Jump to content

Talk:Norman Mailer/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Untitled

I'm no expert on those things, but isn't the quote at the end of the first paragraph of "Political activism" ("It is self-evident that the Reader's Digest and Lawrence Welk and Hilton Hotels are organically connected with the Special Forces napalming villages.") actually from Susan Sontag? (probably from "Some Thoughts on the Right Way (for us) to Love the Cuban Revolution") And does David Frum really contend it to be from Mailer, i.e.: is Frum himself quoted correctly? Someone with insight please look into that and make corrections if necessary.

A quick Google search turns up the exact same quote in a 2005 article from The Economist with Susan Sontag being credited. The same search also turns up a scan of a 1983 column by George F. Will attributing the quote to Sontag. Will does discuss Mailer's notion of "The White Bread Theory of History". It is very possible Frum read this hastily in his research and conflated Sontag's and Mailer's respective ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.52.101 (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC) ---

"An American Dream (1966) is Mailer's message to the American public reforming the popular idea of the American dream. In this novel Mailer proposed the idea of a personal dream per individual searching for the identity of the person."

could you rephrase that? it's not clear what you're trying to say here.64.165.203.107 20:31, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"This contradicted the current idea of wealth and power being the ultimate root of Americans. This novel, despite its sharp and cutting wit, has been vastly overlooked by many modern critics."

what does "ultimate root of Americans" mean? 64.165.203.107 20:31, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wife Beater

Surely worth a mention that he was "successfully" married 6 times, and was divorced by all of them because of his extreme violence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.177.120 (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC) It would do you well to read up a little on Mailer's life. Not all his wives divorced him; he was married, at the time of this death, to Norris Church Mailer for over thirty years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.180.93 (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

How are those "successful" marriages? -- 12.116.162.162 17:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
      • In reference to his question - how are these "successful" marriages. Norman Mailer was known for attempting to marry the mothers of his children - which were conceived before the marriage. Considering that Norman was actually alive when this comment was made - it wouldn't surprise me if he wrote that part himself. Norman Mailer was unsuccessful in marrying my mother, Vi...the mother of his daughter, Sharyn (removed last name for privacy). --Sharyn Elander 09:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC) *** —Preceding unsigned comment added by Norman'sdaughter (talk • contribs) 19:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I believe Mailer's stabbing of his second wife Adele is mentioned in the article. The others didn't divorce him "because of his extreme violence" (although Beverley Bentley did allege domestic abuse); in fact, he married his sixth wife Norris Church in 1980; she outlived him, and thus they didn't divorce. The levels of domestic violence in two of Mailer's marriages are repellent enough; no need to distort the matter further 89.242.72.13 (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering why his marriage to Marilyn Monroe was omitted from the Wives and Mistresses section. Her wiki page lists the date of their marriage and divorce. hoodview (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Then by all means fix/add it to this article. Softlavender (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Please don't, since Norman Mailer was never married to Marilyn Monroe. - Nunh-huh 11:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
And, Monroe's wiki article says nothing of the kind. Are you confusing Mailer with Miller? As in Arthur Miller? Mailer's association with Monroe is due to him writing about her, not marrying her. Rossrs (talk) 13:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

American Dream

He probably means that by the label "American Dream" Mailer meant to stress that does not exist a collective dream such that it can be defined as belonging to a collective category as an adjective like "American" may suggest, but that the nature of this dream is that of fighting for one's own individuation (Jungian meaning).

As such the dream is collective and individualistic at the same time: a whole population shares as a dream the personal effort to find a _personal_ place in the big painting. This "place" is not a career (this to account also for the question about the "ultimate root" being not wealth), but the ethical meanings that a man's story can leave behind as its legacy.

The american dream starts as individual struggle, and ends up as collective meaning.

This meaning is validly distilled out of these struggles and out of the success, tragedy, or escape they end with, as an ethical kernel that that man's or woman's life wittingly or unwittingly secreted. It is thus both personal and collective at once.

It is the "American Dream". UnitedScripters

Moved!

I didn't like how this paragraph affected the article's flow, so I decided to be bold and moved the whole American dream thing to its own page. -Wiccan Quagga 11:01, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

The Fight

Why is The Fight not included in the list of his works?

Added The Fight and was removed next day?

The Castle In the Forest

From all the pre-release reviews and excepts in the print and on radio, it appears that this new work which focuses on personal demonization of Adolf Hitler's childhood and family background is a disappointment coming from Mailer, who in the past has satirized smug self-serving middle class respectable opinion, which ironically in this instance he reflects. The crimes of Hitler, fascism and the horrors of twentieth century history generally it is hard to gainsay and surely merit not being trivialized. Those of us who grew up in middle class America, however, may be naive and know little about this. Mailer as a World War II veteran and former activist in the anti-war movement should know better and not insult us with this sort of cheap propaganda, albeit overwrought. A serious study of this individual and German fascism would focus critically on his experiences in the the Great War, in which 3 million Germans died, and the Versailles Conference, the Bolshevik Revolution etc. and the associated social upheaval which shaped him and a whole generation. Moreover, anti-Semitism is an ancient medieval prejudice that goes back way before Hitler and not unique to Germany. Also, focusing all the blame on Hitler as an individual conveniently takes the onus off of the millions of ordinary "patriotic" people-to say nothing of the German military and business elites-who shared his outlook and psychology and who enthusiastically supported him and Germany's war machine. As it stands now, however, the author's frivolous story brings to mind what Lincoln Rockwell derided as "all that hooey about Hitler". (to Alex Haley for 1967 Playboy magazine interview). Seriously, 3 million Germans died in WW1, 50 times more than the Americans who perished in Vietnam. Is it really such an unreasonable supposition to think that those horrific experiences are what formed the foundation of his rage-the horrors of the Somme and Verdun-and that he may have just been, like his contemporaries, an unremarkable person before that time? That the cause of his psychology was the obvious historical one? Tom Cod 05:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

  • You are attributing a lot of ideas to Mailer that have nothing at all to do with his book. Please note that talk pages are to be used for ideas for improving the article, not just generally discussing or slamming the subject, especially when a living person is involved.Qworty 21:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


Is there any rèason why Norman Mailer does not have an Infobox. I am going through a bit of a infobox spree at the moment and just di Denis Johnson and thought of other authors like John Grisham who has a nice one but the I was surprised when Norman Mailer didn't have one?? Is there some criteria for when not to use them - I personally think they add a lot to an article when you are looking for the quick snappy factsBustOut 21:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The Executioner's Song

I there some reason why The Executioner's Song is listed under non-fiction rather than fiction? On the book's first edition dust jacket it says it is "A True Life Novel", so call me crazy but novels tend to be fiction, not non-fiction. Oh and by the way, The Executioner's Song won the Pulitzer Prize for... Fiction. So the Pulitzer board probably thought it was fiction too. --Smirkboy 02:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


Goodreads explains the 'True Life Novel' description of The Executioner's Song by suggesting Mr Mailer could have made the book simply a history of the crimes, but by calling it True Life Novel he had complete freedom to write practically anything he wanted. Johnwrd (talk) 12:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


In Further Reading:
Mr. Richard Poirer's good book on Norman Mailer has 1972 as the date of publication...but the annotation to it says it deals with Mailer's career into the Eighties....

71.61.180.9 18:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Other unlisted works?

I was actually visiting the article to check on some of the publication dates, but two of his works on my list, Deaths for the Ladies and King of the Hill, are not included. I'm sure there are others, but I don't know the criteria for deciding which titles should be included in the article. He was quite a prolific author. Shanen 08:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Blog removal

I removed many seemingly nonnotable blog obituaries from the external links. Jewlicious was removed by an anonymous editor--that being his only edit. His argument was that it was the leading Jewish blog and the only one that spoke of Mailer's religion. Although, I think most things don't speak of his being Jewish because it's not particularly important. The traffic ranking for Jewlicious is only ranked 30459,632 according to Alexa and my look at the site took it more as polemic and a chance to raise advertising revenue... but, I will let the people here decide. I just want to put a message here so others can see. gren グレン 07:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Alexa's rankings are not exactly scientific... to say the least. You might want to look at Technorati rankings instead. As to the issue of Mailer's Judaism, you may want to look at http://www.forward.com/articles/12032/ where Mailer is quoted as follows: “Many years ago, I received a translation of the Talmud as a gift, and I have been dipping into it on and off ever since; it has influenced everything I have written.” Not particularly important? I think some would dispute that. I think the Jewlicious post should stay. I'm going to go ahead and put it back in. But by all means feel free to discuss it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.55.251 (talk) 11:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The issue isn't whether or not his Judaism is important. It's whether or not the sources are reliable sources. For someone as well known as Mailer we should have better sources than an amateur blog. That is the point I am making. It is not that it is not interesting. I am not going to deal with this because I think time will remove the lesser sources as we make this article better--drawing from books and journals and criticism. gren グレン 05:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
That's a valid point Grenavitar. However, Jewlicious is not what one can call an amateur blog. They have 11 writers, they have been cited elsewhere on Wikipedia, they have over 3000 posts and 48,000 comments. In the Jewish world they are rather well known. Two of their writers recently addressed the United Jewish Communities General Assembly and they've received numerous awards and much press coverage. I understand that there might be a preference for academic sources given the subject matter at hand, but in lieu of a comprehensive treatment of the enigmatic role Judaism played in Mailer's life, the Jewlicious post strikes me as particularly apt.

Maryilin

The biography has not been 'continuously" in print since initial publication, and it remains out of print to this day.

"The Prisoner of Sex"

Mailer's "Prisoner of Sex" is not about how "women should be kept in cages." Not sure who added that, but it was inaccurate.Atthom (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC) He could be arrested for 'hate speech' in the UK for it now anyway- they don't have to eat this sort of crap no more :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.110.165 (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Adele Morales/Structure of article

Two quick points. I feel the wording of the line on Mailer's stabbing of Adele Morales leans a little to the apologetic side. The present edit says, "Morales made a full physical recovery, and in 1997 she published a memoir of their marriage entitled The Last Party, which outlined her perception of the incident." How "full" was the recovery? I've read, from The Last Party and other sources, that the physical scars were not trivial in the long term, to say nothing of the emotional trauma. I'm changing it on these grounds, to something more like the earlier edit. This seems more balanced to me, and essentially neutral. I'm not sure why this was changed on account of "word choice"; I'd welcome the editor's clarification on this point.

Also, the current structure of the article is awkward. The division of the work into Novels/Essays/Other seems an artificial imposition on these paragraphs. Maybe more accurate to say "Early Novels"? Zafio (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

In Memory of Norman Mailer

Jimmy Kimmel's "F***ing Ben Affleck" video was dedicated "In Memory of Norman Mailer." Is this significant enough to add?PokeHomsar (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems the Wikipedia community has overwhelmingly indicated that incidental mentions of Mailer's name in pop culture aren't germane to the article. If you look over the history, you'll see that they've been repeatedly removed. The only mention I can think of that would be pertinent is the use of his name in the Saturday Night Live skit "Prose and Cons" (1981) as it spoofs Mailer's support of prison writer Jack Abbott by portraying prisons as a hotbed of literary excellence. It's funny, and Mailer's name is used as writer, director, producer, but it's still a somewhat superficial reference. Abbot's name is also listed in the credits as research assistant. If anyone thinks this should be added, let's hear it.JT1970 (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the "Prose and Cons" reference because the entry indicated that Mailer had actually written and directed the piece. In reality, he was none too pleased by it. And he certainly never participated in writing comedy for SNL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeform83 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

HELP! The Naked and the Dead

The article on The Naked and the Dead is a complete and utter mess — a true embarassment to Wikipedia. Please, someone who has actually read the book fix and clean up the article. Thank you very much in advance. Softlavender (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The Naked and the Dead?

There is only two lines written about The Naked and the Dead. They seem O.K. However as a description is asked for. The Naked and the Dead was Mailers' first best seller. The book gives in depth descriptions of fighting by American and Japanese troops, mixed with insightful character studies of the personalities of many of the characters. It has been compared with The Red Badge of Courage. After he read the Novel Malcombe Muggerridge compared Mailers' Book with Rudyard Kipplings writings, (that must be a personal interpretation). The book however is often mistaken as an account of Mr Mailers own war time service, something he has not claimed. From Here to Eternity is the novel paralleled often with The Naked and The Dead, however that novel is concerned more with American Army Camp society than front line fighting seen in Mr Mailers book. Joseph Hellers American WW2 Book is based in Europe, as is Slaughter House 5 which is a totally different book in style from The Naked and the Dead. Most notable scene in The Naked and the Dead? An American soldier is told by telegraph message his wife has just died. Soon after he is told of his wife's death, he begins (due to the slowness of the Mail) to receive Mail from her back home.Johnwrd (talk) 23:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Daughter

A woman, Sharyn, is claiming to be Mailer's daughter. I have removed this information since it is unverified by any source other than Sharyn's word (see WP:V: "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material"). Sharyn, if you're reading this and you are indeed Mailer's daughter, I apologize if these edits cause any distress. I'm sure its very important to you that you are recognized not only by the Mailer family, but by the world at large. Until this information is public domain, however - that is verified by reliable public sources - any such information is not encyclopaedic, and therefore unreliable. Those are the rules..Zafio (talk) 11:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC) ***[I have updated various things on here (deleted my last name for privacy reasons) and updated some words to correct spelling.] --Sharyn 09:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC) ***

      • First, let me say, that my life has been mostly private for 46 years (written 19 January 2010). While I was recognized by the Mailer family and one of his long time friends for over 50 years since Norman's death, ultimately, my learning about my biological father is what is most important to me now. I thought that it was relevant that Matthew be recognized since he was also raised in the household, too, even though he was not a biological or adopted son of Norman Mailer - he had the opportunity to know him much better than myself. Whether the world knows or not - I really haven't thought about that much. Although I am writing a book about what happened - since while doing investigating - I found Norman's desire for people to do a "journalistic investigation". I find it ironic that it was during my Journalism class that I found out that my father was a writer. Please keep in mind that current DNA testing was not as established/available when I was conceived - so even with documents erased or never being made - my own DNA exists which will equal my Mailer brother's DNA in reference to our father's DNA.*** Norman'sdaughter (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC) --Norman'sdaughter (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC) (updated spelling and wording)--Sharyn Elander 09:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

As well, information about the incident with Norman and Adele Morales is not "salacious"; its important, factual, and verified information about Mailer's life. Norman had a controversial life; his writing life was prolific, thought-provoking, and fulfilling. Some sides of his private life and public actions were flawed. And some people have believed that his literary work is similarly flawed in its attitudes and ideas. Its important to record this. If his work tells us anything, it tells us the importance of facing difficult truths.Zafio (talk) 11:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

After watching Norman Mailer: The American - I can see how the stabbing affected the Mailer family much more than when I was stabbed as a child. Personally, as Norman Mailer's biological daughter I feel that I have a right to write on my father's page. I have recently found that records of my adoption seem to be unavailable - which makes me question whether they actually exist...a mere name change may have been done for me when my mother married in 1966. [I, too, am learning that if something is not provable - it doesn't exist. Thankfully, my DNA is proof.] If Wikipedia chooses to not mention me, that is there decision, then I most certainly wouldn't promote such a page through social media, however, until this is fixed. Which compels me to go public, which means I also need more privacy (see last name removals). I will say - as mentioned earlier - that I am writing a book using the pen name: J.K. Mailer (see @JKMailer and @Compassion101 which is the working title for my memoir.) --Sharyn 09:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Zafio: if you read this: is it possible to remove my last name entirely on this talk page...I attempted to update - the page - but it put my last name instead of Normans'daughter - (I was attempted to remove it for privacy reasons - although it still is my name currently: --Sharyn Elander 09:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC) .) --Sharyn Elander 09:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Marilyn: "not good journalism" quote

I have removed

... he later admitted that these speculations were "not good journalism".{{Citation needed|date=November 2007}}

which had stood unremedied for about 2.5 years. I find this distinct-results G-test

20 for "not good journalism" "norman mailer"

of which only two omit "later admitted that these speculations were", both in 'graphs that were about the speaker rather than Mailer. The presumption that ref'g any of these online sources would be eating our own vomit is so strong that only a very reliable, very clear (or older) source can overcome it. (Of course, the appropriate inference that the editor was claiming a direct quote from Mailer may nevertheless be false, which raises other problems.) The insertion appears to have originated in a July 2006 edit using a 500-ish-edit presumed-shared academic IP (which stopped being used to edit here less than a month later, BTW).
--Jerzy•t 22:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Jerzy. I wrote that 2006 edit, and included the "not good journalism" quote. I think its fine to exclude as the citation is not nearly robust enough. This was early in my history of editing, and while the full quote on KC's Norman Mailer page (http://www.iol.ie/~kic/mailer3.html) certainly sounds like Mailer (probably a response to an interview question), its obviously not sufficiently reliable. My fault, I know better now. If a more reliable source was found, I think this would be a notable citation. Very shortly after that July 2006 edit, I left said institution. I think you imply in parentheses that there may have been bad faith in this edit - I'm an advocate of Mailer's work, just not an uncritical one. Zafio (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Zafio, i'm pretty sure my phrase "other problems" didn't refer to bad faith, so i'm glad you spoke up.

In exploring that IP, i seem to have found that eliciting a response to the questions i was raising was a long shot, and to have summarized my results just to tell anyone considering similar exploration what ballpark they'd be playing in if they did so. I hope that you are just being overly conscientious in clarifying the facts, and that no third party read any implicit criticism of that colleague (you) into my remarks; i don't recall, and very much doubt, that i intended to insinuate anything about you. The wording i chose inside my parentheses would be about your not explicitly claiming that Mailer used those three words, and my fear that some readers would fail to note that and carry away a (possibly false) impression that he had. E.g., you might have relied on a source that said "Any fool can see that what he did was not good journalism, and he now admits as much", and quoted that source rather than him; in contrast to that example, the source you provide above shows that your use of quotation marks was careful, and you used the quoted words in a way that respected the context you found them in: the then unnamed source says that Mailer used those three words, and while you didn't provide your source, you said nothing likely to mislead readers abt NM's words. (It was i who misled myself, by reading too closely and overemphasizing a minor ambiguity!)
You're also more critical than i of your sourcing practice. Every fact should eventually get a reliable source, but every editor sets their own priorities. I, for instance, often open a second edit on a page linked by the one i am "really" working on. I may be fixing a spelling error in the second edit, or it may be something like when i noticed the other day that Character flaw defines its scope as attributes created by authors to afflict fictional characters. The phrase also refers (IM-casual-O primarily) to inadequacies in the content of some real person's character. We don't put footnotes on HatNote Dabs, but ideally the one i added to that article would have a note at talk:Character flaw#Vice with a reliable source that shows the sense i prefer for the "character flaw" is a significant one; here in the real world, i went on working on whatever it was that drew my attention to the "character flaw" article, bcz insisting on perfect articles (which includes being perfectly sourced) now interferes with making bad articles good.

My opinion is that your contribution about "not good journalism" was a responsible one (even tho i had good reasons for removing it and discussing why i did so), and i'm pleased to have the opportunity to tell you so.
--Jerzy•t 15:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

  • What we have now is a credible or plausible source, and i propose we put back a version of Zafio's statement, perhaps this one:
he later described them as "speculations" and "not good journalism"
which IMO explicitly attributes those wordings to him and thus eliminates confusion like my own.


But as Zafio alludes to, it is a personal fan page (essentially equivalent, in non-reliability, to a blog) and i'd like the new version to have a fresh {{cn}} tag, in the hope that someone will eventually track down the right source among

  1. interview from Face to Face entitled "Jeremy Isaacs talks to Norman Mailer" on PBS
  2. interview on The Late Late Show on RTE
  3. appearance at Marietta College Perspectives lecture series, Thursday, February 5, 1998
any of which should be a reliable source for the fact that he said it.
--Jerzy•t 15:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jerzy, that fully explains the wording of that parenthesis, thank you for taking the time to respond. Zafio (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

In print?

My wording reflects that we said, from early March thru at least the last 9 months of 2008, that it had been continuously in print, and by end 2009, we said it was out. But neither statement has been provided a ref. Jerzy•t 01:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Candidacy for Mayor of New York City

The article implies he ran for mayor of New York City in 1973 (it says he ran two years after a well-known appearance on 'The Dick Cavett Show' in 1971). I was under the impression he ran in 1969. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.142.97 (talk) 05:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia quote itself?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Mailer#Political_activism

^ Wikipedia quoting another Wikipedia article (without even linking it). If quoting of this kind is okay, shouldn't the cite mark from the original quote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dick_Cavett_Show#1971:_Norman_Mailer_Interview) be taken over into this article as well (and the article be linked)? Gershake (talk) 01:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

That's my question too. What a crappy bit of Wiki self-reference that is. Most articles that touch on the same topic as another article seem to just fork the content without referencing where it came from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.169.132 (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 05:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 12:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Cultural references

The cultural references are dumber than the usual cultural references in a Wiki biography.173.72.63.70 (talk) 05:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)Hans Wurst

PEN Involvement/Leadership neglected.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdQcusxaBEY

According to this clip from a 1986 "Firing Line," Mailer was "The President of PEN." I don't know if that was PEN Intl. or The US PEN??? However, I remember that time quite well and Mailer was very involved with the organization, raised a lot of money, and, in 1989, persuaded Stephen King to threaten Barnes and Noble Books stores with "pulling" all his best sellers if B&N did not prominently display Salman Rushdie's _Satanic Verses_ in all its stores. I think you need to include Mailer on this page and do more research on his role in the organization. Thanks.johncheverly 12:25 pm, Today (UTC−5) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncheverly (talk • contribs) 04:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC) johncheverly 04:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you.
Hello, I'm Johncheverly. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.
Hello, I'm Johncheverly. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.


Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
johncheverly 04:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)johncheverly 04:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Having a section, albeit on a talk page, by an anonymous user that the late winner of Pulitzer, National Book, and George Polk Awards "smelt bad" is both inane and offensive to the man's memory and family and friends. Therefore, I have deleted it after giving the numerous warnings above.johncheverly 13:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Village Voice founding controversy

An illustrated history of John Wilcock's career alleges that Norman Mailer wrote him out of the history of the Village Voice (http://www.ep.tc/john-wilcock/issue-two/05.jpg, http://media.boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/nyt-norman-mailer-860.jpg); this is further corroborated by the Wikipedia article on John Wilcock (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wilcock). Correction in order? 128.171.61.158 (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Actor's Studio??? Copyedit (minor) Comment

Wasn't Mailer a member of the Actor's Studio??? Little help???User:JCHeverly 02:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Norman Mailer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Norman Mailer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Norman Mailer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Norman Mailer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Norman Mailer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Norman Mailer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

What was Norman Mailer's birtname?

Was Norman Mailer actually born Nachum Malek?

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/this-day-in-jewish-history/.premium-1.768531

Besserwissern (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

According to Mailer's biographer, J. Michael Lennon, "The baby's Hebrew name, Nachum Melech, came from his grandmother Mailer's brother, Nachum Melech Shapiro, who arrived in the United States in 1900. 'Melech' means king in Hebrew, but his birth certificate says 'Norman Kingsley Mailer'" (Norman Mailer: A Double Life 13). Grlucas (talk) 14:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Norman_Mailer/Archive_1&oldid=1097091006"