Talk:Eric Red

Woefully out of balance
What strikes me as I read the article is the weight given to the auto accident compared to his work in film. There are exactly three lines about his work before this very detailed account of the mishap, only then followed by a (very weak) fan analysis of his work. No expansion on the man himself, in terms of his life or his experiences as a writer/director. This presents the perspective that somehow the accident is the most important aspect and the things that made him famous are just incidental. Instead, the article should deal with who he is and why he is notable and worthy of an article, then the tragic, personal details can round that out. Pairadox (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. In a biography this short it would be better to summarize the accident more briefly. Something like:
 * Red was at fault in a fatal car accident on May 31, 2000. No criminal charges were brought, but a jury in a civil suit found that he had acted intentionally. The suit, which awarded over a million dollars to the families of the two men killed in the accident, was appealed to state and federal courts which confirmed the original jury finding.
 * So long as we include the cites readers can get all of the gory details elsewhere.
 * While we're discussing balance, I'm concerned that the "Film Discussion" section is original research or based on film forum postings. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I prefer a slight rewording, including the number of deaths up front. "Red was determined to be at fault in a car accident that caused two deaths." Then "over a million dollars to the families of the men killed..." It just brings the victims to the fore a bit more forcefully, IMHO, without overstating it. I guess I just find "fatal car accident" to be almost cliche.
 * And yes, I agree with you about the last section being...wrong. It fails pretty much every standard for acceptable sources. Since I doubt finding better analyses will be difficult I'm less concerned with that for the moment. Pairadox (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Your suggestion is good; it's better to mention the fatalities in the first sentence, since those are what make the incident notable. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)