Talk:Emperor Norton/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

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)