Talk:C. S. Lewis

Nationality

CS Lewis was a self proclaimed Irishman, as per the quote in this Wikipedia article. He was born in Ireland and spent his entire childhood there. The existence of Northern Ireland as a political entity is irrelevant to that. He does not need to be called 'Northern Irish'; simply 'Irish', which he was. "I am often surprised to find how utterly ignored Yeats is among the men I have met: perhaps his appeal is purely Irish – if so, then thank the gods that I am Irish” C.S. Lewis Quadrinity1 (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

This point has been answered many, many times. Check the archives of this talk page. —VeryRarelyStable 11:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

It may have been answered, but it isnt right. Someone, not sure who, is clearly playing an agenda. This article explains to death how C.S. Lewis may have identified as Irish, but he WAS British because of UK blah blah... However Wikipedias own guidelines tell us that he should be written as Irish and not British per [[1]]. It seems like this article is very clearly not following this guideline! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-20406-06 (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

The guideline you cite says

• However, there is no consensus on how this guideline should be applied to people from the United Kingdom.
• No variation is particular to any one nationality. Individuals may identify more closely with being "British" or with being "English", "Irish, "Northern Irish", "Scottish" or "Welsh", for example (see British people § Classification).

and

• Before making a change:

1. Consider why the existing nationality was chosen.
2. Examine the article for details that support the existing label.
3. Look for existing consensus on the discussion page, and in any archives that may be present.
4. Conduct research to be certain your choice is preferable (you can consult the guide above).

Could you please quote the passage that indicates Lewis should be described as Irish rather than British, as against the consensus of this discussion page?

—VeryRarelyStable 00:10, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

ok, well...

1. As a new editor, i cant figure out why. i can see no clear consensus among the endless arguing. There is one RfC which ends without a clear conclusion. every other argument seems to be "there was no 'northern ireland' at the time" which is expressly not allowed by this policy.

2. The article seems to show clearly itslef that he did NOT accept the label being applied here. I see no support of him calling himsefl "British"

3. Again, seems to be the biggest argument, i dont see any consensus, just a slow burning argument.

4. Seems this page does a good job [[2]] [[3]] [[4]] [[5]] I cant find much of anything at all that calls him British ouside of Wikipedia

Can anyone show sources him described as "British" in ways not excluded by [[6]] as i dont see those sources either? ~2026-20406-06 (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, since all the (many) statements of the consensus have been archived, I suppose there's no harm in reiterating it.

Our guideline is MOS:NATIONALITY, which says

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

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

All the work for which Lewis is notable – his scholarship, Christian apologetics, devotional writing and fiction – he did in England. His major scholarly opus was on English literature. In his autobiography he remembers Ireland with evident fondness, but in his other writings he rarely mentions it. In his fiction, all his real-world settings are in England, except arguably Till We Have Faces (if you call that "real-world"), which is set somewhere unspecified within the influence of ancient Greece.

I for one have been saying for years that I'm willing to concede the point if someone presents evidence demonstrating that Lewis's Irish birth is an important element of his notability in Ireland, i.e. if he's generally celebrated there specifically as an Irish writer. So far I'm still waiting.

—VeryRarelyStable 05:24, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Lewis clearly described himself as Irish, and our guidance asks editors to respect that kind of stated preference when choosing opening nationality;

• Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom (UK nationality essay: stated preference matters for the opening label.)
• Where there is evidence of a person's preference as to how his or her nationality should be indicated, this should be respected and the evidence referred to in a note.
• Self-description: "I am often surprised to find how utterly ignored Yeats is among the men I have met: perhaps his appeal is purely Irish – if so, then thank the gods that I am Irish." Internet Archive, p. n5 Internet Archive, p. 68
• Secondary: Elsevier Pure: C.S. Lewis, an Irish writer

Being chiefly notable for work in England does not, under this guidance, replace a subject's own nationality description with "British." I don't actually see any citations supporting a "British" label at all that aren't based on arguments addressed by the above guidance.

~~~~ BEFSTCp (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Neither previous nationalities nor the country of birth should be mentioned in the opening paragraph unless relevant to the subject's notability.

In all the years we've had this argument over and over, no-one arguing for change has responded to this point. Any shift to the consensus must begin by addressing it.

MOS:NATIONALITY is part of the Manual of Style, which makes it official Wikipedia policy. WP:UKNATIONALS is an essay, and has "This page is not an encyclopedia article or a Wikipedia policy, as it has not been reviewed by the community" in the header. Talk page archives are not official policy either.

—VeryRarelyStable 02:02, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

This hasn't been responded too because it doesn't apply at all.

"Previous nationalities" is not applicable. I'm unaware of the subject changing his nationality, in fact I've not seen any citations at all that he identified he's nationality as anything other than Irish. He certainly acknowledge he was a British citizen, but again, that is separate from nationality.

And, we are not looking to list his country of birth. At the time of his birth the "country" would almost certainly be the UK. If it is important to his signifigance then we should state that he is a UK born Irishman, however I feel this is not really the case, we are making a bigger deal of this then he did.

Nationality is an identity, to be defined by the person. Citizenship, place of residence, location of works done, geographical influence, are all irrelevant when defining a nationality when the subject has declared it for us.

Frankly, i am unable to open MOS:NATIONALITY it seems to just send me to endless redirects. [MOS:BIOGRAPHY[7]] provides the citation for the talk page i cited which provides:

```

The opening passage should give: ... Nationality (In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable.)

Usage notes:

3a. Wherever possible, provide evidence of a person's nationality in a note.

3b. Where there is evidence of a person's preference as to how his or her nationality should be indicated, this should be respected and the evidence referred to in a note.

3c. Otherwise, if there is other sufficient, undisputed evidence of a person's nationality, such as birth and long residence in a country, nationality of that country may be stated.

3d. If there is no clear evidence of a person's nationality (e.g., if a person was born in one country and lived and worked partly in that country and partly in another), no nationality should be stated. No assumption regarding a person's nationality based on his or her place of birth or residence should be made.

3e. British nationals – The United Kingdom is comprised of four constituent countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Although persons from these countries hold British nationality, there is consensus that if usage note 3b or 3c applies, a person should be described as "English", "Northern Irish (or Irish)", "Scottish" or "Welsh", as the case may be. In other cases, the person should be described as "British".

3f. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.

```

WP goes to lengths all over to try and handle the post-colonial world we live in and need to define. It seems this article is going out of its way to preserve his "nationality" as British, but there are clear citations that is not how he identified. What citations are used to call his nationality "British" that would toss out his own stated (well documented, even in this article) preference? BEFSTCp (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

All this has been addressed, at great length, in the archives of this talk page. MOS:NATIONALITY should redirect to MOS:BIOGRAPHY#Context, and you will find the policy I have cited in the second paragraph under that heading. That page is part of the Manual of Style. The essay on British constituent nationalities is not.

The policy cited refers to the country of birth as well as the previous nationality, saying that neither of them should be mentioned unless relevant to the subject's notability. Ireland would be Lewis's country of birth.

Nowhere at any point does the MOS policy refer to what nationality the subject "identified as". It does say that "ethnicity", like sexuality and religion, should not be mentioned unless relevant to the subject's notability – in Lewis's case, his Christianity most certainly is relevant to his notability, but his Irishness and his heterosexuality are not.

If you think Wikipedia should change its policies on discussion of nationality in opening paragraphs, I'm sure there are spaces for that discussion in talk pages on MOS articles. This is not one of those spaces. If you can persuade the people there to change the MOS policy, then you can come back here and edit the lede sentence to reflect Lewis's "identity".

Or you can present evidence demonstrating that Lewis's Irishness is relevant to the scholarly, apologetic, or literary work for which he is notable. Or that he is celebrated in Ireland as an Irish writer to the point that that's how most Irish people think of him.

But until one of those things is done, reiterating that Ireland was his place of birth or that he "identified" as Irish is repeating the same arguments that have been made on this page for years, and will achieve the same result.

—VeryRarelyStable 12:01, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

With some further reading I truely dont understand this arguement. Below I am providing sourced evidence that the subject's nationality is Irish, both by his own admission and by record, scholorly opinion, and cultural reference.

The clarification arguments almost entirely rest on his citizenship. Some of the arguments try to state there is literally no difference, which isn't factual at all.[[8]][[9]] You are once again trying to make this argument, its disingenuous at best. His nationality opposed to his citizenship was a big deal and your tossing it aside.

His "country of birth" and "previous nationality" are not part of my argument at all. If we are stating his "nationality" it is correctly stated as "Irish." Below are sources supporting this. Can you provide sources showing his nationality as "British"?

I would understand the long arguments about his residence, influence, and the like, if he hadn't specifically stated otherwise. And there is a quickness to throw this away in the clarifications, but that is a grievous mistake. At the subjects time in the UK making a direct declaration of nationally was a very considered act. This was over the time of the Irish war for

Indepence. To many, going over to England and declaring yourself an Irishman is akin to a putting on your own scarlett letter. Part of the reason this argument wont go away is because to those of the Irish diaspora, an Irishman making in big in England is a glory story like no other. The subject's declaration is huge here.

There also seems to be a default assignment of "British", but no sources or citations. As an encylopedia, when presented with the overwelming evidence to the contrary, this seems like an agenda, even if it isn't. Why are there no citations supporting "British" nationality and only long explainations on why he cant be anything but?

As for the MOS, I dont believe there is anything wrong with them. This article is way out of compliance with them, which is why I am here. I am discussing this and not making edits. This can be civil.

Subject Quotes:

- "I am often surprised to find how utterly ignored Yeats is among the men I have met: perhaps his appeal is purely Irish – if so, then thank the gods that I am Irish."

- "Like all Irish people who meet in England, we ended by criticisms on the invincible flippancy and dullness of the Anglo-Saxon race. After all, there is no doubt, ami, that the Irish are the only people: with all their faults, I would not gladly live or die among another folk."

- “I have seen landscapes, notably in the Mourne Mountains and southwards which under a particular light made me feel that at any moment a giant might raise his head over the next ridge.” He continues, “That part of Rostrevor which overlooks Carlingford Lough is my idea of Narnia.” And finally, “I yearn to see County Down in the snow; one almost expects to see a march of dwarfs dashing past. How I long to break into a world where such things were true.”n

References

- https://irishpapist.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-forgotten-irishness-of-c.html?m=1

- https://mereinkling.net/2018/08/31/c-s-lewis-the-irishman/

- https://www.cslewis.org/resource/chronocsl/

- https://www.britannica.com/biography/C-S-Lewis

- https://www.wheaton.edu/academics/academic-centers/wadecenter/authors/cs-lewis/

- https://www.crossway.org/articles/this-day-in-history-c-s-lewis-is-born/

- https://fpatheatre.com/journal/who-was-c-s-lewis/

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

- https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2007-05-09/debates/267759c5-813a-4611-a1c3-884a9ebc56e3/WrittenAnswers BEFSTCp (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Too follow up,

I understand that the Manual of Style for biographies tells us how to write the article, but it is being used to control what appears in the article. What belongs in the article is determined by Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

There are many citations in this conversation and on these talk pages that repeatedly answer the question "What was C. S. Lewis's nationality?" A number of those sources address that question directly.

This is not "additional" to his being described as "British", he was never British, and should never have been labelled as such.

According to WP:VERIFIABILITY:

In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means that people can check that facts or claims correspond to reliable sources. Wikipedia's content is determined by published information rather than editors' beliefs, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information. Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been published in a reliable source before you can add it.

The same applies under WP:RELIABLE_SOURCES:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).

Here again is a list of published sources that address the question "What was C. S. Lewis's nationality?" If there are conflicting reliable sources, please provide them. I see no supportive evidence on these talk pages,only points of view. Citations are what count; opinion without reliable sources is not enough.

• The forgotten Irishness of C. S. Lewis (blog)
• C. S. Lewis the Irishman (blog)
• C. S. Lewis chronology (cslewis.org)
• Encyclopaedia Britannica: C. S. Lewis
• Wade Center: C. S. Lewis
• Crossway: This day in history — C. S. Lewis is born
• FPA Theatre: Who was C. S. Lewis?
• Taylor & Francis journal article (DOI)
• UK Parliament Hansard, Lords written answers, 9 May 2007

BEFSTCp (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Add to basic facts

He is celebrated in the Episcopal Church on November 22. It would be interesting to someon looking at that. Fccjr (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Already mentioned in the very last sentence under "Illness and death". Deor (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2025

C.S.Lewis was born in pre-partition Belfast. He was irish, not British and should be introduced as an Irish writer. ~2025-38010-33 (talk) 10:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done Please see the many previous discussions of this point on this page and in the archives. —VeryRarelyStable 10:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2026

I propose, in fairness to the man, that his description of being "British" is amended to reflect something similar to "[Anglo-]Irish writer of British literature" as Lewis was known to correct people with regard to being referred to as "English." See below for a couple of sources mentioning such.

1) https://artuk.org/discover/stories/c-s-lewis-the-narnia-writer-inspired-by-ireland

2) https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09670880903533409?scroll=top&needAccess=true

Thank you. ~2026-18487-69 (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: See the responses to the multiple previous edit requests concerning this. Day Creature (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

The term Anglo-Irish people typically refers to an Anglican ruling class in Ireland, descendants of the Protestant Ascendancy. Lewis was not an Anglican, and he was the grandson of a Welshman who moved to Ireland during the Victorian era. Dimadick (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

"Lewis was not an Anglican"? What? Then why does this very article say

Lewis returned to Anglicanism at the age of 32, owing to the influence of Tolkien and other friends, and he became an "ordinary layman of the Church of England".

in the lede paragraph? He wasn't a member of any ruling class, but he was an Anglican.

—VeryRarelyStable 01:06, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

The article states that he became an atheist at age 15. After reconverting to Christianity, he adopted high church Anglo-Catholic ideas concerning purgatory and mortal sin. The article and the relevant source points that several of these concepts were traditional Roman Catholic teachings. I am not certain whether he counts as an Anglican, but if you can find sources describing him as an Anglo-Irish man, go ahead and add them. Dimadick (talk) 10:41, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for calling him "Anglo-Irish". I'm pointing out that he was a member of the Church of England. Is this the paragraph you're referring to?

Lewis was a committed Anglican who upheld a largely orthodox Anglican theology, though in his apologetic writings, he made an effort to avoid espousing any one denomination. In his later writings, some believe that he proposed ideas... which are generally considered to be Roman Catholic teachings, although they are also widely held in Anglicanism (particularly in high church Anglo-Catholic circles). Regardless, Lewis considered himself an entirely orthodox Anglican to the end of his life...

He may have leaned towards the High Church end of the Anglican spectrum, but he was an Anglican churchgoer and accepted as such. He was an Anglican.

—VeryRarelyStable 10:57, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2026

Apologies, I am still learning how to work here. I'll move a spirited conversation to a new post that may be better formatted.

I believe we need to adjust the opening statement from:

Clive Staples Lewis (29 November 1898 – 22 November 1963) was a British author, literary scholar and..

To:

Clive Staples Lewis (29 November 1898 – 22 November 1963) was an Irish author, literary scholar and..

The current lead does not provide a single citation to meet WP:VERIFIABILITY to label him such. The entire argument lies on opinions generated and discussed at length in the talk pages, but even there, there are no citations.

Provided here is a list of citations to meet the requirements of WP:VERIFIABILITY and covering many definitions of WP:RS:

• Encyclopaedia Britannica: C. S. Lewis
• UK Parliament Hansard, Lords written answers, 9 May 2007
• FPA Theatre: Who was C. S. Lewis?
• Taylor & Francis journal article (DOI)
• C. S. Lewis chronology (cslewis.org)
• Wade Center: C. S. Lewis
• Crossway: This day in history — C. S. Lewis is born
• C. S. Lewis the Irishman (blog)
• The forgotten Irishness of C. S. Lewis (blog)

BEFSTCp (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. No consensus has been established for this change. Deor (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Can you explain why there is a need for consensus at all? Wikipedia is not a democracy, it is an encyclopaedia supported by **evidence**. There is currently no evidence at all in this article. The talk pages are full of "consensus" with no noted **evidence**.

One of the very first things you are taught as an editor [[10]]

```

In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means that people can check that facts or claims correspond to reliable sources. Wikipedia's content is **determined by published information rather than editors' beliefs**, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information. Even if you are sure something is true, **it must have been published in a reliable source before you can add it**.

```

Many people, and I here again, have provided a laundry list of citations, from many reliable sources[[11]], that answer the questions “What is C.S. Lewis’ Nationality” This is **evidence.**

In the face of evidence there is no need for consensus, that is not WP:V[[12]].

As I am new too editing I am confused as to why this has been ignored. Can there be any **evidence** from reliable[[13]], citable[[14]] sources that supports calling the subject “British?” Talk pages are NOT WP:RS[[15]] BEFSTCp (talk) 06:53, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:Consensus.

Beyond that, the reason for the current consensus has already been explained to you. So far you have not engaged with that explanation.

—VeryRarelyStable 09:33, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I have set out below why the current wording should be changed in line with Wikipedia policy. So far there has been no policy appropriate response justifying ending this discussion with WP:Consensus, as I have stated.

The central issue is verifiability. At present, no inline citations have been provided in support of the "British" nationality label in the lead. Per WP:V (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability), article content must be based on published, reliable sources, not on editors' opinions or unpublished interpretation.

As WP:V states, material must be verifiable, and contentious or challenged claims require direct inline sourcing. Where this is absent, the material may be removed.

Consensus does not override policy. WP:CONSENSUS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus) describes consensus as decision-making while following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. So, consensus cannot be used to retain unsourced or weakly sourced claims that conflict with core content policy.

Relevant policy points:

• WP:POL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines): Core policies require verifiability, neutral point of view, and no original research.
• WP:EDITINGPOLICY (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy): Unsourced or contentious material may be challenged and removed; inline citations are best practice when adding content.
• WP:OR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research): Claims must be directly supported by reliable published sources; synthesis is not acceptable.
• WP:NOT (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not): Wikipedia is not a place for original argument, advocacy, or unsupported assertions.

Applying those policies here:

• Multiple citations have been presented in support of "Irish".
• No equivalent reliable sourcing has been provided for "British," anywhere, not the article, not the talk page. "Consensus does not override policy."
• In the absence of such sourcing, retaining "British" is inconsistent with WP:V and WP:OR and as such is out of compliance with WP:POL

If reliable sources do exist that explicitly describe the subject as "British", please provide them so they can be weighed against the provided sources. Without that, the policy-based position is to use what is currently verifiable in reliable sources. BEFSTCp (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Verifiability is not the issue. No fact of the matter is in doubt. I'm going to try explaining this one more time.

It is a known fact, discussed at length in the article, that Lewis was born in Ireland and mostly grew up there, apart from the time he spent at boarding-schools in England. There is an entire section titled "My Irish life" which describes everything you are trying to draw our attention to.

It is also a known fact that Lewis was a subject of the United Kingdom and remained so after the Republic won its independence, and after World War I – and hence after the Easter Rising – he lived the rest of his life in England. He did all the work that made him notable in England. He studied literature from many places and periods but specialized in English literature. In his fiction, every real-world setting is in England.

None of these facts are in doubt or require verification, and the only one not already mentioned in the article is the one about his fiction being set in England.

The question is which of these facts should determine the single word describing his "nationality" in the very first sentence of the article. The answer is given in MOS:NATIONALITY:

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

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

For what part of his life is Lewis notable? For the work he did in England, including the scholarship he did on English literature.

That he was Irish is a personal fact about him, and one given its due attention in the body of the article, but not part of what makes him notable. It's not as if Irish people and British people are two different species, or as if one is made of concrete and the other of wood. People are people.

Given how this discussion has gone so far, I'm writing this mainly for the benefit of future readers who may come wondering about this and not have the time to slog through the pages of archives. I wonder if there's a way to "pin" discussions on this talk page so they don't get archived? Just so that we don't have to keep going over this?

—VeryRarelyStable 00:47, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I suggest you review WP:SYNTH as you have once again provided WP:OR while once again **not** providing **any** WP:RS.

MOS:NATIONALITY

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

This is an encyclopedia, we need to provide facts with WP:V from WP:RS, no catch-bucket definition needs be used. Citations have been provided directly answering the question, "What is C.S. Lewis' nationality?" So unless you have sources in conflict with the available WP:RS this article does not meet WP:POL and needs to be updated. BEFSTCp (talk) 10:31, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Have an image of a sealion

If you wish to engage this conversation to not vandelize my talk page entries. Create a reply and be identified with your own comments. BEFSTCp (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

There is one citation of him being described with a group as "British", apologies, I must have over looked it. We do however have significantly more citations of him being described as "Irish." Not only are there strong sources of data [[16]][[17]], but there are also scholarly papers [[18]], biographies[[19]][[20]] and even the UK Government[[21]] that support this. He also, very deliberately, called out his Irish identity as opposed to a British one!

Everyone has very rightly pointed out the C.S. Lewis' nationality is important. Considering anglo-irish relations of the time, and even now, it is important that provide well citied information to justify how the information is justified. This is clearly a controversial topic, probably rightly, so a direct inline citation is needed. BEFSTCp (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

He also, very deliberately, called out his Irish identity as opposed to a British one! No, he contrasted his Irishness with Englishness, not Britishness. Deor (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Assuming you are referring to his oft used quotes here, I don't agree with the interpretation at all. I do understand the interpretation.

He uses "I am Irish" which seems a direct admission, not a comparison or contrast.

I don't see how a statement that is interpretable can trump the provided WP:RS BEFSTCp (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

As I continue researching I find WP:RS that specifically argues why he should be referred to as "Irish" or "British."[[22]] BEFSTCp (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

(Arriving from BEFSTCp's NORN posting.) That's twice now you've brought up works by David Clare. If you have a COI, you must declare it.

I think you don't understand what nationality is used for on Wikipedia. It's not about ancestry, it's about where they had the most impact. MOS:NATIONALITY lists Isaac Asimov as an example, who is an American science-fiction writer, despite being born in a precursor to the USSR.

As for the rest, let's go point by point.

• The Britannica Entry: It only says "Irish-born", not describing him as Irish. It also says he was a leading figure in British literary studies. That makes him British insofar as his notability as an author are concerned.
• The Fellowship for Performing Arts source: First, it's not scholarly and there's nothing to indicate literary expertise, so it's probably not reliable. Even if it were, Lewis is not described as "Irish" in the source.
• Both Clare papers: First, those are primary sources, which are disfavored compared to secondary or tertiary sources. Given that academics have a strong incentive to "overturn" some well-known axiom, there is incentive for bias in the results. This is why secondary sources, especially literature reviews, are preferred. Furthermore, note that it's always arguing from a position of, "Contrary to mainstream belief, Lewis was not British." WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims require extraordinary sources to back them up.
• The C. S. Lewis Foundation source: Again, likely unreliable as I see no mention of editorial oversight on their about page. Even if it were, it never describes Lewis as Irish (and never even uses that word) but does note that, in 1956, he obtained British citizenship.
• Mere Inkling source: A blog, and not reliable. Even if it weren't, it begins, Contrary to the common assumption that C.S. Lewis was English... See WP:EXTRAORDINARY above.
• Parliament source: It's very much WP:PRIMARY, and could maybe be used as a source for what those MPs said, but not as a statement in Wikivoice. Also, again with the "Everyone says he's English, but I say he's actually Irish!" bit that underscores the WP:EXTRAORDINARY nature of the claim.

You're also likely to run into the issue that he can be Irish and British, because at the time Ireland was a part of the British Empire. It's like saying that General Lee wasn't American because he described himself as a Virginian. Heck, even if we use modern day borders, Belfast is part of the UK.

Consensus is clearly against you. I suggest you drop the stick; this is starting to look like WP:BLUDGEONing. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for actually taking the time to consider the WP:RS I provided.

It was my understanding that now we should do the same against sources the provide any other titles, "British", and **then** we reach consensus.

Just becauses the page has reached consensus amoungst itself doesnt mean its right. I come to this page without much knowledge on the subject, but this article confused me with the lack of anything to follow to back anything up.

I'll leave there. ~2026-23958-65 (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

If it was lost on who posted that..

Sorry, still figuring this out.

BEFSTCp (talk) 12:32, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

The stable version referring to Lewis as British has implicit consensus. See WP:EDITCON. (Also, true, consensus may not always be right, but we always have to follow it. WP:Wikipedia is a social club, not a monument to truth.) The sources you provided seem to support the "British" label, and I haven't heard any other dissenting voices. If any other editors think a discussion on whether the sources say C. S. Lewis was British is needed, I suggest starting a new section. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, I'll follow up..

WP:EDITCON says until "disputed", so there is not implicit concensus.

Also, the one source you cited doesnt support a nationality of "British" at all, it says his field of study, one can study, and produce, "British Literature" from any location.

You also touch on why this is important, the British Empire. The fact that he made his statements at the time of the irish war of independence, and then partition, made this an extremely notable fact.

And saying "Belfast is part of the UK" is being very blind to the realities of the world. The UK goes out of its way to allow the people of Belfast, and NI, to declare their own nationality of "British, or Irish, or Both," and after recent court cases, this is legally binding. BEFSTCp (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but only for the modern day and people alive. This wasn't the case prior to the 1990s. Plus Belfast is very much part of the UK, and has been for a couple hundred years, this is indisputable. Canterbury Tail talk 16:36, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

The Irish War of Independence was a pretty big dispute. The Irish constitution contained a territorial claim to "Northern Ireland" until well after the subjects death.

The label of "British" over Ireland has been disputed for as long as it has existed. BEFSTCp (talk) 14:21, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

The page for Tolkien (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._R._Tolkien) describes him as English. I think that shows that either its allowed to describe people by their specific country from Britain (and thus the General Lee rebuttal is not valid in this case), or the page for Tolkien should be changed and have him described as British. Keima1337 (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2026 (UTC)