Jump to content

Talk:C. S. Lewis/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

File:CS Lewis Signature.svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:CS Lewis Signature.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Consensus

Is there consensus to leave out nationality in this article, the mention of Irish or British is highly contentious and unneccessarily inflammatory given the complexity of Northern Irish-British issues of identity.143.239.70.83 (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Rubbish, this is POV pushing of the highest order, to label him as British when he is from Ireland is clearly wrong, I agree with GoodDay and Sheodred, LEAVE IT OUT.93.107.209.165 (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, you cannot use Encylopedia Brittannica as a source for CS Lewis's "Britishness", as the community there are also permitted to edit articles.93.107.209.165 (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It is broken if verifiable, reliable sources are being ignored and only one side being used. Mo ainm~Talk 12:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
EB is a verifiable and reliable source. Also, please clean up the lead? It's really messy looking. And why does it just say Irish in the infobox but Irish and British in the lead? -______- --Nutthida (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
It's supposed to say "British" in the infobox. It's been changed and no-one's caught it. JonCTalk 09:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

These IPs that keep appearing with a very short edit history entirely revolving around C. S. Lewis smack of IP-socking. Regardless of that the IPs point on POV pushing of the highest order and that labelling someone from Ireland as British is wrong is in itself POV pushing of the highest order. Don't chastise and then do what your chastising about. Mabuska (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

What's even more POV is saying he can't be both, he must be one or the other. That's been a running theme too. --Nutthida (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
It clearly states in the info box, that he was Irish and British, before partition one who was born in Ireland was of Irish nationality but was also a British citizen of the United kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.(talk) 19:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I inserted the line "was described as a British and Irish novelist, academic, medievalist, literary critic, essayist, lay theologian and Christian apologist from Belfast, Ireland" which covers the problem from a neutral POV, yet it was removed. Mo ainm~Talk 20:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Your wording implies he's of British and Irish citizenship regardless of the wikilinks thats why it's flawed. Mabuska (talk) 11:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
On Encyclopedia Brittannica: Academic Edition he is not even mentioned as British but Irish-born, there was consensus to even have British mentioned on this wikipedia article but of course there are editors who will only accept British without any mention of him being Irish.........go figure. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/338121/CS-Lewis 143.239.7.3 (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
It should be British, but has anyone considered using Northern Irish? GoodDay (talk) 04:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

@ Nutthida - we could state British and Irish however WP:MOSBIO says no to ethnicity, and Irish in this context is an ethnicity. A compromise that was previously agreed was to state "from Ireland" in the lede, and what does "Irish" mean? Someone from Ireland. Yet the POV pushers couldn't accept that and yapped on about removing British regardless. Best of both worlds was in the article. Anti-British bias however is never content. Also C. S. Lewis was a British citizen, and as has already been argued before, his marriage was slated at the time as an attempt to get his wife British citizenship. Logic tells you that for her to get it then he had to be a British citizen. Logic and Wikipedia never seem to go together though. Mabuska (talk) 11:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC) `

WP:MOSBIO says no to ethnicity in the lead not info box . Also here [[1]] it states that Ireland in the info box not Northern Ireland , as has been used and "and do not describe them as Northern Irish" . Also here [[2]] and here [[3]] it show British Citizens/Nationals as a different nationality . But [[4]] shows an understanding , also I edited [de Valera] using the same principle . The Lewis case is different . Either or both could be used . The only problem I see is then editing ALL bios of British people so they read the same either way (Welsh/Irish(where relevant)/Nothern Irish/Scottish/English to British or vice-a-versa). As for the Northern Ireland reference in the info box as per IMOS I will edit that now , I will leave the rest up to the more experienced editors .Murry1975 (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
[[5]] Shows that the use of Irish or British as nationality is acceptable . He self identified as BOTH should we not respect the great writers wishes and describe him as both , it is historically accurate and unbiased .Murry1975 (talk) 09:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
What I have wrote in no way implies citizinship it states that he was described by reliable sources as such but the loyalist POV pushers must eradicate all mention of Irish in articles. Mo ainm~Talk 10:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
That's strange. I tend to get the impression, that devolutionist PoV pushers want to eradicate all mention of 'British' in these UK bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah i get that impression too, and many others no doubt do as well. Mabuska (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Mo ainm , as I have linked to ,Irish is accurate and acceptable , and I have shown examples where other nationalities are used instead of British . I would favour the two as Lewis did himself which has been mentioned in the article , anything else would make this [[6]] look like hypocrisy , even if the editor were to state a modern nationality, he would be choosing to ignore parts of MOS:BIO and completely ignore WP:UKNATIONALS , which SHOULD be used in this case .Murry1975 (talk) 11:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
BTW, UKNAT isn't policy. It's just an essay & nothing more. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Lewis was born in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. I'd see no problem with using 'both' British & Irish. Afterall, in 1801 - the Kingdom of Great Britain & the Kingdom of Ireland were merged -- thus we can 'merge' (use both) British & Irish. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Well ones a citizenship/toponym and the other is an ethnicity/toponym. So what exactly is the difference between stating "from Ireland" and "Irish"? Do both not mean the same thing in the context we are using it? It avoids the WP:MOSBIO issue on stating ethnicity. Stating "a British and Irish" implies some form of dual-citizenship. C. S. Lewis never identified as Irish above British - all examples are of him identifying as Irish in contrast to English - ethnicities/regional toponyms within the UK. Mabuska (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This is quite literally the most ridiculous argument on the whole of wikipedia, simply because we have come to a conclusion literally two-dozen times over the history of this talk page. The result is always the same, and it won't be any different this time. Can people please just search back through previous discussions instead of have us explain the situation once again? 90.196.241.38 (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, I've been in more ridiculous arguments then this. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Brittannica, a reputable source, has Lewis down as Irish, with nothing said about his Britishness, same as the other Irish authors like Samuel Beckett, Oscar Wilde, James Joyce.....how is Cs Lewis any different?93.107.194.109 (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Britannica says "Irish-born", not "Irish", and the title of that Web page (as opposed to the article) is "C.S. Lewis (British author)". Deor (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the situation is very similar to Oscar Wilde - who is also British. Every single man, woman and child who lived and died in the nation of Ireland between the years 1801 and 1922 was British. This is why C.S. Lewis is widely (and correctly) recognised as British. 90.196.241.238 (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
90.196.241.38 has been reported to admins for edit warring,ignoring warnings and vandalism.143.239.102.198 (talk) 10:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I am not edit warring, I had not received a SINGLE warning and I have not vandalised the page. You, however, continue to vandalise the page, are flagrantly POV-pushing, are flouting numerous rules of wikipedia's code of conduct and are making highly disruptive edits. I suggest you cease from attempting to contributing to both the page and this discussion, before I am forced to take this up with admins myself and have you dealt with sufficiently. 90.196.241.238 (talk) 15:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Birthplace

Lewis was born in a sovereign state called United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. I honestly don't remember a sovereign state named Ireland, however. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:IMOS"For people born before independence in 1922, describe their birthplace as simply Ireland (not [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|Ireland]]). Similarly, for people born before 3 May 1921 in what today is Northern Ireland say Ireland, not Northern Ireland or [[Northern Ireland|Ireland]], and do not describe them as Northern Irish. " I taught you read these things GoodDay and contributed to them ? Murry1975 (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
There is a state called Ireland. But it certainly didn't exist when Lewis was born. I don't know what the Manual of style is concerned. --Nutthida (talk) 18:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

^^ there --Nutthida (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't remember having read it before, but if that's IMOS' choice, I must disagree with it. But, that's a discussion for IMOS - I supppose. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I've expressed my concerns there, over the lack of NPoV in 'excluding' United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland as a birthplace for these bios. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay, the logic of your position would seem to be that there is, for WP purposes, no such thing as an Irish person born between 1802 and 1922. It seems to me that this just goes against common sense and normal practice, both in and outside WP. --FormerIP (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Pipelinking it as Ireland, is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Not according to the guideline. --FormerIP (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
The guideline is biased, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I am wondering , as an example for parity what are people born in Canada while under French or British control called on here , French , British or Canadian . Going in search of answers to help . But as was pointed out an issue for IMOS not Lewis.Murry1975 (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
From 1763 to 1867, they should be called British. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Some are called British some Canadian , some are French or French Canadian , but I found this [[7]] which links it really . It shows people from Ireland from post 1800 commonly refered to as Irish . Murry1975 (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Still though, we should pipe-link to the correct sovereign state. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
If your proposal at IMOS gets support, then that will be fine. --FormerIP (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
There are many British people on Wiki that arent pipelinked to the "correct sovereign state" it is a common ambiguity on here , here [[8]] is an example , there are many more .109.76.147.123 (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Yep, those should be changed, too. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I've presented a proposal here & here for change in the MOS. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Rather than splitting this discussion across several pages, let's just have one discussion at WikiProject Biography which tries to reflect a community consensus. --RA (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

That IMOS extract on pre-1922 i think is somewhat politically motivated. Why can we not link to the state that the island of Ireland was a part of pre-1922? Is it to cover-up the fact it was part of the UK? Other bio-articles that mention former states link to that former state. Linking to a land-mass is plain wrong. That clause needs a discussion. Mabuska (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm fairly neutral about the idea of pipelinking like that, but it would be wrong to suggest that it is normal practice. IMOS does in fact reflect what we do elsewhere. For example, John Adams is described in his lead as "American" (not "American" and certainly not "British"). Giuseppe Garibaldi is Italian (not "Italian" and certainly not "French"). --FormerIP (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
This discussion is being covered here. But for what it's worth C.S. Lewis often called himself Irish. An example in the article is where he says: "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."--BSTemple (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Slow-moving edit war.

...is getting pretty tedious. --Nutthida (talk) 02:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Page protection is likely required, until resolution is found. GoodDay (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with protecting the page; looks like it's time for me to make an account. 90.196.241.238 (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Page has been protected to prevent anonymous IP's from disrupting it.Sheodred (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Can we all reach consensus on the issue

Page has been protected to prevent further disruption, the references to him being both British and Irish are mentioned in the infobox. He was British in the respect that everyone born in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland were British citizens and still retained their nationalities. Those nationalities of the United Kingdom as we know were Irish, English, Scottish and Welsh, but all were and are (relatively speaking) British citizens. The reason nationality and citizenship is not mentioned in the lead is because it is unneccessary given the complexity of identity and sensitivities involved for both parties, however the infobox addresses all the issues raised, so I hope we have consensus on the issue.Sheodred (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

If there's sources for both British & Irish, then we should go for the a tie-breaker. In this case, he was born & died in what was & is (though smaller) the United Kingdom -- so we use British. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The relevant information is provided in the articles, a few editors might no be so sure but that is their prerogative, I hope this is satisfactory for all parties involved.Sheodred (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with GoodDay. C. S. Lewis did not live and work exclusively in Ireland. He did not die in Ireland and is not buried in Ireland. Therefore we use the broader description in the lead sentence and explain the details later. Later means "anywhere after the first sentence". That is, the second sentence is a perfectly fine place for the details. They do not have to be in a subsequent section. In any case, the lead sentence is way too complex. The Wikipedia standard is that the lead sentence should be of the form "X (birth/death) is/was a 'country of citizenship' 'list of professions' ". We should simplify the lead sentence, detail his Irish birth in the second sentence, and defer the less important info about being known as "Jack" to his friends and family to at least the second paragraph, if not the body of the article. Yworo (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
C. S. Lewis did not live and work exclusively in Ireland.He did not die in Ireland and is not buried in Ireland. So by your logic all the American soldiers who were shipped out to fight(work) and die in WW2, Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq etc, are not American because they did not die or were buried back in the USA? That is extremely narrow-minded and ignorant. I am not denying his Britishness, but you seem to be denying the fact that he was of Irish nationality, do you deny it? Sheodred (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
An obvious straw-man argument. Lewis moved to England by choice, not by military order. Even American soldiers whose bodies aren't recovered have their memorials in the US. Stupid arguement, Yworo (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Straw-man argument? Ok here is another question since you think the above was a "stupid argument", what about Pierce Brosnan he is an Irish man who exclusively lives and works in the USA, will die and be buried there more than likely, but he is Irish... Sheodred (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Born in Ireland, then you are Irish. Where you move to and die does not remove who you are and where you were born. He often refered to himself as Irish. Out of interest, would you say he was born in Britain? --BSTemple (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
That's a pretty simplistic view and not Wikipedia's standard. Wikipedia standard for the lead sentence uses the citizenship based on the place of residence of the subject when they became notable, not the place of birth. Lewis's first published work was in 1936. He moved to Oxford in 1930. He worked as a British citizen residing in England, and should be described as British in the lead sentence. His Irish birth belongs no earlier than the second sentence. Yworo (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
He was born in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The infobox is a suitable compromise for everyone before it was reverted, it answers everybody's concerns about Lewis's Irishness and Britishness. Sheodred (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm just offering it as a tie-breaker, if editors can't decide which sources to go by. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Its a wikipedia convention to refer to nationality before the 1920s as Irish not British. When Lewis moved to Britain he maintained a distinctive Irish identity over and against the English which is well described in the text. He identified with Yates and other Irish writers. I think that satisfies the criteria for self-identification which is also in a manual of style somewhere and qualifies the citizenship argument. He was born in Ireland (the concept of Northern Ireland doesn't exist for some decades). The fact that he did not work or die there is not relevant. --Snowded TALK 20:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is considering using English. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Specious comment GoodDay, no one is suggesting that they are --Snowded TALK 20:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
He did not achieve notability before 1920. He moved to Oxford in 1930, didn't have a work published until 1936, and the works for which he is most notable came later. We don't base nationality on a person's birthplace, childhood residence, or any other fact. We base it on where they worked, resided, and were a citizen when they became notable This is a constant argument and Wikipedia has a clear standard for deciding what nationality to use. For example, people who moved from Europe as children or to attend college or university and then became naturalized citizens before becoming notable are described as American. It's like taxes. What country supported their work. Lewis was educated and made his career at Oxford, not in Ireland. His support structure for his academic and writing career was in England. Britain as a whole deserves the credit for producing this genius, He was not solely the product of Ireland. Yworo (talk) 20:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
You are wrong Yworo, self identification of nationality is the agreed convention on people in the British Isles. Many people from many nationalities are educated at Oxford. The snarky comments about other editors motivations are unhelpful to say the least please stop. Saying that British includes Irish also shows a insensitivity to history by the way. --Snowded TALK 21:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment

I've been asked by Sheodred to mediate as an uninvolved party, since I intervened to protect the article in the recent IP edit war. I've gone through the discussions above, and have a few observations:

  • There is a desire on the part of some editors to boil down the impossible complexity of Irish-British ethnicity, nationality and citizenship to a pat conclusion. I'm having trouble seeing the necessity for a firm pronouncement in Wikipedia's voice on the subject.
  • Why must a nationality be attributed in the lead of the article, as opposed to his place of origin and self-identification, followed up by his adopted home? It's easy in unambiguous cases, but all MOSBIO requires is context, not a final pronouncement.
  • Lewis consistently called himself "Irish", and made a point of maintaining his identity as Irish, issues of citizenship aside. Acroterion (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
An example in a slightly different context: Josephine Baker, an American who became famous in France and took French citizenship, yet would never be called "French." Acroterion (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Yup, but only because she became notable before becoming a French citizen. If she had first become a French citizen, then become notable, Wikipedia standards would require her to be described as French. Yworo (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I simply offer it as an example of perception of nationality: I'm skeptical of rationales based on changing notions of citizenship and nationality as opposed to personal identity. Where overlapping layers of sometimes-antagonistic nationality, I'm unconvinced that anything beyond "he was born in X, and lived most of his life in Y". Trying to shoehorn much else into a lead paragraph strikes me as inappropriate editorializing in Wikipedia's voice. There's plenty of room to discuss his identity and actual citizenship farther down in the article. Acroterion (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Your argument about "nurturing" and "national credit" would make Baker French, since she achieved real fame there; she was at best moderately notable before she went to France. I'm extremely skeptical about this "national credit" concept in general, something I've never encountered on Wikipedia before; it strikes me as editorialising. Acroterion (talk) 20:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking for a convincing argument for an approach to the lead paragraph that is based on Wikipedia policy and scholarly sources. Original research, statistical interpretation, nurture and the like are not satisfactory alternatives. How about doing this the old fashioned way: what do major Lewis scholars have to say on this subject in published literature? Acroterion (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

National credit

People here seem to be confused about what is being credited in the lead sentence. We are specifying the country that deserves credit for educating, supporting, and encouraging the subject as they became notable. As both Ireland and England provided this education and support, we must credit both, and the way we do that is to use the inclusive term "British". Lewis would not have been Lewis as we know him without his Oxford education. TO simply call him Irish is to ignore the education and support provided by his chosen country of residence. Both Ireland and England made Lewis what he was. The lead sentence is not intended to describe the subject's ethnic self-identification. It is to credit the country or countries of which he was a citizen that supported the development of his notability. The Irish nationalist would love to slight and ignore the English part of Lewis' education and development. Those arguing for "British" are arguing to credit both counties by using the correct inclusive term. Characterising this as English against Irish bias is quite incorrect: nobody here has argued that he should be described as "English". A small number of pro-Irish editors are POV-pushing. It's that simple. Yworo (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Could easily be said that a small number of anti-Irish POV pushers are trying to remove all reference to his Irish identity, but silly comments like that are not helpful. Mo ainm~Talk 20:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Not at all true. I support inclusion of his Irish birth and self-identity in the second sentence, and Irish ethnicity in the infobox. I see no one arguing to remove that, only to use the most inclusive term in the lead sentence. In any case, fyi, I'm American and have no reason to be anti-Irish. I simply want to follow Wikipedia standards in the lead sentence. These standards advocate citizenship over nationality in the first sentence and suggest that all explanations and qualification be deferred to the second sentence or the early life section. His Irish birth, Irish ethnicity, Irish self-identifcation should certainly be included, but he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and such citizenship is described as "British". Put down the axe, it's been ground down to almost nothing. Wikipedia is not for "righting great wrongs". Yworo (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I am not saying that is what you are but your comment on the motives of others are not helpful as the opposite can be said by editors that disagree with you. Mo ainm~Talk 21:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Did Lewis ever consider the Republic of Ireland as his home? GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
What has that got to do with anything? Mo ainm~Talk 21:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
If his home has only been the United Kingdom & if he lived, was educated & became notable in the UK, one could understand why he'd be called British. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Did Lewis ever say he was "British"? Acroterion (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree with the deciding factor being 'self-identificaton'. But, that's another matter. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Nationality is about how the subject identifies themselves in the main, and in particular in the context of Britain and Ireland. Nationality based on credit for education is a strange concept that I can't see anywhere in standards. The fact is that for a very large number of articles on Wikipedia people are identified as Scottish, Welsh, Irish etc. although their citizenship is British. The issue here is how did Lewis self identify. --Snowded TALK 21:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, we use self-identification for ethnicity. Please cite the policy which says we use it for citizenship. I don't believe you can, because we don't. Yworo (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Please read what I say. For Citizenship its British, however for nationality (which is not the same thing as ethnicity) in British and Irish articles we use self identification. That means that Dylan Thomas for example is a WELSH poet but a British citizen and there are many other examples of this. That means if Lewis identified as Irish, then his nationality is Irish in the lede and the information box. It is also not the case that British is an inclusive term, while it is used for citizenship in Northern Ireland its use in connection with nationality is controversial. --Snowded TALK 21:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Great, then please point me to the policy or guideline page that documents this. Things are seldom so black and white as you imply. That may be your interpretation of said policy or guideline, but it may very well not be so black and white as you imply. Let me read the policy or guideline you claim applies for myself. Yworo (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Also, self-identification is used for living people, not for deceased ones. For dead subjects, we use the majority of sources, not self-identification. Yworo (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
You must have found the policy or are you just making up that we "self-identification is used for living people" Also we have sources which say he is an Irish novelist are they not good enough? Mo ainm~Talk 21:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll hunt it down later, its in the style guides are the UK as I remember - for the moment I have a day of work ahead of me and must focus on that. However as Mo Ainm says it looks like you found something so would you provide the link. You might want to look at lots of other dead authors who are Welsh, Irish etc and identified as such in Wikipedia. I gave you one and there are many others so a very small amount of research by you would show current practice --Snowded TALK 21:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Have a read of Wikipedia:UKNAT, it's an essay related to this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Ah, an essay. So not official policy or guideline. I've posted a query there to get further input, though. Yworo (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree with 'self-identification' as a deciding factor. But, that's another matter. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Majority of sources

What's wrong with the sources that call him Irish? They are in the minority. We use the majority of sources when sources disagree, especially when one term is inclusive of the other. Here are some indicative counts:

Same thing at Google books, but even more pronounced. Since Google books is a more accurate indicator of sources, that more than 2 to 1 proportion is quite convincing with respect to majority of sources.

Feel free to also check Google Scholar, but I expect similar results. C.S. Lewis is described as British by the majority of sources. Feel free to prove otherwise. Yworo (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Where does it state that we ignore reliable sources in favour of the ones with higher google hits? Mo ainm~Talk 22:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
We don't ignore them, but rather use the majority description in the lead and explain the other points of view later. This is policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Neutrality. Yworo (talk) 22:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Where does it state that the highest google hits is used and other discarded? Mo ainm~Talk 22:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Read what I wrote. It doesn't. It says where sources disagree, views are presented proportionally. Also, the majority view should be presented first, and that's why "British" should be used in the lead sentence, and the Irish view presented in the second sentence. Yworo (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Substituting "English" gives 20 million hits in Google and 169,000 hits in Google Books. Would you argue that he should be described as English on that basis? "German" gets 11 million hits, and 48,000 in books. Such a methodology is meaningless. We go by scholarly sources, not by ghits. Acroterion (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
There is no possible reason to describe him as English. He wasn't born in England, but he was born in the United Kingdom, for which the applicable adjective is "British". Quit with the straw-man arguments. They don't look very bright. Yworo (talk) 22:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
It is showing the folly of using google hits to back up your argument also the link you provided is not apt in this situation. Mo ainm~Talk 22:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
It highlights the essential flaw in your methodology: the search terms are meaningless. See my comment in my initial comments. What does scholarship have to say? Acroterion (talk) 22:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
He was born in Ireland (given the 19th century position). At that time it was in the UK as then constituted which is not the same thing as the UK today. You are however persistently confusing nationality with citizenship --Snowded TALK 23:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
We don't use place of birth, we don't decide ourselves based on outside knowledge or opinion about how British / Irish nationality was viewed at some historical period, that's original research or synthesis. We use the majority of sources, especially when we are getting over 3 to 1 in favor of British vs. Irish. Yworo (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll find the guideline. In fact place of birth is one factor and the time period is key for nationality in respect of Britain and Ireland. As to your majority, you are searching on Citizenship and that is not disputed. See my comment below. --Snowded TALK 23:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if this helps any, but we've the reverse effect on Italian bio articles. People who've lived before & at the time Italy came into being as a sovereign state (1861), are described as Italian. GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The above and below Google searches are flawed because a string such as /"C.S. Lewis" British/ does not give us webpages which give an indication as to Lewis' nationality. It gives us pages which mention Lewis and also contain the word "British". A similar thing has been noted above, but I'd point out that Lewis is American by a resaonably strong margin if we go by this methodology [9]. --FormerIP (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Scholarly sources

Funny you should mention scholarly sources, Google Scholar is even more biased toward British, even when explicitly using "British citizen" and "Irish citizen":

That's 5 to 1 against Irish. Yworo (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This clearly shows Irish as a minority view. It's even starting to look like a fringe view. Yworo (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think anybody's claiming he wasn't a British citizen. The discussion is whether citizenship is appropriately stated in the lead sentence, or whether nationality is more apropos. Nevertheless, I ask again: what do citeable sources have to say: this means reading books, doing research, and arriving at a conclusion that can be incorporated as a reference. Acroterion (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Counting sources in that way would be original research. It's clear what the majority opinion is, and that's what should be presented as primary. The secondary view should be presented accordingly, as secondary. Yworo (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Same with Google web search when adding citizen. Lots of reports that Joy married Lewis because he was a British citizen so she could also become one. None say she wanted to marry him because he was an Irish citizen:

I've even included your "English" test case which now comes out as expected. Result is 8.6 to 1 and the methodology error has been corrected. Yworo (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Read my comment above: nobody's arguing that he was a citizen of Ireland. Acroterion (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, then I believe my point is proven. The majority of sources describe him as British, and we prefer what the majority of sources say. You claim that you believe that a majority of "scholarly sources" describe him as Irish. Prove it or get off the pot. Back up your assertions. Yworo (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
No one is disputing citizenship, please try and engage with what people are saying. Also tone down the aggression please this is a collaborative environment --Snowded TALK 23:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you're following me: there is no dispute about Lewis's citizenship, nor about his place of birth. I'll try to summarize my perception of your main point: your argument is that citizenship should trump national origin in the article lead and infobox. Is that a fair interpretation? Acroterion (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Nope, my argument is twofold. (1) We should follow the majority of sources. (2) When there is a dispute, it's better to resolve it in the broadest sense that applies. "Irish" only gives a partial picture because it ignores that he attained notability outside Ireland. British is more accurate as it is inclusive of his Irish childhood and English career. Yworo (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that helps me to understand your position. We were going around in circles for a little while. Acroterion (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Your argument is based on citizenship per your sources. Many people obtain notability outside the country of their birth or are educated elsewhere. You are also persistently ignoring the precedents on other artists within Britain and Ireland --Snowded TALK 23:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm not. The majority of sources describe Dylan Thomas as Welsh. Therefore he is described as Welsh in Wikipedia. I think you will find that pertains to the other examples as well. C. S. Lewis is not the same as these other examples: He is much more frequently described British than as Irish. In all cases, however, we should lead with the majority of sources. I am happy to review those other articles if you wish, it may be that some of them are done improperly and should be changed to reflect the majority of sources. Yworo (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Well its the first time you have responded to the point but thank you for that and for toning down your comments somewhat. If you remove "citizen" from the search then the difference narrows considerably (13,700 to 4,700) and a lot of the "majority" are referencing "British Library" with the term not linked to Lewis. So the position is far from clear and in any case self-identification is the key criteria. I'll track down the references when I get a chance, but its established practice as any editor familiar with British and Irish articles will tell you. Ok some like GoodDay don't like it but its been established over multiple articles from artists to politicians, even to the article about me  :-) --Snowded TALK 23:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
You and I both know this kind of argumentation can only clarify everyone's position. To move further, we need to have specific proposals. I suggest it will be easier to make progress by showing support for specific proposals. I also suggest it will go more smoothly by not indicating opposition. The wording with the most support goes in. I'll go into more detail in a new section with my own proposal. Yworo (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I had proposals at WP:BIOG concerning articles like this one. But, I had to withdraw them, as they basically got the 'thumbs down'. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Style Guides

  1. Per this MoS which is linked from WP:BIOG people's place of birth if born before 1921 is to be Ireland.
  2. Also we have [guidance] here that we should look for any expression of preference from the subject (and this is not qualified by if they are alive or dead.)

Those two give us a structure. In this case we have someone born before 1921 who made their Irishness a distinct part of their identity (per the article). --Snowded TALK 06:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

People alive in Ireland in 1800 and most born in the UK (which contained the whole of Ireland) before 1922, and their sons or daughters, are all British. 124.169.96.169 (talk) 03:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Please note formatting conventions. That may be your opinion, its not what the style guide says --Snowded TALK 05:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI

Please see Wikipedia:ANI#Editor removing others' comments at Talk:C. S. Lewis. EdJohnston (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Year of marriage

I don't know if this is the right place to put this but the year of the bedside marraige on this page is 1957 and on the Joy Davidman page its 1956. I don't know which ones right though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.17.221 (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I've emended the date in Joy Davidman. It's a bit confusing because they were married twice, in a civil ceremony in 1956 and in a Christian ceremony in 1957. Deor (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

A couple of things that might further improve the entry

I have a couple of suggestions for the article:

  • Include a few quote boxes? - Having looked at a few other wikipedia entries for writers/poets, I see those entries have made use of quote boxes. Besides the photos, a couple of these would make stretches the the article a little less dense. There may be other views on this, but use of such quote boxes are to my mind effective, in appropriate sections, to draw readers into the article. I am thinking not necessarily of quotes articlulating beliefs, but more auto-biographical, or biographical quotes about Lewis. For instance, Lewis when commenting on the new house the Lewis family moved to in 1905 (Little Lea) described himself thus:
"The New House [Little Lea] is almost a major character in my story. I am the product of long corridors, empty sunlit rooms, upstair indoor silences, attics explored in solitude, distant noises of gurgling cisterns and pipes, and the noise of wind under the tiles. Also, of endless books." (Surprised by Joy, p. 6)

It seems to me the above would fit into childhood, or early years.

  • Lewis's Legacy - With regard to this, there has been a new housing development not far from the memorial sculpture (pictured in the article) in Belfast, which unless I am mistaken (could someone confirm?) has streets named after CS Lewis: Lewis Gardens, Lewis Park, Lewis Drive, Lewis Avenue. These are fairly recent (sometime during the last 15 years). They can be seen on google maps: [[10]]

If these are definitely named after Lewis (I am nearly sure they are) then it seems significant enough to mention in the legacy section. I also live near this and could help out with a photo. DMSBel (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and added the above quote. Funny how debates about nationality result in reams of comments and other suggestions get no feedback at all.DMSBel (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Specific proposed wording and infobox items

I'll start this off. I'd like to suggest the following rules to avoid making this seem like a vote.

  • Editors may support multiple versions.
  • Support should be expressed like this: Support (optional explanation and/or minor variation suggestion)
  • That we not permit "Oppose" !votes, arguments against, etc. They will just make a mess of this.
  • That the version with the most support goes into the article. If too close to call, we RFC for additional input.

Yworo (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal 1

Clive Staples Lewis (29 November 1898 – 22 November 1963), commonly referred to as C. S. Lewis, was a novelist, academic, medievalist, literary critic, essayist, lay theologian and Christian apologist from the United Kingdom. Born in Belfast, Ireland, he (strongly?) identified with his Irish nationality.

I presume the supporters of calling him Irish can come up with a citation for that second sentence which may or may not support the use of the word "strongly".

Set citizenship=British and nationality=Irish. Yworo (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Additional comments 1, oppose votes excluded by initial polling description

  1. Oppose Mo ainm~Talk 11:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - nationality is too ambiguous a term as it can mean ethnciity and citizenship and well we've no proof of him identifying as Irish citizenship wise. Mabuska (talk) 11:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  3. Oppose option, oppose poll, policy is clear --Snowded TALK 19:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal 2

....was a British novelist... Born in Belfast, United Kingdom, he considered himself Irish.

GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

  1. Support. Nice proposal. Yworo (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  2. Support. Good proposal. Better to leave out the bit about Belfast and he considering himself Irish. They only serve to confuse. Say he is British and be done with it. 124.169.96.169 (talk) 03:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  3. Oppose option, oppose poll, policy is clear --Snowded TALK 19:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  4. Support, although "British novelist, born in Belfast", is factual and a reasonable compromise that covers all bases, and ethnic self-identification would be better elaborated in a separate section if the nationalist-minded feel it's really necessary, although IMO the coverage of Irishness is already given undue weight in the article, since as a Unionist he wouldn't normally be described as a nationalist writer anyway. Lachrie (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  5. Oppose because it is against the MOS guidance and inconsistent with other biographies of Irish people born before 1922. This poll is moot in any case. --FormerIP (talk) 03:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Additional comments 2, oppose votes excluded by initial polling description

  1. Oppose Mo ainm~Talk 11:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Makes it sound as if British and Irish are mutally exclusive when that is horsecrap. Stop mixing a citizenship and ethnicity together without quantifiers. Mabuska (talk) 11:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  3. Oppose option, oppose poll, policy is clear --Snowded TALK 19:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal 3

....was a novelist.... Born in Belfast, Ireland.
Infobox: We should keep out nationality & citizenship. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  1. Oppose option, oppose poll, policy is clear --Snowded TALK 19:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal 4

...was an Irish novelist...

Proposal 5

. . . was an Irish-born British novelist, academic, . . .
(No mention of Belfast in the lead [it's in the infobox and the "Childhood" section], and no "nationality", "ethnicity", or "citizenship" field in infobox.)
— Deor (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose the construction Irish-born is explicitly excluded by WP:MOSBIO: "previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence..." We put one nationality here, the one the subject held at the time they became notable. Place of birth is never mentioned in the first sentence. It may of course be mentioned as early as the second sentence, but is usually placed in an "Early life" section. Yworo (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment

Jumping to a poll when a discussion is taking place and you have been advised that there are style guides could be seen as a little premature if not gaming, although I am sure the latter was not your intent. Per my offer above I have now found the two relevant style guides and I think they are clear. We cannot make policy here by a vote on one article. --Snowded TALK 06:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the MoS, is where this whole discussion should be taking place. GoodDay (talk) 06:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
If people want to change the style guides then yes that is the case. It can't be done on one article --Snowded TALK 08:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Being British and Irish were not then, and are not now, mutually exclusive identities. On the contrary, for many people they are overlapping and complementary. I suspect that Lewis would have regarded his British identity as overrarching, and to describe him as "a British writer from Belfast" would likely be closest to how he saw himself. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 07:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
For many people they still are (overlapping and complementary). Its also true that before partition most people would have said Irish, not British given the assimilation of the Irish Crown into the United Kingdom in the fairly recent past. You also see in political novels and commentaries of the time the clear use of Irish not British which was used for Scotland/Wales/England, its where the common "Britain and Ireland" comes from. British in its current form is a post 1921 construct. However what matters here is (i) the style guide is very clear that his country should be Ireland and that implies the default nationality should be Irish (ii) for his nationality what matters is how he self-identified per the Style guideline referenced above. The existing text of the article makes it pretty clear that when he went to Oxford his Irish identity was clear, in contrast to the English (which given it is Oxford is a proxy for British) and he went out of his way to cultivate other Irish links such as Yates. If you have some evidence that he saw himself as British would you cite it? --Snowded TALK 08:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, the Irish Crown was vested in the Crown of England some 350 years before Lewis's birth, while the union of parliaments was a little less than a century past. The article by David Clare in the Irish Studies Review - "C.S. Lewis: An Irish Writer" - that seems to be the source for much of the contention here that Lewis's "default nationality" should be Irish here does make this important caveat:

"All of this emphasis on Lewis’s Irishness may make us lose sight of the fact that because Lewis was an Ulster Protestant, a British identity was also available to him. Lewis makes clear in The Four Loves, however, that he sees ‘Britishness’ as a supranational identity comprised of the English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish peoples...and he regarded his nationality within the British scheme' as Irish." (My bold). Ivor Stoughton (talk) 03:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Yworo you have not only now have disrupted this article (unintentionally or unintentionally I don't know), it seems that you don't like the fact that his heritage and nationality is Irish, unless I am mistaken about you, hence this whole discussion, Wikipedia does not conform to the POVs of editors, it conforms to facts, and the facts are is that Lewis's nationality was Irish but a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Ireland at the time. But now you have also decided to go on to Peter O'Toole and started making disruptive edits and removed all mentions of Peter O'Toole being Irish, changed his nationality to "ethnicity" (what are you rambling about ethnicity for, Wikipedia does not substitute that for nationality) to give the impression of having a NPOV, then solely call him British ignoring all the sources, references and his own self-identification as Irish?
Note: Polls/Votes are not only pointless but they can derail and sabotage discussions, consensus is not based on unanimity. Also these anonymous IPs that keep popping up should be ignored, as they have contributed nothing to thiese discussions except what they like and don't like, made disruptive edits (hence the protection of the article). Sheodred (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
As noted above, Wikipedia operates by consensus, so no "most votes goes in" polls are valid. Acroterion (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Common sense and rationality are always key. And guidelines. Not straw polls or who shouts the most (Caps) (and yes, as above, they are staw polls are valid, but ones used with my aforementioned) --Nutthida (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Cool. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Regarding my comment I was referring to this and that proposals should not boil down to polls/votes, as a proposed edit can be relatively in breach of wikipedia's rules. Sheodred (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Cool. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

So, per the style guidelines we put Irish into the lede and information box. If people want to change those guidelines then they go to the talk page of the links above and make any such proposal. --Snowded TALK 19:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If that is the style guidelines dictated by wikipedia, then I guess we that follow them through. Sheodred (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

We must remember that the man was British and that is the prime style rule. 58.7.164.37 (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This IP has curiously only contributed to Peter O'Toole and CS Lewis, coincidentally he shares the same POV as Yworo, possible sock. Sheodred (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
One time SPA IPs can be ignore especially when they make statements but don't present arguments. Sheodred, please remove that accusation its not helpful. If you don't have evidence for a sock puppet report you should not make the accusation. There are many sock masters who run IPs in British and Irish issues, it will be one of them. I don;t think its Tworo --Snowded TALK 01:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Retracted accusation as there is not enough evidence to make one. Sheodred (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Has Lewis 'ever' self-identified as British? GoodDay (talk) 03:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the article seems fine the way it is, with no mentioning of the terms British or Irish. Something that Wikipedia should consider for all bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 07:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Another option would be to describe him as "Anglo-Irish", which may well be most the most accurate, if unmodish, term. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Anglo-Irish? What a misinformed and silly suggestion, I suggest you look at what Anglo-Irish is here, making such statements looks very foolish and belligerent, remarks like that demonstrates the height of ignorance. Sheodred (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think Anglo-Irish applies to him at all. The Anglo-Irish were a group of distinct Irish men and women descended from a ruling elite English class, who in general did not consider themselves Irish, at all or wholly. That is my understanding, anyway, and calling him "English" - Even Irish-English, is of course, a no-no. --Nutthida (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
You know, I've just read the first paragraph of the Anglo-Irish article you thoughtfully linked to, Sheodred, and I have to say that so far it all seems to apply to Lewis, in that he belonged to the Church of Ireland, was a member of a privileged social class, was educated at elite educational institutions in England and served in the British military. Why do you suppose it doesn't apply to Lewis? Ivor Stoughton (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Then by your logic Ivor all the Protestants born in Ireland were Anglo-Irish. By the way, Anglo-Irish was a social class, not a nationality, so I guess that obviously did not sink in for you. Sheodred (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
That's not what the article you linked says. It is pretty clear that Presbyterians would not be considered Anglo-Irish, and Presbyterians would be a majority of "Protestants born in Ireland". And I'd say Anglo-Irish is more than a social class, but less than a nationality. Still, it is probably more accurate as a descriptor of Lewis's identity than either "Irish" or "British". Ivor Stoughton (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually the article does say that, in the first line in fact. It is obviously your prerogative to say that Anglo-Irish is more than a social class and that it would be more accurate to describe Lewis, it does not mean you are right of course. Sheodred (talk) 23:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Just read it again and still don't see where it says that "all Protestants born in Ireland were Anglo-Irish", as you claim above. But it really doesn't matter what it says, as Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. There are a number of off-Wiki reliable sources that describe Lewis as Anglo-Irish, however. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
So I present to you the facts about what Anglo-Irish is,and all you say is that "wikipedia is not considered a reliable source on wikipedia"? That is hilarious lol, go read some academic peer-reviewed material on the subject if you are not satisfied and you will find the same answer I gave you. Sheodred (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, you said you thought my suggestion that Lewis could be described as Anglo-Irish was "misinformed and silly" and directed me to the Wikipedia article on the term, which frankly seems very much to describe Lewis's background! You then claimed that, if Lewis were to be considered Anglo-Irish, then so would "all Protestants born in Ireland", which is not what the article says at all. And yes, there are plenty of other reliable sources, including peer-reviewed material, that describe Lewis as Anglo-Irish. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Such as "The Cambridge Companion to C.S. Lewis" (Cambridge University Press, 2010, Robert MacSwain and Michael Wade (eds)) p 6:

"...it is important to stress Lewis's essentially Anglo-Irish and Anglican character. Culturally and socially, Lewis was very much the product of his middle-class Ulster childhood, Edwardian Britain, the trenches of the First World War and the Oxford Greats School. And, in the preface to 'Mere Christianity', Lewis says: 'There is no mystery about my own (religious) position. I am a very ordinary layman of the Church of England, not especially 'high', not especially 'low', not especially anything else." Ivor Stoughton (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you understand, they speak of his 'character', and anyway as I said, people can claim all they want if he was Anglo-Irish or whatever, it does not really matter, it was a social-class that existed within Irish society not a nationality, that is fact, which has been mentioned again and again and again...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheodred (talk • contribs) 01:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
No, it's not a fact, it's an opinion you have reiterated, and with which I disagree, at least in part. It seems to me obvious that, while the term "Anglo-Irish" does indeed carry a connotation of social class (rather like the term WASP here in the United States) it also carries undeniable ethno-religious connotations. Otherwise, why use "Anglo" as the combiner? Why not jusy say "wealthy Irish" or "posh Irish" or "high class Irish"? Why use a combining term which means of or associated with England and the English? Ivor Stoughton (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Anglo Irish is a red herring, although it is a distinct identity and is used in a lot of the literature which means comparing it with wealthy, posh or high class is not really on as I doubt those are used. Whatever, he was born in Belfast before 1921 and he self identifies as Irish. So per the style guides the lede and information box need to say Irish. If people don't like that then they need to go to the two style guides I referenced above and seek change. --Snowded TALK 09:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

To fully quote Ivor as it appears his comment was overlooked, most likely on purpose due to the fact it is extremely important to the discussion:

"Well, the Irish Crown was vested in the Crown of England some 350 years before Lewis's birth, while the union of parliaments was a little less than a century past. The article by David Clare in the Irish Studies Review - "C.S. Lewis: An Irish Writer" - that seems to be the source for much of the contention here that Lewis's "default nationality" should be Irish here does make this important caveat: "All of this emphasis on Lewis’s Irishness may make us lose sight of the fact that because Lewis was an Ulster Protestant, a British identity was also available to him. Lewis makes clear in The Four Loves, however, that he sees ‘Britishness’ as a supranational identity comprised of the English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish peoples...and he regarded his nationality within the British scheme as Irish." (My bold). Ivor Stoughton (talk) 03:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)"

It also proves my point that Lewis never identified as Irish over British, but only over other regional nationalities within the UK, i.e. English/Scottish/Welsh. Lewis was a British citizen but of Irish ethnicity. That is all that Lewis can be safely described as. Trying to pretend that he saw himself as Irish over British is WP:OR and WP:Synthesis as we have no proof that he ever did. If somebody called themselves a Texan, does that suddenly mean they don't see themselves as an American? If i went somewhere within the UK i'd say i'm Northern Irish in contrast to English/Scottish/Welsh, yet if i went outside the UK i'd say British - there is a national and international context to be considered that no source here alludes to.

Having said that, leaving both out altogether as the article at the moment does, is a good enough compromise at the moment i suppose seeing as the "Irish" pushers will only continue to try to replace his actual citizenship with an ethnicity (what does WP:MOSBIO say on ethnicity?). Mabuska (talk) 11:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, exactly right, Mabuska. As even David Clare allows, Lewis identified as Irish within the British scheme, which is to say his United Kingdom included Ireland. An alternative, more exclusively Irish nationality became available during Lewis's lifetime, but he never availed himself of it. To refer to him simply as "Irish" is just that - simplistic, and ultimately quite misleading. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 14:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Ivor.....all Irish people at at the time remained "within the British scheme" as it was known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, wether they liked it or not, so it is stupid to imply that it is exclusive to Lewis. No one is simply referring to Lewis as just Irish, despite your comment Ivor and your lie Mabuska that the "Irish pushers" want to replace his citizenship, on the contrary it is the "British pushers" that refused the infobox where his British citizenship was mentioned because his Irish nationality was also included, and it was a "British pusher" (Yworo) who for some bizzare reason wanted to replace Lewis's Irish nationality with Irish ethnicity in the infobox....... Sheodred (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I don't imply it is exclusive to Lewis. Not at all. I fully accept that all people born on the island of Ireland pre-1921 were native-born British subjects and citizens of the United Kingdom. In that regard, I think it is anachronistic to refer to Lewis as a "British citizen" as such, as he would have been for his entire life a British subject and citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not a "British pusher". I simply think that the article should be left as it was, which had a cited "British" in the lead sentence, until such time as a new consensus develops. British has been in the article for some time, It was the consensus version until recently. Usually, when there is no new consensus, the article is not changed until there is. The evidence I've provided shows that the majority of sources say "British". His career and notability occurred entirely within England, not Ireland. That's significant and needed to be pointed out, regardless of what the consensus outcome eventually is, if any. Yworo (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Until a new consensus has been reached the article should remain as it was before the discussion even started as per the rules of WP:BRD and all that. Whilst i can live without any descriptor in the lede, the article should be as it was unless consensus is formed for a change and to be honest it hasn't. Also like how those who want to remove or replace British with Irish never answered the very simple relevant question - what difference is there between stating "Irish" and "from Ireland" seeing as Irish as were using it means someone from Ireland? The solution was in the article. Mabuska (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:BRD I reverted to the previous consensus, as per WP:CON. The wording was stable and long-standing. There was no consensus for removal. Where there's no consensus for change, we stick with the previous consensus until a new consensus can be reached on the talk page. Since the disagreement appears to be ideological we may have to seek administrative or community intervention. Lachrie (talk) 04:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete

The best solution for the infobox? delete it. That's what was done at Ernest Shackleton. -- GoodDay (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Trillemma

Can someone with edit privileges remove the part that says that modern scholarship doesn't accept Jesus' claim to be God. This is supposed to be an article about Lewis, not the place to make controversial jabs at Jesus. Obviously this John Hick guy doesn't respect Scripture. If we do respect Scripture, as Lewis did, then his argument is a fair one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lomacar (talk • contribs) 09:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Well it could either be taken out which I have no problem with, or Lewis's views on Modern New Testament Criticism could be cited also. His address to students at Westcott House Theological College, published first under the title Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism, then later entitled Fern Seed and Elephants gives Lewis's views in this area. But what is meant by modern scholarship here, the last fifty years, one hundred years? If its just denoting a period of time (ie. recent) then there is plenty of scholarship over the same period of time right up to the present which accepts Jesus' claim to be God. DMSBel (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Saints !?

Why is he included in this project? What have I missed? Did he write about saints? I hope it's that...--Nutthida (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

According to the self-description at the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints: "This WikiProject aims primarily at standardizing the articles about people venerated by some Christians as saints or the blessed and making sure that they maintain a NPOV. . . . The Eastern Orthodox Churches, Assyrian Church of the East, Oriental Orthodox Churches, Anglican Communion and Lutheran Churches maintain liturgical calendars commemorating individuals they consider to have lived according to the will of God, although not all of them use the word 'saint' so often or explicitly." As this article states, "C. S. Lewis is commemorated on 22 November in the church calendar of the Episcopal Church", so presumably the WikiProject considers the article within their remit. Why don't you go over there and tell them that they're wrong to do so? Deor (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Nah, I never said it was wrong, I just wondered. Sorry I'm distracted and I'm too sweet to argue! --Nutthida (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Nationality RFC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
It seems like this was pretty well decided as consensus last time and this discussion is closed, with prejudice towards another RfC for WP:LAME's sake and wasting time arguing over a previously established consensus. For the result, if you do a raw count, there is no consensus, when I read through the arguments striking out arguments like what he is referred to as or "his self description" or pure opinion of what people should think it should be, with no real basis, there is still no consensus. I see the middle ground as the best option from this which was the consensus last time. Now, let's take a breather, and go back to improving articles and not arguing over something that is trivial and already decided as middle ground. -- DQ (t) (e) 12:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Should the lede describe Lewis as Irish or as British? 89.100.150.198 (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The last discussion on Lewis's nationality was only resolved two months ago. I'd have suggested you read above before RfCing. JonCTalk 21:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
2 days ago you told me to "take it to talk" [11]. Which is what I have done. I'm beginning to feel as if you just like to find fault with all of my edits. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'd anticipated you joining the existing discussion where this has been hashed out many times rather than starting a whole new one, but let's see what happens. JonCTalk 21:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought it appropriate to involve outside editors. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Please read previous discussions before rehashing old arguements as if it's something brand new. Mabuska (talk) 21:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • British - no new arguements have been raised that suggests we abandon the previous lengthy discussion and its result. To put it simply: C. S. Lewis self-identified himself as; Irish, Welsh, and British. The only thing that is undeniable is that he was a British citizen, and the majority of BLP articles use nationality as in citizenship not ethnicity. So to avoid arguements we go the least partisan route and state his citizenship. Mabuska (talk) 11:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
As he was born on the island of Ireland pre 1922 he was also an Irish citizen 89.100.150.198 (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Thats a now defunct piece of retrospective legislation from 1956 which doesn't override British nationality law, meaning unless he revoked it, he was still a British citizen regardless. In fact he married his wife Joy in 1956, which many claimed was only for her to get British citizenship. As he only lived for 7 years under that legislation, if he ever acknowledged it, i'm sure it would be documented somewhere that he referred to himself an "Irish citizen". Mabuska (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Nor does British nationality law override Irish nationality law - so he was also an Irish citizen regardless. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Also, a mural in East Belfast states he was born in Northern Ireland, Not Ireland. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 15:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
A mural is not a reliable source. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 02:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • When Lewis was born in Ireland, Northern Ireland as a political entity did not exist. He was in his early twenties when Northern Ireland, as a political entity, came into existence. It may take some careful thought and documentation to resolve the terminology. Perhaps we should seek quotes from Lewis himself. He was a Oxford when the partition of Ireland occured. Did he comment about it? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
The partition of Ireland and Northern Ireland is irrelevant to the discussion. The rest of my response is already stated above in this RfC. On this RfC, most of what the IP has said has already been very lengthily discussed beforehand, and it would help if they decided to read the whole previous discussion and see the conclusion it arrived at before rehashing the same arguements. This isn't a merry-go-round. Mabuska (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I am not convinced that the 1920s historical changes in Ireland is irrelevant. Before the partition, were those born in Ireland, British? Could they call themselves Irish and British? Did Lewis make the distinction? In the history of Lewis, the distinction is minor, it seems. It is of interest how the Irish, like Lewis, viewed themselves while they attended Oxford. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Lewis is quoted in the article as saying "thank the gods that I am Irish". 89.100.150.198 (talk) 02:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
How so? Lord Craigavon was born in Belfast. JonCTalk 06:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your point is here. Our article on Craigavon doesn't give his nationality, for whatever reason. However, Belfast was as much part of Ireland as Dublin prior to 1922. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Ireland-related_articles#Biographical_articles. --FormerIP (talk) 12:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Belfast was as much a part of Ireland as Dublin prior to 1922 and all of Ireland was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and held seats, not in Dublin, but in the British parliament. Thus Lewis can be called both Irish and British. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Not so. It is both normal and WP practice to refer to people born in Ireland before 1922 as Irish. So, for example, Oscar Wilde, George Bernard Shaw, James Joyce etc are all Irish as far as WP is concerned. There might be an issue if Lewis himself identified as something else, but that doesn't appear to be the case. --FormerIP (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Lewis would probably find this discussion of his nationality unnecessary and counter-productive. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Consider Edwards' writing:
Edwards, Bruce L. (2007). C.S. Lewis: An examined life. 4 Volumes. Westport, CT. Greenwood Publishing Group. 352 pages. ISBN: 0-275-99116-4
Read especially pp. 20-26
From 1801-1922 the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland existed. This included all of Ireland. The Irish held seats in the British Parliament. Thus it seems accurate to refer to Lewis as both Irish and British. It also seems incorrect to view Lewis' heritage as Irish Nationalist. His father seems to have been a Unionist instead. From what I can tell, Lewis did not involve himself in politics, Irish or British. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I have finally found the time to read much of the discussion before the RfC random invite went out. As edit dialogue goes, this discussion has been quite civilized. I suppose the greatness of Lewis warrants fussing over the details of his life. :) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thankfully Wikipedia doesn't do voting. In reponse to other articles: Wikipedia states we do not enforce conformity, and in regards to Wilde - he was an Irish nationalist so it makes sense to call him Irish, and Joyce and Shaw are rooted in the sphere of the Irish literary tradition - C. S. Lewis as far as i'm aware wasn't. C. S. Lewis is rooted in English literature, and even taught it.

To answer your question DonaldRichardSands - there was only one nationality (citizenship wise) pre-1922 for the United Kingdom and that was British. It was (and still is) frequent for people within the UK to refer to their ethnic nationality, i.e. English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish, to distinguish themselves from their fellow nationals - just the exact same as Americans who would say that they are Texan or Californian within the USA however when abroad are more likely to say that they are simply American. So a careful distinction needs to be kept in mind especially for when Lewis states he's Irish, as he is always doing it in contrast to the ethnicity of a fellow national, most often English. The question we should be asking is how did C. S. Lewis describe himself internationally, if he ever did?

These ethnic tags don't eqaute to citizenship, and WP:MOSBIO states we do not state ethnicity unless it is relevant to the article - and in this case it isn't as Lewis never made a big deal out of it in his life, and there is no evidence that C. S. Lewis accepted or exercised a now defunct Republic of Ireland law that stated that anyone born before 1922 on the island of Ireland was an Irish citizen.

The previous discussion came to a conclusion that no-one objected to - as he was a British citizen, and as he was from Ireland, we call him a British etc. etc. and state at the end he was from Ireland. That was a good compromise which all accepted - well obviously not the IP/FormerIP.

Mabuska (talk) 10:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC) "So the IP gets an account and uses it to essentially vote twice? ". Eh, are you accusing me of sockpuppetry? I don't have an account. You do realise that citizenship ≠ nationality? It is possible to have one citizenship and another nationality, which is not the same as ethnicity.89.100.150.198 (talk) 14:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, as I have pointed out previously, Lewis was also an Irish citizen. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I think anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Lewis would conclude that he would have identified himself as both Irish and British. He would obviously have been a British citizen. He would not have been a citizen of the Irish Free State/Éire/Republic of Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 11:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, he was also an Irish citizen Irish nationality law#Historical provisions. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
For seven out of his sixty-five years. Mooretwin (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Seriously? Are we going to have this exact same discussion every 6 months? A consensus was reached. It's time to move on. Do you guys have any idea how silly this whole thing looks to people who are not from from (I don't even know what to say here so as to not offend someone). If we spent half as much time improving the article as arguing about nationality, this would be a featured article. LloydSommerer (talk) 11:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Problem is there's no apparent rhyme or (especially) reason to describing Lewis as "British". It is just not normal to describe Irish people as British just because they were born before 1922. The reasons that have been offered are that he taught English literature and that he is not steeped in Irish culture (I beg to differ). These are (more than) incredibly weak reasons. Lewis is an Irish-born writer who self-identified as an Irishman. Does he need to have been buried in a pint of Guinness or something? What distinguishes his case from the cases of all the other Irish writers born before 1922 who are described as "Irish" in the leads to their Wikipedia articles? --FormerIP (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid you have entirely missed my point. There are only a dozen of you who care about this, and you reached a consensus that didn't really please anyone but that you could all grumble about and live with. I've watched you guys do this every few months for years. You should all do something more productive with your time. Just sayin'. LloydSommerer (talk) 11:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't know anything about past discussions. If a compromise has been agreed previously, that was foolish. --FormerIP (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I suppose we can re-invent the wheel every few months if the consensus demands it, as long as people are willing to put this much energy into these few words. But aren't there much bigger battles to fight in other skewed and unjust spheres in this enormous world? Seems like a mountain made of a molehill, but those who choose to fight these battles can certainly make their own decisions on that. Sngourd (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • British - this has been discussed to death previously. His passport was British and there is no evidence that he identified exclusively as Irish. Yworo (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Isn't that asking for a negative to be proved? He might also have be described as Welsh by the same reasoning. The only thing we know from sources that he did identify as is Irish. --FormerIP (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
No, it's not. For example, Dylan Thomas is identified as Welsh only because he insisted on being identified as such. If that were not the case, we'd put British on his article as well, because the nationality of the passport what is generally preferred in the lead sentence, unless some compelling reason to do otherwise is provided. You've not provided such a compelling reason, and neither has anyone else who has proposed making this change. Yworo (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
The thing is that AFAICT no other significant Irish writer is described as "British" in the lead to their article. Why does the stuff and nonsense about Ireland having been under British rule and this thing about the subject having to have positively insisted on not being called British not apply in all those other cases? --FormerIP (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Irish - You're right, FormerIP. Contrary to Yworo's self-created rule, it is not necessary that the subject must have positively insisted on being called British. Although I agree with those who are concerned about this issue being rehashed every few months, I must agree that Lewis is more properly described as Irish. 174.99.127.20 (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes really, considering how many more sources call him British, and the fact he spent almost half (the last half) of his life outside of Ireland and considered County Down (in Northern Ireland, United Kingdom) his homeland? Mabuska (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
More sources call him British?. Compare these Google returns: [12], [13]. --FormerIP (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
So FormerIP you point out other articles and make other points, yet when i answer your statements and refute them, you don't respond to it and decide to rehash some of the same points you made despite them already being answered? Do you not like the answers i provided and wish to avoid them as they put holes in your own weak arguement? Obviously you will ignore and gloss over the point i made about what did he describe himself as internationally, not domestically within his own country (UK) as anytime he uses "Irish" he is simply doing it to distinguish from an English person etc. not from an American or Australian.
And you say a compromise is foolish? Then obviously you mustn't believe in one of the core foundations of Wikipedia - collaboration. It essentially means when arguements arise, compromises should be made to find something everyone is willing to accept. If you wish to push an opinion without being willing to compromise, then your will not get very far.
If you don't like what was agreed to, then that's your right, but you and the IP would need to get a consensus to change it, and so far there is clearly no consensus at all for a change, and you've failed to provide a compelling reason for any of us to change our minds and agree to a change.
Heck we could of called him an Ulsterman due to the amount of sources that called him that as well... so instead of rehashing the same arguements only a few comments apart, please concentrate on trying to refute my refutes of your arguements, otherwise your only showing your arguements as being as weak as the arguments you claim others are. By stating he is from Ireland, does it not imply that he would be Irish in the sense that he is using the term - to denote where he is from? Why must it be explictly declared in the lede at the expense of British? Is there a partisan reason behind it?
In response to the IP's statement "You do realise that citizenship ≠ nationality" - if you read my comment you'll see i clearly define what i'm on about when i use the term nationality, which can both mean citizenship and ethnicity. I suggest you read and fully comprehend other editor's comments. Also nationality states that nationality is usually determined by citizenship - but it is a poor article with few sources. Mabuska (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Mabuska, really! You haven't "answered my statements and refuted them at all". What distinguishes Lewis from all other significant Irish writers, who do not seem to be described as "British" in their leads (examples: Oscar Wilde, W. B. Yeats, George Bernard Shaw, James Joyce, Samuel Beckett, Patrick Kavanagh)? --FormerIP (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I already answered that above and you glossed over it so as stated please fully read other editors comments before replying. Though here's a clue - you responded to me on me stating him teaching English literature - the answer to your question is in that comment. Though on your new examples: W. B. Yeats was an Irish senator for two terms. Patrick Kavanagh lived and died in the Republic of Ireland. So they can be both clearly called Irish. Beckett is one i don't have an answer for, however each article is different and depends on previous discussions/agreements or editor involvement. Mabuska (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Mabuska, do you have any evidence whatsoever for this alleged difference between his "domestic" and "international" descriptions of himself? 89.100.150.198 (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Simply as English/Scottish/Welsh/Irish are not nationalities in the sense of citizenship, they are ethnic nationalities or toponyms. What evidence is there that he is using Irish as a nationality of any sort and not simply as a toponym to state what part of the UK he is from in comparison to another part? It's purely WP:OR and WP:Synthesis for you to suggest he is, just like it is for me to try to judge what exactly he may be referring to. Also we don't state ethnicity per WP:MOSBIO unless its highly notable to the article - in this case it's not. It is for Oscar Wilde as he was an Irish nationalist.
Any example provided over his "self-identification" deals with comparisons between Irish and English. There is none so far that i see where he calls himself Irish in comparison to an American or Australian etc. (actual nationalities in terms of citizenship) As i already stated and as it appears you've both glossed over - you would call yourself a Texan or Californian etc. to a fellow American to distinguish what part your from, however you would simply state your American to someone from another country.
Still no consensus for change. Oh yes (yet) another point you've both glossed over - we already state that he was from Ireland in the article. Does that not imply that he would also be Irish without having to explicitly state it? What does Irish mean? At its most simplest it means someone from Ireland - why the need to explicitly declare it at the expense of British? Does the term British offend? Why must it be erased despite the fact he was a British citizen and lived and died in the United Kingdom? Mabuska (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Since when do people go around making multiple comparisons discussing there nationality compared to various other nationalities both within and ourside the UK for future wikipedia editors' convenience? They don't. You're simply assuming that Irish/ English/ Welsh/ Scottish/ Northern Irish aren't "real nationalities". Citizenship isn't any more "real" than any other definition of nationality. "Irish" isn't his ethnicity. Ethnically, he was Anglo-Irish - Welsh. Why the need to explicitly declare him to be British at the expense of Irish? Does the term Irish offend? Why must it be erased despite the fact that he was an Irish citizen and described himself as Irish? 89.100.150.198 (talk) 01:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
He was an Irish citizen? That's news to me. JonCTalk 10:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Irish nationality law#Historical provisions. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Irish He is Irish, he was quoted as it, he is known in international circles as being Irish not British, Ireland was also not partitioned at the time, it was known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, all Irish people self-identified as Irish as they were, it is like saying William Wallace is British, if Lewis cannot described as Irish at all, it is best to leave out any mention of nationality to avoid future conflict. Sheodred (talk) 11:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Neither, we shouldn't bother with usage British or Irish. He was a novelist, leave it at that. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Irish It is what he self identified as as shown above. Mo ainm~Talk 21:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Common practice is to give people born in the UK as English, Scottish, (Northern) Irish or Welsh For example, compare with George Orwell, Rudyard Kipling or Aldous Huxley, who are given as English; Kenneth Grahame and Irvine Welsh, who are given as Scottish; W. B. Yeats, James Joyce and Seamus Heaney, who are given as Irish; Dylan Thomas or Rhys Davies, who are given as Welsh. It is common practice to give the nationality of people born in the United Kingdom as English, Scottish, Irish (or Northern Irish) or Welsh. --RA (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Irish as per common practice, per RA above. --HighKing (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Irish as per above. But have no problem with neither either.109.78.219.43 (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • British, though my personal preference is for "Irish-born British", as the lead used to read and as is used in some other articles for people with similar biographies. (See past discussions for my reasoning with regard to the matter.) I wish most of all that people would cease to bring the matter up and edit-war over it, but that seems to be impossible. Deor (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • This argument is lame, I mean, both or neither why you ask? To avoid discussions like this. He strongly identified as Irish, in the way he worked, his personality and his background. His nationality defined by Citizenship is British. Why not have both, or neither, that is the best option. People have strong opinions on either side. We must represent this by consensus, not by which side creates more straw polls or writes the most in capital letters. Both opinions are valid. Have them both. Or neither. --Nutthida (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
GoodDay stop with the BS comments, they are not helpful. Mo ainm~Talk 09:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Write about GoodDay's behaviour here, a collection of GoodDay's disruptive behaviour, flaming, baiting, trolling; [[14]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.50.2 (talk) 10:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Can you say 'block evading editor'? I knew you could. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

As per suggestions here, and the general lack of consensus for a single approach, I've moved the text in question to a different suggestion and dropped it from the lede. I expect some will object, but I also expect for most people, this is a reasonable compromise. --HighKing (talk) 12:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

*Peers out of the bomb shelter* is...is it over? I sincerely hope so. I think we have a case of silent consensus now. The current layout works and looks very well. Plus, it also un-cluttered the lead, C.S was a *lot* of things. --Nutthida (talk) 08:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Another day, another article that violates WP:MOSBIO because the ideologues and IP-hoppers have kicked up a stink. Why don't we just start calling everyone an Earthling? That should do it. JonCTalk 13:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, I don't know about any of that and I don't want to, but lets not forget WP:IGNORE and WP:UKNATIONALS. I live in Oxfordshire half of the year when I'm not in Thailand with my partner. Maybe I could go and converse with C.S Lewis at his grave site which I have visited many, many times. Perhaps then we can reach a solid conclusion. Whose for a seance? No but in all seriousness, perhaps we could archive these sections and add a dispute resolved box? MAYBE? --Nutthida (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Love the way other editors ignore totally valid and good questions on matters and stick to pushing the same old half-baked arguements. I suppose trying to answer my questions would only show the great flaws in the logic of the opposers - only reason the questions must be continually ignored. Other than that, WP:UKNATIONALS is not a guideline, it an essay - a failed attempt at a guideline, it has no authority. Removal altogether of any mention of citizenship (British) or ethnicity (Irish) i can live with for now, despite WP:MOSBIO stating we shouldn't state ethnicity anyways unless its relevant. Mabuska (talk) 16:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I have not been pushing any half-baked arguments, nor have I been pushing any POV. Mentioning Uknationals was actually me trying to point out you can't go along with the "He was born in the UK, therefore he must be British" argument. And I have not been involved in the removal of anything, I made one edit to the page. Well one. >_> --Nutthida (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
That comment wasn't directed at you. It was directed in general to the whole topic. Mabuska (talk) 11:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • British - It is utterly ridiculous that this is being discussed once again, and even more daft that people feel a need to create ANOTHER topic about this!

The facts have been repeated time and time again, and I fail to see a need to explain myself once more when my responses are already on this page. No-one has brought anything new to the table, the pro-Irish source fails to contradict his Britishness, and so the result is going to be exactly the same as it has for the last few years.

C.S. Lewis was British. 90.196.241.38 (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

If that's your view, then why do you keep trying to insert Irish in the infobox? GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Because I'm not? Please could you actually take a look at my edits before making a claim like that, I have quite clearly been maintaining the status quo (i.e. inserting British in the info box). Maybe you're thinking of the wrong user? 90.196.241.238 (talk) 02:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
My apologies. All these back-and-forth reverts can get one mixed up. GoodDay (talk) 02:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. Just realised I sounded more rude than I intended; apologies for that also. 90.196.241.238 (talk) 02:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:C._S._Lewis/Archive_6&oldid=1079508963"