Talk:1992 Stanley Cup Finals

Could we ratchet down the vandalism talk?
The removal of the suspect sections by 99.192.118.141 and 142.68.235.244 are perfectly legit, and GoldDragon's repeated reversion of them without any explanatory edit summaries (except to claim that one removal - which carried an explanatory edit summary - was "vandalism") illegitimate.

This should be a no-brainer. The second paragraph is trivia, pure and simple. The first? "Despite the Penguins sweeping the Blackhawks, it was actually a close series that could have gone either way. Game 1 saw the Blackhawks squander leads of 3–0 and 4–1, and would eventually be beaten 5–4 after a Lemieux power-play goal with 9 seconds remaining in regulation. The Blackhawks most lackluster game was Game 2, losing 3–1. A frustrating loss of 1–0 followed in game 3, and a natural hat trick from Dirk Graham and stellar play from Dominik Hasek (who showed indications of the goaltender he would later become) could not secure a win in game 4, which ended in 6–5 final in favor of Pittsburgh." First sentence: POV. Second sentence: "squander?" Third sentence: "lackluster" = POV. Fourth sentence: "frustrating/stellar play" = POV. The paragraph is written in sportswriterese, and plainly from the POV of a Blackhawk fan; I doubt, for instance, that a Penguins fan would characterize any element of a sweep of the foe in the Cup finals "frustrating."

Obviously a summary of the individual games is needed. This one isn't it, and edit warring over this isn't helping.  RGTraynor  10:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)