Talk:Megan Kanka

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Criminal justice Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Crime, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide on true crime and criminology-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of low-importance for crime-related articles.
WikiProject Crime To-do:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Megan Kanka article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Merging with Megan's Law

  • Against this proposal - the girl's murder and the legal changes which eventuated were related but are different matters with alternatie foci; cross-reference, certainly, but suggest leave them as separate articles. To facilitate user search results' ease of navigation and intuitiveness, cross-reference is suggested.
  • Agreed, the girls life and murder being worthy of separate articles to the laws passed and colloquially named in her honor.

[edit] IT!!!!

I think 'it' is refering to Megan and of which I think is quite rude. Did she suddenly become not human, lose the right to still be called, 'her' or 'she' after her death!!?

Fixed it (it's not just rude, it's disrespectful!). Janet13 15:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to refer to Megan Kanka and Jesse Timmendequas

Since all of the published reports I have seen refer to Megan Kanka by her given name and Jesse Timmendequas by her family name, I thought that it would be best to refer to the girl by her given name and the man by his family name. Well, 65.28.9.8 seems to disagree:

The use of last names for the "bad guy" and the more familiar first names for the "good guy" in an article about a child killed by someone about whom there are horrible allegations de facto does not support neutrality. Wikipedia is not a soapbox: Wikipedia does not allow "propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." The fact that Kanka is the alleged victim and Timmendequas is the alleged lawbreaker does not merit cementing that distinction by calling the alleged victim by the more familiar and the alleged lawbreaker by the more distant. As WP:NPOV states, "If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone." If you would rather use first names, that's fine, but then "Timmendequas" should be changed to Jesse."65.28.9.8 23:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
My rationale is that I am doing this because "Megan" and "Timmendequas" are how they are always referred to. "Megan" is a young child and probably has never been addressed by her family name, while the latter, an adult, probably has been addressed by his family name numerous times. Either way, I am not advocating this on the basis that "Megan should be special" - No, I'm advocating for using "Megan" and "Timmendequas" is because I have not heard of anyone using "Kanka" to refer to the girl. WhisperToMe 19:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
It's Wikipedia policy to refer to people by their last names. That's how it should be in this article. Anchoress 08:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Way too many 'allegedly's for a crime that he's been convicted of. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of "allegedly" after perpetrator has been convicted

Except that in this case, unlike the Holocaust and Hitler, here Timmendequas is the "alleged killer." You forgot the word "alleged." 65.28.9.8 03:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

He's been convicted hasn't he? What's alleged about that? 195.157.218.43 05:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
He argues that he was wrongfully convicted; if he admitted to the allegations, they wouldn't be alleged, but he hasn't, so therefore they're "alleged," and he's the "alleged killer." Since we have a presumption of innocence, that's how this terminology works. People are convicted wrongfully all the time. Conviction doesn't make the allegations actually true. Thus, the word "alleged" is neutral, per WP:NPOV. 65.28.9.8 17:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no longer any presumption of innocence once someone is convicted; resolving that presumption one way or the other is the whole point of rounding up a jury and having a trial. I found this article while looking for something else and was amazed to see all the "allegedly"s sprinkled about. I have removed them and made a few other changes and wikification improvements. --CliffC 10:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Hardly. People are convicted wrongfully all the time, sometimes for many, many years (see miscarriage of justice for a list of only a few). Just because someone was convicted of a crime does not mean that the allegations against them are not just that - allegations. Timmendequas clearly has been protesting his innocence all the time, and continues with post-conviction remedy attempts. If those attempts are successful, his conviction would be overturned. Accordingly, because he has not stated the allegations are true, they remain allegations - neither true nor untrue. To call them anything less or more in this article is not a neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV). Even should this discussion section should be called "Use of 'allegedly' after alleged perpetrator has been convicted." 65.28.9.8 22:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Easy corrections can be made to make the article more WP:NPOV without sticking in a bunch of "allegedly's". See: examples here. This is an encyclopedia for God's sake — not the proper place to vindicate convicted criminals or to right the wrongs of the American justice system. Also, the possibility that he maintains his innocence is much more of an allegation than the fact that he was convicted for the crime in question, as you have failed to provide any references. — Dorvaq (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This page reorganized

I have reorganized this page to get the discussions of separate subjects into separate sections. --CliffC 18:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging with Jesse Timmendequas

  • Against. While this article could use more information, it is certainly notable enough to remain on its own.
  • AGAINST I agreed with that
  • against No one would ever suggest merging an article about Jewish Holocaust victims with one about Adolf Hitler. Same principle. The killer and the victim are not one in the same and shouldn't be viewed that way. Tfaeriewings 03:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • For, but I suggest we do it this way: Jesse Timmendequas would go away and become simply a redirect here to Megan Kanka. Beyond what's already said here in Megan's article, there is little to say about Timmendequas beyond his criminal history and his time in the ADTC unit in Avenel. Those facts from the Timmendequas article could be merged as 2-3 short paragraphs in a "Timmendequas' background" section here; it woulld follow the section on the crime and precede a brief overview of Megan's Law. This would also avoid having to maintain two descriptions of the crime and the emotional toll of keeping them in sync. I just finished a long article (Brandon Hein), so I have some time and I hereby volunteer to do the merge if there's a consensus to do one. --CliffC 15:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Against Keep seperate articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John celona (talk • contribs) 23:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC: Separate article for Megan Kanka

Usually I tend to steer away from hot issues like pedophilia, sexuality, religion, etc... But from a completely objective point of view, it seems odd that Megan Kanka doesn't have her own article (her name redirects to Megan's Law for now). There are however separate pages for Megan's Law, the Megan Nicole Kanka Foundation and Jesse Timmendequas, none of which discuss Megan, but do every other aspect of the issue.

I suggest a short article explaining the story around Megan, with "See also" links to the three above articles. I hope you'll agree. --92.104.4.11 (talk) 08:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. The main (indeed the only reason) she's notable led to the creation of Megan's Laws. This is an outstanding example of WP:BLP1E. Although this bit of policy is in the living person's page, the section heading "People notable only for one event" shows that the policy applies to all biographies. Those notable for just one event should redirect to that. The current solution is correct. See also WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Cool Hand Luke 07:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I am unsure what one would put in an article on the girl. At its maximum, the article could say that she was murdered and that a collection of federal and state laws are named for her. However, even a short article is likely to be a vandal magnet. Cool Hand Luke states well my additional reason for declining an article. -JodyB talk 03:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above 2 editors that any biographical information on Megan herself should be included in the article on Megan's Law - a separate article devoted solely to her would not be able to meet criteria for WP:BIO Teleomatic (talk) 02:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)