This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
The article says that Grohl claims to not know Kurt well enough to determine whether he believes Kurt killed himself or not, but I recall on an episode of the radio show Loveline that he admitted that he believes Kurt killed himself
The "Addiction and Death" section, to me at least, seems desperately in need of citation. It's poorly structured and gives an inaccurate representation of the timeline leading up to Kurt's death. There's also a considerable amount of unsubstantiated editorializing.
I tried to add dates (as well as a cited incident) but I would really like to see some sort of citation for each incident. As it stands I think the date of the Rome incident is incorrect (presently March 6th, should be March 4th, I believe) Tarcieri 22:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
BTW - I also removed the two paragraphs about Courtney using Rohypnol. The claim goes nowhere. Nobody contests that it was Courtney's prescription, so a paragraph about her using the stuff is redundant. And the assertion that Courtney tried to intentionally drug him doesn't make sense if he told the doctor it was an accident and if the doctor himself believes it was an accident. (An intentional drugging would have made it look more like a suicide attempt.) If Grant's the one putting forth the theory, then it should be ignored, granted that he wasn't in anyway involved in the first attempt.
There are enough legitimate elements surrounding Kurt's death that we don't need to cover true conspiracy theories. -- ChrisB 00:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering if at this point the "Addiction and Death" section ought to be broken up into two different ones: one dealing with drug addiction, and one of a timeline of events leading up to Kurt's death, starting with the Rome incident Tarcieri 00:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Two points:
la vie n'est rien sans nirvana j'aurais aimer que kurt sois vivant car a cause de ça tout mes potes sont morts et je suis le dernier sur la liste a être vivant .you can't fire me cause i quit.ce je serais au nirvana.j'embrasse tout mes fan de kurt cobain,dave&krist a la place de kurt j'auris dit un mot a mes fans dans ma lettre mais peut être qu'il n'a pas eu le temps il etait trop présser pour atteindre le nirvana comme moi adieu a mes parents
Could we please get that in English? -- Pinkunicorn
My french is a little rusty, but it starts off saying that life is nothing without nirvana, and kind of mummers off. Looks like a candidate for BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense. -- Stephen Gilbert
This is what babelfish spat out:
Looks like a suicide note to me --
WP
My french is somewhat better. here is my translation:
Life is nothing without Nirvana. I would love for Kurt to be alive because all my pals are dead and I am the last one on the list that is alive (that line didnt make sense, but that's what it says.) You can't fire me, because I quit. I have reached Nirvana (probably buddhist Nirvana.). I embrace all my fellow Kurt Cobain fans. Dave and Krist have the place of Kurt. I would like to say a word to my fans in my letter but maybe there is no time. It is very important to attain nirvana like me. Good bye to my parents.
definately sounds like a suicide note. Firestorm
I removed the stuff claiming that "most feel his death was inadequately investigated" - such a claim is impossible to substantiate, and also the claim that he was a "musical genius". I liked Nirvana's music as well, but this is an encyclopedia article, not a tribute site. -- Robert Merkel.
Need to integrate these:
Implications that Kurt's death was a murder leave this page's accuracy in dispute
Homies wanna ride!
Shouldn't we use the word 'homosexual' instead of 'queer' at the beginning of the article? -- Easty 17:10, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The sentence "Cobain as a child was prescribed Ritalin, which later led to his heroin addiction" is ridiculous.
I think it sounds like he was murdered. Just because someone says, "Oh, he was murdered." doesn't make it true. There is some evidence that makes it seem like a suicide, but there is also some evidence that makes it seem like a murder. To be honest, there is no real way to know, so really you shouldn't sit here and bitch about how you think you're right. I am not saying I'm right, but I think it's disrespectful to Kurt for you to make it public that you think you're right when you COULD be wrong. Kurt is the only one who knows how he died, and IF there is a killer they would know too, but I'm not saying he was for sure killed. I just think you guys sound pompous trying to prove that he wasn't murdered. Why should it matter so much that you prove that theory wrong?
-- Ninandnirvana 00:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how his affinity and relations to other rockers has anything to do with his marriage... T2X
It could be changed to "Relationships and Mariage" or something to that effect-- Ninandnirvana 00:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe, for the sake of NPOV, that we should add this category to the article. Categorizing this article as only a suicide and not a murder as well favors only one POV. -- LGagnon 03:02, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
He was murdered, therefore should be liasted as a murder victim. FACT damn it, FACT!
WesleyDodds 03:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes it has. Do some research. NOBODY can survive that dose of heroine and still pull the trigger. El Duce was definitely offered money to kill Kurt. There's more to back it up, but I'm going to stop typing now because Cortney Love puppets like you make me so sick that I'm barely able to avoid using expletives, something I don't make a habit of. Also please explain the slashed car tires and cancelled credit card, or the incident in Rome which was NOT a suicide attempt. Even the doctor who treated Kurt would agree. Simple minded drones such as yourself atre beyond pathetic. Don't believe everything "mainstream" media tells you. Please think for yourself so that you may stop dragging down the collective intelligence of humanity.
Yes, and give fair ground to that dispute. The doctor who treated Kurt DID say it wasn't a suicide attempt. That's a fact. The police investigation wasn't thorough and there's good reason to be highly suspicious of the sergeant. "Official" or not, it doesn't matter. Simply adding the word official does NOT mean it is 100% credible. That is fqavouring one point of view, something you'd criticize me for. We do not have to adhere to the claimks of the police. Hopefully I'm being clear enough. What I mean to say is there are noteworthy/credible questions brought up by the murder "theory" as well, and I thionk they deserve a fair unbiased chance as well. thwe fact that someone slaps the word "official" on the suicide theory doesn't matter. Logical reasoning giving fair ground to both ideas which have strong cases, giving a neutral stance and allowing the reader to decide for him/herself rather than insisting on the reliability of one pov because it is "official", is what matters. Since when was it sufficient to claim an "official" pov despite more than reasonable logic of the opposition? Now I'm just rambling, so I'll close in saying, Wikipedia isn't here to adhere to one specific point of view, "official" or not. It is here to provide facts, be they prooving or disproving the suicide or murder theories. to give a neutral perspective.
The description for this link is a bit long and looks more like an advertisement than a description of a resource. -- LGagnon 01:27, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Gold Mountain Entertainment First of all, to everyone who thinks Kurdt Cobains death was a suicide, your wrong. Second, in response to a statement I read, Michael DeWitt was not the only one involved, but Courtney and a man named Allen Wrench was also. If you still think I'm full of it, ponder this: Why would Kurdt load three bullets into a gun when he only needs one? How would he be able to use, untie his tourniqet, put all of his paraphenelia neatly away , roll his sleeve back down position himself, and still be concious enough, or at all, to blow his head off with three times the lethal dose of a heavy heroine addict? There's no physical way and no doctor as of yet can explain it. Feel free to reply.
B. Kurt was a severe heroin addict, which means that he could realistically inject a massive dose of heroin and be somewhat conscious.
Is there are proof of the Boddah thing that appears on here and gets changed now and then? I'd like to see something tangible pointing to this being true, and it should have some exact details to settle this. -- LGagnon 19:43, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC) Boddah was an imaginary friend created by kurt when he was young
That is very sad that someone has left a suicide note on Wikipedia. Very sad. 11 years, and still people are offing themselves because of him. People from France (or Canada or whatever)! It is amazing Kurt has had that much of an influence on the world. I feel sad for that guy one guy... but really, he had to post on Wikipedia? Wouldn't a Nirvana forum have been enough? By the way, I believe Kurt was murdered. (www.justiceforkurt.com) Also, one other little detail-- "You can't fire me because I quit" is a lyric from the song "Scentless Apprentice".
A look at the IP address reveals that he or she is from Canada.
Would someone kindly add a footnote regarding the fact that Kurt himself stated that Smells Like Teen Spirit was his attempt to write a song like the Pixies, whose albums Surfer Rosa/Come on Pilgrim he thought were seminal in his musicianship.
Jandek also deserves an honorable mention, esp. since Kurt Cobain is listed on the Jandek page.
I removed some cats that were unnecessary because he is already part of a subcat. I have also removed the punk rock musicians category because Cobain was not primarily a punk musician -- he was a grunge musician, and was only punk in as much as grunge and punk are very closely related. 17:22, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
-- Ninandnirvana 00:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to repoen discussion on the murder victims category? I'm inclined to think it should be included because there's a fairly large faction of people who believe it. Alternatively, we could have a category for Category:Possible murder victims or something... as a matter of fact, if I could think of anybody else to put in that category, I'd probably do it now. Tuf-Kat 01:55, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
If you dispute this, you also have to do it for Paul McCartney's page. Theuniversal 21:25, Aug 19, 2005 (UTC)
Several anonymous changes have been made to the Addiction and death section that completely rewrite the facts about it. Can someone cite some references for these changes? I'm putting an accuracy warning on it for now. -- LGagnon 14:23, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
I've reverted all of 64.146.105.114's edits for now. He has blatantly ignored the accuracy dispute and removed the warning without discussing it first. If he wants to argue in favor of his changes, he should do so here first and show some references before further changing the facts about the article. -- LGagnon 18:50, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
The edits showed reference! They were accurate too! Your blatant ignorance doesn't give you the right to claim that I'm biased while refusing to accept another point of view (which can actually be backed up. Stop drooling over Courtney Love, please.)
Your picture is not fair use (it's a derivitive of a copyrighted work) and is not GFDL, whether you like to claim it or not. It is a clear copyright violation. Your picture will be deleted and that's that. -- LGagnon June 29, 2005 15:53 (UTC)
I apologize about the copyright violation with my cropped image of the Rolling Stone cover, is it possible that I post the complete B&W scan of the cover? This image specifically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kurt_cobainrollingstonecover.jpg
The dramatic tones of the cover are more accurately portrayed than that of the one currently being used, as the black and white useage perfectly portrays Kurt in a more intimate context that exemplifies his artistic personality.
Please reply to my inquiry, thanks and sorry for the trouble. -- Disembodied
From what I remember, yes, the one currently used is the original scan. I just feel it doesn't do justice for really portraying who Kurt was, and using the uncropped B&W scan does a more accurate job by providing more emphasis on the dramatic tones of the photograph. Perfectly tolerable for an artist like Kurt Cobain. If the cropping of the photograph is the issue, then I'd be fine with just using the uncropped B&W scan.
So, would it be alright if I simply used the complete, uncropped B&W scan ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kurt_cobainrollingstonecover.jpg) instead?
Sorry for any trouble, and thanks for your consideration. -- Disembodied
I see your point, and apologize for the inconvienience. I just felt that the current image doesn't do enough justice for a figure as historically significant as Cobain. Putting a picture of him on the cover of a major media magazine as a heading image makes him look like a figure the media is obsessed with, a stereotype Kurt fought to disassociate himself with for his entire career.
However, seeing as the best possible representation of him is in the context of said major media magazine, it's somewhat of a paradox; and proves difficult to work around.
A heading image is one of the most important aspects of an article, it can have the ability to connect with a reader instantly upon viewing, and justify an article's overall mood or statement. Thats just why I thought using a B&W photo of that scan would prove more effective and dramatic in nature.
In any case, sorry for the trouble. Perhaps a portrait image of him not from a magazine cover, widely accepted as an accurate representation of Kurt would better portray him? -- Disembodied
Err, sorry for putting up that unsourced picture, but it's the cover of Cobain, a book that Rolling Stone put out that is a compilation of articles that they had written about him. It wasn't a cropped version of the RS cover. I think it looks nicer, and it should be as covered by fair use as the Rolling Stone cover. Would there be any objections to me placing it back as the heading image?-- Weebot 01:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Several of the references are messed up by templates that aren't built to cover all the details of the references. I'm switching them back to manually written references, since these templates haven't been written to serve their purpose. -- LGagnon July 3, 2005 00:46 (UTC)
Do we have any proof that that was his religion? I don't remember that ever being definitely stated in the article (where his ashes are kept doesn't prove it), nor has anyone presented evidence for this. -- LGagnon July 6, 2005 00:37 (UTC)
If Kurt Cobain wasn't a buddhist, why would it say on his suicde note To Boddah?
:::i am not sure of this but i believe it was partially a joke from cobain partially serious
The sample lyrics section seems a bit unneeded. We have a Wikiquote article for Kurt already, which we could move all these lyrics over to. Also, how many lines can we use before we've crossed over the line of fair use? New lines are constantly added, and are only pushing it without really contributing much to the encyclopediac value of the article. -- LGagnon 18:54, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This Sample lyrics section needs to be put into the Wikiquote article and removed from this one. -- LGagnon 21:37, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
This another rumor, but I remember hearing he maybe was thinking about being catholic. Never the less he was a sick soul who took his own life and his music will last for long time to come. This is rumor for all I know really, but I did hear it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Irishmonk ( talk • contribs) 06:37, 19 May 2006
Do we have a reference for this? It seems unlikely, as Kurt used the name once (in an album's credits) but was never mentioned in the press as having used a stage name regularly. -- LGagnon 21:33, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
It was more an altenate spelling that kurt made up just cause he thought it was cool (that is an asumption on my part)
And the krist thing is because until a trip to norway in 93 he used the american spelling of his name-- Ninandnirvana 00:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
This statement is highly subjective and historicaly inaccurate, i.e. what defines 'music with meaning'? and meaning for whom? and meaning what? In addition 'grunge' was well under way as a genre before 'Smells like Teen spirit' was released. -- Slainz 12:19, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Am I the only person who thinks the "See also" list of opiate casualty links makes for an annoying, imbalanced coda to this article?
How does one have too many credits to graduate high school, as it says in the "Early Life" section?
For a person as significant to Rock as Kurt Cobain you'd normally expect a few pictures of him performing live and/or any where else. Is it possible that we add a few more pictures of the musical side of Kurt rather than the personal side (as close as the two may come)?-- Disembodied
What year/month did he drop out of high school, and did he and his mother reconcile or not? - Roy Boy 800 06:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Did Cobain move out of his mother's house when he got the guitar? The article starts out stating that he moved out when he dropped out of high school, but in the next paragraph implies that he moved out after getting the guitar? User:Carie 15:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
He moved out after highschool since his mom said something along the lines of get a job or get out. Since he didnt get a job he got out :)-- Ninandnirvana 00:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Since Grohl and Novoselic were mentioned BEFORE the Nirvana section, they must be named with full name, as otherwise this is bad writing style. I've changed this, yet I do not feel too well with it; I really doubt there should be so many Nirvana references in the 'Early Life' section. Thus there would not be an odd reference to Grohl and Novoselic out of the blue before the actual band's section. just my 2c -andy 80.129.88.61 01:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I say live the novoscelic reference since they went to school together but grohl didnt really come into the picture until after channing left the band
I could have sworn that in Journals Kurt mentioned something about trying heroin first in 1987, not in 1990. Could be wrong though. Anyone have any idea? Flyerhell 06:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Since this article goes so indepth into the last few days of Cobains life, shouldn't the domestic incident in March 1994 be mentioned? I think this was the reason why Kurt couldn't buy the gun himself. Flyerhell 06:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
It should, but the people contributing to this article prefer to censor it to one point of view, and since the domestic complaint contributes a lot to the murder theory, they'd rather keep that hidden. 64.231.191.141 23:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
This article also neglected to mention the fact that in 1993 or around that time, Kurt's stomach ailment was actually diagnosed as a pinched nerve. During the In Utero tour, Kurt's stomach actually wasn't bothering him all that much since he was finally diagnosed and treated for it. Flyerhell 06:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Yup, these are one of the first few links that came up from google when searching for it:
http://www.heroinhelper.com/bored/celebrities/Kurt_Cobain.shtml
"Cobain suffered from very painful stomach aches which he sought relief from through various drugs. It was not until 1993 that it was determined to be caused by a pinched nerve. At that time it was treated and stopped being such an important aspect of his life"
http://www.justiceforkurt.com/investigation/not_suicidal.shtml
"In the summer of 1993, Kurt experienced what he called "a miracle". After years of consulting specialists about his debilitating stomach pain, he found a doctor who finally diagnosed the problem - a pinched nerve relating to his scoliosis."
http://www.nirvanaclub.com/facts/nia/facts.txt
"A doctor attributed Kurt's horrendous stomach pains to a pinched nerve"
Granted, the first 2 are a little biased but you get the point. I am not sure of the ORIGINAL source, but I am almost 100% positive that he did in fact have a pinched nerve. Flyerhell 06:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Is there a reason someone continuously removes Mr. Cobain from this list? A man who admits to at one time assuming himself gay and then later professing of being on the verge of living a bisexual lifestyle had Courtney Love not enetered the scene...
Um, if it quacks like a duck?
Is there a way to found out what exactly was written in Kurt Cobain's suicide note? TearAwayTheFunerealDress 16:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Do we really need a section for Kurt's gear in this article? It's not even remotely comprehensive, and one parse through kurtsequipment.com shows how lacking it is. It seems absolutely redundant to contain some nominal amount of information, when that site is so phenomenally detailed. We've already got a link to it, why do we need anything more? -- ChrisB 01:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Its still bias, and repetitive fandalism is getting it nowhere, and stops it from been a neutral article, there is nothing mentioned in the article about Kurt Cobain’s less than technically talented guitar playing compared to 80s guitarists (Which would infact make Nirvana “visual style over musical substance“ in a way), none of the 80s bands claimed to place visual style over musical substance, its an opinion, not a fact, you don’t see how that is totally bias in a supposed neutral article?? - Deathrocker 06:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Then find a direct link with an exact quote of Kurt offering that opinion and put it in quotation marks in the article, instead of offering it up as factual info.
An example of why the article is bias; Yngwie Malmsteen and Michael Angelo(80s guitarists) have a glamorous image yet are a thousand times more talented on guitar than Kurt Cobain could ever hope to be so that throws the "visual style over musical substance" as factual info right out of the window, if anything Nirvana were image over musical substance, sure the image wasn't glamorous but an image all the same, the only competent musician in the band was Dave Grohl... the opinions you offer up in the article only cater for the Nirvana fanboy frame of mind, it is supposed to be a Neutral article. - Deathrocker 09:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
They are part of "glam metal" which infact was the predominant style that Grunge swayed the mainstream away from for a more stripped down look and style (Which for some reason you keep editing out for your bias info, lord knows why??), you are offering opinion from which you have no source that Kurt Cobain even said those things, and if he did and you can somehow pull a reliable reference out of somewhere, it needs to be quoted as an opinion of his, not factual information.
- Deathrocker 09:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I added it back in the interest of keeping it a FACTUAL article, something which you have no interest in doing. Your attempt to "appease" by removing a genre that I am a fan of was very touching I must say, but I'm interested in fact and I'm sure the people who want to read an article on somebody are interested in non bias facts too. - Deathrocker 09:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
"The arrival of Cobain's best known song, "Smells Like Teen Spirit", marked the beginning of a dramatic shift of popular music away from 1980s glam metal, arena rock and dance-pop for a more stripped down look and sound."
What exactly is your grievance with that line? Its not like it is more favourable of either movement, its straight down the middle. - Deathrocker 10:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
"For starters, how is grunge a more stripped down sound?"
Have you ever tried to play a Nirvana song?.. it is stripped down in the same way punk rock is stripped down.
Many people who follow metal and rock cite Nirvana as the downfall of rock n’ roll, but that is also not included in the article because it is one sided opinion just as is "perceived superficiality" of any other genre by fans of grunge music who are apposed to 80s music, its not a neutral viewpoint. - Deathrocker 12:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
he was NOT bisexual! GOD DAMNIT! he even wrote in his journals about that! courtney it is bisexual but he was not. and add german and english american in the catogories 'cause he was not only irish. in the book HTH there are many useful information so stop fucking his article.
Is the Aberdeen sign real? There are other pictures on the net, and they look different. Plus, the plants on the photo, which are obviously in front of the sign, misteriously appear in the back of the bottom part.
See: [4] Notice that the bottom part of the sign is attached to the top part by three vertical pieces, whereas in the picture included in the article, the bottom part is attached to side poles. Photo seems edited to me.
See: [5] Looks like a before/after photo editing.
Any first hand or reliable sources as to this sign actually existing as portrayed?
ironcito 22:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I've emailed the aberdeen parks and recreation department to see if they have any information on this. -- Heah talk 00:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Mockup, developed by Paul Fritts and offered for free use via The Nirvana Fan Club fansite. (The sign does actually exist, but no other PD pictures are yet available.)
Weird thing is, the Kurt Cobain Memorial Project also has the mockup photo on their site. [7] [8] Furthermore, their main page shows the whole sign being put up, when supposedly it was only the bottom part that was added (evidenced by the "before" photo). The nirvanaclub.com photo also seems artificial to me. I've found several news stories about the sign being put up, even on MTV [9]. So either this is a rumor gone wild, or the sign actually exists but for some reason there are only fake or dubious pictures of it. ironcito 07:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I Googled every possible combination of words I could come up with, and there seem to be only three photos of the sign on the internet. The one of the sign being put up, the fake one (edited and original) and the Nirvana Club photo. It's strange that such a symbolic place has been barely photographed, but the fact that there are several articles about it leads me to believe that it does exist. Anyway, I left a message in User:Georgiacmt's talk page. He lives "just outside Aberdeen, WA", and has contributed to Talk:Aberdeen,_Washington. BTW, the fake photo is also in Aberdeen's article and two others, so I'd recommend removing it from those too. ironcito 23:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Are there any wikipedians in the are that could go out and take a pic of it for the site (or is that not kosher). Well if it doesn't happen in a year or so ill take a pic when i go there during the summer (im a sophmore in highschool and im going to investigate university of seatle this summer or next summer) and when i do im gonna visit kurts home town (even though he hated it)-- Ninandnirvana 01:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Note here [10]. In each picture, none of the foliage or trees around, behind, of in front of the sign in the first picture have moved in the time that the second picture was taken. And note that the 3 bars that connected the bottom part of the sign are missing also. LoZmaster 11:19 pm, 09-11-06 (-5:00 GMT)
Seems doubtful to me, but an anonymous editor added "His wife Courtney Love has said that he has had sex with Michael Stipe of R.E.M.." Seems like Vandalism of course, but I didn't want to delete it outright, just in case it is true. Therefore I request a source. The editor has a history of both vandalism and useful contributions, so I couldn't be sure based on previous actions. Assume good faith and all that. M A Mason 17:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Could we please stop the snide ridicule of Courtney Love. It reeks of misogyny, and frankly after twelve years, it's getting pretty old.-- Pinko1977 02:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to think that'll stop, but I doubt it. Folks will be trashing Ms. Love long after you and I are gone.-- Pinko1977 05:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Yo, why the hell would they do that?
I'm a bit concerned about Wikipedia's claim that there was no noticeable trauma to Cobain's head (or that he was initially "thought to be sleeping"). According to CelebrityMorgue.com, for example: "The shotgun blast destroyed his head to the point where he was not recognizable; the body was identified from fingerprints."
These allegations that claim only a trickle of blood was noticeable sound ridiculous at best. Keep in mind that death resulted from a close-range shotgun blast to the head. --AWF
Would anyone object to listing this article in Category:Unsolved murders?
-User:Carie
What about Category:Disappeared people? Before he was discovered dead he was classified as a missing person, according to this article. --User:Carie
Disappeared category is for those people who never turned up.I.e., they can't be living people or dead people.
ConDem 03:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I fear that some people may take this the wrong way, but shouldn't this article be moved from Category:Entertainers who died in their 20s to Category:Entertainers who committed suicide in their 20s? He is legally recognized to have committed suicide. -- DDG 20:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
In the bio template, Kurt's birthplace is given as Hoquiam, while the article's body clearly states that he was born at Greys Harbor Community Hospital in Aberdeen. In fact, all reputable sources give Kurt's birthplace as Aberdeen. Can we correct this now?-- Pinko1977 20:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't we know exactly what day he died? Why the circa? Ckessler
Well, the death certificate states April 5th, shouldn't this be more correct then? -- 195.184.103.239
There should be some mention of the Pixies in the Musical influences section. They're probably the most obvious influence on Cobain's style out there. There's a bit about it in the grunge article; I suggest using some of that info here. -- LGagnon 00:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity. Is Kurt giving the finger in the Hawaii photo with Courtney? Just because he was smiling..which kind of startled me for obvious reasons. If he is, it certainly wouldn't surprise me...
This is not an encyclopaedic entry, it's eulogy. Most amusing is the style of wording in the musical influences section: a fine art in sophistry to avoid saying he copied an awful lot from others, including Pixies, Killing Joke, Neil Young. Using words like "references", "influences" and "sincerity" doesn't escape the fact that he took entire riffs and chord structures from the aforementioned and was subsequently worshipped by many as a musical genius. I invite you to listen to Crazy Horse's "Mr Chips" and tell us all what it reminds you of.
Actually thats a Rockets song, before they became Crazy Horse
With the murder theory contigent came the theory rebuttal contingent, explained notably on the cobaincase site, I believe. I'm thinking it would be fair to represent those arguments as well as the murder theory ones. I can contribute when I get a chance. NeoApsara 21:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
El Duce was hit by a train while intoxicated. It certainly isn't as suspicious as the "unusual circumstances" description in this article makes it sound. It comes across a little too much like "he had evidence that Kurt was murdered, and then was killed in what was probably a murder". Surely some better term can be used. Why can't it just say he was struck by a train?
That's what happened, it is indeed suspicious. Perhaps he was intoxicated. Read that section more carefully. The police investigation was not thorough enough, that's the whole point.
What made El Duce's death somewhat mysterious is, he was going drinking with a man he had just met. And then, 4 hours later, he ends up dead, hit by a train in a location 25 or so miles away from where he lives and hangs out. He went in the other man's vehicle, and so, that shows the oddity in it all. The liqour store was just down the street, but yet, the location of his death was far out of the way. - Emhilradim 22:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Is there an actual reason for the article to have been effectively removed? Just says "infobox" instead of an actual article? More vandalism? It says the most recent edit was before 10 this morning, so I put in the version that existed before this revision. Inquisition 11:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Kurt Cobain is mentioned in a few other songs I know off, probably more. In the song Californication by Red Hot Chili Peppers he is mentioned, aswell in Am I High by N*E*R*D. Something to put in maybe?
I really see no mention of some of his drawings and collages. I find some of his work that can be found on the internet pretty interesting, and probably should be made a note of, IMO. On the "With the Lights Out" dvd, there is a sample of some of his art in some sort of attic or small room all crammed together, some of which may no longer exist or still be in the Cobain estate yet to be released. Just something I'd bring up for future consideration...
ERic 06:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking of this pic:
Its on the In Utero tour with the angel wings behind him. I though it is really prophetic and iconic, and it shows a portrait of what Kurt Cobain really was.
Just a little FYI for everyone out there, The Nirvana In Utero "Angel" is really a T.A.M. with super imposed wings. A TAM is a Transparent Anatomical Mannequin used for medical training purposed in the late 80's on. They have removable parts and lights that aide in teaching doctors where the different organs are etc.
http://www.ni.com/pdf/academic/us/journals/transparent_anatomical.pdf
I was thinking that we should use this pic here [12] Registered user 92 ( talk · contribs)
I removed this content:
Just a little FYI for everyone out there, The Nirvana In Utero "Angel" is really a T.A.M. with super imposed wings. A TAM is a Transparent Anatomical Mannequin used for medical training purposed in the late 80's on. They have removable parts and lights that aide in teaching doctors where the different organs are etc.
http://www.ni.com/pdf/academic/us/journals/transparent_anatomical.pdf
This stuff is entirely misleading. For starters, the study that claimed "a toxic dose of heroin would be at least 500 milligrams for nonusers and 1800 milligrams for addicts" was performed in the 1920s. And that completely ignores the part where the study says nothing about "inducing coma", only about lethal dosage. The conspiracy doesn't claim that Cobain was killed by the dosage - using the study to debunk that doesn't make logical sense (and is original research).
And since when is the state of Kurt's sleeves an issue? He had to inject the heroin somehow.
Second, "nobody has concluded it was a forgery" is patently false. Grant claims it was a forgery, as do the experts he contacted. Maybe nobody official declared it a forgery, but claiming that "nobody" concluded it is simply false and deceptive. The assertions about Cobain's emotional state as he wrote the note is original research as well, unless there's some study I've missed.
Now for the irrelevant part: my own opinion about this. Frankly, I've never read Rollins assertions before now, but his overall assertion is insane. He starts his treatise by creating a straw man about the conspiracy. "Murder theorist seem to want reconstruct Kurt's image. They want everyone to believe Kurt was the 'Barney' for generation X." WHAT? There's some substantial fanbase that thinks Kurt didn't use drugs? And Rollins needs to spend half of his writing pointing out that he was?
I don't have a problem with including some content debunking the conspiracy. But any content along those lines should debunk specific points using specific sources, nothing like what was included here. There are also several notable points (including the issue of Kurt's arm length and the length of the gun) that were not touched on - targetting one element of the conspiracy and not the rest doesn't really do the job. -- ChrisB 23:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no reason to remove the part about how Washington State Law forbids disclosing information about the post-mortem.
For starters, the study that claimed "a toxic dose of heroin would be at least 500 milligrams for nonusers and 1800 milligrams for addicts" was performed in the 1920s.
...And?
The conspiracy doesn't claim that Cobain was killed by the dosage - using the study to debunk that doesn't make logical sense (and is original research).
The conspiracy theory claims a lot of scatter-shot things that form an incoherent scenario of events, half of which aren’t even listed here (which is probably so the conspiracy theory would seem half way plausible) among them the so-called “lack of finger prints” or “smudged finger-prints means they *had* to have been swiped“ myth. The point was the amount of intoxicants supposedly found in Cobain’s body would not necessarily kill him or render him incapable of pulling a trigger. As in, even if he’d those toxins in his body, he could still have shot himself.
And since when is the state of Kurt's sleeves an issue? He had to inject the heroin somehow.
Kurt Cobain rolling up his sleeves, shooting up, and then rolling them down *is* how Grant characterizes the suicide claims. The counter-claim is that given how needle marks in each arm were identified at the scene, they would have had to have been up at some point … which means at another point, they were rolled back down. So we don’t know if Kurt was found with his sleeves rolled up; in fact the coroner looking at his arms can account for them being down. As in, it is just as possible, and by itself more likely, that Cobain didn’t in fact roll his sleeves down if he had to shoot up and pull the trigger as it is a whole county and police department and Courtney Love or whoever else have been hiding a big, big secret for over a decade.
Second, "nobody has concluded it was a forgery" is patently false. Grant claims it was a forgery, as do the experts he contacted. Maybe nobody official declared it a forgery, but claiming that "nobody" concluded it is simply false and deceptive.
No, it is Grant’s admitted opinion that it was forged and other selective amount of “experts” have said anything from how they think its forged it it is indicative of beinf different but is too hard to make out (which can account for how it looks different). It, in fact, has not been concluded as forged … only suspected. You have whatever experts saying it looks forged yet without a comparative sample that went to determine by whom, but on the other, you have a forensic document examiner who in fact used samples and concluded it was that of Kurt Cobain. That is a legitimate point. Yet not only is it mentioned, but you deleted it completely.
The assertions about Cobain's emotional state as he wrote the note is original research as well, unless there's some study I've missed.
The idea that emotional states (which are known to affect hand-writing anyway) and toxicants settling in accounting for perceived differences in handwriting in Cobain’s letter can be cited to a skeptic who was posted on the rebuttal section on Justiceforkurt.com. Maybe you "missed" it, or maybe you just didn't think to consider it. If that falls under “original research”, it doesn’t make it an illegitimate claim but inappropriate for Wiki. However, it leaves this article highly disputed as far as neutrality in the context of the controversy itself as it does not represent it.
Now for the irrelevant part: my own opinion about this. Frankly, I've never read Rollins assertions before now, but his overall assertion is insane. He starts his treatise by creating a straw man about the conspiracy. "Murder theorist seem to want reconstruct Kurt's image. They want everyone to believe Kurt was the 'Barney' for generation X." WHAT? There's some substantial fanbase that thinks Kurt didn't use drugs? And Rollins needs to spend half of his writing pointing out that he was?
You’re right. I don’t give a crap if you think anybody is insane or if you’ve read it before. If that were relevant, I’d have mentioned my opinion on Tom Grant. Second, you’d have a point had I included anything about what Rollins had said regarding how some people view Cobain, but I didn’t so quit throwing out red-herrings, or complain to the man who wrote it.
As it stands, the section on the murder theories is insinuative, selective, and exclusive of other POVs. NeoApsara
“1) Heroin purity has changed since the 1920s.
2) Rollins himself notes several other studies that resulted in contrary results.
3) Given 1) and 2), providing that study as the lone supporting evidence is misleading.”
Heroin purity may have changed since the 1920s, but so have tolerances. All you’ve shown me is that I included an unrepresentative citation. The point is that its possible; there are several other just as likely things that could have happened then. Yet, you only will include the murder conspiracy ones.
And it still doesn’t account for how he may not have shot it all at once.
“Yes, but if you're debunking something here, it has to be the points being made here. Again, the studies you've mentioned do not assert that 225mgs would not have incapacitated him.”
I characterize it as being "skeptical", not debunking as they are just theories already, just long-shot possibilities.
Anyway we don’t even know they would have. We don’t even know there was that amount in him. If you read where I mentioned, there are other explanations if there were:
The 1.52 figure includes both free morphine and conjugated (metabolized) morphine. Only the free morphine figure indicates whether or not Kurt was dead or incapacitated. Morphine has a half-life of 2-3 hours. The police reports indicate two injections - one on each inner elbow - were found in the body. Perhaps he injected twice and the free morphine level had lowered enough by the time Kurt chose to administer a second injection, at which point he then decided to commit suicide. While the Dead Men Don't Pull Triggers essay discusses the total level and the purported lethality of such a high dosage, it doesn't eliminate the possibility of a case such as this and doesn't differentiate between free and metabolized morphine as we don't know those actual figures - and again, as long as the 1.52 figure cannot be confirmed, this is all speculation. It was also reported that Diazepam - Valium - was found in Kurt's system, but the amount is not known. This proves nothing. Diazepam has a halflife of 3-5 days; it is also given to heroin addicts going through rehab, so he could have taken it at Exodus. Additionally, he could have taken it on his own days before his death. The motive for potential murderers administering Valium into Kurt's system is illogical since they could easily just administer heroin until he was incapacitated.
“But the claim is bizarre. Who's to say they didn't check his arms when they moved his body?”
First you ask why it is an issue, now its "bizarre"? Please. The conspiracy theorists want to show murder, the burden of proof is on them. More appropriately, the question should be who is to say the coroner didn’t look at his arms, move his sleeves down, and then the picture was shot instead of it being that Cobain rolled them down himself? We know the paraphernalia was already messed with at that point. The point is, it is a possibility.
“But that's beyond the point. The problem is that your explanation didn't debunk anything, it simply questioned an element of the conspiracy that isn't particularly notable, and could be supported by elements such as that photograph.”
The conspiracy theory is just that, one doesn’t need to debunk some quasi-circumstantial evidence deemed questionable that hasn't amounted to a coherent, conclusive series of events. All of which you don't even include in the article (yet I'm supposed to provide for every point made). It provides couter-possibilities, explanations for certain things. Which are neglected in this article.
“Again, if you read what is written in this article, we attribute everything to Grant's claims, not to some conclusion of forgery. Additionally, the official report only says that the NOTE was written by Cobain - it does not go into details about the lines that Grant questions. Plus, Grant names the experts he talked to, and they actually have credentials. He didn't speak to "experts" in the generic sense.”
Mmm-hmm. Another analyst said there are indications but they could just as likely be because it is so hard to make out. Somebody else concluded officially that it was Cobain’s writing. What the other people say are just as important, yet you will only have what Grant and his buddies said. The lines Grant questions are part of the note and his claim is that the lines are forged. Grant names a selective amount of experts who apparently aren‘t bothered enough to go to the police. They are equally legitimate by themselves. Then really, I don’t see how I characterize them as having to do anything.
“"inappropriate for Wiki" - this is what I was getting at. I can see it as an argument, but I don't recall anyone ever asserting it, at least not in Cobain's case.”
I understand some things may be inapproriate for Wiki, which was why I had to do some work to find things that fit the criteria (indeed it doesn't dismiss the arguments though.). Did you actually go to where I said it was? It isn’t an assertion anymore than it being forged is as there were any number of experts who looked at it and claimed any number of things. Emotional states affecting handwriting isn’t something that needs to be studied, it is something known. Again the point is, it is very possible with Cobain … yet it isn’t even mentioned.
“I said his assertion was insane. I didn't say he was insane.”
I don’t care. Write to him.
“The real problem is that there are nearly zero substantiated sources that support the suicide claim. I don't say that in a way to support the conspiracy - I say that simply because those sources don't exist. Even the Seattle PD failed to supply the reasoning for their conclusion, save for what we mention here - shotgun blast, suicide note, history of depression. And several of their assertions (in the official police report) are notably false.”
As I have mentioned twice now, that Washington State Law forbids the release of such information, right? No, it isn’t Courtney Love’s super special powers that did it, it is a law. That is one reason why people question the levels of toxicants claimed by the conspiracy theorists in the first place, yet theorists take it as Gospel. It would have to be at Courtney or Kurt’s family’s discretion. Even if the cops did a shoddy job in some regards, not only is that not unusual but it still doesn’t mean they need to release anything just because a bunch of people think he may have been murdered. And again, the burden of proof is on the people who think he was killed; they are seeking “proof”, so of course only they will have selective amounts of experts. Then again, one needn't necessarily a "source" for some things.
“Again, if you want to add statements debunking the conspiracy, provide information that challenges the points made here.”
I have, but you treat the conspiracy “points” as facts, when they are just possibilities and just dismiss the other possibilities I put because, well, because you don’t like it or think it is “bizarre”. You already include that Krist and Dave have remained silent and it is “notable”, yet you don’t mention how Kurt’s sister and mother believe he committed suicide. The article is selective in what issues of the conspiracy theory are included as it doesn't include the myth about the lack of/smudged finger prints, the myth that somebody had to have taken his credit card (as if it couldn’t have been shared, used by phone, or stolen, and that it would be pretty stupid for a killer to go through all that and then leave a sloppy trail behind), you mention the theory that it was a “goodbye” note because he didn’t say he was dying (please) yet he doesn’t say he is leaving yet if you cite Dead Studies “Myths About Suicide Notes” then readers would see that saying, "well, I’m going to kill myself now” is not a hallmark (let me guess: it doesn‘t matter because its Canadian?), you don’t mention that lie detectors only tell what the person believes and they are unreliable, and then you misrepresent people who believe suicide only as because of the gun, depression, drugs and whatnot when it is clear there are several other possibilities for each facet of the murder theory. I understand if some you may consider OR, but they are valid explanations for murder theories. But it leaves this article POV and at least may merit a SectNPOV tag. NeoApsara
“I dismissed many of the points you've made because they don't have anything to do with the content contained in the article.”
That the law forbids release of details on the post-mortem has everything to do with it as it is a huge foundation on which the conspiracy theory rests.
“On the other hand, the heroin level figure was reported by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, whose reputation is not under dispute.”
“Reputation” has nothing to do with it, this isn‘t high-school. The law forbids such disclosure. We don’t even know if what they said is true, conspiracy theorists just accept it. You neglect to include that.
“Furthermore, they do not have names attached to them. The rebuttal you're citing was posted anonymously and cannot be cited via Wiki guidelines: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources."“
I understand that and I’ve acknowledged that some may not be appropriate for wiki, in this case the anon report, so please don‘t imply I didn‘t. The other one, however, does have a name.
“I do not appreciate the tone you've taken thus far. You accused me of saying something I didn't say, I corrected you, and you backhanded me with "I don’t care. Write to him."“
I made clear before that I’m not the person whom you should take issue with because I didn’t write what you deemed “insane”. My “misquoting” you was to illustrate my point about how I couldn’t care less about what you feel about the man who wrote it.
“Your arguments here have not related to what's written in this article. You've attempted to dispute the entire theory, which is not even remotely discussed here. Neither the fingerprints nor the credit card are even mentioned in this article. Disputing those points (and other points not mentioned in the article) does nothing to help balance the position taken in the article”
I didn’t include, in my original edit, anything about the finger-prints or credit-card. My point was here that you don’t even include everything about the conspiracy theory, and therefore it comes across as misrepresentative and/or selective. Like how you go on about who is an authority or not … yet you insinuate something by saying it is “notable” that Krist and Dave (band members) have remained “silent”. Yet, Kurt’s mother and sister, who are probably people who actually *saw* the real toxicology report, believe he did commit suicide. Your criteria seems shakey at best.
“I refuse to get into a further discussion of the validity of the conspiracy. The conspiracy exists, people believe it, therefore it has every right to be included in this article.”
You’re putting words in my mouth. I didn’t say the conspiracy theory shouldn’t be included. In fact I pointed out that not every element of the theory is included. The times I’ve addressed the theory or it’s validity as a whole were to illustrate that it isn’t a truth to be measured against; it is a possibility.
“It's an encyclopedia. The murder conspiracy is encyclopedic and deserves a fair, NPOV discussion.”
Indeed. But as it stands, it doesn’t seem to come across that way.
“Comments like "let me guess: it doesn‘t matter because its Canadian?" are insulting.”
Yes, it was in response to you changing your objection to an issue I present when I gave an answer to it. NeoApsara 00:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
You’re not understanding what I mean. I’m not suggesting it is inappropriate for Wiki, just that it doesn’t change the fact that Washington State Law forbids the release of that information. Washington State Law is just as reliable as a newspaper.
The Rollins guy references it and you can link directly to the law through the internet. It was apparently appropriate to include what band members thought and be insinuative, so I’m certain confused as to the criteria.
I know that. Toxicologists spoken to on Dateline saying he could very well have been capable of turning the gun on himself included. However, this is only going under the assumption that the figure is true, that he shot it up all at once, and that for each toxicant used the amount is correct. Yet another huge foundation on which the conspiracy theory rests. It is unfortunate if none of that can be included.
Any number of things are likely: they heard a rumor, they sensationalized, they were told something to get them away (known to happen). But, indeed whatever. I understand.
Nobody has supplied as much that the amount was in Cobain! The point is skeptics such as Rollins have said it was possible.
I understand if it isn’t important enough to include and in fact that is my thought about it as a whole, but my point is shouldn’t you just flat out state why it may be notable?
That wasn’t what I was discussing in that instance, I was trying to explain why I mentioned the validity of the claims at all.
It is just fine, thank you. I actually thought about citing the Dateline studies (which included toxicologists, mind you) but wasn't sure how to go about it without having the names of the experts.
Could one at least be allowed to make a link section at the bottom titled “Skeptical of murder theory”? NeoApsara 14:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Who reverted it. Nick Broomfield's reasoning for supposedly not showing the film is completely taken out of context. I'm getting tired of the obvious corruption here. You say I am biased yet you emit incriminating facts.
Fact: The Rohypnol prescription was Courtney's Fact: Tom Grant found packets of Rohypnol when searching the Cobain home. Fact: Kurt Cobain had three times the maximum lethal dose of heroine for a 150 lb. severe addict, which would have rendered him incapacitated, and a gunshot to the head. It's called a "lethal dose" for a reason. Don't say "well he built up tolerance", as that was taken into account. Fact: Kurt's credit card was cancelled and his tires were slashed. Fact: While the accuracy of these tests isn't perfect, the tests on El Duce were administered by Edward Gelb, who ran the same tests on O.J. Simpson, whom he said failed the test quite badly. Needless to say he's a leading expetrt at these tests, and would thus use proper tactics and take the right factors into account. Fact: There were no fingerprnts on the gun. Fact: The last few lines on the supposed "suicide note" are identical to Courtney Love's handwriting. Fact: After years of consulting specialists about his debilitating stomach pain, he found a doctor who finally diagnosed the problem - a pinched nerve relating to his scoliosis. Once the problem was diagnosed, it became treatable Fact: Both his best friend and his grandmother noticed no behavioural pattern of suicide. He even arranged to go fishing with his grandfather. Fact: He was clean on the tour prior to his murder. Fact: He was preparing to leave Courtney, and that would mean significant financial complications for Courtney. Fact: On February 21st, 1994, Kurt spoke of stories he wanted to tell his grandchildren. Fact: Courtney produced a never-before seen second note to Seattle police, which she claims Kurt wrote in Rome during "his first suicide attempt". A police officer says it was not a suicide not, but rather a rambling and unflattering diatribe against her. Courtney admits the existance of this note in a December 1994 Rolling Stone interview, and to Tom Grant. Grant has her on tape saying that she burned it . Courtney says the second note also mentioned a divorce.
Now ask yourself these questions:
Why did Courtney pretend to be Kurt's mother when calling in the missing person's report to the SPD on April 4th?
Why did Courtney release that cropped image of Kurt with the toy gun, shortly after his death?
Why hasn't Courtney sued Tom Grant for his claims?
Why did Rosemary Carroll tell Tom Grant that Courtney had "no business in Los Angeles"?
If Dylan Carlson knew Kurt was suicidal, why did he buy the gun for Kurt?
Why did Courtney want to keep Grant on the pay roll and get him to sign a confidentiality agreement if he had openly admitted to her what his feelings of Kurt's "suicide" were?
When Courtney found out that Kurt fled rehab, why did she contact a PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR and not the POLICE first?
Why did Sgt. Cameron lie to Tom Grant about Kurt being barricaded in the greenhouse and that the little 'stool was wedged up against the door'?
That's all for now. It should be more than enough. Dead men don't pull triggers. Goodnight.
We can't use BMI's database as a source. BMI's data is entered so that royalties are directed to the right place - it's not always accurate as far as composer information. (It's not uncommon to find titles in BMI for songs that don't even exist.)
But, furthermore, there's no reason to cite BMI.
Nirvana's version and Hole's version do not have the same lyrics. If Cobain gave the song to Love for Hole to use (it was released while he was still alive), the Hole credit would be accurate, particularly if it turns out that she really did write the lyrics. The Nirvana version is entirely Cobain-written, so there's no reason for it to be credited to anyone else.
There should be two BMI entries for the song, given its origins. The fact that there are two serves absolutely zero purpose in the article. -- ChrisB 20:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Grant also notes that the official report does not distinguish the questionable lines from the rest of the note, and simply concludes that Cobain wrote the note.
This is just silly: the lines were technically part of the note. The only reason they should be “distinguished” is if the reader found them questionable. This worded way POV. I’m still trying to figure out why Kim saying that in an interview is in any way notable.
This whole thing is still in desperate need of a POV tag, due to the way it is written and that if omits less-than-credible elements of the numerous murder conspiracy theories. NeoApsara 16:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The following two sentences are located in the Suicide Dispute section : Cobain would have had to fire the weapon with his toe, yet he was found with both shoes still in place. Critics, however, point out that Grant sold "kits" about the alleged conspiracy via his website.
These two sentences don't really flow well together. Just because Grant sold kits on his website that doesn't really disprove the previous sentence about Cobain's shoes. A separate paragraph should be written for critics of the suicide dispute. If no one else does it within a day or so I'll take a crack at it. Levid37 17:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. It's a typical "change the subject, point the finger." tactic. They attempt to discredit Grant with a completely unrelated argument. Just because there isn't sufficient evidence to disprove what Grant knows to be true doesn't give editors the right to throw a tantrum and try to dismiss everything he's said based on an unrelated suspicion. Brad_2 14:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The "guitarist" template is not appropriate here. Cobain was known as a guitarist, but he was also prominently (if not better) known as a songwriter. No doubt that if Rolling Stone decided to put together a list of the greatest songwriters of all time, he would be in the upper echelon as well (if not ranked higher). The guitarist template is reserved for musicians who are MAINLY known for their being a guitarist - Cobain is not MAINLY known as a guitarist. He is a guitarist, yes, but it was not his primary function in the band.
And, if it's filled out properly, the only difference between the "guitarist" template and the "musical artist" template is the "notable guitar" entry. Cobain used several different guitars; he wasn't "best known" for the 61 Fender Mustang beyond any other. Picking one guitar to be his "notable" guitar is wholly inappropriate and POV.
And please stop moving the picture of young Cobain to the top. I have no idea which Wikipedia template you're using, but it makes the page look absolutely ridiculous in the standard template. The wrapping gets thrown completely out of whack, it screws up the section break, and the "Edit" button for that section gets jammed down the page. -- ChrisB 16:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
About these edits:
I have a link to verify the alias, but you have none to dispute it. Could you provide one please? No offence, but I'd rather take the word of IMDB than someone who likes to vandalise the article: [13] [14]
Jibbles | Talk 20:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Kurt Cobain/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
---|---|
I'll get started
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.
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?
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 05:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
|
Last edited at 16:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
The article says that Grohl claims to not know Kurt well enough to determine whether he believes Kurt killed himself or not, but I recall on an episode of the radio show Loveline that he admitted that he believes Kurt killed himself
The "Addiction and Death" section, to me at least, seems desperately in need of citation. It's poorly structured and gives an inaccurate representation of the timeline leading up to Kurt's death. There's also a considerable amount of unsubstantiated editorializing.
I tried to add dates (as well as a cited incident) but I would really like to see some sort of citation for each incident. As it stands I think the date of the Rome incident is incorrect (presently March 6th, should be March 4th, I believe) Tarcieri 22:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
BTW - I also removed the two paragraphs about Courtney using Rohypnol. The claim goes nowhere. Nobody contests that it was Courtney's prescription, so a paragraph about her using the stuff is redundant. And the assertion that Courtney tried to intentionally drug him doesn't make sense if he told the doctor it was an accident and if the doctor himself believes it was an accident. (An intentional drugging would have made it look more like a suicide attempt.) If Grant's the one putting forth the theory, then it should be ignored, granted that he wasn't in anyway involved in the first attempt.
There are enough legitimate elements surrounding Kurt's death that we don't need to cover true conspiracy theories. -- ChrisB 00:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering if at this point the "Addiction and Death" section ought to be broken up into two different ones: one dealing with drug addiction, and one of a timeline of events leading up to Kurt's death, starting with the Rome incident Tarcieri 00:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Two points:
la vie n'est rien sans nirvana j'aurais aimer que kurt sois vivant car a cause de ça tout mes potes sont morts et je suis le dernier sur la liste a être vivant .you can't fire me cause i quit.ce je serais au nirvana.j'embrasse tout mes fan de kurt cobain,dave&krist a la place de kurt j'auris dit un mot a mes fans dans ma lettre mais peut être qu'il n'a pas eu le temps il etait trop présser pour atteindre le nirvana comme moi adieu a mes parents
Could we please get that in English? -- Pinkunicorn
My french is a little rusty, but it starts off saying that life is nothing without nirvana, and kind of mummers off. Looks like a candidate for BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense. -- Stephen Gilbert
This is what babelfish spat out:
Looks like a suicide note to me --
WP
My french is somewhat better. here is my translation:
Life is nothing without Nirvana. I would love for Kurt to be alive because all my pals are dead and I am the last one on the list that is alive (that line didnt make sense, but that's what it says.) You can't fire me, because I quit. I have reached Nirvana (probably buddhist Nirvana.). I embrace all my fellow Kurt Cobain fans. Dave and Krist have the place of Kurt. I would like to say a word to my fans in my letter but maybe there is no time. It is very important to attain nirvana like me. Good bye to my parents.
definately sounds like a suicide note. Firestorm
I removed the stuff claiming that "most feel his death was inadequately investigated" - such a claim is impossible to substantiate, and also the claim that he was a "musical genius". I liked Nirvana's music as well, but this is an encyclopedia article, not a tribute site. -- Robert Merkel.
Need to integrate these:
Implications that Kurt's death was a murder leave this page's accuracy in dispute
Homies wanna ride!
Shouldn't we use the word 'homosexual' instead of 'queer' at the beginning of the article? -- Easty 17:10, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The sentence "Cobain as a child was prescribed Ritalin, which later led to his heroin addiction" is ridiculous.
I think it sounds like he was murdered. Just because someone says, "Oh, he was murdered." doesn't make it true. There is some evidence that makes it seem like a suicide, but there is also some evidence that makes it seem like a murder. To be honest, there is no real way to know, so really you shouldn't sit here and bitch about how you think you're right. I am not saying I'm right, but I think it's disrespectful to Kurt for you to make it public that you think you're right when you COULD be wrong. Kurt is the only one who knows how he died, and IF there is a killer they would know too, but I'm not saying he was for sure killed. I just think you guys sound pompous trying to prove that he wasn't murdered. Why should it matter so much that you prove that theory wrong?
-- Ninandnirvana 00:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how his affinity and relations to other rockers has anything to do with his marriage... T2X
It could be changed to "Relationships and Mariage" or something to that effect-- Ninandnirvana 00:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe, for the sake of NPOV, that we should add this category to the article. Categorizing this article as only a suicide and not a murder as well favors only one POV. -- LGagnon 03:02, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
He was murdered, therefore should be liasted as a murder victim. FACT damn it, FACT!
WesleyDodds 03:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes it has. Do some research. NOBODY can survive that dose of heroine and still pull the trigger. El Duce was definitely offered money to kill Kurt. There's more to back it up, but I'm going to stop typing now because Cortney Love puppets like you make me so sick that I'm barely able to avoid using expletives, something I don't make a habit of. Also please explain the slashed car tires and cancelled credit card, or the incident in Rome which was NOT a suicide attempt. Even the doctor who treated Kurt would agree. Simple minded drones such as yourself atre beyond pathetic. Don't believe everything "mainstream" media tells you. Please think for yourself so that you may stop dragging down the collective intelligence of humanity.
Yes, and give fair ground to that dispute. The doctor who treated Kurt DID say it wasn't a suicide attempt. That's a fact. The police investigation wasn't thorough and there's good reason to be highly suspicious of the sergeant. "Official" or not, it doesn't matter. Simply adding the word official does NOT mean it is 100% credible. That is fqavouring one point of view, something you'd criticize me for. We do not have to adhere to the claimks of the police. Hopefully I'm being clear enough. What I mean to say is there are noteworthy/credible questions brought up by the murder "theory" as well, and I thionk they deserve a fair unbiased chance as well. thwe fact that someone slaps the word "official" on the suicide theory doesn't matter. Logical reasoning giving fair ground to both ideas which have strong cases, giving a neutral stance and allowing the reader to decide for him/herself rather than insisting on the reliability of one pov because it is "official", is what matters. Since when was it sufficient to claim an "official" pov despite more than reasonable logic of the opposition? Now I'm just rambling, so I'll close in saying, Wikipedia isn't here to adhere to one specific point of view, "official" or not. It is here to provide facts, be they prooving or disproving the suicide or murder theories. to give a neutral perspective.
The description for this link is a bit long and looks more like an advertisement than a description of a resource. -- LGagnon 01:27, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Gold Mountain Entertainment First of all, to everyone who thinks Kurdt Cobains death was a suicide, your wrong. Second, in response to a statement I read, Michael DeWitt was not the only one involved, but Courtney and a man named Allen Wrench was also. If you still think I'm full of it, ponder this: Why would Kurdt load three bullets into a gun when he only needs one? How would he be able to use, untie his tourniqet, put all of his paraphenelia neatly away , roll his sleeve back down position himself, and still be concious enough, or at all, to blow his head off with three times the lethal dose of a heavy heroine addict? There's no physical way and no doctor as of yet can explain it. Feel free to reply.
B. Kurt was a severe heroin addict, which means that he could realistically inject a massive dose of heroin and be somewhat conscious.
Is there are proof of the Boddah thing that appears on here and gets changed now and then? I'd like to see something tangible pointing to this being true, and it should have some exact details to settle this. -- LGagnon 19:43, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC) Boddah was an imaginary friend created by kurt when he was young
That is very sad that someone has left a suicide note on Wikipedia. Very sad. 11 years, and still people are offing themselves because of him. People from France (or Canada or whatever)! It is amazing Kurt has had that much of an influence on the world. I feel sad for that guy one guy... but really, he had to post on Wikipedia? Wouldn't a Nirvana forum have been enough? By the way, I believe Kurt was murdered. (www.justiceforkurt.com) Also, one other little detail-- "You can't fire me because I quit" is a lyric from the song "Scentless Apprentice".
A look at the IP address reveals that he or she is from Canada.
Would someone kindly add a footnote regarding the fact that Kurt himself stated that Smells Like Teen Spirit was his attempt to write a song like the Pixies, whose albums Surfer Rosa/Come on Pilgrim he thought were seminal in his musicianship.
Jandek also deserves an honorable mention, esp. since Kurt Cobain is listed on the Jandek page.
I removed some cats that were unnecessary because he is already part of a subcat. I have also removed the punk rock musicians category because Cobain was not primarily a punk musician -- he was a grunge musician, and was only punk in as much as grunge and punk are very closely related. 17:22, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
-- Ninandnirvana 00:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to repoen discussion on the murder victims category? I'm inclined to think it should be included because there's a fairly large faction of people who believe it. Alternatively, we could have a category for Category:Possible murder victims or something... as a matter of fact, if I could think of anybody else to put in that category, I'd probably do it now. Tuf-Kat 01:55, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
If you dispute this, you also have to do it for Paul McCartney's page. Theuniversal 21:25, Aug 19, 2005 (UTC)
Several anonymous changes have been made to the Addiction and death section that completely rewrite the facts about it. Can someone cite some references for these changes? I'm putting an accuracy warning on it for now. -- LGagnon 14:23, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
I've reverted all of 64.146.105.114's edits for now. He has blatantly ignored the accuracy dispute and removed the warning without discussing it first. If he wants to argue in favor of his changes, he should do so here first and show some references before further changing the facts about the article. -- LGagnon 18:50, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
The edits showed reference! They were accurate too! Your blatant ignorance doesn't give you the right to claim that I'm biased while refusing to accept another point of view (which can actually be backed up. Stop drooling over Courtney Love, please.)
Your picture is not fair use (it's a derivitive of a copyrighted work) and is not GFDL, whether you like to claim it or not. It is a clear copyright violation. Your picture will be deleted and that's that. -- LGagnon June 29, 2005 15:53 (UTC)
I apologize about the copyright violation with my cropped image of the Rolling Stone cover, is it possible that I post the complete B&W scan of the cover? This image specifically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kurt_cobainrollingstonecover.jpg
The dramatic tones of the cover are more accurately portrayed than that of the one currently being used, as the black and white useage perfectly portrays Kurt in a more intimate context that exemplifies his artistic personality.
Please reply to my inquiry, thanks and sorry for the trouble. -- Disembodied
From what I remember, yes, the one currently used is the original scan. I just feel it doesn't do justice for really portraying who Kurt was, and using the uncropped B&W scan does a more accurate job by providing more emphasis on the dramatic tones of the photograph. Perfectly tolerable for an artist like Kurt Cobain. If the cropping of the photograph is the issue, then I'd be fine with just using the uncropped B&W scan.
So, would it be alright if I simply used the complete, uncropped B&W scan ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kurt_cobainrollingstonecover.jpg) instead?
Sorry for any trouble, and thanks for your consideration. -- Disembodied
I see your point, and apologize for the inconvienience. I just felt that the current image doesn't do enough justice for a figure as historically significant as Cobain. Putting a picture of him on the cover of a major media magazine as a heading image makes him look like a figure the media is obsessed with, a stereotype Kurt fought to disassociate himself with for his entire career.
However, seeing as the best possible representation of him is in the context of said major media magazine, it's somewhat of a paradox; and proves difficult to work around.
A heading image is one of the most important aspects of an article, it can have the ability to connect with a reader instantly upon viewing, and justify an article's overall mood or statement. Thats just why I thought using a B&W photo of that scan would prove more effective and dramatic in nature.
In any case, sorry for the trouble. Perhaps a portrait image of him not from a magazine cover, widely accepted as an accurate representation of Kurt would better portray him? -- Disembodied
Err, sorry for putting up that unsourced picture, but it's the cover of Cobain, a book that Rolling Stone put out that is a compilation of articles that they had written about him. It wasn't a cropped version of the RS cover. I think it looks nicer, and it should be as covered by fair use as the Rolling Stone cover. Would there be any objections to me placing it back as the heading image?-- Weebot 01:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Several of the references are messed up by templates that aren't built to cover all the details of the references. I'm switching them back to manually written references, since these templates haven't been written to serve their purpose. -- LGagnon July 3, 2005 00:46 (UTC)
Do we have any proof that that was his religion? I don't remember that ever being definitely stated in the article (where his ashes are kept doesn't prove it), nor has anyone presented evidence for this. -- LGagnon July 6, 2005 00:37 (UTC)
If Kurt Cobain wasn't a buddhist, why would it say on his suicde note To Boddah?
:::i am not sure of this but i believe it was partially a joke from cobain partially serious
The sample lyrics section seems a bit unneeded. We have a Wikiquote article for Kurt already, which we could move all these lyrics over to. Also, how many lines can we use before we've crossed over the line of fair use? New lines are constantly added, and are only pushing it without really contributing much to the encyclopediac value of the article. -- LGagnon 18:54, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This Sample lyrics section needs to be put into the Wikiquote article and removed from this one. -- LGagnon 21:37, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
This another rumor, but I remember hearing he maybe was thinking about being catholic. Never the less he was a sick soul who took his own life and his music will last for long time to come. This is rumor for all I know really, but I did hear it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Irishmonk ( talk • contribs) 06:37, 19 May 2006
Do we have a reference for this? It seems unlikely, as Kurt used the name once (in an album's credits) but was never mentioned in the press as having used a stage name regularly. -- LGagnon 21:33, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
It was more an altenate spelling that kurt made up just cause he thought it was cool (that is an asumption on my part)
And the krist thing is because until a trip to norway in 93 he used the american spelling of his name-- Ninandnirvana 00:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
This statement is highly subjective and historicaly inaccurate, i.e. what defines 'music with meaning'? and meaning for whom? and meaning what? In addition 'grunge' was well under way as a genre before 'Smells like Teen spirit' was released. -- Slainz 12:19, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Am I the only person who thinks the "See also" list of opiate casualty links makes for an annoying, imbalanced coda to this article?
How does one have too many credits to graduate high school, as it says in the "Early Life" section?
For a person as significant to Rock as Kurt Cobain you'd normally expect a few pictures of him performing live and/or any where else. Is it possible that we add a few more pictures of the musical side of Kurt rather than the personal side (as close as the two may come)?-- Disembodied
What year/month did he drop out of high school, and did he and his mother reconcile or not? - Roy Boy 800 06:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Did Cobain move out of his mother's house when he got the guitar? The article starts out stating that he moved out when he dropped out of high school, but in the next paragraph implies that he moved out after getting the guitar? User:Carie 15:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
He moved out after highschool since his mom said something along the lines of get a job or get out. Since he didnt get a job he got out :)-- Ninandnirvana 00:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Since Grohl and Novoselic were mentioned BEFORE the Nirvana section, they must be named with full name, as otherwise this is bad writing style. I've changed this, yet I do not feel too well with it; I really doubt there should be so many Nirvana references in the 'Early Life' section. Thus there would not be an odd reference to Grohl and Novoselic out of the blue before the actual band's section. just my 2c -andy 80.129.88.61 01:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I say live the novoscelic reference since they went to school together but grohl didnt really come into the picture until after channing left the band
I could have sworn that in Journals Kurt mentioned something about trying heroin first in 1987, not in 1990. Could be wrong though. Anyone have any idea? Flyerhell 06:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Since this article goes so indepth into the last few days of Cobains life, shouldn't the domestic incident in March 1994 be mentioned? I think this was the reason why Kurt couldn't buy the gun himself. Flyerhell 06:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
It should, but the people contributing to this article prefer to censor it to one point of view, and since the domestic complaint contributes a lot to the murder theory, they'd rather keep that hidden. 64.231.191.141 23:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
This article also neglected to mention the fact that in 1993 or around that time, Kurt's stomach ailment was actually diagnosed as a pinched nerve. During the In Utero tour, Kurt's stomach actually wasn't bothering him all that much since he was finally diagnosed and treated for it. Flyerhell 06:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Yup, these are one of the first few links that came up from google when searching for it:
http://www.heroinhelper.com/bored/celebrities/Kurt_Cobain.shtml
"Cobain suffered from very painful stomach aches which he sought relief from through various drugs. It was not until 1993 that it was determined to be caused by a pinched nerve. At that time it was treated and stopped being such an important aspect of his life"
http://www.justiceforkurt.com/investigation/not_suicidal.shtml
"In the summer of 1993, Kurt experienced what he called "a miracle". After years of consulting specialists about his debilitating stomach pain, he found a doctor who finally diagnosed the problem - a pinched nerve relating to his scoliosis."
http://www.nirvanaclub.com/facts/nia/facts.txt
"A doctor attributed Kurt's horrendous stomach pains to a pinched nerve"
Granted, the first 2 are a little biased but you get the point. I am not sure of the ORIGINAL source, but I am almost 100% positive that he did in fact have a pinched nerve. Flyerhell 06:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Is there a reason someone continuously removes Mr. Cobain from this list? A man who admits to at one time assuming himself gay and then later professing of being on the verge of living a bisexual lifestyle had Courtney Love not enetered the scene...
Um, if it quacks like a duck?
Is there a way to found out what exactly was written in Kurt Cobain's suicide note? TearAwayTheFunerealDress 16:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Do we really need a section for Kurt's gear in this article? It's not even remotely comprehensive, and one parse through kurtsequipment.com shows how lacking it is. It seems absolutely redundant to contain some nominal amount of information, when that site is so phenomenally detailed. We've already got a link to it, why do we need anything more? -- ChrisB 01:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Its still bias, and repetitive fandalism is getting it nowhere, and stops it from been a neutral article, there is nothing mentioned in the article about Kurt Cobain’s less than technically talented guitar playing compared to 80s guitarists (Which would infact make Nirvana “visual style over musical substance“ in a way), none of the 80s bands claimed to place visual style over musical substance, its an opinion, not a fact, you don’t see how that is totally bias in a supposed neutral article?? - Deathrocker 06:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Then find a direct link with an exact quote of Kurt offering that opinion and put it in quotation marks in the article, instead of offering it up as factual info.
An example of why the article is bias; Yngwie Malmsteen and Michael Angelo(80s guitarists) have a glamorous image yet are a thousand times more talented on guitar than Kurt Cobain could ever hope to be so that throws the "visual style over musical substance" as factual info right out of the window, if anything Nirvana were image over musical substance, sure the image wasn't glamorous but an image all the same, the only competent musician in the band was Dave Grohl... the opinions you offer up in the article only cater for the Nirvana fanboy frame of mind, it is supposed to be a Neutral article. - Deathrocker 09:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
They are part of "glam metal" which infact was the predominant style that Grunge swayed the mainstream away from for a more stripped down look and style (Which for some reason you keep editing out for your bias info, lord knows why??), you are offering opinion from which you have no source that Kurt Cobain even said those things, and if he did and you can somehow pull a reliable reference out of somewhere, it needs to be quoted as an opinion of his, not factual information.
- Deathrocker 09:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I added it back in the interest of keeping it a FACTUAL article, something which you have no interest in doing. Your attempt to "appease" by removing a genre that I am a fan of was very touching I must say, but I'm interested in fact and I'm sure the people who want to read an article on somebody are interested in non bias facts too. - Deathrocker 09:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
"The arrival of Cobain's best known song, "Smells Like Teen Spirit", marked the beginning of a dramatic shift of popular music away from 1980s glam metal, arena rock and dance-pop for a more stripped down look and sound."
What exactly is your grievance with that line? Its not like it is more favourable of either movement, its straight down the middle. - Deathrocker 10:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
"For starters, how is grunge a more stripped down sound?"
Have you ever tried to play a Nirvana song?.. it is stripped down in the same way punk rock is stripped down.
Many people who follow metal and rock cite Nirvana as the downfall of rock n’ roll, but that is also not included in the article because it is one sided opinion just as is "perceived superficiality" of any other genre by fans of grunge music who are apposed to 80s music, its not a neutral viewpoint. - Deathrocker 12:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
he was NOT bisexual! GOD DAMNIT! he even wrote in his journals about that! courtney it is bisexual but he was not. and add german and english american in the catogories 'cause he was not only irish. in the book HTH there are many useful information so stop fucking his article.
Is the Aberdeen sign real? There are other pictures on the net, and they look different. Plus, the plants on the photo, which are obviously in front of the sign, misteriously appear in the back of the bottom part.
See: [4] Notice that the bottom part of the sign is attached to the top part by three vertical pieces, whereas in the picture included in the article, the bottom part is attached to side poles. Photo seems edited to me.
See: [5] Looks like a before/after photo editing.
Any first hand or reliable sources as to this sign actually existing as portrayed?
ironcito 22:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I've emailed the aberdeen parks and recreation department to see if they have any information on this. -- Heah talk 00:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Mockup, developed by Paul Fritts and offered for free use via The Nirvana Fan Club fansite. (The sign does actually exist, but no other PD pictures are yet available.)
Weird thing is, the Kurt Cobain Memorial Project also has the mockup photo on their site. [7] [8] Furthermore, their main page shows the whole sign being put up, when supposedly it was only the bottom part that was added (evidenced by the "before" photo). The nirvanaclub.com photo also seems artificial to me. I've found several news stories about the sign being put up, even on MTV [9]. So either this is a rumor gone wild, or the sign actually exists but for some reason there are only fake or dubious pictures of it. ironcito 07:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I Googled every possible combination of words I could come up with, and there seem to be only three photos of the sign on the internet. The one of the sign being put up, the fake one (edited and original) and the Nirvana Club photo. It's strange that such a symbolic place has been barely photographed, but the fact that there are several articles about it leads me to believe that it does exist. Anyway, I left a message in User:Georgiacmt's talk page. He lives "just outside Aberdeen, WA", and has contributed to Talk:Aberdeen,_Washington. BTW, the fake photo is also in Aberdeen's article and two others, so I'd recommend removing it from those too. ironcito 23:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Are there any wikipedians in the are that could go out and take a pic of it for the site (or is that not kosher). Well if it doesn't happen in a year or so ill take a pic when i go there during the summer (im a sophmore in highschool and im going to investigate university of seatle this summer or next summer) and when i do im gonna visit kurts home town (even though he hated it)-- Ninandnirvana 01:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Note here [10]. In each picture, none of the foliage or trees around, behind, of in front of the sign in the first picture have moved in the time that the second picture was taken. And note that the 3 bars that connected the bottom part of the sign are missing also. LoZmaster 11:19 pm, 09-11-06 (-5:00 GMT)
Seems doubtful to me, but an anonymous editor added "His wife Courtney Love has said that he has had sex with Michael Stipe of R.E.M.." Seems like Vandalism of course, but I didn't want to delete it outright, just in case it is true. Therefore I request a source. The editor has a history of both vandalism and useful contributions, so I couldn't be sure based on previous actions. Assume good faith and all that. M A Mason 17:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Could we please stop the snide ridicule of Courtney Love. It reeks of misogyny, and frankly after twelve years, it's getting pretty old.-- Pinko1977 02:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to think that'll stop, but I doubt it. Folks will be trashing Ms. Love long after you and I are gone.-- Pinko1977 05:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Yo, why the hell would they do that?
I'm a bit concerned about Wikipedia's claim that there was no noticeable trauma to Cobain's head (or that he was initially "thought to be sleeping"). According to CelebrityMorgue.com, for example: "The shotgun blast destroyed his head to the point where he was not recognizable; the body was identified from fingerprints."
These allegations that claim only a trickle of blood was noticeable sound ridiculous at best. Keep in mind that death resulted from a close-range shotgun blast to the head. --AWF
Would anyone object to listing this article in Category:Unsolved murders?
-User:Carie
What about Category:Disappeared people? Before he was discovered dead he was classified as a missing person, according to this article. --User:Carie
Disappeared category is for those people who never turned up.I.e., they can't be living people or dead people.
ConDem 03:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I fear that some people may take this the wrong way, but shouldn't this article be moved from Category:Entertainers who died in their 20s to Category:Entertainers who committed suicide in their 20s? He is legally recognized to have committed suicide. -- DDG 20:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
In the bio template, Kurt's birthplace is given as Hoquiam, while the article's body clearly states that he was born at Greys Harbor Community Hospital in Aberdeen. In fact, all reputable sources give Kurt's birthplace as Aberdeen. Can we correct this now?-- Pinko1977 20:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't we know exactly what day he died? Why the circa? Ckessler
Well, the death certificate states April 5th, shouldn't this be more correct then? -- 195.184.103.239
There should be some mention of the Pixies in the Musical influences section. They're probably the most obvious influence on Cobain's style out there. There's a bit about it in the grunge article; I suggest using some of that info here. -- LGagnon 00:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity. Is Kurt giving the finger in the Hawaii photo with Courtney? Just because he was smiling..which kind of startled me for obvious reasons. If he is, it certainly wouldn't surprise me...
This is not an encyclopaedic entry, it's eulogy. Most amusing is the style of wording in the musical influences section: a fine art in sophistry to avoid saying he copied an awful lot from others, including Pixies, Killing Joke, Neil Young. Using words like "references", "influences" and "sincerity" doesn't escape the fact that he took entire riffs and chord structures from the aforementioned and was subsequently worshipped by many as a musical genius. I invite you to listen to Crazy Horse's "Mr Chips" and tell us all what it reminds you of.
Actually thats a Rockets song, before they became Crazy Horse
With the murder theory contigent came the theory rebuttal contingent, explained notably on the cobaincase site, I believe. I'm thinking it would be fair to represent those arguments as well as the murder theory ones. I can contribute when I get a chance. NeoApsara 21:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
El Duce was hit by a train while intoxicated. It certainly isn't as suspicious as the "unusual circumstances" description in this article makes it sound. It comes across a little too much like "he had evidence that Kurt was murdered, and then was killed in what was probably a murder". Surely some better term can be used. Why can't it just say he was struck by a train?
That's what happened, it is indeed suspicious. Perhaps he was intoxicated. Read that section more carefully. The police investigation was not thorough enough, that's the whole point.
What made El Duce's death somewhat mysterious is, he was going drinking with a man he had just met. And then, 4 hours later, he ends up dead, hit by a train in a location 25 or so miles away from where he lives and hangs out. He went in the other man's vehicle, and so, that shows the oddity in it all. The liqour store was just down the street, but yet, the location of his death was far out of the way. - Emhilradim 22:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Is there an actual reason for the article to have been effectively removed? Just says "infobox" instead of an actual article? More vandalism? It says the most recent edit was before 10 this morning, so I put in the version that existed before this revision. Inquisition 11:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Kurt Cobain is mentioned in a few other songs I know off, probably more. In the song Californication by Red Hot Chili Peppers he is mentioned, aswell in Am I High by N*E*R*D. Something to put in maybe?
I really see no mention of some of his drawings and collages. I find some of his work that can be found on the internet pretty interesting, and probably should be made a note of, IMO. On the "With the Lights Out" dvd, there is a sample of some of his art in some sort of attic or small room all crammed together, some of which may no longer exist or still be in the Cobain estate yet to be released. Just something I'd bring up for future consideration...
ERic 06:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking of this pic:
Its on the In Utero tour with the angel wings behind him. I though it is really prophetic and iconic, and it shows a portrait of what Kurt Cobain really was.
Just a little FYI for everyone out there, The Nirvana In Utero "Angel" is really a T.A.M. with super imposed wings. A TAM is a Transparent Anatomical Mannequin used for medical training purposed in the late 80's on. They have removable parts and lights that aide in teaching doctors where the different organs are etc.
http://www.ni.com/pdf/academic/us/journals/transparent_anatomical.pdf
I was thinking that we should use this pic here [12] Registered user 92 ( talk · contribs)
I removed this content:
Just a little FYI for everyone out there, The Nirvana In Utero "Angel" is really a T.A.M. with super imposed wings. A TAM is a Transparent Anatomical Mannequin used for medical training purposed in the late 80's on. They have removable parts and lights that aide in teaching doctors where the different organs are etc.
http://www.ni.com/pdf/academic/us/journals/transparent_anatomical.pdf
This stuff is entirely misleading. For starters, the study that claimed "a toxic dose of heroin would be at least 500 milligrams for nonusers and 1800 milligrams for addicts" was performed in the 1920s. And that completely ignores the part where the study says nothing about "inducing coma", only about lethal dosage. The conspiracy doesn't claim that Cobain was killed by the dosage - using the study to debunk that doesn't make logical sense (and is original research).
And since when is the state of Kurt's sleeves an issue? He had to inject the heroin somehow.
Second, "nobody has concluded it was a forgery" is patently false. Grant claims it was a forgery, as do the experts he contacted. Maybe nobody official declared it a forgery, but claiming that "nobody" concluded it is simply false and deceptive. The assertions about Cobain's emotional state as he wrote the note is original research as well, unless there's some study I've missed.
Now for the irrelevant part: my own opinion about this. Frankly, I've never read Rollins assertions before now, but his overall assertion is insane. He starts his treatise by creating a straw man about the conspiracy. "Murder theorist seem to want reconstruct Kurt's image. They want everyone to believe Kurt was the 'Barney' for generation X." WHAT? There's some substantial fanbase that thinks Kurt didn't use drugs? And Rollins needs to spend half of his writing pointing out that he was?
I don't have a problem with including some content debunking the conspiracy. But any content along those lines should debunk specific points using specific sources, nothing like what was included here. There are also several notable points (including the issue of Kurt's arm length and the length of the gun) that were not touched on - targetting one element of the conspiracy and not the rest doesn't really do the job. -- ChrisB 23:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no reason to remove the part about how Washington State Law forbids disclosing information about the post-mortem.
For starters, the study that claimed "a toxic dose of heroin would be at least 500 milligrams for nonusers and 1800 milligrams for addicts" was performed in the 1920s.
...And?
The conspiracy doesn't claim that Cobain was killed by the dosage - using the study to debunk that doesn't make logical sense (and is original research).
The conspiracy theory claims a lot of scatter-shot things that form an incoherent scenario of events, half of which aren’t even listed here (which is probably so the conspiracy theory would seem half way plausible) among them the so-called “lack of finger prints” or “smudged finger-prints means they *had* to have been swiped“ myth. The point was the amount of intoxicants supposedly found in Cobain’s body would not necessarily kill him or render him incapable of pulling a trigger. As in, even if he’d those toxins in his body, he could still have shot himself.
And since when is the state of Kurt's sleeves an issue? He had to inject the heroin somehow.
Kurt Cobain rolling up his sleeves, shooting up, and then rolling them down *is* how Grant characterizes the suicide claims. The counter-claim is that given how needle marks in each arm were identified at the scene, they would have had to have been up at some point … which means at another point, they were rolled back down. So we don’t know if Kurt was found with his sleeves rolled up; in fact the coroner looking at his arms can account for them being down. As in, it is just as possible, and by itself more likely, that Cobain didn’t in fact roll his sleeves down if he had to shoot up and pull the trigger as it is a whole county and police department and Courtney Love or whoever else have been hiding a big, big secret for over a decade.
Second, "nobody has concluded it was a forgery" is patently false. Grant claims it was a forgery, as do the experts he contacted. Maybe nobody official declared it a forgery, but claiming that "nobody" concluded it is simply false and deceptive.
No, it is Grant’s admitted opinion that it was forged and other selective amount of “experts” have said anything from how they think its forged it it is indicative of beinf different but is too hard to make out (which can account for how it looks different). It, in fact, has not been concluded as forged … only suspected. You have whatever experts saying it looks forged yet without a comparative sample that went to determine by whom, but on the other, you have a forensic document examiner who in fact used samples and concluded it was that of Kurt Cobain. That is a legitimate point. Yet not only is it mentioned, but you deleted it completely.
The assertions about Cobain's emotional state as he wrote the note is original research as well, unless there's some study I've missed.
The idea that emotional states (which are known to affect hand-writing anyway) and toxicants settling in accounting for perceived differences in handwriting in Cobain’s letter can be cited to a skeptic who was posted on the rebuttal section on Justiceforkurt.com. Maybe you "missed" it, or maybe you just didn't think to consider it. If that falls under “original research”, it doesn’t make it an illegitimate claim but inappropriate for Wiki. However, it leaves this article highly disputed as far as neutrality in the context of the controversy itself as it does not represent it.
Now for the irrelevant part: my own opinion about this. Frankly, I've never read Rollins assertions before now, but his overall assertion is insane. He starts his treatise by creating a straw man about the conspiracy. "Murder theorist seem to want reconstruct Kurt's image. They want everyone to believe Kurt was the 'Barney' for generation X." WHAT? There's some substantial fanbase that thinks Kurt didn't use drugs? And Rollins needs to spend half of his writing pointing out that he was?
You’re right. I don’t give a crap if you think anybody is insane or if you’ve read it before. If that were relevant, I’d have mentioned my opinion on Tom Grant. Second, you’d have a point had I included anything about what Rollins had said regarding how some people view Cobain, but I didn’t so quit throwing out red-herrings, or complain to the man who wrote it.
As it stands, the section on the murder theories is insinuative, selective, and exclusive of other POVs. NeoApsara
“1) Heroin purity has changed since the 1920s.
2) Rollins himself notes several other studies that resulted in contrary results.
3) Given 1) and 2), providing that study as the lone supporting evidence is misleading.”
Heroin purity may have changed since the 1920s, but so have tolerances. All you’ve shown me is that I included an unrepresentative citation. The point is that its possible; there are several other just as likely things that could have happened then. Yet, you only will include the murder conspiracy ones.
And it still doesn’t account for how he may not have shot it all at once.
“Yes, but if you're debunking something here, it has to be the points being made here. Again, the studies you've mentioned do not assert that 225mgs would not have incapacitated him.”
I characterize it as being "skeptical", not debunking as they are just theories already, just long-shot possibilities.
Anyway we don’t even know they would have. We don’t even know there was that amount in him. If you read where I mentioned, there are other explanations if there were:
The 1.52 figure includes both free morphine and conjugated (metabolized) morphine. Only the free morphine figure indicates whether or not Kurt was dead or incapacitated. Morphine has a half-life of 2-3 hours. The police reports indicate two injections - one on each inner elbow - were found in the body. Perhaps he injected twice and the free morphine level had lowered enough by the time Kurt chose to administer a second injection, at which point he then decided to commit suicide. While the Dead Men Don't Pull Triggers essay discusses the total level and the purported lethality of such a high dosage, it doesn't eliminate the possibility of a case such as this and doesn't differentiate between free and metabolized morphine as we don't know those actual figures - and again, as long as the 1.52 figure cannot be confirmed, this is all speculation. It was also reported that Diazepam - Valium - was found in Kurt's system, but the amount is not known. This proves nothing. Diazepam has a halflife of 3-5 days; it is also given to heroin addicts going through rehab, so he could have taken it at Exodus. Additionally, he could have taken it on his own days before his death. The motive for potential murderers administering Valium into Kurt's system is illogical since they could easily just administer heroin until he was incapacitated.
“But the claim is bizarre. Who's to say they didn't check his arms when they moved his body?”
First you ask why it is an issue, now its "bizarre"? Please. The conspiracy theorists want to show murder, the burden of proof is on them. More appropriately, the question should be who is to say the coroner didn’t look at his arms, move his sleeves down, and then the picture was shot instead of it being that Cobain rolled them down himself? We know the paraphernalia was already messed with at that point. The point is, it is a possibility.
“But that's beyond the point. The problem is that your explanation didn't debunk anything, it simply questioned an element of the conspiracy that isn't particularly notable, and could be supported by elements such as that photograph.”
The conspiracy theory is just that, one doesn’t need to debunk some quasi-circumstantial evidence deemed questionable that hasn't amounted to a coherent, conclusive series of events. All of which you don't even include in the article (yet I'm supposed to provide for every point made). It provides couter-possibilities, explanations for certain things. Which are neglected in this article.
“Again, if you read what is written in this article, we attribute everything to Grant's claims, not to some conclusion of forgery. Additionally, the official report only says that the NOTE was written by Cobain - it does not go into details about the lines that Grant questions. Plus, Grant names the experts he talked to, and they actually have credentials. He didn't speak to "experts" in the generic sense.”
Mmm-hmm. Another analyst said there are indications but they could just as likely be because it is so hard to make out. Somebody else concluded officially that it was Cobain’s writing. What the other people say are just as important, yet you will only have what Grant and his buddies said. The lines Grant questions are part of the note and his claim is that the lines are forged. Grant names a selective amount of experts who apparently aren‘t bothered enough to go to the police. They are equally legitimate by themselves. Then really, I don’t see how I characterize them as having to do anything.
“"inappropriate for Wiki" - this is what I was getting at. I can see it as an argument, but I don't recall anyone ever asserting it, at least not in Cobain's case.”
I understand some things may be inapproriate for Wiki, which was why I had to do some work to find things that fit the criteria (indeed it doesn't dismiss the arguments though.). Did you actually go to where I said it was? It isn’t an assertion anymore than it being forged is as there were any number of experts who looked at it and claimed any number of things. Emotional states affecting handwriting isn’t something that needs to be studied, it is something known. Again the point is, it is very possible with Cobain … yet it isn’t even mentioned.
“I said his assertion was insane. I didn't say he was insane.”
I don’t care. Write to him.
“The real problem is that there are nearly zero substantiated sources that support the suicide claim. I don't say that in a way to support the conspiracy - I say that simply because those sources don't exist. Even the Seattle PD failed to supply the reasoning for their conclusion, save for what we mention here - shotgun blast, suicide note, history of depression. And several of their assertions (in the official police report) are notably false.”
As I have mentioned twice now, that Washington State Law forbids the release of such information, right? No, it isn’t Courtney Love’s super special powers that did it, it is a law. That is one reason why people question the levels of toxicants claimed by the conspiracy theorists in the first place, yet theorists take it as Gospel. It would have to be at Courtney or Kurt’s family’s discretion. Even if the cops did a shoddy job in some regards, not only is that not unusual but it still doesn’t mean they need to release anything just because a bunch of people think he may have been murdered. And again, the burden of proof is on the people who think he was killed; they are seeking “proof”, so of course only they will have selective amounts of experts. Then again, one needn't necessarily a "source" for some things.
“Again, if you want to add statements debunking the conspiracy, provide information that challenges the points made here.”
I have, but you treat the conspiracy “points” as facts, when they are just possibilities and just dismiss the other possibilities I put because, well, because you don’t like it or think it is “bizarre”. You already include that Krist and Dave have remained silent and it is “notable”, yet you don’t mention how Kurt’s sister and mother believe he committed suicide. The article is selective in what issues of the conspiracy theory are included as it doesn't include the myth about the lack of/smudged finger prints, the myth that somebody had to have taken his credit card (as if it couldn’t have been shared, used by phone, or stolen, and that it would be pretty stupid for a killer to go through all that and then leave a sloppy trail behind), you mention the theory that it was a “goodbye” note because he didn’t say he was dying (please) yet he doesn’t say he is leaving yet if you cite Dead Studies “Myths About Suicide Notes” then readers would see that saying, "well, I’m going to kill myself now” is not a hallmark (let me guess: it doesn‘t matter because its Canadian?), you don’t mention that lie detectors only tell what the person believes and they are unreliable, and then you misrepresent people who believe suicide only as because of the gun, depression, drugs and whatnot when it is clear there are several other possibilities for each facet of the murder theory. I understand if some you may consider OR, but they are valid explanations for murder theories. But it leaves this article POV and at least may merit a SectNPOV tag. NeoApsara
“I dismissed many of the points you've made because they don't have anything to do with the content contained in the article.”
That the law forbids release of details on the post-mortem has everything to do with it as it is a huge foundation on which the conspiracy theory rests.
“On the other hand, the heroin level figure was reported by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, whose reputation is not under dispute.”
“Reputation” has nothing to do with it, this isn‘t high-school. The law forbids such disclosure. We don’t even know if what they said is true, conspiracy theorists just accept it. You neglect to include that.
“Furthermore, they do not have names attached to them. The rebuttal you're citing was posted anonymously and cannot be cited via Wiki guidelines: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources."“
I understand that and I’ve acknowledged that some may not be appropriate for wiki, in this case the anon report, so please don‘t imply I didn‘t. The other one, however, does have a name.
“I do not appreciate the tone you've taken thus far. You accused me of saying something I didn't say, I corrected you, and you backhanded me with "I don’t care. Write to him."“
I made clear before that I’m not the person whom you should take issue with because I didn’t write what you deemed “insane”. My “misquoting” you was to illustrate my point about how I couldn’t care less about what you feel about the man who wrote it.
“Your arguments here have not related to what's written in this article. You've attempted to dispute the entire theory, which is not even remotely discussed here. Neither the fingerprints nor the credit card are even mentioned in this article. Disputing those points (and other points not mentioned in the article) does nothing to help balance the position taken in the article”
I didn’t include, in my original edit, anything about the finger-prints or credit-card. My point was here that you don’t even include everything about the conspiracy theory, and therefore it comes across as misrepresentative and/or selective. Like how you go on about who is an authority or not … yet you insinuate something by saying it is “notable” that Krist and Dave (band members) have remained “silent”. Yet, Kurt’s mother and sister, who are probably people who actually *saw* the real toxicology report, believe he did commit suicide. Your criteria seems shakey at best.
“I refuse to get into a further discussion of the validity of the conspiracy. The conspiracy exists, people believe it, therefore it has every right to be included in this article.”
You’re putting words in my mouth. I didn’t say the conspiracy theory shouldn’t be included. In fact I pointed out that not every element of the theory is included. The times I’ve addressed the theory or it’s validity as a whole were to illustrate that it isn’t a truth to be measured against; it is a possibility.
“It's an encyclopedia. The murder conspiracy is encyclopedic and deserves a fair, NPOV discussion.”
Indeed. But as it stands, it doesn’t seem to come across that way.
“Comments like "let me guess: it doesn‘t matter because its Canadian?" are insulting.”
Yes, it was in response to you changing your objection to an issue I present when I gave an answer to it. NeoApsara 00:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
You’re not understanding what I mean. I’m not suggesting it is inappropriate for Wiki, just that it doesn’t change the fact that Washington State Law forbids the release of that information. Washington State Law is just as reliable as a newspaper.
The Rollins guy references it and you can link directly to the law through the internet. It was apparently appropriate to include what band members thought and be insinuative, so I’m certain confused as to the criteria.
I know that. Toxicologists spoken to on Dateline saying he could very well have been capable of turning the gun on himself included. However, this is only going under the assumption that the figure is true, that he shot it up all at once, and that for each toxicant used the amount is correct. Yet another huge foundation on which the conspiracy theory rests. It is unfortunate if none of that can be included.
Any number of things are likely: they heard a rumor, they sensationalized, they were told something to get them away (known to happen). But, indeed whatever. I understand.
Nobody has supplied as much that the amount was in Cobain! The point is skeptics such as Rollins have said it was possible.
I understand if it isn’t important enough to include and in fact that is my thought about it as a whole, but my point is shouldn’t you just flat out state why it may be notable?
That wasn’t what I was discussing in that instance, I was trying to explain why I mentioned the validity of the claims at all.
It is just fine, thank you. I actually thought about citing the Dateline studies (which included toxicologists, mind you) but wasn't sure how to go about it without having the names of the experts.
Could one at least be allowed to make a link section at the bottom titled “Skeptical of murder theory”? NeoApsara 14:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Who reverted it. Nick Broomfield's reasoning for supposedly not showing the film is completely taken out of context. I'm getting tired of the obvious corruption here. You say I am biased yet you emit incriminating facts.
Fact: The Rohypnol prescription was Courtney's Fact: Tom Grant found packets of Rohypnol when searching the Cobain home. Fact: Kurt Cobain had three times the maximum lethal dose of heroine for a 150 lb. severe addict, which would have rendered him incapacitated, and a gunshot to the head. It's called a "lethal dose" for a reason. Don't say "well he built up tolerance", as that was taken into account. Fact: Kurt's credit card was cancelled and his tires were slashed. Fact: While the accuracy of these tests isn't perfect, the tests on El Duce were administered by Edward Gelb, who ran the same tests on O.J. Simpson, whom he said failed the test quite badly. Needless to say he's a leading expetrt at these tests, and would thus use proper tactics and take the right factors into account. Fact: There were no fingerprnts on the gun. Fact: The last few lines on the supposed "suicide note" are identical to Courtney Love's handwriting. Fact: After years of consulting specialists about his debilitating stomach pain, he found a doctor who finally diagnosed the problem - a pinched nerve relating to his scoliosis. Once the problem was diagnosed, it became treatable Fact: Both his best friend and his grandmother noticed no behavioural pattern of suicide. He even arranged to go fishing with his grandfather. Fact: He was clean on the tour prior to his murder. Fact: He was preparing to leave Courtney, and that would mean significant financial complications for Courtney. Fact: On February 21st, 1994, Kurt spoke of stories he wanted to tell his grandchildren. Fact: Courtney produced a never-before seen second note to Seattle police, which she claims Kurt wrote in Rome during "his first suicide attempt". A police officer says it was not a suicide not, but rather a rambling and unflattering diatribe against her. Courtney admits the existance of this note in a December 1994 Rolling Stone interview, and to Tom Grant. Grant has her on tape saying that she burned it . Courtney says the second note also mentioned a divorce.
Now ask yourself these questions:
Why did Courtney pretend to be Kurt's mother when calling in the missing person's report to the SPD on April 4th?
Why did Courtney release that cropped image of Kurt with the toy gun, shortly after his death?
Why hasn't Courtney sued Tom Grant for his claims?
Why did Rosemary Carroll tell Tom Grant that Courtney had "no business in Los Angeles"?
If Dylan Carlson knew Kurt was suicidal, why did he buy the gun for Kurt?
Why did Courtney want to keep Grant on the pay roll and get him to sign a confidentiality agreement if he had openly admitted to her what his feelings of Kurt's "suicide" were?
When Courtney found out that Kurt fled rehab, why did she contact a PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR and not the POLICE first?
Why did Sgt. Cameron lie to Tom Grant about Kurt being barricaded in the greenhouse and that the little 'stool was wedged up against the door'?
That's all for now. It should be more than enough. Dead men don't pull triggers. Goodnight.
We can't use BMI's database as a source. BMI's data is entered so that royalties are directed to the right place - it's not always accurate as far as composer information. (It's not uncommon to find titles in BMI for songs that don't even exist.)
But, furthermore, there's no reason to cite BMI.
Nirvana's version and Hole's version do not have the same lyrics. If Cobain gave the song to Love for Hole to use (it was released while he was still alive), the Hole credit would be accurate, particularly if it turns out that she really did write the lyrics. The Nirvana version is entirely Cobain-written, so there's no reason for it to be credited to anyone else.
There should be two BMI entries for the song, given its origins. The fact that there are two serves absolutely zero purpose in the article. -- ChrisB 20:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Grant also notes that the official report does not distinguish the questionable lines from the rest of the note, and simply concludes that Cobain wrote the note.
This is just silly: the lines were technically part of the note. The only reason they should be “distinguished” is if the reader found them questionable. This worded way POV. I’m still trying to figure out why Kim saying that in an interview is in any way notable.
This whole thing is still in desperate need of a POV tag, due to the way it is written and that if omits less-than-credible elements of the numerous murder conspiracy theories. NeoApsara 16:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The following two sentences are located in the Suicide Dispute section : Cobain would have had to fire the weapon with his toe, yet he was found with both shoes still in place. Critics, however, point out that Grant sold "kits" about the alleged conspiracy via his website.
These two sentences don't really flow well together. Just because Grant sold kits on his website that doesn't really disprove the previous sentence about Cobain's shoes. A separate paragraph should be written for critics of the suicide dispute. If no one else does it within a day or so I'll take a crack at it. Levid37 17:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. It's a typical "change the subject, point the finger." tactic. They attempt to discredit Grant with a completely unrelated argument. Just because there isn't sufficient evidence to disprove what Grant knows to be true doesn't give editors the right to throw a tantrum and try to dismiss everything he's said based on an unrelated suspicion. Brad_2 14:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The "guitarist" template is not appropriate here. Cobain was known as a guitarist, but he was also prominently (if not better) known as a songwriter. No doubt that if Rolling Stone decided to put together a list of the greatest songwriters of all time, he would be in the upper echelon as well (if not ranked higher). The guitarist template is reserved for musicians who are MAINLY known for their being a guitarist - Cobain is not MAINLY known as a guitarist. He is a guitarist, yes, but it was not his primary function in the band.
And, if it's filled out properly, the only difference between the "guitarist" template and the "musical artist" template is the "notable guitar" entry. Cobain used several different guitars; he wasn't "best known" for the 61 Fender Mustang beyond any other. Picking one guitar to be his "notable" guitar is wholly inappropriate and POV.
And please stop moving the picture of young Cobain to the top. I have no idea which Wikipedia template you're using, but it makes the page look absolutely ridiculous in the standard template. The wrapping gets thrown completely out of whack, it screws up the section break, and the "Edit" button for that section gets jammed down the page. -- ChrisB 16:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
About these edits:
I have a link to verify the alias, but you have none to dispute it. Could you provide one please? No offence, but I'd rather take the word of IMDB than someone who likes to vandalise the article: [13] [14]
Jibbles | Talk 20:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Kurt Cobain/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
---|---|
I'll get started
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.
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?
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 05:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
|
Last edited at 16:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)