Talk:T. E. Lawrence

message: If someone visited Wales, then saying he had gone to "Britain" would be quite unacceptable - similarly if he went to Scotland. In the case of Northern Ireland (in spite of the Unionists) the case would be even clearer. Why is England somehow not a country in its own right? If I go to visit London, Cardiff and Glasgow, then it is handy shorthand to say I had a visit to Britain, or perhaps the United Kingdom, if my trip included Dublin, we might even say the British Isles. But visiting England and visiting Britain are no more the same thing as visiting Glasgow and Edinburgh is "visiting Britain". So an edit that substitutes "Britain" for "England" is changing the meaning of the original text. Fine, if we have a source - otherwise it is changing the meaning of text without a source. If we have a source that says he visited relatives in Wales while he was in Britain, then that would be fine, in fact the original text would be incorrect. But we don't. We have to assume that our original source said England, unless we have evidence to the contrary. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really care about this detail enough to edit war over it; but you are quite incorrect that it is "quite unacceptable" to say that someone went to Britain when they went to Wales.  Britain is the name of the entire island, which consists of England, Scotland, and Wales.  So, anywhere on the island is "Britain", and only the portion that is England is England.  At least, that's how the British view it -- and it is, after all, their island.  I suspect that when Lawrence went back to Great Britain, he went to Wales, since that was his birthplace, and if I run across published proof of that, I'm going to change it back.  But as I said, it's not an important enough distinction on which to waste purposeful searching time. Cheers, DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your sensible response. I hope neither of us would "edit war" over anything, even something far more important than this admittedly very minor point. To sum up my argument I think that we should avoid changing the meaning (as opposed to, say, the style) of existing text unless we are pretty certain (preferably on the authority of a reliable source) that the existing text is less accurate than our "correction". Not basing that on a particular WP policy, it just seems to me to be common sense. In this case "Britain" has a broader meaning than "England". Discovering the purpose of TEL's visit, and exactly where he went may well give us cause to change his destination to "Britain", or even "Wales" - but in the absence of any such evidence I think we should stick with "England", if only because it's what the current text actually says. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a simply question of ambiguity. "England" is less ambiguous than Britain, but there currently is no source for his exploits on his return visit. As for Wales, T.E Lawrence was not Welsh despite being born there, so that is highly irrelevant, it seems he never really had any connection to Wales other than it being his birthplace. Somchai Sun (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, this is hardly worth a significant argument - but since you brought it up, the Welsh certainly seem to claim him as Welsh: he was born there; his mother may have been Welsh (identification varies from source to source); he received a Welsh scholarship to Jesus College, Oxford; and he is listed as one of the 100 Welsh Heroes.  And at least one other dictionary describes him as a "Welsh soldier".  Not that any of this is strictly relevant to the current discussion, of course. :-) DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 00:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Geographical Correctness" 

message: While this is not an RS, this internet link about Lawrence of Arabia has comparisons between various sources about him and what the author says is misinterpretations of him: http://www.coopertoons.com/merryhistory/lawrenceofarabia/lawrenceofarabia.html
: "But finally most of the "lies" you hear about T . E. told are not what T. E. said, but what other people said he said. For instance, Desmond Stewart, an Arabic scholar and writer who wrote both the Time-Life book Early Islam (which is quite good) and an extremely weird biography of T . E. (which stinks) told how Lawrence deliberately lied about what the Arabs said about him. Lowell, Desmond said, wrote how Auda Abu Tayi, one of the Arab leaders, said "this fair headed son of Allah" (ergo, T. E.) could do what they, the Arabs, did better than themselves. But Desmond pointed out for an Arab to call someone a "son of Allah" would have been blasphemy and since Lowell didn't speak Arabic, T . E. "almost certainly" was the translator. So there you are. T. E. was a glory hound and a liar to boot. End of story, right? Sorry, Desmond. All you have is what Lowell said, not T. E. And someone other than T. E. could have been translating. Remember Lowell was with T. E. a total of two - count 'em, - two of the ten days he was in Arabia. So the odds are 80 % if Lowell quotes an Arab, it wasn't T. E. who translated."
So what needs to be done is:
* Check book reviews from academic databases (academic journals have book reviews) and use them to write Wikipedia articles on the books
* Note issues about these books on the talk pages of those books
* Use the information to better write the article
WhisperToMe (talk) 07:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In Common law, you cannot slander or libel a dead person, neither can the deceased person's relatives sue for defamation of a dead relative's character, so an author, book publisher, magazine or newspaper, etc., may print or say anything it likes about a dead person, whether true or untrue, without fear of legal action.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance of comparing sources 

message: This article does not seem to explain the actual origin of the name "Lawrence", or why they chose to use it. The article about his father, Sir Thomas Chapman, 7th Baronet, says that he (the father) lived under the name "Thomas Robert Lawrence, taking the name of his partner, Sarah Lawrence, the mother of his five sons". However that contradicts this article, which says his partner's name was Sarah Junner. 86.179.0.23 (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orgin of name / contradiction 

message: The sentence "There is no reliable evidence for consensual sexual intimacy between Lawrence and any person." could imply that there is evidence for non-consensual sex. Was Lawrence raped or did he rape someone? If so, it should be mentioned close to this sentence.  If not, I don't see the reason for the modifier "consensual."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.157.107 (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the commenter above that this language did seem to imply that there was or was likely to have been non-consensual sex that Lawrence was involved in. I was confused by this particularly careful wording when reading the article and think it should probably be changed. 128.2.91.118 (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree and will make the edit. CorinneSD (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Oops, sorry, I missed this section of the talk page and forked the earlier one up at the top of the page to continue this discussion. Tim Bray (talk) 07:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexuality and the exception that proves the rule. 

message: I removed "His eighth motorcycle is on display at the Imperial War Museum" after seeing this "TE Lawrence's Brough Superior was on loan to IWM London but was returned to its owner a while ago" on the Imperial War Museum website. The motorbike does not appear in a search of the IWM's Collection. His last SS100 (registration GW 2275) is privately owned and was on loan to the IWM (and to the National Motor Museum}. According to a comment on a blog, the IWM asked the owner to "take it away as it was no longer thought to be ‘relevant’ to their collection"! Nedrutland (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: His various Brough Superiors were named by him Boanerges which is a Biblical reference that means 'Son of Thunder'.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.91 (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brough Superior 

message: I decided to make some random copy-edits here tonight, and I stumbled across a reference to T. E. Lawrence in the Iraq article, and added the the fact that Lawrence is popularly known as "Lawrence of Arabia" to help readers immediately recognize the person. I got reverted (twice) by a user who challenges the "verifiability" of the fact he is know as "Lawrence of Arabia." That seems so pedantic I'm really scratching my head. Could someone familiar with Lawrence chime in and explain that "Lawrence of Arabia" isn't some obscure reference? JoeM (talk) 01:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect your interjector is someone from Iraq who resents (as many Arabs do) the fact that a Western Infidel (especially from Britain) has any place at all in Arab history. To be fair, from their point of view we probably exaggerate his importance a bit. A bit like the Persians who don't like us calling 1001 Nights the "Arabian" Nights. I'm sure he knows very well he is generally known in English as "Lawrence of Arabia" - and is just being difficult. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, no; and perhaps you should actually read other editors' comments before you start offering theories about their motivations for making them (much less your assumptions about their ethnicity, which border on bigotry). This has entirely to do with Wikipedia policy on verifiability of information added to articles and the appropriate response to a challenge of same by another editor, not with some deep-seated grudge against T.E. Lawrence. Dwpaul Talk    15:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If so, that is really great, and nobody is more delighted than I - but the idea of verification "really" being needed to state that T.E. Laurence is very much more widely known as "Laurence of Arabia" is so very ludicrous that nobody can be blamed for discounting what would otherwise be the "good faith" assumption. Assuming at the very least a non-Engish speaking ethnicity for anyone who could do so is hardly bigotry, and I'd like an apology. There is far too much real bigotry around without manufacturing incidents of it. Having said that - I took JoeM "at face", without going to the article concerned, and have no desire to buy into any dispute you may have - perhaps I should at least have gone to Iraq before commenting at all, but it was late where I am and I needed to be up early this morning. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize if you found my comment about bigotry offensive, but not for criticizing you for suggesting that anyone who states that the fact that T.E. Lawrence was also well known as Lawrence of Arabia should not be assumed to be universal knowledge among all Wikipedia readers, much less the entire world, would have to be a resentful Arab.  As I clearly explained to the editor at the page you did not read, I am well aware of this fact, but my knowledge, or his (or yours) is beside the point.  When another editor asserted that the fact required citation, the appropriate response (not to mention one requiring infinitely less time and trouble for all concerned) would have been for the editor to quickly and simply find one of the many reliable sources available for this fact and to cite it in the article, rather than reverting the removal, asserting it as universal knowledge and questioning the knowledge of that other editor.  It would have been appropriate even if he thought it "looked silly" to do so.  This is what the core policy I related to the editor calls for.  Dwpaul Talk    03:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for apologising for what I did (finding your apparent bigotry disturbing) WP:SORRY - there are ways of making an apology when one isn't really sorry - but anything starting "I'm sorry you..." is not one of them. Never mind - if anyone really needs to apologise it's probably me. But in exactly the same way that there is too much real vandalism on Wiki to miscall a genuinely stupid but good faith edit vandalism, and just as there is (and believe me, as a member of several widely despised minority groups I know) far too much real bigotry in this wicked (Wikied?) old world to go out of one's way to manufacture it, there is also far too much genuine error (in Wikispeak OR) in Wikipedia to use the powerful "citation needed" template against perfectly "attributable" statements - some of which are NOT easily backed up by a reliable source, simply because everybody, including the very sources we might expect to back them up, simply take them as foregone. To quote an example from the very sensible WP:OR page: "Paris is the capital of France". I might go further, and suggest that anyone challenging the statement is either deranged (poor thing), has a great big blunt axe to grind, or is just being mischievous. I admire the "assume good faith" ethos of Wiki, but it has to have its limits somewhere. Our Laurence of Arabia article probably only has as its title his real name out of the fact that it might otherwise (quite legitimately!) be taken as ethnocentric and indicative of a colonialist mentality. You obviously know this as well as I do.  Might I humbly suggest that there a lot of people "here" who might very well get a life, and use the time God has given them for editing Wikipedia for more appropriate activities than than misapplication of sensible policy to score, well what does this kind of thing score - nothing worthwhile, anyway. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

text: it was because he was so well-known as Lawrence of Arabia that in order to attain some level of anonymity he entered the RAF as T. E. Shaw.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.91 (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Help

message: Clearly the correct point to mention Lawrence had no support by the British command, in promesing Arab rule in the former Ottoman areas, are stright after the Arab help is mentioned the first time. We don't know if he deliberately cheated the Arabs (the film suggest's he didn't). But that is beside the point, Lawrence wasn't in the position to give the Arabs any promesis. And the Arabs just went from Ottoman to British rule. (I'm very aware of the ANZAC contributions in this war. This is no offence to them, nor to the British.) But we now know much more than just war time propaganda. I find it very sad if now disproven old legends isn't given space 100 years after the event. In this case the Arabs were not given rule of the "liberated" areas, which Lawrence had promised them. He remain as a hero of war still, but without the Arab help for instence Aquaba could not have been taken in the way it was. Boeing720 (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgot - although this is Wikipedia in English, a global point of view is to be used where and when applicable. Also when Arabs are involved. Boeing720 (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Lawrence was a mere British Army officer and Feisal would have been well aware that such 'promises' could only be made by people who hold High Office or were official diplomats. Feisal wasn't a fool, and neither was Lawrence, so it is extremely unlike the latter would have made any such 'promises' to anyone.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.13 (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  TE Lawrence and his promesis to the Arabs 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on T. E. Lawrence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130308170907/https://sites.google.com/site/stratfordwritingservices/home/film-reviews/t-e-lawrence to https://sites.google.com/site/stratfordwritingservices/home/film-reviews/t-e-lawrence
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101128155454/http://telawrence.info/telawrenceinfo/life/biog_family.shtml to http://www.telawrence.info/telawrenceinfo/life/biog_family.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120418140326/http://www.history.ox.ac.uk/resources/obs/boys_school_history.htm to http://www.history.ox.ac.uk/resources/obs/boys_school_history.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110929015251/http://www.telawrence.info/telawrenceinfo/legacy3/analysis/asher022.htm to http://www.telawrence.info/telawrenceinfo/legacy3/analysis/asher022.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130619091224/http://telawrence.net/telawrencenet/letters/1927/271207_d_knowles.htm to http://telawrence.net/telawrencenet/letters/1927/271207_d_knowles.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131106041628/http://telawrence.info/telawrenceinfo/life/chron_1914.shtml to http://telawrence.info/telawrenceinfo/life/chron_1914.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I must kindly ask ,  i know him  from the sidethat he was me earlyer delivert , as person  raised in Germany , most ppl sort him her in direction German ww1 submarine captains that killd inocend passanger, off  the germany  Railway company, or providet that doing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.217.147.71 (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inhold about. 

message: There is a sci fi story about Te Lawrence - http://www.uchronia.net/bib.cgi/label.html?id=shwaloosec
I have just read it. Can someone add this section? I am not very adept at Wiki.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.205.251 (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone add a new section "In Fiction" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on T. E. Lawrence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120211151322/http://telawrence.net/telawrencenet/letters/1927/271207_d_knowles.htm to http://telawrence.net/telawrencenet/letters/1927/271207_d_knowles.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :Writing in 1997, Angus Calder noted that it is "astonishing" that earlier commentators discussing Lawrence's apparent masochism and self-loathing failed to consider the impact on Lawrence of having lost his brothers Frank and Will on the Western front, along with many other school friends.
This needs more context to make sense. Lawrence's alleged masochism was evident during the war, at the alleged Dera'a incident.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexuality theory 

message: I've arrived at the Arab Revolt section in my gradual-improvement pass.  That existing article for the Revolt is really quite good, so I propose to do avoid recapitulating it and make sure that this section:
# is properly cited 
# Provides brief descriptions of the things Lawrence actually *did* - still needs a bit of chronology: Hejaz, then Akaba, then north, then Damascus.  
# Also need the June 1917 trip north that got TEL his CB & Major-ship. 
# Has some general high-level description of his role (most of this is already here), and where/why it was important to the larger Middle-Eastern campaign.
I have 4 of the canonical books about Lawrence (Graves, Aldington, Mack, Wilson) sitting here but my citations are increasingly from Wilson because *his* citations are so much better.  He had access to a much wider variety of primary sources than any other author, and it shows.  Tim Bray (talk) 06:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Big Arab Revolt TODO

message: Lawrence is given the postnominals CB DSO FAS, the last of which is hyperlinked to 'Fellow of All Soul's'. I've not been able to find this notation used elsewhere, and wonder if it should be removed from the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contradistinction (talk • contribs) 22:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: See   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.91 (talk) 00:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious Postnominals 

message: Is it worth adding that the bust in St Paul's cathedral is by Eric Kennington?  Eric Kennington's association with Lawrence is already mentioned elswhere in the article.  Support can be found in "The Sculpture of Eric Kennington" by Jonathan Black (published 2002 by The Henry Moore Foundation, ) at pages 38 to 40. 51.6.80.84 (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the suggestion. . Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 16:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bust in St Paul's 

message: It is mentioned in the article that one of his parents was of Anglo-Irish nationality, however when disputing Laurence's nationality of being Welsh & British this edit is thrown out, the argument being that some editors want him to be labelled as only British, There is no reason why he can't be called both British & Welsh and the disposal of such proposal on the article is folly because both nationalities are legitimately so and both nationalities should be accepted, this edit has been created because I know others will take my Welsh edit down.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogyncymru (talk • contribs) 10:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: His birth in Wales is mentioned in the article with an image of his birthplace. He could with some justification be called English, Anglo-Irish, Irish and, more distantly Scottish, but it is easier to leave his nationality as British or UK. (See also the section "Geographical Correctness" above). According to the article his family moved from Wales in 1896 and he did not choose to live there again. Is there any evidence in his extensive writing that he identified as Welsh? Nedrutland (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationality 

message: A minor point but... The settled text was "In 1914, Sir Thomas inherited the Chapman baronetcy based at Killua Castle, the ancestral family home in County Westmeath, Ireland; but he and Sarah continued to live in England." This was altered to Britain by  "given that they lived in Wales and Scotland..."; I reverted with summary "Cite? When a baronet, England only, I think" but this was reverted by .
I thought (and still do) that the sense was that, despite inheriting an Irish title (and property) in 1914, "Mr and Mrs Lawrence" continued to live in England. While they had lived in Scotland, Wales and abroad earlier, after 1914 I understand that T.E.'s parents lived in England.  Am I wrong? Nedrutland (talk) 07:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake. The location of this statement in the article makes the chronology hard to figure out. Garik (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  England/Britain 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on T. E. Lawrence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/66WbaWVSO?url=http://www.protestantcemetery.it/press/webnewsletter-eng/no5-2008.pdf to http://www.protestantcemetery.it/press/webnewsletter-eng/no5-2008.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003220310/http://www.broughsuperiorclub.com/pages/news/tel_brough/tel_brough.htm to http://www.broughsuperiorclub.com/pages/news/tel_brough/tel_brough.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304031317/http://www.israelcfr.com/documents/5-3/5-3-8-JacobRosen.pdf to http://israelcfr.com/documents/5-3/5-3-8-JacobRosen.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Despite the convoluted description of this man's parentage in this article (and that of his father) in what sense can his mother be described as Scottish?  If you read the father's Wiki entry you will see that T.E.L's illegitimate mother was not just born in England but both her parents were English.  And if she so much as ever set foot in Scotland prior to meeting Lawrence's father, can anybody explain how this English woman came to live there?  And even if she did live in Scotland for five minutes that is no justification for defining her as Scottish  -- after all, Lord Byron was literally half Scottish and spent much of his early childhood there but that doesn't stop the English from spuriously claiming him as one their own!  Furthermore, I see the subject has been categorised as Irish (oh quelle surprise!)despite the fact that his father's ancestors from Ireland were Anglo-Saxons and thus were unlikely to have had any Irish in their ENGLISH DNA at all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.185.130 (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  MOTHER SCOTTISH?!  IRISH?! 

message: Should Lawrence be categorized in "asexual men" when the page for the "asexual men" category says it is for men who have "publicly came out as asexual"? Either the category's description should be changed or the label shouldn't be on this page, since the article says the idea of him as such came from "friends." Beggarsbanquet (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think he should be labelled as "asexual". Some have said this; some have said he was homosexual.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

text: Hm, he specifically denied ever having had consensual sex but that was in personal correspondence, so if the criterion is publicly coming out, definitely not.  Also there is strong evidence of masochism with a sexual dimension. Tim Bray (talk) 06:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the category.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexuality label yet again 

message: The lede says he did, but later in the article it just says "there was serious consideration of awarding him a Victoria Cross; in the end, he was invested as a Companion of the Order of the Bath and promoted to Major", which is not the same thing. I don't know what the source says, but it doesn't sound like he was offered a VC. I think we should find a source for this or take it out. Richard75 (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be taken out.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  and  In the text it is referenced to pages 424-425 of Jeremy Wilson's Lawrence of Arabia: The Authorised Biography of T. E. Lawrence. On those pages we read that Wingate telegraphed the War Office strongly recommending the immediate award of the VC. It was denied on the technicality that his journey into Syria had not been witnessed by another British officer, and "Instead he was shortly afterwards appointed a Companion of the Order fo the Bath and promoted to the rank of major". DuncanHill (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: it's not a 'technicality', all awards are dependant on the recommendation of a fellow officer or man, or person of repute, who actually witnessed the event. Awards for a decoration would almost certainly never be given solely on the information provided by someone such as a journalist.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.91 (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did he decline the Victoria Cross? 

message: I don't have access to the Knowles article at n.181, and am wondering if there are any church materials on the decision to permit the effigy in Wareham. I have come across statements that the Bishop of Salisbury rejected it for Salisbury Cathedral, and wonder if there are formal deliberations that shed light on why the placement ended up in St Martin's. Shtove 02:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wareham effigy 

message: I have removed the following text-
:In late August or early September 1935 he stayed with Lady Houston aboard her luxury yacht, the Liberty, off Calshot, shortly before the Schneider Trophy competition.[126] In later letters Lady Houston would ask Lawrence's advice on obtaining a new chauffeur for her Rolls Royce car ('Forgive my asking, but you know everything')[126] and suggest that he join the Liberty, for she had discharged her captain, who had turned out to be a 'wrong 'un.'[126]
as clearly Lawrence could not have stayed on the yacht 3 months after his death im May 1935. The references refer to a book, so will need someone with access to a hard copy of that book to verify and correct as necessary. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: And Lady Houston wouldn't have been watching the Schneider Trophy competition in 1935 as it was last competed for in 1931, the year she supported Supermarine and they won the trophy outright for Britain. DuncanHill (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

text: I've been able to see enough of the book via Google books to see that it was 1931 when Lawrence stayed on the Liberty - presumably "1935" was a simple typo. I shall restore the text, with the necessary correction. DuncanHill (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  :-) IdreamofJeanie (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lady Houston's yacht  - August 1935? 

message: The Swedish power metal band Sabaton released a song about Lawrence of Arabia titled "Seven Pillars of Wisdom" in their album "The Great War".
This should be added to the "In popular culture" section. 174.58.153.249 (talk) 10:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This would probably be regarded as a trivial mention: please see WP:MILPOP. Dormskirk (talk) 10:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

text: I'd just like to endorse @Dormskirk's comment here. It's absolutely right and proper that there is an incoming link from The Great War (Sabaton album) and that's the way round it should be; we can't turn this article into an exhaustive catalogue of every reference to its subjectas well as being impractical to attempt I think that would have a very bad effect on the article. But links going < thataway are great because people reading about the album might well wish to understand to whom it refers. With best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered Hi i'm new here, But I would also just like to point out that the song is actually listed in the Seven Pillars of Wisdom#In popular culture section, So I don't really believe it's also needed to be added to the pop culture section here. Rockedyou (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sabaton song "Seven Pillars of Wisdom". 

message: I saw the addition of this stuff, which is not taken seriously by any other TEL biographer, citation only to Andrew Simpson's "Another Life: Lawrence After Arabia".  I just read that book and discovered that Simpson trashes the claims by Legg on multiple fronts. The existence of the conspiracy theory promoted by Legg is a fact and I'll retain a mention of it, but will otherwise prune it back considerably; at the current time the text reports all the silly allegations uncritically. It certainly doesn't deserve a subsection.  Tim Bray (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death/Conspiracy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Related Individuals