Jump to content

Talk:Daniel Hannan/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Motto/Saying

Whilst speaking in the European Parliament, Hannan has twice stated a Latin sounding motto. Does anybody know what it is? It may well be worth adding into this article if it is in relation to his politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.53.36 (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It is almost certainly 'Pactio Olisipiensis censenda est' (Latin for 'The Lisbon Treaty must be put to the vote'), with which he used to end every speech, per Cato the Elder. It is mentioned in the section on 'Campaign against the Lisbon Treaty'. Thanks. Bastin 22:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
So it is, I didn't see it. Thank you very much for pointing it out Bastin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.53.36 (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

UK referendum

Given the UK has 60m+ people, I doubt the statement "He was the first person in the United Kingdom to call for a referendum on the European Constitution" is true. If he was the first MEP, first UK MEP etc, that would be more likely . If someone want to correct this. Matchrthom 18:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he was the first to "publicly" call for it in a recorded manner? --Wee Jimmy (talk) 14:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

POV / Tendentious editing

This article has been the subject of tendentious editing (removal of referenced material on parliamentary group expulsion with background) by 195.152.249.12 which is apparently an IP address of the media group that also hosts MEP Hannan's own blog. Be on the watchout for repeats, as this clearly could be COI, as well as for other POV edits which have been both positive and negative. Tomas e (talk) 11:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: newly registered User Daniel Hannan has now tried to edit the article in the same vein as 195.152.249.12. Tomas e (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I've left a note on the user's talk page, but they appear to be more interested restoring in their version. I will block that account if it doesn't address the isssue.--Alf melmac 13:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is the sequence of events:

Daniel Hannan first called for a referendum on 16 December 2001 in his foreign affairs column in the Sunday Telegraph [1]. The Laeken Declaration, which first suggested putting the EU on a constitutional basis, was issued that same day, so I’m pretty sure no one else got there first! He then set out the idea at greater length in The Spectator on 8 June 2002[2].

In 2003, various newspapers ran campaigns for a referendum. The Mail, the Telegraph and the Spectator all claimed to have come up with the idea, and Stephen Glover wrote a couple of articles in his Spectator media column asking who had got there first. Daniel Hannan wrote a very letter, published on 5 July 2003[3]:

"Sir: Stephen Glover returns to the question of who was first to suggest a referendum on the EU Constitution (Media studies, 28 June). I flagged up the idea in these pages on 8 June 2002, having first suggested it in the Sunday Telegraph on 16 December 2001. Any advances on that?

Daniel Hannan MEP"

The only reply was a letter from Edward Macmillan Scott, saying that he had proposed a referendum on Europe in September 2001 (i.e. before anyone had come up with the idea of a constitution) and adding for good measure that he wasn’t in favour of a referendum on the constitution because it wasn’t serious enough! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.50.235 (talk) 09:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I put in an Original research and NPOV flag under the 'UKIP' section for this unsupported generalisation: 'The fielding of candidates by the Eurosceptic minority party against Conservatives has effectively led to both losing elections to Europhile left-wing candidates.' 81.158.208.100 (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

request sourcing

May we have sourcing on the following points before re-inclusion?

I have moved form the article:


He is married and has two young daughters. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

And...

In the parliamentary session just before the new rules (or rather, new interpretation of existing rules) were to be presented by the President of the European Parliament Hans-Gert Pöttering in response to the filibustering tactics by Hannan and other MEPs, Hannan stated that "It is only my affection for you ... that prevents me from likening this to the Ermächtigungsgesetz", thereby comparing the new rules to the Enabling Act of 1933, which was the legal instrument with which the German Nazi leader Adolf Hitler received dictatorial power. President Pöttering is a German national and a member of the same political group (EPP-ED, conservatives and christian democrats) as Hannan. Hannan's Nazi references were seen as outrageous by many MEPs, and the head of EPP-ED Joseph Daul, initiated proceedings to expel Hannan immediately.[1]

May we have multiple reliable sources for this contentious bit according to our biograpy of living persons?

Also...

He is considered to be a strongly eurosceptic conservative.[1]

Many thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Additional sources - of course, the EP statements were widely reported in media. However, I can't seem to access his blog right now so I will have to add sources for some other things later:
  • Family info ("married and has two young daughters")...
  • EP statements - BBC and International Herald Tribune would hopefully do:
  • Euroscepticism... (It can be worth pointing out that, at least as far as I understand, "euroscepticism" is used as a self-label by some conservatives in the UK, and therefore not necessarily POV to be edited out, in difference to "europhobic", "anti-European" or other terms. The "strongly" word can be omitted, though.)
Tomas e (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Another section removed

The source was unreachable, and I have removed this section as unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our BLP standard.


European Parliament activities

Hannan was first elected as the youngest member of the European Parliament in the 1999 election, when he was in third position on the Conservative ballot, from which five Conservative MEPs were elected in the consituency of South East England. Hannan was re-elected in the 2004 election, when he was in the top position on the ballot, and four Conservative MEPs were elected. From 1999 to 2008, he was affiliated with the group EPP-ED, conservatives and christian democrats, to which UK Conservative Party belongs. Since February 2008, he is a non-attached member of the Parliament.

Hannan has campaigned against the EU's restrictions on higher dose vitamin supplements and herbal remedies, and for the winding up of the South East England Regional Assembly.[citation needed]

Hannan was the first politician in Britain to call for a referendum on the European Constitution, as well as the Treaty of Lisbon which came in its place after the Constitution failed to be ratified by Netherlands and France.[citation needed] In the European Parliament, he has voiced his opposition against the Treaty, and has been part of a group of UK MEPs who in January 2008 started to use the Parliament's procedural rules in a "filibuster-style" move to prolong the handling of all issues in the parliament. In the case of Hannan, this included stating "the Lisbon Treaty must be put to the vote" everytime he voted on any issue in Parliament, taking his cue from Cato the Elder.[4] This was meant to display Hannan's and some other UK MEPs opposition to the Treaty, but also led to significant irritation with the leadership of the European Parliament, which introduced measures to deal with the "filibustering" UK MEPs by amending the procedural rules of the Parliament to give its president more freedom in procedural matters.

And another

I have also removed this one, as contentious. I request multiple independent sources, if possible. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Euroscepticism

Hannan is the author of Time for a Fresh Start in Europe (1993) A Guide to the Amsterdam Treaty (1997), The Euro: Bad for Business (1998), The Challenge of the East (1999), What if Britain Votes No? (2002) The Case for EFTA (2004) and a chapter in The Future of the NHS (2006) edited by Dr Michelle Tempest. He also contributed to Treason at Maastricht (1994), by Rodney Atkinson and Norris McWhirter, which claims that the European Union is a fascist conspiracy created by the Bilderberg Group.[5] Based on claims by intelligence and economics affairs writer Christopher Story, whose views on the European Union have been considered conspiracy theorist, the book Hannan contributed to claims that the EU is modelled on a 1942 Nazi German plan called Europäische Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft.[6] Hannan also devoted two chapters to attacks on the Conservative Party leadership and Conservative MEPs of the day.[7]

References

  1. ^ a b EU Observer January 31, 2008: British MEP to be kicked out political group for Nazi law comment
  2. ^ BBC News 31 January 2008: Nazi-era comparison prompts row
  3. ^ International Herald Tribune 31 January 2008: Name-calling and shouting disrupt European Parliament
  4. ^ Daniel Hannan blog, January 31, 2008: Why the EPP are throwing me out
  5. ^ Treason at Maastricht, p 1
  6. ^ Treason at Maastricht, p 119
  7. ^ Treason at Maastricht, ch 13, 15

Page protection

I have fully protected this article for a period of 1 week due to the persistent addition of material in violation of the biographies of living persons policy and the neutral point of view policy. - Mark 04:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Please can you list the aforementioned edits which you deem to be biased? Harris Morgan 23:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC).
It was the Nazi stuff and the euroskepticism (communicated to us via OTRS ticket #2008022410005584), but I see that half of it still remained in the article as I protected it, so the protection just perpetuated it. I've unprotected now, and will contact NonvocalScream to pick up where he left off (he is the owner of the OTRS ticket as well). - Mark 03:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

political activites

I've removed the political activities, with it included, it causes the article to be largely unbalanced. If its not fixed later on, I'll try to fix it myself. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

family

I've removed the section on his wife and children, not sure how this plays into the article, does not seem noteworthy. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Where's the anecdote about him inviting a fellow student over to Lima and walking around in a full 3-piece suit, so he got heatstroke? He told his friend that it wouldn't do for an Englishman to take his jacket off. I've met Hannan a few times, and that anecdote is worthy of John Aubrey - gives you the exact measure of the man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjenn68 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Nonvocalscream: how odd, have you not heard the expression cherchez la femme. A line on his wife and children does no harm and is relevant, as wives/partners can shed considerable light on the subject in question, can they not?Rodolph (talk) 00:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I was more than a little surprised to discover that he has a wife, and very surprised that there is nothing on his personal life in the main article. In general, articles about politicians seem to have a brief paragraph on "Personal Life", and I feel it would be appropriate to have something like this here. Please could this be added? Also, it would be interesting to insert a note about when he had cosmetic surgery. RomanSpa (talk) 10:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Campaign against the Lisbon Treaty and expulsion from the EPP-ED

Whole paragraph is poorly written, with almost no citations and is POV, needs to be re-written in NPOV with citations.

"He opposed ratification of the Lisbon Treaty in the European Parliament", this is a half truth, he is opposed to the ratification of the treaty in the EU parliment (and British Parliment for that matter) without a referendum. Will get citation for this.

"This was meant to display Hannan's and some other UK MEPs opposition to the Treaty, but also led to significant irritation with the leadership of the European Parliament" There is no citation for this statement, and the sentence is poorly written (who are the "leadership" of the EU parlaiment?).

"which introduced measures to deal with the "filibustering" UK MEPs by amending the procedural rules of the Parliament to give its president more freedom in procedural matters" No citation, and from the articles from Hannan it was not to "deal with filibustering" but to prevent dissent being voiced over the Lisbon treaty.The rules were not amended, officialy the rules were "re-interpeted", however Hannan maintains that the rules were simply ignored. There is a viable case here for the mention of censorship.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/daniel_hannan/blog/2008/01/25/despotism_in_the_european_parliament 

Dublinclontarf (talk)



filibustering

A filibuster, or "talking out a bill", is a form of obstruction in a legislature or other decision-making body. An attempt is made to infinitely extend debate upon a proposal in order to delay the progress

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster


I thought I ought to do the chamber the courtesy of standing up and registering my point of view in person. You can do this, in not more than one minute, in a procedure known as "Explanations of Vote".

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/daniel_hannan/blog/2008/09/11/why_my_speeches_annoy_meps

The above is Daniels own words, but it means that each MEP is allowed to speak for only 1 minute.

And below in Daniels own words:

Two dozen MEPs making a series of one minute speeches hardly constitutes a filibuster. At worst, we would have kept MEPs from their lunch for half an hour

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/daniel_hannan/blog/2008/01/25/despotism_in_the_european_parliament

This cannot be construed as a filibuster, and therefore the word filibuster should be removed and replaced with the word speaking, there may also be a viable case for the mention of censorship. Dublinclontarf (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC).

The Ermagu-thingummy-bob quote

That supposed quote deviates significantly from what he actually said, and should be corrected... you can listen for yourself on YouTube at: (fast forward to 6mins 30secs - 7mins 30secs): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVeMBNB0cII —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.82.93 (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Changing Image

My apologies - new to Wikipedia. I work for Daniel Hannan. If possible, could the photo be changed to http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Daniel_Hannan.jpg

An editor contacted us asking if he could help, but unfortuantely we lost the email. You can email me at daniel(dot)hannan(at)europarl.europa.eu if you want to be reassured of my identity. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark218 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama race comments

Have removed the this section as it is selectively quoting Hannan, and then pointing to a newspaper(tabliod) article which simply quotes an opposition party (Labour) members accusation of racism. Very much violates wikipedias NPOV requirement. On top of that this whole affair has actually just begun, whereas the edits make it appear is it has come to a conclusion. Hannans entire piece in question can be found here for those concerned http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100010108/jimy-carter-barack-obamas-critics-are-racist/

Along with the other piece accusing him of rascism

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/09/18/tory-accused-of-excusing-racism-after-barack-rant-115875-21682355/ User:Dublinclontarf


Agreed. The issue has been raised in a solitary newspaper, and was rebuffed entirely by all others on the grounds of being a non-story (indeed, most blog commentators have stated that it demonstrates an anti-racism). It is not a major issue, and is not worthy of a mention. Bastin 14:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
It appears someone is determined to have this included. I refer to wikipedias living person biography policy, "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.". This entry is simply a case of one politician accusing another, aka name calling, and the politician doing the name calling isn't particularly noteworthy. I've never heard of him. If it was Obama himself saying this then ok, but it's not. It's an MP of a deeply unpopular (British)government which will be replaced in the next 12 months calling a member of another party a racist. How is this worthy of wikipedia? I think further reverts to include this should involve wikipedia dispute resolution. Dublinclontarf (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the MP is part of what you describe as a "deeply unpopular government" is irrelevant. Please see WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. --90.240.126.100 (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Parmjit Singh Dhanda WAS a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the lowest form of minister in the British government. Is(and was, even while minister) a politician of no importance, his comments did not even warrant an actual article, merely a quote, in a tabloid no less. See WP:Biographies_of_living_persons"The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons." and "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." and "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link "

See WP:V#Questionable_sourcesQuestionable sources

The person making the comment is of no significance, the comment itself is nothing but an accusation, in a source that doesn't meet WP's standards. Remove the section. Dublinclontarf (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's the end of the silly season, and, as with the Enoch Powell thing, Labour are just desperate to get anything at all to stick to the man who embarrassed the PM so. Dhanda is a nobody (certainly not a "senior MP" as one anonymous contributor asserted!), and his comments on Hannan aren't notable. —Wereon (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"Is(and was, even while minister) a politician of no importance" - there is no justification for that statement. Ministers and ex-ministers are of course important. If a serving MP makes an accusation in a national newspaper, it should be included. --90.240.126.100 (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

But there are Ministers, and ministers, and Dhanda is of the latter. Who in the U.S. has ever heard of him(Hannan's been on Fox news,the BBC & was a hit on youtube, what about Dhanda?)? I'm British and this is the first time I've heard of him. Simply being one of the most junior ministers possible does not an important man make. And the national newspaper in question is the Daily_Mirror! a tabloid by wikipedia's own description."If a serving MP makes an accusation in a national newspaper, it should be included. ", this is not WP's policy WP:Biographies_of_living_persons where does it say an MP's accusations should be included, Mr. Anonymous? Dublinclontarf (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Dhanda is notable by the fact of being an MP, whether you or others have heard of him or not is irrelevant. He made the accusations in the Mirror, not on Wikipedia. --90.240.126.100 (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


So the crux of your argument is that simply being an MP makes you (and therefor whatever you say) notable. Lets see if we can get a consensus on this(WP arbitration), fellow wikipedians, Yay or nay to being an MP as making your comments notable to Wikipedia articles(also please leave sigs, no anonymous votes) ? (I say Nay)Dublinclontarf (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Dhanda is certainly more notable than Hannan, an MEP with no government experience. --90.240.126.100 (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Being an MEP, Hannan requires more votes to be elected than an MP(and therefor Dhanda), Hannan has a popular blog and writes for the Telegraph(as well as other publications & books, see his WP entry ;-p ). Again he's been on Fox & the BBC and is a hit on Youtube. Simply saying someone is more notable doesn't make it so, please see WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. If Dhanda were so notable Hannan would be a note in his WP entry and not the other way round. If you think Hannan is of so little importance why are you so determined to have this edit put in place?Dublinclontarf (talk) 05:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

On the question of 'exotic background' (the words that Hannan used, prompting accusations of racism): ”I have an unusual name and an exotic background, but my values are essentially American values. I’m rooted in the African-American community, but I’m not limited by it.” (Barack Obama, 2004, shortly after his election to the Senate). Unless I see absolute rebuttal (in the true sense) of this, I intend to add it.

According to WP:Biographies_of_living_persons the burden of proof is on you for inclusion, it's validity for inclusion is contentious enough for a number of users to have reverted your edit, not just myself, and therefor has not satisfied WP's standards for inclusion. Dublinclontarf (talk) 05:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Mr Obama's description of himself as having "an exotic background" was quoted in the New York Times on March 18, 2004 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/18/us/as-quickly-as-overnight-a-democratic-star-is-born.html (sorry for citing the URL in this way, I'm still getting the hang of the editing process). Even if the quote is incorrect or incomplete it is widely attributed to Mr Obama and is clearly being alluded to in Hannan's article. If this section is to remain in place it really should clarify that Hannan was alluding to a quotation that has been attributed to Mr Obama himself.Woolstan (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, the points you make here are irrelevant. Dhanda is more than notable enough and his accusation carries more than enough weight to be included here. The fact that you and some other users don't like what he said is again irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a democracy. I never said Hannan was of little importance, but he has never been in government and is only famous for being an outspoken maverick (eg. his position that Radovan Karadžić and Vojislav Šešelj should be released from the Hague is extremely unusual). --84.70.224.114 (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this, plain and simply, should not be included. It is a single news story, sourced entirely from one MP's statement. A statement by one MP that the opinions of an MEP of another party are wrong is not a news story. That is a fact of life. It would only become a news story if there were notable media coverage of the incident. Obviously, that hasn't materialised, because what Hannan said (that racism exists) was never going to be newsworthy! Bastin 14:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to cover news stories, it is here to cover facts. --84.70.224.114 (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

With the exception of our anonymous friend, it appears we have a consensus. I'm being bold and removing the section. —Wereon (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't be silly, I'm reverting it. You and the rest of his fan club here are not a consensus. --84.69.56.106 (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I wonder should we get this page locked for a while,user 90.240.126.100 was banned from editing for 24h for constantly attempting to have this section included. Other anonymous individuals(possibly the same one with different ip addresses) appear determined to have this section included, have reverted once again. If this section is reverted once more I will apply to have the page locked. Dublinclontarf (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think some third party input is needed here. I will restore the section at a future date. --90.240.67.196 (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

3rd Opinion - I don't think a single newspaper calling Hannan "racist" is WP:notable. Here in America, anyone who dares to disagree with Obama's policies is called a "racist". ObserverNY (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Religion?

Is there a source to say that Hannan is actually a practicing Catholic? I find it hard to reconcile his naked plutocratic materialist outlook with Catholic social teaching, he seems to have much more in common with Puritan "libertarians" who founded the United States (today represented by people like Ron Paul) or Swiss financiers. - Yorkshirian (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what a ridiculous reason to ask a perfect reasonable question. Not only is your description of Hannan wrong, but it also ignores an awful lot, including Philip Booth, who authored the IEA monogram Catholic Social Teaching and the Market Economy last year. Nonetheless, it is right to question it. I'm pretty sure it'll be in his Who's Who entry, so that's probably the place to go for that. However, excluding his contribution in the Catholic Herald, and off-the-cuff comparisons to the Civil War, he doesn't tend to talk about religion at all. Bastin 08:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Who's Who says nothing about DH's religion, but does list his principal recreation as "Shakespeare" ("Kipling" would have been funnier, and politically more interesting, but you can't have everything I suppose). David Trochos (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Nationality

There's been some BR going on, now we need the D :) - a couple of IPs are insisting on describing Hannan as "English", with the rationale that as the UK is a country that is a union of four nation-states, "British" cannot be a nationality. Whilst the logic is appealing, this description has a number of problems:

  1. He's from Peru, England is merely where he lives.
  2. There's no such thing as 'English' citizenship
  3. 'citizenship' and 'nationality' are frequently conflated, leading to a situation where there is a British nationality law, and his passport will describe his "nationality" as "British citizen".
  4. In addition, he represents a constituency which is part of the UK, and is not dealt with on an 'English' level.

Bearing all that in mind, my preference for his "nationality" field is "British", although I could see a case for "/Peruvian". The one that I don't see as explicable is 'English', but I think some discussion and consensus would be more helpful than simple revert-warring. Comments? --Saalstin (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources like The UK Border Agency would seem to be helpful here, and I've edited the article accordingly. David Trochos (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
This really has to stop, the bias and agenda of some edits which are completely non-encyclopedic but allowed due to mob rule. It happens on lots of articles, their is no legal basis for someone with UK citizenship to be a declared citizen of Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland or England. US articles arent edited to rename US citizens nationality to be their home state. The nationality should be changed if Northern Ireland joins Ireland or Great Britain splits up and not before hand. It's the exact same as myself editing the UK Labour Party article, adding my own personal bias and opinions to it then getting a few people to say "yes that is the consensus" even if it is unencyclopedic, factually untrue, biased and suits my agenda.86.157.109.154 (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree, but I think it's quite pointless to stress it. I think Hannan. The only time it should be asserted that someone is 'English' is if the preponderance of international sources state that he is 'English', and not 'British'. That may be the case with, for example, football players, as, in that field, being 'English' is more important than being British. But since the literature shows that's not the case with Hannan, and is very rarely the case with politicians at all, he should not be given as 'English'. Bastin 16:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Resigned

He appears to have.

Yes, he did, but the article doesn't even mention him having taken up the position in the first place. Bastin 08:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

update from the man himself

he suggests the lefties who inhabit and edit wikipedia perhaps pay a bit more attention to his defining political philosophy (direct democracy) and a bit less to somewhat tangential issues. will you? OF COURSE YOU WON'T! ;)

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100046836/wikipedias-occasional-errors-are-more-dangerous-than-ever/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.76.144 (talk) 10:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he should talk about direct democracy on his American TV appearances, if he really wants people to talk about that subject. --Theresonator (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

"writing leaders"?

"Hannan is also a journalist, having written leaders (---)"? I suppose editorials was the intended word? Strausszek (talk) 09:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Only if you think we ought to relentlessly Americanize everything. Wereon (talk) 05:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

NHS criticism

In the NHS criticism section, the following quote appears, attributed to Daniel Hannan:

"On a visit to the US, I was asked by an interviewer whether I would recommend a British-style health-care model, paid for out of general taxation. I replied that all three parties were devoted to the NHS, and that it had public support (although I added that this was at least partly the result of the inaccurate belief that free health care for the poor is a unique attribute of the British system). But I didn't want to dissemble: I have for years argued that Britain would be better off with a Singapore-style system of personal health-care accounts. So I cautioned against nationalisation, citing international league tables on survival rates and waiting times."

I assume that this quote is meant to convey Hannan's preferred method of health care funding. But, to me, it just makes his position look confused, as Singapore has 10 government-owned hospitals, which makes his caution "against nationalisation" look illogical. Perhaps there's a quote somewhere which better explains his position? Or is his position really this confused? --Theresonator (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

His position is not confused. But it is also not an entirely free market system he is advocating. He wants to adopt the HSA and mandatory catastrophic health insurance features of the Singapore health care system, not adopt their entire health care system in its entirety. Under this system every individual has mandatory catastrophic health insurance in the same way you insure a car. You have to have the insurance but you can take it out with any company you wish, which compete in a free market. In addition you have a Health Savings Account (HSA) which you control how much you put aside each month. You use the HSA for when you have the flu or something like that. The health insurance is for the freak things in life like getting hit by a bus. --Wikimoderate (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Dependent entirely on primary sources

The vast majority of the article is composed of articles written by Daniel Hannan himself that various editors have selected themselves. Hannan once wrote an article about the ICTY... so that gets a paragraph. Hannan has written a few articles about Iceland... so that gets a section. But they don't include the vast majority of articles that Hannan has written: thus distorting the content of the article. There are various problems with this method:

  1. Per WP:RS, reliable sources must generally be third-party sources. Per WP:OR, primary sources are generally not appropriate except for basic, factual statements that Wikipedia community has agreed ought to be included de rigeur. Such examples might include place or date of birth - they do not include paraphrasing of political opinions.
  2. Per WP:NPOV, except for such details that consensus has approved as belonging to articles as a matter of course (and, thus, may be supported by factual first-party sources), the content should be determined by the balance of views on that issue expressed by third-party sources. Thus, the sections that hang on selective picking of Hannan's own writing are not neutral.
  3. Per WP:BLP, any material not supported by reliable sources or representing sources in must be deleted.

Thus, such sections supported solely by primary sources must be deleted. Bastin 16:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPSPS self-published sources by the subjects themselves are acceptable if they
  1. are not unduly self-serving;
  2. do not involve claims about third parties;
  3. do not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
+there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and the article is not based primarily on such sources.
Which of these points is not complied here? As far as I can see, the used sources fulfil all of the necessary provisions. Regards --RJFF (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
They certainly do not cover WP:NPOV. The article is just a selection of statements that some editors think are 'interesting'. Well, Hannan has written one blog post ever about the ICTY - under NPOV, it clearly does not justify a paragraph (it doesn't even justify a sentence), but somebody thinks it's controversial, so in it's gone. The vast majority of Hannan's blog posts refer to two issues: localism and the EU. But by the looks of the article, his political beliefs extend to Iceland, war crimes, and models of healthcare delivery. Thus, it's inappropriate even if one does count Hannan's posts as reliable sources (they're not - for the article being primarily based on such sources, read also section; if stand-alone sections are entirely based on such sources, it's obviously not covered by WP:BLPSPS, as they do not rely or refer in any way to third-party sources). Bastin 02:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Display problem in Chrome

Hi there, just a quick point about the formatting of this article: in Chrome I'm seeing the first indented quotation, in the section about his expulsion from the EPP/ED, running over on top of the third photograph down on the right. This may very well be a problem in the way the browser is rendering the page, and it mightn't be happening in other browsers, but since it obviously is going to be an issue for some readers is there some other way we could format the quotations so as to avoid it? Lordrosemount (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Having had no response, I consulted the various quotation templates and the manual of style; these indicated that the 'cartoon' quote template that was being used was responsible for the display problem, and also that this template is not the preferred house style anyway. I therefore replaced it with the standard 'quote' template. This has fixed the display problem and brought the quotations into compliance with the house style. Lordrosemount (talk) 13:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daniel Hannan. 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, 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Daniel Hannan. 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, 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) 05:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daniel Hannan. 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) 04:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daniel_Hannan/Archive_1&oldid=1142370066"