Talk:Nicole Shanahan

Portrait?

Since she is a Vice Presidential candidate now, she needs a portrait in her Infobox. SmashingThreePlates (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree, and have added the photo request template to the top section of this page. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 02:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

:Photo has been provided. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 11:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Nicely done. Thanks! -- AstruU (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

:::Unfortunately, the image appears to be a WP:COPYVIO, and can't be used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nicole_Shanahan.jpg. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 03:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

It appears that a licensed photo has now been added. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

That one looks to be removed as well. David O. Johnson (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

any update on a picture? 2604:3D08:787E:3800:2865:42B0:6E6B:15C9 (talk) 06:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

VP running mate

Request to change: "Shanahan has said that she is "not an anti-vaxxer" but has expressed support for Kennedy's anti-vaccine advocacy and questions the scientific consensus on their safety and efficacy." "[1]https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/26/us/politics/nicole-shanahan-rfk-jr-vp-facts.html This does not properly reflect the article that was written about Nicole that was cited as the source above. Here go as follows. She actually has expressed "She also praised Mr. Kennedy’s work as an environmental lawyer, though he has become better known for his anti-vaccine activism and his embrace of political conspiracy theories."

Also, what she had said was not directly questioning the science, but she did say that there needs to be a space for conversation. “I do wonder about vaccine injuries,” Ms. Shanahan said last month, while saying she was “not an anti-vaxxer.” “I think there needs to be a space to have these conversations.”

I think there is too much focus from 2 sources about 'anti-vax' that have a lot of other information that would be related more to the campaign. It seems the wording has one focus only, citing 2 sources, and then improperly taking from these 2. I would rather eliminate this entirely from the paragraph, reword it, or take some other things from the article that seem more related to the campaign and passions. This is just one of the few things I think could use improving, but I am guessing the next few should be in a different topic? I am new to this. I hope I did this request correctly. 71.9.59.11 (talk) 04:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi IP, there's more than just two sources that have written about her views on vaccines so I suggest reading all the sources cited in the paragraph. Also keep in mind, Wikipedia summarizes what sources say so if the majority of sources wrote about her views in relation to her being Kennedy's VP pick, it will be reflected in the article which is the case here. S0091 (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi SOO91, the question I raise is just the very first part of the paragraph that I quoted above.

"Shanahan has said that she is "not an anti-vaxxer" but has expressed support for Kennedy's anti-vaccine advocacy and questions the scientific consensus on their safety and efficacy."

I was thinking, as I mentioned above, to take the paragraph little by little. Just addressing each sentence with sources at a time.

There were 2 sources directly after what I quoted. I read both sources 4 times. One source did not seem to reflect the quoted sentence at all, so I did not link that one. I linked the source that doesn't seem to be properly reflected in the sentence. I quoted a few things directly from the source that show the sentence does not properly summarize the article. I also mentioned there is a lot of information in the articles, which could be used.

I think it could use rewording, removal, or take other things from the article that is more related to the campaign. The subject is VP running mate. @S0091 Daphloop (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits

Can we start a discussion instead of starting a slow edit war?

@M.boli and A Doon: David O. Johnson (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't appreciate being called "a possibly sock-puppet account (who's appeared only 3 times before)". It's uncalled for and doesn't Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

If you checked the article history, I've edited the article more than that. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree, maybe that was unfair, but your history is pretty thin and there ARE Russian trolls out there, so sorry for jumping there. However: let's start with why the character of a VP candidate: e.g. history of drug use and cheating on one's husbands, when that's been fodder for previous presidential candidates, is NOT something relevant here? A Doon (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Not everything that appears in a news article (even a trustworthy one) is lede-worthy or even encyclopedia-worthy. I removed these details of her sexual and marriage life from the lede because they are not part of Shanahan's notability.

In the future these details might become notable aspects of her story, in which case they will be mentioned in the lede. For example Gary Hart's monkey business derailed his presidential campaign, so it is mentioned in the lede. If and when Shanahan's personal history becomes a notable aspect of the campaign, there will be reliable news reporting showing that it is notable. At which point it will be included here and in the RFK Jr. campaign article.

I point out Shanahan's running mate RFK Jr. has a complex and salacious personal history. It is described in the appropriate section in his biography article. It is not in the ledes of either his biography or the campaign articles. This aspect of RFK Jr.'s personal history isn't related to his general notability and hasn't become a factor in the campaign.

I did not remove this material from Shanahan's personal history section. I'm willing to let other editors, including @A Doon, decide that. -- M.boli (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)