Talk:Anne Bremner

DUI section

This section should not be removed but it should be pared down to just the basics. There is far too much detail for a minor crime which yielded a sentence of two days in jail. Binksternet (talk) 03:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I made a first attempt at that (diff). Other opinions appreciated. cab (call) 04:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Good work. I went even further and trimmed more detail, such as who she was having dinner with. Binksternet (talk) 08:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I just thought for neutrality it should be noted that judges (professional acquaintances and, presumably, reliable witnesses) who saw her shortly before the accident didn't think she was intoxicated. Your call. cab (call) 08:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I've made some copy edits to the section. I've also removed the DUI from the lead as I don't believe it is important enough to her notability to warrant inclusion in the lead.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree - mention of the DUI does not belong in the lead. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Cab, I would like to talk to you about that and incorect info including about a case cited that I didn't try and other information. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anne bremner (talk • contribs) 08:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing on the talk page. The material about Moses Garcia's case being attributed to you has been removed. If you have other concerns please expand on them here. There are several editors working on this article and it's most efficient if you talk to everyone at once. cab (call) 08:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I would support complete removal of the DUI case, but don't particularly care if a short, factual account stays. The length given to it was clear WP:UNDUE weight violation. I am also concerned that the sources currently used to support the DUI coverage, as well as the very first source cited in the article, were picked specifically to present negative information, as the headlines, and often the content, seem particularly slanted. Surely we can pick a better source for proving she is a lawyer than what was used, and if the event is at all notable we ought to be able to find more objective coverage of it. As it stands I can't help but thinking based upon the sources used and what the content of the article used to be was that this whole article was intended as nothing more than a hit piece. DreamGuy (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

As I've commented at WP:BLPN, I don't agree with you. I particularly disagree with your "hit piece" conclusion, which I think is uncalled for. The DUI was not a big deal, but Bremner made it a big deal by challenging everything and raising a stink about it. If she hadn't done that, I probably would favor not including the conviction and short jail sentence at all. As it is, by your removal of all of the aftermath, the section stands out as a nothing. So, the real question for editors, in my view, is whether the aftermath makes the whole thing noteworthy. I would say it does, partly because she's a lawyer, that's what she's notable for, she's high visibility, and what she did after her arrest was not unusual for a lawyer - file a lawsuit. I recommend restoring the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

After looking for different sources, it does strike me that the TV stations had much more even-handed headlines and coverage of the case than the newspapers. Maybe something to do with her work on the Committee for a Two-Newspaper Town? Anyway, whatever the reason, the TV stations were much more WP:NPOV, so if we're going to expand that section out again I'd suggest citing them instead. (They don't show up reliably in Google News, which is why I didn't see until now that they had so much coverage; use Google Web search directly on site:kirotv.com or site:king5.com). cab (call) 18:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed the section for now. It really does just seem like a major violation of WP:UNDUE weight. How is this of any significance to the person's overall life? What possible encyclopedic purpose does it's inclusion serve? And, as mentioned above, the sources used are tabloid-style attack journalism, with even the headlines being outrageous. Those are pretty clear WP:BLP violations. If people can come up with some logical, Wikipedia-based reason to include the incident at all we'll need sources that are not merely attack pieces masquerading as news. DreamGuy (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I restored it. The incident received a lot of coverage and was commented upon by her peers, yet we only have a very terse and factual account in the biography. I think we are keeping very clear of BLP violations by ignoring the opinions that were expressed about the case. The briefest statement of facts cannot be a violation. Binksternet (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

We aren't actually ignoring opinions about the case when we are prominently linking to them as sources and their attack-style article titles are showing up on the page. We need sources that aren't so juvenile and bitter. Picking those particular sources gives WP:UNDUE weight to the rather outrageous claims and personal attacks in them. I don't know that a couple of local reports (one of those from an online-only paper) of an incident about a person who is nationally/internationally famous actually demonstrates "a lot of coverage". If news media only thought it was noteworthy to local residents and national outlets ignored it completely then I don't think it's a notable event worthy of inclusion in the version of Wikipedia serving the whole of the English-reading world. If this were the Seattle Wikipedia you may have a point. Please demonstrate that this was more than of local interest. DreamGuy (talk) 22:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Binksternet. I don't think it's a BLP violation, and I don't think it's undue. I also don't agree that to include it in the article we have to find something other than "local" coverage. It's not like Seattle is a tiny hamlet. It's a major city in the U.S. However, to the extent it matters, here is a report from the ABA Journal, which is a national publication ([1]); and a report from Fox News ([2]).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Early Life section

"...one of four children of..." is not correct, that is actually her step-mother (her biological mother's name is Laurnell Cooper). Ref: James Douglas Bremner II, History of the Bremner Family, self-published genealogy, 2000. Or rootsweb ref here. Also there is a wikipedia page for one of the other four children Doug Bremner that could be linked although it is a WP:COI for me to do so or to edit the current page. Dougbremner (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the material completely as it's not reliably sourced (to a personal geneaology site). I'm also not going to cite to another geneaology site instead. Finally, it's not essential information, anyway. Thank you for not editing the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

What was cited was fine. My biological mother was Laurnell Bremner. My mother is Linnea Bremner. Please take the DUI secition out. I have truly suffered enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anne bremner (talk • contribs) 03:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed external link

I would like to add this link because I interviewed Anne Bremner. Anne Bremner is One of the Best Trial Lawyers in the Nation Please let me know if I can add this link to the external link section. Ntwereet (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it is a puff-piece that is not published in a respected source. You have been spamming www.lawcrossing.com into many different articles and you are about to get blocked for it. So, no, the link is not appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

another Zahau source

"Zahau, 32, was discovered dead six hours after she retrieved a voice mail that said the condition of her boyfriend's 6-year-old son had suddenly worsened and that he was unlikely to survive, investigators said." http://old.seattletimes.com/text/2016096147.html 12.180.133.18 (talk) 04:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)