Talk:Chuka Umunna

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Christopher Hope (7 April 2013). "Labour star Chuka Umunna admits his aides probably set up and edited his own Wikipedia page". The Daily Telegraph. A rising star Labour frontbencher has been admitted that his aides might have set up up and edited his own page on the online encyclopaedia Wikipedia. Labour MP Chuka Umunna, who is tipped as a future party leader, was accused of amending his page on the popular website under the pseudonym "Socialdemocrat". His Wikipedia page was set up in October 2007 by "Socialdemocrat", who wrote a long profile of about Mr Umunna, with detailed knowledge of his legal career.
Joseph Watts (11 April 2013). "Mystery deepens over who changed Wikipedia entry of Labour star Chuka Umunna". The Evening Standard. The mystery of who edited Wikipedia to include comparisons of rising Labour star Chuka Umunna with President Obama took a new twist today. For the Evening Standard can reveal that the person who added a flattering reference to the "UK's Barack Obama" to Mr Umunna's Wikipedia profile used a computer at the very law firm where he was working.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 17, 2018, October 17, 2019, and October 17, 2022.

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.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal 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 supported by the politics and government work group.

Politics of the United Kingdom High‑importance

	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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

London High‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Barclays

The letter from Diamond was not "in response to lobbying" but in response to a question from Umunna in his capacity as a member of the Treasury Select Committee. We also need to clarify that it is UK Corporation Tax paid in 2009 vs worldwide profits earned in 2009. This was of course when Labour was in government and Barclays benefited from tax exemptions introduced by Gordon Brown which meant their £6.3bn sale of Barclays Global Investors didn't attract UK Corporation Tax. see here for some details. NBeale (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Layout

Shouldn't family history come before his education? just for a layout thing. Alexandre8 (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creating and Editing Own Wikipedia page

I've written this in the subject:

That same month The Sun alleged that in 2007 Chuka Umunna, under the name Socialdemocrat created and repeatedly edited his own Wikipedia page.^[1] They highlight edits such as those describing himself as the British Barack Obama.^[2]

I'm obviously a little concerned that he will simply remove it. I have no idea what the policy is on living people editing their own entry. But i have concerns about neutrality in that event and look for guidance. Flagpolewiki (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me 92.232.113.55 (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created by User talk:Socialdemocrat in October 2007, who has not edited the page since February 2008. "Sources close to Mr Umunna said it was possible that one of his campaign team in 2007, when he was trying to be selected to be Labour's candidate for Streatham in the 2010 general election, set up the page."[1]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The policy on living people creating their own entry can be found at WP:AUTO, and for editing their own existing entry at WP:AUTO#IFEXIST. Captain Conundrum (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The edit saying that "In November 2007, Umunna was identifed as one of ten young, gifted and black people in British politics in the The Independent on Sunday by Simon Woolley, director of Operation Black Vote. Woolley said Umunna "may end up as the UK's Barack Obama." was made in January 2008 by IP 83.105.87.81.[2] This is the only contribution by this editor. 83.105.87.81 is registered to Rochman Landau, which is Umunna's law firm.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well researched. This definitely belongs in the article. However, I've taken out the other 'controversy' about his alleged criticism of London's nightclubs - that one seems very minor by comparison. Wikipedia biographies shouldn't resemble the gossip pages, reporting every trivial thing someone has said which annoyed someone else. (And no, I'm not related to Mr. Umunna myself...) Robofish (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some media coverage, such as here in the Evening Standard, wrongly stated that Socialdemocrat added the Barack Obama comparison. In fact, this was added by an IP editor.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are/were two references to Obama. this one http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chuka_Umunna&diff=192825856&oldid=185040343 appears to have been added by Socialdemocrat. Line 14 Flagpolewiki (talk) 07:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

Rod Liddle admits to talk page edit

In today's Sunday Times, Rod Liddle admits to making this edit. Since the article is currently semi-protected, an IP editor would not have been able to add this to the article itself. Since the ST requires a subscription, here is a non-copyright busting quote from what Mr Liddle says:

With any luck you should be able to read about Chuka's large dorsal crest on Wikipedia very soon. I added it to his biography on Friday afternoon. Or, at least, I submitted a request to Wikipedia that I should be allowed to edit his biography to bring this abnormality to the attention of the public.

Very droll.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Re this edit. The Sun never knew for a fact that Chuka Umunna edited his own Wikipedia article, and neither did anyone else. All that is known for sure is that some of the IP edits traced back to the law firm where he worked at the time. As for the gambling donation controversy, this has issues with WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Wikipedia articles do not need to mention every controversy in which a politician is involved.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, Wikipedia policy is not to use language that calls into doubt the veracity of the statement per WP:CLAIM. Note - it was not just the Sun that reported these allegations; they were widely disseminated by mainstream press, and as such, neutral language should be employed.

Secondly, WP:RECENTISM isn't a de facto injunction on reporting recent events. Rather, it is an advisory guideline as to the notability of material. The mere fact that this controversy recently occured does not mandate its automatic preclusion. Notability should be determined by the extent of the coverage and its duration. I am of the view that the accusations of hypocrisy are sufficiently notable as they were reported by The Times, the Independent, The Telegraph, The Guardian, BBC (and of course, the Sun and Daily Mail). I would expect a sound reason to be presented why this material is not notable apart from its recency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.119.208 (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attitude towards public

This section was deleted by regular wikipedia editor on here. It is notable, widely reported in all newspapers and a variety of blogs and also received comment on it from a standing MP. Its inclusion is relevant, particularly for a man who is a politician. 94.194.106.154 (talk) 02:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)jw94.194.106.154 (talk) 02:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was previously reverted because the article is a biography and it is not practical to include every controversy that a politician has been involved in. There is a risk of turning the "Controversies" section into a "let's bash Chukka" WP:COATRACK. Criticism or controversy sections are discouraged on Wikipedia because they are poor writing style, particularly in a WP:BLP. I have tagged this section for cleanup.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IanMacM, Perhaps you might like to integrate each piece into the main body of the text. As otherwise it is a bias / puff piece with no balance (which is probably how Chukka intended it when he wrote it) Also in the guidelines for Wikipedia and biographies is that these are not PR pieces but an accurate representation of who he is. You can't argue that playing the cello is relevant whereas his attitudes to members of the public are not. 94.194.106.154 (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Worcester/Wichita

No doubt I will get told off, but this edit was reverted because it has the same problems with WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER as some of the other examples in the Controversies section. It isn't much more noteworthy than a politician not knowing the price of a loaf of bread. The media likes this kind of thing, but this is an encyclopedia article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a controversies section

He has put his foot in it on many occasions and should not be shielded just because he is from an ethnic minority. Reaper7 (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need a criticism/controversy section, as these are poor Wikipedia writing style, particularly in a WP:BLP article. Template:Criticism section does not rule out this type of section, but in my view they are unacceptable in a BLP article. Being from an ethnic minority is nothing to do with it, as I would say the same thing in any BLP article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it does need a controversies section User:ianmacm. Also I assume good faith on your part, but you do appear to be a little too ambitious concerning this article, I notice someone else questioned your agenda concerning this article on your talk page. There is also an important event in his life where he referred to fellow humans as 'trash'...,^[1] Reaper7 (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose criticism/controversy sections in any BLP article. As for having an agenda, the main agenda is to improve this article, which is nowhere near Good Article standard at the moment. If he becomes Labour leader, the article will need some serious work, as it will be high profile. Ed Miliband is a Good Article, and has no criticism/controversy section. Anyone interested in improving this article should have a look at Ed Miliband to get an idea of how it should be done.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, many politicians have a criticisms/controversy page - Chukka should be no exception given that he's made quite a few mistakesOxr033 (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons Ian mentioned, you won't find many rated good articles with a controversy section. Include the noteworthy mistakes in the relevant section of the bio instead. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Barack Obama nor David Cameron have a controversies section and both are Good/Featured articles. Angela Merkel which does have a controversy section is not a featured article. BlueworldSpeccie (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/9973249/Labours-Chuka-Umunna-asked-how-to-avoid-mixing-with-trash-on-elite-social-network.html

UKIP

Should we include a section on UKIP here? Chuka has made various comments about this insurgent party in interviews over the last 12 months. I think it's a good idea to add a line or two in a Controversies section.Oxr033 (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:10YT have to be borne in mind here. It is pretty obvious that as a Labour Party politician, he is not going to be a great fan of UKIP. Long quotes or sections explaining this are not really necessary. Also, please don't create a criticism/controversy section, see above.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Labour politician criticising UKIP is the opposite of controversial. If he agreed with their policies, THAT would be controversial.Smurfmeister (talk) 13:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail story

What should be said, if anything about this story in the Daily Mail? The article currently says this: 'It then emerged that he is a member of the exclusive M Den club behind the Bank of England which sells £150 steaks and cognac up to £4,000, where he keeps a £300 cognac locker and has one of fifty electronic keys to a secret entrance to the restaurant' AusLondonder (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is in the Daily Mail, it would be lower than a fish and chip wrapper to some editors. Even if true, it is not all that notable. The DM provides no evidence that he has ever bought a £4000 bottle of cognac there, so it is a classic attempt to hype up a thin story.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I didn't add the article, but others have repeatedly added it. I've removed the story from the page. If anyone else wants to add it, they should explain why here. AusLondonder (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy including C.U Editing his own wikipedia page were deleted.

Wikipedia guidelines state that these pages have to be balanced and not puff pieces. The fact that UMUNNA was editing his own wikipedia page and holding negative attitudes towards the general public is relevant.

here is the previous part.

Treasury Select Committee

Controversy[edit] In early April 2013, Umunna was linked to favourable updates made on his Wikipedia page in 2007.[37][38][39][40]

Also in early April 2013, Conservative MP Chris Heaton-Harris criticised Umunna for comments he had made in his mid 20s about the West End of London. Heaton-Harris said the 2006 comments, describing people visiting nightclubs in the West End as "trash" and "c-list wannabes" showed a "lack of respect for the public"; Umunna stated that the comments were meant to have been "light-hearted in tone and context" but appreciated that "the choice of words used were not appropriate" and apologised for any "offence".[41]

Umunna was accused of hypocrisy for accepting a £20,000 gift from a gambling executive despite campaigning against the spread of betting shops in his constituency and promising new powers to limit them.[42]

Conservative Party Involvement In mid-April 2013, The Mirror ran a piece indicating that Umunna "had been targeted" and that the Conservative Party was implicated after a "leaked email" from their HQ showed that "businessmen had been lobbied" to criticise Umunna over his West End comments.[43]

The criticism/controversy section was removed because WP:BLP articles should not have these, as they are poor writing style and a coatrack for every piece of criticism that comes along. It is not a fact that Umunna edited his own Wikipedia page, an edit was linked to the IP address of the law firm where he worked at the time. This is mentioned in the article, along with the "c-list wannabes" and gambling gift. See also Template:Criticism section.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation from Shadow Cabinet?

The subject has said that he won't serve in Corbyn's shadow cabinet, yes? Hence I have amended the page. Sorry, no link. SmokeyTheCat 06:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies my fellow editors. The subject has not, as yet, resigned as I wrote above so I have reverted my edits. Given that Umunna is on record as saying that he thought 'Blair was 85% correct' he will have to radically alter his views if wants/expects to serve under Corbyn but he is a pragmatic man so will we see. On personal note when I met him in 2012 or thereabouts and asked him if, given that 65% of Britons don't want it, we could make cancelling Trident replacement a policy pledge he said "Well ...". Which isn't yes or no. He's a weather-vane, going with whatever is fashionable imho. So maybe we have not yet seen the end of the career of the ambitious Mr. Umunna? SmokeyTheCat 10:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still no resignation yet AFAIK. SmokeyTheCat 19:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now confirmed here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. SmokeyTheCat 01:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

pronunciation

Can someone please add how to pronounce his name. Professor John Wells gives the pronunciation as /ˈtʃʊkə ʊˈmʊnə/ at http://phonetic-blog.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/chuka-umunna.html, but my attempt to add it using the "IPA-en" feature got in a mess in the preview so I didn't save it. Thanks, --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chuka Umunna. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130103070516/http://www.chuka.org.uk/2011/05/one-nation-labour/ to http://www.chuka.org.uk/2011/05/one-nation-labour/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chuka Umunna. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spokesperson Roles Should Be Removed

No other former MP has a list of "Shadow Cabinet spokesperson" roles in their infobox. This should be removed to align with the format of all the others. 92.233.66.163 (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4877069/Chukas-Wikid-act.html

[2] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chuka_Umunna&diff=192825856&oldid=185040343

[3] ttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/9973249/Labours-Chuka-Umunna-asked-how-to-avoid-mixing-with-trash-on-elite-social-network.html

[1]

[2]

[1]