Talk:Daniel Hannan

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Parthenon Marbles (again) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What if...? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
* 
You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Position in parliamentary group 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Covid views 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Some his writing on Brexit could be illustrative 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Better source for father's WWII service 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  List some of the misleading statements he made to sell Brexit? 

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: . –CWenger (^ • @) 13:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedit request