Jump to content

Talk:Aaron Sorkin/Archive 1

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

A Wiki Letter to Journalists

If you can help to fill in any missing facts or correct any misconceptions surrounding Aaron Sorkin's life, please do. Here is a list of some questions:

  • Is it true that Sorkin wrote a 1988 Rolling Stone Magazine article about the top acting schools in the U.S. with one of the featured schools being the State University of New York at Purchase (S.U.N.Y. Purchase) where Janel Moloney (Donna on "The West Wing") happened to be attending at the time?
  • Can you drudge up some more details about Sorkin's years at Castle Rock Entertainment?
  • How many screenplays of his are unproduced? I've come across two, which I list in the Credits section. It would be interesting to hear about any other unproduced screenplays of his.

Thank you for taking the time to read this, BillDeanCarter 16:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Grasping for information

  • This has good information on meeting his wife, and starting off with the film Malice. John Levesque (2000-03-07). "Aaron Sorkin is a man of many words". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Retrieved 2007-01-10.-BiancaOfHell 20:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • All his appearances on film seem to be 'man at bar'.
  • His first play, a failure, was Removing All Doubt. See "In The Spotlight - Aaron Sorkin '83". Syracuse University Magazine. Summer 2001. Retrieved 2006-11-27.
  • Sorkin has visited the White House, met Clinton, who liked A Few Good Men. [1]
  • Aaron married Julia Bingham on April 13th 1996. The couple divorced in 2001.(unsourced)
  • In 2006, the College of Visual and Performing Arts will initiate another annual Los Angeles “immersion experience” for Syracuse students: the Aaron Sorkin Week. Sorkin ’83, best known as creator and executive producer of the critically acclaimed hit television series, The West Wing, has endowed the new learning opportunity that is specifically designed for student actors and film directors.[2] [3]
  • Newmarket Press has good info...[4]

Books and Such

Missing information, needs depth

  • Drug addiction... starting a year after he started writing.
  • Thomas Schlamme... frequent collaborator in most of Sorkin's endeavours... starting when, and ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BiancaOfHell (talk • contribs) 21:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC).
  • The writing credits debates... There's William Richert [5] ... There's Rick Cleveland defending his co-credit on writing "In Excelsis Deo." on a web site no less.. [6]..

FROM THE DEJONGE NYT article:Rick Cleveland, was livid about not being able to make any remarks at last year's Emmy ceremony at which an episode he wrote with Sorkin (the one about the homeless war veteran) was honored. What made the exclusion all the more galling to Cleveland was that the story was based on his father, a Korean war veteran who spent the last years of his life on the street.

Characteristically, Sorkin couldn't leave the matter alone. Immediately after the dispute was reported in The New York Times, he trashed Cleveland online in a West Wing chat room. (He habitually visits such Web sites after a show airs.) In a signed tirade, he insisted that Cleveland's contributions were so minor that he should have counted himself lucky to have won an Emmy at all. But as Cleveland points out, the co-writing credit was not offered by Sorkin but dictated by the Writer's Guild.

I like cheese and butter too!

As JMD queried, is Sorkin "unique" in writing "nearly every episode"? Only pertinent example I can think of is J. Michael Straczynski writing most of Babylon 5. Perhaps change "unique" to "rare"?

  • I agree. How about "unusual"? I've made the edit. Nick 16:16, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Peer review for The West Wing

I have started a peer review of Aaron Sorkin's The West Wing. I would really appreciate any input to better the article! -Scm83x 15:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

So many Uncrediteds

What proof do we have that Aaron Sorkin without credit wrote or co-wrote so many films? Schindler's List, The Rock, Excess Baggage, Bulworth, and Enemy of the State are all listed in his filmography, but uncredited.

Sorkin mentions working on The Rock, Enemy of the State, and Bulworth in his introduction to the first West Wing Script Book.--Nalvage 17:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

On relationship with Thomas Schlamme

This from a ComedyCentral.com interview

Can you talk about Thomas Schlamme and his contribution as an Executive Producer and Director? Tommy Schlamme's contribution is equal to mine. I don't want it to seem like he contributed 20% or something. It's absolutely equal to mine - on both "Sports Night" and "The West Wing".

There was a very well known, much awarded and justifiably awarded television director, probably the most well-known television director. ABC wanted him to direct the pilot and I met with him and clearly his instinct was also, "Well this is great, but it needs to be more like a sitcom. These two guys, these two anchors - one of them needs to be the neat guy, the other one needs to be the sloppy guy. One a gay guy, one a straight guy; one the fat guy, one the thin guy. It's got to be like that. And I said, "God, I don't know anything, I'm not in television. You're an incredible success and I'm sure you're right, but I'm not going to do that." And the network got very upset with me, that I had sent him packing.

The next day a meeting had been set up with Tommy, who I'd never met but whose work I knew. He'd directed a couple of features, he'd directed plenty of half hour television, but he was also one of the hands responsible for "The Larry Sanders Show" and the look and feel of "Larry Sanders," which I love - which everybody loves. But I was scared the day before by the network, and I didn't want to send Tommy packing, and this other director had really put this bug in my ear, so my first question to Tommy was, "Listen, Tommy, if you were to direct this pilot, it's an unusual half-hour, what touchstones, what comfort zones would you put in this show to make people feel like, hey this is just a regular half-hour, like other half-hours?" He replied, "None - I want to do the one that you wrote."

So not only was he hired right away but I fell in love with him right away. And right after he directed the pilot and the show was picked up, I asked him to stay on as an Executive Producer of the show, not only direct as many of the episodes as he could but also take over many if not most of the non-writing chores on the show. So that partnership was born. Tommy, in addition to really creating the look of both shows, does the heavy lifting as a producer, is the one working with all of the directors who come in when he's not directing, is the person talking to me about the script as soon as I turn it in. He was the one making design decisions, casting decisions, and he's in all the money meetings that I would not be in or would not be capable of contributing in. We've been working together ever since.

Last year was the overlap year, when we were doing "Sports Night" and "The West Wing" at the same time, and that was difficult to say the least. There was no way it would have been attemptable without Tommy, without my knowing that wherever I wasn't, Tommy was going to be there.

-BiancaOfHell 22:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Schlamme was supposed to direct Farnsworth... now is on Studio 60... clearly this relationship should have a paragraph.

Yahoo contributed biography

I am using the Yahoo contributed biography very carefully. I check facts against other sources when I can. It seems to be "anonymous". When the Yahoo contributed biography tells that John McQuiggan commissioned Sorkin to improve Hidden in this Picture there is evidence that McQuiggan presented Making Movies later when it was produced from a NYT review. That lends a little more credibility to said biography, but it would be much better if there was more info on McQuiggan's commission.-BiancaOfHell 02:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm also skeptical about what the Yahoo contributed biography tells about Sorkin's acting work at Syracuse. Some of it sounds like a joke, "a top pyramid acrobat for Carnival"? This information would be great to know. Little is known about his failed acting career.-BiancaOfHell 02:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorkin, an acrobat?

The Yahoo contributed Aaron Sorkin biography reports that he was the top pyramid acrobat for a performance of Carnival! Isn't that insane? If true would be good to have in the article, but can anyone back it up?-BiancaOfHell 22:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Working at Castle Rock

What is known:

  • he met his wife there
  • he wrote 3 scripts there: a few good men, malice, the american president
  • he took 2 or 3 years to write The American President on a bit of a crack binge, and trouble finding his muse
  • he wrote the scripts for A Few Good Men and Malice together kinda, here and there, and quickly it would seem. Then had a bit of a break until The American President was done. After that he was done with Castle Rock and went on to work as a script doctor.
  • During these years, he also was asked by Spielberg to help out with Schindler's List... that's the extent of his script doctoring while at Castle Rock.. the bulk of it took place after.
  • His end with Castle Rock coincides with his trip to Hazelden for rehab.
  • his wife was an entertainment lawyer, or some such lawyer-type at Castle Rock.
  • According to William Richert he would read everything available to read at Castle Rock. So he spent time there. Where was the building?
  • This was his start in the film industry. He was making a transition from playwright to screenwriter.
  • William Goldman was his mentor there, sorta, on Malice for example. Was Goldman working there as a consultant, to what extent?
  • Rob Reiner... their relationship. Reiner appears in an episode of Studio 60. Reiner directed A Few Good Men and The American President.
  • Where's producer David Brown during all these years?
  • Alan Horn? friend, foe, inconsequential?
  • Are there any books on Castle Rock Entertainment? mentioning Sorkin?
  • NEED MORE INFO. -BiancaOfHell 23:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Improvements to be made

  • Find out if The West Wing Scriptbook, Seasons 3 & 4 has any useful information.-BiancaOfHell 20:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • there is something called Aaron Sorkin week at Syracuse University... not for this article though.
  • The Podcast template {{{cite podcast}}} seems to have an error in it's script, as it eats the * before it when I use it in the Further information->Podcasts section here and at the Studio 60 article's Podcasts section as well.
  • possible section on Sorkin's many web posts at TWoP.

Politics

  • Sorkin's association with MoveOn.org
  • Tom Brokaw guffaw
  • 160,000$ or so in political contributions to the Democratic party?
  • Al Gore tried not to be smart comment
  • Bush not intelligent on Charlie Rose interview (earlier than the 2003 interview)-BiancaOfHell 10:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Funky book source

The paragraph about Sorkin's university experience is based on this book:

  1. ^ Frank Harold Trevor Rhodes (October 2001). The Creation of the Future: The Role of the American University. Cornell University Press, p.75-76. ISBN 978-0801439377.

The info is based on the book's large excerpt from what it calls a speech by Sorkin at Syracuse University's 1997 Commencement ceremony:[8]

But... the official Syracuse website detailing the history of its Commencements does not list Sorkin as a speaker at any Commencement: http://archives.syr.edu/archives/history/com_speakers.html

(He received an alumni medal in 2001, but I can't find any record of a speech[9])

I'll look into this further, but there's some kind of mixup here. Bwithh 23:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I found the following here [10] which is possibly the real source of the speech and it does come just in time to make it into Frank Rhodes' book. Though pure speculation-BiancaOfHell 23:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

4.5.01 - Aaron Sorkin has received Syracuse University's highest alumni honor. Sorkin is among six recipients selected for the 2001 George Arents Pioneer Medal for outstanding professional accomplishments, said Chancellor Kenneth Shaw. Sorkin graduated with a degree in musical theater from the College of Visual and Performing Arts in 1983. He will accept his medal in a ceremony at the Museum of Television and Radio in Los Angeles on June 20.

They have an office for alumni of Syracuse University living in Los Angeles here: <http://suinla.syr.edu/>

Lead section

Comment - I don't think the lead needs citations. There has been a lot of discussion about this. See here. - Shudda talk 05:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, seems like you put citations if something is hard to believe... or a special circumstance. I will correct the lead section, and perhaps leave one or two citations.-BiancaOfHell 06:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think his drug abuse problems should be mentioned in the lead at all. Unless its a defining characteristic of his work or one of the main reasons why he's famous, its not suitable for the lead. (also - did he really "battle" with cocaine addiction for many years? It's not clear to me that he did) Bwithh 17:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
He's pretty famous for the drug addiction problems. SNL did a skit about it a few years back, and it's been a problem for him for many decades. He battled with it because he relapsed, and he's mentioned many times the relief he gets from specifically freebase cocaine. But in the peer review it was suggested not leaving it out.-BiancaOfHell 19:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Divorce year

I'm going with the IMDB year for this event. While IMDB is unreliable for minor actors etc., I assume that it is more reliable for major celebrities who have agents who have assistants whose job is partly to write/monitor client IMBD pages. (Can't find divorce event date in Factiva (some talk of "preparing for divorce" in 2004 but 2001 gossip columns only indicate a 2001 separation, not divorce). Bwithh 17:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Pedeconference

Here the origins of the term are explained: 'Also known as a pedeconference (by analogy to teleconference), especially on Television Without Pity.'[11] I doubt it will be easy to cite this. Is Urban dictionary really out of the question? If it is, then I suggest removing the term, because it's a fan thing, and I can't find a news report that mentions the term. Also, "Walk and Talk" are slightly different. One is a visual technique used by directors, the other is a way that fans describe what they see.-BiancaOfHell 20:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with Urban Dictionary is that anyone can post any term and definition to it without verification (a couple of volunteers will look at it to see if it sounds ok to them, but there is no requirement for proof or sourcing as there is on Wikipedia). Television Without Pity is a more respectable site - more than a regular fansite, and while not exactly a reliable definitive source for information perhaps, it is at least a commercial reviewing entity with a significant reputation. I would suggest citing TWP as the source for pedeconference, and making that clear in the text rather than just in the footnote. Also, Aaron Sorkin's own interactions with TWP forums might be worth a mention - apparently there is some press coverage of this. I'll look into this. Bwithh 22:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
An extra cite from a professional referring to whom coined "pedeconference" would be great. I put together some prose that describes the distinction between "Walk and Talk" and "pedeconference" somewhat better.-BiancaOfHell 01:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

TWP/Sorkin

Here's the money Sorkin quote from the New York Times Magazine article on Television Without Pity:

Magazine Desk; Section 6 The Remote Controllers By Marshall Sella 4834 words 20 October 2002 The New York Times Page 68, Column 1 English c. 2002 New York Times Company

EXCERPT begins Any notion that the Hollywood telegentsia hovers above the fan-site fray was shattered two years ago when Aaron Sorkin, creator of The West Wing, bitterly responded to an online complaint; he posted under his own name on Television Without Pity (or, as it was then called, Mighty Big TV). A year later, Sorkin wrote a West Wing episode that savaged TWoP and its ilk, portraying hard-core Internet users as obese shut-ins who lounge around in muumuus and chain-smoke Parliaments. It was his best and loudest available form of revenge against a phenomenon that has not always treated him fondly. EXCERPT ends

NYTimes.com archive link

Not convinced yet though that this is worth including in article - checking this out further. Bwithh 22:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Bwith, did you decide one way or another on this topic? I could see it possibly having a place in the 'Point of view' section, wrapping up his TWoP years with his current "rise of amateurism" comments. His point of view on the internet is quite interesting, somewhat outdated but increasingly relevant to his world view. Anyways, I think you have the best grapple on this issue and I was just wondering if you're still working on it?-BiancaOfHell 04:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know that TWoP used to be Mighty Big TV. Is the online complaint Rick Cleveland's? Is this a separate "debacle" at TWoP? Sorkin loves the web and all the nutties. I think I've read that he regularly checks what they have to say. It's another culture war for him to write about, elites vs. amateurs.-BiancaOfHell 22:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
BTW, is there another link where I can read the NYT mag article? I don't have a Times Select account at NYT.-BiancaOfHell 22:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a history of the Sorkin/TWoP thing. Not a good source in itself, but a decent indication of what happened, for interest's sake.--Nalvage 23:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Bitchkittie has a timeline too [12] which shows the progression of his love-hate with TWoP. I think it might deserve it's own section, but you wuold have to try to find the actual sources (MSNBC, NY Post, etc...) that Bitchkittie references. But, I wouldn't merge it with the Rick Cleveland section in Controversy, but start a new section. One is a very serious matter, and the other is fan appreciation/argumentation.-BiancaOfHell 23:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Improper use of copyrighted images

It looks to me like all of these photo's are copyrighted photo's being used with a good faith effort towards what they believe is fair-use. The problem is that they are not fair use. They can be used within fair use if they are for critical commentary of the artist or the or school of art, etc. That would be the photographer themselves, not the subject of the photography. Even if free images are not available, inconvenience is not sufficient to override the photographers copyright. This is a narrow and tricky area, and Wikipedia policy is changing to become even more strict about use of non-free images, and fair-use. My apologies to those working on this fine article. Atom 13:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hold on. You just removed every single photo on this page, including the TV screenshots. This seems a bit extreme. Have you seen The West Wing (TV series) article? Is that next in line? This new strict policy seems cowardly.-BiancaOfHell 13:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Most of the image usages don't really seem to be fair use to me. Do we need to have images of the posters to understand the article? Or, on a slightly more permissive line, does the imagery in the poster reflect an unusual theme in the script? The one usage which did seem to be OK to me (on a quick look through) is the screenshot of the cameo appearance in West Wing. What do others think? Physchim62 (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
How about The West Wing was a turning point in Sorkin's life, and an image of that TV series, like a poster, might help a reader to place it all in the right context. Maybe they never watched The West Wing but have seen glimpses here and there, and the poster of the show will help them connect to the article.-BiancaOfHell 14:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how Sorkin's cameo appearance has the most legitimacy in this article. Does that mean any photo he appears in is legitimate? How about the screen shot of himself talking about his writing that is used at the very top then?-BiancaOfHell 14:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The distinction is that the use of the Sorkin screenshot is completely "insubstantial" (17 U.S.C. 107(3)) in relation to the episode of The West Wing from which it was taken: if there was no caption, you would never guess that it was taken from The West Wing. This doesn't in itself guarantee that the use is fair, but it is one of the factors a court would have to consider in an infringement case. The other images are either complete posters or a screenshot from an interview devoted to Sorkin, where we would be on much shkier ground with respect to the substantiality criterion. Physchim62 (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
For all of those interested this version contains the images under discussion.-BiancaOfHell 15:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to open a can of worms. I think that clamping down on copyrighted images, especially those claimed under fair-use will get alot more attention Wikipedia wide in the near future. There are estimated 200,000 photographs that fit that category, so pointing to another article where it happens will likely result in those being removed too, rather than them being allowed in violation of copyright here. My view is beyond the unsubstantial distinction made earlier, and is that a copyrighted image may only be used for critical commentary. Not criticial commentary of anything, only of the artist (photographer) or artwork itself. A screenshot is a copy made of the copyrighted TV work itself. The photographer took this without permission, and unless that image is used in a review or commentary (or parody) of the specific copyrighted work itself, it does not meet fair-use. Sorkin obviously had a role in some fashion with what all of the photo's represent, but that isn't sufficient unfortunately. Atom 16:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There was recently post on Admin's noticeboard regarding Board's decission on fair use. You might want to see it. There are going to be big changes in fair use... Articles like this are going to be among the most affected.--Pethr 17:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, but then let's take this issue seriously. Someone knowledgeable should start a WikiProject, Portal, or whatnot, that will help out Wikipedians in dealing with this issue. I'm going to see what I can do to get in contact with Aaron Sorkin to obtain a free use image. But what can Wikipedia do to help others in this situation? There are possibly over 10,000 photos that could be removed if a strict policy was enforced. It's time to start looking at ways to obtain these free use images, instead of just plumping down a new policy that will aggravate a tense situation.-BiancaOfHell 17:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually there is not much new on this. Decission was taken that present policies will be enforced more strictly. It will take time before all such images will be removed (there are probably many more invalid fair use images here than you estimated) and it will take even longer time before more people will start to license their content into public domain. There is no simple answer to that but the point is that many copyrighted works are on WP for the sole purpose to make articles look better.--Pethr 18:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Based on the current wording of WP:FU Screenshots are specifically allowed as long as they meet FU criteria: "Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television." I don't believe the new statement from the Board changes anything, it still allows fair use for critical commentary on "modern art" which a TV show arguably is. In no way are screenshots forbidden, they just must be used in the context of critical commentary. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Milo, could you justify any of the photos that are used in this this version of the article, to help me out?-BiancaOfHell 18:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Copyright law, and wikipedia policy are more narrow than you suggest. The screenshots can be used for critical commentary of the specific case, and not the general case. Used in general discussion of TV, or film is not within fair use. Used for discussion of the actors, or of the writers or directors in not fair use. Critical commentary of the specific epidsode, or the show itself could qualify. Fair use for critical commentary on "modern art" is *not* acceptable fair use. Atom 04:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you're drawing the line a little (and only a little) too tight. I have added a {{Non-free fair use in}}, with a specific justification, to Image:Sorkinwwtomorrow1.jpg. Physchim62 (talk) 04:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree that's an overly narrow interpretation unsupported by wp policy (or even copyright law/cases, you aren't a laywer, are you?). What I "suggest" was a direct quote from wp policy (and I made no mention of "general cases", while "Fair use for critical commentary on modern art" comes directly from the latest board message as allowed). I find the suggestion that a still is OK on a film article but not on a director article a bit ridiculous. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
It seem that Wikipedia is working towards trying to eliminate all non-free images. Use of copyrighted images at all will be limited to very, very few cases. One of the issues is translation of U.S. concept of "fair-use" to other places, such as Italy and Netherlands, to name a few. Regarding your statement that use of, for instance, Image:Sorkinwwtomorrow1.jpg is fair use.
  • Consider the label on the image itself, which says: "for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents". The image of Sorkin in the Sorkin article is not for critical commentary of the specific program and its contents, is it?
  • Wikipedia:Fair useCounterexamples (examples of what is not appropriate fair use)
    • "An image of a living person that merely shows what they look like."
    • "An image of a magazine cover, used only to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if that magazine issue itself is notable enough to be a topic within the article, then fair use may apply."
  • Here is a link to the Stanford law library page about fair use, comment and criticism[13] Reading this, do you think that the use of the copyrighted image from the West Wing, is being used in this context?
Atom 18:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll refrain from commenting on any of the other images that were being used in the article, but I asked a user on Flickr who'd gotten a picture with him, and she was willing to release it under a free license, so the infobox has a picture now. ShadowHalo 18:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Few Good Men image

So why was this image deleted? I can't find any deletion log here or on commons. What was the reason for deletion? --Milo H Minderbinder 13:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the photo had an additional "Non-Commercial" use license, and it was removed for that reason. It had nothing to do with the photo, but the license. It was released to the Creative Commons though. Actually, I'm wondering if the Flickr photo had to be released with a "Non-Commercial" license since it was a photo of a commercial theatrical play.-BillDeanCarter 21:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The image is back now. The photographer removed the "Non-Commercial" license, so it's all Creative Commons now. Hopefully it won't be deleted again.-BillDeanCarter 18:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Trivia and Apple promo

"Writing style and habits" doesn't just strike me as being highly trivial, but also as a rather obvious Apple promo, unintentional or not. Is it really relevant to inform readers about which brand of laptop he uses when writing?

Peter Isotalo 13:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's information of interest to a writer. What kind of tools does he use? How does he use them.-BillDeanCarter 20:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
You mean there's a significant difference in the style of writing that results from using a G3 as opposed to a G4? The level of detail concerned with various Apple products seems very trivial to me.
Peter Isotalo 12:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
You might as well say there is no discernible difference in writing between any type of writing device ever created. That's not what I'm getting at here. I'm showing over the years, for various works, how he used these computers, these typewriters, these cocktail napkins. There isn't a magical industry standard device that writers use for writing. It's your interpretation that this is a Mac promo. I would like to expand this section, and plan to over time as information comes in. You could just as easily say, "Hey, this soldier fights with a weapon. I get it. Let's not do a promo for Smith & Wesson and Remington. I don't need to hear about how he used a .357 Magnum in the Gulf War, and now uses a .44 Magnum in Iraq."-BillDeanCarter 12:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The difference between cocktail napkins, an 80s stationary Mac and a modern laptop is significant. The difference between a G3 and G4 is just cruft in a biography about a writer, especially an encyclopedic article. It's about as relevant as specifying what kind of cocktail napkins he used. Please considering condensing some of the statements.
Peter Isotalo 12:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not just the evolution from a G3 to a G4, but that he used these Macs consistently for all these works. For film, for TV, for plays. I'm going to frame the paragraph better. It's a collection of facts right now, when I'm actually trying to convey an idea. I'll see what I can do.-BillDeanCarter 16:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a pointless fact - whoever put this in is a fashion victim. Please find examples of other writer biographies where PC operating systems are quoted as relevant facts..."Doris Lessing wrote the first draft on Windows 95 before she upgraded to Windows 98..." It would be interesting if he used a really rare writing software package on the basis that it did something different when in actual fact he probably uses Microsoft Word like everyone else in the world. 86.0.204.194 —Preceding comment was added at 18:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

In order to save the content of "Awards and Honours"...

...from being deleted entire, I've volunteered to do some light copyediting on Aaron Sorkin in order to tighten it up--not to change anything drastically, just to make room for the merged content (if the AfD discussion goes as I hope it will--the contributor did a great deal of excellent work in comprising the list).

I know it's ambitious to try to "improve" an article which is already an FA, but even the most famous and well-respected authors and journalists benefit from the assistance of an editor. I welcome the community to monitor and discuss the edits, offer suggestions, revert me and browbeat me... okay, not so much the latter, but the point: I want to help, and welcome all constructive input.

Thanks!

Wysdom 22:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources ?

These sources do not appear reliable; pls resolve any potential WP:BLP issues prior to mainpage. Also, I flagged some non-verifiable potential BLP issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Mark Litwak is a prominent entertainment attorney who has written several books on entertainment law directed to the layperson.71.175.28.15 20:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
In general, what do you do when references go dead? I've witnessed others chastised for using Lexis-Nexis articles. And that's if they're even available.-BillDeanCarter 03:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Did you check the internet archive? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I've had bad experiences with the internet archive. it's slow and unnavigable. I guess if you find what you're looking for you can directly link into it? i found a much better, tidbit about Krause working with Sorkin at the Palace theatre by a much more reliable source: Playbill News. It also explains that Sorkin was the bar manager, so I'll replace with this one. As for b4a.healthyinterest: is this better than the internet archive?-BillDeanCarter 04:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
It sounds like you may be doing something wrong in the internet archive; yes, you can link directly to the latest archive there. Do a search on the link you want, and link to the latest or the most applicable. As to which sources are best, I leave that to you; only pointing out any potential BLP issues before mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Divorce year (again)

We currently have two different years listed in the same article for his divorce (2001 and 2005), which is fairly embarrassing for a featured article on Wikipedia. Does anyone have a definitive source for this date or should we just remove it? Quenn

I corrected the Infobox to 1996-2005.-BillDeanCarter 21:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Obama Campaign

Is there any source for the claim at the very beginning of the biography stating that Sorkin is "currently serving as a senior speech writer for the Barack Obama presidential campaign"? Agrant33074 (talk) 06:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aaron_Sorkin/Archive_1&oldid=1136489029"