Talk:C. S. Lewis/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Criticism

I removed the criticism section from the article. I have no POV one way or the other on Lewis, it just seemed that the criticism section was thrown in to "balance" the article. It started by claiming that his Narnia works had been widely criticized but provided no citation to prove this. It then list a few very specific complaints on Lewis from some minor literary individuals. I have no problem, of course, with some one restoring the section if they can show that the criticism had a major impact on his work or its legacy in the public eye, because from what I gathered from the section it did neither. The section should also be properly sourced. I removed it rather than just make this post because I think it best to err on the side of caution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.252.49.152 (talk) 05:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

The section was more extensive and contained specific referenced criticisms, but this was moved to the Chronicles of Narnia article (which is why readers are directed there for further information). I've replaced the section, and added a reference. I think more than one reference would be untidy looking, but they are available in the Narnia article if anyone disagrees. Martin 00:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I liked the rewrite of the criticism page much better than the original. I removed a little of the rewrite, specifficaly the part that referred to criticism of his Christian apologetics. I removed it simply because the figures quoted are extremely minor figures whose whole career is based around criticism of that sort. If anyone can come up with a better known writer or religious figure for a criticism, that would be great. I will be looking myself. `129.252.205.245 01:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see the logic of this. Beversluis is a serious philosopher and his criticisms are well argued. Joshi is more of a popular writer but he is at least as serious on the topic as Lewis, and if someones "whole career is based around criticism of that sort" then perhaps they actually know what they are on about. In any case, the link to the Trilemma page leads to a more detailed examination of the issues. Rbreen 14:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

New gripe: the section that starts with, "However, Lewis himself combats against this..." [which seems like poor grammar] and ends with, "...a system which must be heeded." seems to be original opinions of someone trying to criticize the criticism in situ. (Phrases like "fails to realize," "nonetheless," and "of course" mark it as such.) I propose that it be removed. 98.194.89.153 (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Betjeman

The bad feeling between CS Lewis and the then undergraduate John Betjeman is well known, and I was interested to see Lewis's dislike of English flippancy mentioned in the article, because this was a characteristic he found most irritating in Betjeman. Betjeman responded in kind, referring in one of his poems to "St CS Lewis's church" and in another as follows:

"Objectively our Common Room/ Is like a small Athenian state -/ Except for Lewis: he's all right,/ But do you think he's quite first rate?"

It should be borne in mind that the author of the above stanza failed to get a degree, whereas Lewis got a double first. Millbanks 22:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Millbanks 08:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be borne in mind that "a double first doesn't mean anything to Americans.Heqwm 04:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No, and it probably doesn't mean much to Russians, Chinese or Canadians. Do we have to explain such things? For example, if I were writing an article on soccer and referred to an "own goal", would I need to explain that? Anyhow, writing about an Oxford academic, surely it is reasonable to expect some knowledge. In fact I queried Dan Snow's "double first", and for further enlightenment, please see the discussion there. Millbanks 23:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I’ve just chanced on this. Lewis got a double first. Betjaman didn’t get a degree. Who’s the better writer? Have you read any of Lewis’s poetry? If you haven’t don’t bother. Apparently Lewis once threatened Betjaman with a broad sword he kept in his rooms. Now that’s an interesting image. Dave59 (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Lewis's poetry is spectacular. It's precisely because it was good (and not made of the nonsensical tripe that got noticed in Lewis's day--and today, come to think of it) that it didn't go very far. Pity. Anyway, who reads Betjeman anymore? To the Betjmemobile, Robin! Holy Crappy Verse, Betjeman!

And Lewis never owned a broadsword.

Conversion - the road to Damascus or to Whipsnade ?

The article mentions Lewis's conversion following a trip to the zoo.

It's a locally believed 'myth' here in Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire where I live that he had a 'Damascus" style conversion during a motorbike ride from Oxford to the Whipsnade zoo, which lies between Leighton Buzzard and Dunstable - (it's more or less on Dunstable Downs). Is there any truth in this story ? Can it be verified, and does Tolkien have any involvement in it ?

18:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Lewis himself mentions it in his biography, Surprised by Joy. He went for a ride with his brother, Warnie, and when he left, he says, he did not believe that Christ was the Son of God, and when he arrived, he did. Nothing quite like a Damascus road, smacked-on-your-face-blind, whither-persecutest-thou-me experience, really. Lewis had slowly come to be a theist by this point and he essentially tipped over the edge to Christianity. Tolkien's involvement comes most famously in a long chat he and Lewis (and Hugo Dyson, I believe) had one night at Oxford about myth and Christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.43 (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Professorate not "honorary"

His position as professor at Cambridge shouldn't be listed as honorary, since it was not. It was a real academic position. dllu (talk) 10:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely right, and I've removed it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Birth Name

I added Lewis birthname to the page as it was not exisiting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterDoss (talk • contribs) 07:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Belfast, Ireland? Shouldn't it be Belfast, Northern Ireland?

I've just signed up to Wikipedia and this is my first contribution to a discussion topic, so please forgive (and please point out!) any errors in etiquette on my part.

Please don't think I'm making a pseudo-political point, but shouldn't the article refer to Lewis' birth place as Belfast, Northern Ireland? The reason is that the "Ireland" hyperlink points to the modern country of the Republic of Ireland, not the modern country of Northern Ireland. I appreciate that Northern Ireland did not exist as a political entity at the time of Lewis' birth, but we don't refer to (as deliberately extreme examples) Tehran, Persia or Istanbul, Thrace.

I do however think it quite right and proper that he be listed as Irish, but isn't the reference to Belfast, Ireland misleading?

Will welcome discussion, and apologies if this has been discussed and resolved already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davymid (talk • contribs) 20:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Belfast, Ireland appeared a couple of times in the article. I've removed Ireland from those instances, and I think that resolves the problem. It's not like Belfast was some obscure city that had to be tagged with a country name just to help readers to place it. "Belfast" on its own is enough. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! This has been discussed before, I believe. I think Anticipation's fix may be valid, but I want to correct your examples a bit. Birthplaces in Wikipedia are represented by the names of the place at the time of birth. Rather than "Istanbul, Thrace", a better example is Philo of Byzantium, who was born in Byzantium, the city now known as Istanbul. It would be incorrect to say Philo was born in Istanbul. Abdolhossein Sepanta was in fact born in Tehran, Persia, and it would be incorrect to say he was born in "Tehran, Iran". In the same way, Lewis was born in Belfast, Ireland, not Belfast, Northern Ireland. Jpers36 (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The hyperlink for "Ireland" points to an article that is headed "This article is about the island. For the state of the same name, see Republic of Ireland. For other uses, see Ireland (disambiguation)." That doesn't seem too misleading (not a criticism -I haven't been through the revision history to see whether it already did that when the comment was posted, and so on). --Paularblaster (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If you think this one is tricky, you should see the debates over whether Copernicus was German or Polish! --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I concede the valid point Paularblaster. I agree that Anticipation's edit of removing Ireland/Northern Ireland [completely] has po6tential to cause more ambiguity (by not directing the searcher as to ANY geographic location of Belfast. I must say I found this solution to be unsatifying. How are we to assume that someone from e.g. SE Asia would know the location of Belfast, just because it was a prominent European city at the time?)

As I learn more about the Wikipedia process, indeed I agree that Belfast, Ireland would direct the interested researcher to the correct reference, which should be all that matters. I consider this issue resolved, and say that Belfast, Ireland should reasonably stand in the references for C.S Lewis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davymid (talk • contribs) 00:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we can assume that a European will know that Kolkata is an Indian city and a South-East Asian will know that Belfast is a European one, and those who don't, or need to know more, can click the link to find out. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, with all due respect Anticipation, your assumption is wrong, as I'm a well-educated European (PhD Geology, University of Aberdeen), and I've never heard of Kolkata in my life. That's my admission, which reinforces the point that the reader should be directed to SOME location of the City of Belfast, historical or not, and not assume that they should know where to look, on the map, without a description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davymid (talk • contribs) 01:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

What should be happening is that we say Belfast, Ireland. Since the latter link points to the island it will negate any disagreement about whether we should point at Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland. In fact I'll do that. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

- Both being anachronisms in 1898. Lewis was born in the Kingdom of Ireland. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

New Yorker Magazine article on C.S. Lewis

 http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/11/21/051121crat_atlarge

Links to a New Yorker Magazine article called "Prisoner of Narnia -- How C.S. Lewis Escaped", by Adam Gopnik.

It would be useful in improving the C.S.Lewis article if someone could confirm or refute it's claims, as follows:

Gopnik refers to Lewis' "bullying brand of Christianity", paragraph 1.

Gopnik refers to "Lewis' weird and complicated sex life", paragraph 3.

Gopnik claims Lewis "born into a rough and ready but pious Ulster protestant family", paragraph 6.

Gopnik implies Lewis discovered George MacDonald prior to going to school in England, paragraph 7.

Gopnik calls Lewis "a bright and sensitive British boy turned by public-school sadism into a warped, morbid, stammering sexual pervert", paragraph 9.

Gopnik claims Lewis "also took up with a much older married woman, with whom he had a long affair that may have had a sadomasochistic tinge", paragraph 10.

Gopnik compares Oxford tutors to lap-dancers, paragraph 11.

Gopnik attributes Lewis' conversion primarily to JRR Tolkien, paragraph 13.

Gopnik describes Lewis theory of "myth" in a garbled fashion. He provides a marvelous quote touching on it:

   “The story of Christ is simply a true myth,” he says he discovered
   that night, “a myth working on us in the same way as the others,
   but with this tremendous difference  - that it really happened.”

but without specifying what that theory was, paragraphs 13 and 14.

Gopnik implies Lewis saw the Church of England as the one true faith, the only Christian denomination lacking in error, paragraph 15.

Gopnik opines that "believing shut Lewis off from writing well about belief", paragraph 16.

Gopnik calls Lewis' science-fiction trilogy simplistic, "lacking in vitality", and "Blimpish", paragraph 20.

Gopnik says Aslan is "an anti-Christian figure", and should be a humble donkey not a great lion, paragraphs 21 and 23.

Gopnik says that "Lewis ended up in a state of uncertain personal faith that seems to the unbeliever comfortingly like doubt", paragraph 27.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.61.72 (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. You've put a lot of points there. The main one to remember is that the article is just one person's opinion, so it can't be really 'confirmed'. Is the Sci-fi trilogy really "lacking in vitality"? Who can say, it's a subjective opinion. Most of his other points fall into that category. Maybe the best thing is for you to read the trilogy and see if you agree.

Some points could be checked up on. Gopnik writes that "an archbishop of Canterbury" thought Lewis' brand of Christianity was "bullying", but since he doesn't say who that's almost impossible to confirm (something which Gopnik surely must have known when he wrote it, and says a lot about his approach). Some of the basic facts are documented in the article; "took up with an older married woman" means Jane Moore, but "had an affair" is far from proven and anyway she was widowed if I recall; "sadomasochistic" is speculation. Tolkien was certainly influential in Lewis' conversion - but you could have found out all those things by reading the article. As for the rest all we can say is that they are Gopnik's opinion. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Major references problem re: Douglas/David Gresham

Some of the information here has a couple issues that need work.

Multiple bibliographic formats. I see some APA, some Wiki, some simple footnotes, etc. This needs to be cleaned up into the wikipedia formatting. APA is fine for academic literature, but by convention wikipedia uses its own system.

The Neven 2001 article appears not to conform to WP:RS because it lacks editorial oversight. While very well written and beautifully formatted, the site appears to be the work of a single person's research (self-published). Can we find another, better source for this information? Since Douglas Gresham is still alive, this also falls under WP:BLP. By all rights, it should be deleted immediately pending resolution, but since it's the source that we're looking at, I'll leave it for a day or two to give people a chance to respond. (There is a book called In Lenten Lands by Douglas Gresham, but the material linked does not appear to come from that source.)

Wellspring (talk) 00:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not convinced that BLP intends to exclude interviews with the living person himself, as Nevens' site is. Other sources would be welcome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Project Banners

Is there an exceptional reason against collapsing the Project Banners?

Please discuss here. If there is no consensus against doing so, I will collapse the banners after the first of March.

Have fun!

JimCubb (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

My view has them all collapsed already. --13² 02:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Neither IE nor Firefox show them as collapsed.

JimCubb (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

They are nested. They are not collapsed. I will collapse them on 1 March unless someone objects before then.

JimCubb (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

All 13 project banners are now collapsed. Doesn't that look much better?

The nested parameter is no longer needed so I deleted it.

JimCubb (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Lewis' or Lewis's?

Is this a British vs. American English thing? Why do some sources use Lewis's and some Lewis'?

Is there some style guideline that settles which one should be used for this article? I think the article should definitely use one method and not both. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 09:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's one source that shows things are pretty complicated even for copyeditors:

Einsohn, Amy (2000). "Posessive forms of proper nouns". The Copyeditor's Handbook: A Guide for Book Publishing and Corporate Communications, with Exercises and Answer Keys. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 135. ISBN 0-520-21834-5. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

This might explain why some sources use Lewis' and some use Lewis's, but it doesn't really answer which one should be used for this article. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 11:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems best to follow WP:MOS#Possessives, which suggests that Lewis's is the way to go (but which also suggests that you may want to rethink your change of Jesus′ to Jesus's). Deor (talk) 12:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. Changed it back to Jesus'. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 14:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

A Crisis of Faith

Would it be appropriate to expand on Lewis's crisis of faith towards the end of his life in its impact on his theological thinking? It was more than just the death of Joy but also a debate that he had with G.E.M. Anscombe. While Lewis didn't disavowal his apologetics, not did he publish or preach any more apologetics for the remainder of his life. The article seems suggest that his "trilemma" and "universal morality" ideas were the apotheosis of his thinking on these matters, while the reality may have been more complex. (There is a paragraph of this encounter in the Wikipedia entry on Elizabeth Anscombe.)

Philip Wik (talk) 03:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism is a bit one-sided

I'm not a C.S. Lewis expert, but I'd be surprised if there were no rebuttals by notable people to the criticisms listed. (and before anyone throws the {{Template:Sofixit}} at me, I wouldn't be the best person to fill this out)--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In general it's not a good idea for criticism sections to include rebuttals. Because if you do, someone will insist on putting rebuttals to the rebuttals, and then rebuttals to the rebuttals to the rebuttals, and then the whole section becomes a debate. Some articles have really suffered from this syndrome. Yes it seems one-sided but as it's done consistently it's not as bad as the alternatives. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

However now I think about it there is one paragraph I'm not sure about. Is Dan Barker really attacking Lewis, or is he attacking Christianity in general? If the latter, or if he is merely using Lewis as an example of the things he objects to, then he probably doesn't merit a mention here. If he singles out Lewis as being in some way worse then the other Christians he obviously disagrees with then he should stay. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

A read a summary and it seems that Barker is just disagreeing with Lewis' views. That isn't really notable - any atheist will disagree with him. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'll remove that part. As for the rest of the section, is there anyway (since its pretty short) it could be integrated into the main body or make it a "reception/response" section?--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I also removed the part saying "So and so criticized Lewis in so and so" because there's nothing about what they were criticizing in the first place, just that criticism existed.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the remaining criticism was (surprise surprise) Pullman's I added it into the legacy his opinion. Should it be noted that he himself has admitted that his series is an anti-Christian parallel to Narnia?--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's discussed in significantly more detail in the Narnia article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding C.S. Lewis's argument that Jesus said he was God and therefore could not be just a wise man. I think the criticisms of this argument need to be explained further or removed.

Jesus did say in the bible that he was God, and he was referred to as the Son of God throughout the entire New Testament. Therefore criticising C.S. Lewis's argument by stating that Jesus did not say he was God seems to be a very weak argument.

From the New Testament: Then they asked him, 'Where is your father?' 'You do not know me or my Father,' Jesus replied. 'If you knew me, you would know my Father also'" (John 8:19) "'I tell you the truth,' Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I am!'" (John 8:58). "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30).

Jesus also let other people bow down to him, if he did not believe he was God he would not have let them do this. None of his disciples, for example, would let others bow down to them.

I do agree that some other parts of C.S. Lewis's works can probably be criticized, I just think that the reason given in this particular case is not correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.42.233 (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Apostrophes

Please don't edit war. The talk page is the right place to discuss edits, even about apostrophes.

My two cents here is that an apostrophe is placed after the s only when the non-posessive word already ends in an s (Dickens' stories, the masses' beliefs). Since children doesn't end in an s there is no problem with children's. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Strunk and White's Elements of Style support the construction Lewis's. The example they use is Charles's friend.

Philip Wik (talk) 03:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Google results summary

I didn't know where to report this, but I thought I'd bring to your attention that the summary for this article's url in Google results [specifically when you search 'cs lewis'] has been vandalised. I don't know how to fix this (I signed up to Wikipedia now just to report it), but does someone know how to fix it ASAP?

As far as I can tell this is an aberration of Google. The page hasn't been vandalised like that for a long time. Google works by crawling (i.e. reading) pages at intervals - I can only assume we were unlucky and it crawled it during the time (typically a few minutes) between the vandalism ocurring and it being fixed. It seems that you can only find this reference by looking for it though. If you type in search terms including what you wrote above you can find the vandalism - if you just type in "c s lewis" then you get the page as it is now.

Short answer - it isn't much of a problem and it will go away. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography page

Hi all, I created a Bibliography of C. S. Lewis page for C. S. Lewis, please help by making it better. TuckerResearch (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Jane Moore

RE: Lewis's relationship with Jane Moore. Specifically this section:

In his biography of Lewis, A.N.Wilson makes a case for supposing that Lewis and Mrs Moore were, for a time, lovers. Surprised by Joy, Lewis's autobiography, is silent about his relationship with Moore and yet Wilson puts forth evidence to show that Lewis was supporting both Moore and her daughter in rented accommodation near to his digs in Oxford. Furthermore, in Surprised by Joy, Lewis writes of this period of his life, "I was returned to Oxford — 'demobbed — in January 1919. But before I say anything of my life there I must warn the reader that one huge and complex episode will be omitted. I have no choice in this reticence. All I can or need to say is that my earlier hostility to the emotions was very fully and variously avenged".

In writing this, Lewis of course invites speculation. Wilson presents evidence which shows that, whatever the full extent of the relations between Moore and himself, their relationship during his undergraduate years could indeed be described as both 'huge' and 'complex'.

This has long been a subject of dispute. This portion of the article reads in places like someone is trying to make the case for a particular view of their relationship via references to AN Wilson, and claiming AN Wilson had "evidence", yet no citations are given. If it is deemed necessary to keep this in, then it should at least be balanced with other views, or criticisms of AN Wilson's analysis of the relationship (there are several biographies). Otherwise in my opinion it would be better omitted.

I suggest the following quote from George Sayer who knew CS Lewis well and whose biography is highly respected, would suffice:

Were they lovers? Owen Barfield, who knew Jack well in the 1920s, once said that he thought the likelihood was "fifty-fifty." Although she was twenty-six years older than Jack, she was still a handsome woman, and he was certainly infatuated with her. But it seems very odd, if they were lovers, that he would call her "mother." We know, too, that they did not share the same bedroom. It seems most likely that he was bound to her by the promise he had given to Paddy and that his promise was reinforced by his love for her as his second mother. (Jack - A life of CS Lewis - page 154 pub. Hodder & Stoughton)

Also is the name Janie, or Jane? Roger Lancelyn Green refers to her as Mrs Janie Askins Moore in his biography.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.164.15 (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have made some changes along the lines noted above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.164.15 (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Influenced by / Influenced

I thought I would start this, and suggest Beatrix Potter, George MacDonald and GK Chesterton as three writers who influenced CS Lewis. There are no doubt a lot more who could be included, but I need to research it a bit more first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.164.15 (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

To the above could be added Virgil, Rudolf Otto, Charles Williams, Arthur James Balfour

Please see Talk:C. S. Lewis/Archive 4#Influences/influenced. Deor (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I had not seen the previous discussion. Are there any objections to incorporating into the article a list of books specifically identified by Lewis in answer to the question "What books did most to shape your vocational attitude and your philosophy of life?". Lewis identified 10 books which had been influencial. It was published in the The Christian Century (June 6, 1962) and is also in the CS Lewis Readers' Encyclopedia, as follows:

1. Phantastes by George Macdonald 2. The Everlasting Man by GK Chesterton 3. The Aeneid by Virgil 4. The Temple by George Herbert 5. The Prelude by William Wordsworth 6. The Idea of the Holy by Rudolf Otto 7. The Consolation of Philosophy by Boethius 8. Life of Samuel Johnson by James Boswell 9. Desecent into Hell by Charles Williams 10. Theism and Humanism by Arthur James Balfour

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.100.65 (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I know you are a sockpuppet, who can be ignored from now on. O Fenian (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You act as if that is relevant, when it clearly is not. It's not as if I've used that account to make it seem like there are multiple people backing a point.

The thing is, I'm right and you are wrong, regardless of having an old account. It's not as if said account refutes my undeniable logic.

You're just going to have to accept that CS Lewis is British, submit to one of the three acceptable outcomes of this debate, and I shall continue on my merry way correcting articles such as this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.72.55 (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me... Am, I'm from the North... Yet I've an Irish passport, oh that's right there's the Irish Nationality Act! Where's the proof that he had a British Passport? This just is typical of the reknown English attitude that everything English is English, If someone Scottish, Irish or Welsh is bad they'll be called that but if they're good they'll be British! If CS Lewis was useless, I'm sure there'd be no quarrel in his Northern Irish Author title! The whole concept of Irish born British Author is just preposterous! And I think it would only offend him, that "the other folk" i.e the English lay claim to him! —Preceding unsigned comment added by NorthernCounties (talk • contribs) 23:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Your edit said he was "Northern Irish" yet he was born before Northern Ireland existed. If it is reduced to just "Irish" it just causes edit wars, so the current version seems the best compromise and seems to satisfy everyone. O Fenian (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

We've been through this many times and NorthernCounties added nothing new. DJ Clayworth (talk) 00:34, 11 December 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)

Lewis himself described it as a conversion. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

From the reference, it seems he substituted one superstition with another. From christianity to mythology and the occult. Why is this in the article described as "atheism"? Seems to be quite a Christian-centric article. To label everything unchristian as "atheism". (195.139.24.169 (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC))

I know of no evidence whatsoever that Lewis was into "the occult". During his atheist period he he didn't believe in God of any kind, hence why he called it atheism. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

My Irish Life

The last paragraph if this section is completely unsourced, including the quote, except for the statement about where he spent his honeymoon. I hesitate to open such a recurring can of worms, but it's been that way for a long time and process says we should delete it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I've sourced the quotation. No opinion at present on whether the section constitutes undue weight or synthesis. Deor (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the source. I have no stomach to delve deeper into the weight applicable to Lewis' Irishness right now. DJ Clayworth (talk) 03:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I frankly think the whole article is over-long and groans under the weight of editorial commentary. Parts of it read like some teen's semi-plagiarized term paper or an OR biography, not an encyclopedia article. If it were up to me (and based on the foregoing discussions, I have no illusions on this point) the whole thing would be pared down by 2/3 and left with less whimsical/emotional, more verifiable/encyclopedic content.

Let me also say it's quite lovely to read such finely-worded argumentation in print. Kudos to you all. Ibinthinkin (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Introduction - press ephemera?

Do the third and especially the fourth paragraphs really belong in the introduction? This has been bothering me for years, every time I look at the article. A lot of people saw Shadowlands so the marriage to Gresham is borderline, but the limited press given to his death on a historic day hardly seems essential information, and ironically, if anything, pace Kreeft, its inclusion in the introduction tends to perpetuate an implied slight. The deaths of Huxley and Kennedy may be an interesting if tangential coincidence (at best), but wouldn't such trivia be better confined to the main body of the text? His reputation is as a literary critic, author and apologist, not a media celebrity. Opinions? 59.101.152.198 (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

Guv, your comment shows you lack knowledge of history, and as such, should not be here. At the time of Lewis birth, there was no "northern Ireland" in existance. It was simply Ireland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.220.87 (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You make a valid point, but why add it here as an individual section? Guv2006 (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Lewis Trilemma - mostly criticism?

It seems to my reading that the section on Lewis Trilemma is essentially a listing of criticism of it, from a selection of different sources. Seems a strange way to define an argument, by listing the criticism made against it!

Less than half of the section is criticism of the trilemma. DJ Clayworth (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact, half of the section essentially defines the trilemma and the other half criticizes it, exemplified by statements like: Although widely repeated in Christian apologetic literature, it has been largely ignored by professional theologians and biblical scholars, as it fails to take into account the possibility that Jesus' claims to divinity may have been significantly misunderstood, or the possibility that the Gospels themselves may be inaccurate. For these reasons, Lewis's argument is regarded by some as logically unsound and an example of false dilemma.
The obvious truck that can be driven through that statement is that Lewis is talking about the Jesus of the Gospels. If one wants to assume that those parts of the Gospel that Lewis refers to in his arguments (those in which Jesus either directly or indirectly refers to Himself as god) are somehow suspect but that those which demonstrate Jesus to be the "wise and admirable teacher" are somehow less suspect then one isn't making statements based on the Jesus of the Gospels at all, but some Jesus of one's own fancy. As further evidence of this the "great teacher" theorists also have to ignore those points, for example, at which the Gospels report that Jesus clearly states that those who are not saved will spend eternity in torment in Hell.
Yet, somehow, the incredibly weak arguments forwarded by the "wise and admirable teacher but not God" proponents somehow never receive even that superficial level of criticism
Lewis, on the otherhand, is quite open and honest that he's speaking precisely of the Jesus of the Gospels, because to talk of any other Jesus is to arrogantly talk of a Jesus modelled on one's own presuppositions. Unless accepted on faith, there is no such thing as an "historical" Jesus that can be discovered by clever suppositions about which parts of the Gospel must be correct and which parts must be incorrect - and even such cynical approaches which are self-deemed to be "honest and unbiased" criticism have historically been shown to be nothing other than narcissistic projections of one's own attitudes onto a caricature of Jesus

It is, OF COURSE, absolutely fair to take the position that the Gospels are inaccurate. But that is an argument OUTSIDE of C. S. Lewis' argument. Lewis CLEARLY states: A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. That's the basis of the argument. If Lewis had started the argument out otherwise then the criticisms against the trilemma are valid. We have a text and in that text Jesus says things. One CANNOT look at the things Jesus says in that text and conclude He is not claiming divinity. In the context of the Gospels: if Jesus is God He's telling the truth; if Jesus in not God but thinks He is, He's insane; if He knows He's not God and says He is then He is something far worse than insane. If one accepts the text those are the only conclusions
One CAN discount the text, but then drawing ANY conclusion from the text AT ALL is simply dishonest. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY REMEMBER - Lewis didn't invent the trilemma and didn't bring the argument up in a void - Lewis forwarded the argument to point out the absurdity of the "Jesus is a great and wise moral teacher but not God" argument. One CANNOT reach the "moral teacher but not God" in any other way than selective discounting on the text. That's the argument that is obviously the most absurd, because the ONLY way to reach it is to say that SOME of the Gospel statements are true and SOME simply aren't with nothing other than personal opinion for which are which.
And with all due respect to N.T. Wright's criticism in the main article reference, he states that Lewis' argument that Jesus claims to be God is that Jesus claimed to forgive sins. Even though it is the best argument Jesus makes for divinity (if one understands what the Bible says about sin and its effect) it's not the only argument Lewis puts forward and Wright should know that. In fact, Jesus knows that as astounding as that claim actually is even Chrsitians like N. T. Wright would have difficutly accepting it as definitive regarding His identity and says regarding that:
Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...." Then he said to the paralytic, "Get up, take your mat and go home." And the man got up and went home. Matthew 9:5-7
So Jesus' claims to divinity hinge on claiming He can forgive sins? Obviously not. Yet these shallow criticisms are deemed as somehow devastating to Lewis' argument. Pitiful, really. A trivial reading of statements attributed to Jesus in the Gospels has Him adopting titles assigned ONLY to God in the Old Testament and claiming that He is ONE with the Father (as is, "Hear O Israel, God is One...") and He is criticized by Jews who understand what He is saying as making Himself equal with God. If one READS the Gospels instead of "clever" criticisms of them, one sees that Jesus claims to be God in them. Throw the Gospels out or keep them. Anything else is intellectually dishonest.

By ALL means leave the criticisms of Lewis' Trilemma in the main article, but they criticisms should be balanced.--74.206.26.144 (talk) 02:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)mjd

also he did in fact live in Little Lea, Ireland, Please explain how he is not an Irish writer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.164.159 (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Theologian

I just undid an (entirely good faith) removal of Lewis from the category "Anglican theologians" on the grounds that he was an English professor. I entirely understand this point of view, but I think in view of Lewis' popular but nonetheless theological works, I would put him in this category. Other opinions? DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

His religious writings were apologetics, not theology. He had no grounding in theology, and most of his Christian arguments don't hold water, even by theological standards. The trilemma is a good example. Is there any evidence that the Anglican Church takes him seriously as a theologian? Elphion (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The category was only recently added by an IP. The discussion should have taken place before you added it back. O Fenian (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The timing isn't such a big deal. Lets just hash it out now and go from there. LloydSommerer (talk) 12:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice it was a recent add. Actually I agree with Elphion's point now he makes it - I'm fine with taking it out again unless someone has a different argument. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, so I decided to revert my own (entirely good faith) revert of the original revert. Lewis is no longer a theologian. Feel free to continue discussion if needed. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, Lewis himself said in one of his books that he was not a theologian. 173.73.176.239 (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

There is a very high ratio of ananymous vandalism. Check this revision comparison [1]. Out of 19 edits, 8 were anonymous eidts that were reverted, only 1 was a productive edit by a named user. This is a waste of everyone who watches this page's time. Can we get this page semi-protected? Bakkster Man (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You can try at WP:RPP and see what the admins say. Deor (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Added, we'll see what they say. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we've gotten semi-protection for 3 months. Looks like we can give our (undo) button a rest. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

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. Spigot Map 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)

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 nature of Lewis's relationship with Mrs. Moore prior to conversion 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.[2]

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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msycw (talk • contribs) 09:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The reason why English, Welsh and Scottish people are described on this site as being from their constituent countries is because it goes without saying that they are British. By being English, Welsh or Scottish they are by extension undebatably British, and it needs no mentioning.

Northern Ireland is different, however. Someone from Northern Ireland is legally eligible to be either British, Irish, or both. These are two completely seperate and distinct nationalities, unlike Scottish and British. Therefore, someone from Northern Ireland MUST have their article state their correct nationality. In this case it is British. It is not correct to say he is of Northern Ireland either, as no such country existed until later on in his life, merely being a part of Ireland which was itself a part of Britain at that time.

He is listed as "Irish-born" in addition to his nationality as it is the least confusing way of mentioning his Irish background without confusing people. You cannot say Irish-British as this suggests that his nationality was also of the Republic of Ireland, which it was NOT; yes he was Irish, but he lived and died being from a part of Ireland that was British throughout his life. His nationality is British, but like English/Welsh/Scottish people it is important to say which part of Britain he was from. As Ireland seperated from the UK during his life, this makes doing so very hard.

What we can gleam from this is that his nationality was 100% British as he lived and died as an Irishman who was British; at the same time, while being Irish, his nationality is not of the part of Ireland that is distinct from Britain, and therefore it would be confusing to list his nationality as Irish as it incorrectly suggests he held dual nationality (remember, Scottish-British is not a dual nationality).

As you can see, this is a fucking confusing topic. The current situation appears to be the best way of describing his background without omitting the Irish part altogether, and as it's been agreed on and accepted for some time it's best to leave it as it is.

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)

Absolutely. The sign will have to go because the dispute isn't capable of unanimous resolution. People's views are incompatible. Exclusivity isn't going to work. C. S. Lewis was British and Irish at the same time. The irony here is that we call Lewis "British" because he was Irish-born. Otherwise, since he lived and worked in England, we might just as well have called him English. So insisting that we shouldn't call him British because he was Irish is pretty ridiculous. We're calling him British because he was Irish. It's a more inclusive category.

What we have here is really an ideological contest between civic nationalism and ethnic nationalism. British nationality is a form of civic nationality. Irish ethnic nationalists opted out of British civic nationality when they left the Union a century ago, and they edit British biographical articles on Wikipedia to reflect the same ethno-nationalist agenda. English, Scots, and Welsh ethno-nationalists have been doing it for years as well, creating precedents in some articles which they can appeal to in others, e.g. Conan Doyle.

When the subject of the article is an avowed and exclusive nationalist, editing the article to emphasise that fact isn't necessarily objectionable, but it's still a subjective judgement, and dogmatic insistence isn't always sensible or productive. Often the British category can be more inclusive and useful (as well as being legally correct).

Here the article content—including all this "Irish life" stuff—does a reasonable job of getting the complexity across. C. S. Lewis (a Protestant Unionist who lived in England, and is known for his contribution to mainstream English literature and was Tory in his politics) is one of those cases where a dogmatic and subjective insistence on applying the ethnic Irish label to the exclusion of the overarching British one is being used in such a way as to deliberately mislead. Because of the potential for confusion, we really do have to include in the introduction the fact he was British. He was also Irish, and there's no reason not to mention that in the intoduction as well. Including both terms provides a full and fair picture in such a way that it doesn't mislead, and it can also be done so concisely, and on that basis, the objection seems entirely unreasonable. 59.101.152.223 (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to defend my suggestion that it is unusual for a "Northern Protestant" from a "unionist background" to consider themselves as Irish, I must quote from the Wikipedia page on the Demography and politics of Northern Ireland: "A survey in 1999 showed that 72% of Northern Irish Protestants considered themselves 'British' and 2% 'Irish', with 68% of Northern Irish Catholics considering themselves 'Irish' and 9% 'British'."Stjohnfitzball (talk) 19:02, 4 November 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)

I have now changed the sequence mainly because it seems to me the reference to his first impressions of England (in 1908 at age 10) might be better following on from childhood. I realise there are references from throughout his life in "my Irish Life" - if anyone objects to the new sequence please change back. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Delisting from Good articles

The couple of reasons given for delisting from Good Articles were rather vague, and did not provide any specific examples of what was wrong beyond generalities. No doubt there is still room for improvement in the article, are there any other editors still working on it? 62.254.133.139 (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

POV and Teichman quote

I've toned down some recent edits by 71.237.133.57, which seem to cast more POV than the sources warrant. Also, s/he expanded the quote from Teichman, which (not having access to Teichman) I cannot check. The original version in the article, however, did not supply an ellipsis, so I'm presuming the addition is not from the source. Please correct me if this is wrong. -- Elphion (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Protection?

Sectarians (Putting it nicely) keep making POV changes to this page, should it be Semi-PP'd? --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Discussion of the question is encouraged here, also. It's better to be clear on this page than arguing in edit summaries. Span (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If it persists tonight, or tomorrow, well within the next 24hrs it should be requested for Semi-PP. Hopefully the edition of a HTML message will help. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I think a protection does need to be added. Span (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)