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)

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)

Proposed deletion of The Conservative (journal)

The article The Conservative (journal) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

It doesn't appear to be notable, except as something Daniel Hannan has done

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)