Talk:Dustin Diamond

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Possible HOAX spread regarding Death of Dustin Diamond[edit]

Dustin Diamond is a loser. Added by user: Gisvlasta

On March 23rd 2007 user with IP edited the article and claimed that Dustin Diamong died earlier this particular day. User wrote that 'Dustin Diamond was found dead in his home in Port Washington, Wisconsin of what is currently beleived to be a cerebral aneurysm'. However no citation was provided. Then user Dan102001 removed the 'death' part of the article. I did some research on the internet and I found no information in any official news website regarding his death. However I found a lot of references in old posts in forums regarding his death. It seems that Dustin Diamond has cosumed 3 of his 7 lifes so far. So I decided to revert the article in to its former state.

It seems that there are a lot of hoaxes regarding his life and probably some of them are spread by himself.

I think it is best to update the article only if citation to a trusted news source will be provided.

The page is protected right now with the death rumor up there, somebody should probably change that Profonikz 23:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Today, I tracked down a bit about his death hoaxes and posted one that gives some explanation about what was done and how. It was a good faith paragraph and I hope everyone agrees that it can stay and perhaps even quell some of the nonsense about any future demises of His Screechness. For the record, I am of the opinion that Diamond himself may be behind some of this, and I would like to see a stop placed to this behavior. If Wikipedia can assist in that, then I'm even more in favor of it. In the meantime, I think the subsection is a fairly reliable statement regarding just one of these sudden visits by the grim reaper.Sipfan 20:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Added by user: Gisvlasta.

Totaly agree with the HOAX section in article. Nice job

There was the Law and Order: Criminal Intent episode that I'm sure fueled the talk of his death. The character portrayed on the show is so obviously formed with Screech in mind. That episode is what made me look to see if he was still alive. (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments about Kimberly Locke and other Celebrity Fit Club[edit]

why no mention of all these shananigans at the Celebrity Fit Club - he stated about "making a mold of his monster and using it on Kimberly Locke" He's also been very vocal about eating junk food and not caring, making no one else on the Celebrity Fit Club wanting to have him on their team. He's made it a very hostile environment there and has even tried to make sexual advances against the host of the show. I'm sure it's all being done for attention, but I feel this must be added.

Irrelevant comments removed[edit]

Irrelevant comments not having to do with improvements to this article will be removed.

This is not a forum.

See the above rules.

trezjr 23:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


Who do CLW and DragonflySixtyseven think they are? They've editted the hell out of this article! Idiots like them ruin this site for everyone else! How can one learn the true Dustin Diamond story if this article is completely chopped up???? 05:05, 29 September 2005 Kurt Steinberg

What's with the editing of the documentaion of the harassment of Dustin Diamond? It's obviously very apparent that these things have happened.

Zion Lutheran isn't a high school, but rather a k-8. I don't have data on when Dustin Diamond attended, but I know he did. Corrected the link and created a stub for Zion Lutheran School, Anaheim California. - Lampiasis 23:20, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Stop the deletion![edit]


Why are they deleting everything? We're trying to add commentary on a admittedly small and depraved, but nonetheless valid, Internet subculture. What's wrong with that?

I think it's very hypocritical that this entry is being targeted like this, yet other similar subcultures are left unmolested.

  • People are deleting stuff because this page is supposed to be about an American actor, not some element of a so-called subculture. As such, entries concerning some degenerate elements of our society have no value, encyclopedic or otherwise, what so ever to said end. I am certain there are plenty of homosexual and/or homoerotic (et. al.) sites on the web whereby you can get your degenerate fix to your hearts desire. As for this site, or rather this article in particular, there is no place for it.--Jbs173 07:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that most of what has been deleted shouldn't have been. The information on his character and his filmogrophy for example. Even if you disagree about the inclusion of information regarding the homosexual and.or homoerotic websites on Wikipedia, the aforementioned information should still be within the article. Zooba 16:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I say if you want to include all pseudo-related information concerning Dustin Diamond you should create a seperate article to deal with it. As far as I'm concerned, this article is to be biographical information about Dustin, his life, and his career. That's what a reasonable person would expect to find anyway. Using the aforementioned (by some of the people above) ideology, every fringe element pertaining to every article on Wikipedia should be included. Good luck in getting that done. Furthermore, I bet I could Google George W. Bush and find men who want to have sex with him (and probably his dog also), claims that he is either the spawn of Satan or a Martian (or both), etc. Should that be included in the Wikipedia article on him also? Good luck in getting that included, because I guarantee you never would (the editors of that article would stop you before you even began). Using Google, and the Internet as a whole, as a justification and/or validation to include fringe elements in an article is quite weak. Heck references to virtually everything (both real and imagined/exagerated/made up) can be found by "Googling" something. Additionally, fringe homo-erotic elements of a pedophilic nature certainly have no place in an "encyclopedic" article about a person who had no connection to the aforementioned elements. To include every sick person or persons' ideas in every article on Wikipedia is ludicrous at best. What place does such a trivial thing such as the name of an alleged drink at some alleged gay bar have in the article??? How could anyone begin to verify such trivial information??? Bottom line, no matter how much you hate to hear it, one cannot include all fringe and trivial elements in every article. In closing, I leave you with this question. Would you want your kid(s) to be looking for information on the cast of Saved By The Bell and/or Dustin Diamond and come across such garbage that has no conceiveable place in such an article (at least not to reasonable person)? Finally, as I mentioned before, if you want to include the "controversy" and "homo-erotic/pedophilic" elements, by all means write an article the deals with those elements specifically, so people who are into that stuff can find it if they want to (which is hardly unreasonable) . Just keep it out of this article so that people who simply want to know about Dustin Diamond are not forced to be subjected to it.

  • I think that the above comment is a pretty honest and neutral+decent response. However, I would argue that there is a difference between Dustin Diamond and George W Bush in that DD is a cult figure with a substantialy large amount of 'perverted' discussion, relative to other internet sites about his career etc. I would therefore say that there should probably be a *brief* mentioning of the subculture but kept to a minimum. Further, there should not be hyperlinks to said sites, on the premise that interested readers would surely be able to find material on the internet via a website

Furthermore, Dustin Diamond's issues with the site and it's offshoots has developed into a very serious legal issue (which he lost), with major ramifications concerning name ownership and parody on the internet. Essentially, Diamond lost the case where he essentially attempted to take over said website bearing his name and likeness, which had become very little more than an endless string of homosexual innuendos about his character. This is a major legal precedent and factor in Diamond's life and public image, and should most definitely be included in this entry. Furthermore, the issues with Salty the Pocketknife and the contributors, as well as the later hacking of the band's website, which essentially led to the closing of said website, is certainly a viable facet of Diamond's musical career. In addition, the suing of Diamond and band for allegedly failing to fulfill contractual obligations and acting like overblown rock stars ought to be pointed out as well... not to mention that, by all accounts, the band no longer exists. In addition, as referenced by, Diamond's stand-up comedy routine seems to be universally reviled by his peers. It seems as though there exists two very distinct factions that have come into conflict as to the content of this article. There are those who seem inclined to completely sanitize it and make it "kid friendly", and thus to utterly ignore the many valid controversies that have emerged following Diamond's descent into washed up child star cliche. Of course, there are the contributors who are doing nothing more than making Diamond into some form of gay icon. I'm certain that there were links within this entry to real articles chronicling Diamond's court loss to Max Goldberg, the owner of, and possibly another article concerning Salty the Pocketknife being sued by its label. I wonder who removed these references from this entry, hmm? The point is, however, that inbetween these two groups lies very distinct, very verifiable facts concerning the life of Dustin Diamond that are neither squeaky clean nor completely degenerate. All of you would be well served to remember this before pushing your own distinct agendas.

Noncompliant tag[edit]

I ran across this article while on BLP Patrol, and slapped the noncompliant tag on it. This is a bio about a living person, and it cites no sources at all. WP:BLP requires that particularly any negative information MUST be solidly sourced by reliable sources that meet WP:RS, or it must be removed from both the article and the talk page. I'm tempted to tag this talk page too. Crockspot 23:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


Any item(s) tagged as in need of a citation in this article will require immediate attention, usually within 7 days, to supply the source documentation, as required by policy, or that/those item(s) will be removed until such time.

trezjr 20:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


I gotta say; a lot of the details given on this page are not really standard Wikipedia fair. Alternative text could be as follows.

On November 13, 2006, Dustin Diamond's sex tape, "Screeched" (aka Saved by the Smell), was released by Red Light District. It features a bride-to-be, her bridesmaid, and Diamond all engaging in various sexual acts, including a "Dirty Sanchez" [1].
According to Diamond, the sex tape got out because he and some buddies have a “monthly gathering” wherein they exchange such tapes which earn points based on “what [we’re] able to accomplish” on the tapes. “We do it almost like poker. [The tape] could have been left out in anybody’s home, machine, computer. The people that are involved in this group [of friends who exchange tapes] are all ‘profile people.’” Diamond doesn’t believe any of those people leaked the tape, but it may have been the significant other of one of his friends [2].
There is speculation that the sex tape is, in fact, staged; Dustin is decidedly absent in most of the scenes, taking on the role of cameraman and narrator instead of participant, and Dustin's face is never shown during any of the sex-scenes. Furthermore, Diamond remains conspicuously clothed during most of the movie.
On BBC Three (UK Tv Station) Diamond was listed in their Top 100 Annoying People List of 2006 in which they allege the sex tape is nothing more than a staged event which was created to boost his flagging career and to make money. In addition, Diamond made certain claims about his physical body in a recent Howard Stern interview, which are exaggerrated.

(uh... the reason why I came to this page; somebody just had me watch this video with them, and I couldn't help but think it's staged. I mean, how often do people have sex without taking off their pants or shirt? ... okay; shirt once, but she was nervous and I didn't want to scare her... anyway this seems really phony.)(Unless Dustin has a phobia of being nude, in which case he really shouldn't want to make a pornographic film.) JimmmyThePiep 11:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

watch it again. do you think it's possible for Dustin to have kept the camera so perfectly steady, and focused on its target, if he had been the one engaging in the act?
I feel the sex tape is staged, and I believe there are some articles on the net confirming that it wasn't Diamond engaging in the acts. What a ridiculous way of trying to regain fame...


I semi-protected this article as a flood of editors decended up this page to add uncited rumors of Diamond's death. Contact me to have this lifted. To any admin: feel free to reverse this if/when necessary. — Scientizzle 00:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Citation Tags[edit]

I tagged the porn tape and death hoax sections with citation tags. The section on the porn tape contains an assertion of what "critics" have said about the matter, but is not backed up by a source. There was one source there, but I removed it because it was a dead link. There was also an assertion about the notion of it being a publicity stunt being a "real possibility", which I removed because it was clearly not NPOV. As for the death hoax matter, the only source that supports this story refers to the subject as "Yo Name", with no clear reference to Diamond. If these assertions cannot be sourced, they should be removed. Nightscream 01:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, the bit in the section "The Sex Tape" about how Diamond alleges the tape became public contains a dead link citation. I'm affixing a citation tag to be left for a while, and may remove the line if I revisit and no citation has been given.Brakoholic (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Dustin Diamond Appreciation Forum[edit]

Could you please add this link.

This link is dead. -- (talk) 00:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


Dustin "Zoinks" Diamond? there doesn't appear to be anything on this page leading to the word "Zoinks" being a valid nickname. I believe this should be removed Zervas 05:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

his nickname[edit]

his nickname "zoinks!" came about because his most famous character "screech powers" frequently exclaimed "zoinks!" in almost every episode, therefore he is referred to as 'dustin "zoinks!" diamond'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I remember hearing his character repeatedly say "zoinks," however, I don't think he was ever dubbed that nickname. The only nickname Dustin Diamond was ever referred to was his most famous character, "Screech." --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 04:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The photo of Diamond[edit]

Why does this article include a picture of Diamond standing next to an ugly kid wearing a leather jacket? That kid thinks he's the "Fonz" from Happy Days. Is that kid Diamond's gay lover? If not, shouldn't this article include a picture of Diamond by himself? Beldingfan (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That is NOT an "ugly kid".
That is a "free" image.
If you don't like it then you can go take a picture of him yourself and post it. (talk) 05:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Wow...did you submit that photo for the article? I ask because you're pretty defensive about "the Fonz." As Beldingfan was pointing out, there ARE publicity photos that would be acceptable under fair use standards. Mrobviousjosh (talk) 12:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
That photo is lame66.195.36.133 (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


I added Screeeched(2006) since it's listed in the Internet Movie Database. Also, it's both his directorial debute and one of his more well-known roles. (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC) hola, a cunti pollo@? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

# of Episodes Listed on Filmography[edit]

What moron added the # of episodes for Diamond's tv series roles? Those numbers are inaccurate and should be removed. Diamond was on Saved By The Bell: The New Class for six of that show's seven seasons and I can guarantee that he appeared in more than the 67 episodes listed in the chart. (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


Lately, this article has been purged of anything that might cast Diamond in a negative light (such as his lawsuit with Max Goldberg and his foreclosure issues) and filled with unencyclopaedic storytelling like "5 days after the wrap party of SBTB, Diamond took the stage at the Improv in Brea, California on a dare. Having no material and just getting up for fun, Diamond experienced butterflies in his stomach. This had not happened in years and was quite exhilarating." and "A child of an era with comedians such as Eddie Murphy, Andrew "Dice" Clay, Sam Kinison and George Carlin, Diamond was heavily influenced by these giants of their day".

If more experienced editors than myself have nothing to say on the matter, than I will start reverting the article at a later point. (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I just took out much of the puffery you correctly pointed out has absolutely no business being in the article. As for the stuff you want to add, I don't know any of that info. However, since it is negative info, and we're much stricter on negative info than positive info for biographies of living people, you need to make sure that it is very well sourced (everything must be backed up directly by a reliable source with inline citations), and that it is truly important enough to belong in an encyclopedic summary of Diamond's life. If you have any concerns, I actually recommend putting the material you propose to add here on the talk page first, then we can discuss it to make sure it's good for the article. You can be bold and drop it in directly; in fact, it's probably okay, because we have WP:Pending changes on. That means that anything you add as a non-autoconfirmed editor won't actually go live until it's reviewed by another editor. Either way; it's up to you. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Pending Changes[edit]

Please do not remove pending changes from this article without discussion. It was not set as part of the trial, but because of distinct and particular BLP concerns with this article. I am happy to discuss whether this is the best approach for the article, a pragmatic approach to a BLP needs to take precedence over whatever general experiments and discussions are currently happening over FR.

This article gets a high traffic of bad edits, some of which are obvious vandalism, some of which are good faith but violate BLP. It is therefore useful not to have any edit immediately published before being scrutinised, and (if no one else does it) I am willing to scrutinise all edits. The scenario is liable to long term, so absolute prevention methods like protection or semi-protection are undesirable, but the traffic is low enough to scrutinise all edits. I use common sense and the available tools to do what I can for specific articles, and I'm happy to change from this pragmatic approach if someone tells me how using this tool is detrimental to the article in question, or to the goal of encouraging people to improve such articles.--Scott Mac 08:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[edit]

Hey, the paragraphs about should be added back in. That dispute is noteworthy because it was a rare instance where a celebrity (albeit now a minor one) lost a domain name dispute. Someone complained that a press release wasn't reliable. Well, here is a link to the actual arbitration decision - . That decision could be used as the source of the paragraphs discussing (talk) 09:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration decisions are also not reliable sources. Or, to be more accurate, they are reliable, but they count as primary sources, and thus can only be used extremely sparingly and generally not in BLPs. We need some evidence that someone (besides yourself) considers this decision particularly notable--most likely a news article in a reliable newspaper/magazine. If such a source does not exist, the event really isn't important enough for us to report on. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
It did receive at least a brief mention in a compendium news article:
  • Max Goldberg, 21-year-old native of the Napa Valley, has won the right to make Internet fun of former teen star Dustin Diamond on a parody site, Goldberg's site uses tacky graphics, misspellings and sexual boasts, which Diamond's lawyers said damaged his image and infringed on the value of his celebrity. An arbitrator for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, a legal arm of the World Wide Web, has ruled in Goldberg's favor, accepting his argument that the site was so obviously ugly and full of errors that it clearly was meant as humor. Goldberg issued a press release hailing this as "the first time that a celebrity has lost a domain name dispute to a non-commercial parody site."
    • DAILY DATEBOOK Leah Garchik. San Francisco Chronicle. San Francisco, Calif.: Apr 28, 2004. pg. E.10
It's not much, but it might enough to support a sentence about the case.   Will Beback  talk  05:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Several paragraphs should be devoted to the issue. The guestbook on that website was filled with gay fantasies and the real Diamond himself would often post messages in the guestbook whining about the gay fantasies. It was one of the funniest websites on the Internet for years until Max Goldberg finally took it down. (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Dustin Diamond's Powerful Friends[edit]

Is Dustin in the Mob? Does he have dirt on Wikipedia that could bring the whole site down? Is he best friends with Obama? The second I read this article I could see that it was nothing more then a big FU to putting forth all of the truth and not just some, and that this article was a complete sham. It reads more like a bio on his homepage then an unbiased article. I of course immediately checked out the discussion page and WOW does he seem to have the backing of major supporters or what. I can't believe all the people who seem to be determined to keep this page as clean as possible for him. Well congrates. Here is yet another whitewashed biased article for for the populus. Mission Accomplished! Deepintexas (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

What information is missing? If you have information that is verified by reliable sources, please bring it up here and we can figure out what should be included. Please note that you may not add information (either to the article or here) that is negative or contentious that is not backed up by reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

sex tape section removed?[edit]

Im not sure why the mention of the sex tape was removed from this article, when it had already been stated by Dustin himself including numerous sources and an article featured on E! television about this prank with a dirty sanchez? It is referenced here : and — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I've made edits about the sex tape only for them to disappear completely. Perhaps DD ought to have thought about the ramifications of doing such before being "involved" however he might have been before doing such. Wikipedia is about the truth, no matter how dirty or ugly it is. STOP Censorship.

Sex tape[edit]

4 sources have been added, including one that provided images extracted from the film, if this isn't reliable then what is? For the record a link to the tape at IMDB is available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasow187 (talkcontribs) 23:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

One person responded at WP:RSN saying that IMDB isn't reliable in this case, though he indicated that there may be sources available at Dirty Sanchez. That's not a link I can look at while at work, so I'll have to look later. There's still the BLP issue; if this is included, it needs to be 1 line, not a whole section, and portrayed neutrally. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I found a better solution: I took the citations you provided, and added them to the filmography. The film is documented, facts are there, and the video isn't over-emphasized more than his other work. I think this best meets WP:BLP. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Please stop adding any details about the sex tape. I'm not convinced there has been hardly any media coverage--that's why it was so hard to find valid sources. I want this issue raised at WP:BLPN before it goes in the article in any detail. I can't do it now, but will get to it tomorrow. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Here is another source from MSNBC with none other than Keith Olbermann speaking in regards to the sex tape on his show "Countdown": — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasow187 (talkcontribs) 22:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I think this is going a bit too far the other direction. Certainly his sex tape is more notable than his appearance as "Alumnus Guy #1", and probably more notable than his participation on celebrity wrestling shows on obscure cable networks.—Kww(talk) 22:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, which is why I believe this should be added as his other roles over the last few years had nowhere near any coverage as to what the sex tape generated. I understand the last few sources to blogs can be dubious (even though one clearly had images extracted from the tape) but the 2 sources i have placed, one from the nz herald and the other from MSNBC are reliable.Kasow187 (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Kasow187
Okay, given the MSNBC ref, I can understand why this is notable enough for a full sentence. I'll self-revert, then add the MSNBC ref. Sorry, I wasn't trying to be disruptive, I'm just one of those editors who thinks that WP:BLP means, "Be absolutely sure first, then add controversial info to a BLP". It's kind-of the opposite of our normal editing practices (where it is good to just be bold, then work out the details later). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you kindly.Kasow187 (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed new section on Personal Life - (Financial Troubles)[edit]

Given that Dustin has faced possible foreclosure on his home three separate times, including the first time where a very public appeal for help from fans was made on the internet. I feel strongly that a comment on this should be made on the article. Precedent for reports on financial difficulties of notable people has been made many times, but Paul Hogan and Paul Gascoigne both come to mind. - MP79th — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The question would be whether or not it meets WP:DUE--that is, is it important enough to Diamond's overall "story" to merit inclusion. But, of course, before adding anything, or even being able to evaluate this question, we need reliable sources verifying the issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I added his current residence in Port Washington, and the reference from Milwaukee Journal Sentinel newspaper also discusses his financial troubles. I agree to adding a specific section for "Financial Troubles." Seen a Tina (talk) 14:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
It is extremely unlikely that should have a whole separate section; probably, no more than a sentence or two in another section. Feel free to make a proposed edit with whatever can be sourced, but be extremely picky on the sources per WP:BLP. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

According to Snopes, the bar altercation/stabbing incident is true. Should not be deleted from article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


was he really born in 1977? saved by the bell started in 1989. He must have been older than 12 at the start of the show — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemonade1783 (talkcontribs) 17:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2017[edit]

Dustin Diamond was in all 86 episodes of Saved by the Bell. (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Adding categories[edit]

Can someone please add this article to the category 21st-century American comedians (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Porn Star's Name May Ring a 'Bell' ". New York Daily News, September 27, 2006.
  2. ^ "Screech Has a Sex Tape!". BoDog Beat. September 29, 2006.