Talk:C. S. Lewis

Nationality

Lewis is identified in most sources as a British author because he was born, lived as and died a British subject and because he worked throughout his adult life in England within a broader English literary and Anglican tradition. He was moreover born in a part of Ireland which was and remains a British province. British is therefore the most convenient and appropriate umbrella term to use. His abiding sense of Irishness in England is sufficiently developed in the article and does not alter his legal status as a British subject. The claim made in the talk pages for the mutual exclusivity of Britishness and Irishness is simply fatuous, and is apparently only made because it affords a pretext for a Nationalist appropriation of the author. Those were not Lewis's politics, and a balanced article requires a full and ungrudging acknowledgement of his larger British identity. 129.67.174.46 (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Lewis's case seems quite similar to that of George Bernard Shaw, who is identified as Irish in his WP article (and elsewhere). This has been discussed extensively, and the consensus seems to be for "Irish" to stand, but I won't revert you further until others have weighed in. Deor (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Anglo-Irish, perhaps? Srnec (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say British (as all other people should be who were born in the UK...as opposed to listing them as English, Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish...which does not reflect the actual nationality of the person) as this is the prevailing nationality before and after 1922 in Belfast. As for Anglo-Irish, it implies English-Irish, which is not correct in other cases. Darkieboy236 (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Anglo-Irish presumes a whole other set of cultural references which are simply inappropriate to Lewis. While it's technically true that people born in the UK are/were legally British, it's hardly reasonable to use it to describe, say, Patrick Pearse or Dan Breen. Lewis is a different (and difficult) case as he spent most of his life, as the first contributor here said, as a British subject and within a British and Anglican tradition. On the other hand, the discussion here contains several instances where he identified himself as Irish, and that surely must count for a lot. Besides, "Irish" is defined not necessarily by political but also cultural boundaries. I vote for sticking with "Irish". --Rbreen (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that some of our trouble here is from the fact that Lewis, in common with many of his time, would probably have seen no contradiction in describing himself as both British and Irish, any more than someone today might see no contradiction in describing himself as both British and a Yorkshireman. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Shaw wore his Irishness on his sleeve and is still often described as an Anglo-Irish writer. In the case of Lewis cultural boundaries obviously overlapped, which is a much better reason to stick with British as the more inclusive term, instead of trying to excise him from his primary cultural milieu at Oxford. He was Irish but in a British context, and also British in a global context. Had Lewis gone to the USA and become a US citizen, we wouldn't be having this discussion; similarly, British is an official civic nationality, rather than an ethnic label like Irish was and English still is. 80.189.156.49 (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The ethnic Irish makeover of Lewis in this Wikipedia article through the suppression of any reference to his British nationality and the massing of selective quotations about his feeling of distinctiveness from his English neighbours means that his Irishness is much more prominent here than it is in own writings or in biographies written about him. This distortion obscures the fact of his British nationality to the perverse extent that one contributor to the talk pages even suggested that his Irish childhood meant he could never have been British at all, ignoring the law and conveniently glossing over the fact that being English and being British are not the same thing. The effect (and presumably the intention) of decontextualising Lewis's own words is to invite such a misinterpretation of them. This hijacking of a British literary icon says more about Irish Nationalist politics and the contemporary multicultural fad for ethnicity than it does about Lewis's own ambivalent feelings of belonging, evident in one remark by Lewis conspicuous by its absence from the article: 'I'm more Welsh than anything, and for more than anything else in my ancestry I'm grateful that on my father's side I'm descended from a practical Welsh farmer. To that link with the soil I owe whatever measure of physical energy and stability I have. Without it I should have turned into a hopeless neurotic.' Fairly acknowledging that Lewis was a British author is the least that could be done to ease the imbalance. 129.67.174.46 (talk) 10:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Another unexplained and unsupported reversion reinforces the impression that reverters are only adamant for 'Irish' because they're misreading 'Irish' as 'not British', and superimposing a false Nationalist dichotomy onto C. S. Lewis's language, in defiance of the evidence of his own life and work. They're making mischief. Through the same worship of subjectivity one could say he was Welsh. This fast and loose attitude makes clarification essential. The reason 'British' is preferred in most sources is because it better encapsulates the aggregate. It is also more strictly factual, in the sense that it expresses the prevailing institutional reality of Lewis's own life as he chose to lead it. 129.67.174.46 (talk) 09:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Lewis self-identified as Irish. If he is to be listed as "British" then all other authors from Ireland before partition should be listed as "British" also (Oscar Wilde for example) along with every person with a wikipedia page who was/is from Great Britain being listed as "British" instead of the standard "English", "Scottish" or "Welsh" that is currently common practice on wikipedia.

Fallacious reductionism. See above. 129.67.174.46 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing I've read in this discussion justifies my reasoning being "fallacious". Oscar Wilde was born in Ireland and worked in England. He is listed as Irish. CS Lewis was born in Ireland and work in England. If Lewis, for bias reasons, is to be singled out then all those people listed with their constituational country should be labelled "British" also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.181.190 (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wilde at least had vague nationalist associations in his (Anglo-Irish) family life, so there is some excuse for pandering to nationalist subjectivity, although the the descriptor remains misleading because of the anachronistic exclusivity of Irishness in present usage. Lewis's case is too obviously different: here it's the nativist determinism that betrays a nationalist bias. Most published sources routinely identify Lewis as a British author, and Wikipedia editors should respect that well-established convention as being the most reasonable and inclusive label, rather than pushing a more arbitrary one of their own in defiance of scholarly consensus.129.67.174.46 (talk)

OK, I'm giving up on this one. 129... thinks he should be British. Currently no-one from the Irish camp is watching this article - I'll just wait for them to see it and warm my hands on the heat of the resulting argument. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The real fact of the matter is that Britain is a different place to Ireland, where Lewis was born. Britain is the island that consists of England, Scotland and Wales. The UK describes both Britain and Ireland pre-Irish independence, and Britain and Northern Ireland post 1922. Just look at a 'UK' passport to see this - "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", not just Britain. To be totally factually correct we would have to describe him (and all other Irish people born before 1922) as UK-ish. Since that is nonsensical the only option is Irish. Just as someone born under British rule in India is Indian Lewis is Irish. To be consistent with the article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain

More confirmation that Britain does not include Ireland in the WP article on the '1800 Act of Union' that created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Union_1800

One other option, although a little ridiculous, is to put something along the lines of "an Irish writer who, as a result of the geopolitical relations at the time, was also a British subject as were all Irish people at the time". But then, to be consistent, similar declarations must be made for all people in the same boat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.224.183 (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi 83. Your first point is technically incorrect. You are "British" if you are a citizen of the United Kingdom; true today and true in Lewis' day (not that everybody likes that, of course). Someone born in present day Northern Ireland is still as "British" - by legal definition at least - as an Englishman or a Welshman. See Terminology of the British Isles for more detail.

In matter of definition therefore Lewis was both British (because he was a British citizen) and Irish (because he was born in Ireland); the same could be said for anyone born in Ireland at the time. The question is simply which one should we treat as his primary nationality. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi DJ. In that case we are both correct and incorrect. He was a British subject, as we can see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_of_the_United_Kingdom_and_Colonies#Prior_to_1949. However so was everyone born under British rule in Canada, Australia, India etc. - "every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the British Crown (and no other) was a British subject". Should we relabel everyone in this category as British?! If we take a more pragmatic view that someone who is considered 'British' was born in Great Britain, but someone who was born under British rule is considered of their home nationality, with British subject status I think we can come to a more informative compromise. I have changed the article in such a way, but go ahead and make an alteration if you think of something better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.224.183 (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It's absolutely perverse. This talk about British dominions is just a red herring. Lewis didn't come from a British dominion and didn't live in one. He came from what was, and still is, the U.K., and the British Isles. British people don't just come from Great Britain. Ireland was (and Northern Ireland certainly still is) part of the U.K. and the British Isles. Britain is a colloquialism that can mean either. Only Irish Nationalists try to maintain that Irish and British are mutually exclusive (thereby denying and stigmatising the Unionist point of view). Only Irish Nationalists seek to monopolise the term Irish as a separate nationality from British. Only Irish Nationalists would object to Lewis being recognised as British. If Lewis had been an Irish Nationalist, it might not be unreasonable to simply label him as Irish. But what's happening instead is that Irish Nationalists are using his birthplace to try to deny or obscure the fact that he was British. That's clear from the slant in the article and the facile arguments being put up, apparently by foreigners who don't know very much about Lewis - or identity politics - in the talk pages. This new tortured and grudging reference to Lewis being essentially "Irish" but of "British subject status" reflects an Irish Nationalist bias which is wholly inappropriate to the subject. It's not just a matter of law but of politics. Lewis wasn't an Irish Nationalist: he was an evangelical Tory who lived in England. In the larger British context, Irish is an ethnic subset rather than a separate nationality. And the article already makes abundant reference to his Irish links (and it could be said to overemphasise these to rationalise arbitrarily and provocatively relabelling his nationality as Irish). That it's being abused in an exclusivist way is plain from the attempted reversions and the anachronistic attacks on the very idea of Britishness in the talk pages. This misuse of Irishness only serves to show why using Irish as the primary identifier in Lewis's case is untenable. It creates too many false associations in the minds of the uninformed and is being abused by propagandists whose only interest in Lewis is in claiming him for their own ideological purpose. Lewis's Britishness is not just a matter of the law of "subject status": his cultural identity is complex and reflects his wider British background, so uniquely singling out the Irish component is misleading culturally as well. Lewis said himself he was more Welsh than anything. The majority of reference works identify him as a British writer. And it is the most appropriate and inclusive label for someone like himself: of Welsh ancestry born in the Protestant north of Ireland but who spent his life writing and teaching in England, and whose main contribution is to mainstream English literature. Indeed, it is just this kind of person that the British label was made for. It is therefore the conventional one applied to Lewis by most published sources. So it is only right that it should be restored. 129.67.174.46 (talk) 10:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

By your own admission Irish and British are not mutually exclusive, therefore you have just legitimized the argument that Lewis can be called Irish, just as a Scot is Scottish. Again by your own admission 'British' is a colloquialism for being from the UK, which legitimizes the claim that it is less accurate than calling Lewis Irish and thus we should simply call him Irish and leave him at that. Lastly your obvious and seething hatred for 'Irish nationalism', branding anyone who tries to keep this article accurate some sort of Irish nationalist clearly makes you an impartial editor of this article and as such your opinion is invalid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.18.238 (talk) 04:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Lewis' self-identification was as an Ulsterman, which can be enlarged to be Irish or British depending on circumstances. Neither his politics nor his genealogy resembles Shaw's; Shaw was born in Dublin. We need not, however, assert any nationality in the intro, and thus evade the question.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think leaving nationality out will help, as someone has just demonstrated by adding it in again. On re-reading both the discussion and the article, I think it is reasonable to describe him as Irish, since he clearly did identify culturally with Irish nationality; but not with Irish nationalism, as that it usually understood, nor the Republic of Ireland, since his roots were in Belfast (I have added a note to this effect). As acknowledged above, the label "British" is difficult in this context since (among other things) the word can relate to the island of Great Britain (which does not include Ireland) rather than the UK. As also implied above, if Lewis had been born in Scotland and spent all his life in southern England, he would still be uncontentiously described as Scottish: compare with James Murray (lexicographer), who is indelibly associated with Oxford, yet rightly described as Scottish. Myopic Bookworm (talk) 11:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is unhelpful to call C.S. Lewis an Irish writer, for all the reasons given above, and, I think it reflects poorly on Wikipedia that this debate gains any sort of prominence (and, worse, that he remains as "Irish", presumably due to the greater activity of Irish nationalists). Wikipedia cannot claim to be a store of common knowledge on any issue that invokes partisanship, and is a lesser record than published books for this reason. I do think this is a pity, though I have no solution (and I and I am sure most others certainly cannot be bothered with fighting with Wiki-partisans). Tjamesjones (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it as an Irish nationalist issue - I don't think the combination of ethnic, religious and political loyalties that Lewis had is one that Irish nationalists are particularly keen to claim as "Irish". But Lewis himself, for all that he was a British subject, and by no means an unwilling one, consistently self-identified as "Irish" (as shown here). It is loyalty to this self-identification, rather than any desire by Irish nationalists to claim Lewis as one of their own, that seems to be driving the dispute here. I myself, neither Irish nor a nationalist, agree entirely with the comment of Myopic Bookworm just above, and really can't see why anyone except an Irish nationalist would object to listing a loyal British subject who was born in Irland and consistently called himself Irish as anything but Irish. --Paularblaster (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

There might be something in this, but I think the main issue is that the use of the word "Irish" today (and that's the use that is relevant here), because of Irish nationalism, is now often defined to mean amongst positive things, the negative "not British". Afterall, that's the whole point of creating a separate Irish state. Lewis wasnt just a "no means unwilling British subject", he was British. When he self identified as Irish, he was distinguishing himself from being English, not from begin British. Tjamesjones (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree totally with you it should be Belfast, Northern Ireland and i guess it was written by someone not from Northern Ireland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.129.8 (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

When Lewis was born there was no such entity as "Northern Ireland" - just "Ireland", one of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. --Paularblaster (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a scholarly journal. It is not our job to determine whether he is correctly called British, Irish, or both. It is our job to reflect what our sources call him. In short, it doesn't matter where he was born, where he worked, what he called himself, or what his context was: what matters is what we can verify. ~ MD Otley (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, we can verify that he was Irish, and we can verify that he was British. So which do we go with? --Paularblaster (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

We should go with whatever he regarded himself as. He regarded himself as an Irishman and an Irish writer. This discussion has been going on here for years. I've never really liked the term "British" for describing people. It's not very precise, doesn't really mean much, and the majority of people from the UK wouldn't describe themselves as "British", preferring instead English or Scottish, etc. Lewis being from Ireland had a large influence on his work, and describing him as such informs the reader, whereas calling him "British" doesn't. One could reasonably presume that an Irish writer would be influenced by other Irish writers, poets, mythology, and the Irish landscape, and in Lewis' case such a presumption would be correct. Calling him British tells the reader nothing about the man. It is also rather odd to call him British, and then go on to note in the article that he was from Ireland, grew up in Ireland, and regarded himself as Irish. Martin (talk) 02:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

^^ No, no we should not. Opinions do not matter whatsoever when editing wikipedia articles, even if it is the opinions of the individual themselves. It does not matter what you regard yourself as - if you are not of that nationality then your uninformed and wishful opinion does not change that.

He was born in Britain, raised in Britain, had British parents, and spent his entire life in Britain and mostly in England. He held a British passport and was a British citizen. Therefore, he is British. It seems rather odd to call him Irish as Ireland had nothing to do with him - he was born and raised in NORTHERN Ireland remember, which has been part of Britain for centuries and still is. Calling him Irish is simply incorrect.

Not only that, but he regarded himself as British and stated this in several interviews. Please refrain from outright lies when discussing things, not least because it weakens your position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.41.79 (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that wikpedia articles are NOT to be written based on people's opinions. It doesn't matter whether you think he's British, English, Northern Irish, Irish or whatever - all that matters is what we can SOURCE.

And here's a source. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/338121/C-S-Lewis This reliable source quite clearly states that he is British, therefore we MUST state the truth with regards to his nationality. There are no sources stating that he refers to himself as Irish and at the very least he became a naturalised Englishman, so there really can be no debate. All that matters is that this reliable source states that he is British, and so this shall be addressed in the article.

I ask that you put your petty nationalism aside and refrain from vandalising this article. Do not incorrectly and unhelpfully change his nationality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.5.203 (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I would refer those who dispute Lewis' Irishness to At Home in Ireland by David Bleakley ( a student of his and a protestant clergyman from Belfast) and to DW Bresland's Lewis and Ireland 'the backward glance'

I personally liked the compromise visible on this page a little while ago of 'northern Irish' with a small 'n' Lewis was as shaped by ideas of 'the north' as by Celtic myth. Also Lewis is one of not very many artists to have identified as Northern Irish with a big 'N' (he disliked the Orange Order and would point out when criticising it that he was himself Northern Irish). This was in the nineteen fifties when Northern Ireland had been a reality for some time. And if might be desirable to have someone who is Northern Irish he is quite a good candidate.

I would suggest that it is those in particular who insist on describing him as British are engaging in vandalism. British is not a nationality. Lewis's Ireland ran from Louth to North antrim and the Mournes to Donegal (He did of course visit most scenic parts of Ireland- but seems only to have liked Dublin and county and waterford outside Ulster and Louth). He was a North of Ireland man and as one of relatively few writers to have actually accepted the term Northern Irish why not call him that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.85.115 (talk) 12:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I added a few lines about Lewis's affection for Ulster and Ulster people in the "Irish Life" section, anybody got any idea why they were removed? They were referenced with a link to a webpage, which discusses Lewis's own works and takes supporting quotes from his early books. Does the Wiki editor's Irish nationalist bias really stoop this low or is there a better explanation?--Corvus cornix 1958 (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What utter nonsense. It is the Irish editors here that are committing vandalism. British IS a nationality, that is a fact. To suggest otherwise displays considerable mental ineptitude. However Irish IS NOT A NATIONALITY. Under no circumstances is Irish a nationality, you are either from the ROI or from Northern Ireland, which is a part of BRITAIN.

Lewis's Ireland was, at that time, a part of Britain. Not a dominion or somewhere Britain owned, but a FULLY INTEGRATED PART OF THE UNITED KINGDOM. They had a single citzenship, a single nationality. Every single person born in all of Ireland during this time was British, but it just so happens that Lewis was born and raised in a part of Ireland that REMAINS British to this day - leaving the Irish POV-pushers without a leg to stand on.

He is indeed a British writer; after all, he was born and raised in Britain, held British citizenship and regarded himself as British (after all, he was pro-British his entire life and described the prospect of Britain withdrawing from Northern Ireland as "unthinkable"). Therefore we shall list him as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.70.23 (talk) 11:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As it is not acceptable to describe him as British and Irish or Northern Irish he must be described as Irish. He was an irish unionist and in his youth a home ruler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.74.237 (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but you are COMPLETELY wrong. It is wholly unnacceptable for him to be called Irish as he was thoroughly British. Ireland was a part of Britain at the time of his birth, and the part of Ireland he was born and raised in is STILL a part of Britain. He had a British passport, British citizenship and lived his entire life in Britain. He considered himself British and described the notion of British withdrawal from Northern Ireland as "unthinkable".

It is factually incorrect to describe him as Irish. He was thoroughly British and nothing you can do or say will ever change that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.68.12 (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually its incorrect to describe him as British. Even the British Arts Council describe him as Irish. Back then those born on the island of Ireland from all sides of the community would have described themselves as "Irish" - to describe them as British would be a neologism which is expressly against policy - please see WP:NEO.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed "Irish," while not restoring "British," either. The sentence had managed to remain stable for more than a month before the most recent flurry of nationalistic nonsense; let's try to keep it that way for a while. Vintagekits, the source you added was no good—if you look at the bottom of that page, it says "Source: http://en.wikipedia.org". Let's also try to avoid feedback loops of that sort. Deor (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's factually correct to call him British. Regardless of what the British Arts Council says, he was still born and raised in Britain, had British citizenship, a British passport and regarded himself as British. This makes him undeniably british and it is wholly incorrect to call him Irish.

Yes, they describe themselves as Irish while maintaining that they are also British - just as the English, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish continue to do.

To describe them as British would be factually correct. From 1801 to 1922, every single last Irishman was British. That is a fact and that cannot be changed, regardless of policy. If that's the policy then it must be ignored to improve the quality of this article. And it's against policy to remove reliable sources.

By the way, Deor - regardless of whether the sentence was "stable" or not before I improved it, it is against wikipedia's policy to exclude mentioning of a person's nationality in the opening sentence. It is something that MUST be done. We've already established that VintageKits' source was rubbish, and it's clear that mine is reliable, so please discuss this.

Remember, exlcuding mention of a person's nationality is not allowed. So far everything points to him being British, and unless you can find any reason why he would be anything else, I'll be amending the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.68.12 (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not "not allowed" to omit mention of nationality in the lead. Yes, MOS:BIO (a guideline, not a policy) says that nationality should be mentioned, but like all guideline pages it begins with a box pointing out that it is subject to "occasional exceptions." If you have the stomach for it, I suggest you read this essay (particularly the section headed "Do not 'edit war'!") and this discussion that led to the essay. I have no strong feelings about Lewis's nationality myself; but the continual slow-motion warring about the matter is doing the article no good and may lead to RFCs and blocks and other unfortunate consequences.

By the way, 87, I don't think the source you're using to justify your preference for "British" is much better than the one Vintagekits used to support "Irish." Wikipedia articles are preferably based on secondary, not tertiary, sources. If it could be determined whether the preponderance of secondary sources describe him as Irish or as British, a strong argument could be made for including one of the adjectives in the lead; but failing that, I don't think either side has much of a leg to stand on. Perhaps we should just call him an "Irish-born British novelist … ," adapting the wording used in Iris Murdoch. Deor (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

While there are to be "occasional exceptions" as you say, this should not be one of them. That would be for examples where the answer isn't so clear cut, eg. Peter O'Toole and Daniel Day Lewis, rather than here where the answer is clear.

Yes, my source is better - VintageKits used one which uses wikipedia as a source, mine does not.

EB may be a tertiary source but it is still a reliable one.

And "Irish-born British novelist" is perfectly acceptable. I would be quite happily with that result; it's correct after all. If you wish we could try that out, perhaps the edit warring will die down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.68.12 (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll try that and see what happens. Deor (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't regard it as acceptable. I would prefer that no nationality be given. Please read the archives or AN Wilson, David Bleakey or Ronald Bresland. He regarded himself as an Irishman, specifically a Northern Irishman (in the 1940s) and he worked in a British cultural context. He was reluctant to be seen as an 'Irish writer' as he felt that this was to move into a cultural tributary rather than the mainstream (i think that was his exact phrase) however he identified as Irish. I do not see why Northern Irish is unacceptable. I know that it did not exist when he was born but Ireland was not a state at that time either. He held a Free State Irish passport as well as a British passport which again indicates a self identification as Irish. CS Lewis was both British and Irish and the normal way to express this is to describe him as 'Northern Irish'. But he is not simply an Irish born British writer. It is true that he felt Irish as opposed to English rather than British. He was British but that was by virtue of his being Irish. He was an Irishman by virtue of being an Ulsterman. He died before the polarisations of the 1970s.

The following nationalities are acceptable. Irish , Northern Irish , Irish and British , Irish Protestant (not a nationality but a distinct cultural tradition) , Ulster would be nice and was probably his 'real nationality'. Can he be described as an Ulster writer? , No nationality given I understand that there may be a sense on the part of some people that those who want to call him Irish also want to shoehorn him into the Celtic revival or into the Irish nationalist project. The alternatives above might help to avoid that. By the way the Britannica article referenced is less encyclopaedic than Wikipedia so Kudos wikipedia. I will not revert the nationality at this time but I feel that the 'compromise' above is nothing of the sort, His place of birth is not in dispute.

Mountainyman (talk) 05:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Well it IS acceptable as it is factually correct.

Nationality SHOULD be given. It should stay put.

Yes he DID regard himself as Irish, but you have to remember that Ireland was a part of Britain at the time. Englishmen and Welshmen also regard themselves as English and Welsh, but they're still British. The problem with simply calling him Irish is that the Ireland that exists today is a different one from the Ireland in CS Lewis' time, and simply calling him irish is very confusing. The fact that he is British should be mentioned.

I have never seen Northern Irish as unacceptable either; that is another one that I would agree to.

Irish-born British writer is better than what you're describing, though. He was Irish but Ireland was a part of Britain at that time; what you're suggesting is that he has dual nationality, which he does not. You are not English-British, you are English and by extension British. Likewise, he was Northern Irish and by extension British, not Irish as the nationality that exists today. To list him as such would be confusing. Northern Irish is acceptable because it accepts that he is British without explicitly stating it.

Irish is not acceptable; it makes no mention of the fact that he was also British and it is very confusing.

Irish and British is also unacceptable; it suggests that he had dual nationality which he did not. He was Irish when it was a part of Britain, therefore he is British BECAUSE he is irish, rather than having two seperate nationalities, if you can see what I'm saying. It gives the wrong impression.

Irish protestant isn't acceptable either; no need to mention his religion, and it makes no mention of the fact that he is British.

Ulster is not acceptable at all, as it is not a nationality. It would be like describing people from Cornwall as Cornish; it doesn't matter if there's a strong case for them being a seperate entity, the fact is that they are not. Therefore it is not an acceptable outcome.

There are only 3 options which are acceptable.

1. British.

2. Irish-born British.

3. Northern Irish.

And no, the EB article is far more reliable than a wikipedia article I'm afraid, and this discussion is proving it. It's a professionally-made site as opposed to wikipedia which can and is editted by literally anyone with an internet connection, so it holds far more weight.

The compromise is acceptable. There are 2 other options that are also acceptable though; leaving out the fact that he is British is not an option. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.141.201 (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

He did in point of fact have dual nationality as he took out a passport of the Irish Free State. It seems to me that by being aggressive those who favour British are attempting to push the boundaries of what appears to be a compromise to in fact become their favoured solution. CS Lewis was born in Ireland, described himself as Irish and held an Irish passport. The fact that he was a unionist is irrelevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Anna_Somerville http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violet_Florence_Martin

Somerville and Ross for example are described as Irish. The insistence, for some reason, on calling Lewis British is unencyclopaedic. British is hardly ever used on Wikipedia. Only Northern Irish and Irish are acceptable. The Sources quoted in support of his Irish nationality (Bresland and Bleakey) are far more reliable than a single word on a website as they are in fact biographers. British is only a nationality to Americans nobody from a constituent country of the UK regards his nationality as British. A little difficult to assume good faith with a 'group' of anonymous sockpuppets. Mountainyman (talk) 13:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant.

It is not unencyclopaedic at all; it is factually correct and gives us a good idea of the nationality of the person. It's rarely used because you can break it down to the constituent countries, and listing some as English for example implies that they are also British (that is the reason why Northern Irish is acceptable, remember). HOWEVER, it is more correct to simply call him British as - 1. Northern Ireland didn't exist at the time of his birth or for many years, and 2. Ireland was a part of Britain at the time, but no longer exists in the same form. Calling him Irish suggests that he is from ROI rather than from Britain, which is not the case. In an example such as this, British is by far the best course of action, although Northern Irish would still be acceptable.

Irish is certainly not acceptable, for reasons I have pointed out. British IS acceptable however. It is a FACT that his nationality is BRITISH, not Irish. Irish is not acceptable in any way, shape or form. To put him as Irish would not only be unencyclopaedic, but illogical and downright offensive. The only acceptable choices are British, Irish-born British and Northern Irish. Take it or leave it.

I'm afraid that is not more reliable than the evidence against your claim. He was born in Britain, raised in Britain, remained in Britain his entire life, holds British citizenship, a British passport, regarded himself as British and described the prospect of Britain withdrawing from Northern Ireland as "unthinkable". The EB article, a reliable one at that, is the icing on the cake.

Also, I'm afraid you misunderstand what they are saying. By saying that he was Irish they were confirming that, by extension, he was British also, they just didn't explicitly state it. Ireland was a fully integrated part of Britain at the time of his birth and the part he lived in remained a part of the UK until his death. Them calling him Irish does not refute the fact that he is British, no more so than calling an Englishman English would. That's exactly why it is unencyclopaedic to call him Irish, as the word has different connotations pertaining to nationality these days on account of the split. Irish in CS Lewis' day also meant British, just as English and Scottish and Welsh and Northern Irish still does. If we were to call him Irish in this day and age however, we are implying that he is a part of the ROI, which he is not. It no longer implies that he is British, which he undeniably was.

No, British is not a nationality "only to Americans". Honestly, this is the most ignorant thing I have ever heard on all of wikipedia. It is a nationality to me, just as it is a nationality to the vast majority of Britain's 60-million-plus inhabitants. Irish, on the other hand, is more of an ethnicity than a nationality; there is no country of Ireland, only Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland. It's like saying Korea is one nation, when it is undeniably two.

I can tell you from personal experience as a man from Northern Ireland living in England that the majority regard themselves as British, rather than anything else. England only becomes a nationality when the football is on, and I know of very few who ACTUALLY regard themselves as Northern Irish. The majority call themselves as British, and that is a fact.

A group? hah, no. I am but one person, my IP just keeps changing. There is no group. I'm not a sockpuppet either; I've never had an account. If, however, someone who feels strongly attached to the defunct nation of Ireland continues to deny that British is a nationality and defame articles with their warped logic, I shall have to get myself an account to deal with you and your ignorant ilk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.141.201 (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

All right, let's play together nicely, people. Deor (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It would make the assume good faith rule easier for me if the ip 87.114.141.201 confirm that he or she is NOT an extreme Irish patriotMountainyman (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC) I do not want to push CS Lewis into a narrow defintion of Irishness or exclude him from it, but how can nationality be defined. There are many references to Lewis calling himself Irish some to Northern irish, some to British and none to English. There is a very real cultural sense in which every English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish, and Southern Irish person is British. But nobody but 87.114.141.201 regards themself as British and therefore the claim that " He was born in Britain, raised in Britain" etc. is false as the normal definition of British does not include Ireland. The use of the term 'northern irish' as a nationality is certainly Ahistocal- however Lewis did call himself Northern Irish (thoughless that just Irish) and this is a deliberate attempt at compromise. I will change nationality to Northern Irish after the 7th of september 2009 and if reverted will change to Irish alone using scanned copies of the lewis letters and a jpeg of the the free state passport application as supporting evidence further if the change to northern irish is reverted to british i will seek to lock the nationality as Irish by the way 87.114.141.201 creating an ccount is easyMountainyman (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Look, I'm simply getting tired of the continual edit warring and IP editing to change the nationality expressed in the lead of this article. If a consensus cannot be established here, I'll be taking the matter to RFC—and thence, if necessary, to further avenues of dispute resoluton—to resolve the situation. My God, this is a relatively insignificant detail, no matter how important it seems to English and Irish editors; and is it really worth it to jeopardize the improvement of the entire article to make whatever point one desires to make? Think about it, people, and see if we can't arrive at a solution that, while it may make your gorge rise, can stand without this repeated conflict. Is this bickering what Lewis would have wanted? Deor (talk) 06:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Look, it is quite simple. While he often refers to himself as Northern Irish and Irish, this is simply further confirmation of his Britishness. While Ireland is no longer part of Britain, it WAS a fully integrated part of the nation for a significant part of CS Lewis' life. Referring to yourself as "Irish" up until the 1920s is simply confirmation of the fact that you are British without explicitly stating it. It's the same with England, Wales and Scotland - they're all part of Britain, so saying "I'm English" etc. is confirmation that they are British without saying it outright.

So once again, the references of CS Lewis referring to himself as Irish is just confirmation that he is British. That stopped applying in the 1920s, but noticed how he called himself Northern Irish from then on. He had no affiliation with the ROI at any stage of his life, hence why irish is unacceptable. Calling him irish does not refute the undeniable fact that he is British.

Once again it is a fact that the vast majority of this nation regards themselves as British. It is rare to find someone who attempts to deny that fact. I suggest you stop making ridiculous statements, as they are making your case appear even more daft.

The fact that he was born and raised in Britain is undeniable. IRELAND WAS A PART OF BRITAIN FOR THE FIRST FEW DECADES OF HIS LIFE. Even after the split, the part of the island he lived in REMAINED BRITISH. THERE IS NO PART OF HIS LIFE WHERE HE DID NOT LIVE IN BRITAIN. Sorry, but it is an undeniable fact that he was born in Britain and raised in Britain, and remained there for his entire life. That is what defines nationality and therefore he is BRITISH.

No, Northern Irish is correct - the nationality of "Irish" does not represent the entire island of Ireland, only the ROI. That is EXACTLY why listing him as Irish is factually false, as that was his ethnicity, NOT his nationality. His nationality was British.

That wasn't an attempt at a compromise any more than someone calling themselves English is. Referring to himself as Northern Irish is just specifically pointing out which part of Britain he hails from.

Once again I will remind you that I have agreed to him being called Northern Irish. This is acceptable as it confirms the fact that he is British, it just doesn't say so explicitly. It confirms that he is Irish only in ethnicity, NOT nationality, and proves that he is indeed British. Therefore it is an acceptable result.

HOWEVER, Irish is still not acceptable. Should someone other than me revert it to British, then you will not be permitted to incorrectly change it to Irish. I will remind you that the nationality of "Irish" EXCLUSIVELY represents ROI, NOT the Ireland Lewis was born into nor the NI that he died in. I will state the overwhelming evidence that his nationality is British on account of the definitions of nationality. I will clearly point out to you that your sources do NOT in any way support the daft claim that his nationality is Irish, as the nationality of "Irish" represents a state he was never a part of. And once again, I will say that, considering that he lived his ENTIRE LIFE in a land that was a part of Britain, it is IMPOSSIBLE for his nationality to be of a country he was NEVER a part of.

The nationality will never be locked as Irish because of this, because of the fact that it is wholly incorrect and unencyclopaedic. I will take this as far as I need to and fight for this for as many years as it will take. I will point out how your sources do nothing to refute the facts I have already told you and do nothing to back up your nonsensical claims. I will logically pick apart your arguments once more, prove that your sources are irrelevant and revert it back to the compromise.

Once again, I will say this. The term "Irish" refers to one of three things - the ethnicity, NOT the nationality; the nationality of the people of Ireland that Lewis was born into, was a wholly integrated part of Britain (hence why "Irish-born British" is acceptable); and the nationality of the people of the Republic of Ireland.

Calling him "Irish" in the lead is, therefore, totally confusing, unencyclopaedic and even factually wrong. While "Irish" by extension meant British in Lewis' first years, it no longer has the same meaning so we cannot refer to him as that. The meaning that Irish now has refers to the nationality of the people of ROI, and exclusively ROI. It does not include the people of NI - they are Irish by ethnicity, NOT nationality. Their nationality, like Lewis', is British. Therefore we cannot say and can NEVER say that Lewis was Irish, as it is now factually incorrect. He has never had anything to do with ROI and therefore he cannot be referred to as Irish in the lead. He was born in Britain, raised in Britain, lived in Britain for duration of his entire life, holds a British passport, British citizenship, regarded himself as British, and described the notion of Britain pulling out of NI as "unthinkable". He was British in every sense of the word and that is a fact. I am happy with the result of Northern Irish being used as it confirms the fact that he is British without explicitly stating it. However, he can never be regarded as Irish, so do not think that you will get away with tarnishing this article with your nonsensical rubbish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.70.5 (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Your logic is inescapable - why didn't we realize this before? as you say: Look, it is quite simple. While he often refers to himself as Northern Irish and Irish, this is simply further confirmation of his Britishness. In short: He said he was Irish, he was born in Ireland, he had a passport issued by the Irish Free State - therefore he was not Irish - but British. How can one argue against such clear logical thought? ClemMcGann (talk) 12:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said it is quite simple, but clearly you do not possess the intelligence to grasp such a simple notion.

I will say it again. When he was born, IRELAND WAS A PART OF BRITAIN. Not some far flung province of the empire but a fully integrated state of the United Kingdom, as integral as England was and still is. He was born and raised in a land that was fully part of Britain. When the split happened, the part he was born and raised in became Northern Ireland - and REMAINED BRITISH.

Throughout his ENTIRE life he remained a citizen of Britain. In short: he said he was British, he was born in Britain, was raised in Britain, lived in Britain his entire life, had a British passport, British citizenship and described the notion of Britain leaving Northern Ireland as "unthinkable". He was undeniably British to his very core.

My logic is sound, irrefutable and undeniable. Your logic is truly terrible, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.4.221 (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

no reply - ClemMcGann (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Good. I'll take it that you've accepted said inescapable logic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.100.65 (talk) 10:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not accepted your logic - its just that I cannot see how to argue against it - ClemMcGann (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm sure you'll come round eventually though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.100.65 (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

silence ClemMcGann (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You know I'm right.

Irish?

Wasn't Lewis's father Welsh?--Uriah is Boss (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

His father was born in Cork. His father was half welsh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.85.115 (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Conversion to v. Reconnection with Christianity

I'd like to question Stevertigo's edit (on 6 April 2009) of the heading for the section on Lewis's conversion to Christianity from "Conversion to Christianity" to "Reconnection with Christianity". To me it seems overly fussy in the first place and I'd prefer it to be reverted to Conversion. Frankly, I question whether the religion that Lewis grew up in (and discarded as a teenager) should necessarily be considered on the same level as his personal and reasoned choices to become first an atheist and then a Christian. In other words, I feel that Lewis's true first "faith" was atheism, and that his subsequent turn to Christianity was indeed a true conversion. Also, just because somebody goes through multiple faiths and then returns to one does not necessarily make the returning a non-conversion (also, changes between sects of the same religion are often referred to as conversions). However, even conceding Stevertigo's point that this fails to convey that Lewis is in fact returning to his former faith, reconnected is certainly the wrong word. Re-conversion would be more appropriate, I think, or even "return to". Any thoughts or defenses? -- B.T.Carolus (talk) 04:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I changed it back to the original "Conversion to Christianity." -- B.T.Carolus (talk) 03:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It's simply a conversion. A conversion can be a "reconnection" or a "tranformation," though I think that's not the point and getting too detailed into it doesn't belong here on an encyclopdia. For those kind of details one needs to look for a biography on Lewis rather than Wikipedia. 74.5.105.31 (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. He was an atheist, that we can be sure of. His statement is also not a paradox. When someone says that he is "mad at God for not existing," he is not at all implying that he believed in that God at that time. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed: "I came into Christianity kicking and screaming."

I've just removed a long-standing (2005) quote from the article: "I came into Christianity kicking and screaming", for which I can't find a source. It may be the case that the quote is a mangled version of a quote from Surprised by Joy (p. 229), where Lewis, in discussing his conversion, likens himself to a

prodigal who is brought in kicking, struggling, resentful, and darting his eyes in every direction for a chance to escape

I've used this quote, in place of the original one.

I do find numerous occurrences of the original quote on the web, but It looks to me as if most of these come directly or indirectly from this article. And none of them, as far as I've checked, give a source. Using Google Books, I find no occurrence of the original quote, although I do find references to "kicking and screaming" in quotes in reference to Lewis' conversion, but again I can't a cited source.

The quote was added here, and to me, the wording used there suggests that the quote is a continuation of a passage containing the quotes "In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed"' and "the most reluctant convert of all time", (which in fact come earlier in the same passage as the "kicking, struggling" quote above. This supports, I think, a mangled quote hypothesis.

Paul August ☎ 20:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Influences/influenced

These infobox fields have been the topic of much negative discussion (see here, for instance), and it's been decided to omit them in a number of articles, such as the featured article J. R. R. Tolkien. I've therefore blanked the fields here, where they were getting completely out of hand; and I think a very persuasive case needs to be made before any use is made of them again. Deor (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Paul August ☎ 01:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Lewis and Tolkien

Would it make sense to include a bit more info on the relationship between Lewis and Tolkien? It mentions that they were friends, but shouldn't it also be noted that they fell out? There are several unhappy remarks in Tolkien's Letters about Lewis. (Also, Tolkien quite disliked Narnia.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.221.57.27 (talk) 07:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Never heard or read anything about it. In fact, they kept good relations for the remainder of their years. What remarks are you refering to? 98.198.83.12 (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Too add to this, I remember in a BBC documentary that Tolkien did not like the Chronicles of Narnia at first, mainly due to the allegory (he enjoyed the Christian values placed into it) and the traveling between worlds. The Inklings were a competitive bunch and often criticised their friends' writings, and though they remained friends, they were only "close friends" for a certain amount of time. "C. S. Lewis" by Michael White states that they were close friends for awhile, but they never ended their friendship. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)