Talk:Robert R. Redfield

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Military / Politics and Government / Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance). United States: Military history / Government Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government. Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. COVID-19 Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

His credentials MUST be sourced. It's not my job to Source them it's the job of the editor who added those credentials to the page. If somebody doesn't properly Source them by later tonight I will delete the entire section about his credentials. I cannot believe this has been allowed to stand on this page. Important person, absolutely critical topic and someone adds credentials that are not properly sourced. Kind of unbelievable to me. They should be deleted until somebody properly sources what's there. Bye later tonight if somebody hasn't done it I will.Jackhammer111 (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just wish we knew more things, about date of birth, place of birth, when he joined and left the Army exactly (I admit, the current years are approximate, but based on information already known), etc. Oh well. In due time, I suppose. — Javert2113 (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the following article, I believe this biography of Dr. Redfield is extremely misleading. He is a very controversial figure with some extremist right-wing views that would be of interest to even a casual reader: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2018/05/trumps-new-cdc-director-aids-is-gods-judgment-against-gays/?fbclid=IwAR1aTh1kyVEXSODsdNSFPTX6Y4QzEvx2JdRMa3jPYPuuz6WCvS2TTPDBooI. MaBelleSouth (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly it's our job as editors to make these things credible. Remember Wikipedia says be bold. Jackhammer111 (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This will likely be the defining story of his cdc role. A few references that help:

https://web.archive.org/web/20200327201944/https://www.propublica.org/article/internal-emails-show-how-chaos-at-the-cdc-slowed-the-early-response-to-coronavirus

A key moment was when he was forced to agree to free testing. https://web.archive.org/web/20200325025038/https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/watch-katie-porter-grill-cdc-director-coronavirus-966572/

Sidelined by wh: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/19/cdc-top-us-public-health-agency-is-sidelined-during-coronavirus-pandemic/l

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/26/trump-cdc-chief-harsh-scrutiny-117792 Fitzhugh (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes. Questions were raised immediately after his appointment [1]. They had to act immediately by ordering mass production of medical supplies and test kits after first cases in China. They did not. Now he is talking about "another wave that we would anticipate in the late fall, early winter" [2]. Yes, maybe. My very best wishes (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[my bad, nevermind, sry] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.73.107.27 (talk) 07:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[fact/fyi]: I just corrected the previous, positively biased articulation for a semanticaylly neutral one and added a renowned, fact checkable source (John Hopkins U). [opinion]: someone's going to be made scape goat by the government - it would take a lot more than a half baked attempt like that to avert that. wouldn't have wanted to have burned my own mouth like that... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.73.107.27 (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[fact] On April 17, 2020, Redfield detailed at the White House that the CDC was prepared to support the President's Guidelines To Open Up America Again: "[00:43:24] ... now, in week 15, we're really coming down to the baseline background ... . [00:43:36] ... CDC continues to enhance the state's public health capacity to accelerate their ability - and it's critical as we open America again ... [00:44:35] ... CDC has embedded ... across this country, more than 500 individuals. We also have an additional almost 100 individuals ... working on more than 20 coronavirus outbreaks ... [00:45:05] ... there's additional public health personnel to help accelerate the states' ability to ... move forward aggressively. And we assist them so they can operationalize the President's Guidelines To Open Up America Again." ^[1] 2023-02-09 01:23 EST Kmwittko (talk) 06:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to find out about dates and areas of research that Dr. Redfield had spearheaded since becoming the director at the CDC. The majority for the information listed under "CDC Leadership" reads like an opinion piece about the director.Sdjbph (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Scott Delaney[reply]

The CDC section appears biased in a "newspeak-y"- way. For instance, appointees don't resign, they withdraw. She had purchased tobacco shares in the past: Not a scandal, just dubious appointment reasoning. By using the actions improperly, it appears more dubious for purpose: ".... after the President's first appointee resigned in scandal." The rest of the section does not try to seem impartial because the sources are so weighted with no effort to balance them -- more like a hit piece. Wiki efforts are to be like an encyclopedia in mission, not tabloid-ism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virtualkelly (talk • contribs) 11:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. she "withdrew because of a potential conflict of interest (ownership of tobacco shares)" Kmwittko (talk) 06:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the publicly-expressed scientific consensus has evolved since March 2021, this section now seems to lack a NPOV, especially for a BLP:

In a March 26, 2021, interview with CNN, Redfield said he favored speculation that the virus that causes COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, was accidentally released by a worker at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in September or October of 2019 after being manipulated. Redfield did not offer any evidence to support this,[60] and available scientific research suggests a natural origin of the virus, strongly arguing against any scientific misconduct or negligence.[61][62][63]

It seems to me that the entire final sentence, or at least the last sub-clause, must be removed in light of this shift in the debate? I would also like to emphasize that I am not a partisan of one or another theory, and have no specific interests with respect to blaming - or exonerating - particular individuals for the appearance and spread of COVID-19, to gain-of-function research, or to any of the other matters that have made this topic a political football. Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The press has been giving the lab leak theory a lot of coverage lately, but there's no evidence at all that the consensus of epidemiologists has changed with regards to the virus' origin. So no. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that it is not the opinion of epidemiologists - as opposed to, say, microbiologists or virologists - that will be determinative here. It is notable that the list of signatories here [[3]] includes e.g. Ralph Baric, one of the world's leading authorities on gain-of-function research and an initial signatory to the Feb. 19, 2020 letter in the Lancet rejecting the lab-leak hypothesis. Given the text of that letter, is it fair to say that "available scientific research "strongly argues against scientific misconduct or negligence?" I quote from the letter below:

On 30 December 2019, the Program for Monitoring Emerging Diseases notified the world about a pneumonia of unknown cause in Wuhan, China (1). Since then, scientists have made remarkable progress in understanding the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), its transmission, pathogenesis, and mitigation by vaccines, therapeutics, and non-pharmaceutical interventions. Yet more investigation is still needed to determine the origin of the pandemic. Theories of accidental release from a lab and zoonotic spillover both remain viable. Knowing how COVID-19 emerged is critical for informing global strategies to mitigate the risk of future outbreaks.

Again, the point is not to argue for the lab-leak or against the lab-leak, but to try to reflect in a fair and accurate manner the scientific consensus as it now stands. I see that many other editors are watching these kinds of topics closely; I wonder how others might feel? Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, everywhere this question has been asked that I've seen, the consensus has been that there's no evidence that the scientific consensus has changed. And I've yet to see any such evidence. Your links above do not evince it, they merely evince that some scientists think that the lab leak is possible, which has never been disputed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source 58, "Why Trump’s new CDC director is an abysmal choice" contains several factual errors, including a serious misrepresentation of an introduction to a book Redfield wrote.

Redfield wrote: “It is time to reject the temptation of denial of the AIDS/HIV crisis; to reject false prophets who preach the quick-fix strategies of condoms and free needles; to reject those who preach prejudice; and to reject those who try to replace God as judge. The time has come for the Christian community — members and leaders alike — to confront the epidemic,”

This was falsely represented as "Redfield wrote the introduction to a 1990 book, “Christians in the Age of AIDS,” co-written by Smith, in which he denounced distribution of sterile needles to drug users and condoms to sexually active adults, and described anti-discrimination programs as the efforts of 'false prophets.'"

I've removed other dubious allegations against Redfield, pending a more reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.150.25 (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

English is written from left to right and from top to bottom - I moved your contribution where it belongs.

So you think CNN misrepresented something? It seems like a fair summary, nothing wrong with it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reasonable interpretation of what Redfield wrote that agrees with how it was described by CNN. 128.151.150.25 (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say, not on what you think they should say. And stop edit-warring your opinion into the article. Read the rules, rookie. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This CNN article is not a reliable source, perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension. It portrays the Redfield quotes as meaning *the exact opposite* of it's actual meaning. A "quick fix" is something that's inadequate, not necessarily something that shouldn't be done, and the original quote is plainly AGAINST prejudice, yet CNN claims the opposite. He did not say the quick fixes were false prophets. An article that is intentionally misleading on these points shouldn't be trusted for other outlandish claims, and there is no other source for the "God's judgement" claim. No other info I can find online supports this claim. I suspect it is another intentional misreading of the book introduction (the wiki article used to claim it was Redfield himself who wrote it).

Other changes are because they are clearly nonsense. Within the context of the ABCs Doctrine, how is it possible for condoms to be anything OTHER than a last resort? This framing makes no sense, but it's lobbing an accusation that Redfield was against condoms, which again I have yet to see a source for. There is also no evidence I can find that ASAP was ever against condoms either, although they had made politic compromises on condoms previously.

My edits make the page more accurate and objective and without providing additional sources, or explaining how the CNN interpretation of the introduction makes any sense, your edits amount to vandalism. You are reinserting opinionated language. 98.10.105.122 (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNN is a reliable sources, and Wikipedia is based on what secondary sources say about a subject rather than what that subject says about themselves. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The secondary sources DO NOT even support half of what is written. Nowhere does it say Redfield supported abstinence-only. And CNN is obviously not reliable: if Redfield writes "the sky is blue" and CNN reports that as "Redfield wrote the sky is red" then we can clearly disregard CNN as reporting unfaithfully, which is exactly what's happened. 128.151.150.25 (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to use this page to make accusations you should find another source that support these narratives, rather than relying on a blog post and an obviously biased and misleading CNN article. Unfounded accusations for the purpose of politics have no place on Wikipedia and the takeover of this site by political entities is incredibly dangerous. 128.151.150.25 (talk) 13:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That you think the CNN is biased is no basis for making changes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]