Talk:Smallpox

Mortality in Introduction

In the second paragraph of the introduction, the article states that V. major has a 30-35% mortality rate, and that V. minor has a 1% mortality rate. In the third paragraph, it says of all those infected, 20-60% are killed. These quotes are inconsistent (omitting unstated and very strange error bars in the data presented in paragraph 2) and ought to be fixed by a knowledgeable editor. DAID (talk) 10:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Catch-all phrasing in early disease

Regarding Edward VI of England and smallpox: Contemporaries attributed Edward's early death to "consumption" - but tuberculosis as a distinct disease was unknown at the time. During this period in Europe, consumption, or "Phthisis", was a name attributed to various diseases with symptoms such as emaciation (serious loss of weight), debility, cough, hectic fever, and purulent expectoration. Edward's personal journal, as well as several court accounts, note that he had recovered from an apparently mild case of smallpox only weeks before his death. He resumed his regular activities, including travel, but relapsed suddenly and died. Although he was only of modest size and weight, Edward's health had been considered good until his last illnesses, i.e. no long term evidence of a history of tuberculosis. Will look for a source I read not long ago. WBardwin (talk) 07:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is something from the web: There are varying schools of thought about the cause of Edward's death -- like many young Tudors before him, he wasted away prior to his death, and his final illness has been traditionally believed to be tuberculosis. However, he had also contracted either smallpox or measles in the year before he died, and his wasting could also be attributed to diabetes, which frequently becomes severe during the growth spurts of adolescence. It is known that he was treated with medicines that contained arsenic, and that he had many of the symptoms of arsenic poisoning while on his deathbed (his hair and nails had fallen out, he was covered with ulcers, and there was a peculiar smell, similar to garlic, on his breath). Many medicines used at the time contained arsenic, and it was sometimes added to wine as well, so whether Edward's death was hastened by deliberate poisoning or not is questionable. [1] But I read quite a comprehensive discussion of Tudor health in hardcopy. Somewhere............WBardwin (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

A map

This is an interesting map [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomy Box

When the subject is a horrible virus that has no ecological niche other than to cause pain, suffering, and death, is the taxo box a thing that is really useful to have? It's not like the life form (if a virus can be considered "life") contributed to biodiversity or the functioning of the ecosystem. It is thus unlike other species that humans have eradicated. The genocide committed against the smallpox virus was undeniably beneficial to humanity, with no effect on the biosphere - unlike the Dodo, the Scimitar Oryx, the Guam Rail, and the Mason River Myrtle. Is there a property of the taxobox (or could there become one) to show an intentional, humanitarian eradication of plagues? This would also fit in the box for polio, where it would read something like "Critically endangered - but not yet accomplished." ☯ Z.S. ☠ ......(talk) 02:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

IUCN Red List Extinct in the Wild

I am removing this category, because while smallpox may be eradicated, it is not on any of the IUCN red lists! Try searching for it here if you don't believe me. 71.188.115.167 (talk) 03:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Now the table says "extinct", which is false. It may have no official IUCN status, but it is "extinct in the wild", not "extinct". Samples of the virus still exist, and it may be (maliciously or by accident) reintroduced to the wild.--Azarien (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The Virus is not completely eradicated, there were cases of Smallpox in India, in a town called Uta Pesh sometime between 2002 and 2003, National Geographic published an article about it in its monthly magazines sometime around this time.

Also if you check this link, posted earlier this year, India is the last refuge for the virus. Smallpox Jitters India After 28 years —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.21.147.129 (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Child with Smallpox Bangladesh.jpg

I suspect this has been raised before, but is there any reason File:Child with Smallpox Bangladesh.jpg is not used in the article? J Milburn (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That picture was removed because it's absolutely nightmarish. Lots of people complained about it here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written for everyone, not only medical professionals. Evenfiel (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong with this image? The others do not properly display the dimple. If we do not have a proper image of small pox in the lead and this disease comes back and people do not recognize it we have done the world a disservice. Returned the image again. Smallpox is BTW a disturbing disease. Little over a hundred years ago it was the leading cause of death in North America. It is one of the successes of modern medicine via vaccination. Russian and the USA still hold stockpiles of the stuff to us as biological warfare.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

This picture is currently a featured picture. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

Toolbox
dashboard disambig links external links See WP:DEADREF for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:Smallpox/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Garrondo (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have taken a quick read of the article and it is great. I believe it is clearly above GAN, and there should be no important issues. Nevertheless I suppose the intention is to take the article to FAC so I will try to do a more in depth, useful, review as I have time (I myself have a GAN at a similar point). I also have to say that I am not a physician but a psychologist working in neurology research, so a I will not be able to check for accuracy, but I will for readership.

Some general comments:

• The article is very, very long, and therefore horrible to load. While I understand that sometimes seems a good idea to have all content in a centralized article in this case it is probably worth summarizing and creating a subarticle of the history section. At this point even the history section by itself could pass a GAN!!!
• To follow MEDMOS sections a "society" section could be created with two subsections: warfare and famous patients. (I would eliminate the and culture from the name per having warfare as subsection.
• When finishing writing a disease article I find it useful to try to eliminate the name of the disease as many times as possible in the article: overuse is most of the times the case. I will probably be also a good idea to do it here: a first clear example from classification: There are two clinical forms of smallpox. Variola major is the severe and most common form of smallpox, with a more extensive rash and higher fever. Variola minor is a less common presentation of smallpox, and a much less severe disease, with historical death rates of 1% or less can be converted into There are two clinical forms of smallpox. Variola major is the severe and most common form, with a more extensive rash and higher fever. Variola minor is a less common presentation of, and a much less severe disease, with historical death rates of 1% or less

Lead: summarizes adequately the article and it is interesting. As minor comments:

• It should be the most accesible part of the article: it would be a good idea to explain the meaning of Maculopapular
• Specific date of death of the Ramses is probably not needed in lead: everybody knows that they are ancient...
• 2 times year in the same sentence is not very nice. In er year during the closing years
• In the last 2 paragraphs it is quite clear that it was a terrible disease. Maybe some of the numbers could be eliminated for the sake of simplicity... with half of them is probably enough to make the point. Similarly it is quite clear that numbers are stimations, so there is no need to say it each time.
• Month of erradications unneded in lead (been bold and eliminated myself).

Classification Does a nice job classifying the disease subtypes according to symptoms.

Signs and symptoms

• Orofaringeal and respiratory are not the same?
• the virus seems to move from cell to cell: do not know much about virology, but this hardly seems an accurate description.
• An explanation of toxemia?
• bleeding into the skin: Sounds strange although it may be me since my mother-tongue is not English.
• This form develops in perhaps 2%: perhaps sounds strange. In addition all paragraph is unreferenced.
• In the early, or fulminating form, hemorrhaging appears on the second or third day as sub-conjunctival bleeding turns the whites of the eyes deep red. : Not sure I understand this sentence: too technical, akward wording, not clear meaning...

More to come...--Garrondo (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment Hi, hope you don't mind me dropping in uninvited. I've had this article on my watchlist and my "to-do" list to bring to GA/FAC, so I'm glad someone else has picked up the ball! I've dropped a number of cite needed tags to various places that need them. There's more citations needed in the "Famous sufferers" section, but the whole section needs to be written into paragraphs rather than isolated sentences. Let me know if you need help with finding sources Nergaal, I have access to a lot of literature on the subject. Good luck! Sasata (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with comment above.--Garrondo (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment I rewrote and expanded this article way back in December 2007, with the intention of taking it to FAC. I've kept an eye on it over the years, but unfortunately real life got in the way and I never found the time to get it up to FA-caliber snuff. I am happy to see that it has now been nominated as a GA. A few notes:

• I spun out a LOT of the original history section to its own article already, but the History of smallpox article is a mess, perhaps if the history article were cleaned up some of the information in the main article could find a home there.
• Most of the disease information (i.e. signs, complications, treatment, diagnosis) came from the CDC pink book (ref 18 in current version) or the AFIP (ref 4). If you are looking for citations for specific numbers they probably came from one of those sources.
• The "sufferers" sections will likely require a lot of work. One suggestion might be to turn it into List of smallpox sufferers or something. For a similar approach see List of poliomyelitis survivors.

Please let me know if I can be of any assistance.--DO11.10 (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Woow. Lots of things to fix. I thought this would make a good GA when I read it. Shooting for FA would be a nice idea but I am not sure I have the time in the near future to deal with something like that. I will try to fix the issues listed here over the weekend. Nergaal (talk) 05:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Since the nominator will have time difficulties ammending the proposed changes and does not have the intention of taking the article to FAC in the near future I'll leave my comments as proposals for future improvement and a do a review only of GAC. If in the future this comments are fixed and anybody thinks it could be useful I will probably be willing to continue with the started review.--Garrondo (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• 1. Well-written: Yes: I (a non expert) followed it easily, and learnt a lot of a disease I did not know. As pointed above some technical terms should be explained in the future
• 2. Factually accurate and verifiable: Yes: sources are of medium to high quality and most content is sourced.
• 3. Broad in its coverage: Yes, although it may be too broad, as pointed above with the history section. I found the article to be quite demanding due to its very broad coverage
• 4. Neutral: Yes
• 5. Stable: Yes, although there seems to be some debate over image use.
• 6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: Yes.

Please please take down that picture, it gives me nightmares, and I'm 42. I wonder how many people this pictures has scarred for life. God! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.20.134 (talk) 03:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia is not censored. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

does anyone know if shes ok? (p.s.: i would move the pic down.)Jake1993811 (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Sick child picture

Is it necessary to have such a disturbing picture at the top of the article, or anywhere in the article for that matter? What do pictures of children add to the article that pictures of adults would not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flailing12 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Some Wikipedia people obviously have horrible taste. What if a child saw that awful picture? Wilsonbond (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Are we supposed to find a nice picture for this horrible disease? Small pox was once the leading cause of death in the United States. Millions suffered and died. This is one of the great successes of medicine / immunization. It is one of the only disease that has ever been illuminated. Thus this picture stays. It reminds those who protest that we should no longer immunize children why we started in the first place. Hopefully people do see it so they understand.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Replying to "What if a child saw that awful picture?" I showed my 2.5, 5, and 6 year children that picture this afternoon, explained to them what the disease was, how it killed so many people, what a virus is, etc. They are now more knowledgeable, and were not in the least "disturbed" by having seen it; rather, they were interested and inquisitive, and asked questions, which led to further wiki-exploring. What's the issue? Why should the rest of the world be forced to submit to your standards of "offensive"? Sasata (talk) 04:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You don't get it. Just like an article on human reproduction does not need a pornographic picture, an article on a disease does not need a horror picture. It's not censorship, it's common courtesy. It's the same idea as not to tell colorful jokes at work place. Wilsonbond (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, the picture makes my heart hurt for the kid, but the image does it's job of showing the nastiness and horror of the disease.--intelati^talk 04:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Smallpox was a horrible disease; trying to show it as something else isn't truthful. If people get offended by the truth, that's their problem. Allens (talk) 11:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You don't educate people by offending them, that picture (not that poor girl) offends people. Wilsonbond (talk) 04:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It is a great picture and the best one I have seen that illustrates the disease. Do you have a better one? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

What you are pursuing is sensationalism, so don't pretend it's all for the truth. I'm sure there are plenty of less graphic picture of that disease. Just to show you what bad taste means:　Brandon Lee's death footage was destroyed without being developed, because watching it would be in bad taste. Thank god people like you did not get your dirty hands on that! Wilsonbond (talk) 05:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This is simply what smallpoxs looks like. We are not going to censor it. Please WP:AGF. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that it is a good picture: smallpox was a horrible disease, which thankfully has been erradicated. We describe symptoms both with words and images, and for the latter I believe this is a great image. I am no physician, I did not knew how smallpox looked like and the image was produced a high impact on me, but also gave me more info in a single second that all the symptoms subsection.--Garrondo (talk) 07:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

On a side note: please do not make personal attacks or assume bad faith.(See: WP:civility)--Garrondo (talk) 11:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This picture may be an efficient representation of the disease, however, it's pretty much on par with gore. For example, one could have a picture of a car accident with a severed head in the wikipedia page for decapitation. This would be the most likely modern cause of decapitation and it would accurately portray the article. You could also argue decapitation is a horribly socking thing, that needs an equally horribly shocking picture. Yes yes, I call strawman on myself, but to the point; Gore images affect the readability of the article for some users. It's not at all uncommon for children to have to research smallpox, so at the least there should be a way of hiding the image, like a link that says [hide image] above it. Rather than being artsy and trying to maximize representation I suggest we maximize the amount of information portrayed when deciding which picture to use. Technically a mound of rotting dead babies with smallpox is a better representation of the disease, but it's obviously in bad taste. As neutral writers we do not need to add more dramatic emphasis or find the most poetic representations, the content will speak for itself. Showing smallpox lesions are enough, having it be a child at an advanced stage only furthers the gore level while not contributing information. Furthermore, if a picture is used, it should be attached to the symptoms section. The physical manifestations are not the only definition of the disease. JimmyRuska (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC).

Feel free to propose or provide a superior image. There is a discussion about creating image settings for children and the faint of heart / easily offended. Not sure where they are currently in this process but this will make all potentially offense images easier to self censor. Wikimedia is in the process of hiring further staff so hopefully this will be possible soon. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Articles like rinderpest, HIV use a different approach, articles like chickenpox and measles use the physical manifestations, but in a more tasteful way. I do not know what is standard practice and I have no suggestions other than the assertion the current picture is probably inappropriate. I only passed by because there seemed to be debate and I felt strongly to chime in; as far as image rights and implementation, I am clueless. It's important to differentiate the level of gore though. Think back to what popular culture often uses for horror, you find: zombies, mutants, demons, dolls, aliens, and basically anything that looks like a diseased or horribly mutated, diseased or injured humanoid-looking creature, especially with detail in the face. The brain is used to automatically gauging attractiveness as a natural method of finding a healthy mate. The more carnage, the more deathly or sickly the picture is, the higher the emotional response will be, more so than any non human-looking entity could ever elicit in terms of reactive horror. On a scale of things that will most likely make people uncomfortable, I think a little girl, probably near death and covered with scarred sticky pustules ranks up there with a picture of a needle going into someone's eye, somewhere at the top of the scale of max-discomfort-inducing-efficiency. It's pretty strong, and not just another typical medical picture. JimmyRuska (talk) 09:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The image can impose an emotional harm on the reader who may be passing by doing research on the subject. I agree with the person above, that the image of the little girl covered in diseases is very graphic. Some may argue it is needed to show whafft smallpox look like, and there is a lack of alternative. In that case, at the very least, there should be a warning on the image. Personally, I have had two nights of nightmare because I stumbled upon this article. Respectfully Yours. 68.6.110.128 (talk) 05:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I am trypophobic and clusters of holes bother me physically (throat tightening, hands itching, skin crawling) as do clusters of bumps like the image (or what I could make of it; I closed it very quickly). Many people who have trypophobia may even start to hyperventilate if they see images that bother them. The image is a safety hazard for trypophobic people and others who are bothered by clusters of bumps/holes. I think the image should be removed for this reason. 72.219.176.11 (talk) 10:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

50-70% of physicians use Wikipedia weekly. No physician in practice less than 30 years has seen an active case of smallpox. If we do not see images as they are suppressed due to concerns of causing harm to trypophic people and a delay in a smallpox diagnosis occurs millions of excess people could die as a result. The risk that smallpox recurs is not that small. Both the USA and the former USSR have large about of smallpox in weapon form. Also we are an encyclopedia. This our goal is to provide the sum of all human knowledge. This is part of that knowledge.

So to conclude I am more worried about preventing real world nightmares. This can be done by not only educating people about how horrible small pox is but working with the USSR and the USA to decrease there stockpiles of this infectious disease and may be even eliminate it entirely. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This image does bother me, but I think it's not the rash, rather her black eyes. Could we change it to this image instead?

I would certainly vote to use a different picture. Seeing it makes me want to exit the page - not read on and learn more.Tklink (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I like the current image. It illustrated the condition well. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Another vote for replacing this image with one less graphic. It may be that medical professionals need to consult an accurate representation of the disease; if this is the case I should hope that they consult an appropriate medical text, so that Wikipedia can remain usable for the rest of us. IronSheep (talk) 01:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I've moved that image further down in the article. Evenfiel (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

No consensus for the move thus returned. Soon people will have a way to keep from seeing disturbing images on Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

No consensus? As far as I'm concerned, there is no consensus for this photo to be in the lead. You're being egoistic for not taking into account several users complaints. Moving the photo further down is not hurting the article in any way, since the other lead picture is perfectly fine and your beloved photo will still be available to everyone. I'm proposing a solution to this conflict, while you're not proposing anything. Evenfiel (talk) 08:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. The best image goes in the lead. The image in question is a "featured image" and is in color. You could try a request for comment. My proposal is that soon people who do not wish to see certain images can self censor themselves without forcing censorship on others.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The picture belongs in the lead. Smallpox was an horrendous disease and it is our duty to describe it as such. This image speaks volumes and alone goes a long way to explaining the enormous worldwide effort that went into eradication. I can't see how this image makes Wikipedia unusable. Does this mean that we should hide the truth? Seeing this image is an extremely important part of "learning about smallpox". I am probably right in thinking that no commentators here have seen a case of smallpox. I have. You have to see the symptoms of this disease to fully understand it. If casual readers are put off by the image, they are probably not that interested in learning about the disease. Wikipedia is not censored. If it were, I would not contribute to it. If our humble article has any tiny influence on making sure that suffering like this never happens again we should be very proud. Graham Colm (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree completely with Graham. If this image is in peoples minds and if small pox ever gets out of the labs in which it exists having people remember this image has the potential to save millions of lives. If this pushes people to help the former USSR and USA protect / eliminate its stockpiles of the disease we at Wikipedia have done something great.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain to me how to move that picture further down in the article can be classified as "censoring" or "hiding" it? What I am trying to do is to give people time to decide whether they really want to keep on seeing pictures about smallpox or not, while saving the worst of the lot for the last. If they decide they do and continue reading the articles, or just seeing the pictures, at least they knew what was coming at them. What you are trying to do is to use shock & horror tactics in order to make people realize what a horrible disease it was. I see that both of you are doctors, so I guess you're quite used to seeing all kinds of deformities or bizarre aspects of human body. Unlike you, the vast majority of people have nothing to do with medicine and are uncomfortable with such pictures. As for Doc James's proposal that people will be able to self censor, this is a moot point, since the vast majority of Wikipedia users don't even have an account.

Anyway, if you wanna keep up with your shock & horror tactics, you still have a lot of work to do here in Wikipedia. You can start by going through the whole list of Sexually transmitted disease and change the lead photos for the most horrible pictures you can find. Pretty much all of these articles have a rather tame picture in their lead. Evenfiel (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The point is not shock and awe but to accurately represent disease. It appears that we shall have to agree to disagree on this one.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the point is shock and awe. The other pictures shows the child with several pustules in his body, but in a less graphic way. You also chose to ignore my main point. I'm not removing the picture from the article, but just moving it further down. There is no consensus to maintain this picture. At least half of the users who posted here would like to see it replaced. I'm proposing a possible solution for this conflict. We don't need to remove it from the article, only from the lead. Evenfiel (talk) 10:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Graham, which of the several images of smallpox is most typical of the disease? IMO, there is a tendency in medical publications to have illustrations that are towards the worst end of the scale for the same reason that books for identifying minerals or flowers or birds only show perfect specimens, rarely seen in the field, because they boldly illustrate the features. Although that approach has its merits, there is a danger that readers (physicians or lay) get the impression that it is commonly that bad. If that poor girl is typical of what occurred (in the third world, say) then I'm happy for it to the be the lead in this article. If the alternative offered by Evenfiel is actually more typical (even though it might not look much different to a bad case of chickenpox) then we should use that and move the worse-case image to later in the article.

The current image does highlight how much more potentially scarring and deadly smallpox is compared to chickenpox. So it is useful for the lead for that reason. But it is shocking and if untypical then I don't support it in the lead. The "Wikipedia is not censored" card is easy to play but we wouldn't, I hope, argue that this image would be a good choice to illustrate disease, infectious disease, infection, etc. Whereas we might be quite happy with a picture of someone sneezing to illustrate those. -- Colin°^Talk 12:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The fact that it is in color I consider important.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The image is typical of variola major. I have seen more severe cases – unpublished images from the collection of the late Thomas Henry Flewett. The haemorrhagic form was even more extreme but less common. I don't know the full provenance of the monochrome picture of the girl, but to me it looks like a convalescing case. Smallpox only resembled chickenpox in the early stages of smallpox infection. This is what smallpox infection looked like. Let's hope we never see it again. Of course we could not justify its use to generically illustrate the more common and benign infectious diseases, but it belongs in this article and in the Lead. I concede that a colour picture of an adult showing these typical signs would be preferable, but I don't know of a free one we could use.Graham Colm (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I dont find the image particularly disturbing and think it does authentically portray the effects of the disease on people. However - for a encyclopedic purposes an image showing the symptoms of the disease in a specific infected person is not the appropriate image to use in the infobox - rather a picture of the microscopic virus itself is whats called for here; it is much more general to the subject of the article. A quick scan at other wikipedia articles about infectious diseases (HIV, flu, cold etc) reveals this is the common precedent. So,I would propose we lower this picture where it is more relevant (in the discussion of symptoms) and replace it with the microscopic image of the virus. Solid State Survivor (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

We frequently use images of disease to illustrate said disease. Jaundice... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The effect of small pox is of more interest than the structure of the virus. Keep the sick child picture. Jim1138 (talk) 01:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response Doc. An image of the symptoms of a disease is not synonymous with a picture of the disease itself. With a disease like smallpox (one where there is a definite viral agent) a picture of the virus itself is most synonymous with the disease (for instance we would say a person infected with the virus who emited no symptoms carries the disease). The Jaundice article you reference uses its picture appropriately since Jaundice is itself a sort of symptom brought about from other health issues such as heptitis or liver failure.Solid State Survivor (talk) 01:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Smallpox infection does not give rise to asymptomatic carriers. This is one of reasons why it could be eradicated. The image illustrates smallpox infection. Graham Colm (talk) 05:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

This article is about smallpox the disease, not variola virus. Our infectious disease articles are a bit inconsistent wrt whether the virus has its own article or not. Please nobody suggest rotavirus should have a picture of the symptoms in the lead :-) Colin°^Talk 08:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The picture is scary as hell. It's not simply disturbing; it's actually haunting as it lingers in your head, and I'm a person who does not get scared easily. Wikipedia should not have "scary as hell" shock images, at least not in the lead. The reason behind this is because the image literally pops up when the page loads and can catch people by surprise. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for research and education. Likewise, the image is very "artsy" in its composition (specifically the darkness of the eyes). The image seems to have been made to be deliberately disturbing and not simply a representation of the affects of the disease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anikom15 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I was rather taken aback by the striking photo. Like most people under the age of 40, I have never seen a real case of smallpox. Thank goodness I never will. In my opinion, the photo appropriately illustrates the nature of the disease. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

We all hope we never see this disease but a number of countries still have large receives of it in culture vats ready to release upon the world at short notice either by accident or on purpose. Our best chance will be to identify it as soon as possible. Thus everyone needs to know what it looks like.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Link to image filter referendum

The Wikimedia Foundation has been working on a personal image filtering system for a while. There is information at meta:Image_filter_referendum/en. The basic idea is that any individual person would be able to say "I personally do not choose to see pictures that are gross/religiously offensive/pornographic/whatever, so please don't show them on my personal computer screen". You would get to pick and choose the types of images, rather than a one-size-fits-none approach). It is meant to be easy to override, so that if you don't normally want to see images of this type, but you change your mind for one page, then you would just have to click on it to override the setting (so what this doesn't do is provide a reliable system that would let parents prevent children from seeing pictures that the kids want to see, but the parents don't want them to look at).

The referendum has not started yet, but you can leave your comments at the talk page on Meta. Since "nauseating medical images" hasn't been discussed as much as other categories, they might like to hear from some of you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Image

The Variola has two horms, the minor form of varioala does not have such rash distribution hopefully. The image is of a severe form of Variola major I believe. --Aleksd (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure but that is no justification to remove the image. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Jdselbin, 28 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} I can provide the citation needed for the following:

If successful, a red and itchy bump develops at the vaccine site in three or four days. In the first week, the bump becomes a large blister (called a “Jennerian vesicle”) which fills with pus, and begins to drain. During the second week, the blister begins to dry up and a scab forms. The scab falls off in the third week, leaving a small scar.[citation needed]

It can be found at:

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/vaccination/faq.asp

If the vaccination is successful, a red and itchy bump develops at the vaccination site in three or four days. In the first week after vaccination, the bump becomes a large blister, fills with pus, and begins to drain. During week two, the blister begins to dry up and a scab forms. The scab falls off in the third week, leaving a small scar.

Jdselbin (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

The above edit request suggests there may be problems in this article with close paraphrasing. The changes that would convert text in this source to text from the current article are superficial:

If the vaccination is successful, a red and itchy bump develops at the vaccination vaccine site in three or four days. In the first week after vaccination, the bump becomes a large blister (comma removed) (called a “Jennerian vesicle”) which fills with pus, and begins to drain. During week two the second week, the blister begins to dry up and a scab forms. The scab falls off in the third week, leaving a small scar.

I haven't checked whether the source has a Wikipedia-compatible license, but at the very least the source should have been cited. I've little time to follow this up now... Just a heads-up for contributors and future FA reviewers. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe CDC content is in the public domain.--Garrondo (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Past tense

Opening sentence, shouldn't it be Smallpox was?

Also, an indefinite semiprotection seems unwarranted for the level of vandalism that it was attracting and given good IP contributions at the time. Can we give it another shot please? 220.210.184.229 (talk) 12:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Ditto as per above. Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Recreation of the virus, from scratch, using its genome

I wonder if someone with expertise in the field could comment on the possibility that the virus could be recreated, even if it was globally extinct (all stockpiles destroyed), using knowledge of the genome.

A Wikipedia search shows that the viruses genome consists of only 186000 base pairs. I presume it's been sequenced on more then one occasion, and that sequence is in the public domain.

Doesn't this mean that, knowing the genome, anyone with the right equipment could re-create smallpox from scratch? I know the technology exists to generate custom DNA sequences and the 186000 base pairs would easily fit on an old floppy-disk. If you insert the custom DNA into an appropriate host cell, it would start spitting out smallpox. Right?

Am I missing something that makes the above scenario implausible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JefeMixtli (talk • contribs) 01:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Smallpox no longer in PinkBook

It would seem that Smallpox or Variola are no longer in the latest edition (12) of the Pink Book Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases. [CDC Pink Book] The references to PinkBook are no longer valid. Any suggestion as to references? Jim1138 (talk) 05:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Arrg, darn CDC, I do not know why they insist on perpetuating linkrot. Added an archived link of the previous version, as it would seem that they are not planning on updating the information anyway.--DO11.10 (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

These dates must be wrong

From the article.... "Human history The earliest credible clinical evidence of smallpox is found in the Egyptian mummies of persons who died some 3000 years ago. Historical records from Asia describe evidence of smallpox-like disease in medical writings from ancient India (as early as 1500 BC) and China (1122 BC).[43] Small pox inoculation was first used by Hindu physicians since 1500 BCE.[44] As with other medical customs, the inoculation was associated with a Hindu.... "

First.... should be consistent.... has BC, and BCE... which are the same but mean different things to different people.... Second.... 3,000 years ago was 900 BCE, so the first sentence sets a date of discovery in Egypt after the reputed development of the Indian vaccine in 1500BC or BCE, which is 3600 years ago.... someone who knows what the dates should be should fix this confusion....I suspect that the 3000 years ago really means 3000 BCE (my preferred notation). Avram Primack (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed the BC/BCE issue for now, but I am sure many editors with drive by to change to these back and forth (thus the rampant inconsistency). As for the other issue, while there are other earlier written descriptions of a smallpox-like disease (India 3600 years ago and China ~3200 years ago), we can only speculate that these are actually smallpox cases. The mummy smallpox case (from ~3100 years ago, he died in 1145 BCE) is the first case that is clinically evident (i.e. we can still see the disease on the mummy and identify it as definitely smallpox today). I hope that helps clarify things. If you have suggestions as to wording that will more clearly describe this in the article, then by all means add it in --DO11.10 (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

This paragraph is confusing or contradictory

"The earliest procedure used to prevent smallpox was inoculation (also known as variolation). Inoculation was possibly practiced in India as early as 1000 BC,[31] and involved either nasal insufflation of powdered smallpox scabs, or scratching material from a smallpox lesion into the skin. However, this idea has been challenged as few of the ancient Sanskrit medical texts of India described the process of inoculation.[32] "

Does this mean that the fact of inoculation for smallpox may be in error, or the methods used to inoculate may be in error, or the description of the methods may be in error. This paragraph is a good poster child for the need to reread and rewrite submissions before they are submitted...

Avram Primack (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hilda Whitcomb

It appears Hilda Whitcomb was the last person to be infected with smallpox. She was Janet Parker's mother, and contracted the disease after Janet, but Hilda survived. Janet's father died of a heart attack while watching Janet die, and never developed any signs of infection before he died. I don't know of any other publicly documented cases of smallpox after Janet Parker.

I'm not sure accidents with the military stocks in the USA or Russia would necessarily be made public, especially if they were the result of illegal bio-weapons research, like what happened in the Sverdlovsk anthrax leak. So, there may be others who have contracted it, but for now, the last known documented victim was Hilda Whitcomb, who survived.

Badon (talk) 09:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)