Talk:C. S. Lewis/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Edit request from 94.225.15.147, 8 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

I'm in protostant religion and we are watching The Lion,The Witch and The Wardrobe mainly because C.S Lewis wrote it. 94.225.15.147 (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Nothing specific to change. If you requires an article change be specific about what needs changing. Keith D (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

what's the point? I'm agnostic and I saw it too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.194 (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

When Lewis lost his Christianity

The article says, "...where he attended the preparatory school Cherbourg House (called "Chartres" in Lewis's autobiography). [new paragraph] In September 1913, Lewis enrolled at Malvern College, where he remained until the following June. He found the school socially competitive.[5] It was during this time that 15-year-old Lewis abandoned his childhood Christian faith and became an atheist, becoming interested in mythology and the occult."

Lewis' biography says otherwise. Lewis claims that he lost his Christianity at Chartres (Surprised by Joy, 56).

I am new to Wikipedia and can't figure out how to edit. Will someone else make this minor change? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenTolson (talk • contribs) 16:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added the source, which much trumps the given about.com ref. Please add in the year of publication and publisher for the page number or mention it here. Thanks and best wishes. Span (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Book Cover Images

I think the article might benefit from pictures of one or two book covers. Has there been any discussion on this before. DMSBel (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Often a case can be made for the fair-use inclusion of such nonfree images in the articles about the books, but I think that it would be quite difficult to justify their use in a biographical article such as this. Deor (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but would a cover image of his autobiography (Surprised by Joy) be out of place? [[1]]DMSBel (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought that it would necessarily be out of place, no. However, the cover design you point to doesn't seem to me to have any explanatory value. Instead, it's just one design chosen decades after Lewis's death by some publisher's art department, no more. -- Hoary (talk) 10:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

C. S. Lewis, philosopher?

In this summary-less edit of 3 November 2009, User:Pollinosisss changed Lewis's importance to the Philosophy WikiProject from "low" to "mid". I'm not in that WikiProject and wouldn't presume to speak for it. However, while "The scope of WikiProject Philosophy is all articles related to the academic field of philosophy" (NB not to "homespun philosophy", etc), the article on Lewis doesn't mention any philosophy that I notice. The only philosophy reference book I happen to have on me now is the first (1995) edition of the Oxford Companion to Philosophy; unsurprisingly this has no entry for Lewis, but he also isn't even mentioned in the index.

If Lewis really was a philosopher of note (or was otherwise of interest to philosophy), then this is excellent news: it surely implies that the article is seriously inadequate in ways far more significant than the precise confection of mentions of Britishness, Irishness, Northernirishness, Welshness, Downness, etc etc, which (the history of this talk page suggests) have been an obsession here for years. Can people here who understand the philosophical import (if any) of Lewis's works consider augmenting the article accordingly? -- Hoary (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Look at the Christian apologist section. Rmhermen (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just done so. He comes off as a theologian who once lost a philosophical debate. If this is so, then he was perhaps a brave theologian even to appear, and he may have done well considering that he wasn't a philosopher (as Anscombe indeed seems to have thought) ... but I don't see any indication of his significance either as a philosopher or to philosophy. Again, I don't say this in order to knock him; I'm just wondering if something has gone askew in the article. -- Hoary (talk) 01:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't comment on the Trilemma and Universal morality sections though. Rmhermen (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The trilemma section doesn't seem to venture beyond theology. As for universal morality, the article (rightly or wrongly) says: One of the main theses in Lewis's apologia is that there is a common morality known throughout humanity. [...] Lewis discusses the idea that people have a standard of behaviour to which they expect other people to adhere. This standard has been called Universal Morality or Natural Law. Lewis claims that people all over the earth know what this law is and when they break it. He goes on to claim that there must be someone or something behind such a universal set of principles. That people all over the earth know what this law is and when they break it seems to be an empirical claim. Let's assume for a moment that it is correct. If there's "someone" behind it, this sounds like religion; if there's some scientific reason for it, this sounds like a pre-echo of sociobiology. I still can't see the philosophy, though I may well be missing something. ¶ To approach the matter in a different way, do you have any book on philosophy that treats Lewis as of more than minor importance? (My own sample of one dictionary/encyclopedia of philosophy is of course inadequate.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

While I have no opinions on the matter as regards Lewis, I note that universal morality is treated by Wikipedia as part of ethics which is a subject of philosophy. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough: let's accept that some of his work was indeed philosophical. I'm still left wondering how it was important to philosophy. -- Hoary (talk) 10:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

C.S. Lewis Bibliography

I think it would be helpful to have a bibliography of Lewis' works listed in the order of the date they were first published, much like Wikipedia articles have a filmography for actors. I'm not sure if this has been discussed before, of if this sounds like a good idea to anyone else, but I thought I would mention it. I've tried finding a place that lists all his works in an organized way and most just list some of his works but not all of them. Or if they do list all of them they don't list the dates they were originally published. I'm not sure if such a list exists, which means each book would have to be looked up individually. Katiewoz (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

We have something like that at C. S. Lewis bibliography. Deor (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! I apologize for not looking into that further before posting here. Thank you!Katiewoz (talk) 02:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Nationality

One thing I have noticed on this website is how 'British' editors claim any major Irish figure as their own; and the wikipedian admins allow it,CS Lewis is not British,so what is the excuse for saying he is 'Irish-born British'? This is fcuking nauseating behaviour.Sheodred (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

don't ask for the excuse, it will just raise your blood pressure ClemMcGann (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll give you the answer; seems only fair as I was the user who ensured that his nationality was changed from Irish to its present state.

First off, I would like to state that you have got it the wrong way round - it is the Irish users who attempt to claim British figures for their own. I've seen Irish users vehemently claim that The Beatles are Irish for example, and the admins are very tolerant of nonsense claims such as these.

Secondly, the reasons for CS Lewis being listed as British are many. 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. There was a single citzenship, a single nationality. Every single person born in all of Ireland during this time was British, but more importantly, 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. WiseNinja1 (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

If is helps don't think of British as meaning born on the island of Great Britain. Since the name of the country he was born in was called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, one might argue that Ireland was a separate entity. The demonym of that kingdom was still British, and even though convention is that people are often referred to as members of the part of the kingdom they are from, members are all Britons. However, this does not matter, since even then, Lewis could be seen as an Irish immigrant to Britain. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Great Britain is only one of the British Isles, which include Ireland. "British" as a cultural description arguably includes the Irish. "British" as a nationality means "a citizen of the United Kingdom", which Lewis certainly was. -- Elphion (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not writing in expectation of seeing Lewis described as Irish on this page. Over the years, many (including myself) have shown that Lewis regarded himself as both Irish and British, and we have suggested that he be described as Irish, since, in the first line of their entries, Dickens is described as English (not British), Burns is described as Scottish (not British), and Dylan Thomas is described as Welsh (not British). Sadly, British editors on Wikipedia have steadfastly refused to allow Lewis to be called Irish in the same way that Burns is described as Scottish. If Ireland (or at least Northern Ireland) is 'British', as they claim, then why can't they magnanimously allow him to be called Irish, safe in their own conviction that Ireland is 'British'? Does their reluctance betray the fact that they are insecure about Ireland's Britishness? Obviously, to non-British observers, the tendency to call Irish writers 'British' and to refuse to allow them to be described as Irish smacks more than a little of cultural imperialism. Stjohnfitzball (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe "Irish-born English" would be more accurate. Span (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

ad Span: "English" is the wrong answer. Lewis did not regard himself as English, but rather (as Stjohnfitzball points out) as both Irish and British.
ad Stjohnfitzball: This has been discussed here before. "English", "Scottish", and "Welsh" are all unambiguously "British" in nationality; but in Lewis's lifetime "Irish" became associated with the Republic and "Irish writer" with a style and culture that does not include him. The phrase "Irish-born British writer" is an awkward compromise and not ideal, but it is more accurate in connotation than "Irish writer" -- or even "Irish writer who spent his entire professional life in England". This is not primarily about Brits wanting to "claim" Lewis, or about cultural imperialism (I, for example, am not British). It reflects rather the historical fact that Lewis was more associated with the British universities and their culture than with the Republic and its fine, but very different, writers. Anyone from the Union counties in Lewis's generation will run into the same problem: "Irish" has become ambiguous, or even misleading; and "from Northern Ireland" is not quite historically accurate. There is no good solution here, but I think our compromise is reasonable. -- Elphion (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

"Irish-born British" seems reasonable. Nobody will be happy with any ultimate outcome on this, given the history of various animosities in this region. But the use of a phrase should not be hijacked to advance one side or another of a political cause, and there is no factual reason to devote more than three words to this, barring evidence that the author himself had a strong opinion on it. Sngourd (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

At the time Ireland was controlled by Britain so technically CS Lewis may have been Irish/British but I feel this article is not accurate and should be changed to just 'Irish novelist'. Many people get confused on this topic and he is claimed as being British which is often confused with him being English, Wikipedia is a website to give people accurate data and this data is often thought as fact and I don't feel their is any need at all for it to mention British except for sectarian, xenophobic, personal gain. He was an Irish novelist and I'm sure if he were here today himself would agree. I am new with wikipedia so forgive me as I haven't posted this in the correct way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom10-NI (talk • contribs) 21:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is here to state facts. It is a fact that he is British so it MUST be mentioned. On the contrary, any omission of a person's nationality - knowledge of which is both important and interesting - would be an act committed for nothing more than sectarian, xenophobic, personal gain.

His nationality must be mentioned and his nationality is British. Please can everyone shut up about this issue, the article isn't going to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.58.89 (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

And for the record, Stjohnfitzball, the reason why he is said to be British and not Irish is because British and Irish are SEPERATE national terms. British applies to the citizens of the United Kingdom, and Irish applies to citizens of the Republic of Ireland. English, Welsh and Scottish are not seperate nationalities to British, and by stating that someone is Scottish it goes without saying that they are also British as they are still citizens of the UK. However, the Republic of Ireland is NO LONGER part of Britain and therefore the Irish nationality is distinct from British. Not only that, but the Irish nationality is also distinct from the nationality of those in Northern Ireland - as a part of the UK and not the ROI, their nationality is BRITISH. Ireland is a geographical region, remember, simply living on the island does not make you "Irish", as that term only applies to citizens of the ROI. Therefore, as CS Lewis lived his entire life in the UK and not in the ROI, using the term Ireland would be misleading in ways that using the term Scottish is not.

In addition, Stjohnfitzball, your post is either immensely ignorant or a cynical attempt to mislead and manipulate the meeker editors around here into unwittingly push your POV for you. Maybe it's a bit of both, but I think it's fair to say that your opinions on this issue can be disregarded when editing the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.58.89 (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

This argument that because he had British citizenship he should not be described as Irish is nonsense in my opinion. GB Shaw had British citizenship and spent almost all his adult life in England but is widely accepted as being Irish. Both men were born and raised in Ireland and considered themselves Irish and hence they should be described as such. A good compromise for Lewis, as I suggested before, would be to describe him as Irish in the introduction but British under nationality in the sidebar. AMacR (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Better still what about simply listing him as "Irish(later Northern Irish)", as that describes perfectly what he considered himself and avoids the impression that he was a citizen of the Irish State. To me that is by far the best solution.AMacR (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

To someone outside Ireland and the UK, this topic can be confusing. While I understand the intent behind "Irish(later Northern Irish)," this will be as clear as mud to many. Basileias (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree and suggest that we revert back to just simply Irish with perhaps a link to Irish People. Bjmullan (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to him being labeled simply Irish but many have complained that this suggests he was a citizen of the Irish state rather than the British one and my wording was a way of avoiding that impression. Anyway, if this is too confusing to some then what about my original suggestion of describing him as Irish in the Introduction and British under nationality in the sidebar?AMacR (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I think saying is he Irish but listing his nationality as British is much more clear, and accurate. Almost everything I have seen written about Lewis from a none Ireland or UK perspective generally lists him as British. A mentioning of Irish birth is rare, but becoming more common with younger generation writers. If there is no other inferences tossed out please insert your suggestion. Basileias (talk) 00:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, done.AMacR (talk) 09:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Reverted per WP:BRD. A far more indepth discussion and consensus should be reached rather than the above if such a change is to be made especially if all reference to his actual country (not the country within a country), the United Kingdom, is being left out of the infobox AND lede - and how can you not call that PoV pushing? In regards to AMacR, this raised a few eyebrows for me for how could it not be appropriate to list C.S. Lewis as British due to his background?

Unless you can prove that Ireland was a seperate identity from the United Kingdom when Lewis was born (which it wasn't), he is British in nationality. Terms such as English/Welsh/Irish/Scottish are only regional sub-nationalities within the United Kingdom. I also entirely agree with WiseNinja1's initial comments. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

AMacR, when I stated "If there is no other inferences tossed out," you generally should wait about a week.

It does seem that other "popular" British writers, people of note, do get their nationality listed as British in the user box, but within the article their regional sub-nationalities is what they are identified by or does at least get mentioned. My original comment was about clarity for international readers. The "Irish(later Northern Irish)," while I know what the editor was getting at, would not be clear for international readers. It made it sound like Lewis moved from Ireland to N. Ireland. Basileias (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly it can be confusing for readers. "Irish-born British" also sounds confusing. It makes it sound he was a British national born in a different country which is entirely wrong and confusing for readers. Whats wrong with the following: "born in Belfast, Ireland (modern day Northern Ireland), C. S. Lewis was a British..."? That way everyone gets to know straight of the bat he's Irish as he's from Ireland but the part that is now part of Northern Ireland without any of the ambiguity of what Irish and Ireland means nowadays.

In fact we should take a look at the bio-articles on other people born in former states (UK of GB and Ireland is former as it is now the UK of GB and NI). Take for example Leonardo da Vinci. His lede states he is Italian despite the fact he was from the Republic of Florence. So no sub-regional nationality declared there. His infobox also states: Vinci, Republic of Florence, in the present day Province of Florence, Italy, which could be used as an example for articles on people born in pre-1921 Ireland.

Martin Luther was born in Saxony in the Holy Roman Empire but is called a German rather than a Saxon, and well Saxony, despite being part of a larger state/union, had more independence than Ireland/Scotland/Wales/England did/do as part of the UK. Could be argued that Saxony's present forms still have more regional independence than they do (NI now as opposed to I).

Though there is a bit of inconsistency in locational details. Andrea del Verrocchio and Pope Gregory XI use the modern country names for their birth and death places, whereas Leonardo above has both past and modern and Pope Eugene IV just the past bit. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Mabuska your suggestion doesn't read well either and can be confusing. I prefer AMacR suggestion of Irish (ethnicity) in the lede and British (nationality) in the infobox. Bjmullan (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the following works well: "C. S. Lewis, born in Belfast (in what is now Northern Ireland), was a British writer etc." This is not confusing (I mean, any more than the history of Ireland is confusing :-), it lays the facts out succinctly, and is about as neutral as you can be in what is historically a complex situation. While it's interesting and instructive to look at more or less analogical examples, there is no consistency there -- nor can there be, since the political situations varied significantly with geography and time. Historical Europe does not map well onto the modern notion of nation-state. -- Elphion (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Any opinion on the other points i raised Bjmullan in regards to people from other former regions/countries/states and how they are described? Also Bjmullan how does a reader know the lede is on about ethnicity rather than nationality especially when for other countries its usually the persons nationality or country of birth that is declared? Why give a sub-nationality of a former state/country or whatever it was, such as Irish for pre-1921 Ireland, when today that would confuse a reader into thinking they are Irish as in of the current state called Ireland today <- that is the real confusion which even "Irish-born British" instills into the article.

Elphion's idea reads better than what i suggested. I don't see American's from specific states listed as being Nevadan's or New Mexican's - and American states have even more autonomy and legislative power than the UK's regions. In the past i've backed Northern Irish as a country of birth term, however bio's seem to state nationality instead, and i think now all sub-nationalities for the UK should be simply British with region of birth given, i.e. John Smith (born in London, England), is a British... as that gets the information out and is accurate without pandering to nationalist tendancies, whilst also allowing the reader to know that the person is English or whatever from the region they're born in. Obviously that'll annoy the many nationalists on Wikipedia, but why should the UK's components get different treatment than other countries which are composed of regions with far greater autonomy and legislative power than the UK's regions. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The one problem with the suggestion to mention place of birth in the lede is that it's goes against WP:MOSBIO. The problem with mentioning Northern Ireland would lead to the argument regarding the status of the region. If we link the word Irish to Irish People then it would be clearly that it's related to ethnicity. Bjmullan (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Mabuska I changed Antony Gormley's description to British because both his parents are non-English and English is generally reserved for people who are ethnically English. Although C.S. Lewis' father was Welsh his mother was, as far as I know, Irish, so he's not comparable to Antony Gormley in that respect.

Also your argument that because Martin Luther, Leonardo di Vinci are described as German and Italian, C.S. Lewis should be called British does not make sense. They are being described as ethnically German and Italian not according to their nationality as of course these did not exist back then, which in fact perfectly backs up my argument for describing Lewis as Irish. Most writers and cultural figures born within the UK are described by their ethnicity, i.e. English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish, so I don't see why Lewis should not be treated the same especially when he considered himself Irish. To me, describing him as Irish in the introduction and British in the infobox is a very good compromise. In fact if you look at the Rabbie Burns article he is listed as both Scottish in the Introduction and under nationality and no one has objected, so I think my suggestion is very fair.AMacR (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with AMacR. Bjmullan (talk) 22:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Naturally you would agree with that Bjmullan ;-) However i find it odd you are now against stating Northern Ireland when you yourself proposed using it for Jonny Evans in place of Northern Irish (something i backed but as i stated above, am changing my opinion on). We aren't making any claims as to what Northern Ireland is and it is used commonly in many bio's and is no different from declaring settlements as being in NI which they all are. It also isn't hard to state "Northern Ireland, UK" instead of just "Northern Ireland".

As that falls foul according to WP:MOSBIO, then surely stating ethnicity also falls foul of that guideline according to the second point of point 3, unless you can prove why its relevant to the subject's notability.

3. Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity);

1. In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national (according to each nationality law of the countries), or was a citizen when the person became notable.

2. Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.

Whilst not a very modern-day case, C. S. Lewis was still born in the United Kingdom, and was as such by UK law a British citizen. There was no Irish state when he was born to be of any kind of Irish citizenship, and even after the Free State's independence, C. S. Lewis never changes his nationality. Is the ethnicity relevant to the subject's notability? Not really except for those pushing the pov on it. Its not like he was Douglas Hyde whose ethnicity was a major relevant factor or a native American such as Crazy Horse. Can you or AMacR provide a compelling case as to why its relevant to state C. S. Lewis' ethnicity when he never made an issue out of it other than in one comment where he professes thank god he's Irish? Unless taken extremely out of context, its hardly a compelling case for its relevance. Thus if you wish to quote the MoS in regards to bios Bjmullan you have to show how AMacR's suggestion meets it as well.

Stating that C. S. Lewis is British but born in Ireland/Northern Ireland could meet that above guideline. How? Well firstly he was British in nationality, thats hardly controversial. Secondly you could argue that its notable to state that he was born in Belfast, Ireland or Belfast, modern day Northern Ireland, for either the fact he was born in a former region of the UK that no longer exists, or that his birthplace is now part of a different region than that he was born in, or that it helps dispell the notion that he's English. We could however just state that he was British and leave the location of birth to the body of the article and the infobox.

Whatever way you look at it, stating his nationality is British is the least problematic issue if we follow the manual of style for biographies, and one editor here is fond of ensuring we follow the manual of styles. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

@AMacR - a nation of people doesn't need a state to exist, i.e. Germany for Germans, Italy for Italians. Thats the problem with the concepts of state and nations as they are too blurred. In regards to Robert Burns, and many other articles on Wikipedia there isn't a consistent system in place and you will find a plathorea of different styles used. A consistent system needs to be drawn up and implemented in regards to the United Kingdom. Also as a compromise its flawed as you aren't making it clear that its his ethnicity and by having the lede different from the infobox would confuse an ignorant reader, and also flout the above guidelines unless you show hows it relevant to the subject's notability.

Also @ AMacR, you should really delve deeped into an articles edit history and talk page history. The nationality issue in regards to Robert Burns has been raised several times. Hardly matching a situation you declared as "no one has objected".

We can however add the ethnicity parameter to the infobox to state he;s of Irish ethnicity. But i'd take a bet that doesn't suffice those against using British in the lede? I'll add it in anyways. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I think ethnicity in the infobox is enough. I am stunned that in only a few hours it seems a book has been written on the talk page. If you try and work this around local politics, your working with "local politics" instead of the subject, which is Lewis. I will suggest not rewording the opening, but simply cutting it down.

"Clive Staples Lewis (29 November 1898 – 22 November 1963), commonly referred to as C. S. Lewis and known to his friends and family as "Jack", was a an Irish-born British novelist..."

{{unsigned|Basileias|28 June 2011 02:36 UTC}

Mabuska, Lewis' ethnicity could be called "notable" because he considered himself Irish and because Irish literature, ancient and contemporary, had a considerable influence on his own literary output.

Also when you say "a nation of people doesn't need a state to exist", that was precisely my point and again backs up my own point. Lewis was from the nation of Ireland, which existed in its entirety within the UK when Lewis was growing up. The problem with the UK is that there is no British ethnicity, the UK is composed of four different nations and ethnicities that are generally considered more significant to identity and culture than being British. I know the word nationality can sometimes be used to mean ethnicity but in general its better to keep them separate in this kind of discussion. I think this is something that should be clarified generally across Wikipedia. Also, I'm pretty sure GB Shaw never took Irish citizenship either yet he is widely accepted as being Irish and is listed as such in both the lede and the infobox(not that I agree with that) in his article. I'm just rather puzzled why such an exception is being made of CS Lewis.

Regarding the Rabbie Burns article, one person has objected twice in the last two and half years. When you say: "Hardly matching a situation you declared as "no one has objected"",- not quite but as good as and I don't see you complaining about that usage strangely. Also: "We can however add the ethnicity parameter to the infobox to state he;s of Irish ethnicity. But i'd take a bet that doesn't suffice those against using British in the lede? I'll add it in anyways", I think that's a good idea actually and you should try not to be so presumptuous about my motives. I actually think it would be better if that's all it said about Lewis' ethnicity/nationality and completely took out the "Irish born, British" line, leaving people to make up their own minds with the given information in the infobox. I see Basileias had the same idea before me. AMacR (talk) 08:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

" . . . it seems a book has been written . . . " Huh. You should check out the archives . . . -- Elphion (talk) 02:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I just looked and wow! Reading some of the passed discussion, not done and it will be awhile, does not shake my belief that Lewis is Irish (big shock) and his nationality and citizenship is British (even bigger shock).

I still favor "Clive Staples Lewis (29 November 1898 – 22 November 1963), commonly referred to as C. S. Lewis and known to his friends and family as "Jack", was a an Irish-born British novelist..."

However if consensus cannot be reached (so far is does not appear it was from the past discussions, not finished yet), maybe doing what harpercollins did is a suggestion. They did not user either descriptive. (http://harpercollins.com/author/microsite/About.aspx?authorid=5865) Basileias (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree and support this idea of removing any mention of his nationality from the lede. As I said above I think it would be better just leaving the Nationality and Ethnicity in the infobox and letting people decide for themselves.AMacR (talk) 08:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No case has been provided to pander to the pov pushing to remove C. S. Lewis' actual citizenship/nationality. The MoS in regards says that: "In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national (according to each nationality law of the countries), or was a citizen when the person became notable.". In both cases he is British as he was born and lived and died in the United Kingdom and never changed his citizenship. Whether his ethnicity is relevant to the article or not is highly dubious and debatable - it is clear that AMacR just wants British out of the lede with nothing to back up why.

There are merits of excluding either term, but again why pander to the minority pov? If we follow the guidelines he's British end of regardless of the political jockeying.

No consensus has been provided for change, meaning our discussion is quite frankly for no point whatsoever and the article will remain "Irish-born British". I back Basileias idea of removing "Irish-born" as its daft and confusing and his birth location and ethnicity can be easily detailed in the infobox which it is. Why does that not suffice? Mabuska ^(talk) 10:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Not getting involved in the debate - but just a comment that the infobox detail should be covered in the article text, there should be nothing in it which is not covered elsewhere. Keith D (talk) 12:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Mabuska, as I've stated over and over, the reason I am in favour of listing him as Irish in the lede is because he considered himself Irish and this, in almost every other article on cultural people from the UK, is enough for them to have their ethnicity used instead of their nationality. For some peculiar reason, C.S. Lewis is the exception to that rule. If anything you need to justify why he shouldn't be called Irish in the lede but since this is a contentious issue I think removing any mention of his nationality or ethnicity from the lede would be better overall. Again I would ask you not to make presumptuous remarks about my motives, after all I did insert British into the infobox. AMacR (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That sorta puts to bed AMacR's and my ideas, though i still back having his nationality listed as British as that is what he was. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

@Keith D, I don't see how that changes anything. Do you mean nationality and ethnicity should be removed from the infobox? I think both are covered in the article, he was born in the UK and there are several quotes of his where he calls himself Irish.AMacR (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Your comment still doesn't alter WP:MOSBIO either AMacR. Just because he calls himself Irish (in the context of when dealing with English) a couple of times hardly makes his ethnicity relevant to the article over his nationality. Where does ethnicity merit relevance? An example would be Michael Collins. C. S. Lewis never made a major political issue or whatever out of his ethnicity so its not relevant to the article or even dictate what he is famous for in life. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I also stated above "Irish literature, ancient and contemporary, had a considerable influence on his own literary output" as justification for describing him as Irish in the lede. You also failed to address my point that the vast majority of cultural figures from the UK are described by their ethnicity (especially Welsh, Scottish and Irish) when that is what they consider themselves. The article itself gives ample evidence of the importance of Ireland and Irish people to him, it states "Throughout his life, he sought out the company of other Irish living in England and visited Northern Ireland regularly, even spending his honeymoon there in 1958 at the Old Inn, Crawfordsburn." There is no doubt that Lewis' Irish upbringing and background had a strong influence on him as a person and his literature, therefore it is obviously notable and important. The fact remains however that he was both Irish and British and I think it is best to remove either description from the lede to let people decide for themselves which is more important. To me, that is clearly the most NPOV to take. AMacR (talk) 01:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Considering you've failed to address most of my points, how can you complain? Norse mythology has a considerable influence on me however that doens't make me of Norse ethnicity. From what i've read above you were arguing to use Irish in place of British, but are now happy to see Irish out of the lede as long as British is out of the lede despite the fact his nationality is and has always been British and you can provide no proof to the contrary - this only makes it even more clear that you simply want British to be removed no matter what which hints strongly of WP:POV and thus you can hardly claim its the most NPOV route to take. This is further backed up by the fact that despite the lede containing both words, you still want to get British removed even though Irish is already in the lede alongside it.

All in all as i also already stated but you obviously overlooked - there is huge inconsistency in how the ledes of biography articles goes with most failing the WP:MOSBIO - yet that doesn't mean we should follow suit. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

What points have I failed to address? Tell me what they are and I will address them. I believe I have consistently addressed every argument you have put forth and stated their obvious flaws, while you have simply stated the same argument over and over again. This comment: "Norse mythology has a considerable influence on me however that doens't make me of Norse ethnicity.", can only be a facetious argument and you have already stated that you accept that Lewis was of Irish ethnicity. I have given very strong arguments to show that his ethnicity is "notable" and you have not countered them in any way, therefore according to WP:MOSBIO there is every reason for his ethnicity to be stated instead of his nationality, just as it is for most writers and cultural figures from the UK. However since there is no consensus I believe the most NPOV would be to remove both and let people decide for themselves with the information in the infobox. The problem I have with the current "Irish born, British" line is that it suggests he was first and foremost British and merely born in Ireland but that is obviously not true. Ireland and his own Irishness was clearly very important to Lewis and his literature. AMacR (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Read all of the above and you'll see, why should i keep repeating myself.. Anyways "The problem I have with the current "Irish born, British" line is that it suggests he was first and foremost British and merely born in Ireland but that is obviously not true." - if thats not true then 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4.

By the way no consensus for change means no consensus for ANY change. As stated whats there now is not my preferred, but but i'm compromising by accepting the fact there is no consensus for change. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Its obviously not true because Lewis was not just born in Ireland he was raised and grew up here, was influenced by Irish literature and culture, regularly visited, and considered himself Irish. Really, work on your logic Mabruska. AMacR (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You said "Irish-born British" makes him sound British and that he was just born in Ireland, however at its simplest its true. He was a British citizen and born in Ireland - the logic is sound. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

At it's simplest it may be true but it is a deceptive phrase which grossly understates his Irishness. AMacR (talk) 23:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I am genuinely surprised that this issue is still in contention.

For reasons already stated on the discussion page seemingly a thousand times, CS Lewis is undeniably British. This article can be reworded if we can find a better way of mentioning it, but the fact that he is British MUST be stated. It is unacceptable for this to be omitted and it would be downright idiotic to list his ethnicity over his nationality - this would be massively confusing and nothing short of an insult. And, for the record, it is far more acceptable to simply omit "Irish" from the lede than to omit "British" (I personally don't believe we should do this, but it would be the lesser of two evils).

I cannot believe I'm still having to tell people this. The man was clearly British, and no amount of POV pushing is ever getting that fact removed from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.58.89 (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Related to Mabruska are you? BTW I'm not trying to get British removed from the article, just the lede. British would still be listed as his nationality in the infobox. AMacR (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh so yet another person disagrees with you so it must be me? If you actually read this entire topic you'd notice that that IP has commented on this topic long before i did. Grow up. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

He just happened to say almost the exact same thing as you that's all Mabruska, calm down. AMacR (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

What he said was said also before i said. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Mabuska is quite right to criticise that comment, AMacR. Simply because you don't like what you hear, you essentially accuse me of being a sockpuppet for Mabuska. Don't try and brush it off as if you've done nothing wrong; what you've just attempted to do is a common tactic and it is rather underhanded, so please don't act as if it is wrong to be offended.

The reason why we've said pretty much the same thing is because our arguments not only follow the rules of wikipedia, but because they are based upon fact. It is a fact that CS Lewis was British and it is one of the primary rules of wikipedia to list someone's nationality in the lede when it is known, so it should come as no surprise that more than one user makes the same point.

And to be fair, you have come up with the EXACT same argument with pretty much the EXACT same points as almost every Irish user that has contributed to a discussion relating to nationality on this page. I have been here for over three years and I can tell you that what you are saying is nothing new, so you really can't go about claiming that users are "related" due to a similarity in points when your argument matches those from so many editors over the years.

I'm sorry, but simply mentioning his nationality in the infobox just isn't good enough on its own. It would lead to an unneccessary amount of confusion; the article is far better off as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.58.89 (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The article isn't far better off the way it is, but i can accept it as the compromise as it mentions both his nationality and ethnicity which provide more information than removing both terms to sate a POV urge to remove British from someone born on this island. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you're over reacting slightly. I never even claimed that you were the same person as Mabruska, and I'm not doing so now, so maybe climb down off your high horse. If you wanted to back up Mabruska you could have simply said you agree with him instead of simply stating the same arguments as him, which I feel I countered quite strongly. You say: "There is no denying that he was British, and so there is no good reason to omit it from the lede." There is also no denying that he was Irish and no good reason to omit it from the lead. My desire is to have him described as Irish in the lead but if that cannot be agreed I support a compromise to remove all terms of nationality/ethnicity from it. AMacR (talk) 23:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

He already is described as Irish in the lede (Irish-born), so why does that not suffice? Once again you virtually admit that this is simply a campaign to remove British from the lede. Also wiki guidelines urges editors to not use the "per so and so" arguement, even though some editors do so anyways. But as an editor of about 60 edits i'm pretty much sure you don't have that great a deal of knowledge/experience of Wiki's in and outs. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

convenience break 1

Hello, I'm an Uninvolved Person.

I understand that Lewis (in whose works, and in whom, I have no interest) was born in what is now Northern Ireland, and that his [on-paper, legal] nationality (which at the time couldn't have been Irish) was British. Further, he was born in what [geographically] was (and is) Ireland. Rightly or wrongly, this part of the world was (and is) British. It could (and can) also be described as in the British Isles. But it wasn't (and isn't) Britain, because Britain was (and is) instead the bigger island on the right. How am I doing so far?

It's claimed above by some that he was "ethnically" Irish, by others that he wasn't. A skim-read through the material above doesn't make any evidence particularly obvious.

Did Lewis refer to himself as "Irish", "British" or any other relevant term? If so, what?

Whether he did or didn't, there must surely be dispassionate commentary on this. Biographies, even literary biographies, tend to sensationalize; and that their commentary maybe less dispassionate and less authoritative than what in the biographical introductions to scholarly surveys about the particular author's literary output. I'm thinking here of books put out by university presses or publishers of similar rank (Blackwell, FSG, etc) for the educated adult reader, not books for kids and not more or less polemical papers that somehow managed to get published in academic journals. So, what do these books say?

And if there's an apparent conflict of evidence, well, let's see this evidence and then evaluate it. -- Hoary (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly sources are a foundation of Wikipedia which i did point out to AMacR somewhere. Heres one lying on a shelf in my house, and even though its not academic (most sources on Wikipedia aren't) it's still a source, along with a Britannica entry:

Lew-is, C(live) S(taples) (1898-1963). British author and critic. Readers Digest, Universal Dictionary, page 885. ISBN 0 276 42419 0

C.S. Lewis, in full Clive Staples Lewis (born Nov. 29, 1898, Belfast, Ire. [now in Northern Ireland]—died Nov. 22, 1963, Oxford, Oxfordshire, Eng.), British scholar, novelist,[2]

But obviously there will be sources stating British or Irish hence why i have compromised and said i'd accept what is there in the article at this time even though i disagree with it as have several other editors.

AMacR will love this one if we are to judge if Lewis' remarks on his ethnicity are notable enough for them to be used: "Although he regarded Ulster as his homeland, Clive Staples Lewis denied being Irish. “I’m more Welsh than anything,” he once said to me, “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.”" [3]. Should we describe him as Welsh instead?

I would like to point Hoary to the talk archives, where they will see this issue has been argued over and over again. The compromise it would seem is "Irish-born British" which is what the article has had for a while now until AMacR decided to change it. AMacR is against this as it includes British (which they have indirectly made clear several times) and makes it sound as if he was merely born in Ireland (not entirely untrue). I along with several otehr editors would prefer just stating simply "British", yet i'm willing to compromise and abide by what is already there. Why should we pander to a POV motive when there is what appears a consensus (a silly one in my opinion) that is currently in use and when there is no consensus to change? Mabuska ^(talk) 10:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

@ Hoary, sorry for taking a while to reply, hopefully I will have more time tomorrow evening to address all the points. Firstly just to clarify, Mabruska accepts Lewis was ethnically/culturally Irish and I accept he was a British citizen, the difference in opinions is in the level of importance given to either of these terms within the article. The present Irish born, British obviously gives precedence to him being British rather than Irish, which I think is not a fair reflection of his identity and influneces.

There are several quotes within the main article to show that Lewis considered himself Irish;

If I do ever send my stuff to a publisher, I think I shall try Maunsel, those Dublin people, and so tack myself definitely onto the Irish school.

Lewis, C.S. Collected Letters, Volume 1: Family Letters, 1905–1931. London: HarperCollins Publishers, 2000. 59.

Like all Irish people who meet in England we ended by criticisms on the invincible flippancy and dulness 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.

Letter to Arthur Greeves, in Walter Hooper ed., The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, Vol. 1: Family Letters, 1905–1931 (New York: HarperCollins, 2004), p. 310. ISBN 0-06-072763-2

Then there is a quote which I think sums up modern perceptions of Lewis generally, as once he was seen purely as a British, even English, writer.

Recent work on Lewis has come more and more to see him as an Irish writer, to see that his sense both of landscape and language arise as much out of his County Down childhood and lifelong visits to the land of his birth as from the Oxford where he lived following his matriculation into the university in 1917.

R. MacSwain, M. Ward, "The Cambridge Companion to C. S. Lewis" p. 302 New York, Cambridge University Press, 2010

AMacR (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

No. Short dictionary entries, general-purpose encyclopedias, and chatty biographies don't cut it. And neither does an appeal to numbers. Let's see citations of thoughtful, expert, dispassionate writing.

Why should we pander to a POV motive when ....?

You're implying that the opposite side to yours in the argument (if it even is an argument rather than a mere squabble) has a "POV motive". Please skip the ascription of motives (or as people are repeatedly reminded here, please "AGF"). Instead, where is the evidence?

Why should we [change] when there is what appears a consensus (a silly one in my opinion) that is currently in use and when there is no consensus to change?

You're also implying that there's a consensus. Even with the bizarre Wikipedia sense of the word "consensus", I'm not at all sure that there is a "consensus". Still, parts of your question are fair enough. Why change? The balance of evidence, that's why. If this points the other way. Well, does it? If so, let's see it. If not, well, let's see the other evidence. -- Hoary (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It is hard to skip ascriptions of motives, especially when an editor has made it clear. In regards to sources they also have to be reliable. If the above are (note i say if they are) reliable then how can you simply discount them? It would mean a lot of articles would need changed and have sources removed. If your going to define such a tight definition on the sources for this issue this could take a while and result in deadlock unless someone has access to several academic scholary works or whatever and if so could lead to an unbalanced weight of evidence if the other party doesn't have access to such works to provide any evidence, and take into account the fact a party might not disclose evidence to the contrary of their opinion. Then you'd have to take into effect whether the source has any bias or if its reliabile or not so obviously using one or two sources fitting your definition wouldn't be able to cut it either.

Another major problem is, is the source remarking on his ethnicity or nationality? As we all know he can't be of Irish nationality, only Irish ethnicity and why can't we mention his ethnicity beside his nationality as the current article presently does to a degree? The manual of style doesn't mention it so you can't say its against it. Why is AMacR against it? Because it states British. Then after you've got one or two sources you'll need to see if there is consensus for change and convince everyone else that they override any "lessor" sources that may be reliable.

By the way you will notice i said "there is what appears" in regards to a consensus, which is me implying that there seems to be one but i've not seen any hard evidence of it.

In fact could we not alter the "Irish-born British" bit to "is a British novelist... ... of Irish ethnicity"? Covers both sides of the coin and avoids any confusion. But then again AMacR wants both removed now so the reader can judge for themselves what he was... which only makes you wonder - he's undeniably a British citizen, and his ethnicity is undeniably Irish - what is there for a reader to decide especially if both are mentioned (especially if my proposed alteration is accepted)? Mabuska ^(talk) 16:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Can I help make this worse? :-> If he has Welsh ancestry, then to have his ethnicity listed as Irish would not be completely accurate. He would then have a mixed ethnic background. Which makes analysis of his ethnicity in the article a bit of a struggle and I think outside the scope if this article. *IF* his background is a mixed ethnicity, simply stating he is "a British novelist," is the most simplest.

I made comments in the past without knowing how involved this really was. I am willing to support staying with "Irish-born British" to bring this to a close, but if, *IF* he has a mixed ethnic background, then that label is somewhat problematic still.

To AMacR - no, I am not over-reacting. You may have made that comment off-hand but it is still tantamount to calling me a sockpuppet, so I have no high horse to climb down from.

Simply stating "I agree with this person" is hardly as effective as succintly countering your claims. It is much better to ram the point home than to simply state agreement; and once again, you cannot complain about others using similar arguments when you have used the EXACT same argument used by almost every single Irish editor on this page for the last three years. If you're honestly going to tell me that I shouldn't post the same arguments as another editor here then I can just as rightly point out that you may as well not have posted your argument at all. To be fair, you might as well not have anyway - the result will be the same.

I have neatly countered this same argument a dozen times before or more, and Mabuska has clearly countered your arguments here instead of the other way around. If you think your argument has any strength to it at all then you are entirely mistaken.

yes, exactly, there is no reason to omit EITHER his Britishness or Irishness from the lede. HOWEVER. Irish and British were NOT exclusive terms during his life, and after Ireland split into the ROI and British Northern Ireland, he remained in the British part of the isle and did NOT take up the exclusive Irish nationality. Due to Irish now being a completely distinct term to British it is highly unencyclopaedic to simply list "Irish" as in today's world, that is a nationality distinct from his own. So, while he was indeed Irish, he was also British in the exact same way as a Welshman is also British, and a Scotsman is also British. It would be monumentally confusing and wholly incorrect, therefore, to simply say "Irish".

Browsing through the archives, your argument has been countered seemingly a hundred times by a hundred different users. It has even happened in this very discussion numerous times before you entered it, so it's shocking to see that people still aren't able to grasp this notion.

Once again, removing all form of nationality from the lede is unacceptable. Totally and utterly unacceptable. His nationality is known and while many still squabble over it, it is not in any legal dispute and can be verified via reliable sources. Therefore, per the rules of wikipedia, it is unacceptable to remove British from the lede - and simply listing him Irish is unthinkable.

What we see here in the article IS the compromise. It is pretty much the best you can get. We can reword it perhaps, but removing British from the lede is simply not on the cards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.58.89 (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You stated "...can be verified via reliable sources...". Do you have a few you can help find? or at least help go through the past archives of discussion? Mabuska supplied a few. Maybe we should all start a list and go through them.

• Lew-is, C(live) S(taples) (1898-1963). British author and critic. Readers Digest, Universal Dictionary, page 885. ISBN 0 276 42419 0
• C.S. Lewis, in full Clive Staples Lewis (born Nov. 29, 1898, Belfast, Ire. [now in Northern Ireland]—died Nov. 22, 1963, Oxford, Oxfordshire, Eng.), British scholar, novelist,[4]

A few more (I know most are problematic with wiki policy, but it does give an idea of condenses outside our wiki world here):

• The British writer C.S. Lewis is famous for... (http://kids.britannica.com/elementary/article-390791/CS-Lewis?#9390791.toc)
• C. S. Lewis was an internationally renowned British author... (http://www.nndb.com/people/238/000044106/)
• C.S. Lewis was one of the most popular and beloved British writers of twentieth century... (http://cslewisjrrtolkien.classicalautographs.com/cslewis/index.html)
• Irish writer. C.S. Lewis was a novelist and critic... (http://classiclit.about.com/od/lewiscs/Lewis_CS.htm)
• Nuala McKeever's favourite Northern Irish author has sold over 100 million books... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/learning/getwritingni/wh_lewis.shtml)

Basileias (talk) 00:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh but these sources are indeed feeble for the purpose here. I presume that there will be at least one summary of Lewis's work, complete with a dispassionate biography, within the Dictionary of Literary Biography (DLB); also, that there will be a scrupulous and dispassionate biography within the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (DNB). (If anyone here is unfamiliar with either, they are huge, bizarrely titled compendia, whose only resemblance to a dictionary is the alphabetical order of their entries.) I realize that Britain is busily scrapping its libraries, but as long as main municipal libraries still exist in Britain, all should have the DNB. And the library of any self-respecting general university in the anglosphere should have both the DLB and the DNB.

These two works of reference are not the only ones that qualify; there are also works as compact and commonplace as the respective Oxford Companions to "English Literature" (i.e. literature in English), "Irish Literature" (i.e. literature from Ireland or by Irish writers; note the "English"/"Irish" asymmetry here), "Children's Literature" (probably obvious, but anyway literature for children), and more.

Actually I have a copy of the Oxford Companion to English Literature a couple of metres from where I now sit, but it's not the latest edition or, I'd guess, even the one before that. So for now I shan't consult it.

I, personally, realize that the convenience of the internet makes getting one's rear end off a chair, onto a push-bike and to a library seem terribly arduous. But it isn't. So if Lewis interests you, look him up. (Or should I do that?) -- Hoary (talk) 01:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

So if Lewis interests you, look him up. (Or should I do that?)

I am willing to stop at the library, but will it matter and findings be accepted? Would biographys and better yet, academic press textbook be of accepted value? Those sources do not seem to violate the WP:RS, but do you feel otherwise? Basileias (talk) 05:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hoary, I'm not sure if you missed my reply to your original message yesterday, but I posted some quotes, one of which is from the The Cambridge Companion to C. S. Lewis, the others from published letters of his, so I'm just wondering if these are acceptable. Also do you mean quotes attributed to Lewis himself have to come from these academic publications that you mention? AMacR (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding. Basileias, my worry about book-length biographies is that all too often they sensationalize. A biography that reviewers agree is the best-informed, best-balanced work on a particular person is less likely to sell than one that purports to show that the person was gay, was addicted to prescription or other drugs, was suspiciously close to his sister, etc etc. Even a biography that doesn't stoop to this level is likely to stress what its author or publisher claims is a previously overlooked angle of the biographee. Thus I can easily imagine a book-length bio that artificially stresses one side or other of the dispute here. This is perhaps less likely (although certainly still possible) in other kinds of biographies. ¶ I'm particularly interested in the extracts above (which, sorry, I hadn't noticed until now) from the letters, published as recently as 2004, and from the Cambridge Companion, published just last year and noting how perceptions have recently changed. I wonder: Were these letters by Lewis known before 2004 (perhaps via publication within the 1966 book Letters of C. S. Lewis, mention of which I notice in the article), or were they new to the reading public? If they were new in 2004, then perhaps earlier writings, however conscientiously written, on this aspect of Lewis are now somewhat obsolete. (Which is another reason why I shan't bother to look in my 1980s copy of the Oxford Companion to English Literature.) ¶ But again, I know next to nothing of Lewis. It's imaginable that he had swings of viewpoint (or mood), and that in other letters or essays (or indeed diary entries or interviews) he stressed his Britishness (or even Englishness or Welshness). If so, perhaps people here can point to places where he did this. -- Hoary (talk) 23:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

A point by me i noticed overlooked is where exactly in WP:MOSBIO does it state we can't mention BOTH his nationality and ethnicity, and make it more clear than "Irish-born British". We all agree he's of British nationality and Irish ethnicity (if we simply go by the fact he was born in Ireland, and ignoring his parents ethnicity) - so why can't we just as i suggested: "British novelist.... of Irish ethnicity".

And yes i live in a rural muncipality which library has next to sweet f a in terms of good books, and the only libraries of fit purpose at least 30-40 miles away. Not exactly the handiest places in the world to get to when your working and all.

I also provided a quote way above Hoary where Lewis told a friend that he is Welsh more than anything else.

At AMacR could you for once please spell my name CORRECTLY. On those sources you provide:

If I do ever send my stuff to a publisher, I think I shall try Maunsel, those Dublin people, and so tack myself definitely onto the Irish school.

Lewis, C.S. Collected Letters, Volume 1: Family Letters, 1905–1931. London: HarperCollins Publishers, 2000. 59.

And? He's not referring to his ethnicity or nationality, but what school of literacy, i.e. Irish other than English. Nothing to do with ethnicity or nationality.

Like all Irish people who meet in England we ended by criticisms on the invincible flippancy and dulness 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.

Letter to Arthur Greeves, in Walter Hooper ed., The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, Vol. 1: Family Letters, 1905–1931 (New York: HarperCollins, 2004), p. 310. ISBN 0-06-072763-2

How does this contradict his British nationality or place emphasis on his Irish ethnicity? Rather did he regard himself as Irish outside of the UK? Its obvious when in a different part of the UK your going to use your ethnicity as a distinguishing denonym from that of the region your in especially when making comparisons.

Recent work on Lewis has come more and more to see him as an Irish writer, to see that his sense both of landscape and language arise as much out of his County Down childhood and lifelong visits to the land of his birth as from the Oxford where he lived following his matriculation into the university in 1917.

R. MacSwain, M. Ward, "The Cambridge Companion to C. S. Lewis" p. 302 New York, Cambridge University Press, 2010

Are they on about his ethnicity or school of literature? Sounds like school of literature to me.

Also as the IP stated, stating simply Irish is very ambiguous and misleading these days as it implies he's a national of the Republic of Ireland.

So if my sources are redundant according to Hoary, AMacR's aren't much better as they aren't specific enough and are debatable. Then again i recently proposed a compromise that AMacR didn't mention when he was stating that Lewis was a British national and providing the above sources. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Better late than never: At this point I should confess that I don't really understand what "ethnicity" means. I had thought, however, that it was usually a matter of self-identification. That is, if somebody fairly consistently called herself Franco-Burmese, let's say, then her ethnicity was Franco-Burmese -- even if she spoke no Burmese, her feeble and faulty knowledge of Burma derived from popular fiction written in French, and an examination of her family tree showed nothing other than Walloon and Thai ancestry.

This somewhat cynical view of "ethnicity" is I think compatible with what's written at the head of Ethnic group (to which Ethnicity redirects), viz:

An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy. Another definition is "...a highly biologically self-perpetuating group sharing an interest in a homeland connected with a specific geographical area, a common language and traditions, including food preferences, and a common religious faith". / Members of an ethnic group are conscious of belonging to an ethnic group; moreover ethnic identity is further marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness.

Whether or not this is correct -- it's Wikipedia, not a RS! -- and whether or not my own understanding of "ethnicity" is passable, I don't see how it's compatible with

We all agree he's of [...] Irish ethnicity (if we simply go by the fact he was born in Ireland, and ignoring his parents ethnicity)

By this definition of "ethnicity", George Sanders (whom you may remember as playing the smooth-talking cad in Hitchcock's Rebecca and elsewhere) was of Russian ethnicity, which sounds very odd to me.

Like all Irish people who meet in England we ended by criticisms on the invincible flippancy and dulness 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.

How does this contradict his British nationality or place emphasis on his Irish ethnicity? Rather did he regard himself as Irish outside of the UK? Its obvious when in a different part of the UK your going to use your ethnicity as a distinguishing denonym from that of the region your in especially when making comparisons.

He implies that he is Irish (although he stops short of saying this). He calls "the Anglo-Saxon race" (which in this context I think means the English) flippant and dull. He expresses himself happy among the Irish (warts and all). I am not in my native country but my wife is. She's from the east of Japan and lives in the east of Japan. When she goes to the west of Japan (as she fairly often does), she's fairly obviously from the east. However, there is no general tendency to criticize the west, and I've never heard any sentiment there or here that she wouldn't gladly live or die among "folk" other than such and such. It seems to me that here he is clearly identifying himself as Irish. (This is not to deny that elsewhere he identifies himself as Welsh.) Of course this doesn't contradict his nationality; his nationality is an irrelevance here.

Recent work on Lewis has come more and more to see him as an Irish writer, to see that his sense both of landscape and language arise as much out of his County Down childhood and lifelong visits to the land of his birth as from the Oxford where he lived following his matriculation into the university in 1917.

Are they on about his ethnicity or school of literature? Sounds like school of literature to me.

It sounds like a matter of literary style, of literary content, and of self-identification.

Also as the IP stated, stating simply Irish is very ambiguous and misleading these days as it implies he's a national of the Republic of Ireland.

Well then, let's avoid such simplistic formulae as "Irish-born British" and "Ethnicity: Irish". Cut the silly field in the infobox and instead say something along the lines of -- oh, as a first approximation, "a British writer born in Northern Ireland, who at times considered himself Irish or Welsh". Though I'm sure that this could be improved upon. -- Hoary (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

convenience break 2

As stated simply stating Irish without a form of qualifier is ambiguous. Stating "British novelist... of Irish ethnicity" is not as ambiguous sounding. Whilst i would agree that Lewis probably belonged more to the Irish school of literature than English, we aren't talking about that issue. How about you put forward your opinion on that compromise idea Hoary? I noticed like AMacR you've glanced over it again and again.

He implies that he is Irish (although he stops short of saying this). He calls "the Anglo-Saxon race" (which in this context I think means the English) flippant and dull. He expresses himself happy among the Irish (warts and all). I am not in my native country but my wife is. She's from the east of Japan and lives in the east of Japan. When she goes to the west of Japan (as she fairly often does), she's fairly obviously from the east. However, there is no general tendency to criticize the west, and I've never heard any sentiment there or here that she wouldn't gladly live or die among "folk" other than such and such. It seems to me that here he is clearly identifying himself as Irish. (This is not to deny that elsewhere he identifies himself as Welsh.) Of course this doesn't contradict his nationality; his nationality is an irrelevance here.

I suspect in your words a naivity in regards to the regions of the UK and their somewhat feelings towards each other which do tend to be negative, sometimes overtly. I've yet to meet a Northern Irish person (pro-British or not) having a nice word to say about the English. Many Scots don't either. Maybe Japan doesn't have the same issues as it is for all intents a single unified country as far as i'm aware (if we ignore their treatment of the indigenous people of the north) not a country of four "countries" like the UK is. As i stated maybe a context where Lewis describes himself as Irish outside of the UK would be better than the above within the UK context where regional descriptors/ethnicity or whatever is used to distinguish yourself from the rest.

Your proposal doesn't sound bad Hoary and i can agree to it, with tweaking obviously as Northern Ireland didn't exist when he was born. We could state: a British writer born in Belfast, modern-day Northern Ireland, who at times considered himself Irish or Welsh. Nothings ever perfect first draft. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I've not been able to respond to everything, my computer has been acting up quite a bit lately.

Regarding this quote Mabuska (got it right at last)

Although he regarded Ulster as his homeland, Clive Staples Lewis denied being Irish. “I’m more Welsh than anything,” he once said to me, “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

I accept that towards the end of his life he was less inclined to emphasise his Irishness but at the same time the use of Ulster would seem to indicate where the author's own sympathies lie, even if he is well respected. However, for a considerable period of his life Lewis did embrace his Irishness. Here is a quote which is probably one of the strongest of his I've yet seen suggesting this:

'Thus, soon after arriving in Oxford, he could write to Arthur Greeves that "partly from interest in Yeats and Celtic mythology, partly from a natural repulsion to noisy drum-beating, bullying Orange-men and partly from an association with Butler, I begin to have a very warm feeling for Ireland in general. I mean the real Ireland of Patsy Macan etc, not so much our protestant north. Indeed, if I ever get interested in politics, I shall probably be a nationalist (another subject for us to quarrel on you see)" J. Pearce "C.S. Lewis and the Catholic Church" p. 18, San Francisco, 2003, Ignatius Press, 2003

Another point you make Mabuska:

I suspect in your words a naivity in regards to the regions of the UK and their somewhat feelings towards each other which do tend to be negative, sometimes overtly. I've yet to meet a Northern Irish person (pro-British or not) having a nice word to say about the English.

Not quite true. Northern Irish/Ulster unionism emphasised a strong degree of pro-Englishness in the early days, at least up until the 60s. The fact that most N. Ireland Prime Ministers were educated in England and the then Northern Ireland flag was based on the English flag, shows this. The unionist emphasis on Ulster-Scots culture is a more recent development. Anyway the point of the quote is it shows that Lewis identifies with Irish people, not that he dislikes English people.

Regarding putting both ethnicity and nationality in the lead, I am not opposed to it if a workable solution can be found. I'm just worried it will sound rather convoluted considering that at the minute the following is after his name "...novelist, academic, medievalist, literary critic, essayist, lay theologian and Christian apologist". How do you include these professions as well as something describing his identity? Would it be better to include the description of his identity in a following sentence for example? AMacR (talk) 00:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit: Just thought I'd add that the quote where he apparently denies being Irish could probably be explained by the same phenomenon that occurred amongst Ulster Protestants, around the time of partition and afterwards, of denying Irish identity and taking on an "Ulster" or British identity. This, ironically, may just show how firmly rooted Lewis was in his Irish Protestant background. There's no doubt his attitudes had changed considerably from his early adulthood and there's seems to emerge some of the prejudices he was brought up with, namely a certain "anti-papist" mentality. I think the quote where he claims he's “more Welsh than anything” should be seen in the context of what was happening in Ireland at that time and not as a serious assertion of his Welshness, which was pretty weak anyway. The point I'm most interested in making is that Lewis was first and foremost culturally Irish and that his work owes a great deal to his Irish roots but I'm not sure how that can said other than by using the quite ambiguous term ethnicity. Maybe another form of words could be devised to express that.

Also, forgot to say Hoary, I too don't have access to a decent library so checking those sources isn't possible for me either. AMacR (talk) 09:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps my assumption of the relative accessibility of a good library was rather arrogant. I do have access to a library that should serve up what I'm after; my own problem will be time. I hope to take a look on Friday, however.

AMacR, I think you're making good points about the fluid perceptions of some labels (particularly of "English" to the Protestant Irish). I'm no expert in this but I find it very plausible. (I'm old enough to remember that displays of nationalism -- whether purely festive or more or less xenophobic -- would use the Union Jack, while the English flag was rarely encountered outside reference books and "national" matches of this or that kind of football; now the English flag has taken over.)

Perhaps "ethnicity" is a red herring here. I stopped last night and asked myself how I would answer if I were asked. I really don't know. I then thought "If I were sufficiently famous for a Wikipedia article, what would the editors reasonably infer about my 'ethnicity' from such things as my place of birth, skin colour, parents' first languages, etc?" There'd be five or more options, of which any would be misleading, as would the combination of all.

Now that certain strata of US society like the "salad bowl" metaphor, perhaps this encourages hyphenation and self-pigeonholing and pigeonholing by others. But maybe assigning "ethnicity" is crude at best for somebody such as Lewis. -- Hoary (talk) 10:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you for finally getting i right AMacR

One main problem with all those sources and quotes we're quoting left right and centre is when he said them especially as personal attitudes as AMacR says change over time meaning something a person swings around when he's younger may not be what he's swinging around when he's near his death bed.

"Northern Irish/Ulster unionism emphasised a strong degree of pro-Englishness in the early days, at least up until the 60s. The fact that most N. Ireland Prime Ministers were educated in England and the then Northern Ireland flag was based on the English flag, shows this." - thats the great paradox in Ulster unionism. Loyal to the heart of the UK, yet distrustful of its people.

In regards to AMacR's other point on the convoluted sentence. Why do we need such a long list of professions of whatever they are? His career is divided into three sections: scholar (academic), novelist, and Christian apologist. Thats all we really need for it. That would mean the lede could look like:

Clive Staples Lewis (29 November 1898 – 22 November 1963), commonly referred to as C. S. Lewis and known to his friends and family as "Jack", was a British novelist, academic, and Christian apologist, who at times considered himself Irish or Welsh. He is well known for his fictional work, especially The Screwtape Letters, The Chronicles of Narnia and The Space Trilogy.

Obviously we'll add sources for verification. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

In response to Hoary who posted a response as i was typing one, we don't have to mention ethnicity as the above example shows. The "considered himself" bit helps imply to the reader about what he identified himself as at times thus removing the ethnicity problem altogether. That proposal may possibly finally stop the frequently recurring issue of British or Irish. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the "who at times considered himself Irish or Welsh" approach since it's giving equal emphasis to one alleged remark, probably made quite late in his life, when there are numerous direct quotes of him describing himself as Irish. And Lewis was also far more heavily influenced by Irish people and culture than by Welsh people and culture. I think it would be better to say something like "British writer who considered Ireland his homeland", or something to that effect, which emphasises the degree to which he identified with, and was influenced by, Ireland. Maybe we should wait and see what Hoary finds in the references before deciding though. AMacR (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd say there is enough in the article to imply that he considered his country of birth his homeland, though in some statements he seems to just state Ulster. Still Lewis accredited his groundedness etc. to his Welsh heritage - in otherwords remarking about a key facet of himself, not something to be easily glossed over.

Also stating "British writer who considered Ireland his homeland" could be interpreted as subversive as it implies that Ireland was a seperate country. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I've not seen any quotes of Lewis' referring specifically to Ulster as his homeland, and stating Ulster instead of Ireland would seem to be making a political point. Also here is another alleged comment made by another student of Lewis' in which he calls himself both Irish and Northern Irish. The fact is there are numerous quotes of Lewis stating he is Irish, many of them written in his own hand, while there is only one second hand account of him apparantly denying his Irishness and instead emphasising his Welsh heritage. In actual fact since that one quote so contradicts numerous other direct quotes of Lewis' stating himself as Irish, I think we have reason to doubt its veracity. The author of that quote, George Sayer, in his biography of Lewis, even questions the Irishness of Lewis' mother's family because they were not of the Irish "race", which may show his own prejudice on the matter. There is also no other evidence to back up Sayer's claim of Lewis' affinity with his Welsh heritage, so all in all, I think that quote should be discounted. Even if Lewis did say that, I think what he attributes to his Welsh heritage can be easily glossed over because it has almost no bearing on his literary output, unlike the influence of Ireland and Irish culture.

Also, you say stating that Lewis' considered Ireland his homeland is "subversive", is it really? Is the fact that George Sayer referred to Lewis' homeland as Ulster also subversive because Ulster is not a country? Or for that matter is stating Scottish, Welsh, English or Irish nationality also subversive? That is taking the matter to extremes if you ask me. I am only interested in stating something which gives due emphasis to Lewis' Irish cultural heritage, identity and influence, which at the minute is very much understated in the lead.AMacR (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Mabuska: Also stating "British writer who considered Ireland his homeland" could be interpreted as subversive as it implies that Ireland was a seperate country. In one sense of "country", it was and is a separate country, unambiguously separated by the Irish Sea. But I think you use "country" in the sense of nation-state. The statement does not imply that Ireland was a separate nation-state. ¶ Let's accept that a non-negligible percentage of people are eager to see slights and to complain about them. It's imaginable that such a person may claim that the statement implies that Ireland, including Ulster, was a separate nation-state. This would be their problem; it is not ours. Wikipedia need not be distorted to avoid any risk of offending fanatics. -- Hoary (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Careful with the untruthful comments AMacR: Also, you say stating that Lewis' considered Ireland his homeland is "subversive", is it really? - i never said it was subversive, i said your suggestion could be interpreted as subversive which is entirely different from what you claim. Notice the "could be" bit? It means poitentially, not definately. Get your facts right and don't misrepresent other editors comments. Your comments on the Welshness also tread into original research. Its sourced so you can't just gloss over it to suit an ideal.

Hoary regardless of what you may think, stating "British writer who considered Ireland his homeland" does give the implication that Ireland was a seperate state. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

"Careful with the untruthful comments AMacR" please do not exaggerate. It was reasonable to assume that you were suggesting the phrase was subversive from your comments. In my opinion, your statement is just an evasive way of saying you consider it subversive, since you don't give any indication of who might consider it subversive. I might add you are remarkably sensitive to the slightest "misrepresentation" of your arguments when you have no hesitation in constantly making personal attacks on me and suggestions about my motives.

My misgivings about the second hand quote in George Sayer's book is backed up by another source and Sayer's claim is contradicted by numerous other first hand quotes of Lewis', while there is no other evidence to support the idea that he strongly valued his Welsh heritage. Sayer has actually made another unusual claim relating to Ireland, about JRR Tolkien, in which he claimed that Tolkien, "described Ireland as a country naturally evil". This again is contradicted by several other quotes of Tolkien's in which he said he liked Ireland quite a lot and visited often.

"...does give the implication that Ireland was a seperate state" in that case mentioning Ireland at all in the article gives the impression that its a separate state. We have to assume a reasonable level of intelligence and education. AMacR (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hoary regardless of what you may think, stating "British writer who considered Ireland his homeland" does give the implication that Ireland was a seperate state. I'm tempted to say "Mabuska, regardless of what you may think, it does not." But I'm open to reason. Persuade me. -- Hoary (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

convenience break 3

I've just now belatedly looked at the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (DNB). The entry (vol 33, pp 593–596) is disappointing for our purposes, yet interesting. Disappointing, in that the only references to national/intranational/"ethnic" identities are (i) "was born in Belfast" (p.593) and (ii) "The Ulster elements in his make-up showed in certain protestant and individualist attitudes whichdistinguished him from Chesterton" (p.595). (Incidentally, the small "p" of "protestant" is not my typo.) ¶ One matter of national difference/affiliation that I did note was that CSL was taken more seriously in the US than in Britain, where his religiosity or evangelism tended to make people wary. I don't notice anything along these lines in the Wikipedia article. (I didn't make notes on this US-versus-Britain business, and anyone thinking of adding it should read the source afresh.) ¶ Dictionary of Literary Biography some other day, I'm afraid. -- Hoary (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

So with that, is "British writer who considered Ireland his homeland" the best option? AMacR (talk) 23:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't. If the article has such a formula, it's not obvious to me that the formula should include "Ireland" rather than "Ulster" (or vice versa). Plus "homeland" may have connotations that are undesired or even misleading. And if the article presents any such formula in the intro, then this would seem to contravene the (bone-headed, imho) MoS. I'd rather not rush. If nothing's changed for a few days, the sky won't fall -- and somebody may come up with a better idea. -- Hoary (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Well for one thing Ulster is not, nor never has been, a nation, whereas Ireland has been recognised as a nation within the UK since the Act of Union and before it as a separate Kingdom. Also Ireland is still recognised as a nation by both the British and Irish governments, which makes up the whole island of Ireland. The word Ulster may also be confusing because it is often used by unionists to refer to Northern Ireland.

"And if the article presents any such formula in the intro, then this would seem to contravene the (bone-headed, imho) MoS."

I thought you found the line "considered Ireland his homeland" acceptable? You asked Mabuska to explain why he objected to it and he has provided no reason but now you seem to be in agreement with him for no apparent reason. Anyway, I must say I'd still prefer that it said "who considered himself Irish", without mentioning Welsh, as I do not think so much credence should be given to one second hand quote versus numerous first hand quotes and second hand quote. In actual fact, going by NPOV guidelines, shouldn't he really be described as "Irish writer" in the lead since the only evidence provided from a reliable source supports that?. AMacR (talk) 09:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems that Yworo is implementing the dictates of the MoS in this article, and MoS requires that the nationality (in the more or less legal sense) of the biographee should be in the intro but normally rules out complications or qualifications to this. (I find this demand for simplification bizarre, in conjunction with a requirement for exact dates of birth and death. But that's just me.) MoS would rule out "Irish writer" in the lead as his nationality wasn't Irish. (And unlike, say, Flann O'Brien, he didn't write in Irish, and I believe that he lived, worked, taught and was first published in Britain.) DNB hardly mentions his Irishness (or indeed anything that might conflict with this), but what very little it does say stresses Ulster rather than Ireland in general. I'm not surprised that "Ulster" has undesired connotations, but I had thought that it was also a neutral term, comparable with Leinster and the rest; moreover, I can't think of a more suitable term for it. (The WP article Ulster says that it's controversial as a term for Northern Ireland; it says nothing about its use as a term for the province as a whole.) At the same time, I'm not eager to push through any change till we've seen how Lewis is dealt with in works of reference that are unlikely to have literary axes to grind. -- Hoary (talk) 10:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes the biography MoS does say that but it does give room for maneuver by saying "most modern day cases", which means there are exceptions. Also the main MoS style guidelines for identity say "Disputes over how to refer to a person or group are addressed by policies such as Verifiability, Neutral point of view...", which surely means that should take precedence.

I accept that Lewis wrote most of his major work when out of Ireland but then again so did many famous Irish writers, such as Joyce, Shaw and Beckett. In fact Lewis probably kept closer contacts with Ireland throughout his life than any of those three writers.

Ulster is the name of a province of Ireland and when used in geographical or sporting contexts its fine but in other spheres, especially where identity is concerned, it has a very unionist connotation. Unionists originally used the term to differentiate themselves from Irish Catholics in the rest of Ireland, effectively as a way of saying they are not Irish. However there is plenty of evidence to show that Lewis did consider himself Irish and none to back up any notion of an "Ulster" identity, so using it for him would not seem to be appropriate.

What about using Northern Irish, is that completely out of the question? We do have a second hand quote of him identifying himself as this and it would avoid any suggestion of him holding Irish citizenship. AMacR (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

"British writer who considered Ireland his homeland" the best option? No for reasons given above due to the subversive sounding nature of it and the ambiguity of Ireland in that context. Hoary's suggetion before that was better and is still the best option before you argued against it because it stated Welsh which you refuted by your original research which means it isn't refuted at all.

When you quote the manual of style on identity you say the most verifiably and neutral should be used? Lewis' nationality is undeniably and undisputedly British which you've admitted, so how would that not be the most neutral way to go rather than argueing over regional identities where you dictate which regional identities should be and should't be mentioned (i.e. yes to Irish but no to Welsh).

Also AMacR whilst your viewpoint on connotations of "Ulster" etc. are fascinating they are all still original research and personal opinion and should have no bearing on the issue as they are plainly that - OR and POV. However i agree that Ulster is not a viable solution. Also Northern Irish is out of the question as certain editors here would be very against it for they'd feel it implies Northern Irish is a nationality or country and so this issue would only be reraised and argued over again and again.

I think this whole discussion has gone away from a possible conclusion which we almost had with Hoary's suggestion, which wasn;t adopted solely because AMacR disputed the inclusion of Welsh to it, providing only original research as to why he's against it. Should we not focus on this one facet rather than trying to provide a different solution altogether that'd have even less support and only lead to more trouble? Unless there is verifiable sourced proof where Lewis discounts his Welsh heritage/identity then there is no reason to omit it from Hoary's proposal.

Out of curiousity AMacR: We do have a second hand quote of him identifying himself as this and it would avoid any suggestion of him holding Irish citizenship. - we have a second hand quote of his identifying as Welsh yet you say thats not permissable or worthy enough a source yet you are essentially saying a second hand quote of him calling himself "Northern Irish" is? Surely on those grounds you should have no objection at all to Hoary's suggestion where Welsh is stated.

In fact AMacR you should give this policy a read in regards to primary/secondary/tertiary sources, especially the policy bit of the primary source section for i think many of your comments (in regards to interpretation of sources) go against it. Mabuska ^(talk) 09:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Mabuska, first please explain who among thinking non-fanatics might find the phrase British writer who considered Ireland his homeland to have a "subversive sounding nature", and how it is that they might find it so. (By "thinking non-fanatics" I exclude people who like to march or put out bunting.)

Secondly, please explain why you agree that Ulster is not a viable solution. Remembering that we are now discussing the article, not writing it, and that the constructive presentation of intelligent, informed personal opinion is not outlawed in discussion pages, please either (A) explain how it is that AMacR's comments on the term "Ulster" are all still original research and personal opinion and should have no bearing on the issue as they are plainly that - OR and POV while by contrast your own comments should not be dismissed as "OR and POV" and do have a bearing on the issue; or (and this is the course I strongly recommend) (B) retract this condemnation of his comment and instead consider it on its merits, in a collegial way.

Thirdly, you say Hoary's suggetion before that was better and is still the best option before you argued against it because it stated Welsh which you refuted by your original research which means it isn't refuted at all. By "refute" I suppose you here mean "reject". I think you are referring here to this: I must say I'd still prefer that it said "who considered himself Irish", without mentioning Welsh, as I do not think so much credence should be given to one second hand quote versus numerous first hand quotes and second hand quote. I see no "original research" here. Now, you may be entitled to ask for evidence of this or that within the comment, or otherwise to disagree with it; but to label it "original research" is unhelpful, to put it mildly.

Fourthly, on "Northern Irish": Also Northern Irish is out of the question as certain editors here would be very against it for they'd feel it implies Northern Irish is a nationality or country and so this issue would only be reraised and argued over again and again. The mere feelings of "certain editors here" are of no concern to me. What are the rational arguments of such people? Incidentally, "northern English" appears (here for example) without implying that "Northern England" is a nation. -- Hoary (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The MoS is quite specific what is to be listed in the lead sentence, the country of which the subject was a citizen at the time they attained notability. Great Britain contains several countries, but one is a British citizen regardless of which one one is born in. The MoS does not prohibit explanation or clarification in the lead paragraphs - only the lead sentence. There is nothing wrong with noting he was born in Ireland or whatever other cited information about his attitudes toward Ireland which may be desirable in the following sentences of the lead. It is just the lead sentence which is to be made clear and simple. Yworo (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If this is the case then why is it that so many writers, artists, actors, etc. from the UK are described in the first sentence of their articles as Scottish, English, Welsh and (Northern) Irish? According to WP:MOSBIO "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.", which may mean a broad interpretation of "ethnicity" and "notable" is being used for these articles, which would mean a much narrower interpretation is being used for Lewis' article. Alternatively MOS:IDENTITY states:

"Disputes over how to refer to a person or group are addressed by policies such as Verifiability, Neutral point of view, and Article titles where the term appears in the title of an article. When there is no dispute, the term most commonly used for a person will be the one that person uses for himself or herself, and the most common terms for a group will be those that the group most commonly uses for itself."

Which may mean these guidelines take precedence over WP:MOSBIO, for most UK biography articles at least. In cases where identity is disputed, as for Lewis, the guidelines state reliable sources must be used and so far the only reliable sources provided have supported or clearly indicated (from his own letters) an Irish identity. AMacR (talk) 00:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

1) I do due to the ambiguity of the name "Ireland", especially since there is now an independant state called Ireland that exists today. Stating "island of Ireland" i'd have no problem with however as it makes it 100% clear what its on about. Also clarify your bracketed comment, are you calling people who like to march or put out bunting fanatics?

2a) Here ya go, the first one is specifically about Ulster, the otehr two are general examples of AMacR's OR and POV:

"Ulster is the name of a province of Ireland and when used in geographical or sporting contexts its fine but in other spheres, especially where identity is concerned, it has a very unionist connotation. Unionists originally used the term to differentiate themselves from Irish Catholics in the rest of Ireland, effectively as a way of saying they are not Irish."

"And Lewis was also far more heavily influenced by Irish people and culture than by Welsh people and culture."

"Edit: Just thought I'd add that the quote where he apparently denies being Irish could probably be explained by the same phenomenon that occurred amongst Ulster Protestants, around the time of partition and afterwards, of denying Irish identity and taking on an "Ulster" or British identity. This, ironically, may just show how firmly rooted Lewis was in his Irish Protestant background. There's no doubt his attitudes had changed considerably from his early adulthood and there's seems to emerge some of the prejudices he was brought up with, namely a certain "anti-papist" mentality. I think the quote where he claims he's “more Welsh than anything” should be seen in the context of what was happening in Ireland at that time and not as a serious assertion of his Welshness, which was pretty weak anyway"

"Well for one thing Ulster is not, nor never has been, a nation, whereas Ireland has been recognised as a nation within the UK since the Act of Union and before it as a separate Kingdom. Also Ireland is still recognised as a nation by both the British and Irish governments, which makes up the whole island of Ireland. The word Ulster may also be confusing because it is often used by unionists to refer to Northern Ireland."

Suppose none of these constitutes OR and POV which could sway someones opinion? Not a single source is provided for any of the comments. The third one is especially a no brainer from the way its worded. In the fourht one, AMacR seems to make the classic error of confusing Ireland the state with Ireland the island when talking about UK recognition of Ireland as a nation, just like nationalists tyically mistake the "Flag of Ireland" as meaning the island instead of just the state of same name.

2 & 3) Answered by above.

4) They have plenty of arguements. I wouldn't oppose Northern Irish, however i know from experience we will be discussing this all again sooner rather than later if we used it. But we can always test the water.

Now heres a couple of questions for you Hoary seeing as you like to focus more on me than any problems made by AMacR is his comments:

1) Do you now think stating Welsh should be avoided? Sould AMacR not provide stronger reasoning as to why it should be avoided other than the number of sources that state "Irish" opposed to those that state "Welsh". As your proposal included both, and as both terms are sourced, why should it be excluded? Do you now think it should be? Maybe i missed your opinion on this as the above is very long?

2) Why haven't you called up AMacR for his apparent contradiction in regards to his treatment of sources? He says its not alright to use a second hand source were he goes on about his Welsh heritage, yet suggests we use Northern Irish which is backed up by a second hand source.

3) Are you simply focusing more on me as i have an at times very blunt arguementative approach or because i'm poking at the holes in AMacR's arguements? Or is it because AMacR is such an inexperienced editor with next to nothing of an edit history (77 edits last look) your trying to protect them?

4) Did you notice i suggested a compromise above in this post?

Mabuska ^(talk) 22:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Mabuska, I think Hoary has addressed most of the points you've raised in the first post but I'll just explain why I think mentioning his Welsh "identity" alongside his Irish is not justified. Firstly, Lewis had very little direct contact or influence from Wales, Welsh people or culture and it had minimal influence on his literary output, in contrast to Ireland, Irish people and culture. There is plenty of evidence even within the article to support this assertion. Secondly there is really no other evidence to back up what Sayer claims, and in fact it would seem to be contradicted by other far stronger evidence. Although my suggestion of using Northern Irish is, like the Welsh suggestion, only supported by one secondary source, it is not contradicted by other sources and it is supported by the fact that he visited Northern Ireland often throughout his life, he wrote at least one major work there, he grew up in the region (before it became N. Ireland)and many of his friends and family resided there.

Also, regarding the primary and secondary sources, I am merely evaluating the sources not making interpretations based upon the sources, which is what original research is. For the purposes of establishing what Lewis identified himself as, primary sources are obviously going to be much more relevant since establishing this, on the whole, does not require interpretation or analysis.

The quotes of mine which you claim are PoV or original research are either what I believed to be pretty obvious and uncontentious statements or simply my evaluation of the sources being provided. Regarding my apparant "confusion" between the Irish state and the Irish nation, you are again mistaken. The "Irish nation" is mentioned and recognised in the Good Friday Agreement, which is ratified by both the British and Irish states.

"Also when you said to Hoary: "Are you simply focusing more on me as i have an at times very blunt arguementative approach '".

Did you ever notice the four links printed at the top of the discussion page?

Be polite

Assume good faith

Avoid personal attacks

Be welcoming

AMacR (talk) 01:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Mabuska, your answers and questions.

Wikipedia is not written for those who are stupid or particularly ignorant. Ireland was not a nation when Lewis was born. Most people likely to want to read an article about Lewis will know that. And if they don't know it, they can soon find it out within the "Ireland" article. Or if they see "Ireland", are under the impression that it might have been an independent nation when Lewis was born, and fail to look up the matter in the "Ireland" article, it's not the end of the world.

If it were, well, consider what's said in the article on a small town that was briefly in the news, Wasilla, Alaska: Wasilla is a city in Matanuska-Susitna Borough, United States and the sixth-largest city in Alaska. To me, a city is a metropolis with a university, a cathedral (or the local equivalent), and its own culture. Yet the article doesn't say Wasilla is the sixth-largest "city" (but only in a specifically American regulatory sense; elsewhere it would be regarded as a small town) in Alaska [etc etc].

"Island of Ireland" is indeed a possibility. It's a peculiarly ugly possibility.

You quote AMacR attempting to argue certain points here, as is his right (and yours). You then say Suppose none of these constitutes OR and POV which could sway someones opinion? Not a single source is provided for any of the comments. Etc etc. You then immediately go on to accuse AMacR of one error and nationalists of a mistake -- without providing clear evidence for these accusations. Look, if you demand that somebody else supplies a source for his every assertion, then you should do the same. But I suggest that you drop the demand. This is a talk page.

1) Do you now think stating Welsh should be avoided? I have an open mind on the matter. I've seen little evidence of his Welshness. Perhaps there is more. If you have any, do please present it.

2) Why haven't you called up AMacR for his apparent contradiction in regards to his treatment of sources? He says its not alright to use a second hand source were he goes on about his Welsh heritage, yet suggests we use Northern Irish which is backed up by a second hand source. Look, we have plenty of evidence that he considered himself to belong in some way to what is now termed Northern Ireland. We have one biographer's word that he said "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." I don't think that AMacR has disparaged it. I don't disparage it. But something to the same effect that was indisputably written by Lewis himself -- and/or something to suggest that this was more than a passing notion that Lewis brought up in a single conversation -- would be more persuasive.

3) Are you simply focusing more on me as i have an at times very blunt arguementative approach or because i'm poking at the holes in AMacR's arguements? Or is it because AMacR is such an inexperienced editor with next to nothing of an edit history (77 edits last look) your trying to protect them? I had paid no attention to the edit history of either of you. Blunt argumentativeness would not worry me. What tire me are belligerence and truculence, and these have pervaded your comments.

4) Did you notice i suggested a compromise above in this post? "Northern Irish", yes? If so, thank you. It seems good, or anyway I have no immediate objection to it. Small point, but I see no need to capitalize "northern". -- Hoary (talk) 08:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

convenience break 4

AMacR, yes, English, Scottish, Irish, etc. are used for some actors, writers, etc. One very good example is Sean Connery. He strongly self-identifies as "Scottish" so that is how we describe him. I don't believe Lewis made a point of self-describing himself as "Irish". However, if that were shown to be the case, then it would be correct to describe him as Irish. What we don't do here is what amounts to original research. In absence of strong self-identification, we simply use citizenship, we don't allow national and ethnic groups to attempt to project identity onto the subject using abstruse arguments about place of birth, changes in national borders, etc. etc. Without a strong self-identification on the part of the subject themselves, we simply use the issuer of the passport as the person's nationality. Otherwise the arguments are simply interminable. The strictures of WP:MOSBIO are not extremely tight, yes, sometimes there are things to be explained like place of birth, change of citizenship, ethnic identification, etc. These may be explained more clearly with more context included in subsequent sentences in the lead, rather than attempting to string it all in the first sentence in a way that's not very illuminating about the actual details. Yworo (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

"What we don't do here is what amounts to original research"? Sounds familar doesn't it? Though i agree that AMacR's desire for personal identity to be included doesn't need to be in the first line of the lede. Its own paragraph near the end of the lede or wherever where the issues of it can be detailed a bit better would be better.

@ AMacR - evaluations sounds a lot like original research and synthesis. In fact stating "considered Ireland his homeland" unless backed up by sources is synthesis based on sources where he ascribes himself as Irish.

@ Hoary - "northern Irish" and "Northern Irish" are two different things, or is that the point? If you wish, when this is over and done i'll provide sources countering AMacR's "evaluations" which i quoted above, after which i'd like an apology. In fact if AMacR could provide credible sources for all of those statements i quoted above at all i'd be very surprised.

Regardless British stays in the lede as its his nationality, which he never changed, and thats not disputed by anyone here. The problem issue here is what identity to asrcibe him as AMacR feels that we must make clear his Irish identity. But as Yworo correctly pointed out, it doesn;t have to be at the start of the lede. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Capitalized "Northern Irish" means "pertaining to Northern Ireland", the latter having a formal definition as well as informal definitions. Non-capitalized "northern Irish" means "pertaining to the north of Ireland", the latter of course suggesting Northern Ireland but not necessarily implying it. Lewis moved from Ireland to [mainland] Britain before Northern Ireland came into being in 1921 and (if I understand the article correctly) never lived in any part of Ireland. Furthermore, as I (weakly) understand Northern Ireland, one important part of its identity has been its Britishness; the article quotes Lewis as describing himself as Irish in contradistinction to British. So although there's some merit in affiliating him with Northern Ireland (it has been predominantly protestant, so was he, etc), capitalizing "northern" seems odd. On the other hand, I may misunderstand [uncapitalized] "northern Irish". -- Hoary (talk) 05:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Irish in contradistinction to English, not British. -- Elphion (talk) 07:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Sorry. (What a complex couple of islands these are. But then so many nations are, or should be, complex: less complexity too often means more effective suppressions or pogroms in the past.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic: Not wanting to sound any more offensive than i may already have come across but the following Hoary which i asked you to clarify - (By "thinking non-fanatics" I exclude people who like to march or put out bunting.) - sounds as if your labelling people who like to march or put out bunting as non-thinking fanatics. That is a seriously ill-informed statement that displays little knowledge of the subject matter and is more insulting in the real world than accusations of POV and OR. Its even worse that this statement came from an administrator.

On-topic: It all depends on what Irish your referring too. Ireland when it was all part of the UK "Irish" or Republic of Ireland "Irish". RoI Irish would be a contradistinction to British. Lewis wasn't a citizen of the RoI or even affiliated himself with it as far as i know, so we can assume he wasn't using it in that way so the use of Irish with British is not oxymoronic or contradictory. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Off topic: Well, it's off-topic. ¶ On-topic: Sorry, I thought that you were saying that "Northern Irish" was preferable to "northern Irish" and I was wondering why this was. I'm still wondering. -- Hoary (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yworo, yes but my point is, there is strong evidence of him identifying himself as Irish while there is no evidence identifying himself as British and only weak evidence identifying himself as Welsh. So on the balance of the evidence, is Irish not the most accurate description? There is evidence provided in the article itself from his own letters and I have provided other sources where he describes himself as Irish. I don't see how describing him as Irish is based on original research when there is very strong, irrefutable evidence of his self-identification as Irish. OK, there is also one claim made by George Sayer that he denied being Irish and instead valued his Welsh heritage, but there is no other evidence to support this and plenty of very strong evidence to contradict it. So when you say: "However, if that were shown to be the case, then it would be correct to describe him as Irish." surely then, when you look at the evidence, you would have to accept that it is correct to describe him as Irish. AMacR (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

If your still looking to have British removed do you have evidence that he was using Irish as a contradistinction to British? Especially as its very likely he was using it as a regional contradistinction to English. If your not looking to have it removed but just having Irish stated somewhere to highlight his identification with it, any wording will have to be careful as it can amount to original research and synthesis as i already pointed out above in regards to stating "Ireland his homeland". What do you think of Yworo's idea of having it in another paragraph in the lede just not in the first line overloading it? That way it can be elaborated on. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

First, if Lewis indeed described himself as "Irish" merely in contradistinction to "English" (and not "British"), would that matter? ¶ R. S. Thomas is described as "Welsh", but he hardly seems analogous. Edward Thomas, who does seem at least moderately analogous, is described as "Anglo-Welsh", though perhaps as a result of membership of this straightforwardly defined category. (The closest Irish analogue I can find is "Category:Anglo-Irish people", which is little used and undefined.) All of this seems arbitrary, because Joyce Cary (born in [London-] Derry in 1888) is simply described as "an Irish novelist, and artist"; he's not obviously less "Anglo" than Edward Thomas. ¶ I'm starting to think that these descriptions should either be made individually by the initial author and thereafter only changed if blazingly wrong, or made after another discussion a MoS, where at least some disputants have the sense to match their unquestioned stamina. -- Hoary (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I should point-out to everyone that ther ar three fields we can use for the infobox:

• one for citizenship: the sovereign state is he a citizen of (in this case it's the UK so he is regarded as a "British citizen")
• one for nationality: the nation he considers himself to be a member of (i.e. the Irish nation, the English nation, the Welsh nation, etc)
• one for ethnicity: the ethnic group he considers himself to be a member of (this is pretty much the same as nationality but can include race or skin color, i.e. White Irish)

The second and third ar not bound by political borders. ~Asarlaí 02:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that your suggestion is very well intended, but I don't think it helps. In most contexts (though admittedly not all) each of "nationality" and "citizenship" implies the other. For your "nationality", I'd prefer "Which part of it?" And if the only or major difference between "ethnicity" and "nationality" is a matter of "race or skin color", as you might be implying (though you certainly don't say this), then "ethnicity" seems no more than a fancy or euphemistic synonym for "race". ¶ Pardon my repetition here of what I've already said, but these fields of the infobox seem well suited to pigeonholing, well, people who are easily pigeonholed. ¶ Your "ethnicity" is your own affair; I'm not asking you to tell it to me. But try telling it to yourself. Perhaps you have no trouble in doing so, but I certainly do, and I expect that my case is common. ¶ Though obsolete, Wikipedia:Naming conventions/Ethno-cultural labels in biographies is interesting. ¶ Let's try the "Ethnicity" article; it starts: An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy. In the English context, that seems profoundly wrong to me; I suggest that identification depends on such factors as social stratum; in the Irish context, religion would be more important. The WP article continues: Another definition is "...a highly biologically self-perpetuating group sharing an interest in a homeland connected with a specific geographical area, a common language and traditions, including food preferences, and a common religious faith". This makes sense, but I'm not at all sure that it still exists in much of Europe (Britain included), though it might have done in Lewis's day. -- Hoary (talk) 02:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you'r making things too complicated. For the infobox, we only need to put Citizenship: British and Nationality: (whatever he refers to himself as, backt-up with reliable sources). Yes, it's true that many mistakenly say "nationality" when they really mean "citizenship" or "ethnicity", but ther's no reason why we on Wikipedia should copy their mistake. ~Asarlaí 05:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

That could work for the infobox, but what about the lede? Hoary's suggestion way above was virutally agreed upon other than the stating of Welsh in it as AMacR didn't feel it had weight. As stated above all we have to do is work on that one issue and bang a solution - and from the looks of it one second-hand source is suppossedly not enough for its inclusion. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I thought Yworo might have changed his mind when I pointed out that Lewis did describe himself as Irish, although he hasn't replied yet. Also this issue of contradistinction to English or British is a blind ally in opinion. Most of those who describe themselves by their constituent nationalities are not differentiating to being British, they are merely expressing the identity they feel is most important to them and that is usually enough for them to be desrcibed as that. I accept that Irish nationalism has usually defined Irish in contradistinction to British well before the formation of the Irish state but that does not mean we have to as well. Anyway if no headway can be made on what I think is the most accurate and consistent description, yes I would support a sentence about his own identity. I am not opposed to mentioning George Sayers specific claim but I think it should be given it's proper place i.e. as a claim contradicted by much stronger evidence. Maybe something like this: "Lewis considered himself Irish, later Northern Irish, and maintained a close lifelong connection with his homeland in County Down." If the Sayer claim was to be included, maybe it could say: "However, George Sayer, Lewis' friend and biographer, later claimed that Lewis denied being Irish and instead valued his Welsh heritage more highly" AMacR (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any sources to back up the assertion "they are merely expressing the identity they feel is most important to them and that is usually enough for them to be desrcibed as that". Common sense and logic would tell you that more than likely if you were a UK national born say in Scotland and went to England - you wouldn't use British as a descriptor as by default you are still in your country (UK) talking to or about fellow nationals - rather you'd more than likely use your regional identity, as in Scottish to differentiate. Whilst i don't have a source to provide for that assumption - it follows what i feel is common sense and logic. Thats why i said you need international contexts of him using Irish to identify himself rather than inside UK contexts.

Away from evaluations of comments, i'd rather concentrate on solutions. "Lewis considered himself Irish, later Northern Irish, and maintained a close lifelong connection with his homeland in County Down." - the last part of that sentence (the bit after Northern Irish) could violate synthesis or original research unless its backed up with sources. The first part sounds, to me anyways, like the Irish nationalism point made out by AMacR which he nailed on the head. I'm not oppossed to Irish being used, it just depends on wording. Is there any better adjectives (or whatever they are) we could use? Mabuska ^(talk) 11:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I hope that we are all trying to be logical here. But I'm a bit puzzled by the appeal to "common sense". I try not to base my own claims on "common sense", as I think that it means little more than "what's obvious to me"; and I can hardly expect you to agree with what I say merely because I claim that it is obviously so. -- Hoary (talk) 11:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

had just typed an effing reply and something messed up and deleted it. I don't know if it was my useless laptop or wikipedia but frustrating to say the least. Anyway just to summarise my points to you Mabuska, Lewis rarely travelled abroad, I think only once in his life so its impossible to know what he described himself as internationally. However that also applies to people like Robert Burns and John Constable yet they're described by their own identities, or constituent nationalities. In short, its not a tenable condition to apply. Is the objection you have to the second part of my suggested sentence because of the word homeland again? If so, George Sayers' quote does say Lewis considered Ulster his homeland, so saying homeland in County Down is surely a direct inference from that and not the dreaded "original research". AMacR (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Depends if it is common sense or not. If it is i'd agree with you, if its not i wouldn't. Anyways i amended my second usage of the term to state "what i feel is common sense`". Do you think what i said makes common sense? Mabuska ^(talk) 11:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"Lewis considered himself Irish, later Northern Irish [...]" [...] I'm not oppossed to Irish being used, it just depends on wording. Is there any better adjectives (or whatever they are) we could use? "Irish" is an adjective and "Northern Irish" is an adjective phrase; is anything wrong with either? -- Hoary (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't on about Irish or Northern Irish. Maybe its nouns, i don't know, never fully got the difference between nouns, verbs, adverbs, pronouns etc. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia explains them all -- but does so poorly, so I don't blame you for being confused. Well, (grammatical) kinds of words aside, what are the words that trouble you? -- Hoary (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

AMacR, you've made an assertion that Lewis identified himself as Irish at least once, but without reference to the sources, I have no idea how to take this. Did he consistently identify himself as Irish, correcting people who referred to him differently? Or is this just a one-off assertion in a single source? If this can be sourced as a consistent identification he insisted on using on multiple occasions, that would satisfy me. If he just said it once or twice or used it as a way of saying he was born in Ireland when asked, then he could simply have been refining his identification rather than insisting on being differentiated as Irish. That's not enough for us to call him Irish in the lead sentence. Yworo (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It's in the article and in the discussion above, do I really have to go looking for them to repost them for you? Surely its up to you to read the discussion and see what I'm talking about. I think most of the quotes which are from his own letters are from his early adulthood, and another from his days as a tutor at Oxford.

"If he just said it once or twice or used it as a way of saying he was born in Ireland when asked, then he could simply have been refining his identification rather than insisting on being differentiated as Irish. That's not enough for us to call him Irish in the lead sentence."

That's a rather stringent new set of conditions you've brought out there and one which I think you'd struggle to apply to many, if not most, of the biography articles on wikipedia. Dylan Thomas for example, never made much of being Welsh and in fact there is no evidence provided for him even describing himself as Welsh once. In the only direct quotes we have of Lewis' talking about his own identity he describes himself as Irish and identifies with Irish people, which would seem to be much stronger evidence than for Thomas. Here is a link to one of the sources in which he is stated as identifying quite strongly with Irish people, from his days as a tutor. AMacR (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

As i said long ago in this discussion AMacR, you have to be careful not to be taking his comments out of context. Also add in the several times i noted - how can you be sure he is identifying as Irish over British rather than just inter-UK differentiating? Note the example i provided above which wasn't responded upon (the Scottish person going to England example). Without an international context example, its hard to prove AMacR that he is using Irish as anything more than a regional idenfication within the UK - all we have is personal opinion as to whether it does or not.

"In short, its not a tenable condition to apply. Is the objection you have to the second part of my suggested sentence because of the word homeland again? If so, George Sayers' quote does say Lewis considered Ulster his homeland, so saying homeland in County Down is surely a direct inference from that and not the dreaded "original research".'""

It's synthesis which is a form of original research. You have one source that states he considered Ulster his homeland, yet suggest we state in the lede "County Down his homeland" - the source doesn't state that, it states Ulster, so you can't say that County Down is his homeland without an actual explicit source that states it. Its synthesis and original research otherwise. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

@AMacR, generally bringing up how other articles are done is simply to introduce a red herring. In the case of Dylan Thomas, it is my understanding that a clear majority of sources call him Welsh. That's not the case for Lewis. I believe the majority of sources identify him as British. Even if it were half and half, we'd defer to citizenship. But by all mean, if you think that a clear majority of sources identify him as Irish, by all means present your evidence. Yworo (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

convenience break 5

I added "from Ireland" after the British part. We can't really ditch the British designator as it's backed up by source material, but this way we can emphasise which part of the kingdom he was from. JonChapple^Talk 13:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

That works for me. -- Elphion (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not against it. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I also have no objection to the addition of "from Ireland" at the end of the lead sentence. It's better use of English than "Irish-born British" and is more neutral in tone as well. Yworo (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Look why can you all not accept that C.S. Lewis was Irish? He was born in Belfast which makes him by modern times Northern Irish but by his time simply Irish. In technicality he may be British but go look at the pages for other people from Britain, if they are from Wales then their page calls them Welsh, not British? Same goes for people from England and Scotland. Many English people like to claim him for themselves but I have no doubt that he was 100% Irish and most likely very proud of that fact which isn't being reflected by this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom10-NI (talk • contribs) 21:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.86.133 (talk)

Thank you for questions, and for your declaration that you have no doubt. Now wait 48 hours to see what reactions you get before you alter the article again. -- Hoary (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as several editors agree with the wording Jonchapple provided, and as such it could constitute a consensus especially as AMacR never disagreed with it and has been quiet since Yworo called upon him to provide evidence, why should an account of three edits, two of them in this discussion (a sock-puppet possibly) just be allowed to override that? Would a consensus for change not be needed first? Wouldn't this account need to provide ample evidence to back up their declarations?

Disregarding the possibility that that is a sock-puppet, not all articles follow the style that if they are from Wales then they are Welsh etc. It largely depends upon WP:UKNATIONALS, which backs up what Yworo said to AMacR - you need to be provide the sources to show that he is regarded as Irish more so than he is regarded as British. Also i direct Tom10-NI to read Wikipedia:UKNATIONALS#Do_not_enforce_uniformity which contradicts the assumption that just because there are articles that go along the lines of "Welsh for Wales", "English for England" that they all should.

In fact contrary to AMacR's opinion on using what Lewis called himself read point three of Wikipedia:UKNATIONALS#Guide_to_finding_UK_nationality. The example is almost a mirror comparison of C. S. Lewis. However the result shown there is no longer the same, that article now states "Irish-born British".

So any reason to change from Jonchapple's addition? Not so far. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)