Talk:Elagabalus/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Pronouns

I would like to reopen discussion of the pronouns used for Elagabalus. I think that using "they" would be the best option to maintain WP:NPOV, as we can't go back in time to ask them if they were Cis or Trans, while also not contributing to Trans Erasure. EnviousDemon (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Don't we need to follow respected academic sources? Or are they all now out of date? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia follows the convention used in reliable sources. Sources like Icks[1] (2008), Dunstan (2010), Goldsworthy (2009), Grant (1996), and Varner[2] (2004) use male pronouns – I reference only a handful of sources that I've used, there are a plethora more which do too. Which is why we (as in Wikipedia), use male pronouns also. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Despite what the sources say, Elagabalus' gender identity is in question, and nobody can definitely say what pronouns they used. EnviousDemon (talk) 03:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

We LGBs went through our “Gays in History” phase, designating figures like Hadrian and Plato as “gay.” It appears that the transgender community is now going through something of a “Transgenders in History” phase of its own. Believe me, you’ll get over it—though you should have learned from our foibles. It’s unsettling that one’s foibles were gratuitous. We learned that sexual orientations and identities are rather recent phenomena that can only anachronistically be applied to the distant past. The same is true of transgender and corresponding identities. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

It is not Antinoos. The reason that many LGBTQ Figures in history are not identified as such was due to past attitudes including penalties like death, up until decriminalization in the west. My argument is, that several historians used He/Him pronouns to describe Elagabalus due to social conditioning to not even consider that Elagabalus experienced any gender dysphoria (or, past transphobic attitudes these authors might have had) and chocked up his actions to them being "insane" (which, I will concede that a lot of what we know of them comes from Cassius Dio, who had a negative opinion of the emperor.), rather than how they identified. Multiple times, as can been seen in the sources cited by the article, that Elagabalus attempted to find a surgeon to preform gender reassignment surgery, and preferred to be refered to as a woman. This is why I think, in the best interests of WP:NOPV that the pronouns be changed to refer to Elagabalus as they/them, in order to not outright confirm/deny any theory about their gender identity. EnviousDemon (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Is there any written evidence that he was referred to using the neutral gender in Latin? Or indeed that any man of that time was ever so referred to? But perhaps that doesn't matter if Elagabalus thought himself to be a woman. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the argument of "but sources gender them this way" is disrespectful to trans people are are misgendered. EnviousDemon (talk) 01:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

See OCD (online), s.vv. “homosexuality,” “homosexuality, female”; BNP, s.v. “homosexuality.” The same sort of thing is true of transgender: it’s not an ancient phenomenon. Antinoos69 (talk) 03:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Cool so. What of reliable, repeatedly published, historians who not only refer to Elagabalus as using she/her pronouns but argue that is in fact the correct way to refer to her and most (if not all) prior sources were letting their own biases color their recording of history? Do we just discard those articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.84.28.250 (talk) 06:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Are you going to present any? (or very preferably, several quality sources to show a weight of supporting opinion) Mr rnddude (talk) 11:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

The one that immediately springs to mind is Anna Burns' "Transgender Lives in Ancient Rome: The Case of Empress Elagabalus" though I am sure with sufficient digging others can be found. I believe she cites at least one other in her paper. Said paper can most easily be found at https://www.spectrumsouth.com/transgender-lives-empress-elagabalus/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.84.28.250 (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

The immediately obvious to me are: 1) Anna Burns' is not a historian, let alone a repeatedly published one and 2) This is an opinion article by a guest contributor to a start-up magazine (point me to its original publication if it has one).

Reading through, I spotted multiple errors. In 217 CE, a high-ranking civil servant murdered the emperor in an attempt to usurp the imperial throne - No. Macrinus employed a disenchanted soldier to murder Caracalla, he did not commit the act himself. Moreover, even Dio concedes that he did this to save his own life, moreso than to acquire the throne. Elagabalus’ mother spread rumors that Elagabalus was the child of the late Caracalla in an attempt to restore the dynasty, putting her daughter forward as the true, legitimate heir to the empire - No, again. Elagabalus' grandmother (Julia Maesa) spread the rumours, not his mother. After engaging the forces of Marcrinus at Antioch on June 7, 218 CE—where Elababalus herself was involved in a cavalry charge, and proved herself victorious in battle—she declared herself empress - False. The cavalry charge was led by Gannys (who secured the victory), while the army was rallied by Julia Maesa and Soaemias Bassiana. If you need citations to these, you can review the citations on Caracalla, Macrinus and the Battle of Antioch (218), which I researched and re-wrote; or you could pick up Dio's work, which is what most of Burns' article appears to be based on, and check it yourself.

Regarding the argument she presents. She took the name Marcus Aurelius Antoninus ... – As an aside, this is a purely masculine name, which the author concedes Elagabalus took of their own accord. Why? Yet, even here, there are historiographical issues, as the primary sources available are very biased ... - Which is why historian's treat Dio's and Herodian's opinions with caution, e.g: [a]dditionally, as Eric Varner would discuss in their book Transcending Gender: Assimilation, Identity, and Roman Imperial Portraits, attacking an individual’s sexuality and gender was common in Roman life. Burns, for whatever reason, throws these cautions to the wind and takes Dio's work as gospel truth.

It's clear that Burns has an amateurish interest in history, and that is best exemplified here: One of these, Marius Maximus’ biographies, is lost to time, but was used as the primary source for Aelius Spartianus, Julius Capitolinus, and Vulcacius Gallicanus’ Historia Augusta, published one to two hundred years after Elagabalus’ death.

As a final note: ... I am sure with sufficient digging others can be found - You should not need to dig to present basic information. There's a dozen or so sources presented as a bibliography at the end of the article, a handful of which are recently(ish) published, reliable sources. I wonder what stance they take. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, hard to envisage a more robust and detailed argument for not using Anna Burns as a source here. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

"Yet, even here, there are historiographical issues, as the primary sources available are very biased ...", except his (masculine) name is actually written on surviving coins, it's not based on written sources. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that the page says that she was considered as one of the first trans people so why keep the pronouns he/him? If she was indeed one of the first trans people this would be misgendering her. If you don’t actually believe she is trans then at least remove where it says that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C56:4100:20F:B5D5:2301:5C32:E21E (talk) 22:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

She tried to get a vagina and specificly went by lady, she used a female title for her self, so wouldn't she want female pronouns to be used for her, I think we should abide by what she wants. Luna The Creeper (talk) 07:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Luna The Creeper, if Elagabalus did say that and we have a first person account of it then Wikipedia will follow. Source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia Domna Ba'al (talk • contribs) 14:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Due to wikipedia's status as a neutral encyclopedia, and a general rule of thumb that opinion should not interfere with that, I have elected to change the pronouns used to they/them, as it can be used when you aren't entirely certain of someone's gender. This has a large amount of precedent both online and off for a gender neutral use of they them.

if anybody disagrees with my decision, I ask that we talk about it here rather than a snap revision. Hyperwave11 (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Disregard. just caught up with the looong standing arguments. Hyperwave11 (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I would like to add that as per MOS:IDINFO we should "Use gendered words only if they reflect the person's latest self-identification as reported in recent sources.". Since Elagabalus self identified as a woman, she/her are the appropriate pronouns. Crockett623 (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Source for Elagabalus self identifying? What's their twitter handle? Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 11:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

It's like you literally cannot comprehend how the Wiki has several sources linked right fucking inside of it. 50.125.254.22 (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

None of the sources cited anywhere on Wikipedia originated from Elagabalus. Which, if you're claiming Elagabalus's 'self-identification', then you're going to need Elagabalus to be the source. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The guidelines mention that biographical articles should use, to quote the relevant part, "gender self-identification as reported". It needs to be reported that someone self-identifies a certain way. There's no need to hear it directly from the person's mouth or see it written in their handwriting. The important thing is that someone spoke or wrote about it who is a reliable source.

The question here is not whether Elagabalus allegedly self-identified as a woman or not; it is indeed so alleged by various sources. The question (as raised by some of the other editors) is whether those sources can be taken as reliable given the bias they seem to show against Elagabalus. For all we know, it could have originated from an attempt at defamation.

It seems likely that Elagabalus did indeed self-identify as a woman. The sources that exist cast sufficient doubt on their gender identity that we cannot simply dismiss them. But "seems likely" is not really a basis for coming to a conclusion... So either way, using gendered language puts us at risk of misgendering Elagabalus, until (if ever) a conclusion can be reached on the reliability of those sources. 86.95.191.32 (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Hear, hear. We should all celebrate sources which are right fucking, I say. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

A major issue here is that the primary sources, notably that of Cassius Dio are renowned for showing clear bias against the Emperor: therein lies the question of whether this information is actually correct, or is merely a smearing of their name– unfortunately we may never be able to answer this. Scholarly sources tend to agree with this angle, and usually verge on either just he/him or tend to skirt on they/them. Unless proof beyond reasonable doubt, or a plethora of reliable sources confirm that Elagabus was indeed identifying as Female, I believe either of the following should occur:

• Option A: Retain He/Him
• Option B: Switch to They/Them

I believe either of these two are acceptable. She/Her would not be a very good idea at this point in time, as it is still in debate and is a tad controversial. Pax Brittanica (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

If you switch to they then you should do the same for every human that didn't identify themselves. Against option B. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 06:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

If the scholarly sources use he/him because they didn't recognize trans-ness as a thing, but the oldest sources have Elagabalus asking to be called a woman, does that not leave sufficient ambiguity? This is clearly a special case. Viddog (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe neither of Options A and B are acceptable, especially not B. Imho the best alternative here would be:

• Option C: Avoid use of pronouns in the article.

You can see other examples of this at Category:Articles tagged for avoiding gendered pronoun usage. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

That also works. Pax Brittanica (talk) 10:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• Option A (with a healthy dollop of Option C, where appropriate) is the the only option consistent with current scholarly sources, and therefor is, by policy, the only available option for Wikipedia. Paul August ☎ 15:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I have to echo the above sentiment to just avoid the use of gendered pronouns altogether. The page for Marsha P. Johnson, for instance, does this because Johnson gave different answers about their gender identity throughout their life. I think this avoids both possible transphobia while maintaining Wikipedia's neutrality. ArcticAres (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

English: "Call me a lady", he said. Latin: "Voca me dominam", inquit.

English: "Call me a lady", she said. Latin: "Voca me dominam", inquit.

Funny old language Latin, wasn't it (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Given that the article already includes references to Elagabalus' being "seen by some writers as an early transgender figure and one of the first on record as seeking sex reassignment surgery", there seems to be more than enough ambiguity as to whether or not Elagabalus was transgender to warrant using gender-neutral pronouns. If a living subject of a Wikipedia article were to self-identify as transgender, the pronouns would be changed, and yet we have reports of female self-identification of Elagabalus from several independent sources. These sources are, of course, imperfect, hence why I believe gender-neutral pronouns would most accurately portray the available information on this figure. Put simply: there's considerable ambiguity surrounding Elagabalus' gender identity, and the pronouns of this article should reflect that. Reverberations of a bell's sound (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

If tabloid magazines claimed someone was a transwoman but they identified themselves publicly as masculine in all publications, would wiki change the pronouns? I don't think so. But since current scholarship seems to be not totally decided on the issue, the Marsha P. Johnson solution might be the best for npov. Furius (talk) 09:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

We have no evidence to support the use of he/him pronouns. We have evidence to support the use of she/her pronouns Extremely Annoyed editor (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

How about we just avoid pronouns when possible, excluding things such as quotes, it's for the best of civility — Preceding unsigned comment added by AuroraCzjelovaskaja (talk • contribs) 12:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I concur. Replacing pronouns with 'Elagabalus' would satisfy all parties. FitzInAFritz (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so, that would just lead to unnecessarily clunky wording. The word "they", however, is gender neutral, isn't a mouthful, and doesn't outright contribute to trans erasure as "he/him" would. RockEaterBo (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Whoopee cushion

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. Colonial Computer 04:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Pronouns

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)

It's about time for [She / Her] Pronouns

"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)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2022

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)

Add Category, Ancient LGBT people

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)

Masculine pronouns are inappropriate for this article as long as there are sections dedicated to Elagabalus' gender identity

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2023

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2023

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2023

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)

One Museum is now labelling him as a trans woman

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)

Elagabalus' name incorrect

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)

Ambiguous

"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)

Possibility of a "Legacy" section needed?

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)

No evidence of Arab ancestry

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)

Text removal

@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 [3], 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 [4]: "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 [5] 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:

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)

References

Gender

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)

Bias

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2024

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2024

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2024

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2024 (2)

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)