Talk:Murder of Jessica Lunsford/Archive 1

Archive 1

Vfd

On 24 Mar 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jessica Lunsford for a record of the discussion. —Korath (Talk) 06:50, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Em actually you have no idea who adds what to wiki. I've seen your edits Cumberbund, most are totally irrelevant to the topic and are mostly about attacks on other wiki editors.65.184.18.231 03:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Troll postings, a letter to Redvers

You may be surprised to know you are dealing with a few of the people intimatley involved with this case. All edits to Wiki have been shown verifiable via links such as cnn, msnbc, as well as links to the actual court documents. For some reason you must have fallen in love with the user Cumberbund, who is in fact a webmaster that wanted the webhosting job and we decided NOT to hire him because of his criminal history. We DID in fact hire Charlotte Web Hosting, which you can plainly see in the supporting links, (CNN has a TON of them) This user Cumberbund has erased anything on the Jessica page he does not agree with. The unfortunate thing about it is, everything we post is FACT and verifiable via affadavits from court and coroner's reports. Cumberbund may choose to disagree with them, but he is doing nothing more then vandilising Wiki, using the tried and true "troll" way of arguing, (Act like the victim in the argument) We may not be as Wiki inclined as he is, that does not mean our points are not valid as much, or in this case way more then his, as we actually hold in our hand court released documents. Cumberbund is in fact a 34 year old person with a very extensive criminal history, you may leave us an email address for more information for conclusive PROOF. Cumberbund has NO reason to be on wiki except to take off any mention of webhosting whatsoever, like the spoiled child who didn't get a lolipop, he whines, and you so far have been doing an EXCELLENT job of helping him. Instead of going in gun ho, read the links, do the research, THEN come to Wiki to have your say. He says the webhosting is not relevant to her story, then ask him why for months he has ONLY made edits to remove the webhosting part and leaving everything else untouched. If he had been hired to host the site, you can BET he would be all over wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Lunsford

Look at every one of his contributions, he is using wiki for nothing more then a personal harrassment tool. Feeding into him isn't what we'd expect from this kind of person Nicholas.

If you have ANY doubts at all of his sockpuppetry, run an ip search for his postings all over Wiki, you might be very amused. He has already been told by OTHER admins to LEAVE information that has been verified on the jessica lunsford entry, which he has refused to do. I'd also like to mention, he says that the webhosting is not important part of her story, it was VERY important, it DID do a verifiable 9 million unique hits in 10 hours, Alexa DOES show it, and yet once again, google this:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=charlottewebhosting+lunsford+&btnG=Search

Of course, you know, for him it's (If I didn't host it, no one will) He has spent the last YEAR making websites all over the net talking about Jessica Lunsford, putting DOWN Mark Lunsofrd AND Jessica, as well as trying to libel/slander Charlotte Web Hosting in any way he can. I'm sure he's found a friend in you on Wiki. 65.184.18.231 06:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Stub tag and photo request deleted

I have deleted the "stub" tags from this article as it is far longer than the stub designation would indicate, sectioned, and contains references. I have also deleted, subject to discussion, a tag at the top of this talk page suggesting that the quality of this article would be improved by adding a photograph. I do not believe that posting a photograph of the child murder victim in this or any similar case would have significant encyclopedic value, whereas it could potentially cause emotional distress to the victim's family to have photographs of their murdered child being disseminated without their consent. Newyorkbrad 03:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Pictures of Jessica are now in the public domain, first since she is dead, secondly since her father released them to news media. Jon Benet has a picture of her on her wiki page, so does every other murdered child on Wikipedia. So I'll put one back on. 65.184.18.231 12:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Unrelated child abductions in "see also" section

Please do not add wikilinks to articles on other child abductions and murders in the "see also" section. There have been way too many such occurances for listing them all to be practical, and besides, that's why we have Category:Murdered children. Jeff Silvers 09:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

allegedly

Untill the court finds otherwise in a trial, then the word allegedly MUST be used when the word KIDNAP and RAPE are used in thei article. Other then that, edits to take out such words are not Nuetral. Jessica Lunsford may have been kidnapped in reality, but untill it is PROVEN as is every person's right in court, Nuetrality must remain and so Kidnapped and Raped must be either removed as sub catagories or placed along side of allegedly. Wikipedia isn't about feelings, it's about varifiable facts.

LexiLynn 21:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Page protected

I've protected the page because of the reverting and apparent sockpuppetry, and because I'm getting complaints about harassment and personal details being published. I'd appreciate it if someone could explain what's going on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Please change Category:Murdered American children to Category:American murdered children. Thank you. --MECU≈talk 22:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

And after that please remove the Category:Murdered American children because this article is the only one to use this. Ik.pas.aan 23:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Protected edit request and category deletion request fulfilled.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

i think

I think we should ahve to separate stories on the father and daughter... or atleast put the father story under the jessica text..--Matrix17 12:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think putting the father story under the Jessica Lunsford text would be a good idea. Davemcarlson 17:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Joshua Lunsford sex crime charges

I added a section on the recent sex crime charges being brought against Joshua Lunsford, the brother of Jessica Lunsford, by the State of Ohio. This section was removed under the premise of "not being notable." The original article covering this topic (and that is subsequently blasting across the Internet in sex offense discussion blogs and forums) is located at the WHIO site: [1]. I would first point out that "notability" as applied per Wikipedia guidelines is not intended to regulate the content of an article, and therefore is the incorrect argument for removal of that content. "Reliable sources" may be a better point from which to argue, as I only have one news source that I have been able to locate that has reported on these charges. I would argue, however, that in regards to charges being brought, not much exists to be reported, and therefore the lack of ten repetitions of the same information at different news sites does not in and of itself destroy the significance of that information. The significance of these charges lie in the ironic nature of the situation: the father of the victim of a high-profile sex crime case spends two years advocating for harsher punishment for sex offenders in the victim's name, the victim's brother states his intent to multiple news sources to "receive the torch" for that same "sex offender punishment advocacy" campaign, and then it is (quietly) reported that the beloved brother and son is now on the way to becoming one of the sex offenders that the family has spent the past two years seeking vengeance upon. As these charges are a part of the "Jessica Lunsford legacy," much as the Jessica Lunsford act and Mark Lunsford's political campaign are, I do not see how the information's inclusion here is in any way problematic. A major news station is provided as a source for verification and the information is closely tied into Jessica Lunsford's reason for being notable enough to have a Wikipedia article in the first place. I fail to see where the problem is, unless there is another article that this information is more applicable to. Daivox 22:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

More sources covering or regarding this topic: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Daivox 04:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the Joshua Charges being notable to the Jessica Lunsford article, rather than Mark Lunsford. This directly pertains to the Lunsford Legacy -- and seems that this would be the place for inclusion. Additional references: <redacted> (court documentation),[7] (2:23 video), [8], and [9] (op/ed) FTimothy 07:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed a link to a site that, as FTimothy noted, surprisingly included identifying information as to the identity of a non-notable child victim of a sex crime. This link must not be restored. Discussion on the other aspects of including Joshua Lunsford in this article can continue. I personally am opposed to it, as Joshua is not a notable individual in any way and it is unnecessary to sully the reputation of his family in this manner. Newyorkbrad 02:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I must disagree with both the notability of Joshua Lunsford and the choice of the words "to sully the reputation of his family in this manner." No implication has been made at any point in time regarding other unrelated family members; Mark, Jessica, and Joshua Lunsford are all interlinked in relation to the Jessica Lunsford case and the aftermath of such. Joshua Lunsford has been quoted by multiple sources as stating his desire to take over his father's JML Foundation eventually. I will concede that if Joshua Lunsford was charged with any crime that was non-sexual in nature and did not involve minors in any way, it would be both non-notable and unnecessary to include in any Mark- and Jessica-related articles; however, the fact that he is being charged with crimes that both his father and himself have publicly advocated much harsher punishments for brings Joshua's case into a much more notable and relevant status. There is no devious attempt at damaging the reputation of any aspect of the Lunsford family underway here; facts are brought to light and are included as applicable to the article. While those facts may potentially bring a reader to look at the Lunsfords "in a different light," that is solely the responsibility of the reader, and we cannot censor potential Wikipedia content solely for fear that said content potentially makes a person or persons appear unfavorable somehow. If I am not mistaken, WP:NOT#CENSOR dictates that censorship of potentially objectionable or offensive (yet otherwise within Wikipedia guidelines) content such as this is not how Wikipedia is to be administered. I welcome any arguments to the contrary. Daivox 05:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This is now in mainstream news. [10] (NBC), [11] (MSNBC 2:52 video) FTimothy 03:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge Suggested (2007)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I suggest that this page be merged with the Jessica Lunsford Act page. The Jessica Lunsford Act is the proper name for Jessica's law. Hoshbaron 15:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - merging Jessica Lunsford Act and Jessica's Law into Jessica Lunsford. Support merging Mark Lunsford Article into Jessica Lunsford article. Davemcarlson 14:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose to merging Jessica Lunsford Act and Jessica's Law into Jessica Lunsford. Support merging Mark Lunsford article into Jessica Lunsford article. Jessica's Law is a Florida state law. The Jessica Lunsford Act is a proposed federal law modeled after the Florida law. They are separate entities and each is notable enough for its own article. Joie de Vivre 15:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I also think there is nothing wrong with keeping separate pages for Jessica Lunsford and the Jessica Lunsford Act. Ik.pas.aan 21:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose separate issues. gren グレン 08:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose to merging Jessica Lunsford Act and Jessica's Law into Jessica Lunsford. Support merging Mark Lunsford article into Jessica Lunsford article as per Davemcarlson and Joie de Vivre. Jauerback 15:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. I think that Jessica's Law and Jessica Lunsford should stay separate. They are two different articles: one is about this poor little girl and one is about the law that was created because of her tragedy. Jaxfl 02:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed merge (2009)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I strongly suggest merging this into one of the two law articles - which one is not a huge issue. However, right now this article is basically a retelling of a child's rape and murder. This is encyclopedic only inasmuch as it was the impetus for legal action - we absolutely do not have every murdered child on Wikipedia, and with good reason. As it stands, the third Google hit on Jessica's name is essentially just a narrative of how she was killed. That's very, very not good. It's a basic matter of respect for the dead and for the living - this article should be as unsalacious as possible. Phil Sandifer 15:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Scroll up on this talk page. Jauerback 14:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• I oppose merging. The law article is about the law, not about the case that caused the law. This article is an appropriate place for details of the case. — Reinyday, 06:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jessica M. Lundsford

--Tifrob (talk) 07:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)I'm writing a paper on Jessica. What I am reading does not match what I heard reported at the time on MSNBC. Now, I'm reading about her being in a closet and staying there all day while he was gone. At the time, on MSNBC, they talked about him letting her watch the search on TV. I remember thinking that this was beyond cruel. Anyway, I remember them saying that Coey took Jessica out in the woods and showed her the hole + trash bag. That she asked if the bag was for her? He said yes. Then she asked if she could take her stuffed dolphin? Again, yes. He said, she didn't cry or beg, that she was very brave. (the no good )

Anyway, I need facts, honest facts and links so I can read it for myself. MSNBC has very little on their site. It has been a couple of years now and data is hard to come by.

Thank you,

tifrob (Tifrob (talk) 07:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

Death

Since when is cancer a "natural cause" of death? The "current deaths" page of Wikipedia states that he died September 30th of Cancer yet in two sections on his page it states he died in prison of natural causes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.192.218 (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)