Talk:Emperor Norton/Archive 6

Viewing problem in Firefox?
Just wanted to check something. I'm looking at this article in Firefox 2.0 and two images aren't being rendered; Image:Joshua A Norton.jpg in the infobox (I think that's because the image_size field has been included but left blank), and Image:Lazarus2.jpg at the start of the Life as emperor section. However, they both show up in my other browsers (IE7, Opera 9.1, Safari 3.0, and Netscape Navigator 9.0b2). Further, when I try to edit the Life as emperor section using FF, the image does show up in the preview.

Anyone else using Firefox seeing the same problems? I don't want to be too bold under these circumstances if it's fine for everyone else... --DeLarge 16:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Yes, the same things happens when I browse using Firefox. Wonder what the cause of it is? -- Arwel (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Lazarus picture is now visible, now that someone's removed the px parameter, and the infobox picture is now showing, with the image_size removed. -- Arwel (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Even though the problem is now fixed, I must say that's a bit strange. I've checked up on the article throughout July-August, and there were no image problems to my knowledge. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

External links removal
I removed two external links from the article (I was later reverted). I have no personal issues with Rotten and Kudzumonthly, but I removed them because we have a number of links to Emperor Norton biographies in the references section. There's no need to have a number of links that basically offer the same biographical details. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a personal issue with rotten.com. A year ago, i was looking at some pictures of rotten.com, a website which is specialised in raw violence. One picture showed an Indian girl overrun by a bus. Her scull was squashed and her brains were half out of her head. Her face distorted. Two other pictures showed psychopaths having sex with dead women. One woman had beat marks all over her body and her mouth was a bloody gaping hole. Another woman was dead for a couple of days with a grayish skin. It was so disgusting, that i nearly had to puke. I couldn't sleep for several nights. I believe that a site as sick as that one should be moved off from the internet. I will not look for the evidence. If you want to see it for yourself, go take a look. You will be able to watch these kind of pictures in a short while.--Daanschr 07:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I know rotten.com is well...rotten. Still, it does contain encyclopedic material, so I don't see it getting added to the blacklist anytime soon. Nishkid64 (talk) 13:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a disgrace. I don't think that Wikipedia is worth a place to be with these kind of websites in it. I am pretty liberal in many ways, but this is beyond the line in my view.--Daanschr 14:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I can accept the redundancy explanation; I won't replace these links again. (In all honesty my eyes just sort of skipped over the References section.) But Daanschr's POV about a website, or a topic, is not germane to the proper editing of an encylopedia article. Rpresser 20:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have now removed three external links: Rotten.com, Kudzumonthly, and SF Gate (exact article used in reference section). Nishkid64 (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There was one website that offered a psychological look into Emperor Norton's mind. I'm not sure if I used it in the references, but if I haven't, then I will add it to the External Links section. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyone interested in a satanistic baby slaughter fest? We can put the pictures on rotten.com and get a link to Wikipedia?--Daanschr 21:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are parts of rotten.com that are horrible, but there are some encyclopedic sections (surprisingly!). The article on Joshua A. Norton was quite encyclopedic, and had it not been for the many other "duplicate" biographies on the article, it would have remained as an external link. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Title Change
Yup, that was me, changing the title. I typed in "Emperor Norton" and the title of the article that came up should have been "Emperor Norton," not "Joshua A. Norton." It's not the "Joshua A. Norton Utilities" or the "Joshua A. Norton Records." To avoid fixing redirects, I used "Norton I, Emperor of the United States," which technically would have been his majesty's correct title, no? ;-) Mtsmallwood (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Really, the title of the article should be "Emperor Norton", which is his most common name. However, some people have argued that naming conventions on monarchs apply and also that royal titles are not allowed in article titles, both ridiculous positions oozing of sophistry. Common name should prevail, really. This current name is a good start. Charles 20:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not for nothing, but at least discuss something like this first. It's quite obvious that a previous discussion on this issue has already no consensus'd so another discussion, at the very least, is necessary before making a bold move such as this. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The most recent posts seem to favor "Emperor Norton." Nobody in the world is going to search for "Joshua A. Norton."  When you see the title "Emperor Norton" you know you've got the right guy.  When you see "Joshua A. Norton" you're not sure.  And what about Duke Ellington?  Is the title of his article "Edward Kennedy Ellington"? or is Count Basie found under "William James Basie"?  The title definitely should be Emperor Norton on these precedents alone. Mtsmallwood (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't speak to me; I'm rather neutral on the issue. Talk to the ones who opposed the previous move proposal. And BTW, I addressed the issue of Duke Ellington and other jazz royalty in my comment above within the proposal. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem like there are very many people opposed to the change, and some of the opponents are possibly sockpuppets. The overwhelming evidence is that this person is known as the Emperor Norton (as shown by the Google hits), and there are many, many precedents for the use of an assumed name for a biographical article, all mentioned in the previous discussion you've referenced, and a few more if needed, include Nat King Cole, Sir Mix-a-Lot, and the perhaps more louche self-appellation'ed Ol' Dirty Bastard.  So, does not the Emperor deserve his own time in the wiki sun?Mtsmallwood (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "some of the opponents are possibly sockpuppets" That's a dangerous position to take and possibly borders on a personal attack. Please be more careful in the future. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is that, with the status quo, anyone looking for "Emperor Norton" will find him. That's the glory of redirects. At the same time, Wikipedia doesn't wind up giving the false impression that there actually was an Emperor of the United States. It works quite well that way and isn't in need of reform. - Nunh-huh 04:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Everyone looking for Emperor Norton is going to look for Emperor Norton, not Joshua A. Norton. Redirects or not, there is a common name here. If people really think he's the emperor of some country without reading the article, that's their problem, not ours. Charles 09:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * not only that, but actual emperors, like Franz Joseph I of Austria and Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia don't have "Emperor" for the articles discussing them, whereas for instance Duke Cunningham (never a Duke in legal name or title) gets an article called "Duke Cunningham." So why this irrational prejudice against the Emperor Norton?  The imperial court will hear of this, mark my words.  In fact, I've a good mind to change the title of Beethoven's Emperor Concerto to the "Joshua A. Norton Concerto."  BWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Mtsmallwood (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed several times before and never has achieved consensus for changing the name to Emperor Norton. My opinion is the still the same it has been every time this is suggested: Emperor Norton didn't exist; Joshua A. Norton did. Besides, both "Emperor Norton" and "Emperor Norton I" redirect here. There is no need for such a renaming. This is an encyclopedia, not a comic book.--Paul (talk) 06:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We have plenty of articles on people who didn't exist. Emperor Norton did exist, but he was not legally an emperor. Really, saying he didn't exist is lame and pedantic . It is the name by which he is best known, therefore Emperor Norton does exist, whether he was really an emperor or not (he wasn't). Charles 11:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Really, all you have to do is contact the people who may have an intelligent debate about it (ie, the people who weighed in on the previous discussion) and create a consensus. All the rhetoric in the world won't help you build a consensus if there are no people in the discussion. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

His majesty should be referred to by his proper name. Which is of course, Emperor Norton. Malamockq (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Those who would argue that "Emperor Norton" is not a misleading article title probably shouldn't do so in ways indicating that they themselves are confused over whether Joshua A. Norton (his name) was or was not in fact an emperor. - Nunh-huh 03:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support change of name to Emperor Norton. Skomorokh  incite 03:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as above; it's what he is most commonly called, and so the most useful title. We expressly chose to base our naming practices on common English usage, not on legal or official names. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support As common name. Charles 20:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose This has already been discussed- see survey in discussion of article. Tim Foxworth 05:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfoxworth (talk • contribs)
 * Support Change to Emperor Norton, because it is the most common name. DBaba (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral I previously argued that the page should not be moved to "Emperor Norton" because the title was misleading. However, I'm split in the middle now. I still think my previous argument is valid, but I understand that the subject was more commonly known in a historical context as Emperor Norton, so a pagemove may be appropriate. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Should not the title be Norton I of the United States, per naming conventions? mkehrt (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This was covered in the previous discussion — he was not a real emperor, so the naming convention for monarchs does not apply. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Support the change to Emperor Norton per the common name argument (Mark Twain, Molly Pitcher, Johnny Appleseed, etc.). Kevin Forsyth (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * SUPPORT Let's get the Emperor the name he deserves. If Ol' Dirty Bastard gets an article under this name instead of Russell Tyrone Jones, then by golly so does His Imperial Majesty.Mtsmallwood (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * SUPPORT The common name is Emperor Norton, not Joshua Norton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.50.12 (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Bicycle
Me, I get along fine with the article bearing his name rather than title and the title being a redirect. Anyway, weren't photographs published of the Emperor on his boneshaker bicycle? Can such a picture be inserted in the article? Jim.henderson (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I picked up Drury's biography of Norton from the library. I'll check if there are any pictures of Norton and his boneshaker bicycle featured in the book. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Emperor
Why does the article treat him like an emperor with titles such as "Imperial Career" and "Life as Emperor" when he was not an emperor. The U.S. government never recognized his reign. In my opinion, he was just crazy. American textbooks don't even mention him (or at least the ones I've used). Emperor001 (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Because he called himself an emperor and was referred to as such, even if jokingly, and all things an emperor does are imperial :) The German government also doesn't recognize titles, etc, but we have numerous articles on Saxon, Hanoverian or Bavarian princelings that go in the face of that. Why do you call yourself Emperor001, Your Imperial Majesty? ;-) Charles 18:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If you must know, my user name is just a joke that reflects my interests. I do not claim any Imperial throne.  Emperor001 (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Emperor Norton had just as much authority as any king or emperor. He just didn't have as many people who recognized it.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  05:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Except for the 57,000 people of San Francisco at the time who "let him be emperor if he wants to". Viriditas (talk) 05:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 03:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Joshua A. Norton → Emperor Norton — "Emperor Norton" is the most common name for this subject. I have seen WP:NC(NT) quoted as prohibiting this name by the same people who say he wasn't an emperor. I actually have contributed to that naming convention and I must say you can only quote it if you believe he was an emperor since it only applies to royalty. Since people basically only humoured Emperor Norton we must use his common name, per WP:NC(CN), the name under which he became a phenomenon. If *anyone* quotes WP:NC(NT) as applying then they automatically support a move to Norton I of the United States, so be careful ;-) We don't think Queen Latifah or Duke Ellington are "real" royalty or nobility, do we? The current title is entirely misleading — we are not bound to call people by their legal names if they are much more known as something else. WP:NC(CN) is policy for such strong examples of common usage. —Charles 20:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support As nominator. Maybe throw in a strongly since that seems to be the trend (especially when policy backs it up). Charles 20:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support The nominator puts forward a good policy based argument. Narson (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as above. We should name pages with the most readily recognized name for its subject; all other conventions are ways to accomplish this, given our needs for disambiguation and so forth, none of which are a problem here. Our practices on the matter are summarized at WP:Official names; the shorter version is: we don't use official names when most English-speakers use something else. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. But wasn't rough consensus on this already arrived at under above (there's an improptu survey at the bottom of that section, scroll down to it after you follow the link)? Andrewa (talk) 01:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Emperor Norton is the stage name for Joshua A. Norton.  There is no chance of confusing His Imperial Majesty with another Emperor of the same name.  Naming conventions should follow as they do other popular stage personalities, such as Count Basie, Duke Ellington, Duke Reid, King Diamond, King Jammy, King Kapisi, King Sunny Adé, King Tubby, Princess Superstar, Madonna, and Queen Latifah. Viriditas (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
Google Scholar search: "Emperor Norton" (113), "Joshua Abraham Norton" (11), "Joshua A. Norton" (8) Charles 20:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This name is not a counterfactual assertion that he was ruler of the United States for us any more than it is for those 113 search results. It's what he's called in the local variety of English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Giving someone a common name is not an automatic endorsement of a position that they might have claimed. It's simply a common name. Charles 22:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name
Why did he make his "regnal" name Norton? If that was his last name, shouldn't Norton have been his "house name" and his first of middle name be regnal? Emperor001 (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Infobox
In the infobox, it says "Norton I, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico". The section of an infobox relating to a person's title, I believe, should include a legal title, as opposed to one that Norton placed upon himself. If ol' Jimbo called himself 'Dark Lord of the Universe', and that title was not legally upheld, then that title could not be put in the infobox of his article, imho. I ask that my point be reviewed, and a change made to the information in the infobox if my statement is concluded to be valid. Thank you in advance.EasyPeasy21 (talk) 08:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Largest Issued Note?
The article text says notes ranged from fifty cents to five dollars. The accompanying picture depicts a ten dollar note. At least one of these is incorrect, though I don't know which. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.140.113.126 (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

READ MORE CAREFULLY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.188.140 (talk) 01:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Being crazy & homeless merits a Wikipedia entry?
Just wond'ring, since that is what we are talking about here. Okay, he was amusing enough to gain some local attention and indulgence, but we are still talking about a crazy homeless guy. If this page should exist, there should be a page for every crazy homeless guy who claimed to be something. The difference between this "emperor" and the homeless guy I met a few years ago who was convinced he was George Custer would be.......what? 72.155.127.84 (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The difference is the number of books and magazine articles that have been written about him...
 * Cowan, Robert Ernest. "Norton I, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico (Joshua A. Norton, 1819-1880)" in Quarterly of the California Historical Society. San Francisco: California Historical Society, October 1923.
 * Cowan, Robert E. et al. The Forgotten Characters of Old San Francisco. Los Angeles: The Ward Ritchie Press, 1964.
 * Clear? But I do think it's ironic that this is a Wikipedia article about a crazy homeless man from San Francisco, which is known today for it's problems with crazy homeless people. Thanks for point it out.--Paul (talk) 00:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Cowan, Robert Ernest. "Norton I, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico (Joshua A. Norton, 1819-1880)" in Quarterly of the California Historical Society. San Francisco: California Historical Society, October 1923.
 * Cowan, Robert E. et al. The Forgotten Characters of Old San Francisco. Los Angeles: The Ward Ritchie Press, 1964.
 * Clear? But I do think it's ironic that this is a Wikipedia article about a crazy homeless man from San Francisco, which is known today for it's problems with crazy homeless people. Thanks for point it out.--Paul (talk) 00:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Clear? But I do think it's ironic that this is a Wikipedia article about a crazy homeless man from San Francisco, which is known today for it's problems with crazy homeless people. Thanks for point it out.--Paul (talk) 00:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Clear? But I do think it's ironic that this is a Wikipedia article about a crazy homeless man from San Francisco, which is known today for it's problems with crazy homeless people. Thanks for point it out.--Paul (talk) 00:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Clear? But I do think it's ironic that this is a Wikipedia article about a crazy homeless man from San Francisco, which is known today for it's problems with crazy homeless people. Thanks for point it out.--Paul (talk) 00:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Clear? But I do think it's ironic that this is a Wikipedia article about a crazy homeless man from San Francisco, which is known today for it's problems with crazy homeless people. Thanks for point it out.--Paul (talk) 00:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Clear? But I do think it's ironic that this is a Wikipedia article about a crazy homeless man from San Francisco, which is known today for it's problems with crazy homeless people. Thanks for point it out.--Paul (talk) 00:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Your homeless man has not been an inspiration to artists and other such types for decades going on centuries; there is nothing noble about your homeless man. When I read the Principia Discordia, or the Sandman story, I am unaccountably touched to the quick - I feel I have seen some small portion of the human condition treated. Your homeless man just needs treatment. --Gwern (contribs) 00:18 11 October 2008 (GMT)


 * Yet you yourself possess a page here to explain that you are a 'guy who's too old to play with computers' yet inexplicably lists his main achievements to date as playing with computers, without any hint at originality, greatness or popular acceptance, only a hint of psuedo-intellectualism framed in techno babble, which still is grammatically incorrect. Maybe craziness is the assumption of fascination with mediocrity, so maybe just crazy merits a home(page) too, no? As for your appreciation of irony, not to mention basic empathy, perhaps less time on the computer, more time in school may be the best service you could provide to crazed monarch or crazed wet-brained president alike, homeless or otherwise.


 * Did you even read the article? Norton wasn't homeless. Norton probably wasn't crazy, merely eccentric. The only claim you make which he is guilty of is that he is a guy. Are you requesting that all wikipedia entries about guys/males be removed. I mean, caeser is just some dead old guy who wanted to be an emperor. This entire discussion is absurd, the notability of Emperor Norton is obvious.Ethyr (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed, even if he was 'crazy' and homeless, his life still fits in with the Wikipedia noteability criteria due to numerous sources written about him, and other works influenced by his life (many of which are shown in the article). I also quite enjoyed the loving critique in the way the article is written. Funny yet informative.

Micronation?
Why is this article part of Wikiproject Micronations? Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Got me. You should probably ask John Carter...  14:15, 2 October 2007 John Carter (talk | contribs) (67,271 bytes) (FA class for Micronations) (undo) --Paul (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarification of mental state
From the current article it is not clear whether Norton was mentally ill (although the between-the-lines impression is given). Other explanations would be possible based on the text, notably that this was a successful gimmick that gave him a decent quality of living at low cost, or an elaborate joke.

A clarification would be beneficial to the article (if there is no consensus, then this should obviously be mentioned more explicitly, instead). 94.220.241.104 (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

How about a quotes section?
Does present company think it would be a good idea to create a section for excerpts from literary works that mention Norton? The Sanity Inspector (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It'd be great for Wikiquotes. --Gwern (contribs) 19:07 19 February 2010 (GMT)

✅ It's in Wikiquotes, and it is a good idea to have here, so I added Wikiquote to the article.--otherlleft 03:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I seem not to have read the request well at all, but even though it doesn't address the question directly I still put WQ in. --otherlleft 03:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer, I added a couple of passages from Robert Louis Stevenson's The Wrecker. The Sanity Inspector (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Bonanza
Norton also had an appearance in "Bonanza".--80.141.201.241 (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Check the Emperor Norton in popular culture article, and add there, if you want, as that is the correct place for this tidbit.--Paul (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right. Sorry.--80.141.184.51 (talk) 08:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)