Talk:Lauren Handy

Activism section and WP:NPOV issues

Hi, I added a tag to this section because it appears to be written in such a manner that is in favor of the activist's point of view. I think it is need of review. FactsheetPete (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. It almost seems like it was written by handy herself. 2600:1702:4220:9C80:6D33:96B4:6C0F:B2C9 (talk) 05:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I have cleaned up a few of the subsections but it still needs a fair amount of work, calling it a day for now. FactsheetPete (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Many places where statements that could not possibly be confirmed are framed as "(subject) does," rather than "(subject) says." Most jarringly where her sex life is discussed.

There's an overall tone of hagiography here for a controversial figure. WhitewaterOregon (talk) 09:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

It seems a lot of work is needed on this article. I agree with your view of the bias of the article favours the activist. e.g. 'Handy has discovered the bodies of aborted children in dumpsters behind abortion facilities and given them proper burials' This clearly favours the activist. JohnFalloutFNV (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree. From the articles linked to that comment, she approached a Medical waste removal van and somehow obtained access to it. Whilst the Cut article headline refers to "Dumpster Diving" there appears to be no evidence that the embryos/foetuses were in a regular dumpster. Edgram (talk) 12:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

"The provenance of those 115 fetuses is bizarre: the group claims several activists (including Handy) encountered a driver from Curtis Bay Medical Waste Services loading biohazard boxes into his truck outside the Washington Surgi-Clinic in Foggy Bottom on March 25. They say they convinced the driver to give them a box. (A statement disputing the credibility of these claims, apparently from Curtis Bay Energy, was read by another reporter at the press conference. Curtis Bay Energy has not responded to voicemails asking for comment" Lauren Handy Claims to Have Actually Had 115 Fetuses - Washingtonian April 5, 2022 Edgram (talk) 12:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I have to infer that this wiki article requires significant work, and this you have submitted reinforces this. It seems (from my understanding) that it is possible the original editor either wanted to support the activist or did not do enough research during writing. I have read a few articles in relation to what you have put above, and am actually struggling to find references to 'dumpster diving' in general, and the fact that the box may have actually been stolen, as there are conflicting reports on the fact that Curtis Bay Energy denies a driver handing the fetuses over and that they don't even transport fetuses (at the time of the news article in relation to this.) JohnFalloutFNV (talk) 13:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Much of the content uses an article in The Pillar, a Catholic media organization, as a source (see reference number 2), which clearly calls its objectivity on the matter of abortion into question. In the places I have edited thus far, I have tried to replace such references with higher quality sources. To conform to the high stringency standards required of sources by WP:BLP, we should probably aim to replace all references to this article, although it may be challenging to find some of the biographical information elsewhere. FactsheetPete (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you have reason to believe the The Pillar is not a reliable source? Remember, per WP:BIASED, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." I am all for adding new sources, but I am not sure why you would want to remove all of The Pillar's. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

The Catholic church has a specific view of abortion and thus any Catholic media organization cannot be considered an objective and unbiased source on this topic. It may be useful for biographical information about Handy where not else available, but as this is a WP:BLP we must take great care to use high quality unbiased sources wherever possible. When there are alternative unbiased sources available, particularly in regards to specific acts of Handy's activism and associated legal repercussions, we should use those instead. FactsheetPete (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, thank you for flagging this. A more neutral tone and balanced sources would be more appropriate in my opinion. Lifepuzzzler (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)— Lifepuzzzler (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

And I am going to flag that this comment was only the second edit ever made by this account. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

BRD

There are some new editors to this article. That's great. I am glad to see it. However, if your edit has been reverted, the proper thing to do is to take it here to the talk page so it can be discussed. Twice in the last two minutes another editor has just edit warred back his preferred version in over the consensus version. This is a contentious article, and I would ask everyone, particularly those who are new to the project, to WP:AGF and follow WP:BRD. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

You appear to be the original author of the article. If you look at the section above there is clear consensus from multiple users that the article is heavily biased, so your claims that your writings are the consensus version is quite the stretch. Describing Handy's actions as a 'rescue' and changing the accepted and uncontroversial term 'abortion clinic' to 'abortion facility' (see MOS:NEO) clearly shows that you take issue with such places being referred to as clinics and that women seeking abortion are in need of 'rescue'. Please refer to WP:SOAP. FactsheetPete (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. You were bold and made some edits. As I said above, I think that's great. However, you were reverted. The proper thing to do would be to take your concerns here to the talk page where they could be discussed. Instead, you edit warred your preferred version back in. Multiple times. After you were reminded of BRD.

Also, I think it is quite peculiar that the entire conversation you reference above in which you claim the consensus is against me was conducted by one IP and three editors who, like you, are all brand new to Wikipedia and have only created accounts in the last few days. Though some have never edited any other article except this talk page, they all seemed to be responding to one another in a very short timeframe. I would ask you to please review WP:SOCK. Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Accusing me of using sockpuppets is in violation of WP:ASPERSIONS. I am only using this account, and we can have the admins review if you like. Handy was pardoned by the president of the United States yesterday, so of course there will be increased editing interest. The pageviews tell us that much. FactsheetPete (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Also I should note that you were the one who began edit warring in the first place by indirectly reverting back to the previous version through new edits. You seemingly ignored the WP:NPOV issues template placed at the top of the Activism section indicating that the material was disputed and to refer to the talk page, choosing instead to ignore all concerns and edit back in the disputed material. FactsheetPete (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what edit warring is. Please review WP:BRD. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:3RR:

"An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert."

Your edits made count as reverts under this policy. My placement of the disputed WP:NPOV cleanup tag at the top of this article was a good faith attempt to find consensus on the talk page, as decribed in WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. You ignored this and engaged in edit warring behavior by violating the WP:3RR by reversing my actions through new edits.These edits introduced bias and terms not in line with MOS:NEO and WP:BLP. I did revert you, but only to bring the article back in line with WP:BLP compliance. My actions were in line with point 7 of WP:3RRNO. FactsheetPete (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

It should also be mentioned that WP:BRD is clearly stated as optional, and yet you have treated BRD as mandatory. Examining WP:BRB we can see 'discuss first' as a viable alternative, and this is the method that was employed. I kindly ask you to review WP:OWN and WP:STONEWALLING. FactsheetPete (talk) 08:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I will input here and concur on your argument of the recent interest in Hardy due to the recent pardons as this is what drew me to this place. The fact that the accounts are new are no more than a coincidence.

If the edits were well-founded (I haven't seen these edits yet and therefore cannot make an opinion yet) then they should be acceptable. Due to the controversial topic, we should not be warring about this and ensuring that this article remains as neutral/un-biased as possible. Discussion on this is excellent, however edit warring gets us nowhere.

I want to be clear I am not taking either side. However, we need to discuss exactly what is the issue here from both sides, and decide on the best course of action. JohnFalloutFNV (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

2022 fetal remains incident subsection and WP:BLP violations

I have made some edits to this section and taken great care to preserve the activist's allegations and claims but made it clear that these are just that, whilst adding the claims of the disputing parties. WP:BLP applies to parties other than just the subject and unverifiable and potentially libelous material must be removed in accordance with this policy. The previous version of this section had stated Handy's allegations as though they were factual events that transpired when other parties involved have refuted her claims. I have written it in a manner that complies with WP:IMPARTIAL. FactsheetPete (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

CLE activist

@Slugger O'Toole, please provide WP:RS that refers to her as a CLE. I have not seen any, and I've looked at several of the sources on this page. Not even The Cut or The Pillar refer to her as a CLE. Every WP:RS I've seen refers to her as an anti-abortion activist. guninvalid (talk) 06:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Rehumanize does use the term CLE, but the article refers to her as an anti-abortion activist as soon as the first paragraph. Referring to her as a CLE first is completely WP:UNDUE. guninvalid (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm glad you found the source on your own. The photo we are using of her is of her at a protest against capital punishment. She is clearly best known for her work in the area of abortion, but we have both a photo and the head of a Consistent Life Ethic Network member talking about her as being a CLE adherent. The term seems accurate and due to me. In an effort to move this forward, what do you think of the following lede:

I think that sums her up but am open to your tweaks as well. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

We would need multiple sources for that. In addition, there is nothing in the body of the article about her being a CLE. What we can do is at some appropriate place in the article say something like "Herb Geraghty, the Executive Director of Rehumanize International, has said that "Lauren, possibly more than anyone I know, is wholly committed to living out the principles of the Consistent Life Ethic.' But that's it. It doesn't belong in the lead, and certainly not in the short description. Doug Weller talk 14:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not even sure that much is warranted. To me, the reliability of Rehumanize looks questionable. I can't find any information on Rehumanize International that isn't from them. Their only Wikipedia mention is on the CLE article. guninvalid (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of that. I agree. No mention at all. WP:UNDUE probably applies. Doug Weller talk 15:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

That looks a lot like WP:OR. I like the second sentence there, but a source is still needed to justify the WP:DUEWEIGHT to refer to her as a CLE activist. The most I'm okay with is if you can find a primary source where she calls herself that, so we can say "she calls herself a CLE". The other alternative is to say Rehumanize calls her that, if you can provide a WP:RS to demonstrate that their opinion is worth listening to. guninvalid (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Saying that she is an American anti-abortion activist best known for her anti-abortion activism, as it does now, seems pretty redundant. How about

Lauren Handy is a progressive American activist best known for her anti-abortion work. She has been arrested a number of times for her activism, including a conviction for violating the FACE Act, which led to time in jail and a pardon by Donald Trump.

Also, I am not sure what you are looking for exactly, but NBC News seems to think Rehumanize is worth listening to. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

That article only cites them talking about themselves. That doesn't make them necessarily a reliable source. At this point though, I'm okay with just dropping the stick on this. Your suggested lead looks good. guninvalid (talk) 08:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

If we were to include CLE in the arricle at all as of now, I'd say it would have to be couched in "Rehumanize International says so". I tried writing a suggested wording but it looked stupid so you can write it lol guninvalid (talk) 08:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

"arrested thirty times"

@Slugger O'Toole The only sources ever cited for this were Pillar and Bio. Bio is an outright WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. Pillar doesn't mention "thirty" or "30" anywhere in the article, and it's an interview also making it a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. Please provide a WP:RS that says outright she was arrested >30 times. guninvalid (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

PRIMARY talks about interviews in the context of historical documents. I read this to discuss an interview you might find in a university's archives, for example, not something that is published by a news organization that is otherwise a RS. That said, I don't see the 30 times claim as being worth fighting over. It's a pretty minor detail that I think contextualizes and explicates the story of her activism, but it's not a hill I will die on, nor am I going to spend time looking for another source. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Edit attributed to The Cut

[1] doesn't seem to reflect accurately what the source actually says.]https://www.thecut.com/article/indicted-anti-abortion-activist-lauren-handy-fetuses.html] I think it's been reverted before, and It looks to me that she began by standing outside a clinic, then went to a press conference, then did some training, all before the leaflets. Doug Weller talk 16:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

First sentence non-RFC RFC

No WP:RFCBEFORE but it's still worth discussing, so this will be in a RfC format for now. What should the first sentence of this article read?

• A: Lauren Handy is an American activist. She has been arrested...
• B: Lauren Handy is an American anti-abortion pro-life activist. She has been arrested... (fixed option, oops guninvalid (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC))
• C: Lauren Handy is an American anti-abortion activist. She has been arrested...
• D: Lauren Handy is a progressive American activist. She has been arrested...
• E: Lauren Handy is a progressive American anti-abortion activist. She has been arrested...
• F: Lauren Handy is a progressive American pro-life activist. She has been arrested...
• Z: Other.

guninvalid (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Pinging previously involved editors: @Slugger O'Toole @Babysharkboss2 @136.36.149.240 @Doug Weller @Gamaliel @FactsheetPete guninvalid (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

E, though F, B, and C are also acceptable. I'd say it's important and well-sourced enough to at least call her progressive, but I think it misses a lot of context to not include that she's pro-life. I think that fails WP:BALASP. guninvalid (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Have you noticed that Pro-life is a bit of an Easter egg as it’s a redirect to Anti-abortion movements? Doug Weller talk 18:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

What sources call her progressive? Gamaliel (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

None that aren't Catholic apparently. I'm changing my preference to B. guninvalid (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

What do the sources having a primary focus of covering the Catholic Church have to do with it? A quick Google search will show they are not the only ones who refer to her this way. Also, you are forgetting about her position within PAAU. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Sources should be cited in the article and identified in the discussion. Gamaliel (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

There's a difference between her being called "progressive" and being called part of PAAU. I haven't seen any sources that outright say she is progressive, with or without the PAAU qualification. PAAU is an outright primary source. For what it's worth, I would still be okay with F, but B/C is preferred.guninvalid (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

E works for me. Her views on abortion seems important, but not the highest priority. ☩ ^{(Babysharkboss2)} 18:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

F or E. D is somewhat furether back in third place. Also, am I missing a distinction between B and C? They look the same to me. And, I assume the existing links will still be included, right? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

B/C (is there a difference?). Her notability is anti-abortion activism. Gamaliel (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

B is supposed to be pro-life. I may be stupid guninvalid (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC)