Talk:T. E. Lawrence/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Polyglot?

I just dropped a citation-needed on the claim that Lawrence was a polyglot and could speak an astounding list of languages including Syriac, Greek, and Turkish. I don't recall claims of Syriac and Turkish, and "speak" may be misleading on Latin and Geek; many classicists' mastery of such languages is only in its written form.

Any citations out there? Tim Bray (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You probably won't find any. Lawrence may have been a polyglot, but he was also a fantasist. I recall that in The Mint he casually pictures himself reading a book written in Danish. Like a lot of things about him, the truth about this is hard to get at. Rumiton (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC) BTW, as a pedantic aside, all classicists, not just many, understand only the written words. No one knows how they were pronounced. Rumiton (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

He denigrated his own understanding of Arabic in Seven Pillars of Wisdom, chapter XL: "The fluency had a lack of grammar, which made my talk a perpetual adventure for my hearers." Polyglottalism isn't all that helpful if no one else understands you. Zoonoses (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Why the aliases?

The article leaves two questions unanswered: First, why did Lawrence, a lieutenant-colonel during the war, want to join the RAF as an aircraftsman (the lowest rank there)? Second, why was it necessary for him to disguise his identity in an effort to join the RAF and Royal Tank Corps? Peter Chastain (talk) 11:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Nobody can answer the first question. Even by the upper class standards of extreme eccentricity he grew up with, Lawrence was a strange and disturbed individual. There is considerable evidence he was a sexual masochist, and wanting to debase himself in rank may have been part of this. His own explanations, wanting to write a book about the new Air Force from the inside (which he actually did), and needing the security of service life, do not convince today. But once that decision was made, anonymity was essential. Lawrence of Arabia was perhaps the best known figure from the recent First World War. His known presence as a private in the most junior of the three services was impossible. Everyone knew he talked with Lord Trenchard and dined with Sir Winston. Nobody under brigade rank could have issued him an order. Rumiton (talk) 11:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The first question might be better phrased as "Why did Lawrence walk away from fame, fortune, and the opportunity to contribute at a high level on issues he cared passionately about?" All of his biographers discuss this issue at some length. Unlike Rumiton, I think Lawrence's angst about profiting from work he felt included a large dose of betrayal was genuine and even admirable. On the other hand, he was indeed spectacularly ambivalent about his what-we-would-now-call-rock-star status. Back to Wikipedia... I think Mr. Chastain raises a valid point; the article should do a better job of making it clear how dramatic his turning-away was; that is easily established by a ton of citations. But it shouldn't try to offer an explanation; because, as Rumiton points out, Lawrence offered none that was convincing, and absent cite-able evidence about the big picture of his psychology, anything that could be said would constitute original research. Tim Bray (talk) 07:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Will someone please start a page on RVC Bodley for me?

I find him fascinating, and as you well know, he was influenced by Lawrence to be an Arabophile. Could someone start the page please and then I will build it? As an IP, I am barred from page creation. I can build the bulk of the page,but if you want proof that Bodley was notable as an author, consider the following: http://www.google.com/search?q=RVC+bodley&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=

OK, done. Best to get some good info into it ASAP, before someone deletes it as non-notable. Rumiton (talk) 05:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Too slow, it's gone. I have made an objection. Rumiton (talk) 08:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Darn. Some way we can work around this? How about you set up a page in your sandbox and let me build the page in there?

You need Wikipedia:Articles for creation where IP's can create pages. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 19:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I looked into that. It is well known that there is a huge backlog. That is not the answer...

OK. I'll start it in my sandbox now. Rumiton (talk) 11:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It's on my user page. Just start adding stuff and when it looks valid enough I'll restart the article. Rumiton (talk) 11:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you still interested? I will delete the new page in three days if nothing is added to it. Rumiton (talk) 11:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. Rumiton (talk) 09:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it got created and is on the main site.

...the absence of evidence for outright invention in Lawrence's works

I am having a real problem with this statement, which reeks of undue weight or even original research. Every Lawrence biographer has come across the difficulty of sorting out which of Lawrence's depictions of events are true and which self-serving fantasy. His story of losing the 7 Pillars MS in a railway station and retyping it in a short period from memory is one example. It created much public interest at the time. More dubious are his claims to fluency in a bewildering variety of languages, from Danish to Greek via Turkish and some Arab dialects. Outright invention was actually one of his fortes, and the episode of his capture by the Turks and resultant sexual humiliation are considered by several biographers as more likely to be fantasies than fact. Rumiton (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, if you have decent evidence, this deserves coverage. You'd need a few citation to Lawrence having said X and to independent evidence that X was in fact not so. Lawrence's most serious biographers, who've given it the most study, tend to the opinion that he was mostly solid on the facts of the matter. I've certainly seen these allegations, and in fact at least one of his biographers depicted Lawrence as a serial fantasist; but the allegations are addressed pretty convincingly by other writers. Tim Bray (talk) 08:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that evidence can ever be found. Who can say he did not somewhere, somehow achieve fluency in Danish, Greek, Arabic, Turkish etc? Who can now disprove his sado-masochistic sexual anecdotes starring the whipping-minded Bey? We can only report that several of his contemporary biographers found the stories improbable, especially as they piled up on each other. Rumiton (talk) 09:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

In particular, there are two sources with some standing who accuse Lawrence of significant perfidy: Aldington and Mousa. I suppose it would be OK to mention Aldington's accusations, but then it should probably be noted that the other leading biographers, in scholarly works with loads of sources, have come to a different conclusion. Mainstream Lawrence scholarship sees Aldington's book as a straightforward attack piece. Mousa is pretty clearly a guy with an agenda and his work is not up to his competitors' scholarly standards. Tim Bray (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The pro-Arab author of this article accuses him of various perfidies, giving sources. Rumiton (talk) 13:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

quote

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes to make it possible."— T.E. Lawrence Seven Pillars of Wisdom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.184.26 (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sexuality again

Is it really necessary to introduce Altounyan's amateur-psychologist ramblings? Yep, he said that, and if people have some good reasons to think it deserves inclusion, I can provide the citation, I have the book. I don't think it adds value to the section, which is already kind of long. We already have well-cited evidence that his friends considered him asexual, and I don't think this arm-waving really takes that argument any further. Tim Bray (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC).

(C.P. Lowe, 28 April 2011). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cplowe1 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC) It's really a sad indictment of our times that the largest part of an entry on a very interesting figure is taken up with his sexuality. Nobody knows! and frankly does anyone care? Now, an explanation as to why he refused to be made Knight Commander of the British Empire would be more enlightening.

Well it is and it isnt. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to tell people what they want to know, not what the authors want them to know. The notion that he tried to liberate arabia and significantly succeeded because of a love affair with an arab is an extraordinary one. Now on the other hand, the matter of refusing a medal and seeking to distance himself from appearing an agent of british imperialism when in fact he was an arab nationalist seems straightforward. Sandpiper (talk) 22:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there was anything "straightforward" about Lawrence's affinities, sexual or otherwise; he put up a smokescreen of ambivalence in all directions. I recall in "7 Pillars" his statement (not verbatim) after his Arab friends honoured him by including him in a speech as a fellow Arab: "If only they knew how much I hate them and their country and how I long to return home to England." I always think of Thomas Mann when I read these things by Lawrence. The same sometimes maddening obtuseness and irritating double entendre, all made necessary by the dangerous hypocrisies of their time. Rumiton (talk) 13:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Sandpiper's notion that a Wikipedia article should "tell people what they want to know" is simply wrong headed. Imagining the effect that approach would have on Wikipedia's article on pornography (visited by around 10,000 people per day) should make it obvious why. What should shape an article is what high-quality reliable sources say and the proportion of time they devote to each issue. This article should take the lead of Lawrence's main biographers and avoid placing more or less emphasis on his sexuality than the sources. At the moment, the sexuality section accounts for 493 words out of a 4,360-word article. Nev1 (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, rather than much reducing the text on the sexual aspects of T.E. Lawrence, we should expand the information on the non-sexual aspects of his biography? Nihil novi (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both above. I recall Henry Ford's comment that if he had asked people what they wanted they would have said "A faster horse". Let us continue to apportion information according to the best sources. This may end in some of it hiving off to a new article but that is not a bad thing. Rumiton (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Im afraid I dont understand the analogy to the pornography article. A brief look suggests it is a brief introduction linking several longer articles covering different aspects of the topic. What are you suggesting would be included by popular demand which is not there? If wikipedia does not exist to tell people what they want to know, why does it exist? For our amusement? As per nihil, if one aspect of a subject is covered in more detail than others, the correct approach is to expand other aspects, not prune the one area covered well. Sandpiper (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

And now you're back up to 602 words. If the man said nothing on his sexuality, if his friend termed him "asexual" and there is no other "proof" I'd take that to be definitive. At least until someone pulls out the definitive refutation. His sexuality is immaterial. . . .PS people, homosexuals are old news, not everyone's gay, get over it. It is not what one is but what one does that defines us.!20:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.148.38.56 (talk)

Illegitimacy?

I really don't see the benefit in the introduction of the long quote from John Mack. What does it really add?

Furthermore, while Mack goes on about all the options that were closed to Lawrence, he had no trouble getting into Cambridge, getting a nice research posting to the Middle East, getting an officer's appointment in the Army, or eventually being offered various decorations. I think that for this to add value, there'd need to be some evidence that in fact TEL's illegitimacy did get seriously in the way of anything he wanted to accomplish.

More generally, I don't like introducing rambling discursive passages from biographers.

Lawrence didn't "get into Cambridge." He studied at Oxford.

Mack has a good deal more to say about the formative role that Lawrence's illegitimacy (regrettably) played in his life and personality. An understanding of this can only enhance our appreciation of Lawrence's accomplishments, achieved against the adversities occasioned by narrow-minded societal beliefs of his time. Nihil novi (talk) 05:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Unless someone has a strong argument for retaining this section, I'm going to remove it. It's speculation by third parties about TEL's psychology, of which there are books and books and books full; why does this one need to be brought out in the entry? It doesn't feel encyclopedic to me in the slightest. Tim Bray (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, the matter of Lawrence's illegitimacy, discussed in similar terms by Flora Armitage and John E. Mack, is at least as important as that of his sexuality. Indeed, the two are probably intimately related in regard to the corporal punishment that Sarah Lawrence inflicted on her sons, particularly T.E., which appears to have fostered the development of his sexual masochism. Nihil novi (talk) 08:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Could we hear from someone other than Nihil on the subject? I repeat my observation that this is a subset of a subset of TEL's psychology, and if we are gong to go down every rat-hole on the subject, the entry will need to be expanded by a factor of 10. Also, unlike the sex and politics issues, it never spilled into the popular press; nor, actually, out of the pages of a couple of biographers. This belongs in a book-length study of TEL, not an encyclopedic precis. Tim Bray (talk) 06:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

What other rat-holes do you have in mind? Nihil novi (talk) 09:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Was TEL a megalomaniac? Was he a pathological liar? Was he a racist? Was he a narcissist? Was he a friend or enemy of Zionism? Were his many famous friends a consequence of celebrity-hunting or a byproduct of his writing? What did he really think about the working-class denizens of the RAF that he wrote about while hanging about with his rich&famous friends? The biographers have devoted at least as much ink to each of these subjects to each and every one of these as to this illegitimacy thing. On top of which, Armitage and Mack are decidedly second-rank in the TEL-biography horserace. This does not belong in an encyclopedic summary. It's a red herring. Tim Bray (talk) 06:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

These questions (excepting the effects of Lawrence's illegitimacy on his psyche) indeed appear to be insubstantial. (The same also seems true of allegations of his homosexuality.)

We need to be careful about poisoning the well in regard to John E. Mack as a source. The article's "Sexuality" section states: "At least three of Lawrence's biographers (Malcolm Brown, John Mack, and Jeremy Wilson) have argued [that the Dera'a] episode had strong psychological effects on Lawrence which may explain some of his unconventional behaviour in later life."

The word "genetic" that you deleted from the passage, "John E. Mack sees a possible genetic connection between T.E.'s masochism and the childhood beatings he had received from his mother," had been used in the sense not of "gene" but of "origin." But the meaning of the sentence probably remains clear enough without the word. Nihil novi (talk) 08:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it is both unwise and unfair to write about Sir Lawrence's illegitimate birth while making no mention of the divorce laws that were extant during those times. It leaves out some very important context. -- 66.171.7.179 (talk) 02:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Laurence of Arabia

He was very widely known as "Laurence of Arabia" (except perhaps in literary circles, where the "T.E." distinguishes him from "D.H.") for quite a long time before the movie came out. Really. Thus the movie used the nickname - it didn't create it. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Unsupported Section

The following text had no citations and is not too well tied into the article. It could possibly be adapted and used if citations can be found for it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

/*Vision of Middle East*/

A map of the Middle East that belonged to Lawrence has been put on exhibition at the Imperial War Museum in London. It was drafted by him and presented to Britain's War Cabinet in November 1918.

The map provides an alternative to present-day borders in the region, apparently partly designed with the intention to marginalise the post-war role of France in the region by limiting its direct colonial control to today's Lebanon. It includes a separate state for the Armenians, a separate state of Palestine, and groups the people of present-day Syria, Jordan and parts of Saudi Arabia in another state, based on tribal patterns and commercial routes.

---

It's a very well known map (now) among those interested in Middle East history and Lawrence, and received quite a bit of general media attention when first released. There are many copies of the map online, and reputable discussion of it. Rather than delete this section you should add citations. MayerG (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, please feel free to add citations, to restore and edit the text according to those citations, and to integrate it properly into the text. That is why the section has been moved here rather than simply deleted, as I suspected there was an unstated reason (not apparent in the section) for its presence. Since this is a global encyclopedia, we can't assume that general Wikipedia readers already know the material being used, or what attention it once received, so we have to show, by citing and if need be quoting the 'reputable' sources, why it is notable and what it means. Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Was T.E. Lawrence a freemason?

I always suspected that T.E. Lawrence might have been a freemason (being an Oxford scholar, a secret agent, a friend of Winston Churchill - this could have been quite possible...). Is there any literature that might confirm my suspicion? --Ana Bruta (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried a google search for it? There are any number of conspiracy theories linking the overthrow of the Ottoman Turks with Freemasonry, and making allegations that I have no intention of repeating to do with race and sexual proclivity, which perhaps suggests the quality of the theories (and the 'theoreticians'). I am afraid that they all add up to ... much ado about nothing. But who knows. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

None of Lawrence's biographers have turned up any evidence for this. Tim Bray (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Addition to Illegitemacy

I have removed an addition made to the this section today which reads:

According to François Sarindar, S.A. was "Sherif Aurens" and this another way to bid the Lawrence's name goodbye (at the time of Thomas Chapman's death and where Lawrence writes Seven Pillars to want to change name and way of life - Ross then Shaw ; the father of Thomas Edward leaves a letter which makes feel guilty Ned and his brothers because of their illigitimate birth ; S.A. is thus a goodbye to Sherif Aurens and the name of Lawrence)..}}

I have done this because although it may be a worthy inclusion it is written in convoluted English and is hard to understand. Possibly a rewrite may make it a little less opaque. Britmax (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I would have removed it anyhow even if it had been written coherently. The Sexuality section already has a reference to the controversy about the identification of "S.A." with a citation to an authoritative discussion. There is no reason for this particular theory, one among many, to be called out in the main article. Tim Bray (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

References

Videogame References

People keep dropping in paragraphs noting that TEL was referenced or played a role in this videogame or that. The videogames have been pretty obscure... There is a “Portrayals” section, but all the items in there really are substantial _portrayals_ of TEL, trying to say something about what he was like, as a person. When editors chop out the videogame references, there have been two attempts now to create new sections, “Videogames” and ”Popular Culture”. So far I’ve been unconvinced by any of the references, even though I’m an occasional game-player and can certainly see how you could really say something about TEL in game. For the moment, the best approach would be (1) we already have a “Portrayals” section, so that’s where these things would go, and (2) we shouldn’t accept these things unless there’s some real meat there. Fortunately, WP:V gives us some real help on the last one. If you want to put in a videogame reference, include an actual source citation that makes it believable that this is actually a significant portrayal. Tim Bray (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Early Life?

This section makes very little sense or is simply poorly written/edited. According to the text, Lawrence was born to Sarah Junner and Thomas R.T. Chapman. The sequence of Chapman's inheritance of the title of 7th Baronet, leaving his 1st? wife and then having children with Junner is problematic since the inheritance of the title came when Lawrence was 16 years old according to the dates. Lawrence's grandmother lived/worked in the house of someone named "Lawrence" and "the couple" became known as the "Lawrences." Meanwhile, back at the Chapman household, Mr. Lawrence took the boys sailing occasionally. Then "the Lawrences" moved to Oxford, bearing some unknown relevance to the Chapman household where, presumably, "Lawrence" lived and inexplicably took the surname of his grandmother's concubitor.

A little more explanation here would be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.82.239.148 (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia

I was surprised that the article never mentioned that Lawrence's poem in Pillars of Wisdom was likely meant to be "to Saudi Arabia". I have no sources to site to support this idea; it just always seemed patently obvious to me considering the context of the poem. Koffeewitch (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Not really, sorry. Main problem is that "Saudi Arabia" didn't exist under that name at the time, and the current country is in any case not the "Greater Arabia" that Lawrence wanted. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Apart from that, being "patently obvious" was not Lawrence's style. He was more a believer in being cryptic and weird and self-contradictory. Rumiton (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Rank

I thought he became a full colonel in late 1918, possibly as a favour granted at his own request. He was a lieutenant-colonel for much of 1918, a shown in at least one photo (he wore British uniform more often than Hollywood would have us believe). The movie incorrectly shows him as a lieutenant for his initial expedition (he was actually a captain), then promoted major after the capture of Aqaba (that much is true), then "colonel" at the end so he can have "his own cabin" on the way home. Anyone know?Paulturtle (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

He ended the war a full Colonel according to Asher, so have amended unless anyone knows the book to be mistaken.

"Who?" tag

The clear purpose of a tag like this is to counter vague comments such as "some critics aver", or "it has been said", that might be seen as concealing OR. We can quite legitimately require someone making what amounts to an unspecified citation to unnamed authority to put up or shut up. The case of who ordered W.E. Johns to admit Lawrence as an aircraftman in the RAF is quite different. The only information our sources provide implies that Johns recognised Lawrence (as of course he may well might - Lawrence's being after all one of the most "in-the-news" faces of the time) but was ordered to let him in anyway, in spite of his using a transparent nom de guerre. Military pseudonyms are (or used to be) a legitimate part of French regulations, but not, so far as I am aware, in British service, so that Johns was of course quite correct to refuse admission. I am not denying that it would be interesting to know whose influence was at work here - but we apparently don't. That is often the nature of "influence" of course. We could perhaps find out who gave Johns the actual order to disregard King's Regulations - this would at best be relatively trivial information however, as it was no doubt his immediate superior officer. A junior officer like Johns would probably not have received direct instructions from "higher up". In summary then, this is simply not an appropriate use of this particular tag. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I do agree it would be great to have this info - just that a "missing citation" tag is not the way to ask for it. There is no missing citation. -- Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Soundofmusicals, I hope you are well. The statemernt IS vague. I am not being unreasonable in highlighting the fact that this sentence does NOT say who ordered him. What's the answer (without a "presumption" that I had not myself shared)? If you don't know, you are in the same position as me. Thank you. Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Similar wishes. It is the best info we have: being more specific (without a clear cite to this effect) would plainly be speculation. The point of a "missing citation" tag is that the information needs to be excised unless we can back it up! There are two cites at the end of the sentence, but we can't make them out as being more specific than they are. Not saying for one moment I am in a "better situation" than you on this one - just decrying (and reverting) your use of an inappropriate tag. Just read what I say please rather than jumping on the first word, I may be wrong, but if so my original argument has to be addressed. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, Soundofmusicals. Thanks. A "who?" tag would be more helpful. It might prompt a reader to supply the missing information. I won't add it out of fear of breaking Wikipedia's three-revert rule or being accused of edit-warring. I'll happily leave the point for now. Best wishes, and thanks for replying, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Taking a few deep breaths here... I suppose a "vague" tag is better (or less acutely objectionable) than a "who" tag - but all the same what is the point? If one were to hop in with a tag like this wherever one might like more specific information where would it all end up? Vague or not, it is all the information the sources give. To make a hypothetical speculation - let us imagine that G.B.S., (or one of Lawrence's many other influential friends) heard that T.E.L had failed to get into the RAF and mentioned the fact to someone he knew in the cabinet, who mentioned it to someone in the senior echelons of the RAF, who decided that one might suspend King's Regulations in this case, and passed an order down the chain of command to that effect that ended up on John's desk - as I say, make the assumption that something like this happened (and I suppose it must have) - would it really add that much to the article, and what is the chance, do you honestly think, with your knowledge of the world, that we'd get an authoritative description of the chain of events anyway? I hope you will remove the tag yourself, anyway, on reflection. Otherwise we need to get a third opinion, as I don't think even the "vague" tag should remain there. In the interests of peace I will refrain from reverting it just yet. Hang in there, and don't take it personally if an old grumpus grumps a little from time to time. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear old grumpus, which I say with a smile, I'm very grateful again for your thorough reply. We still disagree, but, as experienced editors, we know there's nothing personal in doing so. I recognize you as a fine editor. Wikipedia is fortunate to have you. Actually, I do think the chain of events is important; so much so that I intend to dig a bit deeper into the available sources as time permits. In the meantime, I'm keen to see what other editors think. If they change or remove the tag I inserted, I won't replace it. I'm not actually an especially dogmatic person. Because this page is edited daily, and by solid and mature editors, I suspect we won't have long to wait until we see what others think. All the best, and thanks again, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Aussie Pastor's historical footnote

Someone wants to insert this in the Fall of Damascus section: “It has also been said that when Lawrence and his men entered the city they upset the local people by the way they were riding around town, shooting guns up in the air, and so forth. The Australians mounted their horses and confronted Lawrence and their men and 'silenced' them.”

Even if this turns out to be true, it is at best a footnote. It's actively misleading, because the only fighters who could reasonably be described as “Lawrence’s men” would have been his personal bodyguard; the rest were seen most likely as “Feisal’s Men” or possibly “Hussein’s men” or even “Nasir’s men”. I’m now going to go visit a few of the standard scholarly histories to see if this has just escaped my recollection and actually has a reasonable citation; then we can have an argument about whether it’s worth including. A bit of research reveals “800 Horsemen” to be self-published pulp from a popular pastor without any particular demonstrated track record for scholarship. There are all sorts of crazy things that have been said about this war and TEL in various self-published works.

Will be back when I’ve checked a couple sources. Tim Bray (talk) 05:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

References

Quotations

The motorbike of Lawrence is not to be seen in the Imperial War Museum but in the Tank Museum in Bovington. Please check source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.231.164 (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

He owned more than one bike.--Somchai Sun (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)