Talk:Emperor Norton/Archive 2

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. &mdash; --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)