Jump to content

Talk:Emperor Norton/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Old newspaper article

Interesting old newspaper article from 1880, at the time of his death, with many details about his life here with information which could perhaps be useful to the article, has some info I didn't see in the article. As well as the fact that his life and death was reported in such detail as far away as New Zealand.121.74.8.48 (talk) 03:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Norton II?

Who was Emperor Norton's heir? --Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It was I! I believe the joke ended with him and he didn't have children, so no heir.--NortyNort (Holla) 07:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, according to this self-made website, someone is claiming to be the second. I would in no way support adding this to the article though. It seems someone? made an effort to continue the joke but it did not rise to the notability that the first had.--NortyNort (Holla) 07:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
How come you wouldn't support it? --Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 16:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Obviously

I made what I think is an acceptable edit to this article. However, I undid my edit, as I am unsure if there are different rules concerning edits to featured articles. The sentence talked about Norton's "proclamation that the United States Congres be dissolved by force". It then says, "(which both Congress and the U.S. Army ignored)". This is the part that I removed. That Congress and the United States Army would ignore a private citizen's decree to dissolve the Congress seems so hideously obvious, it basically insults the intelligence of the reader. (IMHO, of course.) Is there any real reason to include the disclaimer that the nation's government and military ignored Norton's foolishness? Joefromrandb (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It's quite possible I'm more worried than necessary about a rather simple edit. I was WP:BOLD, and went ahead with it. I certainly won't be offended if anyone sees the need to restore it. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Prodego talk 19:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


Sandman

--Scroblachoir (talk) 04:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Norton I is the subject of one of Neil Gaiman's "Sandman" comics: 3 Septembers & a January. Thought that might be of interest. Thanks! -- Scroblachoir

Wooden nickels?

Anyone know anything about him making wooden nickels? My father used to always say "Don't take any wooden nickels" and that the saying was from the time of Emperor Norton. AbsolutGrndZer0 (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Infobox.

The inclusion of an infobox for the office of Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico falsely suggests that there was such an office. This has all been discussed repeatedly; the correct "infobox" is for a person, not an officeholder. The subject of this article held no office. We are here to inform, not misinform or amuse. - Nunh-huh 16:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It should be removed or replaced with "infobox person" with "known for" parameter used for something like "claiming to be Emperor of the United States". DrKiernan (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, yes, and yet I'm reverted when I do so. I would think "soi disant Emperor" might be a good wording for his claim. - Nunh-huh 23:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
When I first added that box, it was to show his term, but it was written as "Supposedly," making it clear he held no actual office. Somebody removed it at some point. Editosaurus, lizard editor from outer space (talk) 02:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
It seems clear from years of editing here, that each bit of whimsy added, droll and harmless as it initially seems, is transformed by subsequent editors into false claims, and I think the solution has to be to simply present the facts. GIven that Norton had no office, he also had no term in office. He was a person, not an officeholder. Despite what the current template might lead one to believe, he had no predecessor; he had no successor, he had no office, and he had no term in which he could be said to be "In office", so let's stick with the person template that doesn't suggest that he did, rather than the officeholder template that forces (or encourages) editors to fill in the blanks with a fantasy reality. - Nunh-huh 06:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The officeholder infobox is inappropriate. It should be a "person" infobox. The title above the photo ("name" parameter) should read "Emperor Norton," as that is the title of the entry. There also should be parameters for "birth_name" (Joshua Abraham Norton) and "other_names" (Norton I). Other parameters that should be included: "birth_date" (c.1817-1818); "birth_place" (Deptford, Kent, England (modern-day London)); "death_date" (January 8, 1880); "death_place" (San Francisco, Calif.); "resting_place" (Woodlawn Memorial Park, Colma, Calif.); "residence" (San Francisco, Calif.); "nationality" (English); "years_active" (1859-1880); "home_town" (Grahamstown, South Africa); "parents" (John Norton and Sarah Norden); "religion" (Born and raised Jewish. In years as Emperor, regularly attended services in a variety of traditions.) Johnlumea (talk) 07:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Except that it should read "As an adult" instead of "In years as Emperor", since...he wasn't an Emperor. - Nunh-huh 04:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd say that "as Emperor" covers all eventualities. But, if that doesn't fly, I'd suggest "In years after declaring himself Emperor." "As an adult" probably casts the net too wide. I've never heard of his having given "equal time" to various traditions in the years before his "ascension." Johnlumea (talk) 05:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, "after declaring himself Emperor" is at least unobjectionable, though I think religion isn't an important part of the story here, and that that's a lot of explaining (and synthesis) for an infobox. I'd suggest just Religion: Jewish or leaving it out entirely. His Jewish origins are already mentioned, barely, in the text; I don't know why we should be repeating it with more emphasis and an analysis more extensive than that in the article in an infobox. - Nunh-huh 06:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually, religion and his response to it features quite prominently in his story. But I do agree that, unless and until this aspect is elaborated in the article itself, the better part of valor is to leave it out of the infobox altogether. His relationship and attitude to religion is far too complex to be summarized in a "Religion: X" sort of way. Johnlumea (talk) 07:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Source for claim that Emperor called for a "League of Nations"?

I had to delete a bogus reference for this in the main article. Does anyone have a primary-source reference for this? Johnlumea (talk) 05:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

date falsification

Why would Robert Ernest Cowan falsify evidence supporting a different birth year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.44.111.20 (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Citizen or Resident

It says that he is a "citizen" of San Francisco. There is no such thing as city citizenship, only State and National citizenship. Was he ever naturalized? Wouldn't resident be a better term? Emperor001 (talk) 02:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Regalia/insignia

A few things that every self-proclaimed monarch would do remain unmentioned. Did Emporor Norton, for example, have an imperial standard or coat of arms? The article mentions no such thing, but I can tell you this: if I were to declare myself count of Bunnik or prince of the Randstad, designing a coat of arms would be one the first things I did. If you claim to be an emperor, you must be rather fond of decorum, and you won't wait for 21 years adopting imperial symbols. Steinbach (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Emperor Norton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Including inactive pages in External Links?

Earlier today, I deleted from the External Links section a couple of pages with broken links. The links formerly were associated with the California Legacy Project of Santa Clara University — but the domain appears long since to have been abandoned by the original project and now has been taken over as a Russian site that uses bogus California-related content as hook for the site's real business: online ads.

My edits were almost immediately reverted and updated with the addition of Wayback Machine links to archived versions of the pages from October 2012.

One of the pages concerned reproduces texts of two Proclamations — one of which bears all the hallmarks of one of the many fake/hoax decrees published in Emperor Norton's name. The other is a poem written in tribute to the Emperor shortly after his death. But there are many Proclamations, and there are many artistic tributes. It doesn't seem that the External Links section is the place to be singling out particular ones.

I would think that, with rare exceptions, the External Links section should be reserved for actively maintained resources that are more basic to the subject matter of the page — and that archived pages should be used only for resources that are both basic to the subject matter and unique in the sense that one can't find them anywhere else online. Neither of these criteria applies to the two pages that were restored after I deleted them.

I have no interest in getting into an edit war. But I don't think these two pages are the kinds of resources that should be included as External Links. Johnlumea (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Emperor Norton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Emperor Norton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Is this article a hoax?

I am reading this article as if the character was real, and important, and apparently taken seriously. The article is starred, as if acknowledged by Wikipedia that it is a top Wikipedia article with a star of its approval. And yet there is no mention at all, until the Talk Page, that Emperor Norton had issues (and a reputation) that are not acknowledged until you get to this page. I know vaguely from learning of him years ago that he existed, but was a tongue-in-cheek character. This article needs to be rewritten so that it doesn't look like Page Six has taken over Wikipedia, and can meet the minimum standards of an encyclopaedia. As currently written, this article makes Wikipedia look like a joke... Stevenmitchell (talk) 09:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

"Diplomatic Missions"?

The wishful documentation for these examples is exceptionally thin to non-existent. Surely this doesn't warrant such a long and fastidiously itemized section. Johnlumea (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

"some considered him insane or eccentric"

Yes, I realize the prose is desperately tempted to lean towards tongue-in-cheek (in order to match the perceived general perception of the subject among his contemporaries in old San Francisco). Is it really "encyclopedic" to refuse to mention anywhere in the lede that the man was clearly suffering from delusions of grandeur, though? Obviously 100% of the residents of San Francisco who weren't insane themselves knew Norton I was "insane or eccentric", and to slyly (a la The Onion) wink at (and then bury) that fact in the lede feels patently ridiculous. Just say straight up the guy was a delusional homeless person who the city adopted as a mascot instead of this silly crap about how "SOME thought he MIGHT NOT have ACTUALLY been the Emperor of the World...". No, 100% of everybody thought he was insane right from the get-go, let's move on, thanks. J. Harrington Inchworm III (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Let's not go too far in the direction of shitting on the guy. It is true that nobody took his claim to be emperor of the entire United States of America seriously, and it is also true that his proclamations, currency, etc. were only honored insofar as other residents of San Francisco and environs chose to honor them. But that's not sufficient reason to call him a "delusional homeless person whom the city adopted as a mascot," especially not when he seems to have gotten a lot more respect than a mere "mascot" would command in his own time. Elwoz (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't recall the date, but Eric Lis, "His Majesty's Psychosis," Academic Psychiatry. Lis argues the Emperor was certainly suffering under a delusion, but one may be deluded and nevertheless not have a condition diagnosable under the DSM. William Drury, Norton I: Emperor of the United States, claims the Emperor was likely a paranoid schizophrenic, but he is not a psychiatrist and therefore his opinion is informed speculation, not a diagnosis. 66.24.101.10 (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Norton was clearly eccentric, and eccentric is at least a forme fruste of insane. He died in 1880; the first edition of the DSM was published in 1952. So the DSM can be dismissed as inapplicable and anachronistic (and it would in any case only tell you if there was a diagnosable disease, not "insanity"). "Insane" has many meanings, all predating the DSM, and most of them don't involve medical diagnoses. Among those found in the thesaurus that might apply: unbalanced, unstable, disturbed, crazy, batty, cuckoo, loony, nuts, screwy, bananas, crackers, wacko, mad as a hatter, buggy, and batshit. But for some reason contributors here prefer drollery to facts. If "insane" seems too medical, "daft" might be an alternative.- Nunh-huh 08:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it's important to avoid saying anything that would imply a diagnosed case of a specific (modern definition of a) mental illness, for the same reasons that psychologists avoid this for public figures. However, since both contemporary and retrospective sources do describe him using words such as "eccentric," "deluded," and/or "insane," I don't see why we shouldn't report that, and perhaps an observation in general terms that delusions of grandeur are a known form of mental illness would be appropriate. Elwoz (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I would like to note that having read through this article alone, it is not at all obvious that Norton would have been what we might call "insane" or "unbalanced" or "deluded". One of the first-hand accounts quoted in the article claims that he "was a gentle and kindly man, and fortunately found himself in the friendliest and most sentimental city in the world, the idea being 'let him be emperor if he wants to.' San Francisco played the game with him." This 'game' phrasing suggests that Norton was inwardly aware that he did not have true political power; that he lived as Emperor Norton as a conscious choice to live in a charade (the modern term of kayfabe comes to mind, anachronistic though it is). --Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

Apparently, certain editors of this entry think they are paying Emperor Norton a tribute by repeatedly changing the infobox to the "infobox royalty" template, specifying dates of "reign," etc. This subjective recognition may be appropriate in some contexts — but not in an historical-encyclopedic article. Please leave the "infobox person" template alone. Thanks. Johnlumea (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

I am reviewing this (old or very old) FA as part of WP:URFA/2020, an effort to determine whether old featured articles still meet the featured article criteria. This 2007 FA has not been maintained to standards, and needs attention to avoid a featured article review.

  • There is uncited text throughout; I have not tagged it so as not to mar an FA.
  • There is MOS:SANDWICH
  • A MOS review is needed (for example, spaced WP:EMDASHes are seen)
  • See also needs pruning.
  • Non-reliable sources: [1]
  • Unformatted sources: Joshua Abraham Norton" at 1820Settlers.com.

These are samples only. As considerable work is needed, I will list this at WP:FARGIVEN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I very much appreciate this focus on the quality of the Emperor Norton entry, which I would describe as...variable. I am the founder of a nonprofit, The Emperor Norton Trust, that since 2013 has been working on a variety of fronts to advance the legacy of Emperor Norton. I have written and, through the Trust, have published more than 130 articles on various aspects of the life and legacy of Norton, with a strong emphasis on contemporaneous documentation. I've tried to improve this entry in targeted ways. But, I often am embarrassed when this entry is cited as any kind of authority. The "non-reliable source" issue is serious. A tourist guidebook that provides no documentation is not any acceptable source for anything. But, this entry is rife with such "sourcing." I'd love to help get this entry to a better place. Johnlumea (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
"See also" section pruned. Em dashes corrected. Sandwiching issue corrected. Johnlumea (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Inconsistency

In this article the "Frisco" story is written as an unsubstantiated but possibly true claim. The article on the Emperor Norton Trust says that it is false, The Emperor Norton Trust. The truth should probably be investigated or the inconsistency at least corrected. LeatherJr (talk) 05:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Not on the ballot?

The lead currently says, "He had run for Congress in 1858, but was not put on the ballot." That's anachronistic. The government-printed ballot (secret ballot) had not yet been introduced in the United States in 1858. In that era, the political parties or newspapers supporting them would pre-print ballot tickets consisting of their preferred candidates and distribute them to supporters to put into the ballot box. A maverick candidate such as Norton would probably have had to print his own ballots in order to receive votes, but that's a very different situation from the way things were done later on, when a candidate has to garner petition signatures or pay a fee to have their name on the government-printed ballot. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emperor_Norton/Archive_7&oldid=1246349352"