Talk:Diablo Cody

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Link to "Candy Girl"[edit]

If someone wants to add links to her book on amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Candy-Girl-Year-Unlikely-Stripper/dp/1592401821
and on Barnes & Noble: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Candy-Girl/Diablo-Cody/e/9780641891557/?itm=1

I read the book before Juno, not that it matters, just to mention that I'm not a fanboy. It's ok; easy to read, entertaining, definately adult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.96.185 (talk) 23:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subject-Created Entry, Much?[edit]

This just reeks of the self-adulation that typifies self-created (or acquaintance-created) Wikipedia entries, both of which are against Wikipedia guidelines. Moreover, for a one-time screenwriter, this entry is WAY too long. Far too many plaudits and details for someone with relatively few achievements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.255.146 (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, 69.14.255.14! Looks like you're from Michigan. Cool! But it appears you're just another internet coward, and one sickeningly jealous of those doing better than themselves. Wow. But you know what? I guess Brook showed YOU, didn't she? You must feel really stupid now. I would. And I do hope her many MONSTER success have pained you (and her other detractors) tremendously. Have you lost sleep, biting and scratching yourself in utter jealousy? LOL! So, 69.14.255.14: How's it feel to be nothing more than a nay-saying, spineless sniper? Waste of life, much? LOL! Kisses! JealousMuchQMark (talk) 08:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for who created the initial entry, whether it was Cody or one of her acquaintances or not. However, the combination of her unusual (and well-documented) origins and the acclaim and actual plaudits (Golden Globe nod, several critics awards, etc.) her first screenplay have garnered justify the existence and the breath of her entry. Facts are facts. --3finger (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with 3finger. she's a very successful writer- three scripts taken up, one produced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.127.175 (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think Cody's Oscar nomination should officially close this subject. I don't know the criteria that go into that decision, but when you're up for the biggest award in the industry, 'nuff said.--3finger (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Alllitup-3.jpg[edit]

Image:Alllitup-3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the photo of her at the Academy Awards copyrighted? I am going to attempt to remove it. --anon. 70.23.158.96 (talk) 02:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scripts?[edit]

She's sold scripts to studios, and she wrote a pilot for a sitcom. Why mention these things? Scripts are sold all the time, and pilots are churned out with alarming regularity. Nine times out of ten, these scripts and pilots never go anywhere. It's worthless to put in the article. There's no way to know those projects will ever succeed, and listing them is frankly just silly, and shameless promotion to make this flavor-of-the-month blogger/fledgling screenwriter seem like a force to be reckoned with. Howa0082 (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Howa0082: Guess ol' Brook showed YOU, didn't she?! LOL! I love it! JealousMuchQMark (talk) 08:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how this is "silly, shameless promotion". She has only produced one screenplay that was made into a film and it is not uncommon to note future works. These projects are cited and are therefore verifiable; it is not like they are rumors. Besides, this "flavor-of-the-month blogger/fledgling screenwriter" has been nominated for and might possibly win an Academy Award. I agree with their being mentioned as notable. María (habla conmigo) 12:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not notable. Screenwriters sell scripts everyday. Very few ever get made. I think if those scripts she sold go into production, then it's appropriate to mention them. But just to say she sold some scripts to some studios is a worthless, misleading statement. Here's an improvement; wikify to Jennifer's Body, mentioning that it's in production starting this month. Retitle that section, perhaps, from "screenwriting" to something more appropriate and less misleading. The other two scripts she either wrote or rewrote are not in pre-production. They're not even listed on IMDB. There's no references for Burlesque or Girly Style, so all intents and purposes, they do not exist. Howa0082 (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a couple additional sources to the article, thanks. The problem with beginning articles based on films that have not begun production is that it's seen as violating WP:CRYSTAL. There is nothing wrong with mentioning written scripts as they pertain to the author, however, especially since Cody's work is receiving so much press notice since the success of Juno. If the films are not made, then the article can be updated to include this fact, or omit any mention of them at all. That's the thing about an online encyclopedia; it's a fluid thing. I stick to my opinion that these are noteworthy, however; the press certainly seems to think so. María (habla conmigo) 20:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Id like to know how she all of a sudden unsolicited was able to sell a script or have anyone in hollywood read her screenplay for that matter. If you dont have an agent that has any pull people in hollywood are inundated with scripts all the time they just throw out or dont get around to reading and thrown out. Why her? How did she get heard/read?

This is explained in the article; her manager, Novick, suggested after she wrote her memoir that she try a screenplay. I'm guessing that her manager was the one who was able to bring the script to Hollywood, which is how it usually works. María (habla conmigo) 13:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Shoes[edit]

Thoughts on adding something about the Oscar shoes? 165.189.169.190 (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current marital status[edit]

I found three references (and counting) on her MySpace blog to her divorce from Jonny Hunt. (I submitted an edit to this talk page with links but it was wiped out by the spam filter... GRRRRR!) I say it's time to indicate that her real name is just Brook Busey.
For what it's worth, here is a Daily Mail article that mentions her divorce. --anon. 70.23.164.117 (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A good thing to look into, though we should remember that not all women change their names once they're divorced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.142.216 (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recent articles about her do give her real name as just Brook Busey, however. I included the URL of one in my Edit summary when I changed the birth name listed for her in the infobox. --anon. 70.23.176.56 (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of birth name, is it reasonable to assume, in the absence of information to the contrary, that her birth name is the same as her pre- and post-marriage real name? This is a question applicable to all biographical articles. --anon. 70.23.176.56 (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Choice of pen name[edit]

In an entry on her MySpace blog dated January 16, 2008, she quotes her ex-husband explaining that Diablo was inspired by the song "El Diablo" by Arcadia. --anon. 70.23.164.117 (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter?[edit]

Is it a good idea to link diablocody on Twitter? --TIB (talk) 06:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic[edit]

Is Diablo Cody actually Catholic? The citation suggests her Catholic roots but she could have very well left the faith. It's not very specific. Should this be re-phrased? Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image placement[edit]

Regarding this edit. I'd rather have the "classic" image in the infobox, and the more recent one in the bottom section. That way, readers are introduced to Cody as she is visually best known, and as they read forward chronologically in her biography, see the more recent development.  Skomorokh  08:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See for example the article Brigitte Bardot.  Skomorokh  08:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal Private life and marriage to Jonny Hunt[edit]

A user (71.5.110.146) has now removed information on Cody's previous marriage three times. While they initially gave no reason they now have claim that section is untrue, but fail to give proof that it is untrue. Additionally, they have claimed that Hunt is not a public figure and wishes to not be mentioned, again with no proof. While hunt is relatively unknown this, unfortunately, ignores wikipedia's policy for those people who are relatively unknown which clearly states that they can be mentioned as long as "only material relevant to their notability" is used.

Hunt is clearly relevant to Cody since they were married and because Cody had a tattoo referencing him. Therefore I have replaced the section and removed information which is not relevant to Cody or Hunt. Please discuss here before removing again. -Ektar (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is Jon Hunt himself speaking. The part that is untrue is the portion that suggests that I "left my wife" for Cody, which your initial addition stated. That might be what it said in that article, but it's absolutely, provably untrue, and potentially damaging to my reputation. As I stated, I am not a public figure, and I have to work for a living among non-famous people. I would prefer my name left out of the article about Cody entirely, as I do not wish to be associated with her any further, but if it's so important to you to have this section in there, either to damage my reputation or hers, please at least be courteous enough to leave out information that's blatantly untrue. FYI, just because an article states something does not mean it's true -- the author of that article never spoke to me, and I've never once been consulted about my relationship with Cody. I don't know what kind of "proof" would suit you regarding truthfulness or untruthfulness, but if personal testimony is trumped by an article containing untruths, I don't know what I can do about it. 10:44, Jon Hunt 29 September 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.5.110.146 (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the Daily Mail reference, I'm struck by the gossipy nature of it. All information is sourced, basically, to an ex-wife. In my opinion, this is not solid enough for a WP:BLP source, especially if the affected person is complaining. Please get consensus to include this before re-adding. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are Mr. Hunt, know that we include personal life information about the marriages of celebrities and other such famous people; whether you are a public figure or not does not matter. Hunt is relevant to Cody's life and should be mentioned; even though not known of by most people, Hunt will always be associated with Cody. However, as you have stated, the information should be accurate. Since you say that you are Hunt and that part of the information is untrue, I say we should assume good faith and leave the untrue part out. We should also find a different reference about the marriage, since this one is accused of being tainted. Flyer22 (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well lessee what locatable about Mr. Hunt in the context of Ms. Cody:
Plus there's the sources in the original paragraph, and probably whatever is mentioned in her book. Surely we can fashion something that suits the task from all that... Tabercil (talk) 03:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, surely we can, Tabercil. Flyer22 (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be adding any information about Mr. Hunt myself; he doesn't want it there, and I respect that. I won't stand in the way of others doing so, as it is certainly within the policies we have now, so I wouldn't have a leg to stand on. I just ask that (a) sources be reliable (i.e. no gossip pages), and (b) only include information relevant to Diablo Cody. Mr. Hunt's private life before or after his marriage to Diablo Cody, whether in reliable sources or not, is not appropriate for this article. It sounds like the IP editor claiming to be Mr. Hunt would not argue with that either, so it's possible we're all more or less in agreement. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only information about Hunt's private life before his marriage to Cody that would most certainly be fine to mention is how they met or the previous line (of the previous Personal life entry) "Prior to moving to Minneapolis, Cody began a relationship with Jonny Hunt." Flyer22 (talk) 08:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, yes, I was a tad inaccurate in my wording, looks like you understood what I meant. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we stick with the list of articles provided by Tabercil, which I assume most people agree are reliable sources, we will miss fairly important information such as date and location of her marriage and a definite date of divorce. However, I think some information is better than no information, especially since the limited information explains her previous name and her changed tattoo. Accordingly, I would recommend the following text:
In December 2007, Cody and then-husband Jonny Hunt announced the end of their marriage. Prior to the announcement, Cody had a tattoo on her right arm altered to cover the words "Jonny's Girl" with roses.[1]
How does that sound to everyone? -Ektar (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds okay to me... mind you, if we could nail down the date the marriage took place it'd be better. The best source I can find online for the marriage is this [Daily Mail] article - you know, the one pulled out by Floquenbeam?... Anyone else have any better luck hunting for a source?? Now, I notice Cody's book came out in 2005, after her marriage occured. Has anyone here read it? If so, is the marriage mentioned in it? My local library doesn't have it and I don't care to spend the $$$ buying it... Tabercil (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ektar's proposed text...but I also agree that noting the date and location of her marriage and a definite date of divorce would be better. Flyer22 (talk) 03:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Covert, Colin. "Interview: Diablo Cody: Dancing as fast as she can". Star Tribune. Retrieved 2009-10-07.

Comments on the above by xblkx[edit]

I own it and have read it more than once. If I may give my opinion here on a few things. First, I am inclined to agree, regardless of whether the above person is Jon Hunt or not (though I have no reason to challenge its veracity), that any and all information in this article needs to be relevant to the article's subject only. Mr. Hunt has a blog of his own and he has, for example, stated that he and DC parted friends and it isn't hard to establish when or to its effects on him (my having shared a similar experience...), and this personal information exists on the internet for those who wish to find it, but neither it, nor the dates of their marriage/divorce IMHO is encyclopedic in nature and therefore has no place here.... if someone has a statement to make that they feel IS encyclopedic and relevant to the article subject, they may propose it (or just add it). And if it isn't, some of us will delete it in compliance to WP:BLP. I will further clarify this point, that here we have an article about a subject who has been a writer and a stripper and won an Academy Award for her first screenplay. Unless someone has a specific point to make within the encyclopedic content of this article AND has a reliable source for it (see WP:RS), I agree that it should not be included because if you compare the relevance... I think everyone reading a Diablo Cody article "gets it" enough to know what I mean. Personally I don't think that a discussion about DC's tattoo and its subsequent modification, other than what she has personally said about body modification, belongs in this article (I disagree with Ektar here. Ektar stated "Hunt is clearly relevant to Cody since they were married and because Cody had a tattoo referencing him." but I'm trying to understand how that fits into this article -- willing to listen, certainly, and I did leave it in the infobox after fixing the typo).

Some of you have asked about the book. Agreed, the book shows a photo of her with original tattoo on the dust jacket. The first printing is January 2006. The jacket says "She lives in Minneapolis with her husband." On page 2, she writes, "In January 2003, when I was twenty-four and punch-drunk on city life, I moved to Minneapolis from my hometown of Chicago. Like many millennial lonely hearts, I had met my boyfriend Jonny on the World Wide Waste of Time...". Yes, they met online and then she moved. That's all. The book does mention "his estranged wife", many things they had in common, his extraordinary support of Diablo's choices, his idealism, and on page 211 that they got married (the book also concludes with DC at age 24 so for me that's settled too). But this is for the readers (and it's available to read online on Amazon btw) and not for a Wikipedia article on DC. And just for the record -- there is NOTHING, no indication in any way, shape, or form, that Jon Hunt left his ex-w for DC. That is the material of tabloids (and I think the Daily Mail is a scandal sheet...), not of Diablo Cody, and not of Wikipedia. No matter *who* challenged that allegation citing WP:RS, Jon Hunt or someone impersonating him, I agree -- it's tabloid material, unreliable, potentially damaging, and not acceptable in this article. Thank you, to those who have excised that material (Flyer22 et. al.). And does anyone here, who like me and wants the *opposite* of anyone's reputation damaged, have a solid argument for why a mention of Mr. Hunt's divorce is relevant to this article's subject? I move to exclude (for no other reason than on the grounds that it isn't relevant to the subject). If anything, I would rather have a statement (from CG) about what it meant to her that he supported her choices, and the he did the "Slammin', cutting-edge design" on Pussy Ranch (thank Google for archive.org), because from what I read in her book, THOSE are things that really did matter. Xblkx (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "this personal information exists on the internet for those who wish to find it, but neither it, nor the dates of their marriage/divorce IMHO is encyclopedic in nature and therefore has no place here."*
What "has a place" in wikipedia is not determined by whether or not the information is available elsewhere on the the internet. Besides, do you honestly believe that a public figure's marriage and divorce is not of an encyclopedic nature? So, for you, what exactly falls under your definition of "encyclopedic in nature"? Only those things directly related to what made them famous? If that's the case then practically no wikipedia biographical article would mention a birthdate, birthplace, family, etc. Sorry, but I'm fairly certain you won't find a wikipedia policy which states that marriage and divorce information does not belong on wikipedia.
  • "I don't think that a discussion about DC's tattoo and its subsequent modification, other than what she has personally said about body modification, belongs in this article"*
First thing, it's not a "discussion", it's an explanation of why she no longer has a tattoo with her ex-husband's name on her arm. Second, can you please explain what wikipedia policy makes you believe this? Remember what "belongs" and doesn't "belong" on wikipedia isn't established by the whims of editors. Somewhat obviously, if there is no policy against something, there is no reason to believe that it "doesn't belong." Considering extensive explanations of tattoos on wikipedia are not uncommon (ex: [1] [2]), I don't see how you can claim that this doesn't "belong".
  • "That is the material of tabloids"*
And the way I see it, we had established this in the above discussion. Most of the "he said/she said, he left/she left" tabloid material (mostly, if not all, from the Daily Mail) had been removed. The problem now is that, save for the infobox, EVERY mention of her marriage and divorce Jon Hunt has been removed. Additionally, there is NO mention of her tattoos, including the one she had edited.
  • "And does anyone here, who like me and wants the *opposite* of anyone's reputation damaged, have a solid argument for why a mention of Mr. Hunt's divorce is relevant to this article's subject?"*
Considering that I certainly do not want to damage anyone's reputation, I feel perfectly qualified to answer this question. I can't tell if you are joking or not but it seems terribly obvious that this divorce is not JUST "Mr. Hunt's divorce", it's "Diablo Cody's divorce" as well. And as noted previously, wikipedia's policy on relatively unknown people is clear: Hunt can be mentioned as long as it includes "only material relevant to their notability." And in this case it is obvious that his marriage/divorce from Cody and his appearance on her edited tattoo is what is relavant to his notability. -Ektar (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Ektar. I did not want to disrupt your edits above by interspersing my text in it, so please let me clarify in corresponding order, as you above invited people to "discuss here". First, I am not and would not want to claim or get involved in any discussion about what "has a place" in wikipedia outside of the its existing guidelines. What falls in my definition of "encyclopedic in nature" is exactly what wikipedia itself documents in the "5 pillars" (WP:5P) and in that specifically, the concepts of verifiability (WP:V), no original research (WP:OR), and neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). I am by no means claiming that marriage/divorce information is prohibited nor that it existing on the internet is a reason for exclusion (it was just a statement of "It is not a complete loss of information if it is omitted from this article.". I'm not challenging it on the basis of any of that -- I am stating that, at the time of the discussion I commented on, I didn't feel that the content in the article met the wikipedia guidelines that I (perhaps overgeneralizing) was calling "encyclopedic." What I meant was it didn't (imo) meet the guidelines for this site. I didn't say it wasn't *relevant* (truthfully, I think it IS relevant, but I can't source it), but I consider that Mr. Hunt's comments were a challenge to the content on those grounds and that even though his specific language didn't provide a reason, I wanted to support his (anyone's) challenge because it was valid and he's not an experienced editor here. It was unsourced and he challenged it and that's sufficient. It's supposed to be removed until that's corrected, and another editor who removed it obviously agreed. Conversely, if you had added information that included a verifiable/reliable source and someone challenged it saying "It's personal information" or some other opinion, then I would support *you* and say it should be included if it were relevant to the subject and meets the criteria. You wrote specifically "What "has a place" in wikipedia is not determined by whether or not the information is available elsewhere on the the internet. Besides, do you honestly believe that a public figure's marriage and divorce is not of an encyclopedic nature?" and I agree with you -- it isn't decided whether or not it exists on the internet. And on the latter part, yes, I do believe it's not encyclopedic (strictly per the definition that wikipedia uses as a matter of policy) if it is not sourced and someone challenges it, which they did. Please also remember, I neither added it nor challenged it nor deleted it; I was simply giving my opinion as an input into the discussion on this talk page, based on what I know about wikpedia policy so as to participate in the discussion. I sign these individually to facilitate interleaved discussions. Xblkx (talk) 06:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On your next point, you wrote "it's not a "discussion", it's an explanation of why she no longer has a tattoo with her ex-husband's name on her arm. Second, can you please explain what wikipedia policy makes you believe this? Remember what "belongs" and doesn't "belong" on wikipedia isn't established by the whims of editors."
Of course I will. And immediately, I specifically do not challenge you nor anyone else about the relevance of the tattoo(s) nor do I contradict your point taken on the Angelina Jolie and Megan Fox articles. I do not dispute that in any way. And I'll also say that if there is no mention *at all* now in THIS article about the relationship with Jon Hunt, then there is another major problem with it that we need to fix! I provided sources for it from Candy Girl (on request during the original discussion: "Has anyone here read it?") and I'll defend the inclusion of that information. But what you asked me, is why wp policy indicates the content doesn't belong, and my answer, as above, is just to point again to the reliable sources and no original research policy requirements. My recommendation to you is, add the material back in that documents what you feel belongs here, and give a reliable source (what about this one from a former article [[3]]), and wp policy will support you. I do sympathize that sometimes useful information, important information, can't be included here because a reliable source wasn't available (yet). I face that frequently. But the policy works. Xblkx (talk) 06:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose my immediate question to you would be "What is missing in this article that is important?" and I'll do my best to help you source it. My intention is not to decimate it. I have a lot of material that is reliable and verifiable. Xblkx (talk) 06:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, you wrote about my words, "Mr. Hunt's divorce". Your point here is well-taken and it was definitely not a joke, not at all. In fact, I apologize not only to you but to Mr. Hunt as well for my poor choice of words. What I was referring to was that Mr. Hunt himself, not proven otherwise, had challenged the material regarding the divorce per the WP:RS and WP:NOR requirements, perhaps not in that exact terminology, and what I was referring to was his material presented (in the article at that time and discussed on this talk page), not "his divorce." I realize a divorce isn't one person's decision and that this one might/probably not even have been his. I don't go there. My suboptimal choice of words were because I was agreeing with *his* challenge that THE (not HIS divorce) was not sourced. The "his" was that "he" brought the challenge that I particularly supported due to his (alleged) involvement. You also wrote "And in this case it is obvious that his marriage/divorce from Cody and his appearance on her edited tattoo is what is relevant to his notability." My only comment here is his notability (or not) is not questioned, as Mr. Hunt does not currently have an article here. I am not opposed in any way to any of the topics here that you suggest. I have no conflict of interest with the subject. I also don't agree that Mr. Hunt "is clearly relevant to Cody since they were married and because Cody had a tattoo referencing him" as I stated before (I respond to reason... please elaborate and explain it to convince me otherwise). I just enjoy participating in discussions and supporting the ideas of wikipedia in the way I understand them on the topics that interest me. WP:BLP states: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." and I believe in this unquestionably. Challengeable in due time and discussion. Make your case, no it's not about "consensus" but the rules will support you and so will the people like myself who abide by them. Xblkx (talk) 06:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the delay getting back to you but I have had a lot of traveling and wp combined with my spam filter is not notifying me of changes to my watched pages reliably. Please don't take it as indifference. Xblkx (talk) 06:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with others that a public figure's marriage and divorce is of encyclopedic nature and is certainly relevant to the subject. There is no reason at all that Hunt should not be mentioned in this article (the article text, not just the infobox). Other public figures have marriages and other such relationships mentioned in their Wikipedia articles as well, and so should Diablo Cody. I will be restoring the material...if I am ever in the mood to and am able to find better sources than this (although I don't see anything wrong with using latimes.com as a source). Other sources were also offered above, but it seems we have been lazy adding in the marriage information appropriately. Flyer22 (talk) 22:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some restructuring needed[edit]

I noticed that someone interjected (out of place) two recent statements (90210 from 2008, and about her pregnancy) into the 'Early History' section (!). I also discovered that apparently she is no longer with Entertainment Weekly (a "former EW columnist" [[4]]) and it seems to me that a section is needed to collect the latest well-sourced news for these three things at least. Any recommendations? Xblkx (talk) 02:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


If the "In popular culture" section is going to exist, shouldn't it cover a range slightly larger than what Family Guy has to say about her? I think Tina Fey played Diablo Cody in an SNL sketch that included parodies of all the various Oscar-nominated movies that year, and I'm sure there are many more popular culture references. Just including Family Guy' implies the show is the only source of popular culture that references Diablo Cody.Beeswax07 (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the In popular culture section was recently removed by an IP. But, yes, the article needs restructuring. We currently have an Early life and career section, and then the individual Stripping and journalism and Screenwriting sections, as though they are not a part of her career. On top of that, her personal life information is currently at the end of the Early life and career section. I'll probably tweak all that later, if no one else beats me to it. Flyer22 (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where I put the addition of her status as online talkshow host seemed most logical with the current structure, but truly doesn't fit a section called "Screenwriting." Need another section for her non-stripping, non-screenwriting career, which presumably will continue alongside her writing and directing. .wschclc (talk)31 March 2012 (UTC)

Pictures[edit]

Are we sure that the two photograph's used are of the same person? They look like two completely different people imo.... Pinner458 (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both are her - she just managed to really change her look in the course of the one year. You can prove that by looking at the various images of her found on WireImage. Tabercil (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Ms. Diablo"[edit]

    Today's NYT called her "Diablo Cody", then "Ms. Diablo", then "Ms. Cody" in the same article -- abt her new (post-Juno) film. Presumbly a bizarre one-time slip of the pen, but we could need a Ms. Diablo Rdr.
--Jerzy•t 20:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subject-Created Entry, Much? (Part 2)[edit]

Person before me wrote, "This just reeks of the self-adulation that typifies self-created (or acquaintance-created) Wikipedia entries, both of which are against Wikipedia guidelines. Moreover, for a one-time screenwriter, this entry is WAY too long. Far too many plaudits and details for someone with relatively few achievements."

I completely agree. She has not done anything meriting her such a large wiki page. Most Screenwriters barely have wiki pages at all and her's is giant. I definitely believe that she wrote her page herself. On top of all that every single thing she has worked on, has her being credited on the first line. For example in the Wikipedia page for Juno the first sentence is "Juno is a 2007 comedy-drama film directed by Jason Reitman and written by Diablo Cody. " It is like that for everything other thing she has written too. The Social Network which was written by Aaron Sorkin, who I would say is much more famous, doesn't even get a name mention till the second paragraph on the wikipedia page. I think that all mentions of her name on other pages should be checked to see if it is in fact Diablo Cody crediting herself and making sure that all accreditation is worth the credit - user averyrobot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Averyrobot (talk • contribs) 03:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, Averyrobot, did you check the calendar of late? It's 2011, right? Hell, it's almost 2012! And you're coming here NOW with this nonsense?! Are you one truly pathetic son-of-a-bitch, or what?! Really? A constantly working, Oscar®-wining screenwriter (first script, by the way) with a completely unprecedented life story doesn't merit a slightly more detailed than normal Wiki page? Really? Jesus, asshole, go back to the IMDb message boards where you belong, you self-loathing, esteem-challenged piece of dogshit. God, how I hate useless cocksuckers like yourself, with nothing better to do than hate the world due to your own sickeningly inadequate life journey. Wow. A shame good people in show biz have to deal with cowardly shit-stains such as yourself. Blind1broke1 (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with this article; nor is it too big, and nor did Cody write it herself. Most other screenwriters have not won the Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay, and have not had the type of success she has had. We are not going to downsize this article, which, at the moment, isn't that big anyway, just to have it at the level of lesser-known screenwriters and all just to satisfy you Cody detractors. Take your hate for her somewhere else. This is a talk page, meant to improve this article, based on guidelines and policies, not personal feelings. Flyer22 (talk) 22:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Flyer22 U mad bro? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.47.164.109 (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are we really accusing an Oscar-winning screenwriter of ghostwriting her own Wikipedia article? Seriously?--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am, seriously. And we've even found her, it's Blind1broke1.  TVippy  19:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This person hasn't even edited the article and at this point Diablo Cody has gotten so much flack from people ever since Juno that she wouldn't be bothered by someone badmouthing her on a Wikipedia talk page.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The lady has a life! She surely doesn't waste her time on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.86.234 (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive use of "Cody"[edit]

This article is plagued with excessive use of the subjects first name. It's an encyclopedia entry, not a diary page. This should be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Certain (talk • contribs) 22:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Cody' is the last name of the subject of this article. I'll re-read it and consider changing some to a pronoun or rewording, but as indicated by the article title, "Diablo Cody", 'Diablo' is the first name, 'Cody' is the last name (stage name = subject of article). Xblkx (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Catholic Anymore[edit]

I think that according to what she says in this article, she isnt a Catholic anymore but she still believes in God: [5]81.193.79.57 (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Diablo Cody. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Diablo Cody. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lede sentence[edit]

I think this should be updated. It says she is "an American writer, producer, stripper and exotic dancer". My understanding is Ms. Cody WAS a stripper for roughly a year way back in 2007. Not suggesting we removed mention of the stripping thing, but does it really belong in the lede? She is a prolific writer and has not stripped in a LONG time. Any thoughts? Starcader (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Starcader: Fair point. I've removed it from the first sentence to focus on what she's best known for. I did leave the sentence in that she first gained noticed for her blog and memoir; I left the title of the book in, since it has an article, but pulled the name of the blog. Good compromise? —C.Fred (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure man. I don't have a dog in the fight one way or another. I don't even particularly like her movies. I was bored and came across her page and found it to be outdated. I decided to improve (although I guess this is a relative term) the page and suddenly found myself being accused of being friends with her or something. All I did was email her agency and asked for a free use image. I was shocked when her assistant replied with one. In any event, I doubt we would get along in real life and can assure you Diablo Cody is not a topic I have any real interest in. I was literally fooling around and it grew into this weird thing. I'm just confused. Starcader (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for fixing the article by the way. It was simply outdated. I appreciate your help. Lets just forget about the image thing.Starcader (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Photos[edit]

I was thinking of updating the photos as they are out of date, and frankly neither one of them are terribly flattering. I realize wp isn't Glamour Shots, but is it unreasonable to have photos of a subject that are at the very least current and reasonably attractive? Would appreciate any advice on this. I know that "attractive" is subjective, but you can find many public use images online and see what I am talking about. Starcader (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Starcader: Be very sure the images are under a free license. Just because you find them on the internet doesn't mean they're free to use. —C.Fred (talk) 04:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question, what's the best way to go about finding free use images? Starcader (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:C.Fred I made the change before reaching out to her representative, and I mmade the change not because I am a fan of Ms. Cody but because the information was outdated. I discussed the changes at talk as well. I only reached out to her representation in an effort to get a free use inmage. You had told me in the comment above how important this was. Starcader (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First name[edit]

I noticed that an IP had changed her first name from "Brook" to "Brooke". This is incorrect and there are multiple sources establishing this. Where is the source stating that her first name has an "e"?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.48.35.129 (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Last name[edit]

It appears Ms. Cody goes by "Brook Maurio" not Brook Busey-Maurio". Source: https://www.vulture.com/2019/11/diablo-cody-jagged-little-pill-musical.html#_ga=2.29718463.121646660.1579807082-1338747813.1579807082. I am going to change this if there are no objections. 99.48.35.129 (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New photos (again)[edit]

Both photos are more than 10 years old. Would it be appropriate to change them to more recent free use images? 99.48.35.129 (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone assist? 2600:1012:B012:835A:85D3:43C1:840B:B713 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What free photos do you have in mind? —C.Fred (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Diablo_Cody&oldid=1206735118"