Talk:Nicole Shanahan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Paywall blocking reference

The sentence, "That year, she gave $70 million to Blue Meridian Partners, which makes grants to nonprofits to help poverty," is awkward. I tried looking at its reference, 6, for a better way to phrase that, but that reference is behind a paywall. Dgndenver (talk) 03:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I am considering starting a discussion on Wikipedia general on Paywall news Lukt64 (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Description of RFK Jr.

Robert Kennedy Jr is not a professional “conspiracy theorist.” So why list him as Lawer (his actual profession) and conspiracy theorist? Yet another Wiki smear job. I request this be corrected immediately. 2600:8807:C951:AC00:18EC:1670:B97A:8351 (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• We follow what the sources say, and they describe RFK Jr. as prominent in large part because of his purveying of conspiracy theories [1], [2]. Neutrality^talk 16:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  Very odd having so much focus and intent on including both attorney and "conspiracy theorist." There is definitely a political agenda here from @Neutrality and @David O. Johnson. These are not unbiased edits. The citation included here doesn't even cite that. Saltypockets00 (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not very impressed with invective from an new editor whose only edits are to this page, and who jumps to personal attacks. We keep the focus here on content or sources, nor contributors. So please knock it off. Neutrality^talk 00:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• I agree. Imagine RFK Jr. was a 19th century presidential candidate and this was an article about an affiliated person. Would we introduce that candidate in the lead of the affiliate’s article as a “conspiracist presidential candidate” rather than simply the most basic of descriptions (“presidential candidate” or “lawyer and politician”)? I doubt it, which is why I think this is a case of political bias. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  It's not even his page or his Presidential campaign's page either. It's a potential VP candidate for his campaign, and it was added in the THIRD sentence of her page. Saltypockets00 (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  so should we change it? I would like to get consensus Gaismagorm (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  I think so! Pinging @Neutrality and @David O. Johnson again so we can hopefully get some dialogue going instead of edit warring. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 16:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  sounds like a good idea, i for one feel that, unless rfk is very important to nicole shanahan's life/career, him being a conspiracy theorist should not be mentioned (and it certainly shouldn't be in the lead, i just reverted the change because it seems to be something we should reach a consensus on) Gaismagorm (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  A good chunk of RFK's support comes from anti-vaxxers, so it's relevant: [3]. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  possibly, but this is not an article about him. if it is to be included, it probably shouldn't be in the lead paragraph. Gaismagorm (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  We're labeling Presidential candidates and their possible running mates in two words based on speculation of a "good chunk" of support? President Trump has been part of many conspiracy theories, and they're mentioned on his Wiki page, though his first few paragraphs do not mention that. And this AP citation here discusses anti-vax, specifically, not conspiracy theories about ant-vax. Saltypockets00 (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• We follow what the sources say. It's relevant to describe the political orientation of an independent candidate, which is why the sources do it. It's much more informative than just describing the candidate as "independent," since candidates of different strips can run under that label. I have no clue how "imagining that RFK Jr. was a 19th century candidate" is helpful here. If there was a 19th-century ticket that espoused conspiracy theories, and the sources reflected that, then absolutely we would reflect that content of the appropriate article (biography, article about party/campaign/election, etc.). Incidentally, there were such parties in the 19th-century: the Anti-Masonic Party, most prominently, but many others, as Hofstadter wrote). Perhaps, in any case, new sources in the coming days will push the issue beyond all doubt. (If Shanahan accepts a spot on his ticket, I think the matter of biographical importance of this goes from 'fairly easy call' to 'slam dunk'). Neutrality^talk 00:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  this seems fairly reasonable, although I do still feel like that probably doesn't belong in the lead, maybe in the "Role in Robert F. Kennedy Jr. presidential campaign" section we could mention this, as I do feel that it could definitely belong there. Gaismagorm (talk) 10:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  I do however agree that if she accepts a spot on his ticket (which im assuming in this case means her becoming his running mate) that stating conspiracy theorist in the lead is probably a good idea Gaismagorm (talk) 10:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  To use your example, I don’t see such value-based descriptions as “conspiracy theorist” or “espousing false claims” in the leads of the articles for any of the three leaders listed in the infobox of the Anti-Masonic Party, let alone describing them as such in the leads of articles about people they are merely affiliated with. Rather, they all receive straightforward encyclopedic descriptions of their lives, careers, and views without any such value judgments being necessary. With contemporary US politics being perhaps the most contentious topic on the internet, RFK Jr. and his affiliates similarly should be written about on Wikipedia in the same encyclopedic tone stripped of value judgments. To me, this article is a particularly obvious case because it’s not even the article about the person in question, so including a value judgment, even one made by mainstream sources, as a way of introducing him at first passing mention, seems inappropriate in weight and tone. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 16:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  agreed, such content about his controverssies should only be in the article about RFK himself Gaismagorm (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2024

Change Shanahan attended Saint Mary's College of California to Shanahan attended Saint Mary's College High School in Berkeley on an athletic scholarship. Forwardmotions (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Forwardmotions do you have a source for this? CanonNi (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes. It's contained in this campaign bio: https://www.kennedy24.com/about-shanahan Forwardmotions (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done I'm going to accept this request, not solely based on the campaign bio (although I'm going to add it as a source per WP:BLPSELFPUB), but also from studying the currently cited The Independent article. The article says that she attended "St Mary’s College of California – at the same time that Black Panther director Ryan Coogler was also enrolled". However, Ryan Coogler did not actually attend Saint Mary's College of California, but instead attended Saint Mary's College High School, as supported by the sources in Coogler's article (e.g. this BuzzFeed article). Combining these two pieces of information, I believe that Shanahan went to the high school and not the private college. Liu1126 (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

any idea on the age of this person..

Nicole Shanahan is how old .. just wondering — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.69.24.72 (talk) 09:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

"16 September 1985" "Nicole Ann Shanahan" (38) 47.185.255.69 (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

A picture would be nice. -- AstroU (talk) 10:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

+1 I've reached out the the author of an article with a good photo of her asking if they'd be willing to release it under creative commons. Anthaearth (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

In the New York Times article "Meet the Woman Who Helped Pay for That R.F.K. Super Bowl Ad" (citation #1), Shanahan is described as 38 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.0.55.154 (talk) 19:58, 19 March 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." "[4]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)