Talk:David Haas

Fix Links

The 2 adjacent links "St Louis" and "Jesuits" toward the end of the article should be changed to a single link to the article "St Louis Jesuits", as the context makes clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.156.155 (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Sexual Assault

https://www.snapnetwork.org/solidarity_into_account_survivors_david_haas_jun20

This is an absolutely trustworthy source. It is not vandalism.

The allegations are unproven. The cited document does not establish the veracity of the allegations; rather, it contains multiple statements known to be erroneous and/or inaccurate. The facts are that there is no criminal complaint, and there is no investigation in progress. At this point, this is digital vigilantism, and legal recourse is being evaluated. That said, if these allegations are proven true, this section should be restored. Macserv (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you going to call the internet police on me Dave for posting cited statements on your Wikipedia page?

The allegations were not revealed by SNAP, they were revealed by IntoAccount, and re-posted by SNAP. There is also no mention of the "grooming of teenage girls" in the allegations. At the very least, your edit would need to be reworked to be consistent with the source you are citing. Macserv (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

David, from the cited material "The youngest victim reported to us was nineteen years old at the time of the alleged sexual battery, while Haas was over fifty.” " The last time I checked a nineTEEN year old was still a teenager. You need to stop trying to edit your way out of trouble. I also posted another news citation about this. 2600:6C44:257F:7C04:E809:F972:DF:A668 (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, the added statements are inaccurate and presumptive, and can not be allowed to stand. This is not a place for editorial (WP:NPOV). Your additional reference also duplicates the cited source. Macserv (talk) 03:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The Post about you losing your contract because of the allegations is FROM GIA. It is not made up, it is not spurious. The source of the Allegations is not some fly by night made up source. Why else would you have locked your Facebook group this morning as well? StPeterDamian (talk) 03:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

You are correct that the post is from GIA, but it does not say that the Subject's contract was terminated. Editorializing is not permitted here (WP:NPOV). Regarding Facebook groups: I have no information to indicate why there were any changes; the text of the sources provided do not provide any information, and speculation is not appropriate here (WP:Verifiability). Macserv (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

You are so full of it David. The other person rewrote it and it was a lot better and more neutral. I will conceed that. Look at the damn post from GIA again. I will post it here: Early this year we became aware of allegations of sexual misconduct by David Haas, and we learned the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis was considering a decision not to provide him a letter of suitability. In response, we suspended our sponsorship and publishing relationship with Mr. Haas, and have not sponsored his work since late January.

New allegations of sexually abusive conduct by Mr. Haas continue to be reported. We take these reports seriously. GIA Publications supports and stands with victims. We must join together to address and prevent sexual abuse.

If you would like to share any information or make a report, please contact www.intoaccount.org.

It says it clear as a bell. Quit trying to muddy the waters to protect your rep.StPeterDamian (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

There are issues on both sides here. Macserv, if you are associated with the subject (or are the subject), you need to disclose your relationship and should not be editing the article directly. Also, you have made a legal threat, which is not permitted and may result in you being blocked until you have retracted the threat. StPeterDamian and IP editors, there is an extremely high bar to clear to claim in an article that a living person has committed a crime (or even is accused of a crime). We require reliable sources (preferably multiple), like reputable newspapers. The SNAP Network's announcement does not meet that standard (press releases are not considered reliable in general and it's coming from a partisan organization), Into Account is not itself a sufficient source (primary source, again presumably not neutral), his publisher's website announcing that they've dropped his contract is a primary source, and Patheos is explicitly listed in our reliable source noticeboard's institutional memory as an unreliable source (blog aggregation without editorial oversight). If a reputable newspaper reports on this, you may re-add this information and cite it to that, but none of the sources used so far meet our standards for controversial information about a living person and should not be re-added. creffett (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The Subject is a colleague; I am seeking only impartiality and truth in this matter. My sincere apologies if a legal threat was interpreted. No threat was ever explicitly directed at any editor here; though, upon re-reading, I do see how it could be construed as such. To clarify, the legal recourse being evaluated is against the parties who have promulgated these claims in the first place. Regarding the publisher/contract detail, GIA has *suspended* any sponsorship of the Subject's events, and has *suspended* the publishing of his works. To "drop his contract," implies a *termination* that has not occurred in any way at this point, and there are other aspects of the contractual relationship which have not been altered, and remain in full effect. Creffett, thank you so much for your evaluation and guidance. Macserv (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

"The Subject is a colleague; I am seeking only impartiality and truth in this matter." You should not be editing the article. It just looks like you are trying to cover up what happened. And this is more then just an allagation. The Archdioceses confirms something happened and is giving your buddy the boot. StPeterDamian (talk) 02:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

StPeterDamian, please stop. Macserv should not be editing the article, no question, but I am saying as an uninvolved editor that the material they removed should stay removed. As I said above, once reliable sources cover this allegation, it may be included in the article, but at this point none of the sources in the article were sufficiently reliable and independent to meet our standards for controversial information about a living person. If you are aware of reliable sources reporting on the allegations, you are welcome to propose adding them. creffett (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Creffett, despite that I merely work in the same field as the Subject, I'm happy to defer to your judgment on the most recent edit. It cites a new source ("Catholic News Agency") which, in turn, is disseminating allegations from IntoAccount and SNAP, with additional remarks from the Archdiocese of St. Paul. There is still no substance beyond the allegations, and factual inaccuracies are now being promulgated by this source as well.

Macserv, it looks like a passable source, though I'm not entirely convinced of its reliability. I've changed the text slightly to attribute it to Catholic News Agency (i.e. "in 2020, Catholic News Agency reported..."), and I will be opening a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard regarding this source's reliability. creffett (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Creffett. A quick note: the phrase, "pending further investigation," isn't accurate; there is currently no investigation in progress by any organization whatsoever, as there has been no legally actionable complaint registered against the Subject. Macserv (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)