Talk:Death of Kurt Cobain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 November 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

[edit] Focus

This article can't just be about conspiracy theories and counter-theories. given it's called "Death of Kurt Cobain", it should actually discuss events leading up to his death and the discovery of his body, as well as reactions to it. WesleyDodds 10:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but I completely agree with this. I really didn't intend to start this to focus on the conspiracy theories - it just happened to be the easiest way to start developing. -- ChrisB (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

1) Danny Goldberg, wife of Rosemary Carroll, states Kurt committed suicide and refers to the "crazy Internet rumors" of the murder theory in his book "Dispatches From The Culture Wars". The entire text of the book is searchable through Amazon.com to see this for yourself. I just added this but it was deleted. Why? It is entirely relevant. Goldberg and Rosemary were personally involved in Cobain's life. Obviously they must share or overlap opinions of the situation. No one has questioned WHY Carroll was being so forthcoming with a PI hired by Courtney Love.Even if she felt Kurt had been murdered, why wasn't she taking her claims and evidence to the police? It is implied in this article that she felt Kurt was murdered, and yet in later years, her husband has stated the exact opposite. Given that these people were/are godparents of Kurt's daughter, their opinions and actions are valid in the context of this information.

2) The entire Greg Sage quote should be left. It a) describes Kurt's intentions for projects post-April 1994, and also suggests that Sage believes his label could've found justification for Kurt's murder, preferring it to letting Kurt just drop out of the industry. Thus he would be "immortalized" in death. I'm not sure why ChrisB felt the need to delete this, but I have reverted it.

3) Krist Novoselic explicitly states in his book "Of Grunge and Government" that Kurt took his own life.

4) There is not a single mention of the fact that Leland Cobain, Kurt's grandfather, has publicly stated NUMEROUS times that he feels Kurt was murdered and that Courtney is involved.

5) This article should focus on the last days, specifically from the time NIRVANA ended in March 1994 and beyond. A lot of discrepancies of actions and intent can be documented to prove that there is substantial cause for these murder theories to persist. Timewalk92 (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I re-added the content about Goldberg since there were references. As for what Krist and Cobain's grandfather said, that is relevant but needs references.NeoApsara (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The references are irrevelant. Goldberg's opinion has NO bearing on what Grant claims Carroll said - Goldberg was not asked about Carroll's claims and was speaking on his own opinions. That they were married has no bearing - it's entirely possible (and reasonable) that Carroll believes Cobain was murdered while Goldberg does not. The fact that the two are married cannot be used as "evidence" to dispute Grant's statement.

If you have statement made by Goldberg specifically disputing Grant and Carroll's claims, that would be fine. Furthermore, if you want to build a section about Goldberg's statements (given his relation to Cobain), that would be fine as well. But the two claims are not related and should not be conflated into one section. -- ChrisB (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a specific example of why we can't use Goldberg's statements to dispute Grant/Carroll's assertions:

James Carville is married to Mary Matalin. Carville is a noted Democratic strategist, Matalin is a noted Republican strategist. You can't take a stance from Carville, look for an absence of a stance on Matalin's end, and use that to assert that Matalin shares Carville's stance.

Same thing here. Carroll (apparently) asserted something, Goldberg asserted something else, but we cannot use Goldberg's statements to discredit Carroll's (apparent) statement. It's original research - it draws a conclusion that isn't published by any reliable source. -- ChrisB (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You're ignoring a big, flashing issue here - it is what GRANT says Caroll (who has herself said or presented nothing) said, yet it's misleadingly titled 'Rosemary Caroll'. If you want to section to adhere to a certain set of standards, you should start out first by using a title that accurately represents the content. Want the standards set as what Rosemary Caroll actually said? Make a section with what Rosemary Caroll actually said. You can't because she's said nothing? Change the title. Otherwise nobody is going to take this seriously and we are omitting relevant, citable content.NeoApsara (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I did it myself. Also - nobody is putting words in her mouth (well, not on this page). It is pointing out that she hasn't said anything regarding what Grant alleges, nor has she gone to authorities with the information that Grant alleges she shared.NeoApsara (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't need "Grant on Rosemary Carroll" for the same reason we don't need "Grant on The Rome Incident". He's alleging her as part of the theory. It'd be the same thing if we had a section called "Courtney Love" that included his statements about Love's behavior. The section is about Carroll, hence the title. The paragraph is specifically written to note that Grant is alleging these statements, not that these are actually her words.

That she hasn't said anything publicly is notable. Grant's words are public - that she has not made any public comments is directly related. But claiming that her not going to authorities is somehow related is original research. First off, we don't know that she didn't speak to the investigators. But, even if she didn't, we don't know why she didn't. It's a fact not in evidence that has no bearing on statements made, public or otherwise.

Goldberg's section doesn't belong in the section about Grant's theory - his statements are not related to the theory whatsoever. There's already a section about people contesting the theory - they belong there.

BTW - Wikipedia isn't a vote. Two people wanting something doesn't mean it goes in. Evertyhing has to meet guidelines, and the stuff you're trying to push into the article fails WP:OR and WP:NPOV. -- ChrisB (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Broomfield's error in "Kurt and Courtney" has been confirmed by various sources, including the doctor in charge of the procedure. It's been made public and should be given some mention, though in a more neutral tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.26.85.49 (talk) 11:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Which would be useful if we used it in the article to support his belief that Cobain committed suicide - but we don't. If you want to use it in the article about the movie, feel free.

And don't just re-revert. There are major issues with the content you're trying to add. For starters, it's horribly slanted towards the murder theory. We're already treading a careful balance in supporting both sides, there's no legimitate reason to tip the scale.

1) The Dateline piece cited two experts who claimed that Kurt could have built up enough tolerance to be able to pull the trigger, not the POV rewrite you put in there: "But two medical examiners Dateline spoke to said Cobain's tolerance to drugs, acquired through repeated abuse, might have enabled him to turn the gun on himself. Three other medical examiners said the information was inconclusive." Your rewrite defies the source, and is not acceptable.

2) "Most of Cobain's friends" doesn't belong there, as it's nearly impossible to say what "most" is. It's unsourced. That paragraph is talking about Grant's claims - we already note later on how Lanegan and Carlson felt - it doesn't need to be spliced in there.

3) Again, you can't say "Courtney told Grant" because Grant is the one claiming the words were said. That doesn't mean we can't use them, but it has to be framed correctly: "Grant claims that Courtney told him..." These are his claims, not her confirmed words.

4) And, again, the Broomfield quote is not relevant. It doesn't debunk the movie, it simply debunks one of his claims - a claim that we don't even mention here. If we talked about it, we could debunk it - but I'm against that. It wasn't a significantly notable part of the story, and we already have Dateline's experts on record saying essentially the same thing (without using Broomfield's flawed methodology). -- ChrisB (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Grant

I've asked this before and I want to ask it again:

Why is this page covered in Tom Grant's conspiracy theories? Why aren't they on Tom Grant's page? Why is there so obviously little-to-nothing conjectured by any other source than Tom Grant, including even Halperin/Wallace, who relied on conversations with Grant for the bulk of any conjecture toward homicide?

This page is nothing but an ad for Grant's theory. I find it ridiculous that as such it is attached to Cobain and not to Grant.Mistertruffles (talk) 12:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Put another way, it is impossible to argue that this page, as-is, would exist without Grant's CONJECTURES (entirely non-factual conjectures).

Since when does one freelance investigator/conspiracy theorist get to dominate discourse and information to this extent?Mistertruffles (talk) 12:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. You've already clearly stated how you feel about the theories. WP:NPOV specifically bars you from trying to downplay them or send them to other articles. They are about this subject, they're tied to this subject, so they belong here. -- ChrisB (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That is incorrect. "Fringe" ideas do not belong in wikipedia, regardless of whether they are about a subject or not. Therefore,

"They are about this subject, they're tied to this subject, so they belong here." is totally incorrect —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.239.101 (talk) 07:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)