Talk:Geoff Hurst

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] This article is supported by the Sports and games work group. English football Portal The article on Geoff Hurst is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Association football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by the England task force. Cricket Portal Click here for information about how the WikiProject assesses notability Geoff Hurst is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by visiting the project page for more details. Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Categories and templates: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no <!-- 6. It is fully and correctly categorised and carries all appropriate templates. --> |B-Class-6=yes/no England Portal This article is supported by WikiProject England, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to articles relating to England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article associated with this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. North West England Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greater Manchester , a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Greater Manchester-related articles. In so doing it works and collaborates with its mother project WikiProject UK Geography . If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments) ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale within the Greater Manchester WikiProject.

A great description of a great journey.

Contents 1 Disputed: 2 MBE 3 In perspective 4 Leftie or rightie 5 Please don't remove verifiable references

[edit] Disputed:

Unlike here, In the article about 1966 FIFA World Cup it says that technology has proven without doubt that the ball did not cross the line. Someone with access to reliable information about this should help determine which one of both is correct, as it is not acceptable for an encyclopedia to have such contradictions. Also, the phrase "the debate will last forever" is saying something about the future that cannot be assured in any way, which is also unacceptable, so the phrase should be deleted or changed for "It is believed that the debate will last forever".

from http://www.4rfv.co.uk/industrynews.asp?ID=51603

"A forty year old argument over one of the most hotly disputed moments in football has finally been settled by modern high definition technology, according to ITN Archive Commercial Director, Chris O’Hearn. For the first time since it was shot 40 years ago the famous British Pathe colour footage of the 1966 World Cup final has been transferred into high definition video. “It didn’t cross the line,” said O’Hearn. “The footage shows the line in almost full view as the ball bounces down from the bar. It hardly crossed the line at all, and certainly didn’t cross completely as it should have done to be legitimate. I don’t know who should feel bad, England or German supporters but that’s what it shows.” The beautifully clear images have a perfect view of England’s controversial third goal by Geoff Hurst, which has been the subject of argument from the moment the Russian linesman ruled it had gone in. It put England ahead 3-2 in extra time and made the Germans chase the game, giving away the fourth goal in the dying seconds. Analysis of the goal has suffered from the limitations of video but it’s now in perfectly sharp, unblurred digital images. The footage was originally shot by British Pathe on 35mm film. While television audiences watched in black and white on the BBC, cinema newsreels were able to show the British Pathe footage in glorious Technicolor. Around 14 minutes of the final game still exists, including iconic scenes from the famous victory lap by England’s World Cup heroes. ITN Archive, which represents the British Pathe collection, has had the entire film transferred into HD ahead of the 2006 World Cup, which will be the first to be screened in high definition. The World Cup footage was taken from a 35mm camera negative, cleaned and scanned using a Spirit telecine transfer onto HDCAM SR 1080p at 24fps. Thousands of hours of newsreel footage including British Pathe, Gaumont British and British Paramount are available in HD compatible 35mm film from ITN Archive. (GB)"

I've taken out the link to "geoff Hurst - available for speaking engagements" because it is an advertisement.Davkal 03:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Article requires some work. Couple of paragraphs refer to "Geoff" (fan write up?!) rather than "Hurst" (as would be more NPOV/encyclopedic)... Divad 22:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MBE

Hurst has an MBE, but also the Sir prefix, which makes him a Knight Bachelor...doesn't it? Could anyone check anfd if so, add it to the page?Paidgenius 18:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In perspective

As it currently stands this section adds noting but conjecture and misplaced comparisons and hyperbole. It should probably be deleted and rewritten to include a comparison of Geoff Hurst against fellow players of his era and an overview of his career achievements, instead of the current speculation.--Jackyd101 19:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leftie or rightie

Does anyone know whether Hurst was left or right footed? and which goals were scored with which feet? My recollection is that the last one - the screamer - was scored with his left foot? ElectricRay 10:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, have answered my own second question courtesy of youtube - the disputed second goal was scored with his right, the final goal with his left. But was he naturally a southpaw? ElectricRay 10:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Who the hell edited this article? It's not encyclopedic at all; the entire thing is written from the perspective of a fan of the guy so it comes off as a myspace page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.96.148.135 (talk) 09:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't remove verifiable references

Please don't remove valid and verifiable references. All Wikipedia requires is that you can verify the reference, just because you have to pay for a subscription to read the article doesn't mean it is unverifiable. Likewise, we can reference books, magazines, newspapers and even TV shows - should we remove these too as verifying them may involve a trip to amazon.com or a library archive? If you continue to question the authenticity of the source then please post a request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. 90.242.80.145 (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

From Wp:V The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiability" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source - and a subscription page prevents that happening!--Egghead06 (talk) 06:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

So buy a subscription! Honestly, it doesn't mean that YOU have to be able to verify - it means that SOMEONE can verify it. There are people existing in the world who have access to that site you know... Nanonic (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Honestly it does! Perhaps you should read WP:CITE where it states under 'Why sources should be cited'.....To ensure that the content of articles can be checked by any reader or editor. That's ANY reader. How difficult can it be to find references that can be checked? It took me a few seconds to find replacements with Google!!--Egghead06 (talk) 06:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how a subscription site differs from a book in this regard. If you wanted to check book references you'd most likely have to buy the book - if the book is even still in print. Confusing. --Jameboy (talk) 07:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Library - --Egghead06 (talk) 07:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Not every book is available in a library, and depending on where you are in the world, you might have to spend more travelling to the library than the cost of a year's subscription to one of these sites. Also, football programmes (for example) probably wouldn't appear in a library. I'm not suggesting that subscription sites should be used as sources (particularly as the when the user clicks the reference link they won't be able to see the info), merely pointing out what appears (to me) to be an anomoly. --Jameboy (talk) 07:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)