Talk:1994 Stanley Cup Finals/Archive 1

Bob Cole
The only quote about the moment the Rangers won the Stanley Cup that should be there is that of Bob Cole. He was the first to announce it, part of it being "done it here" before the final horn sounded and before saying that the Rangers are Stanley Cup Champions. Please do not delete that quote, which is "The New York Rangers have done it here on a hot June night in New York! The Rangers are Stanley Cup Champions!" It comes from CBC's broadcast of the game. SNIyer12, (talk) 20:02 UTC, 28 October 2008


 * I have no objection to keeping it in. This is one of the larger Finals articles and that's good. I would probably merge the Quotes section and the Headlines into one section, and call it something like 'Media coverage'. Alaney2k (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Good idea. We should merge both sections into one section. Also, the quotes section is Quotes and Analysis section. In addition, we shouldn't have any more additions to the page, as this is large enough. Also, please keep the details about Vancouver's biggest celebration coming when the city won the right to hoist the Olympic flag at the Winter Games of 2010, as news sources compared the Vancouver Canucks' Stanley Cup run to the city winning the games. SNIyer12, (talk), 21:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Impact in Canada/NYC
There seems to be a disproportionate amount of info about the 94 Cup win in Canada, while very little is written about the impact in NYC. I would argue that the 94 Cup had just as large, if not larger impact in NYC and in the US. The 94 series did alot to increase the visibility of hockey in America. I propose that the Canada section be trimmed and the NYC section be increased so that there is a balance of coverage in this article.Richiekim (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I got no problem in mentioning it. The only reason why I mentioned about the impact in Canada is because it was the most-watched sports moment on the CBC until the their ice hockey team defeated the U.S. ice hockey team to win the gold medal at the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. Both moments showed an increased sense of pride Canadians have taken in their sport. In the U.S., the ratings for Rangers Cup win didn't even come close to the ratings for the gold medal game in Salt Lake City. The gold medal game was the most-watched hockey game, Olympic or NHL, since the Miracle on Ice in Lake Placid. I try to make these points clear. Also, keep in mind that I'm planning to merge the Quotes and Analysis and Headlines section into one section, titled Media Coverage. You should also note that 1994 was a terrible year for sports in the US, because its sport fell victim of the worst ever work stoppage in sports history, and it left the country, their sport, and its fans shaken to its core. SNIyer12, (talk), 03:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC).


 * My thing is, it should be Impact in Canada/US or Vancouver/New York . . . but comparing the impact in Canada and New York is a pretty strange parallel to make.  The impact it had in Vancouver was, naturally, far greater than in the rest of the country.  Likewise, with respect to New York and the US.  And speaking of ratings, even though the US ratings for the game didn't come close to Salt Lake (because it was on cable), it was still a record for largest television audience of an NHL game in the US (which has since been broken several times).Djob (talk) 12:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Rangers' win drew the largest television audience for a sports show on both the CBC and on MSG Network and it remained that way until the Canadian ice hockey team's gold medal win at the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics, as that became the highest-rated sports show on the CBC. I make that point clear as to why about the impact in both New York City and Canada, not just in Vancouver, but elsewhere across Canada. It was felt in Edmonton deeply, as the Rangers' win was the last hurrah for the great Edmonton Oilers dynasty of the 1980's as "New York's Oilers Beat Canucks." It should also be noted that the most memorable call to the Rangers' win came on the CBC from Bob Cole: "The New York Rangers have done it here on a hot June night in New York! The Rangers are Stanley Cup Champions!" You should also note that the network affilates outside New York did not lead off their late night newscasts with the Rangers' win. That was the case only in New York. In Canada, the Rangers' win was a national story. SNIyer12, (talk), 22:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You can't make the claim that Cole's call was "the most memorable call". According to who?  You?  Was there a poll done to determine which call fans thought was most memorable?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.102.148.34 (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Quotes
I want to make clear that the only quote on the Rangers winning the Stanley Cup that should be there is the call made by Bob Cole, as he was the first to announce it, calling at the final faceoff, with 1.6 seconds to go: "The New York Rangers have done it here on a hot June night in New York! The Rangers are Stanley Cup Champions!" Other than that, please don't add any other quotes calling the Rangers' win. SNIyer12, (talk), 19:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone put Sam Rosen's call on the Rangers' win under the quotes section. Please do NOT put his call. I want to make it clear that the ONLY call on the Rangers' win that's to be there is that of Bob Cole. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 04:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are you so adamant about this being the ONLY quote in this article, and not Rosen's call, which is legendary? The tone you're using is uncalled for, and I think you need to be reminded again of WP:OWN, which another editor already cautioned you about on your talk page. IrisKawling (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I got no problem. The only reason why I'm asking that Bob Cole's call be the only one there is because he was the first to call it. I've seen and reviewed the call and he announced it at the final faceoff. Even the CBC that evening replayed his call on their evening newscast as the way things ended. SNIyer12, (talk), 02:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter who announced it first, that's not the point. The Rosen quote is famed. Look at other articles on championship wins with quotes included. They don't just come from one announcer. I think I'll be the third user now to warn you about WP:OWN. You keep taking it out stating "see talk page", but the consensus here appears to be to leave it in. You're doing a great job with this article, but to only have Cole's quotes shows bias as a single point of view. Just relax a bit, adding the Rosen quote doesn't harm the article in any way. It benefit it. I've put it back in, as right row, consensus rules. – Nurmsook!  talk...  01:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And as a further aside, you may want to try using the preview button before making a change. It seems like a lot of your edits come only minutes apart, where you could rather save a ton of precious Wikipedia bandwidth and just make one big edit, instead of 10-15 small ones. Just a suggestion :-) – Nurmsook!  talk...  01:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do you keep saying that Bob Cole's call came first? They were at the same time--they were all calling the game live. Do you mean that he started speaking a split second sooner? Who cares? It's not as if other announcers were listening to Cole and then copying what he said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djob (talk • contribs) 13:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Bob Cole called the Rangers' win at the faceoff. All the others waited until the final buzzer sounded to do so. When the buzzer sounded, Cole had already announced it, having said "The New York Rangers (puck drops for the last time) have done it here (amidst siren and crowds screams) on a hot June night in New York! The Rangers are Stanley Cup Champions!" The other commentators heard Cole saying "done it here" before the final horn sounded over their earpieces, though it was live. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 01:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * But who cares? How does that make it superior to all others?  If somebody had called it with 30 seconds left, that would be the only valid call?  How about before the game started? It's not an accurate call until the game is over.  I guess he would have looked pretty dumb if Vancouver had scored off the faceoff.  Frankly, I think there's a bit of overkill on the quotes.  Some of them are not very significant, in my opinion.  Just Cole spewing out statistics or calling a routine goal. Djob (talk) 12:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Canucks Runs of 1994 and 1982
Please try not to delete details that the Cinderella Canucks team of 1994 did far better than the one of 1982. In 1994, they rallied from a 3-1 series deficit to even the series, but then lost Game 7. In 1982, they got swept away, losing the final game (Game 4) in front of their fans. There have been parallels between both of their Cinderella runs. -- SNIyer12 (talk), 23:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Edmonton Oilers
I want to make clear that the Rangers' Stanley Cup win was where the last hurrah for the great Edmonton Oilers' dynasty of the 1980's came, not in 1990, when the Oilers won the last of their 5 Stanley Cups. As Stephen Cole wrote in The Best of Hockey Night in Canada, the last hurrah of the great Edmonton team of the 1980's came in 1994, when the New York Rangers, with a sextet-of ex-Oilers, defeated the Vancouver Canucks. He also titled it: "New York's Oilers Beat Canucks." -- SNIyer12, (talk), 22:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

2010 Winter Olympics
I'm sorry, but just because "some people in Vancouver" (athletes, IOC, on the street, or not) think an Olympics is worth more than a Stanley Cup, and just because you think that's relevant, does not make it relevant to the 1994 STANLEY CUP FINALS.

When I'm reading about where speed skating's going to be held in 2010 in a article about the 1994 Stanley Cup Final, I really don't find it relevant in the slightest, only confusing.

And I wonder what Messier or Linden or McLean, people with actual relevance to the event, would say if you asked them if they'd rather have Olympic gold or their name on the Cup. -ConkblockCity (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I got no problem mentioning it. The only reason I mention it is because many people who were there at GM Place when the announcement was made said that winning an Olympic Games is far greater than winning a Stanley Cup. Former Canucks Owner Arthur Griffiths made the point clear. Another reason I mention it is because it's a major international sporting event Vancouver got the right to host and both Pacific Coliseum and GM Place are going to be venues during the games. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 22:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You may not have a problem, but I'm not sure you understand that this article does not belong to you, however much time and effort you may put into it. Other people have the right to disagree with you and change things.  Including the minutiae of the Olympics just because of shared place and location...it's REALLY stretching a minor, tangential point.  Furthermore, the needless and unnecessary details are confusing and distracting.  They are far more suited to an article about Vancouver, or the Canucks, or the 2010 Games.  There is such a thing as discrimination of information. -ConkblockCity (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not only the 2010 Winter Olympics, but the 2002 Winter Olympics, 1994 Winter Olympics, 1994 NBA Finals, 1992 NBA Finals (?!?) . . . there's more talk collectively about these things and other tangents than about the actual games themselves.  If you really want, you can find some way to draw a parallel to almost anything, but it really makes the page unreadable.  This page has been absolutely inundated with useless information.  Compare other pages on Stanley Cup Finals to the mess this has become.Djob (talk) 09:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been following this article for such a long time now, and I've never seen something with such issues. It's getting to the point where it's going to require a complete upheaval. Between the large amount of useless information and the consistent WP:OWN issues being brought upon User:SNIyer12, the main editor of this article, this article definately needs a major review. – Nurmsook!  talk...  20:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Analysis section
The entire analysis section is over the top, with lots of trivial info, maybe a good nugget or two but that's it. This section should be deleted or merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.212.240 (talk) 03:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * People have tried to remove some of the useless information on several occasions, but User:SNIyer12 continually restores it . . . rehashing the same information that he puts on many other pages. If you look at his page, he has apparently been blocked from editing for 48 hours for continually editing articles and adding trivial information without regard for the opinions of others.Djob (talk) 01:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

A new consensus, a breath of fresh air
Well, not for 40-or-so more hours, he won't. :)  I'm keeping this space open for the possibility of future arguments – with anyone.  :)
 * Well we're just about out of time as I think he's due to return in a few hours. We'll see what happens.  So far about 8,000 bytes of garbage have been removed since his hiatus begun.  I've removed references to Dan Janssen and Phil Jackson and speculation and over-dramatizations and minute details and rhetoric and his obsession with Bob Cole and whatever else.  I think the "Analysis" section has been pared down to something reasonable.Djob (talk) 13:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ummm...is there a way to point out that Keenan's plagiarized inspirational "walk together" quote rightly belongs to Fred Shero (who must have left it lying around the Spectrum)? 9_9 Then again, Shero coached the Rangers, too...  I added Freddie. '''–ConkblockCity (talk) 01:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC) / 22:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

And for whatever reason, the Rangers' template at the bottom is a broken-coded mess. Does anyone feel like fixing it up? –ConkblockCity (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Trimmed Article
I've removed the Analysis and Headlines and Aftermath sections, as I felt that this article would be too long, plus they're often said. I kept the Impact on the NBA Finals secton, as that finals took place at the same time.

On the quotes section, I trimmed that as well, as we hear them quite often during big games. These are the quotes that were necessary, and decided to keep them:


 * "There is going to be that seventh game; we'll hope they can patch Linden up and get him in that one. He will play&mdash;you know he'll play; he'll play on crutches! He will play, and he'll play at Madison Square Garden on Tuesday night! The game is over!"&mdash;Jim Robson, after Trevor Linden got hit by Mark Messier while crawling to the bench at the end of Game 6.
 * "The New York Rangers have done it here on a hot June night in New York! The Rangers are Stanley Cup Champions!"&mdash;Bob Cole calling the dying seconds of Game 7.

Added:
 * "Well to accomplish great deeds, one must dream, as well as act, and many, many dreams have come true here at Madison Square Garden for the Ranger players, former players, and fans."&mdash;Harry Neale, just after Bob Cole called the Rangers' win.

SNIyer12, (talk), 18:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Propose removing section on other sport
I propose removing the section "Impact on the NBA Finals", as no direct impact is described within in it, and there is no direct relation between the two. Isaac Lin (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Removed. The only reason I had that section there was because it was part of a concurrent finals series in basketball and hockey taking place in the same city. Both finals take place at the same time and the Knicks played a game at Madison Square Garden the night after it hosted the Rangers winning the Stanley Cup. -- SNiyer12, (talk), 19:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Quote on Rangers' win
I would like your input on this. On the quote about the Rangers' win, which one of these should we have as the quote on the dying seconds of Game 7:


 * "They'll drop the puck, and if it's not on the net, the Rangers will finally win the Stanley Cup. A lot has happened in 54 years, but for New York hockey fans, nothing, nothing better than this. So, here comes the faceoff and blare it Manhattan! The New York Rangers have done it here on a hot June night in New York! The Rangers are Stanley Cup Champions!"
 * "Here comes the faceoff and blare it Manhattan! The New York Rangers have done it here on a hot June night in New York! The Rangers are Stanley Cup Champions!"
 * "Blare it Manhattan! The New York Rangers have done it here on a hot June night in New York! The Rangers are Stanley Cup Champions!"
 * "The New York Rangers have done it here on a hot June night in New York! The Rangers are Stanley Cup Champions!"

The quote is from Bob Cole, as he called the dying seconds of Game 7. 

Just understand that the quote we're going to use on the Rangers' win is the one by Bob Cole, as he was the first to announce it, saying "the Rangers will finally win the Stanley Cup," "nothing better than this," and "blare it Manhattan!" before officially announcing it. It won't be changed without the final input. -- SNIyer12, (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * None of these actually belong on the article, nor do we know that he was the first to announce it. Please stop trying to add this information related to the 94 finals. You have been warned about this before. Continue to try and push it into articles and you will be blocked again. -DJSasso (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Announcer exclamation on goal
The added citation is not from a neutral source; it is to be expected for the announcer's employer and owner of the Rangers to use hyperbole in its promotional bio of the announcer. Although this type of emotional information is suitable with other genres (say, a story-telling account of the Rangers victory), I do not believe it is a good fit for an encyclopedia. I propose removing the clause "which became drilled into the memories of Ranger fans." Isaac Lin (talk) 03:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If there are no further comments, I will proceed with this proposal. Isaac Lin (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It fails anyway, as it is not cited by a secondary source. &#x0298; alaney2k   talk &#x0298; 05:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Article stability
At times I see a portion of text being added, and then a bit later, it gets removed again by the same editor. While often I have no issue with the removal, I suggest that in the interest of stability, perhaps a sandbox version can be used to shape the text, before making additions to this article, and then choosing to revert them later on. Isaac Lin (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Ratings-CBC
Please indicate here if information about the CBC ratings for both the mens' and women's ice hockey gold medal games between Canada and the United States during the 2002 Winter Olympics should be included, or just the men's. Just to indicate the ratings:


 * Game 7 of 1994 Stanley Cup Finals: 4.957 million viewers (second most-watched CBC Sports program)
 * Men's ice hockey gold medal game during 2002 Winter Olympics: 10.6 million viewers (most-watched CBC Sports program)
 * Women's ice hockey gold medal game during 2002 Winter Olympics: 4.54 million viewers

There's a lot of conflicting information, as both men's and women's ice hockey gold medal games during the Salt Lake City Olympics were between Canada and the United States. – SNIyer12, (talk), 23:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is not about the 2002 Winter Olympics, nor is it about the American or Canadian men's and women's ice hockey programs. There is no value added to the article by explaining the women's viewership. If anything here should be included, it's that game 7 was the most viewed CBC Sports broadcast until the 2002 gold medal game. Anything outside of that is trivial and adds nothing to the article. The current mention of the women's game has absolutely nothing to do with this article's subject. – Nurmsook!  talk...  01:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That means the information about the women's viewership needs to be removed. There's only one reason why there's information about the viewership for Game 7 and both gold medal games at the 2002 Olympics: like the men's, the women's game was between Canada and the United States. – SNIyer12, (talk), 02:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe you were the one who originally added the information; if so, perhaps you could shed some light on why you did so at first? isaacl (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I added the information about the women's game because like the men's game, it was between Canada and the United States, and to avoid confusion. Now the information on the women's game has been removed, because the information that Nurmsook requested that be there only was that Game 7 was the most viewed CBC Sports broadcast until the 2002 men's ice hockey gold medal game between Canada and the United States. – SNIyer12, (talk), 13:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Game 7 is now the third most-watched CBC Sports program behind the 2002 men's ice hockey gold medal game and Game 1 of the 2011 Stanley Cup Finals. – SNIyer12, (talk), 17:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Why no mention of the 1994 Stanley Cup riot?
It was a huge incident - albeit an extremely negative one – in regards to the '94 playoffs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.102.205 (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)