Talk:Megan Twohey

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Journalism United States This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Women writers Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

i saw the tag about primary sources added in january 2018 by Emir of Wikipedia but a glance through the article seems to show a strong mix of secondary sources with a few primary sources on which megan twohey was a co-author. at the date of my posting this, there are 26 sources used, but only a handful (i think six?) feature her name as an author. while i understand that this is not ideal, i don't think it warrants a tag that states the article relies too much on this material. can anyone offer another opinion? i'm planning on cleaning through the sources and removing this tag shortly unless anyone chimes in. thanks. CanoeUnlined (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources currently used in the section are all the original report, which is a primary source. Later discussions of original reporting can be secondary like this source [1] that's used, but right now, it's only being used to support the number fifty. There is not a lack of secondary sourcing on the topic, which includes:

• From the Center for Countering Digital Hate, The Incelosphere: Exposing pathways into incel communities and the harms they pose to women and children
• From the Poynter Institute, How The New York Times handled life-or-death ethical issues while reporting on a popular suicide website - Probably the most important secondary source on her reporting as the article is directly about her journalism, rather than the content of the report which plays a secondary role
• From
  WBUR, Disturbing website encourages vulnerable users to die by suicide. What's being done about it?
• From The Daily, 'Kids Are Dying. How Are These Sites Still Allowed?'

There's also others in the main article Sanctioned Suicide. I think discussing the journalistic/behind the scenes side is much more important than the report itself for an article of a journalist. :3 F4U (they/it) 07:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have not found any suggestion in the source cited that anyone was concerned about a risk to advertising at the New York Times. I am contemplating removing just these words "and the exposé risked hurting advertising money" if no one has any different thoughts.

The footnote on that sentence is:

( Symonds, Alexandria (October 15, 2017). "How to Break a Sexual Harassment Story"

Morris (talk) 02:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

Morris (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Soetermens My name is Danielle Rhoades Ha and I work for The New York Times Company. I'm writing to propose the following additions to Transgender healthcare section.

The New York Times has defended its coverage as nuanced and fair. (Citation: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/17/new-york-times-contributors-open-letter-protest-anti-trans-coverage)

And the Washington Post published an analysis on The Times’s coverage of transgender medical care that refuted the criticism stating, “The work of the Times on trans issues over the past few years has been varied, rigorous, newsworthy and factual in a way that informs the paper’s readers.” (Citation: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/06/15/new-york-times-transgender-coverage-controversy/)

The Washington Post article noted that after reading the statement from the United States World Professional Association for Transgender Health – “which failed to puncture the piece” — Twohey requested a discussion with Madeline Deutsch, a physician who is president of USPATH, to vet the document’s claims against the Times story. “A Times spokesperson said Twohey sought to address ‘inaccuracies and mischaracterizations’ that she’d identified in the WPATH/USPATH letter. But Dr. Deutsch largely refused to engage with the specific content of their letter or the article. Dr. Deutsch also said that she did not want news coverage that examined questions within the field of medical treatment of transgender youth because it would be used by those seeking to ban the treatment.

The Washington Post noted that “In article after article, Times journalists expose bigoted efforts to deny rights to trans people, tell the stories of memorable trans lives and treat the people at the center of contemporary controversies with humanity.”

“Debates among medical providers over how to treat trans youths, therefore, have wider implications with each passing day. The Times is doing what any good news organization would do: Cover them.” 170.149.100.10 (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, unregistered user. Independent of the substance of your request, could you please verify your identity as the Times's Senior VP of communications? First, you should

make sure it clearly refers to you, not just the Times or your position. Then, please contact info-enwikimedia.org from your work account and say that you would like to verify your identity. Please do not include any identifying documents in the email. Finally, please add a paid-contribution disclosure to your userpage once you create your account.

Assuming you are Ms. Rhoades Ha, please understand that I am asking this for your benefit, to protect your own reputation and that of your employer, lest somebody impersonate you. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Tamzin, thank you for your response. It's my understanding that Wikipedia prefers that subjects and their representatives refrain from making edits directly. That's why I've suggested edits and provided third-party references/backup for those edits on the talk page for wiki editors to review. Many thanks, DanielleRhoadesHa (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin, see ticket:2023103110010191. Cabayi (talk) 10:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Per User:Tamzin's request above, I have completed the process of verifying my identity and affiliation with The New York Times Company, and would like to revisit my request to correct and update the "Transgender healthcare" section. Above, I have outlined how the Wikipedia article's current text does not tell the complete story or present all perspectives. I would also like to flag some issues with how the text is currently written:

• The section has non-neutral text: The piece co-written by Twohey did not "criticize the use of puberty blockers for trans youth" as suggested. Twohey's piece reported on some of the potential consequences of taking puberty blockers, which is very different.
• The current text overemphasizes the amount of criticism received. For example, the Wikipedia entry says that the reporting "came under sharp criticism from medical experts and trans activists". LGBTQ Nation covers three advocates and medical experts who disputed some of the newspaper's analysis.
• The piece published by LGBTQ Nation is marked as "commentary".
• The Teen Vogue piece is an op-ed by a non-notable individual, not a journalist.

While I take issue with some of the sources used in the Wikipedia article, I have rewritten the section using all of the same references currently used as citations. Following is a more accurate and neutral summary of what the sources actually say, in my opinion:

I will let editors decide which sources are reliable enough for inclusion. As a representative of The New York Times Company, I do not want to comment on other news outlets and instead want to focus on how editors can help make the current text more accurate, neutral, and representative of sourcing. Also, if op-eds are appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia, then I would like to suggest adding this Washington Post piece for the reasons I've shared above. As I've already articulated, I will refrain from making edits directly and will respect the editorial decisions made by the Wikipedia editing community.

Taking this rewrite and my post above into account, I invite User:Tamzin and other editors to please consider updating this section to reflect sources and tell a fuller story. I am willing to answer questions here, and many thanks for considering my requests. DanielleRhoadesHa (talk) 00:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to add a comment here in response to this and the above, before looking at the proposed changes themselves. You seem to want to ameliorate the mentions that there was criticism of an article, in the name of neutrality. While we should describe the article as accurately as possible and this should be corrected, we try to follow sources so Wikipedia's coverage

reflects widespread viewpoints. That is, I don't think you are suggesting that there wasn't criticism of the article, but you seem to want Wikipedia to contain the counterpoints that the newspaper defended the article, and another newspaper said that the newspaper on the whole has balanced coverage. That, I think, would be undue - and mentioning the WaPo response could be deemed irrelevant in that it is about the NYT’s coverage (not a ‘defence’ of the article). Of course, by the NYT defending the article, and WaPo having to say the NYT’s coverage as a whole is fair, they are both acknowledging there was criticism. These are useful sources for the fact there was criticism, in that they summarise it. And a reminder, criticism doesn’t have to be expert for it to still be how the article was received. I haven’t read it, it could have been the most correct and level-headed article ever, but it still was criticised - which Wikipedia is naturally going to cover. Perhaps a better question is, how career-defining is the criticism of that article and is the amount of coverage it receives on Wikipedia (in the context of the whole bio) appropriate. Kingsif (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

@Kingsif: Thank you for taking a look at my requests. The text I've proposed above is a neutral rewrite of the sources already

used in the article. I have identified issues with the current text and proposed a specific replacement summary, which I hope editors will give thorough consideration. If you prefer not to add the Washington Post source, that's not a problem, I am just trying to share other perspectives since the Wikipedia article is using pieces labeled as commentary and op-eds. I understand reviewers will decide which sources are used and what her biography should say. I welcome your thoughts on the replacement text I've proposed, or recommendations for how else I might get editor feedback to suggestions. Thank you! DanielleRhoadesHa (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I personally think the suggested rewrite in the box above is perfectly fine to be used in the article, and would happily add it myself. I thought you'd have wanted to discuss editors incorporating the NYT defence/WaPo piece as mentioned before a major edit, but I can add it now. If you would like more eyes and opinions, I can recommend posting at

WT:LGBT, where users experienced in handling LGBT-related content may be notified and respond. Kingsif (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

@Kingsif: Yes, that would be helpful if you would update the article for me. Thanks for reviewing the proposed text. DanielleRhoadesHa (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit. Kingsif (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: Thank you.