Talk:C. S. Lewis

Jane Moore

Is there a reason why unsubstantiated prurient rumor is being listed in this wikipedia article? The simple fact is that there's no factual evidence supporting the notion that Lewis and Moore were "lovers". There's no more justification for including those kind of comments on a Biography page than there would be in listing the "Did Glenn Beck Rape and murder a girl?" rumors on the Glenn Beck page. Which, I note, is NOT on the Glenn Beck page, despite being one of the most famous Pop Culture references associated with Beck.

The simple fact is that there doesn't seem to be any point at all in including rumors that C.S. Lewis was having sex with someone that he referred to as his "mother" other than general jackassery on the part of whoever included it. If there's proof, fine, include it. If it's just random comments by people who had no evidence whatsoever to back up their statements, then remove it. That's how Wikipedia is supposed to work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.202.98 (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with (209.33.202.98) that there really is no concrete evidence from which to deduce there was a sexual relationship, and that which has been cited as evidence in support of the view, could also be interpreted differently. The speculation regarding this relationship was fueled more by A.N. Wilson's flawed biography, than anything else. Once it was written though, it was inevitable and proper that people who actually knew Lewis should respond in an attempt to set the record straight. The fact of the matter is that no amount of speculation is going to decipher exactly what Lewis was refering to in a couple of enigmatic remarks in his auto-biography. And, as is often the case, such speculations will tell more about those doing the speculating. And A.N. Wilson would be the least qualified (in terms of knowing Lewis personally) to attempt any deciphering.

We know several things regarding Lewis during this time: He was 18 when he met Mrs. Moore. He had returned (having been wounded by shrapnel from a shell) from service during the first world war. (Jan. 1919 - Age 20) According to George Sayer, Lewis "was not then, or at any time in his life, sufficiently secure to be able to live alone." (Jack - a life of C.S. Lewis p.153). Mrs Moore was 45 when they met. Again drawing from George Sayer's biography: "She had a maternal attitude towards [Lewis],...and for the rest of their relationship would call him and Warren "the boys"." (Jack - p.129).

That George Sayer has changed his view, tells us only one thing for sure : George Sayer has changed his view. No doubt he has not done so without giving the matter serious consideration, nevertheless that does not mean that Sayer has got it right. In regard to the relationship we simply do not know for sure.

I attempted to improve this section a few months ago, perhaps what is most lacking is any reference to fact that his relationship with Mrs. Moore began 14 years before his conversion to Christianity. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I have added this now. If there is a consensus to remove part of this section as far as it touches on the rumors and speculation, then I have no problem whatsoever with that. I won't do so myself unless asked. It should however be made clear that speculation is just that - speculation (OED: a theory or opinion formed without hard evidence). And I have tried to make it clear in my earlier edit that that is what these "theories" are. As far as I am concerned an encyclopedia doesn't need to provide speculation, but is required to provide facts - such as, met at such and such a date. Ages. And anything salient that Lewis said about Mrs. Moore, or Mrs. Moore about Lewis. We already have that in this section. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 01:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Lewis Was Irish

C.S. Lewis Was Definitely 100% Irish He HATED england,In An Interview He Himself Said That He is AN IRISH NOT English or British. C.S. Lewis was 100 % IRISH AND BY THE WAY PEOPLE OF Ireland are Called as IRISH. OK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.135.57.130 (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

C.S. Lewis Was Definitely 100% Irish He HATED england,In An Interview He Himself Said That He is AN IRISH NOT English or British. C.S. Lewis was 100 % IRISH AND BY THE WAY PEOPLE OF Ireland are Called as IRISH. OK.[1]

You are imposing your Anglophobic hatred of England and the English onto a third party, which is not very encyclopaedic. Anyway, I've altered the main feature to read that he was born in Belfast, Northern Ireland (part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) as opposed to Befast, Ireland. The Republic of Ireland is Ireland, Northern Ireland is part of the UK. Lewis was British. Guv2006 (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. This has been debated many times at this page, (not least at the top of this page) and the result of that debate is what you now see in the header. "Irish" is a problematic designation, since it usually implies being a citizen of the ROI, which Lewis was not. However he was a citizen of the UK, which certainly deserves a mention, and makes him "British" by any reasonable measure. While he may have had some dislike of the countryside of England, and even some aspects of English life, I have nowhere seen any reliable indication that he "hated" England. It's pretty unlikely, since he stayed there for more than forty years. In any case, please make your case on the talk page, and let others discuss it, if you think you have a better wording. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you DJ Clayworth, I'm glad I'm not the onlyone trying to handle this properly :)

Although it is true that he didn't like England at first, he DID love Britain, and he DID accept and publicly state that was British. Not only that, but over time he came to appreciate England, despite finding his first few years rather jarring.

I would like to point out that even if he did hate England that does NOT change the fact that you're British. There have always been 4 constituent countries which make up the UK and there still is; it is not a requirement to love all of them to be British.

To the rather crazed-sounding editor who started this new discussion - he is British born and bred. He is NOT Irish in terms of nationality, only ethnicity, and therefore his nationality will NOT be listed as Irish, but British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.87.231 (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's not get too carried away here. Lewis also self-identified as Irish on several occasions. What we have to remember is that he came from a time when Irish and British were not exclusive, and you could claim to be either or both at different times. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

In the sources cited in the last attempt to assert the "Irish" wording, Lewis was specifically contrasting his Irishness with Englishness, not with Britishness. I still haven't seen a source, first-person or otherwise, stating that he wasn't British. Deor (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not really getting carried away, is it. You said it yourself, the terms were not mutually exclusive at that time. He stressed that while he was Irish, he was also British - in the same sense that an Englishman is English and therefore also British. He made it clear that he regarded himself as British. It's also worth noting that as soon as Irish and British became mutually exclusive in terms of nationality, he regarded himself as "Northern Irish".

And as Deor says, there is no evidence for him rejecting the British citizenship that he undeniably had as per British nationality law. Without any proof that he rejected his Britishness, we are required to leave the article's lead as it is.

I think this is pretty much done and dusted now, really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.136.87 (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Irish means being born on the Island of Ireland. There are two separate and distinct political entities on the island, the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. However, neither of these existed when Lewis was born, and Ireland was simply an Island within the British Empire, no different than Scotland or Wales. We would never deny a person born in Scotland or Wales the designation of Scottish or Welsh because they do not have full Independence. Britain refers to the Island of Great Britain, hence the UK is actually the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". However, this distinction did not exist when Lewis was born, and he was in fact born on the Island of Ireland. We we to use the Irish-British designation for anyone born in Northern Ireland since 1921 and anyone born across the entire Island prior to that, we would have to say that Ghandi was British-Indian, Mel Gibson is English-Australian and Celine Dion is British-Canadian (since Australia and Canada are Commonwealth members and the Queen is still head of state.) CS Lewis was born on the Island of Ireland to Irish parents and British Grandparents. He is therefore Irish in the same way Connery is Scottish, Zeta-Jones is Welsh, etc. Laurencedunne (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Calling Lewis an "Irish writer" would be like calling Barack Obama a "Hawaiian politician" -- in some sense technically correct but profoundly misleading on many levels. Irish doesn't mean just "born on Ireland"; otherwise we could have sorted this out long ago. Can't we short-circuit what is obviously a very emotional issue by saying what we mean: "C. S. Lewis was an academic, writer, and Christian apologist. He was a British subject, born in what is now Northern Ireland, who spent most of his life and his professional career in Oxford and Cambridge." Elphion (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

We've been through this argument many times before, and the current statement represents consensus. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

By the dessicated skull of Mogg's grandfather! Unless we can call up Lewis himself "either from dead Saltes or out of ye Spheres beyond", there's no satisfactory answer to this question. Indicate that there's a difference of opinion, provide a source for each viewpoint and have done with it. This kind of discussion makes Wikipedia look infantile and unprofessional. ccdesan (talk) 02:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It was stopped until you restarted it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 03:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

He was both Irish and British. He served in the British army. He identified as Irish and he didn't regard the terms as mutually exclusive. He took out a passport from the Irish Free State. He also derided (vituperatively) the Irish Free State. In later life he would sometimes clarify his Irish identity as Northern Irish. For these reasons British is legitimate (Irish would also be legitimate). He had a blended identity. There are a million people in Ireland with a blended British / Irish identity and the nationality should be locked as is. The discussion is sterile. 79.97.74.237 (talk) 23:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)Mountainyman

Do you have a source for "took out a passport from the Irish Free State", because that would be useful information for the article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

More nonsense. When Lewis was born, Ireland was wholly integrated within the United Kingdom. The nationality of all those who resided within the isle of Ireland during that time were British in terms of nationality. Every. Single. Last. One. Lewis was included in this.

Of course this changed in he 1920's - for some anyway. Those in Northern Ireland remained British. Again, Lewis was included in this, and openly stated that this is where he stood.

There are no two ways about it. There can be no further compromises. Lewis was always a British citizen, from birth till death. Irish is NOT acceptable as it is FAR too confusing - it suggests that he has ROI citizenship, which he does not. The current state of the article explains the situations sufficiently, and it shall not be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.27.150 (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If everyone in Ireland was British at that time, then there would be no citizenship requirement for Lewis to be considered Irish as well, because every Irishman was an British "citizen" (in the loosest sense of that word possible". Gtbob12 (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Why then is Charles Dickens referred to as English in the first paragraph of his article, and Robert Burns classed as a Scot... It is the most stupid statement I've ever read in the first paragraph of this article, Irish born British Writer?!?!--NorthernCounties (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The following moved here to be in chronological order -- Elphion (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The essay that I alluded to saying that Lewis was Irish appeared in a respected peer-reviewed academic journal (the Irish Studies Review - Vol. 18, No. 1, Feb., 2010, p. 17-38) and was very persuasive. I quote relevant parts of it below (it specifically handles the Irish versus British issue and provides references to Lewis referring to himself as Irish):

HERE IT IS------- "We have the words of Lewis himself to dispute any idea that he must have lost his Irish identity after so many years in England. In 1954, when Lewis was firmly established as a world-famous author, he wrote an essay arguing for the importance of Ireland to the work of Edmund Spenser, and in it, Jack described himself as 'an Irishman'. (Lewis, Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Literature, 126.) In 1958, during a recording session for a radio production, Jack –now aged 60 and five years from the end of his life – was told that his heavy breathing was having a bad effect on the sensitive sound recording. In frustration, he cried out, 'I’m Irish, not English. Did you ever know an Irishman who didn’t puff and blow?' (Bresland, The Backward Glance, 116.)

Other indications that Lewis saw himself as Irish include the fact that, throughout his adult life (as late as 1955), he referred to Ireland as ‘home’ (Lewis, Collected Letters, Vol. 1, 221, 644; Lewis, Collected Letters, Vol. 2, 102, 214, 945; Lewis, Surprised By Joy, 234.) or ‘my own country’ (Lewis, Collected Letters, Vol. 2, 170; Lewis, 1950 preface to Dymer, Narrative Poems, 4.) in his letters and writings…

All of this emphasis on Lewis’s Irishness may make us lose sight of the fact that because Lewis was an Ulster Protestant, a British identity was also available to him. Lewis makes clear in The Four Loves, however, that he sees ‘Britishness’ as a supranational identity comprised of the English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish peoples, (Lewis, The Four Loves, 23.) and, as we saw from the quotes mentioned earlier, he regarded his nationality within the British scheme as Irish. This is not unusual among Ulster Protestants. A quick look at the list of people who have accepted OBEs for services rendered to the British Empire reveals several Protestants from Northern Ireland who also trade on their ‘Irishness’, such as the musicians Van Morrison and James Galway, playwright Marie Jones, and politician David Bleakely. (Interestingly, Lewis refused a CBE offered to him by Winston Churchill in 1951. He ‘feared that acceptance would play into the hands of “knaves” who accused him of “covert anti-leftist propaganda” in his religious writings and of “fools” who believed the accusations.’ (See Bleakley, C.S. Lewis: At Home in Ireland, 58.)) We see Lewis’s acknowledgement of his own Britishness in a letter to his father from 1920. Referring to reports of the unrest in Belfast caused by the Anglo-Irish War, Lewis wrote, ‘When I come home I shall (like Lundy in the play) buy favour with green on one side and orange on the other, turning the appropriate colour outwards according to circumstances.’ (Lewis, Collected Letters, Vol. 1, 500.) This seeming ambivalence, however, was probably a bit overstated for his Unionist father, because, even if Lewis saw himself as British, he certainly did not see himself as an Orangeman. Repeatedly in adult life, he expressed, in his own words, his ‘natural repulsion to noisy, drum-beating, bullying Orangemen’, (Lewis, Collected Letters, Vol. 1, 330.) comparing them to the Klu Klux Klan and McCarthyites. (Lewis, An Experiment in Criticism, 127.) Lewis rejected his father’s suggestion that he join the U.V.F. to avoid serving in France during World War I, (Lewis, Collected Letters, Vol. 1, 391–392.) and, in an infamous passage cited by Unionists to prove that Lewis is not a true Ulsterman, he once commented:

'The country [around Ulster] is very beautiful and if only I could deport the Ulstermen and fill their land with a populace of my own choosing, I should ask for no better place to live in. By the by it is quite a mistake to think that Ulster is inhabited by loyalists: the mountains beyond Newcastle and the Antrim ‘hinterlands’ are all green.' (Lewis, All My Road Before Me, 105.)

He found many of his Unionist relations to be full of ‘provincialism, narrow Ulster bigotry and a certain sleek unreality’ (Lewis, Collected Letters, Vol. 1, 566.) and was disgusted when they told him the ‘story of a “decent man” shooting Catholics outside one of the [voting] booths’ on election day. (Lewis, Collected Letters, Vol. 1, 561.) He asked his scandalised relations how they could say that ‘the Sinn Feiners made a great attempt at intimidation... [when] they were in the minority?’ (Lewis, Collected Letters, Vol. 1, 561.) He also disliked ‘the most unpleasant feature of an Irish [Anglican] service – the large number of people who have obviously no interest in the thing, who are merely “good prodestants” [sic]... I am sure the English practice of not going unless you believe is a much better one.’ (Lewis, Collected Letters, Vol. 2, 132–133.)

Lewis also showed no love for the British monarchy or the agents of the British state in Ireland. In The Great Divorce, both Henry V and Henry VIII are said to be in Hell. (Lewis, The Great Divorce, 21, 54.) On one of his crossings to Ireland in 1929, Lewis was told the name of the boat he was travelling on and it sounded to his ears like the ‘Ulstermanic’. Lewis commented: ‘I thought it an odd name but nothing like so bad as the name they have actually given her’ (Lewis, Collected Letters, Vol. 1, 813.) – the ‘Ulster Monarch’. Then, writing in 1958, Lewis responded to the question of whether or not man is getting more enlightened by listing off several recent evils. He listed the Black and Tans alongside Hiroshima, the Gestapo, Ogpu, brain-washing and Russian slave camps. (Lewis, Essay Collection. 747.) Would an English writer have remembered the Black and Tans with such venom in 1958? This quote, along with his anti-Black and Tans remarks in That Hideous Strength (Lewis, That Hideous Strength, 154.) and The Four Loves, (Lewis, The Four Loves, 27.) also brings balance to his seeming indifference regarding the War of Independence in the letter to his father from 1920." - - - - -

I hope that clears things up a bit, and that we can change it to "Irish" writer without causing too much offense, especially in light of Lewis's own views. Stjohnfitzball (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see you in a position to state what is and what is not a "respected" publication. For one thing, the Irish Studies Review seems to be very partial (not to mention parochial) as its name would suggest, and a quick Web search shows that it appears to not even have its own website. So much for your "respected" publication. By the way, disliking the Monarchy does not affect one's nationality. Personally, I wish Britain were a republic, but it doesn't stop me being British or, specifically, English. Guv2006 (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

end move -- Elphion (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Not. Guv2006 (talk) 14:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I posted the above a week ago and nobody has protested/responded. Since the scholarly article I quote cites references in which Lewis self-identifies as "an Irishman" in 1954 and as "Irish" in 1958 - not Northern Irish, English or British - and cites references in which he describes "Ireland" as "home" - not Northern Ireland or Great Britain - as late as 1955, can I assume it's OK to change it to "Irish writer" now? Stjohnfitzball (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's less that no one objects than that everyone is weary of discussing the same matter over and over again every time a new editor comes along wanting to change CSL's nationality to "Irish". If you look in this page's archives, you will find that the matter has been discussed a number of times, and the consensus for the current compromise wording seems fairly solid. If you change the nationality again, I will certainly revert you; and we'll be off again on another round of useless back-and-forth generating more heat than light. I don't think that the articles you want to cite change the matter one whit, since if it were widely accepted that he was Irish (in nationality rather than in sentiment), there would have been no need to write an article "proving" so. Deor (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've responded now. Sorry it wasn't in your randomly alloted period of a week, but most people - I imagine - post on Wikipedia when the mood takes them, then move on. Lewis's nationality may be of huge importance to you, but to me it is of passing interest. For example, I'm only here now as I have nothing better to do this afternoon. Guv2006 (talk) 14:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. I won't change it then. My last word on it, though, is to point out that there is such a thing as "cultural imperialism". Over the centuries, numerous writers who have described themselves and regarded themselves as Irish have been coopted as "English" or "British" simply because the economic/political situation in Ireland required them to move to England to pursue their careers. To this day, you still see writers like Richard Brinsley Sheridan, Oliver Goldsmith, Oscar Wilde, Bernard Shaw, Elizabeth Bowen, and William Trevor described as "English" despite the fact they self-identified as Irish and their families lived in Ireland for centuries before they themselves moved to England. Lewis is merely another example of that phenomena (in Lewis's case, his Warren anscestors had been in Ireland for 800 years by the time he went to Oxford). A more powerful, economically successful culture has claimed him simply because it could. I don't want to be a part of that phenomena, especially in the case of a North Irish Protestant writer who repeatedly distanced himself from those in the North who have insisted on the "British" label to the exclusion of the "Irish" one. Enough of my preaching! Happy editing, all... Stjohnfitzball (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I still think its ridiculous when we look at articles such as Robert Burns and Charles Dickens they do not fall under the canvas of British. They're classed there respective nationalities. I bet if Lewis had been responsible for something horrific, we'd no doubt have any problem in arguing he was Irish. Especially when he considered himself to be so, and was born on the Island of Ireland. And a family background in the Church of Ireland (Unionist in stance it may be, but still named what it is!) But hey it's not the first time, I ask you to look up the Samuel Jackson - Kate Thornton interview on Colin Farrell...--NorthernCounties (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore and finally I'd like to add wikipedias definition that "nationality can refer to membership in a nation (collective of people sharing a national identity, usually based on ethnic and cultural ties and self-determination) even if that nation has no state, such as the Basques, Kurds, Tamils and Scots." Scots? Hmmm I guess that could include Irish as well then...--NorthernCounties (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Stjohnfitzball, it strikes me that your long-winded posts aren't intended to clarify the issue of Lewis's nationality, but to labour your particular and personal view of the Irish as perpetual victims of the English. It is not cultural imperialism to state that someone born in the United Kingdom is British, especially when that person had British ancestory. (Now when my computer has American-English as its default spell check setting - that I can't even change - now that's a different matter!). The main article states that he converted to the Protestant Church of England, and not the Irish Catholic church. Strange for someone who apparently "hated" the English and was a staunch, confirmed Irishman, don't you think? Guv2006 (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Guv2006, in answer to your objections:

1) The Irish Studies Review is published out of Bath Spa University and edited by two Englishmen. It’s a Routledge journal, which means, by any measure, it is a top class academic journal.

2) Lewis’s nationality may be, as you admit, of only "passing interest" to you. In that case, you won’t have studied the subject as seriously as those who are concerned with getting to the bottom of the matter.

3) Lewis was raised in the Anglican Church of Ireland, so a move, post-conversion and once resident in Oxford, to the Anglican Church of England wasn’t a move “away” from his religious roots in Ireland. (In other words, you can be both Irish and Protestant, even Anglican).

4) The Act of Union between Ireland and England was passed in 1800 amidst bribery and corruption (the promise of titles, etc – hence peers in Ireland who were known as “Union peers”.) Therefore, the idea that any part of Ireland is or was part of the United Kingdom is not a straightforward, “let’s have no more fuss about it” matter. As regards Northern Ireland, this forced Union has resulted in a situation where part of the population considers itself Irish and the other British. The British people, for the most part, refuse the label of Irish. Lewis was one of those unusual cases of a Northern Protestant from a Unionist background who accepted both the British AND the Irish labels (others include Van Morrison, Stephen Rea, James Nesbitt, Marie Jones, James Galway, Adrian Dunbar, George Best, Alex Higgins and others). Hence, it’s obviously no problem calling him British. The problem is that, since he was from Belfast, calling him British and refusing him the label of Irish consigns him, within a Northern Irish context, to the Loyalist camp – something he resisted strenuously.

Now you see why sweeping in, dubbing him “British” and refusing him the title of “Irish” without taking his views or the political context he came from into account is underestimating the complexities of the matter. Stjohnfitzball (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This matter was settled months ago. We have made reference to his Irishness, and at the same time made it clear that he is British. The opening sentence as it stands today is highly accurate and quite possibly the ONLY acceptable outcome, so can everyone please stop the damn squabbling and leave it be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.149.224 (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

GB Shaw is listed as Irish and he is in much the same boat as Lewis, ie being born in pre-partition Ireland and spending most of his life in Britain and presumably having British citizenship. Merely saying "Irish born" suggests something like he renounced his Irishness and considered himself British only ie being "naturalised" British. I think the fairest solution would be to list him as Irish, just as many prominent Scottish and Welsh people are described as being "Scottish" and "welsh", but to list his nationality in the sidebar as British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMacR (talk • contribs) 06:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

He's Irish as he was born in Ireland but he's British in nationality. Irish-born British sounds wierd though. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it is very simple, he is what he is, he is Northern Irish... he was born and bred there and described himself several times as Northern Irish. I have never heard this term of Irish-born British and he never described himself as such, I find it misleading, as though there was some mix up at his birth. I really do not understand what all the fuss is about? Scottish and Welsh actors are described as Scottish and Welsh, why is he being described as Irish born British? If Arthur Conan Doyle and Sean Connery, to say a couple, were described as Scottish-born British I am sure that would be the cause of a major discussion and many people would be very upset and rightly so as they are part of the Scottish heritage... as CS Lewis is part of the Northern Irish heritage. Describing him as Northern Irish is correct, with that it is understood he is also British. Why, if there is a list of Northern Irish writers with his name on it, is he not recognized as such on the opening sentence?

Edit request from Srcopeland, 10 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} His date of death is preceded by the word "Born". This should obviously be changed to "Died".

Srcopeland (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Where? In a cursory look, I'm not seeing that. Deor (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Must have been a case of mistaken eyes. I don't see it. SpigotMap 20:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Lewis's philosophy of science

The Abolition of Man and Miracles spend quite a bit of time talking about philosophy of science. The arguments Lewis puts forward are relevant to the demarcation problem and other philosophy of science and natural philosophy issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.193.112.62 (talk) 05:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Conan Doyle

This article should be exactly as Conan Doyles... why because he was from the same era, yet Arthur Conan Doyle is recognised as Scottish. Further examples include: Enid Blyton Beatrix Potter I'm sure I could find more... --NorthernCounties (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The way it stands is a good enough compromise seeing as the statement is true. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a few problems with adding this template: (1) This issue is never going to be resolved, so we will never be able to remove it (see last 15 talk pages). (2) The current language in the lead is just about as neutral as you could possibly have. (3) The lead is succinct to the point of nearly not mentioning his origins/nationality/whatever. (4) I believe it is relatively obvious to everyone who does not have a stake in the matter that both countries have some claim to Lewis, and that some people from each country will never recognize the claim of the other. LloydSommerer (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Technically as he was born in Ireland which was entirely part of the UK at the time - he qualifies primarily as British. The descriptor Irish is secondary to his actual nationality, and describes what part of the UK he was from. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

From these archived talk pages it's clearly evident that we are as yet to arrive at a stable conclusion. If we look at any of the three authors which I provided in my previous edit, you will see that there is no such issue around the phrasing in their current states. If we state that he was an Irish author and state that we was from the UK in the infobox, this would certainly satisfy the mention on both. And perhaps finally put this to rest --NorthernCounties (talk) 11:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem with it is how its worded.

I do find the comment by Lsommerer "I believe it is relatively obvious to everyone who does not have a stake in the matter that both countries have some claim to Lewis" funny. The UK has sole claim to him as he was born in the UK and the bit that is now Northern Ireland at that, and he was a British citizen. He never lived in the Republic of Ireland which was founded after he was born so you can't say they have a claim to him. If he was born in Monaghan or Dublin then they'd have a claim.

But that is where i believe all the problems with the usage of the term applies. The usage of the term "Irish" could give the impression that he was from the Republic of Ireland which is utterly untrue. We could state in the intro that he was "born in Belfast, in modern-day Northen Ireland" if Irish was used. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The Republic didn't exist back then, and if someone read into it more would realise this. If we are to keep it as it is, we'd have to bring about changes to other authors from the time. When he was alive he was from one consituent country of the UK. Which was Ireland. Hence it should say he was Irish, just as others have them repect paid to them by stating they were Scottish or English. --NorthernCounties (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I fully acknowledge my complete lack of grasp on the subtleties of the arguments presented by both sides in these debates. LloydSommerer (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Granted, it can be difficult to see the actual arguments in debates when N.I is concerned. But this is not me simply pursuing some pro-nationalistic agenda, I'm seeking uniformity in line with other authors from the UK at that period. And to fully appreciate the authors roots, (in current N.I). But to conform with other established practices it should state in the intro that he was a Irish author and the UK should be acknowledged in the Infobox. Is this really so offensive to others/one sided? I whole heartedly feel this simple change would stop further months/years of debate on the topic. --NorthernCounties (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Before this discussion consumes much more bandwidth, I'll just point out that, despite the particular examples adduced by NorthernCounties, the current wording in this article has a parallel in the lead of Iris Murdoch, where the wording was arrived at as a result of similar disputes and where it has been stable for a pretty long time. I know that Arthur Conan Doyle has attracted similar Scottish/British disputation, so that NorthernCounties's citing that as an example is predicated only on its current state, which may change at any moment; and without actually checking I suppose that the other articles s/he mentions have the same problem. Can't the various parts of the United Kingdom (and the Republic of Ireland) just give the matter a rest for a while? I personally think that the apparent WP requirement of including a nationality in every biographical article's opening sentence is an unnecessary invitation to such nonsense, but that doesn't mean that editors have to perpetually war about such things. Lewis was born on the island of Ireland and he was a British citizen; therefore, he was both "Irish-born" and "British". If people want to turn this article into yet another ethnic battleground, I have no doubt that the matter will eventually end up with the ArbComm—is that what anyone really wants? Deor (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: And if NorthernCounties thinks that implementing her/his suggestion "would stop further months/years of debate on the topic", all I can say is "Fat chance!" Deor (talk) 02:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I've checked the talk pages of these authors and there seems to be no such current issue. Maybe in the past but it seems it has been resolved. There is definately an issue with the current wording. To say "Irish born British" implies that Irish was a nationality and then it wasn't. He was born in Ireland, were no doubt he felt just as Irish as Arthur felt Scottish. And fat chance? Why it states the he was both Irish and from within the UK. --NorthernCounties (talk) 07:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The issue should stick to nationality. Scottish, Irish (when it was all part of the UK), English, and Welsh are not nationalities in the way that American, Canadian, French etc. are. British is the parallel for these terms. Both arguements can be satisifed by stating that they were British but stating in the lede what part of the UK they where from which makes it implicit that they are Irish or Scottish or whatever. The whole issue needs discussed for all articles relating to people from the UK to create a standard that can be adhered to. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely no doubt that Lewis was both Irish and British. As a couple of people said earlier in this discussion, being Irish and British were not exclusive terms. They still aren't.

Unfortunately, this is where the Republic of Ireland decision to appropriate the term "Irish" (and the name of the island of Ireland) as solely belonging to that state, confuses the issue and adds ambiguity. This ambiguity can be seen by the statements made by the person who started the discussion Lewis Was Irish.

The views of Lewis on the Orange Order, the Black and Tans and religion are immaterial. A person's views and opinions stand apart from the facts. Besides which, the views that Lewis held on those particular matters are similar to the views of plenty of unionists in Northern Ireland and in the whole of the UK. It is a myth and a non sequitur to suggest that only unionists, or those who would embrace the fact that they are British, would necessarily support or embrace either the Orange Order, the Black and Tans or any specific religion.

The facts remain the facts though. Anyone who was born in Ireland, certainly after 1800, would have been British, whether they liked it or not. The so-called "forced union" was nothing unique in the formation of countries throughout the world. It happened to England. I wonder how the Celtic-descended people of England felt initially at being referred to as English ("Anglo-ish"). How do native Americans feel about being referred to as US citizens? And so on.

The person who started the discussion states that Lewis was Irish. Of course he was. But that doesn't mean he wasn't British, as other have pointed out. Ian Paisley is Irish (as he himself has stated). The same goes for people like Gerry Adams. He's Irish and, whether he likes it or not, or wishes things were somehow different (and we all know he does), he's British.

Part of Wikipedia's problem is in attempting to be politically correct. It often tries to take peoples' opinions and views into account and ignore the facts. In Gerry Adams's case, the fact is that he is British. It is also a fact that he wishes he wasn't. The passport anyone holds is also irrelevant, other than to add another nationality to the list. So, for Gerry Adams, assuming he holds a passport for the Republic of Ireland, he is British, Irish and a citizen of the Republic of Ireland as well. The same goes for Robert Burns and Sean Connery.

Just a note on joining the UVF in 1914-1918. It wouldn't have mattered either way, as there was no conscription in Ireland during WWI and no conscription in Northern Ireland during WWII. The vast majority of able men who had joined the UVF went on to join up with the 36th (Ulster) Division. Ironically, thousands of them died in France.

Stjohnfitzball has a pretty simplistic view of the Northern Irish. He suggests, erroneously, that part of the population considers itself Irish and the other part as British. This is clearly not the case. There are almost as many viewpoints on the matter as there are adults in the population! Suggesting that it is unusual for a "Northern Protestant" from a "unionist background" to consider themselves as Irish is extremely misleading. To start with, many people of the Church of Ireland tended to write "Irish Church" in the Census. When answering the question of what language they spoke, many Protestants answered "Irish". This indicates they saw a distinction between Irish as a dialect, and Gaelic. It also would seem to indicate that they had no problem with the concept of their own Irishness, and considered themselves Irish. The Unionist Party of Ireland was called the Irish Unionist Party, and not the British Unionist Party. The Orange Order organises on an island-wide basis, the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland, as do all of the main Protestant Churches. And again, while Ian Paisley's own Church is the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster specifically, Paisley has said that he is Irish. Shaw was British and Irish, too.

The viewpoint of people, particularly people of a Protestant or unionist persuasion, concerning the concept of being Irish, has varied over the years and depended quite a bit on the political atmosphere and popular labels of the day. There certainly has been a moving away from the label "Irish" by many Protestants and unionists. I would suggest this was mostly a problem with ambiguity, created by the southern Irish state 'stealing' the term exclusively for itself, as well as a reaction against a violent revolutionary movement which claims Irishness as its own - something that many unionists wanted nothing to do with and a specific type of Irishness that they certainly didn't identify with.

I would be careful with using the label "loyalist" in these kinds of context. It has definitely come to mean something specific in terms of Northern Ireland, bringing with it the association of counter-revolutionary militancy at best, and terrorism at worst. It is quite a different thing than unionism.

In the case of Lewis, he had Irish ancestry. He also had Welsh ancestry and probably Scottish ancestry too, given the maternal surname of Hamilton. By many standards, he could be considered Welsh, Irish, Northern Irish. In fact, put simply, British.

There are people in England who reject a notion of being British. They remain, nevertheless, British despite their political opinion. They also remain English, assuming that is their ancestry.

The article on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle seems odd to me. There is no reference to that fact that he was British, other than mentioning the name of the country in which he was born. The article seems to reject the fact that he was a British author in fact. The box-out at the top right suggests his nationality is Scottish, when there is really no such nationality. That he was Scottish is, of course, in no doubt. Then the box mentions his citizenship, which is labelled "United Kingdom". In fact the correct term is "British", not "United Kingdom". If the box had said, "Country born in", then "United Kingdom" would certainly be correct.

It seems that Wikipedia has specifically striven to avoid any mention of the term British in relation to the author, for some reason. I find that bizarre. --81.135.41.3 (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Sequencing of earlier sections

The sequencing of the first 4 sections seems to me rather non-chronological. It moves from Childhood to World War One, then Jane Moore, then My Irish Life. Would it not make more sense to have it in the following order:

Childhood

My Irish Life

World War One

Jane Moore

We know that his time in service during World War One followed several years after his first experiences of living in England (which is what My Irish Life section seems to be more or less about)

I will grant that Jane Moore (section) could probably go either before or after World War One. But I think after might be better due to the fact that he had only just met her a couple of years before his time in service, whereas the duration of the relationship/friendship was for a longer duration after his return from service.62.254.133.139 (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)