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 |
This article can't just be about conspiracy theories and counter-theories. given it's called "Death of Kurt Cobain", it should actually discuss events leading up to his death and the discovery of his body, as well as reactions to it. WesleyDodds 10:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
1) Danny Goldberg, wife of Rosemary Carroll, states Kurt committed suicide and refers to the "crazy Internet rumors" of the murder theory in his book "Dispatches From The Culture Wars". The entire text of the book is searchable through Amazon.com to see this for yourself. I just added this but it was deleted. Why? It is entirely relevant. Goldberg and Rosemary were personally involved in Cobain's life. Obviously they must share or overlap opinions of the situation. No one has questioned WHY Carroll was being so forthcoming with a PI hired by Courtney Love.Even if she felt Kurt had been murdered, why wasn't she taking her claims and evidence to the police? It is implied in this article that she felt Kurt was murdered, and yet in later years, her husband has stated the exact opposite. Given that these people were/are godparents of Kurt's daughter, their opinions and actions are valid in the context of this information.
2) The entire Greg Sage quote should be left. It a) describes Kurt's intentions for projects post-April 1994, and also suggests that Sage believes his label could've found justification for Kurt's murder, preferring it to letting Kurt just drop out of the industry. Thus he would be "immortalized" in death. I'm not sure why ChrisB felt the need to delete this, but I have reverted it.
3) Krist Novoselic explicitly states in his book "Of Grunge and Government" that Kurt took his own life.
4) There is not a single mention of the fact that Leland Cobain, Kurt's grandfather, has publicly stated NUMEROUS times that he feels Kurt was murdered and that Courtney is involved.
5) This article should focus on the last days, specifically from the time NIRVANA ended in March 1994 and beyond. A lot of discrepancies of actions and intent can be documented to prove that there is substantial cause for these murder theories to persist. Timewalk92 ( talk) 19:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Broomfield's error in "Kurt and Courtney" has been confirmed by various sources, including the doctor in charge of the procedure. It's been made public and should be given some mention, though in a more neutral tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.26.85.49 ( talk) 11:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I've asked this before and I want to ask it again:
Why is this page covered in Tom Grant's conspiracy theories? Why aren't they on Tom Grant's page? Why is there so obviously little-to-nothing conjectured by any other source than Tom Grant, including even Halperin/Wallace, who relied on conversations with Grant for the bulk of any conjecture toward homicide?
This page is nothing but an ad for Grant's theory. I find it ridiculous that as such it is attached to Cobain and not to Grant. Mistertruffles ( talk) 12:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Put another way, it is impossible to argue that this page, as-is, would exist without Grant's CONJECTURES (entirely non-factual conjectures).
Since when does one freelance investigator/conspiracy theorist get to dominate discourse and information to this extent? Mistertruffles ( talk) 12:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
"They are about this subject, they're tied to this subject, so they belong here." is totally incorrect —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.239.101 ( talk) 07:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
To add more thorough detail to this page, and to hopefully help some of the complaints, I am going to add some different sources than Grant eventually to help add more depth to the whole article. Pericolaso ( talk) 17:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Wow, perhaps IPatrol can explain to everyone here precisely what the supposed 'POV' was in my only two edits to this article?
1. I first rearranged the order of a few sentences because someone left sentence fragments and other bad grammar and an improper citation (ok, so first I have a POV against improper English ;-) ).
For example, the article read:
Before he elected to end his life, Kurt Donald Cobain had become a sad caricature of the tortured , addicted artist. Miserable in the glow of success, his was a life of pain and suffering. Despite incredible talent and timing, Cobain's 27 years on earth ended in surrender and a hopeless defeat.[3]
There are several things wrong with this blockquote:
(a) No quotes were around that, so it looks like the encyclopedia (not Furek) is making these insults like "sad caricature"; so, when was the last time you've read a non-wiki encyclopedia that would say such a thing, unless quoting someone, and MAKING IT CLEAR that someone (Furek) is being quoted?? It also draws the conclusion that Cobain "elected to end his life" and other spurious conclusions (spurious = no facts, to support some of what Furek says, are IN THE ARTICLE), whereas I thought this article was supposed to be a BALANCED analysis (of those who say Cobain was a suicide versus those who say he was murdered). As long as it's not made clear that this is Furek's opinion, it will only make people take Wikipedia less and less seriously.
(b) Furek's name (let alone his background) was also not stated in the article when someone attributed that blockquote to Furek using a ref tag. Give the readers a transparent source instead of making readers click the ref tag, to go into the footnotes (which themselves STILL don't tell the reader who Furek is).
(c) hmmm, I was also never taught to put a space BEFORE a comma, but the fact it says "tortured , addicted" is not the main point here, and this is very minor (relative to these other things I corrected, and IPatrol reverted)...
(d) Also notice how the subject-matter that Furek discusses doesn't match the subject-matter in the sentence before Furek very well; someone spliced this in, so that we get subject A, then Furek, then we go back to subject A: This paragraph reads, "Cobain himself mentioned that his stomach pains during Nirvana's 1991 European tour were so severe he became suicidal and that taking heroin was "my choice. I said, 'This is the only thing that's saving me from blowing my head off right now.'"[2]. [And then it snaps right into the sentence...] Before he elected to end his life..." The subject-matter of the whole rest of the paragraph also has nothing to do with Furek and the text I blockquoted above: Isn't it proper writing technique to group together several sentences that relate to one another into each paragraph...or did I land on bizarro world? [IPatrol's world, since he apparently couldn't see what I was doing? ;-) ] ) a paragraph or two after it says "Cobain himself mentioned that his stomach pains..." there is another sentence related to Cobain's STOMACH PAINS; instead of a paragraph or 2 down, this sentence about stomach pains should be placed immediately after "Cobain himself mentioned that his stomach pains...".
2. In the same edit, I also questioned the relevance of even including the quote that I blockquoted above, because it:
(a) is made without noting in this article what Furek's expertise is, nor even mentioning Furek's name at all. It just appears as if out of thin air.
and (b) doesn't really provide us with objective info on the death of Cobain, just one man's opinion (Furek's opinion). It also doesn't show the reader Furek's evidence (or lack thereof) for WHY Furek would hold such a strong opinion, and if you're going to do that, why not include "Cobain was an 'asshole' for committing suicide[4]" with footnote number 4 reading: "Courtney Love's eulogy for Cobain, wherein she provoked the crowd to call Cobain "asshole". xD The point is that spurious opinions like name-calling are not often encyclopedic, even if you do cite the source. However, I didn't question this relevance in the article nor did I delete it despite that the article still does not even tell readers what the relevance or expertise of Furek is --nor that it's even Furek who is saying this-- since IPatrol reverted my edit that linked to Furek's website and I told readers of the article WHO this sentence is being sourced from.
Go on IPatrol, leave the article so readers like me shall say, "Hmmm, why did someone randomly insert an analysis of Kurt Cobain's life and death, written by a guy named Maxim Furek without stating who the hell Furek even is?? Is the average reader supposed to magically know who Maxim Furek is??" (So I have a POV against leaving improperly cited, non-sequitor subject-matter that was thrown hurdy-gurdy into an encyclopedia article. ;-) )
3. Then my second edit (and if you disagree with this edit, it's not a good reason to revert my last edit) was to remove someone else's 'POV' (yours, IPatrol? or just someone you agree with?) and keep readers from being shortchanged: Namely I gave MANY reasonable possibilities --since I don't have a 'POV' about this death nor adhere to ANY SINGLE ONE of those those possibilities-- rather than letting the article state that Cobain's gun had the ejection-port facing the opposite direction as where the shell casing landed (note that the important thing here is the article doesn't then state that this is not good evidence for either murder or suicide. A gun's ejection-port facing away from the spent shell in a suspected suicide is not 'spooky' because:
(a) someone can drop a gun and/or jerk uncontrollably in their final moments, inverting that gun by 180* which puts the ejection-port opposite the shell casing,
and/or (b) witnesses or rookie cops can accidentally (or purposely of course...) tamper with evidence before detectives arrive (as well as so many other possibilities besides these two),
or (c) a murderer could place it there to fake a suicide...and I included this last possibility of it being a murder along with the first possibility (suicide) because unlike someone here, I don't have a POV about this death. All of these possibilities should be pointed out, whether they support murder or suicide. Otherwise the article is shortchanging the readers. This article simply doesn't link to evidence to support whether a, b, or c, or something else altogether, occurred (and I doubt it ever will, as you'd need ALL the crime-scene photos, pathology, police reports, etc...and then even with those, the direction of the barrel versus the shell casing might prove inconclusive; readers should be told that a shell that's in the opposite direction of the ejection-port doesn't always imply murder; barrels get turned around for many other reasons). Frankly, I wasn't the only one who thought that as it reads currently, this passage implies Cobain was murdered.
(As people can see: First I challenged the quote from Furek that implies Cobain was suicidal, but does that mean I have the 'POV' that he was murdered? NO, because then I challenged the implication that the gun's ejection-port should look suspiciously like a murder; so like I said, I have no POV about "Death of Kurt Cobain"; I'm agnostic. For the good reasons stated above, I've challenged BOTH sides...but certainly not the entirety of either side's position because they both MOSTLY made good, valuable points; I've only challenged these 3 minor issues because they're messing up a perfectly good article.)
My only 'POV' is in having a good article: removing sentence-fragments, improper citations, and not letting readers infer that something implies "murder" nor "suicide" about a shell found opposite an ejection port.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.196.211 ( talk) 16:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Is it just me, or should a good article on a human being not contain his DATE OF BIRTH?!! C'mon guys - is this amateur hour?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.100.134 ( talk) 23:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
i suggest that this article be merged with the main Kurt Cobain article—Preceding unsigned comment added by KeeganBraunsdorf ( talk • contribs) 18:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree Mr. R00T ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC).
im putting the label on the theories since fans are blaming courtney love, which is of jewish heritage. this is an insult towards jews as we are agin blamed for something of this obviousness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samanthacohen ( talk • contribs) 09:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Dude, that ISN'T funny...a lot of Israeli zionists actually do act like that. Haha. 124.169.119.39 ( talk) 09:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane ^ What? 207.138.198.54 ( talk) 02:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Love has a bit of Jewish background. It is not enough to classify her as "Jewish" or a "Jew". She was NEVER raised in the Jewish religion and to say she is completely ignores her other ancestry. Love is NOT a Jew 60.224.160.192 ( talk) 20:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Has any of the individuals blaming Courtney made reference to any level of Jewish Heritage? This wasn't a blood libel, it was an accusation of personal motives to want someone dead. Not every crime has a racial or ideological motive, claiming so is more likely to create division and lead to provocation of those inclined to antisemitism going on to commit an actual hate crime. If we have quotes of people saying "That Jew (possibly followed by some slurs and insults)..." Then yes we have antisemitism and the statement was more likely motivated by that then theories on Kurt Cobain's death. Czarnibog ( talk) 10:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm just saying, but, isn't this a bit redundant with the page Kurt Cobain? Can't we just merge them? Mr. R00T ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC).
This article is terrible and should be deleted. The idea he was killed is not mainstream or plausable and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.31.89.112 ( talk) 05:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
All one has to do, is surf the web casually for a few days, searching for "kurt cobain" sites , youtube, etc. you will find literally millions of people saying that they believe kurt was murdered. So having done this for a few years now, I am witnessing the FACT that there is a HUGE amount of controversy about this. A huge number of people apparently believe he did NOT commit suicide, and often allude to the evidence collected by Grant and others: so therefore this article is both mainstream and plausible to large numbers of people globally. Not to mention, that this subject has been extensively covered by mainstream and alternative tv, radio, and other media, including full length tv programs such as "Unsolved Mysteries", etc. which is definitely mainstream. Meat Eating Orchid ( talk) 09:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I put this in the "Impact and Copycat" section: "On the same day, 8 years later, fellow Seattle grunge musician Layne Staley died of an overdose of a speedball. The coroner estimated his death on the same day as Cobain." Should I add more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narisguy ( talk • contribs) 22:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Too much space ( undue weight) is given to the fringes theories here. There is 10 times more space given to conspiracy theories than to the consensus of reliable sources. Any uncited material needs to be removed, and any cited material of fringe opinions needs to be moved to a separate article on Conspiracy theories surrounding Kurt Cobain's death. See WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. 121.45.42.140 ( talk) 01:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Agreed 100%. I have added a few more rebuttals to balance it out. 60.224.160.192 ( talk) 08:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Death of Adolf Hitler which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 13:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I've heard some sources that the Nirvana song, "Floyd The Barber" references a fictional and gruesome death to The Andy Griffith Show's Floyd Lawson and that re-runs of The Andy Griffith Show were playing on television when Kurt's body was found and may have been the last show he ever watched and last thing he saw when he was alive. Is there any truth to this at all or is just pure speculation? 65.87.41.8 ( talk) 22:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
The theory section makes up over half of the article, and is almost all sourced from the "Justice for Kurt" website. This does not belong on an encyclopedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Drown Soda ( talk • contribs) 09:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree this article gives undue weight to minutiae and quotes from unreliable sources. Worse still is the tone - many parts of it are written in the format of rhetorical questions designed to lead the reader to a conclusion the author believes are obvious - "why would he do this unless...?", etc.. This format is extremely unbecoming of an encyclopedia and should be revised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.87.253 ( talk) 10:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I removed the rhetorical questions and other information. Best, yeepsi ( Talk tonight) 21:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Tarc, first off, you say I'm a “tinfoil proponent,” which I believe is some slang for 'nutcase conspiracy theorist'. Also, 'whackjobbery' has to be a similar jargon slang. Either way, using them in a sentence is truly evident of your lack of literary and grammatical skills.
Here is the full script of my contributions, with the rhetorical questions brushed off:
Had a job as the male nanny for Cobain's daughter, travelled with them, and lived in their Seattle home. Showed up in L.A. to talk to Courtney on April 7, a day before Kurt's body was discovered. Cali was also in Rome with Courtney when Kurt had the Rohypnol / champagne overdose accident. [1]
Cali left a note on the main staircase of the Cobain home on April 7. The note was found by Tom Grant and Dylan Carlson when they went to search the house for the second time, around 9:45 PM. It wasn't there the night before. Grant and Rosemary Carroll agreed that it sounded phony, and it was placed there for him to find. [2] The note read:
"Kurt- I can't believe you managed to be in this house without me noticing. You're a fuckin’ asshole for not calling Courtney & at least letting her know your ok. She's in a lot of pain Kurt, and this morning she had another "accident" and now she's in the hospital again. She's your wife & she loves you & you have a child together. Get it together to at least tell her your o.k. or she's going to die. It's not fair man. DO SOMETHING NOW."
After Kurt's body was found, Grant met with Cali in Los Angeles. [3] Cali said he was hardly at the house from Monday on although he did say he had gone to the house a few times between Sunday evening, April 3, and Thursday afternoon, April 7. According to his note, Cali "couldn't believe" Kurt had been in the house without him noticing.
Cali told Grant that Kurt had come to the house on early Saturday morning, April 2, after he left the rehab in Los Angeles. He claims he talked to Courtney on the phone and told her about Kurt's arrival at the house later that same day. Cali also told Grant later that he did not see Kurt after he left the house that previous Saturday morning.
When Grant was in Seattle on Thursday, April 7, Cali told friends he was leaving for Los Angeles. Grant never got to see or talk to him while he was in Seattle, although Courtney called Cali to let him know that Grant was coming to Seattle to search for Kurt.
According to Cali's note, he believed Kurt had come back to the house. Cali later claimed he stopped staying at the house because Courtney kept calling to say she knew Kurt was still there. Yet, Courtney apparently did not notify Grant and others to watch the house during their surveillance on other locations in Seattle. [4]
Rosemary Carroll told Grant during their first meeting, that on Thursday morning, while Courtney was at her house talking to Dylan on the phone, she overheard Courtney say, "Be sure and check the greenhouse." Since Courtney directed Dylan to check the greenhouse, Grant was skeptical as to why she had not asked Cali to check the greenhouse in the past few days. [5]
A few weeks after Kurt's death, during a meeting at Grant's Beverly Hills office, Cali claimed he checked the greenhouse on Sunday, April 3, but did not check it again. "It's just a dirty gross little room," Cali said. [6]
The truth is, the greenhouse was a rather large, clean room. It measured 19 feet by 23 feet. [7]
In the May 11 issue of The Seattle Times, Dylan Carlson told a reporter he didn't know the greenhouse was there. "For all the times I'd been there, I didn't even realize there was a room above it associated with the house." This contradicted the conversation Grant had with Dylan in the car on the day Kurt was found. [8]
Again, the rhetorical questions could have been brushed off, such as “why didn't Cali stay in Seattle and help with the search, etc”, which I pretty much just copy-pasted, due to laziness. My intent was not to make the article worse, but merely to supply information related to the article. Sleazemetal84 ( talk) 11:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
(Removed. Tarc ( talk) 14:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC))
Again, the rhetorical questions could have been brushed off, such as “why didn't Cali stay in Seattle and help with the search, etc”, which I pretty much just copy-pasted, due to laziness. My intent was not to make the article worse, but merely to supply information related to the article. Sleazemetal84 ( talk) 11:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
References
Please delete the paragraph: After Kurt's body was found, Grant met with Cali in Los Angeles.[34] Cali told Grant that he was hardly at the house from Monday on although he did say he had gone to the house a few times between Sunday evening, April 3, and Thursday afternoon, April 7. In addition to the questions raised by the note Cali left, one would have to wonder why he didn't look in the greenhouse? Kurt had been in there for several days before his body was discovered! According to his note, Cali "couldn't believe" Kurt had been in the house without him noticing! Why would Cali find it so hard to believe Kurt had been in the house if he wasn't there most of that time?
The exclamation marks are an opinion of a fan and cloud the no-nonsense approach of this site. I was a seasoned writer for Uncyclopedia and now have my own comedy website. I cannot stand personal opinions in a factual setting. The man killed himself, end of.
Daniel Ashton User: Pianoguy1981 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pianoguy1981 ( talk • contribs) 20:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the WP:BRD guideline. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution ( WP:DR). Mark Arsten ( talk) 15:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
The concluding statement in this article's previous bid for deletion was that the article needed cleanup "soon" in order to stay here. This was in November of 2007 and the resounding issue was undue emphasis on conspiracy theories. I've added a cleanup tag regarding this (and similar discussions below), but seeing as it's been nearly eight years and the issue has not been resolved, I will soon propose a merger to the main article unless there are objections. Antinate ( talk) 22:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Please review this link: http://www.alternativenation.net/dave-grohl-talks-about-kurt-cobains-death-calls-it-heartbreaking/
At no point in this article (or the short 4-minute interview it links to) does Dave Grohl come close to saying "I believe Kurt killed himself" or anything similar. In fact, in the interview he says, "I have as many questions as anyone else".
If the claim that Dave Grohl believes Cobain's death was a suicide cannot be corroborated, it should be deleted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.244.152.161 ( talk) 00:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
--As far as I know, both Grohl and Novoselic have always believed it was a suicide. That is why they have never publicly commented on the murder theories- they don't want to fuel the speculation that he was murdered. He had previously attempted to commit suicide, and Courtney didn't know (for certain) that he was at their Seattle home at the time of the suicide. People contributing to this article should bear in mind that his death was officially ruled a suicide by the coroner. So, officially, and according to the most important people concerned (band members, close family members- Novoselic, Grohl, Love), it was a suicide. No theory can be proven absolutely, but the facts met the legal standards of the coroner.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.211.116.185 ( talk) 02:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Silence does not default to agreement, regardless how publicly large. 9/11 lies, Iraq War, Vietnam, JFK, Hitler, etc are met by silence and by default complicity perhaps, but not agreement. JasonCarswell ( talk) 04:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
A documentary from 2015 called Soaked in Bleach should be added to the section "Books and Movies on Kurt Cobain". It deals in detail about the suspicious death of Cobain, focusing on the private investigator Tom Grant, who was then hired by Courtney Love to find Kurt Cobain.
Please add this movie to the appropriate section, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.1.204.134 ( talk) 00:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Strange that my request just gets entirely ignored. Talking about Wikipedia being a democratic platform where anyone can participate... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.1.204.134 ( talk) 00:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
And this request has still been ignored for 2 solid months now. Am I making a fool out of myself for trying to participate at Wikipedia or should the Wikipedia mods and admins actually look at the talk page to include relevant information or at least make the article open for editing? This is getting ridiculous. It is after all just about the inclusion of a documentary which has at least the same right to be here as "Montage of Heck".
I copied this "New documentary "Soaked in Bleach"" section from Talk:Kurt Cobain. I hope that's okay. Seems relevant here. JasonCarswell ( talk) 04:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I downloaded a video file: "El Duce of The Mentors talks about Kurt Cobain & Courtney Love (1996-08-30) [VHSRip] (6m07s).mp4" featuring an interview in the midst of what seems like an informal party with a man at a kitchen table talking about how Courtney wanted to hire him to kill her husband a few months before he died while he was away touring Europe. I can't verify any of it nor will bother to, but it sure seems noteworthy and hella suspicious. JasonCarswell ( talk) 08:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on Death of Kurt Cobain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
This is a pretty poor article, focussing as it does mainly on conspiracy theories. I'd like to make it conform more closely to WP:DUE. Does anybody have any objections? -- John ( talk) 11:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Long Guardian piece reporting from Seattle following Cobain's death in 1994 Popcornduff ( talk) 08:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Suicide of Kurt Cobain → Death of Kurt Cobain – WT:NPOV It cannot be called a clear-cut suicide without adequate evidence, which in this case, it lacks it and there are numerous sources backing up the claim, a basic google search would bring up significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources; articles, books, and documentaries have been made concerning the subject. When there is a dead body, It's a death investigation. No proclamations without sufficient evidence including, victimology, medical-legal process, toxicology and autopsy especially for cases of prominent figures. Apart from the fact that this case has remained quite controversial throughout the years and is being referred to as an example of miscarriage of justice by some of the specialists, researchers, and experts because of the deficiency of required research and analysis on the case, it still shouldn't be titled as "suicide" on Wikipedia since the cause/manner of death is not mentioned in the titles of the WP articles. It can be referred to in the body or even lede as the outcome of the death case but not in the title. Princess Diana died in a car crash, Is the article's title "Princess of Wales' car accident"? Michael Jackson died of cardiac arrest but is the title, "Michael Jackson's heart attack"? No. Bionic ( talk) 17:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. DrKay ( talk) 15:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Suicide of Kurt Cobain → Death of Kurt Cobain – WT:NPOV It cannot be called a clear-cut suicide without adequate evidence, which in this case, it lacks it and there are numerous sources backing up the claim, a basic google search would bring up significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources; articles, books, and documentaries have been made concerning the subject. When there is a dead body, It's a death investigation. No proclamations without sufficient evidence including, victimology, medical-legal process, toxicology and autopsy especially for cases of prominent figures. Apart from the fact that this case has remained quite controversial throughout the years and is being referred to as an example of miscarriage of justice by some of the specialists, researchers, and experts because of the deficiency of required research and analysis on the case, it still shouldn't be titled as "suicide" on Wikipedia since the cause/manner of death is not mentioned in the titles of the WP articles. It can be referred to in the body or even lede as the outcome of the death case but not in the title. Princess Diana died in a car crash, Is the article's title "Car accident of Princess Diana"? Michael Jackson died of cardiac arrest but is the title, "Heart attack of Michael Jackson"? No. Bionic ( talk) 05:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Previous out-of-process closure
|
---|
Not moved per consensus garnered below. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! ( nac by page mover) P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 19:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
|
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea.This was ruled a suicide, and the idea that it wasn't is a conspiracy theory. – Muboshgu ( talk) 03:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Muboshgu: You have responded to every single support. What is this insistence for? Everyone has their own opinions on this. Please try and refrain from adding something after every single support since it's WP:BLUD. Bionic ( talk) 17:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Death of Jane Doeunless the event was a specified killing (the cause of death was the result of another person). This can be seen when looking at the prefix results for "Death of" versus "Suicide of". While I understand that Death of is more broad, I don't believe that precision in the article title is that important here, especially considering it's not ambiguous. ItsPugle (please use
{{
ping|ItsPugle}}
on reply) 04:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
PS: Support merger. I think we should usually not have any kind of "[Demise type here] of [person name]" split-off pages when we have an article on the person. The only good reasons for such pages are: A) when the person is not independently notable and shouldn't have their own article (i.e., when what is notable is the event – usually a murder, with a focus on the prosecution). Or B) maybe when the main bio is really, really long and some splitting up is necessary for length reasons, and the death-related material is actually enough for a full-scale article seems reasonable. But even then, splitting off death info in particular is not always a good bet.
PPS: The article should not ascribe the cause-of-death determination to "police", but to medical examiners/coroners. The very wording "police concluded he had died on April 5 from a self-inflicted shotgun wound to his head" may be the ultimate source of some of the conspiracy theorizing. Never forget how many people read this site, often with poor English skills, then rehash distortions of it on social media.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 15:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Add any additional comments
The reliable sources generally treat this death as a suicide. That is why, in the Kurt Cobain article, we currently state, "On April 8, 1994, Cobain was found dead at his home in Seattle at the age of 27; police concluded he had died on April 5 from a self-inflicted shotgun wound to his head." Conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories. And we do not give WP:Undue weight to those. This article needs work in that regard.
BD2412, as someone who handles move discussions, any thoughts on this? And, Isaidnoway, as someone who makes solid arguments on move discussions, any thoughts on this? Do you mind analyzing this matter for what is the best route to take title-wise? Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 08:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids...In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become the usual term for the event, generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. Sources used suicide in 1994, and 25 years later, suicide is still the given description used in reliable sources as evidenced by searching his name through any internet search engine. Wikipedia generally follows the sources, and suicide is the prevailing description used in sources and has become the usual term in relation to this event. I oppose any name change. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Hatting discussion inappropriate for this venue
|
---|
Bi-on-ic (Bionic) stated, "But you were the one who asked me to turn the discussion into an official move request." But nowhere did I state that you should turn it into an official move request months after people had moved on. It's one thing to turn it into an official move request when it's fresh. It's another to do it months later. Doing it the way you did made it so that it had fresh comments in the "Survey" section, and months-old comments in the "Discussion" section. And as for the rest, it's easy enough copy and paste a rationale from a previous discussion into a fresh one. I stand by what I sated above. Doesn't matter now anyway. The one you revived was partly fresh and is now closed. And per WP:Consensus can change stating that "proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive", don't start a new discussion about this every few months. Nothing will have changed with regard to the fact that the literature overwhelmingly treats Cobain's death as a suicide and the murder stuff as a conspiracy theory.
You shouldn't have closed the discussion only hours after being opened. You did not follow the WP:CON. Evidently you intentionally only want to get your own way and have it done according to your personal preference in spite of others' opinions. ' Nothing will have changed '?? What kind of idea is that? You pinged some specific users that you know for the poll of an official move request which talks about a bias and determined in a way the bandwagon effect, you ignored my response on the page that you claim you're 'obviously watching' and the next day you're replying to me after closing the discussion? Since when do they handle WP:RM like this? This is "disruptive". As I already stated, I don't see anything wrong with the process since comments were made, discussions took place and it was time to vote just like what you asked me to do. Yes, it was done after a while and not right after the proposal, and that was simply because I'm busy and occupied with other tasks. All of the "opposes" in the discussion especially you, are treating the topic as a conspiracy theory and cherry-picking statements about policies you used or how are even your own personal analysis which is a faulty generalization but the thing is, this is a request of a retitling of an article not changing the content. The discussion is not even about the question of whether it was a suicide or murder. It would be reinforcing a conspiracy theory if the request was titling the article as "Murder of Kurt Cobain". The word "Death" is neutral and doesn't give a preconceived notion to the reader. This article is about his death, not the way he committed suicide. Bionic ( talk) 06:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
|
I wouldn't have bothered, Bi-on-ic, but since you brought it up, I do have a question about the canvassing issue. At #17:12, 29 July (now inside hatted portion; [ perma ), Paine Ellsworth wrote,
Hopefully, the WP:CANVASSING guideline has been followed in this request, because the new closer (it will be someone else, not me) may take that into consideration.
I noticed however that you (Bi-on-ic) notified at least these 19 editors on July 28 on their Talk pages. ( Sample notification.) May I ask where you got that list of nineteen editors? I haven't been around since the beginning of this discussion, and there seem to be references to some other discussion which I'm unaware of, and that may well explain this. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 01:06, 1 August 2020 (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 |
This article can't just be about conspiracy theories and counter-theories. given it's called "Death of Kurt Cobain", it should actually discuss events leading up to his death and the discovery of his body, as well as reactions to it. WesleyDodds 10:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
1) Danny Goldberg, wife of Rosemary Carroll, states Kurt committed suicide and refers to the "crazy Internet rumors" of the murder theory in his book "Dispatches From The Culture Wars". The entire text of the book is searchable through Amazon.com to see this for yourself. I just added this but it was deleted. Why? It is entirely relevant. Goldberg and Rosemary were personally involved in Cobain's life. Obviously they must share or overlap opinions of the situation. No one has questioned WHY Carroll was being so forthcoming with a PI hired by Courtney Love.Even if she felt Kurt had been murdered, why wasn't she taking her claims and evidence to the police? It is implied in this article that she felt Kurt was murdered, and yet in later years, her husband has stated the exact opposite. Given that these people were/are godparents of Kurt's daughter, their opinions and actions are valid in the context of this information.
2) The entire Greg Sage quote should be left. It a) describes Kurt's intentions for projects post-April 1994, and also suggests that Sage believes his label could've found justification for Kurt's murder, preferring it to letting Kurt just drop out of the industry. Thus he would be "immortalized" in death. I'm not sure why ChrisB felt the need to delete this, but I have reverted it.
3) Krist Novoselic explicitly states in his book "Of Grunge and Government" that Kurt took his own life.
4) There is not a single mention of the fact that Leland Cobain, Kurt's grandfather, has publicly stated NUMEROUS times that he feels Kurt was murdered and that Courtney is involved.
5) This article should focus on the last days, specifically from the time NIRVANA ended in March 1994 and beyond. A lot of discrepancies of actions and intent can be documented to prove that there is substantial cause for these murder theories to persist. Timewalk92 ( talk) 19:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Broomfield's error in "Kurt and Courtney" has been confirmed by various sources, including the doctor in charge of the procedure. It's been made public and should be given some mention, though in a more neutral tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.26.85.49 ( talk) 11:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I've asked this before and I want to ask it again:
Why is this page covered in Tom Grant's conspiracy theories? Why aren't they on Tom Grant's page? Why is there so obviously little-to-nothing conjectured by any other source than Tom Grant, including even Halperin/Wallace, who relied on conversations with Grant for the bulk of any conjecture toward homicide?
This page is nothing but an ad for Grant's theory. I find it ridiculous that as such it is attached to Cobain and not to Grant. Mistertruffles ( talk) 12:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Put another way, it is impossible to argue that this page, as-is, would exist without Grant's CONJECTURES (entirely non-factual conjectures).
Since when does one freelance investigator/conspiracy theorist get to dominate discourse and information to this extent? Mistertruffles ( talk) 12:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
"They are about this subject, they're tied to this subject, so they belong here." is totally incorrect —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.239.101 ( talk) 07:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
To add more thorough detail to this page, and to hopefully help some of the complaints, I am going to add some different sources than Grant eventually to help add more depth to the whole article. Pericolaso ( talk) 17:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Wow, perhaps IPatrol can explain to everyone here precisely what the supposed 'POV' was in my only two edits to this article?
1. I first rearranged the order of a few sentences because someone left sentence fragments and other bad grammar and an improper citation (ok, so first I have a POV against improper English ;-) ).
For example, the article read:
Before he elected to end his life, Kurt Donald Cobain had become a sad caricature of the tortured , addicted artist. Miserable in the glow of success, his was a life of pain and suffering. Despite incredible talent and timing, Cobain's 27 years on earth ended in surrender and a hopeless defeat.[3]
There are several things wrong with this blockquote:
(a) No quotes were around that, so it looks like the encyclopedia (not Furek) is making these insults like "sad caricature"; so, when was the last time you've read a non-wiki encyclopedia that would say such a thing, unless quoting someone, and MAKING IT CLEAR that someone (Furek) is being quoted?? It also draws the conclusion that Cobain "elected to end his life" and other spurious conclusions (spurious = no facts, to support some of what Furek says, are IN THE ARTICLE), whereas I thought this article was supposed to be a BALANCED analysis (of those who say Cobain was a suicide versus those who say he was murdered). As long as it's not made clear that this is Furek's opinion, it will only make people take Wikipedia less and less seriously.
(b) Furek's name (let alone his background) was also not stated in the article when someone attributed that blockquote to Furek using a ref tag. Give the readers a transparent source instead of making readers click the ref tag, to go into the footnotes (which themselves STILL don't tell the reader who Furek is).
(c) hmmm, I was also never taught to put a space BEFORE a comma, but the fact it says "tortured , addicted" is not the main point here, and this is very minor (relative to these other things I corrected, and IPatrol reverted)...
(d) Also notice how the subject-matter that Furek discusses doesn't match the subject-matter in the sentence before Furek very well; someone spliced this in, so that we get subject A, then Furek, then we go back to subject A: This paragraph reads, "Cobain himself mentioned that his stomach pains during Nirvana's 1991 European tour were so severe he became suicidal and that taking heroin was "my choice. I said, 'This is the only thing that's saving me from blowing my head off right now.'"[2]. [And then it snaps right into the sentence...] Before he elected to end his life..." The subject-matter of the whole rest of the paragraph also has nothing to do with Furek and the text I blockquoted above: Isn't it proper writing technique to group together several sentences that relate to one another into each paragraph...or did I land on bizarro world? [IPatrol's world, since he apparently couldn't see what I was doing? ;-) ] ) a paragraph or two after it says "Cobain himself mentioned that his stomach pains..." there is another sentence related to Cobain's STOMACH PAINS; instead of a paragraph or 2 down, this sentence about stomach pains should be placed immediately after "Cobain himself mentioned that his stomach pains...".
2. In the same edit, I also questioned the relevance of even including the quote that I blockquoted above, because it:
(a) is made without noting in this article what Furek's expertise is, nor even mentioning Furek's name at all. It just appears as if out of thin air.
and (b) doesn't really provide us with objective info on the death of Cobain, just one man's opinion (Furek's opinion). It also doesn't show the reader Furek's evidence (or lack thereof) for WHY Furek would hold such a strong opinion, and if you're going to do that, why not include "Cobain was an 'asshole' for committing suicide[4]" with footnote number 4 reading: "Courtney Love's eulogy for Cobain, wherein she provoked the crowd to call Cobain "asshole". xD The point is that spurious opinions like name-calling are not often encyclopedic, even if you do cite the source. However, I didn't question this relevance in the article nor did I delete it despite that the article still does not even tell readers what the relevance or expertise of Furek is --nor that it's even Furek who is saying this-- since IPatrol reverted my edit that linked to Furek's website and I told readers of the article WHO this sentence is being sourced from.
Go on IPatrol, leave the article so readers like me shall say, "Hmmm, why did someone randomly insert an analysis of Kurt Cobain's life and death, written by a guy named Maxim Furek without stating who the hell Furek even is?? Is the average reader supposed to magically know who Maxim Furek is??" (So I have a POV against leaving improperly cited, non-sequitor subject-matter that was thrown hurdy-gurdy into an encyclopedia article. ;-) )
3. Then my second edit (and if you disagree with this edit, it's not a good reason to revert my last edit) was to remove someone else's 'POV' (yours, IPatrol? or just someone you agree with?) and keep readers from being shortchanged: Namely I gave MANY reasonable possibilities --since I don't have a 'POV' about this death nor adhere to ANY SINGLE ONE of those those possibilities-- rather than letting the article state that Cobain's gun had the ejection-port facing the opposite direction as where the shell casing landed (note that the important thing here is the article doesn't then state that this is not good evidence for either murder or suicide. A gun's ejection-port facing away from the spent shell in a suspected suicide is not 'spooky' because:
(a) someone can drop a gun and/or jerk uncontrollably in their final moments, inverting that gun by 180* which puts the ejection-port opposite the shell casing,
and/or (b) witnesses or rookie cops can accidentally (or purposely of course...) tamper with evidence before detectives arrive (as well as so many other possibilities besides these two),
or (c) a murderer could place it there to fake a suicide...and I included this last possibility of it being a murder along with the first possibility (suicide) because unlike someone here, I don't have a POV about this death. All of these possibilities should be pointed out, whether they support murder or suicide. Otherwise the article is shortchanging the readers. This article simply doesn't link to evidence to support whether a, b, or c, or something else altogether, occurred (and I doubt it ever will, as you'd need ALL the crime-scene photos, pathology, police reports, etc...and then even with those, the direction of the barrel versus the shell casing might prove inconclusive; readers should be told that a shell that's in the opposite direction of the ejection-port doesn't always imply murder; barrels get turned around for many other reasons). Frankly, I wasn't the only one who thought that as it reads currently, this passage implies Cobain was murdered.
(As people can see: First I challenged the quote from Furek that implies Cobain was suicidal, but does that mean I have the 'POV' that he was murdered? NO, because then I challenged the implication that the gun's ejection-port should look suspiciously like a murder; so like I said, I have no POV about "Death of Kurt Cobain"; I'm agnostic. For the good reasons stated above, I've challenged BOTH sides...but certainly not the entirety of either side's position because they both MOSTLY made good, valuable points; I've only challenged these 3 minor issues because they're messing up a perfectly good article.)
My only 'POV' is in having a good article: removing sentence-fragments, improper citations, and not letting readers infer that something implies "murder" nor "suicide" about a shell found opposite an ejection port.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.196.211 ( talk) 16:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Is it just me, or should a good article on a human being not contain his DATE OF BIRTH?!! C'mon guys - is this amateur hour?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.100.134 ( talk) 23:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
i suggest that this article be merged with the main Kurt Cobain article—Preceding unsigned comment added by KeeganBraunsdorf ( talk • contribs) 18:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree Mr. R00T ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC).
im putting the label on the theories since fans are blaming courtney love, which is of jewish heritage. this is an insult towards jews as we are agin blamed for something of this obviousness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samanthacohen ( talk • contribs) 09:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Dude, that ISN'T funny...a lot of Israeli zionists actually do act like that. Haha. 124.169.119.39 ( talk) 09:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane ^ What? 207.138.198.54 ( talk) 02:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Love has a bit of Jewish background. It is not enough to classify her as "Jewish" or a "Jew". She was NEVER raised in the Jewish religion and to say she is completely ignores her other ancestry. Love is NOT a Jew 60.224.160.192 ( talk) 20:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Has any of the individuals blaming Courtney made reference to any level of Jewish Heritage? This wasn't a blood libel, it was an accusation of personal motives to want someone dead. Not every crime has a racial or ideological motive, claiming so is more likely to create division and lead to provocation of those inclined to antisemitism going on to commit an actual hate crime. If we have quotes of people saying "That Jew (possibly followed by some slurs and insults)..." Then yes we have antisemitism and the statement was more likely motivated by that then theories on Kurt Cobain's death. Czarnibog ( talk) 10:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm just saying, but, isn't this a bit redundant with the page Kurt Cobain? Can't we just merge them? Mr. R00T ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC).
This article is terrible and should be deleted. The idea he was killed is not mainstream or plausable and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.31.89.112 ( talk) 05:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
All one has to do, is surf the web casually for a few days, searching for "kurt cobain" sites , youtube, etc. you will find literally millions of people saying that they believe kurt was murdered. So having done this for a few years now, I am witnessing the FACT that there is a HUGE amount of controversy about this. A huge number of people apparently believe he did NOT commit suicide, and often allude to the evidence collected by Grant and others: so therefore this article is both mainstream and plausible to large numbers of people globally. Not to mention, that this subject has been extensively covered by mainstream and alternative tv, radio, and other media, including full length tv programs such as "Unsolved Mysteries", etc. which is definitely mainstream. Meat Eating Orchid ( talk) 09:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I put this in the "Impact and Copycat" section: "On the same day, 8 years later, fellow Seattle grunge musician Layne Staley died of an overdose of a speedball. The coroner estimated his death on the same day as Cobain." Should I add more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narisguy ( talk • contribs) 22:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Too much space ( undue weight) is given to the fringes theories here. There is 10 times more space given to conspiracy theories than to the consensus of reliable sources. Any uncited material needs to be removed, and any cited material of fringe opinions needs to be moved to a separate article on Conspiracy theories surrounding Kurt Cobain's death. See WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. 121.45.42.140 ( talk) 01:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Agreed 100%. I have added a few more rebuttals to balance it out. 60.224.160.192 ( talk) 08:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Death of Adolf Hitler which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 13:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I've heard some sources that the Nirvana song, "Floyd The Barber" references a fictional and gruesome death to The Andy Griffith Show's Floyd Lawson and that re-runs of The Andy Griffith Show were playing on television when Kurt's body was found and may have been the last show he ever watched and last thing he saw when he was alive. Is there any truth to this at all or is just pure speculation? 65.87.41.8 ( talk) 22:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
The theory section makes up over half of the article, and is almost all sourced from the "Justice for Kurt" website. This does not belong on an encyclopedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Drown Soda ( talk • contribs) 09:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree this article gives undue weight to minutiae and quotes from unreliable sources. Worse still is the tone - many parts of it are written in the format of rhetorical questions designed to lead the reader to a conclusion the author believes are obvious - "why would he do this unless...?", etc.. This format is extremely unbecoming of an encyclopedia and should be revised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.87.253 ( talk) 10:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I removed the rhetorical questions and other information. Best, yeepsi ( Talk tonight) 21:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Tarc, first off, you say I'm a “tinfoil proponent,” which I believe is some slang for 'nutcase conspiracy theorist'. Also, 'whackjobbery' has to be a similar jargon slang. Either way, using them in a sentence is truly evident of your lack of literary and grammatical skills.
Here is the full script of my contributions, with the rhetorical questions brushed off:
Had a job as the male nanny for Cobain's daughter, travelled with them, and lived in their Seattle home. Showed up in L.A. to talk to Courtney on April 7, a day before Kurt's body was discovered. Cali was also in Rome with Courtney when Kurt had the Rohypnol / champagne overdose accident. [1]
Cali left a note on the main staircase of the Cobain home on April 7. The note was found by Tom Grant and Dylan Carlson when they went to search the house for the second time, around 9:45 PM. It wasn't there the night before. Grant and Rosemary Carroll agreed that it sounded phony, and it was placed there for him to find. [2] The note read:
"Kurt- I can't believe you managed to be in this house without me noticing. You're a fuckin’ asshole for not calling Courtney & at least letting her know your ok. She's in a lot of pain Kurt, and this morning she had another "accident" and now she's in the hospital again. She's your wife & she loves you & you have a child together. Get it together to at least tell her your o.k. or she's going to die. It's not fair man. DO SOMETHING NOW."
After Kurt's body was found, Grant met with Cali in Los Angeles. [3] Cali said he was hardly at the house from Monday on although he did say he had gone to the house a few times between Sunday evening, April 3, and Thursday afternoon, April 7. According to his note, Cali "couldn't believe" Kurt had been in the house without him noticing.
Cali told Grant that Kurt had come to the house on early Saturday morning, April 2, after he left the rehab in Los Angeles. He claims he talked to Courtney on the phone and told her about Kurt's arrival at the house later that same day. Cali also told Grant later that he did not see Kurt after he left the house that previous Saturday morning.
When Grant was in Seattle on Thursday, April 7, Cali told friends he was leaving for Los Angeles. Grant never got to see or talk to him while he was in Seattle, although Courtney called Cali to let him know that Grant was coming to Seattle to search for Kurt.
According to Cali's note, he believed Kurt had come back to the house. Cali later claimed he stopped staying at the house because Courtney kept calling to say she knew Kurt was still there. Yet, Courtney apparently did not notify Grant and others to watch the house during their surveillance on other locations in Seattle. [4]
Rosemary Carroll told Grant during their first meeting, that on Thursday morning, while Courtney was at her house talking to Dylan on the phone, she overheard Courtney say, "Be sure and check the greenhouse." Since Courtney directed Dylan to check the greenhouse, Grant was skeptical as to why she had not asked Cali to check the greenhouse in the past few days. [5]
A few weeks after Kurt's death, during a meeting at Grant's Beverly Hills office, Cali claimed he checked the greenhouse on Sunday, April 3, but did not check it again. "It's just a dirty gross little room," Cali said. [6]
The truth is, the greenhouse was a rather large, clean room. It measured 19 feet by 23 feet. [7]
In the May 11 issue of The Seattle Times, Dylan Carlson told a reporter he didn't know the greenhouse was there. "For all the times I'd been there, I didn't even realize there was a room above it associated with the house." This contradicted the conversation Grant had with Dylan in the car on the day Kurt was found. [8]
Again, the rhetorical questions could have been brushed off, such as “why didn't Cali stay in Seattle and help with the search, etc”, which I pretty much just copy-pasted, due to laziness. My intent was not to make the article worse, but merely to supply information related to the article. Sleazemetal84 ( talk) 11:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
(Removed. Tarc ( talk) 14:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC))
Again, the rhetorical questions could have been brushed off, such as “why didn't Cali stay in Seattle and help with the search, etc”, which I pretty much just copy-pasted, due to laziness. My intent was not to make the article worse, but merely to supply information related to the article. Sleazemetal84 ( talk) 11:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
References
Please delete the paragraph: After Kurt's body was found, Grant met with Cali in Los Angeles.[34] Cali told Grant that he was hardly at the house from Monday on although he did say he had gone to the house a few times between Sunday evening, April 3, and Thursday afternoon, April 7. In addition to the questions raised by the note Cali left, one would have to wonder why he didn't look in the greenhouse? Kurt had been in there for several days before his body was discovered! According to his note, Cali "couldn't believe" Kurt had been in the house without him noticing! Why would Cali find it so hard to believe Kurt had been in the house if he wasn't there most of that time?
The exclamation marks are an opinion of a fan and cloud the no-nonsense approach of this site. I was a seasoned writer for Uncyclopedia and now have my own comedy website. I cannot stand personal opinions in a factual setting. The man killed himself, end of.
Daniel Ashton User: Pianoguy1981 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pianoguy1981 ( talk • contribs) 20:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the WP:BRD guideline. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution ( WP:DR). Mark Arsten ( talk) 15:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
The concluding statement in this article's previous bid for deletion was that the article needed cleanup "soon" in order to stay here. This was in November of 2007 and the resounding issue was undue emphasis on conspiracy theories. I've added a cleanup tag regarding this (and similar discussions below), but seeing as it's been nearly eight years and the issue has not been resolved, I will soon propose a merger to the main article unless there are objections. Antinate ( talk) 22:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Please review this link: http://www.alternativenation.net/dave-grohl-talks-about-kurt-cobains-death-calls-it-heartbreaking/
At no point in this article (or the short 4-minute interview it links to) does Dave Grohl come close to saying "I believe Kurt killed himself" or anything similar. In fact, in the interview he says, "I have as many questions as anyone else".
If the claim that Dave Grohl believes Cobain's death was a suicide cannot be corroborated, it should be deleted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.244.152.161 ( talk) 00:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
--As far as I know, both Grohl and Novoselic have always believed it was a suicide. That is why they have never publicly commented on the murder theories- they don't want to fuel the speculation that he was murdered. He had previously attempted to commit suicide, and Courtney didn't know (for certain) that he was at their Seattle home at the time of the suicide. People contributing to this article should bear in mind that his death was officially ruled a suicide by the coroner. So, officially, and according to the most important people concerned (band members, close family members- Novoselic, Grohl, Love), it was a suicide. No theory can be proven absolutely, but the facts met the legal standards of the coroner.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.211.116.185 ( talk) 02:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Silence does not default to agreement, regardless how publicly large. 9/11 lies, Iraq War, Vietnam, JFK, Hitler, etc are met by silence and by default complicity perhaps, but not agreement. JasonCarswell ( talk) 04:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
A documentary from 2015 called Soaked in Bleach should be added to the section "Books and Movies on Kurt Cobain". It deals in detail about the suspicious death of Cobain, focusing on the private investigator Tom Grant, who was then hired by Courtney Love to find Kurt Cobain.
Please add this movie to the appropriate section, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.1.204.134 ( talk) 00:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Strange that my request just gets entirely ignored. Talking about Wikipedia being a democratic platform where anyone can participate... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.1.204.134 ( talk) 00:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
And this request has still been ignored for 2 solid months now. Am I making a fool out of myself for trying to participate at Wikipedia or should the Wikipedia mods and admins actually look at the talk page to include relevant information or at least make the article open for editing? This is getting ridiculous. It is after all just about the inclusion of a documentary which has at least the same right to be here as "Montage of Heck".
I copied this "New documentary "Soaked in Bleach"" section from Talk:Kurt Cobain. I hope that's okay. Seems relevant here. JasonCarswell ( talk) 04:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I downloaded a video file: "El Duce of The Mentors talks about Kurt Cobain & Courtney Love (1996-08-30) [VHSRip] (6m07s).mp4" featuring an interview in the midst of what seems like an informal party with a man at a kitchen table talking about how Courtney wanted to hire him to kill her husband a few months before he died while he was away touring Europe. I can't verify any of it nor will bother to, but it sure seems noteworthy and hella suspicious. JasonCarswell ( talk) 08:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on Death of Kurt Cobain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
This is a pretty poor article, focussing as it does mainly on conspiracy theories. I'd like to make it conform more closely to WP:DUE. Does anybody have any objections? -- John ( talk) 11:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Long Guardian piece reporting from Seattle following Cobain's death in 1994 Popcornduff ( talk) 08:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Suicide of Kurt Cobain → Death of Kurt Cobain – WT:NPOV It cannot be called a clear-cut suicide without adequate evidence, which in this case, it lacks it and there are numerous sources backing up the claim, a basic google search would bring up significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources; articles, books, and documentaries have been made concerning the subject. When there is a dead body, It's a death investigation. No proclamations without sufficient evidence including, victimology, medical-legal process, toxicology and autopsy especially for cases of prominent figures. Apart from the fact that this case has remained quite controversial throughout the years and is being referred to as an example of miscarriage of justice by some of the specialists, researchers, and experts because of the deficiency of required research and analysis on the case, it still shouldn't be titled as "suicide" on Wikipedia since the cause/manner of death is not mentioned in the titles of the WP articles. It can be referred to in the body or even lede as the outcome of the death case but not in the title. Princess Diana died in a car crash, Is the article's title "Princess of Wales' car accident"? Michael Jackson died of cardiac arrest but is the title, "Michael Jackson's heart attack"? No. Bionic ( talk) 17:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. DrKay ( talk) 15:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Suicide of Kurt Cobain → Death of Kurt Cobain – WT:NPOV It cannot be called a clear-cut suicide without adequate evidence, which in this case, it lacks it and there are numerous sources backing up the claim, a basic google search would bring up significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources; articles, books, and documentaries have been made concerning the subject. When there is a dead body, It's a death investigation. No proclamations without sufficient evidence including, victimology, medical-legal process, toxicology and autopsy especially for cases of prominent figures. Apart from the fact that this case has remained quite controversial throughout the years and is being referred to as an example of miscarriage of justice by some of the specialists, researchers, and experts because of the deficiency of required research and analysis on the case, it still shouldn't be titled as "suicide" on Wikipedia since the cause/manner of death is not mentioned in the titles of the WP articles. It can be referred to in the body or even lede as the outcome of the death case but not in the title. Princess Diana died in a car crash, Is the article's title "Car accident of Princess Diana"? Michael Jackson died of cardiac arrest but is the title, "Heart attack of Michael Jackson"? No. Bionic ( talk) 05:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Previous out-of-process closure
|
---|
Not moved per consensus garnered below. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! ( nac by page mover) P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 19:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
|
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea.This was ruled a suicide, and the idea that it wasn't is a conspiracy theory. – Muboshgu ( talk) 03:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Muboshgu: You have responded to every single support. What is this insistence for? Everyone has their own opinions on this. Please try and refrain from adding something after every single support since it's WP:BLUD. Bionic ( talk) 17:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Death of Jane Doeunless the event was a specified killing (the cause of death was the result of another person). This can be seen when looking at the prefix results for "Death of" versus "Suicide of". While I understand that Death of is more broad, I don't believe that precision in the article title is that important here, especially considering it's not ambiguous. ItsPugle (please use
{{
ping|ItsPugle}}
on reply) 04:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
PS: Support merger. I think we should usually not have any kind of "[Demise type here] of [person name]" split-off pages when we have an article on the person. The only good reasons for such pages are: A) when the person is not independently notable and shouldn't have their own article (i.e., when what is notable is the event – usually a murder, with a focus on the prosecution). Or B) maybe when the main bio is really, really long and some splitting up is necessary for length reasons, and the death-related material is actually enough for a full-scale article seems reasonable. But even then, splitting off death info in particular is not always a good bet.
PPS: The article should not ascribe the cause-of-death determination to "police", but to medical examiners/coroners. The very wording "police concluded he had died on April 5 from a self-inflicted shotgun wound to his head" may be the ultimate source of some of the conspiracy theorizing. Never forget how many people read this site, often with poor English skills, then rehash distortions of it on social media.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 15:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Add any additional comments
The reliable sources generally treat this death as a suicide. That is why, in the Kurt Cobain article, we currently state, "On April 8, 1994, Cobain was found dead at his home in Seattle at the age of 27; police concluded he had died on April 5 from a self-inflicted shotgun wound to his head." Conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories. And we do not give WP:Undue weight to those. This article needs work in that regard.
BD2412, as someone who handles move discussions, any thoughts on this? And, Isaidnoway, as someone who makes solid arguments on move discussions, any thoughts on this? Do you mind analyzing this matter for what is the best route to take title-wise? Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 08:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids...In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become the usual term for the event, generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. Sources used suicide in 1994, and 25 years later, suicide is still the given description used in reliable sources as evidenced by searching his name through any internet search engine. Wikipedia generally follows the sources, and suicide is the prevailing description used in sources and has become the usual term in relation to this event. I oppose any name change. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Hatting discussion inappropriate for this venue
|
---|
Bi-on-ic (Bionic) stated, "But you were the one who asked me to turn the discussion into an official move request." But nowhere did I state that you should turn it into an official move request months after people had moved on. It's one thing to turn it into an official move request when it's fresh. It's another to do it months later. Doing it the way you did made it so that it had fresh comments in the "Survey" section, and months-old comments in the "Discussion" section. And as for the rest, it's easy enough copy and paste a rationale from a previous discussion into a fresh one. I stand by what I sated above. Doesn't matter now anyway. The one you revived was partly fresh and is now closed. And per WP:Consensus can change stating that "proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive", don't start a new discussion about this every few months. Nothing will have changed with regard to the fact that the literature overwhelmingly treats Cobain's death as a suicide and the murder stuff as a conspiracy theory.
You shouldn't have closed the discussion only hours after being opened. You did not follow the WP:CON. Evidently you intentionally only want to get your own way and have it done according to your personal preference in spite of others' opinions. ' Nothing will have changed '?? What kind of idea is that? You pinged some specific users that you know for the poll of an official move request which talks about a bias and determined in a way the bandwagon effect, you ignored my response on the page that you claim you're 'obviously watching' and the next day you're replying to me after closing the discussion? Since when do they handle WP:RM like this? This is "disruptive". As I already stated, I don't see anything wrong with the process since comments were made, discussions took place and it was time to vote just like what you asked me to do. Yes, it was done after a while and not right after the proposal, and that was simply because I'm busy and occupied with other tasks. All of the "opposes" in the discussion especially you, are treating the topic as a conspiracy theory and cherry-picking statements about policies you used or how are even your own personal analysis which is a faulty generalization but the thing is, this is a request of a retitling of an article not changing the content. The discussion is not even about the question of whether it was a suicide or murder. It would be reinforcing a conspiracy theory if the request was titling the article as "Murder of Kurt Cobain". The word "Death" is neutral and doesn't give a preconceived notion to the reader. This article is about his death, not the way he committed suicide. Bionic ( talk) 06:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
|
I wouldn't have bothered, Bi-on-ic, but since you brought it up, I do have a question about the canvassing issue. At #17:12, 29 July (now inside hatted portion; [ perma ), Paine Ellsworth wrote,
Hopefully, the WP:CANVASSING guideline has been followed in this request, because the new closer (it will be someone else, not me) may take that into consideration.
I noticed however that you (Bi-on-ic) notified at least these 19 editors on July 28 on their Talk pages. ( Sample notification.) May I ask where you got that list of nineteen editors? I haven't been around since the beginning of this discussion, and there seem to be references to some other discussion which I'm unaware of, and that may well explain this. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 01:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)