Talk:Elagabalus/Archive 2

The entry for whoopee cushion states: Roman Emperor Elagabalus was said to enjoy practical jokes at his dinner parties and often placed whoopee cushions under the chairs of his more pompous guests.^[1] Colonial Computer 04:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Elagabalus‘s pronouns were she/her. She wanted to be known as a Lady, not a Lord. Also, people forget that LGBTQ+ people have existed throughout history. Gatorbearratica (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

This has already been discussed on the talk page several times (see here most recently Talk:Elagabalus/Archive 2) . Acquaint yourself with those discussions and then explain what new points you have to make. Furius (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Why refer to someone as their non-preferred pronouns?? That’s literally transphobic and harmful. Also, just because this is a historic person, does not negate the fact that Elagabalus’s pronouns were she/her, she wanted to be referred to as Lady/Empress, and explicitly stated she wanted female parts. You realize LGBTQ+ people have existed throughout history, not just modern day contexts. These “historians” are just blatantly transphobic and contributing to transgender/transsexual erasure and LGBTQ+ erasure. Very strange but ok. Gatorbearratica (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The source for this is Cassius Dio and he tells us this as part of a series of passages that are very clearly intended as (transphobic) attacks on Elagabalus. We have hundreds of inscriptions and coins from Elagabalus' reign, made by Elagabalus, all of which refer to the Emperor with masculine forms. The attempt to turn Elabagalus into a transgender precursor is ahistorical (and frankly bizarre, given that Elagabalus was a rubbish emperor). Furius (talk) 02:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Masculine because people couldn’t accept that in society, but she was still a woman, and no, it’s not ahistorical, queer and trans people have existed throughout history. Gatorbearratica (talk) 03:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Gatorbearratica is now blocked. S0091 (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Cheers for blocking someone for advocating for decency and respect! AlmightyMushroomMan (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

The block was placed because the account was declared compromised – as claimed by the user themselves – and was engaging in vandalism of another user's userspace. The block log is public. The user's talk page is public. It takes about five seconds to check either and/or both pages. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

"Call me not a Lord, for I am a Lady"... "delighted to be called the mistress, the wife, the Queen of Hierocles" and is documented explicitly presenting female and wanting to have a vagina.

It's very clear that the wishes of Elagabalus are to be referred to as a woman. It's not even a political position to take. It's simply her explicit wishes, and her Wikipedia page should reflect this. The same as it would any other transwoman, transman, or non-binary person's expressed pronouns when they request them changed. MistyHaven (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes. The Wikipedian Historians (not alol) are transphobic and refuse to admit it. Gatorbearratica (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Lili Elbe isn't misgendered in her page, her story is relatively similar to Elagabalus'. The biggest difference is the time period, which is irrelevant. Publicerination 17:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

These are dissimilar cases. With Elbe you have self-identification. With Elagabalus you have 'self-identification' according to Dio, a hostile source. That 'self-identification' is not supported by primary evidence such as coinage. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Why is Dio's material sourced in the first place if he's a hostile source? Publicerination 10:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Because Dio - alongside Herodian - is a contemporary to the events. For historians, Dio and Herodian are important sources, but should be treated with caution. When Dio claims that Elagabalus prostituted himself out at brothels, it should be taken with a serving of salt. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

If the entire section about gender identity should be taken with a serving of salt we might as well remove it altogether. Right now Elagabalus being transgender is being presented as fact, yet masculine pronouns are still being used. I say we either commit to what's already on the page and change the pronouns to she/her and emperor to empress or remove the paragraph about gender identity. Publicerination 20:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I cannot find where Elagabalus being transgender is presented as a factual statement. I see a brief closing statement in the section that says that the opinion of 'some writers' (cited to Varner, Godbout, and Benjamin) is that Elagabalus is transgender. The whole section opens with a warning that the matter of Elagabalus' sexuality is confused because of 'salacious and unreliable sources'. From that view, the article complies with the policy on neutral point-of-view. It discusses the matter giving due weight to reliable sources, whilst following the predominant convention of using masculine pronouns. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The least we could do is replace "The question of Elagabalus's sexual orientation is confused" with "The question of Elagabalus's sexual orientation and gender identity is confused". Sexual orientation and gender identity are two completely different things, they should both be named so people are aware that Elagabalus' gender identity is mere speculation. I also think we should change the pronouns to a gender neutral alternative (they/them or replacing all pronouns with Elagabalus) to neither affirm or deny Elagabalus' gender identity. Publicerination 14:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The first proposed edit can be freely made. I'm not sure why 'sexual orientation' was chosen, perhaps 'sexuality' more broadly was intended? The second alteration requires a discussion. The use of male pronouns was affirmed by a well-attended RfC several years ago. Numerous discussions since then have resulted in no change to that consensus. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm unable to make the first edit, my account is relatively new so I've posted an edit request. I still think the use of male pronouns isn't appropriate considering the context, we can't be sure if Elagabalus was transgender or not, thus their gender is unclear, thus we should use gender neutral pronouns or replace all pronouns with "Elagabalus". Publicerination (talk) 11:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Elagabalus has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under the "Marriages, sexuality and gender" section "The question of Elagabalus's sexual orientation is confused" should be replaced with "The question of Elagabalus's sexual orientation and gender identity is confused". The section should also be renamed to "Marriages, sexual orientation and gender identity" for consistency. Publicerination (talk) 11:27, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Elagabalus Is listed under the category of LGBT Roman Emperors, and their lover Hierocles, to whom which Elagabalus was married as a woman, is listed under Ancient LGBT People. QueenMebd (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

As discussed earlier on this page, Elagabalus' gender identity is unconfirmed, thus feminine pronouns wouldn't be appropriate nor accurate. But neither are masculine pronouns. There is an entire section dedicated to Elagabalus potentially identifying as a woman, so why are we denying that by using masculine pronouns? If you guys believe it's fair to assume that Dio lied about Elagabalus' gender identity there's no reason to include it in the article in the first place.

I propose all masculine pronouns are replaced with either gender neutral pronouns (example 1), or simply Elagabalus' name (example 2). Or that the references to Dio stating Elagabalus was a transgender woman be removed entirely. Not adding either of these changes makes this article contradictory and confusing.

Example 1:

They married four women, including a Vestal Virgin, in addition to lavishing favours on male courtiers thought to have been their lovers.

Example 2:

Elagabalus married four women, including a Vestal Virgin, in addition to lavishing favours on male courtiers thought to have been Elagabalus' lovers.

Original text:

He married four women, including a Vestal Virgin, in addition to lavishing favours on male courtiers thought to have been his lovers. Publicerination (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Roman historians regarded E as an effeminate man. We do not have any statement from E on the subject, except on the authority of a party who was bitterly hostile — even if with good reason — so it is appropriate to fall back on that consensus. Cassius Dio's statements about E's gender identity are included because they have influenced later perception. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times and nothing you suggest here is new. Moreover, you repeat a falsehood: "We do not have any statement from E on the subject". We have hundreds of inscriptions erected on the authority of Elagabalus, all of which use masculine pronouns, adjectives, and grammatical forms. But we can't exclude the material from Dio from the article, because it is an important aspect of how Elagabalus was viewed and represented (especially as Dio is the main historical source for Elagabalus' reign). Furius (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Please read more carefully. I didn't propose to suggest anything new. I argued for leaving the article as it is. Inscriptions are relevant, but they are not first-person statements the way that "Call me not a lord" in Cassius Dio is. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

You aren't arguing for the article to stay as it is; you are arguing to change the pronouns used in the article. That's a change, but it is one that has already been discussed repeatedly on this talk page, recently (here and here). There is therefore no need to discuss it again, unless some new suggestion or new argument is being made.

(Inscriptions might not be in the first person, but they are very close to it when we are discussing the person who was responsible for their erection. Actually, they are probably more important as a statement of identity than something that he may or may not have said once.) Furius (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

No, the IP is not arguing to change the pronouns, a completely different editor is making that argument Furius. Read the signatures, notice the indents. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Apologies to IP; I did miss the indent and signature and so my comments were misdirected. Furius (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why I should provide a new argument when this one is perfectly reasonable, we don't know whether E being transgender is true or not, thus we shouldn't affirm or deny it. By using masculine pronouns we are denying the possibility of E being transgender. Publicerination (talk) 11:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Because we already discussed it - recently - and formed a consensus on the matter. Any new discussion ought to take account of the discussions that have already taken place per WP:READFIRST. Furius (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

This goes especially so, since you yourself expressed your opinion in those previous discussions. You do not seem to have taken account of the replies that you received then. Furius (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I have taken every reply into account, I was the last person to comment on that thread. I made a new one because the last thread was archives. Publicerination (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I see nothing reasonable about a proposal to exclude Cassius Dio's gender identity allegations from the article. Scandal, regarding gender norms as well as other matters, is a significant part of Elagabalus's historical legacy, all the way up to the present day. Therefore the article must discuss the scandals but does not have to accept them as credible in the face of contradicting evidence like inscriptions. 21st-century American politics is sadly instructive: Obama was called a foreign-born Muslim; Trump was called a foreign agent. Their articles discuss these allegations but do not embrace them. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Then shouldn't it say that it's assumed that the allegations were false? The way it is now makes this article contradictory. Publicerination (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The article says that Cassius Dio's account as a whole is salacious, exaggerated, politically influenced and generally second-hand. Yet, it is influential. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Elagabalus has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The pronouns are incorrect Egalabalus was a trans woman not a man, this is stated with the several historical evidence, such as the quote from Egalabalus herself. "Do not call me lord, for I am a lady." Par321 (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

This has been consistently rejected in consensus building discussions. The quote presented originates from Dio, not Elagabalus. The inscriptions that Elagabalus authorised, use masculine forms in both names and titles. So forth and so forth. A change will not be made without a consensus to do so. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Elagabalus has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change he to they.

It has been studied that this empress was either a trans woman or some 3rd gender. To respect Elagabalus in all their heritage I think calling an individual that didn't represent or wish to be seen as a man. He removes the complex nature of Elagabalus' gender and removes transgender people from history.

The 11 pages describe Elagabalus in how they preferred to be addressed, and how they presented themselves. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C18&q=elagabalus+gender&oq=Elagabalus%27#d=gs_qabs&t=1685042277593&u=%23p%3DqLACRcGpt4cJ 76.190.106.51 (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Did you read the section at the top of this page titled "Please read this before requesting a change regarding gender identity"? Are you suggesting that any or all of those GoogleScholar search results are employed as sources here? If so, which one(s) and why? Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.238.182 (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Actualcpscm (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Elagabalus has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Considering the documented preference of Elegabalus to be referred to as a woman, while also considering the historical tendency to refer to Elegabalus as male, I suggest that the pronouns used to refer to Elegabalus in this article are changed from the masculine "he/him" to the indeterminate "they/them", thereby recognizing the gender incongruence exhibited by Elegabalus and avoiding the controversy that may arise by using either of the binary pronouns. While concerns have been raised regarding the legitimacy of the claims regarding Elegabalus's preferred gender presentation, the use of pronouns "they/them" make no concrete claim as to the identity of Elegabalus, merely indicating that the issue is somewhat contentious, rather than the false sense of academic unanimity implied by the use of the definitively masculine "he/him". Pollomorad (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done - This is a contentious topic. A new consensus is required for any change to the pronouns. An edit request should not be made prior to a consensus forming discussion. This is a procedural decline. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

As previously mentioned, "they/them" is the preferred choice precisely due to this lack of consensus. The use of these pronouns does not make a concrete stance either way regarding the gender identity of Elegabalus, but merely serves to show the lack of academic consensus regarding this issue. The use of "he/him" is much more contentious, as has been shown by the numerous requests to alter the pronoun usage on this page. Additionally, there is no proper avenue for a "consensus forming discussion" to occur, and the use of this justification merely indicates a lack of willingness to discuss this topic. Can you provide any reason why "he/him" would be preferential, despite the fact it presupposes a consensus on Elegabalus's identity that does not exist? Pollomorad (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Male pronouns were retained following an RfC that near unanimously rejected a change. There's an example of a consensus forming discussion. An RfC cannot be overturned in an edit-request. The archives host a whole history of discussions that concluded without a change to female or gender neutral pronouns.

Male pronouns are used because a majority of high-quality reliable secondary sources use them. This meets the requirements of the policy on due weight. Few – if any – reliable sources would use gender neutral pronouns as Elagabalus didn't identify with them. Primary evidence points to male identification (e.g. coinage). Elagabalus' chosen regnal name is masculine: Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus. Dio and Herodian, by contrast, are biased sources and so their statements are usually treated critically by historians. There is a decent stack of secondary literature cited in the article at present. Review them and identify which pronouns are used. A dozen editors, including myself, have fielded this question repeatedly over the years. I cannot take seriously the assertion that there is an unwillingness to discuss the single most discussed issue on this talk page.

Edit-requests are not a tool for generating consensus. They are a tool for effecting uncontroversial changes that cannot be made by the editor requesting them, as explained at WP:edit request. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you for the thoughtful response. Pollomorad (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

As read in this BBC link (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67484645)-SGCommand, 19:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Mentioned in the "Text removal" thread above. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Marcus Aurelius Antoninus is not the name of elagabalus it is his byname and even then his real byname is Ceaser Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus. Having this at the start of the page is only going to have people confuse elagabalus with the real Marcus Aurelius https://www.britannica.com/biography/Elagabalus Maxk9994 (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Caesar and Augustus are omitted from the regnal name in the opening sentence of articles on Roman emperors, because they all use it. See for examples, Septimius Severus and Caracalla of the Severans or Diocletian (inside the brackets of the opening sentence) and even the aforementioned Marcus Aurelius. This is just the norm. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it's unlikely that readers who come here to read about Elagabalus will be confused that they are reading about Marcus Aurelius. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

"Despite near-universal condemnation of his reign, some scholars write warmly about his religious innovations, including the 6th-century Byzantine chronicler John Malalas, as well as Warwick Ball."

At "about his religious innovations, including", I was expecting to learn what his list of religious innovations includes, since that's what you'd just talked about. But instead I got what the list of scholars includes. Please fix. I suggest this:

"Despite near-universal condemnation of his reign, some scholars write warmly about his religious innovations. Those scholars include [...]" 2601:600:A480:D8E0:6087:4B5F:F0C4:842B (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, don't see any problem with the current version, although that claim (together with the source) should not appear only in the lead section. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I think you're both right. Martin's point on the lede is a problem. Nothing should be in the lede that is not supported in the body. Unless someone gets to it first, I'll add it to my todo. 2601... is right that the clause has an ambiguous subject. I think that, "Despite near-universal condemnation of his reign, some scholars write warmly about his religious innovations," would be a good, sourced sentence in the lede. Something about Malalas and Bell (and which innovations mattered) needs to be in the body anyway, and this construction would clear up both problems. Thoughts? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I have no objections to 2601's suggestion. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I recently updated the article with a news development, about a museum in the UK choosing to officially recognise Elagabalus as a transgender female in their exhibits. The edits have since been expanded on, with further information.

These contributions are under the "Emperor (218–222)" category and "Marriages, sexual orientation and gender identity" subcategory. These however should surely be about Elagabalus' life as emperor, rather than modern legacy? Perhaps we should create a "Legacy" section or similar, to discuss modern day discussion around Elagabalus' gender identity and how museums and academia stand on the matter.

Open to any comments or suggestions on this. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 12:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd be open to a legacy section (built into the existing "cultural references"). The current location seems WP:UNDUE reaction to a current news story. Furius (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

It isn't even clear that there was an Arab ethnic identity, let alone having him "descended from an Arab family."

Historiaantiqua (talk) 06:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on this claim? Many ancient historians and geographers talk of Arabs in the regions of Syria, Mesopotamia and the Arab Peninsula, so this was at the very list a common exonym (but is most likely an endonym for linguistic reasons). And as far as I can tell the Emesene dynasty is considered to be of Arab origin by most scholars, even if some of its members defined themselves as Phoenicians. Qoan (talk) 09:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

It's supported in main text by a very high quality reliable source (Ball 2000, pp. 35–37, 412), Furius (talk) 09:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The problem being complete anachronism applied by Ball, and hardly "authoritative" or uncontroversial. In his chapter on Nabateans and Arabia, he even provides a map of the penetration of the Arabs, first from Southern Arabia, and occupying a region of what was once the Edomite Kingdom, and remaining firmly east of Jordan, extending North at one point to Damascus, and never reaching across the Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea which were regions occupied by the people were familiar with, including the Judeans, the Samaritans, and most notably the Phoenicians.

He therefore contradicts himself when at page 31 he says that when we speak of all of these people we ought to consider them to be Arab, which is a complete misappropriation and an anachronism, a form of historical activism, giving rise to a nationality of a sort before such a concept even existed, and certainly before the language called Arabic existed since it evolves out of the Nabatean language who are the ancestral people to the Arabs.

We do not find anything close to Arabic, as a language, except in its Semitic general version which is shared with all the other Semitic languages so by what right does he differentiate, that the Judeans, according to him, were the only exception as being not Arab. There isn't anything stupider I've read then the claim that all these people in the Middle East are Arab, but the judeans are not. Could there be anything more asinine than denying the individual identity of the various peoples as they saw themselves but importing an anachronism that the Judeans were somehow special solely for the reason of the Ashkenazi Europeans today forming a white Israel. There isn't anything at all unique about the judeans by which it could be said to differentiate them from Arabs. And there is your reliable source.

This is an absurd claim. Identity is not an objective fact. There is no difference between a Serb and a Croat. These are constructions of human imagination. The differentiation emerges almost exclusively from a linguistic separation - and where is Arabic in the period? It doesn't exist. Nabatean exists, as does Phoenician or Kanaan, as does Aramaic. He also makes a bizarre claim that the people in the region were "either" Aramaic or Arab. What exactly is he talking about? But the Judeans were different? From Samaritans even?

Identity is a matter of subjective designation, and until the people themselves say we are Arabs, applying nomenclature of the present to the past in order to seem so much more progressive and worthy of praise, is absurd. Should we therefore not refer to the Romans as Italians? Should we refer to the Thracians as Serbs? Should we therefore refer to the Gauls as "Irishmen" or "Cornishmen?" Historiaantiqua (talk) 00:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:RS stating that Elagabalus was not "descended from an Arab family"? This doesn't require him to have had an Arab ethnic identity; I have no French identity, but I'm descended from a French family. Furius (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Should be changed to Transgender Arab as Transgender is the primary identity and Arab is just an ethnic background, that was not important in Imperial Rome, the simplistic smalltime village mentality didn't take over Europe yet at that time. TransJordan (talk) 05:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

@Willbb234 has removed the following text from the article, "For this reason, the emperor is seen by some writers as an early transgender figure and one of the first on record as seeking sex reassignment surgery," claiming that "I'm not seeing good enough support for this conclusion" in the sources cited. But Benjamin 1966 (Appendix by Richard Green) lists Elagabalus third in a set of historical "examples of the phenomenon called transexualism", Godbout says "As such, he is extremely important in the history of homosexuality, homophobia, and transphobia." Beyond those, Domitilla Campanile, Filippo Carlà-Uhink, Margherita Facella, TransAntiquity: Cross-Dressing and Transgender Dynamics in the Ancient World pg. xii refers to Elagabalus as a "gay icon" on account of "transgender performance", E. L. James, Kinky History "one of the first transgender figures in history and perhaps the first person to look into the possibility of sex-confirmation surgery". The opinion of these sources is probably misguided, but it nevertheless is a widely held opinion, so it should be mentioned in the article. Furius (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Well there's firstly the fact that two of the sources you have mentioned weren't used to cite the sentence in question in the first place so I don't understand how you can revert without mentioning these sources. Secondly, there's the fact that each source seems to have it's own language or interpretation of what exactly Elagablus was or wanted, and so trying to come to a conclusion that the writers are in some kind of agreement is not a good idea. I can't see the pages of the google book you have linked to. I am open to some kind of other wording or language to summarise these opinions so I would be interested in hearing your thoughts. Willbb234 20:12, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't really see how a different wording is necessary. The sentence claims that there are authors who claim E. as an early transgender figure and as having sought sex reassignment surgery. The sentence is not claiming that E. really was transgender or really did seek the surgery (as the article notes, that's disputed), only that it is a position some modern people have held. James and Benjamin both claim to hold this position. James fairly closely parallels the current wording, while Benjamin's differences reflect the fact that it was written fifty years ago more than anything else. Furius (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I can only see this from Green: Another Roman emperor, Heliogabalus, is reported to have been formally married to a powerful slave and then to have taken up the tasks of a wife following the marriage. He is described as having been "delighted to be called the mistress, the wife, the Queen of Hierocles" [4] and is said to have offered half the Roman Empire to the physician who could equip him with female genitalia. [1] from , nothing about "examples of the phenomenon called transexualism". You will also have to find more than one, possibly two examples of writers to call it "some writers". I also don't understand why you continue with this WP:Verifiability, not truth stance when I haven't argued against it. It's starting to feel like you are making accusations up from thin air. It also appears that James is a social media influencer who doesn't have a formal education relating specifically to classical history or gender studies and we should try to avoid sources which aren't scholarly. Willbb234 15:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

It's at the start of the chapter: "Evidence for the phenomenon today called transsexualism can be found in records backward through centuries and spanning widely separated cultures... In the following references, the criterion of cross-gender identity is met." Furius (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I make the point about "verifiability not truth" not because of anything that you've said, but this page has a very long history of users pushing for WP to treat Elagabalus as trans and (e.g.) refer to him with female or gender neutral pronouns (now mostly in the talk page archives) and I don't want to reopen that can of worms. Furius (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Another source that Elagabalus has been seen as an early transgender figure: M. Nugent, Helios 35 (2008) pp. 171-172 : "Elagabalus, indeed, has come to occupy an especially complex position in the modern imagination, because the historical sources, in reviling the emperor as a gender and sexual deviant, enable a variety of different con-temporary identifications: modern readers of Elagabalus’s lives can iden-tify the emperor as ‘homosexual,’ ‘bisexual,’ or ‘transgendered.’" Furius (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it's important to note that the (Wikipedia) article is not saying Elagabalus was trans, the article is saying Elagabalys is seen by some writers as (potentially) transgender, which sources plainly support. In the absence of consensus for Will's edit, I undid it, but tweaked the text, added the Nugent source Furius provided and added SAGE. -sche (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Does the recent decision by a British museum to transition the subject's pronouns from male to female suggest that we should expand a little more on this aspect of their life? The museum itself is not exactly Grade 1 (with apologies to folk in history mecca of Hitchen, North Hertfordshire), but seeing the BBC discuss Elagabalus' gender identity hints that the concept has moved beyond the phrase, 'Some writers suggest...' Your thoughts? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it really changes the situation, to be honest. Some people are presenting Elagabalus as trans, but the only academic quoted in that article pours cold water over the interpretation. Perhaps "writers" is too restrictive and we should just say "is seen by some people as"?

(PS. I chuckled at "It comes after classical texts claim"... quite a long time after!) Furius (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The decision might just deserve a mention, as the museum is itself deemed notable? Although there is currently no mention of Elagabalus at North Hertfordshire Museum. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The opinions of a Lib Dem councillor and those of a minor museum that consulted the lobbyist group Stonewall are probably worth less than those of a Cambridge professor? According to the Daily Telegraph:^[1]

Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, a Cambridge classics professor, said: “The Romans didn’t have our idea of ‘trans’ as a category, but they used accusations of sexual behaviour ‘as a woman’ as one of the worst insults against men.”

He added that, as Elagabalus was Syrian and not Roman, “there’s racial prejudice going on there too”.

JezGrove (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

+ new Cat: Category:Roman Emperors described as "trans" by North Hertfordshire Museum in Hitchin? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Uh, I don't think merely having an academic association with Oxbridge is necessarily a valid criterion for the citation of reliable sources, much as I cite their publications. For example, the case of Noah Carl being named as a St Edmund's College research fellow and then being sacked after complaints from students and staff about his writings on race and intelligence and on eugenics.

Then we have Canadian academic Jordan Peterson (!) announcing he was to be an unpaid visiting fellow at Cambridge's divinity school, but "the offer was later rescinded after an outcry among students and faculty members". Academics should be judged by their writings and their associations, but not by their mere association with particular prestigious academic institutions, at least for our purposes.

Just as a side note: not to be smart, but I think the face of Elagabalus in the lede photo has a resemblance to Sam Altman, who has my vote.;-) Carlstak (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a long way to contribute nothing. The specific professor being mentioned is a notable subject matter expert on Roman history: Andrew Wallace-Hadrill. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I know he is, I've heard him present. Carlstak (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2023‎ (UTC)

Comment: I would rewrite the entire article using feminine pronouns, as we have evidence that she referred to herself as a lady and a queen, which is laid out in WP:GENDERID: "We accept the person's latest identification of their gender, as documented in reliable sources, at face value." — IмSтevan ^talk 09:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

If you did rewrite it like that you might have to host it on your own website. The Ancient Romans had no real concept of transgender. Just like they had no concept of feminism, universal suffrage, nuclear warfare, moon landings, mobile phones, etc.? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

They also didn't call him Elagabalus in his lifetime. We use terms constantly for historical figures and events when those terms or concepts did not, in point of fact, exist at the time. English didn't exist at the time and yet we're not rewriting the article in Latin. If someone meets the modern definition of a modern term, it is not anachronistic to to discuss the subject using that term. My concern is whether the emperor does, in fact, meet the current definition of transgender. I don't think that he does. The fact that he is now viewed as transgender by a small minority of scholars is a fact and belongs in the article, but to pretend that Elagabalus lived as a self-identified woman (or another facet of the non-binary spectrum) is only supported by a single statement. That is more than balanced by the voluminous sources (including his own words) that refer to him as an supremely unconventional and outré man. Focusing the article on his gender identity (or even giving more than passing service) is, imho, clearly WP:UNDUE. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not sure I'd advocate writing the article in Latin. Tend to wholly agree with what you say. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Carlstak (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:GENDERID is an essay and is not the product of consensus. To the degree that it could be seen as applying in this case is to the degree I disagree with it. Marcus Markup (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I meant to link MOS:GENDERID, my bad — IмSтevan ^talk 15:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Please review the talk page archives. This matter has been discussed many times before. Furius (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I also would like the entire article rewritten with she/her and have wanted this for some time. The book Queer, There, and Everywhere by Sarah Prager (2017) refers to Elagabalus with she/her, noting that she said she was a lady. The North Hertfordshire Museum recently saw fit to do the same. https://outhistory.org/exhibits/show/tgi-bios/elagabalus does the same and also describes ways in which "Transgender behavior existed in Rome before and after Elagabalus." Based on this, I see stronger reasoning for "she" or perhaps "they" than for the automatic "he" that is currently used.

At the very least, the question of how to understand and describe this person's gender should be further discussed in the article, as it is an important area of historical and LGBTQ+ scholarship, with relevance beyond just this particular person. KhiyaliKP (talk) 03:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

We've discussed this and established that the scholarly consensus is that this is incorrect. On the coins and inscriptions that Elagabalus produced, he always uses masculine forms. If you use feminine forms on the basis of the account of a historian who was attacking him, you are misgendering him. We've discussed these points repeatedly. Read the talk page archives. Furius (talk) 06:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I've read the archive (it's a holiday in this country, and everything is closed). The discussions are a giant bucket of weak sauce. Anything hinting at transgenderism (like Dio or Herodian) is shouted down because ancient sources were slanderous and cannot be trusted. When someone points to a modern source, the cry goes up that we can only trust ancient sources. And absolutely no one calls people on it. It's quite amazing.

There is little question that she probably referred to herself in the feminine form at some points. Most historical sources have one or more references to E's use of feminine terms and behaviours, up to and including her desire to surgically transition to her chosen gender. And, no, it's neither misgendering nor anachronistic to use the pronoun that the 'Lady, not Lord' reportedly use in self-reference.

Transitioning the entire article to transgendered pronouns, however, does not appear to be supported by sources. She probably used feminised terms, but he unquestionably referred to himself in the masculine form on his own coinage. Those coins form some of the only incontrovertible evidence of how contemporaries viewed E, and likely how E actually viewed themself. It simply cannot be misgendering to use the pronoun that the person put on their own currency. Coins are not subject to posthumous propagandising by later historians intent on slandering his name or (literally and figuratively) emasculating his legacy.

That does not mean that the article as it stands is fair or balanced with exclusively masculine . As much as the singular 'they' acts like fingernails on the blackboard of my grammatical soul, it is in wide usage. I think it can solve some of the problems here. Reducing (not eliminating) masculine forms is simply good history. Scholarship increasingly sees E as gender-ambiguous during their reign. We use the most reliable sources when building and improving this encyclopaedia. We should follow that lead and back away from the increasingly isolated position that transgenderism (as a concept) is a purely modern construct. It's as silly as saying that the world was black and white before colour photography (want proof? look at the pictures!). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

There is no historical evidence of Elagabalus ever using female pronouns, while there is many (including in his own writing, coinage etc.) of him using male forms. This makes the use of male pronouns clear to me. Just to be clear: It is completely unimportant what transgender activists or organizations think of the matter, for a historical figure only the consensus among the history experts of the Roman Empire matters. Nordostsüdwest (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a list that I can reference of whose opinions matter vis à vis whose do not? Because we'll need a way to weed out historians who might be tainted by 'transgender activists or organizations'. From what I can find, the most recent scholarship on the subject is largely fascinated with this issue, and many scholars are questioning the patrimonios (or is it sanctimonious? I get them mixed up) view that E simply had to be unquestionably male. To be clear, I agree with the conclusion that feminising the entire articles is unsupported by RS, but the reasoning to get there is just more weak sauce. Were it not for the coinage, the arguments for he/him/his are no more convincing than that offered by ImStevan and others. If you have sources more recent than those demanding the re- (or mis-?) gendering of this ruler, please present them. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. In the same vain of assuming that "a historian was attacking and misgendering [her]" makes a claim invalid, you can also claim that historians were purposefully misgendering Elagabalus to censor their femininity, ie. avoid talking about what we today would describe as transness to raise them higher in the reader's eye — IмSтevan ^talk 15:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, thus the only reliable evidence we have is what E put on their coinage. There is simply no valid way to get around the ruler's use of masculine forms on the only artefacts that can be 100% attributed to them. If, as logic pretty well demands, everything else from Dio to Kinky History is equally suspect, we have to go with the one piece of evidence that isn't. Until something is offered to contradict that evidence, I'm afraid she/her/hers cannot be considered encyclopaedic. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

It also matters when most of the coins were minted, during the period in which they referred to themself as male or afterwards, since Elagabus presented as a man during their marriage to their wives, which spanned all 4 years of their reign — IмSтevan ^talk 17:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Now you've got me curious! Are there coins issues that use the feminine form from later in E's reign? That would definitely be a game changer! Please post the sources on that ASAP! Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I've dug up a bit on the net and we have coins dating right up until 222, date of Elagabalus' death. All coins regularly use Antoninvs. Here is an archive of Elegabus' found coins. I don't know if other users can present other sources, but I did find coniage of Elagabalus' female relatives, although it's more of a curiosity rather than being relevant to the discussion 82.59.87.111 (talk) 00:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems worth mentioning that, if trans, that would be a huge taboo. While the inner circle of politicians knowing is one thing, E might choose to mask as a man for things that the whole empire will see, like coinage. Benx45h (talk) 06:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, all of the coinage found to date bears the masculine name "ANTONINVS" and not the feminine name "ANTONINA". The other names found on coins for such people as Julia Maesa, Julia Soaemias, Julia Paula, Julia Aquilia Severa and Annia Faustina were used because they were women. I'd suggest that the more likely explanation for the use of ANTONINVS is that the Emperor was universally recognised as a man, not because he was masking his transgenderism. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm just saying though if I was trans in this emperor's shoes, I don't think I'd wanna change my name to Antonina. I can't speak for all trans people, but for some of us at least just going with the feminized version of the birthname feels a bit weird and cringe, so we go with something a little bit more different instead (my deadname isn't Mio). And furthermore if I was trans but also the emperor, I also feel like I'd be WAY too afraid to try to get everyone to respect that and print it on the coins for me.. Miamonteverdi (talk) 04:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Marcus Aurelius Antoninus is not a birthname. It's a regnal name, which emperor's choose for themselves. I also feel like ... aside from being an argument from personal experience, we're discussing an emperor who dethroned Jupiter from the Roman pantheon and replaced him with the foreign deity Elagabal; married and divorced a vestal virgin (anyone else would have suffered death for either of those acts); purportedly prostituted himself out at brothels (a story as dubious as many others by the classical historians); was openly bi-sexual; repeatedly provoked the whole senate; and ordered executions on a dime (eventually causing his own). Fear of ridicule is an untenable defense considering that resume. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

For Wikipedia's purposes, the only reliable sources are modern academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks. Cassius Dio, Herodian, the coins, and the inscriptions are primary sources and we can only use them for "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" (i.e. the Dio passage can only be cited as evidence that Dio says that Elagabalus said..."). Any sort of analysis/interpretation of what those sources mean must be based on secondary sources. Secondary scholarly sources overwhelmingly see the representation of Elagabalus' effeminacy as a literary construct - often an orientalist one intended to portray him as non-Roman by linking him to figures like Sardanapalus. E.g. M. Icks, The Crimes of Elagabalus (2011), esp. pp. 92-122; Mary Beard Emperor of Rome (2023) raises this story as an example of the "tall stories" told about emperors by historians in ancient times.

By the way, a set of scholarly opinions were collected in yesterday's guardian (here); obviously this isn't an academic, peer-reviewed publicaton, but it's significant that none of the academics were willing to say "Elagabalus was transgender" or "used feminine pronouns" or similar. Furius (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

See BBC piece "Museum reclassifies Roman emperor as trans woman." – Sca (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

This piece is already cited in the article; see the section Marriages, sexual orientation and gender identity. Also see the section pinned at the top of this talk page regarding gender. Funcrunch (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Not enough. If you won't change the used pronouns to she/her, atleast mention that she is believed to have been a trans woman rather than allowing the reader to assume she was a gender non-conforming man. 94.174.200.203 (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Evidence supporting this is dubious at best due to its source. Not to mention that the concepts of trans-genderism and non-binaryism are anachronistic. Elagabalus died aged 18 and there is not enough evidence to suggest that they were trans, or to support changing their pronouns in this article. As pinned above, the article will use male pronouns and follow the approach of scholarship and the historical consensus in this case. Julius (JuliusAlexander96) ^talk 20:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

JuliusAlexander96 already said why Elagabalus was (by historical consensus) not trans,(I dont feel that how I wrote that is right but you understand me), but that section explicitly disagrees with that he was trans, it doesn't just not mention it or make it unclear. So I believe the message that this section has is clear. (sorry if my message didn't come over clear, I am not a native speaker and am a little tired) 2A02:1811:B63B:900:94F5:D160:DF76:6F00 (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I have concerns regarding the writing in this article. I will be referring to the emperor using neutral pronouns, but I would like to make it clear that even though I personally believe this, I am not currently advocating that their pronouns be changed in the article.

From what I can see, I would argue that there are several examples that go against Wikipedia's principle of a Neutral Point of View. There are several claims for which the author(s) have not provided evidence. The NPOV article uses the example "[...] an article should not state that genocide is an evil action but may state that genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil". That is to say, a writer should provide the facts as they are known and cite reputable sources to support those facts, not make values-based judgements. The point of this principle is to provide unbiased facts and allow readers to decide for themselves how they feel. I believe this article shows bias, and I will provide a few examples that I believe line up with the above.

"His short reign was notorious for sex scandals and religious controversy", which is preceded immediately by a quote about Elagabalus's reign being during their teenage years. Mentioning their age at this point is jarring; it feels pointless and out of context, especially since it is mentioned later in the article in the context of a timeline of their reign, where it makes more sense. Because of this placement, one might read it as the author's feelings about how the emperor's age might affect the legitimacy of their rule, which does not allow space for readers to come to their own conclusions.

More importantly, this sentence is stated as though it were a fact but does not include a citation. The sentence claims their reign was scandalous and controversial, but does not provide evidence of these facts. I would propose that it should be written in a more neutral way which would then include necessary citations to back up any claims made (such as that the Roman Empire would have viewed their private life as 'scandalous'). Ideas could be to avoid using adjectives to describe things which may be controversial, or using in-line quotes directly from a source that say something similar. This would serve to show the reader how contemporaries felt rather than asserting it as though it were undeniable fact.

"The question of Elagabalus's sexual orientation and gender identity is confused, owing to salacious and unreliable sources" is another striking example. Which sources do you mean? Why are they unreliable? Do we have enough evidence of their orientation and identity to claim it is 'confused'? Was a survey done of their contemporaries or modern experts that asserted this? By whose metric would it be considered 'salacious'? This sentence is entirely weasel words. Not only is there no citation, but there is also no elucidation towards any of these assertions that links to this sentence. 2601:980:4200:D040:C03F:4C72:385A:A9DB (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Elagabalus has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add the following template:

98.228.137.44 (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I would be inclined to ask the editors at the ancient Egypt wikiproject to weigh-in. The emperors of Rome from Augustus onwards, aka the Roman pharaohs, had pharaohnic titulary and many depicted themselves as pharaohs of Egypt (Caracalla, Hadrian and Trajan immediately come to mind). They are also listed within the template as pharaohs. This period of Egyptian history, however, is outside my wheelhouse. The majority of my Egyptological sources omit the Roman emperors from their lists, ending it with the Hellenic period, though the Oxford History of ancient Egypt (2004) includes all of the ones whose titulary is known. Elagabalus and Severus Alexander are not among them. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I've raised the question at the wikiproject. This request needs some discussion. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I've commented at the talk page of the template; i really don't think it adds value to all the emperors' pages. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 20:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you User:Mr rnddude, for elucidating this. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I've put a note on the Wikiproject to centralise discussion to the template's talk page. I think it's the most relevant page, especially if the Roman period is removed from the template as being beyond the usually understood scope. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Elagabalus has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add Aurelius Zoticus to list of spouses. 2601:1C2:5100:3F30:66A1:66E:7819:E2B0 (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 10:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Elagabalus has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Fix quotes. 64.189.18.41 (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Elagabalus has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add an Oxford comma. 64.189.18.41 (talk) 23:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Elagabalus has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Fix quote to have it be ". Not ." For citation 64.189.18.41 (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done Charliehdb (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I was doing research into LGBTQ people with noble and royal titles, and I discovered the Category:LGBTQ Roman emperors. I'm aware that the gender identity and sexuality of Elagabalus has been widely debated, and so I was wondering if it would be appropriate to include Elagabalus in this catagory alongside Hadrian and Nero. Rylee Amelia (talk) 04:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

No, and I've removed the category from Hadrian as it doesn't appear to be discussed at all in the article. Nero should probably be removed too looking at the sourcing for the claim, but I will wait for someone with expertise on Roman historiography to discuss it. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, let me address the actual claim. All mentions of Elagabalus being sexually depraved derive from authors who have good reason to critique and ridicule him. Historians mostly disagree with the idea of these claims having merit to them and so we shouldn't apply a category here, as the category cannot be subjected to the nuance we can give in the text. This idea has been discussed before and I would recommend you read the archives to see prior discussion. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I looked through the archives, and I may be mistaken, but all of the discussions I saw pertained to Elagabalus' potential gender identity and things such as pronouns and gendered terms. I didn't see discussions surrounding categories. I felt that it may be important to include some LGBTQ categories because Elagabalus has been seen through a queer interpretation in some sources. Other historical figures with disputed identities such as Public Universal Friend are listed in LGBTQ categories. I understand why Elagabalus is interpreted as a man in the context of this article, but I feel that LGBTQ categories could assist some people who are looking into LGBTQ interpretations of historical figures, regardless of the consensus that may have been reached regarding Elagabalus' identity. I'm assuming the current state of the article is well intentioned, and this proposal is not meant to upset that. I often look through categories as a basis for research on certain topics, so I know there are some people that may benefit from this addition. Rylee Amelia (talk) 06:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:CATPOV and WP:CATLGBT would apply here. I am unfamiliar with the Public Universal Friend and what the scholarly consensus in regards.

>but I feel that LGBTQ categories could assist some people who are looking into LGBTQ interpretations of historical figures

We have a category on this page that does just that, titled 'Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed gender identity'. If you're looking for one for sexuality 'Category:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed sexuality' does not exist but I would recommend asking at Wikiproject LGBT Studies before creating it in case there is an existing category named differently. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I will do that. I think having one or more categories related to disputed historical identities would help a lot of people that are interested in these types of interpretations. Thank you! Rylee Amelia (talk) 07:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed sexuality seems like a good idea. Lewisguile (talk) 08:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I just created the Category:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed sexuality. Feel free to expand it if you'd like! Rylee Amelia (talk) 09:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a total OR and fringe magnet Golikom (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not OR if the article directly mentions it and has multiple sources to create context surrounding these theories. I feel you may be conflating your own personal beliefs on the validity of these claims with the function of the category, which is to recognize that the debate exists rather than give credence to the theory that Elagabalus may have been queer. Rylee Amelia (talk) 22:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The category as created specifies 'ambiguous or disputed sexuality'. Since the article has tons of RS debating that exact question, it's perfect. I would have had that exact objection to the LGBTQ tag which would be either OR or SYNTH – there is remarkably little evidence either way, but there is plenty of scholarly debate. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I see that Professor Mary Beard, in her BBC programme Mary Beard's Ultimate Rome: Empire Without Limit, largely attributes the questions over Elagabalus's gender identity to later historical propaganda. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Elagabalus has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Incorrect pronouns.

went by she/her for the majority of her life. Thisisabuckettf2 (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Misuse of edit-request for a controversial change. Please read the archives. There is a consensus among historians that this is false. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

This is that user's first ever edit, I wouldn't say that they're purposefully "misusing" the edit request system, they could be confused about how it works and that controversial changes must first have consensus. But yeah, Mr rnddude is right, and @Thisisabuckettf2, you should check the archives to see how this request is controversial and what the consensus of historians is on the pronouns for referring to this emperor. Fathoms Below (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

"the deity's Latin name, "Elagabalus", is a Latinized version of the Arabic إِلٰهُ الْجَبَلِ Ilāh al-Jabal, from ilāh ("god") and jabal ("mountain"), meaning "God of the Mountain",[26] the Emesene manifestation of Ba'al.[27]"

But the Elagabalus (deity) article gives an origin from Aramaic, not Arabic, from more recent and relevant scholarship: "or simply Elagabal (Aramaic: 𐡀𐡋𐡄𐡀𐡂𐡁𐡋 ʾĕlāhaʾgabāl[1])" 69.126.156.92 (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

That article states 'Elagabalus was initially venerated at Emesa in Syria, where the Arab Emesan dynasty acted as its priests. The name is the Latinised form of the Arabic "Ilah al-Jabal" ("إله الجبل")' Traumnovelle (talk) 04:39, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

The Elagabal article is contradictory, giving Arabic in the body and Aramaic in the lead.. This might be something to resolve there. Furius (talk) 08:27, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

This paragraph should be removed. The museum holds just a single piece relating to Elagabalus and there is no secondary coverage (at least in the article or apparent with a quick search). The whole thing is more of a publicity stunt than anything. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Which paragraph do you mean? But I agree with removing the sentence in the lead, as it's based on a single example of a very insignificant museum. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

In November 2023, the North Hertfordshire Museum in Hitchin, United Kingdom, announced that Elagabalus would be considered as transgender and hence referred to with female pronouns in its exhibits due to claims that the emperor had said "call me not Lord, for I am a Lady". The museum has one Elagabalus coin. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Unless there is significant good-quality secondary coverage, I agree it could be removed. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

But the current sources, from The Guardian and BBC News, are quite informative. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

This edit request to Elagabalus has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add Category:LGBTQ Roman emperors. SNdeC (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done Category:LGBTQ Roman emperors exists, but this article does not currently support its addition. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Editor added the category to a number of emperors; I have removed them as unsourced. Just having same-sex relations does not make one "gay"... then as in now, sex can serve many purposes other than demonstrating attraction or affinity. Marcus Markup (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

They're not "gay", they're clearly bisexually attracted. SNdeC (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

The text is very specific on his male relations. SNdeC (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Unless a source actually uses the term "lesbian", "gay", "bisexual", "trasgender" or "queer" (which is not the case here) I do not support using tags in bios labeling them as such. Marcus Markup (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Domitian, Galba and Caligula have all be given the same treatment, again, it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I saw that. As I am not an edit warrior, I am just going to voice my opinion here for now. Marcus Markup (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps I'll help you out, then. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Its probably slander that was made to politically discredit him. Most scholars do not trust these accounts as truthful and factual. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I guess Wikipedia should be getting rid of every single "LGBT" category that relates to history before the late modern age then. Imho it's beyond silly to remove this category unless it becomes a sitwide standard to not categorize historical subjects with "LGBT" ever, we all know that any and all same-sex sexuality is widely accepted as being under the LGBT umbrella these days and the articles are written from the POV of our modern academic writing. Regardless of if Antoninus was trans (which I don't believe personally) I don't see what reason there is for doubting he indulged in same-sex behaviour, which around half of classical Roman emperors seem to have done, including ones widely praised in ancient sources.★Trekker (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you could suggest such a removal. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

We shouldn't make contentious categorisations that were invented decades after a person's death based on sources known to have embellished details that likely existed solely to denigrate a person.

As Hemiauchenia points out most scholars treat these accounts with a heavy degree of skepticism which makes them inappropriate per WP:CATPOV and WP:CATDEF Traumnovelle (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Do the majority of scholards dispute that Titus, Domitian, Hadrian, etc had male lovers? Not as far as I know. Seems pretty well accepted that it wasn't unusual at the time and we even know several lovers names.★Trekker (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

This is the article for Elagabalus. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm well aware. The point still stands. Is there some consensus in academia that the claims that Elagabalus had male lovers is slander in this case? If not then the category should probably stay unless the category in general should just be gotten rid of entirely on the basis that "LGBTQ" is anachronistic for these persons.★Trekker (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, there is. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Really? Cause the article certainly doesn't seem to assert that there is a consensus that he was heterosexual and male lovers made up. It just states that the negative way he is depicted is slanderous. Queer men having their queerness used as a weapon against them doesn't mean that the queerness was actually made up.★Trekker (talk) 00:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

The accuracy of many primary Roman accounts (Suetonius, etc) is pretty questionable. Mary Beard has written extensively about this . Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes? I'm quite familiar with how ancient souces can be unreliable. Doesn't change that the common opinion among academics today seem to be that same-sex relations among elite men like emperors weren't that unusual. Unless there is a consensus that Elagabalus same-sex relations were just slander I don't see why the category must be removed (unless you believe it should be deleted in general on the basis of anachronism of the term "LGBTQ").★Trekker (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

It is right to be skeptical of the sources, but from a glance, it doesn't seem that the existence of his male lovers is questioned. The debate mainly revolves around the allegations of effeminacy, which is seen as exaggerated or distorted by Cassius Dio. But even then, his sexuality was reported by other contemporaries such as Philostratus and Aelian (), so it was not something completely fabricated by Dio. Soidling (talk) 03:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

It seems that Aelian made a habit of attacking men for being feminine? But "he never names Elagabalus explicitly"? I don't see Philostratus mentioned on that page. It seems he is mentioned widely in that source, but I couldn't find any example of him reporting on Elagabalus' sexuality. Perhaps you could provide another page for that? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Aelian's work is lost, but Philostratus, who names the work, reports that this invective was directed against the "licentious" tyrant (this is mentioned on that page ). Some fragments are preserved in the Byzantine Suda where Aelian refers to him as "womanish thing from Syria". While Elagabalus is not explicitly named, the identification with him is not questioned . So, together with Dio, we now have two (or three, if you include Philostratus) independent sources noting Elagabalus' sexual conducts as unusual. This does not mean the most lurid details reported by Dio are true, but it shows the stories about his sexual status were well circulated by his contemporaries , not something Dio invented from scratch. I think today there is an excessive tendency to disregard the sources when they are hostile to emperors. And even if you discount these stories, it is still widely accepted that many Roman emperors had male lovers, and Elagabalus is hardly an exception in this aspect. Soidling (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks for clarifying that. But Aelian seems to have made quite a habit of being outraged by feminine men? What would we add to the article, on the basis of that source extract, something like: "Philostratus reports Aelian as having made an outrageous speech, shortly after Elagabalus's death, condemning the Emperor for being overly effeminate"? This hardly gives us licence to then categorically label Elagabalus as LGBTQ? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Lack of masculinity was a common literary attack in the ancient world but Aelian's description has the connotation of "extreme effeminacy" according to Smith. It supports Dio's stories about Elagabalus, even if some of them are unbelievable as many noted. Honestly I do not care about the categorization one way or another. Having male lovers would count as LGBTQ, but this term could be an anachronism. Soidling (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, did Philostratus report Aelian as having said that Elagabalus had male lovers? I had assumed that you were bothered about the categorisation. But do you think the source you have presented warrants an addition to the article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't have issues with the categories and only wanted to counter the argument that the primary sources are all unreliable. The report that Elagabalus had male lovers comes from Cassius Dio, and is not mentioned by any other contemporary. User Traumnovelle says it is only a slander , but having a male lover was not unusual. Elagabalus' effeminacy is a separate topic and I mentioned Aelian and Philostratus just to show it was widely talked about in the period. Hope that helps. Soidling (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for introducing us to such good and interesting sources, which elevate the quality of this discussion. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks I'm glad to have this discussion with you. Cheers! Soidling (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)