Talk:Siobhan Baillie

@195.191.66.225: I note that the birth year and place has been added repeatedly based on freeBMD. This is a website that transcribes information from a primary record e.g. birth certificate and is part of a family of genealogy websites. There are a number of reasons why using such sources are not considered as reliable. There can be transcription errors. By searching for the person in the record, the user can be doing original research as there is no indication that the person that comes up in the search is the same person in the article.

On a secondary note, you seem to be very well-versed in Wikipedia guidelines but are operating an anonymous IP account that has only recently become active. Are you a secondary account of another user? Please read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Cowlibob (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)(195.191.66.225 (talk)Reply

15:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC))@Cowlibob: I have checked the index entry and it has been transcribed correctly. There is a scan of the index entry in the link. Regarding persons in a reference not being the same person as in the article, this could in theory be the case for any reference. This is not original research any more than looking up any other reference is original research. I note there are a number of references in the article to websites written by the subject of the article which is itself contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. I am not a "sockpuppet" and do not know what agenda you think I am trying to promote by adding this information to the article. Incidentally I note that there is a reference to Siobhan's entry in the Law Society register in relation to which you could use the same argument, that this could be a different Siobhan Kathleen Baillie and that it is "original research"; this argument is specious - I have cross checked on the SRA website and a Siobhan Kathleen Baillie is also registered on that site. I have added it as an additional reference. Regarding the BMD index the entry referred to is the only entry for a Siobhan Kathleen Baillie. When Wikipedia refer to original research they are referring to, for example, scientific or other original research that has not been peer reviewed and/or published in a reputable publication; they do not mean that you cannot look up information in public records - that might count as a primary source but use of primary sources is not prohibited, they merely state that they should be used with care, which is what I am doing.

Please sign your comments by adding 4 ~ at the end of comments. There is no point in continuing to discuss so I'll just step away, with time this BMD ref will be replaced by a better one. I've removed your Get Reading ref (paid advertisement) with a reliable independent source. I don't where "number of references in the article to websites written by the subject of the article" is coming from, there was only one from scanning the refs for an uncontroversial item which I've replaced. Cowlibob (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Cowlibob: Yes, just the 1 reference to her website, the previous reference (25), which you have removed. I note you have removed the SRA reference as an excess reference, but there are other items which have more than one reference e.g. current references (10) and (11) - why is that?195.191.66.225 (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Usually multiple refs are needed as they give more information or to verify different bits of the sentence. However for the above example, about a review, there are two refs (ref 11 is a secondary source (Ham & High that verifies the information as well shows that it had significant coverage), the ref 10 is the actual review so that it helps curious readers directly read it if they wanted to). I removed the SRA ref as it doesn't give any more information than The Law Society one does. Cowlibob (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply