This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Robert R. Redfield article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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)
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)
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)
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)
This will likely be the defining story of his cdc role. A few references that help:
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)
[my bad, nevermind, sry] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.73.107.27 (talk) 07:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
[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)
[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)
References
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
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)
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)
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.