Talk:White Witch/Archive 1

Jadis, the White Witch
I'd like to move this article to a new article titled Jadis, the White Witch for two reasons: (1) the term White Witch is not exlusive to this character and (2) Jadis, the White Witch is the convention used by the creators of the new Chronicles of Narnia movie series. For the time being I am placing a disclaimer near the top of this page to indicate the other uses of the term, and I'll wait and see what other people think. &mdash; FJ | hello  05:13, May 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd support moving the page like you described. Starfoxy 00:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I also. D. F. Schmidt (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Go for it, it would be fine with me.HopefullGomer 21:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I am very reluctant to support anything using the rationale that "it's what the movie people are doing". The character and the books predate the movie, have done quite well for over half a century without the movie, and will probably outlive the movie (there were at least two previous versions&mdash;do people remember them?). If there are so many other characters with this name, why aren't they listed at White witch? Anyway, more standard disambiguation would be White Witch (Narnia) or similar. She goes without the name "Jadis" for the entire first book. -Aranel (" Sarah ") 02:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

She's called Jadis in Fenris Ulf's note in LWW. User: Jason A. Staples 01:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Wiktionary links
Is there a policy anywhere for when/where to link to wiktionary? "pique" in the article is linked and I don't see why.

The White Witch is a wonderful character she shoudl not have died. (Sam20045)

I agree that the links to wiktionary are rather too thick. Are there guidelines? Elphion 15:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Changes
I changed the line "could represent a Satanic figure" to "could represent sin ..." for more precision. The witch clearly is more representative of sin, which actually holds the power of death through the Law (written on Tables of Stone) in the New Testament. Satan doesn't actually appear in the LWW and fits more closely with the figure of Tash in later books dealing with the Calormenes. Nolewr 21:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the line "and we can assume that the earlier assumption made [by Mr. Beaver] is the truth" (pertaining to Jadis' being a descendant of Lilith). That seems to be an opinion rather than a fact. One might assume any number of things based on the facts at hand, and it seems that the continuity of the article stands without this assumption. Sylverdin 13:50, 2 October 2006 (MST)

I edited the article to remove many of these speculations, which have no place in an encyclopedia. The Magician's Nephew makes it eminently clear that she is an "ordinary" being (probably human) from Charn. It's understandable that the denizens of Narnia came up with darker antecedents, but rumor in not fact. Elphion 15:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

character templates
can we put a character templates in narnia character articles? i've seen harry potter and others, and maybe narnia deserve to have it as well. HoneyBee 23:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Barbara Kellerman: White Which/Green Lady
Just added in that Barbara Kellerman played the part of both the White Which and the Green Kirtle/Lady, further adding to the similarities between the two characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.217.146 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

removed references template
I read through the article and couldn't find any facts that are not based on the series, so I removed the references template. If I missed something that needs a reference, please post it here. LloydSommerer 03:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Identity of Jadis
While I haven't made any changes yet, I'd like to point out two major inaccuracies: 1. The article asserts that Jadis is dead - however, The Magician's Nephew makes it clear that Jadis is immortal. (as a result of her eating the forbidden fruit). This is further demonstrated in the comment that you "cannot kill a witch" and in the attempted summoning Jadis. 2. Just because the Owl thought she was one of her crew doesn't establish anything, as he was merely a participant in the story, and was not omniscient. Also, there is nothing in any of the books suggesting the existance of any other race/group that posessed magical powers on the level of the Green Lady except Jadis. --Tim4christ17 11:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that being immortal does not necessarily make you indestructable, it just means you live forever. Look at the Elves in Lord of the Rings for instance. Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.131 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. And it is quite clear in The Lion, Witch, and Wardrobe that Aslan destroys her. Elphion 15:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Categories
Does anyone else think that Jadis should be added to the fictional mass murderers and fictional psychopaths categories? Noneofyourbusiness 21:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well she is a mass murderer, no doubt about that, so I added it. Anyone think she qualifies as a pyschopath? Noneofyourbusiness Noneofyourbusiness 14:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I think psychopath is pushing it a bit far, afterall she's a children's fantasy character and it would be somewhat misleading to include her on a list of adult fictional characters who genuinely have psychotic mental illnesses, such as Hannibal Lecter, Norman Bates etc. I think CS Lewis gave her the amoral personality of an Olympian goddess, which predates Christian morality, so therefore she's bad because she wants to be, not because she's got an illness. JJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.46.88 (talk • contribs) 23 June 2006
 * Actually not all psychopaths or sociopaths have a mental illness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.59.139 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually that's exactly what psychopathy and sociopathy are, mental illnesses. Read about it. JJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.6.165 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I was asking because Lord Voldemort is in the category. I read the article on psychopathy, and it says that it's not the same as psychosis. Psychopaths are bad because they want to be, and don't understand why other people tell them their actions are wrong. (By the way, the unsigned comment "Actually not all psychopaths or socipaths have a mental illness" is by me, but I was not using a sock puppet, I was using another computer while on vacation. I didn't want to log in with my user name because it was a hotel computer and I didn't want any other users to be able to log in as Noneofyourbusiness. I know that you can choose not to have the computer "remember" your user name after you leave, but I've been taught to be extremely cautious about these things.) Noneofyourbusiness 14:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Never mind, it's too much to say that she's psychopathic. With Voldemort, whose personal history we've seen, it's far clearer. Noneofyourbusiness 18:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I quite agree, and I would like to add that I do know that psychosis and psychopathy are different, but they are still both mental illnesses! I suppose Jadis could be described as a sociopath because of her antisocial and amoral behaviour, but that's a very modern way of analysing her, and I think CS Lewis's point is not that she is mad, but that she is wicked by choice and by nature. She's far too in control to be a psychopath. JJ

Does Jadis's character exhibit enough of the criteria to be concidered a psychopath or a sociopath? There is MUCH more to either of these disorders than simply being amoral. Further, psychopathy is neither a compulsive disorder nor a cognitive disorder, although it is a personality disorder. The criteria defining a psychopath are thus: 1)Superficial charm and average or above average intelligence, 2)Absense of delusions and other signs of irrational thinking, 3)Absense of nervousness or other neurotic manefestations, 4)Unreliability, 5)Untruthfulness and insencerity, 6)Lack of remorse or shame, 7)Antisocial behavior without apparent compunction, 8)Poor judgement and failure to learn from experience, 9)Pathological egocentricity and incapacity to love, 10)General poverty in major affective reactions (flat affect), 11)Specific loss of insight, 12)Unresponsiveness in general interpersonal relations, 13)Fantastic and uninviting behavior with drink and sometimes without, 14)Suicide threats rarely carried out, 15)Sex life impersonal trivial and poorly integrated, and 16)Failure to follow any life plan. It seems as though her personality should be evaluated to see if she does in fact fit enough of these criteria.--69.205.162.179 03:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

She does certainly seem to fit in a few. For instance, superficial charm, average and above intelligence, absence of delusions and other signs of irrational thinking, absence of nervousness or other neurotic disorders, antisocial behavior without apparent compunction, pathological egocentricity and inability to love, suicide threats rarely [in her case never] carried out. However it also says that psychopaths have poor judgement and failure to learn from experience which I think is arguable in her case, general poverty in major effective reactions [she does have a fiery temper], fantastic and uninviting behaviour with drink and sometimes without [I don't even know what that means], it also mentions sex life [Jadis doesn't seem to have a sex life] and it finally says failure to follow any life plan. Her life plan appears to be to conquer the universe and boss everyone in it around. Not a very good life plan but a life plan nonetheless. The scene in London in The Magicians Nephew and the battle scene in the film seem to suggest she is sexually excited by violence. In the film and the book of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe she does seem to get a bit turned on during the scene in which she kills Aslan. For the above reasons I believe she does belong in the category of Fictional psychopaths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.131 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC) Further on the subject of categories I fail to see why she was removed from the category of Fictional personifications of evil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.99.186 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC) Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.131 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Geez, people; get a life. Elphion 15:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

We have lives. We're just taking the article seriously. That's one of the major problems with this article. The people who work on the articles for inferior fictional villains such as Lord Voldemort and Ganon take their articles seriously but nobody seems to for for this one. Furthermore on the subject of psychopathy there is a correlation between psychopathy and Narcissistic Personality Disorder which Jadis also exhibits behaviour consistent with. 86.133.200.236 (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Her Image
I think there should be an image of Jadis higher up on the page, so that you see her as soon as you access the page. Otherwise, it makes this article look a bit like a stub on first appearances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.46.88 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Can someone sort this out? JJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.40.252 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Noneofyourbusiness 01:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! That's a great picture of Tilda. Is everyone happy with that image as Jadis's main image? After all, perhaps Tilda doesn't represent everyone's definitive image of The White Witch. JJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.88.194 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 9 July 200 (UTC)

I don't like it. I think an older image is more appropriate. Smacks to much of advertising for the movie. Flying Bishop 9:14, 12 July 2006
 * True, but you have to admit the majority of people would find Tilda the most recognisable depiction of the White Witch. It's not like Catwoman where a million actresses have played her, and I'd much prefer an image of Tilda Swinton than Barbara Kellerman lol! But perhaps a Jadis illustration or painting would be less commercial; only trouble is there aren't that many good ones around! JJ [[unsigned|80.43.62.100|20:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)}}

I like it Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.131 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fictional personifications of evil
Just out of curiosity who keeps removing Jadis from the category of Fictional personifications of evil. Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.131 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoever it is, please stop it. Anon - 10:20, 15 October 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.131 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

That's been me and a little User:Interrobamf. Jadis is never stated to be evil herself, she is not, per se, the "essence" of evil. If you'd like to argue otherwise, please discuss it here, on the talk page, as the comment which you keep removing is telling you to do. Otherwise, we can leave it as it is. --Fbv65 e del / &#9745;t / &#9755;c || 21:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I apologise for any offence I may have unintentionally caused in the course of my actions but Jadis is definately evil as she has been referred to as the greatest evil in Narnia. She may not consider herself evil as she regards herself above such concepts as good and evil which are in her opinion petty. She was still the person who introduced evil into Narnia and has no conscience or concern for others. Therefore in my opinion she does belong in that category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.131 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for coming here and discussing this. I like your argument very much and you've changed my mind about this whole matter, especially with your statement: "she was still the person who introduced evil into Narnia;" she was indeed the first evil brought into the land. Thanks for handling this well, and now I will go change the article. --Fbv65 e del / &#9745;t / &#9755;c || 22:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thank you. I'm glad to have been of help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.131 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Have we agreed to install Jadis into the category of Fictional psychopaths yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.13 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I would hardly classify her as a "madwoman" or "loony" as my thesaurus suggests. Sure, she's obsessed with the violence at times, but she doesn't have any sort of chronic mental disorder. However, we can of course discuss this… --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 02:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. There was a debate about that further up this page and I [under the name Anon] installed a few comments. Remember that while psychopathy is a mental disorder some psychopaths aren't that crazy, or at least not overtly or obviously insane. Of course as you say it is open to debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.131 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * To tell you the truth, I don't know too much about psychopathy. So, I'd ask another regular editor of this page. Perhaps User:Lsommerer; tell him I suggested you ask him. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 23:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest installing Jadis into the category of characters with superhuman strength? She definately belongs in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.113.94 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I would accept this, and I don't think it's unreasonable to think that others would agree. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 23:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes Jadis certainly has superhuman strength. However, she definitely does not belong in the psychopath category as there has never been any statement by CS Lewis (creator of The White Witch character), that says she has any psychological disorder or psychopathy. If it hasn't been said by him then it is just speculation that cannot, for the sake of reason, be presented as fact. 80.43.60.129 19:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but it's patently obvious that she is. CS Lewis isn't going to include the word psychopath in a book that he specifies is for children is he. However there are strong hints. For instance she seems to be extremely excited by violence, one might even say turned on. Examples include her battle with the police in The Magicians Nephew "Her voice raised and her eyes flashed as though for once she was almost happy." [or something like that] and her murder of Aslan in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. "Her face was working and twitching with passion..." You have a point but one must take this things into account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.131 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Firstly, Psychopathy is a condition of the human mind. Is the White Witch human? "There's not a drop of real human blood in the White Witch". Point made. How do you know her wickedness and violence aren't part of the demonic creatures she originates from? She's meant to be half Jinn, right? Evil genies that trick people into making wishes and then turn their wishes into nightmares. Would you call an evil genie a psychopath? No, it's a fantasy character. Would you call the Big Bad Wolf a psychopath? Would you call Aphrodite, Artemis or Athena psychopaths (after all they did kill mortals)? You are over-analysing and judging the White Witch by the wrong standards. The White Witch belongs to a fantasy archetype of evil higher and greater than the modern "psychopath". How ridiculous would it be to diagnose the Wicked Witch of the West as a psychopath? If C.S. Lewis had given any credence to your point by making some mention of her having a mental illness then perhaps I could understand, but it is highly unlikely he even considered this when he created her, let alone the fact that he never mentions it, so it's too much of an assumption to make. No matter how great you think the hints are, they are too subjective, presumptuous and unprovable, and so cannot be stated as fact. 80.47.155.169 00:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, alright, I stand down. I was just thinking despite being of demonic origins and having an extraordinarily long lifespan Jadis was originally mortal [although she did eventually become a demi-goddess] so her mind was probably susceptible to mental problems. Nevertheless you're probably right. Do you think we should put her in the category of Fictional sociopaths though? After all you don't need a mental condition to be a sociopath. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.147.212 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't really know how I'd distinguish sociopathic from psychopathic in Jadis's case, but I would research it a bit before you do. Jadis never was mortal or human however, she's always been non-human, as her race is descended from giants and Jinn, which gives her species unhuman height and magical powers from birth. I think in CS Lewis's Narnian world you can only be human if you descend from Adam and Eve, whereas Jadis descends from Lilith, Adam's first wife who was cast out from Paradise and turned into a demoness. 80.47.162.46 23:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I know all that about Lilith, I'm a theologist, it's one of the reasons I like the Chronicles. I didn't say Jadis was human I just said she was mortal [i.e. she would eventually die], that's why she ate the apple, to become immortal. Sociopath just means someone who hates everyone and/or doesn't care about anyone but themself. It's similar to a psychopath but not a mental problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.106.41 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but to be mortal doesn't mean she has a human's mind. Anyway enough about that! Now with this sociopath business, I would say she could possibly be described as a sociopath (i.e. amoral, misanthropic, unempathetic etc.) 80.47.163.61 16:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Splendid. Shall we put her in then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.240.244 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous Categories
The White Witch has been put under so many categories that are tenuously and ridiculously linked to her! Do you guys get commission or something by the amount of categories you can link her to? Television villains? Fictional demons? Fictional giants? Fictional hybrids? Fictional military personnel? Fictional mass murderers?! How utterly absurd! 80.47.136.58 00:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, sorry but she does fit into a lot of categories. She is after all a television villain, and is a fictional demon as she is uh demonic, being descended from the demoness Lillith, she is descended from giants and could therefore be classed as a giant, she is hybrid because she is part Jinn, she commands an army and is therefore, military personnel and she is a mass murderer because she has murdered masses and to go with all this she is in fact fictional. Who's utterly absurd now?/!

Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.240.105 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You still, unfortunately. All that is pathetically tenuous and made no more convincing by your attempt to argue the logic of it. A demon? Nope sorry, CS Lewis never said anything about her being a demon, only a witch distantly descended from a Judaic figure called Lilith (notice the absence of any mention of green wings, red eyes or the quintessential clawed feet, and no direct link in the text between the White Witch and the 'D' word for certification). Fictional hybrid maybe, but if she's a hybrid then she's hardly a giant as well, is she? A proper one, 20 foot tall? Is she ever referred to as such? Gosh, I guess not. Military personnel? Yeah, like the Wicked Witch of the West is military personnel because she commands a squadron of flying monkeys! And a mass murderer? Yeah, you're absolutely right - just like Hannibal Lecture, she is! Hannibal's mass of victims all get brought back to life by the breath of a magic Lion too you know, undoing any possibility of it being considered 'mass murder' to anyone except those with melodramatic minds. But perhaps that's just my misinterpretation? And as for all her compatriots back in Charn - well Zeus killed all the Titans but he's not considered a mass-murderer, is he? Buffy! She's a mass-murderess too then - and the Charmed sisters - killing all those perfectly healthy demons. Or, or ... is it all starting to sound just a little bit "ridiculous"? "Utterly absurd", perhaps? Point made. 80.47.180.150 02:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I have to disagree with you. She's a half-giant half-jinn, so that's fictional giants, fictional demons, and fictional hybrids right there. She's in fictional military personnel because she's personally fought in battle, not merely commanded troops. The people of Charn were innocents for the most part, so wiping them all out at once with the Deplorable Word is mass murder. None of this is absurd. -- 04:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noneofyourbusiness (talk • contribs)

Exactly. One of the arguments these people are particularly fond of throwing at us regarding categories applied to the Witch is that the Wicked Witch of the West is in none of them. Well the Wicked Witch of the West is a more whimsical character, akin to fairytales whereas Jadis is more similar to Sauron being of a more serious ilk of fantasy fiction than the Wizard of Oz. Might I also add that not all Demons have green wings, red eyes and clawed feet. A lot of them have a fair and pleasing appearence being fallen angels. As for Zeus's defeat of the Titans and Buffy's vanquishing of demons; they are not examples of murder! They were done in self defence. The Titans were tyrannical and the demons in Buffy the Vampire Slayer were evil. The White Witch an d Hannibal killed lots of innocent people making them mass murderers.

Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.181 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Rubbish. Sorry, excuse me - but isn't that stuff about the Wicked Witch of the West being a more whimsical fairytale character completely down to personal point of view? That's certainly not the view I share. The White Witch was borne out of CS Lewis's imagination heavily influenced by fairytales too you know! (the Snow Queen springs to mind!) Maybe Tilda Swinton's portrayal was more serious, but as far as the novel is concerned the White Witch is just as flamboyantly and eccentricly evil as the Wicked Westerly Witch - cackling, shrieking and "picking up her skirts and running for her life" as all good witches do! And it's already quite clear that because all the White Witch's victims who were turned to stone get brought back to life (and weren't ever really dead anyway, just petrified) that doesn't count as mass murder (only to the hysterical). Oh, but what about the mass-murder of her people using the deplorable word? Well, that would be true if the Charn people were humans, or at least innocents, but then here comes the snag! - If the Witch's race of people back in Charn are descended from Lilith and therefore have "demonic" genes as you claimed earlier, they are hardly innocents, are they? If they're anything like Jadis then they're just as superhuman and amoral, but she just turned out to be the most ruthless out of the lot and killed them all (just like Zeus), but that hardly puts her in the same category as Hannibal Lecture and Leatherface! She should not be in the demon category because the link between her and Lilith, and then Lilith and Jinn, and then Jinn and demons, is tenuous at best. Regardless of Lilith being a demoness, if my great great great grandmother was black, and the rest of my subsequent ancestry was Chinese or something, could I go around calling myself black just for the sake of my ancestress? Don't think so. So really your arguments just keep falling apart, but that's what happens when you try to climb mountains made of molehills. Perhaps the White Witch could be put in the category for "Fictional Characters Who Wear Shoes", because I assume she wears them. Or what about "Fictional Confectioners", as she offers Edmund some sweets? 80.47.174.51 17:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Charn was indeed full of innocent people. Commoners, slaves, etc., all minding their own business. Even Jadis' royal family didn't start out evil, they became corrupt over the generations. The categories, fictional giants and fictional demons are necessary because it must be noted not only that she's a hybrid but also what she's a hybrid of: giant and jinn (classed as demons on the Demon page of Wikipedia). Other half-giants in fiction, such as Rubeus Hagrid and Olympe Maxime, are also in the fictional giants category, as is the Half-giant page itself. -- Noneofyourbusiness 18:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

And besides, there isn't a page for Fictional people who wear shoes. Or Fictional confectioners for that matter. Not that I know of anyway. And I'll have you know the Snow Queen wasn't the only influence for the White Witch. Jadis was also largely based on Ayesha, hardly a Wicked Witch of the West persona. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.240.138 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, but it's of no consequence. The Wicked Witch of the West and the White Witch belong to precisely the same genre - children's fantasy villainesses - so they're more than comparable. Now back to giants. The problem with justifying Jadis with Hagrid and Maxime is that they are direct children of giants: Hagrid's mother was a giant and Madame Maxime's parents were both giants, so they are both direct second generation giants and half-giants; but Jadis's parents were hybrids themselves! The giant and Jinn family members are way off in the annuls of the Charn royal family's genealogy, and like I said, a distant black great great great grandmother wouldn't make me black myself. An American with a Dutch grandfather doesn't call himself a Dutchman does he? But this is only one of the issues that need justification. As far as I'm aware, the people of Charn, even the commoners and whatever, are all the same race as the Royal family (half-Giant, half-Jinn), so they are not a virtuous or innocent race - they all live by different, unhuman and even un-Christian morals and behaviour, so they're not a million miles away from the beings Buffy and Xena kill but avoid being labelled "mass murderers" (pleae note, the fact Xena and Buffy are goodies is irrelevant, we're talking about actions, not motives!). But let's come outside the text for a moment and think of the bigger picture. Is it rational for supposedly sane adults to describe a children's fantasy villainess as a mass-murderer? That's why I use the Wicked Witch of the West paradigm - to highlight how silly, ridiculous and absurd it is to put such severe labels on children's fantasy characters, especially when they are so tenuously linked! Maybe the White Witch should be added to the "Fictional Clowns" category as well, as she has white skin and a red mouth? Or what about the "Fictional Heroes" category? After all, she did save Diggory and Polly from Charn when it was collapsing - a truly heroic act indeed. So why doesn't that get her on the "Fictional Heroes" list? I'll tell you - because of all the things she's done it's too bloody insignificant to use to categorise her, like so many of the other things you emphasise! 80.47.24.39 19:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Being half-giant and half-Jinn doesn't mean they inherently live by un-Christian morals and behavior. As I already said, even the royal family didn't use to. And comparing nationality to species is tenuous. None of these categories are tenuously linked to the character. -- Noneofyourbusiness 20:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And as I have stated, The Chronicles of Narnia are a much more serious series than The Wizard of Oz and Jadis is a much more ruthless adversary than the Wicked Witch of the West who never actually kills anyone or does any lasting damage. And besides she only rescued Diggory and Polly so she could use them. Oh and on an insignificant note, I'm technically not an adult, I'm fifteen.

Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.51 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Aha! That explains a lot! In response to Noneofyourbusiness's comments - it's not me who suggests the half-Jinn half-Giant Charn-folk are inherently un-Christian in morals or behaviour, it's Lewis himself, so take that up with him. It's not that they're necessarily evil, but he portrays them as mythical and pre-Christian, especially since they are descended from Lilith instead of Eve (in Lewis's world, only Adam and Eve descendants are true humans (and therefore, Christians)). So they can't be called innocents or compared to a mass of humans Jadis has murdered with a machine gun! Back to the 15-year-old, well you just proved my point didn't you? Jadis only rescues Diggory and Polly so she can use them, it's an insignificant act that cannot define her entire personality and put her in the Fictional Heroes category, which is why she isn't categorised as such. So why should the fact her ancestress is, in some sources (but not by Lewis), referred to as a demoness make Jadis a bona fide demon herself? Is she ever referred to as a demon? No. A witch, a queen, an empress, a sorceress, a superhuman, even a half-giant (but not full giant!), and definitely not a bona fide demon. She leads an army, she fights on the battlefield, but that's not significant enough to call her military personnel! Is Peter or Edmund or even Lucy or Susan categorised as military personnel? After all, they commanded an army and fought in battle too! But no, because it's ridiculous to include them in such a category. The fact Jadis cast a few spells and turned some animals to stone (who were then resurrected) hardly warrants the term "mass-murder"! But I'm fed up of going over this now - I have not only made a statement, but have conclusively proved that many of the categories the White Witch has been placed under are tenuously linked to her and are therefore ridiculously absurd and irrelevant to the character. I'm still waiting for any such conclusive arguments from you in favour of this absurdity that equals mine against. 80.47.137.19 02:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you haven't conclusively proven anything of the sort. -- Noneofyourbusiness 03:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Another thing for the cheeky bugger to consider is that whilst the Jinn may have been Demons, with the exception of her sister, they weren't actually doing anything to Jadis who wiped them all out just because she didn't want to suffer being ruled over by her sibling. Also the Wicked Witch of the West never actually kills anyone. If she had done she might be in Fictional mass murderers.

Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.188 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, it is recommended if someone intends to win an argument they don't resort to petty name-calling - it just makes you look like your losing. Secondly, I think you're right, I haven't conclusively proved anything - you've done it for me! You're wondering off into the realms of cuckoo land; for instance, did I ever say anything about the Wicked Witch of the West being a mass-murderer? Hmmm, no actually. I asked if she could be considered military personnel because she commands a squadron of flying monkeys? That has nothing to do with her being more whimsical or "less serious" (*snigger*) than the White Witch, it just proves my point of how ridiculous it is to take children's characters so seriously as to brand them "mass-murderers" because they cast a spell or two, or military personnel because they command a group of flying monsters! But clearly this sensible logic is too elusive for some. I have raised so many counterpoints you haven't even attempted to justify, quite frankly because you can't and expect to be taken seriously. Face it, only loony-toon superfans would agree with you, whilst the rest of us in the real world would just laugh and suggest you have a cup of tea and a lie-down. 80.47.151.98 16:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That was juvenile, I apologise. Anyway, the fact that the Wicked Witch of the West commands a squadron of flying monkeys does not make her military personal as the squadron of flying monkeys are not military. The White Witch commands an army of evil creatures with ranks such as "General" who fight with military tactics rather than just going crazy. And as I have specified but you seem to ignore me, the White Witch did not just cast "a spell or two", she wipes out an entire species, namely the Jinn. And before you say that couldn't be considered mass murder because they were evil demons, might I just say that they weren't all evil, nor were they doing anything to her. Her sister had defeated her in a battle sure but that doesn't mean Jadis's entire race were out to get her. So much for your so called sensible logic. Also if you point out some counterpoints which I have failed to attempt to justify I would be glad to tick them off one by one. Finally might I add I prefer coffee to tea.

Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.106.50 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no response. Looks like, we win, Noneofyourbusiness.

Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.240.106 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You know what, it was so predictable you'd say something childish like that, I was almost waiting until you did lol! But please remember, some of us do actually have lives which mean we cannot sit in front of our computers 24 hours a day (you should have seen that jibe coming! lol), so forgive me if I'm not as ... available as you are. Anyway, I have literally said everything I need to say, made my points crystal clear (no tag partners required) and pointed out the complete absurdity of putting the White Witch into every category under the sun purely because there is a tenuously vague link to it - what more is there to say? If you can't accept it then you can't accept it, but it's all there in black and white for you to read again and again if it helps (just scroll up). I'm sure you're also aware that you're not the only one who governs this article and who can take action on what to preserve and what to delete, or perhaps being such a superfan of Jadis has gone to your head and given you delusions of grandeur? lol. It's all that coffee! I really do recommend tea instead! 80.47.141.30 02:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ouch. Yes, I suppose I should have seen that one coming. I am perfectly aware that I am not the only one who governs this article, the only reason I may appear belligerant is because I feel like I'm being attacked. Also I haven't had much to do the past few days and I enjoy our little skermishes of wit so I've been quite eagerly awaiting your response. Might I further add that I am not a superfan of Jadis, I merely consider her an interesting character. I apologise if I have caused any offence but you must expect others to argue their case with the same ferocity you do. Merely point out the categories you don't think she should be in and we'll calmly discuss why she should or shouldn't before coming to a final solution on it. And yes, tea's very nice as well.

Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.167 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I bear no malice towards you, 80.47.141.30, but so far you have yet to make any convincing or conclusive arguments. I am still quite certain that all the categories the White Witch is in are completely appropriate and not tenuously linked to the character. -- Noneofyourbusiness 15:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I was never attacking anyone personally when I started this discussion, and though you argued in favour of them you never confirmed that it was actually you who put her in all those categories, so I didn't expect you to feel personally insulted. Anyway, my purpose was to make my point of view known, which I have backed up with plenty of good reason, and I have pointed out the categories I don't think she belongs in so many times I've started to get bored of repeating myself! However, I never (and still don't) expect anything to actually change; this site is far too capricious for that. The Jadis article could stay the way it is, or it could be completely rewritten in a few months time with none of its original features, so there's not really any point fighting for change now when it could all be undone in just a matter of time. As long as you all know what I think and that I really don't agree with you then that's good enough for me! But you've still not said if, hypothetically speaking, there was a category for "Fictional Confectioners", you would put the White Witch on the list simply because she produced some sweeties for Edmund? It hardly makes her Willy Wonka, but something tells me you still would lol 80.47.176.100 15:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I doubt it. Producing sweets by magic is not being a confectioner. The current categories *do* fit. And you haven't backed up your arguments with good reason, I'm afraid. Each of your points has been lacking in substance and has been countered. Thanks for pointing out that Peter and Edmund aren't in fictional military personnel, though. They should be added to it. -- Noneofyourbusiness 16:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't actually me who put her in all those categories. I put her in Fictional military personel, that's all. From what I gather (although you have been quite vague) you don't think she should be in Fictional demons, Fictional military personel or Fictional mass murderers. As for the Fictional confectioners category, I agree with Noneofyourbusiness who by the way needn't bother adding Peter, Suzan, Lucy and Edmund to the Fictional military personel category, I've already done it. Might I further add that being descended from a demoness is not a tenuously vague excuse to put the Witch in Fictional demons, nor leading an army a tenuously vague link to Fictional military personel. Having wiped out one's entire species purely for the sake of a throne certainly isn't a tenuous excuse to install her into Fictional mass murderers either. If you would argue otherwise please do.

Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.240.146 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Susan might need to be removed from that category, since she doesn't really fight in the Battle of Beruna. Neither does Lucy, but she does march with the army in "The Horse and His Boy". -- Noneofyourbusiness 16:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.242.35 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Extraneous Categories
I created another heading because I don't think the following categories are ridiculous. They are however extraneous and unnecessary, regardless of whether or not she technically could be placed in them. If you disagree with any of my logic feel free to debate it at your leisure, however for now I have removed this article from the following categories:

Fictional magic users: She is a fictional witch, and is already in the Fictional witches category. Fictional witches is a subcategory of Fictional magic users and you do not usually put an article into a category and its subcategory at the same time.

Fictional demons: She is not a demon. She may be a descendant of a demon, and in fact may be half demon (which is only known due to an assertion from someone who couldn't possibly have had direct knowledge of her ancestry anyway), but she is not a demon in her own right, she's a witch. There are a whole bunch of fictional magic users whose powers are derived from demonic heritage who are not themselves demons, not least of which is Merlin, who is traditionally the son of an incubus and a mortal woman, not vaguely established to be descended from a race of half-demons. I have never heard him called a demon.

Fictional dictators: She's already a queen and an empress, both of which are titles implying autocratic rule. Putting every single autocratic queen or king into the dictator category would render it completely useless.

Fictional military personnel: A king or queen is automatically assumed to be the supreme military leader of their respective nation. The mere fact that she decides to take a more active role in the leadership of her forces than many queens does not justify separate categorization as military personnel. Typically kings and queens who go into battle as such are not separately categorized in this manner.

In conclusion, I would like to point you to WP:CAT; specifically to items 2 and 4 of the general guidelines. Going overboard with unnecessary categories does nothing but decrease the usefulness of categories in general. (I'm not sure I agree with the remainder of the categories, but the ones I removed are by far the most obvious and I'm going to wait for the fallout from this before deciding whether or not to remove any more.) --DarthVader1219 05:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I see your points. Thank you for going about this maturely and sensibly (I'm not saying anything about your predecessor). I think you're right about Fictional magic-users and Fictional military personel but I disagree with you about Fictional dictators as not all Kings and Queens are dictators. Look at Peter, Suzan, Lucy and Edmund. That would be like saying Palpatine didn't belong in the category of Fictional dictators because he's already in the category of Fictional emperors and empresses. Jadis is a tyrant who assumes sole power over the state (maybe in the case of Narnia it would be better saying kingdom) and kills anyone who opposes her, making her a dictator. I'm not entirely sure about Fictional demons but I'll get back to you on that one.

Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.104.249 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There are is a key difference between Palpatine and the White Witch. First and foremost, the White Witch is a queen in a country that was traditionally a monarchy. She had total and complete power, but that was traditional for the country in which she ruled. The only difference between her and the kings and queens that came before her was the manner in which she ruled. Those who came before, and after, had just as much autocratic power as she did. Peter, Susan, Lucy, and Edmund had advisers and other appointed helpers in their government, but in reality their power was as absolute as hers and their authority as unquestioned. In fact, they had even greater power over the populace than she did because the people liked them. The difference between her and them is that she obtained and maintained her throne by means of violence. This is typical of many fictional and real kings and queens of monarchies. It is quite a common practice for a king to take power through violence and rule as a despot. The kings and queens of medieval countries who ruled in this manner and the Emperors of Rome who ruled in this manner are not in Category:Dictators.

Palpatine, on the other hand, assumed power over a government that had been in the past a democracy, and made himself its autocratic head, even though he kept the democracy as a puppet government for a while. This is the typical manner in which a dictator takes control of a government. He only called himself "emperor" after he was in control because it sounded cooler. This is completely different from someone who either inherits or takes control of an empire or monarchy and rules like a despot. --DarthVader1219 00:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, your theory is impressive but it seems to me there are a few holes in it. The White Witch ruled in the same way as the Emperor Nero or Julius Caesar both of whom are thought of as dictators. William the Conqueror is the quintessencial dictator and took power of Britain through violence and ruled as a despot, the same way as Jadis did. As for Fictional demons, Jadis was a Jinn, a creature widely thought of as being demonic.

Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.71 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, Jadis usurped the throne of a country which she had no lawful claim to. -- Noneofyourbusiness 04:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly.

Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.102 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Finally, someone has got you to see sense, anon. Extraneous (or tenuous) categories do indeed jeopardise the credibility of an article. Jadis shouldn't be in Fictional Military Personnel because military personnel is defined as "a serviceman/woman in the armed forces". It is therefore inappropriate to describe Jadis, being the commander of a makeshift army of monsters and demons, as a servicewoman in the armed forces. She should not be in the fictional demons category becuase she is never described as a demon herself. It is mentioned her ancestry is half Jinn (beings from the Quran, and any Muslim will tell you a Jinn is a supernatural being not necessarily evil, but some of them are malevolent, and therefore might be likened to demons). But if, as noneofyourbusiness said earlier, the people of Charn weren't innately evil, it is then unfair to assume the Jinn in there blood is demonic, only supernatural. Plus the fact that Lilith is a distant ancestor of hers only dissociates her from demons even further. I can't say I have a problem with the "Fictional Dictators" category though, as my understanding was that though she is a queen and an empress etc, she is not a benevolent monarch, she is dictatorial, so I thought it was ok that she was in the dictators category. But I don't think it's essential, so if you want to change it that's ok by me. 80.47.163.68 16:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

And finally someone has gotten you to see sense 80.47.163.68. I personally do believe she belongs in the category of Fictional demons but if it's going to upset people then we might as well leave her out of it. Fictional dictators though, gotta go in.

Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.240.225 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but while "demon" often means an evil spirit or supernatural creature, it can simply mean a spirit or supernatural creature, like a Jinn. A number of the other fictional demons, particularly the half-demons, aren't inherently evil either. -- Noneofyourbusiness 00:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, good point.

Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.240.216 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * But since she is only distantly associated with anything that could be considered demonic in the first place (and even that is subjective), and is never actually called a demon herself, it is not enough to put her in the Fictional Demons category (regardless of demons being "good" or "evil"). If CS Lewis had used the word "demon" to describe her then that might give you some evidence to suggest that he considered her a demon himself, but since there isn't even that, there is no other reason, besides the opinion of two people, that verifies she is a demon. Resting on that, it's only fair she isn't included in the category. If CS Lewis didn't say it then you can't use your own interpretations as fact. 80.47.130.221 20:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Evil or not, supernatural or not, she isn't a demon. She's only half-jinn, and as I've already pointed out there are various examples of other notable fictional characters, such as Merlin, who are never classified as demons yet have significant amounts of demonic ancestry. If this is going to be an issue I can come up with a bunch more examples than just him. Regardless, to call her a demon in spite of the lack of any substantive evidence is from what I can see a violation of WP:NOR. DarthVader1219 09:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Inclusion in the category doesn't mean that she's a full demon. Her jinn half has to be represented in categorization. -- Noneofyourbusiness 15:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It's only a minor aspect of her characterisation, not critically important to the novels, only background information. It's enough to mention it in the article itself, not put her in a category for it which then provokes so much dubiousness. 80.47.16.134 20:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a half-demon subcategory could be created. Dante, Vergil, Blaze, and Satanus would also go there, and probably others. -- Noneofyourbusiness 20:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It isn't Category:Fictional characters of demonic heritage. It is Category:Fictional demons. Demon implies full-on demon, the category page description itself says "Demons that appear in fiction", and in my opinion the White Witch is in no way a demon any more than a mule is a donkey because it is half-donkey. If you want to create a half-demon subcategory than I would have no problem with your including her.- Dycedarg &#x0436; 06:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC) (Just for clarification, I am the user formerly known as DarthVader1219. I just got my username changed.)
 * Okay, I think I'll do so (but not right now). -- Noneofyourbusiness 15:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Just so you all know; those arseholes have deleted the category of Fictional narcissists. Oh well, there's one less category to worry about.

Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.240.85 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 27 January 200 (UTC)


 * That's horrible! People are getting category deletion-happy around here, deleting meaningful category after meaningful category. What gives? -- Noneofyourbusiness 01:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't really disagree with the reasons given in the debate. They're right that it is difficult to come up with exacting criteria for it, but I don't think it was impossible. The real problem with categories like that is that the criteria are vague enough that any ignorant person could go putting any number of people who sort of fit them into it. This just makes it hard to make sure that the category only contains the people it needs to. The category I don't agree with the recent deletion of was Category: Television villains. Apparently the definition for "villain" is so vague that to definitively declare anyone a villain is OR, and that's just crap. Villainy isn't this murky, vaguely defined concept. You either are one or you aren't. There are some characters who are difficult to call either a villain or hero, but I don't agree with the elimination of categories on the basis that the standards might be difficult to establish sometimes, only if they're always that way. If they're not clearly a villain than just don't have them in the category. If you disagree with the recent rampant category deletions I would recommend paying more attention to CFD, sometimes I think the only people who pay any attention to it want to delete categories.-- Dycedarg &#x0436; 01:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The White Bitch of Gnarnia
I never thought another actress would be added to the list of portrayals of Jadis until they remade The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe movie in 20 years time (or if they changed the actress to play her in the upcoming Magician's Nephew film), but now there is an American spoof comedy film called Epic Movie which features a parody of The White Witch, interestingly named the White Bitch of Gnarnia (lol), and played by Jennifer Coolidge. Technically it could be added to Jadis's Portrayals, but should it? 80.47.148.14 01:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, considering I'm so totally appalled by this film, I'd rather not voice my opinion, as it would not be neutral. It's not quite a portrayal of her, but a spoof, so… I'd rather sit this one out. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 03:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it qualifies as a portrayal. It is, as FbV pointed out, a spoof, and should be mentioned in another section of pop culture references or something.-- Dycedarg &#x0436; 05:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I tried to add a Pop culture section but someone removed it.

Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.240.234 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not surprised, as most of its contents seems quite inappropriate to me! I don't really think Eastenders warrants mentioning in the White Witch article (especially for such a vague reference), nor that the rock band Jadis "probably" have got their name from her. "Probably" isn't really good enough to present as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.36.152 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose.

Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.101.182 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)