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.

Should we make a referance about Kurt's mediocre guitar playing? I know that "good" is in the eye of the beholder, but all professional guitar players know that he was just a good song writer and singer, and could really barely play guitar.

I think it might be a good idea... he was still a guitarist, regardless of skill-level. I think the guitars he used (Mustangs, Jag-Stang and Jaguars, etc.) are somewhat relevant to the artice, as well. After all, he did popularize the Fender Mustang. Mimi in kinderland 23:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This article needs to focus a bit more on kurts life & musicianship rather than the apparently questionable suicide. im not saying we should scrap anything from the sections on his death, im saying we should expand the sections on his life. 124.184.70.211 09:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that "all professional guitar players know that... [he] could really barely play guitar" at all. In fact, whilst his technical skill may not be often lauded, some of his solos are indeed greatly admired. I agree that he should certainly be documented as a guitarist, and for anyone doing so, there is some (probably) useful information at ^[1] Andyroo g 14:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

People who don't play instrument don't know how difficult it is to play guitar, sing, make solo all at the same time. Kurt Cobain was a musician, he wanted to create song not being the fastest guitarist on earth. There's thousand guitarist like that, why focus on him ? Nobody would say that Bob Dylan or Lou Reed was a mediocre guitarist, but either of them are Van Halen, though. However, we could describe is guitar-style as very simple, with a lot of barre chords use, like most of the punk guitarist. The fact that his song were very easy to remember and easy to hum might have been one of the reason of their success. In a way, create a perfect pop song like "about a girl", with only two chords is more difficult than when you can use all your technical skills. Everybody can play guitar like Kurt did, but not everybody can create songs like he did. ;)

^^^ You know, Kurt himself said that he could barely play guitar, so this really isn't news to anyone. And anyways, Bleach has some cool solos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.239.20.99 ( talk) 17:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Kurt Cobain was a great guitarist, and the people that say he isn't a good guitarist must not know about the guitar. he used weird tunings which inspired many guitarists of today. Saying he is mediocre is defiantly a understatement. In my opinion and alot of Nirvana fans opinions, he was very, very underrated. The person above, please show me where he said this, because he would never say something like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.80.95 ( talk) 13:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC) no i think saying something like that sounds like kurt. he did play down himself in the press. 121.217.241.224 ( talk) 10:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

1. "Love later insisted publicly that the incident was Cobain's first suicide attempt."

This is POV, it's in there to support the murder theory that says that Love only started saying he was suicidal just before he committed suicide because she needed people to believe she wasn't the murderer because it wasn't suicide after all! dun-dun-duh! Except it's rubbish. So "later" should be removed, and maybe the whole thing unless you have proof she actually said that.

1. "Cobain had his first taste of the drug sometime in 1986 he loved it, thanks to a local drug dealer who had been supplying him with Percodans"

If there's a source for this I would love to know why this sentence uses sarcasm in a POV way as emotive writing? Otherwise it also needs deleting. Is it the position of wikipedia to thank anyone's drug dealer?

1. "On April 3, Love contacted a private investigator, Tom Grant, and hired him to find Cobain. The next day, Love filed a missing person report under Cobain's mother's name without her permission. She added in the file that Cobain was suicidal and was in possession of a shotgun."

Source: Justice For Kurt. Um, no. Just no. Most unreliable biased source ever.

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 05:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears some editor has bizarrely GA passed this tripe. I have removed it. This article needs MASSIVE work.-- I'll bring the food 05:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You broke the guidelines for delisting a GA. See #5: Allow enough time for any active editors to improve the article. Your concerns can and will be addressed, but your action was grossly inappropriate under the circumstances. -- ChrisB 18:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Very well, I'll give it one month. Any more than that would just be pandering.-- I'll bring the food 23:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm impressed by your in-depth analysis, "I'll bring the food". You've done everything from dismissing facts as "rubbish" without proof, to attacking the source of the information, again, without proof.

1. 1 Sources are cited in the lengthy book "Who Killed Kurt Cobain". Nice try dismissing it as "rubbish". I find your contempt quite offensive. One could certainly infer what you mockingly inferred, as it would make sense in the case of Rome not being a suicide attempt, and clearly according to him, his doctor, and others, it wasn't. Not to mention the fact that the Rohypnol prescription was Courtney's, and that Tom Grant found empty packets of the prescription with her name on it when he searched the Cobain home on April 7th.

1. 2 I haven't heard this claim before, but it seems to me like you're overreacting. The way "thanks to" was used makes it seem less like emotive writing and more like a somewhat poorly phrased way of saying "because of". Why would someone make that up, anyway? I just thought I'd ask you that.

1. 3 Right, which is why there's a whole section dedicated to & entitled "theory rebuttals", and the home page clearly states, underlined, "It exists to either help get Kurt justice, if it turns out he was in fact murdered, or help clear his name and legacy of all these "murder theories" for good, if he wasn't." That's also a false dilemma, as well as a straw-man. Don't shoot the messenger. Either way, if all you can do is attack the credibility of the source and not address the facts, you shouldn't be editing or contributing to this article.

Please point out one thing in that paragraph that hasn't been conclusively proven, and I will gladly address that as fairly as possible. 69.156.104.61 00:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

you appear to be attacking I'll bring the food, and the idea that Kurt's suicide may have indeed been a suicide, rather than I'll bring the food's (in my opinion) perfectly reasonable criticisms of the article's writing. try to stay objective on these kind of issues

... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sixtyniner ( talk • contribs) 20:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

This article could do with a lock. I haven't witnessed much vandalism, but I'm guessing that the sections on his death are edited and reverted a lot by Nirvana fans who dislike Courtney Love. Nukleoptra 17:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, anons keep removing this section and I keep restoring it. Would others please keep an eye out? Corvus cornix 20:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound nit-picky, but I ran across this and thought it may be important.

In the part discussing murder theories, the article reads "He suggests that the heroin was used to incapacitate Cobain before the final shotgun blast was administered by the perpetrator.[39]

Maybe the word final is misleading, as it could suggest that there was more than one gunshot.

I don't have very much vested in this article, so I won't change it. I'll leave it to those who have been working on this stuff for a while.

I'm not going to argue with the change, but I would like to point out:

fi·nal - adj. 2) Of or constituting the end result of a succession or process; ultimate: an act with both an immediate and a final purpose.

"Final" is often used on its own to mark the end of something, not just the last in a series. (One gunshot can be a final gunshot.) -- ChrisB 20:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It could be read either way, and I do think it is ambiguous. Personally I would change 'the final' to 'a fatal'. M A Mason 16:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that the phrase in Early Life "Cobain's teenage years were difficult." should be removed because it is not a fact of his life, rather, it is an opinion of whoever wrote it. Who's to say his early years were difficult? Some may find them just the opposite. It is biased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Razzola ( talk • contribs) 07:06, 15 June 2007.

Or we could just source the statement. CAYA and Heavier than Heaven both make that claim. -- ChrisB 17:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, it is biased. And if you were to source it, it would actually just be the writers' opinion. Just because both of the writer's have that opinion (If they actually do) doesn't make it unbiased. Just because it's a published document does not make it unbiased. There is a lot of stuff in the article sourced by writer's, all of whom have their own opinion and could've put their own slant on it. Scarian ^Talk 16:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

CAYA has direct quotes from Cobain that confirm the phrase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.239.20.99 ( talk) 17:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Replaced "chastizing" with "chastising".

Paul527 17:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone has uploaded this image to Wikipedia Commons from Flickr. It's a free creative commons licence, and I would suggest finding a nice spot to place it. Cobain's style of destruction was a signature. -- Reaper X 03:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Cite it then, Christopher. Scarian ^Talk 21:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

And yes, maybe it should mention all important points in the article - but the sentence is too POV Scarian ^Talk 21:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"Since then, the circumstances surrounding his death have fueled much analysis and debate." - Chris, please try and deny "who says this?" Any statement you make you have to back it up - this is a statement. I added the appropriate tag. Scarian ^Talk 21:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"Who says it?" You mean, not including the giant (and sourced) section in this article? Two books and a movie, take your pick. In his movie, Broomfield notes that his interest in studying the subject came from the ongoing debates over it. -- ChrisB 21:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC) -- ChrisB 21:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

THEN STICK ONE GIANT CITATION NEXT TO IT THEN, BABY. And don't forget... as per my edit upstairs (above) books can be gosh darn biased too! ;-) Scarian ^Talk 21:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

For starters, your inappropriate behavior doesn't help anything. You're calling me "Christopher" because you believe that it's my full first name. I've never used my full first name on Wikipedia, and you can't be sure that it's actually Christopher. You're calling me by (what you think is) my full first name as a mother might in order to scold their child. It's disrespectful. That goes ten times further when you refer to me as "baby", use smart aleck comments, and add smirking emoticons. It's not endearing or funny - it's just flat out insulting.

Second, you spat out an extensive rant on my talk page about how I'm violating WP:OWN. Said rant came after I reverted ONE edit. Repeat: ONE edit. You made several consecutive edits, and I took exception with one of them. I took exception to that edit because we had already been through an extensive discussion about that sentence.

Since you weren't around for that earlier discussion, I'll summarize it. Some months ago, the final sentence of that paragraph stated that many believed that Cobain was murdered. We went through a great deal of back-and-forth as to how to appropriately acknowledge the last section of the article without bringing in the POV as to whether or not he was murdered. Our final consensus was that we would acknowledge the debate, which is precisely what that sentence does. It is an NPOV summarization of the Suicide Dispute section of the article - it simply notes that his death has been widely analyzed, which is uneqivocably and indisputably true.

The earlier discussion freely gave me the right to immediately revert that statement per Wikipedia:Consensus. But, even if it didn't, I have every right as a Wikipedia editor to revert a change that I disagree with. Just because you made a change doesn't mean that everyone simply has to accept it. If I remove it, the next step is to come here and discuss it so that we can resolve the differences. That is specifically the behavior that Wikipedia expects.

Instead, you intentionally bait me by reverting my edits while contradicting your own arguments. It started with Nirvana radio airplay sentence - you claimed it wasn't true, but contradicted that when you claimed that you'd heard their music on the BBC. Same goes for "Cobain became a spokesperson". I disagree with the word "became" because he didn't transform into it - it was a label. If, as you noted, "became" was "just fine", then why did you previously write in an edit summary: "Since he didn't actually become an official spokesperson for "Generation X"..."? Which is it?

Seriously, enough. If you want to contribute to the article, do so. But stop attacking me every time I disagree with one of your edits.

There's a reason I'm here and a reason I'm heavily involved in several Nirvana-related articles: I have extensive knowledge about the subject.

I appreciate anyone's attempts to improve the article. What I don't appreciate, however, is being treated disrespectfully. I also don't appreciate that you keep contesting statements of fact simply because you aren't familiar with them. I have no problem grabbing my copy of Come as You Are (or any other source) and finding the original statement if a source is truly needed. But, so far, you've contested numerous statements that someone with even modest knowledge about the band should already be aware of. I shouldn't need to go find a source that says that people accused Courtney of being a gold-digger. Practically every interview about her that covers her relationship with Cobain notes that accusation. She's fully aware of it, and doesn't deny that people see her that way.

You also keep insisting on citing statements for trivial reasons. Cobain's parents divorced when he was a child; his mother noted that "it just destroyed his life" (p. 17). He lashed out - he experimented with drugs - he had no stable home life - his parents shuffled him back and forth and sent him off to live with a wide variety of family and friends. But we can't say that "his teenage years were difficult" because that would be original research?

Make up your mind - are you really trying to improve the article, or just leave your mark? -- ChrisB 04:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Jesus, Chris. I complained about WP:OWN because it is obvious that it is a concern. Other editor's have expressed their concerns about you and all Nirvana related articles. I never decided to whine to you about WP:OWN because you reverted one of my edits - I did it because you like reverting everyone's edits. So to sum up the reason I complained about your ownership of the Nirvana and Nirvana related articles:

• Other editor's have expressed their concerns
• You and I have been in conflict before about reverting my edit's - You do not WP:AGF.
• Other respected editor's have agreed with my concerns.

"Extensive knowledge" ^{weasel words} -

In reply to your complaint about me wanting to cite statements: [1] Read that and this: [2]. Perhaps you fail to understand why I think minor things should be cited. Any minor wording that could cause confusion and misinform a reader would... well, to be honest... be bad for Wikipedia. As I have said before: What harm can a citation do?

"I shouldn't need to go find a source that says that people accused Courtney of being a gold-digger" - That is incredibly naive of you to say that. First off, read those guidelines I gave you above. And also look up the word 'Slander' in the dictionary. If you write anything like THAT it could be, repeat: could be, interpreted as slander. We wouldn't want Wikipedia to become the subject of one of Love's litigation suits now, would we? ...

In reply to the BBC remark: You took my edit summary out of context. Ahem, allow me to explain... First of all, I place a citation needed tag on the said sentence ("Nirvana remains a consistent presence on radio stations around the world" - or something like that). A different user changed the sentence so that it read "rock stations" instead of the generic "stations". I reverted it because "I had heard them on BBC, buddy" - Or whatever the edit summary was. You took what I said out of context. We ALL know that Nirvana do remain on radio play list's but we gotta cite it because people may disagree. Okay now, Chris? Please don't take what I say out of context and attempt to use it against me.

Quote: "...are you really trying to improve the article, or just leave your mark?" - haha.

Anyway - I hope these follow up answers satisfy any lingering thirst. Scarian ^Talk 17:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

i found out that kurt cobain played left handed and yet is right handed

No, I think he's left handed. There's no reason he would play left-handed if he was right handed. On a side-note, I've seen many pictures where, the negative being mistakenly flipped, Cobain would play right-handed and Chris Novoselic left-handed.

Actually, it is easier to play rock guitar left handed, for many, if they are right hand dominant. The fingering of the fretboard is easier. Many write right, and play left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.20.73 ( talk) 18:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Kurt was ambidextrous. He played lefty guitar, yet wrote with his right hand. So the first comment is right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.239.20.99 ( talk) 17:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Just so it doesn't look like I'm being capricious - Cobain never called himself a vegetarian. The source that Sugarcubez is citing simply references Newsweek's Journals excerpts, but doesn't provide the text they're citing. The actual Newsweek excerpts don't include such a statement, and I couldn't find one in Journals myself. ( Sugarcubez's source isn't a reliable source anyway, according to guidelines - there isn't "an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight".)

The closest source that I could find simply listed "a vegetarian diet" as one of the many things he tried in hopes of curing his stomach problem:

After trying everything for his stomach from pills to a vegetarian diet to a chanting regime, Kurt is ecstatic to have found a doctor who's prescribing him an experimental gastrointestinal medicine that works. He says he doesn't want to give the name because the medicine hasn't actually been approved by the FDA, but it's reduced his stomach episodes almost as effectively as heroin. "But now if I take heroin it makes me vomit right away, so that doesn't do any good." (Details, November 1993.)

Charles Cross later cited Cobain as listing "Taco Bell and thin-crust pepperoni pizza" as his favorite take-out items in 1993.

The real problem: Cobain is not on record calling himself as a vegetarian. It's also an issue of notability - it's not something he's known as. (Mainly because he wasn't.) -- ChrisB 04:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"Yes I eat cow, I am not proud." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.203.252 ( talk) 01:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The Cross biography and other sources including Bev Cobain's interviews in relation to her youth suicide work make reference to Kurt having several diagnosis, in particular ADHD (for which he was medicated with Ritalin as a child) and bipolar disorder. This is at least as significant to Kurt's life, death and art as Kurt's drug use, and is as well documented. It warrants at least a link - especially given that the murder/suicide debate continues to be linked and gets so much page space. SJaneM 13:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

For starters, what does a bipolar diagnosis have to do with the murder/suicide links? There's no reason for the editor's note that you added.

Citing Cross for a bipolar diagnosis would be appropriate, especially if he can attribute it to a close family member. But I don't believe Bev counts - she was not close to Kurt's family. Between Cross and Azerrad's extensive interviewing - Kurt, Wendy, Don, Courtney, and several other members of Kurt's direct family were given ample opportunity to confirm the diagnosis and did not. Kurt and Courtney in particular went into notable detail about Kurt's medical issues growing up, and didn't mention it. I don't find Bev's story reliable, particuarly since the divulging was so self-serving (her book was about bipolar disorder). That doesn't mean that it isn't true - but it means we should get the information from a more reliable source. -- ChrisB 01:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

the article makes it sound as if it would be impossible to fire a shotgun with your foot while having shoes on. have any of you ever handled a gun? it would be quite easy to do. unless the gun had a 100 pound trigger pull, you would only need to get the edge of your foot on the edge of the trigger in order for it to go off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.20.87 ( talk) 16:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Also regarding this :

Cobain was discovered in the spare room above the garage (referred to as "the greenhouse") at his Lake Washington home by Veca Electric employee Gary Smith. Smith arrived at the house that morning to install security lighting and saw him lying inside. Apart from a minor amount of blood coming out of Cobain's ear, Smith reported seeing no visible signs of trauma, and initially believed that Cobain was asleep.

I find it incredible that a point-blank shotgun blast would leave someone with a "minor amount of blood" visible. Ekoontz 00:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the Legacy section is quite incomplete. There is much more to say about his influence on music and popular culture in general than "there is a sign a the entrance of his hometown" or "there is a documentary being made right now". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.139.81 ( talk) 18:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

In the section about Cobain's death, the phrase "Grant claims" is written six times. Can't we get this a little more varied? When I was reading it, it seemed like all I could find was "Grant claims". -- BubbaYoshi 01:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"After a few weeks of on-again, off-again courtship in the fall of 1991..." Who says? Does anybody really know anything about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.255.212 ( talk) 21:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Kurt Cobain is also mentioned in the book "About a boy". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.13.227.10 ( talk) 23:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I was a pretty big Nirvana fan, back in the day. I never saw Kurdt referred to as "Kurdt" or any of the other multiple names someone keeps inserting. Please refrain from reinserting them without discussion and sourcing. K. Scott Bailey 14:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

On the back of the Bleach album he is referred to as Kurdt and he would often write Kurdt Kobain in his journal, so you are not a self-described big Nirvana fan if you didnt know that —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmd1188 ( talk • contribs) 14:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The text says his ashes went to Tibet. However, many internet sources say it was fully or partly scattered in the Wishkah River. Could somebody give trustworthy evidence of either version? -- Vancouver robin 05:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It says his ashes were placed inside of a "Tibetan stupa," ( [3]) not that they went to Tibet. Although from what I know supposedly part of his ashes are also with Courtney Love and some in the Wishkah. -- Brandt Luke Zorn 05:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is definitely not a "good article," as it treats a fringe conspiracy theory as equivalent in view to the official judicial finding of suicide, giving far too much space to a sensationalistic, scandalous, never-substantiated and never-tested-in-court allegation. Attempts at fixing this have been blindly reverted. The article is unstable, gives undue weight to a minority viewpoint and is thus incompatible with any definition of good article. I will allow five days for this problem to be solved before delisting. FCYTravis ( talk) 19:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

As CloudNine said: WP:GAR. That's the proper avenue for this sort of thing. WesleyDodds ( talk) 06:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That's false. Read WP:GAR. It says If you find an article that you suspect should be delisted, but aren't certain, then you can ask other editors to reassess it here. Well, no, I don't "suspect" it should be delisted, I'm certain it should be delisted, and I will delist it unless this problem is resolved. Leave a message on the article talk page detailing any remaining problems. Allow time for other editors to respond. If the article still does not meet the criteria, it can be delisted. Nobody has responded here to the fundamental problems and all attempts at fixing it have been reverted without discussion. Once it is delisted, the discussion process can begin as to how to fix it and bring it up to GA standards once again. FCYTravis ( talk) 09:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a stab at fixing it, Wesley. Let's see if it stands. FCYTravis ( talk) 09:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I do intend to do more work than just removing some material, so please wait until others have time to read the notification I've left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative music. There's a number of good editors there that, given reasonable time, can discuss the article and work on ways to improve it quickly. WesleyDodds ( talk) 09:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be delisted as soon a possible. Wesley is more then willing (from what I can see) to fix it up. Once it is up to snuff, resubmit it to GAC. However, the article had deteriorated past the point of keeping it a GA. NSR77 ^T _C 05:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The neutral point of view

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.

The sentence "However, the case has never been reopened" uses a valid statement to reject a viewpoint as false. It states flat out: "If the theories were legitimate, the case would have been reopened." That is PATENTLY POV, and COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE.

Just because you guys don't believe the theory and call it "fringe" doesn't give you license to remove the content and diminish the viewpoint. WP:NPOV protects the presentation of "verifiable perspectives". This is a verifiable perspective, in exactly the same manner as the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I happen to personally believe that the 9/11 theories are bullshit. But that in no way gives me license to start wiping the content out of the article, or putting the article up for deletion.

On a slightly irrelevant note, none of you can actually prove how "fringe" the theory is. Is it just a few rampant Nirvana fans? A few Google searches:

1) Cobain and suicide: 791,000

2) Cobain and murder: 691,000

I'm obviously being pegged as someone who buys the "theory" and is simply looking to protect it. But here's the surprise: I think a lot of what Grant says is crap. There's a huge gap between his assertions and his conclusion. Cobain's friends and lawyer claiming that Cobain wasn't suicidal doesn't mean that he didn't commit suicide. How many times do you hear someone say, "I had no idea there was anything wrong," in the days after a friend or family member commits suicide? I personally think that Cobain committed suicide, particularly in light of Novoselic and Grohl's statements. But, given Grant's direct relation to the event and several obvious problems with the official report, dismissing his statments out of hand (and wiping them out of the article) is completely irresponsible. He might be wrong. He's probably wrong. But it's irresponsbile for us as editors to decide that for everyone else.

Christ, it's specifically laid out in WP:NPOV. How much clearer does it have to be? This is a verifiable perspective, wholly protected by WP:NPOV. The attempts to judge it and dismiss it are completely and totally unacceptable.

For the record, I thought the original third paragraph was significantly better than this new one:

During the last years of his life, Cobain struggled with drug addiction and the media pressures surrounding him and his wife, Courtney Love. On April 8, 1994, Cobain was found dead in his home in Seattle. His death was ruled a suicide by self-inflicted shotgun wound to the head. Since then, the circumstances surrounding his death have fueled much analysis and debate.

It laid out the facts without going into the details that are pushing us into this ridiculous POV debate. (I would very much prefer reverting to that version.) -- ChrisB ( talk) 03:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You are selectively quoting from policy. You are omitting the section which clearly states: We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.

What you are refusing to admit is that the idea that Cobain was murdered is a fringe minority conspiracy theory. You can pull all the Google numbers you want. The article itself says there is only one person today who is pushing the idea that it was anything other than a suicide. He is not an "expert" - police forensic specialists and the King County Coroner are.

There has never been an attempt to legally overturn the ruling or reopen the case. That is a fact. It is not biased - it is a fact. We can leave readers to conclude whatever they want from that fact. If they want to conclude that gee, maybe there's not much evidence behind it... then guess what? They can make that inference if they wish. Or they can infer that nobody cares enough to do anything about it. Or they can infer that there is a vast conspiracy keeping the case from ever being reopened. Whatever. It is a relevant fact is that the ruling has never been legally challenged.

By giving Grant space and credence which his theory has not shown it deserves, we are creating the illusion of a major and legitimate debate, when in reality there appears to be nothing more than a speculative and scandalous conspiracy theory backed up by rumours, innuendo and little else. We mention his theory, yes. Give it credence? No, we are not required to. FCYTravis ( talk) 04:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That is categorically not what the article says. Grant isn't the only person pushing that theory - not even close. Kim Gordon of Sonic Youth believes it. ( Thurston Moore has suggested that he believes it as well. [4])

And WP:UNDUE only trumps WP:NPOV if you can prove that the position is a view that only a small minority believe. So I challenge you - find sources that conclusively prove that this is a "small minority" position. Prove that only a few people believe it.

But I know you can't do that. You simply believe that it's a small minority position.

"We can leave readers to conclude whatever they want from that fact." NO WE CAN'T. That is EXPLICIT in WP:NPOV - we CANNOT slant a viewpoint so that the reader goes in believing it's false. What part of this doesn't make sense: Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions..

The questions you have about the theory are COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Why has nobody challenged it legally? Because only his direct family has the legal standing - anyone else putting that case forward would see it thrown out. Why hasn't the case been reopened by the Seattle PD? Because police departments don't usually reopen cases unless there's public or political pressure to do so, or if a new piece of evidence of extraordinary nature forces them to do so.

In the last decade, how many death row inmates have seen their convictions overturned when volunteers began re-investigating cases after police departments refused to? The West Memphis Three must be guilty because the police refuse to reopen the case?

That doesn't in any way mean that the murder theory is true, but it proves the fallibility of claming that the lack of the case being reopened automatically means that it's false. It's exactly the same as asking: "If it's false, why hasn't Courtney sued?" -- ChrisB ( talk) 06:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That's right - readers are allowed to form their own opinions about what the facts mean. The case has not been reopened. That's a fact. You can argue all you want about what you think it means, but it's an incontrovertible fact. It is not going to be selectively omitted because you don't like what it might imply. The fact that the case hasn't been reopened doesn't mean his theory is false. But it does mean that nobody has taken any of the conspiracy theories seriously enough to put them to a legal test. FCYTravis ( talk) 06:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You are also proving my case for me. In the case of the West Memphis Three and in the cases of all those death row inmates, those asserting their innocence are not hawking "Case Study Kits" on a Web site. Instead, they're engaging attorneys, filing legal actions with appeals courts and generally doing something serious and tangible to actually advance the investigation, as opposed to just spreading a conspiracy theory all over the Web. There is no statute of limitations on homicide. FCYTravis ( talk) 07:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

What, you're expecting Cobain to personally assert that he didn't commit suicide? As I already said: Grant does not have the legal standing to file actions on Cobain's behalf. Everything he's doing is exactly what he's legally allowed to do. Until somebody with legal standing files a case, he can't do anything but write books and maintain a website. Neither can anybody else.

The theory hasn't been put to a legal test because it can't be without the support of someone with legal standing. That doesn't mean that nobody has taken them seriously - it means that nobody with legal standing has taken them seriously. And you can count the number of people with legal standing on two hands. (And nearly all of them are financially supported by the Cobain estate.)

And how I feel about what that sentence implies is irrelevant. As written, the sentence does imply that the theories have no merit, which is a patent violation of NPOV. -- ChrisB ( talk) 07:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Every single person on rs list of greatist guitarist has this fact on the first paragraph on their page so if someone changes Cobains im gonna hit them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Blizzard King ( talk • contribs) 17:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It may be notable, but it doesn't belong in the first paragraph of any article. WesleyDodds ( talk) 08:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Since this comes up a lot, I wanted to throw out my opinion on the matter. (Emphasis: my opinion.)

There was a time when Rolling Stone was considered the preeminent source of rock journalism in the US. That time has long since passed. As such, so has their opinion (and the notability of that opinion) when it comes to "greatest" anything. There's nothing more notable about Rolling Stone marking him 12th as it would be if any other current publication did the same.

As far as I'm concerned, the RS "award" is trivia at best. There are a lot of publications making a lot of "best of" lists. (Sadly, they sell magazines, especially since they justify putting the picture of a famous dead musician on the cover.) Any time someone makes a list of great guitarists / songwriters / etc, it's virtually inevitable that Cobain will be on it. He's not notable because Rolling Stone thought he was the 12th greatest - he's already notable, which is why he's on their list.

And, frankly, I'm tired of seeing these "awards" pop up on Wikipedia articles. (More specifically, the VH1 lists, as they come up with new "best of" specials every few months.) Every person who appears on these lists is already notable.

Lastly, and least notably - just look at that RS list. Anybody who knows guitarists knows how absolutely ridiculous that list is. Cobain better than George Harrison and Eddie Van Halen (the latter by 50+ points?). And where's Mike McCready? It's stupid to try and quantify greatness among guitarists - it ends up being completely arbitrary. -- ChrisB ( talk) 22:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW: the RS list. Sadly, I wrote that line about "famous dead musician on the cover" before realizing that, surprise, Hendrix was on the cover of the issue. -- ChrisB ( talk) 22:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Given discussion here, I'm going to remove the "Suicide dispute" section and reportion bits and pieces of it to the "Books on Cobain" section or other relevant articles. Further concerns can be listed here. WesleyDodds 03:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the existing discussion supports that. (If you parse through what FCYTravis wrote, he didn't address at least half of what I said, preferring to focus on the points he felt he could argue against.)

I think it would be more appropriate to whittle the concept down to a single paragraph noting that it exists, with a "main article" link to Death of Kurt Cobain (not unlike what was done in Marilyn Monroe). -- ChrisB 06:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The main intent was to be bold, remove it, restructure the page, and then have people comment on the result. I think seeing an alternate version of this article might give us some ideas, or confirm our own opinions. It's a much better option than letting the article sit as is. WesleyDodds 06:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not in any way suggesting that we should leave the article alone. But saying that removing the section will help redevelop the article is like saying that you're going to fix your car after an accident by applying a new coat of paint. Removing one section is not a restructuring - a true restructuring needs to be something more than that. -- ChrisB 07:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be removing and restructuring. Give me an hour and I'll take a stab at it. WesleyDodds 07:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. (I think I may have taken "removing" a little too literally.) -- ChrisB ( talk) 01:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Looks good to me. CloudNine ( talk) 13:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting observations made when editing: there's no article for Who Killed Kurt Cobain?, and none of the information that was used here seems to have come from Love & Death. WesleyDodds 09:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

CAYA didn't have an article until a year ago, and it's not particularly developed. (Love & Death has one, but it sucks.) Who Killed Kurt Cobain is arguably a better independent source, given that Grant had a direct hand in Love & Death. Regardless, I think the absence of Love & Death in the article is just because none of the regular editors seem to own it (which might be notable if the same weren't also true for Heavier Than Heaven). -- ChrisB ( talk) 01:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)