Talk:C. S. Lewis/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Change to Northern irish?

How about to satisfy everybody we change it from british to Northern irish? Lampy101 (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Because Northern Ireland didn't exist when he was born and when he lived in Ireland? Deor (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay agreed! New to this wikipedia thing so still to trying to catch my bearings excuse me. Lampy101 (talk) 21:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2020

Consider changing Oxford University to University of Oxford when directly referring to the institution - as this is the correct name 195.213.86.231 (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done - There is no need to "correct" redirects, in fact the practice is deprecated. Please see WP:NOTBROKEN. DuncanHill (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Why isn't he also described as a Christian apologist?

I have heard notable people say that he was an apologist, and seen notable works calling him an apologist.--HalMartin (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC) Edit: I mean why isn't he described as an apologist in the first sentence of the article.--HalMartin (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, he's described as a lay theologian in the first sentence, and the last sentence of the first paragraph says that works of "Christian apologetics" are among the things he's "best known for". That seems to me enough to give people the idea. See the responses in the section immediately above this for more on apologetics. Deor (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

He should be. It seems to have been removed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

If this is inserted, so should: Oxford don, children's book author, lecturer, radio broadcaster, etc. The man was multi-faceted. It opens a lovely can of "title" worms. Maineartists (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Why not describe him as Professor of Literature, or Literary Critic, or Academic since that was his main job - Professor of Medieval and Renaissance Literature? As well as teaching, he wrote quite a few books on literary criticism including a volume of the Oxford History English Literature, Studies in Medieval and Rennaisance Literature, The Allegory of Love. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.207.243 (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Per recent reversion of an edit

Hi, my edit was reverted recently: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=961642798&oldid=961262697&title=C._S._Lewis I believe this detail to be redundant because the college Lewis studied at while at Oxford was already named in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis#Childhood. I'd like to request that User:Walter_Görlitz un-revert his recent revert. KilimAnnejaro (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I saw the earlier edit, but think that the intervening section may be reason to repeat the detail, although not the link. I would also argue that the final sentence of that earlier paragraph, "Within months of entering Oxford", should be moved down as well. I'll let you decide how to address the repetition. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm keeping the detail and moving those sentences down as well. I appreciate your feedback! KilimAnnejaro (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2020

"Clive Staples Lewis (29 November 1898 – 22 November 1963) was a British writer"

Change British to Irish, as C.S Lewis stated he was Irish. 109.78.40.253 (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

In regards to this, it makes the most sense to use one of the previous versions of the article in this sense which was: "Irish-born British author"

Wikipedia clearly doesn't have set rules on this and it is typically only people born in Ireland (of the time and Northern Ireland post 1922) who get this exceptional rule as other British people are described as Scottish, Welsh etc. as has been pointed out historically ad nauseum.

Since the author himself but great stock in an Irish identity versus an Anglo-Saxon or English one then it makes sense to include this clarification. To argue opposite this would mean the support of editing numerous other articles to suit a much smaller set which doesn't make sense and would suggest that the Wikipedia consensus has already been reached - people from the United Kingdom (of any time) are described by their local nationality not the general term.

If we go by the logic that CS Lewis was British then it means an Irish person never emigrated from Ireland until, presumably, 1922.

I would still say this would make CS Lewis and others the odd ones out with the general Wikipedia consensus on how people from the UK are described (and there are a few others not from Ireland that have this quirk) but can understand the need to clarify it further in cases like himself. CuriousStapler (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:ETHNICITY is the guidance and the advice is not to mention ethnicity, only nationality. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The use of British as nationality then seems contrary to nearly every other article on someone from the British Isles, specifically those for someone from the UK. So are you saying every other article is wrong and must be edited to suit this one and the other minority of articles as a result? CuriousStapler (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

After dealing with this issue for many years, I'd be amenable to going with "an Irish-born British writer and lay theologian" in the lead if it would make the Hibernophiles happy. For someone who lived and worked in England all of his adult life, I think "an Irish writer and lay theologian" would just be too confusing. Perhaps you could start an RFC on the topic, laying out the possible wordings and asking editors to choose the one they prefer. Deor (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2021

C. S. Lewis was born in Northern Ireland, and while people from Northern Ireland can identify as British, they can also identify as Irish and clearly, from the quotes within the article itself, C. S. Lewis identified as such. So why is his nationality described as British when he himself clearly identified as Irish? 91.170.177.208 (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. From what I can see, consensus on this talk page goes against that. --Belwine (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2021

C S Lewis was born in Belfast, ‘Northern Ireland’, not ‘Ireland’ as mentioned on the Wiki page. 2A00:23C7:A585:9A01:4D1E:E54B:6AE6:C5F5 (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Please get a consensus for this change. If you look on the talk page here you can see it is contentious. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

As has been pointed out on this page before, Northern Ireland did not exist as a political entity when Lewis was born. The whole of the island of Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. Deor (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Irish not British

First line says he was British. In paragraph about Yeats he is quoted as saying "then thank the gods that I am Irish". Slipper8 (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Slipper8

He was both. (See extensive discussion in the archives.) "Irish" in the quote you mention was in contradistinction to "English", not "British". -- Elphion (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The term "UK author" would be more appropriate IMHO 81.103.42.227 (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The UK did not exist during the time of Lewis. --Joshualouie711^talk 23:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The UK started in 1707 as the union of England and Scotland. Ireland was added in 1801. So it was, in fact, around in Lewis's time. -- Elphion (talk) 05:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Aren't you conflating several political bodies? Kingdom of Great Britain 1707–1800, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 1801–1922, finally United Kingdom as of 5 December 1922. Feel free to continue the discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

To what possible end? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Good question. Just stating re-framing the last comment and don't want to squelch conversation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't fully understand. He self identified as Irish, he didn't self identify as British. He was Irish. Why is there even a discussion about this? larryone (talk) 08:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems fair to say that he was Irish. Are you suggesting that this implies that he can't have been British? (Incidentally, do we know which passport(s) he held?) -- Hoary (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

There are many people born in Ireland who self-identify as British, and many as both. Lewis self-identified as Irish. Consistently. --larryone (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The only question that really matters here is: what do reliable sources say? Paul August ☎ 18:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources like the author himself? He wrote about being Irish. --larryone (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

On what page of which published work? —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 11:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Lewis was Irish not British ! There's no evidence he identified as British ,This attempt to describe him as British as a sort of primacy is to cover up he was Irish, and so the English can claim him as one of their own .Ireland being part of the uk during this time holds no relevancy to the discussion . Its the equivalent of saying anyone born in Poland during nazi occupation was German . There's a clear level of bias permeating through these threads with english and British rot .please at the very least add the fact to the top of the page that he was Irish,this was very clearly important to him throughout his life ,politics shouldn't come into it he was irish first and foremost . The page has purposely been perverted by British nationalists . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.37.146.85 (talk) 04:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

There may be bias and you could be right but do not, under any circumstances, compare the British to the Nazis. You wind up sounding like an uneducated idiot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.138.89.122 (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, when Lewis discusses patriotism in The Four Loves, he cites examples of English or British patriotism and refers to the English as "we". He does argue against some forms of English patriotism but never, in that passage, distinguishes himself as Irish. The closest he comes to referring to Ireland in that context is putting the Black & Tans on a list of examples of patriotism turned evil. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 10:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I wish people would stop mixing up ethnic nationality and citizen nationality. Lewis was Irish in terms of ethnic nationality as that is the part of the UK he was born, and is a manner of speaking that is still very common in the UK, i.e. English, Scottish, Welsh etc. Yet none of them means the person is not British. He was a British citizen until the day he died. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The opening paragraph does not describe him as a "British citizen." It describes him as "British." There is a clear difference in implication.

"Lewis was Irish in terms of ethnic nationality" – not true either. He was Anglo-Irish, which is to say he was ethnically English but lived in Ireland. When he was born, all of Ireland was governed from London; when that changed, the part of Ireland he lived in (just out of Belfast) continued to be governed from London. I'm not sure whether he would have been at university or in the army at the time of the Rising, I'd have to look that up. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 00:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

"Anglo-Irish" did not mean "ethnically English but lived in Ireland." It means he was a descendant of the Protestant ascendancy. The man was born, raised and described himself as Irish consistently throughout his life. If I weren't so generous I'd accuse others of tying themselves into knots for the sake of narrative pushing.Hibarnacle (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

"...born, raised, and described himself as Irish consistently throughout his life" – people keep saying this and not giving a single citation. I must repeat: when he discusses patriotism in The Four Loves (1960, chapter 2: "Likings and Loves for the Subhuman"), he refers to the English as "we". In Surprised by Joy he says it was a "scandal" to his entire family that one of his Hamilton relatives supported Home Rule. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Belfast is part of Northern Ireland United Kingdom not Ireland so change this Steele7648 (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

What content (precisely describing where it is) would you like to see changed, and to what precisely would you like to see it changed? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

"Northern Ireland" did not exist when Lewis was born, aside from a geographical description. Ireland was unified at the time. On a side note - the island is called Ireland. Sectarian silliness has no place here.BBX118 19:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be a consistent concensus for change here with not a lot of convincing evidence for leaving the page as is. Can anyone mount a stronger defence for leaving the first paragraph describing Lewis as solely British?Hibarnacle (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

- The idea that Ireland was part of Britain and therefore he was British holds no water since, by that logic, there were no Irish people from 1801 till the free state at the earliest. Anyway, wikipedia precedent is clear on this. Check out Adam Smith's page. He is Scottish and not British, though the Act of Union with Scotland was 1707, well before he was born. Isaac Butt is another example, listed as Irish. There are countless further examples. Those making this argument don't understand that though the Kingdoms were united, distinctions of nation were still accepted and used. Beside's this point, the only argument against the author's clear statements is some implication from the use of the word 'we'. This does not seem as strong as two clear statements of being Irish that are quoted on Lewis's wikipedia page itself. Surely on balance of probability, he must be described Irish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.151.33.195 (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Typical English...taking the best of what every Country has to offer and claiming it for yourselves... whether that be natural resources, golfers, writers... the list goes as I could easily but I've made my point Springer10 (talk) 10:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be repeated, long-term concensus to have Lewis' description changed to Irish instead of British. At the very least, we can all agree that having it as British alone is ludicrously incorrect for a man who was born in Ireland and self-identified as Irish. So why has there still been no change? Are we that beholden to the will of a pair of prejudiced editors?Hibarnacle (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any such "repeated, long-term concensus [sic]". He was born on the island of Ireland, but as has been pointed out elsewhere on this page WP:ETHNICITY specifies that the mention in the lead should be of "the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable". Lewis was a citizen of the UK—for which the usual demonym is "British" (as seen, for instance, in the infobox of our United Kingdom article—from his birth, and he certainly was a resident of England, specifically, throughout the period of his notability. He may have "self-identified as Irish" as opposed to English, but there's no evidence that he considered himself Irish as opposed to British. Deor (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I wonder. Whilst describing him simply as British fits Wikipedia's guidelines on identifying a person's nationality, and whilst in most of the world his Irish birth does not contribute to his notability, I'm beginning to consider whether maybe his Irish birth is notable enough in Ireland to be worth mentioning a bit more prominently -- perhaps as an "Irish-born British writer," etc. It would be helpful to know whether his Irish birth is well-known enough in Ireland that any Irish person would know it, or whether (as elsewhere) it's something that only fans and experts are really conscious of. If it's the former, it might be worth changing the lede paragraph. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

If it stops the incessant necessity for some readers and editors to see the word "Ireland" or something akin to it in the lede, I'm happy to discuss changing consensus. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

This is worth exploring. I suggested something similar long ago; see, e.g., [1] -- Elphion (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I don't think it is work exploring, but I wish nationalism would die along with nationalists and their incessant and unnecessary flag waving and if this manages to quite them, I'm entirely in favour of placating those who need to see some term applied to an individual. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

He was born in Ireland while it was in the British Empire, as was Oscar Wilde (who this site describes as Irish), as was W B Yeats (who this site describes as Irish), as was Bram Stoker (who this site describes as Irish), none of whom were particularly nationalistic relative to more firebrand examples like George Bernard Shaw (who this site describes as Irish) or James Joyce (who this site describes as Irish). He self identifies as Irish in public and in his own writing ("I am often surprised to find how utterly ignored Yeats is among the men I have met: perhaps his appeal is purely Irish – if so, then thank the gods that I am Irish.") ("Like all Irish people who meet in England, we ended by criticisms on the invincible flippancy and dullness of the Anglo-Saxon race. After all, there is no doubt, ami, that the Irish are the only people: with all their faults, I would not gladly live or die among another folk.") Yet on this page this has become not just an issue of contention but virtually one of ridicule, with users down this page complaining about "incessant necessity for some readers and editors to see the word Ireland" put next to an Irish writers name. To say that a person "self-identifies as Irish but does not consider himself as so" is a silly changing of the goal posts that is not used anywhere else on this site.Hibarnacle (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's the relevant paragraph in Wikipedia's guidelines (and this is not the first time I've had occasion to quote this):

The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases this will be the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.

Lewis was not only a subject of the British Empire, but also, when performing the activities for which he is now notable, a permanent resident of Britain. By Wikipedia's guidelines, therefore, he must be described in the lede paragraph as British. It's got nothing to do with how nationalistic he was or how fondly he looked back on his Irish childhood or whether he felt kinship with Irish people he met. If the other pages mentioned do otherwise, those other pages ought to be corrected. The only remaining question, which I've raised above, is whether his Irish birth is a factor in his notability. I can tell you it isn't where I live, but within Ireland it might very well be. So if you're Irish, you might be able to help us answer the one relevant question, which is: Is Lewis recognised as an Irish (or Irish-born) writer by the general public in Ireland? Is that something he's famous for? —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 02:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Can I ask, then: should we edit, for example, Sean Connery’s article to say British instead of Scottish?-LeoEvilsbane (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

You can do whatever you want on Wikipedia. That's what WP:IGNORE is about. You may only do so if you have reliable sources to support the claim. You should only do so if you can achieve a consensus to do so. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

LeoEvilsbane: Sean Connery is notable for being Scottish. Is C. S. Lewis notable for being Irish? —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

In what way is Sean Connery “notable for being Scottish” that CS Lewis is not notable for being Irish?-LeoEvilsbane (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

In that his Scottish accent is part of his trademark persona, so in any film in a modern setting his character had to be Scottish. In that when other actors parodied him (e.g. Patrick Stewart in Robin Hood: Men in Tights), they imitated his Scottish accent as well as his personal "s"→"sh" speech defect. I can tell you for a fact that people in New Zealand do not think of Lewis as an "Irish writer" the same way they think of Connery as a "Scottish actor". As a child reading the Narnia series I thought he was English. I believe this to be the case in most other parts of the English-speaking world as well. I would not be surprised if his Irish birth were relevant to his notability in Ireland – if every Irish kid reading Narnia for the first time is told "The fellow who wrote this was Irish." But I would not be particularly surprised if it were otherwise, either. If Lewis is famous in Ireland for being Irish-born, then I think we should insert "Irish-born" or similar into the opening sentence of the lede paragraph. But if not, then we should not. So what's the story? Is Lewis famous in Ireland for being Irish, or is he not? —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 02:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Well I can’t speak for the whole country, but I thought he was English, too. Imagine my surprise. But that kind of cuts to the heart of the matter, though, doesn’t it? In this instance, basing the article’s contents on the popular perception of him would result in factual inaccuracy and would open Wikipedia up to exactly what it tries to avoid: the presentation of opinion as fact. I don’t agree with the suggestion that merely because a fact is obscure, Wikipedia should endeavour to maintain that obscurity. And this might be just my personal opinion, but there doesn’t appear to be a consistent rule on how to categorise citizens of the UK: sometimes, as with Sean Connery, Ewan McGregor, David Tennant, Gail Porter and Shirley Manson, they are categorised by one of the four nations within the UK (in the case of those mentioned, Scotland), and sometimes, as with Gordon Brown, they are simply categorised as British. The distinction between the two seems subjective at best, and agenda-driven at worst. In this editor’s opinion, the rule should either be “British for everyone” or “national identity for everyone”. Otherwise there’ll be edit wars forever. It’s the inconsistency that leads to the greatest amount of misconceptions.-LeoEvilsbane (talk) 12:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Any apparent factual inaccuracy is dispelled by the first sentence of the Biography section, immediately after the lede, which reads as follows:

Clive Staples Lewis was born in Belfast, Ireland, on 29 November 1898.

There's only so much you can do for people who skim the lede and don't bother with the rest. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

That still doesn’t speak to the inconsistency and subjectivity LeoEvilsbane (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

There is necessarily a certain amount of "inconsistency and subjectivity" in how the nationality of British people is treated in Wikipedia. See the essay WP:UKNATIONALS (particularly the section "Present-day UK nationality (examples of use)"). This often seems to be a matter of urgent importance to Irish/Scottish/English/Welsh folk, but it is clearly of less importance to others. Deor (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

It is clear that C.S Lewis was an Irishman born in Ireland, which happened to be in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at the time. It would be incorrect to call anybody born on the island of Ireland at the time British. A direct quotation from CS Lewis in 1958, on being informed that his heavy breathing was causing problems with a radio broadcast recording session. The quotation is as follows:

“I'm Irish not English. Did you ever know an Irishman who didn't puff and blow?”

This direct quotation from CS Lewis highlights the fact that Lewis was not English, as is the common misconception among the general public, but in fact, in his own words, of an Irish background. CamCheachtDé (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

You clearly have not followed the thread above or in the archives. No one is arguing that he was English. He definitely was British in nationality, which is the salient point here. -- Elphion (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

In this case why is Tolkien described as English. Why is there one rule to separate a person born in Ireland and to describe them as British and a different rule for another.

Similarly we have Duke of Wellington described as Anglo Irish, and his brother as Irish. CuriousStapler (talk) 23:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Alister McGrath (Oxford university professor who is an expert on the life and works of Lewis) says in his biography "Lewis was Irish-something that some Irish seem to have forgotten, if they knew it at all. While I myself was growing up in Northern Ireland during the 1960s, my recollection is that when Lewis was referred to at all, it was as an "English" writer. ... Lewis regularly spoke of Ireland as his "home", calling it "my country"... For Lewis-who here identifies himself as someone who actually is "an Irishman"... So why is Lewis not celebrated as one of the greatest Irish writers of all time?... The real issue is that Lewis does not fit-and indeed, must be said partly to have chosen not to fit-the template of Irish identity that had dominated the late twentieth century... One of the reasons why Ireland has largely chosen to forget about Lewis is that he was the wrong type of Irishman... His Irish identity inspired by Ireland's landscape rather than its political history... Lewis may have chosen to rise above the provinciality of Irish literature; he nevertheless remains one of its most luminous and famous representatives." https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hF2jadczzgsC&pg=PT17&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false

References

!!! This topic should be revived. It seems abundantly clear from the above that there is a consensus that Lewis himself saw 'Irish' as his primary identity, and that went to some lengths to stress this. It is true that 'Irish' and 'British' are not mutually exclusive in this context, but it is nonsensical, as has already been pointed out, that Lewis should be considered any more British than Wilde.

The 'Irish' label is simply more accurate, specific and nuanced, in the same way that Belfast, Northern Ireland is preferable to Belfast, United Kingdom, - the latter is implied in any case, but is unnecessarily vague. The 'British' label should be reserved for those figures who have some specific significance to the 'Union' per se, and this is clearly not the case for Lewis.

This is where contemporary prejudices about British/Irish nationality truly come into play, as in true historical context it can only ever make sense to speak of an Irishman someone born in Ireland to Irish parents who consistently self-identified as Irish... as Irish! - not to do so betrays more about the false British/Irish dichotomy being imposed by those who wish to maintain the 'British' description than those who don't (the extent to which people have got this the wrong way round is laughable). In Lewis' time, this would have seemed as extraordinary as failing to identify a Scotsman as such, instead opting for 'British' - completely redundant!

The rest of the article makes clear his connections to the rest of Britain. If there are options for a compromise in wording that balance his being Irish and British, that would be ideal, but the label 'British' on its own simply cannot stand. 'Irish-born British', although to my mind still making little sense (why is Wilde not identified as such?), is a minimum.

Some further food for thought:

Abstract of “C.S. Lewis: An Irish Writer.”, David Clare of the University of Limerick in Irish Studies Review:

"This article examines the effect of C.S. Lewis’s Irish background on his work. It attempts to contradict the assumption that this Belfast-born writer should be included in the English and not the Irish canon. It emphasises that Lewis saw himself as Irish, was seen by others as Irish, and that his Irish background, contrary to what some have written, was important to him throughout his lifetime.

It goes on to demonstrate the ways in which his work was influenced by his youth in Ireland and by the Irish mythology that he loved. Furthermore, this article maintains that, as a child of pre-partition Ireland with roots throughout the island, Lewis was influenced by the country as a whole, not just his native Ulster. Finally, it attempts to understand why Lewis, a proud Irishman, did not do more to promote himself as an Irish writer."

Surprised by C.S. Lewis, Alister McGrath: "So why is Lewis not celebrated as one of the greatest Irish writers of all time? Why is there no entry for “Lewis, C.S.” in the 1,472 pages of the supposedly definitive Dictionary of Irish Literature (1996)? The real issue is that Lewis does not fit—and, indeed, must be said partly to have chosen not to fit—the template of Irish identity that has dominated the late twentieth century.

In some ways, Lewis represents precisely the forces and influences which the advocates of a stereotypical Irish literary identity wished to reject. One of the reasons why Ireland has largely chosen to forget about Lewis is that he was the wrong kind of Irishman. . . .

Lewis may have chosen to rise above the provinciality of Irish literature; he nevertheless remains one of its most luminous and famous representatives."

That last point is particularly relevant! He is considered by a significant critic to be one of Ireland's most "LUMINOUS AND FAMOUS REPRESENTATIVES", actively participating in this IRISH tradition as an IRISHMAN.

The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases this will be the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability. —MOS:OPENPARABIO#Context

"How the person identified and described themselves in personal contexts" is not in there.

Thus, for example, Jim Flynn is described in the lede of his article as a "New Zealand intelligence researcher", when I can tell you that he would have described himself as an "American moral philosopher" (or indeed an "Irish-American moral philosopher"). It was his research on intelligence that made him notable, and that research was performed after he had emigrated to New Zealand.

There's more than a small irony in the fact that your sources were written to explain why Lewis's Irishness, however important it was to him personally, was not something he was noted for.

—VeryRarelyStable 23:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I admit I am not completely familiar with the minutiae of Wikipedia's policies, but I do not understand that his 'Britishness' is any more notable than his 'Irishness'. This is was my original point when I said that the label 'British' surely should be reserved for those who have some particular connection to the 'Union' as such. When this is not the case, the only sensible thing in consideration of the historical context can be to default to the figure's Home Nation, as this is simply more accurate, specific, and nuanced -- and which, as has been pointed out time and again, is the practice everywhere else on this website!

No case has actually been made for his prevailing 'Britishness', which suggests to me the prejudices of whoever is responsible for editing this page; namely, that 'British' is somehow the 'default', when the opposite is true. Modern-day preconceptions about what constitutes 'Irishness' have perniciously clouded this entire conversation. It simply has no basis in historical context nor in common sense. Please can something be done to address this. And again, please just help me understand the difference between Lewis and Wilde. Seriously.

At the very least, the description must be changed to "Irish-born British". This is a collaborative resource which relies first and foremost on consensus, and I guarantee there would no controversy around this if that description had been applied a long time ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanEML (talk • contribs) 18:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

That would go against WP:ETHNICITY. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

That policy is ridiculous. It's not actively applied as far as I can tell. An exception must and has everywhere been made for the British Isles's unique situation. Once again: Oscar Wilde... — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanEML (talk • contribs) 19:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Then you'd best get it overturned. Until that has happened, we will abide by it. Don't forget to sign your comments. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

And don't forget to read the archives for this talk page. Stating baldly that "No case has actually been made for his prevailing 'Britishness'" shows that you haven't done so. -- Elphion (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

No case has actually been made for his prevailing 'Britishness'...

Here's the case: he was living permanently in England, a subject of the British Crown and citizen of the United Kingdom, when he did his academic work, his Christian apologetics, his lay theological writings, and his fiction both for children and adults. These are the activities he is notable for. Now, to quote that passage from MOS:OPENPARABIO#Context yet again with emphasis on the relevant point:

The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases this will be the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable.

That country, for C. S. Lewis, is Britain.

That is the case for describing Lewis as "British" in the lede sentence. It has already been made, not only in the archives but in this very thread.

If he had written extensively about Irish culture or Irish politics or what not, then his Irish birth would be a relevant part of the context for the activities that made him notable. But – as the sources you yourself brought to the discussion clearly show – he did not.

If you think Wikipedia's Manual of Style needs to be changed so that people are described first according to their ethnic origin rather than the context in which they became notable, this is not the place for that discussion.

—VeryRarelyStable 23:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I only ask that there is some room for nuance.

I see that that there is no hope for this common-sense edit being made, but, going by your logic, a different one would seem to be in order; you say he was most notable in Britain, this is incorrect. He was most notable in England. His work is set in England, with English children, he was most popular in his time with an English audience, lived in England, taught at an English university, was part of an English literary group, etc, etc. He surely should be identified as an 'England writer', just as some academic referenced earlier is identified as a 'New Zealand' writer despite being an American, etc. The cases are not exactly the same, but as I keep on saying 'British' is very specialised usage and there is no reason to think of anyone from any of the Home Nations as specifically 'British' beyond the legal sense in most circumstances. England is a country in the fundamental sense of the word, England is where he became notable. Once this change is made, perhaps people will see that the unique situation of the British Isles--and no doubt many other complex issues of nationality--deserves a nuanced approach.

P.S. I will say I do appreciate you engaging with my comments, and I should have read the previous discussion on this more thoroughly. I would appreciate a response to this as well, please. SeanEML (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

How about just removing all claims of nationality/citzenship and presumed identification and just say where he was from. Honestly I think the whole obsession with someone's nationality on Wikipedia is a bit ridiculous. A factual statement of where they were born and grew up without any presumptions of identification is perfectly encyclopaedic enough. Canterbury Tail talk 14:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Degrees and Credentials

Can someone add his Degrees and Credentials, etc.? Misty MH (talk) 11:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Where and do you have a comprehensive list, with a reliable source? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2021

Possible citation for these statements: The second novel, Perelandra, depicts a new Garden of Eden on the planet Venus, a new Adam and Eve, and a new "serpent figure" to tempt Eve. The story can be seen as an account of what might have happened if the terrestrial Adam had defeated the serpent and avoided the Fall of Man, with Ransom intervening in the novel to "ransom" the new Adam and Eve from the deceptions of the enemy. The third novel, That Hideous Strength, develops the theme of nihilistic science threatening traditional human values, embodied in Arthurian legend.[citation needed] Thaiss, Christopher J. “C. S. Lewis.” Critical Survey of Long Fiction, Fourth Edition, Jan. 2010, pp. 1–7. MelissaThacker (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@MelissaThacker: I'm not comfortable citing sources I've not seen myself. If you've looked at this work and you're confident that it adequately supports the statements in the article, why don't you just add the reference yourself, using {{cite book}}? (Apparently, the fourth edition of Critical Survey of Long Fiction runs to 10 volumes, so you should include the volume number in addition to the page numbers.) Deor (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm closing this request as there has not been any further information given by the requester. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Audio File is not the same as the article

The audio file of the article is a nice idea, and I listened to it, but it's not the text of the article. The file created in 2006 could be the text of the article in its former state. But, I don't know if this reading is from the article in 2006 or if it a personal reading of some material compiled by the reader? Ty78ejui (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The box containing the audio file also contains the text "This audio file was created from a revision of this article dated 20 November 2005, and does not reflect subsequent edits." Is that not clear? Deor (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Bolster "Career" portion of this page

I propose adding the following text to the section "Career" subsection "Scholar" to the page, as it provides a personal view of Lewis's appearance and attitude as an Oxford don:

Actor Robert [Hardy], CBE (1925~2017) provides an anecdote regarding Lewis's practices as a pedagogue: "I was staggered at his appearance. From reading all his stuff that my tutor at school told me to read, I got a picture of Lewis. It was a sort of El Greco Jesuit. Thin. Insistent, you know, and rather frightening. Pale and intense, absolutely. But my goodness me . . . there was this jolly farmer! And I was absolutely in my element, because I'm a country bumpkin, so I've adored him ever after. . . . He gave wonderfully jolly and extraordinary parties with lots of booze. I remember being hopelessly behind with an essay, and I said "Oh, Mr. Lewis, I wonder, would it be possible ...I’m supposed to be reading my essay to you tomorrow, but I haven't quite finished it. I wonder if I could come on Thursday?" And he said, "no no no, don't bother about it for a second. Come next Wednesday at the usual time with an extra specially good essay. Because the great thing about being at university is to enjoy yourself, which I hope you are. And besides, look at you in uniform. You'll be off soon, and you may well get killed. It's proper that you enjoy yourself." Which I thought was so wonderful."

(beginning at 21:25)

Thefatcat81 (talk) 07:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Defunct Link in Notes

Note 35 features a defunct link: http://www.impalapublications.com/blog/index.php?/archives/5185-C.S.-Lewis-and-Mrs-Janie-Moore,-by-James-OFee.html on "the original". I propose removing the link.

Writerguywiki (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

That's standard when a URL is identified as dead but an archived version of the Web page is available. Nothing needs to be done. Deor (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2021

CSLewis is Irish not British. He was born in Ireland. 2A02:8084:20E2:2380:80A4:205B:BADB:B039 (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Have you read the half dozen discussions about here and in the archives? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed - It is horrendously incorrect, and I would say outright disrespectful to identify him as a British writer; he would never have done so. This is like calling someone Scottish as simply British - it is true, but it is not "correct". He was born in Ireland, and was Irish - even writing a book about it. Shocking. Lordmuggins (talk) 07:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC) LM

And what answer do you have to the points raised in the past discussions? (Hint: what you've just said doesn't address them.) —VeryRarelyStable 10:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Not quite like calling a person who was born in Scotland, "British", it would be like calling someone who was born in Scotland but lived and worked their entire adult life in England, "British". My point is that they are not alike, and as VeryRarelyStable has mentioned, there are all the other points made in previous discussion that you have failed to address. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2021

C.S Lewis is from Belfast, Northern Ireland not Belfast, Ireland. 92.14.26.114 (talk) 11:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

See the bottom yellow box at the top of this page. Deor (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Country of birth

The usual practice in infoboxes is to list the country of birth, which in this case was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Why isn't that mentioned? (I understand the consensus regarding Northern Ireland, and that has nothing to do with my question.) StAnselm (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Never mind, I see it is explicitly addressed at MOS:IMOS BIOPLACE. StAnselm (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2021

Please add the significant event of the same day as Mr Lewis' death, following the point in the text, "one week before his 65th birthday".

Text: "As many of you know, and so many people feel, this date was the ending of Camelot, the same day in which President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. How completely apropos, that Narnia and Camelot, if they were to end, should have their endings on the same day, all the more to indicate their significance". 2600:1010:B053:E490:0:45:52C4:E401 (talk) 06:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: WP:COATRACK which in addition has severe issues of encyclopedic tone (or lack thereof). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2021

Change ‘British writer’ to ‘Irish writer’ to match his own self identification, later quoted in this exact article - ‘then thank the gods that I am Irish’. 146.198.152.157 (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Per consensus of multiple previous discussions. See also the information in the box at the top of the page. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2022

(1) Combine two short (one sentence) sections in the biography section, regarding his declined Honour, and his accepted appointment to the chair at Magdalene, into one section, perhaps titled "Honours declined and accepted", or some such. The single sentence paragraphs are unnecessary and awkward. (2) Add an {{expand section | with = further information from reliable sources on these two decisions, and any other relevant honours accepted or declined | small = no | date = February 2022}} to this section, because both are under-reported, there being good further material on both decisions in reliable sources. (3) Finally, I would also suggest that the protections here be lifted as early as possible, once resources to protect against vandalism can be marshaled. It is against the defining, founding principles of the place, to maintain protections any longer than absolutely necessary. And it is not effective for small changes, let alone WP:BOLD edits, to be sidelined. Articles need to evolve, especially if the GA status is again desired. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:558:A90A:20A6:FEC:55AA (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion

In the occupation section or box, it's written he was "novelist" because he's written more than 30 novels. He's published poems too, does that not make him a poet? 41.114.119.127 (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Image

A young Lewis at university

Should we change to the photo of the young Lewis that now is on Commons? Or perhaps we could look into whether this photograph (https://archive.org/details/inklingscslewisj00carp/page/n70/mode/1up) might be in the public domain like some users did with a Tolkien photo in this Commons discussion (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:J._R._R._Tolkien,_1940s.jpg) KnightofFaerië (talk) 17:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2023

change "in him becoming a atheist." to "in him becoming an atheist." Mvahan14 (talk) 08:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 09:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Removed now, I'm afraid; the sentence was unsourced, unencyclopaedic, and out of place, since Lewis's childhood atheism is already mentioned later on.

—VeryRarelyStable 10:23, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2023

He was Irish, nor British, and regularly referred to himself as such even having said "I am often surprised to find how utterly ignored Yeats is among the men I have met: perhaps his appeal is purely Irish – if so, then thank the gods that I am Irish." as well as "Like all Irish people who meet in England, we ended by criticisms on the invincible flippancy and dullness of the Anglo-Saxon race. After all, there is no doubt, *ami*, that the Irish are the only people: with all their faults, I would not gladly live or die among another folk."

He even turned down an OBE from the British King in the 1950s. 2A02:C7C:6627:7500:D59C:6F83:3477:888A (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: see the discussions above and in the archives. This is a disputed topic and, until a thorough consensus is reached, will not be changed. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2023 (2)

He is from Belfast in 1800s meaning he's Irish not British 2A02:8084:88BF:F580:309B:B176:1C11:6E3B (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. See the discussion above and in the archives. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Nationality; both?

I hate to be 'that one' who suggests it, but in the sake of encyclopaedic integrity I think it should be brought up. I think the opening should read "was a British and Irish..."

When we look up a Welsh writer, or a Scottish writer, we see "Welsh" or "Scottish" listed as opposed to British. Lewis referred to himself as Irish, and he was born to a Unionist family in Co. Down so no doubt he was also British. In lieu of 'Irish' (as is the case with Scottish, English, Welsh authors from that period) I think the only reasonable wording would be "British and Irish". Just gauging POVs of editors, and if needed, admins.

Thanks, BBX118 20:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Admittedly I am not exactly an expert on the British-Irish conflict, but it seems to me that "(Northern) Irish Unionist" could work. "Unionist" is explicitly an ideology so it is not subject to dispute in the same way a raw nationality would be, yet it has intrinsic connotations of self-identified nationality. ChromaNebula (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Why on earth would we use anything about ideology in stating nationality in the lead? MOS:CONTEXTBIO's statement that the nationality given for context should indicate "where the person was a citizen, national, or permanent resident when the person became notable" seems sufficient guidance here. Lewis was certainly not residing in Ireland during the period of his notability, and he was British (a citizen of the United Kingdom) throughout his entire life. The recurring discussions about this matter certainly become tiresome for someone who's been around here for a while. Deor (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

He actually said on many occasions the he viewed himself as Irish, there was no Northern Ireland for the first 24 or 5 years of his life. 2A05:4F46:1108:F800:2D41:E7E6:61F3:5DB (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Robert Louis Stevenson is described as Scottish despite also moving in London literary circles and spending a lot of time moving around constantly.

So this is a weak argument as he is described as Scottish. CuriousStapler (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Lewis was of my gr-grandfathers generation - born prior to partition, they saw themselves as both British and Irish. Wouldn't "Northern Irish" be a good reflection of this?--SinoDevonian (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Nationality

It seems quite strange to me that Lewis is introduced as solely British here - by the man’s own, lifelong admission, he was Irish. Of course, Lewis was also a British subject and I can find no evidence of him disputing this. Perhaps the most reasonable approach would be to introduce Lewis as “Irish and British” or “British and Irish”. This would clearly align most closely with the man’s own life and opinions - and would also be by far the most likely identification of a man born to a Protestant background in Ulster before the partition of Ireland. Including both nationalities is therefore both accurate and satisfactory to all. Thanks! 148.81.201.16 (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you mind if I ask how much of the long, long history of us discussing this very question, on this page and in the archives, you read before posting here?

The consensus we have previously arrived at, based on Wikipedia's guidelines about these things, is that if Lewis's Irish birth is part of what makes him notable, then it should be mentioned in the lede sentence. If not, it should not.

That's an easy question to answer from a general perspective: no, around the world, Lewis is not noted for being Irish. I for one would be ready to concede, if Lewis is noted in Ireland for being Irish, then it would be worth making the change (and I'm sure I remember saying that too on this page at least once before). But we would need reliably sourced evidence that he is noted in Ireland for being Irish.

—VeryRarelyStable 23:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Would you mind linking to the set of guideline that governs how one's nationality is discussed? I cannot seem to find it, and it frankly does not make much sense to me that one's nationality is defined as what nationality they became well known as, not what nationality they were, so I am curious to see the reasoning behind it. Overgrown Lizard (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

MOS:NATIONALITY: "... if the person is notable mainly for past events, where the person was a citizen, national, or permanent resident when the person became notable." Deor (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, thank you for the link! On the next paragraph there is a tooltip that specifically refers to how to refer to British people - that is, it states there is "no preference between describing a person as British rather than as English, Scottish, or Welsh." Presumably Northern Irish would fall under this as well, in which case it states to consider how sources refer to the person, and "whether the subject has a preference on which nationality they identify by." In this case, the subject seems to have a preference, referring to themselves as Irish but at the same time not contesting his Britishness, so it would seem to me that referring to him by both makes the most sense. Thank you for the link and quote again, I was having a hard time finding it for some reason. Overgrown Lizard (talk) 01:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

It really can be awkward. Speaking personally, I identify as English but by that token I am also British. I understand with Ireland it's a tad more complicated, and I agree that referring to him as both seems a sort of necessary thing since Irish/British identity is so much more complex. Ernest Shackleton for example, would not be contested as British, but proudly also declared throughout his life that he was an Irishman (and he was Anglo-Irish, another kettle of fish altogether, with some Anglo-Irish people maintaining their English/Scottish identity, and others proudly adopting an Irish one, like he did...yet still identifying as British alongside that).

It is just a bit more complicated in the case of Irish people alas, because we want to be accurate, but also need to put them down as they probably would wish. And if British isn't there somewhere, it can look like they didn't consider themselves to be so. And if they did, or at least very likely did, its important to have down. Alooulla (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems strange that a person who was born and raise in a country and identifies as such is declared by others to be something else. He is Irish and should be documented as such. Mmtpf (talk) 12:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The issue is the political reality aspect. If you identify him as Irish alone, you would have to read the article to discover if he considered himself British, and not everyone is going to do that. That's why British has to be up there somewhere as well. It's messy but its the safest way. Alooulla (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:Nationality uses Arnold Schwarzenegger as an example, whose lead beings with

(born July 30, 1947) is an Austrian and American actor, film producer, businessman, retired professional bodybuilder and politician

Would there be any objections to referring to Lewis as "British and Irish"? CeltBrowne (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I would object. Please see the discussions of the matter in the archives of this page. He seems to have considered himself Irish by contrast with English, not by contrast with British. Deor (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Could he not simply be referred to as a Northern-Irish British writer (hyphenated or not)? The term British seems always quite nebulous and conveniently ignores the constituent countries of the UK when desired, considering that a vast majority of writers and artists who are referred to as British are in fact also English. I understand that Ireland and Northern Ireland create a more complex situation regarding identity but you wouldn't hear of Sir Walter Scott being referred to as a British writer, therefore it only makes sense to follow the same logic for C. S. Lewis. Ptkcollins (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Could he not simply be referred to as a Northern-Irish British writer No, because he was born before Northern Ireland existed. The Liam Neeson solution therefore doesn't work. I would have no objection to "British and Irish". Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Please see new topic below Titus Gold (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2023

He would prefer to be know as a “Irish” author. Not “British”. 2601:2C6:4782:9420:E0F6:523D:6A59:3009 (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• known

2601:2C6:4782:9420:E0F6:523D:6A59:3009 (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Please read the discussion above.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Irish nationality (Protestant unionist family background)

The lead seems incorrect.

• Lewis said he was Irish. (https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2007-05-09/debates/267759c5-813a-4611-a1c3-884a9ebc56e3/WrittenAnswers)

• Lewis mentions the Ulster identity and the majority of his family were Ulster protestants, but he himself identifies as Irish.[2]

• It is also noted that his father was an "orangeman" and "Irish unionist" which should be mentioned in the body of the text (https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/oct/23/books.film)

• (Northern Ireland did not exist until Lewis was in his 20s)

Titus Gold (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Following no replies here, I've corrected the lead to Irish and also added mention of Lewis' father's unionist and Orangeman views in the childhood section. I've also added a mention of Lewis' dislike of bigotry and that he wrote about religious sectarianism in the "Irish life' section. Titus Gold (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Look, everyone hereabouts is probably just weary to death of having these same discussions over and over ad nauseam. You haven't established a consensus for a change in the lead's presentation of Lewis's nationality, and I'm going to revert that change. You're welcome to try to get others to agree with you, but no responses in five days does not constitute agreement. Deor (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

You did, at least, provide sources, which is more than can be said for most. However, we've established many times over that the standard we use here is notability. Lewis's Irish background is not something he's famous for, at least not around the world in general. As we've said multiple times in these discussions, if you can make a case that his Irish background is something he's famous for in Ireland, that would be grounds to reconsider. But I'm afraid the sources you've provided don't do that.

(I have to wonder: is there a way to "pin" discussions to Talk pages so they don't get archived? Then at least people might see it...)

—VeryRarelyStable 23:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

A point that's been made here several times is that when Lewis emphasized his Irishness, it was always by contrast with Englishness, not with Britishness in general. I don't think he would ever have disputed that he was a British national. Deor (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above does not provide any citations, simply guesswork. If CS Lewis is noted as British, it's simply inaccurate. Citations show he was Irish. I don't think there's much to argue about to be honest. Titus Gold (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

If he himself said he was British, where are the citations for this? I haven't come across any. Titus Gold (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Here is a second source showing he himself considered himself Irish:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09670880903533409 Titus Gold (talk) 01:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

As has been said many times over in the discussion above and in the archives, C. S. Lewis's personal self-identification is not what's at issue here. What's at issue is that he was a British citizen who wrote for a primarily British (indeed English) audience while living in Britain and working at British universities. Other than purely personal reflections in his letters and autobiography, he barely mentions Irish society, culture, or politics. This is not a standard we've made up, it's Wikipedia policy:

The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident; or, if the person is notable mainly for past events, where the person was a citizen, national, or permanent resident when the person became notable...

Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, neither previous nationalities nor the country of birth should be mentioned in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability.

If you have sources showing that Lewis's Irish origin is necessary context for the works that he is notable for, now is the time to cite them. If not, we already know that Lewis self-identified as Irish, as distinct from English or Scottish; further sources rehearsing this point are irrelevant.

—VeryRarelyStable 01:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Most biographies of "British" people I have personally come across on Wikipedia will mention the demonym of the constituent nation in which they are either of or generally reside in. When it is used the context are usually either military or political, or concerning dual citizens. "English" is not a citizenship nor nationality yet is widely used, as is "Scottish", "Welsh", "Northern Irish" and "Irish" (the ethnicity). If his demonym is such an issue it should be removed or replaced with either "British-Irish", "Northern Irish" or "Belfast-born" with a note explaining this contentious issue. I am a wee bit disappointed that there is not already an explanatory note on this exact issue, especially when one considers how much this has been debated to death! UaMaol (talk) 11:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

No citations have been presented showing that he considered himself British. The facts are that he is acknowledged as being Belfast born and he considered himself Irish.

If his nationality is not notable, then it can simply be omitted from the lead. If a nationality is included, it should be Irish because there are reliable citations for this, which in themselves show a degree of notability. The source show that Lewis also wrote about and mentioned being Irish as is also evident in the "My Irish life" section.

Evidence of Irish nationality citations:

1. https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2007-05-09/debates/267759c5-813a-4611-a1c3-884a9ebc56e3/WrittenAnswers

2. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09670880903533409

3. (already cited in article) Lewis, C. S. (2004) [2000]. Hooper, Walter (ed.). The Collected Letters. Vol. 1: Family Letters, 1905–1931. New York: HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-072763-5. Titus Gold (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I can't find a place where I failed to be clear, but let's try this again. This time, I'm going to ask you to read for comprehension.

Here is Wikipedia's policy on what to say about nationality in article ledes. I want to stress: this is not just a suggestion, it is Wikipedia's official style guide. You can find it at WP:Nationality. I'm going to put in bold the parts that are relevant to this discussion.

The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident; or, if the person is notable mainly for past events, where the person was a citizen, national, or permanent resident when the person became notable...

Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, neither previous nationalities nor the country of birth should be mentioned in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability.

Here, just for contrast's sake, is what it does not say. I'm going to put a strikethrough on it just to emphasize that this is not what the Manual of Style says.

"The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person was born, that provided the ethnic identity that they considered themself to be, and that they recalled with fondness in their autobiography. If this is not relevant to the person's notability, no nationality should be mentioned at all."

Please tell me you see the difference.

The nationality mentioned in the lede has to do with where the person was living and acting when they became notable. It has nothing to do with what they "considered themself" to be.

What this means, for our present purposes, is that – and I'm going to ask you to pay attention this time—

—what Lewis "considered himself" to be is immaterial.

Thus, citations showing that he "considered himself British" or "considered himself Irish" are irrelevant.

The question is whether his Irish origins are part of what make him notable. If you have citations for that, now is the time.

If you disagree with the Manual of Style's nationality guidelines, this is not the place to have that discussion.

—VeryRarelyStable 21:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes I'm already aware of the guidelines, thanks.

His Irish nationality was notable and is a part of what made him notable as the three citations I have presented show.

There have been no citations presented showing he had a British citizenship.

There have been no citations presented (if he had a British citizenship) showing that a potential British citizenship was part of what made him notable. Titus Gold (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Lewis was born in Ireland, which was part of the United Kingdom at the time, and never lived anywhere other than the United Kingdom. He always had "British citizenship". What nation do you think he was a citizen of? Deor (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

citation? Titus Gold (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll have to quote specifically where your cited sources demonstrate that Lewis's Irishness was part of what made him notable. I did see a convincing demonstration that Lewis personally identified as Irish; but as we have now established, that is not the issue.

As far as I know, Lewis's notability lies in three things: his fiction, his Christian apologetics, and his literary scholarship. None of these things derive any substantial content from his Irish identity. In his apologetics he was at pains to universalize his message; in his scholarship he studied works from most of Europe, and his magnum opus was on English literature; in his fiction he took the reader to imaginary worlds, the geographies of which show some bias towards Northern European inspirations, but never pinned down to any specific real-world location.

If you can find sources demonstrating that any one of these three cannot be fully understood without reference to Lewis's Irishness, or that he is notable for a fourth thing that depended on his being Irish, then you have the beginnings of a case.

As for "there have been no citations... showing that... British citizenship was part of what made him notable", read the Wikipedia guideline again. It does not say "Give no indication at all of nationality unless it's relevant to the person's notability," it says "State the nationality that was the context in which the person became notable, unless some previous nationality is also relevant to their notability."

—VeryRarelyStable 23:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

His Irish nationality seems to be in the context and relevant of which he became notable;

Citation 1:

His Irish background is notable in tourism in Northern Ireland, "Northern Ireland Tourist Board referred to CS Lewis as being from an Irish background"

Citation 2:

"Lewis saw himself as Irish and was seen by others as Irish.",

"This article, however, contends that Lewis and his writings were actually influenced by the entire island of Ireland.",

mentions of Hiberno-English influence in his literature,

"Barfield, like Tolkien, was very cognisant of the fact that Lewis was Irish",

"Lewis's Irish background also had a big effect on his fiction and poetry.",

"Lewis's secretary and literary executor Walter Hooper said that Lewis told him the Cooley Mountains near Carlingford Lough in Co. Louth were ‘the area that … most resembled Narnia’"

Side note: No citations for British citizenship or notability

Again, there do not seem to be any citations showing he was British or that a potential British citizenship was a context of his notability. He's mainly known for the series of books on Narnia. Titus Gold (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Let's go through this.

His Irish nationality seems to be in the context and relevant of which he became notable;

This sentence is ungrammatical and hard to parse, so I'm not sure quite what you mean by it, but when Lewis wrote his fiction, scholarship, and apologetics, he was a British subject residing and working in Britain for a primarily British audience. That is what the style guide means by "context for the activities that made the person notable".

His Irish background is notable in tourism in Northern Ireland, "Northern Ireland Tourist Board referred to CS Lewis as being from an Irish background"

This is your strongest case for including his Irishness in the lede – if you can provide further sources showing that C. S. Lewis tourism is a prominent feature of the Northern Irish tourism industry.

By contrast,

"Lewis saw himself as Irish and was seen by others as Irish."

says to me that you haven't been listening to what I or anyone else has been saying in this conversation. Whether he saw himself as Irish is irrelevant.

"This article, however, contends that Lewis and his writings were actually influenced by the entire island of Ireland."

The fact that an article needs to contend such a statement demonstrates that it is neither obvious nor universally agreed upon. Perfectly suitable for the body of the article if there's a reliable enough source. Not sufficient for the lede sentence.

mentions of Hiberno-English influence in his literature

Immaterial. One can also find clear evidence of a fascination with Ptolemaic astrology throughout Lewis's works, but that doesn't mean the lede sentence of his Wikipedia article should describe him as an astrology enthusiast.

"Barfield, like Tolkien, was very cognisant of the fact that Lewis was Irish"

Again, irrelevant.

"Lewis's Irish background also had a big effect on his fiction and poetry."

As did Ptolemaic astrology. Previously-mentioned argument applies.

"Lewis's secretary and literary executor Walter Hooper said that Lewis told him the Cooley Mountains near Carlingford Lough in Co. Louth were ‘the area that … most resembled Narnia’"

And yet, every real-world place the Narnia books visit is in England. As are the terrestrial locations in the Ransom Trilogy, the Screwtape Letters, and The Great Divorce. That's explicit within the text, which makes it a much stronger connection than something Lewis once mentioned to somebody. I don't recall any real-world location at all in The Pilgrim's Regress, and Till We Have Faces is set in an unspecified part of Europe on the fringes of the cultural influence of pre-Roman Greece.

Again, there do not seem to be any citations showing he was British or that a potential British citizenship was a context of his notability.

He was born in the United Kingdom, which means he was a British citizen. If he had been resident in what became the Republic of Ireland when it broke away, whatever happened to other Irish people's British citizenship then would also have happened to his; but since he did not in fact reside in the Republic, he remained a British citizen. As an adult he lived, wrote, studied, and worked in England. That's what's meant by "context for the activities that made him notable".

—VeryRarelyStable 03:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply.

Ireland was a country when CS Lewis was born so is an eligible nationality for inclusion and the guide does not exclusively say "sovereign state". (It's also worth noting by the way that Irish passports have been available on the island of Ireland since 1924 so he may well have held one.)

As requested; CS Lewis is also prominent in Belfast as is promoted by the Northern Ireland Tourism. https://discovernorthernireland.com/things-to-do/c-s-lewis-square-p727341

There are also books about Lewis in an Ireland/Irish context;

The Backward Glance CS Lewis and Ireland, C.S. Lewis at Home in Ireland, C.S. Lewis and the Island of His Birth, Ireland's Literature, Irish Anglican Literature and Drama.

Why not amend the lead to:

"Clive Staples Lewis FBA (29 November 1898 – 22 November 1963) was an Irish writer and British citizen, a literary scholar, and Anglican lay theologian."

That would be a more sensible summary that gives a more accurate context. Titus Gold (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Lewis's passport is if anything even less relevant than his self-identification. When he was producing his fiction, Christian apologetics, and literary scholarship, he was living and working in England, and his work is aimed at an English readership and draws upon English societal, cultural, and political phenomena to appeal to its readers. That is what matters for Wikipedia's purposes.

Your source demonstrates that there exists C. S. Lewis-related material in the Belfast tourism industry, but not that it is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Minimum standard for that is an independent source (i.e. one not beholden either to Lewis's estate or to any organization promoting Lewis-related tourism) which devotes a substantial amount of space to the subject (i.e. not just a passing mention in one sentence).

If (and only if) that standard is met, then it would certainly be worthy of a paragraph or two in the body of the article, and maybe even its own subsection. In the lede section, again if and only if this standard is met, it would certainly be worthy of a sentence at the end of the section, before or after the mention of his Westminster Abbey memorial. It would still not be enough to call him an "Irish writer" in the opening sentence of the article. At absolute most, if and only if the notability standard is met, we might edit the opening sentence to call him an "Irish-born British writer".

—VeryRarelyStable 22:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be wise to recognise Lewis as an Irish writer with British citizenship because this is what the evidence says (assuming Lewis was a British citizen). The guide says "context" of notability of "country, region, or territory". The guide does not say that location itself must be notably associated with the person. Ireland would be perfectly suitable in this case.

However, Belfast , Northern Ireland and Ireland are certainly notably associated with CS Lewis anyway.

With regards to tourism and news sources, please see the following also.

Belfast context: [3] [4], [5], [6], [7]

Northern Ireland context: [8], [9], [10], [11]

Ireland context: [12], [13] Titus Gold (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly looking like C. S. Lewis Square warrants a mention in the article and perhaps even a sentence in the lede section. I don't know that I'll have time to write it myself, but I certainly won't begrudge anyone else doing it. I'm afraid your link #7 undermines your case, however, by demonstrating how very many roots Lewis put down in Oxford when he lived there.

And I'm sorry, but this still isn't enough to call him an "Irish writer" in the first sentence. He did not write in Ireland, and the works he is notable for barely mention Ireland or Irish culture or Irish politics or the experience of being Irish in England or anything connected with Ireland. Even in his autobiography he steers away from being topical about Ireland.

If we do mention C. S. Lewis Square in the lede section we will certainly have to include phrasing indicating he was born in Belfast. I'm going to open the question to other editors as to whether this new information supports putting the phrase "Irish-born" or "Belfast-born" in the opening sentence. Don't get your hopes up.

—VeryRarelyStable 02:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps Irish and British would suit? Titus Gold (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't really see any reason not to include 'Irish' there, maybe as 'British and Irish writer' or to include 'Anglo-Irish' somewhere in the first paragraphs. British and Irish identities are not mutually exclusive. Moling Luachra (talk) 09:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree. To many people of that period these aspects of themselves were not in conflict; people today, such as Kenneth Branagh are proud of and expound on their Irish/British identities.Halbared (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

To repeat my previous suggestion, "Belfast-born" with a note explaining the issue, of course with lots of sources, I think, would be the best way of getting around this. No one doubts he is from Belfast! UaMaol (talk) 10:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

VeryRarelyStable - see Talk:Jesus - the article's talk needs a subpage (i.e., Talk:C. S. Lewis/FAQ) to make this work, I believe. May be helpful... Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Editing Anglican Psaltry

C. S. Lewis' many other works are addressed, but little is said of his works that were not published. In particular, he was one of six men asked to revise the Anglican Psaltry. He did so with T. S. Eliot, who he previously resented and mocked (per his journals) but who became is friend. Eliot was the Faber & Faber editor who approved the publication of "A Grief Observed" under a pseudonym (first edition). Eliot influenced Lewis later in life, as they worked together, but is not mentioned in the article. Could that be added? CSTKing (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Dog killed by car

His dog was killed by a car in 1902 in Belfast? --95.24.65.207 (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

This would appear to be the case. I'm guessing you're dubious about the odds of a dog being struck by a motor vehicle in 1902. Based on my quick and shallow research, it looks like the first car was imported into Ireland in the late 19th century, so it was indeed possible for the dog to be struck by a vehicle, though perhaps statistically unlikely. If the story is true, that was a very unlucky dog. pillowcrow 19:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

In the late Victorian era "car" was a common term for a horsed carriage that was not a professionally driven coach but driven by the rider. Had it been motorised it would have been termed "motor-car".Cloptonson (talk) 15:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cloptonson: That's fascinating. Do you know of any sources that explain that? Or any that confirm that the dog was struck by a horse-drawn carriage and not an early motorized vehicle? Thanks. pillowcrow 22:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't have an authoritative dictionary like the Shorter Oxford that dates the usage of words. It was anecdotal I found out what I now know. In Shrewsbury Cemetery is a gravestone of am army officer, Major Wilmsdorf Mansergh, who the epitaph says "was killed by being thrown from his car" in 1893. When I came across the headstone I thought "first Shropshire motor fatality" but when I later read the account of his death and inquest in the local newspaper of the day I learned the vehicle was horsed. Did Lewis himself leave any written reminiscences that shed more detail on the car that killed his childhood dog or its driver?Cloptonson (talk) 06:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I have yet to find anything from Lewis himself regarding the matter, but I did find a book called Jack's Life: The Life Story of C.S. Lewis by Douglas Gresham, a stepson of Lewis. In it he writes that the dog was run over "probably by a horse and cart as there were almost no cars in the time and place where he was a child" (the page is viewable through Google Books—the very first page of the first chapter). Of course, this doesn't answer whether "car" referred to a horse-drawn carriage (though your discovery at the cemetery would strongly imply such), but it's a good clarification of the incident, so I think I'll make an edit. Gresham also seems to imply that the dog wasn't actually owned by Lewis but rather was a neighborhood dog. pillowcrow 16:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2024

Please add additional supporting text regarding The Dark Tower: Nebula-winning Author Gene Wolfe (a practicing Catholic) also felt that "The Dark Tower" was not written by Lewis.

"GW: Oh, yes, The C. S. Lewis Hoax. With Lewis it is posthumous stuff that apparently is not Lewis at all. I was one of those people who read The Dark Tower and got very suspicious because I was familiar with Lewis and I think I am pretty good at spotting styles. ... I think I could write much better imitation C. S. Lewis than a lot of this supposedly posthumous stuff that is coming out. I could do it better than this guy does and I think practically any decent writer could do it better than this guy does, because he’s not a writer. The reason that there is not more of that than there is, is that the people who can do it would rather write under their own name and take the credit for themselves. Why should they waste their talent in forging work for a dead man?"

reference: https://gwern.net/doc/fiction/science-fiction/1992-jordan.pdf, p. 103 Mapleleiff (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit request: The section on Lewis's Trilemma reads more as an attempt to dismiss it than to explain it. The statement that "It has been widely repeated in Christian apologetic literature but largely ignored by professional theologians and biblical scholars." is vastly over-simplified. Yes, there are scholars who dismiss it, but there are an equal number who do not, and therefore it is misleading and editorializing. It should read more that "liberal scholars dismiss it while conservative scholars often embrace it." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.1.132 (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)