Dislike of R.Arnold Edit

This article is obviously (in part) written by people who dislike R.Arnold, and the article contradicts wikipedia on the topic of canon. It's also a bit odd that the interview with Lynch is used as a source in contradicting statements made here and on wikipedia.The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dixonhill (talk • contribs).

I suggest you review our canon policy, as that is what we use here. I see the passage you refer to is not cited, and should be removed or rewritten if it remains so.--31dot 14:48, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
Since the passage in question has lacked a citation for over three years now, I have removed it for now:
Arnold became infamous among fans with a series of decrees restricting what the tie-in novel and comic writers could and could not do. Many of these decrees were perceived as arbitrary and counter-intuitive by fans and the writers alike – perceptions that were verified by a usenet interview with Arnold conducted by Tim Lynch in 1990 – and Arnold, along with his assistant Guy Vardaman, was fired by Paramount several days after the death of Gene Roddenberry. Following his departure from the Trek universe, all of his decrees and arbitrary policies either have fallen into disuse or were outright reversed. The tie-ins are now vetted only by CBS Consumer Products, led by Paula Block and a small team.
Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 10:49, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

Brian Cronin's book Was Superman A Spy? collects his serialised column, 'Comic Book Urban Legends Revealed' and contains references to the personnel animosity levelled at Peter David by Richard Arnold. Details are provided at and I have included all three links as the comments support other tales which point to an Arnold dislike.

Another consistent allegation spoken out against Arnold is his treatment of game designers FASA. The lengthiest of these comments can be found at and also Arnold's treatment of novelist Margaret Wander Bonnanno. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk). 21 March, 2013

Is there a point to your statement other than to post your allegations on this page? 31dot (talk) 01:43, March 21, 2013 (UTC)

Yes actually; to expand upon the relevant additions to this wiki through talk. This is a talk page and these allegations are not mine, they are shared. I have stated my case and I will leave it up to a poster to implement or not. Or talk The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk). March 22, 2013

To clarify, I meant they were yours in that you were posting them, not yours in that you were making them. 31dot (talk) 22:15, March 22, 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to make the changes myself in adding to the end of the first paragraph. However, I thought my reasons were self evident, but I'll try again. By posting references largely restricted to books and people who have worked alongside Arnold, there is: 1) Contextual talk relevance under "Dislike of Richard Arnold" 2) Support for the view that such dislike for Arnold was founded. 3) To add a shared knowledge base that sometime in the future might be implemented by community. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk). March 26, 2013

The quotes are second-hand information, mostly given by someone whom are talking to a single person who obviously has a great dislike towards Arnold.
Second-hand information and a random unsourced banter in a forum post are hardly reliable sources.
I disagree that this is any kind of support of the allegations and would say it only underlines the clear situation of a divided community in and around Star Trek.
I consider Memory Alpha far to important to base itself on such poor sources. Especially when you consider ,the final point should be considered as making all four sources invalid.
I've added text from an Arnold interview to balance the text out but I still do not see the value of this dislike section. So to clarify, the text is added since it would seem that the previous addition has been accepted though I do not see how it has any logical part in the wiki, especially since it was a rather one-sided war. 16:09, May 8, 2013 (UTC)

The complaints against the dislike section are further validated by the "Chaos on the bridge" documentary by W.Shatner. In it we hear almost every writer complain of Roddenberry himself making insane changes and then backtracking on them. It clearly displays that Roddenberry had a significant hand in the changes that made life very hard for the writers, they had to follow his vision and it had to be done the way he wanted it done. It's obvious that Arnold is being punished for doing what his boss told him to do, and for this, he is linked to an Ekosian nazi. The whole section should be removed. -- 08:52, November 28, 2015 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.