The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
Elagabalus is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rome, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the city of Rome and ancient Roman history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomeWikipedia:WikiProject RomeTemplate:WikiProject RomeRome
This article is within the scope of the Roman and Byzantine Emperors WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Roman and Byzantine emperors. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Roman and Byzantine emperorsWikipedia:WikiProject Roman and Byzantine emperorsTemplate:WikiProject Roman and Byzantine emperorsRoman and Byzantine emperors
The gender identity of Elagabalus is a contentious topic and has been raised here before. The most radical claim — that Elagabalus claimed to be a woman and wanted confirming surgery — came from a historian who was also a public official, and answered to the same people who condemned Elagabalus's memory. This article follows the prevailing approach of scholarship by regarding those claims skeptically and thus uses masculine pronouns.
Before requesting a change related to this topic, please review the talk page archives. These are available through the header at the top of this page, which is visible only on large-screen devices. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 ([2]), so it was not something completely fabricated by Dio. Soidling (talk) 03:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [3]). 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 [4][5]. 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 [6], 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [7], 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
Not done Category:LGBTQ Roman emperors exists, but this article does not currently support its addition. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
