Talk:Mark Lunsford

Proposed Merge with Jessica Lunsford
I am not sure we need an article on this person. - NYC JD (make a motion) 06:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Keep: Merging this article will cause unrest when the avid supporters of Jessica's Law learn who Mark Lunsford really is, so for the sake of peace and edit-wars leave it a separate article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.166.22.180 (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I had the merge templates in-hand and got back and there it was; I was beaten to it. -- M PD T / C 06:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * keep this article, as Mark is a notable person in his own right. He has been interviewed repeatedly by various news organisations and has become the spearhead of the 'Jessica Lunsford Act' campaign. - Richardcavell 22:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. We have many articles where the story of multiple people is woven into an article for a single person. Mark Lunsford's only fame comes from the case relating to his daughter; Jessica's law is an appropriate separate article but Mark Lunsford is not.  (I would suggest that his story could also be merged into Jessica's law but I think merging it to Jessica Lunsford makes more sense.) -Etoile 15:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - Potetntial politician. Notable figure. Keep. ---*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 07:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - has made political movements that suggest he is someone to watch in politics in the coming time 65.83.231.99 01:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed
I removed two lines:

"The autopsy produced unconclusive evidence that Jessica had been sexually abused before her abduction. This implies someone in her family had assaulted her before."

The autopsy results are uncited, and the conclusion that this implies somebody in her family abused her is pure (flirting with libelous) speculation on the part of the poster.

"Recently however (May 18 2007), his 18 year old son, Joshua, has been brought up on charges of sexual abuse against a 14 year old minor. This almost negates the very cause that Lunsford has championed for. "

The actions of Lundsford's son do not "negate" his father's work. Again, this is an opinion expressed by the original poster. I think the information is also more relevant to a separate article about Joshua, not his father.

Together these seem to be some kind of smear campaign against Mark Lundsford - wholey inappropriate.

Perhaps a smear campaign by the poster, but anyone who has read the court documents know what Mr. Lunsford IS, that being, a pervert and hypocrite to the highest degree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.166.22.180 (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)