Talk:C. S. Lewis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the C. S. Lewis article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Good article C. S. Lewis has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Archive

Archives
1 2

Contents

[edit] An evangelical convert?

I just noticed that Pastorwayne added Lewis to the Evangelical Converts to Christianity category, and it gave me some pause for thought. Lewis was an Anglican who seemed to accept (or at least, had more than a passing regard for) some aspects of Catholic theology; not quite my idea of evangelicalism. I realise Lewis is one of those writers who transcends denominations, and as such many people try and claim him as "one of their own" (as a Catholic, I'm forever being told that if he had lived longer, he "probably would have converted to Catholicism"!), but I'd be interested to hear if others think "evangelical" is an accurate description of Lewis. Martin 03:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not think it is a very suitable label. He was an adult Christian convert, and is much appreciated by evangelicals as an apologist for Christianity, but I do not think he was an "Evangelical" in any meaningful sense of that term. Myopic Bookworm 18:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Lewis is in fact "evangelical" only in the meaningful sense of the word, "evangelical" has become merely a demographic term in recent years. In the context of the time, Lewis is distinctly of the evangelical and "supernatural" persuasion of the Anglican church, in contrast to the Modernizers against whom he speaks very vigorously. In the actual sense of the word however, he expressed admiration for those who can effectively bring other humans to a belief in Jesus ("God in the Dock") although he did not think that was a gift which he possessed (ibid). (WClarkB)


Lewis wanted to avoid "party" labels. That is why he called himself a "Mere Christian". So it does not seem appropriate to label him now. (Personally I think too much is made of his Anglicanism on this site too. He was a Christian first, and only secondly an Anglican.)Awb49 1 Jan 2007

I have noticed that US evangelical websites seem to have the impression that he was a literal creationist. However, I seem to remember reading in one of his books a very explicit account of why Genesis, particularly the creation story, should be read as poetry and allegory, rather than as the fundamentalist Christians do. Does anyone have any detail on this?Trishm 04:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

In the introduction to "Reflections" he comments on the difficulties of scriptural exegesis. However, the creationist dogma is not, as they would have you believe, of any great age. It was developed in the mid 50' by Morris. Lewis was at great odds with the then scientific dogma of an eternal uncreated universe (since demolished by the "Big Bang" which is consistent with Biblical account).(WClarkB).

[edit] Lewis and Rowling

I don't really have a strong opinion on this one way or the other, but for those who do, pro or con, check out the following:

Dave Kopel on Harry Potter

--Midnite Critic 21:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Jpers36 also pointed out this article Sarasota Herald Tribune so I guess we didn't look hard enough. I'll add the information that I removed back after I get a chance to write up the citations. LloydSommerer 00:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I replaced the information and added this reference (I guess I should have checked here first). I'm not too confident with using the Harvard reference style, so if someone could tidy up after me, I'd appreciate it! :) Martin 01:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA candidacy on Hold

Decently written article, rather comprehensive. Just, despite it's length, there are no citations. I'll put this article on hold for a week to see citations inserted in. After a week, i'll fail it for not complying with WP:CITE.—ExplorerCDT 06:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No citations? Doesn't citations = references? Or am I being obtuse? Martin 12:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I think (read: "I know") the phrase ExplorerCDT was looking for was "inline citations". This means using the <ref> tag to attribute the source of specific pieces of information, as opposed to lumping it all together at the end. Take a look at the current featured article on the main page to see how to do that. The JPStalk to me 15:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. The article used to use inline citations, but has gone back and forth between inline and the Harvard referencing system. However, according to WP:GA?, inline citations are not a mandatory requirement for GA status, and WP:CITE does not require them, so I'm still a bit confused as to what the problem is. The Harvard reference style does attribute references to specific pieces of information (in brackets); the references are not simply "lumped" together at the end. Martin 23:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't notice the Harvard referencing. Well done. There are several sections, though, without references at all (such as the third paragraph of the lead). As for inline citations, perhaps not mandatory, but "highly desirable". The JPStalk to me 23:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

There are STILL large swaths of this article still without any citations (Bio, Career, and Legacy). Too much is taken for granted and not referenced. (I don't care if it's Harvard Referencing...even though I don't like Harvard referencing and that most of academia has abandoned it...the method of citation is not in dispute) —ExplorerCDT 21:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for stating what the problem is. You said in your original comment that their were no citations, and this left me rather confused. Can I suggest you now give the article a week from today, in order to give editors time to respond to your feedback? Martin 16:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll keep the article on hold (and refrain from "failing" it) until you let me know when you're done with adding the citations. I don't want to fail this article, because I love the subject. I'll be generous and give you and other editors two weeks to bring it up to snuff. And, given many hands make light work, if I can spare some time, I'll jump in for a few edits here and there. I apologize for not being more clear with my initial comments. —ExplorerCDT 16:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi ExplorerCDT, thanks for both your time and generosity. I'll let a few other regular contributors know what's going on, and hopefully we can get the article up to the required standard. Martin 21:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I would really like to see this article get to FA status. When I review GA articles, I do it with the idea that GA is a stepping stone to FA. And I think the best way to review an article for GA is to say..."how is this article, according to the GA criteria, a junior-FA article, and what can I do in reviewing it to get the contributors to get on a path towards eventual inclusion in FA. I think one of the hangups that FA reviewers will have down the line, but is not wholly important right now, is the linking of all Lewis's published works...and producing a list that is three-quarters redlinked. I think, unless there's the chance that a redlink will become an article, they should be delinked. —ExplorerCDT 01:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I've been adding what references I can, and will continue to do so over the next few days. One thing you might like to consider when looking through them, is that because of the reference system used, a book or website can be referenced several times in the article proper, but will only appear in the "References" section once. Martin 22:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date of wounding in battle?

The article says Lewis was wounded in April 1917. I'm just learning his bio now, but is that date correct? It seems inconsistent and I wonder if it should be 1918. But the Battle of Arras page also says the battle was in 1917 so ...? Mikeblyth 05:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC) 05:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keep up good work

Keep up the good work. This article will surely become GA (not to mention FA) status soon. I cannot wait to see it on the main page. Great job. b_cubed 01:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA failed (passed as of 2/4/07 at 8:12 P.M EST)

Even though I am not the one who originally put the article on hold I noticed that the 1/30/07 end of hold date was passed without article meeting critia. If you wish to nominate this again you may do so. What is needed: Use [1], [2], [3], etc. tags. See WP:CITE for more information on this. Funpika 23:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

In-line citations are not mandatory for a good article. The only issue here was the number of references. Martin 00:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I am going to make the article "passed". Funpika 01:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] being intimate

Nostalgic as I am for the days when the News of the World never got further than saying "intimacy took place" instead of, say, "they had hot monkey sex", I think we must accept that most people under 30 are likely to be baffled by the phrase "they had been intimate". I've changed it to "had had a sexual relationship" since I assume that's what's referred to. I'm still unsure if the phrase "they were lovers" is not a little coy, but in the context it seems to be clear. Rbreen 20:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "The Lion, the Witch, and the Whorehouse: Male Prostitution and the Works of C.S. Lewis" (2002)

In attempting to check up this source, I can't find reference to it in http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org If anyone could provide a link or at least as issue or page number it would be appreciated. Bbagot 05:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I can find no record of such a paper. Since Langston works mainly on Duns Scotus, Snyder on Dante, Alcock on global fisheries, Eugene Lewis on technology and politics, etc., and none has any recorded academic interest in male prostitution, I wonder whether such a disparate group could seriously write a poststructuralist analysis of Lewis, or whether the article has been invented as a joke by a student at New College of Florida, where all the named authors are on the faculty. Myopic Bookworm 12:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The original introduction of the paragraph into the article, here, specified the "Summer 2002" issue, but the index of the June 2002 issue at the Oxford Journals site does not list such an article. It's certainly suspicious that Google turns up no references to the supposed paper other than this WP article and its clones. Deor 13:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I've removed the reference and I recommend not putting it back into the article until someone can produce a copy of the article or at least reputable evidence that it does indeed exist. --ElKevbo 13:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I've deleted the corresponding paragraph in The Chronicles of Narnia. Deor 14:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow. I'm actually quite impressed by that bit of vandalism. Thank god they're not all like that... 16:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

My thanks to everyone who uncovered and corrected this vandalism. You certainly did your homework. Bbagot 06:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

I removed the criticism section from the article. I have no POV one way or the other on Lewis, it just seemed that the criticism section was thrown in to "balance" the article. It started by claiming that his Narnia works had been widely criticized but provided no citation to prove this. It then list a few very specific complaints on Lewis from some minor literary individuals. I have no problem, of course, with some one restoring the section if they can show that the criticism had a major impact on his work or its legacy in the public eye, because from what I gathered from the section it did neither. The section should also be properly sourced. I removed it rather than just make this post because I think it best to err on the side of caution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.252.49.152 (talk) 05:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

The section was more extensive and contained specific referenced criticisms, but this was moved to the Chronicles of Narnia article (which is why readers are directed there for further information). I've replaced the section, and added a reference. I think more than one reference would be untidy looking, but they are available in the Narnia article if anyone disagrees. Martin 00:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I liked the rewrite of the criticism page much better than the original. I removed a little of the rewrite, specifficaly the part that referred to criticism of his Christian apologetics. I removed it simply because the figures quoted are extremely minor figures whose whole career is based around criticism of that sort. I anyone can come up with a better known writer or religious figure for a criticism that would be great. I will be looking myself `129.252.205.245 01:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see the logic of this. Beversluis is a serious philosopher and his criticisms are well argued. Joshi is more of a popular writer but he is at least as serious on the topic as Lewis, and if someones "whole career is based around criticism of that sort" then perhaps they actually know what they are on about. In any case, the link to the Trilemma page leads to a more detailed examination of the issues. Rbreen 14:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Haiduc and Pederasty

I am intrigued by what I find is a no-holds barred campaign by Haiduc to link anyone and everyone he can to pederasty. In the article on Leonardo and Michelangelo, his insertions have been deleted. After reviewing the basis for quoting this, in this article, I again find the insertion based on the flimsiest of evidence. I find that his strategy is to sound as if he were providing facts, but these are merely part of a strategy to provide links to his articles on pederasty, which claim that pederasty is not illegal in all but a few countries, and expand the definition (according to him and not the dictionaries) of pederasty to include either all sodomy, or platonic love, or the love between a 24 yr old and a 17 year old in 1500 Florence. All in an effort to make the definition of pederasty something benign. He has gone so far as to accuse me of being an anti-pederast editor. But to the facts, Pederasty is carnal relationship between man and boys. I would not consider relationships between older and younger students to fall into this definition. There is no need to use the word pederasty, when the term homosexual would do. If not the article is being hijacked to serve a rather sinister agenda, the description of pederasty as commonplace. I strongly urge the other editors of this article to look into Haiduc's other behavior and the facts of the case.CARAVAGGISTI 06:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the Haiduc matter, but I agree that pederastic is the wrong word. The first sentence of Pederasty says that p. encompasses "erotic practices between adult males and adolescent boys." Clearly what goes on among schoolboys doesn't fall under that definition. Also, the fact that the editor who reverted CARAVAGGISTI's edit—which C. explained both in the edit summary and here—chose to characterize the edit as "vandalism" is rather irritating. Deor 23:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overcategorisation

I have removed Lewis from both Category:Irish people and Category:Northern Irish people, because he is already categorised under several sub-categories of both.

This is in accordance with both WP:CAT#Some_general_guidelines (which says "3. Articles should not usually be in both a category and its subcategory") and the request at Category:Irish people to "Please diffuse articles into relevant subcategories as needed."

I have also added a DEFAULTSORT magic word to unclutter the category entries and standardise indexing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

[edit] When did they meet?

I'm just a teen doing an essay, so i'm just starting to actually learn about C.S. Lewis, but does anyone know when Lewis met Tolkien and/or Eric Rucker Eddison? I've done alot of searches but i can't seem to find anything narrower then "at Oxford." :(

The first meeting of Lewis and Tolkien (per Lewis's diary) was at a faculty meeting "at Oxford" on May 11, 1926. The WP article on the Inklings states that Eddison attended a meeting at the invitation of Lewis, and I know that Lewis sent a letter to Eddison praising The Worm Ouroboros, but I don't know when a meeting, if any, took place. Deor 01:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank You! :D

[edit] The trilemma argument

I am puzzled by the suggestion in this (and other places) that Lewis's trilemma argument is somehow fundamentally different from the Josh MacDowell version, used to prove the divinity of Jesus. Surely that is exactly what Lewis was attempting to prove. Granted, he says there are three possibilities, but given the heavily coloured language he uses to characterise the other alternatives, surely no one is suggesting that he expected them to be taken seriously? In practical terms, this is an argument for the divinity of Jesus, and he is arguing that the alternatives are either impossible (eg great moral teacher) or unreasonable (liar or lunatic).

Am I missing something here?

--Rbreen 21:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Where in the article does it say that Lewis and MacDowell's Trilemma arguments are "fundamentally different"? Martin 01:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Context of Philomastix

Please stop removing the context of the 4 letters he signed "Philomastix." Letting the reader know that the letters were 4 of over 300 is important, as it actually KEEPS the section neutral, and prevents that "revelation" from taking on undue weight.

For instance, I have written thousands of e-mails, letters, and the like to my friends. Where I grew up, homophobia was a given amongst all of the jocks. We called each other stupid little names, just to joke around and make each other uncomfortable. I think at one point I even signed a yearbook or two with one of those goofball names, after addressing the buddy with one of his. It was a joke. If someone were to sift through my "papers" (such as they are) after my death, it would be important to put those nicknames in context, if it were being reported in a WP article, by pointing out that I only signed my name that way, say, 3 or 4 times in over 500 letters to different people.

The same is true for Lewis. While it's important not to simple ignore that he did sign his name this way, it's ALSO important to provide the reader the context to his doing so. To NOT do so takes away the neutral POV. Please refrain from removing the context from the article.K. Scott Bailey 03:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and your example is an apt one. Strange how the anonymous editor considers the presence of totally factual information to be "diluting the truth with trivia". Martin 01:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/2E/_/Talk%7EC._S._Lewis_811e.html"