This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Might it not be looked into if there was a successor named by J.A. Norton, and also I do believe there were claimants to his title appearing after his funeral. I have little way of locating any affirmation of named successors or claimants, at least in my present position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.226.227 ( talk) 21:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
According to William Drury's book, "Joshua Norton was born in the London borough of Deptford on a day lost to mortal memory. ... On May 2, 1820, when John and Sarah Norton arrived at the Cape of Good Hope with three small children, one a babe in Sarah's arms, John told an immigration clerk that the boy they called Joshua Abraham ... was two years old. So there you have it from a father's lips; he was born in 1818."
There's an LDS-submitted record at familysearch which reflects this: http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/igi/individual_record.asp?recid=600000134529&lds=1®ion=2
Drury's book is fairly well researched, including obtaining primary sources from South Africa. I'm not sure how reliable the Priors-Lee record is, given the seven year discrepancy. Is it worth noting in the main article? RJL20 23:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
The Joshua Norton born in 1811 at Priors-Lee, Telford is a red herring. I removed him. That 1811 Joshua can be found listed in the 1861 Census living in Shropshire still. 1861 census. Telford most likely had no Jewish community in 1811, whereas Deptford certainly did. The birth range appears to be May 3, 1817 to May 2, 1818. [[User:Wilburbear|Wilburbear] 12 October 2005
200,000 lbs of rice is 100 tons, not 90.
So, something here is kinda messed up. First, the damn article is deleted by a zealous admin or hacked account. Now it is a vandel page. WTF?? I move for undeletion and reversion to the unvandelized state, et cetera. Popadopolis 15:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
There used to be a "Television" subsection in the "Norton in the public imagination" section, with one entry:
An anonymous editor, 24.7.63.62, injected this editorial comment below that entry:
I confirmed that according to that webpage, episode #225 of Bonanza had nothing to do with Norton, so I have removed this entry from the article. However, it's possible that the webpage is in error, and it's also possible that the original author of this text got the episode number and/or season wrong. I'm not about to read episode summaries for all eight seasons of the show to find out for sure, so I defer to someone who is familiar with the show.
I would also like to remind everyone involved that around these parts, we assume good faith. Don't accuse people of lying without evidence (of lying, not just of error).
Zack 03:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
How did he react to it? The article is surprisingly silent on it. So is Wikiquote. Did he just ignore the war for all five years? The closest thing I got to it was an edict on Wikiquote for Lincoln and Congress to be replaced with Democrats. Johnleemk | Talk 20:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
his name is Emperor Norton. this is what everyone called him, this is how he was identified and distinguished from the rest of the sea of humanity. in present times, this remains the name by which he is identified. no one know who the heck joshua whatshisface was, no one really cares. on the otherhand many folks such as me (and you since youre reading this) care about the person who once was Emperor Norton. now for some cold hard facts. lets let goodle measure the issue. search: emperor norton -encyclopedia, results: 987,000. search: emperor joshua norton -encyclopedia (the term emperor was added to weed out real live josh nortons), results: 144,000. cleary, the people know him as an emperor.
its a matter of prestige, by descibing him as a mere man the fact that he was trully an emperor is denigrated. i dare say some people believe the man to have been insane and for this reason refuse him the respect and good humor that people gave him in his own time. this is unacceptable. if you insist with your conventions to omit across the board the term emperor, perhaps "Norton I" would be better, this being the same prestige given to folks such as king james. Or even "oshua a Norton, Emperor of these United States and Protector of Mexico", following other convetion listed on this website. but calling him by his name and nothing else? that is heresy!
He was a self-declared Emperor, true, but so were many who declared themselves "Emperor" or "King" in the past. The title should be changed to "Emperor Norton I", but have his full name in the first line of the Article. -Alex, 12.220.157.93 10:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC).
How would it be misleading to refer to him as "emperor"? He was an "emperor". -Alex, 12.220.157.93 22:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC).
By Wikipedia naming conventions, Emperor Norton should be under Emperor Norton and not under a more obscure, more "correct" name. It is no more a claim that he was a "real" emperor (where do you go to get certified as a real emperor, anyway?) than the article Duke Ellington is an assertion that Edward Kennedy Ellington was a real duke. Nareek 05:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
this article is about "Emperor Norton I" and it should be named "Emperor Norton I". -- Isatay 00:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The idea that calling him "Emperor Norton" is misleading is ridiculous. This is a man who is famous entirely for calling himself an Emperor. If anything, "Joshua A. Norton" is the misleading title, in that it doesn't follow wikipedia convention, and leads one to believe that the guy is best known as Joshua Norton. john k 05:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
There's no such thing as a "real name". All names are just arbitrary labels. It's not at all unusual for people to be known by several different names at once, or to change their name. Should the Ice T article be renamed to "Tracy Marrow" just because that's the name that he was given at birth, and the name he uses while filing his taxes? No, because the vast majority of people know him as "Ice T". Same with Emperor Norton. -- 24.58.14.1 20:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, but what is the name on his tombstone?!!!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/02-Norton.jpg/180px-02-Norton.jpg
Next you'll try telling me Prince isn't really a prince.
192.85.47.2
21:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
"Norton declared bankruptcy in 1858. He then left the city for a few years, and shortly after returning announced his title to the offices of the Bulletin."
How can he have left the city for a few years in 1858, and returned to declare himself Emperor in 1859? MorganLeFay 17:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that, too, as I read the article.-- SVTCobra 01:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Haha! I like this guy.-- Old Guard 01:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice if this could be fixed — KillerDeathRobot 20:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Whomever User 128.239.154.210 is, thanks for your edit! I totally agree that Emperor Norton's reign should not be called "almost entirely inconsequential." It's been featured in books, there's a bridge that may be dedicated in his name, he was a major influence on Discordianism, he may have inspired Mark Twain's character of the King in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, and his reign led to this article. That's not inconsequential! Binky The WonderSkull 17:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
If anyone wonders why I added Extra Space after the External Links, it's because for some reason the Categories box was covering up some of the links. If anyone knows a better way to fix this go for it! Binky The WonderSkull 18:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
What an absolutely superb article. It is factual, funny, fair and captures the context of the world Norton lived in perfectly. No wonder it is a feature article. It is one of the best things I have read anywhere. This article shows off Wikipedia at its very best. Congratulations, Wikipedia, on this masterpiece. FearÉIREANN \ (caint) 14:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Mighty fine article. Kudos to all who contributed. And, rest in peace Emperor Norton. You are missed even though I knew you not other than what the written word conveys. And, I really like the monument upon thine grave. Only a good people would honor thee thusly.Obbop Obbop 21:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to assume that that wasn't there when it was featured, as its riddled with citation signals! Is that section worth anything, or should it just be removed? If its kept and not cited I suggest someone put it up for delisting. 68.39.174.238 08:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Isn't the section on usenet posts a bit inconsequential? We can't go writing new sections everytime Norton gets mentioned on a forum.
I'm not going to point out specific items (I'd rather see a "lower" standard of inclusion), but for the record, there are arguably more trivial items in the "In popular culture" section. You aren't being fully balanced in your exclusionary principles. — Vivacissamamente 00:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
The removal of the succession box for Emperor Norton makes an untenable distinction between Norton and "real" emperors. All emperorship is based on self-proclamation and public recognition--that's kind of the point of Emperor Norton and why he has an article on Wikipedia at all. Nareek 10:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for speculating about my reasoning in the face of my stated reasoning.
There's no succession. "Emperor of the United States" only existed for the period of time that he proclaimed it. It didn't persist after his death (even as a vacant seat), it didn't exist before he proclaimed it.
He wasn't a sovereign. His position wasn't a practical one (and indeed coexisted with the recognized government), so he doesn't fit into any timeline (like a timeline of leaders of the United States).
You mention Charlemagne. Charlemagne claimed several pre-existing-but-vacant thrones, several of which were later held by others. Additionally, he fits into timelines of leadership of various nations/regions/states/whatever.
I don't see what purpose the successionbox serves in this article, other than emphasis of something already stated repeatedly in the article. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 13:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
In terms of process, there was a change made to the article that some people approved and others disapproved. Why is it that the change should stand while we hash out whether it should or not? It seems like the disputed tag is the normal way to deal with such issues. Nareek 16:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
No one ever challenged his claim or disputed his title. Emperors aren't elected anyway (except for the Holy Roman Emperor). A succession box isn't necessary until someone becomes recognized as the second Emperor of the United States. Antimatter 00:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I went to the talk page to suggest a succession box and found this argument and that someone already thought of it. All I can say is that I think some people should get off their high horses and let something hilarious by for a change. What about the title of emperor under his photo? Why not delete that then? Mac OS X 23:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Norton was not Emperor of the United States, in that the United States is a country governed on the basis of a Constitution that enshrines a Republican form of government and disallows titles of nobility. That government had de facto authority over the whole United States during the time of Norton's life, with the exception of four years when several southern states declared themselves an independent state, the CSA, which had likewise a republican government and forbade titles of nobility, and was recognized by all foreign states as the legitimate government of the area. Norton's claims don't meet any kind of reasonable test for whether someone was an emperor. Henri V was recognized as such by numerous French monarchists, but note that we only call him "king of France" in a "titles in pretense" box. john k 16:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that a succession box is NOT appropriate in this case. However if it were, it would certainly read as follows:
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Might it not be looked into if there was a successor named by J.A. Norton, and also I do believe there were claimants to his title appearing after his funeral. I have little way of locating any affirmation of named successors or claimants, at least in my present position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.226.227 ( talk) 21:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
According to William Drury's book, "Joshua Norton was born in the London borough of Deptford on a day lost to mortal memory. ... On May 2, 1820, when John and Sarah Norton arrived at the Cape of Good Hope with three small children, one a babe in Sarah's arms, John told an immigration clerk that the boy they called Joshua Abraham ... was two years old. So there you have it from a father's lips; he was born in 1818."
There's an LDS-submitted record at familysearch which reflects this: http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/igi/individual_record.asp?recid=600000134529&lds=1®ion=2
Drury's book is fairly well researched, including obtaining primary sources from South Africa. I'm not sure how reliable the Priors-Lee record is, given the seven year discrepancy. Is it worth noting in the main article? RJL20 23:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
The Joshua Norton born in 1811 at Priors-Lee, Telford is a red herring. I removed him. That 1811 Joshua can be found listed in the 1861 Census living in Shropshire still. 1861 census. Telford most likely had no Jewish community in 1811, whereas Deptford certainly did. The birth range appears to be May 3, 1817 to May 2, 1818. [[User:Wilburbear|Wilburbear] 12 October 2005
200,000 lbs of rice is 100 tons, not 90.
So, something here is kinda messed up. First, the damn article is deleted by a zealous admin or hacked account. Now it is a vandel page. WTF?? I move for undeletion and reversion to the unvandelized state, et cetera. Popadopolis 15:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
There used to be a "Television" subsection in the "Norton in the public imagination" section, with one entry:
An anonymous editor, 24.7.63.62, injected this editorial comment below that entry:
I confirmed that according to that webpage, episode #225 of Bonanza had nothing to do with Norton, so I have removed this entry from the article. However, it's possible that the webpage is in error, and it's also possible that the original author of this text got the episode number and/or season wrong. I'm not about to read episode summaries for all eight seasons of the show to find out for sure, so I defer to someone who is familiar with the show.
I would also like to remind everyone involved that around these parts, we assume good faith. Don't accuse people of lying without evidence (of lying, not just of error).
Zack 03:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
How did he react to it? The article is surprisingly silent on it. So is Wikiquote. Did he just ignore the war for all five years? The closest thing I got to it was an edict on Wikiquote for Lincoln and Congress to be replaced with Democrats. Johnleemk | Talk 20:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
his name is Emperor Norton. this is what everyone called him, this is how he was identified and distinguished from the rest of the sea of humanity. in present times, this remains the name by which he is identified. no one know who the heck joshua whatshisface was, no one really cares. on the otherhand many folks such as me (and you since youre reading this) care about the person who once was Emperor Norton. now for some cold hard facts. lets let goodle measure the issue. search: emperor norton -encyclopedia, results: 987,000. search: emperor joshua norton -encyclopedia (the term emperor was added to weed out real live josh nortons), results: 144,000. cleary, the people know him as an emperor.
its a matter of prestige, by descibing him as a mere man the fact that he was trully an emperor is denigrated. i dare say some people believe the man to have been insane and for this reason refuse him the respect and good humor that people gave him in his own time. this is unacceptable. if you insist with your conventions to omit across the board the term emperor, perhaps "Norton I" would be better, this being the same prestige given to folks such as king james. Or even "oshua a Norton, Emperor of these United States and Protector of Mexico", following other convetion listed on this website. but calling him by his name and nothing else? that is heresy!
He was a self-declared Emperor, true, but so were many who declared themselves "Emperor" or "King" in the past. The title should be changed to "Emperor Norton I", but have his full name in the first line of the Article. -Alex, 12.220.157.93 10:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC).
How would it be misleading to refer to him as "emperor"? He was an "emperor". -Alex, 12.220.157.93 22:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC).
By Wikipedia naming conventions, Emperor Norton should be under Emperor Norton and not under a more obscure, more "correct" name. It is no more a claim that he was a "real" emperor (where do you go to get certified as a real emperor, anyway?) than the article Duke Ellington is an assertion that Edward Kennedy Ellington was a real duke. Nareek 05:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
this article is about "Emperor Norton I" and it should be named "Emperor Norton I". -- Isatay 00:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The idea that calling him "Emperor Norton" is misleading is ridiculous. This is a man who is famous entirely for calling himself an Emperor. If anything, "Joshua A. Norton" is the misleading title, in that it doesn't follow wikipedia convention, and leads one to believe that the guy is best known as Joshua Norton. john k 05:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
There's no such thing as a "real name". All names are just arbitrary labels. It's not at all unusual for people to be known by several different names at once, or to change their name. Should the Ice T article be renamed to "Tracy Marrow" just because that's the name that he was given at birth, and the name he uses while filing his taxes? No, because the vast majority of people know him as "Ice T". Same with Emperor Norton. -- 24.58.14.1 20:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, but what is the name on his tombstone?!!!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/02-Norton.jpg/180px-02-Norton.jpg
Next you'll try telling me Prince isn't really a prince.
192.85.47.2
21:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
"Norton declared bankruptcy in 1858. He then left the city for a few years, and shortly after returning announced his title to the offices of the Bulletin."
How can he have left the city for a few years in 1858, and returned to declare himself Emperor in 1859? MorganLeFay 17:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that, too, as I read the article.-- SVTCobra 01:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Haha! I like this guy.-- Old Guard 01:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice if this could be fixed — KillerDeathRobot 20:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Whomever User 128.239.154.210 is, thanks for your edit! I totally agree that Emperor Norton's reign should not be called "almost entirely inconsequential." It's been featured in books, there's a bridge that may be dedicated in his name, he was a major influence on Discordianism, he may have inspired Mark Twain's character of the King in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, and his reign led to this article. That's not inconsequential! Binky The WonderSkull 17:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
If anyone wonders why I added Extra Space after the External Links, it's because for some reason the Categories box was covering up some of the links. If anyone knows a better way to fix this go for it! Binky The WonderSkull 18:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
What an absolutely superb article. It is factual, funny, fair and captures the context of the world Norton lived in perfectly. No wonder it is a feature article. It is one of the best things I have read anywhere. This article shows off Wikipedia at its very best. Congratulations, Wikipedia, on this masterpiece. FearÉIREANN \ (caint) 14:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Mighty fine article. Kudos to all who contributed. And, rest in peace Emperor Norton. You are missed even though I knew you not other than what the written word conveys. And, I really like the monument upon thine grave. Only a good people would honor thee thusly.Obbop Obbop 21:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to assume that that wasn't there when it was featured, as its riddled with citation signals! Is that section worth anything, or should it just be removed? If its kept and not cited I suggest someone put it up for delisting. 68.39.174.238 08:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Isn't the section on usenet posts a bit inconsequential? We can't go writing new sections everytime Norton gets mentioned on a forum.
I'm not going to point out specific items (I'd rather see a "lower" standard of inclusion), but for the record, there are arguably more trivial items in the "In popular culture" section. You aren't being fully balanced in your exclusionary principles. — Vivacissamamente 00:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
The removal of the succession box for Emperor Norton makes an untenable distinction between Norton and "real" emperors. All emperorship is based on self-proclamation and public recognition--that's kind of the point of Emperor Norton and why he has an article on Wikipedia at all. Nareek 10:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for speculating about my reasoning in the face of my stated reasoning.
There's no succession. "Emperor of the United States" only existed for the period of time that he proclaimed it. It didn't persist after his death (even as a vacant seat), it didn't exist before he proclaimed it.
He wasn't a sovereign. His position wasn't a practical one (and indeed coexisted with the recognized government), so he doesn't fit into any timeline (like a timeline of leaders of the United States).
You mention Charlemagne. Charlemagne claimed several pre-existing-but-vacant thrones, several of which were later held by others. Additionally, he fits into timelines of leadership of various nations/regions/states/whatever.
I don't see what purpose the successionbox serves in this article, other than emphasis of something already stated repeatedly in the article. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 13:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
In terms of process, there was a change made to the article that some people approved and others disapproved. Why is it that the change should stand while we hash out whether it should or not? It seems like the disputed tag is the normal way to deal with such issues. Nareek 16:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
No one ever challenged his claim or disputed his title. Emperors aren't elected anyway (except for the Holy Roman Emperor). A succession box isn't necessary until someone becomes recognized as the second Emperor of the United States. Antimatter 00:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I went to the talk page to suggest a succession box and found this argument and that someone already thought of it. All I can say is that I think some people should get off their high horses and let something hilarious by for a change. What about the title of emperor under his photo? Why not delete that then? Mac OS X 23:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Norton was not Emperor of the United States, in that the United States is a country governed on the basis of a Constitution that enshrines a Republican form of government and disallows titles of nobility. That government had de facto authority over the whole United States during the time of Norton's life, with the exception of four years when several southern states declared themselves an independent state, the CSA, which had likewise a republican government and forbade titles of nobility, and was recognized by all foreign states as the legitimate government of the area. Norton's claims don't meet any kind of reasonable test for whether someone was an emperor. Henri V was recognized as such by numerous French monarchists, but note that we only call him "king of France" in a "titles in pretense" box. john k 16:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that a succession box is NOT appropriate in this case. However if it were, it would certainly read as follows: