Talk:T. E. Lawrence/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Dates

This article is lacking some significant dates. The language employed here is not consistent with the clear factual style of an encyclopedia. Please revise if possible. Thank you. VaniNY (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Attitude to homosexuality

Factuarius is introducing language claiming that Lawrence was "opposed" to homosexuality, with a reference to "Khondakar Golam Mowla, 2008 p. 258". I have no idea who Mr. Mowla is aside from being an Islamist author from Dhaka Books by Mowla, but I have read all of the collected letters and all of the biographies, and have provided four specific well-attributed quotes in Attitude toward homosexuality. The overwhelming weight of verifiable evidence is that Lawrence was open-minded and appreciative towards male/male relationships. How much more specific can you get than “I’ve seen lots of man-and-man loves: very lovely and fortunate some of them were.” (Letter to Charlotte Shaw, Nov 6, 1928).

Unless someone can introduce some higher-quality evidence, or find something I've missed showing that Lawrence didn't actually say the things he's quoted saying, or said them but somehow didn't mean them, this claim has to come out.

The "he didn't find homosexuality morally wrong, but he did find it distasteful" sentence was present with ref in the text before you clean re-write the section, but you chose not to include it, and I can suspect the reason. To me is a very significant issue and must be included. That's why I put it back. With a ref. --Factuarius (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you refine the ref a bit? I.e. when he wrote that, and to whom? Given that, I can easily dig out the actual text so we can look at it together. Given Lawrence's multiple well-attested precisely-sourced written remarks which are friendly-in-principle to homosexuality, it seems unacceptable that WP states as a fact that he opposed it. It's obvious that TEL's attitudes toward sexuality in general were somewhat anguished and twisted, but the evidence does not support a claim that he was opposed to homosexuality. Tim Bray (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Another point. Reading the description of Mr. Mowla's work (The Judgment Against Imperialism, Fascism and Racism Against Caliphate and Islam) it's clear that he's not in the slightest neutral about Middle Eastern history. Whatever we think of Mr. Mowla's viewpoints, it seems that his access to the raw TEL materials and records is not comparable to people like Brown and Wilson, who studied the subject at length on a professional basis. Thus I question the quality of this reference. Tim Bray (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if Mowla is or isn't neutral about Middle Eastern history. I do know that in his 258 page says clearly that "In a letter to a homosexual man Lawrence wrote that "he didn't find homosexuality morally wrong, but he did find it distasteful" accompanied it with his (22) ref. which is not visible to me. That has little to do (if any) with the "Middle Eastern history". I don't have the time to find another ref now because I have to leave and I am not sure if it's necessary (in WP the secondary refs are preferable to the primary). The sentence must be in his Letters as this was the ref about it in the old text you overwrote, but had no page, which is another reason I prefered to mention Mowla's book. Have a happy new year. --Factuarius (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, further research. Mowla's books are self-published by AuthorHouse, and in the Editorial Review to his first volume The Judgment Against Imperialism, Fascism and Racism Against Caliphate and Islam: Volume 1, there is content, for example "Ataturk, a secret Jew according to Joachim Prinz as he mentioned in his famous book, The Secret Jews", which makes its value as a credible reference very doubtful. I could go to AuthorHouse tomorrow and publish a book claiming that Lawrence was from Mars; would that be useful in Wikipedia:Verifiability terms? There are multiple direct citations from Lawrence and his biographers establishing an accepting attitude toward homosexuality, you have a vague one from a self-publishing conspiracy-theorist propagandist. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability I will remove this poorly-supported assertion. Please do not re-introduce it without providing credible evidence. Tim Bray (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Suppose we have a discussion here, why don't you waited to have an answer about your new arguments before deleting the sentence with the ref? I could possibly find a second (or a third) ref as it happened, instead of choosing this back and forth in the text that is more of an edit war than a discussion. At least until tomorrow. You've did the same with all the chapter. We supposedly had to discuss the issue upon the refs you found, and I personally gave you warm congratulations for your work with the refs in your blog, asking you to paste the material in the talk page as to facilitate a wider -than in your blog- dialogue. Instead you deleted and rewrote all the chapter entirely by yourself explaining nothing about to anyone. And then, when I edited your test, you reverted almost every single edit I made using 9 rvs instead of a more honest single, essentially indicating that you, were who had clean wrote the chapter and you accepting no modifications. Or what? Anyway on second thought I found that the text had some serious problems and I tried to fix them. First the homosexual hypothesis was all around, in the start, in the end and in-between. The chapter started with Dahoum and ended with Dahoum. Secondly there was not any mention about his attitude against the women which since he was a man is a key starting point for his sexuality whatever this became. Third the asexuality hypothesis was from the start almost non existence (only a dubious phrase) although it was, according to his most closed friends, the most possible scenario about him. And finally I strongly believe that his personal position about the homosexuality is of some significance and we cannot omit it. Accordingly I tried to organize the text upon the following directions: To try to expand slightly the women's and asexuality's issues, to find a new, more acceptable to you ref about his (aesthetic) opposition against the homosexuality, and to try to re-organize the contents according to the four mine issues: his position about the opposite sex, the homosexuality, the masochism and the asexuality, putting all the relevant elements together. I did my best for the first day of the year and I honestly believe that the text is a little more neatly and balanced. Accordingly I am going to sleep because I am tired, hopping to find some words of mine when I'll wake up. --Factuarius (talk) 05:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Shorter And More Verifiable

As of December 31st, this section was half the length that it is today or less and contained nothing that was not rigorously cited and verifiable. It has become overly long, is poorly organized, and contains certain statements that have verifiability issues.

I've got some ideas on how we can organize some discussions and make some progress towards improving this, but in the interim I'm pasting in the Dec. 31st version, just to preserve it. I'm not claiming it's perfectly organized, just that it's compact and 100% verifiable. Tim Bray (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I should mention Sex and T.E. Lawrence, where I'm trying to aggregate all the raw references, and the text found at each, that should support the construction of this section. I'm updating with references that turn up in the discussion, for example Factuarius' citation from Altounyan; am looking into the P.K. Bakshi reference.Tim Bray (talk) 06:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Lawrence's biographers have discussed his sexuality at considerable length, and this discussion has spilled into the popular press.

There is no reliable evidence for consensual sexual intimacy between Lawrence and any person of either gender. Lawrence specifically denied, on multiple occasions in private correspondence, any personal experience of sex. It has been alleged that Lawrence had homosexual relationships with Selim Ahmed and fellow-soldier R.A.M. Guy. His biographers have disputed these allegations.

Lawrence lived during a time during which official homophobia was strong, but his writing on the subject is tolerant, and, when discussing relationships between young male fighters in the war, he refers on one occasion to "the openness and honesty of perfect love" and on another to "friends quivering together in the yielding sand with intimate hot limbs in supreme embrace".

In both Seven Pillars and a 1919 letter to a military colleague, Lawrence describes an episode in November 1917 in which, while reconnoitring Dera'a in disguise, he was captured by the Turkish military, heavily beaten, and sexually abused by the local Bey and his guardsmen. The precise nature of the sexual contact is not specified. Some commentators have expressed doubt that the episode took place, and there is no independent evidence, but the multiple consistent reports, and the lack of evidence for outright invention in Lawrence’s works, make the account believable to his biographers. At least three of Lawrence's biographers (Malcolm Brown, John Mack, and Jeremy Wilson) have argued this episode had strong psychological effects on Lawrence which may help explain some of his unconventional behaviour in later life.

There is considerable evidence that Lawrence was a masochist. In the Seven Pillars description of the Dera’a beating, Lawrence writes “a delicious warmth, probably sexual, was swelling through me”. In later life, Lawrence arranged to pay a military colleague to administer regular beatings to him, and to be subjected to severe formal tests of fitness and stamina.. Lawrence's biographer Jeremy Wilson points out that John Bruce, who first brought forward this narrative, included some other claims which were not credible, but acknowledges that there is independent evidence for the beatings.

The dedication to Seven Pillars is a poem entitled "To S.A." which opens as follows:

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

The identity of "S.A." has never been established. There are many theories, the most popular of which is that S.A. stands for Selim Ahmed.

Attitude to Homosexuality: Dismissing Non-Gay Scenario

What you are doing here is simply dismissing any evidence contrary to the gay scenario:

• the contents of the three letters to his friends admitting asexuality

• The meaning of the “probably sexual” expression which clearly indicates ignorance about sexuality

• That his more closed friends were adamant in their position that he was not homosexual & none of them identified any homosexual inclinations on him

• The possibility the S.A. To be referenced to the Sarah Aaronson
  • OK, let's take your points one at a time. Do me a favor and read An 'S.A.' Mystery, which is a remarkably thorough piece of research. Aaronson is just one of the theories. Others include "Son Altesse", "Syria/Arabia", and "Sherif Ali". Also, I just checked the two largest biographies, and find no mention of Ms Aaronson; she is such colorful character that I'm sure she would have been highlighted. Wilson quotes a letter of Sep 7, 1917 in which Lawrence talks having spoken with Aaron Aaronson, Sarah's brother (but the letter isn't in any of the collections), but that's all I can find in any of the indices. Could you please explain why this, among all the minor theories, needs to pulled out and highlighted in the article? I think the only reasonable courses of action are either to itemize all the theories, which means reproducing most of Yagitani's article, or simply to mention that there are lots, note that the most popular is Dahoum, and reference Yagitani for anyone who wants to dive deep. Given that this section is too long already, I much prefer the second. It is simply not reasonable to pull Aaronson out and highlight her. Unless you have an argument on this subject, I will remove the Aaronson coverage. I have some hope we can sort this out and avoid going to dispute resolution if we take the issues one at a time, and this one seems straightforward. Tim Bray (talk) 04:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Surprised that you found nothing about the Lawrence-Aaronsohn connection. There are at least two very serious books dealing extensively with the issue (Lawrence and Aaronsohn, by Ronald Florence, Viking, 480 pages & Aaronsohn's Maps - the Untold Story of the Man Who Might have Created Peace in the Middle East, by Patricia Goldstone, Harcourt, 352 pages). I have added them as refs '--Factuarius (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Both books are 2007, wow, Aaronsohn has become suddenly fashionable. As a student of Lawrence, I'll have to read them. Anyhow, the Sarah/S.A. theory remains just one among many. If we're going to highlight it then, for consistency, we're going to have to cover all the theories: Son Altesse, Sherif Ali, etc etc etc. Which would add another two paragraphs to this already-too-long section.Tim Bray (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
        • OK I think for the time being are enough about the SA since I think they are the most referenced. If in the future another fellow editor will ask to add another we will discuss it again.--Factuarius (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
          • I completely disagree. I think we are going to have to take this to dispute resolution. But I'll ask one question first: Have you yourself read the two 2007 Aaronsohn-related books, and do they contain strong new evidence supporting the hypothesis that S.A. was Sarah? If so, could you give some samples of this supporting text, as I've been careful to do in my blog piece? I have ordered both from the local public library and will be reading them myself. Unless there is really material new evidence, I have to note that the only theory aside from Dahoum that has really special supporting evidence is the abstract "Arab nation" theory, which has some (not-very-convincing) support in later life from TEL himself. And could you explain why you are so intent on elevating Sarah into the TEL article? I am operating 100% on the basis of the evidence I've introduced and nothing else, and I totally fail to understand why you think this theory stands out. Tim Bray (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
            • Ref No3: Douglas Valder Duff knew Lawrence as well as what was left of the Aaronsohn family. He and Lawrence retired to the same Dorset township. According to a letter he published in the British New Stateman, January 5, 1957, “T.E. Lawrence a few weeks before he was killed, told me that we had both dedicated a book to Sarah Aaronsohn and asked me if I had known her when she was still alive.” The former policeman (D.V.Duff) dedicated his own memoir, “Palestine Unveiled”, to Sarah Aaronsohn, “the martyr maid who died for Palestine and a word unworthy of her sacrifice” ..etc. Aaronsohn's maps: the untold story of the man who might have created peace in Middle East p.281 (is this OK for ref? or how many refs I have to find -there are 2 other already in the article-, just give me a number and I will find it so to end this story. 5?)--Factuarius (talk) 07:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
              • There seems to be a big problem in that Duff's book wasn't published till 1938 ANU listing. Is it reasonable to expect Lawrence to have known about the dedication of a book by someone not mentioned in any of his correspondence or biographies and which was not published until three years after his death?
                • No but it's possible to exist an older than 1938 edition not in the Australian Library or to be simply a wrong type or I don't know what. I think we are going straight to the Original Research and although I appreciate your effort it's not my intention to write a book about his sexual life. I only passing some refs from something serious books as to write a section of an article in WP and I think that's enough for it. Now we discussing a sub-sub-subsection of that section.. But trying to help you in your OR effort I have to inform you that there is also a driver named Abu Farid who was for some time the driver of Aaronsohn in Palestine who also confirms the story with Lawrence. You will see that inside both of the two books you ordered. Below is the Duff's interview:

..Then Lawrence, a small man, came up and spoke to me in the strange way he had of using soldierly language, very soldiery. He asked me if I had written a recent book on Palestine which I had dedicated to Sarah Aaronson. I was very flattered to think he had read my work and said so. The conversation went like this (without hoping to be verbatim):

L: So you know who I am

Me: I do, Col Lawrence, of course.

L:Shaw's my name and no ------Colonel.

Me:I beg your pardon-I'm afraid you'll always be Lawrence in me mind. I apologize for saying so aloud.

L:Did you know Sara Aaronsohn while she was alive?

Me:I am very sorry that I did not. I'd have given my right arm to have done so.

L:Why?

Me:Good Lord, man, if ever there was a Joan Of Arc in our days, it was Sarah!

L:Strange we two men should be here in this little town, both of us with a book dedicated to her, without either ofus ever having seen her alive.

Me:Why, judging by that sonnet of yours I was sure she and you were partners in the old days.

L:We were -but without meeting.

I would agreed to mention also the Arab nation as for the S.A. I've found some refs about it but not really notable. If you have 1 or 2 good add them with a text. But those three must be to my opinion all that must be mentioned--Factuarius (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• His letter to his homosexual friend saying that he opposed homosexuality as aesthetically distasteful. which is not surprised since as you admitting in your blog you believe he was a gay.
  • I don't think Wikipedia should say or imply he was gay. The argument for asexuality is worth presenting; not conclusive, given that he paid to be whipped "severely enough to produce a seminal emission"; also his biographers have some counterpoint. I'm just noting that there is strong evidence that he was unusually tolerant for the time. Your argument is that there is evidence, despite the multiple statements of tolerance, that he found homosexuality distasteful. I'm unconvinced, but maybe I'll change my mind when I track down that Bakshi article and find which letter she's referring to. I've tracked down a copy of the article in town so I'll report back once I've read it. Tim Bray (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
    • To me his tolerance about homosexuality had to do more with his (unconventional and independent) character and with what he had seen in his fighting years in the desert and I believe he had speak enough clearly about that. In any case his tolerance cannot be at any way an urgument for being a homosexual. BTW I heard some months before that in a university clinic in Russia (not in Moscow) they started an experimental program of whipping for people appreciating its ..results in their health! with much success and (?)popularity. They saying it has to do with endorphins and dopamines, having anti-stress and I don't remember what other effects. But I suppose we cannot include it as a ..ref because it would possibly be a pro-masochistic comment. But I cannot refrain from thinking that nowadays Lawrence would had not so much problems (at least if he was in Russia) if all these things are accurate for him to have his preferred level of dopamine. (Just kidding and btw contrary to him I am getting mad when someone beating me :-)) --Factuarius (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

To me there are 4 issues connected with T.E.L.'s sexuality:

• His attitude against the women

• The homosexuality scenario

• The masochistic scenario

• The asexuality scenario

Both four issues must be presented, avoiding any personal bias. All four are (or can be) well referenced since we have plenty primary (testimonies) and secondary (studies) about. Every effort to omit, strengthen or weaken one of them will lead to future conflicts from editors trying to impose their personal opinion about his sexuality.--Factuarius (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That was my reply about the SA (I bold the plural now):

• OK I think for the time being are enough about the SA since I think they are the most referenced. If in the future another fellow editor will ask to add another we will discuss it again

but I forgot to sign it. In case of a misunderstanding due to the absence of sign, my fault and sorry.--Factuarius (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Florence on Aaronsohn

I recently finished reading the following book:

Ronald Florence: Lawrence and Aaronsohn: T.E. Lawrence, Aaron Aaronsohn, and the seeds of the Arab-Israeli conflict. 2007.

In Chapter 21, "Legacies", at the very end of the book, starting on page 459, there is a full discussion of the Lawrence/Aarohnson story, including its origin, which is charming but I won't reproduce; go look it up if you're curious. I'm not going to give the full three pages, but I do recommend reading the book; the Aaronsohn part is good and the Lawrence part lightweight but harmless. Aaron and Sarah Aarohnsohn were compelling characters. Aaron met TEL on at least two well-documented occasions; the two did not think well of each other. The book is well-footnoted and I spotted no serious errors in its discussion of those parts of the story that I've studied.

(p. 460) Rivka [in 1936] flatly denied that her sister, Sarah, had ever met, let alone had a romantic connection with Lawrence. Farago also traveled to Palestine to explore the possible connection, and concluded that "Lawrence had never seen Sarah and hardly knew anything of her existence. Their romance is nothing but a mournful legend."

(p. 460-461) Then in 1941, Abu Farid, the driver at the Jewish Agricultural Experiment Station in Athlit, who had driven Aaron before he left Palestine for England and Egypt, and who had later driven Sarah on her dangerous information-gathering missions, gave an interview to the Jerusalem Post. Abu Farid was an old man, eager to get his story out before he died. He told the newspaper that British submarines had landed men at Athlit during the war, and that it had been his job to meet the boats the sent to the shore and to pick up the mail and gold they brought. One night, Abu Farid said, T.E. Lawrence had come ashore in one of the boats, and Aaron Aarohnsohn introduced him, saying, "This is Abu Farid. He knows all our secrets and we can trust him." Lawrence had then said, "Take good care of Mr. Aaronsohn."

(p. 461) In 1956, the story resurfaced once more when the New Statesman printed a letter from a Mr. Douglas V. Duff, who reported that outside Thear's Garage in Bridport, not far from Lawrence's cottage in Dorset, he had met Lawrence in the last few months of Lawrence's life. Lawrence had shown up on his motorchycle, insisting that he was not Colonel Lawrence but Mr. Shaw. Duff, born in Argentina, had written close to one hundred books, including three that he dedicated to Sarah Aarohnson, "the martyr maid who died for Palestine and a world unworthy of her sacrifice." In his letter to the New Statesman, Duff said that Lawrence and he discussed the fact that they had both dedicated books to Sarah Aaronsohn. He quoted Lawrence as saying, "If she had had a man for a husband, she might have been the leader of a Hebrew return with glory."

(p. 461-462) But neither Lawrence nor Sarah ever wrote about meeting at Athlit or anywhere else. No contemporary of either of theirs, other than Abu Farid, suggests that they ever met. Their paths never crossed during the war: Lawrence was not in western Galilee during the war, and when Sarah visited Cairo, Lawrence was not in Egypt. Abu Farid, much beloved as a driver and friend of Aaron's and Sarah's, was never entrusted with the highly secret information about when boats would land or with the mail pouches--only a tight circle of NILI members handled the messages and gold. No British submarines landed anyone at Athlit, there is no record of Lawrence's ever going to the coast of Palestine on the slow spy ships, and the regular delivery of secret messages and gold did not begin until after Aaron had left Palestine. Mr. Duff's books with their dedications to Sarah Aaronsohn were published after Lawrence died, making it unlikely that he and Lawrence discussed them. It's far more likely that Duff's invocation of Lawrence's name was a ruse to publicize Duff's own books. Although her initials fit, Sarah Aarohnsohn almost certainly was not the S.A. of Lawrence's dedication.

(Emphasized text as in the original)

Also: There is no record of Duff and Lawrence ever having met. Also: The writings of Lawrence which speak of S.A. as a person refer specifically to a male person. Tomorrow, I'm visiting a library to read "Aaronsohn's Maps" and vol. 13 of "Prose Studies".

-- Tim Bray (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Poundstone on Aaronsohn

I recently finished reading the following book:

Patricia Goldstone: Aaronsohn's Maps: The Untold Story of the Man Who Might Have Created Peace in the Middle East. 2007.

It covers most of the same facts that does Florence (see above), but is a strong proponent of the notion that Lawrence and Sarah had some sort of relationship, probably romantic. It is heavy on character analysis, and not a footnoted scholarly work. Its main arguments for the relationship are psychological; that their personalities would have been irresistible to each other. It acknowledges that there is no evidence of their ever having met, and that several contemporaries stated positively that this did not happen. It actually reproduces the affidavit given by Rivka, Sarah's sister, flatly denying that Lawrence and Sarah ever met. It points out (p. 80-81) that in 1909, Lawrence visited and studied the Crusader castle at Athlit, which is in the same vicinity as the Rothschild-financed colony where the Aarohnson family resided. Poundstone asserts "Lawrence would not have been able to avoid the Aaronsohns" but offers no evidence that any meeting took place. It also relates (p. 270) an episode where one Somerset de Chair was told by the young daughter of Altounyan (who wrote about Lawrence in T.E. Lawrence By His Friends), this daughter being in love with Lawrence from afar, that Lawrence had been in love with Sarah, and that de Chair ran into obstruction from Altounyan, A.W. Lawrence, and other contemporaries when he tried to investigate this story. It offers no basis for the source of Altounyan's daughter's theory.

-- Tim Bray (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

P.K. Bakshi on Carpenter etc

I'm assembling raw citations here on the Talk page in preparation for a little editing. Hope that's OK.

The article currently has a ref "Homosexuality and Orientalism: Edward Carpenter's journey to the east, P. K. Bakshi, Prose Studies, Volume 13, Issue 1 May 1990, pages 151 - 177, Routledge" with specific reference to a letter from Lawrence to a friend.

I went to the University of British Columbia library and found Volume 13 of Prose Studies, here are a couple of ugly phone snaps. There are two mentions of Lawrence:

• "The association between homoerotic desire and the Orient is not unique to Carpenter’s work, and occurs in English literature both before and after him, in writer such as Edward Fitzgerald, E.M. Forster, T.E. Lawrence, and J.R. Ackerley." (p. 151)
• "With Carpenter, Dickinson, Forster, T.E. Lawrence and Ackerley, the pursuit of homosexual love extends from Europe to the East." (p. 154)

I read the article twice, and looked at each of its citations. There is no other mention of T.E. Lawrence whatsoever that I could find, and certainly no reference to any letter. The article is overwhelmingly concerned with Edward Carpenter. It's unlikely that I missed it; the article is short.

-- Tim Bray (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Russcol and Banai on Aaronsohn

By a weird coincidence, I had to visit UBC today and visited the library to consult this book:

Herbert Russcol and Margalit Banai The First Million Sabras 1970.

There is a reference to p. 96 in support of the "S.A." is Sarah Aaronsohn theory.

The relevant text is in a footnote which begins on page 95 and continues on 96:

There is a still-lively school of romanticizers who believe that Sarah Aaronsohn is the “S.A.” to whom T.E. Lawrence’s book, Seven Pillars of Wisdom is dedicated. This notion is based on the fact that Lawrence, as a subaltern, visited Athlit before the war, and studied the Crusader castle there. It is claimed that Lawrence met Sarah at Zichron, and fell in love with the young Jewess whose ambitions were as daring and romantic as his own. In 1938, the London Daily Express headlined a story “Woman in Lawrence of Arabia’s Life was A Spy,” and went on ... “She was Sarah Aaronsohn, a red-haired Jewess who was head of the British Secret Service in Palestine. While still in her 20’s she shot herself when tortured by the Turks. Whether they were lovers probably no-one will ever know.”

In December 29, 1956, the London Journal New Statesman carried a letter from a Mr. Douglas Duff, who declared that Lawrence himself told him that Seven Pillars had been dedicated to Sarah Aaronsohn. Duff had recently himself written a book on Palestine, and had dedicated it to Sarah. He quotes the following conversation between Lawrence and himself, at a chance meeting... [The Duff story is reproduced again] -- Tim Bray (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolving the Aaronsohn dispute

There is an ongoing dispute here on the discussion of the theories concerning who "S.A.", the recipient of the dedication of Seven Pillars of Wisdom, is. The truth will remain a puzzle and there is evidence that Lawrence wanted it that way. There are a wide variety of theories, only one of which can be supported by recourse to citeable statements of Lawrence himself.

There are a handful of minor speculative theories, most widely derided in the mainstream of the T.E. Lawrence research community; one of them asserts that S.A. stands for Sarah Aaronsohn. For some reason which I fail to understand, one editor feels that this one deserves pulling out and highlighting in this already-too-long section. Several references have been brought forward to support this claim. I have invested substantial amount of personal time trekking to various reference libraries around town to study the referenced works; see above on this Talk page. In each case so far, the cited work fails to provide meaningful support for this claim. One of them (Florence) examines it in detail and refutes it convincingly. I could bring more evidence to bear (e.g. Lawrence referred to the "A" part of S.A. as male, and said that that person died in 1918; Sarah died in 1917).

Two things seem obvious: The verifiability of this theory is highly open to challenge, and in particular, it has no special standing among the theories and exactly zero support from Lawrence himself. Thus I conclude that including it in the entry does not constitute NPOV. Absent any new evidence, it needs to come out of the entry.

Perhaps someone might want to create a separate entry on the controversy? It's notable for sure, lots of books have discussed it, and Yagitani has provided a pre-cooked set of citations. -- Tim Bray (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

I would like to set up automatic archiving for this talk page now that it has become so active. There are discussion threads here that are almost five (5) years old.

I propose setting up the algorithm so that threads are archived once they are 45 or 60 days past their last comment. Before doing so, I would like to establish a consensus on whether 45 days or 60 is preferable. Thus, it would be greatly appreciated if contributors could !vote below. I’ll tally up the straw vote on January 23, 2010. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 07:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, my !vote is for 60 days. — SpikeToronto 08:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this sucker's way too big and archiving is in order. Given that Col. Lawrence remains controversial 70+ years after his death (may we all be so lucky), I'm wondering if automated is the way to go. There are certain subjects that keep coming up. First, our old friend and current obsession, TEL's sexuality (or lack of it). Second, the story that he was romancing the British fascists and maybe even Hitler late in life. Third, conspiracy theories surrounding his death. Fourth, general smear pieces following on Aldington and Mousa (hostile biographers) to the effect that he was a self-promoting fraud and didn't actually do any of those surprising things. I'm wondering if we might want to keep some sort of fixed guideposts saying "These particular discussions have been had; consult X, Y, and Z before you insert a claim you read in a pop novel about WWI." Hmm, maybe it would be good enough to create a Sexuality-specific archive? It seems to get the most drive-bys. Or maybe an ongoing-Lawrence-controversies archive? I appeal to those more experienced. -- Tim Bray (talk) 08:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

COMMENT:  As it stands now, whether it was set at 45 days or 60 days, everything up to section #40, Lawrence’s works, would get archived. What I could do is have a look around and see if it is possible to tag certain sections in such a way that the archiving bots would not archive those sections no matter how old they may be.

Manually archiving would not be desirable since wikieditors come and go. So no one person could be counted on to keep up the good work. — SpikeToronto 08:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, good point about scalability. You have more experience in this stuff, so I'm in favor of whatever seems best to you. -- Tim Bray (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

COMMENT:  According to this, it is possible to mark certain threads to not be archived. Again though, I would need some consensus from editors as to which ones are so sacrosanct as to never be archived even after two months of inactivity, or later date if consensus is to stretch the overall archive period. — SpikeToronto 20:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I just went back and scanned the whole thing and there's really not much worth saving; let it archive away naturally. I realized what the problem is: Lawrence was controversial sexually, politically, and also mixed up in the early stages of the Israel/Palestine issue; there are tons of exotic theories about this and that that pop up in unrelated works, and people run into them and feel the need to tell the world. This entry is thus inevitably going to be subject to drive-by editing. Sigh. Maybe leave an archive-protected note near the top acknowledging that there are all these well-known controversies and to be really careful not only about verifiability but about the quality of the citation before you embed something new on these subjects? But for now, let the archiver rip, I say. -- Tim Bray (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

When I archived another talk page, I placed the following notice at the top:

The previous discussions have been archived here as per Wikipedia’s talk archiving policies. Wikieditors are invited to peruse the archive before starting a new discussion to determine if any issue of interest is dealt with therein. This current Talk page is for starting new discussions not covered in the archive, or for re-visiting older issues. The archive itself is not to be edited. Happy reading! [The links are red here because the Lawrence archive has not yet been created.]

This could be similarly placed at the top of this talk page and flagged so that the bots will not archive it.

Nonetheless, I still need to wait until 23 January 2010 to make sure that there is consensus to (i) begin automated archiving, and (ii) to set it at 60 days. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 23:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I waited an extra week to see if anyone else would be weighing in on the issue of archiving discussion threads on this talk page that are older than 60 days. Since no one else has, and as per WP:SILENCE, I will set up automated archiving one day next week. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 08:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done  As discussed, and with this edit, I have set up archiving for this talk page. Now, we just have to wait for the archiving bot to come by and do the job. Keep your fingers crossed! — SpikeToronto 20:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It should have archived by now. I do not know why it has not. I will get someone to take a look at my coding, unless anyone here has any ideas … Thanks! — SpikeToronto 01:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You must set the counter argument for MiszaBot. And you have to create the Archive index page. It should work now. I've taken the liberty of changing the archiveheader to something better then the default.--Oneiros (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much Oneiros! I was away from Wikipedia for a month and could only just now get back to this. I thought that the problem might have been with the counter, but was afraid that if I set it to 1, the system would number the first archive as 2. I am so glad that someone with more experience came along and fixed it. Thanks again! — SpikeToronto 20:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that the current archiving is too effective. It leaves only a few threads on the talk page. About one thread in the month is created, that would mean you get about 12 latest threads for a value of 365 days. Take also in consideration users that irregular follow the development of the article. --Kslotte (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)