Talk:Chris Berman

message: ...Berman is generally known to be a nice and fun-loving person. That may be true, but does a line like that really belong here? Seems a bit trite, even though I'm a big Berman fan. And the comments about his nickname schtick becoming stale seems overly opinionated (even though I tend to agree). Realkyhick 17:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinionated 

message: I removed the phrase that it is "known for it's mediocrity." There is no reference there quoting anybody, and is obviously a very subjective comment and does not belong. Luke119 23:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think anyone familiar with the "classic" Norris Division lineup would agree that it is noted for its mediocrity. For over a decade (82-93) the Norris Division was comprised of the Chicago Blackhawks, Detroit Red Wings, Minnesota North Stars, St. Louis Blues, and Toronto Maple Leafs. Only Minnesota (1991) and Chicago (1992) made the Stanley Cup finals, both losing. Chicago were swept by the Lemieux-era Penguins and Minnesota made it there despite a losing record during the regular season. From 1986-87 to 1989-90, a total of 3 Norris Division teams (of a possible 20) finished the regular season with a winning percentage better than .500. 63.250.103.92 19:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NFC Norris Division 

message: Can anyone explain the moniker Seattle Seabags for the Seahawks that was added to the catch phrases list today?  What does it refer to?  I've never heard Berman use it, though a google search does indicate that it's fairly widely used.  The only reports that I could find of Berman saying it were postings on two discussion boards. -Meegs 03:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Seabags" 

message: This page doesn't seem big enough to require breaking out these lists as subarticles at the moment. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Breaking out subarticles

message: Where's the dap for NFL nicknames such as:
Deuce plenty of use McAllister
My favorite Marshall (faulk)
My favorite Martin
Warrick Well Dunn
Too drunk to continue with list but, I got nothging - here's where the disscussion ends.. ba;dkfj;dg;adhg;adhg;a
Sorry for messing up the awesome wickipedia site with poor discussion, but at least I didn't edit some prestigious articles...
really I didn't.
*Chris Berman sucks ass and he has ruined ESPN for me. Sorry but I felt that needed to be stated somewhere on this discussion page. Aplomado - UTC 04:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Woooooop!!!! 

message: The Biography section seems biased and needs some serious rewording. 
Examples (emphasis mine):
*He was on hand to broadcast Cal Ripken, Jr.'s record breaking 2131st consecutive game, in that game Cal hit a home run that was best described by this call "Deep to left, oh my goodness, he did it again!".:
While it might have been significant that he called Ripken's record breaking game, the home run call seems irrelevant and there's nothing to support the claim that the call was the "best" description of the home run.
*Berman is well-known for his colorful and enthusiastic nicknaming of players who show up on the highlights.: 
Saying he's noted for the nicknames should be enough and doesn't get into the degree of his fame, and "colorful and enthusiastic" to one person can just as easily be "over-the-top and grating" to another, and isn't necessary in describing his style. Noting the volume and frequency of nicknames, and that they are often elaborate should suffice.
* The section beginning with Despite their popularity...':
Comes off defensive against/dismissive of criticism against Berman's style. It's worth noting that he is popular with more casual sports fans and older viewers, while younger fans often find the nicknaming annoying and the pop culture references outdated (I'll try to dig up citations). 
*Berman and his family are long time residents of Cheshire, Connecticut and have been active in local charitable activities.
I don't doubt that the Bermans are active in the local community, but being involved in the community is common for media personalities and celebrities and should go without saying unless their involvement is significantly more than others'. A simple, "Berman and his family reside in Cheshire, Connecticut" should be enough.
Also, I think it would help to divide the section into what is purely biographical information and another section about his announcing style. Right now, it's a little bloated and most of the section is not biographical information. Ytny 21:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV issues 

message: *I don't know the origin of the nickname, but one blogger suggests that Jerry Remy was the first to call him that.  .--Sensation002 01:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Big Papi

message: I always thought that he said "That's why they play the 'game'," not "That's why they play the 'games'".Habsfan|t 01:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "That's why they play the...." 

message: Nothing on Chris' page about "the voice". There are few people on TV that have a voice as recognisable as Chris. Something needs to be written about it!
:yeah,we could include how he talks untill he runs out of breath,then he talks some more,squeezing every word possible into one long sentence,why doesnt he just take another breath and start talking again?FOUR TILDES (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  That Voice 

message: i remember when bermanisms was it's own article? What happened, and since it has merged, it has a lot of nicknames missing. If there is a way to access the "Bermanisms" article, and put it into Chris Berman's article, that would be great. Fortyniners9999 06:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bermanisms 

message: Should something, in, say the Trivia section make mention of Chris Berman's love for San Diego. I think it's well evident in his broadcasts that he loves San Diego and is an avid supporter of the Chargers going back to the powder blue uniforms full-time, and even mentioning a lot of lingo that is San Diego based that may not be known to anyone else in the nation. --Raderick 12:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  San Diego 

message: I'm putting back the Bermanisms section that was deleted without explanation or discussion on this talk page in January.  That is way too much contribution to be deleted without a discussion, and there were a lot of articles left linking to information that was no longer on this page.  If you disagree with this materials' placement here, discuss it below so a consensus can be reached before deleting it.Timpcrk87 18:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably should be in Wikiquote.  WAVY 10 20:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The info (such as it was) has been removed.  It was completely unreferenced and indiscriminate collection of quotes and utterly useless trivia: WP:NOT#TRIVIA, WP:NOT Wikiquote.  We are an Encyclopedia, not whatever that mass of uselessness was.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bermanisms

message: Thanks for insulting 29,000 people by deleting Berman's home town  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.84.60 (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good grief, the issue of where Berman and his family live is not an issue of libel, but concerns of privacy when the information is provided unsourced.  See WP:V, WP:BLP and WP:OR. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Berman's residence

message: I don't exactly know what has happened to this page, but for one of the top Sportscasters of the past 25 years, this article seems completely inadequate. His background, contribution and legacy are completely without mention. 
I don't know that much about him, personally, but this just seems embarrassingly short. 
What's worse, it seems that it used to be longer. Whatever cutting was done it was too extensive.
:The article was longer, but it was almost entirely composed of various so-called Bermanisms and uncited unreadable fluff.  If anything, the meaningful, encyclopedic content in the article has actually increased since the removal of all that garbage.  As to your concerns about whats missing, WP:SOFIXIT.  Find verifiable sources and expand the article; no-one is keeping encyclopedic content out.  --Edward Morgan Blake (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ridiculously short 

message: What's the consensus on adding the recent YouTube videos to the article? I haven't added or removed any of them, I'd like to gain consensus on this first. Obviously, there are links to his outtakes and unaired video that show him in a bad light, but are these encyclopedic in nature? Has there been another, secondary source we could quote about these videos becoming public, so we don't have to make WP:OR about them? Snowfire51 (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Snowfire is exactly right here. A controversy can only exist if this is established from reliable secondary sources. A controversy doesn't exist because editors find something controversial. Until and unless reliable secondary sources pick this up, there is no controversy. Also it is against wikipedia policy to link to copyright violations and these videos are almost definitely copyright violations as the copyright belongs to ESPN? and there is no evidence they uploaded them to YouTube or anywhere else or otherwise gave permission for them to be released anywhere Nil Einne (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree strongly. youtube links should not be added, period. Controversy should only be added if sourced to reliable, 2nd party sources, and is put into somekind of context. Thank you.--70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't believe the YouTube links were actually posted, were they? I believe the link was simply to the Deadspin site where the YouTube videos were posted, and they were referred to here but not linked. I'm not sure the copyright belongs to ESPN anyway, I believe those videos were personally made by a former producer, but that's neither here nor there because the video links aren't posted. To be honest, I don't understand why the "you're with me, leather" page exists as a stand alone page rather than as a small segment on Berman's page, but that's also outside the scope of what we're talking about I guess. As for outside sources, the videos have been referred to by journalists on the San Jose Mercury News site, the Baltimore Sun site, and a few other newspapers. The references I've seen have been in blogs, but by credible journalists.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.79.35.227 (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Deadspin is from what I can tell, not a reliable source. It seems unlikely to me that all the videos were personally made by producers, for starters I'm somewhat doubtful producers are allowed to bring their own cameras into studio and some of them definitely look like studio cameras (steady). For example, the one which started the whole thing definitely looks like it was from a studio camera, probably the one that was supposed to record the segment that Berman was supposed to be doing but wasn't because he was too busy complaining about people walking around. Also, it doesn't matter who's hosting or linking to the video, Deadspin, Sportsbybook whoeever it amounts to the same thing (well if an extremely reliable source either hosts or links to the video then we can link to the extremely reliable source since it's reasonable to presume that the source has considered copyvio issues). And both of the websites (, ) in the version you reverted to not only linked to the videos but indeed either embedded the youtube videos or hosted them themselves (it's usually helpful to check out the sources you are talking about rather then simply making statements which are inaccurate). If you have some other sources, then bring them to the table, but until and unless we can evaluate these sources then the stuff should stay out. Nil Einne (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Deadspin is a popular sports blog that would seem to fall pretty close to the borderline of whether it would be considered a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Unquestionably reliable journalistic sources have cited Deadspin articles or stories (see the Wikipedia Deadspin page for examples). I do appreciate your "advice" that it is helpful to check out sources rather than making "inaccurate statements" but I had already done so prior to my previous post and my contention remains that while the articles may have embedded the videos, that doesn't make the articles themselves infringing or a link to the Deadspin articles to be a direct link to infringing content.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.79.35.227 (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, now ESPN has released a statement defending Berman which indirectly acknowledges the videos are real, and now they're hosted by Deadspin.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.54.37 (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: With respect, your comment doesn't make any sense. The infringing content is hosted on Deadspin and embedded on the other site from YouTube (although YouTube has now removed it). By definition, by linking the Deadspin page which contains the content and the other page which embeds the content, we are linking to infringing material. We cannot link to infringing material whether it is hosted on YouTube or DeadSpin is irrelevant. Linking to sites which link to copyvios IS JUST THE SAME as linking to copyvios. The only case when this might be acceptable would be if it is a highly reliable source who have we can presume, fully considered copyvio issues and DeadSpin (or any blog) is clearly not such a source. Your apparent idea that it is okay to link to places which link to copyvios but not okay to link to copyvios frankly makes absolutely no sense, you can't use another site as an intermediatry to link to a copyvio. DeadSpin may be borderline for some stuff but it is clearly not borderline for establishing a controversy on BLP, it simply is not a reliable source (if compared to a news paper, it appears at best to be a tabloid). If other sources sometimes use DeadSpin then we are welcome to use these other sources when they pick it up, but not if they haven't. The ESPN response might make this worthy of brief mention but that is about the only source that has been mentioned so far which has. P.S. In your original post you said "they were referred to here but not linked". But they are clearly, as you now concede, linked to, embedded and in fact hosted on DeadSpin not simply referenced as you initially claimed. Nil Einne (talk) 09:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it may have been unclear, but my initial claim was that the videos themselves were not linked directly here. In other words, the only links here were to Deadspin and the other site, not the videos themselves. I didn't say that the videos were not linked from the Deadspin blog, obviously they were linked from and embedded there. In any case, I've spend a good bit of time on WP:CP and have not seen very many instances relating to linking to infringing material. The far greater concern seems to be copyright violations, either in the form of text or images, within the Wikipedia entries themselves. That's probably neither here nor there though. I've found a reference to the videos in the Baltimore Sun, I am going to add a brief snippet to the article using that as a citation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.79.35.227 (talk) 14:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:CP is quite clear that links to infringing material is just as bad (Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted_works), and I always delete any links to infringing material, I don't think there is any dispute about this part of copyright policy. (Infringing material on wikipedia is much worse, particularly when it's text copied into articles but that's a different issue.) I don't think these are usually discussed in WP:CP, there is no need for deletion of images/articles or complicated cleanup of articles and most of the time they're usually fairly clear cut. If there is discussion, this can take place in the talk page. So it's not surprising you haven't noticed many of these in WP:CP, they bypass it. (And in the unlikely event someone who actually owns the copyright finds the stuff, they'll likely go directly to YouTube or whatever rather then bother us about linking, although they are fully entitled to do so.) BTW, these are primarily in YouTube (indeed I believe at one stage a bot went around and posted on talk pages if YouTube was linked in the article), but of course, it doesn't matter if they're not. And linking to another site that either links to or worse, embeds the videos is just the same as linking directly to the infringing material. As I've also said, a link to a highly reliable source, for example a reputable newspaper or TV news source will probably be okay since we can presume these sites have consider copyvio issues. But blogs which barely meet reliability definitely aren't in that category. In any case, I'm please this has been resolved. P.S. Obviously we're not talking about an extreme here, clearly it doesn't make sense to remove a site just because if you navigate you'll happen to find a link to something potentially infringing after 10 clicks, but clearly when one of the primary purposes of the page we're linking to is to show or link to the video then it's a problem.  Nil Einne (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I added a secondary source (the Baltimore Sun) to the mention of the Youtube videos. There aren't any links to them or the Deadspin site, and I didn't list it under "controversy." I don't understand why it was removed when there was a secondary source provided rather than original research.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.79.35.227 (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To begin with, I deleted it because you didn't make any comment on the talk page until after the material had already been removed. There's a lot of discussion going on about the videos, and as per WP:BLP, it's best to read through the discussions before readding deleted material. The Baltimore Sun column doesn't address any controversy or talk about the significance of these videos in any way, it only acknowledges the existence of the videos. That's not an issue, what the discussion here deals with is the notability of these videos beyond simply being embarrasing for Berman. No matter what the end result of the discussion is, I don't think the reference belongs in the "career" section of his article, as per WP:BLP. Snowfire51 (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually did make the comment 3 above this one (starting with "I guess it might have") prior to adding the Baltimore Sun citation. I didn't realize the issue here was notability, I thought it was that reliable sources had yet to pick up or mention the story and that it was only available on blogs such as Deadspin, therefore needing a "reliable source" to verify it. Still though, considering the attention these videos have received on the Internet, I would argue that they are notable. The Berman article isn't suffering from excessive length, thereby needing a subjective evaluation of which parts of it may not be notable in order to trim it. Notability is a bit of an amorphous concept anyway, other than Google it seems to be pretty difficult to establish or refute.  Anyhow, I guess I've taken a long-winded approach to saying that I strongly believe that the videos are notable, I would agree that they may not belong in the career section, however.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.79.35.227 (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Everything you've just said is original research, unless you have a proper reference for it. Snowfire51 (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, it may very well be deleted if you don't have a source
water is wet,that is original research,is that why it isnt in the article for 'water'?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.46.49.98 (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually it should be fairly easy to find reliable sources that say water is wet... Nil Einne (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Videos and controversy 

message: The section on Berman's nicknames for players is growing out of hand. I'm going to prune it back to some of the more notable ones, since it seems like an IP drops in daily to add a few to the list. Any thoughts before I get out the shears? Dayewalker (talk) 05:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's another problem, currently the list contains every nickname anyone can think of, and none of them are sourced. When I get a minute, I'm going to pare the list down again. If anyone wants to make a spinoff article of his nicknames, go right ahead, but the current article is weighed down with trivia. Dayewalker (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've cleaned it up as best I could. I removed a lot of newer nicknames that were inserted without links, although still certainly none of it is properly sourced. I thought going with the classic nicknames was sufficient to give examples. Any dissenting opinions, feel free to discuss it here. Dayewalker (talk) 02:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicknames 

message: He's 54 or 55, as indicated by an article on espn noting he was 24 when joined the network in 1979.  College graduate  date is probably correct.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Z4r4thustr4 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Berman's Age  

message: I don't know and it's not in the article.  I think it would be interesting to include if anybody knows (and has a source they can link to, of course). Thx1200 (talk) 03:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How did he get his nickname of Boomer? 

message: is Chris just his stage name? --71.189.61.155 (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  He's Jewish but his first name's Christopher? 

message: According to Chris Berman's Facebook page,he was born 5 May 1955, not (as the article now states) 10 May 1955. Also, the link to "Official website" is broken. I don't know of any official website for him; his Facebook page only lists www.espn.com. Searching for "chris berman" on that site yields a link for a bio page, but that is also a broken link. So I would recommend removing the link entirely. 
FYI, I put this information on the discussion page under "Age" so it would probably be appropriate to respond there.
Bhessel (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Bhessel, 5 May 2010 

message: As reported on ESPN SportsCenter on May 24, 2010, Chris Berman received a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.  His ESPN colleague, Tom Jackson, and ESPN President George Bodenheimer were on hand for the unveiling.  His star is number 2409 and is located at 6259 Hollywood Boulevard in front of Dillon’s. D2s2 (talk) 00:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hollywood Walk of Fame 

message: Is the 'in other media' section really neccesary? --Coingeek (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Other Media 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Chris Berman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120910171814/http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2008/12/26/sports/26_berman.txt to http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2008/12/26/sports/26_berman.txt
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090706115133/http://www.buffalonews.com:80/sports/story/723196.html to http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/story/723196.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 2001:56A:F07A:DE00:BC72:3748:2BA9:7C8B (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 October 2018 

message: That started with Howard Cosell when he was narrating the highlights of Sunday games during halftime of the early years of Monday Night Football, no?  Did Chris Berman ever mention that as an homage to Cosell or did he just start doing that independently?  I don't know myself.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by FenwayFrank (talk • contribs) 01:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''He could...go...all...the...way'' 

message: Berman pronounces the Las Vegas football Raiders name in a menacing growl as the "Raaaiders." Sduraybito (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 September 2020 

message: The entire discussion under the heading of "videos and controversy" is about references, protecting copyrights, etc., and correctly so.  How ironic you should be discussing to this length in an article featuring Chris "The undisputed king of plagiarism" Berman.
None of "his" catchphrases...even as referred to even in this article...are HIS. This article uses clever wording like "adopted" and "drawn from" to somehow legitimize his plagiarism. He stole them from Red Barber, Howard Cosell, Keith Jackson, Herm Edwards, and many more...Even "His" nicknaming of the Sunday Night Baseball as "Hotel California", stolen of course from the smash hit of the Eagles. Never once acknowledged the source of his "obligatory" calls as he put it when Emceeing the ESPYs."My obligatory 'back, back, back, back" 112.210.164.232 (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism is stealing.  Not "adopting".  Not "drawing from".  Theft..