Talk:Twink (gay slang)

Photo

Sexual identity/membership in a particular sexual subculture is a sensitive WP:BLP area. We don't have any indication that the two people in the lead photograph self-identify as twinks. (The photo was added a few months ago by a sockpuppetteer who made various other questionable image choices.) Cheers, gnu57 02:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Genericusername57: How about restoring File:Capital Gay Pride parade in Albany New York 2009.jpg to the article in its place, then? See LGBT_stereotypes#Appearance_and_mannerisms, which also uses the image and describes the subject as "generally considered twink-ish". I'd also say it's a better image for the purpose of illustrating the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 02:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Sure, feel free. It's probably better that the person shown is a celebrity/media figure rather than just some private individual. Cheers, gnu57 03:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Roger.chat.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Photos of people

No photos of people should be used here without some context to the photo that implies the subject's consent to be identified as a twink. Zanahary (talk) 10:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

While I get the idea behind this, it's also going to fly in the face of years of Wikipedia's using public photos to identify subcultures and styles. I think you'd be better off going to WP:VPP and bringing up the topic there, to get our guidelines clarified. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The term is sexual and considered by some to be pejorative. Particular care is needed. We don't have photos of random people judged by contributors to fall under the term's definition in the articles for, for example, shiksa, nor for Big Beautiful Woman. Zanahary (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, "bearing the hallmarks of twinks"?! Hahaha. It's awful verbiage, but a copyedit would still end up with something that basically means "who look like twinks", which is obviously both unencyclopedic and inappropriate. Without a direct relationship to the label, a photo of a real human being here is just not due for inclusion. Zanahary (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Many terms are considered by "some" to be pejorative. That doesn't justify removing photos like that. Saying "who look like X" is unencyclopedic would involve nuking a ton of existing photographs across the wiki, so that's going to cause some friction. The entire point is to have pictures of real human beings who depict a subculture or style, in order to demonstrate to the reader what that looks like. Which is definitely encyclopedic.

However, your new image definitely seems more appropriate, so I won't contest the change here. But I do suggest you try getting consensus for your view on WP:VPP. If you keep removing/changing images based on the above arguments, it's likely not going to go well. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

There are subcultures and styles like scene and soft grunge, the former of which features a photo of random people, and the latter of which features a celebrity who has been labelled by reliable sources as belonging to the aesthetic phenomenon in question. But 'twink' is not a subculture, it's a sexual descriptor applied to homosexual men of a certain body type, and a picture of some skinny gay dudes is just a picture of some skinny gay dudes. This is why we don't have a photo of some random blonde woman on shiksa, nor a random fat woman on big beautiful woman, nor a random broad, big-dicked black man on Mandingo. Because these are labels, not subcultures, and they're also quite sensitive in nature, both for being possibly offensive, and for being sexual—and WP has a responsibility not to make unwitting private people the public, encyclopedic face for sensitive stereotypes. Zanahary (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, that's an argument to make before the broader Wikipedia community. I don't know how else to say it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Not really, considering none of the comparable articles I raised use photos of random people. Zanahary (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

It could be temporary for now, but long term I don’t know if we should use a pornographic actor’s image (perhaps in the “pornographic usage” maybe as it is a common category). Bringing it up, it is interesting the thought of a file on Wikipedia being uploaded explicitly to represent what a twink would be, instead of an ambiguous photo of what could be described as a “twink”. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

And yes, that's a concern that was in the back of my mind. Using a porno actor as the example of "twink" is, in some ways, worse than the picture of a few random men who fit the look (and were identified as such by the photographer). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

How is it worse? What is wrong with using a photo of a porn actor? Zanahary (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn’t say using a pornographic actor image in itself bad, but it would be in a better place in the article when “twink” is used to describe a category in pornography, or a when it is used in sexual things (it is in fact a very common “category” on pornographic websites, including ones that do not centre around gay sexual activity)

though the thing is having a gay pornographic actor represent a twink in the lead might unintentionally insinuate that a twink is a concept that is chiefly or exclusively sexual in nature The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

It is a chiefly sexual term, even moreso than other gay labels like “bear”, because there is no such identity as twink (whereas “bears” have, like, a flag and themed cruises)—it’s only an archetype. Compare to BBW. Zanahary (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a flag actually.

In this picture the flag for bears is on the left, and that for twinks is on the right:

Yuyutsu Ho (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

We are entering booboo territory Zanahary (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that it implies "twink" is entirely a sexual term, by associating it with a porn actor. It inadvertently makes the term more pejorative. Twink is not a sexual term, it's a description of a style + body type among some gay men. Implying it's chiefly a sexual term is pushing your biases into the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It doesn’t imply that it’s chiefly a sexual term; sexual ≠ pejorative; sources present it as sexual slang. Zanahary (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It is a chiefly sexual term

It doesn’t imply that it’s chiefly a sexual term

Make up your damn mind. You're talking out both sides of your mouth here, and I'm starting to doubt your sincerity on this topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The use of a pornstar doesn’t imply that it is a chiefly sexual term. It’s still a sexual term anyways. What possible insincere intent could I have here?? Zanahary (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

That's a contradictory statement, and I'm starting to think you're just here to push your specific view on the use of images in pages.

Twink is not inherently a sexual term. Flat-out. Take your personal preferences and put them somewhere else, that bias does not have a place here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I am here to assert that it’s inappropriate to use photos of nonconsenting private individuals, particularly those photographed in public, to illustrate articles on descriptive terms about body types. And I maintain that twink is a sexual term, like BBW. Zanahary (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

And of all topics to start accusing people of bad faith… hahaha Zanahary (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this is a laughing matter. Again, take your argument about use of people in photos to WP:VPP. If you try to force your preference into articles, you're likely going to wind up facing sanctions.

And I don't care what you personally maintain, you'll need reliable sources if you want to assert that this is a sexual term in Wikivoice. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I never argued for asserting anything in Wikivoice. Zanahary (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Anyways, here are sources identifying it as sometimes pejorative and describing a debate as to whether it’s offensive or even a slur:

https://www.montclair.edu/lgbtq-center/lgbtq-resources/terminology/

https://www.them.us/story/what-is-a-twink

https://www.vice.com/en/article/7b7gzb/its-hard-out-here-for-a-twink-456

https://www.queerty.com/twink-slur-hard-truth-20220429

https://www.thepinknews.com/2016/05/05/olly-alexander-the-word-twink-is-pejorative/

https://www.queerty.com/the-is-twink-a-slur-debate-is-back-with-a-venegeance-and-this-time-adeles-involved-20230829

Clearly too sensitive a term to attach random unwitting people to based on physiology. And this is a real, sincere view! Not a tricky lie! Zanahary (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

"sometimes" is not enough for a blanket ban on pictures. End of story. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t say that either lol I said we shouldn’t put random people up on the twink article running Grindr physiognomy checks as our only consideration. Looks like the article’s been updated with a photo of someone who’s assented to being called a twink. Yayyyyy ❤️ Zanahary (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

sigh You're like talking to a brick wall, utterly dense.

But yes, the photo issue is resolved, so fuck it, we're done here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Updated Definition of Twink

The Twink age range has been updated and improved to make it more accurate and clearer based on the definition of Twink widely adopted by the LGBTQIA+ Community, and reliable sources have also been added to further contribute to the LGBTQIA+ Community. Wiki7Hell (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

You've been edit warring with multiple other editors and citing user generated content, like Wikis and urbandictionary.com. These are not usable sources per WP:RS. And even worse, as you've been doing this you have been removing citations to sources that are reliable, like news outlets and a book from a respected academic publisher. You must stop doing this. MrOllie (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Fine, but the urban dictionary and the wikipedia dictionary are absolutely reliable, although they are user-edited sources it is important to remember any other source is also edited including Wikipedia. However, I see that you are waging a heated war to keep your old edition, I understand and respect your perspective, but I emphasize that my intention was only to collaborate with the community and not to cause conflict. Thanks for understanding, have a great day. Wiki7Hell (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

No, that is the opposite of what WP:RS says. If it can be edited by anyone, anyone can write anything with no quality control. You cannot use such sites as sources. MrOllie (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Although sometimes a source that can be edited by hundreds of people can provide inaccurate data. Scientific studies show that the opinion of several people can be more accurate than the opinion of just one, so I think the WP:RS rules would need to be updated. Wiki7Hell (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Good luck banging your head against that particular wall. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

This is not a WP:FORUM or chatroom. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I remember that meeting! I had a mosquito bite on my ankle 😖 Zanahary (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC) And how was your meeting? Tell us what you thought of it. ☺ Wiki7Hell (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)