Talk:John Goldney

Untitled
I've seen some tenuous sources in my time, but the most recent are really stretching credibility. This source doesn't appear to support the contention made, which appears to be design to undermine that made by a reliable source. and this one is labelled "humour". About as verifiable and reliable, without direct view, as a chocolate teapot. Either write an encyclopedia, or don't, please, but I need to see chapter and verse for anything that contradicts two reliable sources. Rodhull andemu  23:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but you /really/ don't believe in discussion "on the level" in a non-emotive manner, do you?
 * Is there a good reason why you believe that 1969 book to be a less "reliable source" than Singapore Golf Club's commercial website 40 years later?
 * => http://books.google.com/books?cd=4&q=%22Sir+John+is+believed+to+have+brought%22&btnG=Search+Books
 * "Sir John is believed to have brought his golf clubs with him when he came to Singapore in 1887. He certainly brought his negro butler, a man named Frazer..."
 * The author has written various other books on Singapore, Malaysia and related history http://openlibrary.org/a/OL142002A/Alex_Josey
 * Better now? Kind regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That may well be so, but you didn't cite the search in Google books until now, and I didn't find it from your link. As for reliability of sources, as a lawyer, I tend to regard more contemporaneous sources as being more reliable, being closer to the events described, and not coloured by subsequent reinterpretations. The sources still disagree as to whether his butler was "Eraser", or "Fraser", or "Frazer", because of the difficulty of the OCR of those old books. Alex Josey may well have written "various other books", etc., but so have Jeffrey Archer and Gyles Brandreth.  Rodhull  andemu  00:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And your assertion that Singapore Golf Club is a (more) reliable source is based on...?
 * As a lawyer, you are very good at dodging questions, too.
 * Anyhow; if that's "end. of. trivial. dispute.", could you please split Goldney's golfing credentials into a separate section, as previously requested on the DYK page - I know that some in the legal profession /would/ consider that to be part of their "Legal Career", but that's not a particularly encyclopedic (or WP) approach. Cheers & Thanks again, David. Harami2000 (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

For now, I think it could stay where it is, because to split it into a separate section would break the chronology for the only purpose of creating an initially small and disparate section, which would require some contextual explanation to put it into proper perspective. If the golf section can be expanded to become justifiable beyond a few sentences, fine, but thus far, I don't see that the material is there. This is a start-class article, and the sources are those I have managed to find in order to get it up and running, and into WP:DYK, since there is a limited window for doing so. Refinements can follow, if they can be sourced, but they are not necessary just yet. DYK /= GA. 01:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Rodhull  andemu  01:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)