Wikipedia:Featured article review/Elagabalus/archive2

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 1:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC) [1].

Elagabalus

Notified: WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because it was promoted in 2005, and it's now not up to FA standards. There are many unsourced sentences and paragraphs (for example the last paragraph of the Modern historians section doesn't have any proper source). There are also no uniformed source formatting. Then, the article relies too much on primary sources (Cassius Dio and Herodian), even the notoriously unreliable Historia Augusta (see for instance the section "Sexuality and gender controversy"; there are 9 citations to primary sources and only one to a RS (Grant)), despite the article saying this book is unreliable. I am not saying that these sources shouldn't be included in the articles*, but only with modern sources to back or criticise them. Therefore, the article patently violates 1.c (reliable sources) and 2.c (consistant formatting). T8612 (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

T8612 I cannot see where you gave talk page notification, per the FAR instructions, nor have you notified relevant participants or WikiProjects. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here. I didn't use the template, perhaps that's why. Original author retired in 2006. T8612 (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so Mr rnddude’s 2016 post can serve as talk page notification. I guess. T8612 could you please use the template to notify all of the WikiProjects tagged on talk? The goal is to find someone who might be interested in improving the article, and the template explains how the process works. It would have helped to notify Paul August because the tools show he has a 15-year history on the article, which he edited this year. SandyGeorgia (talk • contribs) 23:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Paul August and Llywrch who contributed on the nomination in 2005 are active on the Wikiproject Classical Greece and Rome. I didn't want to add to their busy talk pages. T8612 (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@T8612: Done what? I don't see where you've notified me? Paul August ☎ 20:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, I didn't notified you. As I know you read the Wikiproject. T8612 (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note for future reference: our goals with the notification are to cast a wide net to hopefully find someone to update the article, and give a brief idea of how the process works to people before they pop in here to immediately register a Keep or Delist. It is best to notify everyone even if you think they are following an article or a talk page because we can't assume anyone is aware or sees the nomination, and by posting to talk pages of editors, we may pick up some of their talk page stalkers, who tend to have similar editing interests. Another reason for being sure to notify is so the process is not slowed down. This nomination was ten days ago: should Llywrch or Paul August decide to work on improvements, we would now need to slow down the initial two-week period because they just found out about the nomination. And a final reason is that it can be offputting for editors to realize a FAR is going on that they weren't aware of ... short story: please always broadly notify using the template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, thanks. Paul August ☎ 10:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I made a comment to this effect in 2016: Talk:Elagabalus/Archive_1#Featured Article, serious concers (sic). I didn't take any action in regards to it at the time because I had limited experience with FA and its processes, though I knew there was a delisting process, and eventually it just slipped away. To summarize my comments then: 1) multiple unsourced passages; 2) over-reliance on primary sources; 3) use of unreliable sources (Historia Augusta in particular). Those comments are still applicable, particularly the last two. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that ancient historians use "primary sources" to mean "sources published in ancient languages". By their standard, a book published today on Shakespeare would be a primary source, since he lived just four centuries ago and we're also writing in English. Needless to say, this is not the definition of "primary" that modern historians or Wikipedia use. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Close discussion
  • Huh? The article needs work. Contribute away. Your comparison to modern writers discussing Shakespeare just isn't applicable here, that's all. I'm not sure what part of my comment is warning you not to edit the article? Mr rnddude (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that ancient sources should be avoided because they don't necessarily follow WP:RS practices. Arguably there are some that have a reputation for accuracy (e.g. Polybius), but still, if it's true and due it has probably been mentioned in at least one source in the last 200 years. Anyway the HA does not have a reputation for factualness or accuracy, quite the opposite. (t · c) buidhe 06:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least some of these issues seem relatively easy to resolve. For example, I just went through and updated the section on Elagabalus's sexuality/marriages to replace the ancient sources with modern ones which provide more details (and which look to additional evidence for e.g. the timeline of the marriages and divorces, which I added based on those modern sources). In turn, I'll try to standardize the article to consistently use a single citation format and sfn templates later if I have time (or is there a gadget/script for this, like reFill?). -sche (talk) 08:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is possible to easily save the article, unless you want to rewrite it entirely. As I pointed out, several sections rely on primary sources, and once you dig a bit in secondary sources, you see that there are often many different interpretations among modern historians. Elagabalus was vilified in ancient sources and they make it especially difficult to tell what really happened. If you want to rewrite the article, the first step is to include information from Martijn Icks, The crimes of Elagabalus : the life and legacy of Rome’s decadent boy emperor, published in 2012 (seven years after this article became FA), and Andrew G. Scott, Emperors and Usurpers should be cited throughout the article [Icks and Scott seem to be the two main modern sources]. Imo, the section on religion should be expanded; there must be one on his "black legend", and another on the role of women (his mother and grandmother). I also don't think you should remove all the primary sources, but put them in context. T8612 (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do. I've now also revised and ref'ed the Family and Priesthood stuff, so it's supported by modern sources (including modern sources evaluating the ancient sources), removing a few things I couldn't find sources for, and adding some info where there's uncertainty among modern historians, e.g. over precise birth year. (I agree it wouldn't be appropriate to remove all mention of the ancient sources, but replacing the direct citations of them as <ref>s with citations of e.g. Scott's and others' summaries of them seems appropriate. In the section on marriage, I left in-text attributions i.e. "Cassius Dio states that...") -sche (talk) 06:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, (it's reasonable no-one notified me, since I had not previously done major work on the article that I recall, but) as far as the mention above of slowing down timelines: after I chanced to notice the FAR on the 14th, I've been revising the article, having at this point reworked the "Family" section, rewritten the first half of the "Rise" section, and revised the "Marriages" section, to cite modern sources and note places where there's uncertainty/disagreement among or noted in them. I'll probably make another pass later and trim a thing or two for which I was only able to find a single not-as-high-quality modern source to replace or compliment the period source it had been sourced to. -sche (talk) 10:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The FAR Coordinators will always relax time constraints when work is underway; please keep this page informed of progress ... thanks for digging in! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've almost finished revising the "Rose to power" section (I just need to update the last paragraph to follow and cite modern sources). I substantially rewrote the first paragraph of the "Emperor" section, which had simply parroted the loaded (unencyclopedic) language of the ancient primary sources, but now gives an overview based on Scott (who evaluates/discusses a lot of other literature). (The rest of the section will indeed need rewriting, as others noted above, which I will work on.) I also started to edit the section on Dio-as-a-source, to mention places where modern biographers like Scott and Icks note that Dio's accounts are wrong or internally inconsistent. -sche (talk) 10:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will look in when you are closer to finished; thanks for the work and the update. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Progress update, I rewrote more of the section on Elagabalus' emperorship (about half of the first subsection, having previously done the "Marriages" subsection). User Julia Domna Ba'al expanded the modern history section and added a bit to the section on the Augustan History, and replaced many of the primary source citations with Icks and other secondary souces. :) User Avis has made various improvements. The other half of first subsection on emperorship, the "Religious controversy" section and the "Fall" section remain to be redone (I am getting to them, or other editors are obviously welcome to beat me to it). (Once the body has been rewritten, I figure the lead can be revised at that point.) -sche (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've stayed out of this review because I disagree with one of the criticisms of this article: I have no problem with citing primary sources in history & biographical articles, as long as it is done properly. (And example of "properly" would be to present what the primary source says, then secondary sources to explain what needs interpretation or correction. Another would be to discuss the issues with the primary sources: not only their accuracy, but how thoroughly they cover the period; quality & quantity both need to be addressed.) After all, people access these articles to aid their research, which we can help by providing pointers to these primary sources.
And as I read this article, I see that this is not the direction this article is going, & from other comments believe that it would be a needless conflict to try to push this article in the direction I prefer. (After all, I am not a FA regular, & Wikipedia is not finished; there will be a time when I can prove that I am right on this with minimal conflict, & I am content to wait.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I didn't ask for the removal of ancient sources though, just the addition of modern sources to comment on them. Typically, I would prefer to see something like this: "The Historia Augusta tells Elagabalus did that, but modern historians have rejected this.(ref HA) Smith thinks Elagabalus did this instead, while Brown suggests it was that.(ref Smith)(ref Brown)." That said, it's just my preference too. T8612 (talk) 02:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The HA cannot be cited for 'modern historians have rejected this'. When modern historians state what the HA says, there is no need to rely on the (unreliable) HA. If modern historians don't state what the HA says, then it should not be cited, as it does not meet WP:RS. (t · c) buidhe 03:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. This is simplistic reasoning. For one thing, the primary sources for Elagabalus include more than than the Historia Augusta. There is Dio Cassius, whose fragments is the principal authority for this period; he is augmented by Herodian, who is not as sound as Dio, but his text helps to fill in the gaps; & there is the evidence of coinage & inscriptions -- a quick glance at the Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae alone shows six addressed to Elagabalus, & a more careful survey of the corpora would doubtlessly reveal many more relevant items.
Another matter is that, despite modern research, the statements in the Historia Augusta continue to haunt the non-specialist conception of his reign. Edward Gibbon cites from the HA in his monumental work -- who recounts the emperor's hetrosexual promiscuity while keeping his homosexual activities to a passing mention in a footnote. (I have to wonder how much it influenced similar accounts in such popular accounts such as H.G. Wells' The Outline of History or the Durant's The Story of Civilization.) And the HA provided much of the material for Elagabalus' legacy.
Lastly, one cannot lightly dismiss the Historia Augusta with one word & ignore it. Students of this period of ancient Rome are faced with a deficit of materials, & are forced to look wherever possible to make up the difference: whether wise or not, they plumb its fantasies in hope of uncovering some fragments of information that might cast more light on the subject. Which is why the HA remains a controversial primary source, & not one on which judgment has been passed, found wanting, & condemned to the darkness. -- llywrch (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just adding to what Llywrch said because of a notice on CGR's talk page. In historical topics, particularly pre-modern history, it's generally necessary to include everything of significance that the historians/chroniclers/antiquarians of the era had to say on the topic—except to the extent that some details are duplicated ad nauseaum by minor sources without any meaningful difference (i.e. Florus briefly alludes to something that Livy, Dionysius, and Plutarch cover in detail, without providing any additional information or a different perspective). After all, without these accounts, modern historians wouldn't have anything to discuss! All modern sources on important Roman figures begin with what ancient writers had to say, and move on from there. That includes the Historia Augusta, because as unreliable as it may be about many things, it also records a great many things that actually happened, and is frequently more expansive than any other source. To the extent that something in the Historia Augusta is contradicted by other writers or careful analysis of historical details, or dismissed by modern historians for other reasons (and there may be disagreement on such things), that in itself is extremely relevant to the article, especially to the extent that one's view of the subject may depend on which parts of the Historia Augusta one chooses to credit or dismiss. P Aculeius (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Sandy, I don't think I'm able to contribute much here. Paul August ☎ 12:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One of the main things that I use wiki articles on Greek and Roman subjects for is checking what the primary source for a given fact is when I can't remember the reference. If you take the primary source references out, this article becomes substantially less useful to me. Furius (talk) 03:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that Aza, and some other editors to lesser extents, have made some more significant improvements to this article after other events called my own attention away. If there is concern about the list of works in the "Legacy" section, it could just be dropped, with individual works that have significance readded (perhaps as prose rather than a list) individually. In general it cites modern sources now. (If there is concern that the classical sources should be re-added alongside the modern citations, it seems like users wishing for that could help with doing it...) -sche (talk) 01:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist inconsistent citation format, does not consistently cite high quality RS as required by FA criteria. In the lead, questionable emphases are given to 18th and 19th century historians, and parts of the Legacy section do not have sources. (t · c) buidhe 01:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what you mean when you say 'questionable emphasis' given to older sources. There's two citations to older sources in the lede and they're both for quotes that support the statement that Elagabalus held a particularly negative reputation with writers of the early modern age. Ideally though, there shouldn't be citations in the lede. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buidhe I think your first two statements are worth clarification here. I'm seeing ~5 primary sources, all used in reasonable context, where the author is quoted directly or referenced in the text itself. Likewise I'm see 3 citations from a 1911 source, 1 from 1966, and the rest from newer sources, at the moment your characterization fails to convince me. Aza24 (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps some things have been fixed since I made my comment. However, the Legacy section still tries to give an excessive list of works mentioning him, most of which are unsourced. "In popular culture"/Legacy should be discussed in prose rather than listing (t · c) buidhe 00:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I don't have much to say about FA criteria; I don't know enough about the process. The article is not perfect by any means, but I think it has been much improved. The wives and family members still need attention. GPinkerton (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: The article may be of GA status now, but not good enough to retain FA status. For example, citation formatting is still inconsistant, with at least three different formats. Then, several questionable sources are still there (eg. Livius.org is interesting, but not a RS; An Encyclopedia of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Culture by an "amateur historian"; Cohen and Babelon [notes 106-107] are now outdated (1892 & 1886)...).
I am also concerned by the removal of primary sources and their replacement by modern sources. I think that because of the large discrepancies between the two, it would have been useful to keep the primary sources. For example, in the lede you have the sentence "He was also reported to have prostituted himself." with a citation to a modern source, which implies that this sentence could be true. However, when you look at the source it says that it is a "tale" coming from the Historia Augusta, a notorious ancient source full of made-up stories. In the section "Religious controversy", the text follows the narrative of Cassius Dio and Herodian as if it were historical truth, while the main source cited here (Icks) is more careful about the things told in this section ("Of course, we should keep in mind that Dio was probably more interested in portraying the emperor’s religion as ‘weird’ than descriptive accuracy, which calls his remarks into question.", p. 54). You have to go down in the section "sources", to find comments on the reliability of ancient writers.
Finally, the fourth paragraph in the lede should go. The statement "considered by some historians" is strange, considering I only see one ref, which doesn't support this claim. T8612 (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also remain frustrated by the removal of the citations to ancient sources. As mentioned above, I find that this makes the article substantially less useful to scholars, students, and the general public. Of course they should always be accompanied by references to secondary sources that explain how to interpret them, but they should be there (cf. Wikipedia:PRIMARY). On the other hand, I'm not convinced that livius.org isn't a reliable source; the entries on it are produced by reputable scholars and it is usefully easy to access. Furius (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources, when accompanied by modern scholarly sources interpreting them, are extremely useful, and should be included. Paul August ☎ 21:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I wonder whether WP:PRIMARY should be amended for ancient history (or periods for which most academic literature relies on very few sources) and say that important primary sources ought to be mentioned alongside secondary sources. T8612 (talk) 03:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't worry too much about primary sources. Sure, you could use some to state mundane facts, but what matters only is that the article as a whole is factually accurate and uses good secondary sources. Wikipedia doesn't need to be, as someone said above, "useful to scholars, students": an encyclopedia builds upon their work, not the other way around. Anyway, in a couple of years the copyright restrictions for Elagabalus's RE entry will lapse, someone will transcribe the original text to Wikisource, and all the relevant primary sources will already be stated therein. Avilich (talk) 23:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I began standardizing the reference formatting (just formatting – I wasn't apart of the primary vs secondary debacle) and there's only a little left to be done there. I started referencing the "legacy" (now changed to "cultural references") section, but found it rather tedious and seem to have forgotten about it. Frankly, I'm not convinced the legacy/cultural references section should exist at all; it is perhaps the essence of WP:TRIVIA, and I would strongly encourage that (if others agree) it be removed entirely. I will reiterate what -sche said above, that those who are promoting the use of ancient sources, should feel free to reinsert them along with the secondary sources now in place themselves. As far as promoting or demoting, from solely looking at our other FA roman emperors, Augustus and Domitian, this one just stands no where near the sourcing, prose and comprehensiveness unfortunately. Aza24 (talk) 07:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If anything is done, it should be hived off to Cultural references to Elagabalus, rather than just removed. Johnbod (talk) 11:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support that. And, must we have eleven images of coins? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The ones that are portraits of Elagabalus seem useful, maybe even the ones that are portraits of family members whom nearby article-body text discusses, but I have no objection to removing File:INC-2961-r Ауреус. Элагабал. Ок. 218—219 гг. (реверс).png, File:Baetylus (sacred stone) on four-horse chariot.jpg, File:Baetylus_(sacred_stone).jpg or File:INC-1854-r Ауреус Элагабал ок. 218-219 гг. (реверс).png. -sche (talk) 07:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I object to not having at least one coin of his namesake the black stone. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 07:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also think the baetyl should be retained. As it was I that added many of the coin images, I defend the inclusion of the coin reverses along with the obverse portraits, though I admit that some could be removed. I would prefer the family members' images (usually reproduced on their own pages) be sacrificed in favour of those images directly related to Elagabalus and his reign. Perhaps instead the coins should be grouped into multiple image templates? GPinkerton (talk) 07:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reverse/obverse is not my concern; that there are just too many coins is. They aren't aiding understanding of the topic; narrowing it down to an illustrative view will. SandyGeorgia (Talk)
I struck above and changed my mind on how to handle the Culture references section. The problem there is the listiness and the extreme segmentation, giving UNDUE emphasis to a cluttered Table of contents. All of that could be prosified to, rather than seven sections, seven paragraphs. See similar concept at Lewy body dementias#Notable individuals, where different paragraphs are used for different industries, to avoid listiness and separate sections. This allows for retaining the content without having it appear to take over the article as TRIVIA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A minor matter: why does the infobox list Elagabalus' wives as "supposed spouse"? The main body gives no indication that the existence of the marriages is in question. Furius (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't read the article as meaning that Elagabalus and Hierocles were really married, but if that is not clear then it should be strengthened in the text. DrKay (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per everything which has already been said: questionable sources, inconsistent citation format, and questionable excerpts. That this review wasn't immediately set aside, and indeed has been going on for months, reinforces the merit of the arguments for delisting. Avilich (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Avilich since this review has been going on for quite a while, could you please point out specific instances of where those are still present in the article? For your comment to be actionable, editors need to have specific examples of what you want fixed, and the article is not the same article that appeared at FAR months ago (for better or worse). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The citation style is, as I said, inconsistent: here and there you have shortened footnotes, over there you have full citations, and sometimes full quotes in a single footnote. Footnote no. 124 is a lazily set up link to an archived work. Questionable excerpts include the 4th paragraph of the lead, for whose removal a compelling case has already been made above. The *Cultural references* section is basically a set of baldly listed cultural works with very little discussion of the emperor's role in each, their importance, and how these reflect the emperor's image transmitted through history. Obviously a detailed discussion needn't be set up for each cultural reference, but that section equally must be more than a simple catalog of every cultural trivia on Elagabalus produced over the centuries up til now.

    As for the sources, this has likewise already been discussed above and the problem still persists. You have Babelon and Cohen which are showing their age (though I'm not against keeping them if their relevance to the article can be demonstrated), and others which are plainly suspicious and inappropriate such as Encyclopedia of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Culture. There's also a very broad-covering Untimely Deaths by Assassination, which one may safely conclude is at least unimportant to the article.

    Overall, Elagabalus simply does not feel like a FA, whether you're simply skimming or actually reading. Yes, it's changed these past few months, but a FA isn't made or maintained by belated tweaks here and there in response to a threat of it losing its status. Problems remain, and it seems natural inertia rather than the article's quality is the reason why Elagabalus hasn't lost its featured status yet. Delist, let someone improve it, and only then submit it again. Avilich (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Aza24, update? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry Nikkimaria, I should have been clearer above, I think we should delist, as I said above As far as promoting or demoting, from solely looking at our other FA roman emperors, Augustus and Domitian, this one just stands no where near the sourcing, prose and comprehensiveness unfortunately. – even if I continue fixing ref formatting, we still have significant prose, comprehensiveness and high quality source issues that I'm not equipped or motivated to deal with. Aza24 (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As this article is locked, can I leave it to someone else to add the 2001 song Heliogabulus by Scottish singer Momus? A bonus track on the album Folktronic, it was rededicated to Donald Trump by Momus on YouTube in 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folktronic_(album)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Elagabalus/archive2&oldid=1001921081"