Talk:G. K. Chesterton

Problems of Balance in the Quotations about Chesterton

Chesterton is a difficult subject for an encyclopedia because he is such a strange mixture of brilliantly phrased insights with simplistic antitheses and polemics. Hence the critical commentary upon his works is polarized: often either scathing/dismissive or ultra-eulogistic. Our challenge is to make a judicious selection that represents both extremes, while also mentioning those critics who suggest where common ground might be found. (To some extent this has been done in the section on Chesterton’s anti-Semitism.) A further problem is that those who reject his world-view tend not to bother debating his merits, whereas his fans (largely conservative Christians) often trawl for the eulogies while ignoring the dismissals and refutations.

Adam Gopal in an important New Yorker article on this problem, one which should be referenced here, (“The troubling genius of G. K. Chesterton”) claims that “His Catholic devotees are legion and fanatic . . . but not always helpful to his non-cult reputation,” especially when they insist on praising “his gassy Church apologetics”.

In Wikipedia's article at present (16 June 2020) there is clearly an imbalance in the critical opinions cited. For instance, the over-the-top praise by Etienne Gilson is not balanced by views from other Thomist experts. Also for instance, the enthusiastic quotations from T. S. Eliot misrepresent Eliot’s generally cagey and often negative views of Chesterton. (Google “Comments by T. S. Eliot on Chesterton” for plentiful proof of this).

What is missing is not just a fair sampling of Chesterton’s “bad notices”, but (more importantly) quotations from those offering mixed and nuanced views of how Chesterton’s merits and defects interact, whether as literary critic, essayist, or novelist.

Sorry! I’m not offering to do this large job—--merely pointing out that it remains to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcasella (talk • contribs) 04:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The Man Who Knew Too Much

Hi - I'm a first time commenter and may be doing it wrong. Just finished reading "The Man Who Knew Too Much" by GK Chesterton and was surprised it wasn't referenced as one of his books on this page. Below is a citation for this book from another Wikipedia page - The Man Who Knew Too Much (book)

"The Man Who Knew Too Much". The Hartford Courant. 24 December 1922. p. SM12. ISSN 1047-4153. OCLC 8807834. Retrieved 25 August 2012.(subscription required)

2607:FEA8:AC1C:7600:4147:3890:DBC1:A7D4 (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Chesterson’s age

He was actually 72 at death: 1874 to 1936 97.126.13.29 (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Try again! DuncanHill (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Adoptive daughter?

I recall reading about her once. Googling for her does return some hits, e.g. this, this, and this. Her name would be Dorothy Collins. 37.47.228.211 (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Dorothy Collins was Chesterton's last secretary, a great friend and support to his wife Frances Chesterton, and his literary executrix. She is often described as a surrogate daughter or the daughter the Chesterton's never had, but she was never formally adopted. When they met in 1926, she was in her early 30s, hardly a child. After his death she spent decades combing through the multitudinous writings he left at his death and editing them for posthumous publication. She is buried at Beaconsfield in Shepherds Lane Cemetery in the same grave as Gilbert and Frances. JohnGHissong (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Supposed Opposition to World War I

A topic emerged in April of 1923 concerning Chesterton's opposition to World War I based on a complete misreading of his 1916 Crimes of England. The work is deeply ironic, evident from its conceit as a friendly address to a fictitious and ignorant German Professor Whirlwind. England's "crimes" consist in nurturing Prussia in the past, especially against Austria, and her failure to stop Prussian aggression before it blossomed in WWI. JohnGHissong (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Similarly, the use of his 1922 poem, "Elegy in a Country Churchyard," to support his supposed anti-war views is utterly misleading, as is readily discernible to anyone who has read his cumulatively voluminous weekly Illustrated London News columns. From the beginning of the WWI to the end, his dogged support for WWI never wavered, although, as the poem indicates, he had rather more sympathy for the soldiers and sailors fighting the war than the politicians orchestrating it. I removed the reference to the poem. --JohnGHissong (talk) 10:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Rewording if Veneration sub-heading

Under legacy the sub-topic heading for the canonization process seems wordy. This could be resolved by moving the single sentence mention of beatification from the Death and Veneration subheading and compiling it into a single heading under Veneration or Cause for Sainthood etc. Just wanted some input. LordGoat1 (talk) 04:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I did something to shorten the title. I hope that is okay. SnailsSpace (talk) 05:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Conservatism in the UK templatem

ThaesOfereode, you have reverted back this very large infobox template, Conservatism in the UK, in this edit: [1]. Your edsum says Chesterton is widely regarded in conservative circles... but we don't say any of that on the page. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE

The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article

. Nothing in this article says Chesterton is widely regarded in conservative circles, and there is especially no evidence that Chesterton is regarded as one of the great influences on political conservatism in the UK. If this were just a category template at the end of teh article I'd leave it, but it is wrong to claim, as per this infobox template, that this is part of a series on Conservatism in the UK. Where is the content for that? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Sirfurboy: What you removed wasn't an infobox; it's actually a sidebar, which has different criteria for inclusion. For what it's worth, this is stated in the body of the work anyway:

He is often identified as a traditionalist conservative due to his staunch support of tradition, expressed in Orthodoxy and other works [...]

I agree that the article should probably include more information about his role in contemporary and modern conservatism. I will put adding some on my to-do list when I get a moment. I've compiled some analyses for a different Chesterton project, so there may be some good stuff in there for here. Cheers, ThaesOfereode (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

That is wiki-lawyering. The point is that a huge box on the right hand side of a page that claims this page is part of a series of UK political conservatism is only due if the page is indeed about UK political conservatism, whether in whole or in part. A single sentence that is immediately contradicted by the next sentence does not cut it. This is not part of a series on UK political conservatism, it is a page about a religious thinker and writer. If any such imposing information box is due, it is not this one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm all for finding an amiable solution to this, but it does not feel fair for you to have cited an incorrect policy in order to remove something and then call it "wiki-lawyering" when I responded with what the appropriate policy is. For what it's worth, the very next sentence is a quote directly from Chesterton about the importance of tradition cited from the "Conservatism" entry in Stanford University's Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I don't know how much more on the nose you can get about it. I'll be the first to admit that Chesterton's position in the conservative tradition is not uncomplicated; he calls himself liberal in Orthodoxy ("As much as I ever did, more than I ever did, I believe in Liberalism. But there was a rosy time of innocence when I believed in Liberals."), but the fact remains that he is considered a conservative in the literature. A five-second JSTOR search yielded: Historically, opponents of liberal imperialism have been conservatives. See, for instance, the opposition of G. K. Chesterton to the enthusiastic imperialism of George Bernard Shaw and H. G. Wells [...], Other figures associated with this eighteenth- and nineteenth-century tradition of English conservatism are Walter Bagehot, Benjamin Disraeli, and G. K. Chesterton, and Existential Conservatism (namely p. 386 where Chesterton "exemplifies" existential conservatism. He is also well-known for Chesterton's fence, which I would argue is the hallmark of conservatism in the strictest sense of the term. Chesterton's friend and collaborative partner Hilaire Belloc was literally a part of the now-defunct Liberal Party, but no reasonable person would ever call Belloc anything but a conservative; the term is fluid, especially in the historical context.

A navbox or a sidebar is supposed to be used to link other pages together which otherwise would be warranted in the See also section; for me, I would argue that Anglo-Catholicism, Hilaire Belloc, Edmund Burke, Blue Labour, the Oxford Movement, and so on are things linked in the sidebar that I think could and should be reasonably associated with Chesterton. Even his own book, Orthodoxy, is rightly listed and he wrote a laudatory play about Samuel Johnson, who is also in the sidebar.

If the main objection is the size of the sidebar, as you've brought up several times, I'd agree with you there. Why are clearly non-British concepts being added to this already-bloated sidebar? But we should bring that discussion to WikiProject Conservatism rather than here so that a larger consensus can be reached.

If what I've written here hasn't convinced you that Chesterton rightly belongs in the tradition and discussion of British conservatism, what can I do to convince you? This is not rhetorical; let me know and I will see about fixing it. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I am perfectly willing to find an amiable solution too (notice I did not remove the template again, citing WP:ONUS), but the policy about MOS:INFOBOX is just as applicable to a template such as this, and for the same reason. Consider the utility of it to this page: what does it tell the reader about Chesterton? Well it seems to be saying that he is an important philosopher in the history of UK political conservatism. But that is not in the article. If the sidebar is due at all, as you suggest, it is only due if the section it is linked from describes to the reader in full how he has contributed to UK conservatism. You say Chesterton's fence is the hallmark of conservatism. But that is you. Is anyone else saying that? In particular, can you find a secondary source that says something like "Chesterton's unique contribution to UK conservatism was Chesterton's fence, which says..."? (Clearly I am not implying that only that wording will do. What I mean is, can we find a secondary source that describes this as a significant contribution to conservative thought)? If so, that needs to be in the article. I asked {{tq|where is the content for that?)) If you wish to retain this sidebar, that is what is missing, and that is what is needed. The sidebar is undue unless the article supports it. The article can support it if secondary sources support the view.

But there is another issue, which is that yes, there are probably other and better sidebars that would make sense here, and yes, the amount of article space and prominence given to this currently gives a cursory reader (which is most Wikipedia readers) the wrong impression that Chesterton is primarily a political philosopher, rather than a religious one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I've expanded Chesterton's section wrt his conservatism, which hopefully will stem this for a little while as I scrounge up less readily-available sources. I found a couple of good sources on his influence of Russell Kirk and Roger Scruton, but I will need time to either find an online copy of the books in question or request them through my library. I hope that what I've added will suffice in the meantime. I will attempt to find more on JSTOR and the like over the course of the next week or two as well. Cheers, ThaesOfereode (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I think it is still well short of showing he is a political thinker who is part of a series on UK conservative intellectuals, but happy not to rush it. Thanks for looking at this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Understandable. I appreciate the patience on this. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2025 (UTC)