Talk:Kidnapping of Tanya Nicole Kach

Comments
Removed by admin per WP:BLPREMOVE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.244.12 (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * but Hose wasn't charged with statutory rape and he plead guilty to charges that involved coercion and violence. The main source that suggests Kach was willing was her rapist, and since he went on to plead guilty and never denied paedophilia, I think we can safely ignore that.Moglet77 (talk) 23:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Removed by admin per WP:BLPREMOVE. 46.7.85.68 (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of the charges, or the history, I have to take issue with the use of the word "paedophilia" in this case. Paedophiles are people with an interest in pre-pubescent children. Tach had reached puberty. In addition, paedophiles almost always dump their victims as the victim gets older because they no longer fit the profile that the pedo is looking for. Regardless of who you believe in this case, the fact is that Hose "kept" her until she was well into womanhood for ten years. In addition had Hose been a paedophile, his job in the school gave him pretty much unlimited access to other victims, and yet this was the only known incident he was involved in. 46.7.85.68 (talk) 08:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I used the word paedophilia because Kach was a child under the age of consent at the time of her abduction. I know that some people like to insist on a distinction between pre-pubescent victims and older but still below the age of consent victims, and for psychologists that might be useful. Nonetheless, there wasn't an useful legal distinction. I haven't seen any independant validation of your distinction as to what "pedo"s do as opposed to other child abusers.Moglet77 (talk) 10:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Removed by admin per WP:BLPREMOVE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.254.114 (talk) 12:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * there may be imaginary scenarios in which a raped child was only "making herself out to be a victim" - but as we have the real world situation in which Hose plead guilty to several charges involving violence and coercion I have removed the fantasy ones from the article.Moglet77 (talk) 23:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't find anything in the cited stories which suggests Ms. Kach was not held against her will. Her captor was not charged with statutory rape, he was charged with three counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, one count of aggravated indecent assault, statutory sexual assault, interfering with the custody of a child, corruption of a minor and child endangerment. He pled guilty to all charges, but is serving time for only one of those (which is not uncommon in plea bargaining). Pleading guilty involved an admission of guilt in open court. Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse involves coercion or violence. The wikipedia page of the victim of kidnapping and sexual assault should not be hijacked by insinuations that, among other things, a minor child could consent to be held in a room for four years and used sexually by a man 25 years her senior. I am editing out the un-cited and offensive claims she was not being held against her will. They are unsupported. 72.179.24.215 (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Removed by admin per WP:BLPREMOVE. 46.7.85.68 (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The claims I described as "offensive" was the explicit statement that Kach was not being held against her will. This was stated in the article as though it was undisputed fact. Whatever "Captive: The Sex Slave Girl" contains, it is not fair for the Wikipedia article to simply state the authors interpretation of that TV show as truth while ignoring the claims of Ms Kach herself, and the guilty plea of Hose. He after all plead guilty to three counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, aggravated indecent assault, statutory sexual assault, interfering with the custody of a child, corruption of a minor and child endangerment. I stated it was offensive, because it gives undue and unverified weight to the idea that Kach might be making her claims up. Given the crimes against her were severe, and their truth upheld by a conviction in a court of law, I think it was offensive to simply discount them as though they never happened due to a TV documentary that seems somewhat lightweightMoglet77 (talk) 10:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * If he wasn’t charged with statutory rape, then the article shouldn’t say he was.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed by admin per WP:BLPREMOVE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.11.213 (talk) 04:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree with you, but the problem I have is the psychological issues: brainwashing, the Stockholm syndrome, perhaps threats (real or perceived), and her age. And we must be wary of including material which might be hurtful to the people involved.  I don’t know enough about the psychological factors, but I think it would improve the article if that were included.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not usually a Wikipedia contributor, but the help pages say to use the Talk pages if you have concerns about an article. I feel there is a very unpleasant air of victim-blaming against a raped child in the way this article is written (and some of the comments on this page - "supposed victim" -WTF?). A child cannot consent to sex with a much older man.Moglet77 (talk) 20:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC) - and as it happens he was charged with crimes involving violent or coercive sexual assault. "In 2007, Hose, facing more than 100 years in prison, pleaded guilty to all charges -- three counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, aggravated indecent assault, statutory sexual assault, interfering with the custody of a child, corruption of a minor and child endangerment.

Removed by admin per WP:BLPREMOVE. 46.7.85.68 (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hose was charged with and plead guilty to "Interference with custody of children", which is the charge used in Pennsylvania against child kidnappers (http://law.justia.com/codes/pennsylvania/2010/title-18/chapter-29/2904). So not only were kidnapping charges pursued but Hose plead guilty to them. In any case, Hose had already plead guilty to several crimes involving child rape with coercion (three counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, aggravated indecent assault, statutory sexual assault, corruption of a minor and child endangerment) so I don't see how this mitigates his crime in any significant way, or why as Wikipedia editors we would be interested in this mitigation.Moglet77 (talk) 10:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

He was sentenced to five to 15 years, with a maximum sentence date of Feb. 9, 2022, on a count of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moglet77 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

"Kach's account of the abuse she stated she suffered at the hands of Hose grew increasingly elaborate in progressive interviews with police as "extra details" were remembered. Numerous police detectives and psychologists have stated this is typical with fraudulent allegations. " I removed this comment as it is scientifically ignorant and victim-blaming. It is actually quite common for people to remember extra details with all sorts of crimes and people often have difficulty talking about traumatic events. I also feel there is an implication that Kach was making fraudulent allegations despite the perpetrator pleading guilty to all charges.Moglet77 (talk) 20:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

"In 2011, Hose plead guilty to charges of statutory rape and other charges relating to having sex with a minor. No charges relating to kidnap or false imprisonment were ever brought against him. " I removed this as it is incorrect.Moglet77 (talk) 20:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC). I also removed the reference to statutory rape in the top - although two references to news sources were given, neither of the news sources indicated that Hose had been charged with statutory rape. I have linked to another news source as well - all three news sources report the actual charges.

I've made some very major changes to this article. Previously it heavily implied that Ms Koch was involved in a consensual relationship, and left out that Mr Hose plead guilty to acts of coercion and paedophila. There were also some references to Ms Koch's teenage behaviour that I removed as they were irrelevant and appeared to be victim-blaming. Most of the "controversy" appears to come from a sensationalist TV show titled "Captive: Sex Slave Girl" - I'm inclined to discount it on the exploitative title alone, but I've left enough of the material in to hopefully get a flavour of what its alleging without it being too hurtful or slanderous.Moglet77 (talk) 23:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Quite apart from the fact that you don't appear to know the difference between slander and libel, your comment again seems to lack objectivity. Regardless of whether the doc was "sensationalist" can you point to anything that is untrue in the doc? It's noteworthy that the only people who defended her, were those with a professional interest in doing so. I am not convinced by her, but then again, I wasn't there. All I can say is that bearing in mind the apparent lack of objectivity displayed by Moglet77 in these talk pages, I am surprised that the article itself does tend to put both sides of the story.46.7.85.68 (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

You are accusing me of a lack of objectivity for disregarding the views espoused in a documentary named "Captive: Sex Slave Girl" to favour the actual charges, guilty plea and conviction of Hose. Yes, I used slander in a metaphorical sense and not the legal definition, which may have been needlessly confusing. However, if you look at the pages above you can see that you (46.7.85.68) similarly did not seem to realise the meaning of various crimes Hose was charged with (I will not assume you were disregarding the fact that he plead guilty to raping a child and kidnap) so none of us are immune to error. Moglet77 (talk) 11:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I would still accuse you of lack of objectivity because of multiple comments in this talk page. One particularly glaring example, is you total misuse of the word "paedophile" as follows: "I used the word paedophilia because Kach was a child under the age of consent at the time of her abduction. I know that some people like to insist on a distinction between pre-pubescent victims and older but still below the age of consent victims, and for psychologists that might be useful. Nonetheless, there wasn't an useful legal distinction. I haven't seen any independant validation of your distinction as to what "pedo"s do as opposed to other child abusers".

The issue is not what a paedophile does compared to other child abusers, but who they target. If you are saying that they are same because they commit the same offences, you have either totally misunderstood the word, or have added your own bias.

That together with your misuse of the word slander, albeit in a metaphorical sense (whatever that means) then leads me to wonder about the accuracy of your definition that "interference in child custody" is legally defined as kidnapping. I am no legal scholar in these matters and quite clearly, neither are you or you would be more concerned about the accuracy of definition. It occurs to me that it can only be applied to persons under 18 and that it's more about custody issues rather than abduction or to deal with cases of minors who willing leave the custody of their parents to be with another adult. You might want to look at http://www.philadelphiacriminalattorney.com/kidnapping-family-crimes/kidnapping/ which states that "If the alleged victim went along voluntarily, then it is not kidnapping". I think that either has to question your objectivity or your ignorance, as it would appear that the law does distinguish between "interfering in child custody" and kidnap, which requires the element that you need to take the person against their will.

I am not a wiki editor so I do not know what steps need to be taken here, but I think it is clear that there is a lot of personal prejudice from you in this article. Can I suggest that you refer it to a senior editor for review.46.7.85.68 (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I should explain that I disagree that objectivity requires treating sources with equal weight. No, I don't take the claims of the documentary very seriously, because I do think it is sensationalist, and sensationalizing child rape shows very poor judgement. But my opinions of the documentary don't matter and I haven't removed all references to it. I've only removed statements that seem to rely on it as objective truth and tried to balance the article out with the actual charges, guilty pleas, and conviction of Hose and credible sources such as factual newspaper articles.Moglet77 (talk) 11:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Removed by admin per WP:BLPREMOVE. 46.7.85.68 (talk) 09:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Apologies:
My apologies for havinng mis-named Mz Kach as "Tach" in my preceding comments.46.7.85.68 (talk) 09:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines
This page is not a forum for discussing this case. You must not speculate about living people or offer opinions not based in sources. This applies to talk pages too and all such comments will be removed. See WP:BLPREMOVE. Fences &amp;  Windows  11:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

False balance?
The evidence favoring Hose has been removed. I don’t like it when content is summarily deleted, as was done to this article (and the Talk page). Even if it is flawed, I much prefer that a warning be first posted, notifying other editors (and Wikipedia readers) of the problems, and giving them a chance to fix them.

In this particular case, I’ve looked at the references that were given, and agree that they don’t support Hose. But the now-deleted arguments for that side of the story are plausible, and I like balance. The shortened version of the article is very one-sided. It’s not only Kach in this case who is a living person, so is Hose, so Wikipedia’s policy on the biographies of living persons should apply to him as well.

It’s disheartening when you’ve gone to a certain amount of trouble to add information in good faith to an article, and then someone else comes along and just deletes it. Even though I’ve only made one small edit to this article (and undid one pointless edit, and posted a previous opinion on the Talk page), I haven’t edited Wikipedia since the wholesale deletions were done ten days ago.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 04:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * TheTruth-2009, I appreciate the disappointment, but I make no apology for my actions as an admin here on this page. We must not write our own opinions, plausible or not, about such a case nor should we suggest the things that were suggested about a victim of a crime in the absence of sources. If reliable sources make claims contrary to those now in the article then present them here, but this is not a forum to discuss our own theories about this case.
 * Any editor who here advocates that Hose was not a criminal in having sex with Kach when she was aged 14 may be indefinitely blocked per WP:CHILDPROTECT: "Editors who attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships on- or off-wiki (e.g. by expressing the view that inappropriate relationships are not harmful to children), or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be blocked indefinitely." (my bolding) Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Nobody suggested that Hose's behavior wasn't inappropriate or wasn't illegal.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 06:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Editing / Corrections and Facts
To whomever is updating Tanya's Wikipedia page. Have you considered checking with Tanya herself in regards to editing, corrections and factual information? For instance, she would prefer not using the term "kidnapping". 72.23.113.88 (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)