Talk:Twink (gay slang)

Archives
2005 - present

age range

I do not know where the "inavariable" age range of early- to mid-twenties was dragged in from but it has little or nothing to do with reality (let alone with the improbability of finding glabrous individuials of that age. A short search has yielded evidence of use for much younger males (see this for example. Haiduc 02:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI, dead link. Banjeboi 18:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Butch twinks?

Wouldn't "butch twink" be a contradiction in terms? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.80.94.35 (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In theory but in gay culture butchness and appearances have their own value so being a more butch twink may have some currency. Benjiboi 10:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

External links clean-up

• The Twink Code Version 1.12 (warning: explicit content; includes definition of "twink")

I've removed the links that were there as they aren't actually helping anything. The policy generally is that external links should confirm to what would be there if an article was a Featured article, or more precisely who aid our readers understanding of the subject if we had written the article to a featured article standard and those links don't. I've posted the one above as I simply don't believe the twink code is much in use at all and if anything could be a one-liner that it exists. Benjiboi 01:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

photo

I'm a gay man, but far from a twink. However, the photo shown to illustrate a "typical twink" is anything but. A true twink would have shaved his arms, underarms, and pubes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.208.172 (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Not all twinks shave arms, underarms and pubes. Twink is a look based on age and related "young" look, not on amount/lack of hair. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 04:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Allstarecho on this, we should be a bit more universal. The text can certainly indicate that some twinks do shave all their hair or have very little hair but we can't say all twinks are ____ without a reference. If we have a good source stating this we would still have to contrast it with other sources stating that it's not an absolute. Benjiboi 22:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

While not all twinks will fit the description precisely, I have to say this current photo does not adequately represent what a twink is or how twink is described in this article. The gentleman depicted in this image does not appear to be conventionally attractive. He does appear slender but not fit. Despite his ribs showing, the fat around his hips and nipples is fairly obvious. His face is obscured, which is a major part of showing youth or youthful appearance. Other than that, the odd santa hat with the stars on it is distracting and inconsistent with the apparel of others in the background. It is a weird looking picture, with a guy that may or may not be a twink, but certainly does not illustrate the term well. This image should be kept until a more suitable one is found.--Biggayallison (talk) 08:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Describing this guy as fat around the hips and nipples is hilarious! --Nmcmurdo (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

A twink is basically someone t looks "illegal" but is legal. A guy of legal age who looks like a kid - to be frank. And the current picture is suitable for this. Further, it's a non-copyrighted image. A copyrighted image must have a fair use rationale for use in this article and it must be the subject of the article. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 08:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "twink" has grown to mean more than waht you see on the front of Destroyer Magazine. forestPIG 22:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear god. The image has been removed - do you think someone would like to find out an image of them is being used without their permission to illustrate a gay slang term? WP:BLP applies; do not restore it. Neıl 龱 10:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

An IP reverted to reinclude the image, and has been hardblocked for a month. Don't push me on this. Neıl 龱 10:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. Yikes. Here's a good case where a short explanation of why WP:BLP policy was cited would have benefited all involved. God forbid anyone be mistaken for a gay person! Seriously, I can see the stretch of how BLP can cover this but there isn't a scrap of information at WP:BLP that seems to connect that this image was in some way violating policy. If I'm missing the obvious please let me know. Perhaps the policy should be spelled out a bit better for those who are trying to understand the nuance. Also simply stating in the edit summary "article requires self-identified or RS identified "twink" rather than someone who fits the description" would have at least helped explain the deletion. Banjeboi 13:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone else reverted to include the image, despite it being very obvious from glancing at either the history or this talk page, or from having an ounce of common sense, that adding an image of a living person to any article on a potentially pejorative term, gay or otherwise, is wholly unacceptable. So they have been blocked for a month, too. Neıl 龱 18:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I must say that seems way overboard not all users either look at the history or the talk page of articles. Simply reverting and explaining why an image violates WP:BLP - which isn't very clear - would seem to do the trick perhaps coupled with a warning. I would hope that blocks would be saved for those who then redid such an action as obviously causing disruption. Also there is some interpretation here as to who would consider the term pejorative as in some circles, including the gay male ones that subject seems to be a part of may consider it a compliment. I know people who are insulted to be mistaken for heterosexuals but I'm not sure that it would rise to the level of a BLP violation. Banjeboi 23:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Benjiboi. The blocking actions seem arbitrary and overly harsh. And I think the two users should have been given a more generous helping of AGF. These actions are not in line with blocking for vandalism, for example. We normally require four levels of warning before blocking for vandalism, which is perhaps the most seriously damaging and destructive problem to WP and it's integrity. This particular photograph is a CC-BY-SA licensed photo (and so confirmed) from a guy who photographs young adult male models and posts to Flickr. And when is being labeled gay or twink pejorative? Is there a OTRS complaint? Has anyone else made a BLP issue? I believe Neil means well, but it looks like an overreaction to me. — Becksguy (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've started a thread Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#BLP needs clear images statements to get the ball rolling. Banjeboi 19:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, after a blocking that was notice by several people as a clear admin abuse of power (the power of Christ compels you, bitch!), now I can freely express why the image should be kept. I´m too lazy to write all the stuff, but according to the Encyclopedia of Homosexuality by W.R. Dynes and the Aaron´s Dictionary of Gay Terms, a twink is simply a young looking man in its early 20´s, barely in legal age, Caucasian white with little or non body hair. This is the same description on the article, however in non of the professional sources I have checked does not say that the term is restricted to a gay person. The fact that is a gay slang does not mean that it is applied only to gay people, merely that it´s primary users are from LGBT community. The fact that the person in the picture may be gay or not it is irrelevant, given the fact that he match the description for the article. A valid argument against this is the posibility of a objection by the guy in the pic, and therefore a legal action. However the image (which is in flickr) in under a GPL-license which means any use for it. I assume that during the migration from flickr a review has been made and since there is no more articles linked to the image, this article was the only use for it and someone has got to aprove it. The owner of a photo in flickr is a self identified gay person from Seattle, and all his account is loaded with images of males in, which are cleary, gay situations. So it is also fair to assume that the guy in this pic, is also, gay. I don´t think anyone object that fact, not even my sister do it :o :o :o --ometzit<col> (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I can see both sides of this. under avoiding harm which aligns with BLP policy we should be at least sensitive that this is the world's encyclopedia. And the person pictured may not want to be known as the poster-child for all twinks. I've made similar points on using a photo of someone at homosexual transsexual, it's a term open to negative connotations so having someone reliably identified is better. I feel the same towards pretty much all articles. If the picture in question was from twink party then I could see it, if he was somehow readily identified as a twink, preferably by his choosing, I could also see it. But he may be some closeted kid or the straight boyfriend of someone there who may not want to represent all twinks whether or not he thought the term was negative in some way. I added the photo myself so obviously i thought it was a good match at first. Banjeboi 05:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

See Alsos

I've removed the See Alsos. Most were already linked in the article, and a couple didn't seem to be directly related to this subject. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Dictdef - already in Wictionary.

This is actually a dictionary definition, and it's already in Wictionary. It probably shouldn't be in Wikipedia at all. See WP:DICTDEF. --John Nagle (talk) 06:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's beyond dict def already and should be expanded with etymology and notable usages. Banjeboi 07:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Also see WORDS and note that this is not just a word but also a concept. Banjeboi 07:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It's far past being a definition, as it's a also a concept. And with just a little more work, it will be a start class article. — Becksguy (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Is Twink a pejorative term?

Continuing the discussion from ANI, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Gratuitously long block by User:Neil, I was going to include the claimed BLP issues of Image:SantaRave.jpg but since the removal of that image and the blocking was based on the claim that Twink is pejorative, or could be perceived as pejorative, we might as well start with that. My feeling is that the word is not pejorative, and the article should be changed to reflect that, as well as the term taken out of CATEGORY:Pejorative terms for people. The included references available on-line don't seem to support the pejorative characterization, with the possible exception that twinks are not supposed to be deep. This will need additional research since twink per se is defined, but the views about the concept by various cultures and subcultures doesn't seem to be. If Bears view twink pejoratively, that would not surprise me, but they don't represent either mainstream or even gay mainstream cultural views. — Becksguy (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree that better referencing would help. I thought I had added a ref a while ago that covered this but essentially, like most descriptors, can be perceived or intended as an insult - language is an art. What I call you, what you perceive and what others overhearing the exchange all interpret can be wildly different. Some folks like to be called freak, nelly or any number of potential insults but they may easily interpret those intended insults as affirmations. I think a ref showing the nature of insults may be helpful here. Banjeboi 18:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I don´t believe the term is pejorative, what I have found in academic sources is that merely meant that the person is good looking, early 20´s barely in legal age. Since when is that an offense? Nigger and the one for jews are indeed pejorative and considered offensive in mainstream media, and are used in that sense. What I´m trying to say is, you can say a black person nigger and he would get upset but I don´t see how someone can get upset by being mentioned as a twink person, that is of course assuming it is a gay person, but what I already mentioned, the owner of the photo is gay and the images of their profile are of clearly gay males so it is fair to assume the person in question is, also, gay. Anyone with a flickr account could ask the owner for some confirmation, I guess. In any case Image:SantaRave.jpg is a picture that describe the purpose of the article and it should be kept. the current photo serves it´s purpose but the article describes some characteristics not visible in the photo, i.e. body hair and skinny. --ometzit<col> (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)