Talk:Courtney Love

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
Past Alternative Music Collaboration of the Week This article was a past Alternative Music Collaboration of the Week! You can view this week's collaboration, or view other past collaborations.
Archive
Archives
*— September 2007


Contents


[edit] The Image Doesn't Suck Enough

Could we possibly get a blurrier image of the side of her drunken face? I think that would really help the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crash2108 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Somehow, I don't agree Chickpeaface 11:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I lolled. Wardrich (talk) 07:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References at bottom

can anyone give me a hand with formatting these? somethings changed and they are making the page wide thanks Chickpeaface 20:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Real quote?

There's a section, when she's on about her custom guitar, where she's quoted as saying "Also, I am a total hosebag" is this a real quote or vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.76.92.200 (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

i checked the source, and it's vandalism - i've removed it Chickpeaface 08:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] murder theorists

I don't think this is the place to replay all of that mid 90's speculation, so I've removed it. Chickpeaface 20:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

In 2004 Max Wallace and Ian Halperin, two highly respected investigative journalists from Rolling Stone Magazine wrote a book called, Love & Death; The Murder of Kurt Cobain, in which they implicate Love in Cobain’s murder. I suggest you read this book. This is not conspiracy theory from the 90’s. The Seattle police never even had a homicide investigator look at the crime scene. There was, unfortunately, a rush to judgment and many people believe a travesty of justice occurred. Just read the book or check out the websites http://cobaincase.com/ or http://justiceforkurt.com/. --paultimmons (talk) 08:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Do not remove my edits again, Chickpeaface. Neutral POV means NEUTRAL - not coming down on one side or the other regarding Cobain's death. To say "self-inflicted" is necessarily to VIOLATE the neutral POV policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.150.180 (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


My faverite was the user who said that the death certificate is not a final verdict. FYI if you did your research you'd know Courtney never allowed the certificate to be publically released, as per Seattle law. So we really don't know what it says other than "suicide". (And Tom requested the release of it, citing that if he saw it and it proved he wasn't murdered, he'd drop the case against Courtney. So, obviously its never been released.)

If the murder thing is to be added, it needs its own section. (Thats carefully watched like a hawk too) Maybe some thing like w/ Courtney's controversies. Of course this isn't her only controversy.

Other than that, stay away from the current section on Kurt's death. It is officially ruled a suicide, and despite popular opinion, in which wikipedia doesn't always take, its not the right verdict either. We also do not force our opinions about a giving subject onto a article. For example the murder theorists have a hated view of Courtney, while I don't. But I don't edit the article to reflect that either, neither should the other side.

Xuchilbara (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


If someone wants to add a section about the cause of death controversy, that would be OK. But until then, it is a violation of the Neutral POV policy to declare in this article that Cobain killed himself, when that proposition is the subject of much controversy - and not just from "conspiracy theorists" on the internet, but in mainstream media, among friends of Kurt Cobain, etc. Jason2520 (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I mean hell, this is from the intro to the entry on Cobain himself: "On April 8, 1994, Cobain was found dead in his home in Seattle, the victim of what was officially ruled a self-inflicted shotgun wound to the head. In ensuing years, the circumstances of his death became a topic of fascination and debate." If the Cobain article is neutral on the suicide/murder question, why shouldn't the Courtney Love page be? Jason2520 (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPOV. It is inappropriate to insert viewpoints held by an extremely small minority of people. If you can find reliable sources, it would be appropriate to add it. However, Wikipedia is not the place for conspiracy theories. --Yamla (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not "inserting" viewpoints, I am removing them. There is a huge difference, and this is not a matter of "conspiracy theories." I am alleging nothing, no conspiracy, nothing, just changing the article to reflect a neutral point of view. This article should not take a stand one way or another on the issue. As it's written now, it does - it affirmatively declares it was a suicide. If you're going to revert my edits, at least address the substance of my arguments here. All you've done is declare that it violates the NPOV policy, without backing it up. The article as written violates the NPOV policy and needs to be fixed. Jason2520 (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Cobain's death was ruled a suicide. By inserting "alleged", etc., you are implying that this may not be the case. If so, you require a reliable source. It's not a violation of WP:NPOV to claim that Cobain committed suicide if this is how his death was ruled. --Yamla (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

How about this: Love_and_Death:_The_Murder_of_Kurt_Cobain? A book published by a major publishing company which was on the NY Times best seller list. Is that good enough? Jason2520 (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Well? Unless someone can explain why this source is unacceptable, I'll change it back. I provided the information you requested. Jason2520 (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I question the book's reliability and neuturality. Like stated before Wikipedia is not changed to support a minority view point. The offcial verdict is suicide, theres evidence of suicide, that even comes out of Kurt's mouth! Please, refrain from changing his death ruling to fit your own viewpoint. It is not neutural, nor does it support the majority. (including his family). The offcial verdict, as it stands, should be on this page. Not someone's theory of murder. Give me conclusive evidence of murder. And I know you cannot, neither can Tom. Xuchilbara (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

1.52 mg of heroin per litre of blood —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.137.199 (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No, Jason2520, it is not good enough to use as a source to cast suspicion on Courtney Love for this conspiracy theory. Note that on the book's article that is says "...purporting to show...". As in, not definitive, only speculation. This cannot go into this article due to WP:BLP policies. Period. Tarc (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This is just going over old ground - and it's clear from this page's history wikipedia is not the place for it. Chickpeaface 19:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You people are absolute fucking morons. You said find a source, I found it, now it's not good enough because it doesn't prove the matter once and for all as if that would even be possible. Whatever. It's because of people like you that other people don't bother editing Wikipedia. Grow a brain, each of you. Jason2520 19:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I mean seriously: are you people brain damaged? Are you even native English speakers? Why is it so difficult for you to understand basic concepts of logic and apply them to the wikipedia rules? Where did you go to school? What rock did you crawl out from under? Jason2520 19:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to read WP:CIVILITY. Chickpeaface 20:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
All editors should know WP:CIVIL. Keep a cool head guys. -- Reaper X 22:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations, Jason. Yes, you found a source. Of gossip. Mistertruffles 05:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Theories, gossip, rumors... call it what you want. There is no real proof of her involvement is Kurts death and in my personal opinion it probably was Kurts own decision. However, considering the amount of attention these "rumors" have gotten I think you can justify to mention these books (biased or not), at least in a couple of lines. I dont think that it deserves its own section, but a small mention to these controversies in the marriage section along with stating that the official verdict was a suicide, would be fitting in my opinion. What do you say? Krizzi (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The main problem with the murder theories is that they are entirely pseudo-scientific. They pretend to have a factual basis. Meanwhile, the truth is, a good biography of Courtney Love would in fact mention her unpopularity and the weird persistent public anger sent her way both during and after Kurt's death -- it's a fascinating part of her story. Unfortunately, wikipedia contributors seem incapable of walking the fine line between rumor and slander. And the whole story of the conspiracy theorists has always involved the desperate cover-up of the obvious lies and gaps of information in their case. Take for example El Duce - the conspiracy theorists use this guy as a source even though his entire career was based on lying to the press for fun. Not one of them mentions this. Instead, they speculate Courtney had HIM killed for talking! In Nick Broomfield's movie you can actually see him LAUGHING as he tells the lie to yet another rube journalist. No, there's no way to have the Kurt conspiracy theories up, because the idiots who propagate them will always pretend they've a factual basis. And they simply do not. 24.206.118.59 (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not a specialist in these theories and frankly don't give a damn about them. Conspiracy theories like this are usually build by people who want things to be like they think it is and take every little coincidence as a sign of the great conspiracy. However, just like the 9/11 and JFK assassination mention these popular (and questionable) theories, maybe there should be a link to Death of Kurt Cobain or Kurt & Courtney without discussing the theories on in this article. So, a little mention on Courtney unpopularity (get some source) and a link to another article, can we try that? Krizzi (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
From what I have seen, it is this edit that is constantly being reverted. I am somewhat neutral on whether the theory itself should be included here, but in my opinion, saying a book was published alleging Courtney was involved in Kurt's death is a fact, and passes WP:NPOV. The inclusion of this doesn't support the argument that there is a conspiracy. I'm not sure about including that it reached #18 on The New York Times Bestseller list, but this may suggest that it is notable enough to include. -- Reaper X 16:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Notability isn't the issue; the policies of WP:BLP are. This has already been brought before both the Biographies and admin incidents notice-boards, and it has been laid down pretty definitively that placing this info on this page isn't going to fly. Tarc (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
El Duce had a career appearing on talk shows saying ridiculous things like "I endorse rape" and bragging about fathering crack babies. He was just taking anyone who would believe his bullshit for a ride. Only a moron would not realize this. And only someone deliberately trying to deceive the public would consistently hide this fact. You can see his absurdist band pretending to be rapists and drug abusers on the old proto-Jerry Springer talk show Hot Seat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jswJ0r8BhBM
Hilariously, a member of Hole once dated El Duce. El Duce is just a prankster. Get a clue. As for the polygraph test, they aren't admissible in court, and Edward Gelb, the "leading expert" who administered the test, had a fake doctorate. Mistertruffles (talk) 04:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Picture replacements, anyone?

That picture should really be replaced. It's so amateur and blurred that she isn't even identifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.149.131.145 (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well unfortunately, it is the only image so far that is free, because it has a Creative Commons licence, and therefore meets WP:NONFREE. -- Reaper X 16:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

there's an appeal for a free image on her official forums, so hopefully something will come of that Chickpeaface 19:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I uploaded one from Flickr yesterday. I'll put it up. -- Reaper X 19:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
that looks loads better ;)Chickpeaface 21:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

I've requested protection again after the past few days activity.Chickpeaface 18:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It was removed by a bot right after, maybe proper format wasn't followed. I'll re-submit it. -- Reaper X 22:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

nice one cheers ;) Chickpeaface 22:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[the following user is indefinietely blocked] I do not request protection after the past few days activity. I would like to discuss this with anyone who wishes to. --paultimmons (talk) 08:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

This article is a biography and as such comes under our policy on the biographies of living people. This is not a discussion forum. Pushing theories, conspiracies, and potentially libellous material will not be tolerated. Editors ignoring this warning may be blocked without further notice.--Docg 08:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that. However, I'd like to know why this same strictness of approach is not being applied to the Kurt Cobain page. Why aren't peoples' conspiracy theories confined to their OWN Wikipedia pages? If a private investigator is known for trying to advance a theory, why not print that theory in its entirety on THEIR page, given the lack of hard evidence in favor of it? Mistertruffles 05:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Going solo"

The section should probably be renamed to "Solo career" or something along that line. The phrase is quite colloquial and unless it refers to a tour done by Love (Or of that nature) it should be replaced for being unencyclopaedic. Quite a minor issue really. ScarianTalk 22:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

How about "America's Sweetheart" to tie in with the album released at that time? Chickpeaface (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure, but remember to italicise it. ScarianTalk 17:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Opening Statement

I think the opening statement needs, I don't know, meat? But I'm not sure what do do w/ it. Suggestions? Xuchilbara (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] "Jewish?"

Are you serious with all these Jewish tags?? Courtney only tried Kabbalah for a short time and it didn't not work out. She went through a Catholic faize where she actually practiced the religion for a long peroid, unlike Kabbalah & Scientology. The way this is done, you might as well slap the article w/ every religion Courtney breifly attempted. She is offcially a buddhist, her myspace blog, and forum posts (which she posts herself) comfirm this and so do many other primary sources. Shouldn't the article reflect Courtney's real religion? She even has said herself that she went through the religions I named, but none worked for her, only Buddhism did. Xuchilbara (talk) 04:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

She often self-identifies as Jewish in terms of ethnicity, not religion. So, I suppose, it's debatable. 24.206.118.59 (talk) 13:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


Can we get sources on that? Its news to me. And in any case, I think the Kabbalah tags should be removed. Xuchilbara (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dead?

Looks like vandalism.. Stonesour025 (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whole article badly needs copyedit

They would hook up again in May 1991 at a Butthole Surfers concert. In November 1991, when Hole and Nirvana both happened to be touring Europe at the same time, they hooked up for good.

Especially considering the nebulous and varying colloquial definitions of "hooking up," I strongly suggest someone work on this, and on the rest of the article for similar reasons. I'm not against a slightly more casual tone/style here than in other articles in WP, but this example doesn't come off so much casual as it does 16-year-old's-drunken-phone-conversation-style, which is about as unencyclopedic as I can imagine in a scenario where actual words are still involved. Thanks so much! Sugarbat (talk) 00:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If it bothers you, consider fixing it yourself, instead of asking others to make the changes you desire. Thanks much -- Foetusized (talk) 02:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Can't do it myself until I finish w/another (long) article. I'll be glad to come back and work on this one laterish, but I don't think it's all that strange of me to suggest edits in passing; often I'll check the discussion page of an article, myself, before I make edits, especially w/r/t style/tone, to see whether there's a recent to-do list. Do *you* think "hooking up" is encyclopedic language (I'm just curious)? Ta - Sugarbat (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)