Talk:Rick Berman

Neutrality Dispute

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. --98.208.209.78 (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Just for note: At this date and time, I was 98.208.209.78 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. KuyaBriBri^Talk 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

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. --98.208.209.78 (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. --98.208.209.78 (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. KuyaBriBri^Talk 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. --98.208.209.78 (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"See my concern on talk page" is sufficient. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC) I added this comment at the same time as your last deletion of the controversy section. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

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)

Berman

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

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 Berman → Rick 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)

• Support. Jonathunder 01:03, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)
• Support. I'm the one who moved Rick Berman to Richard Keith Berman and I wish I'd just done what Branddobbe suggests here. AlistairMcMillan 02:22, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. FWIW, I've changed Rick B. Berman to Richard B. Berman as that name gets more hits in relation to the Center for Consumer Freedom, and that name should be added to the proposed dab header instead. --Viriditas | Talk 02:36, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Now that makes sense. I always find it strange to see a contracted first same with a middle initial -- and wince if anyone does it to my name. Alai 03:42, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. —wwoods 03:36, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Thank you Branddobbe. Acegikmo1 07:47, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Phoenix7718 10:04, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support, slam dunk move for any trekkie. Cburnett 07:23, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

Documenting controversy

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

User:71.158.149.97

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

Criticism

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 75.14.223.20 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

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.99.103.230.224 (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

I've several times reverted edits by User:193.85.224.111 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, 193.85.224.111, 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.

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 193.85.224.111 (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This Biography Reads Like a Star-Trek Memoir

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

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

Do not remove tags

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

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

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090303224408/http://www.soundtrack-express.com:80/osts/startrektv.htm to http://www.soundtrack-express.com/osts/startrektv.htm

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Resolved via 3rd Opinion: Random Character Attack in Star Trek Section?

I'm not really into editing Wikipedia anymore, as the neutrality of the site has been compromised for over a decade now. But as I read this article, this really jumped out at me as ridiculous:

"In recent years, staff and cast have cited his participation over the years in removing/minimizing LGBT themes from multiple Star Trek series.[10]"

On review, the linked source does not support this inflammatory claim. An examination of Wikipedia's guidelines to see if something has changed in the last ten years suggests that things like this should not be tolerated, even in WP's current state.

From what I understand, even by the current WP standards, the quoted line above (it's from the Star Trek section) is poorly sourced, overly general, not at all neutral, and generally out of place for the section based on WP guidelines. The one source cited does not substantiate the claim, is not Verifiable, and quotes a single self-admittedly disgruntled former staff member referencing a single incident where an LGB theme was censored without clear or verifiable attribution to Berman as the decision-maker for that censorship. That is nowhere near substantiating the scope of the defamatory claim made.

That is not a Reliable source per WP guidelines. As this is a Biography of a Living Person (read that section too), such claims require greater scrutiny and sourcing than the transcript of an interview with a disgruntled former employee can afford.

I think the quote should be removed entirely. The citation is trash. This is why people don't take WP seriously anymore, because you've got Cancel Culture warriors using WP as a platform to slander any possible ideological opposition to their far-left extremism. Larry Sanger is 100% right about this place.

And no, I'm not making an account again. I don't want to be tempted to waste more time here than I already have. I am not going to edit it or remove it either since WP's classist approach to anonymous IP editing will gaurantee that it gets reverted nearly instantly. So maybe one of Wikipedians will see this and do the right thing. 47.197.37.230 (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

In the absence of any constructive discussion and in consideration of the many violations of WP's (purported) editorial standards as identified previously, I have made the edit I proposed above. Let's see how long it takes one of the Cancel Cult members to revert it. I know rumors are sufficient evidence for them to publicly defame people on WP... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.197.37.230 (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

It sounds to me from your comments here that you aren't here to actually improve anything on Wikipedia, but instead are here to right great wrongs. Regardless, I've gone ahead and re-added the sentence in question with better references. Of which there are many available to cite regarding Berman and his actions toward actively not representing LGBT topics during his tenure in charge of the show. Silverseren^C 22:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Just revisiting this several months later. I have read the provided articles and neither of them substantiate the defamatory claim provided for in this edit. The claim is not "regarding Berman and his actions toward actively not representing LGBT topics", as you say. Berman himself was quoted here as saying that he did not actively depict LGBT relationships, but rather attempted to work them in through metaphor and allegory. Perhaps that is not active enough for you. If it helps, please see primary source material: https://treknews.net/2011/03/03/rick-berman-answers-questions-on-gay-characters-in-trek-enterprise-and-more/

If you mean to say he did not "actively represent LGBT" topics, you can likely find usable secondary sources based just on the primary I just provided, but I see no need or merit in including that he was not active in promoting a particular ideology. We wouldn't mention for example, that he did not actively promote Christian viewpoints or Christian characters, or that he was not actively promoting anti natalism, or whatever other social justice flavor of the day is 18 years after he stopped working on Star Trek.

But none of that is the contention here. The edit adds: "In recent years, staff and cast have cited his participation over the years in removing and minimizing LGBT themes from multiple Star Trek series." Then you provide what I can only characterize as VERY POOR sources. Like, hard to AGF level of poor. Though your provided references suggest there was a cultural bias against LGBT themes in Star Trek history, they do not directly support that Berman originated that bias, and they certainly do not support that "staff and cast" cited his "removal" or "minimization" of LGBT themes from any Star Trek series, let alone "multiple Star Trek series" as this line claims. From those articles no such cited incidents of either behavior are provided for by either of staff or cast. Also, did you even read the sources? I had to pay to view them. Do you know that Rick Berman did not produce Star Trek: Discovery, and that he did not work with George Takei on the original series?

I am going to AGF here, but it's a stretch. For clarity: "rumors" or "feelings" do not constitute reliable primary sources. Any secondary source which relies on those things rather than, for example, direct evidence are by definition not Reliable Sources for any claim on WP, let alone defamatory claims about living persons. If there truly are "many [reliable sources] available to cite", that substantiate that staff and cast cite incidents where Rick Berman "removed and minimized" LGBT themes from "multiple Star Trek series", please provide them. Take note there are five claims in this one sentence that your references will have to substantiate:

At least one staff member citing an example where Rick Berman removed LGBT themes.

At least one cast member citing an example where Rick Berman removed LGBT themes.

At least one staff member citing an example where Rick Berman minimized LGBT themes.

At least one cast member citing an example where Rick Berman minimized LGBT themes.

Sufficient above examples of such staff/cast members citations to reflect that Rick Berman was directly responsible for this on multiple star trek series, not just one or two.

Until you do so, per WP:RS "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Therefore I am going to revert this edit.

If I see any further poorly sourced attacks on Rick Berman's character over this false anti LGBT narrative, I'm going to escalate to get this article protected from defamatory vandalism. 47.197.37.230 (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe you when you claim you've read the two sources, as they do explicitly discuss Berman and his actively minimizing LGBT content in the shows. I used those two sources because they are top level ones, but there's plenty of other coverage out there on this topic ([1], [2], [3], [4]). The case of the Blood and Fire script and the rebellion by those working on DS9 against Berman is well documented information. And it's not like David Gerrold hasn't been extremely direct in his statements about Berman. Silverseren^C 03:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I wasted time and money assuming good faith to assess this. Just stop. You have done SO much editing here, it's not credible that you can't tell the difference between a reliable source and a weak one. Look at what you are presenting re: David Gerrold:

"I don’t blame Gene as much as I blame Rick Berman for that clusterfuck. Others have confirmed it. They have said that in their experience Rick Berman was a raging homophobe, which makes the whole thing even more bizarre. Because, before Rick Berman came on the show, he had written a three-page memo on ‘here are some of the stories we could tell, some of the issues we could address’. And number three on his three-page memo was AIDS and how we should do something about AIDS."

After the fact, this disgruntled employee quotes rumors about Berman being homophobic, and then provides a counter point that calls into question his blaming Berman regarding an AIDS related script. This is one guy, quoting a rumor in a primary source interview about a subject that is at best tangential to LGBT themes. AIDS is not a Gay only issue, in case you are unaware. Calling it an LGBT theme is insulting at best. This quoted source fails WP:RS at multiple levels before it fails to substantiate the defamatory claim you're trying to force into this article. 47.197.37.230 (talk) 03:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

In your next citation, here:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Star_Trek/icnLDAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Rick+Berman%22+%22gay+character%22&pg=PA236&printsec=frontcover

Berman is literally assenting to working in a gay character when asked about it by a show's front runner. "In due time, is hardly minimizing or removing LGBT themes. From your own article, he appears to have expected to do so with Enterprise, but in case you are unaware, he did not produce that series.

47.197.37.230 (talk) 03:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The next article you present is from "themarysue.com", which is an online entertainment tabloid:

https://www.themarysue.com/deep-space-nine-failed-rebellion-against-queerness/

"The Mary Sue is the geek girl’s guide to the universe. We love and live geek culture, comic book movies, genre television, space exploration, emerging technologies, the coolest video games, and the weirdest finds on the internet. We promote, watchdog, extoll, and celebrate diversity, inclusion, and women’s representation in all of these areas (and more!) and work to make geekdom safe and open for everyone."

This is hardly a reliable, unbiased source with journalistic integrity.

It quotes an even more dubious source: https://gizmodo.com/how-queer-is-star-trek-1834241022

You cannot present the hollywood rumormill and claim it is a reliable source. This is an encyclopedia.47.197.37.230 (talk) 03:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Several of the sources discuss how Berman claimed he would add in such characters and how he never then did. They explicitly discuss this and how his actions did not reflect his words. Gerrold was very clear in his statements and it's funny that you're referring to him as a disgruntled employee. The sources directly discuss how Berman explicitly stated when pressed that he didn't want to include gay characters or storylines because he thought they would impact viewership, which is why he blocked such additions. That is him preventing, removing, and minimizing LGBT themes throughout the series he was involved in. Which is what the sentence in the article says. And your personal thoughts about the sources' reliability is irrelevant, these sources have been discussed re: reliability on Wikipedia before and The Mary Sue is considered a reliable source by the community. Not that I'm even using it in the article currently, as the book sources are generally stronger regardless. Now, I'm going to revert you again. The available references are quite clear and it's not like a single sentence is an excess of discussion on this topic. Silverseren^C 03:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to go reverting this back and forth. I have individually presented an analysis of literally every one of your "sources". They are uniformly lacking. This is a Biography of a Living Person. You are including defamatory information that is not substantiated by reliable sources. Your entire argument for this dubious statement: "In recent years, staff and cast have cited his participation over the years in removing and minimizing LGBT themes from multiple Star Trek series." comes down to, and I'm just paraphrasing you:

"David Gerrold said Rick Berman squashed his AIDS themed script because it had gay themes."

That's One example from one staff member from one show, and it's a guy who literally CALLS HIMSELF disgruntled in a PRIMARY SOURCE (interview). Those are not my words. The one reliable Secondary Source you provided that quotes Gerrold gives equal play to the producer's statement that they did not squash the script because it was too gay, but because it lacked merit. But for (reasons?) you're ignoring that and presenting only the defamatory view. 47.197.37.230 (talk) 04:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Edit to add that this my objection to the inclusion of "themarysue.com" is not just based on the low quality of journalism presented there. Since you're presenting it as "reliable", I'll explain further that the author of the article Stephanie Roehler states that Berman "has said that the decision not to include them [LGBT Characters] in DS9 was his". This is the only excerpt from the article that could support your central thesis that Berman was somehow anti LGBT. But it does not in fact amount to "staff and cast" citing "minimizing and removal". So it's not a good source for your claim.

But wait. There's more. Even if it did support your defamatory claims (it doesn't). It is a fabrication on her part and is immediately verifiable as such In The Article she links are her source, where Berman says in response to the question:

"Berman: It was not the studio’s decision. I know that when Gene (Roddenberry) was alive he was very ambiguous about the idea of a gay character or gay characters on the show. He felt it was the right thing to do, but never quite had any idea of how he was going to do it. As Michael Piller had said many times, the idea of seeing two men or two women in Ten-Forward holding hands was not really going to be an effective way of dealing with it. So Gene basically didn’t do anything about it, and then when Michael and I were involved with the concepts of the stories on the show, we just felt it would be better to deal with concepts of prejudice against homosexuality and topics like AIDS metaphorically, in ways other than human gays on board the ship. So we developed a number of different stories that dealt with same-sex relationships, that dealt with metaphorical diseases that were similar to AIDS. But they were all done in alien fashion to try to get people to think about these things as opposed to just hitting it right on the head, which would be having a gay character on the ship. It’s something that Michael and I discussed. It’s something that Brannon Braga and I discussed, that Jeri Taylor and I discussed, and we never really got around to coming up with a way of just adding a gay character. So we tried to deal with it in a more abstract science-fiction way."

Absolutely no where in that quote does Berman say the decision was "his". He clearly defers to ALL of the producers who worked on the show (Rodenberry, Piller, Braga, Taylor, et al.) and discusses his own clear intent to address LGBT themes through abstraction, metaphor, etc.

47.197.37.230 (talk) 05:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Here's the quote from your next attempt to smear Berman:

https://www.autostraddle.com/gay-me-up-scotty-how-star-trek-failed-to-boldly-go-there-55559/

I'm not even going to get into the reliability of "autostraddle.com". Like, please.

But here's the quote that you say substantiates your character attack on Berman:

"Berman was afraid that parents would freak out about their kids watching gays on afternoon reruns and so, under his direction, TNG began what would be a long and illustrious tradition of awkwardly bumbling around gay issues but NEVER DIRECTLY MENTIONING GAY PEOPLE AT ANY COST."

Where it the cast and crew's citation? That's what you claimed. Where is the "Multiple Series". Where is the removal and minimizing by Berman? You've got none of that here. Just he was "afraid" and "awkwardly bumbling around" quoted from some site with zero journalistic merit.

Later in the article, it says Berman added a trans character:

"...fans got a ham-fisted homosexual/trans metaphor in the “J’naii,” a race of androgynous beings who treat gender as an icky perversion. One of the J’naii, “Soren,” wants to identify as a woman and get her freak on with Riker. Cue impassioned speech:

“I am female. I was born that way. I have had those feelings, those longings, all of my life. It is not unnatural…What makes you think you can dictate how people love each other?”

Is this not LGBT themes? If Berman removed or minimized LGBT themes why would he be credited for adding this character and race in response to a desire for representation from the LGBT community?

Here the next quote: "Jonathan Frakes (Riker) tried to persuade Berman to have a man to play Soren, but that would have led to TWO MALE ACTORS KISSING, so no dice. Frakes complained that the episode wasn’t “gutsy” enough and that “Soren should have been more evidently male.”

Again, let's ignore for the moment that this is "autostraddle.com" even were this a direct, actual quote by Jonathan Frakes and properly source (which it is not), "not gutsy enough" is hardly "removing and minimizing". Berman added it but wasn't "gutsy enough" with it? You realize this guy had more than just the LGBT audience to consider? He was working in themes as he thought he could and 18 years later you're trying to excoriate him for not being progressive enough about it, by making false, defamatory claims that he systemically removed and minimized things he was clearly actually adding and supporting.

Again. Stop.47.197.37.230 (talk) 03:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Here is the literal quote from your last link:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Science_Fiction_Audiences/9cWHAgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Rick+Berman%22+%22gay+character%22&pg=PA249&printsec=frontcover

"The producers have consistently insisted that their decision to not produce 'Blood and Fire' was based on its merits, not its inclusion of gay themes and character."

You are giving full mention to Gerrold's claim made in that book, but ignoring the contradicting evidence the book itself provides. This cherry picking continues to show the pattern of poor application WP editing guidelines.

Gerrold who was a Single staff member, not Staff and Cast from "Multiple Series" claims that Berman said: "We can't do this in an afternoon market in some places. We'll have parents writing letters."

From that you make the dubious leap of a) trusting a disgruntled employee, and b) inferring Berman's intent from a second hand quote. If you take the statement on face value, Berman said he literally couldn't do it. He did not say he wouldn't, didn't want to, or didn't support the idea. 47.197.37.230 (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I am here to provide a third opinion, if it is still needed. The sources for the claim are two scholarly articles with two and three citations respectively. WP:SCHOLARSHIP tells us to prefer secondary sources (literature reviews, textbooks, etc.). If we do not have them, I would say removal is correct. The claim can be readded when newspaper articles or similar are published on the matter. I am not an expert on Star Trek publications and what is considered a good source on the particular matter, so I can't help more Ffaffff (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Based on this third opinion consensus regarding the absence of high quality sources for this claim, and in consideration the high bar for reliability needed for inclusion of contentious material in a biography of a living person WP:BLPREMOVE, I am reverting the last edit which included the above referenced contentious claim about Rick Berman. 47.197.37.230 (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

There were several online news articles discussed above on the subject, Ffaffff. Here's some others:

My pal, the great Andy Mangels, was interviewed by AfterElton back in 2006 and he had this to say about Berman, “I have never met Rick Berman, and he has never expressed any specific attitudes directly to me. That said, not one single actor, staff member, or Paramount employee has ever once defended him from charges of homophobia, and many have accused him of it.

"Berman was ultimately responsible for killing almost every pitch for gay characters, and in interviews, was mealy-mouthed and waffling about the need for GLBT representation. At the very least, he was gutless and didn't care about GLBT representation. From the information and evidence I've seen, heard, and read, I believe that Berman is the reason we never saw gays on Star Trek I shed no tears that he's gone, except that he did his best to ruin the franchise on his way out.”

Cronin, Brian (September 14, 2019). "Was Lt. Hawk in Star Trek: First Contact Originally Going to be Gay?". Comic Book Resources. Retrieved February 23, 2023.

Unfortunately, at that time, the Star Trek franchise was being executive produced by Rick Berman, who is now known to have been a "raging homophobe" at the time, regularly shooting down ideas from writers to include LGBTQ+ content on the show as original series creator Gene Roddenberry had wanted.

Rude, Mey (March 3, 2022). "Jeri Ryan Says Star Trek's Hot Lesbian Couple Was Created By Accident". Out. Retrieved February 23, 2023.

In short, it seems Star Trek franchise steward Rick Berman, who ran four different Trek series over eighteen years, was largely responsible for all hints of gayness and gender non-conformity getting banned. Would the franchise have received angry pushback from certain segments of the audience if they had? Without a doubt. But so did the original series for having an interracial kiss, and a multi-ethnic crew. And they did it anyway.

Diaz, Eric (July 13, 2021). "How Star Trek Struggled To Get LGBT Characters". Nerdist. Retrieved February 23, 2023.

And that's just some examples, among many. I considered the scholarly sources to be stronger, but if you think news sources are better for this info, it's fully available there as well. Silverseren^C 01:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Silver seren for your reply. Yes I think articles are better. I cannot assess the reliability of those sources, so I trust yours and the anonymous editor judgement.

A cursory search brings his version of the story too. Do you believe a sentence like "reviewers/public/staff noted that, Berman, in hos role as X, had a role in doing Y. Berman maintains that the reason was Z"? I don't want to be "both sides", but I am not happy with sources like "That said, not one single actor, staff member, or Paramount employee has ever once defended him from charges of homophobia, and many have accused him of it.". Knowing little of the publication, the Nerdist article seems better to me, I am sure we can reach consensus on wording and context. Ffaffff (talk) 07:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's very clear that this was a "cursory search". Defaming people in a Biography requires more than a cursory search, User:Silver seren. You have brought additional copies of the same rumors to support a libelous statement being added to the biography of a living person. I took the time to dive in to each of these sources, since you did not. Each of them is fatally flawed for this purpose, and I will outlined each of their problematic attributes below.

From the Brian Cronin source: the speaker is Andy Mangels, who did not work on Star Trek. This fails on it's face as the source of your claim. He is a writer of derivative science fiction works, not cast and crew. He states In Your Quoted Source, that he's never met Berman. He then quotes Gerrold with his statement: 'who is now known to have been a "raging homophobe"'. That is a quote of the interview w/Gerrold who stated in that interview that he was repeating a rumor. In other words, you're trying to quote a rumor of a rumor from a person who never met or worked with Berman or on any of the Star Trek television shows Berman produced. He is not a "former cast and crew", and does not "cite" any examples. Rather he repeats a general rumor for which he has no basis of knowledge. He also has a specifically "pro LGBT in Star Trek" axe to grind as Mangels is notable for writing the first gay characters in Star Trek. There is nothing about this that is a reliable source for defaming the reputation of a living person.

From the Mey Rude source, the source is "Out" which is a pro LGBT publication and while an otherwise reliable source, it is inherently biased as a secondary source for the purposes of THIS discussion, and that fact couldn't be more elucidated than by their unwillingness to fact check someone who is quoting Gerrold (in a libelous way) in the very quote you reference.

Before I address the problems with this citation further, let's address the problem with the source:

From WP:BIASEDSOURCES Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering.

My bold emphasis added. Here, Out did not fact check the quote they published, even though it is libelous. This demonstrates the lack of editorial integrity for this piece. They are not taking a scholarly or academic approach, neither are they demonstrating integrity when the quote's source was someone literally stating he was echoing a "rumor" for which he had no direct knowledge, a common theme for every "source" propose for the proposed defamation. Whatever journalistic integrity "Out" may have as a publication, in this instance they fall short of the bar for being a reliable source for contentious claims in the Biography of a Living Person. Further because they are simply pro LGBT as part of their core mission, they do not have critical distance to claim "independence from the topic". It is demonstrably in their interests to vilify anyone who is rumored to be anti LGBT, and that shows here.

So now that we've examine the reliability of the source, let's look at actual content: the quote is from Jeri Ryan who was a cast member from Star Trek: Voyager, and appeared in exactly 100 episodes. It is fair to say then that Ryan had ample opportunity to call out or "cite" any first hand experience she may have had with any potential anti LGBT behavior on the part of Rick Berman. But rather than "cite" any such examples as a member of the "cast and crew", which is what the text of your defamatory accusation requires, Ryan states: "who is now known to have been a "raging homophobe"". It begs the question: Why did Ryan not "then know" when she worked with Berman for 5 years? I repeat to you again: Rumors are not a reliable source for publishing contentious content in the Biography of a Living Person, let alone outright libel.

From the Eric Diaz source from "The Nerdist" is a quaternary source. You read that right. He wrote a synthesis of a tertiary source, which was an opinion piece in the form of YouTube video. The fact that is is a quaternary source essentially disqualifies it for the purposes of BLP on its face as it adds no further content or citations. The YouTube video (yes I took the time to watch it) is not properly cited, as is typical of a tertiary source, and again repeats rumors. The fact that a publication like "The Nerdist" allowed this synthesis to occur does not it a reliable source, even if we generally consider the outlet itself reliable. As a quaternary synthesis of another source it is held to no editorial bar whatsoever other than 'does the article reflect what was in the video'? Again, this fails to meet the well established bar for publishing libelous content in the Biography of a Living Person.

The last thing I want to say about this is that all of the "references" being posted are circular regurgitation of the Hollywood rumor mill. It is the case that not only have no references been presented which properly substantiate the cast and crew citing incidents of removal or minimizing LGBT themes from multiple Star Trek shows by Rick Berman, there has not even been a single properly sourced example of even one cast member or one crew member citing even one example from their own direct experience of Rick Berman either removing or minimizing LGBT themes from even one Star Trek show, let alone many. The closest you got in like 10 sources so far is Jonathan Frakes saying he thought Berman wasn't "gutsy enough" after admitting that Berman Chose To Add a trans character / theme to an episode. Choosing to add LGBT representation is basically the opposite of "removing and minimizing".

This witch hunt needs to stop.

47.197.37.230 (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

There is no source that would be good enough for you. Because you're not arguing from a stance of trying to actually find sourcing for the statement, but from a stance of finding a way to ensure the sentence isn't included in the article for any reason. Anyways, Ffaffff, ignoring 47.197.37.230 for the moment (who is the one who asked for this third opinion anyways, but seems to be regretting it now), I think there's a way to do that and combine it with the existing sentence with some modification, since we do have sourcing for Berman's response as well and we can even include 47.197.37.230's desire for specific people naming. How's this instead?

Since the early 2000's, several writers of Star Trek material, such as David Gerrold and Andy Mangels, have criticized Berman's participation in removing and minimizing LGBT themes from multiple Star Trek series, including The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine. Berman has responded by saying that he took full responsibility for the lack of such characters and that he had been working with other producers on including gay characters, telling Kate Mulgrew that such a character would be included "in due time", though no such characters would be included during Berman's time as producer.

Does this seems to cover all the bases and also present Berman's response? I included his statement to Mulgrew, since you noted that as well, 47.197.37.230. Silverseren^C 22:44, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for drafting it, I believe it is good (even though maybe it could be added that he claims to have touched some topics metaphorically). To out anonymous contributor: do you think this is better? To me, it is:

• the source of the criticism is clearly stated (Gerrold, Mangels);
• his view of the facts is also in there.

Ffaffff (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

In this case, presenting the controversy and Berman's responses are relevant to his biography as they actually help inform readers who are otherwise just going to be inundated by the regurgitated talking points of the rabbid cancel cult extremists, who have decided to brand him a "raging homophobe", irrespective of the facts of the matter. Separately, I agree in principle that Rick Berman should have pushed the envelope harder on LGBT representation. Like Frakes, I thought he played it safe and made decisions based on his perceived financial interest and toward the end of appeasing his understanding of his core fanbase (of aging boomers). But after digging deeper into the available sources (more than probably anyone else at this point) I don't think there's any evidence of him trying to suppress or limit LGBT themes based on any personal bias or biggotry on his part. I think he just didn't particularly care, and in 1996 not particularly caring about LGBT themes wasn't a crime yet. Anyway, I'm pretty good with this latest suggested edit. This really is a "both sides" kind of topic if it needs to be discussed in a BLP.47.197.37.230 (talk) 07:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I've added it in to the article. I'm a bit ambivalent on where in the section it should go. I've added it back at the end of the second paragraph, where the original sentence was, but I'm open for any suggestions on having it fit better elsewhere in the Star Trek section. I note that the sentence prior to it about the four films didn't have a reference attached in the first place, which should probably be rectified. Silverseren^C 18:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Terry Farrel and accusations of sexism

Not really an expert on this stuff but is there a reason his conflict with Terry Farrel and accusations of sexism aren't in the article at all? It's fairly well known and was mentioned in the recent-ish DS9 documentry What We Left Behind as well as The 50-Year Mission, but doesn't appear at all in here. Is it just a lack of accepted news sources on the subject? 80.115.181.175 (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I would say, generally, yes. We need reliable source coverage of a topic before we include it on Wikipedia. That would mean news articles, books with reliable publishers, or academic publications. Do you know of anything like that that covers the Farrel information? Silverseren^C 23:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I haven't found any writeups in the new york times or anything. The closest would probably be the book 50 year mission itself, which is well regarded and was published by St. Martin's Press. would that be an acceptable source? 80.115.181.175 (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

It probably would be, yes. Though could you quote the section from it that contains that information? I was scanning what was available in the Google Books version and I don't think I saw what you're referring to. Silverseren^C 21:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)