Talk:G. K. Chesterton/Archive 3

Orthodoxy a notable work?
I was surprised that Orthodoxy is not listed in the infobox, but then - it's not in the literary legacy section either. I can't find any significant impact on individuals (except Theodore Maynard) but I've come across statements like "His best known Christian writing, Orthodoxy, is one of the most influential of the 20th century." StAnselm (talk) 09:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * well yes it's famous: 1) "On the publication of Orthodoxy in 1908, Wilfrid Ward hailed GK Chesterton as a prophetic figure whose thought was to be classed with that Burke, Butler, Coleridge, and John Henry Newman." from Chesterton and the romance of Orthodoxy: the making of GKC, 1874-1908 by W Oddie - 2008 -  note the author stresses the book by using it in his own title. 2) likewise Prophet of Orthodoxy: The Wisdom of GK Chesterton by R Sparkes - 1997; 3) likewise The Man who was Orthodox: A Selection from the Uncollected Writings of GK Chesterton. Arranged and Introduced by AL Maycock (1963). 4) we have entire scholarly articles on it: Oddie, William. "Chesterton at the Fin de Siecle: Orthodoxy and the Perception of Evil’." The Chesterton Review Vol. XXV 3 (1999). 5) "Anyone who has read any of Chesterton's work is likely to have read Orthodoxy. ... How to account for such enduring interest? Graham Greene described Orthodoxy as “among the great books of the age,” calling Chesterton “a man of colossal genius.”. says Ralph C. Wood, Chesterton (Baylor University Press, 2011).  etc etc Rjensen (talk) 10:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, great - I'll add it to the infobox. StAnselm (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on G. 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/20140521214130/http://darrow.law.umn.edu/photo.php?pid=1062 to http://darrow.law.umn.edu/photo.php?pid=1062
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121229110253/http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2008/the-chesterbelloc-thing.html to http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2008/the-chesterbelloc-thing.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130303112207/http://www.discovery.org/cslewis/articles/writingspblcdmn/letters.php to http://www.discovery.org/cslewis/articles/writingspblcdmn/letters.php

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) 09:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Opening paragraph
How shall we introduce Chesterton's name? Presently it reads:
 * Gilbert Keith Chesterton, KC*SG (29 May 1874 – 14 June 1936), better known as G. K. Chesterton

although we could simplify it to read
 * Gilbert Keith "G. K." Chesterton, KC*SG (29 May 1874 – 14 June 1936)

An editor think it's a bit much and has removed the initials, but he was known by them and so it should be mentioned in the lede. We could keep it as is, modify it as I suggested, or simply remove it, but I'm not in favour of the last option. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, MOS:FULLNAME doesn't provide any specific guidance; J. R. R. Tolkien does it, but C. S. Lewis and T. S. Eliot. I'd give weak support to the change, I guess. (He was certainly known by the initials, which is why the article has the title it does, but this means the initials are already in the page name and the infobox.) StAnselm (talk) 08:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And my example was E. B. White. We also have E. E. Cummings. Perhaps getting the other project to advise would not be inappropriate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think the article title or infobox should be taken into account here - WP:LEAD says that "the lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic", and we wouldn't omit mentioning that Orthodoxy (book) was a book because this was obvious from the article title. --McGeddon (talk) 10:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That isn't really the same thing. It would be impossible to write a lede about Orthodoxy without stating that it's a book.
 * I think that this practice is an example of an endemic problem in Wikipedia in which readers are treated like idiots. We can't assume the reader is familiar with the concept of initials and the fact that many people are known by them; no, he must be explicitly told that the subject is "better known as A. B. C. Smith". Zacwill  ( talk ) 19:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a better example would be a book with a subtitle: we wouldn't omit the subtitle from the lead section on the grounds that it had already appeared in the article title, and that to repeat it would patronise the reader. If Wikipedia policy is that it should always be possible to remove the lead section of an article (sans article title or infobox) and hand it to somebody as a fair overview of the subject, the lead section here should reflect that and mention Chesterton being best known by his initials. --McGeddon (talk) 11:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep it as it is. Gilbert Keith "G. K." Chesterton doesn't look like British English. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yet it's present on the Tolkien article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If this must be done at all, I agree that that is the clumsiest way of doing it. Zacwill  ( talk ) 12:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

On another note, I checked the reference to the Variety magazine, his name isn't in the Obituary column. Could be in another edition?--178.135.88.78 (talk) 03:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It appears that I'm too late for the party. The Tolkien article is actually the basis for my removing "G.K." from the lede, as are J. J. Abrams and C. S Lewis, then again editor Zacwill makes a good case of leaving them there. Slightly  mad  06:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank Jesus H. this dilemma is finally over. Patience, Slightlymad (talk) 07:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not. You went against the consensus here, which was Gilbert Keith Chesterton … better known as G. K. Chesterton, which explains why you're . If you're fine with changing that, discuss it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't misinterpret the guideline. The article title is the name by which the subject is most commonly known. The subject's full name should be given in the lead sentence. As it says in MOS:NICKNAME, "if a person's nickname is a common diminutive or abbreviation used in lieu of a given name, it is not presented between quotation marks or parentheses into or after their name" (emphasis mine). Examples: J. R. R. Tolkien, CC Sabathia, T. S. Eliot, J. J. Abrams. Patience, Slightlymad (talk) 06:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And I didn't state you misrepresented the guideline when I wrote above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Fine scholarship
One of the finest, and most objective works of literary scholarship I've read this year; certainly one of the finest on Wikipedia. First the lively, humorous prose evokes the whimsical charm and intelligence of the author, and then, having made one eager to read his works, the article fearlessly details the great flaw in his humanity. Unlike T.S. Eliot, Chesterton did not live long enough to see what his snobbish, patriotic anti-Semitism enabled. Would he have renounced it like Eliot, or gone all in, like Pound? This concise, beautifully written article, like the best criticism or journalism, objectively presents the issues, so that one may decide for oneself. Personally, as a Jewish scholar myself, I think this magnanimous spirit would have gone with Eliot.Profhum (talk) 06:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Category:Critics of Judaism, Category:Critics of Islam, Category:Critics of Marxism and Category:Critics of atheism
Categories should be based on the things the article says. That way, they are indirectly based on reliable sources. Otherwise, they are original research.

Could you please point to the places in the article where it says Chesterton criticises Judaism, Islam, Marxism, or atheism?

If you want to know how criticism of Judaism works, read
 * Pablo Christiani: "denounced the Talmud, making assertions that it contained passages that were derogatory in regards to Jesus and Mary" (weak, but still a sort of criticism)
 * Uriel da Costa: "He came to believe that the rabbinic leadership was too consumed by ritualism and legalistic posturing"

There are probably better critics than those two, but I have only come as far as the letter "D" in removing Nazis, Protocols-of-the-Elders-of-Zion fakers, and other antisemites, plus Richard Dawkins, from that category because there is not a hint of actual criticism of actual Judaism in those articles - only vicious fairy tales about Jewish World Conspiracies and ritual murders (or nothing at all, as with Dawkins). The same applies to Chesterton.

In the Chesterton article, I could only find stuff like this:
 * "his fictional work included caricatures of Jews, stereotyping them as greedy, cowardly, disloyal and communists." - primitive antisemitism, not criticism of Judaism.
 * "G. K. Chesterton, whose hostility to Jews was linked to their opposition to liberalism" - primitive antisemitism, not criticism of Judaism.
 * "If Belloc's feeling against the Jews was instinctive and under some control, Chesterton's was open and vicious" - primitive antisemitism, not criticism of Judaism.
 * "A Short History of England" also does not seem to be criticism of Judaism.
 * "he believed that Jewish culture (though not Jewish ethnicity) separated itself from the nationalities of Europe" Not criticism of Judaism.
 * "[he made] claims that 'Hitlerism' was a form of Judaism" - Crazy idea, very fringe, but not criticism.
 * "Hitlerism is almost entirely of Jewish origin." - Same crazy idea.
 * "the only possible source of "the Hitlerites" idea of "a Chosen Race" was "from the Jews."" - Same crazy idea.
 * "medieval stories about Jews killing children might have resulted from a distortion of genuine cases of devil-worship" - primitive antisemitism, not criticism of Judaism.

The article does not even mention the other ideas he supposedly criticised. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I restored them because you made two edits in succession and the first was masked by the second. Reverting my revert. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Opposition of Eugenics v Antisemitism
keeps re-inserting a "counter-argument" to the accusations of antisemitism. That edit has been removed twice now (once by me). In my view, any such counter-argument should come with reliable sources making this very point (This is certainly not an example of You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, as being against eugenics and being antisemitic are not mutually exclusive). Unless other editors disagree (or anyone beats me to it) I will remove the edit again in 24 hours. ---Sluzzelin talk  11:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed one. Agreed. And it's an essay, not written in an encyclopedic tone. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I also support the removal of this material. Not only does it consist of unsourced editorial opinion, the very first sentence:
 * "Those who do entertain the very serious charge of anti-semitism against Chesterton do seem to studiously avoid the fact of Chesterton's book titled "Eugenics and Other Evils", ..."
 * appears to me to be demonstrably false. In one of this section's main references, Simon Mayers's Chesterton's Jews, cited numerous times throughout the article, Mayers explicitly cites Eugenics and Other Evils as a source for his assertion that Chesterton "expressed hostility to eugenics". He also freely quotes Chesterton's criticisms of "pseudo-scientific race theories" and explicitly states that his "savage attacks" on those theories "are to his credit".
 * In the very first reference cited in the section, Patrick Wright also credits Chesterton with having recognised "the dangers of eugenics".  Although Wright doesn't explicitly cite Eugenics and Other Evils, it would be drawing a very long bow to accuse him of "studiously avoiding the fact" of its existence.
 * David Wilson (talk · cont) 00:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2019
134.148.168.106 (talk) 05:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Chesterton was not accused of anti-semitism during his life time nor any time soon after his death - the reference to the Guardian article which purports to support this claim makes no reference to Chesterton being accused of anti-semitism during his life time - it is something post modernists and liberal universalists have accused Chesterton of more than 50 years after his death.

Th Guardian article does not provide any evidence that Chesterton was accused of anti-semitism in his life time. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2005/apr/09/britishidentity.society

Chesterton was actually mocked and ridiculed, in his life time, for his unequivocal opposition to the eugenics movement.

Winston Churchill was a public supporter of the eugenics movement - do you see a section on anti-semitism on his wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.148.168.106 (talk) 05:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * ❌. Even though you don't specify what you want done, I suspect you just want to re-add that unsourced bit about eugenics again. Well, that's not gonna happen. Not as is, at least. The reason for that is because it constitutes original research, using such a passage as a counterweight to the antisemitism section — a section which is attributed to multiple sources. If you have sources that speak to that, then we can see what can be done with adding that position of his to the article, but not to offset the antisemitism charges. Unless that, too, is part of the scholarship. El_C 05:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * If you read Chesterton's own words, quoted in the section on anti-semitism, in which he himself refers to the accusation being levelled against him, you will see that The Guardian was not the first publication to mention this. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 10:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2019
The Guardian article (reference note 41) does not actually provide any evidence that Chesterton was accused of anti-semitism during his lifetime. 134.148.168.106 (talk) 07:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * But Chesterton himself mentioning being accused of antisemitism is pretty incontrovertible evidence that the accusation was made during his lifetime. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 10:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Usefulness of Todd Endelman quotation re anti-semitism?
At present we have this in the article "Todd Edelman [sic] identifies Catholic writers as central critics: 'The most virulent attacks in the Marconi affair were launched by Hilaire Belloc and the brothers Cecil and G. K. Chesterton, whose hostility to Jews was linked to their opposition to liberalism, their backward-looking Catholicism ...'" which is from a general overview of British Jewish history but clearly unfamiliar with the specifics of the individuals mentioned. Neither of the Chestertons were Catholics when the Marconi scandal broke (and Cecil Chesterton, the most antisemitic of the three, never became a Catholic), so "their backward-looking Catholicism" lacks the explanatory force given; nor is opposition to liberalism a likely motivation, when all were supporters of the Liberal Party and Belloc was a Liberal MP. So while the quotation has the virtue of clarity it lacks accuracy. I'm sure we can find something that makes the same or a similar case without these faults. Chesterton's own words quoted further down show that, at least by 1920, he was clearly antisemitic in a general sense, regarding Jews as having to choose between being English and being Jews, not capable of being both. (And yes, he hated Nazism and insisted that Jews were not in any sense inferior to other peoples, but still, regarding Jews as necessarily and essentially alien is not exactly unproblematic.) --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC) [corrected --Andreas Philopater (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)]

Dropkick Murphys
Dropkick Murphys are a quite known punk band. What's the problem to add this element to "influences" section?

Have a good Palm's Sunday.

--G.M. Sir Lawrence (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You're referencing this edit I'm not not sure it's an influence. Feel free to restore it if you feel strongly about it. My primary concern was just the image on the back of the kick drum, but it seems the lead singer is quite influenced by Chesterton. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! --G.M. Sir Lawrence (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

non-free?
You tagged the article with non-free, but it's not clear what content you suspect meets one of the criteria. Care to elaborate? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's because of the excessive use of quotations.— Diannaa (talk) 11:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Chesterton died in 1936, so in most relevant jurisdictions his writings are now in the public domain (even those subject to a 95 years from publication rule rather than life plus 70 years). There is one long quotation from T.S. Eliot near the beginning, and one long quotation from James Parker near the end, which are the only two I can see that might be problematic. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)