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 articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
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 articles
Hi y'all, I just wanted to put on the talk page what I edited! I changed the origin sub-heading to Etymology, and moved one of the paragraphs down to the history section I added, because I felt that it made more sense that way, was more coherent, etc. I added the first two paragraphs and a few sources to the history section, going into the background of the word to examine its racial ties, and how today this is seen perpetuated.
I added the code under the sub-heading 'usage,' as condensed some of the previous information as it was not all about history but mentioned pop culture as well. Thus, I made a pop culture heading and put this information here, and also referenced a source which defines the term as a subculture within today's setting, so readers may understand it through this lense as well. Lastly, I briefly added a sentence or two about its usage on grindr, and linked some other wiki pages throughout the article. Currently waiting for my peers to review. Thanks a bunch!
Roger.chat (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
also I just wanted to add that twink is racially coded, and while porn may offer 'Black twinks,' this would more so fall under fetishization!
Roger.chat (talk) 00:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Roger.chat: I've taken a look at the additions, which were mainly the Etymology bit and the creation of the History section. Although they are well sourced, your writing reads like an essay and has aspects of original research, and a bit of rewriting could be done to conform to general content guidelines. I will look at copyediting/rewriting it later, when I have time to do so. Thanks, and happy editing :) Vermont (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Vermont: Thank you very much for your feedback, I appreciate it immensely! I am currently an undergraduate student and understand your concerns in regards to original research and the way it reads, and I am taking a second look and will try my best to rewrite/reconstruct in an unbiased manner. Sorry for any inconveniences, and once again thank you. Roger.chat (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Roger.chat: It's my first glance at this page in a while, and I noticed those additions - to be quite frank, here, it's a bit like reading the Redstocking's critiques of homosexuality. It comes across as speculative analysis with little consideration for context. Susan Driver seems a lot more confident in the whiteness of the label than most actual gay people would be - which is very strange to me. I'm not going to dig through sources today to find something to knock your paragraphs off the page, but I do think that they depict a fairly fringe analysis with way more weight than it deserves. The viewpoint may exist (the Redstockings wrote views at length, too), but I don't think that necessarily makes it authoritative. Sorry to ridicule without offering to fix it, though. (Albert Mond (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC))[reply]
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)[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, gnu57 03:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]
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:Bite 17:37, 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:Bite 18:45, 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]
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)[reply]
Not really, considering none of the comparable articles I raised use photos of random people. Zanahary (talk) 18:20, 11 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:Bite 16:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is it worse? What is wrong with using a photo of a porn actor? Zanahary (talk) 18:20, 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]
We are entering booboo territory Zanahary (talk) 20:44, 15 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:Bite 11:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[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.
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)[reply]
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)
