Talk:T. E. Lawrence/Archive 1

Suicide
I'd be happy to un-revert the suicide-speculation claim given some evidence. I have read all the major biographical works and all of TEL's correspondence without having encountered this, and the correspondence in particular makes in very hard to believe. Tim Bray 06:29, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Arab Revolt
The first line states his role in the Arab Revolt is now considered "controversial" but nowhere does the article explain why. This is not very helpful. Viajero 12:53, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't. (And when is someone going to write Arab Revolt?) –User:Hajor 01:00, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Further, the section on the Turkish Government's concerns about Lawrence's intelligence of the area reads as a purely speculative hypothesis. Where is the evidence for the Turkish government's perceptions about Lawrence? Isn't this making him seem too well-known or to threatening before he had actually done anything to aid the Arab Revolt? This seems like wishful thinking, trying to make a historic character appear heroic based on knowledge that would only have been widley known after the fact.Sibasimon (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Sibasimon

Nazi Spy
I removed the following from the intro "Supposed to be a Nazis spy in reality". How could Lawrence have been working for the Nazi's in World War One? Lisiate 23:49, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Boer war influence
What's the historical basis for stating that the Arab guerilla tactics were influenced by the Boers? I have read approximately everything on Lawrence and this is news to me... not saying it's wrong, just saying it's not widely known and should be backed up a bit. Tim Bray 05:37, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hearing no push-back, I removed the Boer war claim.Tim Bray

Perpetuating false claims?
I'm a bit worried about two claims in this piece: first, that Lawrence persuaded Feisal NOT to take Medina (David Fromkin says that WAS their object, but that they failed); and second, that Lawrence was "involved in" the fall of Damascus. ANZAC troops took Damascus. The Arabs arrived three or four days later, but it was in Britain's interests to make it appear that Syria had fallen to an Arab revolt.

Fromkin also claims there's evidence Lawrence was nowhere near Daraa on the night of the alleged rape; that he was in fact hundreds of miles away in Aqaba.

Any thoughts on these? --Mizchalmers 20:58, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think both those claims are defensible. Lawrence writes at length about realizing that Medina was an albatross around the Turks' neck and preaching this point of view. Fromkin's essay is hardly scholarly, or is the original well-footnoted and the scholarly apparatus has been lost in the online version? Is his claim that there were one million (!) British soldiers in the Middle East in 1918 really true? In any case, Lawrence claims to have made this argument not just to Feisal but to everyone concerned. Is there any evidence of a serious Arab attempt to take Medina once the Arabs took Aqaba? If you've been in that part of the world and seen the landscape (I have) it's hard to believe that they couldn't have broken the railway and kept it broken.

As to the second, Lawrence is perfectly clear about the events around the fall of Damascus and that the ANZACs were there first; he describes the fighting between the Arabs and the retreating Turks in the land south of Damascus in some detail. Also, my impression is that the city was not in fact defended to any significant degree by the Turks, who were in fairly full retreat by this stage. I'm not aware that his narrative has been impeached, so "involved" seems OK. In any case, it is clear that TEL and the Arab leadership were actually established in Damascus substantially before the British leadership showed up, so once again "involved" seems easy to defend. Tim Bray (Sep. 18/2004)

Urens
As someone who once had quite a bit of Arabic, I've always been quite certain that this usage is because Arabs who didn't know TEL and heard his name in speech mistook the leading 'L' for a contraction of the definite article "al", thus "Al Aurens" - which would be a very natural mistake for an Arabic-speaker, even though there are Arabic proper nouns beginning in 'L' (consider Lebanon for example). I'm hoping that we have a decent Arabic philologist here who would write this up authoritatively. Tim Bray (Sep. 18/2004)

Hello, I am a Spaniard, I just read the Spanish translation of the book by Robert Graves, Lawrence and the Arabs. I don't know what it says in the original language, but as it is read in the Spanish version of the book, the Arabs called him Awrans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.32.232.240 (talk) 11:17, August 27, 2007 (UTC)


 * i'am Arabian from Jordan here we called him Lawrence or "Lawrence of Arabia" = "Lawrence el Arab" in arabic. <>

Gertrude Bell
According to Gertrude Bell's article:

"[...] she was the unrecognised brains behind the Arab revolt in World War I - for which Lawrence of Arabia was unfairly given most of the credit - [...]"

"[...] especially as she saw so much attention being paid to Lawrence of Arabia, who had, compared to her, been more of a side-show than a serious player in the Arab revolt."

There is no mention of her here. I'm not sure what to change or add in a tactful way. Iaen 11:47, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

Holy cow, that claim about Bell is either ridiculous or needs to be backed up by evidence I haven't seen. Tim Bray 08:06, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

HOW ABOUT THIS FOR A RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE: Why is Gertrude Bell not (or is barely) mentioned in books and articles about TEL? I'm going to hypothesize that she was a major player in his life almost on a level with D. G. Hogarth. D. G. was the brother of Gertrude's college and lifelong friend Janet Hogarth. They all three, (TEL, GLB, and DGH), wrote articles (anonymously) for the Roundtable, where TEL's friend Lionel Curtis; GLB's confidant, "Domnul" Chirol; and David Hogarth presided over meetings and gave talks ... these were folks who were not content with letting the French, Germans, and Russians beat John Bull out of his spheres of influence! You have to read the actual letters of TEL, GLB, Hogarth, and memoirs of Ronald Storrs to even begin to get a glimpse of the full scope of an amazing drama that the "Intrusives" wove.

And there is the "SA" thing ... I am quite convinced that, as TE stipulated, Selim (Daud) was a true candidate for the dedication, but would TE be beyond framing some double entendre, here? After all, look at the first line of the second stanza of the verse, put the word "Pity" in place of the word "Death" and you have a direct lift from Gertrude's translation of a peom by Hafiz on the death of his son. One can find GLB's treatment of the Hafiz words on pages 30 and 31 of Vol. I of the "Letters of Gertrude Bell" as edited and selected by her step mother Lady F. Bell. Then there is the mysterious comma after "earn you" and the word "freedom." Was he trying to earn the high esteem and regard of someone, as well as freedom for ...? Finally, on page 284 of Elizabeth Burgoyne's 1914 - 1926 volume on Gertrude Bell there is a curious reference by GLB to being one of wisdom's children.

Just something to toss out, also, is the note that in TE's last days at the Carchemish digs, they had finally arranged the two wonderful frieze borders depicting triumphal marches towrds a temple gate. The one from the left depicting approaching warriors led by the moon god, and one from the right consisting of farmers and artisans led by the moon goddess. It is a Babylonian motive adopted by the Hitities, I think. The Babylonian word for moon is SIN, as in the name the bible gives to the valley that TE and Woolleygave the name "Zin" ... thus "Sin" can represent a place and a spirit. By the way, the type of sword depicted on the cover of SPOW is also depicted on the cover of a biography of the Hashemite family ... appropriately two for the two royal houses TE helped to promote. I'm throwing this out as just a starter to stir up the pot ... else there will be no end to arguing in circles about TEL and his psyche. I sure do have a problem picturing him letting anyone treat him like the female in a homo relationship; he prided himself on being a real, strong willed man, even though not a tall, robust one. ... maybe he was just trying to explain how much he abhorred the idea ... in case anyone thought he had been a plaything of Faisel's Well, if this gives rise to some real discussion and not "flaming," I've got some more points I might make along the lines above! [Special:Contributions/63.131.9.50|63.131.9.50]] (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

film
I think the film deserves a bit more prominence in this article. With all due respect to Lawrence (the man), the film is more famous than the man, and the film actually made the man more famous than he was, and the two have become entwined in public consciousness to a large extent. 4.31.88.72 14:02, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe that Lawrence is actually a more controversial figure than this article makes out, some have argued that he was a bit of a fantasist. There is a school of thought that the Deraa (sp?) incident was a sexual fantasy, it was even included in the Penguin Book of Lies (or something like that). I read one Arab writer who looked into his case and spoke to some people who took part in the Arab revolt who thought there was no way he could have passed as an Arab native speaker in disguise, in fact there were even other British officers around at the time who spoke Arabic better than Lawrence. PatGallacher 23:59, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)


 * You may be right, but I've read every published word by Lawrance and all the major biographies and am fairly well-educated about the Middle-Eastern campaign in WW1, and I don't think there's enough evidence to back up anything very specific. Most of the negative material about Lawrence is helpfully concentrated in Richard Aldington's biography, but most of Aldington's material has been further discussed by subsequent biographers, and to the extent there's consensus, I think the current article is not far off it. Tim Bray 04:08, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Caption of the third picture
... is really confusing. There are five men on the picture, but the caption talks about three.

>>Added names of four of the five men in picture. --Jaguara

what is the source of identifing the dark-skinned man in the upper right corner as Faisal's slave? His dress and demeanor seem to make this unlikely. Also, why would a slave be in the photo? or why not behind Faisal? --RS


 * I wanted to know the same thing.. if there is no source, it should be removed. Why would a slave be in an official picture with dignitaries.  If there is no source for who the man is, leave him as 'unidentified' Fk2003 23:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

T.E. Lawrence Studies List
From T.E. Lawrence Studies List, there are these concerns, which I feel are very legitimate, so I pass them on for consideration, and for the public to be aware of (NOTE - The comments below were written by Jeremy Wilson, T.E. Lawrence's official biographer, after recently viewing Wikipedia's entries on TEL):


 * A major encyclopedia will commission articles from people it thinks are expert in the field. Wikipedia, though certainly interesting, lacks any authority.


 * The current Lawrence article has its problems, both in overall balance - which you can't expect to be right in a work compiled in such a way - and in detail, as indicated below:


 * >>His father, Thomas Chapman, was a minor member of the nobility<< Thomas Chapman was a significant member of the Irish aristocracy


 * >>who had escaped a tyrannical wife to live with a maid<< The 'maid' was his daughters' governess - a rather different relationship to the one implied by 'maid'. Likewise, a governess would have had a much better education than a maid. At that time many maids could not read.


 * >>with whom he had five sons in close succession<< What is meant by "close succession"? AW was 12 years younger than TE, let alone Bob.


 * >>from [Jesus College] he graduated with First Class Honours largely on account of a highly-acclaimed thesis<< If I recall correctly, one of the examiners described his other papers as "a safe first".


 * >>On leaving university he commenced a postgraduate degree in mediaeval pottery, which he soon abandoned after he was offered the opportunity to become a practicing archaeologist in the Middle East<< Only more or less correct. He started postgraduate research on mediaeval pottery (you cannot really commence a research "degree"). He remained a senior demy at Magdalen through his time at Carchemish (and through the war, if I recall correctly). I don't know if he ever formally gave up the thesis, but it would not have been before the Carchemish excavations looked set to last far longer than originally proposed. So "soon after" is wrong.


 * >>In the late summer of 1911 he returned to England for a brief sojourn and, by November, he was back en route to Beirut.<< This does not even hint that a second Carchemish season was in doubt.


 * >>In January 1914 Woolley and Lawrence were co-opted by the British military as an archaeological smokescreen for a British military survey of the Sinai peninsula.<< This implies that the British military selected them, which was not the case. The Palestine Exploration Fund, delegated to organise the survey, borrowed them from the British Musuem.


 * >>Following the outbreak of hostilities in August 1914, on advice from S.F. Newcombe, Lawrence did not enlist immediately, but held back until October.<< Lawrence had difficulty joining up. He was under-height. Eventually D.G.Hogarth found him a job in the Geographical Section of the War Office.


 * >>Once enlisted he was posted to Cairo, where he worked for British Military Intelligence. Lawrence's intimate knowledge of the Arab people made him the ideal liaison between British and Arab forces and in October 1916 he was sent into the desert to report on the Arab nationalist movements<< Wow! How's that for skimming? Misleading? Yes!


 * >>in extended guerrilla operations against the Ottoman Empire<< I suppose it has to say "Ottoman Empire" rather than "Turkish forces" because that's the link Wikipedia wants to use. However, Lawrence and Feisal were not fighting the Ottoman Empire (which included many Arabs). They were fighting the Ottoman forces.


 * >>Lawrence's major contribution to World War I was convincing Arab leaders to coordinate their revolt to aid British interests << Truly, a thoroughbred American anti-Imperialist opinion. Ignorant Europeans doubtless maul American history in a similar manner. But hey! This piece is supposed to be about T.E. Lawrence. Why not put away our transatlantic prejudices and try to write accurately?


 * >>In 1917 Lawrence arranged a joint action with the Arab irregulars and forces under Auda Abu Tayi (until then in the employ of the Ottomans) against the strategically-located port city of Aqaba. On July 6, after a daring overland attack, Aqaba fell to Arab forces. In November he was recognised at Dara while reconnoitering the area in Arab dress and was apparently sexually assaulted by the (male) Turkish garrison before he was able to escape Encyclopædia Britannica, 2003). Some 12 months later, Lawrence was involved in the capture of Damascus in the final weeks of the war.<< Oh my God! Is that all there is to say about Lawrence's role in Feisal's Syrian campaign? Even Robert Bolt did a better job than that!


 * >>As he did before the war, during the time he spent with the Arab irregulars, Lawrence adopted many local customs and traditions as his own, and soon became a close friend of Prince Feisal. He especially became known for wearing white Arabian garb (given to him by Prince Feisal, originally wedding robes given to Feisal as a hint) and riding on a horse in the desert. << This has to be be a flash-back - we've already reached Damascus. And when did Lawrence ride a horse?


 * >>Immediately after the war Lawrence worked for the British  Foreign Office, attending the Versailles <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peace_Conference%2C_1919>Paris Peace Conference, 1919 between January and May as a member of Feisal's delegation. Through most of <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1921> 1921 he served as an advisor to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill>Winston Churchill at the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_Office>Colonial Office.<< Did Lawrence ever work for the Foreign Office? What happened at the Peace Conference? What happened in the gap between Paris and the Colonial Office? What happened in 1922?


 * >>A fresh burst of publicity resulted in his assignment to a remote base in what is now <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan>Pakistan in mid-<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1927>1927, where he remained until the beginning of <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929>1929<< Really? A fact-checker would amend at least three things here.


 * >>leaving [the RAF] with considerable regret in early 1935. A few months later he died<< Or maybe, "A few weeks later".


 * >>A large proportion of his writing was epistolary; he was an avid correspondent, often sending multiple letters per day<< This seems to me to make a similar point three times over.


 * >>His correspondents included many notable figures of the time, including <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Bernard_Shaw>George Bernard Shaw and <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Elgar>Edward Elgar.<< What about all the others? Winston Churchill, Robert Graves, E.M.Forster, ....


 * >>While his writings include one notably <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoerotic>homoerotic passage (see "Quotations" below), the details of his sexual orientation and experience remain unknown.<< I think that in this instance "homoerotic" may be somewhat narrowly defined. There are a number of descriptions in Seven Pillars that modern readers would class (rightly or wrongly) as homoerotic. By contrast, the passage quoted in Wikipedia does not strike me as homoerotic at all. In it Lawrence is talking about others, not himself.


 * JW

Trishymouse

Identification of "S.A." - maybe Saudi Arabia?


 * Or Hittite for "you'll never guess in a million years"? Jaguara 03:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hero for the Arabs?
I've heard that in fact Lawrence is regarded, by modern Arab historians, as a traitor who didn't fulfill his promises after the victory, and as a lesser figure in the Arab revolt than he's usually thought to be. Here is an article about it: http://www.al-bushra.org/arabwrld/lawrance.htm Maybe the last sentence in the first para is not balanced enough. 01 Sep 2005
 * I certainly think so. I live in Syria and am reasonably well acquainted with popular views of Arab history. I'm not sure that that many people have even heard of Lawrence, though I wouldn't go so far as to say that he's regarded as a traitor.Palmiro | Talk 12:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Right. I've lived in Saudi Arabia for many years now and TE Lawrence is hated and depised by the people I've talked to because of his involvement in shattering what was once a unified (if Turkish) Islamic caliphate. There is nothing that supports the contention that he's loved by Arabs. If anything, signs point against it. Perhaps it should be deleted, especially that it's not supported by proof in that page in any way.--PsychoticClown 10:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Writings and Revolt in the Desert
Lawrence's book "Revolt in the Desert" isn't at all mentioned in his liturature section, also it has come to my attention that theres quite a few "first American printings" out and about.
 * I found the same thing! Perhaps this link explains it, and adds an interesting view as to why Lawrence was not much richer. I have started to play around with this section - you can find my current piece at User:Trident13/TE Lawrence - Writings Rgds, --Trident13 08:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Subsequently updated in main article. Rgds, --Trident13 09:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Not a hero to Arabs
T. Lawrance is NOT considered a hero by the Arabs. The truth his even today, Arab's say he was a traitor. He united them by telling them they will get independance, but were shocked when after the war they weren't granted the promised freedom. Lawrance knew about Britain's real intentions but hid it from the Arabs. And it was this guilt that he also refused a medal by the English King and was emotionally and psychologically troubled. Tuctuc


 * While in general terms there may be truth in this statement, I believe it is overly simplistic to suggest that Lawrence was a "traitor" to the Arabs. Lawrence was certainly not privy to the negotiations between the United Kingdom, France and Russia that resulted in the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement and which, along with the Balfour Declaration of 1917, was the basis for the post war division of the Middle East. He ultimately was made aware of these agreements, although there is some lack of clarity as to exactly when.  The fact that he did not immediately divulge the contents of these agreements to his Arab allies certainly cuts to the core of his divided loyalties. But there is no evidence (that I'm aware of) that he deliberately and maliciously misled the Arabs so as to ensure the fulfilment of European objectives in the Middle East (as per Sykes-Picot). On the contrary, he pushed for the entry of Faisal into Damascus before the Allied forces, and the earliest possible creation of an Arab civil administration.  When confronted by General Allenby with the reality of Allied intentions, he immediately departed Damascus, and the war.  At the Paris Peace Conference, he worked directly with the Arab delegation under the leadership of Faisal in an attempt to salvage some vestige of Arab self rule.  Not exactly the behaviour one would expect from a "traitor".  The fact that there is a perception in the Arab world that Lawrence was less than honest in his dealings with Faisal may have more to do with the nature and amount of literature on the subject available in Arabic, although I am woefully ill informed in this area.    Psarj 17:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am afraid you are arguing out of ignorance. One thing you should understand is that Arabic countries are very strong in the history department. We're practically living in it (unfortunately), so we know detail western historians would love to. He was not a "traitor", he served his country very well. It is just that his nation wasn't ours, so we see him as a saboteur. The face saving gesture you mention is irrelevant, while serving Churchill it was his idea that they gas entire Iraqi cities. 202.89.188.44 17:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing image
There is an image, "FaisalPartyAtVersaillesCopy.jpg", just under the "Postwar years" heading that is missing in both Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. I have commented it out until someone either uploads it or deletes the reference. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The picture and its comments are currently in the Faisal I of Iraq article. Jaguara 07:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory
This page does not mention that Lawrence's death was extremely suspicious, and similar to that of Princess Diana in the sense that the 'accident' seems to have been caused by MI5 agents. 04:51, 12 March 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.245.251 (talk)
 * Ah, the black car causing the bike to flip containing occupants ranging from MI1 operatives to Almighty Latin King Nation (okay, so I tease about that last one). The "extremely suspicious" nature is along the lines of the JFK "second gunman" conspiracy theories.  If I can find the article about pederasty, er, murder, I'll put up a link here in Talk. Jaguara 04:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please don't be flip. The article also doesn't mention Lawrence's involvement with Oswald Moseley, or that when he died he was returning from a specific errand: Sending a telegram to Moseley's organization regarding a plan they were hatching to attempt to negotiate a peace deal with Hitler. Lawrence had just left the RAF, which freed him to speak out in public however he liked. Lawrence's movements had been closely watched and partly controlled by the government for several years, which is a matter of record with the release of various Foreign Office files in the 1980s. And it's also a matter of record that Government agents (of whatever department) swept in within a couple hours of the crash and completely cleaned out his cottage.


 * There are conspiracies and there are conspiracies . . . and not all of them are fanciful. You should read up some time on British official manipulation of Lawrence during the War and how they treated Aaron Aaronsohn, in pursuit of the creation of a British quasi-colony out of Ottoman Palestine. --Michael K. Smith 20:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * These are good points that should be considered for inclusion in the article. Perhaps by Michael K. Smith?  Nihil novi 22:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what peace deal you are referring to, Lawrence died four years before the war started. HarryHenryGebel 01:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Archaeological smokescreen?
It says in the very last paragraph of the Early Years section, that Lawrence was part of an "archaeological smokescreen for a British military survey of the Sinai peninsula." Exactly what does this mean? 16:34, 16 February 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.70.14 (talk)
 * Prior to the war, Lawrence and his mentor Leonard Woolley were funded by the Palestine Exploration Fund to search for an area referred to in the Bible as the "Wilderness of Zin", and along the way to undertake an archeological survey of the Negev Desert. This area was of strategic importance as it would have to be crossed by any Turkish army attacking Egypt when war ultimately broke out. They did publish a report of the expedition's findings, but it is generally believed that the significant product was updated mapping of the area, with attention paid to features of military significance such as water sources. See  --Psarj 19:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Arabs...Far From Rebellion
In the reign of Yavuz Sultan Selim(Selim I.), the Ottoman Empire conquered the whole Middle-East and Egypt. For more than four hundred years, Arabs lived in peace and they did whatever they want. Then in the years before and during the World War I, T. E. Lawrence came to these lands. He fooled Arab tribe leaders with money and promises. He was saying that these tiny leaders would become kings and they would be very rich. So Arabs believed in Lawrence and they perfidiously betrayed to the Ottoman Empire. Thousands of Turkish warriors murdered by these trickster Arabic soldiers. After the war, Great Britain didn't give Arabs what they were promised. British leaders divided Middle-East into tiny countries and they put puppet kings to the heads of these new formed countries. While Great Britian enjoyed the power of Petrol, they left Arabic world in a primitive living. As we all know, the world still tries to fix the things done to the Middle-East by the powerful countries in the world in the beginning of the 20. century. ---Delioğul 05/16/2006


 * I'm afriad I disagree with this entirely. The arabs wanted freedom from the ottomans, they were enslaved, and had been fighting for independence before Lawrence was on the scene. You realize that you are writing this from a strongly pro turkish view (I wouldn't be surprised if you were turkish). The arabs were offered money, but this was so they fought together under Faisal, and drove the turks out of the middle east. The British and French wanted power in the middle east, and Lawrence knew little about this. This was classified information - and Lawrence was just an officer in Cairo. It wasn't Great Britain who promised the arabs things, it was Lawrence, and it was out of Lawrences control as to what happened. Lines were drawn on the map to signify boundaries, ignoring totally the ethnic and tribal areas. That is why today Iraq is such a mess. It has Curdish, Sunni and Shia muslims all in one country, when it would be better to have 3 countries. Lawrence tried desperately to fix the problems caused, he was at the infamous Treaty of Versailles, representing the arabs with Faisal. He led such a secrative life afterwards, and changed his name because he was ashamed of what he had promised and failed to deliver, thats why he changed his name to Shaw etc. The turks weren't the peacekeepers in the middle east, they were the enemy in Lawrences time. Segafreak2 11:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I disagree with you completely, and one should not promise what he cannot deliver. Also, Please refrain from ad hominem attacks. 202.89.188.44 17:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that he is attacking in this point, but giving the Arabic perspective. The Turkish view, especially after Mustfa Kamal, was that the Arab world was backward and in "primitive living" as you say....but is that so?  and by whose standard or judgement?  There was also Arab "nationalism" behind the Arab revolt.  We ought not to make too little of the urge from teh Arab side in what Lawrence sparked up.  You also have a feeling of "contamination" through the Turk control, of a less than authentic Islamic stance.  Bedouin tribal life was especially elusive for the Turks, and this is what worked well for them when they booted them out of Arabia...Sophos  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.106.49.94 (talk) 03:53, 24 June 2008 (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 16:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Good question! I'm all for Lawrence of Arabia to redirect to the film.  The film article clearly states "Lawrence of Arabia is an Academy Award-winning film based, with some licence, on the life of T. E. Lawrence." and has a link to the TEL article.  I don't see the need for a disambiguation page since there would be only two entries on it (though I can also see where it may be useful).  Jaguara 21:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it should redirect to the man. I think that is the more common usage of the phrase.  Also I think it would seem normal to people if the Lawrence of Arabia article was about the fellow himself and had a link to the film.  The other way around would be a bit strange.  (Note that I usually work on the history side rather than entertainment so I may be biased.) --Cjrother 15:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Definately the man. You don't see God redirected to the Kingdom of Heaven (film) do you? Then neither should Lawrence. Segafreak2 11:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The precedent is already clearly established. "Iwo Jima" wouldn't refer to "Sand of Iwo Jima" (1949 John Wayne movie), "Sahara" wouldn't refer to the 2005 movie based on the Clive Cussler novel.  Movies are made from the real-world people, places, things.  The Wikipedia should refer to the real-world, and link (as appropriate) to related items of interest. Thaimoss 12:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Seven Pillars, and SA
Has it occurred only to me that "S.A." means "Saudi Arabia"?

Seven Pillars of Wisdom is dedicated to "S.A.", with a poem that begins:

"I loved you, so I drew these tides of men into my hands and wrote my will across the sky in stars To gain you Freedom, the seven-pillared worthy house, that your eyes might be shining for me When I came."


 * Call me a nitpicker but ... I have in front of me a 1935 Doubleday, Doran & Co copy of 7POW and the first stanza of "To S.A" reads

"I loved you, so I drew these tides of men into my hands and wrote my will across the sky in stars To gain you Freedom, the seven-pillared worthy house, that your eyes might be shining for me When we came."

"we came not "I came"

Niknelb 20:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

He desired independence for Saudi Arabia ("To gain you Freedom"); it is unlikely that he is referring to a person as a "seven-pillared worthy house;" (but I suppose he could be referring to "Freedom" by this); and he was a stranger who had come into Saudi Arabia. To find some kind of latent homosexual content in this passage seems quite obviously tortured given how much more reasonable the Saudi Arabia as S.A. thesis is (or any other thesis, for that matter). Before you reply that it was then called Arabia and not Saudi Arabia, I suggest that Lawrence, above all others, wanted a "Saudi" Arabia when he contemplated its future. The House of Saud was the one the British, and Lawrence, obviously preferred.

I could be wrong about the S.A. thing, but if you think that Lawrence meant something having to do with a sexual act with the final line "When I came," I would say that you must be of the opinion that T.E. Lawrence, despite his extremely high intelligence and uncommon facility in the English language, was quite an obvious and unimaginative poet. Robert.


 * The Article assumes that the identification of SA is pretty much established and gives the greatest space to one theory. However, it is a debated concept and the article does not reflect this uncertainty very well. --Blue Tie 15:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: "The House of Saud was the one the British, and Lawrence, obviously preferred." Lawrence was most difinitely NOT a supporter of the House of Saud, but rather of the Hashemite royal family who ruled in the Hejaz before the Saudi's overthrew them (1926).  During World War I, there was disagreement between the British Egyptian and Indian administrations as to who, ultimately, they should support to take over Arabia once the Turks were out of the picture.  The Egyptians, with whom Lawrence worked, supported King Hussein and the Hashemite family, and sponsored their "Arab Revolt".  The Indian government, which was involved in the Mesopotomian campaign on the other side of the the Arabian peninsula attempted unsuccesfully to foster a similar revolt amongst the tribes in central Arabia, taking a particularly interest in Abdul Aziz ibn Saud.  One of the key British players in this theatre of the war was Harry St John Philby, father of Kim Philby.  --Psarj 19:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I actually came in to correct my errant entry re: Lawrence's support of the House of Saud. You are correct. Robert.

Weasel Words
I deleted the entire section about the attitudes of Britons and Middle Eastern people towards TE. All of the statements and arguements about either his hero or villian status are completely unquantifiable by encyclopedic standards, and therefore are explictly forbidden on Wikipedia (for a definition... Weasel_word ). Besides that they are going to create useless arguement that distract from improving the general quality of the article. If you want to say that Arabs name their children after him or hate him, back it up with a credible source orr desist. Thanks VanTucky 18:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

(The) Seven Pillars of Wisdom
I had been under the impression that the title of T.E. Lawrence's chef d'oeuvre was The Seven Pillars of Wisdom, and was nonplussed by the article adjective's omission in the T.E. Lawrence article. But on looking the book up in my sources, including a reprint of the book itself, I find that there was no "The" in the title. Others may have been under the same misapprehension. logologist|Talk 23:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy Wilson
Jeremy Wilson's Lawrence of Arabia: The Authorized Biography of T.E. Lawrence (1989) was — and remains — a miraculous revelation to me. Wilson must be the world authority on Lawrence. I hope that his comments ("T.E. Lawrence Studies List"), above, are reflected in the current article, and that we may hope to benefit in the future from his critiques — and from his direct textual emendations, if he is willing to devote the effort. logologist|Talk 00:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't we normally prefer, for encyclopedic purposes, biographies which are NOT explicitly "authorized", in order to have a better chance of NPOV ? 90.11.230.159 09:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact of its "authorization" is essentially irrelevant to the book's purpose. It was published in 1989—54 years after Lawrence's death.  As the Wikipedia article on the book states, it deliberately limited itself to contemporaneous sources, thus avoiding all the (mostly silly) subsequent speculation about Lawrence, his activities, sexuality, etc.  Nihil novi 17:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

poem and Robert Graves
The article states: "This poem was heavily edited by Robert Graves" — could a reference/sources be provided for this, please? Njál 00:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Iconography

 * I managed to restore the photo of Faisal's party at the Versailles Conference.
 * Additional illustrations would be desirable, particularly in the "Early years" section, which has none.
 * logologist|Talk 09:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

T E Lawrence - Motorcycle lover
Lawrence was known for his collection of Brough Superior motorcycles, and his love of motorcycling. I will see what information I can find on T E Lawrence and his motorcycles. Seasalt 06:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi'd
I have semi protected this article to stop the multi-IP vandalism put on to it. It should stay for a short while. If it has been long enough, request unprotection. - w L &lt;speak·check·chill&gt; 10:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Introductory sentence
I redid it. The pseudonym Shaw didn't belong, IMO. (It appears later, along with it's meaning.) The new intro is maybe a bit florid for an encyclopedia, but not too much so for such a romantic figure. Churchill was even more extravagant in his praise of Lawrence, so I'm in good company :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LDH (talk) 03:17, 29 February 2007 (UTC)

public opinion
Please remember that the qualification for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability not truth. Any statistical claims not cited in reliable published sources about the views of any national/ethnic groups about Lawrence will be removed. VanTucky 17:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Vision of Middle East
The subsections of section 7, "Vision of Middle East," make no sense. They have no connection with that section. Was there a section 8 heading at one time, of which these various bits of trivia were subsections, that has since been deleted? At this point, in makes little sense to have subsections that have no relation to their section heading. --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  02:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I found the answer to my own question. The trivia heading was deleted by an anonymous user back in September, along with the trivia template, and never restored.  The entire section, of course, is in violation of Wikipedia standards and the information contained therein needs to be integrated into the article or deleted.  I suggest we begin with a brief section on portrayals in film, television, and fiction, all of which should be fairly easily sourced. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  02:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

RAF Recruitment Incident
"The RAF Recruitment Office where Lawrence enlisted was run by Captain W. E. Johns, who was later to become the famous writer and creator of the Biggles character. He reported in his autobiography that Lawrence initially submitted false papers indicating that his name was Shaw, which resulted in his initial rejection. Within an hour Lawrence had returned to the office, with a directive from the War Office[dubious – discuss] indicating that he was to be taken on, regardless of any discrepancy in his papers or medical condition. Johns accepted him, and sent a warning to the induction centre that a new recruit who had strong establishment influence, and who 'dined with Cabinet Ministers on his weekends' was arriving."

Hmm. I understand that this story is in dispute, but I am not sure why, beyond the fact that 'Shaw' ought to be 'Ross'.

Capt W E Johns never wrote a comprehensive autobiography, though he wrote many stories and articles which were autobiographical. I think his major biography is by P Berrisford Ellis and P Williams - 'By Jove, Biggles', pub Comet(W H Allen and co, ISBN 0 86379054 2). In this book, 5 pages cover the 'Laurence Incident'.

The data for this incident, mentioned in the biography, is taken from an article Johns wrote in 'Popular Flying' (July 1935). The biography reports Johns as describing his receiving a recruit named ROSS with no papers. He requested a birth certificate and references, and while 'Ross' was away obtaining these, Johns checked the data he had given and found that his claimed birth date did not accord with Somerset House records. When Ross returned with a birth certificate and references Johns found that these were fake too, and turned him out of the recruiting office. Ross left, and returned with an 'Air Ministry messenger' who carried an order signed by an unnamed, but, Johns indicates, very superior officer (presumably RAF), which required Johns to admit 'Ross'.

Johns duly admitted Ross to the recruitment medical, where he was turned down because of 'his scarred back'. The Air Ministry then 'sent a special doctor to sign Ross's medical form, and the new aircraftsman was finally admitted'.

This report differs somewhat from Laurence's description of the same occurence in 'The Mint'. Capt W E Johns wrote reminiscences to entertain his readers, so the posibility of exaggeration or misreporting remains - I would indicate that this is a report rather than documented fact, but it does seem to be believable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.207.14 (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Dispute
The POV tag was added back on July 28 by 84.13.109.154 who didn't leave any comments explaining what he/she was disputing. So I'm pulling it. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 03:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Secondary sources - vanity publication
Hi, the German laguage book by Muhammad Sameer Murtaza was inserted by an anon in the firstplace and restored by anon again after i removed it. It is a completely irrelevant publication with a vanity publisher, not a reputable publishing house and has recieved nil recognition by the academic community so far. Someone (probably the author himself) tried aggressivly to insert it in the German language WP, so I checked with Google and found it here too. Please keep it out of the article. --h-stt !?  19:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've just removed it again. The anon is going to require a talking-to. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  05:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I just removed it yet again. Apparently, someone using the net range 84.159 is quite insistent upon adding this book. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  22:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence on scooter?
The photo captioned "T.E.Lawrence on an early scooter; British India (1926-1928)" doesn't appear to be a picture of Lawrence. Is there some reliable source that can vouch for the identification? MayerG (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Marriage
The writer Tariq Ali among others has claimed that the Akbar Jehan grand daughter of Harry Nedou was married to Lawrence of Arabia in 1928 who lived disguised as an Arab Karam Shah.When the Calcutta newspaper Liberty reported that Karam Shah was actually Col.T.E.Lawrence he disappeared.In 1929 he divorced Akbar Jehan who latter married the Kashmiri leader Sheikh Abdullah in 1933.For references see the article Sheikh Abdullah.It is said that Tariq Ali got this information from a senior civil servant to whom the it was narrated by Benji Nedou the brother of Akbar Jehan.My elder brother had also heard about the marriage of Lawrence of Arabia with Akbar Jehan decades back from a reliable and independent source.In 1928 Lawrence was actually in India but left after the publication of the Liberty report.scribe (talk) 03:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Extroverted???
The intro lists Lawrence as being known for his "extroverted personality"????? Anyone who has read his works, The Seven Pillars and especially the less commonly known one, his account of time in RAF recruit school, The Mint, would say without a shadow of a doubt that Lawrence was a deeply introspective personality.

The Desert Campaign evoked a passion in him which inspired him towards leadership, but his biographical details show very, very clearly that after the war he shunned that image of himself entirely.

For that reason I think I am very much justified in removing such a statement, I know not of a better description to add there so perhaps someone else can come up with a single adjective that might do justice in describing this man! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.201.107 (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Lawr5.jpg
The image Image:Lawr5.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --09:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent Additions by Simpson
While the information that has recently been added to the article seems of interest and value, it lacks citations. The additions of such apparent facts as Laqwrence's bee-sting, the names of the boys involved in his fatal accident, and comments about his personal motavations regarding his name change and transfer are the sort of thing which absolutely must be cited. Indeed, since this information is coming from a book, presumably, and not the editor's personal memory, such citations should be easy to add. All we need is an author, a title and a page number. I do not want to discourage the edits - but without citations they are unacceptable. The editor can fix this easily by undoing my reversion and then adding in the references before he saves that edit. <span style="color: rgb(0, 72, 55); font-weight: bold; font-family: times cy;">Kj<span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">a er (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Rather than delete large sections, I prefer to assume good faith and merely tag for references/citations, therefore I have restored the previous edits. Ned de Rotelande 11:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not a "deletion of large sections," but a reversion of new unsourced additions. I did leave a remark for Simpson on his talk page after his first set of additions. He could not have missed that he had a message when he made his second set of edits. Perhaps the additions are sourceable. But the problem is, unless Simpson was making this information up, he had the source in hand as he was making the additions. That was the time to add the references. If this were the article on Princess Diana or John Kennedy, would we let a remark that the victim was found with a bee sting on the forehead, or an identification of the names of the last people to have contact with the victim stand with a mere flag? I'll let it stand for a few hours, but this is the sort of material that has to be sourced for an encyclopedia to have any credibility whatsoever. <span style="color: rgb(0, 72, 55); font-weight: bold; font-family: times cy;">Kj<span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">a er (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

An OR tag for two entire sections is not the proper response to specific new challanged edits. It is specifically those edits which are3 the problem. The solution is very simpl - add the refs. The editor who added the material has been directly notified, and if he needs help he can request it here. Adding the tag to the section makes it unclear as to what material is challenged, and is not the appropriate remedy. <span style="color: rgb(0, 72, 55); font-weight: bold; font-family: times cy;">Kj<span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">a er (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Shaw?
Why did he change his name from Lawrence to Shaw? I understand he was friends with Mr and Mrs Shaw, but why did he change his name? Was it to hide his identity? Because he was such good friends with the Shaws, etc? Maybe someone who has read a biography or two could write more about it. Even if it is unsure historically we could say that so and so biographer posits thus.Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted link to portrait by William Roberts
I'm puzzled by there being considered to be 'no real point' to a link added to a dispassionate portrait of Lawrence by William Roberts (copyright in which is not being violated by the site linked to, by the way), when the article itself includes a drawing of Lawrence by Augustus John which, irrespective of its artistic merits, is arguably just a part of the 'romantic' Lawrence legend. That legend itself is not without interest, of course, but since when have Wikipedia users been trusted to know when they are being sold a line? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radavenport (talk • contribs) 14:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Lawrence's works
Could these be listed in chronological order of dates of writing (with dates of publication given?) so that the reader might be aware of developments in his work etc, and be able to read them in chronological order if so desired? it's odd no dates are given at all; the thesis was first published many years after his death but ought to go at the start of the list as it's his first major piece of written work.86.134.116.135 (talk) 12:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sexuality
This section has been much-discussed over the years; those discussions are aggregated in this section of the Talk page.

The major update to this section of December 30, 2009, involved a review of all the discussion here and a survey of a large number of the primary sources. It may not be perfect or even accurate, it pays close attention to "the requirement that the article not contain original research, and that all edits be supported by verifiable references/citations" Tim Bray (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who wishes to contribute to it might find the background here helpful. Also useful might be the citation raw material in Sex and T.E. Lawrence, which is actively updated as and when new primary evidence comes to light. Tim Bray (talk) 05:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Masochistic programme
Years afer the Deraa incident, Lawrence embarked on a masochistic program of physical rehabilitation, including diet, exercise and swimming nude in the North Sea. He recruited younger men from the service and told them an elaborate story about a ficticious uncle who, because Lawrence had stolen money from him, demanded that he enlist in the service and that he be beaten. Lawrence wrote letters purporting to be from the uncle ("R." or "The Old Man") instructing the men in how he was to be beaten, yet also asking them to persuade him to stop this. This treatment continued until his death. Anyone want to source the above? I'm pretty well-read on L's life and I never heard the bit abot the "masochistic program, etc..." In fact, he did the "Old Man" routine with *one* of his enlisted-man friends. I'm going to prune it unless someone's got a source. Tim Bray 06:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I read it in John E. Mack's A Prince of Our Disorder, which reproduces some of the letters.
 * Agreed, this is now properly cited in the re-work Tim Bray (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Why the EB reference attached to the Deraa torture story? Does it add independent substantiation beyond that which appears in SP? If so, say so. If not, take it out. Or is this a WP style convention I'm too ignorant to know about? Tim Bray 15:59, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Well I included a reference because I know there's some dispute as to whether the Dara incident actually happened (I believe elsewhere on this page someone presents a reference to that effect) but that it's such an important part of his legend that it needs to be included, and when there's controversy I generally take Britannica's version of events--as the English language's best known and most widely respected reference source--as the current standard version. I included the reference so no one could simply remove the statement (as opposed to adding references disputing whether the incident took place).  The Britannica article's rather extensive bibliography actually doesn't include Seven Pillars, or anything else by Lawrence.  But as long as no one objects to including the statement in the article, I'm happy to remove the reference.Binabik80 16:38, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation
Why do biographical articles in Wikipedia only seem to speak of sexual orientation when it is suspected to be homosexual? If homosexuals require two pages of details on their sex lives, then so do heterosexuals; and if heterosexuals do not require a special section detailing their sexual liaisons, then neither do homosexuals.

As a general rule, since sexual orientation generally pales in comparison to the other events and accomplishments of a person's life, I suggest that the section be dropped unless it can be shown as very obviously relevant to the biography (as in the case of the Marquis de Sade or arguably Oscar Wilde, perhaps). Agateller 23:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * When a person is left-handed, this is (sometimes) worth pointing out, when describing that person --- for the sole reason that the person is in the minority of humans. In other words, when one mentions nothing about hand dexterity in describing that person, it is generally assumed that the person is right-handed. The same goes for homosexuality, a sexual preference now understood to be neither 'a sin' nor a defect, yet still something practiced by a distinct minority of humans, as all scientific research indicates. Homosexuality can be said to belong to the 'outstanding', exceptional features of a person.
 * But even so, why is it still worth mentioning at all ? Because, as of yet, human society, at large, including the society in western democracies, has not accepted homosexuality as completely as it has accepted other practices which were once widely condemned (e.g. openly proclaiming one's atheism). Therefore, by presenting information about an individual's homosexual preferences, one is presenting a more complete picture of said individual's position in and interaction with the rest of society. The Gnome 06:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm in agreement here. The section on sexual orientation is written in such a way (a way I find sensationalist) that it detracts from the rest of the article.  TEL's sex life/sexuality is something that biographers constantly argue about and hyperfocus on mainly because TEL's orientation is not clearly known.  I suggest that the section be dropped or at least edited for brevity. I also suggest that TEL be removed from the category of "pederastic lovers" unless someone can find strong evidence supporting this (mainly in relation to Dahoum).


 * Also, the paragraph beginning with "The accusation that Lawrence repeatedly exaggerated his feats..." has zip to do with sexual orientation because this was not about sexual accomplishments but about battles and other information in Seven Pillars. Jaguara06:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Though sensationalism has no place here, it is indeed appropriate to discuss the sexuality of a historic figure when it is out of the ordinary. If historians have found it appropriate to explore, it belongs here. At the same time, I see no problem changing the section to indicate it is about his relationships, since presenting the discussion as a study of his sexual orientation reflects more on us than on the man. As for his being a pederastic lover, since it has been credibly hypothesized, I do not see why we should hide it. I wonder what they (and it) should say about you, were you to move in with a boy in his mid-teens, carve a nude of him, and stick it on the roof of your house. Haiduc 10:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Because I'm a nitpicker, I took word counts of the different articles (with OpenOffice, photo captions as well but they contribute little to the word count)


 * Early years: word count: 453
 * The Arab Revolt: word count: 453
 * Postwar years: 280
 * Death: 173
 * Writings: 125
 * Seven Pillars: 304
 * Revolt in the Desert: 223
 * After his death: 306
 * Sexual Orientation:715
 * Lawrence's vision of the Middle east: 88
 * Trivia: 357


 * I personally don't care if TEL liked guys, girls, both, neither, camels, camel spiders or pumpkins but 715 words about a historical figure's disputed sexuality does shine the spotlight on one section, effectively taking focus off the other sections. It is large enough to be a WP entry on its own.  I move that it should be edited for brevity, deleted, or else made a separate entry with a referring link in the main article.


 * Quoting HaiducAs for his being a pederastic lover, since it has been credibly hypothesized, I do not see why we should hide it.


 * "Credible hypothesis" is fancy words for an educated guess. No hard proof has been found.  This is more meant for the "list of pederastic lovers category" discussion.  If and when I feel like discussing this further, I'll move it there.  Jaguara 03:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * ETA: removed Lawrence and Dahoum from "pederastic lovers"  category list.  No known proof beyond speculation.  If anyone cites any, I will revert it.  Jaguara 04:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I checked the length of the sexuality section, it is still at 608 words. Can this be reduced any more?  LawrenceTrevallion 19:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Since his sexuality is so hotly debated, it is important to show both sides and present the evidence fairly. This takes more space than recounting an undisputed event.  It makes sense that this section is so long.  Perhaps if the length makes it seem unduly important, the other sections about his life are not long enough? Lyrric 06:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

TE Lawrence is famous for both his exploits in the Middle East and as a cultural icon following the release of the eponymous film. With whom and what he had relations is irrelevant, and, as mentioned above, sensationalist. He's famous for being a leader and a soldier, and should thus be celebrated and recorded as such. It would be just as irrelevant to mention roast beef as his favourite meal. Jackmont January 20, 2007.

When TE Lawrence was considering to be or not to be I doubt he would have considered that his epitaph would read something along the lines of "here lies TE Lawrence, possibly homosexual, incidentally conquered arabia", I find it interesting, what do you call a well educated, thinking, feeling, sensitive man in the military? A fag (apologies to any who are offended, trying to make a point).

I struggle to see what bearing Lawrence's sexuality has on any part of his saga, if it could be said that Lawrence was gay and... or because lawrence was gay he... and you could point to a direct historical outcome because of his sexuality I would whole heartedly support a section on his sexuality and a recurring theme throughout the piece, but come one people, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, idle speculation deserves at the most a "there is some speculation of". The debate seems to have about the same weight as the current "teach the controversy" trend that we're seeing in religious affairs, when the evidence is some extremely round about reasoning based on the principle that, "well, it could be remotely possible so we'll talk about it like it's true and people will believe it". How about we stick to the facts and leave the controversy where it belongs - the talk page. Crossxfire 12:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Men are not automatons, to be documented from a strictly behaviorist perspective. They are driven by feelings, momentuous emotions which men of the stature of Lawrence bend to great deeds. And you propose that we should list only the facts, and let the human being remain invisible? That, because everything cannot possibly be said, nothing should be said?! Perhaps you are right, when dealing with mediocrities, whose actions are little more than accidents of fate on the stage of history, the George Bushes of the world. But Lawrence, a man who reeks of authenticity, deserves more from us. His actions were driven by passion, so we are told by the man himself, and his biographers. And you, in response to his love, and poetry, and heartbreak, recommend a fig leaf? Why such a Lilliputian approach when treating a giant? Haiduc 13:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Deraa
I attempted minor rewrite within the "Deraa" portion of this section-- hopefully it isn't an incoherent waffley jumble. This is a tough subject to maintain a NPOV about, due to people who were sexually abused or assaulted often accused of "lying about it", misconceptions about male-male sexual assault and other issues either unique to males or shared by both male and female assailants and victims. At the same time I did not want to discount theories that this possibly never took place due to: conflicting reports about and from persons allegedly involved, timeframes, missing pages from TEL's journal, and no known surviving evidence. All parties concerned are dead and unable to verify or refute TEL's account. - Jaguara 04:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I simply note in passing this sentence for its utter bizarreness: "However, others maintain that Dahoum was merely an extremely close friend of the type common in the 19th and early 20th centuries, which often involved (non-sexual) physical contact. Lawrence himself, perhaps dissembling, maintained that "S.A." was a composite character." Sure, there were lots of such friendships known to exist in only one historical era – that dare not speak their name. LOL!

As for the section itself, most biographical articles have a section on a person's private or family life. The fact that such a section is missing from this article does raise a question, which the sexuality section apparently addresses. As for its size, Lyrric has the proper explanation above - it is long because it is controversial and must therefore address all sides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjaer (talk • contribs) 22:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Tabloid this!
What about homosexuality and being raped by Turk soldiers? Include Al-Urens or whatever he was calld by Arabs.

Speaking of, can we please leave that as "sexually assaulted"? First of all, no academic or legal resource would use the phrase "homosexually assaulted" or "homosexually brutilized"; it's childish and sounds uneducated. Second, it's inaccurate, as it implies that 1) only homosexuals forcibly sodomize (not true) and 2) that all male homosexual sex is forced or brutal (again, not true). In the interest of accuracy and maintaining an educated writing style, can we please leave it as I edited it? (I tried to reach a compromise by specifying that all parties were male, but it's really unnecesary to even specify that much - we get it.)


 * Scientists proved that the sexual assault claim is a fictional story created by Lawrence himself. They proved it by looking to his diary with a special light source to see what was written on the missing pages(when you write, because of the pressure on the paper, it can be discovered what you had written to a page by looking to the next page). Now, historians think that Lawrence dreamed such scene instead of praticing it because, as we all know, Lawrence had extraordinary sexual interests. With respect, teh son of the death heores of the Battle of Kosovo, Deliogul 22:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It isn't true that scientists proved that Lawrence invented the story of what happened at Deraa. Under lights, they found an imprint of the letter A, written in the way that Lawrence typically wrote his capital A's at the beginnings of words, and that had presumably been on the missing page - they made the assumption that he had written "Azrak" - and had therefore BEEN at Azrak - on the day he said he was at Deraa. Seems like rather skimpy evidence to me. This is sited in James Barr's ''Setting The Desert on Fire," among other places. The fact that all else is subsumed in the interest in TEL's sexuaity seems extraordinary, and rather perverse in itself. There is absolutely no way to know. Did he even know? Certainly none of his friends, gay or straight, believed that he was gay. They seem much more likely to have had a sense of it than any of us ever will. One thing that seems to get lost in all the discussion is Lawrence's intellectual genius, his literary gifts, and also his gift for friendship. [User:Eloiseat, 12/12/2007]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eloiseat (talk • contribs) 03:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess I'm not "all" because I don't know that TEL had "extraordinary sexual interests", whatever that means-- since it can mean different things to different people. To me it means "bloaty vague word-words that tell me nothing and sound like they're coming from someone who's scandalized".  Now about the diary page: there's this article.  I've seen no evidence that as of that finding, all historians believe that the assault was fabricated thanks to the indentation of one single letter showing up on a page near the missing entry.  All historians???  Historians all share one brain?  I'm gonna ask the local historians if they suddenly had a revelation about a subject they don't give a rat's behind about.  Maybe I should write Ken Burns and ask if he woke up one morning knowing Lawrence made it all up. - Jaguara 17:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC) (this comment was brought to you by the letter A).

--

One theory about Lawrence's accusations of homosexuality...

The British and Arabians differ greatly in the unity that their soldiers share. To the Arabs, brotherhood is highly valued. Many Arab soldiers would have and did gladly die for another man. Over in Britain, the army was much more organized, formal, and strict.

Such a bond between two men is not normal in Britain, and Lawrence clearly was very attuned to Arab customs.

In addition, a white-skinned homosexual would not have lasted long in 1920's Arabia, much less lead a rebellion against the Ottoman State.

Lawrence's Sexuality
The section previous titled "Sexual Orientation" is about both his sexual orientation and sexual proclivities. As such, it is not solely about his sexual orientation and more generally about his sexuality (or lack thereof). I've renamed the section to reflect this. &mdash; X S  G  03:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to preclude the inevitable "NPOV" objection to this article being within LGBT's scope, the banner doesnt imply a conclusion about his sexual orientation. It only acknowledges that, because of the mere possibility (recognised by published sources) that he was not heterosexual, he lies within the parameters of the project. VanTucky 06:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleting sentence from Lawrence's sexuality
From the article: "Due to misconceptions about male sexual assault, some critics have used this as evidence to suggest that Lawrence was homosexual.[citation needed] However, Lawrence displayed probable traumatic effects as a result of and evident disgust after the alleged attack."

I've deleted the second sentence, as it has no relevance to the first. It is usual for rape victims to show signs of trauma and disgust, and it does not prove a point to say that Lawrence showed them, too. By the same logic, if a woman is raped by a man and is traumatized and disgusted by it, she cannot possibly be straight. Lyrric 05:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. This sentence lacked authentic source and anyway seemed highly misplaced here. bandishhh

Sexuality
Why is Lawrence's sexuality even a topic to begin with? No one spoke of it during his time, he's on record saying he found homosexual acts distasteful. Matt Sanchez 22:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

How is asexuality compatible with a person who "hired people to whip him"? That section needs editing to remove the contradiction. ProfDEH (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't "S.A." refer to Saudi Arabia, rather than an individual (male OR female), as is suggested in the article? If he was writing romantic poetry about Saudi Arabia, that would make sense, as he seemed to love the land and people there more than any of his British comrades or other individuals. I had difficulty on the Saudi Arabia page determining when the country might have been first called by that name, but I have found no evidence that it would not have been called Saudi Arabia during the time Lawrence was there, so my proposal still stands.130.126.69.235 (talk) 05:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 'I believe you'll find that Lawrence's war was fought to determine whether Arabia should be ruled by the house of Saud, or by Al Rashid, or perhaps by someone else. We know who won, but Lawrence didn't.' MarkBernstein (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"Homoerotic" passage
Regular as clockwork, someone comes by and lifts out the discussion of a passage from the Seven Pillars intro as "homoerotic", offering reasons which normally serve to illustrate that the perpetrator hasn't actually read it. In future, before you do this, please go consult page 30 in the 1935 first public edition. In the interim, I have expanded the quotation somewhat to make it a little more obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimBray (talk) 01:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Moreover I strongly believe that the sentence has OR issues. Unless a proper reference will be added linking the passage with homosexuality the sentence is a classic OR one. --Factuarius (talk) 06:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Sexuality?
Why the very big section about his sexuality? It doesn't seem to be a major topic? --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it would seem that Lawrence's biographers disagree with you; oceans of words and forests-full of trees have been put to work on this subject. I have observed that this section has been unstable and subject to edits of questionable quality. To help out, I've assembled a sort of primary-research file on my blog... perhaps it should be copied in here somewhere for preservation? Anyhow, it's at Sex and T.E. Lawrence. I think that it probably provides the basis for the construction of a Sexuality section entirely immune to challenge on Original-research or Verifiability grounds. If someone wants to write it, that'd be great; or I will if nobody else does. Tim Bray (talk) 08:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Mack
Ι agree with Bradby. Also agree with KFP's opinion (see above) that the Sexuality section is way too big. I don't have the book but I do have enough information about Mack to believe that he was enough controversial as a psychiatrist and as ufologist. SpikeToronto's edit was right, If no ordinary cite will be added, the paragraph in question must go. --Factuarius (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)