Talk:Rick Berman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Neutrality Dispute[edit]

I am creating this page to go in line with the WP:NPOV for biographies of living persons. I quote the following:

Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.

I have made this section of the talk page because I have added the WP:NPOV tag to the main page, as suggested, not to do a "drive by tagging" and explain why I have done so. the Controversy Section on this very talk page has prior history over a long period of time that I have attempted to enforce this policy and guideline to no success. I hope by adding this tag I bring attention to the serious work that this biography of a living person is in need of. -- (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Just for note: At this date and time, I was above. I certify that and there is a note on my talk page. For future discussions please refer to me as my new account name. Sorry for the confusion. --Lightbound (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the rest of the article happens to be light is not a justification to leave out well-sourced criticisms! And while, no, sourcing an opinion does not make it true, it does makes it a true opinion; and if the opinion comes from someone particularly notable (in the context of the article), it would be non-POV to not include it. Besides the opinions we are talking about here have to do with management of a television show, hardly what I would call "sensationalist" or "titillating".
And I object to the suggestion that I just "[threw back] (the old music section) with different wording". The controversy section I added was researched, sourced, and yes did include defense of Berman as well as criticism -- about 20% of the controversy section is supportive, and if you find some more out there, please feel free to add it!
And as for "what wikipedia is not", Wikipedia is first and foremost not a hagiography; and regardless of whether he "literally kept The Next Generation going", the fact that Berman has been criticized by former Star Trek writers, producers, and cast-members is relevent and including such criticism is neutral, so long as all claims are attributed and reliably-sourced.
Criticism of Anne Coulter hasn't resulted in "legal problems, arbitration, or significant exchanges or losses of property", either, and yet no one's suggesting her page doesn't deserve a controversy section!
Section restored! LSD (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
We are not talking about a different article we are talking about this article. And neutrality is about the subject matter. The notability of the sources is not disputed, it is the neutrality that is disputed. Our focus of this article is to document Mr. Berman as a whole. This tips the balance of this subject matter drastically; because, there is so little other information on this article about him. I am issuing an official warning to you, because this has been a total of two times you have reverted the changes I have made, despite intense effort to document why. This is sounding more and more like an edit war. I do not know what your motivation is or what you have against this guy, but as it stands, the article is half about criticism, and there isn't even a photo of him, or other career or detailed information. If you revert it again, I will be forced to take further action. --Lightbound talk 22:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I further add, that we can come to a reasonable agreement, if we can expand this article, that it would be healthy enough to support a large criticism section. However, as it stands now, it is in dire need of more content before it could ethically support such a large critique. Besides, this is about Rick Berman, not about Rick Berman's Star Trek Performance. You are walking a fine line here and I could see administrators easily siding with me on this. To make matters worse it is a living person. --Lightbound talk 22:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I've made a request at WT:WikiProject Star Trek for someone to help. I'm hoping that someone can expand on Berman's BLP information so that the "Criticism" section gets dwarfed, or that the extent of the criticism gets pared back. I do think the information contained in the "Criticism" is relevant but the amount that is there is ridiculous. KuyaBriBriTalk 22:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that is all I was saying. It just overpowers the whole article. --Lightbound talk 22:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I saw the notice at the WikiProject page and have taken a whack at it. I've removed uncited claims and broad generalizations. Didn't delve much into the claims with supposedly substantiating footnotes, although I removed one non-functioning one (check Way Back or Google Cache et al. for a backup?) and claims cited to unreliable/insignificant fan site commentary. One thing I did see, though, are some inferences about the target of Jolene Blalock's comments. I removed one obvious inference that the target of her ire was Berman/Braga, when in fact her comment didn't name specific people or even specific job titles. I'd suggest combing through these sources again to sift between comments about Berman specifically, and general comments about "show-runners" and "producers", which include but are not limited to Berman; comments that include criticism of leadership as a whole rather than just him should articulate that. Furthermore, there's also an issue of weighting: I know The Great Link and TrekToday have posted their own, or links to others', interviews with TNG cast members in particular that, while not offering glowing praise of Berman, generally rose to his defense about the difficulties shepherding such a massive franchise (gee, almost wrote "enterprise"). --EEMIV (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I have added a dispute to the notice board for biographies of living persons. This criticism section debate has been going on for months. I will continue to try and weed out the non notable sources and inject inline tags for disputes or questionable content. Like EEMIV mentioned above, if one reads these articles, the synthesis that LSD has been making is way off. --Lightbound talk 23:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: your comments above.
1. I don't have anything "against this guy". I don't really care one way or the other; but since I wrote the damn section, I didn't like to see it deleted without (in my opinion) any good reason. ;)
2. As far as I can tell, all of my edits to this page are prior to all of yours. So I have no idea how you figure I "reverted" you "a total of two times".
3. The fact that the rest of the article is incomplete does not mean that the criticism section must be as well. But in any case, there should certainly be a criticism section of some size, given all of the admittedly notable sources out there. Revising the section makes sense, but deleting it outright?
4. Any "criticism" or "controversy" section is going to include opinions which are, by definition, not neutral. What keeps it unbiased is to identify the sources of those opinions and place them in the propper context. I concede that, as it stood, the section was far from that ideal; but, again, with so much criticisms apparently out there, it hardly seems unbiased to not even mention it!
5. Calm down.
LSD (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
No. :) --Lightbound talk 22:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Controversy Section[edit]

I blanked the music controversy section based on the following premises: (1) From a lexicographical perspective this former entry took up nearly half the page's content. (2) Ethically, if we are going to document criticisms, we should also document the extensive critical acclaims; which far out-weigh his apparent conflict with just one department of the production. Thus, this made the article biased and was borderline defamatory to someone who literally kept The Next Generation going even after Roddenberry was unable to continue work on it. (3) Wikipedia is not a sounding board for personal opinion or the documentation of quarrels between people having a debate about opinion. If this controversy had raised legal problems, arbitration, or significant exchanges or losses of property or any substance of value besides ego, then it should be left out. This is a truism for all of Wiki. (4) The controversy was documented in a very unilateral fashion. -- (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again I am forced to delete the controversy section. None of my prior statements were addressed and someone has just come in and thrown it all back in with different wording. This article is about Rick Berman, NOT a treatise on his performance with Star Trek. If this were several pages long and had many entries regarding the life and other things related to Mr. Berman, then it would, perhaps, be acceptable. As it stands, nearly half this man's article is critcism. That is just unacceptabe. Additionally, giving sources for opinion does not make them FACT and NEUTRAL. This article needs to remain neutral and report on Rick Berman as a whole. -- (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted your last deletion. If you had justified your deletion in the edit summary, I would not have deleted reverted it. Please use the edit summary next time. KuyaBriBriTalk 17:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC) 17:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Thats draconian. I have provided two paragraphs explaining why I have deleted it. -- (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
"See my concern on talk page" is sufficient. KuyaBriBriTalk 17:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC) I added this comment at the same time as your last deletion of the controversy section. KuyaBriBriTalk 17:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


Considering the number of alleged Star Trek experts on this site, who seem to delight in entering the details of every variant of cardboard alien, I can't believe that someone who ranks in the top two or three influential people of the Star Trek franchise has such a terrible stubby entry, in which the only meaningful info is pretty much wrong!

Berman is better known as a producer than a writer, being executive producer for most of the series since TNG, and for most of the TNG movies.

I would modify this, but I have taken a Wikivow never to add anything to do with Star Trek on Wikipedia. A two-minute visit to Google will turn up lots of information on him. DJ Clayworth 15:58, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)


I thought the Trek fans hated Berman and Braga because of Voyage and Enterprise not because of DS9, which Berman had almost no influence in.

I felt this article skirted the edges of NPOV, and narrowly fell on the side of "Berman-bashing" which I don't think has a place in Wikipedia. I've gone through and made a few minor changes, adding some positive statements to try and balance things a bit more. I also removed references to "sexual explicitness" regarding Seven of Nine and T'Pol, which is clearly inaccurate. Compared to other shows on the air today, and compared to TOS for that matter the "sexual explicitness" of the current Star Trek shows is virtually nonexistent. 23skidoo 17:26, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. Berman had little to do with DS9. Infact, he told Ira Behr (The head honcho for DS9) that he wanted the Dominion War to last only four episodes, instead of the several years it did last.--Kross 06:20, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

He hated DS9. He argued several times with Ira about what to do in specific episodes. Like Nog losing his legs or how Jadzia died. He then took the idea of The Dominion war and turned it into the Xindi arc. Hypocrite. --Furious Stormrage

While I'm a staunch Star Trek fan who disapproves of many of Berman's decisions regarding the franchise, the last three paragraphs of the article were _definately_ NPOV. I toned them down to reasonable for Wikipedia without any sources, but industry quotes from prominent sci fi publications would be nice. I would the entire criticisms section be removed due to lack of reputable citations, but there are enough fan citations that it is (in my mind) worthwhile to keep it in. (Oh, yeah, I also seperated it into a full "criticisms" subsection) -- David Souther (talk) 03:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the entire criticisms section was added 5 hours before my edit. I still think there are enough forum sites that back up the criticisms section, but to be as NPOV as the original edit needs industry references. David Souther (talk) 03:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Renaming of aritcle[edit]

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), the title of an article should "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". Since Berman is known almost exclusively as "Rick Berman", I believe that the article should revert to this title.

Acegikmo1 00:12, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I'll put it on Wikipedia:Requested moves. -Branddobbe 22:44, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
Well, there is already a dab page for Rick Berman, which is why it currently has the full title. So, I think the person who named the article was trying to avoid the "conflict with other people", in this case, a Washington lobbyist. --Viriditas | Talk 01:07, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Richard Keith BermanRick Berman

Though I haven't conducted any studies, I would imagine that Rick Berman of Star Trek fame is far more well known than Rick B. Berman, Washington lobbyist (who doesn't even have an article). I'd like to move Richard Keith Berman to Rick Berman, with a note at the top saying If you are looking for the Washington lobbyist, see Rick B. Berman. No one knows Rick Berman as "Richard Keith Berman" either. -Branddobbe 22:49, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Moved - violet/riga (t) 20:47, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Documenting controversy[edit]

The Controversy section is rather vague. Statements like "The quality of Voyager declined sharply…" and "Enterprise was considered to be a disaster…" need sources. Something like "many/most fans believed…" is not entirely adequate, either. There should be some kind of cited source referenced. - User:rasd


Please follow Wikipedia policies regarding WP:V and WP:RS. —Viriditas | Talk 05:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


If people can't come up with sources to back up criticism of Berman, then it shouldn't be mentioned here. And please if you are going to add sources, postings to discussion forums aren't suitable. AlistairMcMillan 23:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Numerous critics, messageboards, etc. It's a general vibe, and although I could quote off several of the more caustic scifi magazine articles on the subject, they are a tad too numerous to metnion. Either contribute to the situation and stop hiding behind empy procedure and red tape, or simply let the matter drop. --Ricimer 07:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
WP:VERIFY. 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. AlistairMcMillan 19:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

google "enterprise continuity b&b" you will get enough sources to convince you of the trek communities unhappiness with both rick berman and brannon braga 10:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but I also have to agree here you must site the source. Since critism of someone is potentaly libelous you must site a repatable source (at least a newspaper article). This procedure is in place to protect Wikipedia from a lawsuit so please respect it. Andrew D White 19:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Section: Homosexuality[edit]

There have been episodes in Star Trek that dealt with homosexuality. From our very own Wikipedia:

In the fourth season episode Rejoined, Jadzia encounters Lenara Kahn, who had been the wife of Torias Dax as a previous host (Nilani Kahn). Because Torias died suddenly, Dax's relationship with Kahn's previous host was never resolved, and the two struggle in the episode with their feelings towards one another. This is complicated by a taboo in Trill culture against romantic relationships with partners of previous hosts. This episode features one of the first televised kisses between two female characters.

Actually I think Dynasty had some chicks kissing back in the 1980's. At any rate, DS9 was not the first TV show to have women kissing each other. (talk) 03:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I know there are others out there, what with over a decade of new gen Star Trek. It claims it was one of the first televised kisses period. So much for "avoiding" homosexuality. That busts that case wide open. These criticisms are just opinions, seated in tabloids, interviews, and such.--Lightbound talk 23:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it should just be deleted. Any other opinions? --Lightbound talk 23:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine trimming the specific reference, at least the Andy Mengals part: in the interview, he opens with, "I have never met Rick Berman, and he has never expressed any specific attitudes directly to me" which to me suggests this is a meaningless source espousing a non-expert personal opinion rather than anything that offers significant insight. --EEMIV (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I looked further into the article, and essentially the topic boils down to, "Sometimes there was this thing in Star Trek, but not always; one guy thinks it was Berman, but maybe it was some other people, too, and perhaps no one at all." I don't see a focus on this article's subject, and I don't see this issue and Berman's involvement with it articulated by other sources. If someone can offer up another source indicating there is significant criticism of Berman vis-a-vis homosexuality in Star Trek, then we can restore this material and integrate it -- but, right now, this just looks like a survey of one peripheral source's exploration of the topic (and not even on the subject of this article). Flimsy sourcing, flimsy material, unencyclopedic. --EEMIV (talk) 01:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I would photon torpedo the whole criticism section myself. The he said, she said, back and forth is not needed in the bio and seems like undue weight. Maybe in one of the articles about the shows, ect, but whatever. At least retitle the section. Anyways, Tom (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Hear hear. --Lightbound talk 01:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Anon IP's edits[edit]

I've several times reverted edits by User: for a few reasons; outlining here in case it decides to try to address them:

  • Ron Jones-related claims are mostly cited to Memory Alpha, which per WP:RS is not a reliable site. Claim cited to a third-party interview are a welcome addition and remain
  • Generalizations about fans' reactions to Berman are not substantiated; ditto notion that Spiner's comment is in reaction to fan rumblings
  • Claim about "sonic wallpaper" and the term used as a criticism of (specifically) Berman's tastes is an inference from the source; the cited source mentions Berman exactly once and in a somewhat positive light. "Sonic wallpaper" comment is a generalization about the show-runners -- a category that includes more than just Berman.

Additionally, I restored general grammar, MOS and other small edits undone when the anon. restored its changes. Yes,, I've made many edits to this article (although not the "hundreds" you think. If your notion of meaningful contributions to the article continues to include citations to unreliable fan sites and unsubstantiated generalizations in violation of the biographies of living people policy, then by all means, "give up". This is certainly an imperfect article, but improvements must actually be improvements in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --EEMIV (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

EEMIV obsessive control of article.[edit]

User EEMIV (either an obsessive Star Trek fan or Rick Berman's agent, likely the former) appears to have complete control of this article making hundreds of entries and altering anyone else's changes (simpkly examine the history log). There is simply no point in anyone attempting to edit it. It is a shame that Wikipedia doesn't have ways to prevent this as this article can no longer be considered neutral, but rather a personal blog entry. Alas, the world of Star Trek - it is easy to see why most Wikipedians stay well clear of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This Biography Reads Like a Star-Trek Memoir[edit]

After nearly a year of waiting, and my previous major edits, I return to this article and see it is still in sorry shape. Soon, I will attempt to make some serious edits to it. I would like to call on any other watching editors to collaborate with me here, in this sub-section, on some ideas on how we should proceed. Let us do this together, and in agreement, before any edit wars rehash from my attempts to document this biography properly. This guy isn't Star Trek, yet if you came to this article, having no idea who he was, you would think he was all Star Trek, never did anything else, and is just some Star Trek punching bag all the angry nerds of the world come to harass on some dark internet page of the Wikipedia. Well I have come to put some light into this article and I think others should too. Here are some of my suggestions:

  • Add actual biographical information about him.
  • Remove the conversational, essay-ish, tone of the Star Trek section.
  • If we keep the memoir of his Star Trek, we should state that clearly for what it is.
    • Enumerate it.
    • Categorize the progression.
    • Filter it for relevancy to the sub-section.
    • Filter it for relevancy against it being a biography in general.
  • Help me find research and notable sources about him.
  • Balance any criticism: Let us show some strengths, awards, as well as any constructive criticism. I am honestly really ticked off that someone that shaped one of my favorite series of all time has not had at least the common courtesy of a simple bio on Wikipedia. We have bigger articles for fictional characters in novels. It's just heinous.

Thanks in advance to anyone who cooperates in getting this article done right! Cheers. --Lightbound talk 22:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree the article has plenty of room to improve, although it's already made big steps in general referencing and trimming of rambling non-npov. The biggest area of improvement is for the non-Star Trek stuff. It isn't so much that this article suggests that "Rick Berman is Star Trek," but rather that "Rick Berman only did Star Trek." --EEMIV (talk) 00:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, and a much more surmised version of what I was trying to convey. I have a question though. If you look over the article for Schrodenger's cat, you will see that much of what is there has no inline citations, yet the article is three times the size of this one and is based on two paragraphs of original text. The combined knowledge there is to tell about what Berman has done (good or bad) surely exceeds what is detailed here. The trouble is finding notable sources. Yet, the Schrodenger article dramatizes and expounds upon the example in editor's voices. Why are we limited from doing the same? --Lightbound talk 15:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Merger Suggestion[edit]

Please see the startrek talk page for the merger suggestion. --Lightbound talk 23:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Do not remove tags[edit]

Do not remove tags and assume the discussion is closed. Not a single change was made to the Berman article, yet. The discussion regarding the changes to the Berman article's huge Star Trek history section are going on at: Talk:Star_Trek#Merger_of_Rick_Berman_Star_Trek_Details_Into_History_of_Star_Trek. --Lightbound talk 02:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Potential source[edit]

I bookmarked this in October, and haven't done anything with it. Maybe someone else who keeps an eye on this article can pull some useful information. I know this article is too-heavily weighted toward Star Trek-related material, but it's all third-person commentary without anything actually from Berman. --EEMIV (talk) 23:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rick Berman. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)