Talk:New York Islanders

Would there be a place where it would be appropriate to discuss the controversy over attempts to change the Islanders' sweater and the subsequent reversion to the sweater of their glory days, or the subject of hockey sweaters in general? --Daniel C. Boyer 15:49 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

www.islesinfo.com

It seems that the automatic presumption is that any non-official website posted as an external link must be some fannish swill, but before anyone else does a knee-jerk reversion, go take a look at it first. It is a genuinely outstanding, comprehensive site, and plainly shows a great deal of up-to-date hockey knowledge. I can only presume that those who've been reverting it haven't bothered to peruse it, but if they haven't, they have no business doing reversions on it. Hell, if it gets reverted again, I'm not going to wait for the original poster to put the citation back up, I'll do it myself. RGTraynor 14:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Easter Epic

I was surprised there was nothing written about the Easter Epic, as it was probably the single greatest game the Isles were ever involved with ( Stanley Cups aside, of course). I added it and a link to a page that goes into detail about the series and that game. Feedback is always wanted! Thanks.Rkw1111 04:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh, it's a game worth commemmorating -- I've always regretted caving in at 1 AM myself -- and you didn't overload the main article with it. Looks good to me. RGTraynor 15:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Roster and Alternate Captains

Eric Godard and John Erskine are not under contract to the Islanders. Although they're still on the website, there is really no way to say that unrestricted free agents are on the roster. The ESPN link is ludicrously out of date. Additionally, I'm not sure that we can say that Bates, Satan, Zhitnik or York will be alternate captains in the new season. Croctotheface 23:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

True enough, however the pratice in the NHL team article(s), is to leave the 'C' and 'A's with the players who wore them through all/most of the previous (in this case 2005-06) NHL season, plus they're contractual expected back in the lineup for next season. In effect Yashin is captain, York & Zhitnik are alternate captains until replaced. In the case of Bates, he was an alternate captain due to the injury/absents from the lineup of Zhitnik. York and Zhitnik were chosen the A's following the departures of Lukowich and Parrish. GoodDay 20:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"Black Tuesday" reversion

Unless there emerges some broad-based consensus among journalists and commentators that this should be called "Black Tuesday', there is absolutley no justification to use it in an encyclopedia. It is clearly expressing an opinion, which Wikipedia articles should not. Croctotheface 03:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

- Acutally, many fans around message boards are declaring it "Black Tuesday". So yes, it should be included, in which the definition is clearly sighted in this disuccsion: July 18, 2006 is known as "Black Tuesday" in the teams history by many Islander fans. I can show you the countless number of fans that are actually defining this day in team history as this. Thus, a definition of this day in the basis of ISLANDER FANS is defined in this topic. Thus it is clearly justified. Islander fans make up the history of the organization just as much as the guy who sits in the front office of the organization or the news media. Sports in American Society 101. At the same time, you have a media account, Steve Simmons of the Toronto Sun, who stated why it can be known as "Black Tuesday" in the teams history Danes1 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It isONE day later. You are a little ahead of yourself WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball Where is the Toronto COMMENTARY: His column today is about the Blue Jays [1] ccwaters 14:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"Many" or "countless" fans? Feel free to give us some links; my personal take on it is that "countless" = a single topic on a single bulletin board called "Black Tuesday" with a couple dozen fans holding forth. Beyond which, this doesn't remotely make sense. GMs get fired all the time, and Smith had just about the shortest tenure as a GM in the entire expansion era. Yashin, Satan and Blake getting wiped out in a car crash would be "Black Tuesday." This isn't remotely it. I'm going to edit that section down to the minimum needful at once. RGTraynor 14:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

- go to espn.com and watch his interview on ESPNews...YOU GUYS NEED TO STOP MAKING THE HISTORY SEEM ALL NICE AND PRETTY...THE FACT IS MILBURY, WANG AND YESTERDAY ARE A MAJOR PART OF THIS TEAMS HISTORY...AND ITS A NASTY AND SAD ONE. iT IS REFERRED TO IT BECAUSE MANY FANS BELEIVE THAT THE ORGANIZATION HAS FINALLY, AFTER ALL THESE YEARS, HAVE HIT A NEW LOW...THATS WHY IT IS CONSIDERED A BAD DAY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.226.162.94 (talk • contribs)

You need to stop speculating about the long term effects of an event that happened a day ago. Its nothing to shout about. ccwaters 15:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"A Relatively Minor Deal"

I'm not comfortable with the automatic paring down of content on the grounds that it is minor or somehow not notable by definition. If the information is accurate, from a neutral point of view, and sourced, I think it clearly merits inclusion. It is especially notable considering the management follies surrounding the team for the past 10 years. I would not be opposed to creating a new article about the last 10 years and including a more detailed account there. Croctotheface 18:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It certainly is included; it's mentioned, which is all the incident warrants. To inflate the section -- as it had been -- to dwarf the amount of space given to discussing all the Islanders' Cup-winning seasons combined is just another symptom of the tendency of many Wikipedia editors to worship the Now and give short shrift, at best, to anything that happened in the past. Lots of teams fire GMs, several every season, and there's often ephemeral controversy over it. Only two other franchises have ever won four straight Cups, and one would think that's the part of Islanders' history in which Isles fans have the most pride. While I'm on the topic, by the way, what's up with the current events tag? This is hardly a "breaking news" incident. RGTraynor 20:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the information you cut as being worthy of inclusion. The standard should not be what gives Islander fans the most pride, but what is or is not notable enough to include. Your judgment as to what the "incident warrants" is the opinion of one editor. The article could merely say, "In July 2006, the Islanders fired GM Neil Smith and replaced him with Garth Snow." Would that be too brief? It's a "mention," after all. As you point out above, this may be the shortest GM tenure since expansion; that's certainly notable. As to your judgment that this will no longer be notable in time or that it is merely "ephemeral controversy" akin to any GM firing is to intentionally downplay the event. Other GM firings are not the talk of the hockey world the way this one is. The previous section was fine as it was and did not merit being reduced. Croctotheface 21:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

While the whole incident is rather bizarre, in order to justify giving three paragraphs over to a single event, however odd, in the thirty-plus year history of the franchise, the Dynasty years alone would have to be on the order of a small book. I'm willing to bet that Wikipedia is not intended to be that book, instead focusing on each noteworthy event in a concise but informative matter. A short paragraph is sufficient, barring significant further developments. Doogie2K (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The "board of directors" plan is notable. The current article makes no mention of it. It mentions the "difference in philosophy" but does not explain what that difference is. I'm not married to a certain length or mass of information. If the paragraph in question were more informative, I would have no objections. As for the dynasty years, I agree that they should figure more prominently in the article. I'm also pretty sure that there is some amount of content in between a few paragraphs and a book (of which there are several on the dynasty) that would serve to be both concise and informative. If there is not enough content about one topic, other notable topics should not be reduced proportionally. Croctotheface 23:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, there is a big difference. I'm talking about relative scale. Three paragraphs for even the oddest GM firing is a lot. An extra sentence outlining the BoD situation certainly wouldn't be out of order, but what was there originally was way too much. Doogie2K (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"Other GM firings are not the talk of the hockey world the way this one is." Err? How do you figure? Certainly it's the talk of the hockey world on Long Island, for the moment, but it's only fifth on the Toronto Star website (underneath the thrilling Dominic Moore-Adam Hall trade), it's not listed at all on the Boston Globe or Chicago Tribune websites, the Detroit Free Press notes it in passing only in a team-by-team roundup column. RGTraynor 07:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What's the deal with changing all the forwards positions?

It's true that forwards will often play more than one forward position. That does not mean that they should all be listed as such. I'd be in favor of reverting most of those edits. Croctotheface 22:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Redundancy

someone keeps adding a second mention of Overtime in this sentence:

In game 6 of the Stanley Cup Finals, Bobby Nystrom scored at 7:11 of overtime to defeat the Flyers and bring Long Island its first Stanley Cup.

Then asking for the redundancy to be removed. Stop. there is no redundancy in the sentence as shown above and as is currently in the article.

As I wrote on your talk page, I wasn't paying enough attention. I thought I was removing the redundancy when I was in fact adding it. When you wrote the edit summary, I realized what was happening. Thanks for getting it right. Croctotheface 20:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Just checking. Thanks!Ucscottb4u 20:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wade Dubielewicz

Wade does appear to be the backup. The market for a more established backup has really thinned out and with the new contract he got immediately after Garth moved to GM does seem to back that theory up.Ucscottb4u 20:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC) –If Wade Isnt the Backup Who is?

I imagine we'll find out after training camp. RGTraynor 04:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Concerns with recent edits

I'm concerned about GM11's recent edits to the article. My first instinct was to revert most or all of them, but since I believe they were all undertaken with good faith, I want to post here first. I'm going to revert the changes, then go back and restore the handful that I think were helpful. The ones I will revert are either style issues (by convention, we use American spelling for American teams), POV issues, or indiscriminate or irrelevant information. If anyone thinks I've gone too far, we can discuss it here. Croctotheface 19:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Dispute over sub-sub headers

I removed some of them (not all) in good faith because, as I explained at the time, they needlessly clutter the page and disrupt the flow of the text. I preserved several of them, though, because there were cases where the information could be better organized or there were events, such as the 1993 playoff run, that are notable enough that the article should call attention to them. However, the large number of them originally introduced was too many. Additionally, one reason I dislike the overuse of section breaks is that they are parasitic, in that they immediately call for more breaks. For instance, the break for the 1993 run makes the "Arbour retires" break necessary, despite the fact that, left on its own, there would not be a compelling reason to break for a couple of sentences about Arbour stepping down. GoldDragon. who introduced them in the first place, took the troubling step of reverting my good faith changes, reinstating his exact set of sections. Consequently, I put them back the way they were. I'd appreciate some more comments on the issue to see if there is a consensus for either version. Croctotheface 23:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Not really, I don't see the breaks being parasitic at all. Indeed, I feel that the breaks better reflects the history of the team, particularly with regards to the team's performance. Second, my edits are in good faith. GoldDragon 00:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"My version is better, so I'm just going to revert to it" is not good faith editing. I made some changes and explained them. Your response amounted to "I like my version better." My edits made an attempt to keep the best of your changes and eliminate the ones that did not improve the article, which is what wikis are supposed to be all about. You simply reverted back to your edits with no consideration to the idea that your changes may not have been perfect. And the breaks are parasitic, according to the way I defined the term above: introducing one for "Easter Epic" forced you to put in another for "Out of playoffs", which is not the least bit notable. "1993 playoff run" forced "Arbour retires" and then "Healy/Hextall trade", neither of which are particularly deserving of attention versus the rest of the article. It is also factually incorrect to imply that Healy was traded for Hextall. Mark Fitzpatrick was traded for Hextall, and then Healy was not protected in the expansion draft. Croctotheface 01:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you can think of a better header for after the 1993 Miracle, then I would like to here it. The headers show their value once you are deep in the article, as the 1974-79 section is too long. I don't thick its necessary to have as many 4th tier headers as initially planned but nonetheless the existing version has too few as it is. GoldDragon 04:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to compromise about this. You, however, simply revert to your original version without making any attempt to have a real discussion or reach a consensus. Your most recent edit summary implied that you made some attempt to compromise and meet in the middle. Instead, you put in the same number of sections and even restored some POV and OR text you had put in a while back. The sections you add call undue attention to things like a few years of missing the playoffs or John Spano and the Milsteins. Seven sentences on Spano, who deserves to be little more than a footnote in the history of the team, does not deserve a section. WP:NPOV#Undue weight is, along with breaking up the flow of the text, my main concern with your changes. I've scaled them back and tweaked some of the sections. If you're still unhappy, please take a step back and consider that maybe, just maybe, you don't have a monopoly on wisdom and that there may be something in what I'm saying. If you can't do that, then I have to question why you would want to work on a collaborative project like Wikipedia. Croctotheface 06:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It is an undisputable fact that the Isles and Rangers are in the same conference and division, while this is not true of NYC's MLB and NFL teams. Maybe you don't necessarily like it in the lead of the article but much of the history of the Isles is their bitter rivalry with the Rangers. Again, I disagree with you trying to eliminate the headers for Easter Epic and the 1993 playoff run, as they are treated as landmark moments in the Isles' history, that is why I used the 4th tier header for the two events, to seperate it out from the neighboring seasons which weren't so eventfull. The Gretzky Oiler header is also another significant moment in their dynasty, perhaps more so to Bossy and co than these outside the team. I'm wiling to compromise on Spano and the Milsteins but their sections shouldn't be reduced. GoldDragon 19:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

There are lots of potential original research passages that could be based on "undisputable facts". WP:OR prevents "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material" from being included in articles. The fact that there is lots of OR all over the place on Wikipedia is what prevented me from just saying, "This is OR; it can't be included." If you do find a reputable source that talks about the rivalry the way your passage did, I'd be fine with finding a spot for it somewhere else in the article. It's inappropriate for the lead because this is an article on a 34-year-old hockey team, not their rivalry with the Rangers. As far as the rest, I'm glad that you're willing to compromise on some of the other matters. If and when the dynasty section is expaded, which is sorely needs to be, I could see breaking it up into smaller sections, one of which would mention the Oilers. I moved mention of the Easter Epic and '93 run up a level on the headers as a compromise as well. This prevents the need for "Out of playoffs" and "Arbour retires" sections. I also left in the "Postseason disappointment" section. Croctotheface 01:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sanjay Kumar's Status as Owner

There should be a mention of Sanjay Kumar's status as owner here as he is following the "tradition" of New York Islander owners heading to jail... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.202.248.12 (talk • contribs)

It really isn't that relevant to an article on the team. If your motivation is to make some sort of point about the Islanders, I suggest you reread WP:NPOV. Croctotheface 22:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What does the New York represent

I've always wondered, what does the New York in New York Islanders mean? The city or the state? I personally think it means the state. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.86.122.109 (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

The Islanders seem to represent 'Long island' and the Rangers seem to represent 'New York City'. As for the entire state, both franchises represent. I'm guessing of course. GoodDay 22:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

POV information about recent years in the lead

I've visited this page many times and I am astounded at how many times certain Wikipedians have redacted or removed accurate, relevant, and consise factual statements about the Islanders. The introductory paragraph, for one, seems to revert every week to a description that covers only the first third of the Islanders' history, completing neglecting to mention the long playoff drought and recent playoff failures that have (unfortunately) marked the most recent decades. Would someone please stop deleting this text? The team did not fold after the 1982-83 season and it is worthwhile to keep the Islanders' grand Stanley Cup run in its factual context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.62.7.74 (talk • contribs)

As I and others who have reverted in the past have said, it is hard to find an article on any sports team that has negative information in the lead paragraph. There are teams that have never won the Cup or their sport's championship, and that is not the focus of the article. It is not the role of the lead paragraph to attempt to summarize the entire history of the team--instead, its job is to provide context for new readers and introduce the article. Futhermore, while it is "factual" that the team has not won a playoff series in a while, it is also factual that they are one of a small handful of teams to qualify for the playoffs in four of the past five seasons. In other words, mere truthfulness is not the same as neutrality, which is required of Wikipedia articles. There are plenty of ways to characterize the past few seasons, and the idea that they have been a failure is certainly an opinion. WP articles should not advance opinions. Croctotheface 17:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest a compromise, to wit: Some general reference in the opening should be made to the team's performance over the past quarter century or so. I'm sure it could be done without expressing an negative opinion. ...This would leave for another day the controversial "opinion" question of whether fourteen years without a playoff series win (and 23 years without a Finals appearance, the 3d longest active streak in the NHL behind Toronto and St Louis) might be perceived as a disappointing performance by fans and objective observers around the league. I'm sure some neutral mention of the past quarter-century of Islanders hockey can appear in the intro without further characterization. ...Focusing the intro on the franchise's meteoric rise and omitting any mention of its recent performance, frankly, does not seem neutral---and fails to orient the reader to what a fair amount of the article actually covers. --Jsmilla 03:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to delete from the lead all mentions of the meteoric rise and dynasty, though I don't think that serves the readers as well as including it. I would not be willing to say basically any of the things that you talk about. Again, I do not know of any Wikipedia article about a sports team that has negative information in the lead. For instance, teams that have never won a championship do not lead with that fact. Croctotheface 04:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? No one is suggesting that we should take out references to the Cups in the lead. If there are "plenty of ways to characterize the past few seasons," there's no need to call recent history "negative"; we could simply report (for example) that the team has generally made the playoffs but not advanced over the past few years. Have you seen the Devils article recently? It's a featured article, and their introduction does not stop with their last Stanley Cup. In fact, they do a pretty good job reporting negative facts in the intro (two franchise moves) without undue negativity. Surely you, as the apparent custodian of this article, could do the same. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.62.7.74 (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

I make no claim to being the "custodian" of this article. I am not really interested in finding a compromise where a couple of editors hash something out that acknowledges more than one point of view regarding the recent seasons. The lead is not the place to report on points of view. The Devils article is not really analagous, since it does not attempt to assess the performance of the team. Still, I'd probably be in favor of removing the "made the playoffs in X of the last Y years" line from that article's lead. The bottom line is this: championships are notable, and lack of championships is not. Croctotheface 18:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

More on 1980-81 and Possibly Less on 1983-84?

Having fatigued of the last discussion, moving on to one more point. I was a season ticket holder in '83-84, and it remains one of my favorite NYI seasons (due to the team's valiant effort that year), but in terms of focus, it seems strange that we have a lot of paragraphs on the Drive for Five, while the second Cup (pretty momentous occasion when it happened, and historically significant too, as a lot of championship teams haven't repeated) gets short shrift. If we don't shorten the '83-84 discussion, we should expand '80-81 at least. Jsmilla 01:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole dynasty era should be treated in a lot more detail. If you want, you could even start a full article on any of those seasons. Check out New York Islanders seasons: the second column from the left is a bunch of redlinks to full season articles you could start. Croctotheface 02:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Captain Bill Guerin?

Not to dispute anyone, but I can't find any sources backing Bill Guerin being named Islanders captain. I must have missed something, someone help. GoodDay 19:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=213187&hubname=nhl Ucscottb4u 19:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that all I wanted. PS- What a slap in the face for Mike Sillinger. GoodDay 19:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed looking over our past captains, Bill Guerin is our first American born captain, does that deserve note?Ucscottb4u 19:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's noteworthy. PS (again) Gee, what a slap in the face to Mike Sillinger. GoodDay 20:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, after Smyth left i would have bet Sillinger was a lock for captainUcscottb4u 20:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not our job to mention the American thing, as WP is not a place for commentary and the like. Also, this page is for discussing improvements to the New York Islanders article, not a general discussion of your opinion of what this or that announcement means or whether it's a "slap in the face" to anyone. There are plenty of other places on the web where you can go to discuss that. Croctotheface 20:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the American distinction would be allowed at the Bill Guerin page. GoodDay 20:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it quite qualifies as commentary as it is a fact, just not a necessarily a fact that needs to be mentioned. Ucscottb4u 20:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Facts can be presented in a way to make a comment, though I don't mean to suggest that there is some POV issue with saying that. My point, which I didn't say clearly at all, is basically that every potentially interesting fact is not really appropriate to note here. Croctotheface 22:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Current Jersey Pictures

Should be added to the Jersey section. Also, the team mascot needs to be mentioned somewhere. Love each other, or perish. ~Auden 04:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)