Talk:Suicide of Kurt Cobain

IPatrol's revisions

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.

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)

Focus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All or the majority of Grant's conversations with Ms. Love were taped and are public. Go check them out. I'm not adding anything in that regard, but the tapes are out there and have been confirmed as genuine.Pericolaso (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Tom Grant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article needs to be renamed to "Tom Grant's Theory...". His thoughts are given exceptional amount of weight. To emphasize this, sources and quotes were cherry picked in a way that looks like editors want the reader to come to the conclusion that it was murder.Cptnono (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

More sources

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)

Antisemtism

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)

No. —ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 05:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I recall a televised interview shortly after it happened in which CL wondered "if he had more Jew in him" could he have persevered through the difficulties he was having instead of "taking the easy way out." Talk about inconclusive! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.138.107 (talk) 06:07, 16 August 2011 (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 Jew60.224.160.192 (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Merge page

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).

I believe that his death is notable enough in itself to warrant its own article. --Zarggg (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Imagine the edit wars! Keep the conspiracy theories separate, absolutely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.138.107 (talk) 06:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Awful

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)

since when does an idea have to be mainstream to be worth noting down in an encyclopedia? Stregamama (talk) 05:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It is awful. The scope needs to be addressed. Is this article about the death or one writer's thoughts on it? Needs a title change or it needs to be gutted to reflect the scope assumed by the current title.Cptnono (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree the article is awful. The unbelievable murder theory need to be toned down if not completely deleted. Having these lame alternative theories through out the article makes this look like someone's school paper. And also can be borderline libelous for pointing the finger a people with nothing more than a quote. --MarsRover (talk) 00:17, 16 April 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)

Sorry, Meat Eating Orchid, but you're wrong. There are not "literally millions of people" saying that they believe Cobain was murdered; it is generally believed that he committed suicide. Wikipedia should reflect this. Observe, for instance, that the "September 11 attacks" page refers to Al Qaeda only; conspiracy theories aren't even mentioned, and those opinions are (sadly) far more commonly held than the kind of stuff being talked about here. By that token this page should be about the suicide of Kurt Cobain, with (perhaps) one paragraph noting dissenting opinions. As it is, it's laughable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.203.208 (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Layne Staley

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)

WP:FRINGE

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)

Move discussion in progress

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)

What was on television when Kurt Cobain died?

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)

Ridiculous - this needs to be deleted

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 Scottdoesntknow (talk • contribs)

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)

Agree with you whole-heartedly... This site is about fact not conjecture. You made my day with your points... This article has bugged me for a while. Dan Ashton (Pianoguy1981) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pianoguy1981 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I removed the rhetorical questions and other information. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 21:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this does need to be cleaned up a bit, but at the moment it is being made arguably worse by yet another tinfoil proponent, Sleazemetal84. This needs to be reeled in quickly; an online encyclopedia is not a 2nd publishing house for "justiceforkurt.com"'s lurid conspiracies. Tarc (talk) 13:36, 8 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:

(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)

We don't need to see the text in question here, it is available for view in the history of the article like this. It also severely screwed up the formatting and sections of this talk page. There's rally nothing of substance to discuss here. Other editors have already identified problems with this article giving too much credence to conspiracy theories to begin with, so the last thing the article needs is MORE of that. Tarc (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Fan Writer

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)

Article protected

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)

2015 Quality Update

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)

You're cherry-picking the opinions expressed in the deletion bid, and giving too much weight to the admin that closed the bid. While deletion bids are not subject to voting, the overwhelming opinion expressed was that the article had merit on its own and should not be merged with the Cobain article.

This article has been extensively re-written in the eight years since the deletion bid, and has substantially more balance than it did. Additionally, as pointed out in the bid, there's nothing in Wikipedia policy that bars articles from focusing on conspiracy theories - especially when the subject has been extensively discussed in publications. It has been, and still is.

I'm removing the challenge. If you think there's something wrong with the article, please help fix it. If there's a content concern, a warning of that kind would be appropriate.

But don't just do a drive-by of the article. There are too many articles that really need attention to spend any time focusing on the ones that aren't really your interest. -- ChrisB (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

This wasn't about condemning an article that supposedly doesn't interest me, and there was no extraordinary challenge for you to "remove." Please be civil. I agree that if this is going to have so much weight on conspiracy theories, the article should be changed to "Conspiracy theories on the death of Kurt Cobain." So long as that's not the title of the article, I dispute the relevance of the content. Antinate (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Citation 20 - purported to prove Dave Grohl believes the death is a suicide

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.

--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 issue- they don't to fuel the speculation relating to theories that he was murdered. He had previously attempted to commit suicide, and Courtney didn't know he was at their Seattle home at that time. People contributing to this article should bear in mind that offically 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.