Talk:Oona King

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Peerage and Baronetage / Politics and Government 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 WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage. This article is supported by the politics and government work group. Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Socialism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism 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.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. London Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. African diaspora Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora 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.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Jewish Women 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.Jewish WomenWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish WomenTemplate:WikiProject Jewish WomenJewish Women articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 22, 2018.

After somehow managing to snatch a Labour heartland, George Galloway was asked by Jermey Paxman if he was happy to have ousted one of the few female black MPs. I ask why does (or should) this matter? Is it wrong for constituencies where black, female candidates stand to be contested? - Surely not for democracy's sake.

I found this out as heresay sometime after the election. When I first saw Oona King, I was puzzled. The woman did not appear to be black at all (she looks slightly tanned, almost mediterranean ). Upon reading the article, I found out here mother was jewish - perhaps she should be referred to as mixed race.

With this in mind, I conclude that the title of second female MP to be elected is invalid. It is quite clear that Dianne Abbot is the first black woman MP, comparing the two, I don't think Oona King is the second.

OK, I admit that my own recent edit on this point was not the best, but I don't think Oona King can be properly described as black. --Ross UK 05:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The woman did not appear to be black at all (she looks slightly tanned, almost mediterranean)

Why do you think that being Black is about how a person looks? Terms like Black and White, when applied to humans are not about skin colour, they are social and cultural terms, in the UK people of Indian-subcontinental origin often refer to themselves as Black. A Black person is Black if they identify as Black. If King identifies as Black and the Black British community identifies her as Black then she's Black. Of course she might actually be Black and White, she may identify as both, and if White people perceive her as White then she can be White as well. There's no either/or here, indeed given that the average African Carribean and African American person has a significant European ancestry, it can be claimed that the vast majority of Black people living in the USA and the UK are of mixed-race, this does not preclude them from being Black. Take a look at Glossary of terms relating to ethnicity and race: for reflection and debate by R Bhopal. This is a British perspective, but that's OK because this is an article about a British person. Alun 06:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is some merit in your argument, but race is a matter of genetics, as I see you say yourself. I think we would be a lot better off without racial labels, let alone applying them where we don't even need to (ie. socially/culturally). --Ross UK 20:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Race is not a matter of genetics, and I have never claimed such. Race is a social concept, there's no such thing as a biologically defined race, if anything genetics emphasises that humanity is not divided into discrete "races" or populations, rather the global human population varies gradually over distance. It is a well established fact in anthropology and in biology that human biological and genetic diversity does not fit any of the current criteria for defining

American Association of Physical Anthropologists's Statement on Biological Aspects of Race, the American Anthropological Association's Statement on "Race" and the nice paper Race and Genetics by Pilar Ossorio and Troy Duster. Long and Kittles excellent paper Human genetic diversity and the nonexistence of biological races goes into a great deal of technical detail if you are interested. We are all Homo sapiens sapiens. Oona King can be described as of mixed descent, and as Black and I see no contradiction here. I don't know if she considers herself Black, but if she does then she has every right to do so, and no one has the right to say that she doesn't. We don't have enforced racial classifications here on Wikipedia, and the UK state does not record or asign racial classifications to it's citizens. People are free to identify how they like, let's just be grateful we are free to do so, unlike in certain other times and places. Alun 05:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Does anyone have a source for the Galloway quote "the deaths of many people in Iraq with blacker faces than hers" in its context? I can't find an in-context source, and the news reports I've found quoting that phrase do not say it was a reference to Oona's jewishness. So I'd like to see the quote in context to judge if that claim in this article is justified. (NB the original source given [1] didn't even contain the quote, so I've changed it to one [2] that at least has the quote out of context.) - Rwendland 23:27, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No-one has offered a source, and on a second attempt with google I cannot find a source, so I am removing this allegation about Oona's jewishness as unsourced. - Rwendland 13:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"King's view on the invasion of Iraq have changed since the poor handling of Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath by the United States" The quote given doesn't seem to imply that her views on the decision to go to war has changed. It'd just indicate that she has a low opinion of Bush's handling of it, and as far as I can tell, she held a poor view of Bush even before the invasion of Iraq. Andjam 03:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the full source (given in external links) it says:

We drive to Brick Lane to take some photographs. I ask if her position on Iraq has changed.

"It has changed because of what has happened in Louisiana. ... And what Katrina showed is this wasn't so, and that's why it has changed my view."

Do you think we need to include this bit of the quote as well? -- Rwendland 13:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that Oona used to be an MP, but she is no longer in my mind a person of any importance apart from trying to get self-publicity all the time. What are your thoughts before I mark the page for deletion? User:Hayday

Of course she should stay, we have many former MPs on here, not least User:Hayday's great-great-uncle; I imagine the aspiration of many editors is to get all former UK MPs with a full biography. If starting a new career in the media and hence becoming a 'self-publicist' is reason to consider someone as non-notable, there are thousands of articles with less of a claim than King to notability. Leave it be. Mtiedemann 13:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mtiedemann,

Read, understood and I agree (I just don't like the woman to be honest, she’s as false and as slimey as George Gallaway...poor Bethnal Green) I prey for the day that they get a decent MP.

I agree- I despise Oona King. However your argument could be applied to Michael Portillo (former MP [and Secretary of State for Defence], now just someone we see on TV from time to time). I think he's intitled at least...

Hayday 16:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all - I've begun work on creating an Infobox for Members of Parliament - you'll see it commented out when you edit the page. I can't get it working, so feel free to wade in / advise - I'll go and seek help elsewhere too.... Petesmiles 04:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pls revert. if ever there was an approprate time to list one as a black jew, i think this would be it.

you are overreaching. kindly desist.

tx.

--Epeefleche 08:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King is listed as a Black Jew in the categories, and her background is mentioned not only in the second sentence of the header, but also under early life. Did she become famous because she is Black and Jewish? Really? Mad Jack 08:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. That's what her fame stems from. Otherwise, she would have just been another not-Wiki-worthy Brit MP.

--Epeefleche 08:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And oh ... it looks as though you haven't gotten to Moses yet ... he is described as a Hebrew ... in the first line and all! Can ya believe it?

)

What else would you describe Moses as? i.e. his nationality? He wasn't American, Israeli, etc. OK, the very first sentence of a header of an article should identify 1. name, 2. birth date, 3. nationality ONLY, 4. profession. The next few sentences of a header should summarize the article. So, in this case, if a lot of time is spent on King's Black Jewish background, that can/should certainly go in the header. But what does the very first sentence have to do with anything? It's awkward to say "Black Jewish English politician", because that doesn't mean anything. If she's notable for being Black and Jewish, mention it in the header (as it is done now), but the first sentence has little to do with it. Mad Jack 15:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article, prior to the edit I'm about to make, stated "This led to the Respect's George Galloway, a leader of the Stop the War Coalition, standing against her at the 2005 general election." This is contrary to what I understand to be the reality; Galloway decided to run in Bethnal Green and Bo because Respect had done well at the local elections. So while Oona King's vote for the war (along with many other Labour and Conservative MPs) was used prominently against her in the campaign it wasn't the cause of the challenge as the article seems to imply. Or so I understand; I feel that if there's a revert from the cause-neutral change I'm going to make it should be accompanied by a citation. DACrowe10 (talk) 11:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is usual for new sections on the discussion page to be in a chronological sequence, so I moved your passage for this reason. Defeated is the more common usage than "successfully stood against", though I added "later" so as to acknowledge the reference to the 2005 election is really parenthetical. Philip Cross (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having read her excellent maiden speech, I just didn't recognise what appeared here as a summary. King described herself as "multi-ethnic", representing "a truly multicultural constituency" .."where hardship and deprivation gave birth to Britain's greatest social reforms" She described Beveridge and Attlee, being surrounded by "East End infant mortality rate of 55 per cent" leading to social reforms and the NHS. She says there is a need for coherence in the strategy for eradicating poverty and emphasises the role of education in the elimination of poverty.
All that appears are the racial obscenities which she clearly hated and which get repeated in Loss of 2005 election section. Does anyone have a serious objection to replacing "unparliamentary language" and providing a proper summary of her maiden speech? JRPG (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous user created a section entitled "Scandal", where Ken Livingstone claimed that Oona King used inappropriate means of obtaining Labour Party members email addresses. However, the Labour Party stated that they gave details of members to both Ken Livingstone and Oona King. This clearly appears to be an anonymous Ken Livingstone supporter trying manipulate Wikipedia for its own goals.

This allegation was not picked up by any main-stream British paper. It was picked up by the London tabloid the Evening Standard. And in either case, it is hardly a "scandal." The title also lends credence to the notion that this is cyber-vandalism designed to score political points rather than create a serious story that properly reflects the life of Oona King. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wy harvard (talk • contribs) 13:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

King should only be described as a politician if she wins the nomination. (92.4.45.37 (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

What do you mean? Trying for the nomination isn't politics??--Kotniski (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She ceased to be a politician when she lost her seat five years ago. Even winning the Labour nomination would not qualify, she should only be referred to as a politician if she is elected mayor of London. (92.3.161.137 (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Where do you get this strange definition of politician from? For me it isn't necessarily someone who holds office at any given time (and nor does someone who holds elected office necessarily become a politician - people just happen to have this irrational tendency to elect politicians to such offices), but refers to someone who seeks office or power (and on a career basis, not just one-off). Anyway, whatever the precise definition, Oona King is not a "former" politician - better not to describe her as a politician at all than to give a misleading description like this one.--Kotniski (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She's a former politician, she stopped being a politician in 2005. (92.12.151.248 (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Quotations sections do not belong on Wikipedia