Talk:Emma Barnett

Court Case

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)

Found a reliable source where this issue is mentioned, albeit behind a paywall, but Barnett has been a Sunday Times columnist since last August. This development is notable enough to be mentioned, even if so far there is not a good enough third-party source online. Also a means of placing the family issue away from the background section where it would be problematic. Philip Cross (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Content about parents

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)

Agreed. The material cited to the Express is potentially libellous. The reference to Emma Barnett being "right wing" is not only inadmissible, especially in the summary, but undoubtedly wrong. It is not a description which has been applied to the Women's Equality Party, which Barnett has joined. This is in the article and what I meant in one of the edit summaries by the term "see below". Philip Cross (talk) 05:29, 14 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)

For starters, I have yet to see a reliable reference where the kind of information you want to add is clearly linked to the subject of this article. The article you have linked above mentions a daughter named Emma but there is no clear connection to the subject of this article. (I know very little about this person and it is a fairly common name, so while it might seem to you to be 'obvious', policies like WP:OR and WP:SYNTH make it clear that the conclusions must be stated in the article and not implied by editors). So the first step would be to provide a reliable source that makes that link clear, then the next step would be to discuss here whether it is WP:UNDUE or WP:COATRACK to include the information in the article. I'm trying to keep an open mind on that, but continually edit warring and accusing me of being a "paid PR" person doesn't help. Melcous (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

"Emma Barnett was born to brothel keeper Ian Barnett and Michelle Barnett, a teaching assistant and convicted money launderer.""School aide laundered brothel cash". Manchester Evening News. Retrieved 22 May 2018. Is this sentence not supported by the given source? If not, I'd grateful for an explanation why not.Tpaine99 (talk) 10:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

For some reason we seem to have missed the fact that the mail on sunday article, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3636992/Dad-s-prison-shame-broke-heart-BBC-5-Live-s-new-star-6-2million-brothel-keeper-father.html, and the MEN article referenced above both provide the same picture of Ian Barnet, and as such, we can be very confident that the Emma in the MEN article is the subject of this wikipedia page (certainly more confident than we can be for the vast majority of documents referenced in wikipedia).Tpaine99 (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2018 (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)

See the end of the second paragraph in the Journalist and broadcaster section: "In August 2016, Barnett's 'Tough Love' agony column began in The Sunday Times Magazine. To encourage her readers to write in about difficult issues, she referred to "the most painful chapter of my life" when, almost a decade earlier, her father was imprisoned for living off immoral earnings". The issue is not unmentioned, simply kept in proportion. Philip Cross (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how it's disproportionate. It seems pretty common to include the parental occupation at this point, and given the subject has written about it herself, I'm not sure what the problem is. Tpaine99 (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I forgot to add, where your refer to the issue being mentioned, it's actually about her father's conviction/jailing, not his occupation, though they ar of course related.Tpaine99 (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2018 (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)

Wikipedia works by including what has been stated in reliable, secondary sources. There still does not appear to have been any sources provided that meet that criteria - the Daily Mail is not an acceptable source, and as far as I can see no other source has been provided that actually makes the point the editors want to include in the article. It may well be true, but if it can't be sourced properly, then it should not be in a biography of a living person. Melcous (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

That is exactly correct, Melcous. Let's hope this fiasco ends now. ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 08:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources

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)

I would suggest that you read and re-read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. :Please point out the Twitter reference.‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 09:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe the argument regarding the Manchester Evening News article was that you couldn't be sure it was related to the subject of the page (Emma Barnett) as it only referred to Emma. However, it's now been established that there is no doubt it is in fact about the subject of this page, so you're free to use it. Also, articles which appeared in the Mail on Sunday (but maybe hosted on Daily Mail site) are fine as far as I can tell. Tpaine99 (talk) 12:44, 24 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-946427Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Since it's been covered in The Times too (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-interview-the-bbcs-new-rottweiler-emma-barnett-on-why-politicians-fear-her-tx6fft0rj), and the Jewish Chronicle (https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/brothel-owner-s-4-2m-appeal-win-1.30821), and we therefore have three reliable, secondary sources, does anyone have any objections if I re-add the section about her father? 83.218.151.178 (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Alumni

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)

The informal usage is allowable, but have added the correct target as the presence of the redirect looks clumsy if the link is followed. Philip Cross (talk) 07:37, 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)

Inclusion of Corbyn interview

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)

I agree, it's not even about Corbyn, but an excuse to squeeze in another unsubstantiated claim of anti-Semitism against the defenders of Jeremy Corbyn on Twitter. There's no evidence of this, at least in the non-paywalled links I can see, however, I did find this response to Barnett by Paul Mason (who's no supporter of Corbyn) “You repeatedly editorialised in a way no trained BBC journalist would.”--Andromedean (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

No, this was a major journalistic coup covered by sources, Barnett's role in uncovering this was noted. SoaringLL (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

That a politician does not have every costing from a 128 page manifesto on the tip of his tongue is hardly surprising and not a major journalistic coup. That it is reported by a extremely hostile media does not make it significant.Jontel (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for making the point this should be included as it was reported by "extremely hostile media" in your words, or to paraphrase your words: just all regular media in the UK. SoaringLL (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I removed it. I don't know why it was in there--that childcare cost sentence came in out of nowhere, someone's comment from "inews" is all of a sudden worth quoting, a cryptic response by Corbyn without context is offered--and someone managed to sneak in the word "abuse" in Wikipedia's voice? SoaringLL, I see you, and I have no faith in you. Drmies (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I would argue it should be included. It is Barnett's best known interview and frequently mentioned when the media reports on her career. Whilst the intricacies of the interview were perhaps unnecessarily included, it is a notable interview of one of the most senior politicians in the country which generated significant coverage. Also the inclusion of Paul Mason's criticism of the interview appeared unnecessary, when there were multiple sources which praised the interview as effective. Thus, the whole section needs redrafted but it is an interview which garnered Barnett significant coverage, not forgetting the abuse aimed at her which was condemned by Corbyn. User:Jack0709 19;36 19 October 2020

Identity of Barnett's husband

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)

Confused lead

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)

Barnett's awareness of her father's criminal activity

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)

You may submit that what you added to the article is what the source says; you are wrong to do so, as the two very differnt quotes in your comment show. It is for you to prove your remarkable claim (if you wish to persue it), not for me to prove a negative. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The meaning is identical. Let me use S as source and E as edit. S says police; E says police. S says found emails; E says presented evidence (formally, the prosecution presented evidence found by the police). S says Mr Barnett and his daughter Emma corresponded about his 'whores'. E says that she was aware of his criminal activity. The only alternative to the conclusion that Emma was aware of his criminal activity i.e. running brothels (of his whores) is that they were corresponding about relationships he may have had with prostitutes as a customer, or that whores was being used informally in describing other sexual encounters. Thie seems highly unlikely. Why would he pay for prostitutes when he employed them? Or are you suggesting he pretended to his daughter that he was a customer of prostitutes in order to conceal from her that he employed them? Why would he discuss any use of prostitutes with his daughter? By contrast, there are reasons for it not to be remarkable that she was aware of his criminal activities. According to the trial and the source, the house in which she lived was used for photoshoots of the prostitutes and for recording sex films. There were 3,000 sex videos in the house. It would not be surprising for her to come across some of this. Moreover, they lived a wealthy lifestyle: a five bedroom house, a Rolls Royce, a Jaguar, exotic holidays and private school for Emma. Would she not have asked where all the money came from given that her father was a surveyor and hed mother was not well paid? Could her parents have operated a business with an annual turnover of £2.5m without her knowing anything about it? You say that it is not for you to 'prove a negative' but, according to WP:TALK#COMMUNICATE, 'If in doubt, make the extra effort so that other people understand you. Being friendly is a great help. It is always a good idea to explain your views; it is less helpful for you to voice an opinion on something and not explain why you hold it. Explaining why you have a certain opinion helps to demonstrate its validity to others and reach consensus.' Moreover, this was a reversion by you and, according to WP:REVEXP, ' A substantive explanation also promotes consensus by alerting the reverted editor to the problem with the original edit'. You say that the source and edit are very different. I think it is for you to indicate why you think that there may be alternative interpretations of the source. Perhaps you can help me understand why your view differs from mine, or how we can reach consensus. Jontel (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:BALASP

There was excessive detail on 3 incidents on Woman's Hour (plus a nothingburger from 2019) which I've trimmed/removed here. The coverage was disproportionate for a WP:BLP and breached WP:BALASP and WP:DUE. I'm still not convinced that this has been reduced enough - I think the Okafor incident should be removed altogether. It's still giving the impression that her Woman's Hour period was filled with controversy which may be a BLP violation. DeCausa (talk) 07:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your general stance here. I also agree that the Okafor material should be entirely removed. Also the Mohammed and O'Connor material. If a presenter is continually interviewing public figures then sometimes the presenter is going to get a negative reaction from people who support those individuals. That isn't really controversy and nor is it news. The idea that Emma Barnett is a controversial figure would only be peddled by people with a very extreme worldview. Axad12 (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, I think the second paragraph of the "Early Life" section should be removed. Criminal offences committed by family members are irrelevant. Axad12 (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with that. Barnett herself has written about what a huge impact it's had on her life and how it's traumatized her. It clearly needs to be part of her bio. DeCausa (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)