Talk:Kurt Cobain/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Kurt Cobain. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Grohl silent as to suicide

The article says that Grohl claims to not know Kurt well enough to determine whether he believes Kurt killed himself or not, but I recall on an episode of the radio show Loveline that he admitted that he believes Kurt killed himself

Not true. Carolla asked him hold old Grohl was "when Cobain finally killed himself", and followed it with "or maybe you don't think he did kill himself." Grohl avoided that part and simply said he was 25. They never actually discussed Kurt's death. -- ChrisB 01:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Addiction and Death - Errors/NPOV/Lack of Citation

The "Addiction and Death" section, to me at least, seems desperately in need of citation. It's poorly structured and gives an inaccurate representation of the timeline leading up to Kurt's death. There's also a considerable amount of unsubstantiated editorializing.

I tried to add dates (as well as a cited incident) but I would really like to see some sort of citation for each incident. As it stands I think the date of the Rome incident is incorrect (presently March 6th, should be March 4th, I believe) Tarcieri 22:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I went through and created a more granular timeline of the dates leading up to Kurt's death. Not exactly sure what the MoS says on this sort of thing... perhaps it should be a bulleted list? Does 1994 really need to be mentioned after each date? I also tried to add a citatation for the incidents described on each date. Tarcieri 23:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the reference to Kurt jumping a six foot wall at Exodus Recovery Center was readded shortly after I removed it. I googled for this extensively and was only able to find references to it in the Wikipedia article. If someone cannot provide a citation for this incident I think it really ought to be removed. Tarcieri 23:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Halperin & Wallace, Who Killed Kurt Cobain?, p 93:

"On Friday night, after visits from Gibby Haynes of the Butthole Surfers and an unidentified woman, Kurt stepped outside to smoke a cigarette at about seven P.M. He then climbed over a six-foot fence in the yard and took a taxi to the airport, where he booked a first-class seat to Seattle on Delta Flight 788 that night."

Wall = fence. I'll fix it. -- ChrisB 23:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks Tarcieri 00:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW - I also removed the two paragraphs about Courtney using Rohypnol. The claim goes nowhere. Nobody contests that it was Courtney's prescription, so a paragraph about her using the stuff is redundant. And the assertion that Courtney tried to intentionally drug him doesn't make sense if he told the doctor it was an accident and if the doctor himself believes it was an accident. (An intentional drugging would have made it look more like a suicide attempt.) If Grant's the one putting forth the theory, then it should be ignored, granted that he wasn't in anyway involved in the first attempt.

There are enough legitimate elements surrounding Kurt's death that we don't need to cover true conspiracy theories. -- ChrisB 00:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering if at this point the "Addiction and Death" section ought to be broken up into two different ones: one dealing with drug addiction, and one of a timeline of events leading up to Kurt's death, starting with the Rome incident Tarcieri 00:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

We're thinking alike - I was working on that in another window. -- ChrisB 01:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Oddly enough I was thinking of deleting the whole schpiel about Courtney drugging Kurt with Rohypnol right before you did it Tarcieri 01:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Heroin lies in this article

Two points:

There is no accurate test to determine how much of an opiate someone has consumed. Further, heroin is rapidly converted into morphine thus you can only test for remaining metabolites, which in this case are merely acetic acid. Thus, no doctor ever said Cobain consumed 225mg of heroin.
The STANDARD dosage for heroin is 5mg. Thus, someone completely made up this overdose figure.

Tom Grant claims that Cobain must have injected at least 225mg of heroin before his death, according to the levels in his bloodstream, and as it says in this wiki article, that he believes this was far beyond the toxic level of dosage. Though I read that a publication said that addicts usually would use 300-500mg per day. From: "Prescription of Narcotics for Heroin Addicts: Main Results of the Swiss National Cohort Study - Volume One. Uchtenhagen, A;Dobler-Mikola, A.; Steffen, T; Gutzwiller, F.; Blattler, R; Pfeifer, S. Karger; Basel; 1999" [1] . Perhaps it should be mentioned in this article of the falseness of his statement? Peoplesunionpro 01:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

300-500mg per DAY versus 225mg in one sitting. That's like saying that shotgunning 12 beers in one sitting won't hurt you because people can drink 20 beers in a day. Those are two different statements - I don't see how 300-500mg per day debunks Grant's claim. You'll need a more specific medical reference than that one.

The general range used in the study isn't the same as a toxic dosage limit. Even the heroin article on this site says "Several studies done in the 1920s gave addicts doses of 1600mg-1800mg of heroin in one sitting, and no adverse effects were reported." [2]. Peoplesunionpro 16:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no proof that he did it all in one sitting either, right? It could have been over hours for all we know. Cine 18:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. The figure that's offered is the concentration of heroin that was in his body at that moment. It doesn't matter how long it took to get to that level, reaching that level is the problem. Think of it like alcohol. Drink a six pack in a short amount of time, and you'd probably get drunk. Drink a 12 pack over several hours, and you might never have enough alcohol in your body to get drunk. It's the level in the body at any given moment that's the issue.

If it took two or three shots of heroin to get to that point, it would have had the same end result as doing it all at once. The claim is that once he reached that level of concentration, he should have been out cold. -- ChrisB 01:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, Kurt had just gotten out of treatment not long ago, I imagine his tolerance would've been significantly lowered.

And, as for the first post in this section - while I have no specific knowledge related to the field, I would assume that the body would stop metabolizing heroin not long after death. -- ChrisB 03:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

la vie n'est rien sans nirvana j'aurais aimer que kurt sois vivant car a cause de ça tout mes potes sont morts et je suis le dernier sur la liste a être vivant .you can't fire me cause i quit.ce je serais au nirvana.j'embrasse tout mes fan de kurt cobain,dave&krist a la place de kurt j'auris dit un mot a mes fans dans ma lettre mais peut être qu'il n'a pas eu le temps il etait trop présser pour atteindre le nirvana comme moi adieu a mes parents

Could we please get that in English? --Pinkunicorn

My french is a little rusty, but it starts off saying that life is nothing without nirvana, and kind of mummers off. Looks like a candidate for BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense. -- Stephen Gilbert

This is what babelfish spat out:

- time-out** the life be nothing without nirvana I have like that Kurt be alive bus because of that all my pal be die and I be the last on the list have be alive you can' T fire me cause I quit.ce I be with nirvana.j' embrace all my fan of Kurt cobain, dave&krist have the place of Kurt I auris say a word have my fans in my letter but can be that it have not have the time it be too présser to reach the nirvana like me good-bye have my parent

Looks like a suicide note to me -- WP

I'd say call for help, but given the subject of the article, I would move more towards sarcasm (but then, that's just how my sick, twisted, evil mind works -- Jim Regan 20:31 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

My french is somewhat better. here is my translation:

Life is nothing without Nirvana. I would love for Kurt to be alive because all my pals are dead and I am the last one on the list that is alive (that line didnt make sense, but that's what it says.) You can't fire me, because I quit. I have reached Nirvana (probably buddhist Nirvana.). I embrace all my fellow Kurt Cobain fans. Dave and Krist have the place of Kurt. I would like to say a word to my fans in my letter but maybe there is no time. It is very important to attain nirvana like me. Good bye to my parents.

definately sounds like a suicide note. Firestorm

However, that wasn't true French, and was probably translated very roughly or on computer. This leads me to believe that it was a teenager that wrote that, and a young teenager at that, and that it was written in French as a joke, so that we wouldn't be able to translate it fast. Most likely a hoax and probably deserves a BJAODN nomination.

I removed the stuff claiming that "most feel his death was inadequately investigated" - such a claim is impossible to substantiate, and also the claim that he was a "musical genius". I liked Nirvana's music as well, but this is an encyclopedia article, not a tribute site. --Robert Merkel.

Need to integrate these:

Journals by Kurt Cobain ISBN 1573222321
Heavier Than Heaven: A Biography of Kurt Cobain by Charles R. Cross ISBN 0786865059 -- Jim Regan 20:31 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Implications that Kurt's death was a murder leave this page's accuracy in dispute

How does Cobain, depressed and in a heroin-induced haze, committed suicide at the age of 27 imply that the death was murder? The article merely states the fact that some people believe that it was not murder. RickK 04:47, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)~

Homies wanna ride!

Shouldn't we use the word 'homosexual' instead of 'queer' at the beginning of the article? --Easty 17:10, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The offensive terms have been changed to 'gay'. -Erolos 20:21, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The sentence "Cobain as a child was prescribed Ritalin, which later led to his heroin addiction" is ridiculous.

I agree! If someone could reword the absurd claim? -Erolos 20:21, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I very much agree. How did that get in there? Someone should fix it. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:18, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think it sounds like he was murdered. Just because someone says, "Oh, he was murdered." doesn't make it true. There is some evidence that makes it seem like a suicide, but there is also some evidence that makes it seem like a murder. To be honest, there is no real way to know, so really you shouldn't sit here and bitch about how you think you're right. I am not saying I'm right, but I think it's disrespectful to Kurt for you to make it public that you think you're right when you COULD be wrong. Kurt is the only one who knows how he died, and IF there is a killer they would know too, but I'm not saying he was for sure killed. I just think you guys sound pompous trying to prove that he wasn't murdered. Why should it matter so much that you prove that theory wrong?

Ummm i think we should leave it as is since this is what the theory clams and as it says GRANT CLAIMS. So we should not edit this since as a encyclopidia we should just leave the information

--Ninandnirvana 00:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a sensitive topic to me so I'll be blunt. A blood morphine level of 1.52 mg/L indicates a heroin intake of approximately 225 mg - 240 mg. Thus, despite suggestions that Cobain may have simply been incapacitated by a normal, large dose fit for an addict, it must be noted that his body weight was at highest 130 lbs., and he was listed as being 115 lbs. in late 1993. This would generally increase his susceptibility to overdose by as much as 20%, since toxicity data is based on a 150 lb. adult. The maximum lethal dose of heroin is 75 mg - 80 mg for a 150 lb. severe addict. So there's no damn way anyone could survive that. The "official" story bends facts and avoids other topics. PLEASE, for the sake of humanity, LEARN TO THINK FOR YOURSELVES! Don't be a mindless drone, citing the word "official" and "mainstream". Proper interpretation of FACT means more than the automatic labels and distortions. Dead men don't pull triggers, especially not with their feet despite having shoes on!

Marriage

I don't see how his affinity and relations to other rockers has anything to do with his marriage... T2X

It could be changed to "Relationships and Mariage" or something to that effect--Ninandnirvana 00:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Murder victims

I believe, for the sake of NPOV, that we should add this category to the article. Categorizing this article as only a suicide and not a murder as well favors only one POV. -- LGagnon 03:02, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this. First of all, you can't logically categorise someone in both categories. Secondly, categorising this article only as a suicide and not a murder doesn't favour one POV, it favours the official POV of the investigating authorities and one that is widely accepted. I recognise the holes in he suicide theory — but as far as I am concerned, in this encyclopedia, legal findings should be regarded as fact. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:21, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

- But that is favoring one POV. Are you suggesting that we should not follow the Wikipedia mission statement just because the majority view (which we are not supposed to favor over others) is accepted by legal authorities? According to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". -- LGagnon 03:31, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

- - SUICIDE IS MURDER! You're murdering yourself, therefore it should be categorized as murder. That's why suicide is considered a sin - "Thou shalt not kill." Well, when you kill yourself, you're killing someone... And purposefully! Therefore it is murder. Suicide is just a word that means you murdered yourself. Homocide is a word that means you murdered someone else. Either way, both equal murder.

- - - The question is not if suicide is murder - which it is not. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, and suicide is not a crime. This is besides the point. The question is if we should give recognition that Kurt was murdered. While you may think that he was - and I happen to be one of the most fervent believers of this - the offical report is that he comitted suicide. Until the Seattle Police Department or other federal authorities say otherwise, the verdict stands as is.

- - - - Suicide categories should not be removed, because Cobain's death has been officially recorded as SUICIDE. Just because there are conspiracy theories doesn't change that fact. Until his death is officially noted as HOMICIDE, his death should be considered suicide. REN 09:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, realize the exclusion of suicide categories is an NPOV consensus. People want to include murder cats as well. Avoiding them both solves any POV madness. Adding categories based on the specific indisputible facts (as we've done here) is the most NPOV method. -- 66.6.146.58 21:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

He was murdered, therefore should be liasted as a murder victim. FACT damn it, FACT!

It's a fact if it can be conclusively proven. Which it hasn't.

WesleyDodds 03:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it has. Do some research. NOBODY can survive that dose of heroine and still pull the trigger. El Duce was definitely offered money to kill Kurt. There's more to back it up, but I'm going to stop typing now because Cortney Love puppets like you make me so sick that I'm barely able to avoid using expletives, something I don't make a habit of. Also please explain the slashed car tires and cancelled credit card, or the incident in Rome which was NOT a suicide attempt. Even the doctor who treated Kurt would agree. Simple minded drones such as yourself atre beyond pathetic. Don't believe everything "mainstream" media tells you. Please think for yourself so that you may stop dragging down the collective intelligence of humanity.

That's called "original research", which is banned from Wikipedia. Unless the police declare "He was murdered", all we can do is mention that there is a dispute about his cause of death. WesleyDodds 05:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and give fair ground to that dispute. The doctor who treated Kurt DID say it wasn't a suicide attempt. That's a fact. The police investigation wasn't thorough and there's good reason to be highly suspicious of the sergeant. "Official" or not, it doesn't matter. Simply adding the word official does NOT mean it is 100% credible. That is fqavouring one point of view, something you'd criticize me for. We do not have to adhere to the claimks of the police. Hopefully I'm being clear enough. What I mean to say is there are noteworthy/credible questions brought up by the murder "theory" as well, and I thionk they deserve a fair unbiased chance as well. thwe fact that someone slaps the word "official" on the suicide theory doesn't matter. Logical reasoning giving fair ground to both ideas which have strong cases, giving a neutral stance and allowing the reader to decide for him/herself rather than insisting on the reliability of one pov because it is "official", is what matters. Since when was it sufficient to claim an "official" pov despite more than reasonable logic of the opposition? Now I'm just rambling, so I'll close in saying, Wikipedia isn't here to adhere to one specific point of view, "official" or not. It is here to provide facts, be they prooving or disproving the suicide or murder theories. to give a neutral perspective.

Concluding murder does not offer a neutral perspective. And your edits are faulty:

The toxicology report cannot "confirm" anything because its results were not officially made public. The level of heroin in his system was acquired from an unnamed source at the Coroner's office by a reporter at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, not from the report itself. While there is no reason to doubt the validity of the figure, it was supplied by an anonymous source and NOT confirmed.
The end of the paragraph about "medical experts will tell you" is unsourced and non-journalistic. Statements must be from a reputable source to be included in Wikipedia, and these statements were not.
Grant "proved" nothing about the suicide note. He made an assertion and offered supporting evidence. That's not "proof".
Handwriting experts were all over the map as to the handwriting on the note. Saying that it was concluded to be Love's is simply false, given how many experts could not draw that conclusion.
Redford's quote about Love has nothing to with Cobain. That information should be included in the article for the movie, not in Cobain's article, and especially not in a section regarding the controversy about his death. Additionally, Broomfield's own conclusion is more notable than the controversy surrounding the movie itself.
Garbage like "This overdose was an attempt by Courtney to murder Kurt." is completely unacceptable. The sentence is not a statement of fact, it's a belief based on circumstantial evidence. People are free to believe this, but there is no way to conclusively prove it. The doctor in Rome believed the combination was an accident - not suicide or murder.
Statements from people claiming that Cobain didn't seem suicidal cannot be used as proof. It is incredibly common for those committing suicide to not tell their plans to anyone, and for family members to be stunned by the action. I'm not saying he committed suicide - I'm saying that the views of others cannot prove it one way or the other.

Furthermore, we spent months vetting out a neutral version of the events surrounding his death. There are many people who fervently believe that Cobain committed suicide and that Love has been wrongly singled out. There are also many people who believe that Cobain was murdered. Wikipedia strives to supply BOTH POINTS OF VIEW. Dumping one side to conclusively "prove" the other is COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE and a violation of Wikipedia guidelines. -- ChrisB 01:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The level of heroine in his system? Yes, the source is mentioned, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and the official toxicology report. You said yourself anyway, the figure is valid, and it does confirm something as that dosage is ridiculously high.

Fine, if I can find the exact medical experts that concluded such, will you let me post that?

Uh, yes he did. Do links not work on your browser or something? The handwriting analysis was there and it prooves conclusively that Courtney added the last part of that note.

That's true to an extent, but the claim that he found inconclusive proof and that's why he didn't show the film at the festival is deliberately misleading, yes it does have to do with the controversy surrounding his death, I don't know how much clearer I can make that.

True I suppose. Sorry about that, I guess I let my frustration get the best of me and all. I shouldn't have, but the evident bias and insistance that it remained really annoyed me.

Yeah I know he believed it was an "accident". Truth is, Kurt couldn't remember, as abuse of Rohypnol causes memory loss, and the prescription was indeed Courtney's. That much is a guaranteed fact, so don't edit that out.

"Statements from people claiming that Cobain didn't seem suicidal cannot be used as proof." Oh and statements that he was can be? Either way, do I really need to explain the importance of quotes like these in an article at least partially surrounding the controversy of his death?

Well no offense but that wasn't a very good job. I'm sorry I've bothered you, though evidently you stick to the current bias in the article. You don't have to add fancy words for a biased article, you know. You can be very selective of facts, or give blatant misinformation, etc., to slant the article in your favour. Also statements like "purportedly from the official toxicology report." It was from the official toxicology report, you even admitted there isn't reason to deny the figure. By the way, I'm not convinced. I added a lot of bias, sure, but also fact. Instead of conpletely reverting everything, take the few minutes and leave some of the facts I gave, i.e the cancelling of Kurt's credit card, the flat tires, the fact that the prescription was Courtney's, the handwriting analysis. Also words like "claimed" show a degree of bias, especially when the claims have been verified, )i.e classified under ("BEYOND POSSIBILITY OF DECEPTION"). Thanks for your time. 64.231.191.136 03:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Nirvana Fan Club

The description for this link is a bit long and looks more like an advertisement than a description of a resource. -- LGagnon 01:27, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

His sponser

Gold Mountain Entertainment First of all, to everyone who thinks Kurdt Cobains death was a suicide, your wrong. Second, in response to a statement I read, Michael DeWitt was not the only one involved, but Courtney and a man named Allen Wrench was also. If you still think I'm full of it, ponder this: Why would Kurdt load three bullets into a gun when he only needs one? How would he be able to use, untie his tourniqet, put all of his paraphenelia neatly away , roll his sleeve back down position himself, and still be concious enough, or at all, to blow his head off with three times the lethal dose of a heavy heroine addict? There's no physical way and no doctor as of yet can explain it. Feel free to reply.

How could a possibly bisexual, anemic, heroin addicted, mediocre guitar player from a redneck town in the Washington boonies become the biggest rock star of the 90's? Anything's possible.

Just saying "you're wrong" and citing facts from a terrible book isn't a very convincing argument.

A. who says that kurt loaded the gun just prior to offing himself? lots of (stupid) people leave guns laying around loaded.

B. Kurt was a severe heroin addict, which means that he could realistically inject a massive dose of heroin and be somewhat conscious.

Boddah

Is there are proof of the Boddah thing that appears on here and gets changed now and then? I'd like to see something tangible pointing to this being true, and it should have some exact details to settle this. -- LGagnon 19:43, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC) Boddah was an imaginary friend created by kurt when he was young

I believe (but am not 100% sure) that it says that in hevier than heavan. ill check my copy if i can find it so noone will be able to but something wrong as an explanation--Ninandnirvana 00:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The French Guy

That is very sad that someone has left a suicide note on Wikipedia. Very sad. 11 years, and still people are offing themselves because of him. People from France (or Canada or whatever)! It is amazing Kurt has had that much of an influence on the world. I feel sad for that guy one guy... but really, he had to post on Wikipedia? Wouldn't a Nirvana forum have been enough? By the way, I believe Kurt was murdered. (www.justiceforkurt.com) Also, one other little detail-- "You can't fire me because I quit" is a lyric from the song "Scentless Apprentice".

I nominate this for BJAODN. Anyone second it? Firestorm 00:12, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

If its a real suicide note than no but if its just a joke then yes. Jobe6 July 4, 2005 20:38 (UTC)

There is no way that somebody would honestly think that the Kurt Cobain talk page would be the best place to post an actual suicide note. However, you hear about things like Brandon Vedas and the Armin Meiwes case and you have to stop and think "Well, maybe this dude did, in fact, kill himself 11 years behind schedule." Eitherway, verify this first. Refugee621 02:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

A look at the IP address reveals that he or she is from Canada.

Influences

Would someone kindly add a footnote regarding the fact that Kurt himself stated that Smells Like Teen Spirit was his attempt to write a song like the Pixies, whose albums Surfer Rosa/Come on Pilgrim he thought were seminal in his musicianship.

Jandek also deserves an honorable mention, esp. since Kurt Cobain is listed on the Jandek page.

cats

I removed some cats that were unnecessary because he is already part of a subcat. I have also removed the punk rock musicians category because Cobain was not primarily a punk musician -- he was a grunge musician, and was only punk in as much as grunge and punk are very closely related. 17:22, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

But Kurt always said they were punk rockers. The media came up with the whole "grunge" thing. No band ever came up and said they were grunge, it got slapped on along the way.
- Agreed punk rock should be re-added since even though nirvana may be grunge (though like stated above they say they are punk) kurt cobain was very punk outside of the band

--Ninandnirvana 00:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Murder victims continued

I'd like to repoen discussion on the murder victims category? I'm inclined to think it should be included because there's a fairly large faction of people who believe it. Alternatively, we could have a category for Category:Possible murder victims or something... as a matter of fact, if I could think of anybody else to put in that category, I'd probably do it now. Tuf-Kat 01:55, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

To be fair, his suicide was also a "possible suicide" (which I don't think we have a category for either). As for who else to put in the "Possible murder victims" category, Edgar Allan Poe might be a good candidate. -- LGagnon 02:23, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe just a Category:Disputed cause of death? And Napoleon Bonaparte, I think. I wonder how Poe and Napoleon are categorized... Tuf-Kat 03:32, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Neither one gives a category for the cause of death. Maybe that's better in cases where the cause is unsure. Tuf-Kat 03:35, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Why not a Category:Controversial death? Seems to cover all the chatter surrounding Cobain's deaths without making too many assumptions. Any objections?--Weebot 18:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

68.191.51.49, do you have an objection to this?

I'm all in favor of a category for disputed deaths. A list would be nice, as you could go into more details, but I am kind of biased towards lists. Tenn 16:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

If you dispute this, you also have to do it for Paul McCartney's page. Theuniversal 21:25, Aug 19, 2005 (UTC)

Massive changes in Addiction and death section

Several anonymous changes have been made to the Addiction and death section that completely rewrite the facts about it. Can someone cite some references for these changes? I'm putting an accuracy warning on it for now. -- LGagnon 14:23, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted all of 64.146.105.114's edits for now. He has blatantly ignored the accuracy dispute and removed the warning without discussing it first. If he wants to argue in favor of his changes, he should do so here first and show some references before further changing the facts about the article. -- LGagnon 18:50, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

The edits showed reference! They were accurate too! Your blatant ignorance doesn't give you the right to claim that I'm biased while refusing to accept another point of view (which can actually be backed up. Stop drooling over Courtney Love, please.)

Disembodied, stop reverting the article

Your picture is not fair use (it's a derivitive of a copyrighted work) and is not GFDL, whether you like to claim it or not. It is a clear copyright violation. Your picture will be deleted and that's that. -- LGagnon June 29, 2005 15:53 (UTC)

Heading image

I apologize about the copyright violation with my cropped image of the Rolling Stone cover, is it possible that I post the complete B&W scan of the cover? This image specifically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kurt_cobainrollingstonecover.jpg

The dramatic tones of the cover are more accurately portrayed than that of the one currently being used, as the black and white useage perfectly portrays Kurt in a more intimate context that exemplifies his artistic personality.

Please reply to my inquiry, thanks and sorry for the trouble. -- Disembodied

Which is the original RS cover, the B&W or the one currently used? That is the big issue here; we need to use a non-derivitive version of it (or at least one that isn't a copyright violation). As far as I can remember, the one we have is the original. And even if the B&W is perfectly legal, there's still one problem: you are uploading cropped images, which we can't use. Either upload the whole original, unchanged image or it is useless for the article. Either way, we really don't have any need for another image. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan page; we neither need nor want to hype up the subject matter. And even if we were doing such, the B&W image would not make a difference. Unless you can come up with a better reason to use it instead of the current image, I suggest letting this go. -- LGagnon June 29, 2005 20:42 (UTC)

From what I remember, yes, the one currently used is the original scan. I just feel it doesn't do justice for really portraying who Kurt was, and using the uncropped B&W scan does a more accurate job by providing more emphasis on the dramatic tones of the photograph. Perfectly tolerable for an artist like Kurt Cobain. If the cropping of the photograph is the issue, then I'd be fine with just using the uncropped B&W scan.

So, would it be alright if I simply used the complete, uncropped B&W scan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kurt_cobainrollingstonecover.jpg) instead?

Sorry for any trouble, and thanks for your consideration. -- Disembodied

You still are not giving a good reason to use a different image. You are asking for the B&W because you personally prefer it, which is not reason enough to change it. There's no practical need for a change, and you have not presented one. And the image you have uploaded is still cropped; the right side is cropped and a small amount of the left seems to be missing (the former being a bigger problem than the latter). -- LGagnon June 29, 2005 21:51 (UTC)

I see your point, and apologize for the inconvienience. I just felt that the current image doesn't do enough justice for a figure as historically significant as Cobain. Putting a picture of him on the cover of a major media magazine as a heading image makes him look like a figure the media is obsessed with, a stereotype Kurt fought to disassociate himself with for his entire career.

However, seeing as the best possible representation of him is in the context of said major media magazine, it's somewhat of a paradox; and proves difficult to work around.

A heading image is one of the most important aspects of an article, it can have the ability to connect with a reader instantly upon viewing, and justify an article's overall mood or statement. Thats just why I thought using a B&W photo of that scan would prove more effective and dramatic in nature.

In any case, sorry for the trouble. Perhaps a portrait image of him not from a magazine cover, widely accepted as an accurate representation of Kurt would better portray him? -- Disembodied

Err, sorry for putting up that unsourced picture, but it's the cover of Cobain, a book that Rolling Stone put out that is a compilation of articles that they had written about him. It wasn't a cropped version of the RS cover. I think it looks nicer, and it should be as covered by fair use as the Rolling Stone cover. Would there be any objections to me placing it back as the heading image?--Weebot 01:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Just to throw in my support here: he's 100% correct. The cover of Cobain is that picture by itself, unaltered. [3] There's no title or author on the front; the title of the book is only on the spine. I'm certain that would be covered by fair use.

(Even if I personally think that picture sucks. I would far prefer to use either this one or an unaltered version of this one. The former was one of the most popular online after his death, but I think the latter best represents Kurt.) -- ChrisB 02:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow, thank you for pointing the cover out to me, Weebot! I own that book, and have scanned it to get a bigger picture for the article. At last, a non derivative version of the picture that best represents Kurt Cobain.--Disembodied 05:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Reference templates don't work

Several of the references are messed up by templates that aren't built to cover all the details of the references. I'm switching them back to manually written references, since these templates haven't been written to serve their purpose. -- LGagnon July 3, 2005 00:46 (UTC)

Buddhist?

Do we have any proof that that was his religion? I don't remember that ever being definitely stated in the article (where his ashes are kept doesn't prove it), nor has anyone presented evidence for this. -- LGagnon July 6, 2005 00:37 (UTC)

If Kurt Cobain wasn't a buddhist, why would it say on his suicde note To Boddah?

Boddah is not Buddha. They aren't the same thing. -- LGagnon 13:32, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Boddah (pronounced (BOH-da) was Kurt's imaginary childhood friend, not Buddha.

:::i am not sure of this but i believe it was partially a joke from cobain partially serious

Sample lyrics

The sample lyrics section seems a bit unneeded. We have a Wikiquote article for Kurt already, which we could move all these lyrics over to. Also, how many lines can we use before we've crossed over the line of fair use? New lines are constantly added, and are only pushing it without really contributing much to the encyclopediac value of the article. -- LGagnon 18:54, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This Sample lyrics section needs to be put into the Wikiquote article and removed from this one. -- LGagnon 21:37, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

" rumor of possbly becoming catholic "

This another rumor, but I remember hearing he maybe was thinking about being catholic. Never the less he was a sick soul who took his own life and his music will last for long time to come. This is rumor for all I know really, but I did hear it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Irishmonk (talk • contribs) 06:37, 19 May 2006

It seems like someone didn't read not a bit about Kurt's death.-Zingazin 19:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

born Kurdt?

Do we have a reference for this? It seems unlikely, as Kurt used the name once (in an album's credits) but was never mentioned in the press as having used a stage name regularly. -- LGagnon 21:33, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

No, born Kurt Donald Cobain, (at least) on Love Buzz/Big Cheese, Bleach and Nevermind (for "Monkey Photo", his name is spelled right where he's credited for "Vocals/Guitar") he is credited as Kurdt Kobain. I guess it has something to do with not revealing his real name. I mean, just look at Krist Novoselic he's credited by his nickname, Chris Novoselic, until In Utero. But your guess is just as good as me... -- noctrun 10:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

It was more an altenate spelling that kurt made up just cause he thought it was cool (that is an asumption on my part)

And the krist thing is because until a trip to norway in 93 he used the american spelling of his name--Ninandnirvana 00:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Music with Meaning??

This statement is highly subjective and historicaly inaccurate, i.e. what defines 'music with meaning'? and meaning for whom? and meaning what? In addition 'grunge' was well under way as a genre before 'Smells like Teen spirit' was released. -- Slainz 12:19, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Addressed the first part. I ran out of synonyms at the end of a lengthy rewrite. But while grunge may have been underway as a genre before Nirvana, it wasn't POPULAR before Nirvana. Soundgarden and Alice in Chains had modest followings before Nevermind broke, but neither were considered anything more than an extension of the Headbanger's Ball crowd. -- ChrisB 4:46, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Am I the only person who thinks the "See also" list of opiate casualty links makes for an annoying, imbalanced coda to this article?

How does one have too many credits to graduate high school, as it says in the "Early Life" section?

I know nothing about the American education system, but I assume it means he had too many credits still to get? M A Mason 17:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

More pictures?

For a person as significant to Rock as Kurt Cobain you'd normally expect a few pictures of him performing live and/or any where else. Is it possible that we add a few more pictures of the musical side of Kurt rather than the personal side (as close as the two may come)?--Disembodied

Graduation and Mother

What year/month did he drop out of high school, and did he and his mother reconcile or not? - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Did Cobain move out of his mother's house when he got the guitar? The article starts out stating that he moved out when he dropped out of high school, but in the next paragraph implies that he moved out after getting the guitar? User:Carie 15:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

He moved out after highschool since his mom said something along the lines of get a job or get out. Since he didnt get a job he got out :)--Ninandnirvana 00:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Chronology! (IOW What a mess!)

Since Grohl and Novoselic were mentioned BEFORE the Nirvana section, they must be named with full name, as otherwise this is bad writing style. I've changed this, yet I do not feel too well with it; I really doubt there should be so many Nirvana references in the 'Early Life' section. Thus there would not be an odd reference to Grohl and Novoselic out of the blue before the actual band's section. just my 2c -andy 80.129.88.61 01:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I say live the novoscelic reference since they went to school together but grohl didnt really come into the picture until after channing left the band

First date of Heroin usage?

I could have sworn that in Journals Kurt mentioned something about trying heroin first in 1987, not in 1990. Could be wrong though. Anyone have any idea? Flyerhell 06:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Domestic Complaint

Since this article goes so indepth into the last few days of Cobains life, shouldn't the domestic incident in March 1994 be mentioned? I think this was the reason why Kurt couldn't buy the gun himself. Flyerhell 06:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

It should, but the people contributing to this article prefer to censor it to one point of view, and since the domestic complaint contributes a lot to the murder theory, they'd rather keep that hidden. 64.231.191.141 23:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Stomach Problems

This article also neglected to mention the fact that in 1993 or around that time, Kurt's stomach ailment was actually diagnosed as a pinched nerve. During the In Utero tour, Kurt's stomach actually wasn't bothering him all that much since he was finally diagnosed and treated for it. Flyerhell 06:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Any source for this info?--24.20.181.127 06:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Yup, these are one of the first few links that came up from google when searching for it:

http://www.heroinhelper.com/bored/celebrities/Kurt_Cobain.shtml

"Cobain suffered from very painful stomach aches which he sought relief from through various drugs. It was not until 1993 that it was determined to be caused by a pinched nerve. At that time it was treated and stopped being such an important aspect of his life"

http://www.justiceforkurt.com/investigation/not_suicidal.shtml

"In the summer of 1993, Kurt experienced what he called "a miracle". After years of consulting specialists about his debilitating stomach pain, he found a doctor who finally diagnosed the problem - a pinched nerve relating to his scoliosis."

http://www.nirvanaclub.com/facts/nia/facts.txt

"A doctor attributed Kurt's horrendous stomach pains to a pinched nerve"

Granted, the first 2 are a little biased but you get the point. I am not sure of the ORIGINAL source, but I am almost 100% positive that he did in fact have a pinched nerve. Flyerhell 06:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to include this information in the article without an original source: ie, Kurt talking about it in an interview. I've heard of the "pinched nerve" before, but always as a "possible" cause, not as the definitive cause. The version I've always heard was that Kurt saw several doctors who came up with varying conclusions, and that several surmised it might be a pinched nerve. -- ChrisB 17:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Bisexual Musicians

Is there a reason someone continuously removes Mr. Cobain from this list? A man who admits to at one time assuming himself gay and then later professing of being on the verge of living a bisexual lifestyle had Courtney Love not enetered the scene...

Um, if it quacks like a duck?

"Quacks like a duck"? Cobain said in the Advocate article that people insist on using to cite that he's bisexual (emphasis mine):

"I mean, I'm definitely gay in spirit, and I probably could be bisexual. But I'm married, and I'm more attracted to Courtney than I ever have been toward a person, so there's no point in trying to sow my oats at this point. [Laughs] If I wouldn't have found Courtney, I probably would have carried on with a bisexual lifestyle. But I just find her totally attractive in all ways."

http://www.nirvana-music.com/kurt-cobain-advocate-interview.html

He NEVER said he WAS bisexual, he said he COULD be. HE NEVER PURSUED A BISEXUAL LIFESTYLE. What do you think "no point in trying to sow my oats&amp;quot; means?

Next time, if you want to know why someone made an edit, how about checking the blasted History? THAT'S WHAT IT'S THERE FOR. I explained it every time I removed it, to the point of redundant absurdity.

And how about signing up for a login? Your IP has changed with every edit you've made. -- ChrisB 07:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

This whole debate is all about life phases. Lots of guys and gals have same-sex experiences during their formative years, and some of them think they must therefore be gay. In some cases they are indeed gay, but in the majority of cases they discover the opposite sex and never return to same-sex experiences. From everything I've ever read, Kurt Cobain is in the latter category. He experimented with sex with guys while growing up, and he even thought he might be gay at one time, but he went on to have only straight relationships, married Courtney Love and, as his private journals indicate, he did not consider himself gay. And that is a point that is often overlooked. Sexuality is as much about self-identification as it is about anything else. He was not gay, and he was not bisexual. (By the way, true bisexuality is very rare.) Occasionally eating a meal consisting only of vegetables does not make you a vegetarian. JackofOz 09:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Why is it so damn hard for people to understand bisexuality? It means being attracted to BOTH. From everything we have gathered, he obviously was bisexual insofar that he stated himself that he suspected he would have continued living a bisexual "lifetsyle" had he not found Courtney Love. Just because he found a woman that he fell in love with and had children with her does not indicate his past is invalidated (e.g. it doesn't mean he's suddenly "straight"). We also have to take into account the fact that he stated these things in the early nineties, a time when bi visibillity was almost non-existent and therefore less socially acceptable to be known as such. We can obviously debate this forever for the man has passed, but for all logical purposes it would seem to be more than appropiate to place him in the category of bisexual musicians because he was both a musician and obviously bisexual. -- 67.0.220.56

"OBVIOUSLY"? Are you reading the same text I just quoted?!? Kurt said COULD BE.

And I would absoutely argue against the definition of bisexuality as simple attraction. Read Kurt's quote above, and you'll see that he's not using that definition. In his mind (and in the minds of the general population), bisexuality involves action.

Look, if someone can provide verifiable quotes from Kurt confirming his orientation, it would make the case easier to support. My issue here isn't a condemnation of bisexuality or homosexuality - only that I don't think it's responsible to label someone by their sexual preference if they never confirmed that they had said sexual preference. Every primary source I've seen quotes Kurt saying that he wondered if he was gay, not that he actually was.

It's one thing if we were talking about someone who made their sexual preference very public. But Kurt never did that. If he were bisexual, he never made it clear in a public manner. It's irresponsible for a journalistic endeavor to cast him that way if he never did so himself. -- ChrisB 19:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I would argue that James Dean also belongs in the bisexuals list, but the only quote of him ever addressing his sexuality was vague and although we have accounts of his sexual forays from a few biographers, we'll never truly know. Hence I decided not to argue the same in his case. Being bisexual myself and knowing what we know today, Kurt Cobain seemed to be in a constant state of limbo with his sexual orientation. I definitely understand that he never self-identified as being bi, but I'm coming from the perspective that had he lived longer I think he would have eventually discovered that side of himself on his own terms. I came to this conclusion from everything I've read about him. Anyhow I'm obviously in the minority here, so I'll refrain from placing him back in the list. It just seemed obvious to me that he belonged there.

Kurt did write in his journals that he was not bisexual, but he did have bisexual friends. This comes from not only the man himself, but his personal journal(s). This bysexual thing should be taken with a grain of sault. SFrank85 05:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The quote about "sowing my oats" simply meant that he wasn't about to fool around. It regards male and female and was applicable because he was in a relationship at the time. This may also be of interest:

"Kurt Cobain was bisexual, though it is not clear that he ever consummated this part of his persona. As a teen he was arrested and fined $180 for spraypainting "Homosex Rules" on an outside wall. He received also a thirty-day suspended sentence (Come As You Are, pp. 39-40). Furthermore in the February 1991 issue of The Advocate, Kurt says, "If I wouldn't have found Courtney, I probably would have carried on with a bisexual lifestyle." At other times Cobain claimed to be heterosexual, but the Advocate interview is unambiguous." http://www.nndb.com/people/939/000025864/ --AWF

can i just point out im bisexual, and you dont have to show your effection of members of the same sex to be bisexual. nor do you have to admit it publicly.kurt could have been bisexual with out telling the public. he could have also been undersided, why is it so importent about his sexuality? -- 84.187.163.195

I've got the same question for you: why is it so important for him to be bisexual? The simple fact is that we cannot legitimately prove that Kurt was bisexual, and Wiki guidelines insist that we not include unsourced and unproven statements. PERIOD. Your entire statement is speculation - "kurt could have been bisexual". I don't disagree with that, but we cannot PROVE that he was, as there's not enough to go on. Therefore, by Wiki guidelines, we can't include it. -- ChrisB 21:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

"This whole debate is all about life phases. Lots of guys and gals have same-sex experiences during their formative years, and some of them think they must therefore be gay" holy crap. I mean, just because YOU did this, please don't come around saying it's normal just to feel better about yourself you (ad hominem) fucking freak (ad hominem ends here), and don't try to say Kurt was this way just to feel better about yourself either, he WAS NOT, he was quite normal, the proof is that when he found out his sister was a dyke he did not went insane and shot people but still said something like "and err hm don't give up of men y'know" (i read his biography in another language so i don't know exactly), whatever, he wanted to be freak to shock people but he was ordinnary so just stop messing around his more-than-degradated-image to confort your inner conflicts. (ad hominem) freaks (ad hominem fucking ends here).

Don't use words like "dyke". Normal? Uuuugh. Subjective much? Homophobic too. Rather than get angry, I'll focus on what I learnt at WP:FUCK.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 02:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If the foul-mouthed person (who didn't have the guts to sign their name) had read my whole post, they would know that I'm also arguing that Cobain was NOT gay. Please read and understand before launching into vitriolic personal attacks. JackofOz 02:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Question

Is there a way to found out what exactly was written in Kurt Cobain's suicide note? TearAwayTheFunerealDress 16:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It's around on the 'net. Example -- ChrisB 19:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Kurt's Gear?

Do we really need a section for Kurt's gear in this article? It's not even remotely comprehensive, and one parse through kurtsequipment.com shows how lacking it is. It seems absolutely redundant to contain some nominal amount of information, when that site is so phenomenally detailed. We've already got a link to it, why do we need anything more? -- ChrisB 01:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Fandalism

Its still bias, and repetitive fandalism is getting it nowhere, and stops it from been a neutral article, there is nothing mentioned in the article about Kurt Cobain’s less than technically talented guitar playing compared to 80s guitarists (Which would infact make Nirvana “visual style over musical substance“ in a way), none of the 80s bands claimed to place visual style over musical substance, its an opinion, not a fact, you don’t see how that is totally bias in a supposed neutral article?? - Deathrocker 06:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not bias. Cobain talked about it. Maybe it's not obvious, but this is an article about Cobain. Another point that doesn't seem to be obvious: what bands think about themselves is often significantly different than how the band is actually perceived. Nirvana never called themselves grunge. Does that mean they're not grunge? -- ChrisB 09:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Then find a direct link with an exact quote of Kurt offering that opinion and put it in quotation marks in the article, instead of offering it up as factual info.

An example of why the article is bias; Yngwie Malmsteen and Michael Angelo(80s guitarists) have a glamorous image yet are a thousand times more talented on guitar than Kurt Cobain could ever hope to be so that throws the "visual style over musical substance" as factual info right out of the window, if anything Nirvana were image over musical substance, sure the image wasn't glamorous but an image all the same, the only competent musician in the band was Dave Grohl... the opinions you offer up in the article only cater for the Nirvana fanboy frame of mind, it is supposed to be a Neutral article. - Deathrocker 09:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you out of your mind? How does Yngwie or Angelo count as either "arena rock" or "dance pop"? Or are you at the point that you're not even reading what you're editing? -- ChrisB 09:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

They are part of "glam metal" which infact was the predominant style that Grunge swayed the mainstream away from for a more stripped down look and style (Which for some reason you keep editing out for your bias info, lord knows why??), you are offering opinion from which you have no source that Kurt Cobain even said those things, and if he did and you can somehow pull a reliable reference out of somewhere, it needs to be quoted as an opinion of his, not factual information.

- Deathrocker 09:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Idiot. I removed "glam metal" from that list of genres several edits ago, as per your complaint. Hit the history and look for my edit that includes the phrase "minor rewrite as a weak attempt to appease deathrocker", and you'll notice that it's not there, and hasn't been there in any of the edits since.

OHHHHH, wait, but you added it back to make your point. That's GENIUS. -- ChrisB 09:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I added it back in the interest of keeping it a FACTUAL article, something which you have no interest in doing. Your attempt to "appease" by removing a genre that I am a fan of was very touching I must say, but I'm interested in fact and I'm sure the people who want to read an article on somebody are interested in non bias facts too. - Deathrocker 09:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

"The arrival of Cobain's best known song, "Smells Like Teen Spirit", marked the beginning of a dramatic shift of popular music away from 1980s glam metal, arena rock and dance-pop for a more stripped down look and sound."

What exactly is your grievance with that line? Its not like it is more favourable of either movement, its straight down the middle. - Deathrocker 10:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

For starters, how is grunge a more stripped down sound? The band actually criticized Nevermind themselves because they felt it sounded like arena rock.

The single most-often cited comment in the music media between 1991 and 1994 was that music was returning to credibility. Glam (hair) metal was seen as "superficial" because the lyrics largely dealt with sex and the looks were considered more important than the music. (A point, I might add, asserted in Glam metal.) The introduction of alternative rock ushered in a return to music more "honest" lyrical content and away from the "perceived superficiality".

The problem is that it was all a perception; there wasn't that much difference in music before or after. But the most important element of it was that perception.

You give me the choice of your edit and the one that was here, and I'd take the latter without question. Yours is a far weaker statement that honestly isn't factually accurate.

I'll note this specifically: the line in the article was "perceived superficiality". It doesn't say that glam metal was superficial, it says it was perceived as being superficial. Which is a factual statement. It was certainly the case in the immediate years of Nirvana's popularity. -- ChrisB 10:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

"For starters, how is grunge a more stripped down sound?"

Have you ever tried to play a Nirvana song?.. it is stripped down in the same way punk rock is stripped down.

Many people who follow metal and rock cite Nirvana as the downfall of rock n’ roll, but that is also not included in the article because it is one sided opinion just as is "perceived superficiality" of any other genre by fans of grunge music who are apposed to 80s music, its not a neutral viewpoint. - Deathrocker 12:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

sexualism

he was NOT bisexual! GOD DAMNIT! he even wrote in his journals about that! courtney it is bisexual but he was not. and add german and english american in the catogories 'cause he was not only irish. in the book HTH there are many useful information so stop fucking his article.

I'd suggest learning proper grammar before continuing further. If you'd like hints however, this always helps:

"Kurt Cobain was bisexual, though it is not clear that he ever consummated this part of his persona. As a teen he was arrested and fined $180 for spraypainting "Homosex Rules" on an outside wall. He received also a thirty-day suspended sentence (Come As You Are, pp. 39-40). Furthermore in the February 1991 issue of The Advocate, Kurt says, "If I wouldn't have found Courtney, I probably would have carried on with a bisexual lifestyle." At other times Cobain claimed to be heterosexual, but the Advocate interview is unambiguous." http://www.nndb.com/people/939/000025864/ --AWF

Also worthy of note is the fact that Courtney Love is, herself, not bisexual. --AWF

Is the sign for real?

Is the Aberdeen sign real? There are other pictures on the net, and they look different. Plus, the plants on the photo, which are obviously in front of the sign, misteriously appear in the back of the bottom part.

See: [4] Notice that the bottom part of the sign is attached to the top part by three vertical pieces, whereas in the picture included in the article, the bottom part is attached to side poles. Photo seems edited to me.

See: [5] Looks like a before/after photo editing.

Any first hand or reliable sources as to this sign actually existing as portrayed?

ironcito 22:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I found your observation quite interesting. Maybe this link may help you in your quest. --Greedy 00:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

wow, no doubt that photo is a fake. notice the file name is even "sign_after.jpg". i've removed it to this talk page until this gets sorted out. the first link you provided definitely looks photoshopped as well. good looking out, literally . . . this is very strange . . . --Heah ^talk 00:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I've emailed the aberdeen parks and recreation department to see if they have any information on this. --Heah ^talk 00:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The picture is a mockup. The real thing (which can't be used on Wiki).

Another pic: http://www.kurtcobainmemorial.org/ -- ChrisB 01:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll email the responsibles of the sign ( [6] ) and I'll ask them for a picture that can be used on the Wikipedia. Let's see if we're lucky. --Greedy 01:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Mockup, developed by Paul Fritts and offered for free use via The Nirvana Fan Club fansite. (The sign does actually exist, but no other PD pictures are yet available.)

That is the caption of that picture, so the one who uploaded it knew it was a fake! --Greedy 01:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Check the edit date on the picture. I investigated and got an answer.

For the record, I wasn't the original uploader. It was fully deleted during Wiki's initial campaign to delete uncited pictures, before anyone knew there was a problem with the picture. I reuploaded it. (The current auto-deletion system gives more time to fix the problem before the pictures are deleted.) -- ChrisB 01:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Weird thing is, the Kurt Cobain Memorial Project also has the mockup photo on their site. [7] [8] Furthermore, their main page shows the whole sign being put up, when supposedly it was only the bottom part that was added (evidenced by the "before" photo). The nirvanaclub.com photo also seems artificial to me. I've found several news stories about the sign being put up, even on MTV [9]. So either this is a rumor gone wild, or the sign actually exists but for some reason there are only fake or dubious pictures of it. ironcito 07:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Not that it proves anything, but the article says they replaced the entire sign because the old one was rusting badly and had a bullet hole in it. (You can see the hole above the "r" in the mockup, and it's no longer there in the NC photo.) If the NirvanaClub photo is fake, then it means that NC and the KCMP are in on the hoax, as the NC photo was taken by a friend of the site's owner, not by the KCMP. -- ChrisB 19:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I Googled every possible combination of words I could come up with, and there seem to be only three photos of the sign on the internet. The one of the sign being put up, the fake one (edited and original) and the Nirvana Club photo. It's strange that such a symbolic place has been barely photographed, but the fact that there are several articles about it leads me to believe that it does exist. Anyway, I left a message in User:Georgiacmt's talk page. He lives "just outside Aberdeen, WA", and has contributed to Talk:Aberdeen,_Washington. BTW, the fake photo is also in Aberdeen's article and two others, so I'd recommend removing it from those too. ironcito 23:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The other option would be to leave the pics until we find a suitable replacement, clearly stating that they are mock-ups . . . --Heah ^talk 01:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Are there any wikipedians in the are that could go out and take a pic of it for the site (or is that not kosher). Well if it doesn't happen in a year or so ill take a pic when i go there during the summer (im a sophmore in highschool and im going to investigate university of seatle this summer or next summer) and when i do im gonna visit kurts home town (even though he hated it)--Ninandnirvana 01:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Note here[10]. In each picture, none of the foliage or trees around, behind, of in front of the sign in the first picture have moved in the time that the second picture was taken. And note that the 3 bars that connected the bottom part of the sign are missing also. LoZmaster 11:19 pm, 09-11-06 (-5:00 GMT)

Sex with Michael Stipe?

Seems doubtful to me, but an anonymous editor added "His wife Courtney Love has said that he has had sex with Michael Stipe of R.E.M.." Seems like Vandalism of course, but I didn't want to delete it outright, just in case it is true. Therefore I request a source. The editor has a history of both vandalism and useful contributions, so I couldn't be sure based on previous actions. Assume good faith and all that. M A Mason 17:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I've heard this before, so it isn't outright vandalism; but i certainly agree it should be cited if it is to remain. --Heah ^talk 17:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think it should be here at all. Even if Courtney said it, it's gossip. (And she's not the most reliable source on the planet.) Neither Cobain nor Stipe talked about it publicly if it happened. Courtney's initial comments on Stipe and Cobain were only that they were becoming good friends. Stipe told Rolling Stone that the two were simply starting a collaboration. -- ChrisB 19:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to comment; if there is a source for her actually saying it, then surely it's relevant to the debate over whether or not he was bisexual - true or not. It would of course need to be included also that Stipe has never confirmed it, and nor has anyone else. M A Mason 23:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The day you believe Courtney Love is the day where you will believe everyone.SFrank85 05:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Could we please stop the snide ridicule of Courtney Love. It reeks of misogyny, and frankly after twelve years, it's getting pretty old.--Pinko1977 02:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

"Misogyny"? Wow, I'd almost forgotten. 1995. "Guys only criticize Courtney because she's a strong woman." It has nothing to do with the fact that she often says things publicly that are either completely untrue or (at the very least) misleading.

The difference between now and ten years ago is that back then, a lot of women saw her as a role model. I have a feeling at this point that the percentages of men and women who think she's batshit fucking crazy are just about even.

BTW - the guaranteed way to encourage people to snidely ridicule someone is to ask them to stop. (It was going to stop on its own.) -- ChrisB 03:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to think that'll stop, but I doubt it. Folks will be trashing Ms. Love long after you and I are gone.--Pinko1977 05:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

If it's an allegation from his former-wife, then a mention with a disclaimer may be in order. The same has applied to David Bowie's article in the past (including his former wife's allegation of an affair with Mick Jagger). --AWF

WHY DID THEY REMOVE THE PIC OF HIM AT AGE 15?!?!?

Yo, why the hell would they do that?

It was unsourced! --User:Carie

Shotgun Devastation

I'm a bit concerned about Wikipedia's claim that there was no noticeable trauma to Cobain's head (or that he was initially "thought to be sleeping"). According to CelebrityMorgue.com, for example: "The shotgun blast destroyed his head to the point where he was not recognizable; the body was identified from fingerprints."

These allegations that claim only a trickle of blood was noticeable sound ridiculous at best. Keep in mind that death resulted from a close-range shotgun blast to the head. --AWF

Much confusion seems to be the result of the misplaced image of Kurt shooting himself in the head with a large, long shotgun capable of blowing heads clean off. In actuality, the shotgun used was a very small and light automatic shotgun loaded with possibly the weakest available shotshell at the time (20 gauge 2 1/2 inch Winchester AA with 7/8 ounce load of 8 shot and about 12 grains of powder, designed for skeet shooting and not hunting). Basically, this load is not much over HALF as powerfull (in terms of powder charnge) of what a typical hunting or home defence shotgun load would consist (comparing to 12 gauge 2-3/4 00 buckshot with 30 grains of powder). I think the result of no exit wound from the contact headshot and relatively little amount of blood visible in the scene (actually the SPD police report at page 3 talks about a "large drying puddle of blood", just that it was just below and left of the body, invisible from the French door windows, and not spattered all around from a violent cranial disruption) is entirely consistent with the loading used.

Also take note that the barrel lenght of the shotgun (Remington Model 11 Sportsman) was just 22 inches, with about 26 inches from the end of the barrel to the trigger, so considering that Kurt at 5'10" was close to average height and probably had arms close the average length of 23", reaching the trigger with the fingertips is entirely possible considering the mouth position being somewhat above the shoulders even when looking downwards. --85.156.128.99 07:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

In Heavier than Heaven, Charles R. Cross states thus: "Despite rumors to the contrary, the corpse was recognizable as Kurt [my emphasis], though the scene was ghastly: The hundreds of pellets from the shotgun shell had expanded his head and disfigured him." (Epilogue, p. 358) In this account, there is damage to Kurt's head, but it directly contradicts the account from CelebrityMorgue.com. I'll argue that Cross' assertion is more credible.--Pinko1977 04:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The electrician who found Kurt's body said that when he entered the greenhouse, it looked like Kurt was sleeping, and that he noticed only a trickle of blood coming out his right ear. I have this interview on videotape and can cite it specifically. (It was televised regularly during the weekend of Kurt's death.) I don't think any reasonable human being could confuse a person with their head destroyed for someone who was sleeping. Keep in mind: this is a person who ACTUALLY SAW KURT'S BODY. This isn't a third-hand report.

If that's not enough, the picture taken outside the greenhouse while the investigation was taking place showed no noticable blood or debris around his body. For a while, some conspiracy theorists believed that there wasn't a shotgun blast at all. (Richard Lee was the first to make that claim, as he actually climbed the tree with a videocamera and claimed that he saw no blood anywhere.) But that's kinda beyond the point.

I suspect most of the claims like that of CelebrityMorgue.com come from the fake autopsy photos that spread in the 90s. The most common photo claiming to be Kurt's autopsy photo was actually that of a Bosnian girl that had been hit by a mortar round. -- ChrisB 05:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm a noob here. According to police report reproduced on The Smoking Gun (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/kurt/kcincident3.html), there was a "large drying puddle of blood to the left of the victim" [Cobain] (in the photo, you only see the right) and "obvious trauma to the head". I think we can all agree that eye-witness testimony isn't one hundred percent reliable. My question, why would the police lie? What possible reason would they have to invent a puddle of blood or trauma to the head? And why should we accept the point of view of Richard Lee? Has anyone seen the video he speaks of? The only photo I've seen of the crime seen shows Cobain's right side and is was shot through a window. So no one should expect to see blood, or anything else. Further, I think this should be mentioned in the article (with a link to the documents on the Smoking Gun).Ingres77 07:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Categories?

Would anyone object to listing this article in Category:Unsolved murders?

-User:Carie

I think most people would, though there is evidence for a murder, there is no clear cause of death, ie it could have been muder or suicide - no one's sure. We can't say it's an unsolved murder if we haven't even decided it to be a murder. Many people do see the case as an unsolved murder but it doesn't make it so. Previously someone discussed a cause of death disputed category, which I would be very much in favour of. M A Mason 19:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I object. This "murder" theory is conjecture at best, and gross exploitation at worst. The last time I looked, Wikipedia was in the business of verifiable facts, not conjecture and rumors. And as far as the State of Washington is concerned, there is no dispute: Kurt Cobain committed suicide.--Pinko1977 20:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem with your argument is that the theory is emphatically not conjecture and rumors. Grant, Halperin, and Wallace have a great deal of evidence that legitimately questions the suicide conclusion. And, even if you ignore what they say, there are notable and obvious mistakes in the official police report (the door locks, etc). The Seattle PD walked into the scene, looked everything over, declared suicide (day of, mind you) and went home. When other evidence (such as the toxicology report and the firearm report that noted that there were no fingerprints on the gun) came in that questioned their conclusion, they refused to investigate further. "Suicide" was declared, not proven - there's a titantic difference. And their "proof" fails, given the mistakes.

By comparison, the people who conjecture that Kristen Pfaff was murdered have no evidence whatsoever, simply conjecture that she had cleaned up her habit and was in the middle of moving out of Seattle. Some people claim River Phoenix was murdered, but, again, there's no evidence to prove it, and everything available points to an accidental drug overdose. Those are drastically different situations than Cobain's.

At the same time, I strongly object to "Unsolved Murder" as well, for the same reason I object to inclusion in Suicide categories. Nobody can conclusively prove that it was murder or suicide. Many people are certain that it was murder, and many people are certain it was suicide. "Cause of death disputed" covers the ground without associating with any one person's point of view.

If there were a "suspected suicide" or an "officially declared suicide" category, I wouldn't have a problem including this article there. But declaring it either murder or suicide is POV, plain and simple. -- ChrisB 20:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with inclusion in the "Cause of death disputed" category, because the dispute about Kurt's death IS true---and yes, the official ruling of suicide by the Seattle police was made too hastily and is problematic (but don't expect a reopening of the case anytime soon. Cops rarely admit their mistakes.) By the way, I wouldn't cite anything that Grant, Halperin or Wallace have published. The "evidence" they've provided over the years is grossly lacking in credibility, and experts on toxicology and forensics have publicly questioned the validity of their claims.--Pinko1977 02:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What about Category:Disappeared people? Before he was discovered dead he was classified as a missing person, according to this article. --User:Carie

Disappeared category is for those people who never turned up.I.e., they can't be living people or dead people.

ConDem 03:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I fear that some people may take this the wrong way, but shouldn't this article be moved from Category:Entertainers who died in their 20s to Category:Entertainers who committed suicide in their 20s? He is legally recognized to have committed suicide. --DDG 20:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Birthplace Contradiction!

In the bio template, Kurt's birthplace is given as Hoquiam, while the article's body clearly states that he was born at Greys Harbor Community Hospital in Aberdeen. In fact, all reputable sources give Kurt's birthplace as Aberdeen. Can we correct this now?--Pinko1977 20:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the confusion is because his parents were living in Hoquiam at the time. But it's undeniable that Grays Harbor is in Aberdeen. (All you have to do is look at their website.) -- ChrisB 23:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Date of death?

Don't we know exactly what day he died? Why the circa? Ckessler

April 5th was estimated as the day of death by the Coroner's Office. We do not know for certain what day he died, but that was their best guess. (His body was found on April 8th, which is why a large number of Nirvana fans, particularly those who were fans at the time of his death, mark that day instead of the 5th.) -- ChrisB 06:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the death certificate states April 5th, shouldn't this be more correct then? -- 195.184.103.239

The date they used on the death certificate is the coroner's estimate. It's not like there's some magic death fairy that comes down and declares the exact date of death. They can't be 100% sure when he died, but April 5th is the best guess. (Take note that the death certificate says: "Pronounced dead: April 8, 1994".) -- ChrisB 21:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Pixies

There should be some mention of the Pixies in the Musical influences section. They're probably the most obvious influence on Cobain's style out there. There's a bit about it in the grunge article; I suggest using some of that info here. -- LGagnon 00:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity. Is Kurt giving the finger in the Hawaii photo with Courtney? Just because he was smiling..which kind of startled me for obvious reasons. If he is, it certainly wouldn't surprise me...

Eulogy

This is not an encyclopaedic entry, it's eulogy. Most amusing is the style of wording in the musical influences section: a fine art in sophistry to avoid saying he copied an awful lot from others, including Pixies, Killing Joke, Neil Young. Using words like "references", "influences" and "sincerity" doesn't escape the fact that he took entire riffs and chord structures from the aforementioned and was subsequently worshipped by many as a musical genius. I invite you to listen to Crazy Horse's "Mr Chips" and tell us all what it reminds you of.

Crazy Horse "Mr Chips"

Actually thats a Rockets song, before they became Crazy Horse

Murder Conspiracy Theory Rebuttals Section

With the murder theory contigent came the theory rebuttal contingent, explained notably on the cobaincase site, I believe. I'm thinking it would be fair to represent those arguments as well as the murder theory ones. I can contribute when I get a chance. NeoApsara 21:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy sounding El Duce depiction

El Duce was hit by a train while intoxicated. It certainly isn't as suspicious as the "unusual circumstances" description in this article makes it sound. It comes across a little too much like "he had evidence that Kurt was murdered, and then was killed in what was probably a murder". Surely some better term can be used. Why can't it just say he was struck by a train?

El Duce arrived home that afternoon with a man he claimed he'd just met. He said they were going to run down to the liquor store. Four hours later, he was hit by a train. The man he was with disappeared, and the police were never able to track him down or identify him. The police ruled his death an "accident". (Source: Halperin & Wallace, Who Killed Kurt Cobain.) That certainly qualifies as "unusual circumstances". -- ChrisB 19:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

That's what happened, it is indeed suspicious. Perhaps he was intoxicated. Read that section more carefully. The police investigation was not thorough enough, that's the whole point.

What made El Duce's death somewhat mysterious is, he was going drinking with a man he had just met. And then, 4 hours later, he ends up dead, hit by a train in a location 25 or so miles away from where he lives and hangs out. He went in the other man's vehicle, and so, that shows the oddity in it all. The liqour store was just down the street, but yet, the location of his death was far out of the way. -Emhilradim 22:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion?

Is there an actual reason for the article to have been effectively removed? Just says "infobox" instead of an actual article? More vandalism? It says the most recent edit was before 10 this morning, so I put in the version that existed before this revision. Inquisition 11:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Trivia: Corbain in other songs

Kurt Cobain is mentioned in a few other songs I know off, probably more. In the song Californication by Red Hot Chili Peppers he is mentioned, aswell in Am I High by N*E*R*D. Something to put in maybe?

Kurt's "other artwork"?

I really see no mention of some of his drawings and collages. I find some of his work that can be found on the internet pretty interesting, and probably should be made a note of, IMO. On the "With the Lights Out" dvd, there is a sample of some of his art in some sort of attic or small room all crammed together, some of which may no longer exist or still be in the Cobain estate yet to be released. Just something I'd bring up for future consideration...

ERic 06:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Change main picture

I was thinking of this pic:

[11]

Its on the In Utero tour with the angel wings behind him. I though it is really prophetic and iconic, and it shows a portrait of what Kurt Cobain really was.

Which we can't use because of copyright issues. We can use the current picture because it's the cover of the book Cobain: by the Editors of Rolling Stone. -- ChrisB 22:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

What has that got to do with it? I dont understand who it works

What's wrong with Image:Nirvana around 1992.jpg? It's the only free license image we have.--Fallout boy 07:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a little FYI for everyone out there, The Nirvana In Utero "Angel" is really a T.A.M. with super imposed wings. A TAM is a Transparent Anatomical Mannequin used for medical training purposed in the late 80's on. They have removable parts and lights that aide in teaching doctors where the different organs are etc.

http://www.ni.com/pdf/academic/us/journals/transparent_anatomical.pdf

I was thinking that we should use this pic here [12] Registered user 92 (talk · contribs)

Debunking the murder conspiracy

I removed this content:

Skeptics of the murder conspiracy theory question everything from the validity and significance of evidence pointing to a murder to even the existence of as much.

For example on the toxicology report, skeptic Charles Rollins points out that Washington State Law forbids unauthorized release of such information and holds therefore any mention of amounts of intoxicating substances should read as "alleged" amounts. He further contends that despite what a “toxicologist” reported, the amount allegedly found in Cobain’s blood would not necessarily kill him or induce a coma, citing research from the Jefferson Medical Center in Philadelphia (The persistent, dangerous myth of Heroin overdose, Stanton Peele, DPFT News [Drug Policy Forum of Texas], August, 1999, p. 5."), saying, “addicts could tolerate up to a nine fold increase in the concentration of their standard, already large, dose. These researchers estimated that a toxic dose of heroin would be at least 500 milligrams for nonusers and 1800 milligrams for addicts.” As Cobain’s tolerance level may have built up a resistance. Further, if indeed the coroner saw two needle marks in Cobain’s arms at the scene, then it logically follows that there was a point in time where the sleeves on Cobain’s body were in the very least moved up and that somebody there, possibly the coroner, had moved them back down before the photograph was taken.

Just a little FYI for everyone out there, The Nirvana In Utero "Angel" is really a T.A.M. with super imposed wings. A TAM is a Transparent Anatomical Mannequin used for medical training purposed in the late 80's on. They have removable parts and lights that aide in teaching doctors where the different organs are etc.

http://www.ni.com/pdf/academic/us/journals/transparent_anatomical.pdf

On the suicide note, the same skeptic holds that were there a forger, they would probably have made more of an effort to both match Cobain’s writing and to state directly that Cobain was committing suicide. Emotional states, as well as the effect of intoxicants settling in, could account for any perceived difference in hand-writing. Nonetheless, despite Grant’s opinion and apparent claims of possible differences by “hand-writing experts“, nobody has concluded it was a forgery and forensic document examiner Janis J. Parker determined the writing was that of Kurt Cobain (Crime Laboratory report, Laboratory No 194-12204 Agency case number 94-156500, 4-22-94).

This stuff is entirely misleading. For starters, the study that claimed "a toxic dose of heroin would be at least 500 milligrams for nonusers and 1800 milligrams for addicts" was performed in the 1920s. And that completely ignores the part where the study says nothing about "inducing coma", only about lethal dosage. The conspiracy doesn't claim that Cobain was killed by the dosage - using the study to debunk that doesn't make logical sense (and is original research).

And since when is the state of Kurt's sleeves an issue? He had to inject the heroin somehow.

Second, "nobody has concluded it was a forgery" is patently false. Grant claims it was a forgery, as do the experts he contacted. Maybe nobody official declared it a forgery, but claiming that "nobody" concluded it is simply false and deceptive. The assertions about Cobain's emotional state as he wrote the note is original research as well, unless there's some study I've missed.

Now for the irrelevant part: my own opinion about this. Frankly, I've never read Rollins assertions before now, but his overall assertion is insane. He starts his treatise by creating a straw man about the conspiracy. "Murder theorist seem to want reconstruct Kurt's image. They want everyone to believe Kurt was the 'Barney' for generation X." WHAT? There's some substantial fanbase that thinks Kurt didn't use drugs? And Rollins needs to spend half of his writing pointing out that he was?

I don't have a problem with including some content debunking the conspiracy. But any content along those lines should debunk specific points using specific sources, nothing like what was included here. There are also several notable points (including the issue of Kurt's arm length and the length of the gun) that were not touched on - targetting one element of the conspiracy and not the rest doesn't really do the job. -- ChrisB 23:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to remove the part about how Washington State Law forbids disclosing information about the post-mortem.

For starters, the study that claimed "a toxic dose of heroin would be at least 500 milligrams for nonusers and 1800 milligrams for addicts" was performed in the 1920s.

...And?

1) Heroin purity has changed since the 1920s.

2) Rollins himself notes several other studies that resulted in contrary results.

3) Given 1) and 2), providing that study as the lone supporting evidence is misleading.

The conspiracy doesn't claim that Cobain was killed by the dosage - using the study to debunk that doesn't make logical sense (and is original research).

The conspiracy theory claims a lot of scatter-shot things that form an incoherent scenario of events, half of which aren’t even listed here (which is probably so the conspiracy theory would seem half way plausible) among them the so-called “lack of finger prints” or “smudged finger-prints means they *had* to have been swiped“ myth. The point was the amount of intoxicants supposedly found in Cobain’s body would not necessarily kill him or render him incapable of pulling a trigger. As in, even if he’d those toxins in his body, he could still have shot himself.

Yes, but if you're debunking something here, it has to be the points being made here. Again, the studies you've mentioned do not assert that 225mgs would not have incapacitated him. You're drawing that conclusion, which is original research.

And since when is the state of Kurt's sleeves an issue? He had to inject the heroin somehow.

Kurt Cobain rolling up his sleeves, shooting up, and then rolling them down *is* how Grant characterizes the suicide claims. The counter-claim is that given how needle marks in each arm were identified at the scene, they would have had to have been up at some point … which means at another point, they were rolled back down. So we don’t know if Kurt was found with his sleeves rolled up; in fact the coroner looking at his arms can account for them being down. As in, it is just as possible, and by itself more likely, that Cobain didn’t in fact roll his sleeves down if he had to shoot up and pull the trigger as it is a whole county and police department and Courtney Love or whoever else have been hiding a big, big secret for over a decade.

But the claim is bizarre. Who's to say they didn't check his arms when they moved his body? The one published picture of the scene shows his right sleeve down. (Which, arguably, could have been the injection arm, given that he was left-handed.)

But that's beyond the point. The problem is that your explanation didn't debunk anything, it simply questioned an element of the conspiracy that isn't particularly notable, and could be supported by elements such as that photograph.

Second, "nobody has concluded it was a forgery" is patently false. Grant claims it was a forgery, as do the experts he contacted. Maybe nobody official declared it a forgery, but claiming that "nobody" concluded it is simply false and deceptive.

No, it is Grant’s admitted opinion that it was forged and other selective amount of “experts” have said anything from how they think its forged it it is indicative of beinf different but is too hard to make out (which can account for how it looks different). It, in fact, has not been concluded as forged … only suspected. You have whatever experts saying it looks forged yet without a comparative sample that went to determine by whom, but on the other, you have a forensic document examiner who in fact used samples and concluded it was that of Kurt Cobain. That is a legitimate point. Yet not only is it mentioned, but you deleted it completely.

Again, if you read what is written in this article, we attribute everything to Grant's claims, not to some conclusion of forgery. Additionally, the official report only says that the NOTE was written by Cobain - it does not go into details about the lines that Grant questions. Plus, Grant names the experts he talked to, and they actually have credentials. He didn't speak to "experts" in the generic sense.

The assertions about Cobain's emotional state as he wrote the note is original research as well, unless there's some study I've missed.

The idea that emotional states (which are known to affect hand-writing anyway) and toxicants settling in accounting for perceived differences in handwriting in Cobain’s letter can be cited to a skeptic who was posted on the rebuttal section on Justiceforkurt.com. Maybe you "missed" it, or maybe you just didn't think to consider it. If that falls under “original research”, it doesn’t make it an illegitimate claim but inappropriate for Wiki. However, it leaves this article highly disputed as far as neutrality in the context of the controversy itself as it does not represent it.

"inappropriate for Wiki" - this is what I was getting at. I can see it as an argument, but I don't recall anyone ever asserting it, at least not in Cobain's case.

Now for the irrelevant part: my own opinion about this. Frankly, I've never read Rollins assertions before now, but his overall assertion is insane. He starts his treatise by creating a straw man about the conspiracy. "Murder theorist seem to want reconstruct Kurt's image. They want everyone to believe Kurt was the 'Barney' for generation X." WHAT? There's some substantial fanbase that thinks Kurt didn't use drugs? And Rollins needs to spend half of his writing pointing out that he was?

You’re right. I don’t give a crap if you think anybody is insane or if you’ve read it before. If that were relevant, I’d have mentioned my opinion on Tom Grant. Second, you’d have a point had I included anything about what Rollins had said regarding how some people view Cobain, but I didn’t so quit throwing out red-herrings, or complain to the man who wrote it.

I said his assertion was insane. I didn't say he was insane.

As it stands, the section on the murder theories is insinuative, selective, and exclusive of other POVs.NeoApsara

The real problem is that there are nearly zero substantiated sources that support the suicide claim. I don't say that in a way to support the conspiracy - I say that simply because those sources don't exist. Even the Seattle PD failed to supply the reasoning for their conclusion, save for what we mention here - shotgun blast, suicide note, history of depression. And several of their assertions (in the official police report) are notably false. Beyond the official reports, we have Love's statements, plus those of a handful of observers like Rollins. (One of the removed assertions was attributed to "anonymous" - sorry, that doesn't work here.)

If you compare the evidence, the people on record about the conspiracy have credentials. Halperin and Wallace name every professional they spoke to and provide their backgrounds. The people debunking the case are almost entirely lay-people. Who is Charles Rollins? A musician. He is not an expert in any of these matters, he's simply offering his own analysis. He offers a number of opinions about varying topics on his website. The second notable rebuttal was posted anonymously. The only other person on record was a pharmacology student who dialogued with Robert Lewis about his independent study regarding the heroin levels.

Part of that is because those who believe Cobain committed suicide don't have the burden of having to speak to experts. The official report, even if flawed, concluded suicide. But it means that the people on the record who have verifiable credentials are on the record for their support of the conspiracy.

I'll admit - we're in a difficult position here. I do think it's worth adding some counters to the suicide claims. At the same time, I wholeheartedly challenge the assertion that this article is biased, given that we've properly attributed every claim to the people who said them.

Again, if you want to add statements debunking the conspiracy, provide information that challenges the points made here. Debunking points not made here doesn't really serve the article. -- ChrisB 03:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

“1) Heroin purity has changed since the 1920s. 2) Rollins himself notes several other studies that resulted in contrary results. 3) Given 1) and 2), providing that study as the lone supporting evidence is misleading.”

Heroin purity may have changed since the 1920s, but so have tolerances. All you’ve shown me is that I included an unrepresentative citation. The point is that its possible; there are several other just as likely things that could have happened then. Yet, you only will include the murder conspiracy ones.

And it still doesn’t account for how he may not have shot it all at once.

“Yes, but if you're debunking something here, it has to be the points being made here. Again, the studies you've mentioned do not assert that 225mgs would not have incapacitated him.”

I characterize it as being "skeptical", not debunking as they are just theories already, just long-shot possibilities.

Anyway we don’t even know they would have. We don’t even know there was that amount in him. If you read where I mentioned, there are other explanations if there were:

The 1.52 figure includes both free morphine and conjugated (metabolized) morphine. Only the free morphine figure indicates whether or not Kurt was dead or incapacitated. Morphine has a half-life of 2-3 hours. The police reports indicate two injections - one on each inner elbow - were found in the body. Perhaps he injected twice and the free morphine level had lowered enough by the time Kurt chose to administer a second injection, at which point he then decided to commit suicide. While the Dead Men Don't Pull Triggers essay discusses the total level and the purported lethality of such a high dosage, it doesn't eliminate the possibility of a case such as this and doesn't differentiate between free and metabolized morphine as we don't know those actual figures - and again, as long as the 1.52 figure cannot be confirmed, this is all speculation. It was also reported that Diazepam - Valium - was found in Kurt's system, but the amount is not known. This proves nothing. Diazepam has a halflife of 3-5 days; it is also given to heroin addicts going through rehab, so he could have taken it at Exodus. Additionally, he could have taken it on his own days before his death. The motive for potential murderers administering Valium into Kurt's system is illogical since they could easily just administer heroin until he was incapacitated.

“But the claim is bizarre. Who's to say they didn't check his arms when they moved his body?”

First you ask why it is an issue, now its "bizarre"? Please. The conspiracy theorists want to show murder, the burden of proof is on them. More appropriately, the question should be who is to say the coroner didn’t look at his arms, move his sleeves down, and then the picture was shot instead of it being that Cobain rolled them down himself? We know the paraphernalia was already messed with at that point. The point is, it is a possibility.

“But that's beyond the point. The problem is that your explanation didn't debunk anything, it simply questioned an element of the conspiracy that isn't particularly notable, and could be supported by elements such as that photograph.”

The conspiracy theory is just that, one doesn’t need to debunk some quasi-circumstantial evidence deemed questionable that hasn't amounted to a coherent, conclusive series of events. All of which you don't even include in the article (yet I'm supposed to provide for every point made). It provides couter-possibilities, explanations for certain things. Which are neglected in this article.

“Again, if you read what is written in this article, we attribute everything to Grant's claims, not to some conclusion of forgery. Additionally, the official report only says that the NOTE was written by Cobain - it does not go into details about the lines that Grant questions. Plus, Grant names the experts he talked to, and they actually have credentials. He didn't speak to "experts" in the generic sense.”

Mmm-hmm. Another analyst said there are indications but they could just as likely be because it is so hard to make out. Somebody else concluded officially that it was Cobain’s writing. What the other people say are just as important, yet you will only have what Grant and his buddies said. The lines Grant questions are part of the note and his claim is that the lines are forged. Grant names a selective amount of experts who apparently aren‘t bothered enough to go to the police. They are equally legitimate by themselves. Then really, I don’t see how I characterize them as having to do anything.

“"inappropriate for Wiki" - this is what I was getting at. I can see it as an argument, but I don't recall anyone ever asserting it, at least not in Cobain's case.”

I understand some things may be inapproriate for Wiki, which was why I had to do some work to find things that fit the criteria (indeed it doesn't dismiss the arguments though.). Did you actually go to where I said it was? It isn’t an assertion anymore than it being forged is as there were any number of experts who looked at it and claimed any number of things. Emotional states affecting handwriting isn’t something that needs to be studied, it is something known. Again the point is, it is very possible with Cobain … yet it isn’t even mentioned.

“I said his assertion was insane. I didn't say he was insane.”

I don’t care. Write to him.

“The real problem is that there are nearly zero substantiated sources that support the suicide claim. I don't say that in a way to support the conspiracy - I say that simply because those sources don't exist. Even the Seattle PD failed to supply the reasoning for their conclusion, save for what we mention here - shotgun blast, suicide note, history of depression. And several of their assertions (in the official police report) are notably false.”

As I have mentioned twice now, that Washington State Law forbids the release of such information, right? No, it isn’t Courtney Love’s super special powers that did it, it is a law. That is one reason why people question the levels of toxicants claimed by the conspiracy theorists in the first place, yet theorists take it as Gospel. It would have to be at Courtney or Kurt’s family’s discretion. Even if the cops did a shoddy job in some regards, not only is that not unusual but it still doesn’t mean they need to release anything just because a bunch of people think he may have been murdered. And again, the burden of proof is on the people who think he was killed; they are seeking “proof”, so of course only they will have selective amounts of experts. Then again, one needn't necessarily a "source" for some things.

“Again, if you want to add statements debunking the conspiracy, provide information that challenges the points made here.”

I have, but you treat the conspiracy “points” as facts, when they are just possibilities and just dismiss the other possibilities I put because, well, because you don’t like it or think it is “bizarre”. You already include that Krist and Dave have remained silent and it is “notable”, yet you don’t mention how Kurt’s sister and mother believe he committed suicide. The article is selective in what issues of the conspiracy theory are included as it doesn't include the myth about the lack of/smudged finger prints, the myth that somebody had to have taken his credit card (as if it couldn’t have been shared, used by phone, or stolen, and that it would be pretty stupid for a killer to go through all that and then leave a sloppy trail behind), you mention the theory that it was a “goodbye” note because he didn’t say he was dying (please) yet he doesn’t say he is leaving yet if you cite Dead Studies “Myths About Suicide Notes” then readers would see that saying, "well, I’m going to kill myself now” is not a hallmark (let me guess: it doesn‘t matter because its Canadian?), you don’t mention that lie detectors only tell what the person believes and they are unreliable, and then you misrepresent people who believe suicide only as because of the gun, depression, drugs and whatnot when it is clear there are several other possibilities for each facet of the murder theory. I understand if some you may consider OR, but they are valid explanations for murder theories. But it leaves this article POV and at least may merit a SectNPOV tag. NeoApsara

I dismissed many of the points you've made because they don't have anything to do with the content contained in the article. Furthermore, they do not have names attached to them. The rebuttal you're citing was posted anonymously and cannot be cited via Wiki guidelines:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources."

On the other hand, the heroin level figure was reported by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, whose reputation is not under dispute.

I do not appreciate the tone you've taken thus far. You accused me of saying something I didn't say, I corrected you, and you backhanded me with "I don’t care. Write to him." My intentions here are to help balance the article, not to be treated disrespectfully. (An apology would have been a significantly more appropriate response.)

I want to make this article as NPOV as possible. My goal is to help, not be berated.

Your arguments here have not related to what's written in this article. You've attempted to dispute the entire theory, which is not even remotely discussed here. Neither the fingerprints nor the credit card are even mentioned in this article. Disputing those points (and other points not mentioned in the article) does nothing to help balance the position taken in the article. Going on a rant about lie detectors and suicide notes serves no helpful purpose.

I refuse to get into a further discussion of the validity of the conspiracy. The conspiracy exists, people believe it, therefore it has every right to be included in this article. We've made every honest effort to cite specific people and their opinions, and to cite key elements that are still in question. As I've said already, I'm more than happy to add balance (and will try to do so in my next edit).

But discussion points should be on this article. Wikipedia is not the place to debunk a theory. It's an encyclopedia. The murder conspiracy is encyclopedic and deserves a fair, NPOV discussion.

If this discussion is to continue, your tone needs to change. Comments like "let me guess: it doesn‘t matter because its Canadian?" are insulting. You do not know my personal position on the conspiracy, and I do not appreciate words being jammed into my mouth. -- ChrisB 00:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

“I dismissed many of the points you've made because they don't have anything to do with the content contained in the article.”

That the law forbids release of details on the post-mortem has everything to do with it as it is a huge foundation on which the conspiracy theory rests.

“On the other hand, the heroin level figure was reported by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, whose reputation is not under dispute.”

“Reputation” has nothing to do with it, this isn‘t high-school. The law forbids such disclosure. We don’t even know if what they said is true, conspiracy theorists just accept it. You neglect to include that.

Reputation has everything to do with it. I quoted that piece below on purpose: Wikipedia only requires verifiable information from reliable, published sources. The Post-Intelligencer quote passes that with flying colors.

“Furthermore, they do not have names attached to them. The rebuttal you're citing was posted anonymously and cannot be cited via Wiki guidelines: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources."“

I understand that and I’ve acknowledged that some may not be appropriate for wiki, in this case the anon report, so please don‘t imply I didn‘t. The other one, however, does have a name.

Again, this is the problem. We need an actual source that challenges the Post-Intelligencer's statement. We can't include it without a source, and the anonymous source won't work. (And, even then, the anonymous source admits that the figure is "more than likely accurate".)

Additionally, while you see it as a key point, it's actually a secondary point as far as the article is concerned, given that there are people on record challenging whether or not the dose was enough to incapacitate him.

Here's one more completely irrelevant point given the above: just because it would be against the law for the Post-Intelligencer to obtain the toxicology report doesn't prove that they didn't obtain it. It's just a supposition. NOBODY has supplied reason or proof that the P-I invented the figure. Without that proof, it's original research and cannot be included.

“I do not appreciate the tone you've taken thus far. You accused me of saying something I didn't say, I corrected you, and you backhanded me with "I don’t care. Write to him."“

I made clear before that I’m not the person whom you should take issue with because I didn’t write what you deemed “insane”. My “misquoting” you was to illustrate my point about how I couldn’t care less about what you feel about the man who wrote it.

“Your arguments here have not related to what's written in this article. You've attempted to dispute the entire theory, which is not even remotely discussed here. Neither the fingerprints nor the credit card are even mentioned in this article. Disputing those points (and other points not mentioned in the article) does nothing to help balance the position taken in the article”

I didn’t include, in my original edit, anything about the finger-prints or credit-card. My point was here that you don’t even include everything about the conspiracy theory, and therefore it comes across as misrepresentative and/or selective. Like how you go on about who is an authority or not … yet you insinuate something by saying it is “notable” that Krist and Dave (band members) have remained “silent”. Yet, Kurt’s mother and sister, who are probably people who actually *saw* the real toxicology report, believe he did commit suicide. Your criteria seems shakey at best.

Take it how you want, but the point of "have remained silent" means that they're not on record questioning the conclusion of suicide. People often ask, "If he was murdered, wouldn't Krist or Dave say something?" Novoselic is not on record one way or the other, but has dropped hints that he thinks Kurt committed suicide. (Problem: he's not on record specifically, so mentioning it would be original research.) Grohl has essentially said that he didn't know Kurt well enough to make a judgement.

I haven't been able to find direct quotes of Kurt's mom or sister claiming that Kurt committed suicide. I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm just saying I don't have any that we can include. I know Kurt's sister spoke to Charles Cross and may have said something in Heavier than Heaven, but I don't own it. Kurt's mom flatly refused to talk to Cross. The only quote I have on hand is her quote to Grant about how she thought Kurt was killed before retracting the statement a few hours later after talking to Courtney, which is too odd and biased to use.

Furthermore, I would personally object to including such statements. Anybody can look at Cobain's history and conclude that he committed suicide. The only person who saw Kurt that week who's on record is Carlson, and he's on the record going both ways. Regardless, for each person who believes he committed suicide, there are just as many who didn't see it coming or don't believe he did, so adding pull quotes for or against doesn't make sense.

“I refuse to get into a further discussion of the validity of the conspiracy. The conspiracy exists, people believe it, therefore it has every right to be included in this article.”

You’re putting words in my mouth. I didn’t say the conspiracy theory shouldn’t be included. In fact I pointed out that not every element of the theory is included. The times I’ve addressed the theory or it’s validity as a whole were to illustrate that it isn’t a truth to be measured against; it is a possibility.

"Possibility" is not at issue here. Again, the points made in the article are specific points made by citeable sources. The "possibilities" you offer are not. That is the difference.

“It's an encyclopedia. The murder conspiracy is encyclopedic and deserves a fair, NPOV discussion.”

Indeed. But as it stands, it doesn’t seem to come across that way.

I reworked some of it. Any better? -- ChrisB 04:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

“Comments like "let me guess: it doesn‘t matter because its Canadian?" are insulting.”

Yes, it was in response to you changing your objection to an issue I present when I gave an answer to it. NeoApsara 00:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

“Reputation has everything to do with it. I quoted that piece below on purpose: Wikipedia only requires verifiable information from reliable, published sources. The Post-Intelligencer quote passes that with flying colors.”

You’re not understanding what I mean. I’m not suggesting it is inappropriate for Wiki, just that it doesn’t change the fact that Washington State Law forbids the release of that information. Washington State Law is just as reliable as a newspaper.

“We can't include it without a source, and the anonymous source won't work. (And, even then, the anonymous source admits that the figure is "more than likely accurate".)”

The Rollins guy references it and you can link directly to the law through the internet. It was apparently appropriate to include what band members thought and be insinuative, so I’m certain confused as to the criteria.

“Additionally, while you see it as a key point, it's actually a secondary point as far as the article is concerned, given that there are people on record challenging whether or not the dose was enough to incapacitate him.”

I know that. Toxicologists spoken to on Dateline saying he could very well have been capable of turning the gun on himself included. However, this is only going under the assumption that the figure is true, that he shot it up all at once, and that for each toxicant used the amount is correct. Yet another huge foundation on which the conspiracy theory rests. It is unfortunate if none of that can be included.

“Here's one more completely irrelevant point given the above: just because it would be against the law for the Post-Intelligencer to obtain the toxicology report doesn't prove that they didn't obtain it. It's just a supposition.”

Any number of things are likely: they heard a rumor, they sensationalized, they were told something to get them away (known to happen). But, indeed whatever. I understand.

“NOBODY has supplied reason or proof that the P-I invented the figure. Without that proof, it's original research and cannot be included.”

Nobody has supplied as much that the amount was in Cobain! The point is skeptics such as Rollins have said it was possible.

“Take it how you want, but the point of "have remained silent" means that they're not on record questioning the conclusion of suicide. People often ask, "If he was murdered, wouldn't Krist or Dave say something?" Novoselic is not on record one way or the other, but has dropped hints that he thinks Kurt committed suicide. (Problem: he's not on record specifically, so mentioning it would be original research.) Grohl has essentially said that he didn't know Kurt well enough to make a judgement.”

I understand if it isn’t important enough to include and in fact that is my thought about it as a whole, but my point is shouldn’t you just flat out state why it may be notable?

“"Possibility" is not at issue here. Again, the points made in the article are specific points made by citeable sources. The "possibilities" you offer are not. That is the difference.”

That wasn’t what I was discussing in that instance, I was trying to explain why I mentioned the validity of the claims at all.

“I reworked some of it. Any better?”

It is just fine, thank you. I actually thought about citing the Dateline studies (which included toxicologists, mind you) but wasn't sure how to go about it without having the names of the experts.

Could one at least be allowed to make a link section at the bottom titled “Skeptical of murder theory”? NeoApsara 14:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Who reverted it. Nick Broomfield's reasoning for supposedly not showing the film is completely taken out of context. I'm getting tired of the obvious corruption here. You say I am biased yet you emit incriminating facts.

Fact: The Rohypnol prescription was Courtney's Fact: Tom Grant found packets of Rohypnol when searching the Cobain home. Fact: Kurt Cobain had three times the maximum lethal dose of heroine for a 150 lb. severe addict, which would have rendered him incapacitated, and a gunshot to the head. It's called a "lethal dose" for a reason. Don't say "well he built up tolerance", as that was taken into account. Fact: Kurt's credit card was cancelled and his tires were slashed. Fact: While the accuracy of these tests isn't perfect, the tests on El Duce were administered by Edward Gelb, who ran the same tests on O.J. Simpson, whom he said failed the test quite badly. Needless to say he's a leading expetrt at these tests, and would thus use proper tactics and take the right factors into account. Fact: There were no fingerprnts on the gun. Fact: The last few lines on the supposed "suicide note" are identical to Courtney Love's handwriting. Fact: After years of consulting specialists about his debilitating stomach pain, he found a doctor who finally diagnosed the problem - a pinched nerve relating to his scoliosis. Once the problem was diagnosed, it became treatable Fact: Both his best friend and his grandmother noticed no behavioural pattern of suicide. He even arranged to go fishing with his grandfather. Fact: He was clean on the tour prior to his murder. Fact: He was preparing to leave Courtney, and that would mean significant financial complications for Courtney. Fact: On February 21st, 1994, Kurt spoke of stories he wanted to tell his grandchildren. Fact: Courtney produced a never-before seen second note to Seattle police, which she claims Kurt wrote in Rome during "his first suicide attempt". A police officer says it was not a suicide not, but rather a rambling and unflattering diatribe against her. Courtney admits the existance of this note in a December 1994 Rolling Stone interview, and to Tom Grant. Grant has her on tape saying that she burned it . Courtney says the second note also mentioned a divorce.

Now ask yourself these questions:

Why did Courtney pretend to be Kurt's mother when calling in the missing person's report to the SPD on April 4th?

Why did Courtney release that cropped image of Kurt with the toy gun, shortly after his death?

Why hasn't Courtney sued Tom Grant for his claims?

Why did Rosemary Carroll tell Tom Grant that Courtney had "no business in Los Angeles"?

If Dylan Carlson knew Kurt was suicidal, why did he buy the gun for Kurt?

Why did Courtney want to keep Grant on the pay roll and get him to sign a confidentiality agreement if he had openly admitted to her what his feelings of Kurt's "suicide" were?

When Courtney found out that Kurt fled rehab, why did she contact a PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR and not the POLICE first?

Why did Sgt. Cameron lie to Tom Grant about Kurt being barricaded in the greenhouse and that the little 'stool was wedged up against the door'?

That's all for now. It should be more than enough. Dead men don't pull triggers. Goodnight.

BMI / "Old Age"

We can't use BMI's database as a source. BMI's data is entered so that royalties are directed to the right place - it's not always accurate as far as composer information. (It's not uncommon to find titles in BMI for songs that don't even exist.)

But, furthermore, there's no reason to cite BMI.

Nirvana's version and Hole's version do not have the same lyrics. If Cobain gave the song to Love for Hole to use (it was released while he was still alive), the Hole credit would be accurate, particularly if it turns out that she really did write the lyrics. The Nirvana version is entirely Cobain-written, so there's no reason for it to be credited to anyone else.

There should be two BMI entries for the song, given its origins. The fact that there are two serves absolutely zero purpose in the article. -- ChrisB 20:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Obscure line

Grant also notes that the official report does not distinguish the questionable lines from the rest of the note, and simply concludes that Cobain wrote the note.

This is just silly: the lines were technically part of the note. The only reason they should be “distinguished” is if the reader found them questionable. This worded way POV. I’m still trying to figure out why Kim saying that in an interview is in any way notable.

This whole thing is still in desperate need of a POV tag, due to the way it is written and that if omits less-than-credible elements of the numerous murder conspiracy theories. NeoApsara 16:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Strangely placed sentence

The following two sentences are located in the Suicide Dispute section : Cobain would have had to fire the weapon with his toe, yet he was found with both shoes still in place. Critics, however, point out that Grant sold "kits" about the alleged conspiracy via his website.

These two sentences don't really flow well together. Just because Grant sold kits on his website that doesn't really disprove the previous sentence about Cobain's shoes. A separate paragraph should be written for critics of the suicide dispute. If no one else does it within a day or so I'll take a crack at it. Levid37 17:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a holdover from when the Grant section was a single paragraph. I believe it was part of the final sentence of that one paragraph. The arm length / shotgun issue has no clear counter from the critics, and I think that last sentence ended up there by default.

On that note, if anybody can find a verifiable (and sourced) counter to the arm length / shotgun issue, it's certainly worth including. -- ChrisB 23:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. It's a typical "change the subject, point the finger." tactic. They attempt to discredit Grant with a completely unrelated argument. Just because there isn't sufficient evidence to disprove what Grant knows to be true doesn't give editors the right to throw a tantrum and try to dismiss everything he's said based on an unrelated suspicion. Brad_2 14:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Template

The "guitarist" template is not appropriate here. Cobain was known as a guitarist, but he was also prominently (if not better) known as a songwriter. No doubt that if Rolling Stone decided to put together a list of the greatest songwriters of all time, he would be in the upper echelon as well (if not ranked higher). The guitarist template is reserved for musicians who are MAINLY known for their being a guitarist - Cobain is not MAINLY known as a guitarist. He is a guitarist, yes, but it was not his primary function in the band.

And, if it's filled out properly, the only difference between the "guitarist" template and the "musical artist" template is the "notable guitar" entry. Cobain used several different guitars; he wasn't "best known" for the 61 Fender Mustang beyond any other. Picking one guitar to be his "notable" guitar is wholly inappropriate and POV.

And please stop moving the picture of young Cobain to the top. I have no idea which Wikipedia template you're using, but it makes the page look absolutely ridiculous in the standard template. The wrapping gets thrown completely out of whack, it screws up the section break, and the "Edit" button for that section gets jammed down the page. -- ChrisB 16:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

'Kurdt Cobain'

About these edits:

I have a link to verify the alias, but you have none to dispute it. Could you provide one please? No offence, but I'd rather take the word of IMDB than someone who likes to vandalise the article: [13] [14]

Jibbles | Talk 20:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Kurt spelled his name "Kurdt Kobain" on the back cover of Bleach. That was his doing, not some "German journalist" crap. -- ChrisB 20:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

WordNet says:

The noun alias has one meaning: Meaning #1: a name that has been assumed temporarily. Synonyms: assumed name, false name

The adverb alias has one meaning: Meaning #1: as known or named at another time or place. Synonyms: a.k.a., also known as

Therefore, since Kurts name was spelt (for whatever reason) as Kurdt at some point, the name was assumed temporarily and is therefore an alias. Jibbles | Talk 21:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Kurt Cobain/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

I'll get started

"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.

David Fricke, "Courtney Love: Life After Death", Rolling Stone, December 15, 1994:

Courtney: "I can see how it happened. He took 50 fucking pills. He probably forgot how many he took. But there was a definite suicidal urge, to be gobbling and gobbling and gobbling. ... Yeah, he definitely left a note in the room. I was told to shut up about it. And what could the media have done to help him?"

In the weeks after Kurt's death, every official statement, including one from Nirvana's management, was that Rome was an accident. (See Cobain: By the Editors of Rolling Stone for more details.) At no point between Rome and his death did ANYBODY - doctors, news media, label people, Courtney, Nirvana, anyone - claim that Rome was a suicide attempt. Dylan Carlson, Kurt's closest friend, is specifically on record as saying that the first time he talked to Cobain after Rome, he was given no indication that Rome was a suicide attempt, and was not told so until after Kurt was dead.

And, for the record, you're entirely misinterpreting the statement. She didn't make this claim before he died, she made this claim AFTER he was dead. She retroactively declared Rome a suicide attempt where no one else had made the claim.

"Cobain had his first taste of the drug sometime in 1986, 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?

Come as You Are by Michael Azerrad, p. 41: "Meanwhile, Kurt had begun to hang out with a drug dealer named Grunt (not his real name). ... Grunt began bringing Kurt handfuls of Percodans, an opiate-derived painkiller, each in their little foil and plastic pouches, charging him only a dollar a day. ... One night that summer, Grunt and Kurt did heroin together. Grunt shot Kurt up."

The intention of "thanks" wasn't sarcasm. It was a note of credit - he was the reason that Kurt tried heroin. "Thanks" is often used in this context, and not for sarcasm.

"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.

There's a photocopy of the exact report in question in the back of Who Killed Kurt Cobain?. Grant is also on record about the missing person's report. So if you have a problem with Justice for Kurt as a source, we'll just simply switch it to something else.

This isn't an A grade article. It certainly doesn't deserve FA, and it wouldn't even get GA if you nom'd it for it. It's B/C grade. I'm leaning towards C, actually. Which is what i'm changing it to. --I'll bring the food 05:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

As per complaints of lack of time given to render adequate changes I have adjusted level to GA from A, and will adjust to C if the article fails to meet any kind of reasonable timely fixes to the problems above and others listed on the talk page required to keep GA which the article currently does not deserve. --I'll bring the food 02:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

So far, all I see is that you haven't done a significant amount of research about this situation and are using your limited understanding to gauge the POV status of the article. It is GROSSLY inappropriate to use the Good Article system to exact this kind of change. You could have gotten the same answers by posting these challenges in Discussion and allowed us to supply answers.

If you have any further questions about any of the content in the article, feel free to point them my way, and I'll answer them to the best of my ability. -- ChrisB 04:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 16:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)