Talk:Joshua A. Norton/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE. [Except, maybe, to knock down the extreme indentation on this page!]

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 2001 and May 8, 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Please add new archivals to Talk:Joshua A. Norton/Archive02. Thank you. —wwoods 03:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Contents 1 The "beauty" of collaborative editing 2 Location 3 Early Misc. Discussion 4 Fighting article degeneration, or just better rewriting skills? 5 Naming of article 6 Title numerology 7 NPOV 8 Edits by Nunh-huh 9 Authority 10 Nunh-huh's edits - what to do? 11 Use of the term "Emperor" 12 Baptised? 13 Long Live Emperor Norton!

The "beauty" of collaborative editing

I first read this article when it became a featured article, and it was much better then. Whoever felt it necessary to repeatedly indicate that Norton's edicts were mostly unobserved and put quotes around everything has done the rest of us a disservice. An article about Norton should include humor, and does not need to repeatedly put "Emperor" in quotes in fear that the audience consists of complete and utter, helpless, useless idiots. Also, the page is in the wrong place. People would know who "Emperor Norton" is; almost no-one will recognize "Joshua A. Norton." I daren't move the page myself because the length of this talk page seems to indicate it's been discussed enough already, and some humorless void who insists "because Norton was not actually coronated Emperor, as a reference work Wikipedia must repeatedly state so, in order to avoid misleading our readers, who are rock-stupid" will revert the page to make absolutely clear that we do not believe Norton had vast temporal authority. --Vivacissamamente 10:18, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's a direct result of Wiki's style of collaborative editing. Kind of like Harrison Bergeron, anything that attempts to rise above the general-accepted standards of mediocrity rapidly gets beaten down once it starts to draw any attention at all (and being a "featured article" sure does draw attention). Also, any article that takes anything like a political stance on anything, even if it's just to make fun of Politics as usual MUST be suppressed. And many folks seem to be quite allergic to humor as well.

This is one of the occasional situations where a specific team of authors can craft a far, far better article than the Wikipedian "any one can edit anything" strategy. --Atlant 13:20, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Location

Also, the page is in the wrong place. People would know who "Emperor Norton" is; almost no-one will recognize "Joshua A. Norton."

This is more-or-less handled by the fact that there is a "redirect" located at Emperor Norton that takes people to this article. We could debate which article title should take pre-eminence, but for the reaons I cited above, I'm loathe to do that. --Atlant 13:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it's really sad. I did what I could. --Blacklite 00:47, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Early Misc. Discussion

Emperor Napoleon III is not called 'Louis Napoleon' very often, and 'Napoleon III' generally follows or precedes that, check Google. Adding 'Napoleon III' would be the least, perhaps just use it instead. (although there was no other Emperor Louis Napoleon of course, and the link redirects)

---

Was this guy emperor of the United States or just San Francisco? I remember hearing about him at the Worldcon in San Francisco in 1993. --JohnAbbe

The United States. And there's also that Protector of Mexico thing. --KnightofNEE 02:14, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

---

Would the person who keeps making drastic changes to this page stop claiming them to be a "minor edit"? Label them as a major edit so I can see what you've done in the differences panel. I can't be bothered going through with a fine tooth comb to evaluate every change you've made, and as I am displeased with enough of them I am forced to simply undo everything and reinstate my previous version.

Please read the text before you edit - some of your changes fundamentally alter what is being said, so they are not "minor edits". --MMGB

---

I removed the picture, linked from here because it was probably copyrighted. Sorry if I was wrong. --Democritus

Norton died in 1880, and the copyright horizon is 44 years later in 1924; I don't see any way in which a photo of him could be copyrighted unless it was involved in some sort of derivative artwork.

I restored the photo. Not only is it nearly impossible that a photograph of someone who died in 1880 might still be under copyright, the site it is from explicit says "zpub is not interested in asserting copyright interest for uses that are not commercial in nature", and I'm sure they would view us that way (although we are, strictly speaking, a commercial enterprize, I think their intent matches ours). --LDC

---

His decree was not properly observed by the rebellious politicians in Washington.

This sentence seems demeaning to me. It's as if the author is chuckling to himself as he types this. That's just my impression. Mabye rebellious could be changed or omitted? I would have done this myself but wanted a consensus from the rest of you. --DryGrain 22:23, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

While this alternative government is an enemy of the empire, it holds the country together while we find a successor to Norton the Great. ;-) Just leave it. --Woodrow 22:25, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Fighting article degeneration, or just better rewriting skills?

Rewrote the lead to state things as they ought be. Thanks. Comments welcome. --SV(talk) 01:06, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Naming of article

Emperor Norton was not an emperor, a monarch, or an official of the United States. As such, his article belongs under the name he was known by: Emperor Norton or Joshua Norton or Joshua A. Norton, not a name that Wikipedia conventions would dictate if he had actually been a monarch of some kind! Accordingly, I've moved it to Emperor Norton from Norton I of the United States, and corrected the opening lines. --Nunh-huh 00:14, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

These comments are typical of the type of disrespect with which republicans treated the Emperor during his lifetime. All loyal citizens of the Empire will be shocked at your effrontery in continuing this campaign of vilification against a well-loved ruler long after his death. Shame on you! -- --Derek Ross | Talk 00:23, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why is the article title just plain "Emperor Norton"? As he was emperor, it should conform with other articles on royalty, and be "Norton I of the United States". If he wasn't, then it should be under "Joshua Norton", which I can understand. But "Emperor Norton" is just silly.

And by what virtue do you say he wasn't emperor? Convention seems to be self-designation, see. Crown Prince Alexander II of Serbia and Yugoslavia, Baldwin I of Constantinople, etc. I think it should be moved back. --Xiaopo's Talk 00:20, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Careful - there are a lot of double redirects that now need to be sorted out. I got stuck at the second redirect from Joshua A. Norton --> Norton I of the United States --> Emperor Norton. --Arwel 00:21, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, moving it to Emperor Norton messed up the redirects -- there's actually a couple of triple redirects there! Try clicking "What links here" to fix it, though I still think it should be under Norton I of the United States (certainly not "Emperor Norton"). --Xiaopo's Talk 00:25, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) (sometimes I feel I'm the only one who's read it) says to use the most common name in English as the title of an article. This is neither Joshua Norton nor Norton I of the United States, as far as I am aware; it is Emperor Norton. --Hephaestos|§ 00:28, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

His Majesty has a title, so we should be looking at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) instead. --Xiaopo's Talk 00:30, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I believe all the redirects are now fixed. Norton, of course, had no titles. --Nunh-huh 00:32, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why not? As far as I can see, no one has shown that he didn't reign over the US. In fact, the Chronicle referred to him by his royal titles, as is shown in the article. --Xiaopo's Talk 00:34, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Refusing to accord His Imperial Majesty the full rights an honors of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) is an implicit recognition and endorsement of the illegitimate Washington regime and is therefore POV.--Jiang 08:50, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time telling. Are you actually serious? --Nunh-huh 20:00, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This discussion is rather silly. He wasn't a monarch, so the rules of article naming for monarchs don't apply. --Proteus (Talk) 22:01, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

He was not an actual emperor so Norton I of the United States is ridiculous. He should be at Emperor Norton. --john k 03:24, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In what sense was he not an emperor? People seem to keep claiming this without any evidence, but it may be that I've just missed something here. --Factitious 05:26, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

You certainly seem to have missed something, somewhere. In what sense do you think he was an emperor? --Nunh-huh 05:32, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

According to the article, he was recognized by restaurants, newspapers, census records, police, the theatrical community, the army, and, indeed, the general population of San Francisco. I don't know the exact requirements for being considered an emperor, though, which is why I was asking if there's cause to think that he didn't count in some way. In what sense do you think that he wasn't an emperor? --Factitious

Are you for real? He was not the Emperor of the United States because there is no Emperor of the United States, and he was, of course, not seriously recognized to be Emperor by those you note - they just humored him, and found it amusing to refer to him as emperor. --john k 00:16, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

He wasn't the Emperor of the United States because there is no Emperor of the United States? I hope you won't be offended if I say that that argument doesn't seem very compelling. --Factitious 00:40, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Not offended at all, just continually amazed. Yes, I would say that a minimum requirement for being an emperor is to rule an empire. --Nunh-huh 00:43, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The United States, as an entity, is defined by the US constitution. The US constitution does not provide for an emperor. Ergo, there is no Emperor of the United States. Furthermore, we do not acknowledge people like the Comte de Chambord, whom many thousands of people believed to be King Henri V of France and Navarre with an article title acknowledging that status, because Chambord never made good his de jure claims to the French throne. If we are not to acknowledge the Comte de Chambord as King Henri V, how on earth can we acknowledge a random lunatic as Emperor of the US? --john k 01:11, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Emperor Norton" may be most common, but it is also very misleading and thus cannot be used. Quote from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Don't overdo it:

In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading (For example: "tidal wave" would be a misleading title since these phenomena have nothing to do with tides), then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative (tsunami, for example).

So I moved this article back to the well-accepted alternative. --mav 05:04, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Title numerology

I remember reading, when I first learned about Emperor Norton, that he had declared himself Emperor of the US, Protector of Mexico, and King of the Jews. Now, that was probably in a Robert Anton Wilson novel (or maybe the Principia Discordia), but does anyone know if that was true or not? From a purely comic angle, three is the magic number... just saying....

Actually, it's not in the Principia Discordia, and if it was, five would be be the magic number. However, 2+3 = 5 so you might be onto something! :) --Tezkah(talk)

NPOV

I enjoy a good laugh as much as anyone, but let's be serious, here—given the recent exposure to this topic and taking into consideration our existing credibility problem with the mainstream, passages beginning with "After examining a number of his Imperial Edicts, it is tempting to conjecture the mental condition of America's only sovereign monarch" have no place in an encyclopedia claiming to adhere to NPOV. --A. D. Hair 06:36, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I think this article shows that articles "written by committee" don't have to be dull as dishwater. I think the article makes it clear enough that Norton was a kook and explains his life more or less accurately, it's just the phrasing of some things that might be a little over flowery. However I think that's in keeping with the nature of the article. Just because Wikipedia is trying to be a more respectable source of information doesn't mean that we have to write every article with the same flat tone. Even Samuel Johnson's famous dictionary defined lexicographer as, "A writer of dictionaries; a harmless drudge that busies himself in tracing the original, and detailing the signification of words." A little humor, appropriately done, won't hurt anyone.

... Anyhow, that's just my thoughts on the subject. If a significant number of people want to rewrite the article to make it more serious, I guess I won't interfere, but I think I will decline to contribute to the effort. --Carl 09:46, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand—I'm not arguing for a blanket dullinization of the article's tone, but rather the elimination of certain especially jocular passages and a general refactoring for professionalism. One should also keep in mind that not all Wikipedia readers speak English as a first language, and some may have difficulty distinguishing fact from joke. --A. D. Hair 10:23, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

I've noticed that there seems to be a subsector of the Wiki community that seems to believe that all humor (or even a light-hearted spirit) is wrong in any article. I'm not sure if that's the case here, but I haven't yet read a guideline that says that Wiki must be uniformly and unrelentingly serious. (And if anyone knows differently, please feel free to provide a link.) I think this sort of article (where we're dealing with a character who was, at heart, at least a little ridiculous) is the perfect place to maintain a light-hearted approach that Norton himself would probably have approved of. --Atlant 01:12, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Another article in a similar vein is Official Monster Raving Loony Party, which deals with its seriously silly subject with just the right degree of seriousness - it's a genuine political party, but its history is also genuinely funny. --Arwel 02:19, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Official Monster Raving Loony Party is exactly in line with what I'm talking about. Lighthearted, to be sure, but not at the expense of factual accuracy. --A. D. Hair 07:06, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Mark me down as finding the tone to be striking the right balance of humor. Eliminating humor in the interest of making it easier for a non-English reader to understand is not practical. And, if using the easiest English is the goal, then we should first greatly reduce the amount of idioms in Wikipedia. Most anyone reading this article will understand the jokes and why they are there and, as far as I can see, the jokes are indeed in service of the facts. --Trick 02:54, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And by the way, this is a featured article. This means it went through much peer review and other scrutiny. I have to say I think Austin's POV, while maybe neutral, is decidedly in the minority. --Trick 02:54, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One more thing - I just read the NPOV article - I can't see anywhere where humorous passages are considered NPOV. I could see an argument for bad style but I don't see how the POV of this article is not neutral. I'd like to see an argument put forth on this if we are to keep the NPOV tag. --Trick 03:02, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Once again, it's not the humor I'm objecting to—wry comments and subtle irony of the form you'd find in an academic paper guard against dry reading—but to call Mr. Norton "America's only sovereign monarch" expresses a point of view that isn't even factually accurate (and neither is it intended to be). A native English speaker will probably catch on. That's not to say everyone will.

And yes, this was a featured article, but it's been edited several times since, and I know I'm not the only one to merely skim FACs. Granted, I may be in the minority, but it's a concern I felt should be raised. --A. D. Hair 06:51, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's a great article. The introduction makes it clear that he was just some guy, I think, who was a little unusual. I like how it's written. It isn't the most serious thing in the world, but I don't think 'neutrality' has to mean 'complete seriousness'. There is no bias involved in humour. I think Mr Hair had a good point, that it did need to be discussed, but I think (now that we've heard from a few people) it looks like this falls in the category of NPOV. --Blacklite 07:27, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The article takes exactly the same stance the city of San Francisco did - not to dispute the Emperor's claim to his position, simply to work around it, and allow everyone to marvel at how well it works out. Isn't that precisely what's remarkable about the man - that just by saying so, he was the Emperor of the United States, and Protector of Mexico? Why would we not call him America's only sovereign monarch? As far as I can tell, that's exactly how he was treated by those around him. --GTBacchus 07:41, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One reason not to call him American's only sovereign monarch would be that he was neither monarch nor sovereign. --Anonymous 07:50, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry you see it that way. I say he was. The world in which there was once a crazy man who claimed to be Emperor of the US, and a few people humored him, and the world in which the US once had an emperor to whom no one paid much attention, except for a lot of San Francisco, and the Queen of England, are the same world, from the outside. The difference between the two.... but let us not discuss religion. --GTBacchus 03:23, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The joke is established in the first paragraph. No one reading the lead has any reasonable chance of misunderstanding that he was not actually Emperor of the US. In fact, very few people in the literate world would misunderstand, Wikipedia article or not. Neutrality is not being violated and neither are the facts. Again, if they are not an English speaker and we are trying to make sure they understand, the joke is not the biggest barrier - idiomatic english is, and that is ubiquitous on Wikipedia. I think calling this NPOV is a mistake - this is, at best, a copyedit problem in clarity. --Trick 17:09, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it's about style, not about POV. If someone wants to just edit the offending sentence, I'm sure they'll do a good job... --GTBacchus 03:23, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Based on all the previous, I've removed the 'disputed' warning from the article. I think if anyone has issues with humour and style, they should be raised in here, on a specific basis (e.g. I think this sentence is too tongue-in-cheek, etc.), or just edited, and we can debate about the changes if we feel they're debatable.

I think I'm going to attempt a couple of changes myself, even. --Blacklite 07:46, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Okay, how about:

Joshua Abraham Norton (January 17, 1811–January 8, 1880), also known as His Imperial Majesty Emperor Norton I, was a celebrated citizen of San Francisco who famously proclaimed himself Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico in 1859. He made a number of proclamations throughout his reign. Despite the fact that he was never recognized by the U.S. Congress, currency issued in his name was honoured in the establishments he frequented, he corresponded with Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom, and he was addressed as His Imperial Majesty by local citizens and in the front-page newspaper obituaries announcing his death.

(second and further paragraphs as current)

--Blacklite 08:28, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd suggest an emendation of that:

Joshua Abraham Norton (January 17, 1811–January 8, 1880), also known as His Imperial Majesty Emperor Norton I, was a celebrated citizen of San Francisco who famously proclaimed himself Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico in 1859. He made a number of proclamations throughout his "reign". Although he never actually held any position of power or authority, currency issued in his name was honored in the establishments he frequented, he corresponded with Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom, and he was addressed as His Imperial Majesty by local citizens and in the front-page newspaper obituaries announcing his death.

(second and further paragraphs as current)

as the point is not whether he was "recognized by Congress" but that he in fact never held any position of authority or power whatsoever. I'd also suggest 'honored' rather than 'honoured' as this is an American rather than British subject. --Nunh-huh 01:03, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, he seemed to have the power to have currency issued in his name honored in establishments he frequented (a power none of us has), the authority to dispel angry mobs (which I don't have), etc. Why call them sneer quotes unless you're sneering? What makes you want to sneer in this case? What did Emperor Norton ever do to you? I agree that "honored" without the 'u' is appropriate. How about:

Joshua Abraham Norton (January 17, 1811–January 8, 1880), also known as His Imperial Majesty Emperor Norton I, was a celebrated citizen of San Francisco who famously proclaimed himself Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico in 1859. He made a number of proclamations throughout his reign. Although his authority was never recognized by the United States Government, currency issued in his name was honored in the establishments he frequented, he corresponded with Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom, and he was addressed as His Imperial Majesty by local citizens and in the front-page newspaper obituaries announcing his death.

(second and further paragraphs as current)

I agree that it really isn't about Congress as such; it's about the fact that his reign occurred simultaneous with and despite the continued governing of the US by the usual suspects. Then it's up to the reader whether to agree with the US Gov't or with Emperor Norton. Does anyone really think that the article as it stands is confusing anyone? --GTBacchus 17:20, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I call them "sneer quotes" because that's the only name I know for them. If they were hand gestures, they'd be "air quotes"<g>. The use of the word "reign" without them is wrong, as he reigned over nothing— which is no reign at all. So the paragraph needs to indication this, if not by sneer quotes, by use of some word such as "self-proclaimed" or "purported". Personally, I think the quotes are better. (You and I, by the way, can certainly make proclamations that have as much effect as Norton's, and might well have the power of leaving an I.O.U. at our favorite restaurants, and though we can not correspond with Queen Victoria, we certainly can correspond with Queen Elizabeth II...) --Nunh-huh 20:09, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think in GTBacchus' version it is quite clear that he reigned over nothing, as you put it. The quote marks weaken the point in the same way that unnecessary adjectives weaken a sentence; I think they should be left out.

You may be able to leave an IOU at your favorite restaurant, but can you give some random person off the street an IOU which they can use to pay their tab at your favorite restaurant? Norton could. It occurs to me that the money he issued is a decent example of local currency. --Zack 20:55, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From Quotation mark: "Ironic quotes are sometimes called scare quotes or sneer quotes." Well, I've learned something today.

Now, ontology is complicated. In some sense, which some may find ridiculous, Joshua Norton was Emperor of the United States. If he had no other power or authority, he had the power to inspire people to recognize him as such, albeit usually in small ways, and usually only those people who had some direct contact with him. He had a power that causes people, more than a century after his death, to say, "in some sense, he was Emperor." Norton is considered a saint (by those who consider him a saint) because he makes enough people question what really is "real"; what makes someone "really" Emperor? That is something that none of us is going to do, no matter how many IOUs we write. I'm having a hard time articulating this, because I think it's already screamingly clear, between the lines, which is exactly where such explanations belong, but I'm sure that has a lot to do with my own disposition.

To be very direct, he didn't reign over nothing. His reign was over the hearts and minds of those who chose to consider themselves his subjects, and that was real, as is made clear in the article. Otherwise, he was just an insane bum who has no reason to be remembered.

I've said what I have to say, so lest I beat a dead horse, I'll hush up and let someone else edit the paragraph, using whatever version they like. Peace. --GTBacchus 23:02, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Reigning" over hearts and minds is quite a different thing than what makes an emperor an emperor, which Norton was not. Using the former sense in this article is at base deceptive, and the purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform, not deceive. There is no sense in which Norton was actually "Emperor of the United States", ontologically or otherwise. The fact is that Norton became famous because of the immensity of his delusion—a mental illness that made him appear audacious—not because he ruled over anything. --Nunh-huh 01:31, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sitting in a cafe in North Beach, I say thank you and applaud your essay on the ontology of Norton's reign. This may be the best thing I read on a talk page yet. --Trick 00:41, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm with Trick. Er, not in a cafe, but.. you know. However, this is a messy issue. We should probably avoid the use of the word 'reign', if it is so controversial -- and I do understand Nunh-huh's point(s). So, here we go again:

Joshua Abraham Norton (January 17, 1811–January 8, 1880), also known as His Imperial Majesty Emperor Norton I, was a celebrated citizen of San Francisco who famously proclaimed himself Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico in 1859. Although his authority was never recognized by the United States Government, currency issued in his name was honored in the establishments he frequented, he corresponded with Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom, and he was addressed as His Imperial Majesty by local citizens and in the front-page newspaper obituaries announcing his death.

(second and further paragraphs as current)

Really, in retrospect, that short sentence about making proclamations during his reign was really quite redundant of me: if you agree that he's was an emperor of sorts, of course he made proclamations; if you don't, he didn't. (Now, I wonder if I can work GT's short essay in the article somehow.) --Blacklite 08:21, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Allow me, some months later, to applaud Bacchus as well- that was an excellent expression of what power and government are all about; not guns or constitutions or weighty law tomes, or patents of nobility or intricate genealogies and warehouses of ammunition- it is about people. --maru 23:53, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Edits by Nunh-huh

Many of your edits strike me as fairly far from NPOV esp. toward the end. And I don't believe you added anything of value and, in fact, detracted substantially from the quality of the article. Why strip the article of all humor? Esp. when the article with humor intact was chosen as a featured article? --Trick 22:45, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's not "humorous" for an encyclopedia to pretend someone was something he was not. A better word would be "misinformative". Not lying about what he was is an addition of value. I'd be happy to address any specific concerns you have about fairness, if you'd care to detail them. - Nunh-huh 00:56, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC). Addendum: please don't just mass revert. This is an encyclopedia article, not a humorous essay. Humorous essays are fine, but they don't belong here. --Nunh-huh 01:07, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And why did the Wikipedia community vote to make this a Featured Article, whimsy intact? Your assertion is decidedly in the minority. --Trick 07:03, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Once being a featured article doesn't make it always a featured article. Standards change, and articles go on and off the featured list. --Nunh-huh 19:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No surprise, but I disagree. I think these recent edits don't make it more NPOV, do make it less NPOV, do detract from the quality of the article, and mostly have the effect of insulting a revered historical figure with unnecessarily negatively slanted language.

Not slanted. Factual. Whimsy is no substitute for fact. It's not negative to say he wasn't an emperor: he wasn't. It's not neutral to say he was an emperor: he wasn't. --Nunh-huh 03:21, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

He called himself Emperor Norton. Others called him Emperor Norton. The gravestone maintained for him by the city of San Francisco identifies him as Emperor Norton. The census listed the occupation of Joshua A. Norton as "Emperor".

How many legs does your dog have, if you call a tail a leg?: Answer: four: calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one. Calling someone an emperor doesn't make him one. His obituary headline called him a king. Was he a king too? --Nunh-huh 20:05, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This semantic argument is a dead-end. I am not convinced by your rhetoric, nor you by mine. I say titles are determined by their usage; you say they have a priori definitions. I say that "Emperor of the United States" means what people have used it to mean; you say that there is some a priori definition of "emperor" that is not being met. We seem to be at an impasse. --GTBacchus 23:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

He did something others don't - he walked around presenting himself as, and being acknowledged by those around him as, the Emperor of the United States. It seems to have worked for him as a livelihood; he was fed and clothed. You may not like the common name for his position in the world, but the most standard appellation given to it (by authorities as well as private citizens) is "Emperor of the United States".

Yes, it's an innovative approach to begging. But it's not being an emperor. --Nunh-huh 20:05, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I repeat myself: It's not being "an emperor" according to the usual use of that word. It is precisely being "the Emperor of the United States", according to the usual use of that title. --GTBacchus 23:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now, you may say the United States hasn't got an Emperor. Well, that may be so now, but it once did. It turns out that the position of "Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico" involves doing precisely what Joshua A. Norton did. Who knew?

You can say that my argument is patent nonsense, but it'll take more than you alone to say that such an accusation is NPOV. --GTBacchus 10:41, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No reputable historian considers that the United States had an emperor. That's more than me. --Nunh-huh 20:05, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Read more carefully. You find a reputable historian who says that my argument is "patent nonsense", and I'll find you three who say it isn't. --GTBacchus 23:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No reputable historian considers that the United States had an emperor. --Nunh-huh 19:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Norton's reign was unchallenged. It was sort of inconsequential, unless you consider the effect it had on those who find him inspiring to be a consequence, and I do. There's nothing misinformative about calling it "unchallenged".

It wasn't challenged because it wasn't a reign. --Nunh-huh 03:21, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Like I said. Unchallenged. Ok, "unchallenged" does carry a drop of whimsy in its flask. He was no threat to the usual US government. Of course they didn't bother him. What's the point? He wasn't hurting anyone, so let him rave. I'm not opposed to whimsical language in Wikipedia, as long as it's accurate. Since his reign was not challenged by any of the entities that he is documented interacting with (the census bureau, the newspaper, the City, the police department, the restaurants and theatres, the citizens of San Francisco, the Queen of England), then "unchallenged" does appear to be an accurate adjective, even to the point of remarkableness and inclusion worthiness, IMHO. Isn't the degree to which he was unchallenged (acknowledged, even) precisely why he is remarkable? --GTBacchus 10:41, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nobody is being misled. "Inconsequential" is borderline.

His "reign" had no consequences. That's pretty much the definition of inconsequential. --Nunh-huh 03:21, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you're going to be very literal, then you might as well be very precise, too. Just what counts as a consequence? The dictionary just has a "consequence" as an effect, any effect. He clearly had an effect on those around him, and continues to have effects on people today. Or is it that there was no "reign", so it can't have had consequences? All anyone means by "Norton's reign" is the time during which he was the guy who called himself "Emeperor of the United States". He held that position and exercised the little amount of power it entailed for just over 20 years. That's a reign. Its consequences include the article we're arguing about now. The Emperor of the United States is a small and largely powerless position, it turns out. C'est la vie. Still beats ordinary poverty. --GTBacchus 10:41, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Except there was no such position. --Nunh-huh 20:05, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There manifestly was. Why are you so jealous of the word "emperor" that it can't be incorporated into someone's title? --GTBacchus

Because words have meanings. --Nunh-huh 19:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

...When that's the title by which he went? In order to make your point, you need to explain why the common usage of a title is less important than the respective etymologies of its constituent words. An encyclopedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. Calling Norton "Emperor of the United States" is consistent with the common usage of that term. --GTBacchus 23:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Calling his reign delusional is POV, and I, being of sound mind, disagree with it in the strongest possible terms. This is equivalent to editing the article on Christianity by inserting "delusional" in front of each teaching. Why not say "inconsequential, unchallenged, and some would say delusional..."? Why is the perspective that says that Norton was just insane and wrong the only valid perspective? Why are the people who say that he understood something deep about reality also wrong? What is the position of "Emperor of the United States" other than what the only self-proclaimed Emperor showed it to be?

Norton wasn't Christ, and Norton wasn't an emperor of anything. If he thought he was emperor of something, he was delusional. I have no problem with qualifying "delusional". But it's not "some" who would say he was delusional, it's "most". That some people use Norton's delusion as a starting point for their own musings on the depths of reality says nothing about what Norton thought or understood, and there's no evidence Norton had any epistomological axe to grind, or any thoughts about epistomology whatsoever. --Nunh-huh 03:21, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that Norton wasn't Christ. I was aware of that. Plenty of people (more and more) would say that anyone who calls himself the Son of God is delusional, be he Jesus of Nazareth or someone else. Plenty of people would agree with you that Norton was delusional.

I get the impression that Norton realized that his position was unacknowledged by the majority. He knew that Congress still operated, oblivious to his decrees. He seems to have observed that the army didn't move at his command. He knew that his sphere of recognition included a certain limited part of the world, and he spent his time there. In that limited space, he was acknowledged as Emperor, in word and deed, by low and high, and he enjoyed the privileges that he saw fit to exercise, as Emperor. Apparently, that's what it means to be Emperor of the United States. Not much in the way of real power, but the people are kind and respectful, and the capital city is beautiful! Doesn't sound like a bad job for a washed up immigrant, and somehow, he made it work.

Now what is delusional about that? What substantive fact was he wrong about? Careful - by substantive fact, I don't mean "he wasn't Emperor", because it should be clear by now that "Emperor of the United States" is a term that is defined by usage, and its only significant usage that I know about is that of describing the occupation of Joshua A. Norton. Besides, that's not substantive, it's semantic. The guy did alright for himself, by doing something clever with words. He called himself Emperor, acted like it, and got people to go along with it. He wasn't a very successful emperor, as far as political power goes, but he would be far less charming had he been. --GTBacchus 10:41, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A term which falsely implies that it is something which it is not is an inaccurate term and can't be used without explanation. You argue that "Emperor of the United States" is synonymous with "Grandiose San Francisan Supported By the Largesse of Others". That's a remarkable proposition, and can't be tacit. --Nunh-huh 20:05, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Without explanation? That's just what everyone else is saying here - the entire article is an explanation of what is meant by "Emperor of the United States" and his "reign". Sure it's a remarkable proposition. He was a remarkable man! That's the whole point! --GTBacchus 23:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Another thing - saying that Congress did not "ignore" his proclamation regarding their dissolution is a piece of rhetorical legerdemain unbefitting this project. "Which Congress and the U.S. Army ignored" is true, accurate, and not misleading. --GTBacchus

It wasn't brought before them to address or ignore. To ignore an order, you have to be aware of it. To be an order, it has to be given by someone with the power to give it. --Nunh-huh 03:21, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Webster's appears to support you on this one. They have (after five definitions about "order" in the sense of what "order" things go in, or "order" vs chaos) "6. An authoritative indication to be obeyed: COMMAND" "Authoritative", then means, "Having or arising from proper authority: OFFICIAL". Hmmm. If I have to argue that Emperor Norton constituted "proper authority", given the orders he was issuing... then I'll refrain from doing so in this context. --GTBacchus 10:41, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To suggest that Norton had the authority to order congress to do anything is ridiculous. Those who would maintain he was an emperor must hold Congress to be deposed and the Constitution of the United States to be a dead letter. Why do you stop short of this? --Nunh-huh 20:05, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Because we choose our battles in this life. I'm not certain I'll get anywhere with you; I certainly won't get that far. I'm a realist. I realistically see that the office of "Emperor of the United States" didn't involve the authority to enforce his decrees. Therefore, I can say that Norton's correct title was "Emperor of the United States", and still recognize that Congress and the Constitution are effective.

You keep running up against some a priori definition of "emperor" which you haven't spelled out, but which you are using to reject the title "Emperor of the United States", in the face of common usage. --GTBacchus 23:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Which, of course, had no effect" contains editorializing ("of course") which is contemptuous in tone. The same contempt is evident in the word choice "delusional". I say that has no place in this article.

I don't mind losing an "of course". --Nunh-huh 03:21, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You say that, and yet the current version of the article has three instances of the phrase. I object to each one on identical grounds. It contributes nothing but a sneering tone, which is POV. --GTBacchus 23:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Again - the article, as it stood before the recent edits, is not misleading. Any intelligent reader gets a real clear sense of what happened, what Norton's powers were and were not, and why he is a remarkable man. With the new edits, the reader gets the sense that Wikipedia endorses a perspective according to which he was a sad, insane fool. Point me to a policy page where this is stated, and I will withdraw my objection; until then I say "POV". --GTBacchus

The previous version called him an emperor. It's fine to quote him calling himself an emperor, but Wikipedia should not call him an emperor. He wasn't. --Nunh-huh 03:21, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As before, Norton was the Emperor of the United States and the Emperor of the United States was Norton. That was his official...

-Official! Recognized by what office? --Nunh-huh 19:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, there's the US Census Bureau, which listed his occupation as "emperor". It's not clear what wording was used by the Board of Supervisors of San Francisco when they bought him a new uniform, but that's not impossible to find out. The city of San Francisco maintains a grave for him, on which they had his title "Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico" carved. Whatever office of the city was responsible for that seems to consider it the appropriate title with which to mark his final resting place. So there's at least two offices. If the correspondence from Queen Victoria was addressed to "Emperor Norton", and it was delivered to Joshua A. Norton, then the Postal Service recognized his title, too. (This is the same proof used by Jimmy Stewart in Miracle on 34th Street!) GTBacchus 22:26, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

designation, and the powers he successfully exercised were the powers of that office. If you don't see the brilliant truth of that, then I guess you never will, and I'm sorry. I wouldn't call him "an emperor", because that noun is generally understood as applying to people like Caesar and Kublai Khan and Tamurlane. I would call him "the Emperor", because there only ever was the one, of the United States, and this entry is about what it means to be just that, as the term is used. --GTBacchus 10:41, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Except you will not find a single reputable historian who would agree with you that there was an "Emperor of the United States". --Nunh-huh 20:05, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Define "Emperor of the United States". I think you'll find that your definition conflicts with the accepted use of the term. --GTBacchus 23:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The quote marks around each instance of "Emperor" and "decree" are further unnecessary spite and disdain. Especially around "decree". Where on Earth is it written that the word "decree" can only apply to proclamations emanating from those of "actual" political power? That's just mean-spirited trigger-happiness. Ugh! --GTBacchus

A decree can only be made by someone in a position of power. Norton had none. Calling someone who is not an emperor "Emperer" requires an indication that it is incorrect. --Nunh-huh 03:21, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is plenty of indication, in every paragraph of the article, that Norton was not an "emperor" in the sense in which that word is usually used, for other emperors. Adding in the scare quotes does not improve clarity, which was already entire. It does add a tone of disdain, and such liberal use of ironic quotation marks is stylistically bad. --GTBacchus 10:41, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(The quote marks around "Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico", on the other hand, seem fine to me.)

Your edits of the section on Legitimacy and debate are especially POV, mean-spirited, and unacceptable. You do not tell me what I believe and what I don't. I do not tell you what you believe; do not tell me. Do not tell me what my religion is, or that I'm "pretending" about my beliefs. I do not wish to believe that you are an actual bigot; please do not force me to. --GTBacchus

Consider your insults dignified with a response, then. --Nunh-huh 03:21, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That was actually: A description of your edits (which I maintain). An order. A statement of fact (which I maintain and pledge to maintain); another order. Another order. An honest statement that I do not wish to think ill of you, a request that you maintain civility, the last with a not-so-veiled threat of possible insult.

I have no business calling you a bigot in this forum, or threatening or alluding to do so. I apologise for that. I'm sorry; that was very rude of me. --GTBacchus

Well, that would be the insult then, wouldn't it? --Nunh-huh 20:05, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Call it what you will, I apologize for being rude. I apologize for insulting you. I apologize for disparaging you. I'm sorry. I have failed to be a courteous Wikipedian, and I regret that. I hope that I learn to think before I post in the future. --GTBacchus 23:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What you seem not to understand, or not to care about, is that this man is considered a saint, by some, for actually being Emperor of the United States by just starting to be it one day, and being it for the rest of his life, and for achieving the recognition that he did. That's not a joke, and it's not nonsense. I can stay up all night making sense on that very point, and you'll get sick of it before I do, and I'll have made sense the whole time. I know others who share my outlook. That's an actual view held by actual sane, intelligent people, and it's not laughable, and it's certainly not the policy of Wikipedia that they're wrong, or there's a whole raft of religion articles that need rewriting and the insertion of endless pairs of sneering quote marks. --GTBacchus

Statements about Norton as used by various religions belong in the article on those religions, not here. Norton founded no religion. --Nunh-huh 20:05, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well then, assertions that those statements are nonsense do not belong in this article either. --GTBacchus 23:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My main problems with your edits in the section on Legitimacy are ...some continue to pretend to believe, or at any rate to argue, that Norton can seriously be considered to have been, in some sense, "Emperor". and this is patent nonsense.

The first contains the inaccuracy that anyone who argues in support of Norton's having been Emperor is being disingenuous, which I cannot avoid applying to myself, and to be a statement that I am engaging disingenuously in this project. If you believe that, then I suggest you raise that as an issue on its own terms, here or on my user talk page, rather than weaving it into the text of an article.

Try something NPOV like ...some assert that Norton really was, in some sense, the Emperor of the United States.

The statement this is patent nonsense is POV. First of all, patent nonsense is a term of art here at Wikipedia, and arguments in favor of Norton's having been Emperor do not fit its definition. Secondly, Norton's status is a non-trivial question, both sides of which are argued cogently by sane, intelligent, sincere people. Thirdly, being taken out of the voices of "some" (or even "many" or "most") and placed in the voice of Wikipedia places the claim this is patent nonsense inside the antecedent of Supporters of Norton accede all this as true, which is inaccurate. I'll accede that Norton had no empire, subjects, authority nor power; any person who chose to follow the edicts of Norton or accept his currency did so only by volition and not because it was legitmate or legal, is true in a sense, because I'm a good sport, but I won't accede to my fundamental beliefs about reality being patent nonsense; they're not even all that unusual; just get out more. --GTBacchus 10:41, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If these are your basic beliefs, they exist in the vacuum created by lack of knowledge about how titles are created. But I accept your assertion that you believe them, and have rephrased the section. Personally, I would think more highly of the intellect of someone who pretended to believe this than someone who actually believed it, and did not intend the "pretense" to be an insult, but I agree there's no need to characterize such believers here. --Nunh-huh 20:05, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would be more displeased to be thought disingenuous in my participation in this project than to be thought a moron. What you think of my intellect is not important to me; let's drop it. --GTBacchus 23:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I didn't think you'd care about my assessment, I simply offered it as explanation. --Nunh-huh 00:56, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You have not answered any of the ontological arguments. You have merely edited the article to say that your perspective is the correct one, and that mine is "patent nonsense". You have introduced inaccuracies into the article, and I'm inclined to fix it. --GTBacchus

Point out those inaccuracies and I'll fix them myself. --Nunh-huh 03:21, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just did; but I'll keep looking for more. --GTBacchus 10:41, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But... I don't want an edit war. Better yet, admit that you aren't neutral on this topic.

It's not a virtue to be "neutral" between fact and fantasy. --Nunh-huh 03:21, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's not a virtue to be dismissive of arguments that you can't refute. --GTBacchus 10:41, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not. --Nunh-huh 00:56, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I know I'm not. Raise your issues on the talk page, and let someone who can arbitrate between your perspective and mine make the appropriate edits. I am happy to discuss these issues, but simply editing the article to your perspective as if the debate is a foregone waste of time is disingenuous, POV, rude, and arrogant. Please stop, Nunh-huh. Suggest any controversial edits here, and then when we arrive at a mutually agreeable version, we can edit the article that way.

What have you got against Emperor Norton, anyway? --GTBacchus 02:40, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nothing. I have problems with Norton being misrepresented by an encyclopedia, which ought to factual. --Nunh-huh 03:21, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, at least we're agreed on that point. Now that I'm less upset, I'll go through your edits with the ol' finetooth, and make specific suggestions below. --GTBacchus 10:41, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for dropping into this debate after the fact, but I felt the need to weigh in. The old article was written in a somewhat bemused style, almost humoring Norton. This seems wholly appropriate: all presented evidence suggests that the people and city of San Francisco felt much the same way. The edits made by Nunh-huh, while made in good faith, do strike me as mean-spirited. It should be obvious to anyone that Norton was not the head of state of the United States of America, and I see no reason to repeatedly make reference to this. The difference between saying "Norton's largely harmless delusions" instead of "The benevolent and largely harmless reign of Emperor Norton I" is one of tone, not substance. Obviously Norton was not the American head of state. The original article adopted a somewhat humorous tone which made for far superior reading without distorting the content. I think we can give our readers a little credit. --Mackensen (talk) 21:21, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

At least two editors are arguing that Norton was "Emperor of the United States". So it should be self-evident that adopting that (unattributed) Point of View, in tone or in substance, in writing the article is misinformative and inappropriate. --Nunh-huh 22:10, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to inform, not to "humor Norton", and "humoring Norton" by adopting his point of view as Wikipedia's is wholly inappropriate. --Nunh-huh 22:13, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Whimsy and a touch of humor are acceptable and even encouraged in Wikipedia, as long as they don't obscure the facts. It should be obvious to Americans that Emperor Norton was not and could never be considered Emperor of a nation whose Constitution has no provision for this title. But it's far from obvious for people from other countries. Many nations throughout history have been ruled by apparently insane people who found it possible to declare themselves autocrat because of the support of their followers (especially when they included strong militaries). Indulgence of the San Franciscan bemusement could be confusing for an international encyclopedia. But it already seems, as of this moment, that the article is almost completely clear on this point. It seems to me that there are only 2-3 remaining references to the Emperor that might be changed to "Emperor" to take care of this issue. — --Jeff Q 00:20, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(Note that this refers to the current version, not the previous which was so besotted with the term.) --Nunh-huh 00:56, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC))

Authority

The article makes this clear in the lead: Although his authority was never recognized by the United States Government. There is no need to restate it in every section. --Viriditas | Talk 11:02, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is if you are going to suggest he had authority in every section. --Nunh-huh 19:43, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is no such suggestion. The only "authority" he ever had was his own. Perhaps you neglected to read the article before you edited it. --Viriditas Talk 00:43, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Saying someone ordered something implies he can do so. --Nunh-huh 00:56, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is no such implication if the person in question lacks authority, which the lead clearly states. --Viriditas Talk 01:02, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Order" is an English word commonly used for an imperative issued by any old person in an imperious tone. "Command" is also not uncommon. --GTBacchus 01:32, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nunh-huh's edits - what to do?

Nunh-huh, I don't think it is productive for you and I to argue semantics here. You say my beliefs are based in ignorance about how language works;

I did not say that. --Nunh-huh 23:03, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You said "If these are your basic beliefs, they exist in the vacuum created by lack of knowledge about how titles are created." How titles are created is part of how language works. I think my paraphrasing is fair. --GTBacchus 23:19, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, for your syllogism takes as one of its premises YOUR assertion that "how titles are created is part of how language works". It's your assertion, not mine, it's not a paraphrase, and it's not even a particularly valid syllogism. (Consider: A: John doesn't understand the law. B: law is constructed from words, therefore C: John doesn't understand words.) --Nunh-huh 00:56, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you were willfully trying to miss the point, Nunh-huh (which I don't assume), then you could not have done a more thorough job. The point is that you say my beliefs are based in ignorance; I say yours are. That's an impasse. Now we have more people here, but our impasse seems to remain. You claim that Norton's title is invalid because he wasn't really "emperor" "of" "the United States". I accede that, and still maintain that he was "Emperor of the United States". (In mathematics, a "non-associative algebra" is not an "algebra" (according to authors who use the convention that algebras are associative by definition), and yet it's called a "non-associative algebra", because that whole title is what it's called.)

Further, you claim that the words "order" and "decree" are not being properly used unless they are applied to someone who has proper authority over the situation in question. I claim that common usage does not support you, and that the word "order" is regularly understood to describe imperative statements issued in a commanding tone. This is a literal use, and scare quotes are unnecessary. You can have "decree", because eventually we're each of us mortal. --GTBacchus 22:52, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I say yours are based in ignorance about how language works. The fact remains that 4 out of 5 people commenting on this last round of edits oppose your changes, and you are the only one defending them. Even if I grant you all the points about what reality is, you're still outvoted on this. --GTBacchus

There hasn't been a vote, and votes initiated while discussions are continuing are considered premature on Wikipedia. --Nunh-huh 23:03, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know the formal procedures, so I'll bow to you on this. I retract my use of the word "vote", and replace it with "informal tally" --GTBacchus 23:19, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Even if you think I'm crazy and count my vote as negative 1, you're still outvoted! Shall we put it to a formal vote? How many people will have to say that your edits don't improve the article until you'll stop making them? Others aren't objecting on the same grounds I am, just on the grounds that the article, as it stood last week, was NOT misleading, and that your edits weaken it as a piece of writing, by taking away from the style and adding a spiteful tone. This is a pair of assertions that you have yet to answer satisfactorily. Since you are in the minority on this point, it seems the burden is on you. Wikipedia is what Wikipedians make it. Eighty percent of our sample so far is against your edits. How long will you insist that your perspective is superior to everyone else's? --GTBacchus

My suggestion is that you wait for a wider sampling of Wikipedians. I'll post a request for comments. --Nunh-huh 23:03, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. --GTBacchus 23:19, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See the debate above for specific responses about specific edits. I opened this section to make the general remarks above, and, I hope, to begin a dialogue about how to resolve this dispute. Nunh-huh and I disagree at a fundamental level, which is beyond the scope of this or any Wikipedia article. I refuse to indulge in an edit war, but I do not accept the current version. What shall we do, assuming that neither of us is convincing the other? --GTBacchus 22:34, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nunh-huh appears to be making a bona fide attempt to reach consensus, having made several edits addressing concerns brought up here. You can either continue to bring up specific issues, working with him and others to produce an article agreeable to by most, or write him off entirely and bring an RFC against him.

It's no secret that I wasn't happy with the article as it originally stood, but at the same time, consensus and a relatively stable editing environment is important. Those editors with a particular interest in Norton—enough interest to regularly monitor his article and its talk page—make up a naturally stilted sample in favor of (however slight) APOV glorification, and a sample you can count on two hands can hardly be said to represent the will of the Wikipedia community. Let's wait and see how this hashes out. --ADH (t&m) 23:24, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that Nunh-huhs efforts are toward consensus. He/she has routinely ignored arguments in favor of the original somewhat whimsical tone, including the fact that this tone was in place when the article was chosen as a feature article. --Trick 06:50, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've made suggestted changes-that's moving toward consensus. And I'm happy to have as whimsical an article as you want as long as it doesn't misrepresent Norton as an actual emperor, because an encyclopedia shouldn't do that. --Nunh-huh 20:00, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article doesn't misrepresent Norton as an "actual emperor", whatever that means. The guy thought he was an emperor and people treated him as such (tongue in cheek or not), so where is the difference? Either way, we have articles on Queen Latifah, Carrot Top, and Madonna. Latifah isn't a Queen, Carrot Top isn't a carrot, and Madonna isn't the mother of Jesus. You don't have a problem with those article titles because at the end of the day, those people are merely entertainers; how is the Emperor any different? --Viriditas | Talk 22:05, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't misrepresent Norton... anymore. It once did. The Queen Latifah article does not discuss her orders to her subjects or claim that she was the queen of a particular country, the Carrot Top article does not discuss his sprouting roots, and the Madonna article doesn't claim she's the Queen of Heaven or that her children were the products of an immaculate conception. If they did, there would be a problem, as there once was here. --Nunh-huh 22:19, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't see it as misrepresentation in any way, either in the past or in the present. Queen Latifah and Madonna make many outrageous claims in their song lyrics, many of which are untrue. Queen Latifah asks people to address her as "Your Highness" in the song, "Queen of Royal Badness". Her Highness even issued her own set of laws in the song, "Latifah's Law". Carrot Top claims many false things in his comedy routines as well. Emperor Norton was an entertainer (and a visionary with a social conscience) of his time, and he was honored and respected in that regard, just like modern entertainers today. --Viriditas Talk 01:03, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So then you'd write "Joshua A. Norton was an entertainer"? That would be incorrect, just as it would be incorrect for Queen Latifah's Wikipedia article to call her "Your Highness" or to characterize any of her songs as "law". --Nunh-huh 03:29, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is certainly correct to say that Norton entertained the citizens of San Francisco (and the world at large) in the mid-to-late 19th century. These people celebrated his presence, his humor, and his deeds'. It doesn't have to be added to the article because it's already there {article contents quoted above). One does not have to literally spell things out; good writing illustrates, portrays, conveys, and depicts. And, it would not be "incorrect" to call Queen Latifah "Her Highness" in an article referring to the song in question. You also seemed to have missed the subtle allusion to Her Highness Queen Latifah issuing "laws" (through her songs) and His Imperial Majesty Emperor Norton issuing decrees. And just in case you read these comments too literally again, I should inform you that I was making a lighthearted comparison. Norton was a self-proclaimed Emperor and entertainer in the same way that Queen Latifah is a self-proclaimed Queen and entertainer. --Viriditas | Talk 03:59, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is certainly incorrect to characterize Norton as either an entertainer or an emperor. And I don't think I missed anything because of subtlety. - --Nunh-huh 04:14, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As an aside, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception refers to Mary's birth, not Jesus's. ADH (t&m) 01:21, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely correct, and yet another reason not to have it in Madonna's article<g>. --Nunh-huh 03:29, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's ok to admit that you're wrong when you've made an error. Feel free to try it out some time. --Viriditas | Talk 03:59, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I was wrong when I characterized that as an ad hominem remark. And when I make an error pertinent to the article, I'll be happy to beat my breast publicly for you. --Nunh-huh 04:14, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And I just checked out the RFC that was posted. What a strange way of characterizing the dispute! I fear that GTBacchus is right: there is a fundamental disagreement of the overall tone of the article. There are no specific issues. It is simply a matter of "humor/whimsy" versus "straight".

Re-read GTBacchus's arguments. It's not a matter of humor vs fact: he asserts that Norton really was emperor. --Nunh-huh 19:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I assert that Norton really was "Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico" because I bow to common usage, and define that title to mean precisely what Norton was. That was his title, and his title was that. By definition, "The Emperor of the United States" means Joshua A. Norton, after his self-proclamation. This definition, although somewhat contrary to the usual use of the word "emperor" is supported by common usage. Nobody ever says "Emperor of the United States" without meaning Joshua A. Norton.

There is a tension here between what the title looks like it means (based on the words that make it up), and what it actually means. That tension is interesting, and should be worked into the article, not expurgated from it. The lead makes it very very clear that he was not "emperor" in the usual political sense. --GTBacchus 22:52, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nunh-huh, do you really think anyone reading the article wouldn't understand the humor? Or is it the humor you object to? --Trick 06:50, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't object to humor, I object to mistatement and obfuscation. Which makes your request for comment on humor odd, as it's a straw-man arguement that no one has actually supported. --Nunh-huh 19:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Use of the term "Emperor"

The Wikipedia standard for titles and names of people is to refer to them by the title or name by which they were known when the activities being described took place. Thus, John Patrick Ennis is referred to as Sollog when discussing his internet activities but as "John Ennis" when describing his legal troubles, David Edward Sutch is referred to as Screaming Lord Sutch for everything after his name change, and Muhammad Ali is referred to as Cassius Clay for everthing he did before he joined the Nation of Islam. By that standard, for everthing after his self-proclamation, Joshua Norton should be referred to as "Emperor Norton". By the same standard, this article should be titled "Emperor Norton I", but that's another argument. --Carnildo 00:00, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As noted elsewhere on this page, we do not refer to people in potentially misleading ways when we have a ready and non-misleading alternative. --Nunh-huh 00:07, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Even accepting your argument, the proper title would be Emperor Norton of the United States, at least until another Emperor Norton reigned over the Union. ADH (t&m) 00:15, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Since Norton could not have been Emperor of the United States under its Constitution, and had not overthrown the U.S. Government by force, he was not entitled to be called Emperor Norton of the United States. Therefore, this would not be the most logical title for the article, as it was only the long form of a falsely-assumed title. On the other hand, since Norton was best known as Emperor Norton I, unless there is another one more famous in history (anywhere in the world), that would be a more logical article title than Joshua A. Norton, which far fewer people remember him by. His historical notoriety, and thus his reason for being in Wikipedia, is based on that name and its implications. We still have to make it clear in the article that he was never seriously considered Emperor, but was rather fondly tolerated by the citizens of San Francisco. In short, people would expect to look up "Emperor Norton" or "Emperor Norton I", but should find the text says it was only an affectation, however tolerated by his community. — --Jeff Q 00:35, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with your proposal. FWIW, Google records 122,000 hits for "Emperor Norton", 121,000 hits for "Emperor Norton of the United States", 5,870 hits for "Joshua Norton", 973 hits for "Emperor Norton I", and 879 hits for "Joshua A. Norton". --Viriditas | Talk 00:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Emperor Norton" may be most common, but it is also very misleading and thus cannot be used. Quote from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Don't overdo it:

In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading (For example: "tidal wave" would be a misleading title since these phenomena have nothing to do with tides), then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative (tsunami, for example). --mav 02:10, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would agree with you if there was an actual Emperor with that name. There isn't, so there is nothing misleading about using "Emperor Norton" as the article title. It can be used, just as Madonna (certainly not Mary, the mother of Jesus), Carrot Top (not a carrot), and Queen Latifah (not a queen) are used. --Viriditas Talk 07:18, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Queen Latifah has never pretended to be an actual queen and the Carrot Top ref is just silly. --mav 05:26, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In any case, Joshua A. Norton is more commonly known as Emperor Norton, just as Dana Elaine Owens is commonly known as Queen Latifah. Both Queen Latifah and Emperor Norton have passed decrees and laws under their respective titles; in Norton's case it was a matter of public policy, and Latifah's "laws" were published in the form of a song. Further, the article makes it plainly clear that the name, Emperor Norton has been popularized in many ways, from short stories, software, ice cream sundaes, and a record label, and the name passes the Google test in the number one spot. --Viriditas Talk 06:24, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The whole debate here is whether or not it is valid/misleading to use. There are some very good arguments for and against this and, while I couldn't just copy and paste GTBacchus's excellent distillation of stuff earlier on this Talk page, I thought I summarized the tricky issues pretty well on the section I added to the article itself.

Anyway, I support the article as it existed after Sidp edited it, oldid 9266129. I support the usage of the term Emperor for reasons I think I've previously stated in discussions here in December. I think the article makes Norton's status very clear, and then proceeds to give information on his life, as it should, using the terms that people around him used to refer to him. What other authority is there? --Blacklite 03:52, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My preference is to use his name as the title. --Maurreen 05:39, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My preference is for Emperor Norton. Prince is not an actual Prince, Billy the Kid was not a kid.

quoting the Naming Convention article - "This does not mean that we should avoid using widely-known pseudonyms like Mark Twain, Marilyn Monroe, Billy the Kid, or widely-known common names of animals and other things. But it does mean that we need to temper common usage when the commonly used term is unreasonably misleading or commonly regarded as offensive to one or more groups of people."

He was known as Emperor Norton. That should be the name of the article. No one hearing about the latest proposal to name the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge's eastern span after the Emperor would know Joshua Norton so I don't see this as an acceptable alternative. --Trick 07:00, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wrote that part of the policy. It deals with pseudonyms and nicknames not titles. 'Emperor Norton' is confusingly like a title, not unlike 'President Bush' or 'General Nasser.' Thus it is not the same and is not covered by the exception that I wrote. --mav 05:24, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mass ignorance is no excuse. Most people would also be less sure about who Napoleon I of France was vs Napoleon Bonaparte or who Montezuma II was vs Montezuma. --mav 05:24, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When a dispute of this nature comes up, something to fall back on is notability and recognition among laymen using the google test. "Emperor Norton of the United States -encyclopedia" gets 18 hits, "Emperor Norton I" gets 734 hits, and "Joshua A. Norton -encyclopedia" gets 2,100 hits. Also, in my personal opinion, referring to him as "emperor" in the article is unnecessarily confusing. The nickname is notable and certainly deserves a mention (and a section explaining its origin) but it seems very strange to refer to him as "Emperor" throughout the article. --→Reene^✎ 07:19, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

More importantly, "Emperor Norton" -encyclopedia gets 120,000 hits. --Viriditas Talk 08:02, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And yet that name is not appropriate per our naming conventions. --mav 05:24, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision), a reader may have found this article with a search so naming the article precisely is important. Since Emperor Norton has the highest hit count, that would be the preferred article title in such a case. And, according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) we should use the most common form of the name used in English, which is Emperor Norton, Where there has only been one holder of a specific monarchical name in a state, the ordinal is not used. For example, Victoria of the United Kingdom, not Victoria I of the United Kingdom; Juan Carlos of Spain, not Juan Carlos I of Spain, so we should not use Emperor Norton I per convention. And, If a person is best known by a cognomen, or by a name that doesn't exactly fit the guidelines above, revert to the base rule: use the most common English name, which again is Emperor Norton. --Viriditas Talk 06:10, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That is what redirects are for. This article is indexed under both names. Oh, and the more precise name is his full name. Thanks for mentioning that naming convention. --mav 03:09, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Norton was not a monarch, and "Norton" is not, in fact, a monarchial name. "Emperor Norton" sounds like a monarchial name, which is precisely why using it without explanation is misleading. --Nunh-huh 07:53, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Norton considered himself a "monarch" and was treated as such by some of the people of San Francisco. Nobody has proposed or defended using the article title name, "Emperor Norton" without explanation nor is the title misleading; there is no confusion with another "Emperor Norton", and users who search for the term, "Emperor Norton", are not in danger of finding duplicates. There is no danger of someone thinking that "Emperor Norton" might have been the official Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico; the lead refutes any notion that this is the case. --Viriditas | Talk 09:09, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On this very talk page GTBacchus states that he thinks Norton was "Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico". So the "danger" that someone might so think is not in the least hypothetical. --Nunh-huh 09:20, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting comments too literally, again. GTBacchus said that Norton thought (and acted) as if he was Emperor, and he was treated as such, which is true. GTBacchus also made the point that there is essentially no difference between, ...the world in which there was once a crazy man who claimed to be Emperor of the US, and a few people [who] humored him, and the world in which the US once had an emperor to whom no one paid much attention, except for a lot of San Francisco, and the Queen of England... GTBacchus does not use the word "offical" or claim that His Imperial Majesty was recognized as Emperor by the US and Mexico in any way. --Viriditas Talk 11:12, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There was no as if in GTBacchus's statement. If you are inserting one, you misread his point, which is that Norton was emperor. --Nunh-huh 20:55, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please read carefully. Only the italicized portions represent quoted text. Again, GTBacchus said that Norton thought (and acted) as if he was Emperor, and he was treated as such, which is true: Isn't that precisely what's remarkable about the man - that just by saying so, he was the Emperor of the United States, and Protector of Mexico? Why would we not call him America's only sovereign monarch? As far as I can tell, that's exactly how he was treated by those around him. Further, GTBaccus makes clear what kind of Emperor he is talking about, a distinction you seem to have ignored: ...he didn't reign over nothing. His reign was over the hearts and minds of those who chose to consider themselves his subjects, and that was real, as is made clear in the article. Otherwise, he was just an insane bum who has no reason to be remembered. GTBacchus understands the lack of authority Norton had: I realistically see that the office of "Emperor of the United States" didn't involve the authority to enforce his decrees. Finally, GTBacchus differentiates between the figurative and literal usage of the word: there is plenty of indication, in every paragraph of the article, that Norton was not an "emperor" in the sense in which that word is usually used, for other emperors. --Viriditas Talk 21:41, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Again, there was no "as if" in GTBacchus's statement, nor any "as if" equivalent. GTBacchus maintains that Norton was, indeed, "an emperor". If both you and he now agree that the article's previous use of the word "emperor" was figurative and that Norton had no authority to issue decrees (or orders, or anything else), you should be happy to have an article that clarifies that. --Nunh-huh 22:09, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I previously explained to you that the only quoted text in my reply is italicized. GTBacchus said that Norton thought (and acted) as if he was Emperor, and he was treated as such, which is true. I have provided his quotes above. It was also explained to you that GTBacchus differentiated between the literal, historical term for an Emperor and the man who was known figuratively as Emperor Norton. In contrast to what you claim, GTBacchus never maintained that Norton was a literal Emperor: I wouldn't call him "an emperor", because that noun is generally understood as applying to people like Caesar and Kublai Khan and Tamurlane. I would call him "the Emperor". This is precisely why an article title as "Emperor Norton" is appropriate. It is no different than Queen Latifah or any other popular figure that uses a figurative name, like Madonna. Also, I have spent time explaining GTBacchus' comments to you since you seem to be misrepresenting him -- I have never said that I am in agreement with his opinion. Please try to read carefully. --Viriditas Talk 22:22, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please try to understand that disagreeing with you is not a sign of incompetent reading. Any comments on the article, or are we done here? --Nunh-huh 22:36, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't see where I fall into the picture. I merely demonstrated that you misrepresented statements by GTBacchus. I would be happy to discuss the article if you are finished discussing comments by GTBacchus. Are there changes you feel you need to apply to the current article? If so, what are they? I think that the article title still needs to be changed to Emperor Norton (within policy guidelines) so I am in agreement with those who hold that position. --Viriditas Talk 22:44, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, I am not considering any changes at present to the current article. --Nunh-huh 22:48, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have to un-indent for the sake of readability, but this is in response to the above exchange over what I meant by saying that Norton was "Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico". I do not mean that he ruled the United States in the capacity as its emperor. I do not mean that he offered Mexico any tangible or intangible form of protection. I do mean that the nine-word title "Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico" is one that applies to him. If the title "Grand-High Poobah of Cheese" applied to him, then I would say that he was the Grand-High Poobah of Cheese, whether or not he actually had anything to do with dairy comestibles. I am allowing the term "Emperor of the United States" (as well as the longer version) to be defined by common usage, just like every other term in every natural language.

This is precisely what is remarkable about Norton. By the was he lived, he created the meaning of the phrase "Emperor of the United States" to mean something altogether whimsical. Now that he's lived, that's what it means.

Perhaps it would be helpful to add a bit near the beginning of the article discussing the incongruity of his title vis-a-vis the words that make it up. Then we address this problem explicitly in the text of the article, establish a terminology, and then use it, unafraid of causing confusion because we've explained it first.

Something like, In this article, Norton is referred to as "The Emperor", "His Imperial Highness", etc., because those are the titles by which he was known in his time. It should be clear that Norton was not a political figure, head of state, or part of any Imperial tradition (which the United States lacks anyway). Something like that, and then we can dispense with the scare quotes and go back to the superior style of the previous version? --GTBacchus 23:12, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We should refer to him as Norton. If we don't use "Emperor" we don't need scare quotes. "Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico" is not a title - it was not granted by a fount of honour - it's a self-adopted style, which other people humored him in. --Nunh-huh 23:23, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The relevant definition of "style" in Webster's II is "8. Form of address: TITLE" Under the synonym "title" to which we're directed, we get "8. A formal appellation attached to a person or family by virtue of office, rank, hereditary privilege, noble birth, attainment, or as a mark of respect. 9. A descriptive appellation: EPITHET". I maintain, with Webster's, that a title is a title, whether or not it's bestowed by "proper authority", just as an order is an order, whether or not it's issued by "proper authority". (You have yet to address that point.) That's how those words are used, and that's what they mean. --GTBacchus 23:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Obtaining your understanding of styles and titles from Websters is part of the problem then. When words have both general and technical meanings, they should not be used in their general senses in contexts where that is likely to (or designed to) lead to confusion. We don't use titles throughout entire articles even when people legitimately hold them; we certainly shouldn't use a self-adopted styling throughout Norton's article. It's sufficient to say that he adopted the style. Once. --Nunh-huh 23:38, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Obtaining" my understanding from Webster's, eh? You're too kind. I actually have a pretty clear prior understanding of the words "title" and "style", and I'm not the first to use a dictionary to support what I'm claiming is the usual usage. It's the standard method for confirming common usage, in fact. I wouldn't want the article to refer to him as "Emperor Norton" every time he's mentioned. Some variety is to be desired, as in any composition. We could mix it up, call him "Norton", "Mr. Norton", "Emperor Norton I", "The Emperor", "His Imperial Highness", "the self-styled emperor", "San Francisco's adopted monarch", "this eccentric citizen", "perhaps history's most harmless emperor", and many others, I'm sure. --GTBacchus 23:56, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Norton" and "he" are accurate, and provide enough variety. Of the others, "self-styled emperor" (lower-cased "e") seems accurate, as does "this eccentric citizen", and I'd not object to them. "The Emperor", "Emperor Norton I", "His Imperial Highness" are all inaccurate, as is "San Francisco's adopted monarch", as San Francisco has never been a monarchy. --Nunh-huh 00:03, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion. The fact about Joshua Norton which makes him worthy of mention in an encyclopedia is precisely that he did act as Emperor Norton, and was accepted as such by many people of San Francisco. If he had not been treated as Emperor Norton by others, then he would just have been another kook (or, perhaps, would have gotten over it).

If the concern is about the "legitimacy" of the title, I have to suspect that the anarcho-syndicalist character's remarks from Monty Python and the Holy Grail are worth bringing to mind. The "legitimate" ways of conveying kingship or titles are hardly less laughable than Norton's. A king is a king not because some watery tart lobbed a scimitar at him, but because other people recognize him as a king. If everyone decided that there was no such thing as a king any more, then he would be no king. Likewise, if the people of a city up and decide that this guy should be called Emperor, then who are we to argue? --FOo 05:18, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We have a naming convention on names and titles that deals with that. This person does not qualify and the city did not confer any title anyway. --mav 03:09, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There doesn't actually seem to be much problem anymore with the article, though the discussion continues to grow<g>. Norton was certainly not treated like an emperor by others - no one seems to have extended any power to him - but rather he was notable because some of his neighbors decided to indulge his affectations and call him emperor. It's the contrast between his delusions and his reality that is interesting, not an imagined actual title. A king is a king because he wields power, not because people call him king. (And a king is a different beast than an emperor, who generally presides over other rulers, which Norton also did not.) Finally, "the people" of San Francisco didn't decide to call Norton Emperor, some people in San Francisco did, and as far as I can tell none of them -- not a single one -- decided to allow him to rule over anything whatsoever, least of all themselves. --Nunh-huh 06:21, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves. --Viriditas Talk 07:09, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A possible compromise for the title would be to put "Emperor" in quotes. --Maurreen 05:20, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just stumbled across this and I'm not very passionate about the issue, so maybe my opinion might carry weight for not coming from any overtly biased source who places a great deal of importance in the philosophical/political implications of this rather quibbling issue's resolution. Seems to me that it is obvious that the article should be under the name Emperor Norton, that's how I first heard of him (from the record label) and how he is ALWAYS referred to in conversation. "Joshua A." meant nothing to me prior to coming to this page, and I'd dare say means nothing to anyone familiar with the historical personage who HASN'T come to this page. The fact that the title was somewhat ironical has nothing to do with what he was called. Let other parts of the entry lay out the different ways in which the man can be viewed, but is it not almost self-evident that the title of the article should be how the subject is most often referred? Redirects give you the right result, but still somehow seem inelegant. --rastro 05:20, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The way I see it regarding the title, it's a simple rules question. Naming conventions are what they are. This case represents is a crack in the rules, but I can't think of another example that falls through it, so maybe it's a real small one. If you think the naming conventions should be amended to cover this particular article, then the place to discuss that is there, not here.

Besides what happened? You learned something - that Emperor Norton's legal name was Joshua A. Norton (except in the noted exceptional cases) - and the redirect was painless. Where's the harm? If there's a better way to name an article something unexpected (or a better occasion for it), I can't think of it. --GTBacchus 19:18, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Baptised?

Norton was born in England. Records vary as to the date and place of birth. Parish records (http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/IGI/individual_record.asp?recid=500144216005) from the chapelry of Priors-Lee (now Telford) in the parish of Shifnal show he was born on 17 January 1811 to John and Sarah Norton, and was baptized less than a month later on 20 February in Shropshire.

Hang on; wasn't he Jewish? Several sources claim that he was. --Acb 02:30, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Both are possible. For example, see Felix Mendelssohn. --Viriditas Talk 03:53, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Was he a Freemason? --Anonymous

Some masons think he was.

Long Live Emperor Norton!

How about this, I googled: "Joshua A. Norton -encyclopedia" 35 hits, "Emperor Norton" -encyclopedia 388,000 hits. I think that should settle it. I mean jesus christ, thats what everyone called him! (User:130.49.147.30)

Woo-hoo! Anonymous vandalism of archival pages and unilateral reversal of public decision on featured articles! Way-To-Go anonymous users! Reverted. — THOR ^=/\= 16:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)