Talk:G. K. Chesterton/Archive 1

Broken links
The link to "An extensive collection of e-text links" ( http://www.dur.ac.uk/martin.ward/gkc/books/ ) seems to be broken. If it still does not work two weeks from 27/12/2003, perhaps it should be removed.

A replacement link would be: http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/author?name=Chesterton%2c%20G%2e%20K%2e%20%28Gilbert%20Keith%29%2c%201874%2d1936


 * It worked when I tried it just now. &mdash;Paul A 05:38, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Reminiscent
Reminiscent means recalling things past, given to or concerned with retrospection. Not the meaning its insertion in the article can carry. Please don't insist. Charles Matthews 12:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As all of the people under discussion are historical figures, then arguably we only can be reminded of them. I accept your disputation however. It is not the remeniscince I am insisting on, merely the fact that GKC did not follow Wilde and Shaw. Please do not insist on that. -RL --Ross Lawhead 13:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I think in the deployment of paradox he did. The cases are otherwise very different. Reading what Maisie Ward says about Shaw and GKC, it is hard to escape the conclusion that GKC took plenty from Shaw, up to around 1909 when he wrote a whole book on Shaw, got it out of his system, and made a clean break with the Fabians. Charles Matthews 16:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

But a shared artistic style or form of speech is not the same thing as a shared viewpoint or perspective. Further, I don't think that you could argue that the use of paradox or irony originated with Shaw or Wilde. I agree completely that there are many similarities, but nearly all of them are superficial in nature, and to say that Chesterton 'followed' them is to badly state the case, and hint that Chesterton was an acolyte or inferior to OW & GBS, when for purposes of clarity and fair-handedness, we must describe him as a contemporary. On the surface you could state the case above, but to actually read GKC's writings, Heretics and his GBS biography in particular, is to show how much he disagreed with GBS on a very fundamental level.


 * Shaw born 1856, GKC 1874. No, not a real contemporary. Charles Matthews 16:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Shaw's first work was 1892, Chesterton's was 1900... that's fairly close. Plus, Chesterton died a couple decades before Shaw. There was probably a little cross-influencing going on there. My only point is that, although they are similar stylistically, underneath it, they are saying two very different things.Ross Lawhead 16:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I don't think anyone would confuse their directions. Wasn't Cashel Byron's Profession 1885? Charles Matthews 17:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

People would confuse their directions if we confuse them. Aren't we to assume people are not familiar with the subjects in the articles we edit? Should we not aim for accuracy in our descriptions?Ross Lawhead 18:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've worked on that paragraph some more. Charles Matthews 20:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. Ross Lawhead 09:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Chesterton and Wilde
"As a Christian, and in the end a Catholic, his conclusions were often diametrically opposite those of Wilde and Shaw."

Wilde was also a Christian (and eventually a Catholic) so this doesn't really make much sense. Should I get rid of this sentence? Iron Ghost 03:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The edit by User:Lavintzin adding Wilde and Shaw to the sentence seems to be negative. The 'opposite' conclusions were opposite to the tone of the satire: against the extremity of the aesthetes' approach, pro 'ordinary life'. Yes, there is a bit more common ground with Wilde, and with Shaw. That got lost in trying to accommodate what User:Ross Lawhead was arguing. I think I'll move the para on Dickens up, so that the whole thing can give a reasonably balanced view. Charles Matthews 08:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The evidence that Wilde's point of view is different enough from GKC to be completely distinct can be shown in Heretics by GKC. He describes Wilde's POV thus:

'In this cult of the pessimistic pleasure-seeker the Rubaiyat stands first in our time; but it does not stand alone. Many of the most brilliant intellects of our time have urged us to the same self-conscious snatching at a rare delight. Walter Pater said that we were all under sentence of death, and the only course was to enjoy exquisite moments simply for those moments' sake. The same lesson was taught by the very powerful and very desolate philosophy of Oscar Wilde. It is the carpe diem religion; but the carpe diem religion is not the religion of happy people, but of very unhappy people.'

This is far, far from Chesterton following in Wilde's footsteps, this is GKC pointing out a fundamental flaw in Wilde's thinking. From our point in history, it is easy to look back and see that yes, Wilde was a witty speaker and a converted Catholic and that yes, GKC was a witty speaker and a converted Catholic, they must have shared the same viewpoints, but this really is not true if you have really read Wilde, and really read GKC. Shall we create a heading expalining this in the article body?Ross Lawhead 11:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I never suggested that Wilde and Chesterton shared the same views, only that the text, as it stood, suggested that Chesterton's differences of opinion with Wilde were due to his Catholicism, which is plainly not the case. Iron Ghost 00:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand, and I see it was unclear. Is it better now? Ross Lawhead 07:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have no problem with the text as it now stands. Iron Ghost 15:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Influence section
Now that the main part of the article is in better shape, I think those bullet points can be sorted out. Some should go into the existing sections (eg the Dickens comment with the quote on GKC and Dickens), and the others can form a 'trivia' section. Charles Matthews 07:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Problem
It is stated in the article that Chesterton thought there was a 'Jewish Problem', but it is not stated what he thought that problem was. It could be anything from how badly the Jews were being treated to his believing they wanted to take over the world. Could whoever wrote that please explain what Chesterton throught he 'problem' was? DJ Clayworth 05:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In 1901 in The Speaker he was writing about the 'Jewish plutocratic problem'. (Bryan Cheyette, Constructions of 'the Jew' in English literature and society, p.189, asserts this). Charles Matthews 09:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * OK found a reference and added it in. DJ Clayworth 14:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Messed up edits?
Something's wrong at the end of the section on Chesterton and his contemporaries. (Searchs for "the great Gales of Ireland", which I suppose was Gaels anyway.) I don't have the time to track down where that came from or what happened, but it should be fixed. --Lavintzin 19:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I've tidied up, fixed and formatted that odd sentence. It looks like a residual edit, but I don't know from where. It looks nice, but I'm ambivalent as to wether it should stay or go. I think someone added it just because they liked the quote, not necessarily that it throws a different light on GKC... although it does show him having a view on history, race, art, etc. I'll let someone else make the call. (you're right about 'Gaels' incidently. Let's keep an eye on this word) Ross Lawhead 08:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the fix. What you said is true, and relevant, that GKC could hardly write without dropping epigrams along the way. There are dozens of other quotes I might have preferred, but I have no objection to this one. --Lavintzin 14:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms section
I note that there are no criticisms of Chesterton's books, notably Orthodoxy. If it is indeed a religious classic, I suspect that someone will have written about the fallacies and other flaws they see in it. Does anyone plan to add a criticisms section with details of ideas countering Chesterton's views? Eiler7 21:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If there is to be a section criticizing his views, it might be good to first have a section expounding them. And Orthodoxy would indeed be a good place to start. This could get pretty long even for an encyclopedia article, but it should be fun.
 * How about, for starters: "...scientific men do muddle their heads, until they imagine a necessary mental connection between an apple leaving the tree and an apple reaching the ground. ... They feel that because one incomprehensible thing constantly follows another incomprehensible thing the two together somehow make up a comprehensible thing. Two black riddles make a white answer." So how should one respond instead? "Granted, then, that certain transformations do happen, it is essential that we should regard them in the philosophic manner of fairy tales, not in the unphilosophic manner of science and the 'Laws of Nature'. When we are asked why eggs turn to birds or fruits fall in autumn, we must answer exactly as the fairy godmother would answer if Cinderella asked her why mice turned to horses or her clothes fell from her at twelve o'clock. We must answer that it is magic. ... A tree grows fuit because it is a magic tree. Water runs downhill because it is bewitched. ...I deny that this is fantastic or even mystical ... this fairy-tale language about things is simply rational and agnostic. ... the materialist professor (though he conceals his tears) is yet a sentimentalist, because, by a dark association of his own, apple-blossoms remind him of apples. But the cool rationalist from fairyland does not see why, in the abstract, the apple tree should not grow crimson tulips; it sometimes does in his country." Somebody want to argue with that!?
 * --Lavintzin 22:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Inspiration for 1984?
I have read a large proportion of Orwell's letters and notes, and I'm afraid I have never come across any evidence to sugest that The Napolean of Notting Hill was the inspiration for 1984, nor can I see any references to the earlier book in 1984 itself. The most Orwell ever said about Chesterton was that he was a talented novelist whose later works decended into Catholic propaganda.

If somebody can offer some evidence to substantiate the claim that TNONH was the inspiration for 1984 then I would be happy to concede, otherwise I will remove this claim from the article. Iron Ghost


 * I found that it was entered here on 9/2/04 by an anonymous user under the comment "Chesterton's influence". I left a message at 130.89.1.19's talk page asking for a reply within a week.  If he/she doesn't respond by then, axe it.  David Bergan 21:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

They are both set in the same year, so I'm sure thats a basis for such an idea. See. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 22:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that seems the most likely explaination. However only the early part of the book is set in 1984 and in any case, its a pretty tenuous link. Iron Ghost


 * But a real one none the less. Perhaps it should be reworded, but the mention should probably stay. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 05:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

As a veteran of long debates over Orwell's inspiration over in the 1984 article, I have seen no evidence whatsoever for Chesterton actually inspiring 1984 -- remember that inspiration is a specific historical claim that needs to be supported by something more than "hey, this other book was similar". I say remove the claim, and demand attribution (i.e. a quote from Orwell or one of his biographers) before it gets inserted again. -Ben 13:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the Orwell referrence from the influences section, as its now been a week and no response. Iron Ghost 21:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

-Saying that George Orwell "gave no indication" that he was influenced by GK Chesterton is fairly biased, because no one can be perfectly sure that Orwell never, even in passing, mentioned this influence. Jontveit


 * It is not biased in the least. Orwell was never shy about naming his influences (for example, he gave credit to Zamayatin for his influence on 1984) and yet he never once wrote anything to suggest that Chesterton was an influence on his work.


 * The claim that 1984 was inspired by THONH is based entirely on the fact that part of the book is set in 1984. The year is not even mentioned by name, Chesterton mearly states that the story begins eighty years in the future (the book was published in 1904). This is a very obscure a tenuous link and the only reason that the Orwell reference appears in the article in any form is as a compromise with the people who insist that Chesterton influenced Orwell. Iron Ghost 03:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've studied both books rather closely. There are tremendous differences in theme and message. It seems unlikely that the mere suggested date in which the events of Napolean took place could have 'inspired' Orwell's book. In the light of no further evidence, we should take this out. Ross Lawhead 11:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * fwiw I agree: take it out. --Lavintzin 20:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. Iron Ghost 21:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The Everlasting Man
I drafted an article for The Everlasting Man. It would doubtless benefit from review, criticism and/or editing by the rest of you interested in Chesterton. --Lavintzin 18:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Chesterton the debater
It says "Chesterton was usually considered the winner". I would like to know more about this. What is the source of this claim? I wonder about the truth of this. Eiler7 11:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm. It seems that this page is the source. Does not seem like an unbiased source. How about I expand this claim to make it more specific? Eiler7 11:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

You can just cut it. WP should be understated: it adds to credibility. Charles Matthews 15:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, "Chesterton loved to debate, often engaging in friendly public debates with such men as George Bernard Shaw, H. G. Wells, Bertrand Russell, and Clarence Darrow. According to his autobiography, he and Shaw played cowboys in a silent movie that was never released."

...seems to me to be a non-sequitor. Maybe an additional line in there to make the segue from his debate partners, to the fact that he considered most of them his friends and using the (unreleased) film as an example. Also, we should cite the film perhaps? Is an IMDB citation enough? Or should we go LOC? --66.107.93.194 18:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think its best not to include a referrence to Rosy Rapture, as it is unclear whether or not this was the film that Chesterton was referring to in his autobiography (there could have been more than one film). Best simply to cite Chesterton's autobiography, where the claim comes from. --Iron Ghost 21:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The influence of GKC
The intro called GKC "influential." I changed this to famous and popular (in his own time at least), as I can't for the life of me think of any lasting influence he may have had. He contributed nothing to the great contemporary movement in Eng. Lit., which was modernism (think Henry James and Joseph Conrad); as an Edwardian, he was outclassed by the social realists and their ilk; even as a belle-lettrist, he doesn't rank with Wilde and Shaw or even the early Somerset Maugham (although Maugham's level is close). In his own day, he ranked with such as Saki; he lacked the intellectual clout of Shaw (whose own star has faded over time), the lasting legacy of Conrad. He was an interesting but second-rate author, a peer of Saki and Jerome K. Jerome, but not, definitely not, influential.(If you doubt this, then answer: who did he influence?) PiCo 13:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well you seem to be working on the premise that "not influential to the people who win Pulitzers or Bookers" is the same as "not influential at all." There is other kinds of literature besides "literature assigned to English majors." Chesterton had a, generally accepted, influence on genre fiction. This is maybe most true with mystery, alternate history, and science fiction. His influence on Gene Wolfe, R. A. Lafferty, and several other science fiction writers of a Catholic religious outlook I think is much less debatable than most of the authors named in the article. He also was widely read among several Analytical Thomism philosophers, but the influence on them is maybe more debatable. There was also political/economic influence; mostly with Michael Collins, E. F. Schumacher, and varying others. (I hope this was acceptable as I did not say whether his Catholicism was good, bad, or even his level of devotion. Although I still did mention it, but that was necessary in order to mention what authors he influenced)--T. Anthony 10:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, there's a whole section on people who he influenced in the article. Iron Ghost 13:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, fair enough. But those influences aren't terribly, um, influential. To begin at the top, CS LEwis is himself a second-ranking writer (which isn't to dismiss him as a nobody - I wish I could do half what he accomplished - but he isn't Graham Greene or Evelyn Waugh), and a contribution to Lesis' conversion isn't a literary influence, which is what I was meaning. GKC and Dickens: I doubt that this was really so; Dickens' popularity with general readers gradually declined over time, as is only natural, and has never really revived to the status it had while he was alive. There's no harm in that, it's to be expected. Dicken's critical fame has been rather a battleground: Leavis first said he was rubbish, then later said he was acceptable; Eliot was batting for Dickens at a time when Leavis was putting him on the shelf, and I think Eliot was just reaching for Chesterton to bolster his own argument (meaning I don't think Chesterton's opinion changed or influenced Eliot's); as for Ackroyd, I've just had the unpleasant task of reading his collected journalism, an my opinion of him as a slick hickster intent only on filling column inches has never been higher. Chesterton's writings praised by A,B and C, well, I praise them myself, I have the com plete short stories on my shelf, and they're good. I'm not arguing he's rubbish, I'm just questioning his influence, i.e., how did he change the way short stories, novels, etc were written? (In the field of the detective story a case could probably be made that he did, but elsewhere?) I've never heard of Neil Gaiman or Philip Yancy. What I mean is, what trace did he leave on literature, on society, on his own age and ours? I accept that the Influences section sums up the case, but it really makes him no more than a secondary figure. (Don't get me wrong, he's not a nobody, but he's not erally influential, either). PiCo 03:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Influence" is a somewhat subjective concept... and for sure Chesterton's influence wasn't literary so much as spiritual. Part of it is that the way Chesterton writes; one cannot just read his book, put it back on the shelf, and say "That was a good read" without having sharpened his own spiritual beliefs.  It's not like, say, Hamlet... where you have an outstanding story that is universally praised, deliciously spiced with timeless quotes, but ultimately just a tale.  Shakespeare, better than anyone, paints perfect characters shaped by grand events... but he doesn't quite challenge the reader to come to terms with his own beliefs.  Chesterton's non-fiction, on the other hand, traps the mind in spiritual dilemmas chapter after chapter.  He blasts through superficial diversions and puts the core, raw choice front and center in the reader's brain.  He converts non-believers.


 * Chesterton wasn't concerned with literary fads (which you refer to as "influence") any more than Thomas Aquinas was. He spoke the truth, and the truth influenced souls even if it didn't influence writing styles.  I can't help but think that your comment that he and C.S. Lewis are "second-rate authors" shows that you haven't read either.  Again, neither was concerned with ground-breaking style, but both certainly show a mastery of the language.  (Check their wikiquote pages if you have doubts.)  That, and the fact that Lewis ranks as #6 among contemporary home libraries (ahead of even Shakespeare) shows that the pair have influenced far more souls than Shaw, Conrad, or James (none of which make the top 75).  David Bergan 15:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to believe that GKC was a good Catholic and a great writer; the truth is probably the reverse. PiCo 08:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And by "truth" you are referring to your own personal opinion. But to me it seems like a guy should at least read a few of the man's books before talking derisively of him in public.  Personally, Chesterton has had (and continues to have) a big influence on my intellect, and I think he is a top-tier writer.  David Bergan 13:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * He influenced most of the major ethical philosophers of the 20th century. And Borges. BORGES. If that isn't a major literary figure, I don't know who is. Oh, plus on the character front, he's clearly the heir-apparent to Dickens. Extremely influential in the mystery and detective genre too.

Poor English -needs rewrite
I think this needs re-writing (from views and contemporaries section):"The roots of Chesterton's approach have been taken to be in two earlier strands in English literature, Dickens being one. In the use of paradox, against complacent acceptance of things as they are, he is often categorised with Oscar Wilde and George Bernard Shaw, whom he knew well, as Victorian satirists and social commentators in a tradition coming also from Samuel Butler."

and this: "Chesterton's style and thinking were all his own, however, and his conclusions were often diametrically opposed to those of his predecessors and contemporaries. In his book Heretics, Chesterton has this to say of Oscar Wilde:"

I think it is very poor English and grammar Tremello22 (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct, Tremello22, the first one, in particular, is so bad it is nearly incomprehensible. Would you care to have a go at fixing it? ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  17:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think the second one needs the commas - so that is easy to fix. I am not really knowledgeable on chesterton to be comfortable to change the first though. Tremello22 (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I feel the same way. I am simply not comfortable with my knowledge of Chesterton to try to make sense out of that sentence.  I will try to find someone who can. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  01:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

is/are
The following sentence:


 * He is one of the few Christian thinkers who are admired and quoted equally by liberal and conservative Christians, and indeed by many non-Christians.

has been changed twice to read "thinkers who is admired". 142.27.69.27 and dbergan, who made the changes, seem to think this grammatically necessary or at least better. dbergan says: 'grammar, "are" --> "is" What's the subject? "Who" Does who refer to a singular or plural noun? "Singular" Which one? "He" So do we use are or is for a singular subject? "is" Q.E.D.'

I've reverted it twice. Putting "is" in instead of "are" gives the following result: "There are few Christian thinkers. C is one of those few. Additionally (and this is awkwardly expressed), C *is* admired and quoted by all sides." This is factually incorrect (there are in fact not just a few Christian thinkers), besides grammatically awkward. (Would you write "She is one of the few surviving Ainu who was educated at the University of Kyoto"?)

Leaving "are" is much more coherent and more probably what was originally intended. "There are few Christian thinkers who *are* admired and quoted by all sides. C is one of those few." "Who" does indeed refer to a plural noun, "thinkers". This is (at least relatively) graceful syntax, and has the added advantage of being true. --Lavintzin 15:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * See, and I read the sentence as:


 * Chesterton is admired and quoted equally by liberal and conservative Christians, and indeed by many non-Christians.


 * "Thinkers" cannot be the subject because it is the object of the prepositional phrase "of the few Christian thinkers." Therefore, "is" would be correct in that sentence.


 * But rather than bicker about one particular verb, let's just rewrite the sentence in such a way that satisfies us both. I propose:


 * Unlike most modern Christian thinkers, Chesterton is admired and quoted by both liberal and conservative Christians, and even by many non-Christians.


 * What do you say, Lavintzin? Kind regards, David Bergan 20:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If GKC is one of the thinkers who are admired and quoted, of course it follows that he is admired and quoted. So are the rest of them. What ever does being the object of a prepositional phrase have to do with being the referent of a relative clause (a "who/which/that" adjectival clause)? ("Thinkers" is object of "of" in the first sentence in this paragraph, and is modified by a relative clause. No problem with that.) "Michael Jordan is one of the few athletes who are(/*is) supreme in their(/*his) sport(s)." Jordan is supreme in his sport, the (few) others are supreme in theirs. It's a perfectly good and normal structure. The version with singular verb and possessor is bad. It implies there are few athletes.

If the sentence is to be recast, I'd leave out the "Unlike ..." phrase, and just say he is admired and quoted. But I'd prefer to leave it as is.

--Lavintzin 22:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I put the question to the smartest English teacher I know, and this was his response:


 * Good morning, David, and thank you for waking my brain with this interesting grammar problem. My conversational urge is to go for the singular verb, since G.K. Chesterton is the subject of the sentence and the only specific noun to figure prominently in our thinking as we say it. However, I will argue that the plural verb is the correct form. The dependent clause "who are admired..." grammatically modifies "thinkers," not "Chesterton." Proof: if the dependent clause were not present, the sentence would read "G.K. Chesterton is one of the few Christian thinkers," a position held only by snarky secularists. We are using the dependent clause to limit the class of Christian thinkers to which Chesterton belongs; therefore, the antecedent of "who" is "thinkers," plural, and the clause's verb must thus agree in number with that plural noun.


 * Which is basically the same thing you had been saying. I am willing to go with both of you, and stick with "are".  Thanks for your patience, David Bergan 16:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is a restrictive relative clause, "limit[ing] the class of Christian thinkers to which Chesterton belongs". Glad your English teacher, and now you, agree. --Lavintzin 18:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

For all this argument, is there any evidence for any part of this quote? Any evidence that he is cited equally by liberal and conservative Christian writers? That he is admired by more non-Christians than comparable "Christian thinkers"? Whatever it means to describe someone as a "thinker"?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Major revisions needed
Now that we've (hopefully) reached a conclusion to the ongoing saga of the Anti-semitism section, perhaps we can make some headway with the rest of the article. In the last couple of days I've reworked the introduction and bulked out the Life section but there is still alot more work to do. In particular the Writing section, which should form the core of the article, has barely been touched in over eight months and is in dire need of attention. With a writer of Chesterton's importance and prolificacy it really should be much longer and ideally contain sub-headings for poetry, prose fiction, journalism, biography ect.

Additionally the Views and Contemporaries section is currently disproportionately long and contains to many block quotes (none of which are referenced) and doesn't really deal with his views (Eugenics, Imperialism, Irish Independence ect).

There are a great deal of quotations and anecdotes throughout the article, almost none of which are referenced. Perhaps the people who added them could add the references in, or at least give the details of where they are from on this page so that I can do it. Also there is a great deal of information in the influences section that needs referencing.

I will get to work on the Writing section tonight, but obviously, the more people who contribute the better. If we all start pulling in the same direction I'm sure that before long we can work this article up to Good Article Status, and eventually to Featured Article Status where it belongs. --Iron Ghost 17:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, major revisions needed. Too blocky, not enough info... 71.1.62.169 (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"...one of the most influential English writers of the 20th century"
Come on, how many articles about authors say this?

To say one is "one of the most" implies that there are not that many in that class, or else it is saying nothing (since if there are many in this class, than being "one" of such a big class doesn't really say much).

In my opinion, including "one" of and "most" implies one is in a select, small class at the top of a category.

Now I'm not an English major, but I've never heard of this individual. Maybe if I were an English major I'd agree that he one of a few, but I doubt it.

How about "was an influential writer" or something similarly less grandiose sounding.

Lee (talk) 04:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I was an English major and I have a grad degree in a related field. He's vitally important to 20th century British fiction, especially the mystery genre (Second only to Poe, Doyle and debatably third to Christie). He's one of the all-time greats at crafting characters too - after Dickens and Hardy. I doubt more than a handful of people know who George Boole, Alan Turing, or Kilby & Noyce are, yet they're probably the most important people in the development of modern computing.


 * Layman prestige =/= reality. Who would the layperson say? Bill Gates? Steve Jobs? Guinness4life (talk) 04:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Come on, how many articles about authors say this?"


 * It's an encylopedia, people tend not to write articles about unimportant people or popular personages that haven't stood the test of time. I've read numerous absolutely atrocious late Victorian writers you've never heard of (their age's equivalent of Stephen King). Case in point - Bulwer-Lytton's page doesn't say that he's great.... Guinness4life (talk) 04:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is a lengthy article with citations and sources for the claim of his influence throughout the 20th Century: http://augustine.livejournal.com/7853.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.253.112.142 (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Children's book
Under what heading would a children's book on Chesterton go? Literature and Biographies or Cultural References? See ISBN 0-977-22349-3, "The Inconvenient Adventures of Uncle Chestnut" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.253.112.142 (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Irish Independence
The claim that a Chesterton novel "inspired Michael Collins to lead a movement for Irish Independence" is somewhat fanciful. Serious historians would not contend that a Chesterton novel was the sole or central influence on Michael Collins' career as a revolutionary.

Many of these passages bear a curious resemblance, word for word (including the disputed phrase above concerning Collins), to the descriptions on www.chesterton.org. I admit that I am new at this, but if I wanted to, I'd just go to that "fansite" rather than the Wiki entry, which I expect to be more independent. - Reflect

Could we have a good going over of the research here. I'm no Chesterton expert, but reading this article I kept pausing over various statements that seemed a little dodgy! Gingermint (talk) 05:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Dickens
This says that Dickens' popularity has never really waned much, but the article says that Chesterton was responsible for popular revival of his work, as well as claiming that T. S. Eliot et al all believe that Chesterton wrote the best book on Dickens. Given the questionable nature of the host of other claims that were made here about what Chesterton inspired, is anyone aware of any support for these claims? Actual quotes from Eliot? FireWorks 20:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of Dickens' popularity (he has always been a popular author), but of his reputation with literary critics, which has indeed suffered in influential circles at some times (justifying Chesterton's attitude in his book). Wareh (talk) 05:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure but still, do you have some reference for it? User:Mcepl 22:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Writing - poetry
I removed the following paragraph from the "writing" subsection, and bring it here for discussion:


 * Much of his poetry is little known, though well reflecting his beliefs and opinions. The best written is probably Lepanto, with The Rolling English Road the most familiar, and The Secret People perhaps the most quoted ("we are the people of England; and we have not spoken yet"). Two other much admired poems are A Ballade of Suicide and The Ballad of the White Horse.

This is all just opinion, and in the absence of sources, it must be the opinion of the editor(s) who wrote it. This is not good. Our opinions do not matter, only the opinions of notable and reliable critics. Until this is sourced, it must remain out. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 13:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The anti-semitism charge should be removed altogether
This "tidbit," which, like many "tidbits" cluttering up many many wiki pages about how victimized the poor Jews are, seems like nothing more than anti-Christian propaganda. The propaganda begins with this: "Chesterton’s staunch Christianity arguably informed much of his writing and worldview." And then follows Chestertons supposed anti-semitism. Because antisemitism of course follows from people with Christian views.

Please remove this malicious, anti-CHRISTIAN propaganda, it is not relevant at all to anyone except malicious anti-Christian propagandists. Seriously, how many pages on wiki is an entire paragraph or more devoted to informing the public that Jews weren't spoken fondly of by the subject somehow, because they said something about Jews that was less than flattering "that one time." How boring and irrelevant. Seriously, what is the point? Is it really a "controversy" worth mentioning that someone blasphemed the Jews and didn't give them the reverence they apparently think they're entitled to? (judging by the slander campaign on wiki for anyone who failed to do exactly that?)

I beginning to think that Jews love antisemites. Since they seem hell bent on creating more of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.100.121 (talk) 04:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There are cited grounds for the question to be explored. The section needs filling out with more specific detail and third party, biographical analysis. More detail, not less. Span (talk) 04:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand, does "question to be explored" and "more detail, not less" mean that a biographical page on GK Chesterton is going to get hijacked like other wiki pages to be all about Jews? If I understood you correctly, then... that's a little nuts. A tad crazy. It's kind of... completely psycho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.100.121 (talk) 05:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

"Liberalism"
In the opening section of the article, it is said that Chesterton cast aspersions on both liberalism and conservatism - but it makes a mention to Progressives, not Liberals. In Orthodoxy, Chesterton states that he is a Liberal in a very off-hand way. As I understand it, progressivism and liberalism weren't linked in Chesterton's life, so I think that someone should change this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.181.86 (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)