Talk:Kurt Cobain/Comments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[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.

David Fricke, "Courtney Love: Life After Death", Rolling Stone, December 15, 1994:

Courtney: "I can see how it happened. He took 50 fucking pills. He probably forgot how many he took. But there was a definite suicidal urge, to be gobbling and gobbling and gobbling. ... Yeah, he definitely left a note in the room. I was told to shut up about it. And what could the media have done to help him?"

In the weeks after Kurt's death, every official statement, including one from Nirvana's management, was that Rome was an accident. (See Cobain: By the Editors of Rolling Stone for more details.) At no point between Rome and his death did ANYBODY - doctors, news media, label people, Courtney, Nirvana, anyone - claim that Rome was a suicide attempt. Dylan Carlson, Kurt's closest friend, is specifically on record as saying that the first time he talked to Cobain after Rome, he was given no indication that Rome was a suicide attempt, and was not told so until after Kurt was dead.

And, for the record, you're entirely misinterpreting the statement. She didn't make this claim before he died, she made this claim AFTER he was dead. She retroactively declared Rome a suicide attempt where no one else had made the claim.

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?

Come as You Are by Michael Azerrad, p. 41: "Meanwhile, Kurt had begun to hang out with a drug dealer named Grunt (not his real name). ... Grunt began bringing Kurt handfuls of Percodans, an opiate-derived painkiller, each in their little foil and plastic pouches, charging him only a dollar a day. ... One night that summer, Grunt and Kurt did heroin together. Grunt shot Kurt up."

The intention of "thanks" wasn't sarcasm. It was a note of credit - he was the reason that Kurt tried heroin. "Thanks" is often used in this context, and not for sarcasm.

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.

There's a photocopy of the exact report in question in the back of Who Killed Kurt Cobain?. Grant is also on record about the missing person's report. So if you have a problem with Justice for Kurt as a source, we'll just simply switch it to something else.

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 05:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

As per complaints of lack of time given to render adequate changes I have adjusted level to GA from A, and will adjust to C if the article fails to meet any kind of reasonable timely fixes to the problems above and others listed on the talk page required to keep GA which the article currently does not deserve. --I'll bring the food 02:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

So far, all I see is that you haven't done a significant amount of research about this situation and are using your limited understanding to gauge the POV status of the article. It is GROSSLY inappropriate to use the Good Article system to exact this kind of change. You could have gotten the same answers by posting these challenges in Discussion and allowed us to supply answers.

If you have any further questions about any of the content in the article, feel free to point them my way, and I'll answer them to the best of my ability. -- ChrisB 04:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)