This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Books This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook

this was just a personal stylistic thing. I find that people often use "conscious" when they mean deliberate. No big deal. — goethean ॐ 19:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. To me they don't mean quite the same thing. If I do something deliberately, I do what I had in mind when I set out to do it. If I do it consciously, my main purpose may have been something else, but I am quite aware that this thing is being done as well. I don't know whether GKC decided to write TEM as a response to Wells, but he clearly was aware that he was responding to him. That's why I prefer this wording. --Lavintzin 23:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diocles deleted the following paragraph as "biased" language.

The whole book is suffused with the charm, the memorable comments and startling turns of phrase, the clever formulations which are too deeply meaningful to be dismissed as mere cleverness, the paradoxical habit of standing our normal view of things on its head in order that we may more clearly see the things themselves, the combination of joking good humour with complete seriousness of purpose, which characterize Chesterton's best writing. Eighty years later the general issues and arguments with which Chesterton deals are still highly relevant.

This is certainly evaluative, it is perhaps a bit overwritten, and it is obviously more positive than Diocles liked. I know he could find many articles on authors, books, films, etc., that are open, at least in some degree, to the same charge. Maybe he is cleaning them up too. "Biased" is not the same as "positive" or "negative", it means unfairly giving an unbalanced view of a controversial issue.

I would certainly rather the paragraph not be deleted entirely, and I find such evaluations elsewhere to be useful. Even if I wind up disagreeing with them, they make it clear that someone saw it this way.

If Diocles or others see it differently, it might work better to discuss it here and see if there would be language that they would see as more accurate and helpful, or language that they could add to give a balancing point of view, rather than simply deleting it and not giving any (or giving a negative) evaluation.

--Lavintzin 02:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone change the statment of CHesterton about this book in the page of The Outline of History

Is it any better now? --Lavintzin 03:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both Chesterton and Our Lord Savior, Jesus Christ, lived in the Eastern Hemisphere. Surely, that is the hemisphere which was referred to, not the western. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.30.14.50 (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]