Talk:T. E. Lawrence

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)

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)

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)