| Revision as of 01:09, 24 August 2007 editYksin (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,180 edits Request for comment: Twinkie defense content dispute← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:36, 20 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,311,118 editsm Archiving 21 discussion(s) to Talk:Twinkie defense/Archive 1, Talk:Twinkie defense/Archive 2, Talk:Twinkie defense/Archive 3) (botTag: Replaced | ||
| (124 intermediate revisions by 38 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header}} | |||
| {{WikiProject California|class=B|importance=Low}} | |||
| {{Banner holder |collapsed=yes|1= | |||
| {{LGBTProject | class=B}} | |||
| {{American English}} | |||
| {{WP Crime|class=b|}} | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B| | |||
| {{WikiProject California|importance=Low}} | |||
| == Change in Insanity Defense Laws== | |||
| {{WikiProject LGBT studies}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography||importance=Low}} | |||
| 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. | |||
| {{WikiProject Law|importance=Low}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Disability}} | |||
| :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. ] 00:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| }} | |||
| Oh, well then...my mistake, and good to know. I've certainly never done any research into Dan White, I just wrote a research paper about Hinckley and assumed that given the year there was a correlation. | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader = {{Talk archive}} | |||
| == Misinterpretation == | |||
| |algo = old(365d) | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 100K | |||
| 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. ] 10:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)<br /> | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 5 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| I've gone ahead and added the section. The reference is the Snopes urban legend page, which is already listed. ] 10:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| |counter = 3 | |||
| |archive = Talk:Twinkie defense/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| :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. -- ] 02:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| == Twinkie Image == | |||
| 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) ] 01:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :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. ] 05:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Done. ] 06:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I don't remember this part of that movie, and I've seen it dozens of times... | |||
| :My mistake, it was actually from ], which is filled with homages to My Cousin Vinny. ] 21:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == == | == == | ||
| Line 32: | Line 24: | ||
| "although the latter concept has yet to gain complete acceptance in the U.S. legal community." is hilarious. ] 07:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) | "although the latter concept has yet to gain complete acceptance in the U.S. legal community." is hilarious. ] 07:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) | ||
| ==No Mention of Diabetes in Support of the Twinkie Defense== | |||
| == LGBT? == | |||
| 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. - ] | |||
| :Just had a look at the article - its not as explicit as it once was. If you follow the links to ] and ], you'll have a better idea of how it is an LGBT issue. -] 06:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I'm just coming at this from the perspective of someone who had never heard of the case. It does make sense if you follow the links in the article, but I feel like it ought to have some mention of it in the actual article. I don't feel confident enough to actually put it in myself. -] | |||
| :Ah, gotcha. Yeah, I agree - in fact, the article used to make the connection more explicitely. Dunno what happened to that. -] 21:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Also, this article is related to gay rights because the ] is basically just a specific version of the Twinkie defense. These two articles should cross-reference eachother.--] | ] | ] 04:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Analogy == | |||
| 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? -- ] 15:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :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. -- ] 14:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Chewbacca Defense == | |||
| 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? ] 17:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I agree, that was a direct ref to the OJ trial. --] 21:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It might be worth keeping as a "See also", though. -- ] 22:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Relevance of Milk's homosexuality== | |||
| Regarding the assertion that Milk's homosexuality is important to note in this article because "it was because of his being openly gay that the murders occured and allegedly the reason the defense was employed." | |||
| #It's a matter of opinion that Milk's being gay was the reason the murder occurred. Admittedly, it's a very widely held opinion (and indeed, my personal opinion is that it was at the very least a significant contributing factor in White's not stopping with Moscone, but rather moving on to Milk also). But it's still an opinion, so I'd have to object to a Misplaced Pages article assuming it as a fact. The immediate precipitating factor was that Moscone and Milk were blocking his re-entry to the board. Moscone was not gay. A friend of White's has quoted him as later admitting that he wanted to shoot Carol Ruth Silver and Willie Brown too. Obviously, neither of them was gay. But they ''were'' both instrumental in blocking him from getting back on the board, just like Milk and Moscone were. So it's easy to put forth the argument that even though White was personally homophobic, his specific reason for ''killing'' people was political opposition, not the sexual orientation. | |||
| #And even more importantly here . . . I've never seen a single reference that suggests the ''reason'' the defense team chose for the diminished capacity defense was that Milk was gay. If that were true, I agree that would make the point relevant in this article. (And even then, it would need to be expounded upon in the article more than just the two word addition.) But there definitely needs to be a reliable source attribution before the article accepts that suggestion as true. To be honest, I'm not even sure that I follow how that suggestion even makes sense. What if Milk had not been gay? What if (just for the sake of example) he was straight and thus there was no argument that White had killed him solely for political reasons as indicated above? How/why would that cause his defense team to not try to used diminished capacity as his defense? | |||
| If there is a ] reference that discusses legal reasons why Milk's homosexuality might have made a diminished capacity defense more suitable, then that source should be cited and the concept fully explored in this article. Without that, though, there is nothing that indicates Milk's homosexuality is relevant to ''this'' specific article about this type of legal defense. It seems to me that it was White's best play regardless of Milk's sexuality. ] 03:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Upon thinking about it some more, I actually can see a compelling argument for relevance given the widespread belief (as evidenced by the riots) that defense would not have actually ''worked'' had it not been for Milk's homosexuality. As I say above, I can't see that it affects the decision to try it, but clearly many felt and feel that homophobia on the part of the jurors made them more willing to buy it than they might have been otherwise. So that is valid point. But still, it's a point that would need to made in full in the article, not just with the two-word "openly gay" addition in front of Milk's name. ] 03:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Generally agreed. I've tried to flesh out the section but not sure I've captured the "old boy network" idea that White was a former police officer and firefighter and was generally ostracized as a conservative fringe by the newly liberal board that had just taken control of the SF Board of Supes. San Francisco had just turned to district elections so each district voted for residents of their areas to represent them. | |||
| ::In the trial, (not sure if this info fits or is useful) it was pointed out that a cop or firefighter had unlocked a window or opened a door so (former-employee) White could enter with a gun. ] 21:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::"a cop or firefighter had unlocked a window or opened a door so (former-employee) White could enter with a gun"? That's a rather powerful assertion of wrongdoing, accusing some unknown party of premeditated assistance to homicide. Where is your citation? -- ] 15:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not writing the book so haven't dug through the trial transcripts or newspaper accounts of the trial, as I've stated "not sure if this info fits or is useful." If someone wants to dig for it then go for it by all means. ] 23:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hi, I realized that the above statement "a cop or firefighter had unlocked a window or opened a door so (former-employee) White could enter with a gun" makes less sense unless you know that the assassinations occurred in San Francisco's City Hall and that all visitors had to go through a security check point and Dan White would not have been allowed through with a gun. The windows that were accessible from the street level were secured and, I believe, the only folks who had access to the window that was unlocked was police and firemen. White was both a former cop and fireman. ] 23:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And from that you are making your own ] that the only possible reason someone could have opened that window was so that Dan White could get in that way. -- ] 14:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Mwelch, 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. Benjiboi keeps showing that he is less interested in the facts than in pushing his agenda by referring to the "atmosphere of why "twinkie defense" worked", ignoring the fact that '''it didn't'''. There is no need for the material he keeps trying to add specifying what the White Night Riots consisted of; that is what the article ] is for. There is ''absolutely'' no need for the material he keeps adding to the References in popular culture section, which I will quote here: | |||
| :::] is an award-winning ensemble play by Emily Mann chronicling the case of the People vs. Dan White which is cited to law students as one of the leading examples of a miscarriage of justice. White assassinated openly gay San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk and San Francisco mayor George Moscone in November 1978. The play has been made into a movie as well. | |||
| ::What does this material do? | |||
| ::* It repeats already-covered basics of the case, namely, that White killed Milk and Moscone and Milk was openly gay. | |||
| ::* It tells us that the play is award-winning and has been made into a movie, which is of no relevance since the play is not the subject of this article and the ''subject'' of the play is not even the subject of this article. | |||
| ::* It pushes Benjiboi's agenda by volunteering the (uncited) claim that "the People vs. Dan White ... is cited to law students as one of the leading examples of a miscarriage of justice." At least I hope that the sentence is supposed to mean that it's the ''case'' being cited as a miscarriage of justice, rather than the play. Who cites the case to law students this way? Is it at least people who get the basic facts of the case correct, such as that the argument that most people ''think'' was accepted either gullibly or corruptly by a jury was in fact not even presented to the jury? | |||
| ::What does this material '''not''' do? | |||
| ::* It doesn't say a single damn thing about the Twinkie defense. Which, I regret that we must remind some people, is the subject of the article. | |||
| ::If Benjiboi wants to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the Moscone-Milk killings and the events around them, he could easily start by finding reliable sources for ]. If he is merely trying to push an agenda, however, he will keep trying to push irrelevant material into ''this'' article. -- ] 15:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::He's certainly made his agenda clear now. -- ] 19:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes my clear agenda has been and remains a good article. You insisted that Milk's homosexuality had little or no relevance and because of your repeated deletions I have provided numerous evidence that you were indeed mistaken. Gutting out material you are not comfortable with or willing to allow for whatever reasons can be done on website or blog or articles you own and publish.] 21:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::''Yes my clear agenda has been and remains turning this into ].'' There, fixed that for you. How many times does it need to be said? '''This is the article about the Twinkie defense. It is not the article about the Moscone-Milk killings. It is not the article about the Dan White trial. It is not the article about the White Night Riots.''' These things should be mentioned here '''only as they are relevant to the Twinkie defense.''' What part of this concept do you not grasp? | |||
| :::::Your citations are shit and they only further show that you don't '''give a shit''' about a good article. Here, here's an example: "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." This is almost identical to a sentence that was edited out of the article months ago because it had nothing to do with the Twinkie defense; the phrase "with the effects of the junk food diet" was edited in by Benjiboi. Since this argues, contrary to what our RSes on the subject say, that the defense actually ''did'' argue that the junk food diet caused an abnormal state of mind, and that it was ''Solomon'', in addition to or instead of Blinder, who offered that supposed testimony, we'd better have some damn good citations to back that up. And let's look at what citations Benjiboi offers: | |||
| :::::*{{cite web | |||
| | last =Temoshok | |||
| | first =Lydia R. | |||
| | coauthors =Gail Ironson | |||
| | title=George F. Solomon, MD Psychoneuroimmunology Pioneer | |||
| | publisher=] | |||
| | date=Fall 2001, Vol 12, No. 3 (PDF part 1) | |||
| | url= | |||
| http://www.psychosomatic.org/media_ctr/media_newsletter.htm | |||
| | accessdate=2007-08-10}} ''(or at least that seems to be the citation Benjiboi '''meant''', even though his poor reference editing actually cites the edit to the Carol Pogash article from the San Francisco Chronicle)'' | |||
| :::::* {{cite web | |||
| | last=Gazis-Sax | |||
| | first=Joel | |||
| | title=The Martyrdom of Mayor George Moscone | |||
| | publisher=Tales From Colma | |||
| | date=1996 | |||
| | url=http://www.notfrisco.com/colmatales/moscone/mosc3.html | |||
| | accessdate=2007-08-10}} | |||
| :::::Let's even overlook for now the fact that "Tales From Colma", a site that gets just 250 Google hits, shows no signs of being an ]. Does ''either'' source support Benjiboi's inserted claim that George Solomon's "automatic pilot" testimony attributed White's state of mind to "the effects of the junk food diet"? Not only does it not do that, '''neither source mentions Solomon's "automatic pilot" testimony at all!!!''' | |||
| :::::Benjiboi makes condescending reference to "Gutting out material you are not comfortable with or willing to allow for whatever reasons can be done on website or blog or articles you own and publish." Well, Benjiboi, when YOU have material that, despite being dressed up with what ''look like'' actual citations, is actually supported by ''no reliable sources'', you can put '''that''' "on website or blog or articles you own and publish." If you try to put it on Misplaced Pages, it will be "gutted" for the very good reason that it's not up to Misplaced Pages standards. | |||
| :::::The same goes for when you try to shoehorn in material that is '''unrelated''' to the actual subject and claim it belongs there just because you can make a ''chain'' of connections (i.e., "''Execution of Justice''" is about "People vs. Dan White" and "People vs. Dan White" is where "the Twinkie defense" allegedly originated and therefore "''Execution of Justice''" belongs in even though it has nothing to say about "the Twinkie defense"; "retaliatory police attack in the Elephant Walk Bar" came in response to "riot at City Hall" and "riot at City Hall" came in response to "sentence awarded to Dan White" and Dan White was supposedly got off by the "Twinkie defense" and therefore "retaliatory police attack in the Elephant Walk Bar" belongs in even though it has nothing to say about "the Twinkie defense".) How many times does it have to be said? This is the article about the "Twinkie defense", and it is not about '''anything else''', '''except''' as it is relevant to that subject. -- ] 15:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I've asked for other's to look at the article for opinions. I will again state that the Twinkie defense was accepted because Milk was gay/gay activist. Because of the perceived injustice the White Night Riots happened and that was covered in a summary pointing to the main article. No one has disputed that Twinkie defense started anywhere but with the people v. White case, if you think that is true then please cite sources to support that material. If you think that Twinkie defense had nothing to do with Dan White then please provide resources to support that. ] 17:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::"I will again state that the Twinkie defense was accepted because Milk was gay/gay activist." And you will again mark yourself as trying to push propaganda and lies, because ''the Twinkie defense was not presented to the jury, much less accepted.'' Just because you ''prefer'' the popular myth where a cynical defense team said "Junk food made him do it!" and a homophobic jury said "That's a pitiful excuse but an excuse is all we need!" and rubber-stamped it, it '''will not change the fact''' that the defense team '''never said''' "junk food made him do it!" | |||
| :::::::You've done your best to cover up that fact. I've already documented how you falsely attributed to George Solomon specific claims about the "effects of the junk food diet" on Dan White and added ''false citations'' which only said that George Solomon had testified at White's trial, and in no way supported your false claims that Solomon said one word about White's diet. Do you have anything to say to justify that brazen act of falsification? | |||
| :::::::Apparently not, because you go ahead and engage in ''more'' acts of falsification. "No one has disputed that Twinkie defense started anywhere but with the people v. White case, if you think that is true then please cite sources to support that material. If you think that Twinkie defense had nothing to do with Dan White then please provide resources to support that." Thank you for confessing that you have absolutely no answer to my ''real'' challenges and have to set up straw men instead. No one has disputed that the myth of the Twinkie defense started anywhere but People vs. White, '''including me'''. No one has claimed that "Twinkie defense had nothing to do with Dan White", '''including me'''. What has been disputed and what you have been ''unable to defend'' is the idea that ''anything and everything'' which is related to People vs. White belongs in this article even though this article isn't ]. | |||
| :::::::Is it possible that the jury was secretly biased towards White and against Milk for homophobia and/or other reasons and thus accepted defense arguments that they shouldn't have accepted including the primary thrust of the actual defense case, that White was in a state of diminished capacity due to depression? Yes, it's possible. Would the arguments (those arguments coming from RSes, that is) both for and against that theory belong on a page about Dan White? Yes. About Harvey Milk? Yes. About People vs. White? Yes. About the Twinkie defense? '''No'''. Only the fact that the ''perception'' of the jury being secretly homophobic and biased was undoubtedly a factor in people ''believing'' the untrue urban legend that "junk food made him do it" was offered or accepted as a defense, is relevant to this article. Why don't you try responding to ''that'', instead of cravenly "standing up to" a straw man you set up yourself of "Twinkie defense had nothing to do with Dan White"? -- ] 14:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Indent reset. It's obvious you have a lot of experience with[REDACTED] and as such you should know better than to respond to other editors the way you have done to me as well as mass deleting material you believe isn't valid to this article. Because of your edits the article has been protected so I'm not able to edit it either and thus not able to reconfirm the citations for Solomon. Having stated that it does seem, at least on surface, that one or more is missing from my original research that would answer your accusations of me presenting falsehoods. I will also point out that you vehemently claimed that Milk's being gay had/has no place in this article and had nothing to do with Twinkie defense - all of which seems to have been shown to contradict your assertions. ] 20:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Article updated with references to clarify the extent of White conservativism and Milk's being openly gay and relevance to the subject. I didn't feel giving a lot of details about Moscone was needed nor did I cover the post-trial epilogue of White or his suicide. Another area that might warrant inclusion is the teaching of the People v. White case to law students as a notable miscarriage of justice. Not sure it's worth the effort though. ] 06:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Gay panic defense and cleaning up the "in popular culture" section == | |||
| 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. | |||
| 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. | |||
| 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. | |||
| 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. | |||
| 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 "]", 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 ], but I think this can be done. -- ] 16:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| == Request for comment: Twinkie defense content dispute == | |||
| 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. | |||
| {{RFCsoc|Request for comment: Twinkie defense content dispute|Content dispute about relevance of background details to article's subject; reliabilty of sources. Article went into full protection on Aug 22 due to edit warring. Relevant policies include ], ], ], ], ].}} | |||
| 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. | |||
| ''This article RfC is being initiated by {{User|Yksin}} per the ]. Please see ], particularly the section on ], for information about this process.'' | |||
| 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. | |||
| === Summary of dispute === | |||
| * '''{{User|192.250.34.161}}''' maintains that much of the background information added to the article, particularly by ], about the ], about the ], and to the "References in popular culture" section is irrelevant to the subject of the article. 192.250.34.161 maintains that Benjiboi's edits inaccurately represent as being true the popular media-driven myth that ]'s evasion of a first degree murder conviction was based upon a "Twinkie defense." 192.250.34.161 maintains that ] has intentionally manipulated sources in order to prove this inaccurate claim. 192.250.34.161 has stated that " Milk's homosexuality is relevant to this article, up to a point" because perceived homophobia on the part of the jury in Dan White's trial "made more prone to believe that the 'Twinkie defense' had actually been offered as the purported reason, even though the facts show it was not." I.e., according to 192.250.34.161: the Twinkie defense was never used -- it was a myth created by the media. | |||
| * '''{{User|Benjiboi}}''' has sought feedback at ] and in recent statements has indicated willingness to trim extraneous background information from the article. Benjiboi continues to assert that the "the Twinkie defense was accepted because Milk was gay/gay activist" and maintains that 192.250.34.161 "vehemently claimed that Milk's being gay had/has no place in this article." | |||
| * Benjiboi as well as other editors have warned 192.250.34.161 about violations of ]. | |||
| 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. | |||
| ====Disclaimer by Yksin==== | |||
| As initiator of this RfC, I have strived to be as neutral as possible in describing the dispute, while still getting across the gist of what the dispute is about. My apologies if I've erred or left anything pertinent out. I hope the parties to the dispute will make more complete statements of their positions below -- with ], please. I don't have time to write my own statement now, but will later. | |||
| 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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ====Relevant discussion==== | |||
| == Neologism tag == | |||
| Beside the article talk page, discussion relevant to this dispute can be found at: | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| The article bears a {{tp|neologism}} 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: | |||
| === Statements by editors previously involved in dispute === | |||
| * | |||
| ''Please use subheaders for different statements, and use ]. Please do not respond to statements here; instead, use the discussion section below.''' | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| 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. ] (]) 16:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| === Statements by outside observers === | |||
| :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. --] (]) 18:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ''Please use subheaders for different statements, and use ]. Please do not respond to statements here; instead, use the discussion section below.''' | |||
| ==Snotty == | |||
| === Discussion === | |||
| 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. --] (]) 00:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Lead sentence == | |||
| 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)." ] <small>''<sup> ]</sup> <sub>]</sub>'' </small> 12:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ''Please use subheaders for different subjects;, and use ].''' | |||
Latest revision as of 14:36, 20 January 2025
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Twinkie defense article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
 | Other talk page banners | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"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)
No Mention of Diabetes in Support of the Twinkie Defense
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)
Neologism tag
The article bears a {{neologism}} 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:
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)
- 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)
Snotty
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)
Lead sentence
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 Work 12:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
- B-Class California articles
- Low-importance California articles
- WikiProject California articles
- B-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
- WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
- B-Class Crime-related articles
- Low-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- B-Class law articles
- Low-importance law articles
- WikiProject Law articles
- B-Class Disability articles
- WikiProject Disability articles