Talk:T. E. Lawrence

I'm a bit more worried about the article's treatment of the Rape at Dera'a, which Asher and Jeremy Wilson both treat with at least a degree of scepticism, as have many others both at the time and since. Will dig out my copy of Jeremy Mack before making any changes.Paulturtle (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

The thing about the Dera’a incident is that there are two sources; 7PW and the contemporary letter to Stirling, and they are pretty consistent. Whereas various biographers have caught TEL in errors of quantity and time and place, maybe some of them deliberate lies, there are no other known instances of him just making substantial things up. Tim Bray (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm not so sure. He certainly lied about his linguistic skills; nobody could have had the familiarity with so many languages that he claimed at such a young age. More telling, though, is his subject matter. It reminds me of his contemporary, Thomas Mann. Growing up in a time when homosexuality was an unthinkable admission, and punishable by prison or even death, Mann tried to write about the subject in a difficult, oblique and ambiguous style. I have always had the feeling that Lawrence was describing his own flagellant homoerotic phantasies in the only way open to him...by portraying himself as an innocent and rather heroic victim of someone else's. Rumiton (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Actually, there are three sources (btw, I should mention the research/citation compendium at http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2009/12/20/Sexuality-of-T-E-Lawrence#p-18) - Mack found someone who discussed having seen Lawrence’s injuries post-incident. Anyhow, given the evidence, there’s going to have to be a good strong cite to justify explicitly casting doubt in the article, since Lawrence’s biographers seem to mostly believe it. I seem to recall reading something by a Lawrence detractor somewhere claiming that the timing didn’t work, Lawrence couldn’t have spent the night in hospital/prison as he claimed based on others’ observations of his presence elsewhere. But I can’t recall where it was. BTW, what’s the citation for Lawrence claiming knowledge of all those languages? The claim that he *did* used to be here in the article till I took it out as uncited, and I never did find out where it came from. Tim Bray (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Michael Korda ("Hero") states he claimed fluency in French, German, Italian and Arabic. In The Mint he casually refers to reading a popular novel in Danish, and as I recall in Revolt in the Desert he mentions the Arab tribes that accepted him through his fluency in their dialects. Rumiton (talk) 07:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Most biographers have at the very least discussed whether the story is true, which in itself is worthy of note. Jeremy Mack basically believes the story, but casts a bit of doubt on the severity of the injuries and says that Lawrence was ashamed of the whole assault because he enjoyed it. Mack also discusses how Liddell Hart claimed (in 1965) that other officers told him (?in the 1930s) Lawrence seemed shaken and withdrawn after the incident - but this is not a first hand account, and would be struck out as hearsay in a court of law. As for the claim that Lawrence's injuries were corroborated by a junior colleague at the time, I had to look quite hard to verify this, before finding it in a footnote on p496: a Gunner Beaumont claimed (in 1969) that Captain Ramsey (a medic) had treated him for a beating and swollen testicles after his return to Aqaba - once again, this is hearsay, fifty years after the event, and many decades after TEL's claims had become common gossip, and Mack, quite rightly, points out that this is hardly reliable testimony.

The claim that it is confirmed by multiple contemporary accounts is nonsense. The three sources which you quote are neither independent of one another (although of course there aren't going to be completely independent sources) nor wholly contemporary - they are all written by Lawrence a few years later, and there are important discrepancies - e.g. names and whether or not the Bey knew who he was. The Bey's family, fwiw, produced his diaries proving him to have been a prolific heterosexual, although this does not of course rule out the possibility of him being a gay rapist if deprived of other options.

At least two modern researchers have cast doubt on the story using what actual contemporary evidence is available.

Michael Asher lists discrepancies in Lawrence's account, e.g. how he could not possibly have recovered so quickly from such a severe beating - including several blows to the testicles - to ride 300 miles to Aqaba. The actual contemporary records are Lawrence's pocket diary in the British Museum, from which the relevant pages have been ripped out, and a letter to his parents in December, a close reading of which suggests that he spent the whole period in Azraq and never went to Dera'a at all until the following year. He also discusses research by somebody called J.N.Lockman, who demonstrated that Richard Meinertzhagen's claim to have seen injuries on Lawrence's back after the war was fabricated, and that Lawrence could not possibly have had the "sixty injuries" he claimed. He also mentions a story of Lawrence being captured by the Turks and possibly beaten whilst on some archaeological mission or other in 1912 (although no corroborating evidence exists for this story either), as well as discussing how he paid a man called Bruce to flog him during his time in the RAF, along with a fib about how serving in the ranks and being beaten was a condition of receiving an inheritance from an elderly male relative.

Asher, an ex-para/SAS man, did a TV series retracing TEL's journeys in 1997 in which he demonstrated inter alia that Lawrence could not possibly have crossed the Sinai in 48 hours as he claimed, along with a lot of other "elaborate ... and ... pointless lies" (his words) which Lawrence told.

The alleged assault at Dera'a is supposed to have been on 20 November 1917 or thereabouts, after which he returned to Azraq about 2 days later, and thence made an epic camel ride to Aqaba. Rather more embarrassingly, Lawrence James lists near-contemporary (written up the following spring) records of Lawrence and other officers going on a motor reconnaissance from Aqaba around the time the rape is supposed to have happened, using vehicles whose disembarkation at Aqaba is confirmed by contemporary naval records. James also points out that such severe injuries as TEL claimed would have hospitalised a man (because they would have gone septic), yet Lawrence was fit enough to make an air journey on 3 December and took part in the entry to Jerusalem on 9 December, where Hogarth noted how fit and well he looked. Paulturtle (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

OK, you have a point, and to be fair, the article sort of acknowledged a controversy by saying that the biographers were mostly OK with the story, without mentioning why they felt the need to be that way. So I put in a sentence noting the controversy, citing Mack. Ick, now I see I bollixed the citation. In fact, the citations all through the article are kind of a mess, drop the article into edit mode and search for “Mack”. Will work on that. I don’t know of a really high-quality citation for a serious argument that the whole thing was an invention; feel free to add one. Tim Bray (talk) 06:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I seem to recall the bit about the Bey's family releasing evidence casting doubt on the sexual abuse being in the article a while ago. I certainly think it should be. Does anyone know if I'm correct, and if so why it was taken out? Dingsuntil (talk) 04:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I suppose the best bet would be Lawrence James using contemporary documents to cast doubt that he ever went to Dera'a at all, but sadly I don't have my Lawrence books to hand. Another one for the list: Scott Anderson in his recent book on TEL, in the shops at the moment, accepts that the account in 7PW is clearly a sado-masochistic fantasy, and that he could not possibly have made a hard ride back to Aqaba so soon after being flogged to a pulp. However, based on contemporary accounts that he seemed somewhat withdrawn afterwards and his letter of the early 1920s - the nearest to a contemporary account - about how he had "given up his bodily integrity" or whatever, he speculates that he may have submitted to rape in order to avoid torture. I doubt we'll ever get to the bottom of this murky episode.Paulturtle (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think the weirdest thing is that they never worked out he was white.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

From memory, I think he claimed to be a Circassian (they look quite European). In the movie the Turkish bey suspects him of being a deserter, then murmurs "yes, but from which army ...?"Paulturtle (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

" ... he may have submitted to rape in order to avoid torture ..." - so exactly how is being forcibly anally raped not 'torture' for someone who does not usually indulge in such practices.

Lawrence was a prisoner at the time, he had no say whatsoever in the matter. If his captors had so wished, they could have killed him. He was dressed as an Arab.

BTW, at the time of the incident there were likely no other witnesses other than the Turkish officer concerned and Lawrence himself, and unless the Turkish officer left a written account, Lawrence's account is the only source of information on the incident. All the other accounts are therefore mere speculation, and gossip by people who were not there at the time. By 1918 he was already famous and had no need nor wish to sell his story, embellished, falsified, made up, or not, to anyone. That's why he joined the RAF under an assumed name. The others however, may well have.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.209 (talk) 09:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Not quite. Some of the writers discussed above have looked at what actual contemporary documents tell us, or have tried to recreate the journeys which he claimed to have made. But that's what historians do - unpick the fibs which public figures tell.Paulturtle (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Scott Anderson, in his 2013 biography Lawrence in Arabia, casts doubt on the story. He suggests: If Lawrence had been as badly tortured as he said, he could not have made an escape on foot, and participated in immediate subsequent military actions the way he did; also, in light of the bounty on his head, he was too valuable a prisoner to have been so carelessly guarded as to enable him to escape in the way he described. Aronson also cites some cryptic later comments by Lawrence that could be interpreted as being consistent with an alternative account -- that he acceded to the bey's demand for sexual favors so as not to be tortured. JamesMLane t c 02:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC) ETA: Somehow I overlooked that Paulturtle, in his comment above, noted the Anderson book six years ago! JamesMLane t c 07:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Lawrence James (2005) says that claiming to be a Circassian was a "remarkably inept move" (p 249). "There was, however, the problem of the Circassian accent which Lawrence would not have faked." (p 249). "Naked, Lawrence was plainly a European; his clean-shaven face was...brick red, in contrast to the rest of his body which would have been pallid" (p 250). I think it is unbelievable that he would have stood up to close scrutiny as a Circassian.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  "I think it is unbelievable that he could have stood up to close scrutiny as a Circassian." If we're talking about the accent, how do we know that the Bey in Deraa would even know what a Circassian accent sounded like? I'm a native speaker of English from NJ but if somebody falsely claimed to me to be from Labrador, how would I necessarily know that his accent was dodgy? If we're talking about skin color, all you have to do is to Google some photos to see that Circassians are peak white people. But, if the narrative is true, the Bey wasn't really interested in much but getting himself off in a perverse way. Pascalulu88 (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Lawrence James (2005) also says, "The weight of circumstantial evidence together with the notes in the gunners' war diary strongly suggest that Lawrence had fabricated the incident at Dera" (p 252).--Jack Upland (talk) 03:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

If someone visited Wales, then saying he had gone to "Britain" would be quite unacceptable - similarly if he went to Scotland. In the case of Northern Ireland (in spite of the Unionists) the case would be even clearer. Why is England somehow not a country in its own right? If I go to visit London, Cardiff and Glasgow, then it is handy shorthand to say I had a visit to Britain, or perhaps the United Kingdom, if my trip included Dublin, we might even say the British Isles. But visiting England and visiting Britain are no more the same thing as visiting Glasgow and Edinburgh is "visiting Britain". So an edit that substitutes "Britain" for "England" is changing the meaning of the original text. Fine, if we have a source - otherwise it is changing the meaning of text without a source. If we have a source that says he visited relatives in Wales while he was in Britain, then that would be fine, in fact the original text would be incorrect. But we don't. We have to assume that our original source said England, unless we have evidence to the contrary. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't really care about this detail enough to edit war over it; but you are quite incorrect that it is "quite unacceptable" to say that someone went to Britain when they went to Wales. Britain is the name of the entire island, which consists of England, Scotland, and Wales. So, anywhere on the island is "Britain", and only the portion that is England is England. At least, that's how the British view it -- and it is, after all, their island. I suspect that when Lawrence went back to Great Britain, he went to Wales, since that was his birthplace, and if I run across published proof of that, I'm going to change it back. But as I said, it's not an important enough distinction on which to waste purposeful searching time. Cheers, DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your sensible response. I hope neither of us would "edit war" over anything, even something far more important than this admittedly very minor point. To sum up my argument I think that we should avoid changing the meaning (as opposed to, say, the style) of existing text unless we are pretty certain (preferably on the authority of a reliable source) that the existing text is less accurate than our "correction". Not basing that on a particular WP policy, it just seems to me to be common sense. In this case "Britain" has a broader meaning than "England". Discovering the purpose of TEL's visit, and exactly where he went may well give us cause to change his destination to "Britain", or even "Wales" - but in the absence of any such evidence I think we should stick with "England", if only because it's what the current text actually says. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

This is a simply question of ambiguity. "England" is less ambiguous than Britain, but there currently is no source for his exploits on his return visit. As for Wales, T.E Lawrence was not Welsh despite being born there, so that is highly irrelevant, it seems he never really had any connection to Wales other than it being his birthplace. Somchai Sun (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Again, this is hardly worth a significant argument - but since you brought it up, the Welsh certainly seem to claim him as Welsh: he was born there; his mother may have been Welsh (identification varies from source to source); he received a Welsh scholarship to Jesus College, Oxford; and he is listed as one of the 100 Welsh Heroes. And at least one other dictionary describes him as a "Welsh soldier". Not that any of this is strictly relevant to the current discussion, of course. :-) DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 00:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Was the change to the surname Shaw a legal name change or something unofficial? At his death, was he legally still Thomas Edward Lawrence, or was he legally Thomas Edward Shaw? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I had always assumed that "Shaw" was simply a "Nom de Guerre" - (an assumed name with no actual legal standing). This is why he was initially refused entry to the Royal Air Force, unlike the French, British servicemen can't legally enlist under an assumed name. Intrigued if this is not the case - but without looking it up I think it is. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

It was a legal name change in 1927 according to multiple sources. We should probably work this into an appropriate place in the article.

• History channel website
• Project Muse at Johns Hopkins University
• Victory University Library (Toronto) web site
• T.E. Lawrence: Biography of a Broken Hero, Harold Orlans, McFarland, Jan 1, 2002. page 76

I'm wondering in if shouldn't also go into the lead briefly at least via aka or some such. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

The article mentions that Lawrence enlisted in the RAF as John Hume Ross; then was forced out of it in 1923. Later that year he changed his name to T.E. Shaw and joined the RTC. Then he was re-admitted to the RAF in 1925 (under the Shaw name), in which he remained until 1935. AliveFreeHappy gives multiple sources for the name change to Shaw being “legalised” in 1927, although this has yet to make it into the article. Meantime Lawrence was writing 7PW and Revolt in the Desert, apparently under the T.E.L. name, and gaining notoriety in India. All this seems to imply that his name change was pretty ineffectual. His bust in St Paul’s is to “Lawrence”; I can’t read the inscription in the photo of his roadside memorial near Wareham. Did he revert his name to Lawrence? If so how and when? Which name is on his death certificate? Can anyone add this information?Exbrum (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

While this is not an RS, this internet link about Lawrence of Arabia has comparisons between various sources about him and what the author says is misinterpretations of him: http://www.coopertoons.com/merryhistory/lawrenceofarabia/lawrenceofarabia.html

"But finally most of the "lies" you hear about T . E. told are not what T. E. said, but what other people said he said. For instance, Desmond Stewart, an Arabic scholar and writer who wrote both the Time-Life book Early Islam (which is quite good) and an extremely weird biography of T . E. (which stinks) told how Lawrence deliberately lied about what the Arabs said about him. Lowell, Desmond said, wrote how Auda Abu Tayi, one of the Arab leaders, said "this fair headed son of Allah" (ergo, T. E.) could do what they, the Arabs, did better than themselves. But Desmond pointed out for an Arab to call someone a "son of Allah" would have been blasphemy and since Lowell didn't speak Arabic, T . E. "almost certainly" was the translator. So there you are. T. E. was a glory hound and a liar to boot. End of story, right? Sorry, Desmond. All you have is what Lowell said, not T. E. And someone other than T. E. could have been translating. Remember Lowell was with T. E. a total of two - count 'em, - two of the ten days he was in Arabia. So the odds are 80 % if Lowell quotes an Arab, it wasn't T. E. who translated."

So what needs to be done is:

• Check book reviews from academic databases (academic journals have book reviews) and use them to write Wikipedia articles on the books
• Note issues about these books on the talk pages of those books
• Use the information to better write the article

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

In Common law, you cannot slander or libel a dead person, neither can the deceased person's relatives sue for defamation of a dead relative's character, so an author, book publisher, magazine or newspaper, etc., may print or say anything it likes about a dead person, whether true or untrue, without fear of legal action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

This article does not seem to explain the actual origin of the name "Lawrence", or why they chose to use it. The article about his father, Sir Thomas Chapman, 7th Baronet, says that he (the father) lived under the name "Thomas Robert Lawrence, taking the name of his partner, Sarah Lawrence, the mother of his five sons". However that contradicts this article, which says his partner's name was Sarah Junner. 86.179.0.23 (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

The sentence "There is no reliable evidence for consensual sexual intimacy between Lawrence and any person." could imply that there is evidence for non-consensual sex. Was Lawrence raped or did he rape someone? If so, it should be mentioned close to this sentence. If not, I don't see the reason for the modifier "consensual." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.157.107 (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I agree with the commenter above that this language did seem to imply that there was or was likely to have been non-consensual sex that Lawrence was involved in. I was confused by this particularly careful wording when reading the article and think it should probably be changed. 128.2.91.118 (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I also agree and will make the edit. CorinneSD (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Oops, sorry, I missed this section of the talk page and forked the earlier one up at the top of the page to continue this discussion. Tim Bray (talk) 07:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

For some years, an introductory sentence read “There is no reliable evidence for consensual sexual intimacy between Lawrence and any person.” This was edited by the removal of “consensual”, then the sentence was replaced with “The only evidence that Lawrence was ever sexually intimate was his claim in letters that he was sexually abused, therefore presumably raped.”

I just finished putting back the stood-for-some-years version. Here’s what we know:

• There is no evidence of consensual sex, Lawrence hotly denied it and no-one has ever published a credible contradictory claim. Given TEL’s marketability, one would have expected anyone with a story to tell or sell to have done so.
• There is muddy evidence for some sort of non-consensual sex in the 1917 Dera'a incident; the only reportage is from Lawrence
• There is pretty clear evidence of Lawrence’s masochism. In later life he arranged to be beaten and “required that the beatings be severe enough to produce a seminal emission.” (A Prince of our Disorder, John E. Mack, 1976, p 433)

Removing “consensual” was clearly wrong because that word is key to the truth and usefulness of the assertion. There are problems with the version beginning “The only evidence...”

• the claim wasn’t just in letters but in a book and a formal military dispatch
• “presumably raped” is misleading given the vagueness of information about what actually happened. In the military dispatch, Lawrence specifically claimed he had successfully resisted the sexual advances.

So the evidence of abuse is muddy and information-thin; it exists but is really unsatisfactory. The lack of evidence of consensual intimacy is comprehensive and forceful in its absence. I think that deserves to be the lead sentence providing the background to the rest of the section. BUT, I do have one concern: Is paying someone to whip you in such a way as “to produce a seminal emission” a form of consensual intimacy?

BTW, back in 2009 I wrote a blog piece that assembled pointers to everything ever published on the subject of TEL & sex, at least the stuff that I could turn up in a few weeks’ digging: Sex and T.E. Lawrence. It may be useful in this discussion.Tim Bray (talk) 06:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

The word consensual confused several readers (see below) because it suggests rape. The phrase "sexually abused" also suggests rape, and should be clarified in view of the comments above. This would then make consensual redundant. Rwood128 (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

This is a useful link, re a letter Lawrence wrote to E. M. Forster: [1]. There is a need to more overtly state, both that Lawrence said in a letter that he was raped and that some (a few?) biographers argue that he lied about this. Rwood128 (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

What does “did it to me” mean, in that Forster letter? I suspect we will never know. Very muddy evidence. What I think the article needs to make clear is that the evidence strongly suggests that TEL never engaged in sexual intimacy out of love or in search for pleasure. I thought the word “consensual” was a good way of saying that but it seems to be misdirecting people. Tim Bray (talk) 08:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

The meaning of "did it to me, by force" is surely very clear (not "muddy") from the context, The phrase "sexual abuse" is imprecise. I think that more than sexual fondling was involved, as Lawrence was an adult and a prisoner. This does not contradict the main thesis about Lawrence's sexuality. The article just needs to be a little clearer, more explicit about these matters. In addition, the link[2]. posted above suggests that biographers are more divided, as to whether Lawrence lied about the incident, than the article indicates. Rwood128 (talk) 10:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well, we’re grown-ups here. If you think the meaning is clear, please explain what you think it’s saying. It might help to re-read the 7PW narrative first. I’m starting to agree that it would be appropriate to highlight the suspicions about the Deraa narrative. But I recommend consulting Jeremy Wilson’s treatment of it in the Authorized bio; he’s probably done the most work in this area and ended up on balanced convinced that something along the lines described in 7PW happened.Tim Bray (talk) 07:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I was commenting as a reader, after being asked for my opinion by another editor. I haven't read the biographies, etc, just the link. This discussion is about copy editing, you are clearly the expert in the field of facts. The revisions that you are contemplating should help. Yes, we cannot say with certainty that Lawrence was raped, but the facts are clear (from reading the article and link): Lawrence states that he was raped (not sexually abused) and some biographers think that he lied. Perhaps more direct reference to Jeremy Wilson's important biography would help. Rwood128 (talk) 11:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm on vacation the other side of the world from home this week; If nobody else gets there first, I promise a run at the language with edits based on this discussion when I get back.Tim Bray (talk) 04:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good. Enjoy your vacation. Rwood128 (talk) 09:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm just glad that the rape, whatever the truth of that episode was, is not described as any kind of "sexual intimacy". When you're having sex with someone with willingness on both sides, that assumes intimacy. But when it's being forced upon you without your consent, all notions of intimacy go completely out the window. This is the sort of tangled confusion we sometimes end up with when we use too many euphemisms. Could a rapist reasonably deny he raped someone, admitting only to "non-consensual sexual intimacy"? I don't think so. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm a bit concerned that the default Wikipedia position seems to be a disingenuous denial of the obvious.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I came to this page out of interest because I have just returned from the library, where I read a memoir of a New Zealand soldier who "escorted" Lawrence around the Middle East for several weeks. This soldier described Lawrence as "a snobby little" man who nevertheless talked freely about being raped by a "minister" after being captured (whether a minister of religion or politics is not specified). The soldier said that Lawrence was accompanied by two boys with whom he had a homosexual relationship. Until meeting Lawrence, the soldier had been unaware that homosexuality even existed. Unfortunately, I've already forgotten the title of the book! If I find it again I'll return the information to this page.

I shouldn't bother. T. E. Lawrence spoke a number of Arabic dialects, and didn't need 'escorting' around the Middle East, which I dare to suggest, is more than any 'New Zealander soldier' did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.91 (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I removed "His eighth motorcycle is on display at the Imperial War Museum" after seeing this "TE Lawrence's Brough Superior was on loan to IWM London but was returned to its owner a while ago" on the Imperial War Museum website. The motorbike does not appear in a search of the IWM's Collection. His last SS100 (registration GW 2275) is privately owned and was on loan to the IWM (and to the National Motor Museum}. According to a comment on a blog, the IWM asked the owner to "take it away as it was no longer thought to be ‘relevant’ to their collection"! Nedrutland (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

His various Brough Superiors were named by him Boanerges which is a Biblical reference that means 'Son of Thunder'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.91 (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I decided to make some random copy-edits here tonight, and I stumbled across a reference to T. E. Lawrence in the Iraq article, and added the the fact that Lawrence is popularly known as "Lawrence of Arabia" to help readers immediately recognize the person. I got reverted (twice) by a user who challenges the "verifiability" of the fact he is know as "Lawrence of Arabia." That seems so pedantic I'm really scratching my head. Could someone familiar with Lawrence chime in and explain that "Lawrence of Arabia" isn't some obscure reference? JoeM (talk) 01:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I suspect your interjector is someone from Iraq who resents (as many Arabs do) the fact that a Western Infidel (especially from Britain) has any place at all in Arab history. To be fair, from their point of view we probably exaggerate his importance a bit. A bit like the Persians who don't like us calling 1001 Nights the "Arabian" Nights. I'm sure he knows very well he is generally known in English as "Lawrence of Arabia" - and is just being difficult. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Actually, no; and perhaps you should actually read other editors' comments before you start offering theories about their motivations for making them (much less your assumptions about their ethnicity, which border on bigotry). This has entirely to do with Wikipedia policy on verifiability of information added to articles and the appropriate response to a challenge of same by another editor, not with some deep-seated grudge against T.E. Lawrence. Dwpaul ^Talk 15:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

If so, that is really great, and nobody is more delighted than I - but the idea of verification "really" being needed to state that T.E. Laurence is very much more widely known as "Laurence of Arabia" is so very ludicrous that nobody can be blamed for discounting what would otherwise be the "good faith" assumption. Assuming at the very least a non-Engish speaking ethnicity for anyone who could do so is hardly bigotry, and I'd like an apology. There is far too much real bigotry around without manufacturing incidents of it. Having said that - I took JoeM "at face", without going to the article concerned, and have no desire to buy into any dispute you may have - perhaps I should at least have gone to Iraq before commenting at all, but it was late where I am and I needed to be up early this morning. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I apologize if you found my comment about bigotry offensive, but not for criticizing you for suggesting that anyone who states that the fact that T.E. Lawrence was also well known as Lawrence of Arabia should not be assumed to be universal knowledge among all Wikipedia readers, much less the entire world, would have to be a resentful Arab. As I clearly explained to the editor at the page you did not read, I am well aware of this fact, but my knowledge, or his (or yours) is beside the point. When another editor asserted that the fact required citation, the appropriate response (not to mention one requiring infinitely less time and trouble for all concerned) would have been for the editor to quickly and simply find one of the many reliable sources available for this fact and to cite it in the article, rather than reverting the removal, asserting it as universal knowledge and questioning the knowledge of that other editor. It would have been appropriate even if he thought it "looked silly" to do so. This is what the core policy I related to the editor calls for. Dwpaul ^Talk 03:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for apologising for what I did (finding your apparent bigotry disturbing) WP:SORRY - there are ways of making an apology when one isn't really sorry - but anything starting "I'm sorry you..." is not one of them. Never mind - if anyone really needs to apologise it's probably me. But in exactly the same way that there is too much real vandalism on Wiki to miscall a genuinely stupid but good faith edit vandalism, and just as there is (and believe me, as a member of several widely despised minority groups I know) far too much real bigotry in this wicked (Wikied?) old world to go out of one's way to manufacture it, there is also far too much genuine error (in Wikispeak OR) in Wikipedia to use the powerful "citation needed" template against perfectly "attributable" statements - some of which are NOT easily backed up by a reliable source, simply because everybody, including the very sources we might expect to back them up, simply take them as foregone. To quote an example from the very sensible WP:OR page: "Paris is the capital of France". I might go further, and suggest that anyone challenging the statement is either deranged (poor thing), has a great big blunt axe to grind, or is just being mischievous. I admire the "assume good faith" ethos of Wiki, but it has to have its limits somewhere. Our Laurence of Arabia article probably only has as its title his real name out of the fact that it might otherwise (quite legitimately!) be taken as ethnocentric and indicative of a colonialist mentality. You obviously know this as well as I do. Might I humbly suggest that there a lot of people "here" who might very well get a life, and use the time God has given them for editing Wikipedia for more appropriate activities than than misapplication of sensible policy to score, well what does this kind of thing score - nothing worthwhile, anyway. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

TE was referred to as 'Lawrence of Arabia' in newspaper reports of his death, such as:-- https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/1935/may/19/fromthearchive The usage suggested that this was a familiar term by 1935. Readers might not realise who 'Mr TE Shaw' was, but they would instantly know who 'Lawrence of Arabia' was. It doesn't stem from Sam Spiegel's much later film, which probably used that title because the audience would recognise it. Khamba Tendal (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

it was because he was so well-known as Lawrence of Arabia that in order to attain some level of anonymity he entered the RAF as T. E. Shaw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.91 (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Clearly the correct point to mention Lawrence had no support by the British command, in promesing Arab rule in the former Ottoman areas, are stright after the Arab help is mentioned the first time. We don't know if he deliberately cheated the Arabs (the film suggest's he didn't). But that is beside the point, Lawrence wasn't in the position to give the Arabs any promesis. And the Arabs just went from Ottoman to British rule. (I'm very aware of the ANZAC contributions in this war. This is no offence to them, nor to the British.) But we now know much more than just war time propaganda. I find it very sad if now disproven old legends isn't given space 100 years after the event. In this case the Arabs were not given rule of the "liberated" areas, which Lawrence had promised them. He remain as a hero of war still, but without the Arab help for instence Aquaba could not have been taken in the way it was. Boeing720 (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Forgot - although this is Wikipedia in English, a global point of view is to be used where and when applicable. Also when Arabs are involved. Boeing720 (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Lawrence was a mere British Army officer and Feisal would have been well aware that such 'promises' could only be made by people who hold High Office or were official diplomats. Feisal wasn't a fool, and neither was Lawrence, so it is extremely unlike the latter would have made any such 'promises' to anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.13 (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on T. E. Lawrence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130308170907/https://sites.google.com/site/stratfordwritingservices/home/film-reviews/t-e-lawrence to https://sites.google.com/site/stratfordwritingservices/home/film-reviews/t-e-lawrence
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101128155454/http://telawrence.info/telawrenceinfo/life/biog_family.shtml to http://www.telawrence.info/telawrenceinfo/life/biog_family.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120418140326/http://www.history.ox.ac.uk/resources/obs/boys_school_history.htm to http://www.history.ox.ac.uk/resources/obs/boys_school_history.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110929015251/http://www.telawrence.info/telawrenceinfo/legacy3/analysis/asher022.htm to http://www.telawrence.info/telawrenceinfo/legacy3/analysis/asher022.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130619091224/http://telawrence.net/telawrencenet/letters/1927/271207_d_knowles.htm to http://telawrence.net/telawrencenet/letters/1927/271207_d_knowles.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131106041628/http://telawrence.info/telawrenceinfo/life/chron_1914.shtml to http://telawrence.info/telawrenceinfo/life/chron_1914.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I must kindly ask , i know him from the sidethat he was me earlyer delivert , as person raised in Germany , most ppl sort him her in direction German ww1 submarine captains that killd inocend passanger, off the germany Railway company, or providet that doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.217.147.71 (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

There is a sci fi story about Te Lawrence - http://www.uchronia.net/bib.cgi/label.html?id=shwaloosec

I have just read it. Can someone add this section? I am not very adept at Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.205.251 (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on T. E. Lawrence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120211151322/http://telawrence.net/telawrencenet/letters/1927/271207_d_knowles.htm to http://telawrence.net/telawrencenet/letters/1927/271207_d_knowles.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Writing in 1997, Angus Calder noted that it is "astonishing" that earlier commentators discussing Lawrence's apparent masochism and self-loathing failed to consider the impact on Lawrence of having lost his brothers Frank and Will on the Western front, along with many other school friends.

This needs more context to make sense. Lawrence's alleged masochism was evident during the war, at the alleged Dera'a incident.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

The references in here are super-wasteful, with lots of repetitive but slightly-different citations to Wilson, Mack, etc, and other biographers. I think I will re-organize this into one of the Alternative Systems. The “Notes and References” apparatus seems adequate.

Alternatively, I put <ref name=wilson> in for the first Authorized biography cite and used the RefPage thing for page number. But it looks awkward and ugly. Tim Bray (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Dear Tim,  

Thank you for your suggestion. I fully agree with you that the references could be improved.

For example, the current 'Notes' section lists seven entries for Mack's book: 10, 28, 54, 70, 72, 78 and 79. All but one (72) of these entries have the page number included using the 'page=' clause of the {{cite book}}) template. In such cases, I have in the past consolidated all of them in one single ref tag (keeping the {{cite book}} template), by removing the 'page=' clauses and replacing them with the equivalent {{rp|#}} template alongside the ref tag in the prose, like you've done here.

If you wish, I could do this simple task for the references to Mack's book, but won't if you'd rather work alone, or do it differently.  

With kind regards;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 19:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

P.S. @TimBray: Sorry; forgot to ping you.   Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 19:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hey @Pdebee: - What would be really cool would be to replace a bunch of the references with things of the form <ref name=mack>Mack, 1976, p=28</ref> and so on. I find the explanations in the Referencing for Beginners doc a little opaque, so I’ll sandbox around and figure out how that really works. The references are a mix of pointers to well-known biographies like Mack and idiosyncratic newspaper/blog links, so it’ll be a little interesting getting the corner cases right. I don’t mind doing the some or all of the work once I’ve figured out how to spin the right knobs. Tim Bray (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Dear Tim,  

Thank you for your reply. It's entirely up to you and there would be different ways of doing this. Personally, I would have attempted to improve things as I explained above, but I won't be interfering in any way with your project. However, please just beware of WP:CITEVAR (assuming you aren't familiar with this already, of course.  )

Good luck, and all very best wishes.

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 19:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think the smart thing to do in this case would be to take your advice, given my relative inexperience at this. I’ll take a pass through and introduce the {{rp|#}} idiom wherever obvious. What got me started here is that I ran across a nice fix for a citation-needed marker and despaired at having to type in all the fields for one of the standard biographies yet again. Thanks for the advice. Also, visiting your user-page introduced me to lots of interesting projects I hadn’t known about. Tim Bray (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Dear Tim,  

Thank you for your reply. We're all learning all the time, and there are various ways of improving references. Please feel completely empowered to go ahead as per your initial plan, which was sound. This is because there is already a 'Notes' section, making the current citation style used in this article closer to that used in a featured article such as Bob Dylan, for example. Your initial idea to keep the current 'Notes' section was good, and in line with WP:CITEVAR. By consolidating the existing books ({{cite book}} templates) in the new 'References' section you had in mind (per your entry at 18:37, 25 June 2016), you'll be able to improve on the current situation and I fully support you. Therefore, you won't need to add the {{rp|#}} templates, but then don't forget to remove the one you added here, and replace it as per the scheme you explained at 18:50 today. I am sure you'll do great and I look forward to admiring your handy work; just go for it!  

With kind regards;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 22:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

P.S. @TimBray: Sorry; forgot to ping you again!   Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 22:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Dear Patrick @Pdebee: - By my “initial plan” are you referring to the <ref>Mack, 1976, p=23</ref> idiom? I assume so from your reference to the Dylan article. I note that in Dylan, there is a “Sources” section. The Lawrence article has a “Bibliography” section; but now that I look at that, it's in a kind of messy non-standard glob with movies & books & so on. So my approach, I guess, would be to create “Sources”, migrate the “Bibliography” stuff down there with appropriate cite structure, then modify the references. Does that sound plausible? And thanks for the guidance, this is interesting stuff (I have some history in reference publishing). Tim Bray (talk) 00:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Dear Tim,  
Thank you for your reply. Yes, I meant: "<ref>Mack, 1976, p=23</ref> idiom", and your latest ideas (01:49, 27 June 2016) are indeed very constructive and would make a great improvement on the current situation. It's good that you are familiar with reference publishing, and thank you also for your enthusiastic commitment to the cause!  
I like the Bob Dylan example, because it allows for a Notes section (in which to re-locate additional cited prose that would otherwise clutter the main text) to be differentiated from the References section, which nests both Footnotes and their Sources. A similar scheme was used in the Raymond Chandler bibliography article, which has a References and sources section nesting a separate subsection each for References and Sources.
Since these two excellent examples are from featured articles, I daresay that applying a similar approach to the TEL article would be good preparation for a future GA or FA review (it's currently still only a C-class article).
While I was preparing this reply, I also spent quite some time reviewing the page history to assess the evolution of this aspect of the article. Since there have been several attempts at improving the 'references' section, I'd like to think that adopting the example of two featured articles will stabilize it and also give you the opportunity to tidy up the "messy non-standard glob", as you called it.   So, Tim, go for it and good luck; I'll be rooting for you!  
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 11:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

The references have been substantially re-organized and are a lot cleaner, using the model from the Bob Dylan article. There is still lots to do. Some of the references are missing page numbers. The Sources section needs a thorough grooming for standard reference style, missing ISBNs, and so on. Also, I checked a few of the references since I happened to have Wilson and two versions of 7PW on the table with me, and a distressing number were wrong. So it'd be a good idea to go camp out in a good academic library and just take a pass through sanity-checking them. Also, the density and style of referencing in the article is uneven.

Following the Dylan article, I split the references in to “Notes” and Footnotes”, the former for chatty-remark style things. But there are only two, so there’s probably a case for pulling them into the regular footnote flow at some future point unless they get some company.

Having said that, speaking as a semi-serious Lawrence scholar, I think the article is mostly pretty factual and encyclopedic these days. Tim Bray (talk) 04:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

@TimBray: Dear Tim;  

Good ideas, and well done on identifying what's left to do now that you've implemented a much cleaner structure for the references. Yes, the two 'Notes' could be subsumed into 'Footnotes', as you suggested, since it is now clear that there are so few. If you have time to invest in the process, it might also be worth considering an assessment, which would help to raise the article to B-class. After that, you might consider submitting it as a candidate for a GA review. Since you've done so much work on this article and for so long, you might enjoy the effort of undertaking that process, although it can be quite intense and certainly time-consuming. However, I daresay that this article on TEL ought to be at least GA, if not FA, given his importance in history; in any case, it now certainly ought to be rated higher than a C-class article, IMHO.

With kind regards;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 11:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

In connection with @Pdebee’s suggestions, and having read the write-up on A/B/C/GA/FA distinctions, I'm running through the article now considering what it needs. For some time my main activity has been defending it from drive-bys and I haven’t actually thought about the big picture. So here’s one opinion about what needs to be done, along with further citation cleanup

1. The opening is too long, replicating a lot of the story of Lawrence’s parentage that is told quite nicely in “Early Life”. Also, it omits any mention of his post-war life, which was interesting enough for a passing mention  Done
2. Early life; the narrative about his mother and father lacks citations. No problem, they are plentiful in the Thomas Chapman article  Done
3. Not sure the “claimed to have run away from home” story deserve including, citation is weak, I’ll consult the biographies  Done
4. Paragraph beginning 1907-1910 is under-cited. Shouldn't be a problem, neither the Oxford result nor the Levantine tour are in doubt  Done
5. These paragraphs could be decorated by a series of cites from Wilson, the most comprehensive biography, but maybe it’d be better practice to footnote at the end of the paragraph and just say “as narrated in Wilson, pp x-y.?
6. The discussion of archaeology is under-cited.   Done
7. Some mention should be made of the outcome of the Carcemish work, and its value or otherwise. Update: This is proving difficult. Aldington claims it was all trash and anyhow Lawrence just sat around, while Wilson ignores the issue. Access to specialist archeological sources is probably required for citations to support any conclusion here; I wouldn't know where to start. But it would be in the area of Hittite architecture and the inventory of Hittite texts.
8. Arab Revolt - that article is really rather good and some of its citations could usefully be pulled in here.
9. The paragraph about what the Arab Bureau “thought” and “felt” feels fanciful, I’m not sure it’s even backed by the evidence. To be researched
10. “During the war…” paragraph omits Lawrence’s initial visits to Hejaz as a researcher before he got into fighting. That needs to be inserted
11. For a lot of the war episodes, one wonders whether it might be appropriate to cite 7PW, which has the advantage of being an intense first-person narrative of the events; obviously with enough supporting cites to. Feels, however, a little like the policy discouraging living persons from editing things such as their own entries or other article where they have a direct interest.
12. In any case, the current Arab Revolt citations to Parnell and Alleyne, are just bizarre; among other things these are obscure works, not easily consulted
13. Article omits the key point that while Aqaba could have been captured from the sea, it would have been very difficult to traverse the canyon leading inland to the railway and the inland plateau had it been defended; Auda and Lawrence cleaned that out as a necessary intermediate step to Aqaba from inland.  Done
14. Fall of Damascus - the narrative in the Arab Revolt article is much better and more accurate, not to mention cited. Needs correction.
15. There needs to be some re-organization, the Fall of Damascus segues awkwardly into post-war years and Lowell Thomas.
16. Postwar years omits his relationship with the rich & famous of the day, mostly epistolary, but f2f with the Shaws and a few others. Hm, this is mentioned in the Writings section
17. The See Also list feels whimsical and incomplete Tim Bray (talk) 06:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

@TimBray: Dear Tim,  
This is excellent! Well done, and good luck with all these useful improvements.
In the spirit of helpful cooperation, here are just a few pointers I would have borne in mind myself if I were carrying out the above changes (and please forgive me if you already know how to suck eggs  ):

5. — Maybe I am misunderstanding your intent here but, generally, I strive to validate each textual point with a citation that directly corroborates that specific point, instead of adding a 'blanket' ref tag for a whole paragraph presenting a number of points. Very occasionally, I have used expressions such as "According to X, ...", or "To quote Y, ...", but not often, as I think it can distract the reader from the encyclopedic tone.

6., 12. — If you are considering bringing in existing prose from the Arab Revolt article, then consulting WP:COPYWITHIN might be appropriate.

9. — I would be careful about relying on 7PW for obvious reasons, particularly WP:PSTS.

11. — Explaining that strategic decision would be a very good contribution to the article, if it can be underpinned by the appropriate citation(s).

So, all very best wishes, Tim, and please feel free to ping me if you want an extra pair of eyes to assist; I am on a Wikibreak but can find a bit of time most days.
Finally, well done on merging 'Notes' with 'Footnotes' and renaming to References, which would also have been my (subjective) preference, largely because it echoes the {{Reflist}} template.
Very best wishes with "the big picture".  
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 11:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Dear Patrick @Pdebee:, I have started working from the top down, sitting with three different-flavored biographies immediately to hand; might I ask you to have a look at the introduction and Early Life? Any comments would be most useful now, before I start plowing deeper into the body of the article. Thanks in advance Tim Bray (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

@TimBray: Dear Tim,  

Welcome back!   Thank you for making contact again and for inviting me to participate in your current drive for improvement. I have reviewed all your latest changes and you're doing great. I am sure you were going to get back to it, but I noticed that the book titles need italicizing, in the lead. That's all for now, and best wishes for the rest of the task.

With kind regards;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 08:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

P.S.: Just one very small thing, as a mere suggestion: it's entirely up to you, but you might find it helpful to add the {{Done}} template alongside each entry in your To-do list, once you feel you've completed the task. In any case, thanks for all you're doing!   Best; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 08:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've arrived at the Arab Revolt section in my gradual-improvement pass. That existing article for the Revolt is really quite good, so I propose to do avoid recapitulating it and make sure that this section:

1. is properly cited   Done
2. Provides brief descriptions of the things Lawrence actually *did* - still needs a bit of chronology: Hejaz, then Akaba, then north, then Damascus.
3. Also need the June 1917 trip north that got TEL his CB & Major-ship.   Done
4. Has some general high-level description of his role (most of this is already here), and where/why it was important to the larger Middle-Eastern campaign.

I have 4 of the canonical books about Lawrence (Graves, Aldington, Mack, Wilson) sitting here but my citations are increasingly from Wilson because *his* citations are so much better. He had access to a much wider variety of primary sources than any other author, and it shows. Tim Bray (talk) 06:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Feeling a bit guilty about relying so heavily on Wilson, even though that’s pretty clearly the best basis for chronology and contemporary-correspondence-based citations. Still, there's a TODO to go back and add support from other biographers and contemporaries. Tim Bray (talk) 06:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

The article is missing any mention of the controversy around Aldington's biography and I think that's going to have to at least be touched on, eventually. For those who aren't into this stuff, Aldington's “Lawrence: A Biographical Inquiry” is a relentless polemic, arguing that Lawrence was a serial liar, a lazy bum, a shameless publicity-seeker, and a traitor both to Britain and to the Arabs, among many other sins. Wilson is much better sourced and debunks some of Aldington's claims, but not all - in particular Lawrence is demonstrably shaky on the facts in several places, where “shaky on the facts” is being polite. The article, per my recent edit, already includes one: Lawrence's claim that he didn't know about Sykes-Picot till much later in the war, which can't be disproved but is very hard to believe, on the evidence. Whatever one thinks of Aldington’s approach, his claims are obviously Notable per Wikipedia standards in an encyclopedic piece on Lawrence. Aldington's cites are reasonably scholarly, too. Just leaving this here as a pointer to further work. Anyone want to take it up? Tim Bray (talk) 06:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

A the time of his involvement in Arabia Lawrence's main interest was archaeology and expecting him to be an expert on the then-ongoing diplomatic details and niceties of the time is not really justifiable, as until he became personally involved there was little reason for him to know anything of the contemporary politics and suchlike of the region. He was interested in the region as it was a thousand years ago and earlier, not the region in his own time.

“shaky on the facts” - Lawrence was in a region where there were few telegraphs or newspapers and where he had to rely on obtaining information from locals and others, many who were unable to read or write, so it is perhaps understandable if he sometimes makes errors, it would be very surprising in the circumstances for anyone in his situation not to.

OK, I have secured copies of Aldington and the excellent follow-up Richard Aldington and Lawrence of Arabia: A Cautionary Tale by Fred D. Crawford. I'll add a new section on the Aldington controversy and also remove a few things from the article where I think the evidence shows they are probably false. First example: The claim that the Turks had put a huge price on TEL's head - there was a general reward for bringing in a British officer, but no evidence I can find of a specific reward for Lawrence. Tim Bray (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yay, first draft   Done. I have a few more citations to fill in but I think this captures the essence. Aldington laid out the ground on which all subsequent biographers had to play and the absence of this story from the entry has been inexcusable. Anyone who wants to pitch in should probably read Crawford's Richard Aldington and Lawrence of Arabia: A Cautionary Tale - Crawford dug insanely deep on this material and is an endlessly fruitful source of citations.

Lawrence is given the postnominals CB DSO FAS, the last of which is hyperlinked to 'Fellow of All Soul's'. I've not been able to find this notation used elsewhere, and wonder if it should be removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contradistinction (talk • contribs) 22:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

See [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.91 (talk) 00:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Is it worth adding that the bust in St Paul's cathedral is by Eric Kennington? Eric Kennington's association with Lawrence is already mentioned elswhere in the article. Support can be found in "The Sculpture of Eric Kennington" by Jonathan Black (published 2002 by The Henry Moore Foundation, ISBN 0 85331 823 9) at pages 38 to 40. 51.6.80.84 (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the suggestion.   Done. Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 16:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

See this BBC article. Doug Weller talk 15:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Funnily enough this has been debunked as well-very poor archaeology by the archaeologists!

https://www.keymilitary.com/article/lawrences-bullet Shroton (talk) 11:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Paywalled, sigh. From the first few lines, sounds like they're focusing on that one Colt bullet. The old BBC piece talks about lots more evidence, in particular of battles that took place where Lawrence described. Does the Key Military piece cover more evidence? Tim Bray (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is mentioned in the article that one of his parents was of Anglo-Irish nationality, however when disputing Laurence's nationality of being Welsh & British this edit is thrown out, the argument being that some editors want him to be labelled as only British, There is no reason why he can't be called both British & Welsh and the disposal of such proposal on the article is folly because both nationalities are legitimately so and both nationalities should be accepted, this edit has been created because I know others will take my Welsh edit down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogyncymru (talk • contribs) 10:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

His birth in Wales is mentioned in the article with an image of his birthplace. He could with some justification be called English, Anglo-Irish, Irish and, more distantly Scottish, but it is easier to leave his nationality as British or UK. (See also the section "Geographical Correctness" above). According to the article his family moved from Wales in 1896 and he did not choose to live there again. Is there any evidence in his extensive writing that he identified as Welsh? Nedrutland (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

A minor point but... The settled text was "In 1914, Sir Thomas inherited the Chapman baronetcy based at Killua Castle, the ancestral family home in County Westmeath, Ireland; but he and Sarah continued to live in England." This was altered to Britain by @Garik: "given that they lived in Wales and Scotland..."; I reverted with summary "Cite? When a baronet, England only, I think" but this was reverted by @Britmax:.

I thought (and still do) that the sense was that, despite inheriting an Irish title (and property) in 1914, "Mr and Mrs Lawrence" continued to live in England. While they had lived in Scotland, Wales and abroad earlier, after 1914 I understand that T.E.'s parents lived in England. Am I wrong? Nedrutland (talk) 07:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

My mistake. The location of this statement in the article makes the chronology hard to figure out. Garik (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on T. E. Lawrence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/66WbaWVSO?url=http://www.protestantcemetery.it/press/webnewsletter-eng/no5-2008.pdf to http://www.protestantcemetery.it/press/webnewsletter-eng/no5-2008.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003220310/http://www.broughsuperiorclub.com/pages/news/tel_brough/tel_brough.htm to http://www.broughsuperiorclub.com/pages/news/tel_brough/tel_brough.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304031317/http://www.israelcfr.com/documents/5-3/5-3-8-JacobRosen.pdf to http://israelcfr.com/documents/5-3/5-3-8-JacobRosen.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Despite the convoluted description of this man's parentage in this article (and that of his father) in what sense can his mother be described as Scottish? If you read the father's Wiki entry you will see that T.E.L's illegitimate mother was not just born in England but both her parents were English. And if she so much as ever set foot in Scotland prior to meeting Lawrence's father, can anybody explain how this English woman came to live there? And even if she did live in Scotland for five minutes that is no justification for defining her as Scottish -- after all, Lord Byron was literally half Scottish and spent much of his early childhood there but that doesn't stop the English from spuriously claiming him as one their own! Furthermore, I see the subject has been categorised as Irish (oh quelle surprise!)despite the fact that his father's ancestors from Ireland were Anglo-Saxons and thus were unlikely to have had any Irish in their ENGLISH DNA at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.185.130 (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Should Lawrence be categorized in "asexual men" when the page for the "asexual men" category says it is for men who have "publicly came out as asexual"? Either the category's description should be changed or the label shouldn't be on this page, since the article says the idea of him as such came from "friends." Beggarsbanquet (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

No, I don't think he should be labelled as "asexual". Some have said this; some have said he was homosexual.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hm, he specifically denied ever having had consensual sex but that was in personal correspondence, so if the criterion is publicly coming out, definitely not. Also there is strong evidence of masochism with a sexual dimension. Tim Bray (talk) 06:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have removed the category.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

The lede says he did, but later in the article it just says "there was serious consideration of awarding him a Victoria Cross; in the end, he was invested as a Companion of the Order of the Bath and promoted to Major", which is not the same thing. I don't know what the source says, but it doesn't sound like he was offered a VC. I think we should find a source for this or take it out. Richard75 (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think it should be taken out.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Richard75: and @Jack Upland: In the text it is referenced to pages 424-425 of Jeremy Wilson's Lawrence of Arabia: The Authorised Biography of T. E. Lawrence. On those pages we read that Wingate telegraphed the War Office strongly recommending the immediate award of the VC. It was denied on the technicality that his journey into Syria had not been witnessed by another British officer, and "Instead he was shortly afterwards appointed a Companion of the Order fo the Bath and promoted to the rank of major". DuncanHill (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

it's not a 'technicality', all awards are dependant on the recommendation of a fellow officer or man, or person of repute, who actually witnessed the event. Awards for a decoration would almost certainly never be given solely on the information provided by someone such as a journalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.91 (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don't have access to the Knowles article at n.181, and am wondering if there are any church materials on the decision to permit the effigy in Wareham. I have come across statements that the Bishop of Salisbury rejected it for Salisbury Cathedral, and wonder if there are formal deliberations that shed light on why the placement ended up in St Martin's. Shtove 02:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the following text-

In late August or early September 1935 he stayed with Lady Houston aboard her luxury yacht, the Liberty, off Calshot, shortly before the Schneider Trophy competition.[126] In later letters Lady Houston would ask Lawrence's advice on obtaining a new chauffeur for her Rolls Royce car ('Forgive my asking, but you know everything')[126] and suggest that he join the Liberty, for she had discharged her captain, who had turned out to be a 'wrong 'un.'[126]

as clearly Lawrence could not have stayed on the yacht 3 months after his death im May 1935. The references refer to a book, so will need someone with access to a hard copy of that book to verify and correct as necessary. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

And Lady Houston wouldn't have been watching the Schneider Trophy competition in 1935 as it was last competed for in 1931, the year she supported Supermarine and they won the trophy outright for Britain. DuncanHill (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I've been able to see enough of the book via Google books to see that it was 1931 when Lawrence stayed on the Liberty - presumably "1935" was a simple typo. I shall restore the text, with the necessary correction. DuncanHill (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

:-) IdreamofJeanie (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

The Swedish power metal band Sabaton released a song about Lawrence of Arabia titled "Seven Pillars of Wisdom" in their album "The Great War". This should be added to the "In popular culture" section. 174.58.153.249 (talk) 10:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

This would probably be regarded as a trivial mention: please see WP:MILPOP. Dormskirk (talk) 10:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'd just like to endorse @Dormskirk's comment here. It's absolutely right and proper that there is an incoming link from The Great War (Sabaton album) and that's the way round it should be; we can't turn this article into an exhaustive catalogue of every reference to its subject – as well as being impractical to attempt I think that would have a very bad effect on the article. But links going < thataway are great because people reading about the album might well wish to understand to whom it refers. With best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered Hi i'm new here, But I would also just like to point out that the song is actually listed in the Seven Pillars of Wisdom#In popular culture section, So I don't really believe it's also needed to be added to the pop culture section here. Rockedyou (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

In the popular video game, Battlefield I, one of the War Stories (single player campaigns) features T. E. Lawrence, and he plays a large part. The Story is named Lawrence of Arabia. Can someone add this please? AnotherCallingCard (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi - Please see WP:MILPOP. The subject needs to have "a well-cited and notable impact on popular culture". Dormskirk (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Alright, then, thank you for the info. AnotherCallingCard (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I recently tried to do just this, and while I agree that the source I offered (Fandom.com) is not reliable enough, I would like to argue its impact on pop culture. Most mainstream first-person shooters that take place in the 20th century tend to avoid using real historical figures directly in their narrative sections. Further, Battlefield 1 is the only shooter on its level of popularity that takes place exclusively during WW1 and is potentially many of its players' primary resource on the war, particularly since WW2 is used much more often in the medium of video games. Additionally, Battlefield 1 was the 2nd highest-selling video game of 2016 (>15 million copies sold,) meaning there is an argument to be made that it is the most widely consumed work featuring Lawrence of the 21st century.

Of course, a reliable source still needs to be found, but I think if that can be done it is worth including on the page. TheMicDrop (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I saw the addition of this stuff, which is not taken seriously by any other TEL biographer, citation only to Andrew Simpson's "Another Life: Lawrence After Arabia". I just read that book and discovered that Simpson trashes the claims by Legg on multiple fronts. The existence of the conspiracy theory promoted by Legg is a fact and I'll retain a mention of it, but will otherwise prune it back considerably; at the current time the text reports all the silly allegations uncritically. It certainly doesn't deserve a subsection. Tim Bray (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

This section is ridiculous, random people who've been "compared to" TEL. Am going to find out if such a section is a common thing and if there are standards for inclusion. As it is now it adds no value for the reader.Tim Bray (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have reviewed the entries for a bunch of people who are a combination of some subset of British/Military/Authors/Famous and none have a "Related Individuals" section. I can find no discussion of such sections in WP forums or style guides. The current section (a) adds little value (b) omits many people who are much more closely related to TEL than those in this section (b) includes several questionable entries. Unless someone comes up with a good reason to preserve this, I plan to delete this section in the near future. Tim Bray (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm thinking of a short article on the Eric Kennington effigy at St Martin's Church, Wareham. Do any of the Lawrence biographies discuss this in detail? I'm particularly interested in why it didn't end up at St Paul's Cathedral and why it was subsequently rejected by both Westminster Abbey and Salisbury Cathedral . The online coverage (mostly unusable blogs) falls between a political decision not to sponsor a national memorial and an ecclesiastical aversion to the effigy's Arabic dress. I'd be very grateful for any insights. KJP1 (talk) 08:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I checked in the “official” biography by Jeremy Wilson and although there are lots of references to Kennington, I can find no mention of this effigy or how it got where it is. There are lots of other biographies though. A quick trip to a decent library should suffice to see if there's a story there.

Tim Bray (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think I recall that TEL was involved in the restoration of the Church building. It isn't mentioned on the St Martins Church page. Maybe I got it from the printed 'welcome to the church' leaflet I once had from visiting many years ago. Timbow001 (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

TimBray/Timbow001 - thanks, Tim & Tim, for the interest. I've never been but the church does look intriguing, almost a barn rather than a church. The Historic England listing does no more than note the existence of TEL's effigy. I'm slightly surprised it doesn't have its own listing. Anyways, I'm certain there is a story sufficient to justify a page - just need to find suitable sourcing! KJP1 (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can't understand what was edited and published by AWL in TEL By His Friends. It isn't a volume of letters.

Timbow001 (talk) 12:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Timbow001 - [4], its a, rather lengthy, set of memoirs/recollections by a big list of friends, colleagues etc. KJP1 (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Dormskirk removed the following:

There is some evidence that at that time the British government was interested in bringing him into some role in the national defence organisation, in the context of the rising threat of Nazi Germany. Ref is to R.B. Simpson's "Another Life: Lawrence After Arabia, p 278-9

I think was the one who put that in there after reading Simpson's book. IIRC, the description is accurate; there was initial correspondence among some VIPs about bringing TEL back into service, but he died before it got very specific about the role. Drat, Simpson's book doesn't seem to be online so I guess I have a trip to the library in my future. Of course, this story was grist for the conspiracy theorists' mill on the basis that TEL was murdered by shadowy agents of someone or other before he could return to office.

Anyhow, just leaving this here so it's handy if I find something useful to put in there. Tim Bray (talk) 01:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK. Good luck with finding something. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 08:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Seems unlikely. Neither Baldwin nor Chamberlain were fans, viewing Lawrence as a very loose cannon, and they worked hard to exclude WSC, who was. On the face of it, it's hard to imagine they would have wanted to include TEL. It will be interesting to see what the source says. KJP1 (talk) 09:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think we would need to know (i) specifically what the role was and (ii) who was proposing TEL for it. Dormskirk (talk) 09:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

It was Nancy Astor, Philip Kerr, and Lionel Curtis. There was no definite offer, and TEL anyway forbade Astor from making any further approaches to Baldwin:

In 1934, however, a number of his former friends from All Souls days, among them Round Tablers Curtis and Lothian, worked towards drawing him into an active political role. Despite his initial refusal to respond, in March of that year he did write a remarkably perceptive analysis of home defence for Curtis. It was a no-nonsense criticism that reflected his experience at both the crown and roots of the tree. He said that Beaverbrook and Rothermere were inept, he criticized the application of funds and warned of the threat that German aviation technology would present. His recommendations were for more aerodromes, better equipped aircraft firms, up to date designs, and more intelligent staff. Over a year later, on 7th May 1935, he received the letter from Nancy Astor inviting him to a dinner party at Cliveden: her intention was for him to meet Baldwin to discuss defence and Curtis and Lothian would also be there. At that time the lobbies of the House of Commons and the newspapers were full of the impending reconstruction of the government. Lawrence declined Lady Astor’s invitation, preferring to remain at Clouds Hill. Less than a fortnight later he was dead (Simpson p 278)

I believe when the government reorganizes you will be asked to re-organize the defence forces. I will tell you what I have done already about it. If you will come to Cliveden, the last Saturday in May, you will never regret it. Please, please come. Lionel, Pat, Philip, and, for the most important, Stanley Baldwin. Please think about this. (Nancy Astor to TEL, Simpson p 279))

It was part of Nancy’s nature to try and organize other people’s lives, which she was now trying to do, but she had obviously misunderstood Lawrence’s state of mind. Unfortunately the precise nature of the job that was on offer never came to light. He forbade Nancy from making any further approaches to Baldwin. (Simpson p 279)

So not much more than chatter amongst Friends of Nancy. DuncanHill (talk) 10:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

DuncanHill - That’s very helpful. And much more understandable than any serious approach by senior governmental figures, which neither Astor, nor Kerr, nor Curtis were. KJP1 (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

KJP1, Dormskirk, TimBray, Simpson's book Another Life: Lawrence After Arabia is available at Academia.edu DuncanHill (talk) 11:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, really helpful. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 11:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply