Talk:Murder of Megan Kanka

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.

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)

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)


 * Does the AP or other journalism organizations have published guidelines on this? I agree that using the family name for both victim and (alleged) perpetrator is more professional - and off-hand I don't recall ever reading about an *adult* victim referred to by their first name.  This however might support the, "a child was rarely if ever referred to by their last name" interpretation. Jimw338 (talk) 03:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: "I have not heard of anyone using "Kanka" to refer to the girl" – that's surely because it's journalism style to refer to minors (often, not always) by first name. WP isn't written in news style (see WP:NOT). Meanwhile, most other encyclopedic works, which also would not use news style, will not yet (if ever) have any material about Megan Kanka. When they do have articles on minors, they tend to use the encyclopedic practice of referring to them by surname (see, e.g. ). See also Confirmation bias, WP:IDONTKNOWIT, and WP:CSF: It's fallacious to assume that "what I'm reading now" provides the only possible or the most preferable style (for anything), or that WP must  material the same way some other subset of publication does, or the way a numeric majority of other publishers do.  Majority matters for WP:COMMONNAME purposes, which is solely an article titles policy, about the practicality of finding articles; once the article is found, the concern no longer exists. For style matters, we have our own style manual, geared toward precision, clarity, formality (short of excessive academic style), and neutrality. That last is more of a concern here that many may realize. Patronizing attitudes toward notable minors is mirrored by a similar WP:Systemic bias attitude toward female subjects; we have numerous (though non-GA/FA) articles inappropriately referring to women in various places by their first names.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  07:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I know this was a long time ago, but anyway I thought of this article when I encountered the Telegraph style guide which says that, except for ones convicted of a crime, one should use given names and not family names to refer to minors under 18. Of course many media organizations have their own style guides. and WhisperToMe (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-observer-style-guide-h (Guardian style guide): "Under-18s should normally be referred to by their first names"
 * http://web.mnstate.edu/hanson/MC307/mc_307_AP_tips.htm ("AP Style Tips for PR Writers") - "After being introduced by their full names in a story, men and women are generally called by their last names for the remainder of the article. Children (under age 16) are usually referred to by their first names. Note, however, that this is subject to customary usage within organizations and some news media."
 * http://convergence.journalism.missouri.edu/?p=548 - "Children 15 or younger are usually referred to by both names (first and family) on first reference and first name only on later references. Children in “adult situations” — common examples are in international sports and serious crimes in which they are charged as adults — are referred to by last name only on later references."
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * User:SMcCandlish correctly pointed out that NOT states "Wikipedia is [...] not written in news style." - So newspapers shouldn't be the only consideration. Another thing to do is to check out published books and/or academic sources.
 * Adams, Elizabeth A. "Kanka, Megan, Murder of (1994)" In: Chermak, Steven Ph.D. and Frankie Y. Bailey Ph.D. (editors). Crimes of the Centuries: Notorious Crimes, Criminals, and Criminal Trials in American History [3 volumes]: Notorious Crimes, Criminals, and Criminal Trials in American History. ABC-CLIO, Jan 25, 2016. ISBN 1610695941, 9781610695947. p. 429-430. - The girl is frequently referred to as "Megan" - The following entry refers to adult victims by their family names, and in this entry the perpetrator is called by his family name.
 * Flowers, R. Barri and H. Loraine Flowers. Murders in the United States: Crimes, Killers and Victims of the Twentieth Century. McFarland, January 1, 2004. ISBN 	0786420758, 9780786420759. p. 206. - Uses "Megan Kanka" twice and a single instance of "Megan's parents" - note that victim Sylvia Likens (16) is called by her family name, while Polly Klaas (12), another murder victim, is only referred to by her full name
 * Clear, Todd R. and Natasha A. Frost. The Punishment Imperative: The Rise and Failure of Mass Incarceration in America. NYU Press, September 4, 2015. ISBN 1479851698, 9781479851690. p. 95 - Usually calls her by the full name but uses an instance of "Megan's mother"
 * "Sex Crimes." In: Miller, J. Mitchell (editor). The Encyclopedia of Theoretical Criminology, Volume 1. John Wiley & Sons, April 7, 2014. ISBN 0470658444, 9780470658444. p. 77 - Only uses her full name (I don't count "Megan's law")
 * Smith, Merril D. Encyclopedia of Rape. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2004. ISBN 0313326878, 9780313326875. p. 126 (See search results) - Refers to her as "Megan"
 * Windell, James O. Looking Back in Crime: What Happened on This Date in Criminal Justice History?. CRC Press, May 5, 2015. ISBN 149870414X, 9781498704144. p. 101 - Uses a single instance of "Kanka's family"
 * Capuzzo, Michael. The Murder Room: The Heirs of Sherlock Holmes Gather to Solve the World's Most Perplexing Cold Cases. Penguin Books, August 10, 2010. ISBN 110145895X, 9781101458952. PT219 states a single instance of "Kanka's death"
 * I'd have to look through more books sometimes later. It's possible that there's disagreement over how to handle the issue, or perhaps there is a general preference one way or another. I do think popular sources should be considered in this issue, because Wikipedia is meant to be a general reference work for the public and not entirely academic. For example, part of why Japanese names on Wikipedia are stated given name first (even though in Japanese the names go surname first) is because of the use of reversed name order in popular media, including newspapers.
 * Personally I like the idea of using the full name ("Megan Kanka") repeatedly, acknowledging that in society a child isn't at the same level of formality as an adult, while at the same time keeping a more dispassionate voice in the article. This seems to be something the academic-style sources do.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 03:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * People are going to make the same NPoV-based arguments against using "Megan Kanka" over and over again, combined with a redundancy/browbeating objection. "[I]n society[,] a child isn't at the same level of formality as an adult" is subjective, and doesn't have any certain meaning to everyone. It just isn't the case that encyclopedic coverage of and writing about a subject veers between formality levels based on the age of the subject, even if this is commonly the case in news writing and even some book writing (especially "true crime" type writing, which dwells on building an emotional story about victims).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  07:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A summary of what I've said about this as a general matter in previous discussions: Referring to minors by their given names is unencyclopedic, except to avoid a browbeating level of repetition, e.g. in a sentence naming a bunch of family members who all share the same surname. Depending upon one's personal take on the matter, habitual first-naming can be argued to be an infantilizing, patronizing, even programmatically ageist and disrespectful PoV. Regardless, it has the serious problem that age of majority/consent varies radically by jurisdiction (anywhere in a range at least as wide as 12 to 21, most commonly between 14 and 18), and various jurisdictions have within them different definitions of adulthood in different contexts. "Write about minors differently from adults" is just not a workable system in a global encyclopedia.  What we presently have is WP:NOTNEWS and (probably more importantly in this context) MOS:SURNAME, which doesn't make any magical exceptions for children or post-pubescent minors. Nor does it draw some really heavily PoV-laden "juvenile offenders" dividing line favored by particular house styles of some news publishers.  So, whether someone would desperately like to impose news style's "first name for minors" approach in a misguided re-interpretation of "follow the sources" is irrelevant.  We have a rule, and consensus has not changed about it, despite repeated proposals to change it (one as recently as a month or two ago at WT:MOSBIO). The obvious fallacy at work is the supposition that WP mimics style of other publishers on a topical basis. We of course do not do that, our all our articles on pop musicians would be written in the bombastic and slangish style of music journalism, our material on physics and philosophy would be impenetrably academic, our stuff on videogaming would be in the jargon- and Internet-slang-dense style of IGN.com, and material on legal concepts and cases wouldn't make sense to anyone who didn't have a copy of Black's Law Dictionary on hand. (See WP:SSF for more detail on why we do not "import" style from RS on a topical basis; the gist is that sources reliable for facts pertaining to a topic are not the most reliable for how to write encyclopedic English about the topic for a general audience).  WP:COMMONSENSE applies, of course. As long as confusion would not result, unnecessary, reader-annoying repetition can be avoided. Multiple people in the same family with the same surname may be referred to by given names on second and later occurrence in an article, or when the construction already makes the relationships and shared name clear, e.g. Joe Blow married Jane (née Doe) in 1992, and they have three children, William, Amy, and Susan.  Anyway, there's an open discussion about this at WT:MOSBIO (largely repetitive of what's said here, but a more centralized and watchlisted venue).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  07:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

It does not matter if there are people who are wrongfully convicted. It also does not matter if the defendant continues to maintain his innocence. In American Law the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Emphasis on the until proven guilty part. The final arbitrator of guilt is not the public, not the accused, not the state, but the court system. Once the court system finds one not guilty, then they are not guilty, once the court system finds they are guilty, they are guilty. It also does not matter that he is appealing his conviction. A person going before a higher court on appeal is appearing as a guilty person in the eyes of the law Once a person has been convicted, the presumption of innocence dissapears.(see Herrera v. Collins 560 U.S 390, 399-400 (1993) --User:Hallett87 —Preceding undated comment added 07:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC).


 * The defense team admits he killed the victim, they claim he was wrongly convicted because of mitigating factors. He also confessed, which supports some of the mitigating factors that his lawyers argued in court. He used affirmative defenses, which have the premise that he did kill her and he did sexually assault her, but he is not criminally liable for these actions. See the reference with the name "nytimes", the article from 1997-05-31, which came after the initial verdicts, before sentencing or appeal. It would be silly to write "alleged killer", because his confession and his legal defense admit he is the killer. Conceivably one could write "alleged murder", because maybe the defense is arguing that it should be manslaughter. Because he was convicted and his appeals failed, I think "allegedly" can be left out entirely - which is the approach used by the New York Times just after the verdict, they state it as fact. 209.6.225.254 (talk) 04:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. 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. -JodyBtalk 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)

This should not survive
There is no point in having an article as pathetically small as this one is now. It's not even a stub. This needs to either revert back to the way it was in 2007, or be merged with something else. -Etoile (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, definitely. --S-man (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

edits to Murder and trial section
I have just reduced the detail about what happened to her. The one reference in the paragraph did not verify all gory details laid out there. I do not know if they are true or not, but do not believe they are necessary for the article. If they are added back we would need strong sourcing as they are contentious material about a living person. -- GB fan 16:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I just read the New York Times article from 1997-05-31 that is the only source on the first paragraph in the murder trial section, the Wikipedia article currently contains details that are not in that article. I was considering adding "not in citation given", I probably should.
 * I added a little detail about the charges from the 1997-05-31 article. New Jersey doesn't specifically have "first-degree murder", but the "intentional murder" charge was the most serious, carrying a potential death sentence at the time. The two counts of felony murder can add time before parole eligibility, currently 30 years each, but New Jersey Penal Code 2C11 has been revised since this trial. 209.6.225.254 (talk) 05:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)