Talk:Smallpox

Inconsistency

"The history of smallpox" article says rinderpest has also been eradicated. WordPerson4 (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

It says at the top of this article "Smallpox is one of two infectious diseases to have been eradicated, the other being rinderpest (a disease of even-toed ungulates) in 2011." Graham Beards (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

"making smallpox the only human disease to have been eradicated" as stated in the article is therefore false and should be corrected ~2026-25962-69 (talk) 02:17, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Rinderpest is not a disease of humans. Graham Beards (talk) 05:30, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Again, main image: Maybe lower its local contrast?

I know there's a FAQ on the top of the page - but that sounds like a "fire first and ask questions later" way of dealing with the problem - I imagine most users don't come to Wikipedia by first going to settings and disabling the option before going ahead reading articles. But let's move to the point

The actual suggestion: maybe we can lower the image's local contrast e.g., in Photoshop? That'll probably lessen its impact on some audiences while keeping the encyclopedic nature of the image (unless the shock value itself forms part of said nature).

People with Trypophobia may find the lead image repelling because, to quote from its own article, of "an intense and disproportionate fear towards holes, repetitive patterns, protrusions, etc., and, in general, images that present high-contrast energy at low and mid-range spatial frequencies." 海盐沙冰 (talk) 06:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Lowering an images contrast often results in a washed out look to the image and may obscure some of the details of the image. For example, the specific appearance of the smallpox bumps may not be as visible with reduced contrast. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 20:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

That's true, but imo the bumps in the current image might've been too visible. The current image is highly efficient at demonstrating the suffering smallpox brings to the patients - and (I’d argue that,) the efficiency comes from the almost instantaneous time needed for one to notice the bumps in their full shape and form. While an image with less contrast is going to be less efficient, one may still be able to notice all the uncomfortable details with more time spent staring at it - as long as we don’t lower the contrast too much.

This level of efficiency is good-to-have, and I’m arguing only for a tradeoff - for a point where the image is not as efficient (less visually stunning) but still illustrates the horrors of the virus (if one wants to focus on it). It's like having an image display on a low-quality LCD instead of a state-of-the-art OLED screen. We want to have an encyclopedic image, and we also want people to read Wikipedia - I'm concerned that an image too graphical may drive some away.

To put it another way - the current lead image in Atopic dermatitis is informative but only demonstrates the milder symptoms (I had severe AD before). The image is still encyclopedic enough for the reader to have a grasp on the concept, without driving some of them away outright. And similar to AD, smallpox has differing (though less wide-ranging) severity too. Think Variola minor.

Thanks for the discussion, and sorry I wrote an absolute wall-of-text here, my apologies... 海盐沙冰 (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Smallpox death Estimates

The article currently claims that smallpox killed “up to 300 million people in the 20th century” and “around 500 million people in the last 100 years of its existence.” These two claims are internally inconsistent: If 500 million died between 1877–1977, and 300 million died between 1900–1977, Then 200 million deaths must have occurred between 1877–1899 — a span of just 23 years. This would imply an implausible average of nearly 9 million deaths per year before 1900, which is not supported by historical epidemiological data. Scholarly estimates generally attribute: ~300 million deaths in the 20th century, An additional 50–100 million in the 19th century, And a total of 300–500 million globally from the 1500s to eradication in 1977. The “500 million in the last 100 years” phrase likely originated as a generalised or rounded statement, not a literal 100-year span. Recommendation: Revise to clarify that the 300–500 million estimate refers to total global deaths from the 16th to the 20th century, and avoid using the misleading 100-year framing unless it is properly sourced and contextualised. 2A00:23C8:E931:8C01:1C43:17C4:47D2:6101 (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Article review

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed the following:

• There are uncited statements in the article, including the "Mechanism" section and entire paragraphs.
• At over 11,000 words, this article is WP:TMI and WP:TOOBIG. I suggest that information be spun out into the daughter articles already set up, and information summarised more effectively.
• There is an orange "expansion needed" banner at the top of "Variola major" section. Considering that this article is already quite large, is this banner still necessary?

Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, it has been 15 years since the GA promotion and GAR is indicated unless someone is prepared to take this on. I am going to remove the "expansion needed" tag because most of the article is about variola major, the nastiest form of the disease. WRT moving content, we have Smallpox virus, which can be linked to. Graham Beards (talk) 09:04, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Censored

I added the template, "Wikipedia is not censored." Okay? Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:07, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: First-Year Seminar - Shaping of the Modern World

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2025 and 22 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: EvelinE2789.

— Assignment last updated by DocBui (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Russian boy used as test case dubbed "Vaccinov"?

The part of concern is with Russian inoculation at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox#Eradication.

I noticed this in the article, and I went to look up more information, however there are zero results online for Vaccinov - even further, the specific page for Phipps, the boy given the vaccination lists it nowhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Phipps

It appears that the only source for this claim is an annotation made by a copy-editor and not the actual authorfor a near 6000 page scientific encyclopedia. Logically, it also didn't make sense for the name to be based on the English spelling either...the English characters for it would be vaktsina (вакцина), not vaccine.

Turns out, I misunderstood the text and also the spelling is incorrect - searching Vaktsinov actually comes up with dozens and dozens of sources but they refer to the first Russian boy inoculated based on the process proven with the inoculation of James Phillips - the inoculation of Anton Petrov, who became Anton Vaktsinov (noted in a better source that discusses the entire history of Smallpox).

I do not have permissions to edit the article though; my account might be over a decade old, but I've made edits less than once per year, so I'm unable to edit the page. I am hoping someone else gets the same itch I do and might be able to verify this and add the changes to correct the name, specify the boy being vaccinated, and change the source to one that is more detailed. Metalsand (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks on diving into this rabbit hole. Since I know nothing about the topic, my only change is replacing Vaccinov with Vaktsinov. Is there anything else you'd like to change? 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} iris 5:14p, edited 5:15p 09:14, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Properly identifying it as Vaktsinov and replacing the source if possible is sufficient - Anton Petrov/Vaktsinov doesn't have a wikipedia page even, so I don't think any extra info is actually needed. Thank you for making the change! Metalsand (talk) 10:47, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Smallpox

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

Nine months after I noticed the article, concerns remain so I think this is ready to be reviewed. The article has uncited statements, including entire paragraphs and sections. It is 11,800 words, and I think some sections can be spun out, summarised more effectively, or removed as too much detail (such as the "notable cases" section). The "Since eradication" section might need to be formatted more effectively to remove the short paragraphs for more recent events, and post-2019 should be added. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Z1720 I will get right on this once i’ve wrapped up the asthma page. If no edits have been made by May 10th please harass me (just ping me here) to remind me but this page has a lot of promise. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 14:29, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay here's my initial breakdown:

• Classification: I tried to reorganize this myself but it still needs some work. some info from classification may be better for the symptoms section. quite a bit of unsourced info.
• Cause: the subsection "Evolution" could be summarized better. Four orthopoxviruses cause infection in humans: variola, vaccinia, cowpox, and monkeypox. Variola virus infects only humans in nature, although primates and other animals have been infected in an experimental setting. Vaccinia, cowpox, and monkeypox viruses can infect both humans and other animals in nature. can probaly be trimmed

will continue later IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 06:03, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Continueing on, Variola virus should probaly be made its own article to help keep the smallpox article at a decent size

• Causes: not sure Concern about possible use of smallpox for biological warfare led in 2002 to Donald K. Milton's detailed review of existing research on its transmission and of then-current recommendations for controlling its spread. He agreed, citing Rao, Fenner and others, that "careful epidemiologic investigation rarely implicated fomites as a source of infection"; noted that "Current recommendations for control of secondary smallpox infections emphasize transmission 'by expelled droplets to close contacts (those within 6–7 feet)'"; but warned that the "emphasis on spread via large droplets may reduce the vigilance with which more difficult airborne precautions [i.e. against finer droplets capable of traveling longer distances and penetrating deeply into the lower respiratory tract] are maintained". needs to be there
• Mechanism: all unsourced
• diagnosis: needs further simplification and some adittional sources
• Prevention: could probably be trimmed or reordered to history section
• for both the history and society sections, I'll look into anything that could be made less wordy and for sources.

IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 06:52, 16 May 2026 (UTC)