Talk:Dan Shaughnessy

Article needs sourcing and verification.--Isotope23 17:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have removed this statement (added on Jan. 19, 2006 by anon 24.147.179.16) from the introductory sentence in accordance with the policy on biographies of living persons. If there is a source for such a claim, it can always be reinserted later. In the meantime, I'm reverting to the former "award winning author" statement. Dsreyn 20:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

This article should mention the widespread criticism directed at Dan Shaughnessy. Many who read his columns feel that he used the idea of a curse to cash in on the pre-2004 Red Sox' misery, and that his articles rob sports of their joy (due to a perceived curmudgeonly stance in many of his articles). --24.27.21.29 14:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, the links you provided point to blog pages. I have researched Wikipedia's policy, and it prohibits the use of blogs as factual references. Probably for good reason as anyone can start a blog and critique anything they want. If you find some mainstream criticism of him, Bill Simmons perhaps, then it could be added. Hardnfast 15:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Repeated efforts to remove outdated information about a family member of the subject of the article raises substantial evidence of either lack of good faith or malicious intent. The issue in question concerns repeated reversions to removal of the reference to a stale arrest of a family member, since the reference is not essential to the article and fails to include information concerning a) whether the family member referenced denied the charges at arraignment and b) whether any adjudication of the matter has occurred which would either support or refute the allegations referred to.

If one wishes to bring up alleged criminal escapades involving an unnamed relative of the subject of an article, one has an obligation to make a good faith effort to make sure the information is current and accurate. Allegations by police officers are just that, allegations. To insist that mere allegations be part of a non-essential portion of this article when a reasonable person would conclude that the period of time from the date of arrest is sufficient for, at the very least, a denial (not guilty plea) to have been entered, and when such lapse of time makes it likely that a complete adjudication has occurred represents a level of irresponsibility and reckless disregard for the facts that rises to the level of bad faith and which could be considered actionable under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).

The excuse that the original entry was "sourced" is unavailing. By that logic, an article could convey the notion that Adolph Hitler is alive by citing his birth but not his death.

I would suggest that if editors are so intent on having this peripheral information concerning the subject of the article included, that they pick up the phone, call the Brookline Division of the District Court Department of the Massachusetts Trial Court and obtain the update needed for this entry to be worthy of inclusion or at the very least, provide evidence that sufficient secondary sources have been accessed and searched.

Otherwise, inclusion of the fact of allegations made against a person, and the failure to investigate and report subsequent events in the public domain in which the allegations may be denied or disproved, rises to the level of reckless disregard for the facts which could be interpreted as libel if a trier of fact found an animus involving persons responsible for the information being retained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.11.248 (talk) 13:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

IP98, first of all, you still have yet to give a valid reason to not assume good faith in my edits. You have insinuated that my user name is one reason to assume bad faith which is not true either, just because I am a Red Sox fan doesn't mean anything. The "excuse" that it is sourced is availing because sourced info shouldn't be removed without good reason, and since notability does not go away over time, this remains notable. Your analogy to Hitler seems little more than proof of Godwin's Law. If you have more information about the case, and it is sourced, feel free to WP:Be bold and add it! RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dan Shaughnessy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071009212722/http://www.dotnews.com/comment.11.03.05.html to http://www.dotnews.com/comment.11.03.05.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060924181251/http://www.greaterboston.tv/features/btp_20051104_theo.html to http://greaterboston.tv/features/btp_20051104_theo.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060618210352/http://wtkk.com/Personalities/MikeBarnicle/tabid/56/Default.aspx to http://www.wtkk.com/Personalities/MikeBarnicle/tabid/56/Default.aspx
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://video.necn.com/global/video/popup/pop_player.asp?activePane=info&ClipID1=573528

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dan We spoke on the radio about five years ago concerning Big Papi going into the Hall of Fame. You said then that it doesn’t matter to you that perhaps there is a whiff of steroid us by Palpi I however was only concerned that a designated hitter could make the Hall. I think he has the stats to go in and I am wondering whether your opinion has changed and whether you will be voting for Papi I assume regardless you will be in Cooperstown in July. It will be a great day. I think all of you voters should let us know for whom you voted . If you agree can you get your breathetan to disclose their votes? assume you agree.? Phil Will you be be staying at the Odesaga Hotel?? If so you should try to get loose and go to the Blue Mingo For dinner. It’s just down the road. Let me know if you go and what you think Phil 2601:19C:527F:DCD0:A128:AC48:1BEE:F011 (talk) 06:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply