This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
@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]
.svg){kind=small}
