Talk:C. S. Lewis/Archive 7

Style Guides
Most of the discussion under comment above is for the style guide pages not for here. In this case the style guides are very clear. If born before 1921 then we use Ireland not the UK for nationality. We also have a second policy relating to personal identification which is also pretty clear. As far as I can see that means he is an Irish novelist, and in the info box he is also from Ireland, the citizenship issue can be a footnote (per guidelines as well). Running battles on individual articles do not help. -- Snowded TALK  19:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That's doesn't mean that you and others aren't being complete jerks. Oppose votes are regressive. They delay progress and don't have any useful purpose. In situations where there are multiple possible solutions, it's the amount of support that each proposal gets that should determine the weight given to it. I've watched this circus time after time: editors who simply want to disrupt make no proposals of their own but only load up constructive suggestions with negative baggage. We know what they don't like have have no fucking idea what they actually want. Go run it your way, there will never ever be a consensus outcome. I will write an essay on the matter and get the polling and talk page policies changed until a constructive multiple-proposal-support-only-poll can be run anytime someone suggests it, and running ones are even kept for contentious article leads, changing when the weight naturally changes over time, with the article always implementing the consensus. It's so much more effective than the complete rubbish polls that are held now and regularly disrupted by oh-so-polite-but-intentionally-disruptive editors. Yworo (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yowro, I recommend you follow Snowded's advise. Propose changes at the MoS page. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You are entitled to your opinion about polls Yworo, but your personal attacks really need to cease -- Snowded TALK  20:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There's no personal attack here, Snowded. There is a logical construction with two negatives. The sentence "That the sky is blue doesn't mean that the moon is not made of green cheese" in no way implies that the moon must be made of green cheese. Read it how you like, but it attacks no one. Yworo (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well there may be a parallel universe where "complete jerks" and "intentionally-disruptive-editors" are not personal attacks, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you may have been eating the cheese when you wrote it :-)   -- Snowded  TALK  10:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * ANy further comment on the style guides please -- Snowded  TALK  10:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, here are the two points you made in the "Can we all reach consensus on the issue" thread above:
 * Per this MoS which is linked from WP:BIOG people's place of birth if born before 1921 is to be Ireland.
 * Also we have [|specific 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.)
 * With regard to number 1, I don't really see that it is relevant to this discussion: the article has never said that Lewis's birthplace was anywhere other than Ireland (other than the occasional drive-by "Northern Ireland" edits that are quickly reverted). With regard to number 2, the matter of "expression of preference" is more complicated than some folk want to make it (perhaps as a result of the prominence of the "My Irish life" section in the article). People may self-identify their nationality differently at different times and in different contexts; consider the first sentence of this excerpt from a published biography. Lewis certainly had an emotional attachment to the place of his birth and childhood, but that doesn't mean that he identified his nationality (and certainly not his ethnicity) as "Irish" always and exclusively.


 * What this article (which is far from perfect) needs is more editors who are primarily interested in Lewis and fewer who are primarily interested in Irishness and Britishness. The everlasting squabbling over a few words in the lead has, I'm sure, driven contributors away in the past and will continue to do so. Deor (talk) 10:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a trivial distraction and it's sad that this keeps happening. There isn't much point appealing to the WP:MOS as it isn't mandatory and when describing British people editors have various options. Usage will vary naturally with the subject. The usual emphasis is on consistency within an article rather than between articles and Lewis as "British Irish" as opposed to "Irish Irish" is certainly complex enough to justify an exception to a mindless cookie cutter approach. Comparisons with other biographical articles aren't necessarily valid and talk of precedents violates WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I notice the contemporary re-branding of Lewis as Irish to try to bury his Britishness has got to the point where Americans are now often astonished to find from recordings that he spoke with an almost cockneyfied English accent. The matter of Lewis's nationality has been discussed repeatedly in almost obsessive detail on the talk page in the past when editors decided that simply labelling Lewis "Irish" would be potentially more misleading than the alternatives, given the historical context and the change in usage in line with nationalist politics. Years have passed and yet people are still repeating the simplistic old canards and edit warring. Lachrie (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know what past discussions you are referring to Lachrie, but I haven't seen anyone bring up anything that suggests Lewis' case is in any way special or complex. He was born in Ireland to Irish parents and self-identified as Irish. He certainly didn't speak with a "cockneyfied" accent, but with an extremely posh, only very faintly Irish accent. I can see how this might lead Americans (and even non-Americans) to mistakenly assume that he was English. But it isn't Wikipedia's job to bend reality so as to avoid educating them.--FormerIP (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If you haven't read the past discussions, there's not much point your commenting on them. Lewis wasn't an Irish Nationalist, unlike most of those identified as Irish writers who lived in England, and he did speak with an English accent, but certainly not a posh RP or Oxford accent, as some of the vowels are very London; they certainly don't sound Irish, and the Americans who were surprised by his accent obviously hadn't assumed he was English, so your reply is an illogical non-sequitur. Lachrie (talk) 05:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

There was a solution in the article - he was called British and it said that he was "from Belfast, Ireland". By the very fact he is from Ireland makes him Irish geographically so is there a need to explicitly declare Irish seeing as Irish is often used to simply mean someone "from Ireland"? Why does his "Irish" ethnicity need to be explicitly delcared at the expense of his British citizenship? Ivor Stoughton's post above is still being ignored by those who don't like the fact it clearly backs up my comments that Lewis never identified as Irish over British but only in constrast to fellow ethnicites within the UK - English/Welsh/Scottish.

Regardless of that to stop the endless arguements the current lack of mentioing anything may be the best way to go whether i agree with it or not. Mabuska (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The point of having a style guide is to prevent constant reiteration of the same arguments on different talk pages. THis one breaks out from time to time and in my experience over the last year or so, has mainly been people removing "Welsh", "Irish" or "Scottish" in favour of British.  The last campaign as I remember it was on boxers.  Ivor's point doesn't really have traction - the material in the article shows that he emphasised being Irish as against English (nationalities not ethnicities by the way) in the context of going to Oxford.   No mention of Welsh/Scottish.   As FormerIP says it seems very straight forward, maybe not as clear as O'Tool or Thomas where the self identification is more heavily documented but still clear.  -- Snowded  TALK  19:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "The material in the article shows that he emphasised being Irish as against English"—exactly so, during one period of his youth and early manhood—whereas in Surprised by Joy he wrote, "I have made up the quarrel since, but at that moment [his arrival in England at the age of 9 to attend Wynyard School] I conceived a hatred for England which took many years to heal" (italics mine). What he didn't emphasize was being Irish as against British. Deor (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Which was it? English or British? GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The point is he emphasised being Irish. Also remember the time period - English/British often meant the same thing (still do for many) but that is not the real point.  If he called himself Irish (which is what the evidence so far says) then that is what he is.  Most of the various artists, sportspeople etc who identify as Welsh, Irish etc. would not deny that they are British as well, the point is what is their primary identification.  -- Snowded  TALK  20:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you bother to click on the link to the excerpt from Sayer's biography that I included in a comment above in this thread? Deor (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the Clare article is pretty cleat that he identified as Irish "within the British scheme", while Lewis himself certainly did reflect on the nature of Irishness, Englishness and Scottishness in his letters. (I confess I haven't seen anything he may have written on Welshness, however). Otherwise, I think Lachrie's points above are well made, and it is in any case quite clear that there is simply no consensus around the question of Lewis's nationality, or indeed on how or whether the style guides should be applied in this instance. In the circumstances, I agree with Mabuska that the article is best left as is, without a "nationality" field in the infobox, and describing Lewis as being "from Belfast, Ireland" in the lede.Ivor Stoughton (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The style guide needs to be changed to British being the primary identification. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Whilst in the perfect world articles should state the actual citizenship above ethnicity, such an idea won't get far on Wikipedia GoodDay. Whilst it appears one or two editors would like to use WP:OR and WP:SYN to suggest Lewis is identfying as Irish over British despite no concrete evidence, i would like to hear (or should that be read) their opinion on just leaving it out of the article altogether? Its a reasonable compromise, or is compromising out of the window? Also still ignoring my points on what difference is their between "from Ireland" and "Irish" as at its simplest it means the same thing Mabuska (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Says the editor who when I said the same about the use of "from Northern Ireland" or "Northern Irish", argued they weren't the same. Mo ainm  ~Talk  22:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I never did argue they weren't the same, i argued there was no need to change one for the other in articles where 'Northern Irish" already was used just to suit your opinion of removing the term "Northern Irish" in your belief that it implies it's a nationality despite it being simply a toponym. Mabuska (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So they are the same thing, but yet you argue for one and against another? Is that because of a loyalist POV? Mo ainm  ~Talk  14:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Now, now, Mo ainm, please don't distort previous discussions. I argued for retaining what was already in the affected articles rather than changing the wording just to suit your opinion on the matter. I didn't argue for one against the other in the way your implying, i argued that there was no need to change what was there as they are the same - something you didn't accept. Mabuska (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The stuff about identifying as Irish "over British" is just a red-herring. You'll be asking for triplicates signed in his blood next. The point is just that he identified as Irish. Where is the evidence that Wilde, Joyce, Shaw etc identified as "Irish over British"? It's an absurd standard. --FormerIP (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wilde was an Irish nationalist so it would be a bit absurd to call him British. Mabuska (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the difference is that, although some of them lived in England, their nationalist sympathies are reasonably well-documented, or their work is more closely identified with Irish literature, making the identification as Irish less problematic, whereas Lewis was a Tory and a Unionist, who as well as Irish by birth and early upbringing also declared that he was Welsh by ancestry, "more Welsh than anything", if I remember the quotation from the article, so a British writer from Belfast seems the safest summary for the lead. The overtly political emphasis in a term like Irishness has grown to the point where a lot of Unionists now reject it. Since Irish in the Unionist sense and British aren't mutually exclusive terms, "British writer from Belfast, Ireland," seems less potentially misleading, and any ambiguity as to an ethnic self-identification can be cleared up in greater detail later in the article. Any consensus to change from "British" does seem unlikely. Lachrie (talk) 05:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Still no comment from the objectors to the idea that has been implemented in the article of just stating nothing? Or should we just take it as silent consent that maybe stating nothing is best? Mabuska (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Do not jump to conclusions Mabuska, and just to point out to you and Lachrie, Political ideology does not solely determine one's nationality, and it is very ignorant to imply that. Sheodred (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Nationality obviously isn't readily separable from politics, especially in the Irish case, where it was re-established officially in the twentieth century through a political campaign. To be sure, politics is one factor to be considered, among others, including the subject's contribution to English literature, English residence, and English religion, as well as the British civic nationality previously discussed. Lewis was both British and Irish. Of the two, British has been preferred, as in this case it presents no contradiction with Irish, and it's less potentially misleading since the term Irish has been increasingly applied to denote a separate political nationality and allegiance. The childhood Irish connection is extensively detailed in the article. Any ambiguity in the lead is dispelled by the description "British writer from Belfast, Ireland", which is a fact and hardly unmentionable, as it's relevant to his identity. It's not so complicated as to justify omission. Since there's no consensus to change the lead, it obviously shouldn't have been, prior to discussion, which has anyway been lengthier and more far-reaching in the past. The long-standing construction is properly inclusive, adequate and factual, and not seriously objectionable, which in this imperfect world is as much as anyone could hope for. Lachrie (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Lachrie, a few editors spouting off nonsense arguments doesn't equal no consensus. --FormerIP (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's just another irrelevant non sequitur. Lachrie (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As you may of noticed some editors can't accept and follow the policies behind things such as WP:CON and keeping an article the way it was whilst a discussion/arguement on a proposed change is on-going per WP:BRD until a consensus for change is found. The fact your reimposition of the stable version until the discussion has ended was POV reverted by an editor who has failed to get involved in the discussion says it all. Mabuska (talk) 11:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Basically, it's passive aggressive edit warring. It's a breach of the spirit and the rules. If we don't revert we're just allowing articles to be attacked by a small activist cadre. If it's attacked again, please just revert. But I think we do need to seek outside intervention. Lachrie (talk) 03:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Lachrie, stop it. Get outside intervention if you like, but it is obviously not appropriate to be reverting to your preferred version in light of the discussion. --FormerIP (talk) 03:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're not helping your case. But it seems you're determined to edit war, forcing through a dubious change to the article without consensus, through sheer persistence. I don't know why Britishness has suddenly become a taboo. Removal of ordinary information in a misleading way perpetrates a lie by omission. You don't own the article and you've got no grounds to remove long stable content in the absence the discussion here resulting in a new consensus to replace the old one. We will have to seek intervention as otherwise this could contininue indefinitely, week in, week out, until somebody notices and we can get another clear ruling from the larger community. Lachrie (talk) 04:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP your position is untenable and unsupported by policy. Per WP:BRD - a change was bold, it was reverted, so it must be discussed. There has been no consensus to change from the long standing stable version (which stated British) and leaving it blank with the following message: "Leave blank until ongoing disputes have been resolved and Consensus reached, see talk page". Your constant reverting from the stable pre-arguement version is more a case of "reverting to your preferred version in light of the discussion" than Lachrie. Mabuska (talk) 11:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the "say nothing" version has been a stable compromise and appears to have consensus as a holding position. It's clear from the above discussion that consensus isn't with "British". Maybe it's not with "Irish" either. --FormerIP (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * False, on all counts. Your new preferred version doesn't "say nothing". It's not a "say nothing" version. It's a "not British" version. It says that the subject was from "Belfast, Ireland" and suppresses the usual reference his nationality in a way that seems intended to mislead. Your new preferred version isn't stable; it isn't a compromise, and it doesn't represent a consensus, new or old. It's a disruptive edit which is being imposed against a long-standing consensus. You’re in breach of procedure and the spirit of Wikipedia. Incredibly, the rule you're now trying to invoke is the very one you're deliberately breaking. Your disruptive editing will have to be reverted, and community intervention sought if you persist. Lachrie (talk) 13:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * @ Lachrie where do you get the idea that an intro reading "was a British novelist" was any sort of stable consensus version? Mo ainm  ~Talk  13:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There was a detailed discussion years ago, after which the wording was stable for ages before it was suddenly attacked, so until and unless a new consensus can be agreed, its removal should be reverted on sight as edit warring. What's happening now is that disruptive users, having failed to achieve a new consensus on the talk page, are going ahead anyway, trying to reverse the proper procedure, putting the cart before the horse and jumping the gun by making a disruptive edit, against the old consensus, wrongly reverting the return to the status quo, in breach of the rules and the spirit of the community, which are supposed to be based on consensus. Lachrie (talk) 13:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you provide versions from the last 12 months with an intro like the one you say is the consensus version, as consensus has changed since whenever your talking about and could you provide a link to this discussion too.  Mo ainm  ~Talk  13:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Unnecessary. It's in the archives and the article edit history; demanding more of your fellow editors is an unreasonable request. When it comes to editing, the onus is on those making a change, not those just keeping to a long-standing status quo. Lachrie (talk) 14:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Again could you prove that is the "long-standing status quo". If it is, you should be able to do it easily. I have looked at the article history and the archives and can't see any evidence to support your claim, so now it's up to you to prove it. Mo ainm  ~Talk  14:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it matters either way. The article was put into its current state, quite clearly, as compromise solution which doesn't push either side of the debate. There have been a lot of eyes on the page recently and it has proved stable (until just now). --FormerIP (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The facts can be more easily checked just by looking. What you're doing is disputing a claim, without presenting evidence to challenge it. You're trying to reverse the burden of proof, asking me to waste my time by doing your work by putting together a presentation for you. It's a diversion, another attempt to reverse normal procedure, which is what's been going on here by edit warriors refusing to respect community consensus. The bottom line is that there is no community consensus to remove "British". The pre-existing version was stable for ages, the outcome of interminable discussions which can be found in the archives, and it shouldn’t have been removed without consensus by some edit warrior. This one's method is to wait until others aren’t looking and then absurdly to misrepresent his own disruptive edit as some kind of a compromise based on a new consensus. He's only got away with it so far because other people aren't edit warriors themselves, and so have refrained from using the same tactics he uses, against him, by immediately reverting without waiting for discussion or soliciting further consultation. It's obviously a reversal and abuse of procedure, and his disruptive editing should be reverted. Lachrie (talk) 14:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You are making an assertion which I cant find in the archives/history, obviously you have found it, you wouldn't make it up now would you, so share it with us. Mo ainm  ~Talk  14:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I've got better things to do than your homework. As I said, it seems a pointless digression, which I’m inclined to dismiss, since I don’t think your claim has any merit anyway. I suggest you try a little harder, before demanding extra and unnecessary work from fellow editors, on the basis of a dispute you’ve introduced for us yourself. My recollection is that the existing wording has been stable for at least a year or more, and that it’s only been in the last couple of months that the article has been persistently attacked. I don’t really feel the need to spend the next half an hour trawling through the edit histories to confirm something I’m already satisfied about when you can do that yourself, if you genuinely doubt it. If you have evidence that contradicts my memory, let’s see it, but otherwise I’m really not that interested in your unsupported claim, because it goes against my recollection.  The discussion is boring enough as it is, being about an abuse of procedure by an edit warrior, rather anything of substance about the subject of the article. Again, all these antics just show up the shortcomings of Wikipedia, where committed activists can hijack an article and give it an obvious slant which isn’t found in reliable references, and then try to entrench it by reversing and abusing normal procedure.  Lachrie (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you've been known to fabricate quotes you attribute to living people I think we'll need slightly more than your word, so how about some evidence? I have checked and can't find anything no it is possible I missed something but seen as you are quoting it you obviously have read it. Mo ainm  ~Talk  15:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Your actual argument here having failed, you’re now rummaging about for bits of rubbish with which to make irrelevant incoherent personal attacks, lifted from somebody on another talk page years ago who appears to have been making wild claims I've never noticed before, of little substance, from nitpicking about a short and ambiguously-worded newspaper article. Curious that you should find time to do that but not to actually read the talk page archive here. The disruptive edits to this article have been misleading, so I suppose it should come as no surprise that some of the comments on this talk page are as well. I’m definitely not going to be sidetracked by yet another spurious diversion, no, particularly as you've now placed your own good intentions in doubt. Lachrie (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Referring to his nationality as British is indeed the consensus, reached on several occasions that this discussion has been restarted over the years. The only reason you think that the recent omission of the nationality is a compromise consensus is that most of the contributors to past discussions have been worn down and moved on. (Added) I think the only approach that has a reasonable chance of success is just to state the facts without trying to squint at them: He was a writer of British nationality, born in Ireland of largely Scottish and Welsh ancestry, whose education and career were largely spent in England, but who retained a strong sense of Irishness all his life. -- Elphion (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think past consensus is... relevant now? I don't understand how anyone can possibly agree to not mention his Irishness, - which he strongly identified with - in the lead - isn't that central to who he was as a person?. What I also find bizarre is how his legal citizenship is not mentioned, which is unquestionably British O.o Ah well, my view of Irish Nationality along with British Citizenship is...not going to happen anytime soon. And everyone, please don't overlook the fact the man strongly identified as Irish! :) and I'm not sure ancestry matters all too much. --Nutthida (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think everybody's aware that Lewis identified as "Irish" from childhood, which is why his birthplace is given prominence in the lead. He also said he or his family were "Welsh as much as anything". That he was also British is relevant to his life and work, and isn't a controversial point, and shouldn't be suppressed in a way that actually tends to mislead. It wasn't suppressed until the recent disruptive edits, which will have to be reverted, as there's obviously no consensus for them. Lachrie (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'd just point out that evidence regarding his citizenship has not been provided by anyone (i.e. we don't actually know what country's passport he held after 1922). --FormerIP (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * His Unionist political views really make that unnecessary. Lachrie (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * How so? In any case, I don't believe any evidence has been provided that he had Unionist views. We know that as a young man his was a Nationalist and it appears that when he was older he preferred not to talk about it. --FormerIP (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, well, you should read the archives. -- Elphion (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but this is just ridiculous. It speaks volumes. In other words, you don’t actually know anything about C.S. Lewis or his views, and apparently you haven’t even bothered to read the article which you’ve been edit-warring on and about for weeks, and trying to impose your amazingly uninformed view upon, over the heads of the rest of us, who at least know rather more about the subject than nothing at all. No wonder some people say Wikipedia is a fake encyclopaedia. Yes, Lewis was a Tory and a Unionist. For a start, you could actually try reading the article. Lachrie (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't say anything about how Lewis voted or who he supported. But you're evading the point. Politics don't necessarily dictate citizenship or national identity. To want to write the article based on your assumptions, even if you think they are fair assumptions, is what is ridiculous. --FormerIP (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * When I was at Oxford I read C. S. Lewis’s published correspondence. It’s full of political comments. There’s absolutely no doubt about his political views. You’re simply appealing to your own ignorance and a sense ambiguity which in reality doesn’t exist. The article mentions C. S. Lewis’s Unionist views. He was British and Irish, and standard reference works overwhelmingly classify him as a British author partly because of his background and politics, but also more because his work forms part of the corpus of mainstream English literature.


 * C. S. Lewis was of British stock from Ulster. He didn’t use the term Irish the way you have been when you suppress reference to his Britishness, wrongly to imply some kind of mutual exclusivity. C. S. Lewis was notable as a British author, and the fact you don’t know that or at least say you don’t is simply your fault, for which the article and its readers should not suffer. It’s already been given a false emphasis, which others like you which a misguided ethnic agenda are apparently trying to build on through selective editing.


 * It’s actually astonishing that you have had the temerity to hold an article hostage and cast aspersions on more serious editors, and it turns out you don’t know anything about C. S. Lewis. I can only conclude that some nationalist bias on your part and the very fact you don’t know anything about C. S. Lewis are the only reasons you’ve been doing this. Now you’re condemned by the absurdity of your own comments. You haven’t even bothered to read the article you’re holding hostage and arguing about, or the talk page archives, and wasting everybody’s time as a result.


 * It’s really quite outrageous that you’ve been reversing and abusing Wikipedia procedures to force editors far more knowledgeable than you to dance to your tune for weeks. It’s also strange, almost inexplicable, that up to now you’ve been getting away with it. You don’t own the article, and your edits are simply ignorant and misguided, so they will absolutely have to be reverted. They should have been already. You’ve been inflicting frustration and exhaustion on more serious editors, and wasting our time as well as yours. Only your incessant edit-warring has delayed the inevitable reversion of your nonsense edits.


 * Please stop messing with the article. I have to ask other editors to help me revert your recent edits, which have no consensus support, for good reason, because they’re completely ignorant and indefensible, and transparent nonsense. Lachrie (talk) 08:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Lachrie, I doubt that you will get your way by tantruming. --FormerIP (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You don't know anything about the subject of the page you've hijacked, and you're breaking and reversing ordinary procedures about consensus. You haven’t got a relevant answer, so you try to dismiss the question. I'd much rather be working on Allegory of Love. Overall this is quite a poor article, but the time that should be given to improving it is wasted arguing trivial points with illiterate philistines, edit warriors and trolls, messing with subjects beyond their competence, who break the community’s rules, routinely and often with impunity, because there simply isn’t enough consistent participation by competent people. This page’s failings exemplify what’s wrong with the Wikipedia model in general. In a word, hooliganism. It’s a bit naive and idealistic to expect everybody to behave and act in good faith. Instead a huge amount of effort is devoted to gaming the system for destructive purposes. Lachrie (talk) 05:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Note that the mooted text in the introduction that mentioned "Ireland" but suppressed "British" failed WP:NPOV and and shouldn't have been added since wasn’t based on a new consensus, anyway. Lachrie (talk) 11:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Where is the discussion that lead to this so-called consensus? I can't see it on this talk page or in the archives. So where is it? 86.185.19.189 (talk) 12:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * We have to revert to the stable prior version which was based on consensus until a new consensus can be reached here. Discussion has been going on for a long time and can be found in the archive. It is rather strange that an unregistered IP quoting policies should suddenly appear out of the blue and repeatedly tamper with the article, without any discussion on the article talk page, and then post threatening messages on my own page. I suspect this is a sockpuppet being used to game the system, and if the behaviour persists it will have to be looked into. Lachrie (talk)


 * Your changed wording mentions "Ireland" but excludes "British" in the intro, and obviously fails WP:NPOV. In any case, as you've been advised, you shouldn't be changing the text from the old consensus until a new consensus can be reached here, so I'm afraid you will just have to be reverted again. Lachrie (talk) 12:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Lachrie, keep in mind that the IP is not responsible for the wording. Neither am I. It's an attempt negotiated between a number of editors to calm things down by denying both sides of the debate what they want. And, your good self notwithstanding, it seems to have worked. Even if it might not be the ideal text, it will do in light of the fact that such is not currently achievable. I think it supersedes any alternative consensus from the past. But, in any case, I don't think you're doing a very good job of demonstrating that such a consensus ever existed. --FormerIP (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I second (third? fourth? fifth?) the request for a link to a discussion about when this "consensus" Lachrie claims was reached. The lead was (seemingly, if there's an earlier "stable" [sic] version please provide a link) changed to just British in this edit in June, when the talk page looked like this. There was no discussion leading up to the edit, no compromise, no consensus, no agreement, it was just made and it's been edit warred over ever since. 2 lines of K  303  13:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

There was consensus about a year or so ago to change the lede to "Irish-born British", if that helps. This was the least contentious and most stable option we had as it referred to both his Irishness and his Britishness, albeit not in a perfect way. I remember this quite vididly as I was the one who pushed the change through (before an account), and that lede remained stable for a very long time.

Whoever changed it to just being British made a bit of a balls-up, to be honest. I could see an edit war like this coming from miles off if it was ever removed. The lede is a bloody powder keg, and I was sincerely hoping nobody would remove his Irishness from the lede. Now that it's happened though, I think we need to start establishing consensus again; it would be quite hard to simply go back to "Irish-born British" at that point.

For the record though, throughout all the times we've established a consensus over the years, and at the conclusion of every argument, the result has never once been to omit "British" from the lede. There is a very good reason for this. Freyno (talk) 03:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Also for the record, the lede as it stands now is nothing more than temporary. It only exists as it does to calm the edit war down, nothing more, and is utterly unnacceptable as a permanent lede. So I recant my previous statement; should consensus prove to be impossible to reach here, we shall revert back to the last stable option decided by consensus - "Irish-born British".

Again, omitting "British" from the lede is wholly unacceptable, so I suggest we all get a move on before another edit war becomes not only unavoidable, but necessary. Freyno (talk) 04:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Article protected from edit warring
There's been an edit war over which (quasi-) national adjective to apply to Lewis. The article itself (and very possibly the wrong version of it) is protected for three days. Meanwhile, this talk page is the place where people without an axe to grind should put forward their evidence and reasoning and decide what should be done. -- Hoary (talk) 12:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Discussion has been intractable and restarts periodically, with precious little reference to C. S. Lewis himself, and without building on previous discussion in talk page archives. But to repeat: I think we have to try to be as inclusive as we reasonably can. The existing compromise has been to describe C. S. Lewis as "a British writer from Belfast, Ireland", which fairly acknowledges his Britishness and his Irishness: his contribution to mainstream English letters, his British context and his place of birth in Ireland. Leaving out either his Britishness or (perhaps to a lesser extent) his Irishness from the introduction creates a possible WP:NPOV situation. Since Lewis is usually classified as a British author, emphasising his regional birthplace in this way in the introduction is in itself a significant concession to the Irish minority perspective, and a deviation from convention, as he wasn't a nationalist writer. But that wording or its equivalent is less misleading than the anti-British alternative that is being wrongly mooted, and "British writer from Belfast, Ireland" is at least factually accurate, and relatively stable, because it's more inclusive, and it does seem to be the most reasonable compromise suggested to date. Lachrie (talk) 13:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I could make many comments on that, but as I intend to keep out of this discussion, I'll instead just say one thing. You distinguish between your wording and an "anti-British alternative". A wording that seems to emphasize Irishness rather more is not necessarily anti-British, just as one that seems to emphasize it rather less is not necessarily anti-Irish. Please concern yourselves with the matter of wording and not with imputing motives to other editors. -- Hoary (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No, that argument is really based on a misunderstanding of conventional usage, as omitting it while including an explicit reference to Irishness does tend to imply (falsely in this case) a nationalist author. That's the net effect of its removal here, and why it fails WP:NPOV, and why such a construction was rejected from the most inclusive, stable version, as being obviously misleading. Lachrie (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * To no one in particular: While I have a view on this matter, I just want to say that trying to lay claim to Mr Lewis is not the way for anyone to help the article, if anyone was familiar with the man or his writings they would realise the only claim he submitted to in life and death was from his God. So if you have no interest in him or what he wrote why are any of the "claimers" even here trying. I certainly won't be taking sides on this, but I know a good source which could be quoted and would probably resolve the matter for those who actually want to resolve it rather than just argue.DMSBel (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The existing compromise has been to describe C. S. Lewis as "a British writer from Belfast, Ireland", which fairly acknowledges his Britishness and his Irishness What is wrong with you people... Sheodred (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, but "what is wrong with you people..." is a bit indiscrimate :-) I have been trying to help with article for some time (see above), completely ignoring this little matter, but sadly some editors are only here till they get their way on one issue and don't want to actually improve the article. I have many Lewis works, volumes of correspondence, secondary works about his writings, biographies and articles on my bookshelves. I have also helped a little with the compilation of an archive of Lewis's works now stored at a local library. But I really get disheartened reading page after page on this one issue, as I said if anyone here doesn't actually have an interest in the topic beyond "claiming" Mr Lewis, then please just leave for what is it to you what nationality he was, and why do you care if you are not the slightest bit interested in him beyond that. DMSBel (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What I still find amusing is how his citizenship...is left blank, when it's not even been contested here. Lewis was Irish in his personal preference. His heart, mind...whatever the hell you want to call it. But he was very unionist. Correct me if I'm wrong - but arne't there unionists alive today who identify as Irish and unionists? Dare I say even British too? Come on people, the situation is pretty clear with C.S Lewis - his personality, pride, and life were all distinctly Irish. His political positions were unionist/British. DMSBel, I strongly agree on analyzing and learning about the kind of man Lewis' was...I think, because of his evident strong position to being known as Irish should take presidency over his political opinions. No where did he write about a sense of Britishness as he did to being Irish. His tongue-in-cheek (really, he did not hate the English, his best friend was one) attitude towards the English, as funny as it was, shows his personal pride, influence and personality as Irish. His literal style, was Irish? His influence in writing was Irish wasn't it? Mhh? --Nutthida (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

He most certainly did identify as being British, actually. Furthermore, while he did indeed stress his Irishness, that was in contrast to Englishness rather than Britishness - identifying as Irish contradicts his Britishness no more than someone identifying as Scottish does. They are not mutually exclusive, especially in C.S. Lewis' time (i.e. being born before the partition of Ireland and before the Good Friday Agreement - not that he would have renounced his British nationality anyway).

You are right about one thing though Nutthida - his citizenship is very clear indeed, and it is British. Just as the citizenship of every Englishman, Welshman and Scotsman alive today is British, so was C.S. Lewis'. Whether or not he stressed his Irishness over his Britishness (which he didn't) is inconsequential with regards to citizenship, and with his place of birth being within the borders of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (and living all his life within the United Kingdom), he was a British citizen for the entirety of his life. So yes, his citizenship is not up for debate.

As for his influence in writing and writing style being Irish, on the contrary, it was British if anything. After all, his most famous works (the Narnia Chronicles) were substantially influenced by JRR Tolkein. Not that it means anything of course - his influence could have been Estonian for all it matters, that would not determine his nationality or citizenship to any degree and it is irrelevant within this context.

The suggestion put forth by Lachrie is the most stable compromise possible. In an ideal world his Irishness would not be stressed as it has the potential to lead people to falsely believe that he was anything other than 100% British, but wikipedia tends to be about compromise so I strongly back that suggestion.Freyno (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I really don't know whether I want to get involved in this. I nearly commented a few days ago, then backed-off as the dispute has clearly a number of participants who are simply wanting to claim him for their side. It's rather tedious. To say it again Lewis was a christian, and so ultimately his allegance was to Christ, not a national identity. Pretty much all his works dealt with literature, christianity, and morality. As a scholar he was a professor of medieval and renaissance literature, as well as sixteenth century literature, that was his area of professional expertise. As a christian he was an apologist for Christainity. As a moralist he was an apologist for Natural Law. None of those areas are Irish or British, or any other nationality. That he went to the Church of Ireland as a child, and was a member of the Church of England after his adult conversion speaks strongly of an Anglo-Irish background. And in fact this accords well with the what writers on the subject, those who knew him say.


 * For instance, in regard to politics David Bleakley has written that: "The truth of the matter is that Lewis was too diverse a man to accept the traditional confines of any one political party..."
 * And in regard to culture: "CS Lewis, of course, was never "home bound" even in his earliest days. He was always aware that he was part of a wider culture and, though conscious in the early 1900s that he was witnessing history in the making, he was also intellectually aware of the Anglo-Irish culture to which he belonged and to which his people had contributed."


 * If that doesn't put an end to all this arguing over whether he was either Irish or British, I am not sure what will, short of sanctions for disruption.


 * Re Narnia: the inspiration may amongst other things have been County Down as much as his friend JRR Tolkien unless I am mistaken. Takes all the interest out of reading his books and books about him when one is reading them to try and "prove" something like this one way or the other so I am not going to bother trying to prove it. If there is going to be further debate I support Anglo-Irish over either British or Irish, as that seems to accord with most sources. But if it stays as it is that is fine with me also. DMSBel (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

"Yet although the Lewis brothers always considered themselves Irish, and in particular Ulstermen, only the maternal line could claim Irish roots dating back more than two generations". The notion that Unionist equals "he considered himself British" is also a false one. Ian Paisley says "and I am an Irishman because you cannot be an Ulsterman without being an Irishman", or would people disagree that Ian Paisley is in fact a Unionist? 2 lines of K 303  13:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Never! (humour) :-)DMSBel (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My great grandfather, like the only non-Jewish/Israeli member of my family, was a fierce Unionist, but a proud Irishman. Yep, they exist. You may certainly describe Lewis as a Unionist, and Irish. I'm not keen on talking about the British question anymore. I hate grey but not so grey areas. --Nutthida (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Not quite sure what you mean. Based on David Bleakley's comments who knew him quite well and who was a member of parliament, Lewis never espoused any strong political opinions, Anglo-Irish better describes the culture into which he was born, than either Irish or British.

DMSBel, while I appreciate your reasonable and unbiased approach to this, I still have to say that much of this is not relevant. His religion is of no consequence when debating his nationality, and his allegience to God does not mean he cannot be regarded as British or Irish; I mean, someone could dedicate their life to the worship of Keith Chegwin for all it matters, that doesn't mean they suddenly lack a nationality. It doesn't matter how strong a national identity he felt either - it does not matter whether he is patriotic, nationalistic or completely apathetic towards either country, as these are not things which determine nationality.

It does not matter whether he held complex or transient political beliefs, it does not matter whether or not he felt "home bound" or however he felt. Such things do not determine nationality.

Also, "Anglo-Irish" is not acceptable, for three reasons. Firstly, "Anglo" implies ethnicity rather than nationality, as that is a race of people as opposed to a national identity. It would be akin to calling a notable black American person "African-American" in the lede, a term which does not imply dual nationality with any African nation (and thus, in this instance, does not imply Britishness in any sense of the word). It is also important to mention that ethnicity cannot be included in the lede.

Secondly, he was not "anglo" in any sense of the word. He was not English by birth nor descent, he was Irish with regards to both - and as Ireland was a fully-incorporated part of Britain throughout his entire life (or at least the part that he hailed from was), this by extension means that his nationality is BRITISH. I think this is what most editors against calling him British fail to understand - he is British BECAUSE he is Irish.

And this brings me onto my third point - while he is indeed Irish, he was still 100% British. At no point in his life was the part of Ireland he lived in anything other than British. It was a fully-incorporated constituent country of the United Kingdom - and therefore, just as every Englishman, Scotsman and Welshman alive today are British also, every Irishman in his time had British nationality. They were not mutually exclusive terms when he was alive. He did not have dual nationality and they are not on equal footing, and in the context of C.S. Lewis it is akin to calling someone "English-British". We must not stress his Irishness above or on an equal footing with his Britishness - he was never "Irish" in the modern sense of the word, i.e. he was never part of the ROI, and was British from the time of his birth to the moment of his death.

It is important to remember that the unified Ireland was a British Ireland, and after the partition, the part from which he hailed from remained British. Therefore, his Irishness never contradicted his Britishness, and compliments his nationality no more than being English would.

Also, I would posit that the Narnia Chronicles were far more influenced by Tolkien than anything else, simply because of its fantasy roots. It is well-known that the primary influence of just about every work of fantasy following The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings draws more influence from Tolkien's efforts than from literally any other source. Find me a mainstream, non-satirical fantasy novel that has minimal Tolkein influences and I'll ram a hubcap up my nose.

Oh, how I wish this argument would just die :( Freyno (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Freyno, if you can site some sources that JRR Tolkien is the main influence behind Narnia, I'll accept what you say, otherwise it is WP:OR. The immediate inspiration, the "picture in his head" as he refered to it was there from long before he met Tolkien. In terms of other writers the inspiration is Edith Nesbit "Jack enjoyed E. Nesbit's stories about how magical things happen to ordinary children and he deliberately tried to capture the same mood when he wrote The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe."Brian Sibley - The Land of Narnia (page 11) And he was writing Boxen and Animal-Land stories from childhood, he didn't meet Tolkien till he went to Oxford.


 * My point about his faith was that while nationality can I am sure be attributed to him, the feverish way it is being argued about here places far more importance on it than Lewis may have. Of course having a faith doesn't mean he had no nationality. But in regard to Anglo-Irish, this is a cultural designation and I am drawing this from a book written about Lewis, by a man who knew him well David Bleakley. You don't have to be born in England to be to be part of the Anglo-Irish culture. Ireland had been a colony of England from 1169: "The land that CS Lewis was born into in 1898 had been England's oldest colony for most of modern history; since 1169 there had been a long and often tragic colonial experience...By the time of Lewis's birth the island, though deemed to be one administratievely, was deeply divided culturally and politically." At home in Ireland (page 75). I hope I am understanding it.DMSBel (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, you can't really call WP:OR on something that has no relevance to the topic. If we were including this in the article or using it to back up a point then of this would be the right thing to do, but we're not, so I can quite happily point out that every single fantasy novel, film or video game to be released since The Lord of the Rings draw their primary influence from Tolkien. As we are just discussing this (which we shouldn't really be doing anyway) then I am quite able to do this without relying on sources, I can just state the fact for what it is. Also, that source refers to an English author, so that doesn't back up the claim that he was primarily influenced by Irish sources. As for the thing about faith, yes I agree that his nationality is given far more emphasis here than he wwould have given it. However, it is an important thing to establish in the article, not just to ensure that the article is fully accurate but on principle. The fact that it is a difficult subject to understand, along with the strong feelings such a topic will invoke, ensures that this will be a contentious subject for years to come. I don't like it either, but hey ho :/

Hopefully this can be sorted soon. Freyno (talk) 03:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Irish-born" is potentially misleading as it suggests he ceased to be Irish and became British, when he was always both. In present usage, "Irish author" or "author from Belfast, Ireland" convey a false impression that he was a nationalist writer. The ambiguity is misleading. Saying he was "British author from Ireland" or some variation thereof is the best we can do, which is why that form of wording has been relatively stable. Most sources describe him as a British author, but there's also no reason not to mention that he came from Ireland, especially since it's a point of sensitivity for some. I'm reverting to the stable wording which was changed without consensus. Lachrie (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well he certainly wasn't a nationalist, I don't think you can identify him as such with his tongue-in-cheek attitude towards the English. But he was certainly proud to be Irish. I really don't want to be involved with this anymore but on the subject of consensus, it's muddled, confused, and awkward - the talk page is a mess, mainly thanks to rampant stagnation :( --Nutthida (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It's obviously a grievous point that needs to be handled with due sensitivity and in an inclusive spirit. Lewis was “Irish”, albeit not in the more exclusive nationalist sense of “Irish”, that would be implied by removing “British” from the introduction while at the same time keeping the reference to “Ireland”. The term “Irish” has been largely co-opted by nationalists to the point that Unionists seem reluctant to use it as a self-descriptor, because of the ambiguity it creates. Lewis was both “British” and “Irish”. There’s no perfect solution here, but “British author from Ireland” is concise, factual, and the least ambiguous, and does seem to offer the best compromise. There shouldn't be a problem as long as the introduction mentions both. Lachrie (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Lachrie, that's not a compromise you're suggesting. The article is currently at a compromise. --FormerIP (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Such reasoning is perverse. It's also a blatant reversal of normal Wikipedia procedure. Suppressing the long-standing reference to "British" from the introduction, without consensus, while retaining the Irish references clearly isn't balanced, or a reasonable attempt at a compromise, and it gives the misleading impression that he was an Irish nationalist. It's also edit-warring. Lachrie (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don’t know if the attack on the article is being made by an individual using sock puppets or this is a concerted campaign by a small pressure group, but it's clear the only hope for a stable solution is administrative intervention and a formal ruling by the larger Wikipedia community. Lachrie (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I still come to date of birth and the manual of style.  On that he is Irish.   Self identification makes it more problematic but British is clearly wrong. -- Snowded  TALK  20:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Edit summaries are supposed to be accurate, not merely expedient to the change being violently forced through. The sad state of the talk page disproves any false claim of a new consensus. Most reliable sources regard Lewis as a British author, for reasons that have been endlessly detailed on this talk page for years. As a Unionist he self-identified as Irish in a different sense to the impression of a nationalist writer that's conveyed when one removes the term "British", while retaining the "Irish". Again, it has to be stressed that this is being forced through without waiting for a consensus to develop on the talk page. The suggestion that he wasn't British is simply absurd and propagandistic, and an insult to our intelligence. Lachrie (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You need to calm down, its not a simple matter. The manual of style says that born in Ireland before 1924 means Irish.   I don't see that a case has been made that this should be an exception.    it doesn't mean that he wasn't British by the way, that misses the point -- Snowded  TALK  20:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that you yourself are misapplying a dubious and simplistic guideline in a way that obviously misleads. Your argument is not consistent with your action. It's paying lip-service to a rule while betraying community standards. The standard works of reference have no investment in a parochial propaganda war. That Lewis was a British author, and ordinarily referred to as such by literary critics for various good reasons, his work, his politics, his place of lifelong habitation, is indisputable. The article has faithfully reflected that fact in a relatively stable form of wording until it was removed without waiting for consensus, so as to introduce an unnecessary ambiguity for doubtful purposes. If all authorities agree he was British, and nobody actually disputes the fact, there's no good reason to remove a stable and more accurate version, especially as the removal is being forced through without consensus. It creates a misleading impression for readers, that he was definitely Irish but somehow might not be British. It's ridiculous, and a deliberate reversal and abuse of standard procedure, which shows contempt both for the sources and ordinary community consensus. It will have to be reverted until we have some kind of decisive administrative intervention. Lachrie (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You might want to check out WP:AGF and in respect of your edit summaries WP:NPA. The reason we have style guides is to get some consistency across a range of articles and to reduce conflict.   Born in Ireland before 1924 and the style guide says Irish.  He worked for most of his life in England and there are various contradictory sources about his own self-identification (contradiction that is reflected in a lot of his writing).   Making reference to his place of birth and to Oxford is a better holding position while we try and find a solution here.   But you really need to cool the language.  "Originally an Irish writer who spent the bulk of his career in Oxford" might be one solution.   A later section showing the references to his emphasizing Irish, and the reverse might also help.  -- Snowded  TALK  21:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm utterly sick of this, but I'm unwilling to let "Born in Ireland before 1924 and the style guide says Irish" pass unchallenged, Snowded, I'd like you to point me to the exact place where any WP style guide says that the nationality "Irish" should be used to characterize any person born in Ireland before 1924. Deor (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I summarised it here -- Snowded TALK  23:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The style guide you linked in point 1 there deals with identifying people's birthplace, not their nationality. We have always identified Lewis's birthplace as Ireland rather than Ireland or Northern Ireland, so that advice has no relevance to the current discussion whatsoever. Please stop citing it as if supported your position. Deor (talk) 23:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It also discusses nationality, for example it specifically excludes the use of "Northern Irish" and gives examples where people are described as Irish in the context of biographies. -- Snowded  TALK  07:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it says not to call someone Northern Irish before Northern Ireland existed, but it does not "discuss nationality" and it certainly does not say "Born in Ireland before 1924 means that we call a person Irish". The examples you refer to give no guidance on when to call someone Irish, as they are explicitly used only to illustrate the treatment of terms such as nationalist and unionist. The simple fact (as I'm sure you're aware) is that no MOS page gives any guidance on the matter at question here because no proposed guidance—for instance, that recorded at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies/2007-2008 archive: British nationality—has achived consensus. Deor (talk) 08:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The examples it gives after the 1924 statement are ones of nationality definition in lede type statements.  He would have been called Irish before and for that matter after 1924 and in general he asserted it with some exceptions.   How about  An Irish author who lived and worked in Britain? -- Snowded  TALK  18:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In other words, you’re going to amazing lengths, bending over backwards and jumping through hoops, just to suppress the word "British" in the introduction, to remove the ordinary and innocuous umbrella term which was devised to cover just such a case as this, and the one which is usually employed by the sources in reference to C. S. Lewis. For some reason you can’t disclose, you’re determined to take it out, even though you can’t deny its application to C. S. Lewis is correct and accurate, even though there’s no consensus to remove it, even though taking it out is plainly misleading, and even though the nationalist alternative that you’re happy to retain in the article is politicised, and doubly misleading when used here on its own for a writer who was certainly not a nationalist, but a Unionist, and one who should not be portrayed as a nationalist, slyly and indirectly, through such a lie by omission. And the all while turning procedure on its head, reversing it so that the change precedes the consensus, then falsely claiming a new consensus, and pretending to lecture other editors on manners and policy. All the while violating much more fundamental rules than the solitary straw from a silly arbitrary style guide that you’re grasping at in desperation, and misapplying to a case where far stronger counter arguments obviously apply. Even if there is such a guideline in the style guide, which is yet to be established, all you've done is highlight its inadequacy, or your overly simplistic use of it, in a more complex case, where the weight of reliable sources suggests using British is simpler and more appropriate. Perhaps if you were return to the stable version of the article and not attempt to change it again without consensus, it might be possible to take your posturing seriously. But until then, it simply isn’t, and the article ought to be reverted until administrative intervention can be obtained. Lachrie (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Read WP:Civil, at the moment your polemic is not attractive and if you edit war on top there is only one outcome. Style guides exist for good reason on Wikipedia-- Snowded  TALK  23:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Notice* Freyno has now been permanently blocked for sock puppetry. --Nutthida (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Reading through this talk page, everything Lachrie says makes perfect sense. This is exactly the kind of editor this article needs; good on you.

C.S. Lewis was born in Britain, and the part of Ireland that he was born in has remained a part of Britain to this day. His nationality, throughout his entire life, was entirely British. The article in its current state is not a compromise but the result of bad-faith nationalistic vandalism, and must be changed. Anything other than mentioning he was British in the lede is unacceptable, factually wrong, against the rules and downright ridiculous.

It must be changed at all costs. Freyno (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

In addition - Snowded, your contributions are nothing but a blight upon this article. You have been highly contentious, and your suggestions are both factually wrong and highly problematic in terms of achieving a peaceful consensus. Your point of view is highly ignorant and is doing nothing but perpetuate a protracted and highly unnecessary argument.

In good faith I urge you to step out of this discussion, as you are making it extremely hard to reach a reasonable compromise. Freyno (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Freyno warned (twice) about threats to edit-war on his talkpage, as well as the personal attacks above.  Acroterion   (talk)   15:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The edit war will be justified in this case. Luckily it won't be much of an edit war though, as much of what we'll have to deal with will be vandalism.

And those are not personal attacks, please read it again. There is nothing in the rules against giving someone's edit habits some criticism. Freyno (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Moving on, I think it's high time we had another go at gathering consensus. Hopefully this will all be done and dusted soon. Freyno (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Various facts, just so they aren't missed
2 lines of K 303  10:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) The version Lachrie is edit warring to impose is not the stable consensus version. This edit was where the original change to just "British" was made, when the talk page looked like this. There was no discussion leading up to that edit, no agreement, no consensus, it was just changed and it has been edit warred over ever since. Saying "British" is the stable version is not supported by the facts, and future assertions of "stable" and "consensus" without supporting evidence should be ignored as fantasising.
 * 2) There has never been a consensus on Wikipedia about how the nationality of people from the UK (and particularly Ireland) should be stated, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/2007-2008 archive: British nationality.
 * 3) "As a Unionist he self-identified as Irish in a different sense to the impression of a nationalist writer" appears to be complete fantasising, and almost incomprehensible.
 * 4) Simply stating someone's birthplace as Ireland without describing them as "Irish" and/or "British" does not give "the misleading impression that he was an Irish nationalist", at least not in the opinion of 99.999999999% of the editors here I hope?
 * 5) Being Irish and British are not mutually exclusive. In the same way, being English, Scottish or Welsh and British are not mutually exclusive. I could point out diffs from a certain editor that show the inconsistency being displayed here if anyone really wants?
 * 6) "Yet although the Lewis brothers always considered themselves Irish, and in particular Ulstermen, only the maternal line could claim Irish roots dating back more than two generations". I've already dismissed the Unionist argument above, or is Ian Paisley not a Unionist?
 * 7) Edit warring over British/Irish or similar in articles about Irish people is very much covered by the Troubles 1RR restriction, which I see Lachrie has been notified of. I won't bother reporting it this time, but I will be doing if it continues.

And a couple of facts that you have missed:

1. British has ALWAYS been part of every consensus reached, in every single instance over the years. Pointing out his nationality as British has ALWAYS been stable and it has been for years. However, it always included his Irishness in the lede.

2. The last times consensus was reached (I got it wrong last time) - the lede was "British" with "from Ireland" at the end of it. This is what we will probably end up going with again if consensus cannot be achieved again. This is in archive 5, and the edit was made by Jonchapple.

3. Before then - and it was stable for about a year - it was "Irish-born British". Again, the consensus is clearly that the man was British. This will never change and thus the article never truly will either.

4. He identified with being Irish, but just as those who identifies with being English or Scottish or Welsh, this is NOT in contrast with being British and does NOTHING to contradict that his nationality is still BRITISH.

5. The fact that there is no consensus for how we represent the nationality of people of the British isles is exactly why we always go with British. We are able to critically analyse the situation without any restraints, and as he is undeniably British, the article is maintained to include that.

6. Saying that he is "from Ireland" whilst neglecting to mention that his nationality is British gives the false notion that he was Irish as opposed to British. No-one will think he is a nationalist because of that, but they WILL think he is from the ROI instead of the United Kingdom, which is wrong whichever way you look at it.

It seems clear from consensus that we must show that his nationality is British and include his Irishness in the lede as well. I suggest we do that before we are forced to revert to one of the two previous versions of consensus, which will most likely cause an edit war. Freyno (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Well.
This place has gone really quite? Tis the season for some of you after all. I'm not asking to re-open any debates here, but I was going to suggest sometime in the not-too-distant future of re-opening it. Because stagnation and lack of any real agreement as a result is actually not the way this place is supposed to work. Maybe in the new year. --Nutthida (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sometimes you just reach the end of the war and that's where the county line ends up being. But OK. Have a nice Xmas (if you are an Xmas kind of editor) and see you in the new year.--FormerIP (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm Jewish, so a no on that ;) and slowly but surely, the bot will archive this page, and these discussions will fade into memory... --Nutthida (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I concur with restarting the debate - we are still minus a notable person's nationality, and that isn't something we can let lie.

In the new year, we should really get round to finish what was started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.115.244 (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)  - comments by blocked sock irrelevant to consensus forming struck. 2 lines of K 303  11:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no need to re-open an end the issue. We don't have to state a nationality - geo-political or ethnic wise. Rather we can just leave it up to the reader to make up their own mind by looking at his place of birth and judging for themselves. Mabuska (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, the nationality issue should be left alone and editors should concentrate on improving the article. There is enough material available and enough public interest in the subject that this should be at least a WP:GA article. Why are so many editors wasting their time on trying to label or unlabel a man who can't speak for himself with a nationality that he might argue against if he could! All the time and energy wasted could be put to good use for the sake of the encyclopedia and the readers. Agadant (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, surely Irish is probably the best way to describe him... Wait, yay, more stupid edit warring (1 user, just 1) and I'm in total agreement - so much material for you greater editors to work with here. In its current state, it's highly readable.--Nutthida (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

No, British is definitely the best way to describe him. That is beyond debate. This article needs to be sorted out, and soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.247.252 (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC) - comments by blocked sock irrelevant to consensus forming struck. 2 lines of K 303  11:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What I will request is that when this discussion does inevitably re-start I want to see high levels of civility. I know I'm not one to talk about that but I'm talking about myself as well. --Nutthida (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I happened to be looking at the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction Web site yesterday and noticed that Lewis is there called a "UK author and critic". Since he did, in fact, live his whole life in the UK, perhaps saying that in the lead would be a reasonable compromise that would allow the massed British/Irish forces to both save face. Deor (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Just an idea, but since people are changing birth place from Ireland to Northern Ireland, could a " (Now Northern Ireland) " be put in after Belfast, Ireland as I have seen this used on other pages and it seems to minimise the edits in that case. Just an idea Dontforgetthisone (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Incorrect changes can eassily be reverted. Adding that qualifier is just as incorrect, as "Ireland" is not "Now Northern Ireland". 2 lines of K  303  10:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So you'd have no problem with "now in Northern Ireland? Somehow I think not. — JonC ॐ 10:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ireland is now in Northern Ireland? Somehow I think not. 2 lines of K  303  10:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're really going to go down the "splitting hairs over grammar" route? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and AGF as perhaps your brain works differently to the rest of the English-speaking world's, but no-one else in their right mind would read "Belfast, Ireland (now in Northern Ireland)" as meaning that Ireland, rather than specifically Belfast, is now in Northern Ireland. — JonC ॐ 10:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Deor's idea i think is genius - why not just say a UK author etc. etc. meaning no nationality is mentioned at all and no-one can deny he was born, lived, and died in the UK. Mabuska (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Because "UK author" sounds borderline illiterate. "UK" isn't an adjective or denonym, it's a place, a noun. Was Jules Verne a France author? Gaudi a Spain architect? Kaiser Bill a Germany monarch? British is the correct term for something "of the UK". — JonC ॐ 21:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It would appear that the correct term is the problem for some. Mabuska (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed - "Yet although the Lewis brothers always considered themselves Irish". 2 lines of K  303  10:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed—"Although he regarded Ulster as his homeland, Clive Staples Lewis denied being Irish". Deor (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I wondered where that source was at, couldn't remember for ages. Mabuska (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "and in particular, Ulstermen" is how your quote is meant to continue on it would seem. Should we call them that instead of Irish or British? Mabuska (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a nationality, so we wouldn't use it, per WP:OPENPARA. --FormerIP (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It was hyperbole, not an actual serious suggestion. Anyways we aren't meant to use ethnicity unless its notable to the subject of the article - yet it would appear that is what those who don't accept the use of the term "British" are suggesting. British is his nationality citizenship wise, Irish is his nationality ethnicity wise - unless there is concrete proof that he changed his citizenship. Mabuska (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Irish is Lewis' nationality based on the fact that he was born there and that's what he said his nationality was. His ethnicity is a different matter, and would be based on his heritage (it looks like this may be mixed Welsh and Irish). --FormerIP (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * * Shakes head* - i'll assume you didn't fully grasp my comment. Mabuska (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Assume away, so long as you don't assume that describing contrasting Irish as an ethnicity with British as a nationality holds water. --FormerIP (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Version 1
I have finished researching an addition for the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis but have discovered that I would need to be autoconfirmed to add it, since I am a newish contributor. (There has been an editing war on this page about an unrelated issue, viz. whether Lewis was Irish or English.) Should I now ask a more senior editor to vet or post my contribution?

By the way, I don’t understand why placing 2 single quote marks on either side of a title does not always seem to produce italic text.

Here is what I had composed. It is intended to follow the paragraph ending "somewhat to the disappointment of Tolkien, who had hoped that he would convert to Roman Catholicism." in the section headed Conversion to Christianity:

In later books of Christian apologetics Lewis described himself as having been strongly atheistic until rational arguments forced him to move towards Christianity. His The Problem of Pain (1940) begins “Not many years ago when I was an atheist, if anyone had asked me, ‘Why do you not believe in God?’ my reply would have run. . .”  Numerous Christian websites describe him as having been an atheist or even “a militant atheist” for many years, until logic forced him towards Christianity; and hence he is sometimes called “the apostle to the sceptics”. However, this view of his conversion is not universally accepted; and none of his works that have so far been made publicly available advocate atheism. Some of Lewis’s own accounts are also ambivalent. Thus he mentions in his chapter on “Faith” in his book Mere Christianity (1952) that “When I was an atheist I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable”.

Marcia Conifilia in a detailed article “C S Lewis: Convert or Revert?” argues that Lewis was always strongly drawn to Christianity, and that he was not once but twice re-converted to Anglicanism: first, after a period of youthful rebellion fuelled by experiences in “various Dickensian boarding schools”, and again after the loss of faith that followed Joy Davidman’s death. She argues that, “Lewis's own reminiscences betray not so much a former atheist as a mind steeped in Christian assumptions from his childhood in Ireland.” ; and she sees him as an example of a “horseshoe pattern of conversion”, in which a person returns, after a period of resistance, to a childhood religion that has formed their way of seeing the world. She also notes that the argument put to Lewis during the late-night walk with Tolkien and Dyson, which so shook his atheism, was not primarily a rational one. Rather, they pointed out to him that some of his emotional responses to literature and mythology were already more like those of a Christian. .

Marcasella (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The doubled single quotes don't work their magic if separated by spaces; I fixed two cases of that in your text above. For ordinary single and double quote marks, the Manual of Style prefers straight ones rather than the typographical versions (see MOS:QUOTEMARKS), but I have not changed those. "Numerous Christian websites" is a very weak source, begging for  or  .  Indeed, the claim that "logic" forced him to Christianity is POV, and should be attributed to a reliable source.  Otherwise, a nice summary. -- Elphion (talk) 05:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Version 2
Thanks Elphion. Good to hear you think it’s a nice summary. It does deal with a fairly important issue that is part of Lewis’s on-going legacy and so probably needs to be covered. I hope I’ve fixed the errors you mentioned, including the straight quotation marks. Is the text now ready to be uploaded? Here’s the revised version:

In later books of Christian apologetics Lewis described himself as having been strongly atheistic until more logical examination of the issues forced him towards Christianity. Thus his The Problem of Pain (1940) begins "Not many years ago when I was an atheist, if anyone had asked me, 'Why do you not believe in God?' my reply would have run . . ." Numerous websites refer to Lewis as having been an atheist "for much of his life",  or even as having been for much of his life "a militant atheist",   until logic forced him towards Christianity; and hence he is sometimes called "the apostle to the sceptics". However, this view of his conversion is not universally accepted; and none of his works that have so far been made publicly available advocate atheism. Some of Lewis's own accounts are also ambivalent. Thus he mentions in his chapter on "Faith" in his book Mere Christianity (1952) that "When I was an atheist I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable".

Marcia Conifilia in a detailed article "C S Lewis: Convert or Revert?" argues that Lewis was always strongly drawn to Christianity, and that he was not once but twice re-converted to Anglicanism: first, after a period of youthful rebellion fuelled by experiences in "various Dickensian boarding schools", and again after the loss of faith that followed Joy Davidman's death. She argues that "Lewis's own reminiscences betray not so much a former atheist as a mind steeped in Christian assumptions from his childhood in Ireland"; and she sees him as an example of a "horseshoe pattern of conversion", in which a person returns, after a period of resistance, to a childhood religion that has formed their way of seeing the world. She also notes that the argument put to Lewis during the late-night walk with Tolkien and Dyson, which so shook his atheism, was not primarily a logical one. Rather, they pointed out to him that some of his emotional responses to literature and mythology were already more like those of a Christian.

Marcasella (talk) 08:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I caught a few more curly quotes, and edited the references to use . Also introduced  to keep the references from interfering with each other. However, the main problem with this passage as it stands is that the references are very weak.  The only author of any notability is Patrick Inniss, and as a random Seattle columnist even he is not a good candidate for "reliable source".  You rely heavily on a paper by Marcia Conifilia, who gets no Google hits at all (even on the referenced site -- the article seems not to be reachable from the site's homepage).  The paper by "Mriana" (link above to the paper, rather than her forum reference to it) is a school paper posted on a personal website, and several of the other references are just comments added by anonymous users to webpages. The point you are arguing for, that Lewis was never a particularly committed or "militant" atheist, is well taken, but there must surely be evidence for that in the standard biographies, which would be far better sources. -- Elphion (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks Elphion for all that work – much appreciated. I’ll try to learn from your revised setting out of the references, which is much more elegant. By the way, the reappearance of curly quotes may be due to my trying to compose in Word – I suspect it sometimes turns straight quotes back into curly.

Re the problem of weak references, I think I have to be realistic about what I’m capable of getting done. I did a major read-up of the printed books about Lewis a few years back, but am now too rusty on them to write a survey of the printed literature on this topic without more hours devoted to chasing them up in libraries and re-reading them than I can currently afford. I’m much better on the internet materials; so what I hoped to do was to note the way the view of Lewis as a strong atheist converted by stronger logic has taken root on the Internet as almost a meme, while mentioning that there is also some disagreement or resistance to it. So the references I provided for these two sentences [''Numerous websites refer to Lewis as having been an atheist "for much of his life", or even as having been for much of his life "a militant atheist", until logic forced him towards Christianity; and hence he is sometimes called "the apostle to the sceptics". However, this view of his conversion is not universally accepted.''] are indeed weak as evidence about Lewis’s conversion, but I hope they are apposite as evidence for my description of the internet debate on that issue.

I do wish to suggest that Confilia’s article is a cogent contribution to that debate, and collects important evidence, which I don’t remember seeing assembled as fully elsewhere either in print or on the internet. Perhaps I need to find some other phrasing when mentioning adjacently the pieces by “Mriana” and Inness, which are, as you say, much slighter; yet not to have mentioned these might have made Conifilia’s thesis seem more novel than it is.

So I’m a bit unsure where to go from here. Perhaps you might be interested in editing this piece into postable shape as simply a discussion of the internet debates about Lewis’s conversion; and this might then stimulate someone who is stronger on the published works about Lewis to balance this with a sentence or two about similar debates in print (where I suspect the debates have often been more restrained or nuanced). It’s just that I don’t think I’m the person to write that bit.

Re the “invisibility” to Google of Conifilia’s article: I’ve noticed that too. Positive Atheism Magazine gets some very erudite material –- I discovered it when a friend recommended it as having the clearest detailed account of the various biblical accounts of the Ten Commandments at “Which commandments”-- yet its articles can be hard to find via an internet search. I think I remember seeing a reference to the editor having had medical problems, which might explain why Conifilia’s article has been posted seemingly without the tags the search engines need. Still, the URL works, so perhaps that makes it citeable. Marcasella (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Version 3
OK, the web references supporting "many websites refer" probably don't need to be authoritative; I've put them all in a single ref below, more or less as you had them originally (the number, though, might be overkill), and I've dropped the Google ref. I've also pulled Mriana's paper since that's not going to be a Reliable Source no matter how we cut it. That leaves Inniss and Conifilia, which are still weak. Can anybody else out there weigh in with some stronger refs? -- Elphion (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

In later books of Christian apologetics Lewis described himself as having been strongly atheistic until more logical examination of the issues forced him towards Christianity. Thus his The Problem of Pain (1940) begins "Not many years ago when I was an atheist, if anyone had asked me, 'Why do you not believe in God?' my reply would have run . . ." Many websites refer to Lewis as having been an atheist (or even a militant atheist) "for much of his life", until logic forced him towards Christianity; and hence he is sometimes called "the apostle to the sceptics". However, this view of his conversion is not universally accepted; and none of Lewis's publicly available writing advocates atheism. Some of Lewis's own accounts are also ambivalent. Thus he mentions in his chapter on "Faith" in his book Mere Christianity (1952) that "When I was an atheist I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable"; and he writes in Surprised by Joy that "I maintained that God did not exist. I was also very angry with God for not existing."

Marcia Conifilia argues that Lewis was always strongly drawn to Christianity, and that he was not once but twice re-converted to Anglicanism: first after a period of youthful rebellion fuelled by experiences in "various Dickensian boarding schools", and again after the loss of faith that followed Joy Davidman's death. She argues that "Lewis's own reminiscences betray not so much a former atheist as a mind steeped in Christian assumptions from his childhood in Ireland"; and she sees him as an example of a "horseshoe pattern of conversion", in which a person returns, after a period of resistance, to a childhood religion that has formed their way of seeing the world. She also notes that the argument put to Lewis during the late-night walk with Tolkien and Dyson, which so shook his atheism, was not primarily a logical one. Rather, they pointed out to him that some of his emotional responses to literature and mythology were already more like those of a Christian.