Talk:Jonas Salk

Continuing condescension
Do you people really think we have a hard time pronouncing SALK? A single syllable surname, 4 letters long, phonetic yet you think we ARE stupid and need a sound spelling. All it is is silk with an a instead of an I. I am disgusted by just how obscenely condescending Wikipedia is.--68.192.236.111 (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think people can be blamed for thinking that it it is pronounced to rhyme with "walk" or "chalk". After all that is how two of the most popular speech synthesisers that come with my screen reader say it. Graham 87 06:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm mildly surprised that a person can get all worked up and use such emotive words ("disgusted ... obscenely condescending") over such a trivial point. Get a grip! METRANGOLO1 (talk) 07:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

World War II
Salk worked on influenza research for the military during World War II for a time. The Wiki article does not have any information on his life from 1941 to 1947. If anyone can add in some information, please do. I will try and track down the books I read about his time during World War II. Dwnoone1 (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I went and checked through the article history to find out if information about his World War II career had been removed in vandalism that happened before I started watching this article. It turns out that the article used to have this info, but it was actually removed on my watch in this edit by Chiswick Chap. CC, I'm more than a little surprised that you made that removal; since you've written lots of good content around here, I seem to remember that I barely checked out the diff ... also see your earlier archived message. For what it's worth I agree with most of the removals in that diff, but I've put back a brief outline of the info about the influenza vaccine work. Graham 87 08:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I noted that it was removing overlapping accounts of his early years, perhaps it went a bit too far. The previous edit removed non-neutral material; it seemed to me then that the tone was close to hagiographic, and the degree of detail inappropriate, more like an account of the early life of an Indian saint ("Rising from a humble background, he quickly proved his aptitude for the spiritual life ...") than it ought to be. Of course these things are judgement calls, but there's absolutely no need for the tone of "you've written lots of good content". Anyway, I shan't intervene further. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)