Talk:A. K. Chesterton

Who did he marry?
Would be nice if a specific name was mentioned in the article and under "relations"

Tolkien
I don't want to be too strident a defender of Tolkien, though I am a great fan of his writing, but is mentioning him here really germane to the article? It strikes me more as the act of someone wanting to "out" Tolkien as some kind of crypto-Fascist. If there is any ground to this allegation (and as someone who has read hundreds of the man's letters, I cannot imagine for an instant that he would align himself with anything resembling Nazism), it ought to be addressed on Tolkien's page itself....if the extent of his alleged ultra-right-wing leanings was merely a subscription to the magazine Candour, then I doubt it is worthy of mention (and if it is, oughtn't it to be mentioned at the magazine's article, not Chesterton's?). My two cents. Before I strike the mention of Tolkien as irrelevant, though, I wanted to see the community's reaction. Any thoughts? Jwrosenzweig 00:13, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * While I know virtually nothing about either Chesterton or Candour, I think it's important to point out that there's a major difference between "right-wing" and "crypto-Fascist". While all of the latter are certainly the former, the reverse isn't the case.  (And of course there are nuances with regard to the time period in question which possibly should be taken under consideration.) I find nothing in the article that alludes to Fascist leanings; perhaps it should be there?


 * As for striking the Tolkien reference though, politics aside, I really don't think it would subtract anything crucial to the article if it were gone. - Hephaestos 00:22, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * The reference is both interesting and relevant; I wasn't trying to portray Tolkien as a &quot;crypto-fascist&quot; or anything else, simply mentioning an interesting snippet that connects Chesterton with a more well-known figure today; however, an article on Candour specifically does not at this point exist, so it seems sensible to put such details regarding it in the article about its editor. It might be better, I agree, to create an article on Candour, and reference the snippet on this page in the main Tolkien article, but since the former doesn't yet exist I considered the best place to put it was solely in this article. It isn't irrelevant, but I can't think of anywhere better to put it until someone (perhaps I myself) starts Candour. 80.255 00:28, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Hephaestos, thanks for raising the point. I re-read the article and realized it hid Chesterton's ideas well.  If you search for the organization he founded on Google though ("National Front") you'll find its web site declares it to be a "White nationalist organisation founded in 1967 in opposition to multi-racialism and immigration".  I call that a darn sight more than mere right-wing politics. :)  Sorry for not making it clear earlier. Jwrosenzweig 00:32, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Aha. That makes sense then, and it probably should be reiterated that this should be taken up in this article.  After all NPOV doesn't mean "pulling punches". - Hephaestos 00:45, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * To 80.255, I guess I would say that including the detail (where did you get it, btw?) about Tolkien in Chesterton's article is odd to me. Including it in Candour's article would be preferred (its non-existence seems like a flimsy argument to me: if you know enough about it to know about one of its subscribers, I'd say write a stub :) -- but as I said before, I don't really know why it's relevant.  Just my two cents...Jwrosenzweig 00:32, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * To add one final thought here, I searched google for "candour magazine" + tolkien and came up with one hit. I read that article, and followed the one link from there to the accusation.  One man (Stephen Goodson) claims that Tolkien subscribed to Candour.  He claims to possess the mentioned volumes, which passed from Tolkien to Chesterton's secretary, and on to him in 1997.  It appears to be a part of Goodson's campaign to reveal Tolkien as someone harboring racist tendencies.  Tolkien may have been racist (though personally I have always found such charges groundless), but to mention Tolkien's lavishly bound 20 volumes of Candour when these volumes are attested to by one man who claims they passed to him from Tolkien via a third party 20+ years after Tolkien's death....well, I'd just as soon not have it mentioned at all. Jwrosenzweig 00:37, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Certainly there must have been other well-known subscribers? - Hephaestos 00:48, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Very well, I will write a stub for Candour, although I don't know a great deal about it. Regarding supposed "Hiding" of Chesterton's ideals, this was not intentional. The LEL, for example, was certainly no extremist group, being considered perfectly respectable at the time, and as I mentioned, was well regarded amonst many rank-and-file tories, including some MPs. Chesterton also frequently expelled people from the various organisations he led for harbouring views he considered to be extreme: for example, expelled John Tyndall from the LEL for extremism - Tyndall later went on to become leader of the National Front some time after AKC stepped down and actually was responsible for must of the extremism for which the NF is generally remebered! Chesterton was no fascist, in my opinion, particularly considering his support for WWII and his frequent efforts to keep people who could objectively be described as "neo nazi" out of his organisations. Colin Jordan, for instance, who was a real and well known neo-nazi, was banned for life from joining the NF at its inception at the specific effort of Chesterton, who didn't want his extremist views to impact upon the organisation. When he stepped down as leader due to old age after only a few years, he was obviously unable to continue ensuring this, and as a result the organisation became considerably more "extreme" than it started off as. This sort of detail is not at all obvious when doing quick google searches for "national front" and finding it generally described as extreme, then coupling this with the fact that Chesterton founded it. It is rather like suggesting that the Labour party was founded by people who believed in international capitalism and consumerism on the basis that its current policies encapsulate these.

Incidentally, you may have noticed that gogling "Tolkien racist" produces 7,190 results (and "Tolkien racism" almost as many) so I think it's rather dangerous to assume he held political opinions you personally would agree with just because you like his books! 80.255 01:22, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

80, I'm not going to get into an argument with you about this. I will note that what I quoted regarding the National Front here came directly from their web site. I am also familiar with the NF from my research on the issue of Holocaust denial, which is where my additional comments originate from. You are of course free to disagree with me regarding the NF, Chesterton's extremism, and anything else you like. Neither of us are infallible creatures with unlimited access to the truth. Regarding your snipe about my opinion of Tolkien at the end, suffice it to say that many people hold ideas I find ludicrous (some of them have websites), that a website that said "Tolkien was not racist" would show up in your proposed search, and that I said at the outset that my opinion of Tolkien's political tendencies was not based on a liking for LOTR, but in fact based upon my experience with the man's personal letters. He was not an entirely agreeable human being (we none of us are), and I feel he was wrong on some issues. I have not yet seen anything that indicates to me he held the racist opinions that Mr. Chesterton and others of his ilk subscribed to. This is all I will say about this. Thank you for offering me your opinion. Jwrosenzweig 01:32, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Jw, I don't see any need for argument about this matter; I simply happened upon a reference between Tolkien and Candour, thought it an interesting snippet, and included it. It didn't occur to me at the time that the cource may be of questionable validity, and I have neither the knowledge nor the inclination to try to "prove" anything about Tolkien's political beliefs. My apologies if you took my previous end note as a "snipe" - it wasn't intended as such. I'm sure you are better qualified on such matters than I am if you have read T's letters, and although that alone certainly doesn't disprove my suggestion, I certainly have insufficient knowledge to prove it.
 * Of course "Tolkien was not a racist" would be picked up by the search I mentioned, but people are hardly likely to make this statement out of thin air if no suggestion that he might have been existed - I would simply demonstrating that the possibility that he could well have held such views certainly isn't anything terribly off-the-wall.
 * Regarding the portrayal of Mr. Chesterton - I have attempted to put his views in context; you may )correctly) say that he would be considered more than simply "right wing" today, but in the 50s his and similar views were much more widely held. Given this and the fact that he cannot fairly be portrayed as having been "neo-nazi" even by today's standards, I think we have to be careful with sticking labels on people. "Ultra right-wing" I think is appropriate, but "far right" might give a misleading impression. 80.255 01:56, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Let's not mix our metaphors here; "ultra" means "out of the range of" (i.e., "off the scale") whereas "far" means, well, far, but still in range. Are you sure that's what you mean?  - Hephaestos 02:24, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * I am taking these prefixes as they are used, rather than on a purely etymological level. It is not uncommon to hear speak of an "ultra right-wing tory", but I have never heard "a far-right tory"; the latter is associated specifically with fascism, whereas the former (to my mind, at least) gives the impression of just "very right wing". Fascism is a specific doctrine; simply being very right wing doesn't automatically make someone fascist. Even though many people who are described as "far right" are not technically fascist, the use of this term is nonetheless designed to give this impression, and clouds the water, so to speak. E.g. Enoch Powell certainly wasn't fascist, but he was certainly very right wing. 80.255 02:47, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Leopard Valley
I found an old typescript called Leopard Vally by A.K. Chesterton. Can anyone enlighten me. Cathel (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

All I know about this was that it was a play written by Chesterton in the early 1930's.The A.K. Chesterton Trust may know more about it. Nottinghamian (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable and full of factual errors
Much of this article would appear to be factually incorrect and its sources either uncited or unreliable, if one is to believe the entry for AK Chesterton in the online Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. For example, according to the opening paragraph of the latter:

The article needs to be checked thoroughly, therefore, from start to finish for factual inaccuracies. 101.163.21.119 (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes,I see some inaccuracies. I will try and update the article.RobBlack1964 11:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobBlack1964 (talk • contribs)


 * Anything about A.K. Chesterton on Wikipedia is bound to be inaccurate. Anyone who understands A.K. and the "people" who run Wikipedia should understand this. 47.137.191.83 (talk) 06:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Clarify, please
His war experience was crucial to his repudiation of democracy.
 * This needs rationalizing, in addition to the 'citation needed' tag currently in place. Valetude (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Extremist right wing in the intro?
What does this even mean, The article implies that it means he was opposed to the breakup of the British Empire, but that was happening anyway, due to Britain's stupid and asinine policies. I thought that Wikipedia adhered to a NPOV policy. Apparently not. 47.137.191.83 (talk) 06:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * given context and era I have removed, not to mention it was unsourced. I have kept far-right, which is closer to the language used at the time. Alexandre8 (talk) 10:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

It is also questionable to characterise him as anti-Semitic in the lead. He did publish anti-Semitic rants during his fascist phase, 1933-1938, but he went on to publish an explicit denouncement of anti-Semitism in 1948. So he was (notably) anti-Semitic for five years, and anti-anti-Semitic for more than 25 years. He was probably a confessed socialist for a longer period than the duration of his anti-Semitism. Not saying this should be ignored or anything, it just has no place in the lead, and it needs to be characterised as a five-year period in a productive period spanning 40 years. --dab (𒁳) 16:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

New introduction
I have rewritten the introduction making some, what I hope, are stylistic improvements. I have added relevant links as well. Alexandre8 (talk) 10:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A. K. Chesterton. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140427230011/http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/ to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

"improvements"
That's great,, now we're back to the self-contradiction of the infobox stating "first cousin" and the article text "second cousin" for the relation with G.K. Chesterton. The reference for "second cousin", on top of that, is a WP:BOMBARD of three consecutive references. I believe that I had researched this properly. If you do think I have made an error, please decide on which reference you are using, and use it explicitly, ideally with a quote. I cannot be bothered to fix this now, please clean this up yourself.

The reference for the statement that his Portrait of a Leader was Mosley's official biography, btw, which you have removed as "unreferenced", was LeCras p. 6. I didn't check what other information taken from LeCras you may have removed. Put it back please.

--dab (𒁳) 11:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * yes sorry I had forgotten to changed it in the infobox. Three references do not qualify as an WP:OVERKILL. What is your source for the genealogy? I don't see it in the previous version. You can check the ones I have added + geni.com. Alcaios (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * PS: the statement Chesterton's Portrait of a Leader (1936) was Mosley's officially sanctioned biography was unsourced in the article. Please check the previous versions. Alcaios (talk) 11:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * PS2: I have replaced LeCras's thesis with another work by the very same author, LeCras (2019), whenever I could since a published work supersedes a thesis as per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Please attentively check the nature of sources you have used and the ones that have been added to the article before commenting. Alcaios (talk) 11:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Dates?
''In August 1918, he received his commission as second lieutenant... Chesterton served over two years on the Western Front.''
 * Don't you mean August 1916? Valetude (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Can't be, he was in South Africa according to earlier paragraph.. would have been a super quick convalescance/travel to uk/cadet training program--Drgonzo (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The new unhappy lords
The article refers to two books.

”The new unhappy Lords” (1965) ”The new happy Lord” (1965)

however it seems like the 2nd does not exist, and is most likely a typo. These book names are linked to references 30 and 31. 86.2.132.201 (talk) 09:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)