Talk:Hands Across the Aisle Coalition

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Statutory Rape Mention-- Encyclopedic?[edit]

Across various revisions of this article I've seen mentions regarding Haver and her potential involvement in a statutory rape, namely:


"Haver has been accused of committing statutory rape of a teenage boy and became pregnant while working as a youth counselor for a Christian organization. However there is no evidence of her ever being arrested, charged, or convicted of any such crime." from revision 1136745840 by Syren Song (talk), @Syren Song


and "Haver committed statutory rape of a teenage boy and became pregnant while working as a youth counselor for a Christian organization." from revision 1136760315 by TheTranarchist. @TheTranarchist


While certainly in my personal life I err towards not giving transphobes the benefit of the doubt, I wonder whether or not in an encyclopedic context it is acceptable to include any mention of this statutory rape at all based upon the sources linked. The only source cited is one line from a Vox article ("... Kaeley Triller-Haver, an anti-abortion conservative who has reportedly admitted to committing statutory rape of a teenage boy when she was a youth counselor...") which as its source contained links to Twitter screenshots, which to my knowledge would not be sufficient citation. For now I slightly modified the mention of the statutory rape, but I would definitely appreciate input/guidance on this.

Additional question: if a link to Haver's post from the first screenshot would be found (the "A Message to My Friends" from 25 July 2017), would that qualify as a sufficient source?

Thanks

Eggventura (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay replying, busy night, some quick thoughts: 1) "seems to have" seems a bit unencyclopedic itself, but "reportedly" might work as used in the Vox article, just a language preference. Personally it seems pretty straightforward she admitted to it but sticking with the sources means we probably should include the "reportedly" caveat. 2) I'm not sure we need to link to the original post, or where to find it, but if we can that would indeed help. The "reportedly" caveat makes it fine without. 3) I believe the mention in Vox makes it WP:DUE for the article. 4) Haver has been angry about people bringing this up on twitter recently, and hasn't denied that it happened, just that it counted as statutory rape. Relatedly, someone added an OR link to Washington's age of consent laws to the article saying it excused her, but at the same time the link makes a clear caveat for those in supervisory positions (teachers, counselors, and etc) pushing the age of consent from 16 to 18. Might be good context to include the reference with that in the quote field without need to change the article text, but that would still probably count as OR though. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Went ahead and added the "reportedly" TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey-- I agree that the "seems to have" was poor phrasing and I think with the addition of "reportedly" it clears up the phrasing issues. Also went and read through Wikipedia:DUE and definitely agree regardless of our phrasing its pertinent to mention the statutory rape in the article. I'll look around for a link to the original blog post but I agree without it the article is probably fine. Thanks for such an indepth reply! Eggventura (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Haver was never arrested or charged with sexual assault of any kind regarding this incident. The legal Age of Consent in the State of Washington is 16, and the individual involved was 17 at the time, so no there was no criminal activity involved in their relationship due to his age.
While she appears to have written an admission to a physical relationship with the young man, is there any solid verification that the letter was actually written by Haver? What is the origin of that letter? Nothing in any article I've read indicates where the letter was submitted or first appeared. That makes its origin suspect.
Also, it appears that the relationship with the young man occurred after he had already left the program where she worked. There is no concrete evidence for her having a relationship while she was his counselor. The letter, if it was actually even written by Haver, is very specific about the timing of the relationship being AFTER he left the program. Therefore, she was not in any position of authority over him at any time during the relationship. That would be another reason for her not being prosecuted in any way on any charge.
It seems completely appropriate to malign any individual based on such flimsy evidence. Her name doesn't appear on either the Washington State or National Registry for sex offenders, so it's obvious she wasn't convicted of any crime. However, multiple screenshots of this page are appearing all over multiple social media platforms, leaving Wikipedia potentially liable for spreading misinformation. It seems prudent to eliminate any reference to this incident that implies in the slightest that anything happened with no true or hard evidence. Syren Song (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She was given a strike by CPS though.
The age of consent is 18 when the person is in a position of authority over them. Not sure how that works for ex-counselor, but if a teacher screwed their 17 year old student and said it's fine since they already graduated, I'm not sure that's a stunning legal defense. Certainly not an ethical one for that matter.
She's been tweeting pointing to that post as evidence they're misconstruing her, i.e. she admits she made the post.
It may be a little WP:OR, but it may be worth it to update the text to clarify she admitted to having sex with a minor who had previously been in her care after he left and was given a strike by CPS but wasn't charged with a crime. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yet the police didn't see fit to charge her with any criminal action. A strike from CPS isn't indicative of any kind of criminal activity. It's simply them making a record of an incident in case of any future incidents regarding the same individual. It's part of them making a record, in case of future need to show prior acts to create a substantiated case.
And even if there was a substantiated case rather than a strike, that still doesn't rise to the level of criminal activity in the eyes of the law.
Again, I would urge caution to avoid potential liability. Syren Song (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consider this - The citations include links to the articles that refer to the allegations. So if anyone is interested in learning more in depth details, they'll read the articles and see that information for themselves. Then it would be up to the publishers/editors of those sources to defend their claims and the reliability of their sources in the event of a lawsuit. Syren Song (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent change seems reasonable and accurate enough to forestall possible future problems for Wiki. Syren Song (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A person can't "admit to statutory rape" when law enforcement doesn't believe that any crime was committed. So saying Haver "reportedly admitted" is a serious misrepresentation of the actual facts. Syren Song (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can admit to committing a crime despite law enforcement not having pursued charges. Y0rrick (talk) 09:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Vox article links to a screenshot of a statement from Haver. There is no way that any competent reading of that statement could make it appear to be a confession. I may disagree with this organization on trans rights, but this was lazy reporting/research at best and the ref should be removed per BLP. HangingCurveSwing for the fence 19:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to my point—here's the tweet cited by Vox. Haver clearly states she was cleared of criminal wrongdoing. HangingCurveSwing for the fence 20:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know that letter isn't photoshopped? What evidence is there that it's real? It's been posted and reposted multiple times by multiple people who don't like the woman. The image posted by Vox doesn't appear to be an original image that they obtained from any reputable source. In fact, it appears to be a screenshot of another screenshot. Syren Song (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hands_Across_the_Aisle_Coalition&oldid=1207535439"