Talk:Twinkie defense

message: I found the opening to be really snotty.  The writer disparages the term Twinkie Defense as if to say those who coined the term have no point in their apparent contention the defense is a load of horsecrap and all the more contemptible for it having worked. --2600:6C65:747F:CD3F:FDDE:5369:4877:767A (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Snotty 

message: The article describes the Twinkie Defense as refering to a biological component.  In the usage I've heard it has always refered to ANY defense which people consider suspect.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.220.25 (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Biological?

message: Not that this is really that big of a deal, but I would like to point out one thing about crediting the White trial with reform in California's insantiy defense laws.  Another, and much bigger, trial, the trial of John Hinckley Jr. and his attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, occurred in 1982.  The outcome of that trial, which I am certain everyone is aware of, lead to a great deal of public outrage and federal as well as state reform of insantity defense laws.  Given that Reagan was govenor of California, and that the reforming laws were passed in 1982, I would surmise that the law had more to do with the Hinckley verdict than the verdict for White.  I am sure White's verdict played a part, but it just seems like a not guilty verdict being delivered for a man who shot the current president and former govenor would have more of an impact on the state legislature.
:No, actually Proposition 8 really was more attributable to the Dan White case than the John Hinckley case.  Prop 8 passed about two weeks before the verdict came in in the Hinckley trial.  In fact, "Remember Dan White" was something of a rallying cry among some of those who campaigned for Prop 8.  Mwelch 00:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change in Insanity Defense Laws

message: I can't help but think this article could benefit from some re-organization in terms of pointing out the actual etymology of the phrase. It is so blatantly misinterpreted in common reference that I think the article should have a separate section addressing this, as opposed to merely a one-sentence mention. Bullzeye 10:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um...  it already did point out the "actual etymology of the phrase".  You know this, because you moved it further down the page.  I honestly don't think moving it further down is a good idea, but I'm going to try keeping it in its current place and cleaning up the phrasing a bit to see if we can make the actual sequence of events clearer. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misinterpretation 

message: Does having a picture of several Twinkies really enhance this article? Admittedly it's named after them but it's not ABOUT them. (note to self, sign in before editing) Howdoesthiswo 01:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I think a photo would be quite helpful for the majority of folks who haven't a clue what one is. I'll see if one is available and do my best to write an appropriate caption that clarifies it's inclusion. Benjiboi 05:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Benjiboi 06:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twinkie Image 

message: I don't remember this part of that movie, and I've seen it dozens of times...
:My mistake, it was actually from Trial and Error (film), which is filled with homages to My Cousin Vinny. Staxringold 21:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[My Cousin Vinny]] 

message: "although the latter concept has yet to gain complete acceptance in the U.S. legal community." is hilarious.  67.174.91.20 07:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: How does this related to LGBT?  It's in that category, and doesn't seem directly relevant.  The article could use an explanation of why it is in that category, if there is a reason. - User:ZachPruckowski
:Just had a look at the article - its not as explicit as it once was.  If you follow the links to Harvey Milk and White Night riots, you'll have a better idea of how it is an LGBT issue.  -Seth Mahoney 06:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, gotcha.  Yeah, I agree - in fact, the article used to make the connection more explicitely.  Dunno what happened to that.  -Seth Mahoney 21:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  LGBT? 

message: I think a lot of people have trouble even today understanding what the defense was really arguing, why they were bringing the Twinkies into it.  I think they might understand it better if an analogy was drawn:  If a particular person was known to care very deeply for his personal appearance, and to put great effort into his clothes and his grooming, then seeing that person show up somewhere poorly groomed and wearing ratty old clothes would be a strong indicator that there was something wrong -- no one would think that the clothes and the beard stubble were the cause of the person's problem, but it would be a good indicator that they were in some sort of distress, as they had clearly ceased to care about things they had been known to care about a great deal.
Can this analogy be added without being original research? -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, according to one of the linked articles, White's abandonment of personal grooming was also cited by the defense as evidence of his depression. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analogy 

message: At the end of the "References in Popular Culture" section, there's mention of the South Park "Chewbacca Defense" bit. I thought that was more a reference to Cochran's defense of OJ Simpson and the "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit" line? Kai MacTane 17:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be worth keeping as a "See also", though. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chewbacca Defense 

message: The "References in popular culture" section (as such sections frequently are) is a right mess.  I suggest that we keep only those items which actually show how the myth of the "Twinkie defense" is perceived in the public consciousness.  
Example of items which pass this test:  Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia referencing it to draw a distinction between a lawyer who is 'competent' and the kind of lawyer desired by a defendant.
Example of items which do not pass the test:  "The term was used in the 1991 Roseanne episode "Home Ec"."  Does not in any way contribute to our understanding of the subject.
Where possible, we would be better served to create actual article text talking about the perception of the Twinkie defense myth in the popular mind, with the references as our citations, rather than just having a laundry list of 'it was used here in this episode then it was a throwaway line in that episode and --'  In particular, I suspect there might be justification for a short mention of the "gay panic defense", since both are perceived as being excuses for homophobic violence and the link has been made in popular culture (see the item about The Laramie Project.)  We would need to tread carefully to make sure we are engaging in reasonable interpretation and not original research, but I think this can be done. -- 192.250.34.161 16:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggested addition:  the use of the Twinkie in the pedestal of Robert Arneson's 1980 bust of George Moscone. -- 192.250.34.161 21:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay panic defense and cleaning up the "in popular culture" section 

message: Yesterday (or two days ago by UTC time) I came across a request made by Benjiboi for help at WP:AIV. At first, I told him this wasn't the place for such a request, but he insisted that he didn't want to block the other party, he just needed mediation help. He was notified by another party to go to WP:DR, and meanwhile I put a full protection on the article in question. To specify, I had read through the above threads, and the full-page protection was really intended as a last resort, semi-temporary measure in order to prevent the involved parties from being blocked by 3RR. At the time I didn't feel that I should add my ideas to the discussion, because I hadn't really thought over any of it and the issue did have the potential to work itself out.
That was August 22. Over the next 30 hours or so I wasn't on wikipedia except for a brief edit to my user talk page. Judging by the time signatures, IP 192.250 left a note one hour after I logged off, explaining their view and reasoning of the situation. Essentially, 192.250 expressed their doubts over the reliability of the sources added by Benjiboi. They also questioned the scope of the article, and expressed disdain for Benjiboi's additions while not being specific. Their post is here, unmodified. I logged on to find that post and a note on this RFC.
To me, it is evident that this dispute is really a couple of disputes rolled into one. 192.250 has a problem with the quality of the references, and there is a difference between the two editors as to what happened in court. 192.250 states that the defense never utilized a "Twinkie Defense", and that it was only an idea put forth by a witness. Benjiboi and 192.250 are also in disagreement as to whether or not the victim's homosexuality is relevant to the issue. 192.250 also believes that much of the material concerning the case itself should be removed, as well any informaion on its social and cultural effects. There is another problem, too: both editors have veered away from discussing the content of the article, and each has expressed a suspicion that the other has some agenda.
If either party feels that part of my statement should be contested, I encourage you to help me clarify my perspective on my talk page of within the subsequent discussion. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Ikiroid

message: I am glad to see that these issues are receiving attention from people who wish to see this article improved in accordance with Wikipedia standards.  My concern is that to expand an article is not necessarily to improve it; if we look at what Benjiboi has done to expand the article (what I will for convenience call the "Benjiboi version"), we see that the material is not always up to Wikipedia's standards and in fact violates some of Wikipedia's core principles.  That is, I realize, a powerful statement, but given the evidence I do not think it can be denied.
The most serious violation of Wikipedia's principles in the Benjiboi version is the violation that information must be citable to reliable sources.  To show how this principle was violated, I will first talk about the scope of the article, which is two-fold:
# The "Twinkie defense" in the abstract: that is, all arguments put forth by some defense team somewhere, in reality or in fiction, that some biological or chemical factor reduces or removes the defendant's responsibility for their actions; and
# The alleged incident that gave rise to the term "Twinkie defense":  the defense argument allegedly proposed to and accepted by the jury in the murder trial of Dan White, that junk food caused the rampage in which he killed George Moscone and Harvey Milk.  (I will refer to this alleged incident as "White's Twinkie defense" to distinguish it from the Twinkie defense in the abstract.)
In the version prior to Benjiboi's editing, the article described White's Twinkie defense as a "myth" or "urban legend", because that was exactly what our two major reliable sources on the subject said.  Both sources tell the same story, though they differ in detail:  the defense team argued that White was depressed, and enumerated several symptoms that showed his depression, just one of which was that he had gone from a health-food nut to consuming large quantities of junk food.  The popular idea, that the defense had argued junk food to be the cause of White's state of mind, was false.
Obviously, if one wants to make the article claim instead that the popular idea was true -- that the defense team really did blame White's state of mind and his actions on junk food -- one had better have very good reliable sources for such a claim.  I would even say that in such a case, your reliable sources need to address the fact that some have examined the popular idea and deemed it false -- not merely sources which repeat the popular idea with no mention that its accuracy has been challenged.
Benjiboi did in fact change the article to make it claim that White's Twinkie defense really had occurred.  He started with a sentence from a previous version of the article: 
:"Another psychiatrist, George Solomon, testified that White had "exploded" and was "sort of on automatic pilot" at the time of the killings."  
He modified this sentence with a description of Solomon's stature, and a specific claim that Solomon had specifically attributed White's state of mind to junk food:  
:"Noted forensic psychiatrist and psychoneuroimmunologist George Solomon testified that with the effects of the junk food diet White had "exploded" and was "sort of on automatic pilot" at the time of the killings." (emphasis added)
Clearly Benjiboi knew he was adding a claim that had not been there before -- that not only did White's Twinkie defense actually exist, but that it could be specifically attributed to George Solomon (rather than Martin Blinder, who our existing sources identify as the only defense witness who mentioned junk food.)  Therefore, Benjiboi knew that he needed to add reliable sources which supported that claim.
Benjiboi did not add such sources.  He did add two sources.  The first source, found here, mentions only that Solomon testified in the trial of Dan White, and does not even specify which side he testified for.  The second source, found here, mentions Solomon's testimony in only one sentence:
:"In all the uproar about the "Twinkie Defense", something which Dr. George Solomon had warned about seven years previous went unnoticed: if Dan White did not receive a heavy enough sentence, he would kill himself." 
In fact, this source contradicts Benjiboi's claim that White's Twinkie defense was real, and agrees with our other sources that it was a misunderstanding of what the defense had actually argued:
:"Dr. Martin Blinder identified White's addiction to junk food as a signs  of the disorder [depression]. In the outraged popular version of Blinder's testimony which followed the trial, Blinder was made out to say that the Twinkies had made White do it." (emphasis added)
Some may be able to construct and believe in a "good faith" explanation for why Benjiboi did what we have just seen that he did.  No matter why he did it, however, the fact remains that he did; and having found that he did it once, we cannot assume that that was the only time he did it.  We cannot assume that whatever Benjiboi inserted into the article with what looks like a citation that verifies the point in dispute is actually even addressed, let alone supported, by that citation.  Which is one reason why, I will argue, that we must take as the last "good" version of the article the version before Benjiboi started his edits, and then 
The second way in which the "Benjiboi version" does not adhere to Wikipedia standards is the issue of relevance.  As much as I had hoped I could address this purely in terms of moving forward and identifying what should be our target for this article, I am afraid I have to clear up a misrepresentation that has been made about me first.  Benjiboi made the assertion against me on this talk page that I had "vehemently claimed that Milk's being gay had/has no place in this article and had nothing to do with Twinkie defense".  As with his claim about George Solomon's trial testimony, examining the actual facts of the matter shows the claim to be false.  Here are my own words on the subject:
:"... I believe Milk's homosexuality is relevant to this article, up to a point. It's fairly easy to find citations that people thought that homophobia was the real reason for the unexpectedly light verdict and sentence, and this made them more prone to believe that the "Twinkie defense" had actually been offered as the purported reason, even though the facts show it was not ... But that is the limit of the extent to which it is relevant."
It is unfortunate that I actually have to remind people that my statements about what I think is relevant, and not Benjiboi's claims about what I think is relevant, is where my position about what is relevant is to be found.  But it seems an unavoidable evil in this case.
With that (hopefully) out of the way, here is my position on what is relevant:
* The subject of this article is the Twinkie defense:  both the Twinkie defense in the abstract and the urban legend of Dan White's Twinkie defense.
* Actual facts with good sourcing which help to explain the Twinkie defense (either abstract or White's) are relevant.
** Example:  Justice Antonin Scalia described the kind of lawyer a defendant wants as "I don't want a 'competent' lawyer. I want a lawyer to get me off. I want a lawyer to invent the Twinkie defense. I want to win."  This shows that the Twinkie defense (abstract) is not perceived as being a legitimate defense strategy; it is perceived as symbolic of lawyers who "want to win" more than they want to be "'competent'".
* Significant POVs on the Twinkie defense (again, either) are relevant.  
** Example: The POV that White's Twinkie defense is primarily a myth is supported by reliable sources, so it is definitely a significant POV and definitely relevant.
** Example: Even the POV that White's Twinkie defense was presented to and accepted by the jury is relevant, even though our reliable sources indicate that this POV is mistaken, taking an urban legend for truth.  Why is it relevant, if not true?  Because the numbers of people who have believed it was true, and let it shape their perceptions of the judicial system, are significant.
However, here is what is not relevant:
* Anything which has nothing to do with the Twinkie defense except that it is connected to something and that something is relevant to the Twinkie defense.
** Example:  this section, repeatedly re-added to the article: "Discontent with the verdict and resulting sentence led to the San Francisco's White Night Riots with gays and Milk supporters rioting at San Francisco's City Hall including breaking in the glass doors and burning twelve police cars. Later that night a retaliatory police attack took place against the Elephant Walk bar in the center of the gay Castro neighborhood less than a block from Milk's camera shop and campaign headquarters. The incidents brought additional international attention to the assassinations and trial."  Every single bit of this section is connected to the Twinkie defense only through People vs. White.  To be honest, we don't even know if it has that much of a connection, because we have no way of going back and asking the rioters "Now, are you rioting because you specifically believe that the unexpectedly light sentence resulted from the defense arguing that junk food was responsible for the murders, or just from a general sense that such an unexpectedly light sentence must mean that some sort of miscarriage of justice went on?"  This section adds nothing to our understanding of the Twinkie defense and thus does not belong in Twinkie defense.
** Example: this section, repeatedly re-added to the article: "Execution of Justice is an award-winning ensemble play by Emily Mann chronicling the trial of the People vs. Dan White. The play has been performed worldwide and has been made into a movie."  Again, another section whose only claim to relevance is that it is connected to People vs. Dan White.
I do not think that this is an unreasonable standard to adopt for relevance.  If anything belongs in an article, as long as it is relevant to something else which is relevant to something else which is relevant to something else which is relevant -- well, then, pretty soon we might as well just make Dan White, Harvey Milk, Moscone-Milk assassinations, Twinkie defense, all just redirects to one huge article which covers it all.  I mean, if the full extent of the White Night Riots belongs in Twinkie defense just because the Twinkie defense was allegedly used in People vs. Dan White, and the White Night Riots came from anger over the verdict in People vs. Dan White, then how can we possibly argue that there is any fact in Dan White which is not relevant to Harvey Milk, and vice-versa?
With this in mind, it's quite telling that Benjiboi felt that one thing which wasn't relevant to this article was the fact that White committed suicide within seven years of the murders.  Why?  What the defense actually argued was that Dan White suffered from a deep depression.  Suicide is dramatic evidence for that POV.  Yet Benjiboi didn't think that was relevant? -- 192.250.34.161 21:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by 192.250.34.161

message: I have been admonished to focus on "content, not contributors".  Very well.  But if I may ask, why is it not a two-way street?  Why is it that when Yskin and Celithemis and Ikiroid engage in excellent discussion of the issues of which claims are supported by sources, and which claims are not relevant to this article even if they are well-sourced, another editor feels free to accuse them of "editing the article to conform to the demands of an anonymous IP"?  Are these editors now required to tailor their judgments about content in order to vex a particular contributor?
This same editor who made the accusation about "editing the article to conform to the demands of an anonymous IP" is displaying rather an obsession, not just with the fact that I am an anon, but also with the possibility that I am a "sockpuppet".  Let me quote the nutshell description of the Wikipedia policy on "sockpuppetry":  "Do not use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, or to circumvent a block. Do not ask your friends to create accounts to support you or anyone else."  I am doing none of those things; anyone who assumes that I am, particularly if the only "evidence" they have to offer is that I know my way around Wikipedia procedures -- as I would if, for instance, I had previously maintained a pseudonymous identity on Wikipedia but had had that pseudonym penetrated and my private life pried into and publicized for the purpose of discouraging me from further participation, and had chosen to retire that pseudonym -- is assuming bad faith.
If the policies of "content, not contributors" and "assume good faith" are to be ones that anons should obey, then surely they're ones that should apply to anons as well. -- 192.250.34.161 15:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note to those concerned with my identity 

message: I am not under the illusions that anyone is going to come along and revert Benjiboi's statement and tell him to please rewrite it as comment on content and not other contributors before reposting. I will simply say that if this had been a user-conduct RFC, rather than an article-content RFC, I would certainly have some things to say about the manner in which I was treated, which is what caused this whole fiasco to begin with.
As for the portion of the statement that addresses the article content, I have already said that I believe we should cast a quite skeptical eye on any information which cannot be shown to have any solid connection to the article subject but is merely argued to provide "context".  Unless we have a reliable source that argues for such a relationship, it's hard to imagine an argument of this type that would not be prohibited original research.  And, as I have already indicated, no matter what standard of relevance we agree on, it must be consistently applied in order to abide by WP:NPOV.  I cannot imagine a standard of relevance under which Jonestown would be considered highly relevant context and be omitted only for time, and yet the suicide of Dan White would be considered "not needed" --but a reasonable person would infer from talk page statements that this is in fact being suggested as an appropriate standard. -- 192.250.34.161 16:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Benjiboi's statement

message: This is the first RFC I've personally been involved in and I hope that a better article does emerge from the process. Having stated that the way I was treated by an editor who, by all accounts, apparently knows better and had no problems being civil to others has me reluctant to be involved in this matter although I obviously care about the subject. 
As I've indicated in the past on this and many other articles I'm completely open to changes that improve an article and on this one was making a good faith effort to add context first to address why Milk's homosexuality was relevant and then to what the original Twinkie defense was, what it had become as well as context of socio-political, religious and cultural arenas in which the defense was accepted and the reaction. I didn't include the Jonestown murders/suicides because I was frankly tired from the hours I had spent doing the research I did do although that event was also intertwined in the atmosphere of this trial and local news.
As far as the Solomon testimony I thought I had included the right reference but now I'm not finding it. It would take me many more hours to hunt it down again and, frankly, this whole experience has left a bad taste but I wish anyone well who does want to sort it out. I read that someone got trial transcripts so that would be the best reference anyway.
To me Wikipedia should be a place I enjoy being a part of and contributing to. I hope no one is ever treated the way I was and with that I will have to step back from this article and simply wish all who do work on it my best wishes. Benjiboi 22:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Benjiboi

message: Please use subheaders for different statements, and use edit summaries. Please do not respond to statements here; instead, use the discussion section below.'
====Outside statement by Yksin====
Although I'm the initiator of this RfC, I consider myself to be an outsider to the dispute. I'm going to keep my comments fairly brief here, & save lengthier comments for discussion. I became aware of this dispute a couple of days ago after Benjiboi asked for feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Twinkie defense. I took at look at the article & the talk page & replied with some feedback, basically to the effect that I felt that 192.250.34.161 had made some relevant points about much of the background information being too detailed & irrelevant to the article's subject of the "Twinkie defense." Another editor, , later made similar comments, & based on that feedback Benjiboi has expressed a willingness to move some of the article's current content to other articles where it's more relevant.  That shows to me that Benjiboi is willing to listen & to be persuaded by other's reasonable arguments.
Earlier today, then, 192.250.34.161 wrote to me on my talk page at User talk:Yksin#Twinkie defense & explained the issues s/he has with the articles content. I read the sources 192.250.34.161 pointed out, verifying that his/her account of them was accurate, & took another look at the article itself. This resulted in me being convinced that the article as it's presently written is inaccurate: (1) the sources cited do not back the assertion that Solomon blamed White's murders of Moscone & Milk on White's consumption of junk food; and (2) the "Twinkie defense" was not in fact used. Two reliable sources (Scopes & one of the San Francisco newspapers) make it very clear that the mention of junk food during the trial was very minor & was not the central basis of White's defense. Rather, the media picked up that minor mention of junk food & blew it up out of proportion, essentially in an attempt to explain a major miscarriage of justice (White should have been convicted of first degree murder, not merely "manslaughter") to an angry & uncomprehending public.  I agree with 192.250.34.161 that this article should reflect the conclusion that these reliable sources make: the "Twinkie defense" is modern folklore.
Of course, 192.250.34.161 attempted to explain this before, on the article talk page. Unfortunately, s/he did it accompanied by so much incivility towards Benjiboi that the message never came through clearly.  It only came through clearly to me after 192.250.34.161 wrote to me on my talk page.  Why? It seems to me because 192.250.34.161 wasn't attacking me when s/he explained it to me.  I was not being accused of pushing an agenda, of not giving a shit about a good article, of "dressing up" sources to claim they said things they didn't say, & other accusations that were made against Benjiboi. In other words, there was no assumption of good faith, & so ill will escalated.  I'm sorry, but I don't blame Benjiboi at all for not getting what 192.250.34.161 was trying to explain, given that 192.250.34.161 was explaining it in such a hostile, combative way.  And I don't believe that this matter would have gotten to the level of dispute that it has, had 192.250.34.161 explained to Benjiboi, with the same civility s/he used in explaining to me, what his/her issues with this article are.  I don't get what is so difficult to understand about the very commonsense guidelines in WP:CIVIL or how incivility just makes it harder for everyone, whether they're targets of the attack or not, to stick to the real business at hand, which is writing good articles according to the principles of consensus that are so central to Wikipedia.
I was also disappointed to learn that another editor, , apparently considers it to be completely okay to call an editor names behind his/her back, while simultaneously cautioning that same editor for his/her own incivility. (See User talk:Jeffpw#Civility & User:192.250.34.161 (re: Twinkie defense).)
Interjected comment from Jeffpw has been moved here.
Be that as it may, I'm now interested in putting the arguments of the past behind us, & getting on with the business at hand: creating a new consensus for this article based on Wikipedia's core content policies of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:VERIFY -- & while doing so, following Wikipedia's core conduct policies of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. --Yksin 03:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statements by outside observers 

message: Although I'm the initiator of this RfC, I consider myself to be an outsider to the dispute. I'm going to keep my comments fairly brief here, & save lengthier comments for discussion. I became aware of this dispute a couple of days ago after Benjiboi asked for feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Twinkie defense. I took at look at the article & the talk page & replied with some feedback, basically to the effect that I felt that 192.250.34.161 had made some relevant points about much of the background information being too detailed & irrelevant to the article's subject of the "Twinkie defense." Another editor, , later made similar comments, & based on that feedback Benjiboi has expressed a willingness to move some of the article's current content to other articles where it's more relevant.  That shows to me that Benjiboi is willing to listen & to be persuaded by other's reasonable arguments.
Earlier today, then, 192.250.34.161 wrote to me on my talk page at User talk:Yksin#Twinkie defense & explained the issues s/he has with the articles content. I read the sources 192.250.34.161 pointed out, verifying that his/her account of them was accurate, & took another look at the article itself. This resulted in me being convinced that the article as it's presently written is inaccurate: (1) the sources cited do not back the assertion that Solomon blamed White's murders of Moscone & Milk on White's consumption of junk food; and (2) the "Twinkie defense" was not in fact used. Two reliable sources (Scopes & one of the San Francisco newspapers) make it very clear that the mention of junk food during the trial was very minor & was not the central basis of White's defense. Rather, the media picked up that minor mention of junk food & blew it up out of proportion, essentially in an attempt to explain a major miscarriage of justice (White should have been convicted of first degree murder, not merely "manslaughter") to an angry & uncomprehending public.  I agree with 192.250.34.161 that this article should reflect the conclusion that these reliable sources make: the "Twinkie defense" is modern folklore.
Of course, 192.250.34.161 attempted to explain this before, on the article talk page. Unfortunately, s/he did it accompanied by so much incivility towards Benjiboi that the message never came through clearly.  It only came through clearly to me after 192.250.34.161 wrote to me on my talk page.  Why? It seems to me because 192.250.34.161 wasn't attacking me when s/he explained it to me.  I was not being accused of pushing an agenda, of not giving a shit about a good article, of "dressing up" sources to claim they said things they didn't say, & other accusations that were made against Benjiboi. In other words, there was no assumption of good faith, & so ill will escalated.  I'm sorry, but I don't blame Benjiboi at all for not getting what 192.250.34.161 was trying to explain, given that 192.250.34.161 was explaining it in such a hostile, combative way.  And I don't believe that this matter would have gotten to the level of dispute that it has, had 192.250.34.161 explained to Benjiboi, with the same civility s/he used in explaining to me, what his/her issues with this article are.  I don't get what is so difficult to understand about the very commonsense guidelines in WP:CIVIL or how incivility just makes it harder for everyone, whether they're targets of the attack or not, to stick to the real business at hand, which is writing good articles according to the principles of consensus that are so central to Wikipedia.
I was also disappointed to learn that another editor, , apparently considers it to be completely okay to call an editor names behind his/her back, while simultaneously cautioning that same editor for his/her own incivility. (See User talk:Jeffpw#Civility & User:192.250.34.161 (re: Twinkie defense).)
Interjected comment from Jeffpw has been moved here.
Be that as it may, I'm now interested in putting the arguments of the past behind us, & getting on with the business at hand: creating a new consensus for this article based on Wikipedia's core content policies of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:VERIFY -- & while doing so, following Wikipedia's core conduct policies of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. --Yksin 03:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside statement by Yksin

message: Note: As this comment seemed clearly related to the RfC, I've moved it here from its former location. --Yksin 16:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside view from Measl 

message: Note: this comment has been moved from being being interjected into Yksin's statement, in line with RfC format to place respond to statements in discussion section.
Please don't distort my remarks, Yksin, and provide a diff so that others can make up their own minds about my actions (which are not relevant to this RFC in any event). I didn't call the anon IP an asshole behind his/her back. I said it in a part of Wikipedia where anybody involved in this dispute could be expected to read it. I suppose it would have been more politic to call him a WP:Dick, but not having drank the Wikipedia Kool-aid, my responses tend to be my own and not some jargon filled knee-jerk lemming like reaction. My apologies. Now if you wish to start a RFC about my comment and behaviour, be my guest. But your placing the paragraph above into this RFC not only is inappropriate, but also distracts from the main issue here. Jeffpw 06:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, here's the diffs: Jeffpw cautions 192.250.34.161 on 192's talk page about civility; Jeffpw refers to 192 as an "anon asshole" at WikiProject LGBT studies here; Jeffpw again refers to 192 as an "asshole" on Jeffpw's own talk page. The fact that the first use of the term "asshole" was made in the context of a statement otherwise agreeing with some of 192's POV does not negate the fact that a personal attack was made. Your statement "I said it in a part of Wikipedia where anybody involved in this dispute could be expected to read it" in & of itself shows the relevance of your behavior to this RfC: you seem to have expected 192 to read it; and indeed, so 192 did, & commented about it to me on my talk page . It wasn't me who interjected your incivility into this dispute: you did. I merely noted it. How much more do you want it to escalate? Both yours and 192's incivility should have stopped before, but since it didn't, it should stop now. --Yksin 07:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Escalate it to your heart's content, Yksin, though I repeat: your placing all of this here is distracting other editors from the RFC which you yourself created. While you may well get the last word in this petty squabble with me, it would be a Pyrrhic victory if it derailed the proceedings here. Jeffpw 12:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jeffpw response to Yksin

message: Assume good faith. First, no, I don't believe that Benjiboi intentionally acted in bad faith with this article. At the same time, having gone through the edit history, I can see why 192 feels that way. This edit is the one where he added two sources to back up the claim about Solomon's statement at the trial that, as 192 has pointed out, do not at all affirm what Solomon is purported to have said. It does look an awful lot like a deliberate insertion of factual errors not backed up by the cited sources. Nonetheless I wouldn't assume that established editor like Benjiboi had done so intentionally, whose good work on Wikipedia I've run across several times. Errors like that do happen accidentally in the course of lots of edits & also of very large edits, such as that diff indicates, where sources can get mixed up by accident. To me it's altogether possible that Benjiboi inadvertently mixed up his citations when he was making that large edit.  It seems much more productive to point out the error & ask him about it, rather than to jump to conclusion that he inserted an error intentionally. That said, of course facts need to be checked, & not only those facts added by any particular editor. I would prefer to get off the topic of any particular editors real or perceived offenses (I'm also talking about charges of incivility that I & others have made) & get on with where to go from here.
Two alternatives for where to go from here. Are there any other proposals of how to proceed from here to consider?  Here's the two we have so far:
# I stated below in my "goals" statement one means of changing the article, which is to start by moving extraneous material to other, more relevant articles, & to check thoroughly doublecheck the sources & facts with whatever remains, excising anything that can't be backed up by the sources.  And then we can reevaluate where we are from there.
# 192 has no proposed that we start by reverting back to the last version of the article before Benjiboi began editing.
NPOV. I agree pretty fully with what 192 said about what's relevant in this article -- ": both the Twinkie defense in the abstract and the urban legend of Dan White's Twinkie defense." I also appreciate the discussion of NPOV with regard to the "legend" aspect -- something that I missed what I said myself about the "legend" aspect -- that to be NPOV, this article needs to discuss the significant views published in reliable sources that describe the Twinkie defense purportedly put forth by Dan White's lawyers as a myth or legend; but also to discuss the significant views published in reliable sources that take the story of White's Twinkie defense at face value.  In 192's words, "Even the POV that White's Twinkie defense was presented to and accepted by the jury is relevant, even though our reliable sources indicate that this POV is mistaken, taking an urban legend for truth. Why is it relevant, if not true? Because the numbers of people who have believed it was true, and let it shape their perceptions of the judicial system, are significant."
On this matter, I want to mention that I did some digging about in a Lexis database yesterday for what law journals might say about the Twinkie defense, & found at least three law journals that describe the Twinkie or junk food aspect of White's defense as having been a minor supporting detail for the overall defense contention that White was suffering from depression (of which his consumption of junk food was just one symptom), & that the depression was the source of his claimed diminished capacity.  I found other law journals that tended to do as the popular media did -- take the Twinkie defense story at face value (i.e., Twinkies/junk food, not his depression, was the source of diminished capacity).  So here's more sources for the article.
But the main point is, yes: regarding the "myth" of Dan White's Twinkie defense, there are two sides: one which says it's a myth, urban legend, folkore, or a meme that reproduced itself with extraordinary success (well, that meme stuff is my original research, actually, which can't be included unless some reliable source that said it can be found), & the other side says that the Twinkie defense really is what White's defense consisted of.  Both sides, as 192 pointed out, need to have room in this article. And then the reader can decide which of the two claims is the correct one.
And then, since the meme -- regardless of whether based on myth or truth -- did take off, it continues to have currency in both popular culture & in legal discussion, as my bouncing about in legal journals proves.  So I agree that that's the big other part of the article. --Yksin 06:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reponse to [[#Statement by 192.250.34.161|192's statement]]

message: I think one of the first things we should do here is have each involved editor express their problems with the article, and what they want to see added or removed. Let's avoid referring to the other people involved, and just talk about the article itself. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Goals

message: Since I'm now involved, I'll contribute here. Goals that I see:
# Move superfluous material to other, more relevant articles such as Moscone-Milk assassinations and White Night Riots. This would include those portions of the article which don't discuss the Twinkie defense itself or items directly relevant to it, such as diminished capacity. At the very least this would include most of the "Background to assassinations" section.
#:And as mentioned above, we should add . Any information mentioned here about it should also be in the respective articles, since we are doing this summary-style. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed goals by Yksin

message: # Check the citations of all material that has been added since this version.  We know for a fact that at least one major claim was added with citations that did not support the claim; we cannot assume that was the only one.
## Even when the citations support the claim, we need to verify that the sources are reliable sources, and not merely private parties giving their own opinions.
## Since we are dealing with a matter -- the alleged first use of a "Twinkie defense" in the trial of Dan White -- where reliable sources have examined the evidence for and against it, and have judged it to be more urban legend than reality, any sources that are added to support a claim that it was real after all must show that they too have examined the evidence.  (An analogy to show why this position is needed:  The page on Tommy Hilfiger discusses and dismisses as an urban legend the claim that he expressed dismay on the Oprah Winfrey Show about blacks and Asians wearing his clothes.  If someone wanted to claim that Hilfiger's and Oprah's denials were false and that Hilfiger really had made such remarks, it would not be sufficient to attribute the claim to a source which simply told the original story with no questioning of its veracity.)
# Check the relevance of all material that has been added since this version.  Check specifically whether it is relevant to the Twinkie defense and sheds light on the Twinkie defense, or whether it is only relevant to something else, which is in turn relevant to the Twinkie defense.
## Be especially wary of anything which has been justified as "context" or "background".  Either an actual connection to the Twinkie defense supported by reliable sources can be made, or it can't.  Remember that original research includes "a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position."
## If material proves to be well-sourced and well-written, but not relevant to the subject of the Twinkie defense except through some other subject, we may examine the existing article for that other subject and see if the material can be transferred to that other article.
# Whatever standard for relevance is decided on, make sure that standard is consistently applied, to follow the principle of NPOV.  i.e., if it's decided that everything relevant to People vs. White is relevant here (a decision I am not recommending, only offering for argument) then the fact that Dan White killed himself less than two years after his release from prison is certainly as relevant, if not more, than the fact that a band out there named itself after two words spoken by a witness for the defense.
# Improve the references in popular culture section by removing those entries that don't tell us something about the Twinkie defense.  Merely telling us it appeared on an episode of one show or another tells us nothing except that the Twinkie defense has entered common folklore, and we do not need multiple examples to source that point.
# After all the above, carefully examine the article at that stage to see if anything is missing which should be there.  This includes discussion of Harvey Milk's homosexuality, but it must be remembered that discussion of Harvey Milk's homosexuality is not the goal.  The goal is a good article on the Twinkie defense. 
# See where to go from there. -- 192.250.34.161 19:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed goals by 192.250.34.161

message: For creation of straw polls to get an idea of where consensus might be forming, & where disputes still exist.
====Straw poll on alleged Solomon "junk food" testimony====
I would like to initiate a straw poll on about the statement in the People vs. Dan White section that says "Noted forensic psychiatrist and psychoneuroimmunologist George Solomon testified that with the effects of the junk food diet White had 'exploded' and was 'sort of on automatic pilot' at the time of the killings."  I propose that the sentence be removed because:
# The sources cited -- "Myth of the 'Twinkie' defense" & "The Martyrdom of George Moscone" -- do not back up the claim that Solomon said anything about junk food in his testimony, nor have we thus far been able to find any source which verifies a claim that Solomon testified about junk food. If such a source can be found, the statement can be added back at that time.
#the sources cited do not contain the quotations about White having "exploded" or being on "sort of on automatic pilot." Other sources exist which verify those quotes; if it's decided later that those quotations from Solomon's testimony are relevant, that portion of the sentence can be added back with the proper sources. --Yksin 18:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw polls

message: I would like to initiate a straw poll on about the statement in the People vs. Dan White section that says "Noted forensic psychiatrist and psychoneuroimmunologist George Solomon testified that with the effects of the junk food diet White had 'exploded' and was 'sort of on automatic pilot' at the time of the killings."  I propose that the sentence be removed because:
# The sources cited -- "Myth of the 'Twinkie' defense" & "The Martyrdom of George Moscone" -- do not back up the claim that Solomon said anything about junk food in his testimony, nor have we thus far been able to find any source which verifies a claim that Solomon testified about junk food. If such a source can be found, the statement can be added back at that time.
#the sources cited do not contain the quotations about White having "exploded" or being on "sort of on automatic pilot." Other sources exist which verify those quotes; if it's decided later that those quotations from Solomon's testimony are relevant, that portion of the sentence can be added back with the proper sources. --Yksin 18:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll on alleged Solomon "junk food" testimony

message: Note: As this comment seemed clearly related to the RfC, I've moved it there, to #Outside view from Measl. --Yksin 16:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note from the Outside loooking In 

message: Per discussion above, the article version as of 1 Oct 2007 has been placed in the Sandbox for verification & movement of material deemed to belong in other articles, to those articles. --Yksin 02:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Twinkie defense/Sandbox|Sandbox]]

message: Also per discussion above, the article is being reverted to the version as of 09:33, 31 May 2007. Work will continue on the article from that status.
Please use edit summaries to explain your edits when making them in order to help prevent confusion & conflict, & if disagreements do develop, please discuss them here on the talk page with civility & an assumption of good faith -- which generally works better than namecalling & edit warring. Thanks. --Yksin 02:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverting to version as of 31 May 2007

message: I'm adding this section for discussion of new sources that might be helpful in improving this article. --Yksin 22:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New sources 

message: A few days ago I mentioned Kenneth W. Salter's The Trial of Dan White (1991) as a possible source for more info on what was actually said at Dan White's trial.  I made an interlibrary loan request at the time, & received it a couple of days ago. I haven't read it yet, but I've looked at it: it's essentially a casebook that's suitable for study in a law school, but it's not a technical, lawyerspeak book & is suitable for a general audience too.  Mainly, it's a nearly complete transcript of the trial, in which the only stuff that's been edited out (according to the compiler) is repetitive testimony & the stuff that was kept away from jurors (such as conferences between attorneys & judge about what was admissible evidence, etc.).  So it's as complete as you're going to get of a full trial transcript short of visiting the courthouse yourself & paying megabucks for a complete transcript.  There's also questions for discussion, in a separate section of the book.  So, this will be an excellent reference for what exactly was truly said about junk food at trial, as well as what the other expert witnesses who testified on diminished capacity but did not mention junk food.  Since this book is not available online, but others may also want to see it, I encourage you to see if you can get it in your local library or through interlibrary loan. Here's its record at Worldcat. --Yksin 22:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Trial of Dan White by Salter (1991) 

message: I have just removed a number of lengthy quotations that were recently added to existing references.  Quotations can be worth including in references when seeing the exact phrasing of the cited source, or exact details in the cited source, can clarify the point that was being cited.  However, that isn't the case for any of these three quotations; they don't add anything to the understanding of the points in question. -- 192.250.34.161 14:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotations in references 

message: The intro to this article should make it clear that the twinkie defense is a myth - no one claimed twinkies made them do it, despite popular belief. So many people believe this is the case, that the first thing in the article should say it isn't.
216.57.220.63 22:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The twinkie defense as myth 

message: I've moved here the following items that were in the "References in popular culture" section.  I believe that some of them can still be integrated to show significance but it's going to have to be done carefully to avoid original research. -- 192.250.34.161 16:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia items removed from article 

message: I've just removed the following sentence:
:The "twinkie defense" was described in detail in Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Woodall, 304 F.Supp.2d 1364, 1377 n. 7 (S.D.Ga. 2003).
I removed it because:
* I'm not certain that it's even true; the only reference I can find that even suggests that the "twinkie defense" was described in Woodall was http://www.law.arizona.edu/journals/alr/ALR2005/vol472/Lewis%20Final%20Note.pdf, where Woodall and the "twinkie defense" are described in the same footnote but the connection is not spelled out, and Woodall is implied to be a case where genetic factors, rather than ingestion of any substance, were argued to be a causative element of the crime.
* Even if it's true, the sentence as given gives us no idea what role the description played -- minor, major, critical, for the defendants, for the plaintiff -- it does not enhance our understanding of the subject.
-- 192.250.34.161 16:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Woodall 

message: In the quote from "Myth of the 'Twinkie defense'", there is the line "dislike (understatement) of homosexuals."  Although "(understatement)" is in the quote from this article, I believe that it was added by Carol Pogash, the author of the article, to the quote from Herb Caen.  
To be clear: it appears that Mr. Caen said "dislike of homosexuals." and Ms. Pogash added "(understatement)."
This Wikipedia article claims to be quoting Mr. Caen, so the editorial comments of Ms. Pogash should not be included.
I did not remove the offending parenthetical because there is a note in the text not to.  Could somebody find out whether it belongs or not and proceed accordingly? 71.207.65.170 (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the "(understatement)" as it seems very unlikely that it is part of the original quote.  It is fairly obvious that it is an editorial comment by Ms. Pogash and should not be included in the quote.  If (and only if) somebody can demonstrate otherwise, it should be returned to the text.  Rugbyhelp (talk) 08:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pathetically easy to verify that "(understatement)" is in fact part of the original quote.  It's a hilarious commentary on the state of Wikipedia:  some self-righteous editor comes along, finds a correct quote, and without even attempting to verify it, turns it into an incorrect quote.  "I don't actually have any facts on my side," he says, "I am just altering direct quotes based on my idea of what's 'fairly obvious.'  However, I am the only one allowed to do this; if you want to restore the quote to the version that is actually supported by citations" (as the version which omits the parenthetical is not) "you must provide even more citations, and of course there is no reason to think I will accept them any more than I accepted those we already had."  Five seconds with Google allowed me to find a printed reference from 1979 which contains the Caen quote in its unmutilated form - oh, but I'm sure "Rugbyhelp" will inform us that it's "fairly obvious" that Carol Pogash must have gone specifically to that 1979 reference and copied their version of the quote without ever checking it against the original. -- 192.250.175.26 (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  (understatement) 

message: This bit seems problematic and not well supported by the article. In fact, what was referred to as the Twinkie defense was successful. An excusatory defense? I'm not sure what the phrasing should be, but I find the opening paragraphs rather misleading. It worked, it was derided by some in the media and seen as showing a biased result, and it resulted in changes in the legal process. Whether it is "improbable" or not seems to be a matter of opinion. Lot's of legal defenses are improbable. That doesn't seem to be the key to what this phrase means or its notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Improbable legal defense

message: This defence was characteristic of a time when all sorts of bizarre defences were being used. That time appeared to have passed. Shouldn't it be incorporated into a general article on that situation? Also while the rule now seems to be that this type of thing doesn't happen there are exceptions. See http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/7964673/us-man-claims-caffeine-insanity
Yeenar (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It was quite prominent in its time  and for years afterwards.  I see no need to merge. AnonMoos (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: General Article

message: I find it odd there is no mention of diabetes in this article, considering the widespread epidemic of diabetes in the modern century, and the prevalence of high sugary soft drinks, candies, candy bars, and other junk foods (such as twinkies) in the modern diet.  Many people who have become diabetic from this modern diet, do not know it... and even if they do, they unable to quit their addictions to this highly toxic food.
In a layman's term nutshell, diabetes works like this;  your brain does not have any fat or food stores in it, and so is highly affected by the amount of glucose in your blood.  When you eat something excessively sugary, or a food with a high glycemic index, your blood sugar spikes.  High blood sugar levels is damaging to the bodies cells, so your pancreas stops releasing blood sugar from your stored fats.  Your pancreas releases insulin, telling your body's cells to fix the problem, and take up more sugar.  You feel energized on a sugar high, until the glucose in your blood stream runs out, and then you crash... it takes quite a while for the pancreas to respond and start releasing stored energy again... the "sugar blues".  Your brain is not getting enough glucose, and starved for energy, it becomes hard, if not impossible, to make decisions.  Your judgement becomes extremely flawed and impaired.
Being and feeling fatigued is an awful state to be in, so you reach for another convenient sugary soft drink or snack to feel the high again.   Which works, but when it wears of again, you crash.  So you reach again for more soft drinks or sugary foods.  And the cycle loops in a vicious cycle.  Eventually your cells become so insulin resistance, you are diabetic.  It doesn't take long.... binging for a couple of months on soft drinks as a teenager will do it.
If you are diabetic, and you do not know it... while you are on a sugar low, your judgement and ability to function properly is drastically reduced and impaired.  Simple decisions become difficult.  Often your decisions are flawed.  You feel tired, fatigued, and can not concentrate.
One could argue that if someone was on a sugar low, and made very flawed decisions which lead to injury or a crime, that they were responsible because they drank or ate something which lead to that state or condition of impairment... similar to a drug user using drugs.  
The counter argument would be, that would be true if there were warning labels on these fake foods... that they impair judgment.  Obviously they are not, and the food industry needs to be held accountable for selling toxic fake foods with a high profit margin at the expense of the public's sanity, cognitive function, and health.
If you knew drugs or high amounts of sugar impaired your ability to function, and you did them anyway, you would be responsible.  However, there would be mitigating circumstances, such as your inability to quit... as drugs and sugar are highly addictive on their chemical effect on their brain.
Other diseases, and conditions, obviously, impair judgement and brain function.  The ancient roman legal system, upon which modern law is founded, makes an unjust assumption that the human brain is some how independent and apart from the body, and always functioning at a near optimal capability... and so every individual must be held to the highest moral standard for the accuracy of their judgements, at every moment...  which is just total hogwash.  The truth of the matter is the brain, is very affected, sensitive, and dependent upon the current environment and state of the human body in which it resides.  A body poisoned by toxic foods, infections, poisons, failing health conditions, and so on, is going to highly affect ones ability to think properly, straight, or even anywhere near optimal levels.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.11.248 (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: No Mention of Diabetes in Support of the Twinkie Defense

message: The article bears a  tag, so I will address the question of adequate sources that discuss and define the term rather than merely mention it, especially since there is so much myth associated. There is no question that the term is in usage. Two newspaper articles mentioned it one week before I initiated this thread. As for sources discussing the case in detail, a brief search yielded chronologically:
*Pepperdine Law Review 1987
*SF Gate 2003
*Book 2006
*Book 2010
*BBC News 2015
*The Crime Report 2017
I'm not going to make any immediate unilateral decision, but I think there is sufficient evidence of usage and adequate sources to remove the tag. BiologicalMe (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm going to remove it. Anyone could still take this to AfD if in doubt, but I don't think they'd get very far. --BDD (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neologism tag 

message: I'm concerned the first sentence in the lead is unnecessarily complicated and hard for a lay-reader to comprehend. Thoughts? It currently reads: ""Twinkie defense" is a derisive label for an improbable legal defense as commonly understood; it is perhaps also a sardonic label in reference to a secondary aspect of an actual legal defense, among the better informed, concerning the prospect of conflation in the minds of some future jury between a bad, sugary diet as evidence of declining psychological function and a sugar rush as actively exculpatory (due to the more of the same cognitive foibles that so quickly lead the common public to misunderstand the issue in the first place)." Eddie891  Talk Work  12:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead sentence