Talk:T. E. Lawrence

Lawrence of Arabia's exploits 'backed up' by archaeology

See this BBC article. Doug Weller talk 15:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Funnily enough this has been debunked as well-very poor archaeology by the archaeologists!

https://www.keymilitary.com/article/lawrences-bullet Shroton (talk) 11:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Paywalled, sigh. From the first few lines, sounds like they're focusing on that one Colt bullet. The old BBC piece talks about lots more evidence, in particular of battles that took place where Lawrence described. Does the Key Military piece cover more evidence? Tim Bray (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Related Individuals

This section is ridiculous, random people who've been "compared to" TEL. Am going to find out if such a section is a common thing and if there are standards for inclusion. As it is now it adds no value for the reader.Tim Bray (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I have reviewed the entries for a bunch of people who are a combination of some subset of British/Military/Authors/Famous and none have a "Related Individuals" section. I can find no discussion of such sections in WP forums or style guides. The current section (a) adds little value (b) omits many people who are much more closely related to TEL than those in this section (b) includes several questionable entries. Unless someone comes up with a good reason to preserve this, I plan to delete this section in the near future. Tim Bray (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Wareham effigy revisited

I'm thinking of a short article on the Eric Kennington effigy at St Martin's Church, Wareham. Do any of the Lawrence biographies discuss this in detail? I'm particularly interested in why it didn't end up at St Paul's Cathedral and why it was subsequently rejected by both Westminster Abbey and Salisbury Cathedral . The online coverage (mostly unusable blogs) falls between a political decision not to sponsor a national memorial and an ecclesiastical aversion to the effigy's Arabic dress. I'd be very grateful for any insights. KJP1 (talk) 08:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I checked in the “official” biography by Jeremy Wilson and although there are lots of references to Kennington, I can find no mention of this effigy or how it got where it is. There are lots of other biographies though. A quick trip to a decent library should suffice to see if there's a story there.

Tim Bray (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I think I recall that TEL was involved in the restoration of the Church building. It isn't mentioned on the St Martins Church page. Maybe I got it from the printed 'welcome to the church' leaflet I once had from visiting many years ago. Timbow001 (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

TimBray/Timbow001 - thanks, Tim & Tim, for the interest. I've never been but the church does look intriguing, almost a barn rather than a church. The Historic England listing does no more than note the existence of TEL's effigy. I'm slightly surprised it doesn't have its own listing. Anyways, I'm certain there is a story sufficient to justify a page - just need to find suitable sourcing! KJP1 (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@KJP1: and @TimBray: and @Timbow001:. There's a mention here of it being turned down for Westminster Abbey, St Pauls Cathedral, Salisbury Cathedral and St Nicholas, Moreton. Potentially more useful to us is the article "Tale of an ‘Arabian Knight’: The T. E. Lawrence Effigy" by Richard Knowles which appeared in Church Monuments - The Journal of the Church Monuments Society Volume VI, 1991, and was reprinted in The Journal of the T. E. Lawrence Society Vol. II, No. 1, Summer 1992. It is already referenced in our article but does not appear to be available online. I will ask at WP:RX. DuncanHill (talk) 14:42, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Sense lost in Posthumous Writings Section

I can't understand what was edited and published by AWL in TEL By His Friends. It isn't a volume of letters.

Timbow001 (talk) 12:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Timbow001 - [1], its a, rather lengthy, set of memoirs/recollections by a big list of friends, colleagues etc. KJP1 (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Speculation about role after RAF

@Dormskirk removed the following:

There is some evidence that at that time the British government was interested in bringing him into some role in the national defence organisation, in the context of the rising threat of Nazi Germany. Ref is to R.B. Simpson's "Another Life: Lawrence After Arabia, p 278-9

I think was the one who put that in there after reading Simpson's book. IIRC, the description is accurate; there was initial correspondence among some VIPs about bringing TEL back into service, but he died before it got very specific about the role. Drat, Simpson's book doesn't seem to be online so I guess I have a trip to the library in my future. Of course, this story was grist for the conspiracy theorists' mill on the basis that TEL was murdered by shadowy agents of someone or other before he could return to office.

Anyhow, just leaving this here so it's handy if I find something useful to put in there. Tim Bray (talk) 01:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

OK. Good luck with finding something. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 08:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Seems unlikely. Neither Baldwin nor Chamberlain were fans, viewing Lawrence as a very loose cannon, and they worked hard to exclude WSC, who was. On the face of it, it's hard to imagine they would have wanted to include TEL. It will be interesting to see what the source says. KJP1 (talk) 09:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I think we would need to know (i) specifically what the role was and (ii) who was proposing TEL for it. Dormskirk (talk) 09:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

It was Nancy Astor, Philip Kerr, and Lionel Curtis. There was no definite offer, and TEL anyway forbade Astor from making any further approaches to Baldwin:

In 1934, however, a number of his former friends from All Souls days, among them Round Tablers Curtis and Lothian, worked towards drawing him into an active political role. Despite his initial refusal to respond, in March of that year he did write a remarkably perceptive analysis of home defence for Curtis. It was a no-nonsense criticism that reflected his experience at both the crown and roots of the tree. He said that Beaverbrook and Rothermere were inept, he criticized the application of funds and warned of the threat that German aviation technology would present. His recommendations were for more aerodromes, better equipped aircraft firms, up to date designs, and more intelligent staff. Over a year later, on 7th May 1935, he received the letter from Nancy Astor inviting him to a dinner party at Cliveden: her intention was for him to meet Baldwin to discuss defence and Curtis and Lothian would also be there. At that time the lobbies of the House of Commons and the newspapers were full of the impending reconstruction of the government. Lawrence declined Lady Astor’s invitation, preferring to remain at Clouds Hill. Less than a fortnight later he was dead (Simpson p 278)

I believe when the government reorganizes you will be asked to re-organize the defence forces. I will tell you what I have done already about it. If you will come to Cliveden, the last Saturday in May, you will never regret it. Please, please come. Lionel, Pat, Philip, and, for the most important, Stanley Baldwin. Please think about this. (Nancy Astor to TEL, Simpson p 279))

It was part of Nancy’s nature to try and organize other people’s lives, which she was now trying to do, but she had obviously misunderstood Lawrence’s state of mind. Unfortunately the precise nature of the job that was on offer never came to light. He forbade Nancy from making any further approaches to Baldwin. (Simpson p 279)

So not much more than chatter amongst Friends of Nancy. DuncanHill (talk) 10:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

DuncanHill - That’s very helpful. And much more understandable than any serious approach by senior governmental figures, which neither Astor, nor Kerr, nor Curtis were. KJP1 (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

KJP1, Dormskirk, TimBray, Simpson's book Another Life: Lawrence After Arabia is available at Academia.edu DuncanHill (talk) 11:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, really helpful. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 11:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Painting of Lawrence of Arabia by Augustus John.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Aldington controversy

@Tim Bray Your second deletion is fair without citation, though it could be easily supported by an article written by none other than Fred D. Crawford himself who appears here as Aldington’s only valid support in terms of independent scholarship. Re: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/374746/pdf

Why the Graves quote should be deleted or considered irrelevant begs the question: if ‘editorializing’ in Graves case is to be ignored then why shouldn’t the Aldington section be deleted altogether? Incidentally I don’t think it should be deleted I think rather that the Graves quote should be included. If Graves cannot be admitted than Aldington’s high-level assertions should be stripped. ThomasMikael (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

A few notes in no particular order while reading your edits.

• Changing "Pillars" to "Pillar"?
• I'm going to have to check the Graves quote. You use it to support the claim that Aldington made a habit of writing poorly-researched attacks, but I thought it was a specific criticism of his Lawrence book. I might be wrong on that.
• The words "character assassination" are I think unfair, since Aldington got some things right, should be "criticism". Also, as in the quote from Fred Crawford, I just don't think that the citations support either the "largely repudiated" or "balanced out" language. I have read several modern biographies that nod toward Aldington with respect, accepting his specific criticisms (because a lot of them are correct) but arguing against his sweeping conclusions e.g. that Lawrence was morally defective, militarily incompetent, etc.
• I think you are swimming upstream in defending TEL from Aldington's criticism on TEL's absurd numeric claims, there's plenty of evidence for those lies.
• Changing "discount" to "discounts"?
• You don't need to [[]] Aldington twice in the same para.
• Need to cite Crawford on the size of the bounty, etc.
• You need to cite the proposed explanation that TEL's inaccuracies are the result of losing the manuscript. I hadn't previously seen that argument and I think it's just wrong; TEL repeated those claims in multiple personal letters.

Tim Bray (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Tim Bray I appreciate your attention and I apologize for my typos that you mention—hope not to make unnecessary busy-work. A few notes in response:

• I’ve cited Wilson with link to the pages on the loss of the original manuscript. He quotes Lawrence, who admits his second version of the book was more impressionistic and less careful about detail due to his strenuousness in this case (who cites multiple contemporary sources).
• The Graves quote addresses the Lawrence book specifically.
• To be clear I don’t think that the book is free of error in fact. But most of the errors (many of which are in fact sort of ambiguous—could be partly true, honest mistakes, the result of trauma haze, understandable confusion or generalization, apathy and demoralization in redrafting, editorial decisions made by publishers and not by Lawrence such as the excision of the book’s final chapter on the British betrayal etc. etc.)
• What seems objectionable and frankly false (or *very* editorial and subjective) about Aldington’s criticism is his wholesale denigration of Lawrence as a historical source, his accusation that Lawrence is a charlatan whose lies are persistent and perpetual whereas examination of divergences between his testimony and conflicting documents (themselves highly variable and imperfect in terms of their crediblity or precision of reporting etc.) would tend to suggest that he was lax and imperfect in reporting and in terms of actual memory, inclined to let mutilations or lost sections of the text go rather than arguing for something perfect etc., as opposed to being someone who was systematically deceptive or bent on self-aggrandizement. The most intentionally self-aggrandizing dimension of the book appears to be almost identical with its literary merit, overlapping with the domain of its subject—a terrain of intensity and imprecision in fact and not according to selfish design. Why should this *only* be punished and not defended where it can be?
• Support for Aldington seems to come from fans of Aldington. Crawford, for example, specializes in hairsplitting biography of Aldington’s literary milieu, not in middle eastern geopolitics or military history—why should either of them be prioritized over other inflections apart from the basic heuristics of scandal-mongering and confirmation bias?
• It may not be admissible to expand on this sort of comparison to Churchill on the page but I would hold the scenario with Lawrence up against Churchill’s history of World War II. It should not be read as a comprehensive, academically bulletproof or even as a fully reliable account of what happened. But there are *so* many ways in which it’s indispensable as a primary that to throw it out would be tantamount to deciding that, for the most part, nothing can be known or understood about the dynamics of executive decision making amongst Western Allies in the Second World War. It’s so thoroughly cited, furthermore, by all major historical standards on the subject that all further accounts attempting to expunge Churchhill’s imperfect but largely very informative account (in this thought experiment) would have to toss out every secondary standard work to reformulate our understanding the war and would have to do so without recourse to living witnesses which would impoverish rather than improve the material. It’s ridiculous and it’s unnecessary and not helpful to an understanding of the past.
• If Aldington’s extremist and self-serving* critique (*he was hard up for cash when he wrote the book, as was frequently the case throughout his sordid and consistently petty if extremely prolific career) is going to be given airtime here—and it has to be since the controversy about Lawrence’s account is as well remembered at this point as the account itself—then context that cross-examining his accusations should also be included.

You said something in the Deraa discussion that I’m inclined to agree with—‘mythological’/exaggerated/unknowable or technically erroneous elements of Lawrence’s account are rarely or basically never wholesale inventions with no relationship to the truth. Something along those lines.

I think we are in agreement in principle here if not fully aligned on details of presentation. ThomasMikael (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

The consensus of modern students of T.E. Lawrence on Aldington is well expressed in the Fred Crawford quote in the entry beginning "Much that shocked in 1955 is now standard knowledge...". In other words, Aldington correctly pointed out real TEL shortcomings but then came to an unreasonable conclusion. If you want to adjust the article to emphasize the latter failing there are excellent quotes from Crawford and other recent biographers to do this. But I think the current edits trying to explain away TEL's grandiose and incorrect numbers are just not supported by credible sources. Crawford is really the gold standard on Aldington/TEL scholarship and he doesn't try to sugar-coat the silly numbers. I think you should roll that bit back, and I suspect that if you don't someone else will. BTW, thanks for the pointer to that piece about Aldington and HD. I was a big fan of HD's verse before I ever heard of Aldington, and so I found that story fascinating and spicy. Tim Bray (talk) 04:37, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Again, I'm not claiming that Lawrence’s numbers are accurate--just that (the bridges & the bounty for example) are not actually that far-fetched and constitute vagaries rather than flagrant deceit (as Aldington frames them). Ot’s more the case that Aldington’s framing comes across as intentional slander, whereas Lawrence’s errors appear more more indifferent or careless and seem not particularly far out of range of an expressive—rather than numerically precise—truth, in some cases, whereas Aldington’s critique comes across as more fundamentally dishonest and misleading: a proportion that is apparently easy to invert otherwise the stink of the whole affair would have burnt off by now and no one would remember or care about Aldington’s reading in this connection. Glad to supply the ref. and won't offer any further resistance or double-down on these questions any further. I am also quite partial to H.D. or was when I encountered her many years ago. ThomasMikael (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

In popular culture

An editor has tagged the article with a tag "This article may contain irrelevant references to popular culture". I have already tried to improve the article by removing one entry on video games. Please can the editor who tagged the article provide guideance on which other entries should be removed, or better still, improve the article by removing them. Dormskirk (talk) 09:47, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

The only entries that should be included are those which have reliable secondary sourcing indicating their significance, per MOS:IPC. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Nikkimaria - That's helpful. I've been working on the bulleted/list elements of this article, in response raised to concerns raised at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/T. E. Lawrence/1. I've converted two sections, Introduction to Arab Revolt and Awards and commemorations into prose, and now plan to do the same for the In popular culture section. At the same time, I would like to trim some of this, and the points flagged in MOS:IPC, in particular, "supported by reliable secondary or tertiary sources that discuss the subject's cultural impact in some depth" and "brief mentions don't merit inclusion" will be really helpful here. KJP1 (talk) 08:41, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Nikkimaria - as discussed in more detail here, Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/T. E. Lawrence/1, I've had a go by stripping out all the mentions that I didn't think met MOS:IPC, converting the bullets to prose, and seeking to demonstrate the relevance of that which has been retained by additional citations, bluelinks and some explanatory text. If you have time, I'd be grateful if you could have a look, and see whether you think what's been done would justify the removal of the tag. Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

That's much better, but there are still a couple cited to the works themselves, eg Oxford Roof Climbers Rebellion - is there secondary sourcing for these? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Nikkimaria - Glad it's an improvement, but apologies for my inadequate checking. I have swapped out five for fully independent sources and, with some reluctance, dropped the Syrian TV adaptation entirely. It would have been good to have mentioned a modern Arabic interpretation of Lawrence, but I just cannot find independent coverage, even in Arabic. It's still possible I've missed one, but I hope not! KJP1 (talk) 17:29, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

See Also section is weak

What with the cleanup of the bottom quarter of the article (thanks!), the "See Also" section now looks very weak. The three other articles seem chosen at random, I can think of lots to add just off the top of my head: Arab Revolt, Sykes–Picot Agreement, Brough Motorcycles, Middle Eastern theatre of World War I, etc etc. Should expand?

The "Related Individuals" is worse. It excludes Lawrence's British and Arab partners in the Great War period, CM Doughty, the Bernard Shaws, Trenchard. And some of the ones that are there seem fanciful/tenuous. Should re-do from scratch? Tim Bray (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I’d agree, and while we’re here, the Further reading section seems very lengthy and the External links section is not far behind. All of these could probably do with a trim. Unfortunately, I’m not sufficiently versed in Lawrence to make calls on what should go/be replaced. KJP1 (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I'm a TEL scholar and don't mind doing the work, just probing to see if others agreed about the section being weak. Tim Bray (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

The See also should not include articles already linked in the text, which excludes Arab Revolt, Sykes-Picot Agreement, Brough Superior is already linked, so Brough Motorcycles, who did not make them, seems unnecessary. See MOS:SEEALSO. DuncanHill (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Both Bernard and Charlotte Shaw are linked in the text. DuncanHill (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2026 (UTC)