This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Twink (gay slang) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles 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.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics 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.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics 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.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
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, gnu5702:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@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, gnu5703:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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:Bite17:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:Bite18:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:Bite16:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:Bite11:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
sigh You're like talking to a brick wall, utterly dense.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
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.
.jpg)
