Talk:Denis Potvin

Untitled
Needs cleanup for NPOV "childish" is an opinion.
 * IMO, The Potvin Sucks part of this page should be linked and moved to a seperate page much like the famous Nineteen Forty chant has. Or, a seprate page should house all of the related rivalry chants as far as the fans go.
 * Been to a game eh? You can actually here fans laugh after these chants.  These are purposely childish chants.  Everyone knows that everyone else is joking.  1940 chant like the 1918 chant for the Red Sox as well as the Potvin chant.  That's why we chant them; because it is childish.  That's what makes then funny.  Ever since management cracked down on profanity at the games after the 1970s, the childish chants in jest are left John wesley 14:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This past Saturday when the Islander organization brought the old 1980 team back to the Island before the game against the Flyers -- Broad Street Bullies, Potvin himself joked and laughed at the chant. Is that enough proof that everyone is in on the joke? John wesley 14:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Article is biased
The Potvin article is biased; to dwell on conmparisons to Bobby Orr and injuries is ludicrous. He was an integral part of a hockey dynasty. Compare the article on Paul Coffey, the nearly equivalent figure of the following dynasty; this is how Potvin should be treated. The comment at the end about the 1940 chant is simply a Ranger fan gloating and is unencyclopedic.


 * I'm a bit mystified as to your problem. The article describes Potvin as the premier backliner in the game in the post-Orr era (which was true), as a more effective defensive defenseman than Orr (which was true), and as plagued by injuries during the Cup years (which was true).  The article certainly needs polishing -- perhaps you could have done so yourself -- but what about it is "biased?"  Ravenswing 16:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Potvinbrothers.jpg
Image:Potvinbrothers.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)