Talk:Lawrence of Arabia (film)/Archive 1

Article Title
Since the person is covered on T. E. Lawrence, this page may as well be about the film — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarquin (talk • contribs) 05:10, August 3, 2002


 * The film should be at Lawrence of Arabia (film) and this should be a redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiang (talk • contribs) 02:54, August 13, 2003


 * Since T. E. Lawrence is covering the person, the Lawrence of Arabia does not need the addition (film). A bidirectional link at the beginning should be enough. Fantasy 09:02, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * No, many links refer to the person and not the film. Just because the person article exists does not mean this article is freed up. Links will more often refer to the person, I believe. --Jiang 09:05, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * There is a simple method to fix this: Have a look at
 * http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=T._E._Lawrence
 * and
 * http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Lawrence_of_Arabia
 * and set the wrong links right. It seems to me, that there are not so many wrong links, what do you say? Fantasy 09:28, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * The problem is that people will create wrong links in the future. I guess it's doable if this page is constantly monitored to prevent people from adding the wrong link --Jiang 17:06, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Please, do have a look at this two lists. You will see, that it is clear already that People just know that this are two different things. And if someone is directed to the wrong page, the first line will tell him to go to the right page (and he can correct the wrong linking). Don't worry too much about this. Wikipedia has some kind of self-healing system... ;-) Fantasy 20:55, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * PS: It is not "doable", it is standard to watch pages in Wikipedia. I do it every day (and night). Thats the reason, why Wikipedia works.


 * Alrighty. But do check back once in a while though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiang (talk • contribs) 17:34, August 13, 2003

Since T.E. Lawrence has been known as "Lawrence of Arabia" since 1919 (credited to Lowell Thomas), some 43 years before the film, this page should be a redirect to the man and should not host the film page. In the long run the man is bound to generate more links to this page than the film. If it were merely the title of a book rather than a film would we be having this debate? Mintguy 21:42, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I did not know that. For me "Lawrence of Arabia" was always just the film (I love btw.). Change it to whatever you want, I am not oposing it. Fantasy 22:44, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Look, the guy has a name and should clearly go under his official name (TE Lawrence) with perhaps a slight note on the top of the film page with a link to the man's page. Re: the rather condescending comment about "would we have done this if it were just a book" the answer is, if the book had acheived such a landmark status as the movie, then certainly we would.  This isn't just any movie, it's the winner of a Best Picture, it's a three and a half hour epic that people sit and watch.  It's a jewel of the cinema, pure and simple.  No need to get condescending about it.  nwt, 7:22 AM CDT, 21 Aug 2003


 * I don't quite understand where you're coming from. I don't think I was being condescending. I'm a big fan of the film. There is no question the T.E Lawrence should be at T.E. Lawrence . The question is, should Lawrence of Arabia be about the film or should it be a redirect to the man, and the film be at Lawrence of Arabia (film). T.E. Lawrence was popularly known as Lawrence of Arabia for nearly 50 years before the film was made. The average person is more likely to know of the man by Lawrence of Arabia than by his real name. Mintguy 12:37, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

NPOV
This article is almost entirely americentric: No British POV, No Arab POV. It almost completely ignores all non american awards. This needs to be addressed. Alkivar 22:56, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Like the rest of Wikipedia, sorry to say. -- Simonides 00:34, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes except its pointedly obvious in this article as it deals with a British soldier in Arabian lands. Most other articles with an americentric angle at least are primarily American in origin. Alkivar 01:36, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lawrence of Arabia
Should Lawrence of Arabia (history) be a redirect to the man, a redirect to the film, or a disambiguation page? Sgt Pinback 16:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

A "documentary"?
I hadn't thought that this film was ever marketed as a documentary, or even a historical reconstruction. Rather, it's a big budget entertainment more or less based on real events with more or less real people.

In view of this, I'm surprised that by far the largest section is on "Historicity".

I don't know much about the movie, but my impression was that it succeeded or largely on the strength of its virtues as a movie, not as a historical work. Perhaps we need more about the former. -- Hoary 15:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Trivia
I don't see how a "Good Article" can have "trivia" in it. If the "trivia" isn't really trivial, move it where appropriate within the article; if it really is trivia, delete it. -- Hoary 15:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Disagree. Trivia is information and encyclopedias contain information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.250.65.158 (talk • contribs) 18:11, July 24, 2007


 * Perhaps simply renaming "Trivia" to a different title? 71.238.35.126 (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * the information remains trivia regardless of what the section is titled. it should either be incorporated into the article, or dropped. Anastrophe (talk) 06:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Failed
For being on hold for a week.--SeizureDog 11:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing
Where does all the information come from? -- Hoary 15:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for a failed nomination
It may be helpful to add some imput as to why this nomination should fail in order to facilitate future GA nominations. This article will need siginificant work before becoming a GA, as it's almost in the "Start" grade in terms of development. Why?
 * There is no plot!!!
 * There is almost nothing in the article concerning the casting, production, etc of the film.

There are of course, many other issues, but those are the two big ones. It's to my opinion, at this point in the article's history, that only the support of a well versed fan of the film can really drive this article forward.--P-Chan 17:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Plot!!! Clarityfiend 17:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Quicksand
While Mythbusters debunked the idea that wet quicksand can kill, apparently the same cannot be said of dry quicksand. The appropriate changes have been made. Clarityfiend 06:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lawrence of Arabia.jpg
Image:Lawrence of Arabia.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair use added. SkierRMH 06:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Lawrence DIDN'T get raped
Seriously, thats wikipedia original research at its worst. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.176.186 (talk • contribs) 02:08, June 20, 2007


 * It's implied, but you are correct. It shouldn't be written that way. I've changed it back to the way I originally wrote it. Clarityfiend 06:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that we shouldn't state speculation as if it were the truth. However, what we can state is that it has been speculated for many years by many different biographers that what happened to him there was not just some sort of physical beating, but rape.  We also have his own testimony that, whatever it was that happened to him, and despite the brutality of it, he enjoyed it.  The fact that we don't know, and will probably never know, the precise details, does not mean that he was definitely not raped.  But neither does it mean that he was.  --  JackofOz 06:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh come on! When something is empirically implied in a film and outside sources confirm it, it is not original research to say so. You're totally misunderstanding what the term means. Original research is for an idea that is completely original (such as new scientific theories), so if multiple parties - such as this review from the TE Lawrence Studies group and by Jeremy Wilson (!) - describe the Deraa scenes and their implied rape as a central plot turning point in the film, it is not original research. When Lawrence gets eyed and fondled by the Bey and the whole time he's licking his bloody lips, it certainly isn't a simple beating that is implied. VanTucky 15:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Something that occurs off-screen in a movie is inherently a matter of subjective interpretation. It's fine to say that many people have interpreted these scenes to mean Lawrence was raped, but it's not fine to say the movie depicted the rape of Lawrence, because it didn't.  Whether he was actually raped or not will never be known now - see this para from our article on Lawrence -  "In Seven Pillars, Lawrence claims that, while reconnoitering Deraa in Arab disguise, he was captured, tortured and possibly gang-raped.[8] ... For supporting evidence there are letters and reports that Lawrence bore scars of whippings, but the actual facts of the event are lost. Lawrence's own statements and actions concerning the incident contributed to the confusion. He removed the page from his war diary which would have covered the November 1917 week in question. As a result, the veracity of the Deraa events is a subject of debate."  --  JackofOz 23:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, I've changed it to explicitly say that Wilson says that he thinks it is implied. VanTucky 23:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Feisal/Faisal
So what's the deal with this prince? If his real name is Faisal (historically) than why do we use Feisal? Is that a misspelling in the film? --24.239.55.46 14:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's how it's spelled in IMDb and (presumably) in the credits. There's one place in the article where it refers to the real Faisal, where it's shown as Feisel. For 100% accuracy, I suppose it should be changed, but I'm sure somebody would come along, notice it, and make it consistent with the rest. Clarityfiend 18:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * While watching this move in English class with the subtitles on, I saw that it spells his name with an e. I think that's enough to make the switch. 71.238.35.126 (talk) 02:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

wikilinks
The name Lawrence is wikilinked all over this article. Isn't only the first instance supposed to be linked? - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 22:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Got rid of most of them. A few are okay. Clarityfiend 22:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sadism
...but the depiction of him as a sadist who enjoyed violence is based on no historical evidence

This might best be re-worded. Claiming that the real Lawrence didn't enjoy violence and that this is based on no historical evidence seems to be in direct contradiction to the T.E. Lawrence article. If it is accurate, it seems he might well have been a masochist, having paid people to beat him, and while that doesn't necessarily also make him a sadist, it would suggest that he enjoyed violence. If the author disputes this claim (sorry, I can't help here), she or he would do well to cite some relevant evidence. --WH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.136.211 (talk • contribs) 08:42, August 11, 2007

Questions on Sexuality
Shouldn't there be some mention in the article as to the overt references of Lawrence being gay. There were numerous occasions in the film where it is not only implied that he was gay, but also it seemed as though there were implications to him having actual relationships with some of the other characters in the film. I didn't see it mentioned in the article so if someone has more sourced information they should include. RENTASTRAWBERRY  FOR LET?  röck 19:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Such occasions in the film being? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonJuan.EXE (talk • contribs) 22:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This issue is very complex. On the one hand, as the article points out, women have almost no visibility in this film, and Lawrence's personality is certainly depicted as, in many ways, somewhat strange, eccentric, or odd. On the other hand, the historical literature today generally agrees that Lawrence was heterosexual, albeit, again, somewhat strange (as far as I've researched in the most recent books). However, I would claim the homoeroticism is definitely a subtext in many areas of this film: Take Farruj and Daud. They are almost certainly lovers. I've seen this film at least 5 or 6 times, and I happened to have seen it again last night (that's why I thought of looking up the Wikipedia article). And it was clear--at least to me--that their relationship was romantic, if not also sexual. When Farruj is swallowed  by the quicksand, Daud sobs like a shattered lover, and Lawrence consoles him by enveloping the boy's body into his arms and body. This incident reveals an extraordinary sensitivity, as well as the ability to express it physically, of Lawrence to another man. On the other hand, (how many hands so far?), in his interrogation by the Bey, it does seem to appear that Lawrence does indeed have no clue as to what the Bey is after until it is really revealed to him. So: We have contrasting elements in the portrait. Nevertheless, I do think it is a subtext--or theme--in the film, regardless of whether the film stakes any direct claim as to Lawrence's actual sexual orientation. 69.203.13.82 (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC) Allen Roth
 * One more aspect of the homoerotic subtext is the casting of Peter O'Toole. His looks were not exactly those of a rugged "leading man" type. In this respect, I am reminded of what Gore Vidal said to O'Toole at the time: "Peter, if you were any more pretty, they would have had to call the film "Florence of Arabia." 69.203.13.82 (talk) 02:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Allen Roth

Do I know you?
This quote is not a recurring line in the movie. Lawrence says it once at the end of the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonJuan.EXE (talk • contribs) 02:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's only one place. It is also said when Lawrence finally gets to the Suez Canal, and the British officer on the motorcycle shouts it twice. Van Tucky 02:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a diffent phrase. "Who Are You" is said once, not by Lawrence, and it is generally what anyone would say, because the officer didn't know who they were. "Do I Know You?" Is said once, by Lawrence to a random officer. So it the first isn't a neither is recuring, and the first isn't the right quote. However, I agree that the movie deals with his personal identity, but the line is not a valid example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonJuan.EXE (talk • contribs) 02:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Serious Problems
While I believe that all the editors who have worked on this important article about what is commonly acknowledged to be one of the great films of all time should be commended for their efforts - the scope, depth, and structure of the article being beyond reproach - there remain serious problems with the language of the writing in several sections, and I have begun to address those problems.

Most of the sections after "Plot" are highly POV, and as my edits indicate, sourcing some of the provable suggestions will bolster the integrity of the article. Generalized references to Seven Pillars are not sourcing: if these sentences are to remain in the article, chapter and verse need to be cited, and preferably from a source other than Seven Pillars, whose veracity and accuracy have been called into question since its publication.

I have removed this entire paragraph:


 * One possible interpretation of the film's so-called "sadism" portrayal is that Lawrence's self-described (to Allenby) "enjoyment" of the execution of Gazim is a reference to his enjoying and toying with the messianic overtones of his mission and actions in Arabia. This theme reaches a crescendo when a wounded Lawrence, blood on both palms, walks on top of a destroyed Turkish train in order to rapture his Bedouin troops. The scene ends with discordant music and visual focus on Lawrence's strutting boots as if to say: Danger! This imitation of Christ will end in fascism if not controlled. This interpretation is born out by the text of Seven Pillars of Wisdom in several places.

First, the entire paragraph reads like a movie review, not an encyclopedia article.


 * Well, that of course is your "POV". The article mentions the well-known controversy over the film's *supposed* portrayal of Lawrence as having sadomasochistic tendencies. I am certain that the film has a different narrative entirely. I would think that alternate POVs are necessary to balance that.

Second, Lawrence's "enjoyment" confession to Allenby is one of wrenching pain, self-disgust, and near despair - the pretext for Lawrence (in the film) imploring Allenby not to send him back to the Arab revolt.


 * Yes, he is in gut-wrenching pain that his Oxford intellectual messianic games have blown up in his face, and that he is losing himself among the various psychological poses that he has struck. That Lawrence is "playing games" is indicated by the film when he tells Dreyden, "This will be fun." to which Dreyden replies, "It is generally agreed that you have a funny sense of fun." Also, when Lawrence is first given his Bedouin robes by Ali, we are treated to the scene of him looking at his reflection in the dagger and laughing to himself -- clearly surprised and amused by the twists and turns of the mental game he is playing. A serious game, to be sure, as Lawrence himself wrote in the conclusion of Seven Pillars: "I had always wished to feel myself the node of a national movement. Now I had better quit Arabia before authority quickened in me." [Again, my paraphrase.] To be specific: what could Lawrence have "enjoyed" during Gazim's execution? The *thrill* of giving the speech to all of the collected Bedouin: "I have no tribe. Therefore I shall execute the Law." The *thrill* of then succeeding to do it -- of welding together the warring tribes under his persona. But that tragically and confusedly got mixed together with the horror of actually shooting Gazim, whom Lawrence had just saved from the Nafud desert. To underscore the whole situation, Lean has Ali say: "You have given life, and you have taken it away" which is as Biblical/Koranic as you can get. But the script isn't finished with us yet, as Auda abu Tayi brings the entire argument of fatalism vs. free will back (humorously no less): "It was written." (That Gazim must die, after all.) The brilliant multi-level discourse that this film presents makes it one of the all-time greats.

Third, "rapture" is not a verb ("enrapture" is but does not fit here), and in any case Lawrence's stroll along the roofs of the destroyed rail cars is explicitly for the benefit of reporter Bentley, who wants pictures of Lawrence as hero in order to lionize TEL in the public eye.


 * Bently does invite Lawrence to walk for his camera. But the moment is clearly larger than that. The music swells into a mystical scale with the sunlight filtering through Lawrence's robes as he stands above everyone. The Bedou chant his name, fulfilling Feisal's words to Bently (in the restored version) that "the man who grants victory is the man who is worshiped in this part of the world" [my paraphrase]. The music then descends from this high point to discordance as the camera tilts down and focuses on Lawrence's boots as I had described.

The Bedou are mere props for Bentley's ambition, and the scene is more of a commentary on media and the nature of fame than on Lawrence's character at this point in the film.


 * That is your silliest comment. The Bedouin have just fought a battle, how can they possibly be considered "props"? The Bedou are celebrating Lawrence's leadership. What is "Bently's ambition"? Surely Bently is not guiding the course of battle, Lawrence is. Bently merely capitalizes on the moment, and helps to shape it, which, yes, can be a commentary on the media especially in war time. Lawrence might be accused of using the Bedouin as props for *his* ambition. The film shows Feisal as being wary of such a possibility: "Perhaps you are just another of these desert-loving Englishman?" The real Lawrence in fact tortured himself mentally that he *might* be doing just that. It was an unjustified self-accusation, as it turns out. But that was one of Lawrence's most terrible burdens (as portrayed consciously in Seven Pillars and perhaps unconsciously in the Collected Letters) -- his over-intellectualizing everything, an inheritance from his Edwardian Oxford intellectual milieu. I think that this *scene* has much more in it than just a commentary on Bently's ambition. Larger forces are being considered here.

(BTW - a better argument for a portrayal of Lawrence as sadist in the film can be made from the depiction of Lawrence before, during, and after the massacre at Tafas where O'Toole seems to be attempting indirectly to portray a man reaching a sexual climax).


 * Well, hmmm. Not sure exactly what *your* POV is here.

Fifth, the italicized sentence is highly POV, and the subsequent sentence is another example of a reference intended to be a source but that is not.


 * Chill out dude! O'toole *purposefully* wipes the blood on both palms before starting his "messiah" walk. This is certainly a cinematic que from David Lean. It doesn't mean that the film intends a particular Christian messianism. Lawrence mentions "Moses did" when he decides to cross Sinai from Akaba to Cairo. It's just a cinematic reference to messianism in general. If I footnoted the references in Seven Pillars, the article would become pedantic.

My intent here is not to substitute one interpretation for another, but rather to move the article as a whole past the realm of interpretation and keep it within the scope of sourceable fact. The film is far too important (and parenthetically I love it far too much) to leave this article in its current state, in which it will almost certainly never attain GA rating - or be useful as an objective source.Sensei48 (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Whatever. You win. Setmose (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence in Syria
The article states that the movie "never mentioned his previous experience in the Middle East: namely, his archaeological travels from 1911 to 1914 in Syria and Arabia...." This is inaccurate: at one point: Lawrence asks another character (I believe it was Sherif Ali) whether he has ever been to Damascus. Ali says no, and Lawrence says, "I have." I'm quoting from memory, but I saw the movie less than a month ago and noted it because I thought it was curious that the movie never explained why he had such an extensive knowledge of Arab culture and language. I'm going to correct this passage. Leobinus (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, Prince Faisal asks Lawrence "Have you ever seen Damascus, Lieutenant Lawrence?" to which TEL replies only "Yes" - but the response is as pregnant as Faisal's rejoinder "It is very beautiful, is it not?" and with Lawrence responding with another "Yes."Sensei48 (talk) 05:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough -- obviously, my memory was hazy, but my point stands....Leobinus (talk) 02:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Passages to use
"On 10 June 1916, Sharif Husayn's tribal warriors attacked the Turkish garrison in Mecca. With him he had the English officer, Thomas E. Lawrence, whose adventures were immortalised in David Lean's film Lawrence of Arabia. Romantic historians have represented the revolt as a general Arab rising after more than 400 years of Turkish despotism. In reality, Husayn's personal ambitions to be king of the Arab world were more decisive, and the tribal warriors he mobilised by no means represented a broad, popular movement. Nonetheless, when these tribal warriors, in cooperation with the British, entered Damascus in 1918, the jubilation was great. Husayn's son, Faysal, rode triumphantly into the city and formed an Arab government." For possible use in the "Historical accuracy" section. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 16:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

"There are certain film directors like David Lean, Andre Tarkovsky or Chen Kaige who have earned a justifiable reputation as filmmakers preoccupied with the power and specularities of landscapes. Films, such as Dr Zhivago, Lawrence of Arabia, Yellow Earth exemplify this fact."

For possible use in regarding to the film and the landscape in it. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 16:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

"One can see the influence of Lawrence of Arabia here, the first film [Siddiq] Barmak ever saw. Just as in David Lean's film, Osama opens the viewer's eye to a desolate panorama of (urban) desert. From the very first sequence, which portrays a demonstration of women clad in blue burqas, the camera's depth of field extends far beyond the protesters to include the hills of mud-brick homes behind them and the mountains beyond." For possible use in the "Legacy" section. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 16:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Plot
Today, I used this synopsis published by the British Film Institute to cite the plot summary with a secondary source since Wikipedia is supposed to be based on such sources whenever possible. We only use primary sources with great care, and in articles about film, we often run the risk of including interpretations. The goal of the plot summary is to provide an overview of the film in a concise manner. I was reverted, and I am concerned that we have a lot of interpretations in the primary-sourced revision. We have creative descriptions and a few assumptions about characters' behavior. A few recent Featured Articles about Star Trek films source their plot summaries to similar secondary sources, and there is no risk of interpretation in that approach. Can we not do the same here? The article may not be able to reach Featured status with the interpretations of the primary source, especially when we have a synopsis readily verifiable. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 00:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree. What you are proposing is not the norm for film plots. I can't recall the last time I ran across a synopsis based on some other group's (other than copyvios), nor do I consider the anonymous BFI writer a reliable source worthy of a reference. If some new consensus has formed, I'm not aware of it. Blade Runner, Casablanca, Dog Day Afternoon, and other feature articles seem to have managed without referencing the plots in this manner.


 * If you have concerns about interpretations, please go into specifics. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Most films will not have secondary sources providing detail about their plots. That is why the default is to use the film as a primary source, though with great care. If we can use a secondary source, we should. The source I used was the British Film Institute, which is definitely reliable. I'm not sure why you would argue otherwise. As we've seen, plot summaries can fluctuate a great deal because there are too many ways for random editors to explain the events in a film. The synopsis from the British Film Institute is just over 800 words and conveys what happens in the film. By attributing the content to a secondary source that is quickly verifiable as a web page, we do not have to worry about extraneous detail nor inappropriate tone. For example, Star Trek: The Motion Picture references this. The approach provides a concise summary of the work, and it does not prevent providing explanations of scenes elsewhere in the article body when context is needed. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 05:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I would consider the BFI reliable as a whole, but not necessarily every aspect of it, until somebody or some prior discussion proves it to my satisfaction. I've looked around the BFI site to try to ascertain who is responsible for their synopses and how reliable they are, without much luck.


 * Assuming it is a reliable source, is it necessary or even desirable to base the plot summary on it? Where was this decided? All I see is When to cite, which, while only an essay, makes sense to me. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is, you're saying you trust the anonymous writers of Wikipedia over the anonymous writers of the British Film Institute. WP:NOR says, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources... primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." That kind of language is why I said we should use a secondary source if one exists. We should not be questioning the BFI's content in the first place; we should be able to assume that it is reliable unless indicated otherwise. WP:RS says, "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." Is there any reason to believe that the films' web pages did not go through a reliable publication process under the institute? In addition, are you opposed to using any secondary sources at all? In my research, I think it is likely we will find solid synopses of the film, but they're not going to be as accessible as this one from BFI. I think its use will help ensure overall verifiability. I have seen editors in the past challenge a summary because it is a lot of describing of the primary source and because the summary has typically lacked citations. If we reference the secondary source for the summary and cite it, we can avoid a stink about it. I would like to do a peer review at some point, and I can raise this issue then. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 13:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You're missing my point. References are necessary to support statements that are likely to be challenged. I personally don't recall ever running across anyone who complained because a synopsis wasn't cited. It's not felt necessary in novels, plays, television episodes, etc.


 * It also makes me very uneasy about co-opting somebody else's writing. What's the point? BFI's version can be externally linked. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Faisal
Although the Article refers to Faisal as a practical joker, according to TEL in Seven Pillars it was Faisal's older brother, the less serious Abdullah, who was an unrepentent practical joker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J52Jarhead (talk • contribs) 13:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Candidate for anniversary collaboration
Hello, the film  is one of the candidates for WikiProject Film's anniversary collaboration. Please see the discussion about the collaboration here. Feel free to support this candidate, the other candidates, or even nominate other films as candidates for the anniversary collaboration. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 17:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

1966 TV version
How long was the 1966 TV version? I'm asking because the 1989 re-release made a big deal about having to re-dub at least 29 minutes of restored footage that was found to be silent, and the documentary on my 2-disk edition even makes it out of as if they had to re-dub the entire movie. Couldn't they have gone back to the 1966 telecine for the audio? After all, wasn't the original 1962 release monaural anyway, so a mono soundtrack from the telecine wouldn't have mattered much? --87.151.17.65 (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Influence on Spaghetti western?
The suggestion that this movie popularized the location for Spaghetti westerns (which is un-cited) is surely fairly bogus: the location was used for “The Sheriff of Fractured Jaw” in 1957/58, and the standing Western town set attracted other film makers - in addition to which, where else in Europe *could* you have gone to make them? Jock123 (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

A factory-made Porsche
José Ferrer as the Turkish Bey. Ferrer was initially unsatisfied with the small size of his part, and accepted the role only on the condition of being paid $25,000 (more than O'Toole and Sharif combined) plus a factory-made Porsche.[5]

Is there any other kind? I have owned two Porsches. I was able to ascertain that they were both "factory-made" and I have never heard of any other make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.156.22.220 (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Lawrence of Arabia Theatrical Poster jpeg Removal
The poster for Lawrence of Arabia has been removed and should be restored for such an iconic film. This is outrageous and I believe someone removed it because they wanted to vandalise the page and make it seem like "official" copyright infringement, which it is not. This issues needs to be fixed asap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Internet Informant (talk • contribs) 23:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Implied Rape
Lean went to great pains to depict within the limits of the film code of the day the rape that Lawrence alleged happened in Deraa. Beyond the fact that both dialogue and visuals all but shout the point, the scene remains controversial. Should a source be necessary, this 2006 article from The Telegraph should do just fine. Note its reference to the "graphic depiction" of the rape. Sensei48 (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Yet another 'made in America' stamped article
I have had to re-add deleted reliable source citations pertaining to the fact that LoA is a British film, the cited sources are: BAFTA, BBC and a reference to the AADA in it's definition of LoA as a British film, warm regards. Twobells (talk) 10:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * All we need to do now is get the proper UK quad poster on the page.... Nick Cooper (talk) 11:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Like it or not, the film was produced by Columbia Pictures and American producer Sam Spiegel. That's in the film credits and stated in the article.  All the after-the-fact tertiary sources in the world won't alter that one salient fact.  --Drmargi (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The text states that the film was, "produced by Sam Spiegel through his British company Horizon Pictures," and Colombia is mentioned only in the context of being the distributor. Spiegel having American citizenship is a bit of a stretch in labelling the film as "American." Nick Cooper (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Drmargi. At the same time, I think the desire to stamp the nationality of the film in the lede paragraph is a symptom of some kind of psychosis.  I don't think that information is useful or relevant in most cases, and says little to nothing about the film or its quality.  I'd like to see the practice end, unless it can be proven that the nationality of its production is somehow relevant. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  15:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 'like it or not' is not best wiki practice, the previous best version with the reliable, associated citations were deleted favouring yet another 'woo hoo made in AMERICA! ' stamp. I am adding a NPOV tag until this can be resolved.Twobells (talk) 10:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You are the only editor arguing this view, and hence your continued edit-warring has been adding to the report against you. Have a nice day. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 10:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Arguing this view'? You took a reliable, best version of many years and stamped 'made in the USA!' stamp on it like you have done across wikipedia as mentioned by many other editors and this is no more than the same old behavior. I have to ask; why are you so inclined as to stamp articles in this nationalist manner when the citations all suggest otherwise? Also, when your edits are reverted to the best previous version why do you rush to the edit warring noticeboard like some juvenile schoolchild running to his mummy? Are you incapable of accepting the reliable citations associated with the articles in favour of some spurious cite promoting your nationalism?? Warm regards.Twobells (talk) 10:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you edit-warring, against an enforceable policy rather than a guideline? Yes? Your answer. And if you wish for editors to take you seriously at all, do try to attempt to remain civil. By the way? I'm not American. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 10:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Who said you were? Also, I have no interest in what 'other editors' think of me, I am more interested in them sticking to the guidelines, not reverting well-written articles and stamping them with some sort of mis-guided nationalistic fervor.Twobells (talk) 10:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You, by calling me nationalistic. And what on Earth do you mean by You took a reliable, best version of many years and stamped 'made in the USA!' stamp on it? Look at this version from January 3 this year. It already said British-American. If you want to stick to the guidelines, then stick to WP:FILMLEAD. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 11:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have amended the article to show the results of five sources. This should not be undone without further discussion. Quite frankly, I can't see how the facts can be argued with. --Warner REBORN (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, you added all these sources, at least one of which is not reliable, and half of which do not say what you are claiming. There are sources already in the article that call it a British-American film, and it is this disagreement that led to the decision not to put the nationality in the lede.  You were also the one who removed United States from the infobox, which was a deliberate act of vandalism.  There is no reason to put the nationality in the lede. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  21:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I apologise for the removal of US info box. I assure that I was a mistake and in no way deliberate. The sources provided citing the film as GB/US are invalid as they take into consideration the distributor against Wiki policy which dictates that the production country is what should be followed. This is further evidenced by the bfi which takes only the production country which is why it is the most commonly used source. Any change without EXPLICIT discussion is vandalism. --Warner REBORN (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Group Project
Greetings, I am Gizem and as part of my university project I will be editing the Lawrence of Arabia (film) wikipedia page. To edit the page I will be working along side other members of my group of which are Lyndsey, Rado, Daniel and Freddie. Our aim is to try and improve the article from a (Rated C-class) article. (Undergraduate level students)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Education_program/Students — Preceding unsigned comment added by GizemDerinyer (talk • contribs) 21:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Welcome :) --Warner REBORN (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Motorcycle
"As he is being driven, a motorbike rides by as a fascinated Lawrence watches on, marking the beginning of an obsession with motorcycles which would eventually cause his death."

Having viewed that scene just now, I didn't view it as fascinating Lawrence at all. Yes I'm sure it whizzed past as the writer was foreshaddowing what happens to Lawrence later, but it didn't strike me that Lawrence paid that much attention to it at all, or that the film was suggesting that was the beginning of an obsession. Maybe Lawrence wrote somewhere that this happened but it was certainly not in evidence in the scene 92.40.62.169 (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've deleted it. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The motorcycle O'Toole rides at the beginning of the movie appears to be a J.A. Pierce but Lawrence rode a Vincent Black Shadow as I recall. Thoughts?  50.202.81.2 (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This doesn't seem relevant to the plot to me. I'd want to see a reliable source that discussed the motorcycle in relation to the film. DonIago (talk) 03:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Lawrence's motorcycle was a Brough Superior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.13 (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Guide's death
It is a material fact that the guide was shot when he was attempt to draw his weapon not for drinking the water without permission. Yes they were at the well without permission but the death did not happen until the attempt to draw the weapon. Yes, Sharif said that he should not be drinking the well water without permission but again that was not the reason why he was shot otherwise Sharif could have shot before the guide reached for the weapon.2605:E000:9152:8F00:7060:320D:932D:E7A6 (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Not so. Your point that "that was not the reason why he was shot otherwise Sharif could have shot before the guide reached for the weapon" is an inference - your inference. It is supported by neither the action of the film nor the dialogue. In order to include this in the article, you need a reliable source supporting your contention. As there isn't one cited now, your edit must be removed until you can find one - that's how Wikipedia works. For reference sake, here is the operative dialogue between Lawrence and Ali copied from the online edition of the script:
 * Lawrence: He is dead.
 * Ali: Yes.
 * Lawrence: Why?
 * Ali: This my well.
 * Lawrence: I have drunk from it.
 * Ali: You are welcome.


 * (Several Lines later)


 * Ali: Your "friend"...was a Hazimi of the Beni Salem.

(Later)
 * You are angry, English. He was nothing.
 * The well is everything. The Hazimi may not drink at our wells. He knew that.


 * Ali's clear statement is that the killing is based on his ownership of the well and the fact that Hazimi like the guide are forbidden from using it. Ali also makes clear that as an English ally, Lawrence is "welcome."  Sensei48 (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * is correct. Thanks to you S for taking the time to lay things out so clearly. WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are always to be avoided when dealing with plot points. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Like I said they were at the well without permission but if the guide had not gone for his weapon he would not have been shot at. If Sharif did not want the guide to drink from the well then he should have shot before the guide went for his weapon.2605:E000:9152:8F00:7060:320D:932D:E7A6 (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

British-American co-production?
My impression of a British-American co-production is a film that involves studios from both countries. Lawrence has Spiegel's British company Horizon as the sole production company. Columbia was just distributing the film.PlutoniumBackToTheFuture (talk) 08:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I too think the country field is decided only based on which country the production company (not film studio) is located in. Kailash29792 (talk)  14:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The article's co-production claim provides 3 citations, none of which name Columbia as producer, only distributor. I've edited for clarification. This is apparently a contentious topic, as evidenced by talk history, but if Columbia was involved beyond distribution, better sources need to be provided.--2600:1008:B045:39D8:7139:5F42:1EE5:64A8 (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Sherif Ali
I removed this uncited claim:


 * Tafas and Lawrence did meet Sherif Ali at a well during Lawrence's travels to Faisal, but the encounter was not fatal for either party. (Indeed, this scene created much controversy among Arab viewers.)

Seemed mighty dubious considering, as our article makes clear, Sherif Ali is a fictional character. -Elmer Clark (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Historically, Ali bin Hussein was the eldest son of Hussein bin Ali Al-Hashimi. Lawrence favoured the third son, Faisal, as a leader of the Arab revolt. The spelling ‘Sherif’ used in the film (rather than the more common ‘Sharif’) creates more confusion. The scene at the well is fictional but a good story. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Historical Accuracy
One of the authors who has questioned the film's historical accuracy is Jeremy Wilson, Lawrence's official biographer. He has a paper/presentation entitled "Lawrence of Arabia or Smith in the Desert" in which he analyzes the historical content of the film. Unfortunately, EU privacy regulations have led him to temporarily take down his website (he promises to rebuild it as time allows), and I don't have access to a print version to be able to cite it. The current section on historical accuracy is largely original research, attempting to compare the film's content to the account in the Osprey books volume on the Arab Revolt. This is doubly bad, since it's original research, and the Osprey books, while passable for some purposes, are not the most reliable scholarly accounts. I don't have the Osprey volume on the Revolt, but one claim cited from it is that there was a unit of 1,100 French officers with the Arab Army. There might have been 1,100 men, but surely not 1,100 officers.MayerG (talk) 04:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC) I've noticed that some of the later sections do cite Wilson's "Smith in the Desert", although the links is now dead.MayerG (talk) 04:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Wilson's "Lawrence of Arabia or Smith in the Desert" is currently available on the T. E. Lawrence Studies website, starting at http://www.telstudies.org/discussion/film_tv_radio/lofa_or_sid_1.shtml Nedrutland (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Too much is being made of the historical inaccuracies. Anyone who reads "Seven Pillars" knows that barely a frame is accurate and major events such as the bridge demolition are totally absent. Micheal Korda is right. This is a popular movie about "Lawrence of Arabia", not a documentary, not a docudrama, not an historical reenactment or any other thing. Case in point - the Bey scene. In the Bey interview sequence, both the Bey and Lawrence speak with Oxford accents. But in reality the Bey was speaking Arabic with a plummy official Turkisk accent and Lawrence had to reply in Arabic in a hillbilly accent. It was Lawrence's ability to speak in this Circassian dialect that convinced the Bey that this man could not possibly be Lawrence, much as he would like him to be. This detail is lost in the movie, yet it saved Lawrence's life. Another example is the petty squabbling between Faisal and Allenby about the waterworks. In fact Faisal is being totally practical as both of them must have known that no Arab would drink water made by infidels. The whole movie is so saturated in difficulties of these kinds that only a pedant would engage in argument about historical accuracy. 150.107.175.243 (talk) 05:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what changes you're proposing be made to the article, if any, but you just replied to a comment from 2015. DonIago (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Removal of categories and theme description
The clause saying that one of the themes of this film was "Lawrence's relationship with his boyfriend Ali" was removed on the grounds that Lean's 1989 Washington Post interview - which can be found at the end of the pre-production section - does not mention Lawrence having a boyfriend. However, Lean says that Lawrence and Ali were written as dating. He was asked whether the film was "pervasively homoerotic" by the interviewer and replied "Yes. Of course it is. Throughout... So it does pervade it, the whole story, and certainly Lawrence was very if not entirely homosexual. We thought we were being very daring at the time: Lawrence and Omar, Lawrence and the Arab boys." This shows that Sheriff Ali and Lawrence were written as being in a relationship - therefore since this is sourced at the end of the pre-production section - I propose that the clause (as well as the categories describing the film as LGBT (among other things)) be reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.35.8 (talk) 22:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)