Talk:Daniel Hannan

The "Parthenon Marbles" and the issue of Hannan's racism

Hannan is obviously a journalist, writing multiple times a week and naturally covering a huge plethora of topics. In general terms, it is absolutely inappropriate to single out individual articles on peripheral issues and place them alongside the important issues which define his political career. These issues would be far too obscure to be useful to a user reading the page. More gravely, we don't include the vast majority of articles that Hannan has written: thus selective inclusion of articles which some editors feel strongly about (too strongly about) distorts the content of the article.

Case in point, the Elgin Marbles, which appeared on this article over the summer following an article written in the ConservativeHome website. Frankly, it seems obvious to anyone that has read the article that the comments about the marbles (Available here: https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2018/06/daniel-hannan-on-the-elgin-marbles-as-on-everything-else-corbyns-assumption-is-that-britain-is-always-in-the-wrong.html) were made to criticise Jeremy Corbyn. Just to entertain those who for some reason believe this particular section should remain, I would like to point out that Hannan didn't actually take a position on the marbles in the article. It's a plain and simply untruth, and I invite fellow editors to examine the cited article for this apparent opinion he holds.

And that's not to mention this cheeky misquote!

Original source quoting: ""For what it’s worth, I think the hereditary argument is weak even in its own terms. Who knows where we might find the descendants of the original sculptor, Phidias – if, indeed, any survive. Greece, like every country, has experienced vast population movements over the past two millennia. For example, the Byzantine Emperor, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, wrote in the tenth century that Greece had been overrun by Slavs “even as far as the Peloponnese” and had been “lost to civilisation”. The British writer Auberon Waugh used regularly to recycle a column about how Greeks had no claim to the stones because you could see from their physiognomy that they were not descended from the men who had carved them. Waugh was a provocateur with a puckish sense of humour, but such arguments can quickly become inflammatory. Once you start arguing that nations have collective claims, and that those claims trump individual rights, including that of private ownership, you can quickly find yourself having eerily 1930s-style arguments about who belongs to which group. ""

The editor, whose IP is visible, declared: ""Among the reasons advanced in Hannan's article in support of the controversial British claims to ownership of the Parthenon Marbles is the following: "You could see from their [the Modern Greeks'] physiognomy that they were not descended from the men who had carved them"[59], thus appearing to espouse dicredited nineteenth century racial theories ""

So not only is the content completely irrelevant, and not only does it distort the balance of the article. But it is untrue and deceives readers by falsely attributing a quote to Hannan that he himself has dismissed and described as "inflammatory".

I encourage those who feel differently to discuss it here rather than perpetually restoring your version of reality. The larger message from this section should be that articles should not translate into new sections. Instead, the article should stick to main political positions (and correct ones at that!!).

Thanks. Jean — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeanDePG (talk • contribs) 15:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, I understand that for Hannan, the "Parthenon Marbles" may be a pawn for internal British political machination, but the fact is he does takes in print a stand on an issue of international importance and here in Greece we care about this issue much more than what a soon to be former MEP thinks about Jeremy Corbyn. Secondly, I don't think the quote is a distortion of his view at all. On the contrary, it's a linguistic device, much like Donald Trump with his "Some people say that...", attributing the quote to Auberon Waugh (without reference however), but certainly not disowning it. Moreover, the pseudohistory he writes previous to it concerning "vast population movements" and "being overun by Slavs" is completely consistent with the quote. He isn't fooling anyone! Anyway, he should have watched out. The UK may indeed leave the EU (Good riddance!) but Wikipedia is not a British-only venue, and so his statements as a MEP have public interest and he shouldn't be surprised if people edit Wikipedia from countries affected by his racism.94.66.58.88 (talk)

Thank you for choosing to engage here! My preference is that the section is not live while we have this discussion since this article concerns the biography of a living person. "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." Which, I'm sure you'll agree, an unfounded accusation of racism is exactly that. I urge you to that end to look once more at the article in question. No such position was taken in the article. I could just as easily add a section to this Wikipedia article claiming he believes the exact opposite... In an article posted on a conservative website,[59] Hannan has argued that the Parthenon Marbles should be returned to the Parthenon, writing that restoring its "metopes and its magnificent frieze would be dazzling" and "create something resplendent" To reiterate, Hannan did not argue for or against, so the idea it should list amongst his "political opinions" is absurd. What he did do, perhaps for your personal interest, is argue that: 1. The marbles were purchased fairly (particularly important to him as a free marketeer) 2. That Jeremy Corbyn quot"unhesitatingly and unthinkingly" takes an anti-British position across many issues, and that Corbyn's claim on the Elgin marbles "has an ethno-nationalist tinge that sits oddly with the Labour leader’s other views". 3. That the "hereditary argument is weak" for Greek collective entitlement, and that even if it were strong, "Just as we consider collective punishments to be a war crime, so we should steer clear of collective entitlements. The elevation of the individual over the group is the basis of our liberal civilisation. Remember that." You can see that he has both presented dismissed the entire conversation about racial/collective entitlement, from BOTH sides by saying "the arguments can quickly become imflammatory" and leads you down "1930s-style arguments about who belongs to which group". The man has not written anything that can be construed as racist. And while I, for the record, personally agree with you and would like to see the artwork restored, that doesn't give either of us the right to misrepresent Hannan's article to that end, nor to leave a libellous section on this article. Jean JeanDePG (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I can't speak about Hannan's opinions on transient issues of local British interest like the Conservative Party's agreement with itself ("Chequers") or Hannan's admiration of the (I would think objectively racist) Enoch Powell, which are documented already in the article. I know a thing or two however concerning the issues concerning the looting of the Parthenon Marbles, however, which is a long-standing issue of international concern as well as being an important bilateral issue between the UK government and the Greek government. On this issue, there is of course no intellectual originality in anything Hannan says (not surprisingly). He doesn't argue point 1., he merely asserts it as if it were a fact, and I won't go into this issue, but the "legal" aspects of the question are heavily disputed. Issue 2. (whether Jeremy Corbyn is "un-British") is of more local British interest and not of particular concern to the article. The issue of concern is 3.: Denying historical and cultural continuity on the basis of "racial arguments" (this is what he does) was an argument used often in the 19th century but has since been completely discredited. You never see this argument used anymore by anyone even semi-serious, in fact, not for more than 50 years. Now I agree, Hannan is not a professional historian, he just got an MA and then became a journalist and then a politician, and may not realize how discredited some of the things he's referring to are. Sort of like when British prime minister Teresa May (who got a 2nd class degree in Geography and no further education) used the phrase "Citizen of nowhere" she maybe did not realize the connotations this phrase had. But the connotations are or course real (and objective!). Again, there are serious much wider connotations of the type of language Hannan uses which you will understand by clicking on the link to Fallmerayer. Maybe Hannan doesn't know all this background, but then, why is he giving his opinion on the Parthenon Marbles, and why is he quoting things he doesn't understand??? Now I am afraid that by claiming that "he [Hannan] presented and "dismissed" the entire conversation about racial/collective entitlement" you are either naive or purposefully misrepresenting Hannan's article (though I do trust that you are not doing the latter). First of all, it is Hannan himself who re-introduces the long-buried "racial" element to the whole discussion in the first place! Who else talks about "physiognomy"? Is it UNESCO? Jeremy Corbyn? The Greek government? Hannan then uses the technique of "Some people say...", much like Donald Trump in the USA, to put the words he wants to say in other peoples' mouth, then he keeps appropriate distance, saying it is open to disagreement, but he certainly does not "dismiss" it. When he says that something may be "inflammatory", it doesn't mean he believes that it is not true. Why did he refer to it in the first place? To give you an example you might understand better, substitute "blacks" for "Greeks" I.e., imagine Hannan had said the following: "Auberon Waugh liked to say that black people are inferior to whites. Now, Waugh had a sense of humor and liked to provoke. Some people after all may find statements like that inflammatory. Anyway, let's leave these issues aside. The important thing is to respect private property, especially if it's the British governemnt who decides which property is private and who does it belong to." Would you say that such an article can be said to argue for racial equality? I don't think so... Objectively speaking, that's how Hannan's article reads. Regards from Athens.94.66.58.126 (talk)

JeanDePG is absolutely right. Firstly this section is at outrageous WP:COATRACK. Secondly the misrepresentation of quotation from Auberon Waugh as Hannan's own opinion is a serious breach of WP:BLP. Thirdly the whole section is largely WP:ORIGINAL research and WP:SYNTHESIS. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

When debating how to describe the intentions of a politician, taking their words literally is clearly ( at least to myself ) naive. I would ask you to watch Donald trump, Boris Johnson, Hannan, 'Farridge' etc. Observe how they deploy double-speak. Their rhetorical technique is to say one thing (- for journalist, Wikipedia to dutifully report), but use body language to signal to their supporters that they mean the opposite. Hannan, Rees-Mogg and Johnson, the pseudo-intellectuals of this movement, display the idea that they understand both sides of the argument in words, but their intention is to lobby for narrow nationalism / corporatism. Trump and 'farridge', use the less sophisticated technique of sarcasm to mean the opposite of what they say. All try to create equivalence in extreme contexts, normalise shock and awe eg. proud boy fascists who join a mob and kill people, and antifa. It is a political choice to claim you can ignore rhetorical double-speak, but obviously, when writing a page about a politician we need to consider the warnings by Machiavelli, Orwell etc. We should use our human capability for discerning the true intension of a political actor, in particular, remind ourselves, that what we say is rarely what we mean. Most of what we do socially is about deceiving our 'enemies' as to our true intentions. We can also use history, the truth comes out. And it is surely abundantly clear who was promoting the political movement hannan, trump Johnson Aaron banks etc have been part of these last few years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.186.76 (talk) 04:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Hannan's founding of the all-white society "Oxford Campaign for an Independent Britain"

I think the picture makes the racial breakdown of the society quite clear. Should this need an additional source?94.66.58.136 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes. WP:BLPSOURCES says "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article." WP:BLPPRIMARY says "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. ... Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." WP:PUBLICFIGURE says "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

All that was being remarked is that "its all white membership depicted is below", which was meant to be a completely objective description of the photograph. I think it's relevant because Hannan evidently is very interested in issues related to people's complexion. In an article concerning the Parthenon Marbles, he wrote "The British writer Auberon Waugh used regularly to recycle a column about how Greeks had no claim to the stones because you could see from their physiognomy that they were not descended from the men who had carved them." He then proceeds to say that "Waugh was a provocateur with a puckish sense of humour" but you will notice that he never distances himself from the *content* of this quote. This is very suggestive that Hannan, author of books extolling the "English speaking peoples", truly believes that the Parthenon Marbles were indeed carved by people of the uniform white "complexion" of the students depicted in the photograph organisation included in the wikipedia argument. Anyway, this is interesting and useful information to know about the cultural milieu which produced Hannan.94.66.58.136 (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I strongly recommend that you read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons before making any further edits to a biography of a living person. Your current edits breach core Wikipedia policy and can be removed on sight. Indeed I would strongly recommend that you remove or strikeout the comment above, as this policy applies to talk pages as well as articles. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Parthenon Marbles (again)

As discussed above, please stop trying to use this article as a WP:COATRACK for your views on this unrekated topic. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

No view is given on the issue of the Parthenon Marbles, and I don't see how one can be construed from what is written in my edit. His criticising Corbyn as a "national masochist" is relevant because it throws light on Hannan's view on Britishness and nationalism, which is clearly very central to his thinking. (There is a neutral clause concerning the marbles for context.) I would argue that this section is of greater quality than much of the rest of the article which is still full of one-sided, largely hagiographic descriptions of Hannan. I'm not sure if you are an admirer of Hannan or you are simply worried that the University of Oxford gets a bad reputation from having him as his graduate, albeit only for an undergraduate degree. (Either way, you might want to reflect if you have a conflict of interest.) There is European interest in understanding British MEPs and their beliefs, and what is viewed as important here in Europe may differ from what is viewed important from an English, Anglocentric point of view.So please don't delete things you don't fully understand and be more sensitive and self-reflective.94.66.58.183 (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is obvious that not only do you have strong personal opinions about Daniel Hannan, which is perfectly fine, but also that you let these opinions show in your edits. As I advised you previously you really need to read and digest Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons before making any further edits to BLPs. You should also take at look at other core policies such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. What matters here is not your interests, or indeed my interests, but simply reflecting what reliable secondary sources have said about a topic, ascribing due weight to individual topics and opinions. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

For example the edit at [1] breaches just about every core policy of Wikipedia there is. If you can't understand why that edit was completely inappropriate then you really need to stick to other topics. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree completely, irrespective of the substance of the issue (i.e. whether Hannan's Oxford club could indeed be objectively described as having "an all white membership"). My impression is that (at least some parts of) Oxford now try to address issues of racial inclusivity and the legacy of cultural appropriation. And that's a good development which I welcome. Anyway, there's no reason to bring this up here.94.66.58.183 (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

And I have no problem with the current version of the article.94.66.58.183 (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you are still completely missing the point. It doesn't matter what you think, or what I think, or what some parts of Oxford think. What goes on this page depends on what is reported in reliable sources. And the problem with discussing the Elgin marbles in this article is that there is no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources of Daniel Hannan's views on this topic. There is of course his original article, but that doesn't count: what you need is other people discussing this in reliable sources. Until you can show that this section should be removed from the article. I have edited it to remove the most outrageously wrong features of your original text, but that doesn't alter the fact that this material doesn't belong on the page at all. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The article in its current form does *not* discuss Hannan's view on the Parthenon Marbles. Please read carefully. JeanDePG above argued quite convincingly that Hannan doesn't actually care at all about the Parthenon Marbles, and was only using them to attack Jeremy Corbyn. I accept that evaluation. (Now of course, I personally prefer that the Marbles be in their country of origin, where the people actually relate to them culturally, and don't view them simply as a way of attacking political opponents. And indeed, what Hannan writes about the Marbles betrays--in my view--his complete misunderstanding of the legal questions surrounding them as well as the medieval history of the Mediterranean, but yes, that's another story which I agree does not need to go into the wikipedia article. Hannan is neither a historian nor legal expert and he cannot even speak Greek.) What is being mentioned in the article is his political world view considering nationalism/national sovereignty which he himself distinguishes form the dominant view of European mainstream thought. This nation-centred view of the world is a common theme in his own writing (and also in criticism of him). It is simply these views which are being put down in the wikipedia article, in a quite neutral way. I think they are relevant and the fact that these views were not part of the article before made the article poorer. And I would say that this section is much better sourced than most of the rest of the article, which, to me at least, reads in many parts to be hagiographic. Now, as to the tone of your comments, I have to say I am a bit taken aback. We might have slightly different interpretations of exactly how many sources one needs for every statement, and maybe you prefer the Daily Telegraph as a source to the Guardian, but, of all things written in this article, this is what you found to be "outrageous"? Whatever it may be, I don't think it should be described as "outrageous" to include a quote from Hannan's own writings in a wikipedia article with him as subject. 195.97.13.243 (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

What if...?

Through Wikipedia, I was informed that Daniel Hannan, MEP, thought that the Irish party Fianna Fáil had always been in power in Ireland, and he thought it so strongly, that once he said it in public, he couldn't backtrack despite the backlash.

I immediately felt ashamed of myself, for I had worked on an article called Dáil election results, which had very few pageviews, until a little bump this week, because of the discussion.

And indeed, if one had incautiously read the table summarizing the results, he could get the wrong impression that FF had always won, because until 2011 it always came first with a solid margin, collecting 39 to 52 percent of the vote for almost seventy years. However, that didn't always translate to a majority of seats, and the opposition parties were sometimes able to form a majority of their own, as a coalition.

Could it be my fault, then, if Mr. Hannan's opinion is caused by his coming across the page I worked on?

I thus took up re-working the article, putting bright colors on the cells, so that noone misses the bigger picture. This way, Mr. Hannan should be properly educated about the history of party politics in Ireland.

Kahlores (talk) 03:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Dan-hannan-edmund-burke.jpg
• Sub-buzz-23820-1519293247-1.jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Position in parliamentary group

According to this press release he shall become Vice-President of his parliamentary group (maybe replacing Van Orden?). --SamWinchester000 (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Covid views

Is there nothing written about his views of the virus. they have been pretty noteworthy in recent months Gd123lbp (talk) 11:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Interestingly he just tweeted this though I don’t think this is notable enough for inclusion. 2A01:4C8:1440:E145:C12B:4188:1A65:58C2 (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

As usual in these matters it comes down to finding reliable secondary sources in which other people have discussed what he has said and done. His own articles such as Covid-19 is turning us into a nation of irrational panic-merchants are primary sources and as such aren't really enough. Tweets certainly aren't. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The FT article reporting on how Hannan claimed covid is not deadly is a reliable seconday source. It keeps getting deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BSLF (talk • contribs) 10:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

It keeps getting deleted because there's no indication that that single, throwaway tweet is at all notable. If there were significant criticism of him for saying that, there might be justification for inclusion. He's also said that the virus is fatal, but I don't see anyone arguing to include that. — Czello 15:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Some his writing on Brexit could be illustrative

For example: http://archive.is/CDBFf#selection-357.0-361.13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.153.140 (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Better source for father's WWII service

For the record, in this diff I have requested a better source for the information about Hannan's father's war service. At the moment it is sourced to a blog post by Mr Hannan, which is not a great source anyway, but I'm having trouble finding other sources to confirm that his father saw service in Italy during WWII - he was 14 when war broke out, so the dates are a bit improbable, albeit not impossible. ◦ Trey Maturin 15:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

List some of the misleading statements he made to sell Brexit?

I think Hannan was one of the key salesmen of Brexit that misled the UK public, and this fact should be documented clearly in this wikipedia article, with a list of (precisely sourced) misleading things he said before the referendum.

For example in a 2016 debate with Eddie Izzard he said that "geographical proximity has never mattered less" and failed to point out that it still mattered a lot: there is overwhelming evidence that trade tends to fall with distance, as stated in the "Gravity model of trade" article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_model_of_trade.

This 2016 debate is on youtube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBIIdcUjl90 and the quote is from minute 19:53. In fact, here is a transcript of the whole paragraph from minute 19:07 onwards:

"Why do I think that Britain would be better off living under its own laws?

Trading and cooperating with its friends in Europe, but governing itself.

Well if I had to put it in one sentence it would be this:

The EU is obsolete, its a hangover from an earlier age, a relic of the 1950s, a time when freight costs were high, refrigeration was expensive and regional blocks looked like the future.

Well my friends that world has been left redundant by technological advance.

In an age of the internet and cheap flights and skype, geographical proximity has never mattered less.

Its as easy for a firm here in my constituency to do business with one in Ljudlana India as one in Ljubljiana in Slovenia, in fact its easier, the Indian company will be English speaking..."

You just need to find a reliable source that agrees with you that this statement is misleading, and then you can add the criticism to this article. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Further to this, we'd need a source that demonstrates that it's notable if he was wrong. Wikipedia's job isn't to refute claims by politicians -- but we can report on controversy if there has been significant criticism of Hannan. — Czello 15:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

This is clear political activism and has no place on wikipedia. StoneKommittii O'Near (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Ukraine

A comment was added to the article showing his support for Ukraine in the ongoing attack by Russia. One might ask why this was necessary at all to add, as virtually all western politicians have come out in support of Ukraine. But his exact words in support of Ukraine were far from the norm, which is why I added the follwing few sentences, backed up by a reference:

However, his comments - like others notably from American media - received much criticism worldwide, because in depicting Ukraine’s plight, he was said to have made offensive comparisons.

This was removed as "coatrack commentary". But in my view, either the entire reference to Ukraine has to go, or some balance and contrxtualization are required.Punavuori (talk) 10:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

References

I'd be very happy just to remove the whole section. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Good to see it removed :) Punavuori (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Copyedit request

There's a missing word (or maybe rephrasing might be better?) in this sentence:

Some of those who responded were not convinced, primarily noting that if that was what Hannan felt, he should have said so "with any kind of force between 2016 and 2019, when it might have changed or meant anything", as Zoe Williams put in The Guardian.

Should read

as Zoe Williams put it in The Guardian

- or

as Zoe Williams argued in The Guardian 90.244.219.186 (talk) 06:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed. –CWenger (^ • @) 13:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)