Talk:Kurt Cobain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

A Wikipedian removed Kurt Cobain from the good article list. There are suggestions below for improving areas to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, renominate the article as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review. Removal date: 17 December 2006

This article is part of the Alternative music WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Alternative rock, and who are involved in developing and proposing standards for their content, presentation and other aspects. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.

Kurt Cobain is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Use Template:Start-Class instead.	This article has been rated as C-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.

	This article is part of WikiProject Guitarists, a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to guitarists. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Use Template:Start-Class instead.	This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.

This talk page has been archived. Please feel free to shift sections from the archive if you feel they are still relevant. For older discussion please see:

Archive 1

Contents 1 Picture 2 article's first image 3 Got a good image 4 A-class 5 I'll get started 6 Animal cruelty 7 Lead section 8 Kurt Cobain beat ELVIS as the highest earning dead person, just 12 years after death! HAHA 9 New Photo 10 Kurt Cobain 11 Kurt and Courtney element 12 Comment about my edit: 03:11, 3 November 2006

[edit] Picture

Cant anyone change that picture that is at the top of the article, that with Kurt, Novoselic and Grohl. Theres plenty of pictures of him that are much better.

We have to use pictures that are either free or have been released by their owners. This picture meets those requirements. We've tried other photographs, but they've all failed to meet that standard, as would almost every picture you could just pull off of a website. -- ChrisB 18:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I find it hard to believe that that's really the best picture anyone could find

Maybe this is that should be: [1]. -- tcb 08:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Cobain.com is not his official website. The website owner is just using wikipedia to advertise for their site. It should be deleted.

I do not believe the current pic mets standards either and if it does it shold have grohl and novoscelic edited out --Ninandnirvana 00:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] article's first image

why don't you put a nice photo in instead of that ridiculous one? I just can't understant it; and yet they want to consider it a feature article. Ridiculos. Anonymous user.

Yes! I agree! It is incredibly distasteful to see young men looking so drastically "ridiculos"! All featured pages should feature the subject dressed in full regalia, including but not limited to a tuxedo WITH tie, BLACK trousers and shoes, and neatly groomed, well-manicured hair, teeth, and fingernails!

Seriously, though-- what --70.108.116.231 14:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Got a good image

I got a good image that seems to be from the same photo shoot as the main on now, only it features Cobain alone. I can't seem to access it though, as it is from some sort of spanish website, so if you speak spanish go here, search for Kurt Cobain, you can't miss the photo, he's in the same clothing and glasses. and find out whether it can be used. 75pickup (talk • contribs)

We can't just pull pictures off of websites and use them. The current photo has a fair use justification because it was distributed as a promotional photo. The picture you're describing was not. -- ChrisB 22:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A-class

How on Earth can an article be beyond the FA class (i.e. be an A-class article), but is not an actual featured article? Iolakana•T 19:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It's the other way around; FA class is higher than A class. WesleyDodds 02:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'll get started

1. "Love later insisted publicly that the incident was Cobain's first suicide attempt."

This is POV, it's in there to support the murder theory that says that Love only started saying he was suicidal just before he committed suicide because she needed people to believe she wasn't the murderer because it wasn't suicide after all! dun-dun-duh! Except it's rubbish. So "later" should be removed, and maybe the whole thing unless you have proof she actually said that.

1. "Cobain had his first taste of the drug sometime in 1986, thanks to a local drug dealer who had been supplying him with Percodans"

If there's a source for this I would love to know why this sentence uses sarcasm in a POV way as emotive writing? Otherwise it also needs deleting. Is it the position of wikipedia to thank anyone's drug dealer?

1. "On April 3, Love contacted a private investigator, Tom Grant, and hired him to find Cobain. The next day, Love filed a missing person report under Cobain's mother's name without her permission. She added in the file that Cobain was suicidal and was in possession of a shotgun."

Source: Justice For Kurt. Um, no. Just no. Most unreliable biased source ever.

This isn't an A grade article. It certainly doesn't deserve FA, and it wouldn't even get GA if you nom'd it for it. It's B/C grade. I'm leaning towards C, actually. Which is what i'm changing it to. --I'll bring the food 05:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears some editor has bizarrely GA passed this tripe. I have removed it. This article needs MASSIVE work.--I'll bring the food 05:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animal cruelty

This paragraph has NO BEARING on his life. Given that it happened during his childhood, it's even less relevant - most people do things during their childhood that they're not proud of. If he talked about it later in life (as in the case of his vandalism), it would be worth noting. But that is categorically not the case here.

More importantly, Wikipedia articles are not supposed to include every piece of information about their life. Those details should be left to published biographies. Wikipedia articles are supposed to encapsulate the most important elements of a person's life - and this random bit of animal cruelty does not in any way meet that threshold.

Regardless, the Blender article contains numerous inaccuracies. For example, Kurt DID NOT PLAY DRUMS on Grohl's recordings. That was a rumor from several years ago that was completely debunked when the full details of Nirvana's final session were explained. Kurt only attended the sessions for one afternoon, during which they recorded two takes of "You Know You're Right" and a jam. Kurt was not there for the rest of the session.

Worst of all, that article is clearly sourced from other sources, which are all unnamed. (There is no way he could have compiled that information first-hand.) Several of the stories sound like they came from Michael Azerrad's Come as You Are: The Story of Nirvana and Charles Cross' Heavier than Heaven, but there's no way to prove it since the author didn't provide references. The article very strongly suggests that the author simply read those books and picked out a few highlights. That Kurt died listening to R.E.M. was an assertion made by Cross that was never suggested or confirmed by the Seattle PD. -- ChrisB 05:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This article makes Kurt sound like a god beyond the drug usage. You can't represent that he was such a great guy without counterbalancing it with the amoral things he did, like the animal cruelty, the semen picture, ect. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 05:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I rest my case: [2]. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 05:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead section

I've expanded the lead section slightly to fit the guideliens presented at WP:LEAD. Yes, that means we have to mention his death in the beginning of the article. However, I think I've written it in a way to keep it as NPOV as possible and not cause problems regarding the whole suicide debate. WesleyDodds 03:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kurt Cobain beat ELVIS as the highest earning dead person, just 12 years after death! HAHA

GO to www.forbes.com for more info. Yep, I'm putting this in. 71.236.225.50 03:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This information is irrelevant and grossly misleading. He only topped the list because of Courtney's sale of her stake in Nirvana's catalog, which is already mentioned in Nirvana's article. The deal was valued at $50 million. Forbes specifically mentions this as the source of what put him at the top of the list. If she hadn't sold the stake, Cobain would not have even APPEARED on this list. -- ChrisB 04:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. This information is completely relevent. The fact that Courtney sold the farm may not be more than a passing current event, but the fact that she sold it for a record setting amount lends the event historical significance that is well worth noting in the life and legacy of Cobain. To add to the historical significance, this is the first time any late celeb has earned more money in a fiscal year than Elvis. Furthermore, I don't see how this is misleading. Anyone who reads the information (that was originally posted, that is) will know that it's only because of Courtney's deal with Primary Wave that he appeared on the Forbes list, but how does that make it a fluke? That's how dead people make money- their families sell their rights and estates. Do you think the $24 million that John Lennon made this year was purely from royalties? Beatles fans don't like Yoko Ono any more than Nirvana fans like Courtney Love, but that doesn't change the fact that she is primarily responsible for how much the Lennon name rakes in each year. The fact that a single sale of the Cobain estate, whether Courtney was behind it or not, made more money than all the royalties and estate sales of Elvis combined in this particular year makes it absolutely worth noting in his bio.

Below is the original paragraph that was inserted in the Legacy section on Oct 24, 2006. --Atomicskier 17:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

In October 2006, Cobain's posthumous fame among mainstream media was revived when Forbes Magazine® ranked him as the top dollar-earning dead celebrity, earning an estimated $50 million from October 2005 to October 2006. In the six years of the list's publication, Elvis Presley had topped the list every year, but The King fell short of Cobain's earnings by about $8 million. This was the first time that Cobain appeared on the list, and according to Forbes writer Lacey Rose, "his debut atop the list is largely due to his widow, Courtney Love, who sold a 25% stake in his song catalog to publishing company Primary Wave for a reported $50 million." ^[1]

Fortune should know better. It means little to compare current celebrities to past celebrities unless you convert their earning into real dollars (control for inflation) based on the year that they earned the money. For example, Cobain's $50M would only be $34M in 1990 dollars, to pick a random year. Of course this error is repeated everywhere when people say 'he's worth more than Rockefeller was' and the like. I guess it's easier to report misleading numbers than to educate the public that only adjusted dollars can be compared across years (something that the government invariable takes advantage of when they describe a funding increase for a poverty, or whatever that meets or even falls below inflation as "increased spending on poverty"). Antonrojo 17:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

What does this have to do with anything? As they do every year, Forbes (not Fortune) was reporting on this fiscal year only, not what the Elvis name made in the past. So what does inflation have to do with anything? Did you read the article before you weighed in?

That's true. The article I read lists these as the 'richest' celebrities--a term that typically is used to refer to net worth, e.g. Forbes_400. Antonrojo 20:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

First off, the first sentence of the paragraph you added is original research. Nowhere in that article does it say that his "posthumous fame among mainstream media was revived".

But, furthermore, the stat itself is MEANINGLESS. How is it important that Elvis topped the list N years running? Do you think his estate is battling it out for the top of the "chart"? Do they time their deals to bump their chart rank? And your statement about "she sold it for a record setting amount" is patently false. What "record" did the sale set?

This chart has approximately as much notability as the NME's "Best Album of the 1990s" chart. Forbes may be a notable source when it comes to rating companies, but the same notability doesn't apply to things like "Highest Earning Dead Celebrity". This is not a widely-recognized chart like the Billboard 200 - it's a magazine-driven chart intended for PR value. Next year, this paragraph will have NO RELEVANCE WHATSOEVER in this article.

If you're looking for a compromise, here's the best I can do - I wouldn't object to adding one sentence to the paragraph about the licensing deal that's in the Nirvana article (and maybe move the whole section here) saying that the deal resulted in his appearance at the top of the Forbes chart.

Having said that, this paragraph IN NO WAY belongs in a section about Kurt's legacy and his continuing impact. He didn't reach the top of the Forbes chart because of his legacy - he got there because Courtney found someone who was willing to pay money for the rights to license his music. -- ChrisB 02:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

While I still don't agree with all of your points, I can concede that the placement is not ideal. Although I still see the events- both the sale to Primary Wave and the publication in Forbes, as noteworthy, it would be better suited to a section that reads more like a post-suicide timeline of noteable events. Until a section like that can be drafted, perhaps the paragraph should be "archived" here in the discussion section. If you want to pull it, do the honors. --Atomicskier 16:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Photo

There's a photo I found here, copyright is given, perhaps they can be contacted and we may get a free photo. 75pickup (talk • contribs)

Here's a new photo, a photo of Cobain solo wearing the same outfit and in the same exact spot as the photo we have now, only it's only Kurt. I'd like to have some thoughts from the frequent editors of this article about whether it can be uploaded. 75pickup (talk • contribs)

Contacting someone for copyright clearance is a fool's errand. Even if you could find the owner, I highly doubt they'd make the thing free for use. If they were going to do that, they wouldn't have pressed to have their name and copyright attached to it.

The latter can't be used because it's an altered version of the same photograph we already have. (All they did was remove Grohl and Novoselic.) The picture is copyrighted, the only reason that this one is usable is because it was offered for promotional use in support of In Utero. The altered photo is a derivative work, which isn't covered by fair use.

For us to be able to use a picture, it either has to be COMPLETELY free or useable via fair use. For the latter, that usually means a picture that has been offered for promotional use. And that's the problem - Cobain was never promoted by himself, only with Nirvana, so the only known promotional photographs are like the one we have.

Frankly, I don't think this picture is a problem. We've gone more than two years looking (and failing) to find one that would meet the requirements. This one does. Barring a future project (like Journals) where a Cobain pic might be offered for promotional use, it's going to be nearly impossible to find something usable and worth using.

BTW - don't sign your posts with the user template. Use four tildes ~ consecutively at the very end of your post so that the time and date of the post will be recorded. -- ChrisB 04:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

After looking at this:

copyright template, and it mentions nothing about altering photographs, so I am uploading it. It is fair use and I trust that it will not be changed. 75pickup (talk • contribs) 23:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The template doesn't explain fair use. Not mentioning it doesn't mean that it's okay. I added a request to Wikipedia:Requested copyright examinations for someone else to take a look at it and judge its legality here. Please do not re-add the photograph until we can get a clear answer. -- ChrisB 16:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kurt Cobain

The following was pulled from my talk page. Seems more suitable to discuss this here. -- ChrisB 17:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask you a question? Do you actually believe Kurt was murdered? From what I can gather, you don't, but I'm not sure.

The reason I ask is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination

What if there was something similar for everyone interested in speculating on Cobain's death? Don't you think that, considering the law AND everyone close to Cobain have all closed the case, that it's embarrassing and approximates urban legend AND slander that wikipedia is forced to entertain internet extremists?

I really think you should consider helping to petition for a separation of the two articles. This sort of insanity only does his memory injustice and makes him into an E! True Hollywood Story. Mistertruffles 21:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, look: here are the first five pages of celebrity biography articles which I selected completely at random off the top of my head:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lucas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Russell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spike_Lee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Callas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton

NONE of them contains a preface anything like the Cobain opening paragraphs, which contain at least three ridiculously non-NPOV statements, particularly the "curious death" and cheeseball statement about him never wanting to be famous. You know more than anyone from monitoring that page that Cobain has insane fans galore. I really think you should start nudging the page more toward impartiality. I know it sounds like I'm telling you what to think, but I hope you can see where I'm coming from. The difference between the Cobain opening paragraphs and 99% of all other celebrity prefaces is obvious. Mistertruffles 23:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

For starters, none of this belongs on my talk page, as this should involve more than just me.

It doesn't matter what I believe as far as his death is concerned. If you have to know, it varies by the day. I have issues with several of Grant's claims (namely that the 1.52 figure seems to alternate between milligrams and milliliters, and I don't have enough knowledge about measurements to know that the two are directly compatible). However, it's hard not to ignore the absurdity of some of Love's claims and the fact that several of the key elements of the official report don't make sense. But, again, my opinion does not matter here.

The question of his death is entirely relevant to this article, given how widespread the debate is among the Nirvana fanbase. We've worked very hard to create a version of the story that stays NPOV and makes no judgements as to the validity of the arguments. We offer points about the conspiracy, and include contradicting evidence offered by those who disagree.

The only reason that there's a separate JFK conspiracy article is because the discussion is too long for it to be contained in a single article about JFK. There is no substantial reason to move this content to another article.

Regarding the lead section, simply read WP:LS:

"The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article."

The conspiracy is a substantial element of the article as it stands. WP:LS is CLEAR in this matter.

But, furthermore, your claim that the one sentence included somehow slants the article is nothing short of arrogant. The sentence as written, "However, the unusual circumstances of his death fueled much analysis and debate," is the very definition of NPOV. It says that there is debate - WHICH THERE IS. The sentence, as written, DOESN'T EVEN REFERENCE WHAT THE TOPIC OF THE DEBATE IS. As that sentence stands, the "analysis and debate" could very well be the reasons for his suicide - many people openly discussed what might have driven him to suicide.

I could understand your being upset if the sentence were something like: "However, many people, citing inaccuracies in the official reports, believe that Cobain was murdered." In truth, that statement would also be NPOV, given that it accurately represents the truth and also lends no credence to the claims. At the same time, the version as we've written it is even more NPOV and perfectly suited for the lead section, given that it does not reference the specific elements of the "analysis and debate".

I want to be specific about this: your opinion that the murder conspiracy "does his memory injustice" is simply that: YOUR OPINION. It's one POV among many. There are many others who fervently believe that the suicide claim denigrates his memory by portraying him as a depressive junkie who put a gun to his head. That's hardly a positive way to think about somebody, ESPECIALLY if it isn't true. The goal of NPOV is to take any and all notable opinions and cast them in such a way that they are reasonably presented (in a journalistic manner) with no one opinion cast as the one "true" opinion.

Pulling or singificantly altering the section because YOU don't agree with it would be a complete violation of NPOV. And Wikipedia's guidelines are pretty clear in this regard. -- ChrisB 17:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That something is NPOV and not slander is arguable in this context. Bearing in mind that wiki has rules surrounding issues like these, and that the issues discussed have been sued out of much of mainstream journalism for exactly the reason of its libellous nature, it's not really relevant to point out that it's only my opinion. It clearly isn't.

The major problem Kurt-conspiracy people have is that no one in the mainstream media has written even one piece of investigative journalism on this topic, besides four nutbags and the rabid fans who follow them. Pretty much everyone else denounces the theory. There is no "let's examine the facts" article to be found in favor of the story.

Again, look at Kennedy for comparison. It's not hard to find magazine and newspaper articles on the topic of his assassination. The substantial weirdness of that story has trickled easily into mainstream consciousness. Whereas no real journalist or magazine has ever supported the Cobain conspiracy theory--not even in the wake of the pathetically terrible Broomfield documentary! This is the kind of POV where the only people who carry it are internet extremists. In my opinion, that's embarrassing, and fairly discrediting.

I already made my case about the opening paragraphs. Flaunting the wiki definition of an opening paragraph is not much of a response to what I said. And really, the idea that the opening is NPOV is absurd. It informs the reader that he was "a reluctant spokesman for Generation X" (puke), and then tells you a band led by a guy who signed to Geffen records, a major label, never wanted to be famous. A quick temperature reading of most Kurt diehards suggests that this is a favored perception of him, and not NPOV at all; in fact, it's fairly obvious Charles Cross wrote the biography he did to help dispel this perception. "Who will be the King and Queen of outcast teens," indeed.

As for the suggestion that the line about the unusual circumstances of his death doesn't allude to the conspiracy, you'll forgive me if I'm a tad incredulous.

I appreciate the hard work done on the article, but the major problem with the article is still that it supports urban legend. No real journalist has ever written a piece supporting the idea that Kurt wrote Courtney's songs, and Erlandson's comment obviously clears up the "Old Age" issue, yet the comment remains, along with the ridiculously POV assertion that Love is "unpopular". Go to any number of RIDICULOUSLY unpopular celebrity wiki pages and please tell me if it says so there. Do you think if you go to Paris Hilton's page now, it will say "many people hate her for being a greedy, anorexic cunt"? Pretending the Kurt page isn't tailored to the perspective of a diehard Kurt fan in various places is pretty silly. Think of all the celebrity gossip and slander out there surrounding tons of people--do you think you'll find it spread around on their wiki pages? This conversation is seriously daffy when you look at any other page on wikipedia. There is no comparable page to Kurt's.

By the way, can we archive all the stuff over six months old that's on this Talk page, the way people do on their own Talk pages? Or is that against some general rule? It's a freaking mess. Mistertruffles 07:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Everything you're addressing here is an opinion. It is your opinion. Removing the opposing opinion would kill NPOV. Yet that's precisely what you're demanding we do.

This article meets every Wikipedia guideline to the letter. Just because you don't agree with the content doesn't mean it's invalid. Read ALL of the main guidelines and you'll understand that.

The consensus for this article is what you read here. One person can disagree with the consensus, and we can make accommodations for that opinion, but that one opinion cannot override the existing consensus, which is PRECISELY what you're asking us to do.

This article's content in no way amounts to slander. I don't think I need to mention that your Paris Hilton comparison is absurd - this isn't Courtney's article. If we had a comment like "many people hate Cobain because they think he's too emo", you might have a point.

It is well-documented (and cited) that Courtney was not universally adored by Nirvana's fanbase or by the people around him. Do I need to mention Steve Albini's quote: "I don’t feel like embarrassing Kurt by talking about what a psycho hose-beast his wife is, especially because he knows it already." (Azerrad, Musician, October 1993.)

And, again, you're pushing ridiculous reasoning as to why the conspiracy content shouldn't be included. It doesn't matter if it's journalistic or not (and some would readily argue with you about it). Wikipedia's three main guidelines are: WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. Those are the specific three that we are charged to follow. And this article meets that WITHOUT QUESTION. We address the topic, and offer the counter opinion. Every discussed element comes from a verifiable source. That's it. That's all we need to do, and we've done that.

How about a little hypocrisy, too? You're criticising us for being too "tailored to the perspective of a diehard Kurt fan", but what the hell is going on with Courtney's article? One of the most notable elements of her life and career has been the rift between people who think she's a manipulative starfucker and those who believe she's a powerful, strong woman and a role model. Yet there's barely any criticism of her anywhere in the article. Seriously, you're complaining about the fact that this article is too defensive of Kurt, yet Courtney's article pulls even more egregious stunts by finding creative ways to excuse her behavior. (Her legal problems amount to a list of what they are?!? Really?)

You know what isn't NPOV? How about addressing Kurt & Courtney and summarizing it with: "Broomfield's documentary ends with the director declaring that he doesn't believe the evidence points to Love being a murderer." Oh, so the fact that he believed that Courtney was hampering his investigation wasn't noteworthy enough to be included in the article? How about the part where he confronted her about it during the last part of the movie? The only reason the movie is even MENTIONED in Love's article is to debunk the conspiracy, which is a complete abuse of Broomfield's opinion and the movie.

Seriously, give me a break. You don't have to take my word for it, either: put Love's article up for comment and see what happens. Love's article is a PUFF PIECE compared to this one. -- ChrisB 05:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't get that there's literally not one person on wikipedia--not even Michael Jackson--who deals with the kind of allegations Courtney Love does, despite the fact that, again, no prominent figure has supported the allegations for one second. It isn't a puff piece because it abandons a discussion about something that no one credible supports. Wikipedia is not investigative journalism; it is a NPOV encyclopedia with an alert to avoid slander on living persons. You don't realize that because you've been parked in Cloud Cuckoo Land with this nutty page for God knows how long.

There's no reason to address Kurt & Courtney at length, the most basic reason being that it can be discussed on its own page. I think the section on Cross on Kurt's page is pretty absurd--it's obviously a fan-perception-based negative review, where there shouldn't be one at all. Ask yourself why it says "many had problems with blah blah blah" instead of just listing the factual error? People don't like Cross' book because it makes Kurt look like the confused, ambivalent semi-hypocrite that he was, and confused people need Kurt to be this accidental saint, a view which the book ruins.

One has to ask: why should Courtney's page be an in-depth exploration (and thus, undeniably, a commercial plug) that is allowed to contextualize the movie as if it demonstrates the possibility that she murdered Kurt? It doesn't, and Nick doesn't think it does either. Nick has basically said what the movie is really about is him trying to have the movie made. You could say that she "suppressed" the movie, but since when is that unusual in Hollywood? Is it REALLY shocking to anyone that she wouldn't allow him to put Kurt's music in a film bashing his wife? Yet he whines about it, moronically. And as for the weirdness of suppressing journalists, give me a break--you know Kurt threatened to have murdered two women who were going to write an expose on him & Courtney. All high-powered Hollywood people retain lawyers for insane garbage like Broomfield's. How can any self-respecting Kurt fan not want to laugh or cry during the scene where Nick exclaims surprise at the fetus art at Tracy Marander's house. "GOSH" he says, like he never saw the front & back covers to In Utero in his life. When the movie wrapped, he said he'd like to investigate Biggie Smalls and Tupac next. You know, after doing Kurt, Courtney, and Heidi Fleiss.

Anyway, to the point, Nick has said on the record, "I think that he committed suicide. I don't think that there's a smoking gun. And I think there's only one way you can explain a lot of things around his death. Not that he was murdered, but that there was just a lack of caring for him. I just think that Courtney had moved on, and he was expendable."

There is nothing there but slander, and if the paragraph were titled something moronic like "Courtney Love, enemy of free speech and also, uh, member of ACLU" then perhaps your suggestion that her suppression of the film was noteworthy would be accurate. It isn't.

As for her legal problems amounting to a list of what they are...? I don't understand the question. As opposed to saying what? She's a skeezy drug addict? Kurt was a skeezy drug addict who abandoned his daughter. Why not include "some people think" that as well? I see them both as hugely flawed individuals. Thing is, wiki isn't the forum for expressing that. If you want to, start your own site.

As for putting Courtney's article up for review, please--by all means. I don't know how one goes about it, but the editors who frequent the page don't seem to mind the recent changes. It's totally amusing to me that you think having a page that doesn't smash her is showing bias. It's normal for wiki. Kurt's page is weird. Again I suggest you read around. It's a pretty obvious fact and those silly, totally vague wiki policies don't change it at all. But tell me how to put her page up for comment; I'd be happy to. Mistertruffles 07:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kurt and Courtney element

Okay, whoever you are, go no further without signing up for an account so we can actually dialogue about this without you floating between Philadephia-area IP addresses.

For starters, reverting back to your original version was not acceptable here. I noted several problems beyond the one that you tried to explain with your last edit. Feel free to re-read them in the history and address them as needed.

But here are the two main problems:

1) THIS IS NOT THE ARTICLE FOR THE MOVIE. The sentences about how the movie shifts to attack Courtney ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THIS ARTICLE. You are more than welcome to add the content to the article on the movie, which can be found here: Kurt & Courtney. Feel free to expand that article as much as you want. The SPECIFIC reason the movie is discussed here is for how it relates to the study of Kurt's death, PERIOD.

2) "overview of the source opinions in Broomfield's Kurt and Courtney" IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE SOURCE. That constitutes original research. Sources must be cited to specific people and/or specific comments. If those comments are citeable to specific people in the movie, fine. But you can't just summarize the movie and use the summary as a source. -- ChrisB 05:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

First off, don't be so condescending. I simply tried again to introduce what I thought was important about the movie to the article. And that isn't acceptable because? Every wiki article has its own interest group cabal, with far too much time on their hands and a general interest in controlling the flow of knowledge to excessive lengths. Who would have thought that an article with as small of life-altering possibilites as one of Kurt Cobain would follow the pattern?

1)Overall, Broomfield felt that he hadn't uncovered enough evidence to prove a conspiracy, but felt that "Courtney's people" had made the film's production extremely difficult, closely monitoring the angle of his investigation and applying the pressures that eventually cut off his funding How this doesn't relate to the conspiracy is beyond me.

2)One by one, this is precisely what each source says, or at least what several of them do. This is not original research. Did you even see the film? I'd laugh if you didn't and yet, here you are telling me what I'm citing from it is somehow irrelevant to the movie or original research.--72.92.120.106 00:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not being condescending. I take exception to people who feel their content should be entered and remain unaltered, even when there are objections. Wikipedia articles are based on being community efforts - one piece from one person, one piece from someone else. Continuing to jam in a set of text that another person finds objectionable is not the way to handle it. It's all about finding a balance that everyone can be happy with. Just to reiterate: you TWICE returned your original version of the paragraph without accommodating (or acknowledging) the objections.

1) Broomfield specifically said he didn't think there was a conspiracy around Kurt's death, so trying to use his story to imply there was one doesn't work.

2) You're not citing from it, you're summarizing. You can't assume that everyone who reads this article has seen the movie and knows who these "sources" are. Wikipedia's guidelines are specific about this. You need to either supply the names of the people who expressed those opinions or provide Broomfield's narrative (and place it in that context). -- ChrisB 03:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well for one, you came in here shouting. Your "explanation" - objection - has only recently surfaced on her. Prior to that, it was a one line description that shook no tree. It is in your place to voice your objection first, and if it is baseless, well, then your opinion does not matter any more than mine would, and your revert is unwarranted. Perhaps you think the fact that it is your opinion is more important than your opinion's content?

Speaking of groundless accusations, you still have not explained why Overall, Broomfield felt that he hadn't uncovered enough evidence to prove a conspiracy, but felt that "Courtney's people" had made the film's production extremely difficult, closely monitoring the angle of his investigation and applying the pressures that eventually cut off his funding is "objectionable" or off-topic. It only feeds the claims of conspiracy theorists. By the way, who said that I was even "trying to use" this forum to show there was a conspiracy? Broomfield even talks to a source that discredits the "gun operation under the influence of heroin" theory that grant presses so adamently, and I tried to put this into the article about Broomfield too. 2) as for citing that summary, maybe we don't have to. We could just say "in the opinion of those close to kurt".--72.92.120.106 4:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I did explain it, and several times: It has NOTHING to do with Cobain. That sentence you're quoting specifically relates to Broomfield and Courtney. As I said already, Broomfield does not believe that Courtney's efforts to stop him have anything to do with trying to cover up "Kurt's murder". So using it to "feed the claims of conspiracy theorists" is completely inappropriate.

One more time, for clarity: it cannot be proven that Courtney hampering Broomfield's investigation had ANYTHING to do with the murder/suicide conspiracy. Because it cannot be tied directly to Kurt's death, it does not belong in this article, particularly when that section is about the specific elements of the conspiracy. We're including the specific elements of the conspiracy that are discussed in the movie, and, by Broomfield's own admission, Courtney hampering his investigaion isn't one of them.

Completely unrelated: Broomfield's "discovery" about the gun operation can't be used as supporting evidence. It's already been contested by several sources, Grant included. Broomfield's "test" wasn't scientifically executed, which should end the discussion. However, the real problem is that the subject was using methadone, not heroin. Broomfield's effort is anecdotal at best, unrelated at worst. (Which is the main reason it isn't included.)

2) Again, who are "those close to Kurt"? Those people have to be identified to use the quotes. Drawing a conclusion from watching a movie is original research, plain and simple. And, as I said before, if Broomfield's narration said something like, "After speaking with Cobain's friends and family, it was clear that he had a history of depression", etc - we could use that and attribute it to Broomfield. That would be fine. But neither you nor any other Wiki editor can provide that summary themselves - it's SPECIFICALLY against Wikipedia guidelines. -- ChrisB 04:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment about my edit: 03:11, 3 November 2006

I'm adding this just because I don't think I had enough room in the edit summary to explain this. I didn't look to see who added that section, so please don't take this personally.

I'm not comfortable using comments Kurt made in 1991 about a completely unrelated circumstance as proof of suicide. There's no intrinsic tie between the two. Nowhere in the suicide note did Kurt suggest that his stomach pain led to his suicide, which is what the quote was referencing.

If he had a history of depression, that's one thing. If he'd attempted suicide in '91, I think that'd be fair game as well. But people often say things like, "Man, I almost killed myself," after a bad break-up or other negative circumstance - it doesn't mean they're serious. (Plus, that comment reads like he was simply trying to justify his heroin usage - ie, "I'd have died if I hadn't taken heroin" implies that he had no choice in the matter.)

And Kurt was prone to saying things like that, even when he wasn't serious. There are people who think that "I Hate Myself and Want to Die" predicted his suicide, even though the title was just a band joke.

Here's where I'm going. People often talk about suicide and never commit suicide. People often commit suicide and leave no prior verbal indication that they were ever depressed or ever considered suicide. There's no foundational link between the two - even if Kurt talked about it and later did it.

Mentioning health factors that predispose suicide (of which he had several) I think are fair. But I think using quotes like that one are just misleading. -- ChrisB 03:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. See, that is a good, thorough explanation--72.92.120.106 4:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This para mentions more than 'health factors' - it quotes without citation factors that his friends thought may have been pertinent. Could these sources be either cited or removed please? Without them , this is groundless speculation (and even with them, it's still not a list of 'health factors' - his friends are laymen, not doctors).

White hotel 14:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one who added it. Anyways, as I explained in the edit summary, I mainly added it to back up the counterpoint that Cobain was depressed and had comtemplated suicide before by providing an example. The comment itself comes from 1993, I believe, but I can't be sure since it was taken from original material collected from interviews by Azerrad for his book, meaning Cobain told him this stuff directly. The context doesn't indicate that it was meant to be a joke; it's from a long section where he's trying to rationalize his use of heroin, so he comes off as pretty defensive. I also think there were some other (in retrospect) unsettling quotes from him along those lines, but I can't remember where I read them at the moment. But the point is, yes, he has been shown to be suicidal previously.

Also on that note, Azerrad writes in the final chapter that the Rome incident seems like a clear suicide attempt to him given comments Cobain made to him about how he was very clear about the affects of mixing pills and alcohol and how he purposefully avoided doing it (Azerrad even directs the reader to the page number where Cobain said this). WesleyDodds 18:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

He didn't say he was depressed in the 91 quote. He said he was at his wit's end because of the pain. Those are two entirely different things, which is the specific reason that I think this quote is inappropriate. Like I said, I don't have a problem with including the factual information about his medical history and psychological issues, but pulling random quotes where he mentions suicide doesn't work. It's no different from including a sentence that says, "Kurt also wrote a song called 'I Hate Myself and Want to Die'." There HAS to be something better than that quote that we can put in there.

And, in fairness, Azerrad's statement doesn't work. Azerrad freely admits that he saw Kurt for the last time in the fall of 1993 and has no specific information about Kurt's last months. And it's VERY common for people to say things like, "Oh, I would never do that," and then have that exact thing happen, intentionally or not. (How common is it to hear the child of an alcoholic say, "After seeing what it did to my [parent], I'll never do that," then have them wind up an alcoholic?)

You just can't take people's words to predict things like suicide, or use them for or against it happening. Charles Peterson's last conversation with Kurt was entirely positive, and he got no indication that Kurt would kill himself. Others have said the same thing. Suicides regularly happen at the drop of a hat with no warning, which is precisely why we aren't including statements from people who say, "Kurt wasn't suicidal." There's just no correlation between words and actions, with the possible exception of someone coming forward saying that the person was specifically threatening to kill themselves (eg, "I'm going to kill myself") in the days before their deaths. There's no indication that this was the case with Kurt.

That 91 quote just does not work. I don't see any justification for keeping it. We need to find something better. -- ChrisB 04:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a section that preceeds that quote from the same page (236):

Kurt's stomach pain had been driving him insane on the European tour, making him chronically irritable and antisocial. "A lot of the hatred would surface because I was in such a fucked-up mental state," he says. "I was so angry with my body that i couldn't deal with anyone socially. I was just totally neurotic because I was in pain all the time. People had no idea I was in pain and I couldn't complain about it twenty-four hours a day."

He says the pain made him suicidal, so he simply chose his poison. "I just decided I wanted to have a life," he says. "If I'm going to kill myself, I'm going to kill myself for a reason instead of some stupid stomach problem. So I decided to take everything in excess all at once."

Obviously the case could be made that Cobain was rationalizing his heroin use (which he was; virtually everything he says in that chapter is to that effect). But it's still pretty clear that he contemplated suicide. I will try to find other stuff, but like I said, we need citations for stuff like that, and that's what I've found so far. WesleyDodds 05:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, found another one. This is in reference to the whole Vanity Fair debacle:

It seemed hopeless--doctors, government agencies, the press all were against them. At one dark moment, they took out Kurt's handgun and considered taking their own lives.

"It was just so humiliating and it just felt like so many powerful people were out to get us that it just seemed hopeless," says Kurt. "It didn't seem like we'd ever win. It was amazing. We were totally suicidal. It's not the right time for a woman trying to get rid of the hormonal problems of just having a baby and me just getting off of drugs and just being bombarded with this. It was just too much." But in the end, they put down the gun. (pg. 271) WesleyDodds 05:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It is assumed that Kurt killed himself because of drug abuse.Although many assume that Courtney Love killed him herself. They're is no way in a person could shoot a gun with Chuck Taylor's on by holding the gun with his foot so therefore this still remains to Kurt committing suicide