Jump to content

Talk:Dynasty (sports)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ottawa4ever (talk | contribs) at 18:40, 12 May 2012 (→Detroit red wings: NJ). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconSports Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sport-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SportsWikipedia:WikiProject SportsTemplate:WikiProject Sportssports articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
To-do list:
Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Template:Archive box collapsible Template:Maintained

Original research

In order for this article not to run afoul of Wikipedia's prohibition of original research and synthesis, it seems that each team/club listed as a dynasty should include a citation, not just for their championships, but showing that they have been called a dynasty elsewhere. Cmadler 11:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations seem unnecessary here, as most people would consider it common knowledge. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 04:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Citations are never unnecessary in Wikipedia. Read the policies. Cmadler 10:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added templates displaying a note that citation is needed, for each listed dynasty that does not have a citation showing that it has been identified by a reliable source as a dynasty. See also WP:OR and WP:SYN. Cmadler (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sections for the NFL, NAIA football, NBA, WNBA, cheerleading, NHL, and NCAA women's lacrosse are now sourced. Cmadler (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The section for CFL is now sourced.Terry Chapman (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed all unsourced claims that have been tagged as needing a source for at least six months. cmadler (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cleaned up again, as per previous. cmadler (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other wrestling teams

There are other wrestling teams that I would throw into the mix as well, such as Oklahoma State and Minnesota. Also I saw mention of some high school teams on this page. If that is the case you should include Granby High School of Norfolk, Va, Great Bridge High School in Chesapeake, Va, and Blair Academy in New JerseyJzcrandall (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree 100% that Oklahoma State needs to be listed, I'll work on that. Minnesota, ehh, not so much...back-to-back titles in 01-02 and a third one in 07, but not quite enough to justify 'dynasty' status when compared to Iowa and Oklahoma State's accomplishments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.73.249 (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma State removed from the college wrestling dynasties section?? ...WTF?!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olgasmic (talk • contribs) 03:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, some dynasties don't require an article/blog/blurb/etc to proclaim them a "dynasty"...they just are. With the removal of OSU from the Collegiate Wrestling section this wiki page is officially now at ZERO CREDIBILITY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olgasmic (talk • contribs) 01:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Without referencing there is zero credibility and just opinion. If a team is a dynasty, itll be mentioned in a valid and reliable source somewhere. Find a reliable source stating the team as a dynasty and you will not see an objection to inclusion. Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ottawa4ever. If you disagree, you'll need to seek a change in Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, which states that The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. That is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research. cmadler (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa Senators of Hockey

The NHL and HHOF consider the Ottawa senators to be the first dynasty of Hockey. I have removed them from the questionable section and placed them into the NHL list. Though they werent as succesful as modern dynasties for championships, they placed first in the regular season 7 times and included numerous HHOF members as well as their 4 championships between 1920 and 1927. Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ASHL (hockey)

Does this league even exist? what does it stand for? Ottawa4ever (talk) 03:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only reference I see on Icebreakers is a page in Swedish, which I can't read. The Icebreakers article makes no mention of the league in which they play or of any championships. The Swedish Ice Hockey Association lists all their leagues, none of which seem like candidates for the acronym "ASHL". Googling "ASHL hockey" returns several hits for the Adult Safe Hockey League, but that is a North American league. Also Alberta Senior Hockey League (again, North America). Icebreakers are not listed in the SIHR database. Cmadler (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the team appears to be Swedish, I posted a request for help on the Sweden Ice Hockey task force. Cmadler (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's your answer Scarborough Ice Breakers of the Adult Safe Hockey League. Swedish Icebreakers consist of NHL players and MODO Hockey players who play exhibition games during the summer to raise money for handicapped children. --Krm500 (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Bears of the 1930s

The only reference I can find for the Bears of the 1930s as a dynasty is http://www.bearshistory.com/seasons/1930schicagobears.aspx, which doesn't appear to be an acceptable reliable source. I'll give it a little while, but if no one else can produce a reference for this, I'm going to remove this one. Cmadler (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been three months. I'm removing that one. Cmadler (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dynasties in question (NHL)

I would argue that any NHL team in this section should be removed based on the fact that the NHL and Hockey hall of fame (HHOF) have offical dynasties classified. Any other team mentioned is not considered to be a dynasty by recongnition by the league and by the HHOF. There are many teams like the detriot redwings to win back to back chanpionships, which according to the NHL, and HHOF are not considered dynasties (pittsburgh penquins 91, 92 etc). If any exception is to be made for teams like New jersey and Detroit a credible source on par with the league itself and the HHOF should be named. Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANY team listed anywhere on this page should be sourced. Personally, I've been loose so far on what constitutes an acceptable source (accepting, for example, articles in Sports Illustrated and the New York Times), on the theory that any reasonably reliable source is better than nothing. I suspect that gradually, as the sourcing on this page improves, we'll need to start being stricter, but at this point, I have not yet removed any unsourced claims, much less claims that are sourced but not by a reliable source. Cmadler (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To expand even further about what type of source would be credible (reliable), what would you think of a teams home page claiming them as a dynasty?, any thoughts Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm skeptical of such a claim coming directly from the team like that, although I think that is better than not having a source at all. Also, for the time being, I think sourcing should probably be weighed against the claim. For example, if we can verify that a team won 10 consecutive league championships, we should probably continue to include them even without a source specifically calling them a dynasty -- removing such a team would probably cause more problems than leaving them in.
In the long run, I think listings from a league or the league's hall of fame are probably good. Articles from media covering sport in general (ESPN, Sports Illustrated) or the particular sport in question in particular (The Blood-Horse magazine for thoroughbred horse racing) are probably good, though listings based on fan voting or polls might not be acceptable. Articles from other normally reputable sources known to have generally good fact checking and editorial control (The New York Times) are probably OK also. Personal sites, fan sites, and wikis are probably not acceptable. That's my sense from reading Wikipedia's policy, guidlines, etc. on what is or is not an acceptable source. Cmadler (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another issue I've been pondering is the point at which a "dynasty" becomes trivial. For example, Mount Saint Charles Academy claims 26 consecutive Rhode Island state championships in ice hockey. Lafayette High School (Lexington, Kentucky) won 13 consecutive Kentucky state championships in marching band. Someone added the "Icebreakers" of the Adult Safe Hockey League, which seems to be a recreational league, to this page. I could go on. There's some point at which a team no longer merits inclusion, for example, recreational leagues, middle school/junior high, etc. but I'm not sure exactly where that point is. On another note, technically this page is an article, not a list; the list is only valuable in as much as it illustrates the concept of a sports dynasty. We might consider moving the list to a new page, "List of sports dynasties" or something similar, and leaving just the stub article text here. Cmadler (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


My initial thoughts would be that we could steer away from a list by making each sport section include a blur about what regulatory boards recongnize dynasties and how they are reconginzed as this does vary from sport to sport. This would also allow for discussion of teams which are considered a dynasty in question. This would probably reduce some 'lists' from growing and encourage more sourcing of teams, but its just an initial thought. As for rec teams and highschool teams, outside the regions where they play it seems as trivia. An example is that a highschool team in ontario canada won its 4th consecutive volley ball championship making them a local dynasty; however, outside of canada few are famillar with WOSSA and OFSSA championships and the trivia information is more adapt to fit the highschools wiki page. These are just a few thoughts but indeed there is a point to consider when the information posted on the page is trivial. Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cycling And Lance Armstrong in the Tour de France Anyone?

Read subtitle.

If you can cite a reliable source calling what he accomplished a dynasty, be bold and add it. Cmadler (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steelers

I moved the steelers of the 2000s to the "Dynasties in question" section because I believe they have not accomplished a dynasty yet but there is the possibility of one with another championship in the next year or two. I am currently looking for a source with this point of view. Disagree? change it. Frank AnchorTalk 21:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree, and I think the Yahoo! Sports source supports the idea of them as a dynasty in question. cmadler (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definite dynasty! - oh wait, I'm from Pittsburgh .. POV .. nevermind - carry on ;) — Ched (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dynasty

i didnt realize that there was a debate over what a dynasty was, i always thought the definition of a dynasty was at least 3 championships in 10 years, doesnt that sound right? why is there even a debate over this? --Redskies08 (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do you have a source for that? cmadler (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, I suspect the person who posted this question is a Redskins fan. The definition of a Dynasty SHOULD be: a minimum of three consecutive championships, or, three championships within four or five years. A ten year timeframe to win only three championships is not really Dynasty worthy. At minimum, it should be no less than four championships spread out over a ten year timeframe if none of them are consecutive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.73.249 (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Im still a fan of finding verifable and reliable sourcing that indicate a team is a dynasty (I think that is indication enough).Ottawa4ever (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Ottawa4ever, per previous discussions here. Anything else is either original research or synthesis. cmadler (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree, especially if you're looking for some "official source" that actually uses the word DYNASTY to describe a team. That is hardly any more reliable than the cold hard facts of how many championships have been won over a certain period of time. We can sit here all day long and debate what constitutes a DYNASTY, but common sense should prevail at all times. THREE CONSECUTIVE championships is the traditional standard (imo) in order to be considered a DYNASTY...and I suspect that is a universally acceptable figure. It's non-consecutive championships where the the debate begins for what is considered DYNASTY worthy. Is it 3 in 5 years? Is it 4 in 10 years? That is where the "grey area" is in this debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.73.249 (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is just my opinion. Its possible that someone with a job at a newspaper could say that a team that just won their second championship in a row IS A DYNASTY. Like the mid-90's Houston Rockets. Haven't done a thing since, and only won because Jordan wasn't playing. Just because they work at a newspaper, their word is gospel? I'm sure there are wikipedia contributors who know better than that, and just because they write on here and not for a paper, they don't know anything? No I don't think so. Sometimes you just have to take the pornography angle: "You know it when you see it". A lack of corroboration could be just because it is a fairly obscure team, like Mount Union for instance. But come on, like 13 championships in 20 years or something? Say no more. In the end, I think the Wikipedia standards are more like guidelines and can be stretched at people's educated discretion. Ypsidan (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Union College Football

I realized that Mount Union College is not included in this page under division III football. They won 10 championships from 1993 to 2008, as noted at http://www.mtunionfootball.com/. I would edit it but I'm not sure how to cite things and I don't want to get into any trouble mis-citing things. I believe they have a few other records regarding undefeated streaks and they are on that website. If you could look into this and edit it that'd be great! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.227.102 (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can point out a reliable secondary source meeting Wikipedia's standards that calls them a dynasty (it is unfortunately not sufficient to give a citation for the championships), I will add them to the list and take care of the citation formatting. cmadler (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have found an article written by an AP writer discussing Mt. Union's dynasty. See discussion under "Non-Div. I-A NCAA Football Dynasties," as I am unfamiliar with citation formatting. Appalachianeer (talk) 01:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red Wings dynasty?

Ever since 1995, the Red Wings were a dynasty. they won 4 stanley cups (1997,1998,2002,2008)also a 1995 & 2009 stanley cup app. They won 6 President's Trophies, got the best record in Nhl history in 1996 (62-13-6)and won several central division titles many times. The mid 90s to 2000s Red Wings are a dynasty--72.183.200.78 (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is too few championships in too long of a stretch to consider them a dynasty. The Wings went three seasons between 1998 and 2002 without a Stanley Cup and five four (forgot about the Lockout) between 2002 and 2008 without one. Maybe consider the team from 1997-02 one but there is too long of a break and too much player turnover to consider the 2008 club as part of the dynasty Frank AnchorTalk 14:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the NHL has an official list of dynasties, and the 1997-2008(09?) Wings are not on that list. Frank AnchorTalk 14:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think their exclusion from the NHL's official list is much more compelling; the other arguments are original research or synthesis. cmadler (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Yankees from 1995-07, a dynasty? It was the same length before 2007, and thats called a dynasty? They won 4 WS titles that period, the same as the red wings. So if the 95-07 Yankees are a dynasty, the 95- Red Wings are a dynasty--72.183.200.78 (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two key differences. 1. The NHL maintains a list of "Stanley Cup Dynasties" (which does not include the 95- Red Wings), while MLB maintains no such list (or if it does, no one has pointed it out here). 2. In the absence of an official list, we look to reliable sources saying that a team is (or isn't a dynasty). We have such a source for the Yankees (ESPN), so we call them a dynasty. If you don't think they are, I encourage you to find a contrary source, add it, and move them to the "Dynasties in question" section in a similar manner to Buffalo Bills and San Antonio Spurs. Or, if you have an appropriate source calling the Red Wings a dynasty, you might add it, and list them in the "Dynasties in question" section with a note that although some people consider them a dynasty, they are not (yet) recognized as such by the NHL. cmadler (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm,that sounds like good advice. The Bills are NOT even a dynasty in question. To me, the Spurs are because 1.i like them and 2.Tim Duncan and Tony Parker are a good duo.--72.183.200.78 (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Players on the '08 squad who were present for '97/'98 as well: Draper, Maltby, McCarty, Holmstrom, Lidstrom, Osgood. Chris Chelios and Dominik Hasek were there for both '08 and '02. The three seasons after 1998: First in Central Division, Second in NHL, First in Central. The four seasons after 2002: First in Central, First in NHL, First in NHL, Second in NHL. I think you should look at regular season numbers as well when determining a dynasty. If they had a bad year in there, that would be different. Unless they win the Stanley Cup in '11 or '12, I think this past season would be bad enough to end the dynasty though. I don't know what's up with the NHL not including them on their list. Obviously the best team since the Oilers had their downturn. The longest listed time by the NHL is 7 years. This is either 11 or 13 if you count the '95 finals loss. That might be the problem. But they do have 4 championships, 5 Finals appearances, 8 Western Conference Finals appearances, nearly 20 years of making the playoffs. Just my thoughts. (EDIT: Oh yeah, 6 Finals and 9 WC Finals in 14 years. Forgot 2009. I'm used to the Red Wings being bounced early in years they don't win the Cup. That loss was worse than the Tigers losing to the Twins in game 163.) Ypsidan (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As always, find a reliable source terming them a dynasty and add it. But keep in mind in this case, the source will need to be a little better and more unequivocal than it might otherwise, because the NHL has published a list of "Stanley Cup dynasties" [1] and they aren't on it. If you have a beef with that, take it up with the NHL. cmadler (talk) 09:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Div. I-A NCAA Football Dynasties

Some time ago, several NCAA teams below the Div. I-A level that had won numerous titles were removed due to a lack of sources using the term "dynasty" to refer to their successes. I have found such sources for all but one, and provided the links below because I do not know how to format citations on Wikipedia and don't have the time tonight to figure it out. Any help in getting these in the article would be greatly appreciated!

The one that is missing is Div. I-AA's Youngstown State. I found numerous sources referring to its teams in the 1990s as a "powerhouse", but nothing yet that calls it a "dynasty" despite winning championships in 1991, 1993, 1994, and 1997.

The list of teams, relevant links, and quotes follows. Please feel free to discuss if any of these would be considered unreliable sources.

Appalachianeer (talk) 01:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to do this at the moment, but I'll look at those and get them added late this week/early next week, if no one else gets to it before then. Thanks for the sources! cmadler (talk) 02:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation???

Which one of you j-holes keeps putting [citation] in the college wrestling section?

The FACTS are indisputable ....and have been supported via the linked NCAA Wrestling Championships History page for each entry (Iowa and Oklahoma State).

Either remove the [citation] challenge or prove your claim that the information submitted is not correct. Only way you can do it is by discrediting the referenced NCAA link, so until you can accomplish that remove the [citation]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.73.249 (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the j-hole in question. You're right that the facts are indisputable, and you've clearly given reliable source confirming that those teams have won a whole bunch of championships. But that's not enough. What's needed is a citation from a reliable source stating that those teams are considered dynasties. Otherwise it's synthesis to call them dynasties. I do think that, given the numerous championships won, they probably are considered dynasties, but unless someone else has said that first, we can't say it here; that's the standard being applied uniformly on this article, and that's just how Wikipedia works. It's the exact same situation for Minnesota ice hockey as well; we have a citation telling us that they won championships in the late 1970s, but we still need a citation saying they are/were a dynasty. cmadler (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, allow me to ask this: What constitutes a "reliable" source for citing that a team is a DYNASTY? Wouldn't it be reasonable to think that previous [citations] for other teams listed as a DYNASTY have a "standard" for making such a claim? If so, why isn't that the standard used here in this discussion? Sports Illustrated made a list of DYNASTYs for last Century....Iowa's wrestling team was on it. Not sure if it's still hosted online anywhere so that I can cite it, but I will see if I can find it. However, that begs another question, why does a [citation] have to be linked online to be credible?? There are hundreds of reputable and distinguished newspapers and magazines that have described teams as DYNASTYs in the past (even before the Internet) and they shouldn't be discounted imo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.73.249 (talk) 04:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What constitutes a reliable source for citing that a team is a dynasty? For starters, look at WP:RS and discussion higher up this page. Wouldn't it be reasonable to think that previous citations for other teams listed as a dynasty have a standard for making such a claim? I'm not quite sure what you're asking. If you're suggesting that citations say a team is a dynasty if it meets X criteria (N consecutive championships, for example), then no, there is no such established standard, and I'd be surprised if you can find reliable sources agreeing on a clear-cut standard. Why does a citation have to be linked online to be credible? It doesn't. Claims have to be cited, but they don't need to be linked online. If you have access to a reliable offline source on the topic, please add it - just be sure to give enough information that someone else could duplicate your research. cmadler (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1940's St. Louis Cardinals?

Why aren't they here, they won the 1942,1944, and 1946 World Series, and were NL champion in 1943. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.152.45.215 (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Provide a reliable source calling them a dynasty, and add them to the article. cmadler (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley cup

Im thinking of adding two teams based on some books written (not as strong as the NHL reference) The NHL section (which would need re-naming to stanley cup i think) would add the following;

  • Montreal Victorias of the late 1890s (3 Championships at seasons end in 4 years) 1895, 1897, 1898, (finalist 1896, defended championship in series in 1899 but lost season title)[1][2]

and

These refs are avilable from google books and could be re-organized. Any thoughts (re-writing of additions to make more sense?) for or against or other referenced inclusions? Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is a third team the Montreal Wanderers as well (essentially 4 in 5 years). Nether the less the issue is we have an great ref via the nhl recongnizes its own dynasties, but prior to the nhl formation, many books state what they consider a stanley cup dynasty to be- should we use them, or are we just opening a can of worms. Ottawa4ever (talk) 06:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I say if the soure is good, add them. cmadler (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bias template

Regarding the template at the top of the article expressing the need for this article to take a more world-wide perspective, I asked the editor who posted it to comment on why and whether it is still needed. Here's the response. cmadler (talk) 11:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that was a long time ago. I think I was concerned about
  • The lead, which discusses the concept from a North American point of view. It also doesn't mention that the term 'dynasty' is relatively uncommon in e.g. Europe, but the concept exists under different names.
  • The geographic range of examples in the list, which was heavily biased towards North American leagues, light on European leagues, and almost non-existent for sport in any other location
  • The relative coverage of different sports e.g. there's only one entry for cricket, which isn't even the Australian team of the late 90s, whilst college american football has a huge section which is actually longer than that for the NFL! Rugby has only one entry, despite being one of the world's most popular sports. Some sports are missing entirely e.g. darts, snooker (admittedly those are individual sports where the term 'dynasty' probably isn't used much, but again the concept exists under different names)
  • At the time, there was sectioning out of 'European teams', as if they were an afterthought (this has now gone)
  • There's a section on 'indoor football', which actually refers to indoor american football, which is a very different sport to what 90% of the world would use that term to refer to.
I could go on, but that's enough to deserve keeping the tag IMO. Feel free to copy this to the talk page if you think that would be useful. Modest Genius talk 10:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Detroit red wings

Im inclined to disagree that they are in question; the nhl and hockey hall of fame either recongnizes a dynasty or doesnt- theres really no grey in their listings. I also dont think a detroit media source is really a adequate citation arguing for them as a dynasty, they would have a certain amount of biasy. Thoughts? Ottawa4ever (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine if there's a reliable source, but a one-person self-published blog that was around for 5 months (July 2011 to November 2011) doesn't cut it -- that's pretty much the opposite of "reliable source". In fact, I'm taking the link off and marking it as citation-needed. cmadler (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ive added a citation needed to the devils, the ref given doesnt call them a dynasty either. I do recall Dan diamonds total hockey or at least one of his playoof complimation books defining a dynasty by the criteria the nhl has used. Ill post this shortly when i find it, which may help with dynasties in question in the future Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Andrew Podnieks, Sheila Wawanash, Dmitri Ryzkov, Pavel Barta. Kings of the ice: a history of world hockey, NDE Pub., 2002, 1023 pgs
  2. ^ Dan Diamond, James Duplacey, Eric Zweig., The ultimate prize: the Stanley Cup, Andrews McMeel Publishing, 2003 186 pgs
  3. ^ Michael McKinley, Putting a roof on winter: hockey's rise from sport to spectacle., Greystone Books, 2000, 280 pgs
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dynasty_(sports)&oldid=492240570"