Talk:Emperor Norton/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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)