Talk:Gertrude Bell

Creation of Iraq
Could anyone please provide a reference for the following quote: "I don't for a moment doubt that the final authority must be in the hands of the Sunnis, in spite of their numerical inferiority," Bell once said. "Otherwise you will have a ... theocratic state, which is the very devil." Cheers, --SimmiBoi 12:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, found it. The article is still lacking in references, though. --SimmiBoi 15:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The Arab Revolt
The claim about her being more instrumental in the Arab Revolt than T.E. Lawrence is surprising; I am not a Bell expert but have read approximately everything by/about Lawrence, and do not believe this contention to be supported by evidence I've seen. It is certainly counter to conventional wisdom, and as such needs some evidence. Absent this, I think the claims should be written out of the entry. Tim Bray 08:08, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Digging around on Google, I cannot find any site that makes the claims in this article, though they all mention that she played a very important role, and that Lawrence could not have achieved what he did without her. She criticizes him in the letters she wrote in 1920, but not before or after that year. Iaen 14:47, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)

On reading the article with no prior knowledge of Bell, or indeed of Iraq, the impression I receive is that the writers are attempting to 'sell' the historical importance of this lady whilst also distancing themselves from the thing for which she is important, i.e her imperialistic, disastrous, nation-building. -Ashley Pomeroy 11:48, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It seems remarkable that every spy, king, or agent of the British Crown of any note who encountered her owed his entire knowledge of espionage, statecraft, or the Near East to that encounter. Sadly, her philosophy of life and of gender roles seems to have precluded the possibility of her enjoying any legacy other than single-handedly drawing the borders of Iraq, which is hardly a claim to fame, even if it were true. The woman was commended by the Crown for her service to the Empire, and for that I honor her memory. I will die accomplishing far less than she did--at least as a scholar, I am fairly sure. However, it seems that modern agendas may be at work in the phraseology of the Article, and it should be read with that in mind. Readers should note however that her government acknowledged her exploits by awarding her the Order of the British Empire (see Wikipedia entry): "King George V founded the Order to fill gaps in the British honours system: The Most Honourable Order of the Bath honoured only senior military officers and civil servants; The Most Distinguished Order of St Michael and St George honoured diplomats... In particular, King George V wished to honour the many thousands of people who served in numerous non-combatant capacities during the First World War... This Order of Knighthood [i.e., the Order of the British Empire] has a more democratic character than the exclusive orders of the Bath or Saint Michael and Saint George, and in its early days was not held in high esteem..." (emphasis added). Lawrence, on the other hand, was admitted to the Order of the Bath in appreciation for his service. --R.M., Esq. August 2, 2006.

It's generally understood that Hussein, Sharif of Mecca, and his sons initiated a revolt against the Ottoman Empire in Arabia, but didn't have weapons to overcome those used in counter attacks by the Turks. The British in the Egypt Expeditionary Force saw that it could be of advantage to them to back the Sharif with supplies and weapons, but were stymied for a while, because the authority to launch operations in Arabia had not been apportioned between E.E.F. Hq in Cairo and the India E. E. F. Hq in Delhi which was responsible for ops in Mesopotamia (and had already sent forces to capture Basrah and then Baghdad when GLB was invited by D. G. Hogarth to join his unit in Cairo by Nov. 1915). She was there, ostensibly, to share information about the geography of northern Arabia that she knew from her travels, but which was not yet in GHQ Cairo files nor reflected on their maps. During her first two months she worked to fill in missing data, but also became aware of the turf sorting needing to be done between the two headquarters. Having met so many high placed government officials due to her family ties and traveling, (she even knew almost everyone in Hogarth's group before she was sent there, and Janet Hogarth, his sister, was Gertrude's classmate at Oxford and best friend for nerly 20 years). Gertrude used her writing talent to describe both the problem, and a proposal to set up liaison channels to coordinate actions and keep one and the other headquarters informed. She also provided good advice as to whom to send the report to in Whitehall to get prompt attention and backing. It worked, and by the end of January, 1916, she was dispatched by Gen. Clayton to Delhi to brief and sell the new Viceroy, Lord Chas. Hardinge (an acquaintance from her youth) on the proposal, as his support would be required for Cairo to go ahead with any plans for supporting the uprising. The upshot of it was that she not only made the case successfully, and smoothed the way, but was kept by I.E.F. for her much needed language and information gathering skills, and was assigned to be the liaison officer (from the front line at Basrah) with Hogarth's group in Cairo (newly designated as the "Arab Bureau.") Although British support for the Sharif Hussein uprising may have eventually got going without her intervention, "Gerty" did fan embers into a flame. To get fuller and more precise skinny on this, one needs to read more than one or two books on what happened on the Middle East during WW One, subject matter more rich in data available for story mining as the sinking of the Titanic! A big subject not yet as extensively dealt with as have been bios of TEL and GLB would be the natures and adventures of Hogarth, each of his "Intrusives" as his group was called, certain soldiers of the Br. Empire, the Arab leaders that they tried to "help," and the inter-relationships between them, all, before, during, and after the War. Not for the simple minded is it, either, because much spinning, smoke screening and ax grinding has made it seem difficult to get at what actually went on and why. However, going to collections of TEL and GLB documents, letters, etc., and cross comparing stories can be illuminating about all these folks, too! One does get tired of observing humans eternally holding "pissing matches" over who winds up with the most turf and toys for a spell, but as individuals, the ones in this era and locale are more interesting than most ... in my view. Melizbaker 10:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Inheriting Baronetsy Title
Oops ... I appreciate correction regarding GLB not inheriting her father's title, and went too far in interpreting her receipt of a diamond tiara in a package from her step mother in February 1922. Perhaps she had some sort of entitlement just being the eldest offspring of her father and grandfather. As a child of a peer of their rank, she'd probably be entitled to have the preface "Hon. (Honorable)" used before her name, at least. I'd like to hear views of anyone who can shed added light on the topic. According to Wallach book, she wore it, along with her "orders," at her last official function in Baghdad on 25 June, 1926 ... probably just to get in some final fun as "intimidator." Must add a curious note here; it may be of interest to contributors to this page. The Mar/Apr, 2007, AARP mag has an article on Helen Mirren (page 49) which reads as follows: "The mesmerizing thing about Helen is that beneath the totally convincing facade of a perfectly bred English lady of a certain age, there still lurks a coiled animal waiting to spring," says British film director Jon Amiel (Sommersby), who has been courting her for a World War I-era future film project. Hmmmm! Melizbaker 22:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Use of acronyms for nobel titles in Wikipedia
I think these English nobility titles (here "CBE") should be spelled out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.2.203.71 (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of Suicide As Cause of GLB Death
Since GLB was buried on the same day as she was discovered to have died, one wonders how the cause of death had been determined. Was there any story from her maid that she was accustomed to using Dial, or that the pill count in the bottle took a large drop on the night of her death? Dilated pupils would have been an indication of narcotic poisoning, but since this usually happens anyway when you die, what other indication was there that she had overdosed? Hot nights without air conditioning made getting needed rest difficult; sleep inducing aids were just about all there was to help. By July 1926, the heat of Basra and Baghdad for many years (10) had taken their toll on her, not to mention malarial attacks, and possible congestive heart failure (inducing pleurisy and chronic cough) aggravated by stress and years of smoking. While she was home on leave in England in 1925 she consulted doctors about her health. They advised her not to return to Iraq, but the record seems not to show that they found something wrong such as cancer developing. Her letters indicate that she had had a sinking feeling during one of her last ill spells. They also seemed to indicate that she was eating very little at meal times. Her last pictures have her looking anorexic. A bad spell in the Fall of 1924 that really caused her to lose weight led, probably, to her musing that "an ending was approaching." So, on the night of 11 July, even one Dial pill on top of exhaustion from trying to swim in the Tigris (a swift river at times) could have tipped the balance from life to death. However, it would be characteristic of her to end it all "on her own terms." She was not one to have been a burdensome invalid for anyone; nor had she any allies (after the departure of High Commissioner Sir Percy Cox) from her fellow "Intrusives" powerful enough to help her continue to fend off mischief makers and factions wanting to make sweetheart deals for oil exploration rights. A former boss of hers, Arnold T. Wilson, who generally disdained the idea of Arabians properly governing themselves and wanted Iraq administrated more directly by British personnel (as was done in India), had been fended off in the past and had lost out and left government service. At the 1921 Cairo Conference, he attended as a representative of Anglo-Persian Oil (eventually BP), and was continuing to hang around Iraq. Also, she was not appreciated by Baghdad's dealers in antiquities, purloined ones or whatever. She was very diligent in her efforts to make sure as much as possible were intercepted and saved for the Iraq museum. The stress of getting exhibits ready for the June 1926 opening and making sure things did not get "lost" in the process was an added drain on her physical resources. Supposedly she had recently sent a note to her long time associate K. Cornwallis, adviser to the Interior Minister, asking him to look after her pet dog if something happened to her. Was such a note the reason for speculating that she had taken her own life? Sometimes I wonder if K. Cornwallis was as true a friend to Gertrude as he was made out to be ... I think I read somewhere, possibly in "Churchill's Folly" by Christopher Catherwood, that after he left military service, he returned to Iraq, serving there as Britain's ambassador until 1945 ... which would make him seem very amenable to "going along to get along." Finally, she was running out of sufficient income to maintain her household. Dividends from inherited stocks and savings had diminished as supplement to her quarters allowance and pay from her position as Oriental Secretary. The deepening world financial depression and lengthy worker strikes in England were threatening her family's business and financial status. Furthermore, she seemed to be losing zest for writing up reports; perhaps she really objected to reporting things as she was asked to do, especially as Britain had less and less to invest in administering their presence there, not only for security forces, but also for social programs that might help people in it's mandated areas. Finally, not really a robust individual to start with, King Faisal's health seemed to be going downhill; he was in Switzerland getting medical treatments for himself at the time of GLB's death. Were these treatments for cancer? Had she learned that he, too, after all the effort to find a prestigious leader for Iraq, was going to have his time cut short! If so, the prospect was mighty bleak indeed! One wonders what T. E. Lawrence thought when he finally heard how she died. Many were very surprised when T. E. L. did not accompany Faisal to Baghdad and support his transition to becoming Iraq's ruler. Instead T. E. seemed to see no way to live down his own perceived failure to be fully truthful with Faisal while yet having to serve Britain in the war, thereby betraying his own ideals by not keeping a knight's oath to tell the truth, always, though it may mean one's death. Instead, he chose to cut himself off with a symbolic sort of death by bailing out of all politics and public activities (and abandoning support of Faisal to Cox and Bell). Gertrude, however, never flinched from the consequences of backing her choices and decisions with her actions. Melizbaker 17:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The following added, unsigned on April 14th by anon editor. WBardwin 08:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

... of course, there is also the nagging possibility something was put into her luncheon to help her along. On more than one occasion she had been thrown from her horse, once when it was startled by the sudden appearance of a cart with jangling bells, another when it was panicked by some unfriendly dogs. Only her remarkable agility spared her serious injury. Also, she seemed to have poor luck in keeping some of her own dogs healthy. Her cousin Sylvia Henley, who accompanied GLB on her trip back to Iraq after the 1925 visit home, was afflicted with one health problem after another and had to be evacuated by air to return to England instead of being able to provide Gertrude with some companionship for a while, as she had hoped to do. Coincidences no doubt, as was the arrival back in Iraq (in 1927) not long after she died ... of oil explorers, absent since before the war. Melizbaker

This is to amend the assertion above that TEL abandoned support of Faisal to Cox and Bell (after the 1921 Cairo Conference): My view, now, is that such a comment is not defensible. I've just finished reading the "Winston's Bridge" chapter of C. Catherwood's "Churchill's Folly," much of which chapter is based on the detailed official biography of Winston C. by M. Gilbert. In early April 1922, while Lawrence had not yet resigned from Churchill's Colonial Office, and King Faisal was negotiating for more powers under the British mandate (to be allowed to have his own separate diplomatic and consular representation of Iraq, etc.) but which the Cabinet were resistant to agreeing to, Winston, setting store on TE's personal influence with the King, proposed to send Col. Lawrence to Baghdad to "make the whole situation plain to the King by oral explanation." In response (ltr of 4 April), the High Commissioner for Iraq refuses to approve his (TEL's) involvement. A reason is cited that is somewhat understandable, but still surprising in respect to who made it (not GLB, who likely was not even aware of the communication). Lawrence soon submits his last request (which was finally accepted) to leave the Colonial Office, still with the offer to serve, if Churchill really thinks he could be of help in the future. In fairness to TEL, many avenues were being closed to him that had anything to do with traveling to anyplace outside of England because of suspicions that he was a spy, or would stir rebellions. In 1923, Robert Graves, troubled by TEL's life in the ranks, esp. the tank corps, tried to "rescue" him by telling him that he (RG) had had an invitation from the "Foreign Minister of a certain Eastern principality" to go there and live at the Government's expense; the invitation including Lawrence. On 18 January, 1923, Lawrence notes that he could get a passport from the India Office (via a comrade from the war serving there), but still rejects Graves' offer with the comment: "I very nearly came, but I wanted it too much for it to be a wholesome wish." Needless to say, Graves did not go by himself. (See "T. E. Lawrence, Letters to His Biographers Robert Graves and Liddell Hart") I wonder if TEL really could have gotten that passport. Eventually, he found himself barred from ALL the archealogical "dig countries," and, in 1929, was even expelled from his overseas assignment with the RAF in Miranshah Fort, India, before the tour was up because of unrest in Afghanistan which, supposedly, had no connection with him. Melizbaker

Scope of G. L. Bell's Family Connections - One Instance
Strange as it may seem, some bio's on GLB mention that her father's aunt Mary Katherine Bell was the wife of Edward Lyulph Stanley and that one of Lyulph's sisters, Katherine Louisa Stanley, married John Viscount Amberly, eldest son of Earl Russell, and was the mother of Bertrand Russell. But what is seldom mentioned is that another of Lyulph's sisters, Henrietta Blanche Stanley who married Sir David, 7th Earl Airlie, knight, was Clementine Hozier's grandmother. The same Clementine ("Clemmie") who married Winston Churchill. This can be seen on a table in the "Some People Involved In Their Lives" segment at the beginning of the book "Winston & Clementine: The Triumphs & Tragedies of the Churchill's" by Richard Hough. One of Mary Kate and Lyulph's daughters, Sylvia Laura Stanley, accompanied Gertrude back to Baghdad when she returned after her last trip home to England in 1925. Sylvia's husband, Brig. Gen. Anthony M. Henley had just passed away, and the trip was to serve as a diversion, but also may have been a measure to have a frail Gertrude looked after during passage. Sylvia's younger sister, Beatrice Venetia Stanley (Montagu) was a great friend of the Asquith's, and even more extensive acquaintances and relationships can be seen in several books dealing with the letters of Venetia Stanley and Violet Asquith (Bonham Carter) ... If you haven't read some of this stuff, treat yourself! At the time the "Camel Ride at the Pyramids" picture was taken at Cairo in 1921, Gertrude was only 6 years older than Winston, and Clementine, who was 11 years younger than Winston, was but 3 years older than T. E. Lawrence. Finally, a little interesting tidbit (though of minor association with GLB) was something I read, somewhere in these books, that during WW II, Winston wanted to learn more about radar guided ack ack guns, so went to visit one in the London suburbs manned by his daughter Mary (Soames) and Venetia's daughter Judy Montagu, who were members of the Home Defence Force. Melizbaker

A Depiction of Late 19th Century English Culture Apropos to GLB
To lighten up a little, I'd like to suggest that, for a lively and credible glimpse of a facet of English "society" when GLB was in her late teens, you might like to check out the movie "Topsy Turvy, Gilbert & Sullivan & Much More" (Rated R ... not for kids). It portrays how a slumping Gilbert & Sullivan revived their popularity by coming up with the "Mikado." Even if you've seen it, it may be worth taking another look at if you've been reading any collection of letters or recent bios regarding Gertrude. For only one small example among many relevancies, see if you can catch how Gilbert uses "pish tosh." Somewhere, in one of the bios of her I think, it mentions that she attended the opening night of the Mikado that is depicted in the climax of this work. It received two 1999 Academy Awards (Best Costumes, Best Makeup) and "Best Film" from a couple of other movie award societies. Melizbaker


 * "Pish-tosh": You have to transpose the vowels and read it backwards. PiCo (talk) 08:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

In Reviewing New Howell Bio of G. Bell, Was Hitchens Spot-on About Sykes?
Christopher Hitchens reviewed Georgina Howell's recently released biography on Gertrude Bell on pages 119 and ff. of the June, 2007, issue of The Atlantic magazine. In it he mentions the famous complaint Mark Sykes made in a letter to his wife about Gertrude after she had gotten the jump on him as a rival "travel" writer. Hitchens suggests there might have been a "hint of fascination" in his expression of frustration. A picture in G. Bell's photo archives might shed some light as to whether or not Hitchens ... and Sykes ... were right. It can be seen online at "The Gertrude Bell Project" link in this article as photo #105 in Album W in the collection of photographs. Additionally, some interesting photos taken by Bell in 1916 soon after her arrival in Basra are at the beginning of this album and depict the area around her quarters and workplace.

The above was submitted, unsigned, by User:4.124.79.224 21:15, 2 June 2007

Arabs did not revolt against Turkey
In years of 1915-1916, there were no Turkish Republic(Turkey). Turkish Republic was founded by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in Oct 29, 1923. At the time mentioned in the article(1915-1916), the founder of the modern Turkey was the commander of the Ottoman Empire as Lt.Col. in Gallipoli campaing against ANZAC's controlled by British which resulted in favor of Ottoman Empire. Arab revolt was against Ottoman Empire at the time and there was no such country called Turkey. Details are here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli_Campaign —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.167.59.108 (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Work in the Middle East (Section) No Citations
This was flagged back in February 2010, but nothing was added to this page about the reason. I have consolidated all of the individual citation needed tags into a section tag so it stands out better, and applied the original date to the tag. I do not have the required knowledge to source material on this subject. I've set myself a note to check in 6 months to see if there are any updates. If it remains without citations I'll remove the non-cited claims. They can always be restored at a later date if a verifiable source can be found. Help with creating citations. Rjhawkin (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've added some. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Can a woman be a CBE or are they a DBE?
I thought that there the female equivalent to Commander of the British Empire CBE, was Dame Commander of the British Empire DBE. Not absolutely certain though. --Jnicho02 17:30, 31 December 2013


 * Her biographer, Georgina Howell, calls her a CBE. Page 356. Probably DBE did not exist at that period. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Spelling of "exotic" names
The editors are not consistent in the transliteration of names. Thus we see two versions of the same name in this article, Hussein and Husayn. This is a general tendency in all written media and should gradually be overcome by some kind of standardization. SBader (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

"Spy" allegation
Some recent edits have inserted the word "spy" into the lead. I have removed it several times. A lead is meant to just summarize what is in the body. There is no content in the article to support the word spy being inserted in the lead. The article cannot use the word "spy" simply because an editor considers something in Gertrude Bell's life equates to her being a spy - that would be OR and POV. There has to be a proper source for it, and a strong source given it is a very controversial claim to make. An editor added this link to the last edit, however this is not a valid source. A headline is not a valid source - there is no evidence at all presented within that article to indicate what evidence might exist to support its "spy" assertion headline and the word "spy" does not appear inside the article. Extreme assertions, as I said, require strong sources. "Tim Arango in 2014 called Gertrude Bell a spy" - that is all the content that could ever be derived from that "source", and that content would not be suitable for Wikipedia given that Tim Arango is a minor journalist, not an historian or Gertrude Bell expert. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The following discussion has been transferred from my talk page so that it can be continued here:


 * User:Tiptoethrutheminefield I disagree with you. In my edit summary, I said the information was supported by information contained in the body of the article.


 * 1) In the second paragraph in the section Gertrude Bell, we read:


 * Later, she was asked by British Intelligence to get soldiers through the deserts;


 * 2) In the section Gertrude Bell, we read:


 * In November 1915, however, she was summoned to Cairo to the nascent Arab Bureau;


 * Under recommendation by renowned archaeologist and historian Lt. Cmdr. David Hogarth, first Lawrence, then Bell, were assigned to Army Intelligence Headquarters in Cairo in 1915 for war service.


 * Although the word "spy" is not specifically used, I believe it is understood that when one works for British Intelligence, one is a spy.


 * Also, according to Manual of Style/Lead section, particularly the second paragraph:


 * Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.


 * Thus, if a statement in the lead that is not controversial is supported by sourced information in the body of the article, the source does not have to be given in the lead.

– CorinneSD (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely, with the inclusion of 'spy' in the lead, and the use of 'skill', as outlined above. Rothorpe (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Lots of evidence is provided. Rwood128 (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And your sources that use the word "spy" are? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * See:[ and [, etc. [[User:Rwood128|Rwood128]] (talk) 01:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * First source does not mention the word "spy" at all, second "source" has been already dealt with in my OP: a headline for an article is not a source. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually it does as archaeologist-spies. Vsmith (talk) 02:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It does not. The archaeologist-spies being mentioned are T.E. Lawrence and unnamed "others". Bell is not called an archaeologist-spy. And nothing in any part of Bell's career fits the definition of "spy". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Er, something seems to be being misread here: a citation was removed that clearly states "spy", the headline "For British Spy in Iraq ..." here, and the first paragraph begins "A picture of Gertrude Bell, the British diplomat and spy". I've restored it to the lede. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A newspaper headline is not a source. A newspaper headline is not content. Headlines are generally not written by the journalist named as the author of the piece. Neither are book titles for the same reason. Sources have to contain actual content to be classed as sources. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above contribution from CorinneSD - the fact that reputable books, reviews, etc referring to Bell contain the word "Spy" in the title cannot be ignored. An example is Spies in Arabia : The Great War and the Cultural Foundations of Britain's Covert Empire in the Middle East Oxford University Press, 2008 by Priya Satia (Assistant Professor of History at Stanford University), which recounts the important role that Gertrude Bell played among the intelligence community in the Middle East. He wrote: "Florence Bell was [the] stepmother of the agent Gertrude Bell (p. 17), "Many of those involved in Middle Eastern politics and intelligence gathered at her home", Bell was the "key female member of this intelligence community" (p. 340), etc. Hohenloh + 17:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've read some disgusting propaganda works in my time, for example from the likes of Heath-Lowry and McCarthy, but rarely have I seen lie after lie, weasel-word after weasel-word, used as consistently and extensively as in Satia's "work". She takes the attitude that if she repeats her lie often enough it becomes true, regardless of the lack of supporting evidence. The vileness of the book is beyond anything I have ever encountered. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I have again removed the unreferenced "spy" allegation". I have been as explicit in the edit summary as it is possible to be: "d uncited per wp:v". Any editor who restores this "spy" allegation without providing a credible source will be breaking one of Wikipedia's core rules and can be reported. I suggest they read carefully wp:v, in particular the "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is consensus for it, perhaps a RfC should be opened. But at least one source will be needed or such a process would be entirely pointless since without any sources the claim cannot be admitted. I have also asked advice about the headline "source" issue on the RS noticeboard []Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

More sources
In answering a query on this topic at WP:RSN, I came across some sources that discuss the issue of Bell acting as an unpaid spy/informant/information-gatherer in some detail and with some nuance. Placing the list here in the hope that it helps editors involved with the article (I realize that at least some of the sources are already mentioned in the article or in the discussion above): Abecedare (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The word "spy" has a specific definition: a person who tries to get secret information about another country, organization or person, especially somebody who is employed by a government or the police. Being an expert on something does not make a person a spy, advising others about the subject they are an expert in does not make that person a spy. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Everyone but editor Tiptoethrutheminefield seems to believe that Gertrude Bell was a spy. See Gertrude Bell: The Arabian Diaries, 1913-1914, by Gertrude Lowthian Bell, edited Rosemary O'Brien (already mentioned) and The Oxford Dictionary of National biography– though the the latter merely indicates that she worked for "military intelligence". Rwood128 (talk) 23:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If one works for "military intelligence", isn't one, if not a mere clerk, an intelligence officer? Isn't "spy" a colloquial synonym of "intelligence officer"? CorinneSD (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think, CorinneSD, that she was a clerk! See also Janet Wallach . Wallach's is the author of Desert Queen; The Extraordinary Life of Gertrude Bell (Nan A. Talese/Doubleday, 1996), which has been translated into twelve languages and was a New York Times notable book of the year. Rwood128 (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 *  I know she wasn't a clerk. I was just making the point that most people who work for British Intelligence are intelligence officers. Gertrude Bell worked for British Intelligence and was obviously not a clerk. She was an intelligence officer, ie., a spy. I'm glad you're adding additional sources. CorinneSD (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

CorinneSD, I was trying to be too clever with my attempted irony/sarcasm – "merely"; "and I don't think she was a clerk". I was getting a little exasperated with the actions of another editor. Rwood128 (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I came to this discussion accidentally, via the RSN, my general observation would be that everybody is getting worked up in a yes she was/no she wasn't argument. Would it be more useful to ask 'WHAT was she doing for Brit intelligence'? In the past it was normal for travellers to submit useful info, legally gathered, to their home country's intell services. This was certainly still normal for journalists/business people/academics etc. visiting the USSR up to the 60's. Yes that makes one an agent/aide of Brit. Intell, but does that make one a 'spy'? I'm not sure. Certainly the label 'spy' without any qualifiers does imply illegal/secretive/hostile info gathering. People employed to read the newspapers/listen to the radio of foreign countries are engaged in 'intelligence gathering', but that isn't what most people would understand by 'spying'. Some human/political/economic intelligence gathering is perfectly legal and not necessarily seen by the host country as hostile. However, regardless, it seems much more fruitful to say WHAT her role/function/actions were than whether 'spy' is the apt label.Pincrete (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I must admit to being a little uneasy about this as a non-expert, because Gertrude Bell seems to have been much more than what is usually thought of as a spy. However, major biographical sources call her a spy, and she was employed by military intelligence – though this may have been a brief episode. What this article needs is someone who has read widely about Gertrude Bell, and the editor who objected to the use of the word spy didn't provide any evidence of having done that. Certainly the discussion in the body of the article might address the issue raised by Pincrete.

Rwood128 (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I an also not remotely an expert and endorse everything Rwood128 says about use of the most authoritive sources. I was simply arguing for a more nuanced approach from both sides. That GB had a relationship with Brit Intell does not seem to be widely disputed. What the nature of that relationship was seems interesting, but uncertain. I sympathise with Tiptoethrutheminefield only to the extent that if EVERYONE who supplies useful expertise/knowledge/background info to their 'home' country is a 'spy', an awful lot of diplomats/travellers/academics would also qualify as 'spies'. 'Spy' is colloquial and CAN be used for anyone supplying info, but it does ordinarily imply someone acting clandestinely and illegally. Possibly a more nuanced description would be appropriate in the lede if there is any doubt (co-operated with Brit Intell?). Pincrete (talk) 10:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Rwood128 that it would be good if we had a person who really knows what Gertrude Bell did for the British intelligence service to review what is in the article and perhaps add additional information to it. I understand Pincrete's concern that, because the word "spy" is colloquial, it could have a broader meaning than is desirable. I agree that the word "spy" does "ordinarily imply someone acting clandestinely", but not necessarily illegally. What is illegal, of course, depends upon one's point of view and on what legal system is being referenced. In neither the Wiktionary nor the Merriam-Webster  definition of the word "spy" is there any mention of anything illegal. I don't understand, though, why, if more than one reliable source call Gertrude Bell a spy, there is any problem using the word to describe her. The details of what she actually did are the subject of parts of the article, and there is some mention of her activities. All we need are more details. CorinneSD (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I completely support any effort to expand the article's coverage of Bell's life and activities. But there is no doubt that she engaged in espionage, first as an unpaid agent, and then (from 1915) as a Major in British military intelligence. This is detailed in the references I linked above. For example, from Georgina Howell's book:

The book, and the others listed above, have much more. The wikipedia article already mentions her work in Cairo's Arab Bureau, although her rank is not mentioned, and I'm sure there are other details in the sources that can be used for expansion. Abecedare (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Confusion may arise because it seems that before WWII Gertrude Bell was an unpaid amateur spy, but then subsequently was employed by military intelligence (see also Gertrude Bell: The Arabian Diaries). I'll try and add something, to clarify matters, in the body of the article.Rwood128 (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm certainly NOT arguing against the word 'spy', per se (I don't know the sources so can't). Merely pointing out the dangers of doing so unqualified by info as to WHAT her role/activities were. Since everyone is agreed to expand coverage of this, use or not of that particular word (or some alternative such as 'informer'/'agent'), becomes less crucial. Pincrete (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion concerning the exact location of Getrude Bell's grave in Baghdad
The article states that "She was buried at the British cemetery in Baghdad's Bab al-Sharji district", although the quoted reference source does not seem to contain this line. Does anybody have a reliable, published, source that provides the exact location of Bell's "plain stone tomb" (Howell) in Baghdad? The closest I can find is a 2006 article in the New York Times (see link) which provides some good clues. The quoted journey from the Armenian Church and the building in the background of the photograph allow one to easily speculate where the tomb might be, by using Google Earth satellite imagery. Both church and background building (and thus the likely tomb site within a small cemetery) are easily located in Google Earth, but my own personal OR is not allowed here - so is there a reliable published source that points to Bell's exact grave location? DavidJames21353 (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Gertrude Bell. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://theava.com/04/0526-gertrude-bell.html
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.gerty.ncl.ac.uk/letters/l1434.htm

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Happy Birthday
tweeted at WiRed Victuallers (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Rather inordinate?
User:Joe Roe I'm not sure why you reverted this. My logic when making the edit was that 'rather inordinate' was vague, almost self-contradicting (= "somewhat excessive").

I question whether "inordinate" is actually the best term, since what is being said is that G Bell had a surprising large amount of influence, not that she had too much, (would considerable?/substantial be better?).Pincrete (talk) 11:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant to revert the edit before yours (that changed the meaning of the sentence from her influence being unusual because she was a woman to being unusual because she was "among the Arabs"). I misread and thought both edits were by the same person. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gertrude Bell. 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://web.archive.org/web/20071010051248/http://www.mirror.co.uk/tm_objectid%3D17061225%26method%3Dfull%26siteid%3D94762%26headline%3Dbritish--queen-of-iraq--rests-in-baghdad-cemetery-name_page.html/ to http://www.mirror.co.uk/tm_objectid=17061225%26method=full%26siteid=94762%26headline=british%2d%2dqueen%2dof%2diraq%2d%2drests%2din%2dbaghdad%2dcemetery-name_page.html/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hagiography not biography.
NPOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.201.254 (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Zionism
User:Berocca Addict regarding this revert. It is actually AFTER the bit which you restored when she begins to discuss Zionism. The bit you restored is about the medical 'hardiness' of Arabs: " Medical organization is of the very first importance, … Hospitals and dispensaries are the first things the people ask for, and they flock to them, men and women, and don't hesitate to undergo operations or any treatment you please. Capt. C.E. says the standard of vitality is much higher than in Europe; the people here pull through operations which he would not dare to attempt at home. Their nervous system is much more solid; they don't suffer from shock. The Jews here are much more like ourselves in these respects and contrast ill with the vigorous primitiveness of the Arab". So apart from this NOT being about Zionism, it's Bell quoting/expounding someone else's opinion in a primary source. Though admittedly one which she appears to endorse.

It is immediately AFTER this quote that she begins to speak about Zionism: "By the way, I hate Mr Balfour's Zionist pronouncement with regard to Syria. It's my Bellief that it can't be carried out; the country is wholly unsuited to the ends the Jews have in view; it is a poor land, incapable of great development and with a solid two thirds of its population Mohammadan Arabs who look on Jews with contempt. I think myself that they will ficher themselves pas mal of Zionist ambitions, which it would be an invidious task to try and force upon them. To my mind it's a wholly artificial scheme divorced from all relation to facts and I wish it the ill-success it deserves - and will get, I fancy".

The source incidentally doesn't say either that she thought that "it would be impossible to impose Jewish rule on Arab inhabitants of Palestine." as our text does, and I think a better word than "impossible" should be found. "Unfair" which used to be the word used summarises better the "invidious task to try and force upon them" part of her letter, but possibly no single word summarises this adequately.Pincrete (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

NPOV concerns
reverted my placement of NPOV on this article because it was "without talk page explanation". I'm therefore copying the explanation from my edit summary here: this article is unduly hagiographic throughout, but the military career section in particular presents her almost as a philanthropist, gracefully letting "the Arabs" have their own states, rather than as one source puts it, an imperialist who "used her knowledge and her travels to promote the cause of the British Empire". To respond further to SnowFire, I'm obviously not saying "all the other scholarship is wrong", I'm saying the article ignores a fairly large body of sources (not just one and easily found) that critically discuss Bell's impact on the region as a British imperalist, colonial administrator and spy (see also the sections above). The closest it gets is a milquetoast Historians have said that more recent troubles in Iraq arose from the political boundaries which Bell conceived, but this is immediately followed by more hagiography because apparently Bell was a soothsayer as well as an ever-well-intentioned "friend of the Arabs". It reads like it was written in the 1930s. The entire Legacy and tributes#Modern section is an extended quote from a Tory politician, for christ's sake. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 05:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The source you cite actually says "Bell was a traveler and a scholar who used her knowledge and her travels to promote the cause of the British Empire. But although she was unambiguously imperial in her outlook, she also managed to achieve a personal closeness with many Arabs and was a champion of their history and culture." So your quote was itself very selective.Pincrete (talk) 06:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, because the article already represents that side of her (too) well. To put it another way, when sources say that Bell balanced her imperialist mission with her Orientophilia, the article is selective in portraying her as a well-meaning traveller who just happened to have a lot of influence on colonial governance. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the slow response. I'd hoped to visit an institution that had access to the journal article you linked in your edit summary so that I could intelligently comment on more than just the abstract, but wasn't able to get to it (and was busy otherwise on the weekend).  I don't think it's contested that Bell was a willing cog in the British Empire, but that also doesn't mean that she didn't genuinely advocate for Arab sovereignty under the structure that would have made sense to a 1910s/20s British person.  I will attempt to post again after I manage to get access to the article.  SnowFire (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I broadly agree with SnowFire, Bell was a creature of her time and out of sync with ours - but so were almost all of her contemporaries (her contemporaries may have been even less sympathetic to Arab culture and the Arab cause than Bell). As for Bell being a 'spy', this is a very literal and 'loaded' reading of the fact that she (openly and unapologetically) supplied 'open' information, both human intelligence about the character and foibles of 'key' local players and also geographical etc info to British intelligence - but so does every single diplomat, soldier, administrator and a good many business people posted to the area either then or now. Of course this should all be covered to the same extent as best sources do, but what I see at present is an article about someone not of our time, who held views which were, sometimes, conservative even for her own time. What info/criticism is missing?Pincrete (talk) 04:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The complexity of her character and relationship with the Arab world that you've both acknowledged here is entirely missing from the article itself. She may have been 'of her time', but that doesn't mean we have to be of her time when writing about her. The two major areas that need improvement before this tag can be removed, as I see it, are the coverage of her political role, which is presented as almost incidental to her presence in the Middle East, rather than a central reason for it, and as "helping" Arabs and Arab states, rather than helping impose British suzerainty over them; and the descriptions of her legacy, which at the moment are wholly positive and sourced entirely to her contemporaries or successors in the British establishment, even when talking about her supposed enduring popularity in Iraq (there are no Iraqis, no Arabs at all, cited in the whole article, as far as I can tell).
 * This recent edited volume has many good sources. If you send me an email, I can reply with a copy of those and the other article I linked to. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 06:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And on the subject of 'of her time', the first article I linked specifically contrasts Bell's embrace of an imperialist mission with the more ambivalent attitude of her contemporary Isabelle Eberhardt. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Joe Roe: I really don't think that the Rory Stewart article is as useless as you seem to think it is. I doubt I would be a Tory voter if I was British and I'm not super-familiar with Stewart, but isn't he exactly the kind of person who would love Bell? Old-school internationalist, vaguely aristocratic British conservative pre-Brexit screwing everything up? Put another way, you can sometimes tell something about the later influence of a person by who their super-fans are. Andrew Jackson (possibly the most evil president the USA has ever had) being praised by socialism-influenced historians of the 1930s who saw him as a friend of the working man fighting against the system, and by Donald Trump in 2017-2020 when he insisted he stay on the 20 dollar bill. I don't give a rat for what either of those two groups like, but the fact they like Jackson says something both about Jackson and his reputation. No reason why using Stewart as an example super-fan wouldn't be similar. (Anyway, if we do use it, the fact that Lawrence disagreed with Bell on the wisdom of the size of Iraq is already mentioned. As is the fact that Iraqi Arabs liked Bell, both to the book you recommended yourself.  I don't think there's any reason to doubt Stewart in his claim - I'm sure among the pro-British, secular Iraqi Arabs he talked to, they liked Bell just fine.  Granted, a way to hint at Stewart's limited perspective to the reader without engaging in blatant POV is tricky, but like I said, no reason to think it's isn't basically true.)  SnowFire (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I do agree with your initial complaint that the amount of quoting of the Stewart article was excessive. And the phrasing I used when moving the section might require even further qualification that "yo, this is what Stewart says, don't take this as 100% authoritative on all Iraqis".  But the general thrust of Stewart's article - that Bell is still remembered in Iraq  (by some people, at least) and that Stewart thought that Bell was awesome - is fine, even if you don't think Stewart's opinion is worth much.  SnowFire (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Now that I've had time to reformat the article some (did not want to argue too much about an article I hadn't closely checked, and it turned out the old article had some notable mistakes / chronological confusions in it)... would you be willing to reconsider the NPOV tag, and either remove it or clarify what is still lacking in your opinion? I've read quite a few sources on Gertrude Bell. I've also included the parts of the Garcia-Ramon article that are corroborated in other sources in the article. I will say though that the Garcia-Ramon article is among the harshest of all the sources in tone, out of step with the others, and some of its criticisms didn't come up anywhere else (e.g. that Gertrude Bell's dress was some sort of imperialist fashion statement to "perpetuate the ideology of imperial rule", rather than just being what Bell liked to wear as a personal choice). Garcia-Ramon's article approvingly cites Lukitz's 1995 History of Iraq and quotes Lukitz saying that "A critical analysis of her relevant contribution to British policies in the Middle East" was missing as of 2001; I've cited Lukitz's 2006 book "A Quest in the Middle East" quite a bit, which was presumably her attempt at performing such a critical analysis. So hopefully, at least citing a source Garcia-Ramon approves of should satisfy concerns here. Various Iraqis have been cited, largely from the "A Life and Legacy" book (al-Gailani Werr, Eskander, and T. Chalabi are all Iraqi), as well as Elie Kedourie (the only other source comparably harsh to Garcia-Ramon... but from the reverse direction, attacking Bell from the right rather than the left). The war section has been expanded with a "warts and all" approach that discussed that yes, she was an important part of the British bureaucracy, and initially didn't think the Indian-style provisional government was a big deal. (Although I would argue that the "soothsayer" bit is common and harmless to all articles - I've made sure to include incidents of Bell being wrong or inconsistent, but being intriguingly right about some future warning/prediction is inherently more interesting than being wrong about something. Of course people are more interested in Jules Verne's ideas that turned out closer to future reality, like submarines or spaceships launching from Florida, than the parts that were off.)

On the spy bit, I still think this isn't a great descriptor. She was a spy only in the most boring possible interpretation, of being an intelligence analyst. The average reader will think of traveling behind enemy lines or under false pretenses when they see "spy", but that wasn't the case: once the war started, Bell trailed the British advance, not led it. Anyway, the sources don't really consider "spy" her main descriptor; the article includes the work she did for the Intelligence Division, which was largely stuff like writing letters describing feelings in the area and making maps. Which was significant intelligence work! As Garcia-Ramon noted, it helped Lawrence during the Arab Revolt, and that's in the article now.

As far as "impose British suzerainty", that's a rather misleading way to write it, considering that the British had already occupied the region in the course of the war before she was appointed Oriental Secretary in mid-1917. I've expanded the article to make clear that Bell's vision in 1919-1921 was of independence, but also where an independent and sovereign Iraq would rationally conclude its interests coincided entirely with British interests and British alliance, and that her belief that there was no contradiction here was not really accurate. I don't think you can downplay the influence Bell did had on British policy in a pro-Arab nationalist direction, though. You can think that it's unjust that 40 people in Cairo had such an immense sway over the future of Iraq, but they did, and Bell certainly advocated for an Arab-ruled Iraq rather than direct British rule or reversion to Turkish rule, if with a certain paternalistic condescension that was common in Western society at the time. And Bell certainly wasn't the one who started World War I in the Middle East that set that whole chain of events in motion.

The "Legacy" section has been expanded to include some more measured and sometimes negative responses. I will say that in general, "Person X: Were they good or bad?" is not a great idea for a section as too flame-baity, but I suppose I see your point that a section on posthumous tributes might send the message that their reputation was 100% positive. There's more work to be done here, and I won't claim that the article is FA-worthy or anything, but I do think that it is not so bad that it requires a NPOV tag. (This is not claiming that I'm finished, there's still more work to be done, just figured that enough work had happened to hopefully pull the NPOV tag.)

Finally, and this is totally optional, but according to your user page you're a Brit yourself. I'm sure various Americanisms have crept in to my writing, so if you want to, feel free to clean up any violations of British English idiom. SnowFire (talk) 05:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't see you were on wikibreak when I wrote the above. Going to boldly remove the tag again, but I hope this doesn't come across as opportunistic - I'm happy to discuss the matter once you're back.  SnowFire (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * (very belatedly, sorry, I wasn't checking Wikipedia much last summer): I think you've addressed my NPOV concern and then some, thank you very much for the work. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 06:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Kate Craddock
Hello there.

From 2013 to 2015 Dr Kate Craddock performed an incredible show all about Gertrude Bell. It ran as a sell out for weeks in Edinburgh and received critical acclaim. It is remiss to not reference this somewhere in here. Google Kate Craddock vimeo to see the GB PROJECT which is the show. If you are including that some academics from Newcastle University made a comic then including Kate's work is a must. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimmy654 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * What reliable, verifiable, independent sources do you have to support this claim? In who's estimation is this "a must" (see WP:NPOV)? Cabayi (talk) 07:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh hello. Thanks for your reply. Kate Craddock is the director of GIFT (gateshead international festival of theatre). She is currently co programming an Arts Council funded piece of work called Horizon Showcase in Edinburgh.

Her writing and performance in GB Project concluded with weeks of sell outs in Edinburgh.

I am not doing this on behalf of her but her work as a woman in highlighting the importance of another woman's life has been very important and affecting to multiple audiences. If there are authors from Newcastle University on that page they must know all about Kate.

The theme of Kate's performance was in highlighting lost history. Let us not make this same mistake with Kate now. Dimmy654 (talk) 08:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm sure it's a wonderful play, but it doesn't seem it received much coverage - http://exeuntmagazine.com/reviews/the-gb-project-2/ is okay but it's a random online-only magazine, https://threeweeksedinburgh.com/article/ed2013-theatre-review-the-gb-project-kate-craddock-in-association-with-northern-stage/ is only a paragraph, other sources seem to be one step above a blog. Perhaps if a Cultural depictions of Gertrude Bell article was spunoff, it might merit a sentence?  But the article is already longish as is, and we're only spending a single sentence on fairly major, expensive productions like the Queen of the Desert movie or Letters from Baghdad Documentary, and none at all on the many biographies of Bell's life (yes, they're mentioned in References, but we don't really discuss them).  If you're really set on this, I feel that we'd also have to include things like biographies, book reviews, and the like that there isn't really room for unless the spinoff article is made.  Would you be willing to undertake that task?
 * Basically, we're caught in the situation where Bell is prominent enough that we can't just scoop up every mention or use of her without the article becoming overstuffed, but not so prominent that creating a whole ton of spinoff articles would necessarily make sense (like the various articles on every bit of George Washington or Winston Churchill's life). If we did start making spinoff articles, I could maybe see a spinoff article on "Early life of Gertrude Bell" that covered her travels pre-WWI more extensively along with a "Gertrude Bell bibliography" that extensively covered all the books on her first, and only then maybe a "Cultural depictions" spinoff article.  SnowFire (talk) 09:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi there.

The very fact that it did not receive enough coverage in the press is inherently sexist in itself.

You are missing the irony here. It was and is a very significant performance.

It mentions in the legacy that a comic of her life was produced by Newcastle University. How can that be considered more significant?

I really am not used to this sort of internet debate but honestly this really should be on there. The point being Kate spent years researching and planning this performance for the very reason that Gertrude Bell appeared lost in history.

Is significance and gravity only measured in what shows up on Google? Dimmy654 (talk) 11:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Of course not. But you've come to Wikipedia, which is a repository of referenced information from mainstream sources.  If your local supermarket doesn't sell furniture, that doesn't mean furniture is unimportant; it just means you're at a food store.


 * There are people other than Craddock who've studied Bell - her biographers, most notably. Many of these have attracted a deeper level of interest than Craddock (see this story on Georgina Howell's biography for example, plenty of reviews of that).  If we want to expand a section on "Later cultural influence and study", we'd probably have to start with the more prominent pieces, and then eventually have a sentence on Craddock, and then we'd have a long enough section we'd split it off into a spinoff article.  I've given you a suggestion of how to go about that - happy to help with writing a draft if you want.  But yes, you have to go into this knowing up front that on Wikipedia, we go by what secondary sources say, not off a general belief in importance.  SnowFire (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

A real shame that. Sad. I am sure Bell would be disappointed. I would.

All the best. Dimmy654 (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Just finally. Is the naming of a bee after Bell in 2019 more significant than a superb dramatic presentation of much of her life?

How does one say yes to this but no to the other? Dimmy654 (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Conférence du Caire 1921.jpg

Spy?
USER:Joe Roe regarding the google scholar link you left here only one of the first 5 sources I looked called Bell a 'spy', the other 4 were either using the word to discuss other people, or one discusses whether Bell should be called a spy - concluding that it matters little, as what is known is what she did do, which is send regular reports back that she gathered because she was a trusted figure among locals. No one doubts that Bell helped UK military intelligence, but then so did all diplomats, travellers and military/colonial figures of the time. Unless you claim that anyone sending openly available info to the British govt is automatically a 'spy', it is difficult to see what the word means in relation to Bell.

Further, where is the coverage in the article of any 'covert spying activities' by her - surely the minimum requirement to being a spy is that you are sending info which your hosts wish to protect. I grant that some biographers have interpreted her sending reports as 'spying', but it isn't anything like universal and is hard to understand what it means as most of her info was either 'human intelligence' (assessments of local figures), or cartographical or local cultural info. Pincrete (talk) 07:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * We can agree or disagree on whether Bell's activities constituted spying, but if as you acknowledge more than one of her biographers describe her as one, that should be enough to support the inclusion of a category. WP:CATDEFINING doesn't require universal coverage and I don't think many of the other categories the article currently includes would survive that standard. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * CATDEFINING actually says "For example, Italian and artist are defining characteristics of Caravaggio, and so of the article on him, because virtually all reliable sources on the topic mention them." (italics mine). Roughly one in 5 sources describing Bell as a 'spy', even once - (as opposed to some other description of her aid to UK Govt) - hardly meets "virtually all reliable sources". What concers me is that anyone interested in the topic is going to come here and find no coverage of any actual 'spying'. Pincrete (talk) 08:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)