Talk:Courtney Love/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Courtney Love. 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

KC suicide dispute

Does anyone agree that this shouldn't be on here? It really relates to the Kurt Cobain page, it doesn't really have an impact on Courtney's bio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickpeaface (talk • contribs) 17:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's thoroughly covered at Kurt Cobain#Suicide dispute. I've been talking with Cobaincase (talk · contribs) about this through email. We have come to an agreement that the prose about it is enough on the Cobain article, and unnecessary here. But he does want at least a link to the Suicide dispute section there which I added but it was reverted. I agree with Cobaincase that there should be some link of the evidence at least, because if there is enough verifiable sources and information to make a whole section about how Cobain's suicide is disputed and there is evidence to suggest Love was directly involved, there has to be some kind of connection here. This edit would be the bare minimum. -- Reaper X 05:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it should say 'dispute' on it though, because unless seattle police rule it as a murder or implicate Courtney, it's slander, which is obviously not appropriate. How about something that says "See also:Kurt Cobain Suicide"Chickpeaface 18:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)]

Well that would be a completely different matter to be dealt with on Cobain's talk page. -- Reaper X 05:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[removed comment violating WP:BLP and WP:NPA] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobaincase (talk • contribs)

As you have already been told, the alleged controversy surrounding his death is covered at Kurt Cobain#Suicide dispute, in a neutral, factual manner. It is not appropriate to cover it here, as it is very slanderous to imply that Courtney Love was responsible. You obviously are either a fan of or perhaps the creator of this cobaincase.com site, as you have named your Wiki account after it. Your edits are attempting to present the conspiracy theory as fact, and that is 'not going to fly here. Also, Please stop making accusations about other users' agendas, as continuing with that behavior is going to land you in hot water as well. Tarc 13:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I have already discussed this with you personally as well, Cobaincase. I'd also advise you not to accuse any editors of scandalous behaviour (see WP:NPA). -- Reaper X 16:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You'll find I don't have an email address available as I do not appreciate you cobaincase spamming my inbox with conspiracy theories that most people left in the 90's with the X Files. Why don't you put all this energy into a "crime" that actually happened? Unless seattle police rule it otherwise Kurt Cobain committed suicide, and putting so on Courtney Love's page to suggest otherwise is slander.Chickpeaface (talk) 11:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Have I spammed Reaper X’s inbox? I most certainly have not spammed yours, as you state, Chickpeaface.

I just want to have an intelligent debate.

[removed comment violating WP:BLP]

Then when I clarified the timeline by adding the date that Love read Cobain’s alleged suicide note, (alleged because there is much evidence that the last four lines were forged) and added the specific facts that Cobain died on April 8, Love played the recording of herself reading the note on April 10 (and that this was repeatedly played on MTV) and Love's debut album was released on April 12, this was also reverted.

Why?

I just clarified the dates and added the fact that it was played on MTV. The statement that the suicide note was alleged was also reverted, with bias, ignoring all the evidence of forgery.

All my changes were unbiased and related solely to Love and they were reverted by Chickpeaface who will not engage in a dialog with me and even goes so far as to accuse me of spamming her which is completely unfounded and insulting; "I do not appreciate you...spamming my inbox".

This is a site dedicated to the truth. Reaper X agreed that there "should be some link of the evidence at least, because if there is enough verifiable sources and information to make a whole section about how Cobain's suicide is disputed and there is evidence to suggest Love was directly involved, there has to be some kind of connection here."

Again, two highly respected, unbiased, investigative journalists wrote a book in 2004 which came to the conclusion that Cobain’s death was not suicide and that Love was directly involved, yet this information has being censored on Love’s page by Chickpeaface.

Is wikepedia about the truth, or is it a biased reflection of an unwillingness to look at facts.

If Cobain’s death was not at his own hand, and if Love was involved, he deserves to have the truth revealed.

Again all I did was remove the biased opinion that his death was not self inflicted, added a more complete timeline of Love’s pre-recorded reading, adding that it was broadcast repeatedly on MTV and that Love’s album debuted two days later.

All this was reverted by Chickpeaface in a biased attempt to keep people from learning the facts and making their own decision about Cobain’s death. I also added a link to his Suicide/dispute page and that was also reverted. --paultimmons (talk) 08:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources state that the official findings was that it was a suicide. You unreliable sources are given their due in Kurt Cobain#Suicide dispute, along with sources to counter their allegations. Du to policies regarding biographies of living persons, this info cannot be added to this page, unless it is ever confirmed that Love had a hand in this. Period. I believe that that is about as clear as it can be explained to you. Tarc (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I have opened a case at the BLP noticeboard, so we can hopefully put an end to this. Tarc (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Tarc, I couln't have put it better myself. Chickpeaface (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Chickpeaface never directed me to the policies regarding biographies of living persons. I am a newbie and respect all Wikepedias policies. I respect the policies regarding biographies of living persons. I believe that a New York Times Bestseller about Courtney Love warrants a mention on her Wikepedia page.--paultimmons (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The way the entire thing and the organizations that support it have become, instead of convincing people of the possiblity of murder, is anti-Courtney propoganda. The argument does not belong here and is a theory with heavy circumstantial evidence, which is not enough to convict someone and can be disputed in a court of law. Just because the book and theory is popular does not always mean it is a correct one. Theres many slanderous things said about Courtney after all and the media jumps on that, and frankly I do not believe Courtney can be as 'evil' as everyone potrays. They give her far too much credit in areas where they want to argue that shes something of a slut or make her look bad and do not give her credit where is due such as music and her band. I will say that at times she is somewhat of a media whore, but hey so is Spears, whose even worse in my opinion than Courtney has ever been. I think people need to leave her alone and let her be. She does play the widow and Kurt card every now and then, but theres so much more to Courtney than just Kurt or Nirvana. In fact she more of a household name than he is anyway.

Xuchilbara (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I said to Cobaincase that if there is going to be any mention of these allegations in this article, we would have to carefully craft it here so that we don't violate WP:BLP. If we were to do this, we must definitely include that these are allegations. Also, it should be short enough that it isn't a coatrack, and it relates directly to Love herself. Whether we should have it at all, I will remain neutral there. -- Reaper X 22:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. She, however, was on the verge of divorce w/ Kurt towards the end. (This is attested by Courtney more than once and I can obtain and provide sources if need be.) Maybe that should be mentioned, but w/ it Love also said she wished she had married Norton. It does concern the marriage portion at least.

Xuchilbara (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[removed comment violating WP:BLP]

In my last post I was very careful about following the rules for living people. The book was a national bestseller about Love by two highly respected investigative journalists from a major publication, Rolling Stone. There was a big controversy at the time and Love commented on the book in the press. In my last post (which was simply an addition to Love's page) I stated that it was controversial and that the SPD maintain that Cobain was a suicide. I feel that if the suicide controversy warrants a mention on Cobain’ page, it warrants a mention on Love’s in the form of mentioning a bestselling book about Love. I do not understand how that could be considered vandalism.

I could keep posting and change my ip address when one gets banned, it's not hard to do, but that's not my style. All this controversy on her discussion page tells people where to go if they want to search for the truth.

It seem like you are all big Courtney Love fans who maintain her wiki page and who just are unwilling to even entertain the theory that Love was involved at all.

[removed comment violating WP:BLP] --paultimmons (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I do hope you know that this is an encyclopedia, not a place for outlandish theories. Theres contradicting evidence to what you stated as well. Courtney was a drug addict you say? SO was alot of people hence all the OD in the Seattle scene among her peers, and even into more modern times like w/ Layne Staley's death. Let us not forget that Cobain was likewise a heavy user as Love was.

Hoke was sleazy and came from the streets, you, yourself cannot deny that his statements are questionable given his background. Frankly, i think you should stay off of Courtney's page and go to a real website to boast your POV of Kurt's death. If you have a disagreement, I would defenately say you can post it on my user page, rather than bickering on a talk page. You do not even take in consideration to what Frances would think of you talking bad about her mom like this, I think Kurt would be ashamed.

You also are not even remotely neutural, if this controversy is to be added in the article, it should be written from NPOV that reports facts about the allegations, rather than reposting "facts" of the theory. I hope you know you are not making the Cobain case fans look any better. Xuchilbara (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Removed "She then died in the mental hospital." from the end of the Marriage section. psycherhexic (talk) 06:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Scientology ?

She is listed in the List of Scientologists as a member of the church, but it is not mentioned here? Somebody who gives a dmn or knows better should look into the list or this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.150.115.219 (talk) 06:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Birth Name ?

Was her birth name Love Michelle Harrison or Courtney Michelle Harrison? The first paragraph says it was Love, second says it was Courtney. I believe Love is correct, but would be good if someone could provide a source to confirm this. 220.233.12.16 (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Love is not correct, the first citation uses California state records to confirm her birth name as Courtney Michelle Harrison. I've fixed the second paragraph -- Foetusized (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The Image Doesn't Suck Enough

Could we possibly get a blurrier image of the side of her drunken face? I think that would really help the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crash2108 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Somehow, I don't agree Chickpeaface 11:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I lolled. Wardrich (talk) 07:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

References at bottom

~~can anyone give me a hand with formatting these? somethings changed and they are making the page wide~~ thanks Chickpeaface 20:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Real quote?

There's a section, when she's on about her custom guitar, where she's quoted as saying "Also, I am a total hosebag" is this a real quote or vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.76.92.200 (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

i checked the source, and it's vandalism - i've removed it Chickpeaface 08:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

murder theorists

I don't think this is the place to replay all of that mid 90's speculation, so I've removed it. Chickpeaface 20:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

In 2004 Max Wallace and Ian Halperin, two highly respected investigative journalists from Rolling Stone Magazine wrote a book called, Love & Death; The Murder of Kurt Cobain, in which they implicate Love in Cobain’s murder. I suggest you read this book. This is not conspiracy theory from the 90’s. The Seattle police never even had a homicide investigator look at the crime scene. There was, unfortunately, a rush to judgment and many people believe a travesty of justice occurred. Just read the book or check out the websites http://cobaincase.com/ or http://justiceforkurt.com/. --paultimmons (talk) 08:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Do not remove my edits again, Chickpeaface. Neutral POV means NEUTRAL - not coming down on one side or the other regarding Cobain's death. To say "self-inflicted" is necessarily to VIOLATE the neutral POV policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.150.180 (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

My faverite was the user who said that the death certificate is not a final verdict. FYI if you did your research you'd know Courtney never allowed the certificate to be publically released, as per Seattle law. So we really don't know what it says other than "suicide". (And Tom requested the release of it, citing that if he saw it and it proved he wasn't murdered, he'd drop the case against Courtney. So, obviously its never been released.)

If the murder thing is to be added, it needs its own section. (Thats carefully watched like a hawk too) Maybe some thing like w/ Courtney's controversies. Of course this isn't her only controversy.

Other than that, stay away from the current section on Kurt's death. It is officially ruled a suicide, and despite popular opinion, in which wikipedia doesn't always take, its not the right verdict either. We also do not force our opinions about a giving subject onto a article. For example the murder theorists have a hated view of Courtney, while I don't. But I don't edit the article to reflect that either, neither should the other side.

Xuchilbara (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone wants to add a section about the cause of death controversy, that would be OK. But until then, it is a violation of the Neutral POV policy to declare in this article that Cobain killed himself, when that proposition is the subject of much controversy - and not just from "conspiracy theorists" on the internet, but in mainstream media, among friends of Kurt Cobain, etc. Jason2520 (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I mean hell, this is from the intro to the entry on Cobain himself: "On April 8, 1994, Cobain was found dead in his home in Seattle, the victim of what was officially ruled a self-inflicted shotgun wound to the head. In ensuing years, the circumstances of his death became a topic of fascination and debate." If the Cobain article is neutral on the suicide/murder question, why shouldn't the Courtney Love page be? Jason2520 (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPOV. It is inappropriate to insert viewpoints held by an extremely small minority of people. If you can find reliable sources, it would be appropriate to add it. However, Wikipedia is not the place for conspiracy theories. --Yamla (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

However, it IS a place for conspiracy theories to be documented, as they are of public note, regardless of if they're right or not. This particular theory has led to two published book, a feature documentary by Nick Broomfield, an investigation by TV show 60 minutes, and countless magazine articles. It's actually incorrect for these things NOT to be mentioned... provided it's done in a completely NEUTRAL way. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not "inserting" viewpoints, I am removing them. There is a huge difference, and this is not a matter of "conspiracy theories." I am alleging nothing, no conspiracy, nothing, just changing the article to reflect a neutral point of view. This article should not take a stand one way or another on the issue. As it's written now, it does - it affirmatively declares it was a suicide. If you're going to revert my edits, at least address the substance of my arguments here. All you've done is declare that it violates the NPOV policy, without backing it up. The article as written violates the NPOV policy and needs to be fixed. Jason2520 (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Cobain's death was ruled a suicide. By inserting "alleged", etc., you are implying that this may not be the case. If so, you require a reliable source. It's not a violation of WP:NPOV to claim that Cobain committed suicide if this is how his death was ruled. --Yamla (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not neutral to claim that Cobain was murdered. It IS neutral to say that conspiracy theories cropped up after his death. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

How about this: Love_and_Death:_The_Murder_of_Kurt_Cobain? A book published by a major publishing company which was on the NY Times best seller list. Is that good enough? Jason2520 (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Well? Unless someone can explain why this source is unacceptable, I'll change it back. I provided the information you requested. Jason2520 (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I question the book's reliability and neuturality. Like stated before Wikipedia is not changed to support a minority view point. The offcial verdict is suicide, theres evidence of suicide, that even comes out of Kurt's mouth! Please, refrain from changing his death ruling to fit your own viewpoint. It is not neutural, nor does it support the majority. (including his family). The offcial verdict, as it stands, should be on this page. Not someone's theory of murder. Give me conclusive evidence of murder. And I know you cannot, neither can Tom. Xuchilbara (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

1.52 mg of heroin per litre of blood —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.137.199 (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me try to help you out there: If you're a non-smoker and smoke a single cigarette, it will make you feel VERY odd. If a heavy smoker smokes two packs a day he won't feel anything. - What if you were to give someone who never drinks just one single glass of champagne ? This person will be drunk in no time. And what happens if you were to give the same glass of champagne to an alcoholic who needs a bottle of whiskey in the morning to feel "normal" ? He'll take the bottle champagne and still would want more.... Yes, the human body is a miracle. - DCEvoCE (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Jason2520, it is not good enough to use as a source to cast suspicion on Courtney Love for this conspiracy theory. Note that on the book's article that is says "...purporting to show...". As in, not definitive, only speculation. This cannot go into this article due to WP:BLP policies. Period. Tarc (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This is just going over old ground - and it's clear from this page's history wikipedia is not the place for it. Chickpeaface 19:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You people are absolute fucking morons. You said find a source, I found it, now it's not good enough because it doesn't prove the matter once and for all as if that would even be possible. Whatever. It's because of people like you that other people don't bother editing Wikipedia. Grow a brain, each of you. Jason2520 19:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I mean seriously: are you people brain damaged? Are you even native English speakers? Why is it so difficult for you to understand basic concepts of logic and apply them to the wikipedia rules? Where did you go to school? What rock did you crawl out from under? Jason2520 19:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to read WP:CIVILITY. Chickpeaface 20:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

All editors should know WP:CIVIL. Keep a cool head guys. -- Reaper X 22:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, Jason. Yes, you found a source. Of gossip. Mistertruffles 05:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Theories, gossip, rumors... call it what you want. There is no real proof of her involvement is Kurts death and in my personal opinion it probably was Kurts own decision. However, considering the amount of attention these "rumors" have gotten I think you can justify to mention these books (biased or not), at least in a couple of lines. I dont think that it deserves its own section, but a small mention to these controversies in the marriage section along with stating that the official verdict was a suicide, would be fitting in my opinion. What do you say? Krizzi (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The main problem with the murder theories is that they are entirely pseudo-scientific. They pretend to have a factual basis. Meanwhile, the truth is, a good biography of Courtney Love would in fact mention her unpopularity and the weird persistent public anger sent her way both during and after Kurt's death -- it's a fascinating part of her story. Unfortunately, wikipedia contributors seem incapable of walking the fine line between rumor and slander. And the whole story of the conspiracy theorists has always involved the desperate cover-up of the obvious lies and gaps of information in their case. Take for example El Duce - the conspiracy theorists use this guy as a source even though his entire career was based on lying to the press for fun. Not one of them mentions this. Instead, they speculate Courtney had HIM killed for talking! In Nick Broomfield's movie you can actually see him LAUGHING as he tells the lie to yet another rube journalist. No, there's no way to have the Kurt conspiracy theories up, because the idiots who propagate them will always pretend they've a factual basis. And they simply do not. 24.206.118.59 (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not a specialist in these theories and frankly don't give a damn about them. Conspiracy theories like this are usually build by people who want things to be like they think it is and take every little coincidence as a sign of the great conspiracy. However, just like the 9/11 and JFK assassination mention these popular (and questionable) theories, maybe there should be a link to Death of Kurt Cobain or Kurt & Courtney without discussing the theories on in this article. So, a little mention on Courtney unpopularity (get some source) and a link to another article, can we try that? Krizzi (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

From what I have seen, it is this edit that is constantly being reverted. I am somewhat neutral on whether the theory itself should be included here, but in my opinion, saying a book was published alleging Courtney was involved in Kurt's death is a fact, and passes WP:NPOV. The inclusion of this doesn't support the argument that there is a conspiracy. I'm not sure about including that it reached #18 on The New York Times Bestseller list, but this may suggest that it is notable enough to include. -- Reaper X 16:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability isn't the issue; the policies of WP:BLP are. This has already been brought before both the Biographies and admin incidents notice-boards, and it has been laid down pretty definitively that placing this info on this page isn't going to fly. Tarc (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

El Duce had a career appearing on talk shows saying ridiculous things like "I endorse rape" and bragging about fathering crack babies. He was just taking anyone who would believe his bullshit for a ride. Only a moron would not realize this. And only someone deliberately trying to deceive the public would consistently hide this fact. You can see his absurdist band pretending to be rapists and drug abusers on the old proto-Jerry Springer talk show Hot Seat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jswJ0r8BhBM

Hilariously, a member of Hole once dated El Duce. El Duce is just a prankster. Get a clue. As for the polygraph test, they aren't admissible in court, and Edward Gelb, the "leading expert" who administered the test, had a fake doctorate. Mistertruffles (talk) 04:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, I think El Duce may have been as really fucked up as he claimed to be. Consider the following video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ho2nK5IQs_g and listen to the screams of the women in the background, "Help us!". Horrible. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know what to say to people like you, who not only believe such a lousy actor as El Duce (his demeanor in that clip is so light and irreverent as to be laughable) but you'll also conjure up a fantasy that there is some tied up, tortured woman screaming for help while he barbecues on the front lawn. I listened on headphones and it is not clear what the girl is yelling, but it isn't "Help us". And clearly Nick Broomfield and the other guy who brought him there don't hear "Help us" either because they are smiling and chuckling. I've said it before and I'll say it again: he dated someone in Hole, he was a Jerry Springer-show prankster, and his band was all corny shock rock without ONE SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE that he actually lived a life that mirrored anything he said about himself. HE'S A F***ING WRESTLING VILLAIN... GET A MFING CLUE!!!!!!!! Mistertruffles (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Picture replacements, anyone?

That picture should really be replaced. It's so amateur and blurred that she isn't even identifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.149.131.145 (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well unfortunately, it is the only image so far that is free, because it has a Creative Commons licence, and therefore meets WP:NONFREE. -- Reaper X 16:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

there's an appeal for a free image on her official forums, so hopefully something will come of that Chickpeaface 19:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I uploaded one from Flickr yesterday. I'll put it up. -- Reaper X 19:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

that looks loads better ;)Chickpeaface 21:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

" don't think this is the place to replay all of that mid 90's speculation, so I've removed it. Chickpeaface 20:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)" Who are you to decide that? In that case I don't believe that this is the place to talk about a murderer, so I have removed everything and left what I think. Don't force your opinions on people when the truth is much easier to enforce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.117.167 (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection

I've requested protection again after the past few days activity.Chickpeaface 18:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It was removed by a bot right after, maybe proper format wasn't followed. I'll re-submit it. -- Reaper X 22:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

nice one cheers ;) Chickpeaface 22:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[the following user is indefinietely blocked] I do not request protection after the past few days activity. I would like to discuss this with anyone who wishes to. --paultimmons (talk) 08:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Warning

This article is a biography and as such comes under our policy on the biographies of living people. This is not a discussion forum. Pushing theories, conspiracies, and potentially libellous material will not be tolerated. Editors ignoring this warning may be blocked without further notice.--Doc^g 08:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that. However, I'd like to know why this same strictness of approach is not being applied to the Kurt Cobain page. Why aren't peoples' conspiracy theories confined to their OWN Wikipedia pages? If a private investigator is known for trying to advance a theory, why not print that theory in its entirety on THEIR page, given the lack of hard evidence in favor of it? Mistertruffles 05:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"Going solo"

The section should probably be renamed to "Solo career" or something along that line. The phrase is quite colloquial and unless it refers to a tour done by Love (Or of that nature) it should be replaced for being unencyclopaedic. Quite a minor issue really. Scarian ^Talk 22:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

How about "America's Sweetheart" to tie in with the album released at that time? Chickpeaface (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but remember to italicise it. Scarian ^Talk 17:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Opening Statement

I think the opening statement needs, I don't know, meat? But I'm not sure what do do w/ it. Suggestions? Xuchilbara (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Why does the introduction list Hole as "now defunct" Check the article on Robert Plant - no one says that Led Zeppelin is "now defunct". I think that negative phrase should be taken out. Even though it is literally true, the connotation seems to be that the band was minor and insignificant which is BS. -skip_ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.121.110.75 (talk) 06:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"Jewish?"

Are you serious with all these Jewish tags?? Courtney only tried Kabbalah for a short time and it didn't not work out. She went through a Catholic faize where she actually practiced the religion for a long peroid, unlike Kabbalah & Scientology. The way this is done, you might as well slap the article w/ every religion Courtney breifly attempted. She is offcially a buddhist, her myspace blog, and forum posts (which she posts herself) comfirm this and so do many other primary sources. Shouldn't the article reflect Courtney's real religion? She even has said herself that she went through the religions I named, but none worked for her, only Buddhism did. Xuchilbara (talk) 04:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

She often self-identifies as Jewish in terms of ethnicity, not religion. So, I suppose, it's debatable. 24.206.118.59 (talk) 13:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we get sources on that? Its news to me. And in any case, I think the Kabbalah tags should be removed. Xuchilbara (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a case where someone's own words may not be accurate, for whatever reason. Neither Love's father (Hank Harrison) nor her maternal grandmother (Paula Fox) were Jewish (Fox goes over her own background in her book autobiography, Borrowed Finery). The family tree by the usually reliable William Addams Reitwiesner (whose work has been cited in several newspapers) also shows no Jewish ancestry. Since it's not clear who Love's maternal grandfather was, I think this is a very tenuous claim and I would even go as far as to say that mentions of her ancestry should be removed from the article, at least for the time being. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 08:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Well it might be the at least one of her parents are only of partly Jewish descent, so that her own Jewish element is pretty distant, but i don't think she would just make up something like that, unless she was misquoted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.210.223 (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Love says in her interview with HEEB Magazine [1] that Paula Fox is her Jewish ancestor. She also discusses who her maternal grandfather was (without giving his name) but says he was not Jewish: "But, anyway, he’s not Jewish. I’m Jewish from Paula’s side." -- Foetusized (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, but Paula Fox is not Jewish; in fact, Fox writes in her book about how her Cuban mother was anti-Semitic. Hence my point. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

According to this article from a reliable source [2] (which is now a reference in the article), Paula's father Paul Fox was Jewish and the first cousin of Douglas Fairbanks. ~~This explains how she is Jewish from Paula's side of the family, but not Paula's mother. Point rejected~~ -- Foetusized (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I gained access to Paula Fox's memoir via Google Books and found the content about Douglas Fairbanks on page 37. Fox's paternal grandmother (Love's great-great-grandmother) Mary Letitia Finch, was the sister of Fairbanks' mother, who married an Hungarian Jew who then begat Fairbanks. Y'all are right; Love may think she's a Jew and be distantly related to Fairbainks (who was Jewish), but her family tree doesn't bear that out. I wonder how Love managed to read that book and come to the conclusion that she was Jewish -- Foetusized (talk) 01:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, that's what I thought - neither of Paula Fox's parents were Jewish. I think the whole ancestry thing oughtta be removed from the article, at least for the time being. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Dead?

Looks like vandalism.. Stonesour025 (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Whole article badly needs copyedit

They would hook up again in May 1991 at a Butthole Surfers concert. In November 1991, when Hole and Nirvana both happened to be touring Europe at the same time, they hooked up for good.

Especially considering the nebulous and varying colloquial definitions of "hooking up," I strongly suggest someone work on this, and on the rest of the article for similar reasons. I'm not against a slightly more casual tone/style here than in other articles in WP, but this example doesn't come off so much casual as it does 16-year-old's-drunken-phone-conversation-style, which is about as unencyclopedic as I can imagine in a scenario where actual words are still involved. Thanks so much! Sugarbat (talk) 00:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If it bothers you, consider fixing it yourself, instead of asking others to make the changes you desire. Thanks much -- Foetusized (talk) 02:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't do it myself until I finish w/another (long) article. I'll be glad to come back and work on this one laterish, but I don't think it's all that strange of me to suggest edits in passing; often I'll check the discussion page of an article, myself, before I make edits, especially w/r/t style/tone, to see whether there's a recent to-do list. Do *you* think "hooking up" is encyclopedic language (I'm just curious)? Ta - Sugarbat (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

When you said Courtney's relationship with Kurt was "prolific", did you mean "high profile" or something like that? Coz I don't think prolific means what you think it means... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deb White (talk • contribs) 03:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Questions about her early life

She at one stage lived in Nelson New Zealand and went to Nelson Girls college. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.91.184.4 (talk) 03:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Shortly after 9-11, Courtney Love was being interviewed on the Howard Stern Show. She claimed that she had served in a juvenile hall (juvvie) for shoplifting. She also said that she never completed high school. After 9-11, she said that she wanted to join the Marines, and that she had invested in the stock market (and lost $300,000) to express her patriotism. See http://www.marksfriggin.com/news01/9-17-01.htm#wed.

Is any of this verifiable? Rglovejoy (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Religion

Courntey is in the Category:Buddhist women, but she is also listed in the List of Scientologists based on "[...] and Courtney Love, who thanked the church in the sleevenotes of her America's Sweetheart album, are also followers" from [3].
76.29.59.179 said in this thread that the above comment was meant to be a joke. Does anyone have more definitive sources for Buddhism and/or Scientology? As it is I'd remove her from the list, since I don't think that "thanked the church" makes her a follower. --Amalthea^Talk 21:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, there's a number of sources saying that she is a "devout Buddhist", like [4] and [5], so she was removed from the list of Scientologists. --Amalthea^Talk 22:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts on this. I have been bothered by her inclusion as a Scientologist on List of Scientologists for a long time, but I could see that there were editors determined to keep her on the list, so I didn't try to remove her. I've never been convinced that she ever had any substantive involvement with Scientology. Candy (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Courtney's First Marriage

Maybe I just missed it, but is there no mention of Courtney's first marriage here?Pericolaso (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Neil Straus Connection

Courtney Love plays a pretty extensive role in Neil Strauss' book, The Game. She actually stayed at Project Hollywood for an extensive period of time. I think this should be at least briefly mentioned in the article.

The new album title, Nobodies vs. Nobody's

A user, Beautiful&Dying, changed references from "Nobody's Daughter" to "Nobodies Daughter". Anyone heard of this? I can't find mention of it anywhere online, but figured I'd check before reverting it all. Tarc (talk) 14:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

They also copied Nobody's Daughter to Nobodies Daughter so there are two separate articles, instead of renaming the existing article. They are using a scan of a photo spread from Elle magazine as the reference for the name change; I also can't find any online mention of the album title changing -- Foetusized (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I rolled it all back, and redirected the "new" article page to the current one. We'll see if reliable sources have something different to report in the future. Tarc (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Time in Japan

On the Graham Norton Show last night Courtney Love said that after she was rejected by the Mickey Mouse club she moved to Japan where she was a stripper at 13 years old. Does anyone know if it's true, or was it just a story she made up? ABart26 (talk) 04:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha she obviously made it up. Courtney Love talking is not the best source for Courtney Love information. --Agusk7 (talk) 02:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I have heard from Taiwan-based expats that she was a stripper here at some point. Anybody know where this talk is coming from?Dawud (talk) 02:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I've requested temporary semi-protection for the article, after a week where over 50% of the edits have been vandalism from brand-new and anon editors, including several WP:BLP violations of the "OMG SHE KILLED KURDT" variety. We can re-request this after the initial five days are up, if the vandalism starts back up -- Foetusized (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism???

I don't know if this is vandalism or a legitimate mistake, but under family background it states: "retaining no contact with her birth father or her birth mother, who she discovered was the children’s writer Andreas Stylianou"

Jewsih heritage

can someone categorize her as jewish american musicians? it is already known that she comes from a jewsih family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samanthacohen (talk • contribs) 09:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

She does NOT come from a Jewish family, nor does she have any know Jewish! She was claiming at one point that her grandmother Paula Fox was Jewish, and that turned out not to be the truth.(24.62.224.219 (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC))

This was already discussed above at Talk:Courtney_Love#.22Jewish.3F.22

The link for Andreas Stylianou is to a male "Cypriot Football Player", not to a female children's writer. I don't know enough to edit this since I don't know what is fact and what is mistake or vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.196.61 (talk) 03:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It was rather obvious vandalism, which I reverted before I saw this comment. Perhaps it is time to consider semi-protection again -- Foetusized (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Summerhill School

Why no mention of Summerhill? Courtney talked of it at the Oxford Union so I came to Wikipedia to find out more and there is no mention of it. I don't like to edit "other writers" pages so discuss it first. Whoever looks after this page can you please put in about Summerhill. With links to Summerhill_School please. 86.129.205.114 (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC) sorry wasnt logged in Robotics1 (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobody's Daughter - Hole Reunion Edits

I copy-edited this section per the rules of WP:MOS and noted in particular that a citation is needed to the forthcoming appearances. I did a second edit to follow up that removed the Template:Copy edit tag that was in place from June 2008. I assert that this section is now grammatically and MoS compliant and no longer requires copy editing. I believe that the capitalization of the section headings throughout in this article are not completely MoS compliant but I will fix those under a different edit. If there are any objections to the removal of the Copyedit tag, please bring them to my attention. Xblkx (talk) 03:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Name change?

According to the BBC News, Courtney Love (which is a stage name) is changing her name to Courtney Michelle, her given first and middle name. The article is here, and as of now has not been retracted: [6]. This was reverted based on a Twitter post (diff & diff). My main question is, since when did Twitter become a "better cite" than the BBC News? -- Foetusized (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, CourtneyLoveUK is Love's verified twitter account. Primary sources are discouraged for analytical or opinionated matters, but for something factual as to what her name is, I think we can go with it over the BBC. Old Media, even in their digital presences, can still be glacially slow in reacting to breaking news. Btw, MTV has a bit on this now as well. Tarc (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The name change thing was jumping the gun, but criticizing the source (NME via BBC News) was also a mistake -- Foetusized (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Killin Kurt

How come there is nothing on her killing Kurt Cobain. There is a published book as a source and you can't say that it is just rumors because regardless it is a published source and if it is not good enough then why not delete the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_and_Death:_The_Murder_of_Kurt_Cobain. This article is very biased and I get labeled as vandalising the page. You guys should really fix it I tried wikis be bold thing and got put as vandalism. So yeah go do as I demand and write something up or give me a logical reason as to why there can be no mention of her possible involvement. Cocobain (talk) 04:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Because it is idiot, tabloid-ish rumor and innuendo unfit for an encyclopedia. Many people come to the Wikipedia to push their favorite tinfoil conspiracy theories, whether it is Obama is a secret Marxist Muslim, we didn't really land on the moon, 9/11 was an inside job, or Courtney killed Kurt. No serious reliable source treats your pet theory and anything other than the fringe piece of lunacy that it is, and we have firm policies here against including spurious material about living people. I hope that clears some things up for you. Tarc (talk) 04:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Concur. Additionally, this editor's choice of username should be looked at in relation to his edit of this article. ----moreno oso (talk) 04:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

So a published book is not considered reliable and regardless of whether or not it is true there is still viable sources and evidence pointing to it just because it can't be proved does not mean it should not be mentioned if it has a source http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4645881/. Yup you are right there is no place on wiki for conspiracy theories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories. Seems pretty biased to me and my name comes from KoKo B. Ware and if that calls for investigation lets look into your name Moreno Cocobain (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

May I remind you that the edit that you made to the article was to replace the entire lead section with a "she killed him" one-liner? Discussing the alleged controversy is fine when done in the proper place, i.e. the Death of Kurt Cobain article. The problem is that you seem to be here to push the allegation as fact, and that is simply not going to fly here, especially on Love's own article. Tarc (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I don't know how to edit articles well I did that to get some normal editor to edit it better also in the talk I never said it was fact I said it was worth mentioning and this seems the proper place as it is about her on her article. Cocobain (talk) 18:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't forget to publish some lovely facts about Jamie Lee Curtis being a hermaphrodite and Lady Gaga having a dick while you're over on their pages. Mistertruffles (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"Kurt & Courtney" BBC Documentry

I started to watch this show because of the Nirvana connection, but about half way through it really turned into an indictment of Courtney Love.[[7]] I have no idea if this set out to be a hit piece or not, but so far as I could tell the film maker was just looking to find mutual friends to get info, until almost each and every one described Love as such things as "a harpy",Kurt_&_Courtney "a Vampire". Everyone who knew them then, (even her father) almost without exception said she was someone looking to use others and eventually caused the death of Kurt Cobain, if not killed him herself by being such a shrew. The most striking comment came from someone who seemed to count himself lucky to not have ended up like Kurt[[8]]. He said "what else could Kurt have done living with her". The implication being it's better to blow your brains out than to keep living with Courtney Love. In my opinion there are evil people in the world who are the equivalent of parasitic or a "vampire", but for her sake I sincerely hope Courtney love is not, or at least is no longer the person who is described in this documentary. One way or another maybe a local D.A. should have a talk with her. --A. Renner 16:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renner8592 (talk • contribs)

Guitar equipment

Anybody has any information about her guitar/amp equipment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.130.143 (talk) 13:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

She commented about her article

"She also sounded off on cleaning up her messy Wikipedia page: "I just want what awards I got . . . who I [bleeped] -- on the record -- or who said nice things about [bleep ing] me. And how many hits I've had. And that's it." [9]

Making chronological of the main article

I'm against making this article unreadable, and a user has decided to do just that (IMO). By attempting to put the subject's entire life story into one simple timeline, the article's readability and usefulness as a Encyclopaedic article has been compromised (again, IMO). What's changed: The "Personal Life" section has been deleted, with occassional bits and pieces from it interspersed with information about her career and album releases. This has led to discussions of her religion being placed into a section called "Solo career" and horrible passages like this: "Love was released from house arrest on February 3, 2006 ... Love, a practicing Buddhist, credited the religion as having "saved her life" following the rehab and house arrest.[11][89] Love has been quoted saying that she began practicing the religion as early as 1991.[11]"

Should an item about her being a practising Buddhist be placed in the timeline at 1991? Or in the timeline at 2006? The author who attempted to merged these two sections apparently can't make up his mind. It's now an unreadable mess IMO. I suggest a new formatting so that items are placed into individual sections (e.g. "Career", "Personal life", etc.). Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Unreadable? Wow. Really? It's pretty cohesive as far as I'm concerned, and another user on the talk page contested to that. Considering you haven't even placed your complaint where it belongs on the talk page (at the bottom, not the top— we do this chronologically, kind of like a timeline), I'd say you have no right to criticize my "obliteration" of the article. If you're going to complain about the fact that she publicly talked about the religion in 2006 (I can't find a source dating back in the '90s where she talked about it— if you can find it, COOL), then change the sentence. Don't come on here and sassily complain about how I ruined the article. There are countless articles on Wikipedia that read like timelines— it's a form of organization. If you break up a person's life into categories, it tends be nonlinear, confusing, and overall— messy. Look at the Lindsay Lohan article; it's Good Article status, and in timeline format. It's simply cleaner. In reality, I didn't change THAT much from the original article. I simply took out the unorganized Personal Life section and placed applicable info into the timeline, and deleted poorly sourced and gossipy material. Unless you can come up with other examples of how I made this article "unreadable", aside from my mentioning of her talking about her religion in 2006, I see absolutely no reason why it should be entirely reverted. Scottdoesntknow (talk)

So I can't complain about you messing up the Courtney Love article... because I placed this comment at the top instead of the bottom? Right. Also, yes, the Lindsay Lohan page is freaking nightmare to quickly get information from. In fact, it is a terrible article in that respect. You have to read the entire thing before you can get information on anything. It is however a "Good Article" is because it meets the standards for a good article... which are to do with having a clear writing style, have stable, non-changing content, and, of course, having good, verifiable sources. It is not considered a "Good Article" because it reads in a chronological manner(!). Sorry to piss on your (undoubtedly) hard work, but I hate the chronological format when it comes to people, for very obvious reasons: It forces you to read about aspects of their life that you may not be sourcing in order to discover the thing you are looking for. (For example: If I was researching Lohan's struggles with the law, I would have to read the entire 5000 word article to be sure I hadn't missed anything. Whereas if commonly sought after information is grouped together, it saves everyone a lot of time.) Secondly, chronological life-stories are IMPOSSIBLE to maintain as later revelations may effect huge portions of the article. As a minor example of this: Courtney Love's religion. Does the information go in her "timeline" when she actually joined that religion, or when she revealed her religion to the public, or when she found that religion helpful? It makes little or no sense to read someone's life story, when suddenly, in chapter 10 it goes, "Oh yeah, by-the-way, 20 years back she started following this religion, which she says helped her through some stuff at this point in the story". I realise this is a matter of taste, and you have undoubtedly worked hard on the article to try and improve it. I myself had begun getting involved in the article when suddenly my changes were removed as part of an "improvement" that I disapprove of. So I was especially annoyed. I do realise that you're only trying to help, however. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary

The wiki page of Courtney Love is downright unnecessary. There are so many things about this page that are irrelevant. There are entire sections that need to go. This doesn't look like the wiki page of an actor or mainly, a musician. That's why that entire "Personal Life/Beliefs" section needs to go, especially health. There's no reason for a health section or the emphasis of the custody battle, it just needs to go. Whoever is writing this page is being unfair and does not like this woman. It's not right. I would really love to clean up this page and I promise it will be as professional as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faithful87 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks like just about any other artist/musician/actor entry on here; all the entries that are in the "Good Articles" status are descriptive like this, because they're supposed to be. An article won't achieve GA status if it doesn't have enough of the content, and the goal for most all articles is for them to be of at least GA or featured status, if possible. It's an encylopedia, and the subject of the article (Ms. Love) HAS had a pretty interesting and eventful life, so there is a lot of information out there that has been compiled on here. I agree that it could be slimmed down a tad in areas, but to completely erase the "Personal life" section sort of goes against all the rest of Wikipedia's articles. To delete all of the information about her health and legal problems wouldn't make much sense, as it WAS part of her life. I have helped contribute to this article myself and I have nothing against Courtney Love, I'm actually a fan of her and her music. Take a look at Axl Rose's wiki entry as an example for a musician article— it's achieved GA status and it looks pretty darn similar to Courtney Love's page, only it's even more explicit with its information on his drug use and whatnot. This article already has a lock on it because Wikipedia has deemed the subject as "controversial", so you have to be an established editor to even work on it; they do this to avoid vandalism on the page. I think the article is pretty fair— it highlights the good and bad parts of her life, but never emphasizes or unfairly weighs them against each other. Scottdoesntknow (talk)

But where is the "Personal Life" section for Madonna, Lady Gaga, Michael Jackson, Christina Aguilera, Britney Spears, the list goes on. I don't see a whole section dedicated to Britney's or Mariah Carey's breakdowns. These artists are proof that there doesn't need to be a personal section about trivial things like Twitter rants and lawsuits. Some of the things about her paint her in a negative light. The article is not fair because it's highlighting more bad than good - it's effecting Courtney's life. There's too much about her early life and there's too much about her court troubles. Where is the bulk of the woman's career? The Live Through This section highlights most of her feud with Kathleen Hanna! The career peak of 1989 - 2001 is completely put on the back burner for her troubles with the law and tweets and irrelevant things. God forbid someone highlights the failures of Christina Aguilera, Mariah Carey, and Britney Spears on their wikipedia pages - but not Courtney, she gets 10 pages worth of really hideous information that isn't worth putting up. I understand what you're saying but if the woman is having trouble getting a house because of wikipedia, it's a problem and I think it can be solved pretty easily. Cut the woman some slack. All I want to do is make sure people know that she was one of the greatest female rock singers of all time, we need to emphasize this. Instead, this page makes her look like Anna Nicole Smith, it's just not fair. The entire beginning of the article is WONDERFUL. Her early life, it's a great read. But it's strange, as her career starts moving, the article just goes downhill. It's random and scattered. And there's nothing on the main page about her musical influences, guitars, legacy. I have tons of things that I'm writing and would like to add but I just really don't believe that all of that stuff is necessary. Personal Health? If you need a Personal Life, I think a fair one would be along the lines of "Courtney has 1 kid, lives in New York City, is a practicing Buddhist, married Cobain, dated Edward, e.t.c" But personal health? That's embarrassing. Please, please help me out. - Chameleonmarke

Firstly we do do negative stuff, and make no bones about it. We are not here to be "fair" but to neutrally present whatever information is available. (see WP:TRUTH).
Secondly, I do agree that some of her personal life stuff is undue and unnecessary in the article. But not all of it; her relationship with Cobaine is intensely significant and definitely should be mentioned.
Wholesale removal of those sections is not the right response. I'm adding it back and suggest you cut specific parts that you feel are unnecessary. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I read this after I edited it, my apologies. As said, there's plenty of celebrities and musicians who have been through worse things than Courtney Love and don't have an entire section dedicated to it on their wikipedia page. There's not even a personal life section for LINDSAY LOHAN for christ sakes. I mean, this page is missing about 15 years worth of drug abuse, lawsuits, and controversy that happened in the 1990s and the only reason why it's not on this page is because it hasn't been posted on a gossip blog in the past 2 years. I could understand if everything was here - but it's not, which to me, shows laziness and lack of actual interest in the article. It just boggles my mind that her awards, achievements, musical style, influences, and influence is being traded in for "personal health" and her being confused on Twitter about Prop 8. The article reads like a tabloid. I didn't say that there shouldn't be negative stuff - certain things need to be mentioned, but no, this article is not neutral. This article highlights on the negative things and brushes off her actual career. Little paragraphs about her albums and films and then novels and essays about drugs and a bunch of irrelevant stuff that's happened in the past two years. And to top it off, it's sloppy, scattered, and poorly written as if every time Perez Hilton writes a blog about her, it's copied and pasted anywhere. At least clean it up. The 5 paragraphs about her 2003 - 2006 drug cases could be summed up in 1, the whole suicidal/Kurt Cobain ashes thing is irrelevant, Relationships & Family could be put together and be shorter - but there's just no point in this stuff. It really deserves an entire section? Yet Britney Spears has had probably one of the biggest public meltdowns in the history of celebrity media and its summed up in 1 paragraph on her wikipedia page. The way this page is, if Courtney had done that, there would have been a whole "Head Shaving" section with a novel about it. She's "Courtney Love" - the big ol' rock widow junkie - which means every single detail (or at least the easy-to-find details you can find on gossip sites) has to be emphasized. This article is sensationalism. It reads like a blog, not a resource for information on one of the greatest women in rock music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chameleonmarke (talk • contribs) 11:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Similar content is in the Lohan article, just presented as more of a timeline (it depends on your point of view which is best.. I prefer this way a little more TBH). As to the rest; I agree. But cutting the content is never the answer; go ahead and try a rewrite to shorten sections, I will try to have a look too if I get time :) --Errant ^(chat!) 11:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, and how about adding her accomplishments, influences, musical style, e.t.c? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chameleonmarke (talk • contribs) 19:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Re-reading the article, I did in fact notice some of the trivial information (mostly post-2000) that was on here, and I agree with Chameleonmarke to an extent. I'm a huge Hole/Courtney fan, and I saw something on her twitter about how awful she thought the article was— and if, as Chameleonmarke says, it's actually becoming a problem for her in terms of financing a house, I feel obligated to brush it up a bit for her. I didn't delete hoards of information that could possibly paint her in a bad light, but I did take out things that were misreported by the media, are unsourced, or make absolutely no sense. I reformatted the entire article so it reads like a timeline now, and took bits from the "Health, drug use, legal issues" section and placed them into the timelined sections where they belong. I trimmed down a lot of stuff also, and bulked up the content on Live Through This and its significance in her career. The main problem I had when trying to rewrite this stuff is that there is a grey area— I didn't want to go TOO heavy on the music/album specifics, because there is room for that on the Hole wiki and the individual album wikis— so I sort of opted for an overview of each album, with critical responses and Love's current state of life at the time these albums were released. The America's Sweetheart and "Health, drug, legal" sections were horribly unorganized, so those have been trimmed down and re-plotted in the timeline. I did the same thing with the "Personal Life" section, pulling out information from it and entering it into the timeline where it applied, so the "Health" and "Personal" sections are now gone. I must say, as a long time active editor on this article, it DOES look and read better. You'll have to let me know what you guys think. I wholly agree on Courtney's significance in pop culture, because she IS a queen among queens in rock music, so the article should at least be decently presented. Not that all of her woes and drug abuse should be shoved under the carpet, because, well— we all know it happened. She's even really open about it. But entering every single little detail is a waste of space. I see that another user tried to enter a whole section dedicated to the "Activision lawsuit" with Guitar Hero over Kurt Cobain, which is ridiculous and has essentially nothing to do with her. I cut that as well. If every single lawsuit and media report on Courtney Love were to be added to this article, it'd be tedious, probably misreported, and, in all honesty, neverending. Anyhow, let me know what you think— feedback's great. Scottdoesntknow (talk)

I think what you've done with it is fantastic. It's cohesive and very well written. Thanks. I actually spoke with Courtney about the page, that's why I came here. I think you did a good job. This looks like the page of an artist! ~ ChameleonMarke — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chameleonmarke (talk • contribs) 10:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Activision Court Case

Is the Activision controversy of Guitar Hero REALLY necessary, ESPECIALLY in her "Personal Life" section? First of all: there WAS NO COURT CASE. It was some comments made by her that were re-published in the press. It never went to court, and I really don't think it deserves an entire paragraph, let alone its own subheading. It's trivial and all does in the article is tether her to Cobain's name and add to unnecessary controversy and give spotlight to Nirvana. THAT'S WHAT THE NIRVANA ARTICLE IS FOR. It's pointless information, especially in an encyclopedia article, and ESPECIALLY in a "Personal life" section for her. Likewise, all the sourcing for this Activision case is used with bare URLs. See: Personal life
Also, the "Health, drug abuse, and legal issues" has been re-added to the personal life even though it's summarized in "The Letterman Years" section under her career, and it is also mentioned in her "Personal Life" section already. All this does is cause redundancy. It also doesn't present an overview of things, but rather highlights as much of the drama in her life as possible. It's already mentioned that she was a heroin addict, and that she had problems with prescription drugs and cocaine in 2004-07 (That's what "The Letterman Years") section is for, and it's all cited in the "Personal life" section as it is. It appears that he's taken the choppy section and re-pasted it into the article. This article will never have a "Good" or even "Featured" article status if people continue to add unnecessary information that breaks the flow of it and adds redundancy.

01:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottdoesntknow (talk • contribs)

You have requested a third opinion on this while no second opinion is even involved? You needn't have. Three days have passed an no one likes to object you. Hence, proceed to edit the article to your liking per WP:SILENCE. If you wish, you can wait more before assuming silence and consensus, but I think a 3O is unnecessary here. Fleet Command (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW -- Courtney's declaration to sue was publicly announced in major news outlets across the world. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

"The Letterman Years"??

Why is this under the "Music" section? It apparently deals with her public breakdown, drug usage and arrest (and why is it called "The Letterman Years" anyway? Only Love refers to the breakdown that way... This isn't her personal blog). Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, she does refer to the breakdown as "The Letterman Years", and it's been noted that way by various publications. It's not blog-esque, it's simply words drawn from the subject's own mouth that describe the ordeal; hence, the quotation marks. It's under the career section because it had a big impact on the album she was making at the time, so it only would make sense to be mentioned under her career. It is further noted in the Personal Life section where her drug problems are discussed, explaining the charges of prescription pills and cocaine. 07:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No mention of her impending lawsuit?

Perhaps it's worth mentioning that she's the target of a "groundbreaking" lawsuit regarding her Twitter "rants"? Links:

Maybe someone wants to write something about this? Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 04:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Heading under photo incorrect

The name of the place where Courtney Love is playing in the photo - incorrectly spelled Ottowa- is actually Ottawa. One of Canada's most prominent cities. Spelling it correctly is important.

(Allababy (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC))

Childhood photo on early Grateful Dead album

An unhappy looking five year old Courtney Love appears in the foreground of the B/W group photo on the rear side of the early Grateful Dead album AoxomoxoA (spelling ?) Documentation can be found in the Wiki article on the album ( "Courtney Love on Grateful Dead Album Cover", Snopes.com and others). I think that it's an interesting fact that could be worked into the paragraph on her childhood or listed as a trivia item. I am not adding myself as the article is semi-protected but perhaps someone who is more vested in the article will add. Seki1949 (talk) 02:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Rolling Stone and The Guardian

Either Rolling Stone said that or they didn't. The former wording seemed to be trying to suggest that a foreign left-wing newspaper couldn't be trusted - in which case why are we including the quote at all?