Jump to content

Talk:Aaron Sorkin/Archive 2

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

My Vision

Dear Wikipedians: I believe we can improve this article significantly but we have to be ready to sacrifice our time and be ready to read very carefully and closely many essays and articles about Sorkin and his works. Both academic and journalistic. I have made some first steps towards improving this Wikipedia article, which I chronicle below. It is now up to all of us to do the rest of the work. I realize we could just leave the article as is, because this article really should only be a jumping point to more reliable sources about Aaron Sorkin, but I believe we should at least try to be more than that. If we work at it, we could have a highly readable, slightly enjoyable article that a reader could go through from beginning to end. That would be useful for those readers who don't want to jump off to other sources. The first order of business then is to make sure the article is entirely factual. I have done this and where I have not been able to yet verify a fact I have left a citation needed tag. Wikipedia should try to rise above the superficial beginnings of this article and produce something to be proud of.

Photographs (4 good, 1 bad)

First off, I would like to discuss the photographs. There are four photographs that we can use because they are free use. That is our kit. We should not leave any out. There is a concern that two of these four photographs are taken from a Generation Obama event, which could politicize the article. I don't think that is true. I have noticed that Wikipedia is not very particular about their captions, so since that is the case (I like a full caption with many details describing perfectly what you are looking at) then we can simply leave the caption out for one of the two Generation Obama photographs, with something short like "Aaron Sorkin in 2008". Ta da! Now the Generation Obama event will only be mentioned in one caption, rather than two. But there is a fifth photograph of Aaron Sorkin in an airport being used in different versions of this article which is NOT actually a photograph of Aaron Sorkin. That has to go, permanently. Go look at the Flickr page for this Flickr image and you will see that someone who knows Sorkin has commented (very recently, actually today) that the photograph is not, in fact, Sorkin. I have removed this photograph from the article.

So there are 4 free use photographs available. All need to have proper descriptions (with potentially a denuding of the Infobox photograph's caption):

In Infobox
  • A full-length portrait of Aaron Sorkin (not too close like the crop currently being used, but the bigger one that is just right) with the description: "Aaron Sorkin at a Generation Obama Los Angeles event on 20 August 2008."
In "A Few Good Men" section
  • A bow being taken by the cast of A Few Good Men with the description: "A Few Good Men at London's Theatre Royal Haymarket on August 31, 2005."
In "Returning to the theatre" section
  • An action photograph of Aaron Sorkin discussing his play The Farnsworth Invention with the description: "Aaron Sorkin discussing his play The Farnsworth Invention with an audience at the Music Box Theatre on November 8, 2007 (photo by photographer Eric Weiss)."
In "Personal life" section
  • A photograph of Aaron Sorkin at a Generation Obama Los Angeles event with the description: "Aaron Sorkin speaking at a Generation Obama event, following a screening of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, on 20 August 2008 (photo taken by Victoria Bernal)."

That's that for photographs. All four should be used because apparently people really don't know what Aaron Sorkin looks like, thus the erroneous photograph of him in the Airport. These four photographs are very good in my opinion. Wikipedia is lucky to have them.

Factual and prose improvement

Now, to the bulk of this article. There were some serious problems with the bulk of this article. A lot of unverified facts that turned out to be false when the sources (which were only sometimes given) were checked. The prose still needs to be improved but I have done some work on this. Here's a rundown:

  • The lede is generally good. Could be shortened.
  • The "Early years" section is generally good and factual. I did a minor polish.
  • The "Castle Rock" section is abysmal. I rewrote it, corrected the mistaken fact that Aaron Sorkin worked at Castle Rock's Beverly Hills offices. Not supported by any newspapers articles. He in fact worked at their LA offices after working in NY.
  • I added criticism of his films to the "Castle Rock" section. (It must be determined how this is to be generally done in _this_ article. Simple statements about critical and popular reception with or without quotes? A uniformity must be achieved. Can't have one method in this section and another in that section)
  • I removed the Controversies section. If you really want to dissect this article for all its Controversies then how about adding one for "the NBC News flap" and the "TWOP" flap? Real writers don't do that. You have yourself a narrative and include those bumps in Sorkin's life wherever they occur, rather than separate. Additionally, the "TWOP" flap is not mentioned in this article, and, what more, it has been covered by the Mainstream Media.
  • The controversy about the "Morris v. Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc." has never been mentioned in the Mainstream Media. It is simply a case that went before the courts. So I removed it from the Controversies section, and, in fact, the entire article. It is not a part of a standard reading of Sorkin's life. I will note that WP:BLP will direct you to immediately remove such contentious statements.
  • "The Rick Cleveland" writing dispute properly belongs in The West Wing section where it has context. It happened in the context of the awards ceremony after season 1 when it became apparent that The West Wing was a hit.
  • "The Personal life/Drug Use" section in the Controversy section (how can one's personal life be a controversy? Really.) should be placed within a context, within the article where these events occurred. The reader should not have to work to figure out Sorkin's life. Pieces here and there. This article should be readable from first sentence to last. So this stuff goes into a Personal life section further down where his family life has been mentioned.
  • You can't have a "Writing process and characteristics" section. Two different things. So let's have three sections: "Writing process", "Writing characteristics", and "Common themes and motifs in Sorkin's works." This is what I have done in my edits.
  • You should not have a "Personal politics" section for Aaron Sorkin, followed by "Personal life" and "Family life" sections. These three sections are so meager that they belong together. I have merged them all into a colorful "Personal life" section. These are all events that have occurred in his personal life, outside of his work. And when they do involve his work, such as the "NBC News" flap (to be found previously in the "Personal politics" section), well, that frankly belongs in The West Wing section.
  • The "Returning to the theatre" section needed to be rewritten. It was erroneous on the statements about The Farnsworth Invention and even I (yes, Great old me) had to spend some time to get that right. Apparently the previous editor didn't bother to.
  • The "Screenplays written in the 21st century" section. A little bit of a weird subsection heading title, don't ya think? I changed it to "Back to writing for film." I also rewrote the section, correcting any erroneous statements about The Farnsworth Invention. Making sentences read current. Also, properly sourced many sentences.
  • The "Sports Night" section. I sourced all the facts, and for the ones that can't yet be sourced I placed a "citation needed" tag. I'm sure it is true that "Sorkin wrote 40 out of a total of 45 produced teleplays for Sports Night over two seasons" but I have not yet been able to verify this fact. Probably one would have to go through each episode's credits. Yet there is no indication this that was done by any previous editors. Where did they get the numbers, "40 out of a total of 45"?
  • The "Script doctor for hire" section was generally good. I added some extra stuff about his relation to "Warren Beatty" and the lawsuit that was reported on in the Mainstream Media. Now see, that is a proper lawsuit that can be included in this article because it has been written about by journalists in a context that Wikipedia can use. The other lawsuit (Morris vs. Castle Rock) has no context, and quite possibly Sorkin (one of his fictional characters in Studio 60 once said, the head writer that is, that these things are normal for writers) is sued dozens of times a year over silly stuff that is never proven true. Let journalists tell us which lawsuits were legitimate. We should not be deciding.

Our greatest concern about this article should always be readability. When one comes to one of these amateur web pages the first thing that will cause a reader to lose confidence in what he is reading is bad writing. It won't matter if the facts are true if it reads like they couldn't be. So together let's genuinely improve this article's prose. Sincerely, Homely Features (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Infobox photograph

I would like to form a consensus on which of the below two photographs should be used in the Infobox:

I prefer Crop 1 because it is less grainy and is more pleasant. User:Ed Fitzgerald prefers Crop 2 because as he has stated in his edit summary: "The larger version of this photograph is unnecessarily large, and the detail given in the caption is not necessary for identification." I believe we can come to a good compromise here somehow. Perhaps even a Crop 3 somewhere in the middle could be used? Homely Features (talk) 07:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think an in-between crop is quite doable, and could be acceptable to all parties. Give me a bit and I'll do one up. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 07:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I've added the new crop above as "crop 3" -- it's currently in the infobox. It's less fuzzy, because less blown-up, but is still basically a headshot. I hope this is acceptable.

Regarding the caption, the date is sufficient, the remainder does nothing to help the reader identify Sorkin. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 07:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree - crop 3, nothing more than the date. But it would be really great to find a picture where he looked less insane. Tvoz/talk 08:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree, I'm not really happy with any of the available images on The Commons. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 08:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I can live with Crop 3, but I'm wondering why the color has changed from the original? What exactly was done there?Homely Features (talk) 09:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
The color is slightly changed in the process of bringing the face out from the background. I've gone back to the original photo, and recropped and made the necessary adjustment being a bit more careful to keep the color steady, and the result is crop4. As you can see the color is closer to crop1, but, on the other hand, the face does not stand out from the background as well. Since the point of the photo is to be able to identify Sorkin, I think crop3 works best, but I can live with crop4 as well.

I don't think, however, that an infinite series of adjustments is going to be feasible, HF. You are not the editor-in--chief, and I am not the guy in the photo lab.Ed Fitzgerald t / c 09:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well, thanks. It is either crop 3 or crop 4. Maybe crop 3 actually is better. Hopefully we can get a few more opinions on this.Homely Features (talk) 09:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Yeah, crop3 looks the best to me; it's the right size and Sorkin's face stands out better from the background. Steve T • C 16:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(out) OK, since agreement seems to have been reached on crop 3 above, I'm going to delete the other two headcrops from Commons -- there's no reason they should be kept. I have them on my hard drive and if this issues comes up again I can re-upload them. (Just a note that what we've been calling "crop 3" here is actually labelled "crop2" on the image title. Didn't want anyone to get confusd.) Deleting the other crops means that the comparison box above will have blanks where the deleted images were. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 04:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing all Doubt

Does anyone know what Removing all Doubt is about? If it really is Aaron Sorkin's first play, it might be relevant information.

"The Social Network" Controversy Section

Especially citing Sorkin's admitted false portrayal of Mark Zuckerberg in the screenplay he wrote for the movie "The Social Network". This opportunistic kind of character assassination of a famous young person, in order to further Sorkins own career, certainly merits a controversy section. Citations have been added.

Telemachus.forward (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely disagree. "Opportunistic character assassination" rather tips your hand in terms of your own PoV, Telemachus.forward. Nary a screenwriter alive hasn't re-made the biography of his or her real-life subject to better suit the aims of their dramatic vehicle. Spartacus? Lust for Life? Bonnie and Clyde? Nowhere does the referenced sources say that Sorkin attempted any kind of malicious take on Zuckerberg, only that he changed elements of Zuckerberg's life to hang plot points upon. (I found it telling, by the way, that Telemachus.forward nowhere quoted one of his actual sources that claimed that those in Facebook were themselves active in "promoting an alternative corporate history" to make the film more flattering of Zuckerberg.) Are we honestly going to go to every screenwriter's entry and point out the discrepancies between the character they created and the actual person? Unless someone else wants to make a compelling argument for the inclusion of this section I am going to strike it tonight. ThtrWrtr (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


Your username may be tipping your own hand, ThtrWriter (Theater Writer). Is contributing here a networking opportunity for you?

I always find the rationalization "other people do it, so it's OK" a pretty revealing one as well.

The passages I added were well-cited (from major American magazines) so summarily reverting them or removing them won't be enough.

I have a question for you though. What does integrity mean to you? (Integrity meaning how you treat living human beings).

Does that matter to you (just curious, I'd like to know). Or is art and ego more important than that? 98.245.148.9 (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


FYI, Using Wikipedia for self-promotion is a violation of policy. It would also be a glaring NPOV issue 98.245.148.9 (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


I'm not particularly clear on how one contributing anonymously on a topic unrelated to one's professional field helps one "network," but closer to my point, the verifiability of something does not necessarily establish its notability or the need for its inclusion in this entry. Writing, "Picasso quite often painted his subjects as two-dimensional, even though every one of his living models was three dimensional," for example, might be verifiable (and even true, a different matter). Yet it hardly takes into account the field within which the man was working: painting on canvas. Your notation of the difference between Zuckerberg's actual life (of which no one, Zuckerberg included, seems to have a uncontested view) and the representation of that life by Sorkin (and Fincher and Eisenberg, for that matter) is really about a formal highlighting of the commercial narrative screenwriting process itself. Put another way, can you name for me a single biographical screenplay that does not change some elements of historical account for the purposes of length, suspense, narrative arc, location, simplicity, etc.? Sorkin has never claimed that the screenplay is 100% accurate. As with nearly every other screenplay, he changed elements of historical account for the purposes of flow, more dramatic narrative, etc. Your contentions are akin to the medieval abjurations against acting as a form of lying. ThtrWrtr (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


The fact that it is a controversy in all the major American newspapers is noteworthy by itself.

Sorkin's misrepresentations have been discussed in almost every major newspaper in the country, so there is your noteworthiness right there--

And by Wikipedia standards that's all you really need.

But to answer your other points anyway--

Being so narrowly focused on art that one no longer even cares about (unfairly) hurting the reputation of a real, living person is a pretty weak and morally unsupportable argument.

Again the "others do it" argument isn't very strong either-- every year in the USA hundreds of thousands of people steal cars.

Does that make it OK?

And the idea also that one "must" do this sort of thing for good art--

Really? Or is lying about a living person in order to have artistic success the sign of a weak artist?

Wouldn't a better artist tell a true story well?

But we are way off the point here--

Here is the part that Wikipedia policy applies to:

1) When nearly all the (major) newspapers in the country cover a controversy, then it's noteworthy by Wikipedia standards, as a noteworthy controversy and 2) if it's a noteworthy controversy, then it can go in the "controversy" section of the Wikipedia article.

Telemachus.forward (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Telemachus.forward: larger philosophical debates about aesthetics and the role of (someone's version of) truth in beauty are indeed "way off the point" of this question regarding the Sorkin article. (I don't know that we want to wade into whether or not Shakespeare erred in "lying" about Richard III while creating a masterpiece.) No one, at this point, appears to be arguing for excluding the press' mention of the disparity between certain aspects of the screenplay and certain aspects of Zuckerberg's life from the Sorkin entry. It's simply that, as Trebor's earlier comment regarding undue [weight] argued well, an entire section devoted to a very minor event in a decades-long writing career is inappropriate. A more appropriately weighted mention might be, "Sorkin worked with director David Fincher in creating 'The Social Network (2010), a treatment of the creation of Facebook focused on its founder, Mark Zuckerberg. The screenplay ultimately drew both critical praise and comment on Sorkin's admitted departures from actual events in Zuckerberg's life." ThtrWrtr (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

No that sounds very "spun" and does not sound like a "neutral" Wikipedia presentation of the facts. 98.245.148.9 (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not seeing the spin in that. Tough to get more neutral than "Sorkin wrote the screenplay. People have said both X and Y about it." The screenplay has indeed received great critical acclaim and has been commented upon regarding its fidelity to Zuckerberg's life and what some see as misogyny (the latter not yet discussed on this talk page). Very few of the articles you previously ciited are criticizing Sorkin--as you did previously in writing that adapting a person's life for a screenplay was "lying"--but instead are reporting that discrepancies exist and that those around Facebook were attempting to change the film's depiction of their company's founder. But again, the major issue here is undue weight. All of this is, to this point, a very minor issue in a two decade long screenwriting career. ThtrWrtr (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Should Featured Article Status Be Challenged on Basis of PoV

Removing all controversy from the article (including the "Controversy" section, along with removing citations from major news magazines) would certainly bring the articles neutrality into question. Especially when a controversy involving Sorkin was mentioned in numerous magazines and newspapers.

I don't see how it can be had both ways, keeping "Featured" status for the article, but all controversy (including that covered in major national magazines and newspapers) suppressed by the article editors at the same time.

Wikipedia policy clearly states that Featured articles are to be written from a "neutral" point of view.

98.245.148.9 (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a distinct lack of neutrality in editing of the article and in the posts by some editors here. This brings in to question the featured status of this article. A featured article should not be a PR piece for anyone but should be written from a place of assiduous neutrality.

98.245.148.9 (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

There is WP:FAR if you want to go down that path. You're yet to provide a cogent argument against the reasoning that including a large controversy section focused on a single event is undue weight, in the context of an article covering many decades of writing. ThtrWrtr seems receptive to including an appropriately-weighted mention of the issue (in the section above), so I suggest you work with him on the best wording. Trebor (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I concur with with Trebor in regards to the continued lack of any grounding for a separate controversy section regarding his "The Social Network" screen play. As well, I doubt most reader would consider this entry a PR piece. It details, for instance: his cocaine addiction, arrest for hallucinogenic drugs, lampooning on "Saturday Night Live," low rate of success in show development (two of three series canceled within two years), "exceptionally ungenerous" attitude in sharing credit with other writers, and tendency toward "overwrought" scripts hampered by "ill-advised plot developments." That doesn't sound much like something a PR flack would be sending out in a press release. ThtrWrtr (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Cocaine background

Did you ever notice that many Hollywood liberals have llello in their history? I wonder if that contributes to the paranoia and general crazed outbursts/ideas? Sounds like altered brain chemistry. Anyone who is filthy rich, takes jets everywhere and then scolds the general public about "climate change" has to have some loose marbles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.211.128 (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hatnote about Andrew Ross Sorkin

173.50.106.27 has added a hatnote saying that this is not to be confused with Andrew Ross Sorkin, and a corresponding one over at there pointing back here. However, I don't think that it is necessary, since there is nothing ambiguous about the difference between Aaron and Andrew (they are completely different names). I had removed it, only to get a nastygram from 173.50.106.27 on my talk page (see our discussion). Anyway it's been like four days since he has responded so I figured I'd bring it up here to let people know what I'm doing since it doesn't seem to be getting anywhere over there. —Akrabbimtalk 14:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

A note about Andrew Ross does not seem to meet the guideline at Wikipedia:Hatnote or Wikipedia:Disambiguation, according to my reading. DrKiernan (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Birth date

The reason for removing the birth date falls under Wikipedia policy. First of all, Wikipedia disallows IMDb — which consists of often wildly incorrect, user-submitted content — as a reference source, including for birth dates. Secondly, once an inaccurate or unconfirmed birth date gets into Wikipedia, it starts to get disseminated and eventually a reliable journalistic source is going to get fooled, publish it, and then that inaccurate or unconfirmed date will get the imprimatur of an RS. Having someone's age and birth date be correct is extremely important from the basic biographical point of view. That's why the policy at Biographies of Living Persons allows for immediate removal of uncited personal claims. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Aaron Sorkin. 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 07:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Aaron Sorkin. 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 03:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Aaron Sorkin. 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) 04:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Aaron Sorkin. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 23:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Aaron Sorkin. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 20:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aaron Sorkin. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 11:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aaron Sorkin. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 20:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Aaron Sorkin for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Aaron Sorkin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Aaron Sorkin until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 02:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aaron_Sorkin/Archive_2&oldid=980400314"