This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Emma Barnett article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
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 sourced must 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 article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm not sure about the paragraph on the court case. It doesn't seem in line with the WP:NPOV, WP:BLPCRIME and tone ( WP:BLPSTYLE) guidelines for biographies - it hardly seems that the subject was "dragged in" by any means. I'm going to change it to something more neutral for now, but I feel that the entire section should be removed, considering the notability of the subject and her family. Any objections? Jaffachief ( talk) 16:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Thinking on it some more, considering the notability of Barnett, I think the presumption should be to get rid of the paragraph for now. Jaffachief ( talk) 16:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Starting a discussion here to hopefully stop the edit-warring per WP:BRD. I believe the content Alfonz-kiki has added is both WP:COATRACK and WP:UNDUE - this article is not about the parents. Furthermore, most of the articles used as references do not mention the subject of this article, Emma Barnett, which makes their use WP:SYNTH. Happy to hear the reasons why you think this content should be included Alfonz-kiki, but given that two editors (myself and Philip Cross) have disagreed with you and referred to wikipedia guidelines, please don't add it back without consensus. Thanks, Melcous ( talk) 23:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
There are multiple sources cited, including the BBC. You have to prove how they are libelous, not just suppose that they 'potentially are'. You have refused to retain any mention of her parent's criminality, while at the same time keeping the description about them as 'a housewife' and a 'businessman'. The fact that they were not these things is a matter of public record. Additionally, this wikipage explicitly mentioned her parents, but your edits glaze over the facts with incomplete information.
Her background has a direct impact on who she is today, as mentioned by her own in her Daily Mail article (see 'The sins of the father are not the sins of the child': BBC's new star and her heartbreak over the prison shame of her father profits". Daily Mail. Retrieved 3 June 2017). In it article she talks about the impact her experiences have had on her journalistic work. How then can you reasonably claim it is WP:COATRACK when her career is directly affected by her parents' actions.
If you want to remove my edits, please give better reasoning than unfairly rejecting the sources, (they are verified and of public record), and claiming it is irrelevant to her life (she herself has said otherwise).
These are my sources: "BBC NEWS | UK | England | Manchester | Owner of £2.5m brothels is jailed". news.bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 2017-06-13. Jump up ^ http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/37866/Classroom-helper-paid-her-mortgage-with-vice-girl-Cash Jump up ^ News, Manchester Evening (2011-02-02). "Brothel boss who made £5m from string of Manchester massage parlours is ordered to pay back £4,000". men. Retrieved 2017-06-13. Jump up ^ News, Manchester Evening (2010-04-18). "'Vile and immoral' man jailed". men. Retrieved 2017-06-13. Jump up ^ Barnett, Emma (11 June 2016). "'The sins of the father are not the sins of the child': BBC's new star and her heartbreak over the prison shame of her father profits". Daily Mail. Retrieved 3 June 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfonz-kiki ( talk • contribs) 14:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
It beggars belief that this article now includes no mention of her father's illegal activities as a brothel keeper and his subsequent prosecution, and as has been pointed out above the omission could easily mislead the casual reader into believing that he was a legitimate businessman. It's jaw-droppingly disingenuous to suggest that the daughter called Emma is anyone but the subject of this article, and it's wrong also to suggest that it isn't a significant part of her life story - as if John Dickens' bankruptcy was not a significant factor in the life of Charles Dickens. The para or paras in question should be reinstated. Costesseyboy ( talk) 12:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
is this just another classic case of a PR ghoul whitewashing unsavoury parts of a persons life ... she had a private education funded by immoral earnings, how is this not relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.134.195 ( talk) 12:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I am concerned that there is a conspiracy here to conceal and misrepresent what Emma Barnett’s parents did and how they were able to fund her through a very expensive Public School which no doubt fashioned her political views and catapulted her into the privileged position she has today. For those non U.K. editors unfortunately the class system is alive and kicking in the U.K. For those who overtly discuss politics on the media it is extremely important to understand their background so that what they say and do is interpreted in context. In this case the conviction in a court of law and 3 articles published in newspapers (Manchester Gazette, Daily Express*and Daily Mail*) are deemed as “unreliable sources” where as other newspaper articles (Guardian and Times, and even gossip on Twitter some of the other references that remain) are not removed. This is very biased editing amounting to censorship. This is my first experience of editing in Wikipedia and unfortunately probably my last as I have been threatened with dismissal by an academic in Australia (even though I am academic in Britain). I am extremely disolusionned as there appears to be no real democracy and simply editors acting on behalf of vested interests in the establishment. Please recognise that this information is very important to those interested in politics in the U.K. and rather that deleting facts en bloc and then inserting factually incorrect information please agree on a compromise in the true uncensored spirit of Wikipedia. JJ1970 ( talk) 18:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
It looks all right at the moment. It's an unusual background for a national current-affairs presenter and Emma Barnett herself has gone public about it in the Sunday Times, the Mail and the Express. The problem was that, because she'd made Corbyn look silly in an interview, which was his own fault (he should have had a smoother answer if he couldn't recall exact figures, instead of which he embarrassed the audience by getting huffy and fussing with his iPad and emailing Seumas to tell him what to say, live on air), Corbyn devotees wanted to introduce the subject near the top, under 'Early life,' and say, 'Emma Barnett was born to brothel-keeper Ian Barnett and Michele Barnett, special-needs teacher and money-launderer,' which would be hatchet-work, weirdo in tone and not even true: Emma's parents were not engaged in illegal activity when she was born. The place to introduce it is under 'Career', where Emma goes public about it and it becomes widely known.
Ian was a surveyor with a commercial property business. By Emma's account, when she was 14, he got into financial trouble and got out of it by investing in a particular kind of extra-lucrative commercial property, a chain of "massage parlours", which was unfortunately illegal, so he was convicted for living off immoral earnings and controlling prostitutes including a girl trafficked into sex-slavery by Albanian gangsters. Michele was acquitted on most of the money-laundering charges but convicted for receiving illegal money as mortgage payments on the family house, and given six months suspended.
There is perhaps a slight issue over Emma's claim not to have known what a massage parlour was, or what her father's business really was post-1999, given the court's acceptance of claims by Tina Lansdale, prosecution counsel at her mother's trial, as related in the Manchester Evening News piece:- 'Photographs of some of the women Ian Barnett had taken to post on a website advertising the brothels had also been taken in the lounge and piano room of the family home.
Police found emails between Mr Barnett and his daughter Emma, talking about his "whores".
The couple, married for more than 25 years, had a Rolls-Royce and a Jaguar with personal plates, went on exotic holidays and lived a "wealthy lifestyle".
Miss Landale said: "The brothels sold sex videos to the customers and when the police searched the house they discovered a TV continuously recording sex films and 3,000 sex videos in the house.
Michele Barnett could not have failed to notice the production of these tapes and the prosecution say she must have known what they were for."' https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/school-aide-laundered-brothel-cash-946427 Khamba Tendal ( talk) 17:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Consider changing the link for "Nottingham University" to "University of Nottingham" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.142.159 ( talk) 06:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Why is Philip Cross allowed to hide unpleasant truths with his editing? https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/emma-barnett-a-classic-philip-cross-wikipedia-operation/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:43D:2CCE:5813:97BA:BCD8:6703 ( talk) 10:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
It is hard to find a justification for the inclusion of this interview and the reaction to it. It is not unusual for politicians not to have all the policy costings at their fingertips. If the event is to be on Wikipedia, Corbyn's page would seem more appropriate. Barnett doubtless intervewed effectively on this occasion but presumably has done so many times. It is not obvious why this solitary example is included in her article. If the justification is because she was abused on Twitter in relation to it, that seems to be the lot of most presenters and politicians these days and is hardly exceptional. The interview and reaction were reported in the press but that is not unusual during a general election. I therefore suggest that it be deleted. Jontel ( talk) 18:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
The couple seem determined not to share this, protesting when Facebook linked their profiles. We know, from things she has said, that he went to the University of Nottingham, is staunchly Jewish and has continental European Jewish ancestry, has been successful in the corporate world and shared parental leave with her. Perhaps his identity is not important to the article, though it is usual in biographial articles. Jontel ( talk) 09:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
The lead seems unnecessarily convoluted, mixing print and broadcast and with a disregard for chronology, if anyone wants to straighten it out. Jontel ( talk) 11:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
User:Pigsonthewing The source said: 'Police found emails between Mr Barnett and his daughter Emma, talking about his `whores'.' I added to the article: 'The police presented evidence that Barnett was aware of the criminal activity.' citing the citation. You have responded 'That's not what the source says' and ' Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Emma Barnett. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Note also that our policy on living people applies.' I submit that what I added to the article is what the source says. I also submit that I did not add original research or novel syntheses and did cite a reliable source. I await your answer with interest. Jontel ( talk) 15:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC) Here is the source. [ [1]] Others added similar material: I don't know if that caused confusion. Jontel ( talk) 15:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Emma Barnett article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
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 sourced must 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 article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm not sure about the paragraph on the court case. It doesn't seem in line with the WP:NPOV, WP:BLPCRIME and tone ( WP:BLPSTYLE) guidelines for biographies - it hardly seems that the subject was "dragged in" by any means. I'm going to change it to something more neutral for now, but I feel that the entire section should be removed, considering the notability of the subject and her family. Any objections? Jaffachief ( talk) 16:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Thinking on it some more, considering the notability of Barnett, I think the presumption should be to get rid of the paragraph for now. Jaffachief ( talk) 16:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Starting a discussion here to hopefully stop the edit-warring per WP:BRD. I believe the content Alfonz-kiki has added is both WP:COATRACK and WP:UNDUE - this article is not about the parents. Furthermore, most of the articles used as references do not mention the subject of this article, Emma Barnett, which makes their use WP:SYNTH. Happy to hear the reasons why you think this content should be included Alfonz-kiki, but given that two editors (myself and Philip Cross) have disagreed with you and referred to wikipedia guidelines, please don't add it back without consensus. Thanks, Melcous ( talk) 23:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
There are multiple sources cited, including the BBC. You have to prove how they are libelous, not just suppose that they 'potentially are'. You have refused to retain any mention of her parent's criminality, while at the same time keeping the description about them as 'a housewife' and a 'businessman'. The fact that they were not these things is a matter of public record. Additionally, this wikipage explicitly mentioned her parents, but your edits glaze over the facts with incomplete information.
Her background has a direct impact on who she is today, as mentioned by her own in her Daily Mail article (see 'The sins of the father are not the sins of the child': BBC's new star and her heartbreak over the prison shame of her father profits". Daily Mail. Retrieved 3 June 2017). In it article she talks about the impact her experiences have had on her journalistic work. How then can you reasonably claim it is WP:COATRACK when her career is directly affected by her parents' actions.
If you want to remove my edits, please give better reasoning than unfairly rejecting the sources, (they are verified and of public record), and claiming it is irrelevant to her life (she herself has said otherwise).
These are my sources: "BBC NEWS | UK | England | Manchester | Owner of £2.5m brothels is jailed". news.bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 2017-06-13. Jump up ^ http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/37866/Classroom-helper-paid-her-mortgage-with-vice-girl-Cash Jump up ^ News, Manchester Evening (2011-02-02). "Brothel boss who made £5m from string of Manchester massage parlours is ordered to pay back £4,000". men. Retrieved 2017-06-13. Jump up ^ News, Manchester Evening (2010-04-18). "'Vile and immoral' man jailed". men. Retrieved 2017-06-13. Jump up ^ Barnett, Emma (11 June 2016). "'The sins of the father are not the sins of the child': BBC's new star and her heartbreak over the prison shame of her father profits". Daily Mail. Retrieved 3 June 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfonz-kiki ( talk • contribs) 14:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
It beggars belief that this article now includes no mention of her father's illegal activities as a brothel keeper and his subsequent prosecution, and as has been pointed out above the omission could easily mislead the casual reader into believing that he was a legitimate businessman. It's jaw-droppingly disingenuous to suggest that the daughter called Emma is anyone but the subject of this article, and it's wrong also to suggest that it isn't a significant part of her life story - as if John Dickens' bankruptcy was not a significant factor in the life of Charles Dickens. The para or paras in question should be reinstated. Costesseyboy ( talk) 12:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
is this just another classic case of a PR ghoul whitewashing unsavoury parts of a persons life ... she had a private education funded by immoral earnings, how is this not relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.134.195 ( talk) 12:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I am concerned that there is a conspiracy here to conceal and misrepresent what Emma Barnett’s parents did and how they were able to fund her through a very expensive Public School which no doubt fashioned her political views and catapulted her into the privileged position she has today. For those non U.K. editors unfortunately the class system is alive and kicking in the U.K. For those who overtly discuss politics on the media it is extremely important to understand their background so that what they say and do is interpreted in context. In this case the conviction in a court of law and 3 articles published in newspapers (Manchester Gazette, Daily Express*and Daily Mail*) are deemed as “unreliable sources” where as other newspaper articles (Guardian and Times, and even gossip on Twitter some of the other references that remain) are not removed. This is very biased editing amounting to censorship. This is my first experience of editing in Wikipedia and unfortunately probably my last as I have been threatened with dismissal by an academic in Australia (even though I am academic in Britain). I am extremely disolusionned as there appears to be no real democracy and simply editors acting on behalf of vested interests in the establishment. Please recognise that this information is very important to those interested in politics in the U.K. and rather that deleting facts en bloc and then inserting factually incorrect information please agree on a compromise in the true uncensored spirit of Wikipedia. JJ1970 ( talk) 18:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
It looks all right at the moment. It's an unusual background for a national current-affairs presenter and Emma Barnett herself has gone public about it in the Sunday Times, the Mail and the Express. The problem was that, because she'd made Corbyn look silly in an interview, which was his own fault (he should have had a smoother answer if he couldn't recall exact figures, instead of which he embarrassed the audience by getting huffy and fussing with his iPad and emailing Seumas to tell him what to say, live on air), Corbyn devotees wanted to introduce the subject near the top, under 'Early life,' and say, 'Emma Barnett was born to brothel-keeper Ian Barnett and Michele Barnett, special-needs teacher and money-launderer,' which would be hatchet-work, weirdo in tone and not even true: Emma's parents were not engaged in illegal activity when she was born. The place to introduce it is under 'Career', where Emma goes public about it and it becomes widely known.
Ian was a surveyor with a commercial property business. By Emma's account, when she was 14, he got into financial trouble and got out of it by investing in a particular kind of extra-lucrative commercial property, a chain of "massage parlours", which was unfortunately illegal, so he was convicted for living off immoral earnings and controlling prostitutes including a girl trafficked into sex-slavery by Albanian gangsters. Michele was acquitted on most of the money-laundering charges but convicted for receiving illegal money as mortgage payments on the family house, and given six months suspended.
There is perhaps a slight issue over Emma's claim not to have known what a massage parlour was, or what her father's business really was post-1999, given the court's acceptance of claims by Tina Lansdale, prosecution counsel at her mother's trial, as related in the Manchester Evening News piece:- 'Photographs of some of the women Ian Barnett had taken to post on a website advertising the brothels had also been taken in the lounge and piano room of the family home.
Police found emails between Mr Barnett and his daughter Emma, talking about his "whores".
The couple, married for more than 25 years, had a Rolls-Royce and a Jaguar with personal plates, went on exotic holidays and lived a "wealthy lifestyle".
Miss Landale said: "The brothels sold sex videos to the customers and when the police searched the house they discovered a TV continuously recording sex films and 3,000 sex videos in the house.
Michele Barnett could not have failed to notice the production of these tapes and the prosecution say she must have known what they were for."' https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/school-aide-laundered-brothel-cash-946427 Khamba Tendal ( talk) 17:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Consider changing the link for "Nottingham University" to "University of Nottingham" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.142.159 ( talk) 06:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Why is Philip Cross allowed to hide unpleasant truths with his editing? https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/emma-barnett-a-classic-philip-cross-wikipedia-operation/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:43D:2CCE:5813:97BA:BCD8:6703 ( talk) 10:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
It is hard to find a justification for the inclusion of this interview and the reaction to it. It is not unusual for politicians not to have all the policy costings at their fingertips. If the event is to be on Wikipedia, Corbyn's page would seem more appropriate. Barnett doubtless intervewed effectively on this occasion but presumably has done so many times. It is not obvious why this solitary example is included in her article. If the justification is because she was abused on Twitter in relation to it, that seems to be the lot of most presenters and politicians these days and is hardly exceptional. The interview and reaction were reported in the press but that is not unusual during a general election. I therefore suggest that it be deleted. Jontel ( talk) 18:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
The couple seem determined not to share this, protesting when Facebook linked their profiles. We know, from things she has said, that he went to the University of Nottingham, is staunchly Jewish and has continental European Jewish ancestry, has been successful in the corporate world and shared parental leave with her. Perhaps his identity is not important to the article, though it is usual in biographial articles. Jontel ( talk) 09:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
The lead seems unnecessarily convoluted, mixing print and broadcast and with a disregard for chronology, if anyone wants to straighten it out. Jontel ( talk) 11:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
User:Pigsonthewing The source said: 'Police found emails between Mr Barnett and his daughter Emma, talking about his `whores'.' I added to the article: 'The police presented evidence that Barnett was aware of the criminal activity.' citing the citation. You have responded 'That's not what the source says' and ' Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Emma Barnett. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Note also that our policy on living people applies.' I submit that what I added to the article is what the source says. I also submit that I did not add original research or novel syntheses and did cite a reliable source. I await your answer with interest. Jontel ( talk) 15:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC) Here is the source. [ [1]] Others added similar material: I don't know if that caused confusion. Jontel ( talk) 15:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)