely use a different name for the virus at such a high page level, it could hinder people’s ability to access basic information on this global health topic. Leave as is unless/until it is renamed by the global authority. Informationageuser (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Firstly, the name change hasn't officially occured yet, and secondly, Wikipedia is intended to reflect the general public's usage of language. I don't expect MPox to take off in common tongue for a good couple years after this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:4511:C309:F2F2:AF95 (talk) 02:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, and with no prejudice to this discussion being reopened in the future. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 19:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
• Approve Per this announcement [[15]], the WHO has gone ahead with the name change, but it will take about a year for the name change to take effect. It would be easy to make '2022 monkeypox outbreak' redirect to '2022 MPOX outbreak,' so people searching for the previous term wouldn't have trouble finding the page. There are very good arguments for the name change and Wikipedia should lead on using inclusive, accurate language. Monkeypox is not an inclusive, let alone accurate, term for this virus. Oneultralamewhiteboy (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
• Relisting comment: In light of the WHO announcement (as many participants noted that the WHO had not yet made a change) Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
• I don't have much of an opinion on this, but would like to suggest that, if this is moved, it be moved to 2022 mpox outbreak (in lowercase) per WHO. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and per WP:CONSISTENT for consistency with the primary article at Monkeypox. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per COMMONNAME.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

• Approve ( replacing my 11/25/22 Oppose ) in light of WHO announcement on 11/28/22. Regarding case, agree this should be lowercase as published “mpox”. Regarding redirect, agree '2022 monkeypox outbreak' should redirect to '2022 mpox outbreak'. Regarding consistency/commonname argument, I understand this concern and believe parallel updates should be made to the current Monkeypox general page as well, though that may require a separate talk to be opened there. And in general for both pages, I believe we can, for at least some period of time, find a respectful way to acknowledge the previous name for clarity. Perhaps something like… mpox (previously referred to as monkeypox until official renaming) Informationageuser (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Informationageuser I recommend that you strike through your original vote to avoid misinterpretation. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 00:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

  @XtraJovial Good suggestion, and thank you for pointing out. I have added strikethrough and a brief note to my previous vote text. Informationageuser (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per commonname (let me know when Chickenpox becomes Cpox). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
• It would make more sense to have one discussion about this article and the main monkeypox article rather the current situation of two discussions, one on each article. I think we should do the same for both, either both stay the same or both change. Bondegezou (talk) 13:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Approve because the WHO has changed/is planning to change the name Thehistorianisaac (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Approve per the WHO change and the WHO doing this to reduce stigma. I have made 2022 mpox outbreak into a redirect for this page in case people link it on wikipedia DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 10:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose due to lack of rationale. The proposed change does not improve any of the characteristics in WP:CRITERIA except maybe Concision, and hurts Naturalness and Recognizability. It doesn't follow WP:COMMONNAME or WP:NAMECHANGES yet (it hasn't even been long enough for that to happen), nor WP:CONSISTENT. It doesn't meet any of the Reasons for moving a page. Destigmatization and harm reduction are nice goals, but they're the WHO's goals, not Wikipedia's titling goals — and it's not clear that changing the title to "mpox" would even achieve those goals anyway. The closest the titling policies get to destigmatization is WP:NPOVTITLE, and it's very hard to argue that the current title is non-neutral, unless and until "mpox" becomes so widespread, and "monkeypox" so taboo, that not adopting "mpox" would be viewed as a sign of bias — in which case the change would be supported by COMMONNAME and NAMECHANGES anyway. NoriMori (ノリモリ) 00:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

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.

Rename proposal

See the discussion at Talk:Mpox#Related articles and give your opinions there please. -- Colin°^Talk 10:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)