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 5 |
I first read this article when it became a featured article, and it was much better then. Whoever felt it necessary to repeatedly indicate that Norton's edicts were mostly unobserved and put quotes around everything has done the rest of us a disservice. An article about Norton should include humor, and does not need to repeatedly put "Emperor" in quotes in fear that the audience consists of complete and utter, helpless, useless idiots. Also, the page is in the wrong place. People would know who "Emperor Norton" is; almost no-one will recognize "Joshua A. Norton." I daren't move the page myself because the length of this talk page seems to indicate it's been discussed enough already, and some humorless void who insists "because Norton was not actually coronated Emperor, as a reference work Wikipedia must repeatedly state so, in order to avoid misleading our readers, who are rock-stupid" will revert the page to make absolutely clear that we do not believe Norton had vast temporal authority. -- Vivacissamamente 10:18, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This is more-or-less handled by the fact that there is a "redirect" located at Emperor Norton that takes people to this article. We could debate which article title should take pre-eminence, but for the reaons I cited above, I'm loathe to do that. -- Atlant 13:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Emperor Napoleon III is not called 'Louis Napoleon' very often, and 'Napoleon III' generally follows or precedes that, check Google. Adding 'Napoleon III' would be the least, perhaps just use it instead. (although there was no other Emperor Louis Napoleon of course, and the link redirects)
Was this guy emperor of the United States or just San Francisco? I remember hearing about him at the Worldcon in San Francisco in 1993. --JohnAbbe
Would the person who keeps making drastic changes to this page stop claiming them to be a "minor edit"? Label them as a major edit so I can see what you've done in the differences panel. I can't be bothered going through with a fine tooth comb to evaluate every change you've made, and as I am displeased with enough of them I am forced to simply undo everything and reinstate my previous version.
Please read the text before you edit - some of your changes fundamentally alter what is being said, so they are not "minor edits". -- MMGB
I removed the picture, linked from here because it was probably copyrighted. Sorry if I was wrong. --Democritus
His decree was not properly observed by the rebellious politicians in Washington.
This sentence seems demeaning to me. It's as if the author is chuckling to himself as he types this. That's just my impression. Mabye rebellious could be changed or omitted? I would have done this myself but wanted a consensus from the rest of you. -- DryGrain 22:23, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Rewrote the lead to state things as they ought be. Thanks. Comments welcome. -- SV (talk) 01:06, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Emperor Norton was not an emperor, a monarch, or an official of the United States. As such, his article belongs under the name he was known by: Emperor Norton or Joshua Norton or Joshua A. Norton, not a name that Wikipedia conventions would dictate if he had actually been a monarch of some kind! Accordingly, I've moved it to Emperor Norton from Norton I of the United States, and corrected the opening lines. -- Nunh-huh 00:14, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
You certainly seem to have missed something, somewhere. In what sense do you think he was an emperor? -- Nunh-huh 05:32, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"Emperor Norton" may be most common, but it is also very misleading and thus cannot be used. Quote from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Don't overdo it:
So I moved this article back to the well-accepted alternative. -- mav 05:04, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I remember reading, when I first learned about Emperor Norton, that he had declared himself Emperor of the US, Protector of Mexico, and King of the Jews. Now, that was probably in a Robert Anton Wilson novel (or maybe the Principia Discordia), but does anyone know if that was true or not? From a purely comic angle, three is the magic number... just saying....
I enjoy a good laugh as much as anyone, but let's be serious, here—given the recent exposure to this topic and taking into consideration our existing credibility problem with the mainstream, passages beginning with "After examining a number of his Imperial Edicts, it is tempting to conjecture the mental condition of America's only sovereign monarch" have no place in an encyclopedia claiming to adhere to NPOV. -- A. D. Hair 06:36, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
The joke is established in the first paragraph. No one reading the lead has any reasonable chance of misunderstanding that he was not actually Emperor of the US. In fact, very few people in the literate world would misunderstand, Wikipedia article or not. Neutrality is not being violated and neither are the facts. Again, if they are not an English speaker and we are trying to make sure they understand, the joke is not the biggest barrier - idiomatic english is, and that is ubiquitous on Wikipedia. I think calling this NPOV is a mistake - this is, at best, a copyedit problem in clarity. -- Trick 17:09, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Based on all the previous, I've removed the 'disputed' warning from the article. I think if anyone has issues with humour and style, they should be raised in here, on a specific basis (e.g. I think this sentence is too tongue-in-cheek, etc.), or just edited, and we can debate about the changes if we feel they're debatable.
I think I'm going to attempt a couple of changes myself, even. -- Blacklite 07:46, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Okay, how about:
Joshua Abraham Norton ( January 17, 1811– January 8, 1880), also known as His Imperial Majesty Emperor Norton I, was a celebrated citizen of San Francisco who famously proclaimed himself Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico in 1859. He made a number of proclamations throughout his reign. Despite the fact that he was never recognized by the U.S. Congress, currency issued in his name was honoured in the establishments he frequented, he corresponded with Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom, and he was addressed as His Imperial Majesty by local citizens and in the front-page newspaper obituaries announcing his death.
(second and further paragraphs as current)
-- Blacklite 08:28, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Joshua Abraham Norton ( January 17, 1811– January 8, 1880), also known as His Imperial Majesty Emperor Norton I, was a celebrated citizen of San Francisco who famously proclaimed himself Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico in 1859. He made a number of proclamations throughout his "reign". Although he never actually held any position of power or authority, currency issued in his name was honored in the establishments he frequented, he corresponded with Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom, and he was addressed as His Imperial Majesty by local citizens and in the front-page newspaper obituaries announcing his death.
(second and further paragraphs as current)
as the point is not whether he was "recognized by Congress" but that he in fact never held any position of authority or power whatsoever. I'd also suggest 'honored' rather than 'honoured' as this is an American rather than British subject. -- Nunh-huh 01:03, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Joshua Abraham Norton ( January 17, 1811– January 8, 1880), also known as His Imperial Majesty Emperor Norton I, was a celebrated citizen of San Francisco who famously proclaimed himself Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico in 1859. He made a number of proclamations throughout his reign. Although his authority was never recognized by the United States Government, currency issued in his name was honored in the establishments he frequented, he corresponded with Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom, and he was addressed as His Imperial Majesty by local citizens and in the front-page newspaper obituaries announcing his death.
(second and further paragraphs as current)
Joshua Abraham Norton ( January 17, 1811– January 8, 1880), also known as His Imperial Majesty Emperor Norton I, was a celebrated citizen of San Francisco who famously proclaimed himself Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico in 1859. Although his authority was never recognized by the United States Government, currency issued in his name was honored in the establishments he frequented, he corresponded with Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom, and he was addressed as His Imperial Majesty by local citizens and in the front-page newspaper obituaries announcing his death.
(second and further paragraphs as current)
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 5 |
I first read this article when it became a featured article, and it was much better then. Whoever felt it necessary to repeatedly indicate that Norton's edicts were mostly unobserved and put quotes around everything has done the rest of us a disservice. An article about Norton should include humor, and does not need to repeatedly put "Emperor" in quotes in fear that the audience consists of complete and utter, helpless, useless idiots. Also, the page is in the wrong place. People would know who "Emperor Norton" is; almost no-one will recognize "Joshua A. Norton." I daren't move the page myself because the length of this talk page seems to indicate it's been discussed enough already, and some humorless void who insists "because Norton was not actually coronated Emperor, as a reference work Wikipedia must repeatedly state so, in order to avoid misleading our readers, who are rock-stupid" will revert the page to make absolutely clear that we do not believe Norton had vast temporal authority. -- Vivacissamamente 10:18, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This is more-or-less handled by the fact that there is a "redirect" located at Emperor Norton that takes people to this article. We could debate which article title should take pre-eminence, but for the reaons I cited above, I'm loathe to do that. -- Atlant 13:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Emperor Napoleon III is not called 'Louis Napoleon' very often, and 'Napoleon III' generally follows or precedes that, check Google. Adding 'Napoleon III' would be the least, perhaps just use it instead. (although there was no other Emperor Louis Napoleon of course, and the link redirects)
Was this guy emperor of the United States or just San Francisco? I remember hearing about him at the Worldcon in San Francisco in 1993. --JohnAbbe
Would the person who keeps making drastic changes to this page stop claiming them to be a "minor edit"? Label them as a major edit so I can see what you've done in the differences panel. I can't be bothered going through with a fine tooth comb to evaluate every change you've made, and as I am displeased with enough of them I am forced to simply undo everything and reinstate my previous version.
Please read the text before you edit - some of your changes fundamentally alter what is being said, so they are not "minor edits". -- MMGB
I removed the picture, linked from here because it was probably copyrighted. Sorry if I was wrong. --Democritus
His decree was not properly observed by the rebellious politicians in Washington.
This sentence seems demeaning to me. It's as if the author is chuckling to himself as he types this. That's just my impression. Mabye rebellious could be changed or omitted? I would have done this myself but wanted a consensus from the rest of you. -- DryGrain 22:23, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Rewrote the lead to state things as they ought be. Thanks. Comments welcome. -- SV (talk) 01:06, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Emperor Norton was not an emperor, a monarch, or an official of the United States. As such, his article belongs under the name he was known by: Emperor Norton or Joshua Norton or Joshua A. Norton, not a name that Wikipedia conventions would dictate if he had actually been a monarch of some kind! Accordingly, I've moved it to Emperor Norton from Norton I of the United States, and corrected the opening lines. -- Nunh-huh 00:14, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
You certainly seem to have missed something, somewhere. In what sense do you think he was an emperor? -- Nunh-huh 05:32, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"Emperor Norton" may be most common, but it is also very misleading and thus cannot be used. Quote from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Don't overdo it:
So I moved this article back to the well-accepted alternative. -- mav 05:04, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I remember reading, when I first learned about Emperor Norton, that he had declared himself Emperor of the US, Protector of Mexico, and King of the Jews. Now, that was probably in a Robert Anton Wilson novel (or maybe the Principia Discordia), but does anyone know if that was true or not? From a purely comic angle, three is the magic number... just saying....
I enjoy a good laugh as much as anyone, but let's be serious, here—given the recent exposure to this topic and taking into consideration our existing credibility problem with the mainstream, passages beginning with "After examining a number of his Imperial Edicts, it is tempting to conjecture the mental condition of America's only sovereign monarch" have no place in an encyclopedia claiming to adhere to NPOV. -- A. D. Hair 06:36, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
The joke is established in the first paragraph. No one reading the lead has any reasonable chance of misunderstanding that he was not actually Emperor of the US. In fact, very few people in the literate world would misunderstand, Wikipedia article or not. Neutrality is not being violated and neither are the facts. Again, if they are not an English speaker and we are trying to make sure they understand, the joke is not the biggest barrier - idiomatic english is, and that is ubiquitous on Wikipedia. I think calling this NPOV is a mistake - this is, at best, a copyedit problem in clarity. -- Trick 17:09, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Based on all the previous, I've removed the 'disputed' warning from the article. I think if anyone has issues with humour and style, they should be raised in here, on a specific basis (e.g. I think this sentence is too tongue-in-cheek, etc.), or just edited, and we can debate about the changes if we feel they're debatable.
I think I'm going to attempt a couple of changes myself, even. -- Blacklite 07:46, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Okay, how about:
Joshua Abraham Norton ( January 17, 1811– January 8, 1880), also known as His Imperial Majesty Emperor Norton I, was a celebrated citizen of San Francisco who famously proclaimed himself Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico in 1859. He made a number of proclamations throughout his reign. Despite the fact that he was never recognized by the U.S. Congress, currency issued in his name was honoured in the establishments he frequented, he corresponded with Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom, and he was addressed as His Imperial Majesty by local citizens and in the front-page newspaper obituaries announcing his death.
(second and further paragraphs as current)
-- Blacklite 08:28, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Joshua Abraham Norton ( January 17, 1811– January 8, 1880), also known as His Imperial Majesty Emperor Norton I, was a celebrated citizen of San Francisco who famously proclaimed himself Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico in 1859. He made a number of proclamations throughout his "reign". Although he never actually held any position of power or authority, currency issued in his name was honored in the establishments he frequented, he corresponded with Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom, and he was addressed as His Imperial Majesty by local citizens and in the front-page newspaper obituaries announcing his death.
(second and further paragraphs as current)
as the point is not whether he was "recognized by Congress" but that he in fact never held any position of authority or power whatsoever. I'd also suggest 'honored' rather than 'honoured' as this is an American rather than British subject. -- Nunh-huh 01:03, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Joshua Abraham Norton ( January 17, 1811– January 8, 1880), also known as His Imperial Majesty Emperor Norton I, was a celebrated citizen of San Francisco who famously proclaimed himself Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico in 1859. He made a number of proclamations throughout his reign. Although his authority was never recognized by the United States Government, currency issued in his name was honored in the establishments he frequented, he corresponded with Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom, and he was addressed as His Imperial Majesty by local citizens and in the front-page newspaper obituaries announcing his death.
(second and further paragraphs as current)
Joshua Abraham Norton ( January 17, 1811– January 8, 1880), also known as His Imperial Majesty Emperor Norton I, was a celebrated citizen of San Francisco who famously proclaimed himself Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico in 1859. Although his authority was never recognized by the United States Government, currency issued in his name was honored in the establishments he frequented, he corresponded with Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom, and he was addressed as His Imperial Majesty by local citizens and in the front-page newspaper obituaries announcing his death.
(second and further paragraphs as current)