Jump to content

Talk:C. S. Lewis/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Paddy Moore - what is his full name?

The article says "Lewis shared a room with another cadet, Edward Courtnay Francis "Paddy" Moore (1898–1918)", however the Commonweath War Graves Commission do not list anyone with this name. There is a Ernest Frank Courtney Moore who died in 1918 and was an officer, as was Lewis. (Web reference http://www.cwgc.org/find-war-dead/casualty/2281700/MOORE,%20ERNEST%20FRANK%20COURTNEY ). Is this the same person? If so, I assume there is a mistake either by the CWGC (unlikely) or the reference.

Anglican Writers

I was a little surprised to not see Lewis listed in the Anglican Authors link. The page link there says the main article must have an attachment to it. It would be good to link this article to the Anglican writer and possibly theologians sections. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Anglican_writers

location of CS LEwis's birth

The article describes CS Lewis's place of birth as Belfast, Ireland. Note, Belfast is Northern Ireland, UK, NOT Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.162.107.169 (talk) 13:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

There was no "Northern Ireland" at the time of Lewis's birth. All of the island of Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. Deor (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
You beat me to it Deor. Well I could add that this has been discussed many times before at least ^_^ --Τασουλα (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually there are articles here and outside of Wikipedia that refer to things like this for example as: "Belfast, Northern Ireland" regardless of whether it existed then or not. The IMOS forced use of an unlinked "Ireland" here seems only to help nationalists subtly imply simply that it is part of "Ireland" the state rather than Ireland that was part of the United Kingdom. Further reinforced by the actions of dismissing attempts at adding (now in Northern Ireland) after. Such a manual of style is nothing out of the ordinary on Wikipedia, just read J._R._R._Tolkien#Family_origins for an example of such use.
If anything it would be more accurate and less misleading to simply state "Belfast, United Kingdom" - which is 100% factual, true and not misleading. Yet i doubt the nationalists would want to let that happen. Mabuska (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
At least we can agree Northern Ireland is out of the question though. Oh, and maybe "Belfast, Ireland, United Kingdom" - after all, the country was called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland...--Τασουλα (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I would support the latter option, especially as he identified strongly as both British and Irish. Oh and Τασουλα, on your post removed by Mabuska, it would hardly be straightforward... The standard option would be "Northern Irish", not "Irish"! :) — JonCॐ 08:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
"Belfast, Ireland, United Kingdom" is too verbose. The issue is really for taking to WP:IMOS as it applies to more than just one article. Mabuska (talk) 12:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
How would it be "more accurate" to say "Belfast, United Kingdom" rather than "Belfast, Ireland"? If you're going to argue that using a larger area is "more accurate" then surely "Belfast, Europe" would be even more accurate? "Birmingham, England", "Swansea, Wales", "Aberdeen, Scotland" - do you realise that all those would be changed to say United Kingdom instead as a result of your apparently forthcoming proposal? Because unless that is the proposal, you've got a snowball's chance of getting one passed that only affects Ireland. 2 lines of K303 12:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Groan... you know full well that Europe isn't a country. — JonCॐ 13:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Country meaning sovereign state, before you pipe up about that. — JonCॐ 13:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow now that is such a poor retort from Hackney on something that was only a suggestion for general airing. Just for the sake of it i'll entertain it with a response:

  1. "How would it be "more accurate" to say "Belfast, United Kingdom" rather than "Belfast, Ireland"?" - well one is a sovereign state, the other was a region of a sovereign state that is commonly referred to as a country. You guess which one.
  2. "If you're going to argue that using a larger area is "more accurate" then surely "Belfast, Europe" would be even more accurate?" - Who said bigger area? Simple case of stating the sovereign state which is what you tend to use when describing where somewhere is geopolitically. Trying to suggest why not use Europe is ridiculous in the extreme.
  3. "do you realise that all those would be changed to say United Kingdom instead as a result of your apparently forthcoming proposal?" - Where do you get that from? Who said i was going to propose it? Please actually understand what the discussion is on about. Just to clarify for you we are talking what way would be best to describe a location in pre-partition Ireland whilst it was part of the UK. Your examples are pointless as they are still in the parts of the UK they have always been whilst part of the UK. Also stange now that your saying that if we make a change here then we must also do so for the rest of the UK for sake of consistency whilst previously arguing in the past elsewhere that each WikiProject has it's own concerns. Intriguing.

Oh well it wasn't an actual proposal, just a case of throwing ideas out there for consideration. You should try it Hackney sometime. Mabuska (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Shit or get off the pot. "If anything it would be more accurate and less misleading to simply state "Belfast, United Kingdom" - which is 100% factual, true and not misleading. Yet i doubt the nationalists would want to let that happen. " followed by ""Belfast, Ireland, United Kingdom" is too verbose. The issue is really for taking to WP:IMOS as it applies to more than just one article" is clear to anyone what you're thinking of. You want to propose a change that only affects people from Ireland and not England, Scotland and Wales - go ahead and waste your time because it won't fly. You want to propose a change that affects everyone from the UK so nobody is referred to as being born in England, Ireland, Scotland or Wales - go ahead and waste your time because it won't fly. Or propose something else that's equally unlikely to succeed, I couldn't give a toss. You can either change the consensus or you can keep whinging, I already know what you'll do.... 2 lines of K303 22:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

An idea, but not for the article.

Maybe we could get one of those snazzy search boxes for the top of the talk-page? And perhaps a resolved issues box? especially in regards to the "Ireland or Northern Ireland" question. XP --Τασουλα (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

There is already a search archives box in the header. Keith D (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh now I see it, thanks XD i'll add a tick-box then if I can get around to it ! --Τασουλα (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Lewis quotes.

Hiya, I'm not sure on the policy in regards to this but, would it be OK if a section was made about some of Lewis's more well-known quotes he made during his lifetime? I find it quite encyclopaedic to see something like that at the bottom of an article. It looks classy. :P I'm not sure if anyone else shares my opinion but oh well. --Τασουλα (talk) 08:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The fifth bulleted entry in WP:LONGQUOTE is relevant. And http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis serves that function. Deor (talk) 12:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Mkay, taken a look and familiarised myself with the guidelines. Thanks! --Τασουλα (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Carnegie Medal, The Last Battle

(For The Last Battle, concluding the Narnia series,) Lewis won the 1956 Carnegie Medal in Literature from the Library Association, recognising the year's best children's book by a British subject.[ref name=medal1956]

[ref name=medal1956] (Carnegie Winner 1956). Living Archive: Celebrating the Carnegie and Greenaway Winners. CILIP. Retrieved 16 August 2012.[/ref]

(The fifth Narnia book The Horse and His Boy) was a commended runner up for the 1954 Medal (... provide reference[1] and brief explanation ...).

Except as marked by parentheses, that is boilerplate I would add to this biography if it provided coverage of other awards or it were much shorter or the Narnia series were covered at greater length here (presumably lacking its own acreage in the encyclopedia). Under the actual circumstances I have merely added Category:Carnegie Medal in Literature winners without providing support in the article.

P.S. I have recently revised the book article The Last Battle to cover this literary award in the lead. Beside expanding the lead and infobox, I have tagged that article {{all plot}} and downgraded it from C to Start, with explanation Talk: The Last Battle#All plot, Start class. It's much the worst of the seven articles on The Chronicles of Narnia books --mainly, I infer from histories, for a reason related to this biography's protected status. In that case, the controversy is so bad editors agree on nothing but plot summary. (My inference from histories is hasty. Judge for yourselves.)

--P64 (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Academic Qualifications / full title

My 1977 edition of Mere Christianity describes him as 'Dr' Lewis, but I see no evidence for this; did he do a doctorate, or was his triple first sufficient qualification to become a fellow. Actually it is probably most appropriate to designate him 'Professor'. But I ask to clarify the article, and to ensure it fulfils its primary reference role. Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 09:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Owen Barfield

Lewis met Owen Barfield in 1919, which was the start of their unforgettable literary and intellectual friendship. Barfield was instrumental in converting Lewis to theism. Lewis described Barfield as "the best and wisest of my unofficial teachers". Lewis appointed Owen Barfield and Cecil Harwood to be his literary trustees. Owen A. Barfield (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

World War II Radio Broadcasts

I've heard that Lewis did some radio work during the Second World War on BBC radio. Is this true, and if so, should it be included in the article? Just asking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionsfanatic7 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Indeed, several of his works were based on elaborations of radio addresses he gave. According to this YouTube video of one of his addresses, most of the reels were unfortunately recycled as part of the war effort. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Not that there aren't better citations (e.g. there's one in his preface to The Screwtape Letters, if I recall correctly), this was just the most easily found online :p Flipping Mackerel (talk) 12:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The Issue Is NOT Resolved

C.S. Lewis WAS in fact born in Northern Ireland, despite the fact they didn't call it that at the time. What we call or called things in the past is irrelevant, we use language solely to semantically transfer meaning (just thing of it for a while and try to think of any provable exceptions), which does not include forcing our new linguistic meanings to be the same as they were before. The political landscape was different, yes, but that can be either irrelevant or have the issue "tip the other way". Northern Ireland as a term is very much a descriptive one, despite it being formed out of political borers and subsequent linguistic necessity; it refers to the area which has always been the Northern part of Ireland, an area which has consistently had the same name, extent and political status (international treaties do not change this fact as there have not been any that have changed the status of the area of being one of the four so-called "countries" of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) since it was formed as an entity, and it remains primarily a geographic term, simply put designating the people who are from the island of Ireland who are no Irish (i.e. not Irish citizens, AKA citizens of Ireland, also known as the Republic of Ireland). He should be referred to as Northern Irish, and neither Irish nor British, from a logical conclusion based on the fact that he was from Northern Ireland.

To prove my point and the issue in general with some examples: We used Old English once. We don't anymore. Nor should we. Language marches on. Deal with it.

Humans originally came from Africa, did we not? No, not according to you, as it wasn't called Africa back then.

Did Columbus reach India? No, he didn't. The place he reached was America, and India is in no way another term for the Americas. Can we still call indigenous inhabitants of the Americas as Indians? Sure, because that is another name for them (in actual fact I consider the term to be narrower, disregarding Inuits etc., but that is a different issue), as the origin of the term doesn't matter, it's its meaning that does. India means the country of India. This is in the same vein as when people call themselves something they are not (such as a different nationality): you are mistaken or a liar (sounds harsh, I know, but that's the truth for every person on the planet to some extent or another); the truth does not depend on anyone's opinion, it is objective, and we should reflect things as closely as we can to that objective fact, not to what we wish were true or even what we think is true, or what was or will be true at different times in history.

People from places like Bangladesh before they became independent is a different issue, where I don't have as clear-cut of an answer, but many of the same principles apply (AKA it was India/Pakistan then, but not now), and a similar problem is faced when discussing the philosopher Immanuel Kant, as his country of origin etc. mostly mirrors what is Germany today, but with the small yet important difference that he was born and lived his entire life in what is now Russian territory (I see there as not being a solution to this simply as we don't have the same countries then that we have now).

Once again, do not trust anyone when they state where they or others are from, and neither should you be certain that what your own perceptions of what terms entail are true, either, as they may very well be deceived or deceitful themselves, which is very clear when we look at the number of disagreements there are in the world today: if two people have two different opinions, 1. the first person may be right, 2. the second person may be right or 3. they may both be incorrect (if it's not an either/or- or yes/no-type question), but they cannot both be correct, as that would would be a contradiction (Islam may be the true faith, or Christianity might be, and it's possible neither are, but they cannot both be - and I hope as many as possible understand this fact, unless you are able to able to prove they are both the same, obviously, in which case I will praise you for all the complicated work you've done). - Bjørnar Munkerud, June 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:C440:20:1116:640C:C042:8CC7:41E7 (talk) 14:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:IMOS#Bigraphical articles is quite clear: "For people born before 3 May 1921 in what today is Northern Ireland say Ireland, not Northern Ireland or [[Northern Ireland|Ireland]], and do not describe them as Northern Irish." Can't we finally put this to rest? Deor (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but the point is it has to be put to rest in the correct state. The issue is still there, it is confusing and many people disagree with the current official policy, and we need to be able to question, argue and disagree with the status quo in this regard, and I do and these are my opinions, and that's it (in the fight between what is right and what is easy I have chosen right). I came with new, personal arguments and examples and I just want to end this as quickly as possible, but with empasis on in the right way. - Bjørnar Munkerud, June 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:C440:20:1116:A87A:6158:FC44:3D00 (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Secondary works

What is the relation between our CSL bibliography section 5.Further reading and this biography section 6.Secondary works?

What about this biography section 8.References? Are all of those items called by Notes #1–86, section 7? Are the "Reference" works strictly a subset of the Secondary works?

Talk: C. S. Lewis bibliography#Further reading asks similar questions and also questions the wisdom of maintaining two or three lists even if their design is known. --P64 (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Nationality

Although he was a british citizen, regionally he was irish as thats what he would have been called at the time. British is just too non-descriptive. It would be like not calling Sean Connery scottish because he is a british citizen. So if there is no objections, I will refer to him as irish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenbfg (talk • contribs) 00:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

You are totally free to refer to him as Irish if you like. Formerip (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
This has been discussed to death in the archives. There is no point rehashing this. -- Elphion (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I said is there any objections and all you can say is it was already discussed. Please tell me why he shouldn't be called irish, im pretty sure I gave a good reason why he should. This is what a talk page is for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenbfg (talk • contribs) 05:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Read above and you'll see the good reason(s). — Jon C.ॐ 07:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I refuse to make comment on what side I agree with any-more, "been there done that". However, I will point out that if your reasoning is based on Lewis's birth-place only, then that doesn't even scratch the surface. There were many arguments presented in the past about this. One dimensional arguments wont help... (Seen enough of those on this and this)...signing out. --Τασουλα (talk) 10:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

we need a summary. 174.19.204.183 (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:UKNATIONALS is a worthy general essay.
Two disclaimers. I don't know how much the previous debate here has been specific. I have read the discussion that generated the essay, or determined that it would be less than a guideline; that was educational and I don't know how much of the learning can be replicated by reading the essay alone.
Shortcoming. There is nothing about how and why, if at all, {infobox} nationality should differ from description in the text or from category nationality. (At the moment, I see, Lewis is category-Irishonly as poet and people of Welsh descent; both British and Irish as a fantasy writer and novelist; category-Britishonly in five respects. Category:Irish writers is strictly redundant and should be deleted.)
--P64 (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
The Federation of Ulster Local Studies actually makes a very relevant point in regards to this issue in their Due North magazine where they touch upon Frederick H. Crawford's claim of being Irish (pre-1921) and then abhorrence at being classified as such after 1921. Lewis may have mentioned being Irish in the sense of regionality or ethnicity but nationality he was always British - it is this that Irish nationalist editor's like to distort so they can "claim" him. Mabuska (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
When I dig up the issue and provide the quote, I think it will serve well in dispelling the Irish nationalist editor myth in distorting any claim of being Irish as meaning Irish as opposed to being also British. Mabuska (talk) 00:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring the issue of whatever he should or shouldn't be classified as, I think it makes sense to either state "Northern Ireland" as his birth place or we create an article for Ireland as part of the UK to be used, as where else do we state and link a person as being from a landmass as opposed to an actual state? Mabuska (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean what landmasses in the world, outside the British Isles, support descriptions and/or labels and/or categories of people who are from there?
Do you mean {infobox} nationality in particular? --P64 (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
(I agree with infobox birthplace "Belfast, Ireland" where Ireland is not linked. We should want people who read only the infobox to visit Belfast, if any article, for more information.)
Now we also have Category:People from Northern Ireland of Welsh descent but malformed so the link does not function. That is a sibling of Category:Irish people of Welsh descent, which does function.
Reference: shortcut to CSL categories --P64 (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
It's common practice on Wikipedia to put the country of birth as it was called at the time, so it should read place of birth : Belfast, United Kingdom surely as Ireland was part of the United Kingdom at the time. VenomousConcept (talk) 13:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be a bit of confusion on wikipedia regarding the meanings of the terms "Citizenship" and "Nationality". Both terms refer to the citizenship the particular individual holds; it does not refer to the ethnicity of that particular individual. Brough87 (talk) 12:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

technical addition

Suggest adding link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics in the first par. 108.179.12.2 (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It is already linked, in the very first sentence of the article (at the words "Christian apologist"). Deor (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

C S Lewis

C S LEWIS Please amend the birthplace do CS Lewis to Belfast, NORTHERN Ireland.. We, in Northern Ireland, are very proud of our 'Belfast Son'. CSLewis is being celebrated in Belfast City Hall on the 50th Anniversary of his death.

Thank you, (Redacted)

81.135.0.124 (talk) 10:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

As you'll see if you search the archives of this page, this has been discussed before. Since Northern Ireland did not exist as such when Lewis was born in Belfast (Ireland as a whole was part of the United Kingdom), it has seemed preferable to identify his birthplace as Ireland. Deor (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Why not "Belfast, Ireland, UK"? in the infobox that would help clarify.
Also we might somewhere in the text say territorially "(now in Northern Ireland)" --as we say "(now in Kaliningrad, Russia)" of the German Immanuel Kant, b. Kingdom of Prussia; "(now in Romania)" of the Austrian Rixi Markus, b. Austria-Hungary; and "{now in Serbia)" of the Serbian Mihajlo Pupin, b. Austrian Empire.
--P64 (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd back such a proposal. Mabuska (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
WP:IMOS#Place of birth, death etc
The place of birth, residence and/or death of people who were born, lived or died before 1921 in what today is Northern Ireland should be given simply as "Ireland", and they should not be described as "Northern Irish". "Ireland" should not normally be linked, but if thought necessary should be linked as Ireland
This is the relevant guideline. Murry1975 (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
And P64's suggestion does not violate it. Nowhere does the guideline say we can't state "Ireland, UK" or "Ireland (now in Northern Ireland)" because we are still stating the actual place at the time as Ireland not Northern Ireland or Northern Irish. Mabuska (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
"in what today is Northern Ireland should be given simply as "Ireland"", so yes it actually does say what we can use. Murry1975 (talk) 12:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, it does not explicitly say we can't and the wording is ambiguous. If you wish it to be more clear then please propose it at IMOS, though I will object to it. Mabuska (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

All this has little to do with C. S. Lewis. If someone is interested in the history of Belfast or of Ireland rather than the person who is the topic of this article, all he or she has to do is click on the linked place's name. Deor (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Sure, but regardless of interst in history it's polite to inform people directly that Belfast or B,I is now in Northern Ireland --and probably to do so where we first link Ireland in prose especially when it doesn't clutter the lead sentence or even the lead section. Offhand I prefer the lead sentence of section 1 --and see no reason to identify Belfast, much less link Ireland, anywhere in the lead section; perhaps its because we don't label him Irish or British in the lead sentence?-- where we politely tell readers of biography Rixi Markus that Gura Humorului is now in Romania. However, Markus does not have any infobox, and we use the infobox for Immanuel Kant; the infobox and lead sentence of section 1 for Mihajlo Pupin. My offhand preference may be off-base.
FWIW, given the current lead paragraph wording, I would directly link Belfast, Magdalen College, and Magdalene College; not Ireland, Oxford U, or Cambridge U. But I would also move a lot of biographical data out of the lead section. --P64 (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
@Mabuska, its not ambiguous, it states "simply Ireland" so we simply use Ireland. If you have an issue with bring it IMOS.
@P64, Belfast, Ireland (now Northern Ireland) or Belfast, Ireland (in what is now Northern Ireland)? Both may lead the read to believe that Ireland is now Northern Ireland, the latter less so. Or leave the info box Belfast, Ireland and in the prose say "born in Belfast (now in Northern Ireland)/(in what is now Northern Ireland)".
But the point being we shouldnt emphisis NI- it didnt exist at the time and as such has very little to actually do with Lewis. Murry1975 (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
As the proposer said they are proud of Lewis, which begs the question, why d they want to change his actual/accurate birth place? Murry1975 (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Jane Moore

Hi, I can't edit this page, so someone else please decide if this is a good idea: the third paragraph of the section 'Jane Moore' begins 'Speculation regarding their relationship re-surfaced with the publication of A. N. Wilson's biography of Lewis', I would suggest adding a date for the book (so 'Speculation regarding their relationship re-surfaced with the publication of A. N. Wilson's 1990 biography of Lewis), as the context, particularly that the next book mentioned is referred to as being written earlier, makes the date relevant and kind of important. Don't know if others agree, but I went looking for the date, and it might save others time.122.61.157.138 (talk) 12:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Deor (talk) 13:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

New section - Second World War

I have added a new section on Lewis' activities in the Second World War, sourced to a book I am currently reading, The Story Teller. C.S. Lewis by Derick Bingham (first published 1999). More authoritative sources for the quotations I added may be substituted by anyone who can locate them, as I recognize the book is using them second-hand. It was through his experience of hosting evacuees he gained inspiration for his postwar-published Narnia series.Cloptonson (talk) 23:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Entry into WWI Service

Two apparent mutually exclusive statements are made as to how Lewis entered the British Army. At end of section 'Childhood' it states: Before he was allowed to attend Oxford, Lewis was conscripted into the First World War. However in the section 'First World War', it states: In 1917, Lewis left his studies to volunteer for the British Army.

An added complication to imputing he was conscripted is that the Military Service Act of 1916 which sanctioned conscription for the duration of hostilities was not, for political reasons, applied to Ireland (that including, pre partition 1922, Lewis' native province Ulster). So could a youth whose home was in Ireland and was studying, as a minor, at public school or university in England, have been conscripted at the time?Cloptonson (talk) 15:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The Argument from Reason

As there is some discussion of this under Lewis as Christian apologist I suggest including a link to the argument_from_reason article. 80.1.215.72 (talk) 11:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done--JayJasper (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

My Irish Life -- flow

Having read archives, I feel SOMEWHAT safe that this suggestion will not be TOO controversial. This is just a quibble. I don't dispute any content of the section "My Irish Life", only a bit of its flow.

The last paragraph begins: "Various critics have suggested that it was Lewis's dismay over sectarian conflict in his native Belfast that led him to eventually adopt such an ecumenical brand of Christianity." However, the previous paragraph is not about his Christianity and "such" seems inappropriate. A simple solution is to change "such an ecumenical ..." to "his ecumenical ...". One could also reorder the paragraphs, but that can be more complicated. GeeBee60 (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest being WP:BOLD and making the changes. If anyone disagrees then it'll be reverted and a discussion can ensue. Mabuska (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Non-fiction satirical apologetic novel

Lewis' The Screwtape Letters has also been listed, categorized, and organized by others, notably Barnes & Noble and WorldCat, as a non-fiction work of literature.[1] 71.82.112.140 (talk) 06:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.worldcat.org/title/screwtape-letters/oclc/1154978

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2014

Please add the following to the "External Links" on the C.S. Lewis page:

This library has over 3,000 original C.S. Lewis letters, every book he wrote in multiple editions and languages, hundreds of books about him, and 2,400 books from his personal library. It would be helpful to Wikipedia researchers to know about this collection if they would like to learn more about C.S. Lewis. Thank you for considering this request.

-Laura Schmidt, Archivist of The Marion E. Wade Center

Laurielfrodo7 (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done--JayJasper (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Stronger, more well-developed separate section on academic training and work

...rather than having it nested, in brevi, throughout the biography and career sections. He was an academic success at two premier universities (some might argue) despite his general public acclaim and success. Why he was esteemed academically is very relevant encyclopedic material, and deserves further elaboration. Moreover, he clearly compartmentalized these areas of his life, not letting the public, general work intrude upon what were (for the better part of his career) his primary scholarly responsibilities. Apologies if I have missed something, including any earlier discussion in this. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Notably, (i) the first half of the subsection on his scholarly career is very general (see [2], cf. related sentences in Biography Section, [3]), (ii) the content of his scholarly career is limited to the few sentences in the second half of the first paragraph, (iii) the subsection then reverts to material more related to his public persona as a popular author, rather than any serious content on his long scholarly career and its continuing impact. As well, (iv) the infobox is, apart from a single word, is not that of an academic/scholar, but of the popular author (e.g., see "Genres" therein, and cf., e.g., infobox at George M. Church). All of this presupposes that interest in him will come only from his popular works, and this lessens the scope, and therefore impact, of this as an encyclopedic article. For a general concern I have raised for the lack of good infoboxes for non-science scholars/academics, see [4] and [5]. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2014

In the Infobox writer, the following line should be added. | religion = Christianity This line is important because it is a defining characteristic of C. S. Lewis, and should be listed among the other attributes. Sk8forether (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

 Not done. There is no active "religion" field in {{Infobox writer}}. The matter has been discussed repeatedly on Template talk:Infobox writer, but there is, at present, no consensus to include such a field in the template. Deor (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2014

Please include as a secondary source, "A Life Observed: A Spiritual Biography of C.S. Lewis" by Devin Brown. Joy Davidman Gresham's son, Douglas, wrote the Foreword to this book, which establishes legitimacy and authority. Publisher: Brazos Press (a division of Baker) in 2013, and the ISBN is 978-1587433351.

Updated request: Status Quo: Secondary works John Beversluis (1985), C. S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans ISBN 0-8028-0046-7 Ronald W. Bresland (1999), The Backward Glance: C. S. Lewis and Ireland. Belfast: Institute of Irish Studies at Queen's University of Belfast. Humphrey Carpenter (1978), The Inklings: C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, Charles Williams and Their Friends. London: George Allen & Unwin. ISBN 0-04-809011-5

Should be changed to: Secondary works John Beversluis (1985), C. S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans ISBN 0-8028-0046-7 Ronald W. Bresland (1999), The Backward Glance: C. S. Lewis and Ireland. Belfast: Institute of Irish Studies at Queen's University of Belfast. Devin Brown (2013), A Life Observed: A Spiritual Biography of C.S. Lewis. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press ISBN 978-1587433351 Humphrey Carpenter (1978), The Inklings: C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, Charles Williams and Their Friends. London: George Allen & Unwin. ISBN 0-04-809011-5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glasgowec1 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Glasgowec1 (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Where should it be added? Stickee (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Done Stickee (talk) 12:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2015

i would like to request an edit because "Nequaquam nobis divinitus esse paratam Naturam rerum; tanta stat praedita culpa" means "No, we are divinely ready The nature of things ; stands so endowed fault" not "Had God designed the world, it would not be A world so frail and faulty as we see"[1]

Joe mcnarvy (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ i got my information from a translator
 Not done Actually, the translation in the article (though free, to preserve the rhyme) is reasonably close to the sense of the original. Another translation gives: That in no wise the nature of all things / For us was fashioned by a power divine - / So great the faults it stands encumbered with. -- Elphion (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2015

hi


Zomb13man13 (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Honour Declined subsection

I have added mention of his being named but declined a membership of the Order of the British Empire in 1951 (the last honours list of George VI). I have lifted a paragraph about this from the article on the Order but it is unclear in what capacity he was named for it (literature, academic services, broadcasting?) so I have made a subsection of it sandwiched between Second World War and Chair at Cambridge University. His sketch in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004) states he declined a CBE (Commander of the order) but does not date the refusal - can someone find out if it referred to the nomination in the 1951 honours list?Cloptonson (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The lead is misleading.

Yes, the mans citizenship was undoubtedly British - but we're dealing with a man who undoubtedly considered himself Irish. Just Irish? I cannot say. But all the evidence points to a strong Irish identity. If he'd been born in the part that is now the Republic of Ireland today then he'd no doubt be described as Irish here - but people born in the pre-partition (like my grandfather) north had every right to identify as Irish or British - just like today. The "of the time" politics doesn't have any bearing on Lewis's national identity, which was clearly Irish. Or am I missing something here?--109.149.122.34 (talk) 12:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Please don't confuse ethnicity with nationality. He was a British citizen, he was of Irish ethnic identity, they are not mutually exclusive terms. Mabuska (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
He clearly considered himself not to be English, but do you have any evidence that he did not consider himself to be British? I can't think of any myself. As Mabuska indicated, to be both Irish and British was not contradictory, no more than being Welsh and British, especially among Ulster Protestants like Lewis whose ancestors had mostly come from other parts of the UK. (In that regard, he wasn't really even ethnically Irish.) Anyway, numerous sources list him as a British writer, more than those who call him Irish from what I've seen. Rmm413 (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Conscripted or volunteered in WWI?

At the end of the "Childhood" section, it says Lewis was conscripted, but the "First World War" section says he volunteered. The sources I have checked don't make it clear which version is correct. If anyone has a source that does make it clear, please amend the article. KarenSutherland (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I think I see what the problem is here. In Surprised by Joy, he says he joined the Officers' Training Corps at Oxford (which is voluntary) "as my most promising route into the army" and from there was "drafted" into a Cadet Battalion (pp. 186-7). I don't think that "drafted" means quite the same thing as "conscripted" in this instance, as he was already being trained for the military and was not just a member of the general public. I will see if I can change the article to reflect this. (Just to mention, George Sayer in his book Jack talks more in depth about Lewis' time in the O.T.C. at Oxford.) Rmm413 (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

From WikiBooks

"The Screwtape Letters" is fiction. But only fiction in the sense that the characters and the dialogue sprang from the imagination of one of the greatest modern Christian writers. Yet in our terrestrial reality the issues confronted in this book play out in our lives every day.

— WikiBooks

...since it is technically classified as “fiction”[1]-- let me say that it is essentially non-fiction, ...[2]

— CBN

Although the book is technically fiction, it is, nevertheless, non-fiction in that it illustrates real spiritual principles based on a solid understanding of human nature and the spiritual world.

— Catholic News Agency

References

  1. ^ http://www.booksamillion.com/p/Screwtape-Letters/C-S-Lewis/9780060652937
  2. ^ http://www.cbn.com/special/DaVinciCode/Metaxas_Screwtape.aspx?option=print

CS Lewis clearly distinguishes between his fictional and his non-fiction writing. To make the argument that a work is not fiction because it contains truth, even truth of great importance, is nonsense. Fiction is a medium or vehicle for communicating ideas, and the great fiction writers communicate very important ideas. If the characters are invented, and the storyline or plot is "made up from whole cloth," then the work is fiction, but to minimize the value of the ideas contained in the fiction is to miss the entire point of the work, its raison d'etre, if you will pardon my very poor grasp of French. All great fiction contains great ideas, which in many cases involve truthes critical to the development of society, if not to your immortal soul. To minimize the value of fiction because it's "only stories" is to strip away some of the richness of our culture. All of our great music is "made up." Poetry is certainly made up, ALL of it. Most painting is made up, and that which is based on "real life" certainly benefits by the interpretation of the artist's eye and hand. In the words of the father of one of our American best-selling authors, "I know it's true because I made it up myself." Rags (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

British?

This article would have a whole lot more credibility if it started out with getting his nationality correct ... he's Irish!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Irishocity (talk • contribs) 08:25, 30 November 2015‎ (UTC)

See the previous section [added: which has since been moved to the archives] -- and many, many discussions in the archives. -- Elphion (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
He clearly self-identified as Irish though. 109.149.121.174 (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and also as British, and as Anglican. None of these alone aptly describes him. -- Elphion (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
He was born in Ireland, but neither ethnically nor culturally Irish. Zacwill (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Please don't start; as I say, it's all been said in the archives, many times over. -- Elphion (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2016

Belfast is not part of Ireland. It is part of Northern Ireland. Blondie6990 (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done. There was no "Northern Ireland" when Lewis was born. Belfast was in the "Ireland" portion of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. See the last of the boxes at the top of this page. Deor (talk) 07:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on C. S. Lewis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Dubious reference

I removed this sentence: "A major study from 1983 compared Lewis' ideal of gender relations to underground male prostitution rings, which share the same quality of men seeking to dominate subjects considered as less likely to take on submissive roles by a patriarchal society, while promoting the theatrical mockery of women." ref: Andy J. Johnson, Religion and Men's Violence Against Women, p. 37.

Page 37 of the cited work contains only a passing reference to Marilyn Frye's "analysis of Lewis's Christian fiction", citing The Politics of Reality (this can be found by searching the book for Lewis at Google Books). The Politics of Reality (which is borrowable from the Open Library) does not contain an analysis of Lewis's work or even a mention of him so far as I could see. Unless someone can find an actual reference for this rather esoteric interpretation it should not be included in the article. --- Robina Fox (talk) 06:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on C. S. Lewis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Google problem

The Google capsule biography of C.S. Lewis reads as follows:

"Clive Staples Lewis was a British novelist, poet, academic, medievalist, literary critic, essayist, lay theologian, broadcaster, lecturer, and Christian apologist. Wikipedia Born: November 29, 1898, Belfast, United Kingdom Died: November 22, 1963, Oxford, United Kingdom Influenced by: J. R. R. Tolkien, G. K. Chesterton, Plato, More Plays: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe"

Why "Plays"?

I suppose this is a Google rather than a Wikipedia issue--the Wikipedia entry accurately calls him everything but a playwright--but it adversely affects the reputation of Wikipedia, which it cites.

Stevehigh (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Digory Kirke

The old professor, not Digory, asks the children about Lucy's lying. Digory is a character in "The Magician's Nephew". This error appears in the section entitled "Trilemma", last line. Beaglelover45 (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Beaglelover45: I haven't read the Narnia books myself, but apparently the "old professor' is Digory Kirke. See Digory Kirke#The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Deor (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it is revealed in The Magician's Nephew, Chapter 3, that Digory grew up to be the Professor from the other books, but I have revised the text of the article to to say "the old Professor" while still linking to the Digory Kirke article. Robina Fox (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Speculation

Is the fact that various people have speculated on the relationship between C. S. Lewis and Jane Moore actually worthy of inclusion? Such speculation seems to be at best irrelevant and at worst prurient. There is no actual information here. Beau Plains (talk) 19:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I had expected the WP legal minds to descend here by now, but since they haven't, I will make a stab at an answer. WP is not censored. The sexual proclivities of historical figures may indeed be notable, particularly when they are at variance with what the subject stood for (or what his modern admirers assume he stood for). Your choice of non-neutral words (such as "prurient") does not help. It is no more prurient to talk about what Jane Moore meant to CSL than, say, what Aspasia meant to Pericles or Heloïse to Abelard. This subject in particular has been raised by a significant biographer, and at least one close friend of Lewis's thinks it as likely as not. So this is a notable topic of CSL's life, and it's reasonable to mention it here. -- Elphion (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Prof C S Lewis

I did edit the entry, 'The Great Divorce' but thought to put it to broader scrutiny. How is the title 'Professor' dealt with in regards to C S Lewis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christos-radio (talk • contribs) 14:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2016

FactCheck101 (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


"Later Sayer changed his mind. In the introduction to the 1997 edition of his biography of Lewis he wrote: 

   I have had to alter my opinion of Lewis's relationship with Mrs. Moore. In chapter eight of this book I wrote that I was uncertain about whether they were lovers. Now after conversations with Mrs. Moore's daughter, Maureen, and a consideration of the way in which their bedrooms were arranged at The Kilns, I am quite certain that they were.[28]"

In the section of the article quoted above, George Sayer is identified as the source of the quote; however, the source of the comment is cited as James O'Fee. If George Sayer truly did change his mind in the introduction to the 1997 edition of his biography of Lewis then Sayer's book should be cited. According to the citation, James O'Fee and not Sayer was the one speculating on C.S. Lewis's relationship with Mrs. Moore.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 14:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

HVD Dyson?

Shouldn't it be HVD Dyson ? See main text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.205.13.211 (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry just noticed it was a direct quote from a book.  :-( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.205.13.211 (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, direct quotes are preserved in there original form. :)--Máedóc (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2017

164.68.80.244 (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

IT'S NORTHER IRELAND HE GREW UP IN NOT IRELAND

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 04:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on C. S. Lewis. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2016

you need to put how many books he wrote and what they were about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.4.96.123 (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that's unnecessary in this article. For a list of his books, see C. S. Lewis bibliography; what they're about is usually obvious from the titles, but following the links will clarify cases in which it's not. Deor (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

A useful bibliography will include at least a brief description of the work. I wouldn't think it's reasonable to say it's obvious from the title. That's just not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mycatbean (talk • contribs) 02:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Relevance of Opposing Opinions

I question the relevance of the athieist refutations of Lewis' apologetics. Of what relevance is the person Al opinion of one or two people to the facts about Lewis. Those seem like they would belong better in a page about those persons and/or apologetics and/or atheism. This is not a page about those things, but about C.S. Lewis and his life and works. Quasimode-o (talk) 05:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Criticism of an author's positions is standard fare for WP articles. -- Elphion (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Is this about atheist responses? If so, then it should be augmented by responses from other points of view, such as Christian and other theist, as well as agnostic; and also studies on the rhetoric and logic of the arguments (without disputing the conclusions). TomS TDotO (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


After looking into it I think the original opinion is very valid. For example read the articles pertaining to Stephen Hawkings, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, or even Bill Nye. The criticism is either non existent or extremely limited. I'm confused as to why this article is littered with criticism where as authors/scientists/atheist (who are very much criticized) on the other side of the fence are immune? PayneAckerson (talk) 08:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2017

I would like the following external links ADDED to the "See Also" section of this page, or as a new "Online resources to Lewis' editions" section or similar. The two sites below are dedicated to cataloging Lewis' editions. I have added them to the Lewis Bibliography page already [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis_bibliography], which you can check to see what I mean, but I believe they would be of value here as well. Thank you. -Gordon [Note: I am the administrator of the first page and a Lewis scholar with an earned PhD focused on Lewis...if that makes any difference]

Suggested Addition: Online Resources to Lewis' Editions The Disordered Image: An Image Catalog of C. S. Lewis' English Editions (http://www.cslewiseditions.com/ ) Narnia Editions and Translations (http://www.inklingsfocus.com/index.html) Gordon Greenhill (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

 Not done The covers would be considered a copyright violation as the cover art is considered copyrightable and we cannot legally link to copyright violations. MOS:SEEALSO states that the see also sections are "a bulleted list of internal links to related Wikipedia articles" (emphasis mine). Neither of these meet that criteria. They also do not belong in the external links section as, Wikipedia:External links:

Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.

They are accurate, on-topic, and do meet the copyright violation criteria. They both appear to be accurate. However, I do not see anything that meets "further research". These represent catalogues of images. I would not oppose a well-reasoned discussion about why they may belong in the external links section. I will be removing the addition of them to the bibliography article for similar reasons shortly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

And he's Irish again

Sir fortesque (talk · contribs) elected to edit war to include Irish in the lede ignoring the discussions in the archives, notably Talk:C. S. Lewis/Archive 7#Style Guides. I requested a discussion, but all I got was an edit war. Anyone care to explain it again? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2017

Please add the following line of text in an appropriate place in this page's infobox. 213.205.251.240 (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

 Not done No text was provided so the request is unclear. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2017

213.205.251.240 (talk) 12:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Closing, as no edit request is evident. Deor (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2017

Please add the text "| alma_mater = University College, Oxford" directly below the line "| citizenship = " in the page's infobox. 213.205.251.240 (talk) 10:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 16:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The Wrong Honour is Given in Lewis's Entry!

C.S. Lewis was offered the award of Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE), not merely the rank of Member!

In the second work cited there (Letters of C. S. Lewis), the heading of the letter says "in reply to the offer of a C.B.E.", so I've changed it accordingly. Deor (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Categories

The categories Category:British children's writers Category:British fantasy writers Category:British literary critics Category:British philosophers Category:British science fiction writers and Category:British spiritual writers are all absolutely appropriate for Lewis. Stop removing them, Apollo The Logician. If your objection is to the inclusion of "British", please leave your prejudices and POV-pushing aside. Being born in Belfast does not disqualify Lewis from being British. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

First of all he is already a member of the Irish version of those cats, second of all leave your west britonism out of this IMOS is clear.Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Can you leave your ad hominem out of this? Jebus, are you going for a record? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
It should be noted that this has been resolved historically through consensus that he was British and those are appropriate categories (see the talk page and archives.) If anyone wishes to change the consensus you are welcome to discuss as such, but those categories should not be removed unless a new consensus is reached. And a few people having a conversation does not overrule the existing consensus. However remember consensus can change. Canterbury Tail talk 20:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
If I remember correctly the consensus was omit any mention of nationality or refer to him as British-Irish. Tyrsóg (talk) 10:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Christian apologist?

I think this terminology is not only extremely offensive, but also nothing more than propaganda. Christianity and Christians have nothing to apologize for, so why should anybody be called an apologist for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.129.232.214 (talk) 12:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The term is routinely (and originally) used for someone making a formal defense or justification of a concept, person, or institution. It does not imply "excuse" or "blame"; see Plato's Apology (a justification for the work of Socrates). "Apologist" is the standard term especially for writers justifying (arguing in favor of) a religious faith. -- Elphion (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Think and read before you speak. Surely they have dictionaries in Connecticut. They certainly have access to online dictionaries. Webster's, Cambridge] and Oxford all seem to have entries for the term to assuage your fears. And of course, the term is linked to Christian apologetics which defines it extremely well. In short, apologetics doesn't mean apologize, although they share the same root word, but you might want to consider an apology. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
As for Christianity and Christians having "nothing to apologize for", here's someone who thought differently:
[Violent partisanism] can also be felt for bodies that claim more than a natural affection: for a Church or (alas) a party in a Church, or for a religious order. This terrible subject would require a book to itself. Here it will be enough to say that the Heavenly Society is also an earthly society. Our (merely natural) patriotism towards the latter can very easily borrow the transcendent claims of the former and use them to justify the most abominable actions. If ever the book which I am not going to write is written it must be the full confession by Christendom of Christendom's specific contribution to the sum of human cruelty and treachery. Large areas of "the World" will not hear us till we have publicly disowned much of our past. Why should they? We have shouted the name of Christ and enacted the service of Moloch.
—C. S. Lewis, 1960, The Four Loves
VeryRarelyStable (talk) 11:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Why are being a troll in feeding this troll? I'm archiving this discussion before it goes off the rails. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Lewis' Memorial Stone in Westminster Abbey Should be Mentioned.

In November of 2013, fifty years after his death, a memorial stone in his honour was unveiled in Poets' Corner in Westminster Abbey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.111.162.122 (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Is that the case? Source? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Information concerning Lewis's memorial stone can be found at www.westminster-abbey.org. (A photograph of this stone is included.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.111.162.122 (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I had missed this, but it's certainly the case.[6][7][8] I agree it should be mentioned. StAnselm (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
This is already covered in the first paragraph of the "Legacy" section. Deor (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Ha! I didn't even check the article. StAnselm (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2018

Add citation to the last sentence in the Childhood section related to C.S. Lewis's belief in atheism as because of the "horror of war." Cite: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/war-made-c-s-lewis-83d90682f4e1 Saspeaks (talk) 03:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The site does not appear to be a reliable source. If the author has a reliable source that supports the statement, we could use that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on C. S. Lewis. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2018

Yes I vehemently oppose the use of the term "Christian apologist" in the description of Mr.C.S. Lewis accomplishments and accolades. He was a man of great renown. One of the foremost thinkers of his time;and any other period of history.He was an eminent writer and lecturer. That term being attributed to him would be like assigning the term "Atheist apologist" to Christopher Hitchens; yet I note it does not say this in his description of accolades and accomplishments.If you wish to be taken as a a serious source of information, not one laden with personal bias and subjective opinions rather than objective truths you must edit the bias.Just the facts ....please.Thank you Sincerely Thomas Milazzo 173.218.90.28 (talk) 08:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

This is an ignorant request. "Apologetics" is the branch of Christian theology concerned with raising rational arguments for believing in the Christian faith; one who pursues it, like St Thomas Aquinas, is an "apologist". Lewis used both words for himself and his Christian writings. The fact that the word "apologist" has taken on negative connotations since his time is unfortunate but irrelevant. VeryRarelyStable (talk) 11:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Did not keep up with current affairs

This article could mention that C.S. Lewis never watched television, listened to the radio or read newspapers. He was very badly informed about current affairs, and said "If there were a war one, some one would tell me". Vorbee (talk) 07:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The Four Loves

This article does not say very much about a book by C.S. Lewis called "The Four Loves". Vorbee (talk) 08:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the "Other works" section, and we have a separate article about it. I can't see much point in including more about what isn't really a major work. Deor (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2018

Could Category:Christian philosophers be replaced with the more specific Category:Anglican philosophers? Thanks, 142.160.89.97 (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. Also replaced Category:Christian writers with Category:Anglican writers. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 04:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced category

Please remove Category:Theistic evolutionists. There is nothing in the article which even mentions evolution, let alone the "theistic" variety of it. Per WP:CATV, all categories must be described in the article body and backed with a reliable secondary source. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done No idea why that was there. StAnselm (talk) 02:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2019

CS Lewis was Irish, not British. 143.117.17.121 (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See above and archives - this has been discussed extensively. Thanks. aboideautalk 15:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

"British and Irish" in the opening paragraph

This has proven a touchy subject on this article (with a long history of edit warring of British/Irish nationality without discussion) so I thought it best making a request here.

I would like to request that the opening paragraph "Clive Staples Lewis (29 November 1898 – 22 November 1963) was a British writer" be changed to "Clive Staples Lewis (29 November 1898 – 22 November 1963) was a British and Irish writer". Lewis had stated numerous times that he was Irish, much of which is sourced in the article already. I can't find a source for him stating he was British but for the sake of consensus (and perhaps to lessen the edit warring) I think it best that both be listed which is in line with other articles on the site.

Some sources already in the article of Lewis stating his Irishness include the following two; [1][2] Thanks for reading, BBX118 16:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

That goes against WP:OPENPARA, MOS:OPENPARABIO and all the previous consensus discussions that have occurred here (the most recent, titled "Irish not British", is just above). I notice that your edits are promoting an Irish nationalism of sorts. Is this simply an extension of that or are you truly interested in the subject? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't believe it would be against either - if anything, it would be in support of both since it's a neutral point of view. There are many more primary sources for Lewis' Irish identity rather than a British identity, but I think having both would err on the side of neutrality. As for your assertion of my edits, I'm not sure where you've gotten that impression. I've made edits here and there on Irish-related articles, but I hardly think that indicates anything other than that I have first-hand experience of Irish issues (as I am from Ireland). BBX118 18:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This has been discussed repeatedly throughout the talk page archives. In the absence of a consensus to change the article, this edit request cannot be completed per WP:EDITREQ#General considerations. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Those two discuss not entering into discussions of ethnicity in the lede. That is why they are against them. We can discuss this in the article, but to delve into it in the lede is not going to gain much traction. Have you read the previous discussions, both here and in the archives?
I'm sorry if my impressions have painted you in a negative light. Thanks for clarifying your position. I suppose that explains why I edit a great many Canada-related articles. Again, thanks for explaining. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Not a problem at all Walter; thanks for pointing me in the right direction re: consensus and thanks ElHef also; I'll be sure to put this to discussion and see what everyone thinks. BBX118 20:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Yeats's appeal wasn't exclusively Irish; he was also a major "magical opponent" of famed English occultist Aleister Crowley, as noted extensively throughout Lawrence Sutin's Do what thou wilt: a life of Aleister Crowley. New York: MacMillan (St. Martins). cf. pp. 56–78.
  2. ^ King, Francis (1978). The Magical World of Aleister Crowley. New York: Coward, McCann & Geoghegan. ISBN 0-698-10884-1.

There is no source stating that C.S. Lewis is British, simply because it is not true, so please stop reverting my edition whoever is doing that, otherwise I will have to denounce what is going on here to Wikipedia Foundation. Be that as it may, Irish defines whoever born in Ireland, and British whoever born in Britain. Therefore, even those born in Northern Ireland are Irish. However, this is deep discussion, and we are not here to discuss politics. Wikipedia is all about good references, and it always encourage the editors to be impartial and supply the articles with first-class resources. Thus, I put as source the British Encyclopedia (which has 250 years of tradition) and someone dared to delete my strong reference to carry on with this meaningless discussion. Dears, we are here to contribute with Wikipedia and must to do this with good faith, furthermore it is not fruitful to insist in a debate that has no support in Lewis biography and is contrary to the eldest encyclopedia in the world, which I offered as source. I deeply hope that my edition, supported by the British Encyclopedia, don't come to be reverted again, unless someone finds a more trustworthy resource than it. All the best! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lehol (talk • contribs) 02:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I moved this here as it was the most recent discussion. Please read the previous two here and the ones of the archives and then comment again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I have already done that dear! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lehol (talk • contribs) 02:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Had you? No. You added it to the top, and then you moved it to the top of this discussion. I moved it to the bottom of this discussion. Also, please sign your talk page comments. Finally, it's best not to be patronizing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Mate, we have to find a happy medium, okay? I want to understand why on the earth are you insisting in an information that contradicts all biographies written about Lewis and even the British Encyclopedia. I could be willing to debate if you had a good resource (like a reputable encyclopedia as that one which I brought up), but you don't! So there is nothing to be debated. You are trying to complicate what is pacific in Lewis biography, no one risk calling him "British", even Lewis describes himself as Irish. So what do you want? It is not enough describe him as Irish for you, so do you prefer calling him "Norther Irish"? That mistake of calling him British cannot carry on... Let's say I believe you're acting in good faith, but now you have the knowledge of good sources that state he as Irish (an obvious thing), what's the matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lehol (talk • contribs) 03:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Again, I am not your dear nor your mate so stop with the patronizing.
A happy medium? Sure. Did you read the discussions here or the archives? Once you've caught up to the discussion, we'll both be in a better place. There's no need to re-has what has already been stated multiple times. Make an effort to stand on the foundation that has already been laid.
And sign your blasted comments. It's far less difficult than reading the previous discussions. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your final sentence on a talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Since evidently not everyone clicks through to MOS:OPENPARABIO, here is the relevant paragraph:

The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases this will be the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.

Lewis is notable for his scholarship, his fiction writing, and his Christian evangelism, all of which he did while resident in England; and as for his citizenship, he was a British subject from birth to death. Therefore, "British" is the correct identification.

—VeryRarelyStable (talk) 09:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

You say "he was a British subject from birth to death. Therefore, "British" is the correct", but where is the reputable source that states he was a British autor. C.S. Lewis defined himself as an Irish, as well as all biographies written about his life define him as Irish and NEVER as British! Even the British encyclopedia defines him as an Irish-born and mention his own expression "My Irish Life"! So you're insisting in a meaningless debate and deleting a text that used as source the 250-year-old British Encyclopedia! Please be reasonable and stop changing what is well referenced! It is terrible you try to impose your own opinion by inventing a debate that DOES NOT existe in C.S. Lewis biography and deleting my text that had as reference the British Encyclopedia!

To the guy who wrote "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable", I think you are undoubtedly right, and if you look at the record of previous editions of this Wikipedia's C.S. Lewis article you'll see it was created in 2003 and the first time that someone put him as British was in 2016 through an act of vandalism by deleting the British Encyclopedia reference provided at that time. It's too bad that until this days some people want to carry on denying facts and insisting in their mere opinions! This DOES NOT meet Wikipedia goals! Wikipedia is all about good references and impartiality! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lehol (talk • contribs) 14:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Um, actually, the discussion over Irish / English / British has been going on practically since the inception of the article. "British" occurs as early as 2006, if not earlier. Early versions of the article dodged the issue by saying "born in Ireland, resident most of his life in England". His self identification as Irish was in contradistinction to English, not British; he certainly regarded himself as a British citizen, which was his legal status. Like many Irish editors, you seem to assume that "British" is synonymous with "English"; but it is not. Northern Ireland is legally British, and Ireland is one of the British Isles. You should review the discussion in the archives (many pages worth) before weighing in here. -- Elphion (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Understanding how the article has arrived at the current WP:CONSENSUS is paramount to refuting it. Being born in Northern Ireland does not preclude being a British citizen. In reviewing the current consensus, we should keep the recent change to WP:ETHNICITY in mind, which states that ledes should list "the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident" (emphasis mine). Not sure if country here would extend to the UK or if it should be specific to Norther Ireland. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
First off don't say um it's obnoxious. Second Yes he may have identified as a British citizen, but this doesn't change the fact that he identified as Irish, which gets to the crux of the double standard here. On any other article wither it be about an English, Scottish, Welsh famous figure the article always identifies the person as their place of birth/ cultural identity. So you can't have it both ways, I'm speaking to Wikipedia here. Ether change it to Irish/British or change all your articles to fit this bizarre standard. I know full well that British refers to the nationality of the uk. However, when most people see the word British they think it means English especially in the U.S or anywhere outside of the Uk and Ireland really. You seem to be confused on this ironically because you mention the term British isles which is a geographical term so it has no relevancy to British which is a nationality.. Besides, the term British isles as we know it was created by British nationalists as propaganda when Ireland was added to the union and the term is disputed anyway, there are a plethora of other issues with the term, but this has nothing to do with the topic. All i'm asking is that you at the very least change it to Irish/british to avoid confusion as most people only glance at the first paragraph of Wikipedia and may get the impression that C.S Lewis was English or some weird imaginary amalgamation of uk identity still associated with England. If not please provide a satisfactory reason as why not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.56.50 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Unnecessary use of loaded phrase "Christian apologists".

The article includes "His philosophical writings are widely cited by Christian apologists from many denominations." This may make those of the atheist faith happy, but it should be shortened to 'His writings are widely cited.' Who has cited Lewis' works is not shown in any studied, statistical way. The term 'Christian apologists' is a silly, unnecessary shot at peoples beliefs. Atheists, by definition, have faith that there is no God. That is a religious belief. That is their religion, and it should not have priority over the beliefs of Christians, or Muslims, Jews, et cetera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:550B:722B:6DA6:FF58:E57B:53B8 (talk) 11:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

In this context, the word apologists doesn't mean what you apparently think it means. See the article Christian apologetics. Deor (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
What exactly does Christian apologists mean to you that you think it's a "loaded phrase"? It's declarative. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Collins English Dictionary, 2nd Edition 1986, ISBN 0 00 433134-6, p.883: 'Lewis, n. 1. See (Cecil) Day-Lewis. 2. C(live) S(taples). 1898-1963, English novelist, critic, and Christian apologist, noted for his critical work, Allegory of Love (1936), his theological study, The Screwtape Letters (1942), and for his children's books.' (Incidentally, I suppose the 'English' bit is because he made his life and career in England, was a keen adherent of the Church of England and made a notable contribution to English literature. You could say the same of T.S. Eliot, whose American origins are nevertheless always noted, but then Lewis was born a British citizen in the first place and served as a British Army officer. He liked claiming to be Irish, but among the British that's a snob thing, especially in literary and artistic circles: Irish links make you different and superior and special, not one of those dreary philistine John Bull 'shopkeeper' types.) Khamba Tendal (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
@Khamba Tendal: did you mean to put this here or in the "Irish or British" section? —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 05:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
VeryRarelyStable, I reverted your move of Khamba Tendal's comment to a different section because he or she was clearly noting the Collins dictionary's use of "Christian apologist" to characterize Lewis (a characterization that is the subject of this thread). Khamba's parenthetical addition begnning "Incidentally ..." is clearly a tangential remark and was not, I think, meant to be a direct contribution to the moribund "'British and Irish' in the opening paragraph" thread, to which you had moved it. Deor (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I can see that, Deor, but I also see that the dictionary describes him as "English", and given that the rest of Khamba Tendal's comment focused on that, I thought it was the main intent of the post. I still think that's a possible reading of the comment, which is why I've asked Khamba Tendal what they intended. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 11:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:C._S._Lewis/Archive_8&oldid=1136331164"