Talk:John Hartson

'Most feared'
Is "most feared" a polite way of saying "ugliest"? I think this article is a bit POV. If he is "feared", do you think you could find some people expressing that opinion (not Celtic fans, you understand)? I'd certainly be more worried at facing Henry, van Nistelrooy or any of a dozen others than Hartson.Dr Zen 05:48, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * No, more a way of saying that people are a little scared of defending against him. I figure that if at least the BBC can use the phrase, then the evidence must be there to back it up. Chris 14:51, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Citations needed?
Why are there so many "Citation's" needed for the opening paragraph? Surely this is something that any person who watches more then 3 games can deduce.

Norwich loan
The story as reported by the two clubs involved - may be useful for additional citations: Interesting that they each put a slightly different spin on the actual length of the loan. --Jameboy 18:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.canaries.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetails/0,,10355~1133642,00.html
 * http://www.wba.premiumtv.co.uk/page/News/0,,10366~1133341,00.html

Cancer
The words used are more alarming than necessary. Testicular cancer is one of the easiest to treat -whether a primary or a secondary tumour -which is what the brain cancer appears to be. I won't alter it again but I believe the best description is still "testicular cancer which has spread to his brain". The words used suggest incorrectly these are both primaries. Perhaps someone more medically qualified would confirm. Good luck to John. JRPG (talk) 10:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have corrected the wording. Hartson has testicular cancer metastasised to his brain. To state brain cancer is saying he has cancer originating in his brain, which is not the case. Whilst the vast majority of those who contract testicular cancer recover, the survival rate is much lower when it is stage 4. Biographies 2 (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I think it's so important to get it right, even if some newpapers don't make the effort. The last thing he wants is people writing him off.  JRPG (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am a TC survivor and can confirm your wording is the best. Talk of "lung cancer" and "brain cancer" would be incorrect. The tumor type, as you have described, is more important than even the site of the tumor. 85.144.160.189 (talk) 13:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Following your comment, specifically to encourage those newly diagnosed, I added the BBC reference to the Everyman Campaign. If you're new to Wikipedia, the Everyman campaign might be a good starting point and I'm sure others, including myself would help. JRPG (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Celtic Stats
Hartson's figures for goals scored and games played for Celtic are wrong. On this webpage http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/c/celtic/4412184.stm    it quite clearly says he has played 182 games and scored 100 goals and he played for Celtic for 7 months after it was written. Making the figures here very wrong. --BRFC98 (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The stats boxes for footballers only include League goals and appearances. This is the convention used throughout Wikipedia. --Terrencethetractor (talk) 13:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Number of senior games played: arithmetic inconsistency
The number of games played for Arsenal displayed in the playing career box top right is 54 but the season-by-season count in the Career Statistics section towards the bottom adds up to 53, and the total for games in England adds up to 253 not 254 as shown, which would make the total 399 games not 400 as shown in both boxes. So either one of his Arsenal seasons is missing a game or the 54/254/400 numbers are wrong.PMOne (talk) 05:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It seems that there is a slight difference between some of the major sources which has resulted in some counting 53 games and some counting 54. The Premier League website, The Arsenal website, Neil Brown and Barry Hugman all go for 53 while Soccerbase and The Arsenal history go for 54. Judging by the season tallies in the sources, the 1996–97 season seems to be the source of the issue. Kosack (talk) 06:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Most helpful list of sources. I have gone through the team sheets on the Arsenal History site and they agree with the 15+19+19 for 53 total tally. The Soccerbase data appears to be missing the Leeds away appearance in 1996-97 and is showing no league data for 1994-95 season, so seems the least reliable source. I am gaining increasing confidence that 53 not 54 is correct. PMOne (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)