Talk:The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

message: My friend and I plan to create a themes section within the article that will be split into two topics. One will focus on themes of religion throughout the novel, and the other will focus on themes of politics and The Cold War. Here are the citations of some possible sources we may use in our editing process: 
Possible sources:
* Russell, James. "Narnia as a Site of National Struggle: Marketing, Christianity, and National Purpose in The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe." Cinema Journal, vol. 48 no. 4, 2009, pp. 59-76. Project MUSE, doi:10.1353/cj.0.0145
* Chapman, Roger. "The Lion, the Witch and the Cold War: Political Meanings in the Religious Writings of C.S. Lewis1." Journal of Religion and Popular Culture 24.1 (2012): 1-14. ProQuest. W"Communist Spy Jailed for 14 Years." BBC News. BBC, 01 Mar. 1950. Web.
* Ezard, John. "Narnia Books Attacked as Racist and Sexist." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 03 June 2002. Web.
* Leith, Sam. "CS Lewis's Literary Legacy: 'dodgy and Unpleasant' or 'exceptionally Good'?" The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 19 Nov. 2013. Web.
* Lindskoog, Kathryn Ann. "Article by Kathryn Ann Lindskoog." Contemporary Literary Criticism, edited by Jean C. Stine and Bridget Broderick, vol. 27, Gale, 1984. Contemporary Literary Criticism Online. Accessed 16 Oct. 2017. Originally published in The Lion of Judah in Never-Never Land: The Theology of C S Lewis Expressed in His Fantasies for Children, by Kathryn Ann Lindskoog, Eerdmans, 1974.
* Schakel, Peter J. "Hidden Images of Christ in the Fiction of C. S. Lewis." Studies in the Literary Imagination, vol. 46, no. 2, 2013, pp. 1-18. 
* Team, Novelguide. “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe: Theme Analysis.” Novelguide, Novelguide.com, www.novelguide.com/the-lion-the-witch-the-wardrobe/theme-analysis
  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demetrarain (talk • contribs) 21:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a good plan of attack. I'm noticing some sources are older and some are contemporary. Keep this in mind as you write; it could be worth commenting on, the way in which critics read the book differently over time. You might also look for more sources to fill in any "gap" years. And I'm a bit skeptical of your final source. It might be a good frame of reference for you, but I don't know that it counts as a verifiable source. Aschuet1 (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  So far the Cold War section has only one source, seems tendentious, and – though I'd have to look this up – also seems out of line with what Lewis is known to have written about politics.  (Maugrim as Gestapo / Stalinist police?  Perfectly plausible.  Aslan as the US?  Not so much.) —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 01:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plan For Themes Section  

message: Much of the analysis appearing in the "Writing section" is WP:Original research—rather than presenting what authors writing about Lewis' writing of this book have said, we are reading things Lewis has written (primary sources), and presenting our own analyses. My understanding is that this is contrary to the spirit (as well as policies and guidelines) of Wikipedia. Registered editors should take this in hand, and return this to being a presentation of what others have concluded about Lewis' writing (rather than present WP editor's ideas). With regard to their novelty and originality—it is possible that we might see such, but the more likely, so dense is this literary area with activity, any association we might make, any inference we might draw—most likely someone else has before us, and we need only do the looking to find it. [a former professor, sans wardrobe or Lewis' generally good humour] 2601:246:C700:558:1868:955:8901:9E69 (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research

message: Below information was tagged for needing sources long-term. Feel free to reinsert with appropriate references. DonIago (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced material 

message: What's the point of stating that it's a children's book in the intro when that's already stated in the page image and the body text? There are plenty of Wikipedia pages for children's books that don't mention that they're for children in the intro. 2001:5B0:4DC1:9C88:462:EF68:61EC:C62B (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Per MOS:LEAD "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points". The fact that this is a children's book is mentioned several times in the body text. The lead should reflect the main points in the article. We don't change it because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Fieryninja (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: The redirect The Lion, The Witch,and The Wardrobe has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Steel1943 (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:The Lion, The Witch,and The Wardrobe]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]