Talk:Kimberley Motley
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Books cited in
edit@Jcep1: While I appreciate the edits you made I am a little concerned that the new "Books Cited in" section might be WP:UNDUE. Care to discuss? Overall I feel that that section does not contribute to a biographical encyclopedia and will remove it unless there is a compelling reason not to. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
It’s a puff piece
editThis reads like an advertisement for her law firm. 174.78.7.233 (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- I would agree. Additionally, her involvement with the case involving the Afghan child who it is credibly alleged was illegally adopted and then abducted by an American marine lawyer must be fleshed out. 2601:182:B80:6930:41E2:D328:F0D8:7410 (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Completely agree the article is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Construct21 (talk) 02:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
COI tag (January 2023)
editThe top contributor to this article, [1] seems to almost exclusively edit this page or add mentions of Motley to other pages.[2] Given how badly this article needs to be cleaned up for tone, balance, etc. it seems likely that this is a WP:COI situation. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 09:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
No doubt it's a conflict of interest. I also think Motley doesn't qualify as a person notable enough to warrant an entry. Just because an attorney may have a client tied to an event doesn't meet the threshold. "Wow look at all these important people in this encyclopedia! Benjamin Franklin, never heard of him. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, anybody can be Secretary of State. Hilary Clinton, presidential candidate, Secretary of State, senator, eh those people don't do much. Kimberly Motley, HOLY COW! Civil Attorney from the greater Chicago area!" Construct21 (talk) 02:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
That Sentence in the Lead
editOkay, clearly there is a disagreement about whether to include a sentence in the lead about the case involving an Afghan child. Since it just seems to be going back and forth, there needs to be a conversation, so: let's talk.
In my opinion, the language as it was being added (including the word kidnapping, which is a specific crime, for example) violates NPOV, as she has not been charged with kidnapping or anything else, as far as I can tell. If I'm wrong, please provide a source, but given that she has not been charged or convicted with relation to this, it is potentially defamatory, and the allegation is more neutrally discussed later in the article, I don't think this sentence belongs in the lead.
Thoughts? EasyAsPai (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)