The "Criticism" section is subjective, especially the notion that he is responsible for the perceived breaches in Star Trek continuity.--A peckover 11:19, Jun 2, 2004 (CEST)

I don't understand what you mean by "subjective", but I also don't see the need for the "Criticism" section. Why is it not just deleted? --Defiant 14:55, 4 Feb 2005 (CET)
I tend to believe that a "frank" approach is sometimes most prudent. Most Trek fans love Gene Roddenberry, and it is appropriate to note that in his entry, so why not make a note of someone else's unpopularity? I think that the criticism against Rick Berman is an important part of who he is in the Trek world and the overall history of "Star Trek." To not include it would be an oversight. --Werideatdusk 05:49, 6 Aug 2005 (UTC)
While I agree with some of the comments in the Critism section I don't think it really belongs in the encyclopedia. I have not looked at the GR page but if it includes similar non-factual statements then it should be edited too.--Great Bear 22:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that criticism section bothered me a bit, too, when I edited it earlier. There seems to be a rather vociferous segment of Trek fandom that views much that is not TOS or TNG as blasphemy. I must admit I'm a bit confused about it, and even asked Shran to shed some light on the whole issue. I don't know how many people feel that way, but the ones that do seem to be... vocal. -- Renegade54 23:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing the section on the basis that it is not encyclopedic. Nothing discussed is a matter of fact measurable in any quantifiable way, and therefore are not fact, or even citeable opinion. Leave the blame game to forums and blogs. --6/6 Subspace 05:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
While I do agree that there does not need to be a huge section devoted to criticism against Mr. Berman, I feel that we do need to at least note that he has received some criticism and controversy for his decisions with the Trek franchise. That much is a fact, and not stating it seems a bit like we're avoiding the a big part of Trekdom altogether. Of course, we would need to be not only as brief but as unbiased as possible. (Are the critics right? Of course they're not, but we can't show either view in the article.) Just saying something like "Berman has received criticism from some fans for his creative decisions during his time as the franchise showrunner" shouldn't be a problem. Maybe a source stating such things and perhaps his views on the situation would also be in order. That's just my opinion, though. --From Andoria with Love 06:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. --6/6 Subspace 06:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


I came to the Rick Berman MA article looking for a diplomatic view of the controversy surrounding Berman & Braga's involvement with Trek. In the interest of editorial fairness, I should state that I am primarily a TNG fan; I've seen only a few episodes of DS9 and Voyager, and I only just watched the Enterprise pilot. I am in the process of watching all of the episodes I have missed. While catching up on the behind-the-scene info about the various series, it has been impossible to avoid reading about how some fans feel about B&B. While I agree that MA isn't the place for personal attacks, I am surprised that the fact that Berman has been a target of criticism isn't addressed in a meaningful way in his article. Perhaps this is because it is impossible to discuss the subject entirely objectively - I can't be sure without a frame of reference. I have a reputation amongst friends and family for being able to diplomatically present opposing points of view. So, after viewing the relevant episodes, I would be willing to work on adding a paragraph or two about the fandom's response to Berman. Can anybody here refer me to articles/webpages that contain the best arguments for and against Berman's contributions to Trek? Cheers. --PalindromicAnagram 11:11, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Unless it can be objectively cited (and not to fan websites and stuff, but to books or interviews with production staff), then no. That would be my feeling at least. -- sulfur 11:19, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
I agree, we should only have comments from others involved in Star Trek, not fans or owners of websites(even if done objectively).--31dot 11:24, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
If we did decide to include fan commentary, how about using letters to the Star Trek Magazine? That's a licensed source, and might be a way to include some material on fan opinions without opening the floodgates to every fanboy with an opinion. —Josiah Rowe 02:53, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think any more is necessary. We already briefly note that "Enterprise" was controversial, that some people complained about continuity, and Berman responsded. There's no need to go any further. This seems a responsible way to mention the controversy without either papering over it or turning this into a Berman-bashing page.– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 08:10, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. I was willing to wade through blogs and fan commentary for research purposes, and in order to understand the essential points of both sides. But ultimately, I would need to find an article/interview in which Berman (or Braga) was asked a question about the fandom's criticism, and then given an opportunity to respond - although, from your responses it looks like that adding more detailed info on that topic (that is, more info than is already addressed) wouldn't be appropriate for the article. Thanks for addressing my concerns so promptly. I will be on the look out for articles/interviews featuring Trek insiders that refer to the B&B issues. As time passes, it might be easier for the insiders with behind-the-scenes info to comment on B&B dispassionately. Perhaps I will raise the issue again, once I have found such information. Thanks again to all. Cheers. --PalindromicAnagram 12:17, September 9, 2010 (UTC)


In the history of this article, it has been attacked by IP vandals a total of 17 times; 4 in the past hour (of this comment), with two being somehow attacked under the "bot" function (aka "invisible attack"). As a result, I have protected this page from anonymous users to circumvent further attacks. --Alan 05:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

behind the scene section Edit

I'm don't think the section discussing the behind-the-scenes concerns of production staffers and the role of the executive producer with the studio and creative team is appropriate. It reads more like a subjective personal essay than a NPOV essay written by someone interested in evenhandedness. It doesn't seem encyclopedic and is critical of Berman and Paramount in a vague and ill-documented form. Simply because there were seemingly disgruntled production staff members interested in a hatchet job doesn't mean it is appropriate for a supposedly neutral encyclopedia. I request an editor review it and determine if it should remain or be edited. Thank you. 14:07, October 1, 2014 (UTC)

While you're perfectly in your right to call for an editorial review for this or any other article on MA, the section of your apparent concern *is* documented (i.e. cited) throughout. You could potentially make a case for bias if the sources were cherry-picked to support a certain viewpoint, and all sources representing the opposing viewpoint were ignored, I don't think that's the case here. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it. -- Renegade54 (talk) 15:07, October 1, 2014 (UTC)