Talk:C. S. Lewis

Nationality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Irish nationality (Protestant unionist family background)

The lead seems incorrect.

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

• Lewis mentions the Ulster identity and the majority of his family were Ulster protestants, but he himself identifies as Irish.[1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence of Irish nationality citations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please tell me you see the difference.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation 1:

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

Citation 2:

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

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

mentions of Hiberno-English influence in his literature,

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

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

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

Side note: No citations for British citizenship or notability

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

Let's go through this.

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

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

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

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

By contrast,

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

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

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

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

mentions of Hiberno-English influence in his literature

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

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

Again, irrelevant.

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

As did Ptolemaic astrology. Previously-mentioned argument applies.

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the quick reply.

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

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

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

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

Why not amend the lead to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Belfast context: [2] [3], [4], [5], [6]

Northern Ireland context: [7], [8], [9], [10]

Ireland context: [11], [12] Titus Gold (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2023

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

• known

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

 Not done: Please read the discussion above.

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

Dog killed by car

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editing Anglican Psaltry

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

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2024

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

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

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

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

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