Talk:C. S. Lewis/Archive 3

Lewis was supposedly implying
A single sentence in the "Criticism" section of this article reads as follows:

"Lewis also states that witch-hunts were factually, but not morally, wrong, implying that it is moral to murder practitioners of non-Christian religions."

This sentence should not be in the "Criticism" section because the sentence does not describe a criticism of Lewis or his work (nor a defense against such criticism, which is often found in wikipedia article criticism sections).

The part of the sentence starting with "implying" should be removed from the article completely. Whether or not Lewis was implying anything by any statement of his is only verifiable if Lewis stated that he was making such an implication, which, if he did make such a statement, should have a citation. What any author was implying at any time, if it is unverifiable, which at most times implying will be (by definition of "implying"), should not be in a wikipedia article.

To paraphrase Lewis' actual statement relating to the morality of witch-hunts, he was saying that witch-hunts were conducted because those conducting the witch-hunts were ignorant, as opposed to the idea that the hunts were conducted because those conducting them were evil, or morally inferior to modern people. He says that, starting from the same premise that the witch-hunters were starting from, namely that witches were purposely causing sickness, mental disorders, death, and bad harvests, and that the only way to stop the witches was to burn them, modern people might also come to the same logical conclusion that the only way to stop these unfortunate happenings was to burn the witches. He was simply pointing out that it was the witch-hunters premises that were flawed, not their logic or morality. Lewis could only have been "implying that it is moral to murder practitioners of non-Christian religions" if those non-Christian practitioners frequently, on purpose, cause sickness, mental disorders, death, and bad harvests and the only way the stop them was to burn them. I doubt Lewis thought either thing true, and, as such, I doubt he was implying what the author of the sentence in question wrote he was implying.

And, with that, I am removing the sentence. 75.15.211.121 18:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Further, since no one else has ever reached this conclusion - claiming that Lewis thought it was okay to kill practitioners etc. - is original research, not allowed in Wikipedia. Student7 20:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That Lewis thought that it was okay to kill non-Christians is an unavoidable conclusion from his statements. His defense is nonsensical; it is indisputable that witches exist. Whether witchcraft is efficacious is disputed, but not that it exists. Since he says that it is okay to kill practitioners of witchcraft assuming that witchcraft exists, and since the term "witchcraft" can be used to refer to any religion other than Christianity, he was supporting the mass murder of non-Christians. But since you insist that logical deductions are not acceptable, I've deleted that. So what of my latest edit is "uncited"?Heqwm 23:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am happy that modern witches consider themselves part of a "religion." This is new. Certainly, witches were considered no more religious than murderers or assassins until the 18th century, then certainly still not a religion by any means. Only within recent memory have they been accorded the label of "religious" at the request of modern practitioners. There is no way that Lewis (or Salem for that matter) could have predicted that they would be accorded the status of a religion. If in 2107, Nazis are accorded the status of religion, I guess they will complain retroactively about "religious persecution!" Student7 00:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Whether they were recognized as a religions is irrelevant. People who followed non-Christian religions were labeled "witches" and killed. You seem to rather ignorant of middle ages theology. There were only two sources of supernatual power: God and Satan. Therefore, anyone who worshipped any deity other than God must be worshipping Satan, and thus be a witch.Heqwm 00:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You are taking a broader view of "witches" than Lewis takes in Mere Christianity. Lewis is specifically talking about, "people going about who had sold their soul to the devil and recieved supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbors or drive them mad or bring bad weather". LloydSommerer 02:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Lewis was talking out of both sides of his mouth. If all he's talking about is those precise people, then he isn't responding to the man who brought up witch hunts. Name one case of a person who convicted of and excecuted for witchraft, in which credible evidence was presented for the charge. Whether witchs exist is irrelevant and a ridiculous red herring. If the same tactics that were used in witch hunts had been used in child molestation cases (and to some extent, they were), would that have been okay? Either he was an idiot, and honestly believed that the only problem people had with wtich hunts is that they think that the accused were not witches, or he was a blatant liar. (Note that, contrary to what he claims, we don't know that the accused were innocent, it's just that we've decided that we should have some evidence before believing it. Which means he's wrong; it's a change in morality, not knowledge.)  And you didn't explain just what of my claims is unsupported.Heqwm 04:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we are going well beyond describing what we are intending to put in the article which is what this section/discussion is for. It's okay to think/write that Lewis was a rotten person. If you aren't going to put that in the article, though, we really need to be discussing that somewhere else than this wikipedia page. This page is not for general discussion/polemics, per se.Student7 15:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

Most, probably all Anglicans "accept some aspects of Catholic theology" which is not surprising since Anglican churches regard themselves as "catholic" (but not Roman Catholic). When Lewis "reconverted", it was to the faith he he had been born into, and there should be nothing surprising about that. But he was always friendly to Roman Catholicism, and the respect was mutual. He "cleared" at least one of his books with a RC priest, and I have seen various of his books on display in RC churches. He seems to have risen above bigotry, which is especially refreshing considering where he came from. Millbanks 22:13, 3 August 2007 (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).


 * The modern creationist movement was sparked by Morris & Whitcomb's book, "The Genesis Flood", but that doesn't mean that creationism is a modern phenomenon. The first section on this page: http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp is on early Church fathers and Reformers who believed in creation in six days (or less!) and an Earth less than six thousand years old.
 * That being said, I have read (don't remember where, sorry) that Lewis held an old-earth view for much of his life, abandoning it only a few years before his death. Certainly, he believed that God created the world, and that life and man were not the product of chance processes, as multiple quotes could show.  What else is needed to be called a creationist.
 * Bringing us full circle, I'm not sure that evangelical is really appropriate. I think it clear that he was not really evangelistic, but that's not the same thing. Mdotley 00:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, the reason for his being called an evangelical (ie telling the evangel, good news) is his whole approach to Christianity. He at least took the imperitive to evalgelize seriously. He admired it and served it in numerous ways. His mere christianity was, as he said in the book, to move people into the foyer of the faith. He was disinterested as to which "door," (ie denomination) they subsequently passed into. As a corollary he was a "supernaturalist" in that he had no difficulty in accepting miracles as factually true if one accepts the cosmic miracle that the God-creator was made man and died for his creatures. Both of these atributes were central to the evalgelical movement of the early 20th century. A number of other firmly held beliefs are certainly out of favor in Evangelicals (note capital) of late: his use of tabacco and alcohol (beer and cigarettes he considered staples), his advocay of a "purgatory," his belief that salvation was universally available to anyone of any faith, as well as his deep regard for catholocism (which is hardly surprising in light of the role JRR Tolkien played in his conversion). BTW, "Creationism" as opposed to a Christian cosmology is of recent vintage. The cosmology of the universe as a created artifact and not a preexistant "given" was basic to the faith. Contrary to the present, the important and emphasis of this were not great, however. Church fathers have supported ideas of creation being instantaneous to very prolonged. The current polarization is distinctly unusual and regretable and luddite.
 * No, the few Church fathers that mentioned time in respect to Creation were in agreement that it was recent. But this isn't the place for a discussion on that -- you can talk to me if you want. Mdotley 01:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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.&mdash;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 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 JPS talk 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 JPS talk 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) &mdash;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. &mdash;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. &mdash;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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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 (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)
 * Bravo! We should probably examine the list of categories more carefully for things like this. Mdotley 01:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

A little help
Hi guys, I need some help from some C.S. Lewis fans (at least while I wait for a response from the Lewis Foundation and Institute). I'm currently doing a paper on C.S. Lewis, specifically "The Problem with Pain" and "A Grief Observed". I need secondary sources, however, and I'm having trouble locating other papers directly on these books (No truble finding them on his fiction, unsurprisingly). So, does anyone know where I might find some? Galenet and Infotrac were little help at best and Google's Scholarly Search (unsurprisingly) a waste of time. Even if you can get me the title, my school librarian will get a copy through the library system. Thanks! 24.218.131.28 04:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You might be able to get something you could use from The C.S. Lewis Index: A Comprehensive Guide to Lewis's Writings and Ideas by Janine Goffar, and The C. S. Lewis Readers' Encyclopedia by Jeffrey D. Schultz and John West Jr. Martin 18:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Saints banner and category
Based on this individual being included in the Calendar of saints (Episcopal Church in the United States of America), I am adding the Category:Anglican saints and the Saints WikiProject banner to this article. I am awaiting reliable sources which can be used to add the content to the article. John Carter 19:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no citation, but as I recall Lewis was added to the calendar provisionally at GC 2003 (he appears as a provisional saint....and provisional is clearly not the right theological term but I haven't the book handy....in "Lesser Feasts and Fasts 2003"). I believe his status was made permanent at GC 2006 but am less certain about this.  I'll try and find a citation, but I don't honestly know where this fits in the article.  Is canonization normally a topic or section within an article on a saint? Jwrosenzweig 10:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, this site confirms that he was given final approval at the 2006 General Convention of the Epicopal Church USA (now "The Episcopal Church", as I understand it). Should this be included anywhere in the article?  I'm open to suggestions. Jwrosenzweig 05:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Legacy. Mdotley 22:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Birth Location
Shouldn't Lewis' birth link re-direct to the island of Ireland, as "northern ireland" was not even in existance (as a statelet, not a geographical area obviously) when he was born?

I agree with this, Northern Ireland was simply a region of the island as the whole of Ireland was under British occupation at his birth, not just the North.

Lack of citation?
Aeusoes1, I'm not following you on the lack of citation by the editor you are reverting. That editor was quoting Lewis. I agree with his remark on asking, "what isn't cited?" Can you explain, please? Student7 20:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I reverted this same edit a few days ago for the same reason. It isn't that Lewis needs to be cited here. This is (as far as anyone has shown) original research. It is the critisism itself that needs to be cited.  I posted a message to that effect to Heqwm on his talk page a few days ago. He does not seem interested in responding. LloydSommerer 21:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as how there was already a Talk Page section discussing my edits (and I did respond in that section), I think that you should have at least mentioned this section in that section. Your position is bizarre. I need to cite someone saying that Lewis said that? And will I then have to cite a third someone saying that the second someone said that Lewis said it? I not making an "argument". I am relating what Lewis said. That Lewis presents Universal Morality as an argument for God is not a synthesis of his work; he outright states it.

"It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behaviour or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they have."(4)

"This law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that every one knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it … And I believe they were right."(5)

"You find out more about God from the Moral Law than from the universe in general"(29)

Now, if you're saying that I have to put those into the article, fine, but I'd like to state clearly that that is your objection, or, if it is not, what is.Heqwm 22:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to stipulate that my position is bizarre, but I also believe it to be in line with Wikipedia's official policy on original research. I will try state my objection as clearly as I can: I believe your additions are original research,and if they are original research then, as per that policy, they should not be included in the article. If they are not original research, then please include a link to someone else who has presented these ideas. If you see some third possibility here, I would be open to hearing about that also.


 * Or, to state the previous paragraph in a slightly different manner, you do not need to, "cite someone saying that Lewis said that." You need to (as per the official Wikipedia policy on original research) cite someone saying that Lewis's statements concerning witchhunts present a challenge to his belief in a universal morality. If that is not the central idea of your additions, then I apologise in advance for misinterpreting them. But I have no problem with the content of your addition, so please don't let that be a sticking point. My only concern is that it appears to me to be original research. LloydSommerer 23:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (I had an edit conflict with Lsommerer here, and what I wrote is basically another way of saying what he said; but I'll paste it in anyway:)
 * The statement "Witch hunts, which involved bigotry, extractions of confessions under torture, executions without fair trials, reliance on superstitions, and other practices that are considered abominations by our current morality, present a challenge to this idea" is not sourced; and as has been explained to you above, under the heading "Lewis was supposedly implying," Lewis was not arguing that "bigotry, extractions of confessions under torture, executions without fair trials, [and] reliance on superstitions" are morally acceptable practices. Your implication that he did so argue constitutes original research unless you can cite reliable sources that back up your (mistaken, I think) interpretation of the passage in Mere Christianity.
 * I urge you to read the Wikipedia policies to which I and others have directed you. Deor 00:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I also had an edit conflict, but I'll post anyway. Hopefully our reiterating if what is objectionable will give clearer insight.  To be fair, you have taken it out of the criticism section and instead put it in a new one.  I'm not so sure, however, about a number of things.
 * The details of witch hunts as "bigotry, extractions of confessions under torture, executions without fair trials, reliance on superstitions, and other practices that are considered abominations by our current morality" although accurate (as far as I know), seems to imply that Lewis had these details in his mind when considering the argument about witch hunts. All he's discussing in the quote is "putting witches to death" not other things.
 * The interpretation of the quote that "Lewis defends his thesis by claiming that witch hunts were factually, but not morally, wrong" might need a reword. It seems that he's saying that the lack of witch hunts today doesn't show that we've advanced morally as a society only that we stopped believing in witches.  There are, in my opinion, other reasons to show that we've advanced morally but he's using simple logic to dispute a common claim, not to argue that people were right to kill witches and only wrong in that there weren't actually witches.
 * It's placed in a new section titled "Universal morality" but it currently seems to only showcase something that readers might find objectionable about Lewis's argument.
 * It also might be better placed in the article Mere Christianity, but the other concerns still apply there.

And to clarify this edit has the summary "you need to explain what is uncited." That is improper behavior. If someone disputes your edits and you don't know why, it is disruptive to restore your edits, even if you've started a discussion on the matter. Also, if you know why but disagree with the reasons it can be potentially disruptive as well; please put an emphasis on consensus in your editing behavior. Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  00:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

need to (as per the official Wikipedia policy on original research) cite someone saying that Lewis's statements concerning witchhunts present a challenge to his belief in a universal morality''. '' Well, that's not quite what I said. My quote supports my statement: "For example, one man said to me, Three hundred years ago people in England were putting witches to death. Was that what you call the Rule of Human Nature or Right Conduct?' " Lewis himself said that witch hunts were a challenge to his belief.

Lewis was not arguing that "bigotry, extractions of confessions under torture, executions without fair trials, [and] reliance on superstitions" are morally acceptable practices. Witch hunts involved them. He said that witch hunts were not morally wrong. I'm simply presenting the facts. Verifiability means that I have to provide cites for the claims that I make. It doesn't mean that I have to provide cites for conclusions that readers draw from my claims. There are two possible positions that you can take: either the idea that he was saying that these things were morally okay is a reasonable conclusion, or it's not. If it is a reasonable conclusion, then what's wrong with me allowing readers to draw that conclusion? If it's not a reasonable conclusion, then how can you claim that I am implying it? My words are Lewis's words. If I am implying it, then Lewis is.Heqwm 03:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Once again, the point isn't whether it's a reasonable conclusion or not; the point is that it's an unsourced conclusion. You're claiming that "witch hunts historically involved various immoral practices" plus "Lewis seems to say that witch hunts are not morally wrong" (and you're almost certainly misreading here, as has been explained by others above) equals "Lewis did not think the various immoral practices were morally wrong." This is a violation of WP:SYNTH, which I suggest you read. Deor 11:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

and you're almost certainly misreading here, as has been explained by others above No, I'm not. I've presented an exact quote showing he said that. equals "Lewis did not think the various immoral practices were morally wrong." No, you're the one who's drawing that conclusion.Heqwm 00:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. Can we take these one sentence at a time?


 * 1."One of the main theses in Lewis' apologia is that there is a common morality known throughout humanity, and the universality points to a common source, namely God." Does this need citation? The editor is trying to make a point by starting the paragraph this way and that is why it needs a reference. In other words = original research.


 * 2. "The killing of witches presents a challenge to this idea." This is your unique conclusion which definitely requires a citation from a scholarly source. If I read 2+2=5 someplace, I cannot criticize in wikipedia what appears to be an egregrious error! Some scholar must criticize it first and then, and only then, I may quote him!


 * 3."In Mere Christiany, Lewis defends his thesis by claiming that witch hunts were factually, but not morally, wrong:" You are selectively quoting in order to make a new point = original research. You may not perform new research in Wikipedia. Sorry. We are all severely tempted sometimes, but it is just not allowed. Student7 02:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

1. The book is the cite. The article on MC also has a claim of this nature. Why aren't you asking for a cite?

2. This is not my unique conclusion. As I already said, Lewis himself said that witches were presented as a challenge.

3. Again, I've cited it. But I've deleted the "factually, but not morally, wrong" part just to end this pettiness. I don't see how I am "selectively quoting". He quite clearly is making the claim I say he is making.Heqwm 02:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that hardly any of the claims have cites. For instance:

"His first novel after becoming a Christian was The Pilgrim's Regress, his take on John Bunyan's The Pilgrim's Progress which depicted his own experience with Christianity"

"His Space Trilogy or Ransom Trilogy novels (also called the Cosmic Trilogy) dealt with what Lewis saw as the then-current dehumanizing trends in modern science fiction."

"The books contain many allusions to Christian ideas which are easily accessible to younger readers; however, the books are not weighty, and can be read for their adventure, colour and richness of ideas alone."

How are these statements not original research? Why have you chosen my statements, out of all the statements in the article, to pick on?Heqwm 03:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't want to stop the other editors from cleaning up the article, but the unreferences statements weren't controversial. You did a service by pointing them out, apparently, but up to now, no one has objected to them.
 * Putting together three referenced ideas in a new way is original research IMO. So if I take a statement from Einstein's Theory of Relativity, plus another statement from another of his theses, plus a third statement from yet a third one and claim to prove something that Einstein never set out to prove, that is original research! Someone else, (hopefully someone with a doctorate in physics in that case!) has to have done that first in a published, refereed journal.Student7 11:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Universal morality (take 2)
I took a shot at cleaning up the new Universal Morality section. I attempted to provide some context with proper sources while also incorporating the execution of witches bit (although that part does not seem as noteworthy to me personally). I recognize some weakness in my changes. The first quote by Lewis is essentially his own words for the the paragraph directly preceding the quote. This doesn't read well and may mean that the quote is unnecessary.

Also, the next to last paragraph seems quite forced to me. It is my attempt to give some context for the execution of witches section, and could certainly be improved upon. But I felt that it was necessary to at least briefly describe the text leading upto the quote.

Finally, I realize that it would have been better to discuss such wholesale change to the section here first, but am attempting to avoid a revert war by providing an alternative to simply deleting the section. Perhaps we can all get back to more useful work (like improving my poorly written addition). LloydSommerer 04:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That is an improvement. But now I definitely think it should go in the Mere Christianity article.  Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  06:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure. As it stands, the subsection refers only to Mere Christianity, but the idea it discusses is actually more prominent in The Abolition of Man. Let's see whether Lsommerer's rewrite attracts any objections before we decide what to do with it. Deor 11:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I knew enough about The Abolition of Man to know that it needed to be in there, but I haven't read it, don't have it, didn't have a source on it and I was getting tired and just a little bit cranky. LloydSommerer 21:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Need citation for tutor's insanity
In his memoir Surprised by Joy, written about 50 years after his association with "Oldie", Lewis merely speculates that the man may have been insane, which would account for his habitual flogging and abuse of his students; but Lewis also states that after the collapse of his school Oldie earned his living as a C. of E. clergyman, not that he was confined to an insane asylum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.148.156 (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe he did mention that Oldie had gone insane. Although I don't think he said so in the same sentence, or even chapter, where he mentioned Oldie moving on to become a clergyman. If I recall correctly, Lewis did not, chronologically speaking, know about Oldie's trip to the asylum until much much later, and he does actually record his surprise at that discovery. I'm afraid I cannot give you a page and chapter reference for Surprised by Joy. But The Narnian, and A.N. Wilson's CS Lewis: A Biography both mention it, at least in passing, if you want a crossreference. Alternativity 00:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction: age he became an atheist
In one place, the article states he became an atheist at 15, at another, 13...

Just a "bug report". When I have time, I can follow up, but likely someone can get to it before me.

Bleh, I'm on the wrong computer, don't have my password here. I'm User:Hugovdm. PITA.

--41.245.161.195 09:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent reverts
After a recent revert of an unsourced exaggerated statement of Lewis's current reputation, it was reinserted, now sourced to a C. S. Lewis fansite. This is not an independent source. I have quite a high opinion of Lewis, but it will take a lot more than a fansite to convince me that he "is considered by many to be one of the intellectual giants of the twentieth century and arguably the most influential writer of his day". --Paularblaster 08:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Automatic addition of "class=GA"
A bot has added class=GA to the WikiProject banners on this page, as it's listed as a good article. If you see a mistake, please revert, and leave a note on the bot's talk page. Thanks, BOT Giggabot (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)