Talk:Twinkie defense

Change in Insanity Defense Laws

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)

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.

Misinterpretation

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)

I've gone ahead and added the section. The reference is the Snopes urban legend page, which is already listed. Bullzeye 10:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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) Howdoesthiswo 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. Benjiboi 05:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Benjiboi 06:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

My Cousin Vinny

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)

"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)

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. - 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)

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. -User:ZachPruckowski

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)

Also, this article is related to gay rights because the gay panic defense is basically just a specific version of the Twinkie defense. These two articles should cross-reference eachother.--SeanQuixote | talk | my contribs 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? -- Antaeus Feldspar 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. -- Antaeus Feldspar 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? Kai MacTane 17:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that was a direct ref to the OJ trial. --Diogenes00 21:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It might be worth keeping as a "See also", though. -- Antaeus Feldspar 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."

1. 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 Wikipedia 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.
2. 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 reliable source 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. Mwelch 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. Mwelch 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. Benjiboi 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? -- 192.250.34.161 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. Benjiboi 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. Benjiboi 23:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

And from that you are making your own deduction that the only possible reason someone could have opened that window was so that Dan White could get in that way. -- 192.250.34.161 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 White Night Riots 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:

Execution of Justice 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 Wikipedia's coverage of the Moscone-Milk killings and the events around them, he could easily start by finding reliable sources for White Night Riots. If he is merely trying to push an agenda, however, he will keep trying to push irrelevant material into this article. -- 192.250.34.161 15:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

He's certainly made his agenda clear now. -- 192.250.34.161 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.Benjiboi 21:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes my clear agenda has been and remains turning this into The Moscone-Milk Killings, Part II: Because This Article Shouldn't Be About The Twinkie Defense When It Could Be A Rant Instead. 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:

• Temoshok, Lydia R. (Fall 2001, Vol 12, No. 3 (PDF part 1)). "George F. Solomon, MD Psychoneuroimmunology Pioneer". American Psychosomatic Society. Retrieved 2007-08-10. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) (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)
• Gazis-Sax, Joel (1996). "The Martyrdom of Mayor George Moscone". Tales From Colma. Retrieved 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 reliable source. 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 Wikipedia, it will be "gutted" for the very good reason that it's not up to Wikipedia 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. -- 192.250.34.161 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. Benjiboi 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 People vs. White.

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"? -- 192.250.34.161 14:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Indent reset. It's obvious you have a lot of experience with wikipedia 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. Benjiboi 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. Benjiboi 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.

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)

Request for comment: Twinkie defense content dispute

This article RfC is being initiated by Yksin (talk · contribs) per the Dispute resolution process. Please see WP:RFC, particularly the section on Request comment on articles, for information about this process.

Summary of dispute

• 192.250.34.161 (talk · contribs) maintains that much of the background information added to the article, particularly by Benjiboi, about the Moscone-Milk assassinations, about the White Night Riots, 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 Dan White's evasion of a first degree murder conviction was based upon a "Twinkie defense." 192.250.34.161 maintains that Benjiboi has intentionally manipulated sources in order to prove this inaccurate claim. 192.250.34.161 has stated that "[Harvey] 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 [observers] more prone to believe that the 'Twinkie defense' had actually been offered as the purported reason, even though the facts show it was not." [1] I.e., according to 192.250.34.161: the Twinkie defense was never used -- it was a myth created by the media.
• Benjiboi (talk · contribs) has sought feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Twinkie defense and in recent statements [2] [3] 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" [4] and maintains that 192.250.34.161 "vehemently claimed that Milk's being gay had/has no place in this article." [5]
• Benjiboi as well as other editors have warned 192.250.34.161 about violations of WP:CIVIL.

Disclaimer by Yksin

As initiator of this RfC, I have striven 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 civility, please. I don't have time to write my own statement now, but will later.

Relevant discussion

Beside the article talk page, discussion relevant to this dispute can be found at:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Twinkie defense
• User talk:192.250.34.161#Twinkie defense edits
• User talk:192.250.34.161#Your ongoing incivility
• User talk:Yksin#Twinkie defense
• User talk:Jeffpw#Civility & User:192.250.34.161 (re: Twinkie defense)
• User talk:Benjiboi#Twinkie defense

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

Please use subheaders for different statements, and use edit summaries. Please do not respond to statements here; instead, use the discussion section below.'

Statement by Ikiroid

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[6]. 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)

Statement by 192.250.34.161

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:

1. 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
2. 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 [sic] 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.[7] 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)

Statements by outside observers

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, Jeffpw (talk · contribs), 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, Jeffpw (talk · contribs), 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)

Discussion

Please use subheaders for different subjects, and use edit summaries.'

Jeffpw response to Yksin

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)

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 [8]. 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)

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)

Reponse to 192's statement

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:

1. 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.
2. 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)

Blinder's and Solomon's testimony at trial

Source: Scallen, Eileen A. and William E. Wiethoff. (April 1998). "The Ethos of Expert Witnesses: Confusing the Admissibility, Sufficiency and Credibility of Expert Testimony." 49 Hastings Law Journal 1143 (University of California, Hastings, College of Law).

This law school journal analyzes the expert testimony in the White trial as a case study for their overall topic of the use of expert testimony in criminal trials. There was a total of five psychiatrists testing for the defense: Dr. Martin Blinder, Dr. Solomon, Dr. Jones, Dr. Delman, and Dr. Lunde (full names of the latter four are not given in the article). Only Dr. Blinder seems to have made mention of junk food in his testimony. Short of a full trial transcript, a good source on what was actually said at trial might be what the authors of this article used, Kenneth W. Salter, The Trial of Dan White (1991). I've made a request for interlibrary loan of this book.

On the overall defense strategy:

This expert testimony was the source of one of the trial's most memorable images and one of the most reviled examples of "junk science" - the "Twinkie defense," as the press referred to the testimony of Dr. Martin Blinder. This defense expert testified that when White became depressed, he ate large amounts of junk food - Twinkies, Coca-Cola, etc. Moreover, Dr. Blinder testified that when "susceptible individuals" like White consume "large quantities of what we call junk food, high sugar content food with lots of preservatives can precipitate anti-social and even violent behavior." However, what is now forgotten is that the defense did not rely solely on the "Twinkie" theory; four other psychiatrists also testified for the defense, uniformly agreeing that White suffered from depression to such a degree that he possessed diminished capacity at the time of the killing and could not premeditate or deliberate. (p. 1161)

I'm only including info on all of what they said about Solomon's & part of what they said about Blinder's testimony (not all of which was about junk food), but the article also discusses the testimony of the other three psychiatrists who acted as expert witnesses for the defense. I'm including everything they say about Solomon's testimony because one of the issues in the article right now is "what did Solomon really say? Did he say anything in his testimony about junk food?" The answer from this article seems to be no, or at least that it cannot be claimed he did based on this article, which is the most detailed source I've seen so far on what the defense's expert witnesses testified. From this article, it seems that only Blinder of the five psychiatrists talked about junk food, or at least he was the only one who seems to have identified White's consumption of junk food as having contributed to White's supposed diminished capacity.

Solomon's testimony on direct examination:

Later, during direct examination, Dr. Solomon invoked terms of his art - "a uni-polar depressive reaction" - to define Dan White's mental state, as well as explaining analogously "in laymen's terms" during cross-examination that the defendant "was sort of on automatic pilot" during the shootings. Without qualification, Dr. Solomon testified that Dan White "did not have a mental capacity, to maturely and meaningfully premeditate and deliberate." (p. 1162)

Later in the article:

The expert witnesses properly stressed the issue of causation, yet to a remarkable degree they also usurped the jurors' prerogative to decide matters of guilt and innocence. Ironically, Dr. Blinder, the now famous author of the "Twinkie" defense, opposed this use of psychiatric testimony.... Nonetheless, every expert witness for the defense contributed testimony vouching for the dynamic quality of emotional stability.

Dr. Blinder opined on direct examination that brutal changes in Dan White's world diminished his capacity for criminal guilt: "If it were not for all the tremendous pressures on him the weeks prior to the shooting, and perhaps if it were not for the ingestion of this aggravating factor, this junk food...I suspect that these homicides would not have taken place."

Turning this argument inside out on cross-examination, Dr. Solomon directed jurors' attention to the permanence in Dan White's behavior. His otherwise suspicious reloading of his gun after shooting George Moscone was explained away as "the sort of automatic action that he had always been taught." And yet, Dr. Solomon testified, Dan White "was out of control and in an unreasonable state" during the shooting as opposed to before. Asserting both poles of permanence and change, Dr. Solomon could be said to have exhausted the rhetorical alternatives but, more likely, he was responding less than adroitly to the pressure of cross-examination. (p. 1163)

I emailed this article to myself from LexisNexis, which is one of the databases my local university subscribes to. Law libraries might also have this journal, & there's also interlibrary loan. --Yksin 07:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

See also chapter 6 of Minds on Trial: Great Cases in Law and Psychology by Ewing and McCann (ISBN 019518176X). You can read this on Google Books, though you might need a Google account. On page 76, it specifies that only two expert witnesses mentioned junk food -- Blinder and the prosecution's expert witness, Dr. Ronald Levy. Based on this, I think the claim that Solomon did comment on the effects of junk food should be removed now. No source has been presented that says he did. A clear error of fact should not have to wait until September 1.

The Ewing & McCann book also quotes at length from the closing arguments, on page 77. These are the "two lukewarm paragraphs" that the Chronicle article refers to. The quotation shows that White's attorney did, in fact, float the idea that "preservatives and sugar... causes you to alter your personality somehow, or causes you to act in an aggressive manner". The reference was brief and heavily hedged, and there's no evidence that the jury paid any attention to it at all; Ewing and McCann call it "insignificant". Still, it was there, and we should say that. Quoting his actual words would be a good idea. —Celithemis 08:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the great info! Unfortunately the Google Books version of this book only has pp. 69-70 of the Dan White chapter available for viewing, & it's not searchable at Amazon; but it's available from a number of libraries for interlibrary loan (follow the "Find this book in a library" link from the Google Books page) for anyone who wants to verify what Celithemis just wrote. Celithemis: do I understand that the book includes Dr. Levy's exact words? If not, maybe Kenneth Salter's book The Trial of Dan White will include that quote, since it apparently quotes extensively from the trial transcript.

The pages of this chapter that are" available for viewing through Google Books include the authors' statement that the popular characterization of Dan White's defense (as recounted by Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, among others) as having been based on his mental incapacity as a result of eating junk food "while popular and widely recounted, is a myth" and that "the 'Twinkie defense,' as described by most, was never raised by Dan White or anyone else associated with his case" (p. 70).

I agree that the statement in the article claiming that Solomon commented on the effects of junk food should be removed now. --Yksin 15:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

In line with 192's issues of inclusion, I don't think every testimony should be included in the article. The relevant information in the resources above needs to be there, and perhaps an explanation that the Twinkie Defense was not put forth by the majority of the expert witnesses. In any case, these resources are a great improvement for the article. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 16:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: You're now editing the article to conform to the demands of an anonymous IP????? It may take me a while to wrap my mind around that concept. Please tell me that I have misunderstood your meaning. I am desperately trying to assume good faith here. Jeffpw 16:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for Ikiroid, obviously, so I'll just speak for myself on this. What I'm doing is agreeing with 192 that only that which is relevant to the article's subject, which is the Twinkie defense, should be in this article. For my part, I'm not acceding to "the demands of an anonymous IP" -- using my own reasoning, I'm finding that much of his/her reasoning is persuasive. But deciding what is or is not relevant is a matter for everyone to decide through this discussion which is about trying to resolve disputes and create a consensus. If you disagree about what 192 or any other editor here considers relevant or irrelevant to this article, then by all means disagree, & explain your reasoning. It may be that you'll be able to persuade one or more of us to your view, at least if you can base your arguments on factual information about the article's topic itself, instead of on your feelings about this anon IP editor. --Yksin 17:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I am not bowing to any demands. I happen to agree with some of 192's assertions regarding this article's scope. The fact that they write as an IP does not make any difference to me. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

<crosspost with Jeffpw during edit conflict. This is an answer to Ikiroid's post above.> No, it may not be necessary from the article to quote from any testimony or other statements at trial except that which directly discuss junk food. But, a summation of what other expert witnesses based on accounts from reliable published sources should be used. Also I would recommend that people go to the Google Books site & do a search on "Twinkie defense" -- there are some sources which do go into some depth about what the expert witnesses actually said, that do seem to support the view that the Twinkie/junk food material, if not the whole of the defense's "diminished capacity" strategy, played a major role even if it was only Blinder who explicated it. I found one account from a book about the press that says something about an attorney buddy of one of White's attorneys referring him to a book about orthmolecular theories of crime causation, & that that supposedly had something to do with why the junk food testimony got introduced in the first place. One source discusses how the emphasis at trial on psychiatric/psychological causes for White's behavior seemed to amount to an unspoken agreement by prosecution & defense teams to depoliticize the trial, particularly the aspects having to do with disagreements between Moscone/Milk & White about gay-related issues in the city. (Though this may not be directly relevant to the Twinkie defense article, it would certainly be relevant to the one on the Moscone-Milk assassinations.) This may be the same source that criticizes the prosecution for its failure to attack the junk food aspects of the diminished capacity defense, in spite of Blinder's "he was so depressed that the junk food binges exacerbated his irrationality" theory being based on highly questionable junk science. Anyway, I don't have time delineate the sources right now, but may be able to get to it in the next few days. Better if other people could take a look too. --Yksin 16:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You can read more of the book than that online. Don't try to scroll to it, just "Search in this book" for a relevant keyword like "twinkies" and click on the pages in the search results. (This usually works for getting Google Books to cough up more content.) It does quote Levy's brief response to a question from the prosecutor about junk food.

I'm not saying we should quote the whole two paragraphs of Schmidt's closing where he talks about sugar, but quoting the most relevant bits will make our picture of the defense much clearer. I do agree with 192's concerns about inclusion up to a point, but how junk food was discussed at White's trial is much more centrally relevant to the article topic than, say, details about Milk's career. I think we can go into some detail, within reason of course. —Celithemis 20:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I went on to google books and I couldn't find anything except for short glossary definitions of "Twinkie Defense." Am I typing in the wrong thing in the search box? Anyway, I don't think we should dive into the LGBT politics too far here—mentioning the victim's homosexuality and the defendant's homophobia is good, but we need to stay in line with the Twinkie Defense itself. The Twinkie Defense was not an LGBT issue per se, as you have mentioned above. It did have repercussions that affected the gay community of San Francisco, but the defense itself was on psychological grounds.

On another note—due to all of the research being conducted here, I'm wondering if we should link this discussion on the page should be linked or moved to Talk:Moscone-Milk assassinations. As it stands, a lot of the information here concerns that and not Twinkie Defense. It bothers me that Moscone-Milk assassinations isn't linked in the article, except for a small spot in "See Also." The first thing under "History" should be

Main article: Moscone-Milk assassinations

Shall I change that? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Goals

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)

Proposed goals by Yksin

Since I'm now involved, I'll contribute here. Goals that I see:

1. 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.
2. Re: the Popular culture section, I agree with 192's suggestion earlier on this talk page) that "we keep only those items which actually show how the myth of the 'Twinkie defense' is perceived in the public consciousness." There's a lot of cruft here presently.
3. Reference check. Anything that cannot be backed by the cited sources needs to be removed or rewritten to reflect what the sources really say. E.g., as 192 has pointed out, this sentence -- "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." -- is not in any way backed up by the two sources cited in its support.
4. Then see where to go from there. --Yksin 17:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)