Talk:Suicide of Kurt Cobain/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Focus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Death of Kurt Cobain"　for some reason it is now called "Suicide of Kurt Cobain"--Timtak (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Tom Grant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Sources

To add more thorough detail to this page, and to hopefully help some of the complaints, I am going to add some different sources than Grant eventually to help add more depth to the whole article.Pericolaso (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

IPatrol's revisions

Wow, perhaps IPatrol can explain to everyone here precisely what the supposed 'POV' was in my only two edits to this article?

1. I first rearranged the order of a few sentences because someone left sentence fragments and other bad grammar and an improper citation (ok, so first I have a POV against improper English ;-) ).

For example, the article read:

Before he elected to end his life, Kurt Donald Cobain had become a sad caricature of the tortured , addicted artist. Miserable in the glow of success, his was a life of pain and suffering. Despite incredible talent and timing, Cobain's 27 years on earth ended in surrender and a hopeless defeat.[3]

There are several things wrong with this blockquote:

(a) No quotes were around that, so it looks like the encyclopedia (not Furek) is making these insults like "sad caricature"; so, when was the last time you've read a non-wiki encyclopedia that would say such a thing, unless quoting someone, and MAKING IT CLEAR that someone (Furek) is being quoted?? It also draws the conclusion that Cobain "elected to end his life" and other spurious conclusions (spurious = no facts, to support some of what Furek says, are IN THE ARTICLE), whereas I thought this article was supposed to be a BALANCED analysis (of those who say Cobain was a suicide versus those who say he was murdered). As long as it's not made clear that this is Furek's opinion, it will only make people take Wikipedia less and less seriously.

(b) Furek's name (let alone his background) was also not stated in the article when someone attributed that blockquote to Furek using a ref tag. Give the readers a transparent source instead of making readers click the ref tag, to go into the footnotes (which themselves STILL don't tell the reader who Furek is).

(c) hmmm, I was also never taught to put a space BEFORE a comma, but the fact it says "tortured , addicted" is not the main point here, and this is very minor (relative to these other things I corrected, and IPatrol reverted)...

(d) Also notice how the subject-matter that Furek discusses doesn't match the subject-matter in the sentence before Furek very well; someone spliced this in, so that we get subject A, then Furek, then we go back to subject A: This paragraph reads, "Cobain himself mentioned that his stomach pains during Nirvana's 1991 European tour were so severe he became suicidal and that taking heroin was "my choice. I said, 'This is the only thing that's saving me from blowing my head off right now.'"[2]. [And then it snaps right into the sentence...] Before he elected to end his life..." The subject-matter of the whole rest of the paragraph also has nothing to do with Furek and the text I blockquoted above: Isn't it proper writing technique to group together several sentences that relate to one another into each paragraph...or did I land on bizarro world? [IPatrol's world, since he apparently couldn't see what I was doing? ;-) ] ) a paragraph or two after it says "Cobain himself mentioned that his stomach pains..." there is another sentence related to Cobain's STOMACH PAINS; instead of a paragraph or 2 down, this sentence about stomach pains should be placed immediately after "Cobain himself mentioned that his stomach pains...".

2. In the same edit, I also questioned the relevance of even including the quote that I blockquoted above, because it:

(a) is made without noting in this article what Furek's expertise is, nor even mentioning Furek's name at all. It just appears as if out of thin air.

and (b) doesn't really provide us with objective info on the death of Cobain, just one man's opinion (Furek's opinion). It also doesn't show the reader Furek's evidence (or lack thereof) for WHY Furek would hold such a strong opinion, and if you're going to do that, why not include "Cobain was an 'asshole' for committing suicide[4]" with footnote number 4 reading: "Courtney Love's eulogy for Cobain, wherein she provoked the crowd to call Cobain "asshole". xD The point is that spurious opinions like name-calling are not often encyclopedic, even if you do cite the source. However, I didn't question this relevance in the article nor did I delete it despite that the article still does not even tell readers what the relevance or expertise of Furek is --nor that it's even Furek who is saying this-- since IPatrol reverted my edit that linked to Furek's website and I told readers of the article WHO this sentence is being sourced from.

Go on IPatrol, leave the article so readers like me shall say, "Hmmm, why did someone randomly insert an analysis of Kurt Cobain's life and death, written by a guy named Maxim Furek without stating who the hell Furek even is?? Is the average reader supposed to magically know who Maxim Furek is??" (So I have a POV against leaving improperly cited, non-sequitor subject-matter that was thrown hurdy-gurdy into an encyclopedia article. ;-) )

3. Then my second edit (and if you disagree with this edit, it's not a good reason to revert my last edit) was to remove someone else's 'POV' (yours, IPatrol? or just someone you agree with?) and keep readers from being shortchanged: Namely I gave MANY reasonable possibilities --since I don't have a 'POV' about this death nor adhere to ANY SINGLE ONE of those those possibilities-- rather than letting the article state that Cobain's gun had the ejection-port facing the opposite direction as where the shell casing landed (note that the important thing here is the article doesn't then state that this is not good evidence for either murder or suicide. A gun's ejection-port facing away from the spent shell in a suspected suicide is not 'spooky' because:

(a) someone can drop a gun and/or jerk uncontrollably in their final moments, inverting that gun by 180* which puts the ejection-port opposite the shell casing,

and/or (b) witnesses or rookie cops can accidentally (or purposely of course...) tamper with evidence before detectives arrive (as well as so many other possibilities besides these two),

or (c) a murderer could place it there to fake a suicide...and I included this last possibility of it being a murder along with the first possibility (suicide) because unlike someone here, I don't have a POV about this death. All of these possibilities should be pointed out, whether they support murder or suicide. Otherwise the article is shortchanging the readers. This article simply doesn't link to evidence to support whether a, b, or c, or something else altogether, occurred (and I doubt it ever will, as you'd need ALL the crime-scene photos, pathology, police reports, etc...and then even with those, the direction of the barrel versus the shell casing might prove inconclusive; readers should be told that a shell that's in the opposite direction of the ejection-port doesn't always imply murder; barrels get turned around for many other reasons). Frankly, I wasn't the only one who thought that as it reads currently, this passage implies Cobain was murdered.

(As people can see: First I challenged the quote from Furek that implies Cobain was suicidal, but does that mean I have the 'POV' that he was murdered? NO, because then I challenged the implication that the gun's ejection-port should look suspiciously like a murder; so like I said, I have no POV about "Death of Kurt Cobain"; I'm agnostic. For the good reasons stated above, I've challenged BOTH sides...but certainly not the entirety of either side's position because they both MOSTLY made good, valuable points; I've only challenged these 3 minor issues because they're messing up a perfectly good article.)

My only 'POV' is in having a good article: removing sentence-fragments, improper citations, and not letting readers infer that something implies "murder" nor "suicide" about a shell found opposite an ejection port.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.196.211 (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me, or should a good article on a human being not contain his DATE OF BIRTH?!! C'mon guys - is this amateur hour?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.100.134 (talk) 23:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

This should be merged

i suggest that this article be merged with the main Kurt Cobain article—Preceding unsigned comment added by KeeganBraunsdorf (talk • contribs) 18:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

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

I agree Mr. R00T (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC).

Antisemtism

im putting the label on the theories since fans are blaming courtney love, which is of jewish heritage. this is an insult towards jews as we are agin blamed for something of this obviousness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samanthacohen (talk • contribs) 09:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Dude, that ISN'T funny...a lot of Israeli zionists actually do act like that. Haha. 124.169.119.39 (talk) 09:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane ^ What? 207.138.198.54 (talk) 02:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Love has a bit of Jewish background. It is not enough to classify her as "Jewish" or a "Jew". She was NEVER raised in the Jewish religion and to say she is completely ignores her other ancestry. Love is NOT a Jew60.224.160.192 (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Has any of the individuals blaming Courtney made reference to any level of Jewish Heritage? This wasn't a blood libel, it was an accusation of personal motives to want someone dead. Not every crime has a racial or ideological motive, claiming so is more likely to create division and lead to provocation of those inclined to antisemitism going on to commit an actual hate crime. If we have quotes of people saying "That Jew (possibly followed by some slurs and insults)..." Then yes we have antisemitism and the statement was more likely motivated by that then theories on Kurt Cobain's death.Czarnibog (talk) 10:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Merge Page

I'm just saying, but, isn't this a bit redundant with the page Kurt Cobain? Can't we just merge them? Mr. R00T (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC).

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

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

Awful

This article is terrible and should be deleted. The idea he was killed is not mainstream or plausable and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.31.89.112 (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

I agree the article is awful. The unbelievable murder theory need to be toned down if not completely deleted. Having these lame alternative theories through out the article makes this look like someone's school paper. And also can be borderline libelous for pointing the finger a people with nothing more than a quote. --MarsRover (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

All one has to do, is surf the web casually for a few days, searching for "kurt cobain" sites , youtube, etc. you will find literally millions of people saying that they believe kurt was murdered. So having done this for a few years now, I am witnessing the FACT that there is a HUGE amount of controversy about this. A huge number of people apparently believe he did NOT commit suicide, and often allude to the evidence collected by Grant and others: so therefore this article is both mainstream and plausible to large numbers of people globally. Not to mention, that this subject has been extensively covered by mainstream and alternative tv, radio, and other media, including full length tv programs such as "Unsolved Mysteries", etc. which is definitely mainstream. Meat Eating Orchid (talk) 09:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Layne Staley

I put this in the "Impact and Copycat" section: "On the same day, 8 years later, fellow Seattle grunge musician Layne Staley died of an overdose of a speedball. The coroner estimated his death on the same day as Cobain." Should I add more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narisguy (talk • contribs) 22:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE

Too much space (undue weight) is given to the fringes theories here. There is 10 times more space given to conspiracy theories than to the consensus of reliable sources. Any uncited material needs to be removed, and any cited material of fringe opinions needs to be moved to a separate article on Conspiracy theories surrounding Kurt Cobain's death. See WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. 121.45.42.140 (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed 100%. I have added a few more rebuttals to balance it out. 60.224.160.192 (talk) 08:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Death of Adolf Hitler which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

What was on television when Kurt Cobain died?

I've heard some sources that the Nirvana song, "Floyd The Barber" references a fictional and gruesome death to The Andy Griffith Show's Floyd Lawson and that re-runs of The Andy Griffith Show were playing on television when Kurt's body was found and may have been the last show he ever watched and last thing he saw when he was alive. Is there any truth to this at all or is just pure speculation? 65.87.41.8 (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Ridiculous - this needs to be deleted

The theory section makes up over half of the article, and is almost all sourced from the "Justice for Kurt" website. This does not belong on an encyclopedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Drown Soda (talk • contribs) 09:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree this article gives undue weight to minutiae and quotes from unreliable sources. Worse still is the tone - many parts of it are written in the format of rhetorical questions designed to lead the reader to a conclusion the author believes are obvious - "why would he do this unless...?", etc.. This format is extremely unbecoming of an encyclopedia and should be revised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.87.253 (talk) 10:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Yes, this does need to be cleaned up a bit, but at the moment it is being made arguably worse by yet another tinfoil proponent, Sleazemetal84. This needs to be reeled in quickly; an online encyclopedia is not a 2nd publishing house for "justiceforkurt.com"'s lurid conspiracies. Tarc (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Tarc, first off, you say I'm a “tinfoil proponent,” which I believe is some slang for 'nutcase conspiracy theorist'. Also, 'whackjobbery' has to be a similar jargon slang. Either way, using them in a sentence is truly evident of your lack of literary and grammatical skills.

Here is the full script of my contributions, with the rhetorical questions brushed off:

Michael "Cali" DeWitt

Had a job as the male nanny for Cobain's daughter, travelled with them, and lived in their Seattle home. Showed up in L.A. to talk to Courtney on April 7, a day before Kurt's body was discovered. Cali was also in Rome with Courtney when Kurt had the Rohypnol / champagne overdose accident.

Cali's note

Cali left a note on the main staircase of the Cobain home on April 7. The note was found by Tom Grant and Dylan Carlson when they went to search the house for the second time, around 9:45 PM. It wasn't there the night before. Grant and Rosemary Carroll agreed that it sounded phony, and it was placed there for him to find. The note read:

"Kurt- I can'’t believe you managed to be in this house without me noticing. You’'re a fuckin’ asshole for not calling Courtney & at least letting her know your ok. She'’s in a lot of pain Kurt, and this morning she had another "“accident”" and now she'’s in the hospital again. She'’s your wife & she loves you & you have a child together. Get it together to at least tell her your o.k. or she'’s going to die. It’'s not fair man. DO SOMETHING NOW.”"

After Kurt'’s body was found, Grant met with Cali in Los Angeles. Cali said he was hardly at the house from Monday on although he did say he had gone to the house a few times between Sunday evening, April 3, and Thursday afternoon, April 7. According to his note, Cali "“couldn'’t believe”" Kurt had been in the house without him noticing.

Cali told Grant that Kurt had come to the house on early Saturday morning, April 2, after he left the rehab in Los Angeles. He claims he talked to Courtney on the phone and told her about Kurt'’s arrival at the house later that same day. Cali also told Grant later that he did no’t see Kurt after he left the house that previous Saturday morning.

When Grant was in Seattle on Thursday, April 7, Cali told friends he was leaving for Los Angeles. Grant never got to see or talk to him while he was in Seattle, although Courtney called Cali to let him know that Grant was coming to Seattle to search for Kurt.

According to Cali'’s note, he believed Kurt had come back to the house. Cali later claimed he stopped staying at the house because Courtney kept calling to say she knew Kurt was still there. Yet, Courtney apparently did no’t notify Grant and others to watch the house during their surveillance on other locations in Seattle.

DeWitt & Carlson speak

Rosemary Carroll told Grant during their first meeting, that on Thursday morning, while Courtney was at her house talking to Dylan on the phone, she overheard Courtney say, “"Be sure and check the greenhouse.”" Since Courtney directed Dylan to check the greenhouse, Grant was skeptical as to why she had not asked Cali to check the greenhouse in the past few days.

A few weeks after Kurt's death, during a meeting at Grant's Beverly Hills office, Cali claimed he checked the greenhouse on Sunday, April 3, but did not check it again. "It's just a dirty gross little room," Cali said.

The truth is, the greenhouse was a rather large, clean room. It measured 19 feet by 23 feet.

In the May 11 issue of The Seattle Times, Dylan Carlson told a reporter he didn'’t know the greenhouse was there. "“For all the times I'’d been there, I didn’'t even realize there was a room above it associated with the house.”" This contradicted the conversation Grant had with Dylan in the car on the day Kurt was found.

Again, the rhetorical questions could have been brushed off, such as “why didn't Cali stay in Seattle and help with the search, etc”, which I pretty much just copy-pasted, due to laziness. My intent was not to make the article worse, but merely to supply information related to the article.Sleazemetal84 (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

(Removed. Tarc (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC))

Again, the rhetorical questions could have been brushed off, such as “why didn't Cali stay in Seattle and help with the search, etc”, which I pretty much just copy-pasted, due to laziness. My intent was not to make the article worse, but merely to supply information related to the article.Sleazemetal84 (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

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

References

Fan Writer

Please delete the paragraph: After Kurt'’s body was found, Grant met with Cali in Los Angeles.[34] Cali told Grant that he was hardly at the house from Monday on although he did say he had gone to the house a few times between Sunday evening, April 3, and Thursday afternoon, April 7. In addition to the questions raised by the note Cali left, one would have to wonder why he didn'’t look in the greenhouse? Kurt had been in there for several days before his body was discovered! According to his note, Cali "“couldn'’t believe”" Kurt had been in the house without him noticing! Why would Cali find it so hard to believe Kurt had been in the house if he wasn'’t there most of that time?

The exclamation marks are an opinion of a fan and cloud the no-nonsense approach of this site. I was a seasoned writer for Uncyclopedia and now have my own comedy website. I cannot stand personal opinions in a factual setting. The man killed himself, end of.

Daniel Ashton User: Pianoguy1981 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pianoguy1981 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Article protected

This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the WP:BRD guideline. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution (WP:DR). Mark Arsten (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

2015 Quality Update

The concluding statement in this article's previous bid for deletion was that the article needed cleanup "soon" in order to stay here. This was in November of 2007 and the resounding issue was undue emphasis on conspiracy theories. I've added a cleanup tag regarding this (and similar discussions below), but seeing as it's been nearly eight years and the issue has not been resolved, I will soon propose a merger to the main article unless there are objections. Antinate (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please review this link: http://www.alternativenation.net/dave-grohl-talks-about-kurt-cobains-death-calls-it-heartbreaking/

At no point in this article (or the short 4-minute interview it links to) does Dave Grohl come close to saying "I believe Kurt killed himself" or anything similar. In fact, in the interview he says, "I have as many questions as anyone else".

If the claim that Dave Grohl believes Cobain's death was a suicide cannot be corroborated, it should be deleted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.244.152.161 (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

--As far as I know, both Grohl and Novoselic have always believed it was a suicide. That is why they have never publicly commented on the murder theories- they don't want to fuel the speculation that he was murdered. He had previously attempted to commit suicide, and Courtney didn't know (for certain) that he was at their Seattle home at the time of the suicide. People contributing to this article should bear in mind that his death was officially ruled a suicide by the coroner. So, officially, and according to the most important people concerned (band members, close family members- Novoselic, Grohl, Love), it was a suicide. No theory can be proven absolutely, but the facts met the legal standards of the coroner.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.211.116.185 (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Silence does not default to agreement, regardless how publicly large. 9/11 lies, Iraq War, Vietnam, JFK, Hitler, etc are met by silence and by default complicity perhaps, but not agreement. JasonCarswell (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

So if the other members of the band are silent, then where is the reference supporting Grohl's purported comment? William Harris • (talk) • 07:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

New documentary "Soaked in Bleach"

A documentary from 2015 called Soaked in Bleach should be added to the section "Books and Movies on Kurt Cobain". It deals in detail about the suspicious death of Cobain, focusing on the private investigator Tom Grant, who was then hired by Courtney Love to find Kurt Cobain.

Please add this movie to the appropriate section, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.1.204.134 (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Strange that my request just gets entirely ignored. Talking about Wikipedia being a democratic platform where anyone can participate... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.1.204.134 (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

And this request has still been ignored for 2 solid months now. Am I making a fool out of myself for trying to participate at Wikipedia or should the Wikipedia mods and admins actually look at the talk page to include relevant information or at least make the article open for editing? This is getting ridiculous. It is after all just about the inclusion of a documentary which has at least the same right to be here as "Montage of Heck".

I copied this "New documentary "Soaked in Bleach"" section from Talk:Kurt Cobain. I hope that's okay. Seems relevant here. JasonCarswell (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

El Duce of The Mentors

I downloaded a video file: "El Duce of The Mentors talks about Kurt Cobain & Courtney Love (1996-08-30) [VHSRip] (6m07s).mp4" featuring an interview in the midst of what seems like an informal party with a man at a kitchen table talking about how Courtney wanted to hire him to kill her husband a few months before he died while he was away touring Europe. I can't verify any of it nor will bother to, but it sure seems noteworthy and hella suspicious. JasonCarswell (talk) 08:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on Death of Kurt Cobain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130118132623/http://grungereport.net/?p=3809 to http://grungereport.net/?p=3809
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.beautifullyscarred.net/article44.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment on quality and balance

This is a pretty poor article, focussing as it does mainly on conspiracy theories. I'd like to make it conform more closely to WP:DUE. Does anybody have any objections? --John (talk) 11:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Useful source

Long Guardian piece reporting from Seattle following Cobain's death in 1994 Popcornduff (talk) 08:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Article's title

Suicide of Kurt Cobain → Death of Kurt Cobain – WT:NPOV It cannot be called a clear-cut suicide without adequate evidence, which in this case, it lacks it and there are numerous sources backing up the claim, a basic google search would bring up significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources; articles, books, and documentaries have been made concerning the subject. When there is a dead body, It's a death investigation. No proclamations without sufficient evidence including, victimology, medical-legal process, toxicology and autopsy especially for cases of prominent figures. Apart from the fact that this case has remained quite controversial throughout the years and is being referred to as an example of miscarriage of justice by some of the specialists, researchers, and experts because of the deficiency of required research and analysis on the case, it still shouldn't be titled as "suicide" on Wikipedia since the cause/manner of death is not mentioned in the titles of the WP articles. It can be referred to in the body or even lede as the outcome of the death case but not in the title. Princess Diana died in a car crash, Is the article's title "Princess of Wales' car accident"? Michael Jackson died of cardiac arrest but is the title, "Michael Jackson's heart attack"? No. Bionic (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Bionic, I reverted you on this. Per WP:Requested moves, moves that are likely to be controversial should be discussed first. You should start a WP:Requested moves discussion and make your case that way. Your move of the article can be argued as a WP:NPOV violation, which is what I argued when moving it back, since reliable sources generally treat this death as a suicide. That is why, in the Kurt Cobain article, we currently state, "On April 8, 1994, Cobain was found dead at his home in Seattle at the age of 27; police concluded he had died on April 5 from a self-inflicted shotgun wound to his head." Conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories. And we do not give WP:Undue weight to those. This article needs work in that regard.

BD2412, as someone who handles move discussions, any thoughts on this? And, Isaidnoway, as someone who makes solid arguments on move discussions, any thoughts on this? Do you mind analyzing this matter for what is the best route to take title-wise? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 27 July 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. DrKay (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Suicide of Kurt Cobain → Death of Kurt Cobain – WT:NPOV It cannot be called a clear-cut suicide without adequate evidence, which in this case, it lacks it and there are numerous sources backing up the claim, a basic google search would bring up significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources; articles, books, and documentaries have been made concerning the subject. When there is a dead body, It's a death investigation. No proclamations without sufficient evidence including, victimology, medical-legal process, toxicology and autopsy especially for cases of prominent figures. Apart from the fact that this case has remained quite controversial throughout the years and is being referred to as an example of miscarriage of justice by some of the specialists, researchers, and experts because of the deficiency of required research and analysis on the case, it still shouldn't be titled as "suicide" on Wikipedia since the cause/manner of death is not mentioned in the titles of the WP articles. It can be referred to in the body or even lede as the outcome of the death case but not in the title. Princess Diana died in a car crash, Is the article's title "Car accident of Princess Diana"? Michael Jackson died of cardiac arrest but is the title, "Heart attack of Michael Jackson"? No. Bionic (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Previous out-of-process closure

Not moved per consensus garnered below. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 19:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC) Closer's note: The original date for this request was 20 July 2020, so I relisted it due to no consensus, then closed it when consensus formed. Then it came to light that the proposer had actually opened this request officially on 27 July 2020, so I reopened the RM and adjusted the dates accordingly. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 17:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Oppose. Bi-on-ic is absolutely wrong per the arguments in the "Discussion" section below. Beyond that, I do not think it was best for Bi-on-ic to turn this old discussion into an official move request, and then Paine Ellsworth to mark it as relisted it. As seen before, this was not an official move request. And turning it into one months later, when editors' "votes" are in what is now structured as the "Discussion" section below, is sloppy. My "vote," like others' "votes," is there. I won't be repeating what I stated there in this newly formatted "Survey" section. What a mess. Next time...just start a fresh section. Pinging the others who commented below: Popcornfud, Isaidnoway, BD2412, Acroterion and igordebraga. BD2412 and Acroterion didn't vote one way or the other. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Frozen: But you were the one who asked me to turn the discussion into an official move request: You should start a WP:Requested moves discussion and make your case that way. These were your exact words. Plus you're saying you don't want to repeat what you stated before yet you say I should've started a fresh section?! for that reason, I didn't start a new section; to avoid duplication of already discussed subjects... I don't see anything wrong with the process. Comments were made, discussions took place, now, time for the final vote. Bionic (talk) 07:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Commented in the #Comments after the close section below. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Reliable sources seem to be universal in describing this as a suicide, and the title as is more precisely describes the nature of the death. Note that there is a long-running discussion underway on titling of articles on murders, shootings, stabbings, assassinations, executions, and deaths by other causes, where it has been presumed that suicides will be titled "Suicide of..." BD2412 T 03:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you link to that discussion? Mcfnord (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#"Shooting of" or "Killing of". Cheers! BD2412 T 20:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Read my argument below. (though the one for vaccines can also receive the addendum "COVID-19 was not engineered in a Chinese lab") igordebraga ≠ 03:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:FRINGE. To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. This was ruled a suicide, and the idea that it wasn't is a conspiracy theory. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Flyer22 Frozen, BD2412, igordebraga and Muboshgu. Furthermore, as pointed out by BD2412 below (14:30, 22 April 2020), Wikipedia has over 40 main title headers using the form "Suicide of..." —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

That's Other stuff exists. What do other WP title headers have anything to do with this topic? Bionic (talk) 07:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Since the nomination made an issue of the fact that Wikipedia main headers do not use non-standard forms, such as "Car accident of Princess Diana" or "Heart attack of Michael Jackson", the vote simply pointed out that "Suicide of..." is, in fact, one of Wikipedia's standard forms, alongside "Assassination of...", "Beating of...", "Execution of...", "Lynching of..." or "Shooting of..." —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 08:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

And "other stuff exists" is actually a valid argument in title discussions. We call that being WP:CONSISTENT. No such user (talk) 12:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per all preceding arguments. ResPM ^{come to my window} 11:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral, I do think the murder argument is significant - maybe not factually but at least culturally. At the same time, most known references would probably consider this a suicide. I am having a harder time than the above voters picking a side, since "death" is less ambiguous than "suicide".--Ortizesp (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

  Ortizesp, "death" is more ambiguous than "suicide". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• If there's any reasonable doubt that it was indeed a suicide then I support. The article does note that it could have been a drug dealer so this move should probably happen. If an any doubt about a fact in the descriptive title its best to exclude that from it which the proposed title would. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

  Crouch, Swale, as has been noted on this talk page, the page has been slanted towards the murder theory, which has been widely rejected by non-conspiracy theorists. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

  My !vote is "if" so if the consensus is that it is almost certainly a suicide then the article should stay as is. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support Somebody in the discussion part mentioned that there are around 40 other articles that start with the "Suicide of ...", but what they failed to mention is the fact that most of those people aren't notable in themselves, it's their death that is notable. Also, their suicide is not disputed, as it is the case with Kurt Cobain's. While the official cause of death is suicide, a big part of what has made his death something we still talk about today are the conspiracy theories. While we shouldn't encourage that, we can't ignore it either. The way he died is what this article is about, not the way he committed suicide - that's just a line. Alecsdaniel (talk) 16:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

  Suicide of Vince Foster. BD2412 T 16:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

  Why would we validate a conspiracy theory? See WP:FRINGE. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, because it is widespread and has gained a lot of media coverage over the years. Alecsdaniel (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: You have responded to every single support. What is this insistence for? Everyone has their own opinions on this. Please try and refrain from adding something after every single support since it's WP:BLUD. Bionic (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Bi-on-ic, I don't see myself as having "dominated" this, but I will step back to ensure that I don't. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support. In general, I don't like the title formatting of "Suicide of...". I think there is still a generally negative stigma regarding suicide, and thus I think it should be avoided in article titles. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • If the issue is stigma, then we should close this discussion immediately and move to a project-wide discussion of whether the ~40 "Suicide of" titles should be renamed. BD2412 T 17:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Rreagan007 makes a valid point, although this might not be something to be decided on an individual basis. Whether or not this move request is successful, I suggest this be taken to a more general venue to discuss appropriate titles of Wikipedia articles that use the eye-catching stigma term "Suicide of...", instead of the more general "Death of...". P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 17:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The stigma of suicide can be avoided by people not committing suicide. Moving this page would adopt an even worse stigma, that fringe conspiracy theories are valid and should govern. BD2412 T 17:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
    • The dead are past-caring. The stigma falls on the families, and neutral encyclopedias should not use article titles that will only multiply the families' grief. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 17:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

That argument is deeply flawed. We can't avoid calling it a suicide. What else are we to call it? The literature overwhelmingly calls this death a suicide because that is what it is. Wikipedia is simply following that. This is why we call it a suicide in the text. So how is not having the article title accurately reflect the literature and match the text both in the Kurt Cobain article and in this one supposed to help? Furthermore, Wikipedia is not supposed to engage in advocacy. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

And I think your argument is deeply flawed as well. That is precisely why MASEM, BD2412, I and others here advocate taking this to a broader forum where it won't matter so much what one or two editors think. What will matter is what the Wikipedia community thinks. This issue, whether or not to use a loaded word like "suicide" in an encyclopedia article title, won't be resolved in a requested move discussion. This issue needs wider input. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 06:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

You are basing your arguments on personal feelings rather than on our policies. Avoiding the term suicide in the article title when we surely aren't going to avoid it in the text...unless one states "killed himself" instead of "suicide"? Just no. Your argument is akin to stating that the Suicide article shouldn't be titled "Suicide." What are we to title it if not that? "Taking one's own life"? The "Support" votes are prime examples of what WP:Advocacy states and people disregarding WP:Not censored. And BD2412 and Masem still voted "oppose." Agree to disagree. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The flaw is in conflating the issue, because you are missing that this is about article titles and only article titles, and only those titles that are about individual persons who have committed self-murder/suicide. It's not about general articles like Suicide, and it is not about article content. If this article were titled "Death of...", then it wouldn't be the first time we gave an article a more general title and then explained it with specifics in the first sentences of the lead. So we both seem to need to "agree to disagree", isn't that right? Can we at least agree that this is not going to be resolved by arguing over a single title of a single article? Such a change as is proposed in this RM requires broader community input, don't you agree? As for "policies"? There doesn't seem to be a standard here – see All pages with titles beginning with Suicide of. So such a standard needs to be set by the Wikipedia community of editors. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 08:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

There's no flaw in my argument. I am very aware of what this discussion is about. I made a comparison, which tends to happen in discussions. And, in my opinion, the "rename the Suicide article" comparison is very apt. So is my point about the fact that we use the term suicide in the article's text because that's what it is and, just like there is no valid reason to avoid it in the article text, there is no valid reason to avoid it in the article's title. Your rationale for moving this article goes against multiple policies. We need no specific policy for something regarding "Suicide of" titles. We already have policies that suffice for cases like this. And this is not at all a WP:Ignore all rules case. We won't be agreeing. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

We already have agreed, Flyer22 F. We agree that this isn't about using "suicide" in the article content. We both agree that's okay. In fact it is essential in this type of article whatever the title may be. And we seem to agree on the "policies" issue, since you haven't cited a single policy nor even a guideline that firmly supports your views. You just keep saying we "have policies that suffice for cases like this". Okay, name one! Name a policy that guides us to use "suicide" in this or any other biography-related article title. Nor can any policy be found that tells us we cannot use "suicide" in a bio title. That's the challenge, and we won't meet that challenge here in this debate. I could have just as easily opposed this RM on principle, because I do at least understand where you, MASEM and BD2412 are coming from; however, I have my own reasons for supporting even in the face of what will most likely be unsuccessful by no consensus. So relax, and let's realize that we're all here for one main reason: to improve Wikipedia! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 10:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Nah. You lost me completely with that entire latest post of yours, including by stating that I "haven't cited a single policy nor even a guideline that firmly supports [my] views." I'm not going to go in circles with you on this. Others have named more than one Wikipedia rule. I don't need to repeat. We clearly do not agree, which is why I voted "Oppose" and you voted "Support" with non-policy stuff like "The dead are past-caring. The stigma falls on the families, and neutral encyclopedias should not use article titles that will only multiply the families' grief." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Thud. Regarding "The stigma... can be avoided by people not committing suicide", I'm just going to assume you were in some kind of temporary, soulless, fugue state and didn't really mean to rip the hearts out of family members or others who are close to the topic. (I'm not.) Mathglot (talk) 04:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Non-encyclopedic title. It looks like a title from a sensationalist magazine or journal. Nothing to do with Wikipedia's proposal.--88marcus (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. We don't give WP:Undue weight to WP:Fringe theories. Claims of "stigma" are subjective and not based on policy, and have a WP:RGW flavor. And I don't see how it is sensationalist at all. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as there was no question this was a suicide rather than, say, celebs that have been found dead from overdosing, but unclear if it was intentional or that. However, I have comments on a larger scope that may be needed for WP as a whole on the topic of suicide in general (this one article not being the one to fight that article on). --Masem (t) 03:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRECISE and WP:FRINGE. Cavalryman (talk) 03:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC).
• Oppose per WP:PRECISE, WP:FRINGE and Flyer22 Frozen. Also, the undue weight in the article should be promptly fixed. El Millo (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I was on the fence about this one. I'm uncertain about the stigma issue, as mentioned by Rreagan007 and others, and agree with Masem and BD2412 that it deserves raising in a broader venue. If consensus there would crystallize around avoiding the term suicide, then one could refer to that to support this move. The reason I oppose now, besides other arguments already made, is even if there were no conspiracy theories going on, by what reasoning would we change this title, and not the others? (I know about WP:OTHERSTUFF.) But the fact that there are such theories, and this is the title we're discussing, might lead a dispassionate observer to wonder if we are playing by our own rules, even if we are (but there's no way to know). Therefore, I oppose for now to preserve the integrity of the process, but would be open to further arguments at a subsequent discussion about this, if changes occurred at the level of MOS that might affect this issue. Mathglot (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support While I disagree with the idea that this might not have been a suicide (it's already been established by reliable secondary sources and primary sources with direct connections that this was a suicide), it appears to be general convention on Wikipedia for articles to be titled Death of Jane Doe unless the event was a specified killing (the cause of death was the result of another person). This can be seen when looking at the prefix results for "Death of" versus "Suicide of". While I understand that Death of is more broad, I don't believe that precision in the article title is that important here, especially considering it's not ambiguous. ItsPugle (please use {{ping|ItsPugle}} on reply) 04:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  @ItsPugle: Fyi: both prefixindex links are broken, only one (partly) due to unbalanced brackets; I think you need the fullurl, but don't quote me. Mathglot (talk) 05:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Thank you, it should be fixed! ItsPugle (please use {{ping|ItsPugle}} on reply) 06:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support: I support changing to "death of" for the very reasons the nominator presents. I did a search of Wikipedia articles with "suicide of" in the title, and although there are dozens of them, I agree that calling a death a suicide serves neither Wikipedia's purposes nor any individual dead person. Titling an article "Death of" is sufficient (and, frankly, is a more neutral point of view). Also, many of the "Suicide of" titles are actually redirects, meaning that they most probably were also changed to "Death of" at some point. Normal Op (talk) 07:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Normal Op: Your second presumption is incorrect. There are 26 redirects from "Suicide of" titles that are personal names. Of those, fewer than one third are redirects to "Death of" titles, including some more controversial cases such as Suicide of Hitler and Suicide of Jeffrey Epstein. Seven redirects are merely alternative spellings, such as Suicide of Audrey Pott redirecting to Suicide of Audrie Pott, and Suicide of Kanakorn Pianchana redirecting to Suicide of Khanakorn Pianchana. Another seven are redirects to the subject's base page name or to a related name, as with Suicide of Jamie Hubley redirecting to the article of his notable father, Allan Hubley. The rest are a mixed bag. Suicide of Ashlynn Conner redirects to Georgetown–Ridge Farm Community Unit District 4, which makes no mention of an Ashlynn Conner. Suicide of Ty Smalley redirects to Bully (2011 film), a documentary covering that suicide. Suicide of Chris Benoit redirects to the even more descriptive Chris Benoit double-murder and suicide. BD2412 T 14:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  The Ashley Conner case is unique: the redirect was create when the school district's article had an item about the child's suicide; one of our editors deleted that section as a WP:COATRACK, but left the redirect hanging there for years. I see little evidence that the child's death was notable enough to justify an article, so I recreated what we had but moved it to Draft: Suicide of Ashlynn Conner for others to examine. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

  Hallelujah, someone can actually COUNT to distinguish from "dozens". Although I don't care enough about the topic to verify your figures, BD2412, you could have posted your comment without the insult. Or better yet, not pinged me at all. Normal Op (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  I don't know what you perceived as an "insult" there. The statement that your presumption was incorrect was a factual observation. However, saying "Hallelujah, someone can actually COUNT" is mockery, for which there is a very low threshold. BD2412 T 17:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - per WP:NPOVTITLE, WP:PRECISE and WP:FRINGE. Suicide has been used in a significant majority of reliable sources, starting in 1994, and suicide is still used 25 years later — Did I find any earth-shattering evidence that would change the medical examiner’s conclusion that Kurt committed suicide? No. In fact, I found evidence that strengthened that finding. — victim of suicide — Cobain died of suicide. His death was ruled a suicide, and just because some refused to believe that, leading to conspiracy theories, doesn't mean Wikipedia should entertain that fringe nonsense and change the title of this article. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Merge back into Kurt Cobain. The parent article already contains 1200 words on his death, and there is significant overlap between other parts of that article and the suicide article. Once you trim the WP:FRINGE content down, there's not much left that isn't already summarized in Kurt Cobain. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 13:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support There are many ways people can die: homicide, suicide, accident, disease, misadventure. We wouldn't title an article "The accidental death of Buddy Holly." Don McLean's song isn't called "The Day the Music Accidentally Died". In cases where someone has just died (which is not the case here), we cannot use suicide in the title, because BLP prevents us from making criminal accusations against recently deceased people unless they have been convicted. Do we wait in these cases and re-title them later? And what do we do in cases where we don't know? "Possible suicide of?" Since this affects other articles, I suggest we seek to establish a guideline rather than debate it across various articles. TFD (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose rename. The OP is clearly not correct; we have ample secondary RS for cause of death, and contrary claims are WP:FRINGE. This seems almost like some kind of "I wish the 'Epstein didn't kill himself' meme had lasted longer" joke. As for specificity-related arguments: We are specific in some cases, not in others, depending on the case. E.g., Death of Adolf Hitler, because the fact that it was a suicide is incidental to why the extended event of his downfall and death is encyclopedically important. Cobain dying by suicide in particular had a huge impact on a whole generation of predominantly but not exclusively Western, White young people, much like the assassination (not just death) of John F. Kennedy did for their grandparents or parents, and like the murder (not just death) of Tupac Shakur did for mostly but not exclusively Black youths in the same general era as Kobain's suicide. As for anyone making an emotive "political correction"/"language reform" argument: That is just tedious rehash of the old discussion, which always has the same outcome. We've been over this many times before at other talk pages of bios about suicides. And at WT:MOSWTW, and many other venues. There is nothing wrong with the word "suicide", and a handful of people re-re-re-claiming that there is will not magically change the English language and its usage, nor reverse a decade and more of solid consensus.

  PS: Support merger. I think we should usually not have any kind of "[Demise type here] of [person name]" split-off pages when we have an article on the person. The only good reasons for such pages are: A) when the person is not independently notable and shouldn't have their own article (i.e., when what is notable is the event – usually a murder, with a focus on the prosecution). Or B) maybe when the main bio is really, really long and some splitting up is necessary for length reasons, and the death-related material is actually enough for a full-scale article seems reasonable. But even then, splitting off death info in particular is not always a good bet.
  PPS: The article should not ascribe the cause-of-death determination to "police", but to medical examiners/coroners. The very wording "police concluded he had died on April 5 from a self-inflicted shotgun wound to his head" may be the ultimate source of some of the conspiracy theorizing. Never forget how many people read this site, often with poor English skills, then rehash distortions of it on social media.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose rename, oppose merger - while there is a conspiracy theory about and some lack of clarity on what really happened that day, Cobain's death was ruled a suicide, has been known as a suicide for nearly a quarter century now (oof I'm old) and the conspiracy theory is specifically that it was not suicide (and not, for example, that he's really still alive). Therefore the title is correct. However, there has been so much written and discussed about the end of Cobain's life separately from his actual life (see also SMcCandlish's significance argument) that a separate article is certainly warranted, not to mention all the minutiae of the separate theories and investigations. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Changing the proposed title right now would be akin to endorsing a fringe claim that Cobain didn't kill himself. As to the larger topic of whether we should title any articles "Suicide of X" that is a larger discussion that shouldn't be decided here. Calidum 19:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Reliable sources say it was suicide and an encyclopedia should deal with facts. The article can (and does) say that some disagree, but such disagreement does not change sourced facts. The general issue of whether any articles should be "Suicide of X" (list) cannot be decided here. Johnuniq (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose the consensus is that Cobain killed himself, and the idea that he didn't apparently gets even less exposure than those Epstein theories. While suicide might still have a stigma with it, I believe it would be too indirect and euphemistic to negate the main part of his death and retitle this his "Death". – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - "suicide" is the WP:COMMONNAME beyond a doubt, and that's it, that's the end of the discussion. It doesn't matter what we think about "suicide" as a label, because we follow the sources, and they all call it "suicide". I also oppose a merger on the basis of PAGESIZE: the parent article would be too long. Cobain's death is just a huge part of his biography, there's no way around it; there's so much to say that a single article would be unwieldy. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I think SMcCandlish lays out why "Death" is inapt for the title. Cobain's situation is more similar to Assassination of John F. Kennedy where the death was culturally impactful because of the way he died, not the fact he died. This is in contrast to Death of Adolf Hitler where the fact that Hitler died was far more important than the specifics of how he died. Whether or not to use "suicide of" in titles at all is a conversation for elsewhere, but given the importance of how Cobain died, not just the death per se, this would likely be an exception should any kind of guideline find consensus. I don't really care about the merge. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• oppose per a lot of the opposes above. The official stance is it is a suicide, without any doubt; RSs use "suicide" as the common name to refer the "passing" of subject. Anything else is POV, fringe, and/or original research. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support. There are theorys that courtney love killed him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:88:8100:2830:7c10:5687:a603:61b9 (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose move of this article on its own. If it is accepted that we should allow any article with a "Suicide of..." title then this is a clear case for having such a title. His death was suicide, despite what fringe theorists may say. If we are to have a general prohibition of such titles (about which I currently have no opinion) then of course this should be renamed to conform with consensus. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Our general rule on articles about deaths is that we use whatever official finding of the manner of death there has been, if it's suicide or homicide, regardless of any criticism that has attracted. The only exception would be if there had been two different official investigations that reached different conclusions as to the manner of death, or where the manner of death is officially undetermined, cf. Deaths of John and Joyce Sheridan, an excellent example of both. Daniel Case (talk) 06:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

The reliable sources generally treat this death as a suicide. That is why, in the Kurt Cobain article, we currently state, "On April 8, 1994, Cobain was found dead at his home in Seattle at the age of 27; police concluded he had died on April 5 from a self-inflicted shotgun wound to his head." Conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories. And we do not give WP:Undue weight to those. This article needs work in that regard.

BD2412, as someone who handles move discussions, any thoughts on this? And, Isaidnoway, as someone who makes solid arguments on move discussions, any thoughts on this? Do you mind analyzing this matter for what is the best route to take title-wise? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Frozen: Firstly, It's actually the other way around. As I already said, titling it 'suicide' would be a WP:NPOV violation for the reasons mentioned above.

Secondly, the discussion is not about the content of the article it's about the title. what does that have to do with whether or not it was a suicide? I said the title is over-specific and gives preconceived notion to the readers. Did you see me writing that it should be titled as Murder of Kurt Cobain? No. I actually said that it should be mentioned in the lede that the outcome and SPD's report was announced suicide.

Thirdly, what do you mean by saying that 'conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories'? It's not up to you and your description. You don't get to chose what is a conspiracy theory and what's not. I'm talking about science and facts. There's no conspiracy. I'm not here talking drivel about 'The Simpsons predictions', or saying 9/11 was complicity by insiders, Illuminati and dubious allegations and stuff like that. Bionic (talk) 10:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we ought to treat it as a suicide, and I'm also wary of giving weight to conspiracy theories. However, I think the observation that we don't typically title articles about deaths with the manner of death is interesting.

We couldn't call articles "Heart attack of Michael Jackson" or "Car accident of Princess Diana" because 1) heart attacks and car accidents aren't necessarily fatal and 2) those articles are about far more than just how those people died. Articles with titles along the lines of "suicide of" or "murder of" obviously meet the first issue, but what about the second? What is the advantage of "Murder of..." or "Suicide of..." exactly? Popcornfud (talk) 10:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Popcornfud: It's not about 'treating it as a suicide' or not it's about the proper way to title an article of a death case. plus, suicide per se isn't necessarily fatal either. It's the act of trying to kill yourself, you could survive. Bionic (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

No, suicide is fatal by definition. It is not the act of "trying to kill yourself", it is the act of killing yourself. If you survived, it wasn't suicide, it was attempted suicide. Popcornfud (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Bionic, I meant what I stated, and it aligns with what Isaidnoway stated below. I'm not going by my personal opinion. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• WP:NPOVTITLE is the prevailing policy for article titles - Conflicts often arise over whether an article title complies with WP:NPOV...Resolving such debates depends on whether the article title is a name derived from reliable sources or a descriptive title created by Wikipedia editors. The title of this article was derived from reliable sources, as evidenced by suicide being used in a significant majority of reliabe sources. WP:NPOVTITLE goes on to say that - Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids...In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become the usual term for the event, generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. Sources used suicide in 1994, and 25 years later, suicide is still the given description used in reliable sources as evidenced by searching his name through any internet search engine. Wikipedia generally follows the sources, and suicide is the prevailing description used in sources and has become the usual term in relation to this event. I oppose any name change. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: If it is suggested that "Suicide of..." is a problematic for an article title, then this should be a broader discussion in a larger forum, given that we have over 40 articles so titled. We also have numerous articles titled "Murder of..." or "Assassination of...", so it is hardly unusual to have articles on deaths with titles reflecting a more specific condition of death. BD2412 T 14:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@BD2412:What differs this article from those "Suicide of..." articles, is the lack of sufficient evidence of suicide for this case. As I already mentioned, You cannot say suicide, period. without medical jurisprudence report, victimology, etc.Bionic (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think that differs that article from all the rest. Aside from R. Budd Dwyer (who pulled out a gun and shot himself in a press conference, and for whom we do not have a separate article), almost all suicides are determined by a body and a note, where it is conceivable that the note was faked and the body murdered. In every such case, we rely on sources (not necessarily primary sources like a coroner's report) that described the death as a suicide. BD2412 T 17:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Having cautioned Bi-on-ic on the original undiscussed move, I asked that they open a discussion here - thank you. I have no strong view on the article title, but I am concerned that the article has seen considerable conspiracy promotion and egregious BLP violations from enthusiasts for non-suicide scenarios. Given the original move rationale, which appeared to be a way to support such speculation, the title needs to be determined by consensus, not by a move initiated by a single editor. Acroterion (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment No matter how many conspiracy theorists exist and manifest themselves online, it's not an NPOV action to keep the article title that way if the general consensus - by authorities, people who knew Kurt, etc. - is suicide. "On a related note; vaccines do not cause autism (Pseudoscience), Al-Qaeda did cause 9/11 (Outside Job), Americans walked on the Moon (Not A Soundstage), and the Queen of England is not a lizard-person. (Real, Corgi Loving Human)" igordebraga ≠ 20:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Igordebraga: I did say that the purpose of this discussion is not to get into such nonsense whatsoever. Bionic (talk) 09:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think this is the right article/place to address this bigger picture, but between here and over at Talk:Robin Williams thre have been concerns raised about the language around the wording of "suicide" in modern style guides which have taken up language given that "suicide" is a word to use very carefully in modern writing. I don't necessarily have a preference for how we use it, but I strongly suggest that we should have a larger RFC to properly address if WP should consider what these style guides are doing, and then consider that site-wide within the MOS, which could come back to affect this article. --Masem (t) 03:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• To address the bigger picture (a little) I must point out that I have had more than my fair share of friends and acquaintances who have committed suicide (and I thought hard about whether I should use that phrase, so please don't say that I shouldn't without giving good reasons why I shouldn't). I don't believe that any of them, or their loved ones, would have wanted their deaths to be described as anything other than suicide. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments after the close

Hatting discussion inappropriate for this venue

Bi-on-ic (Bionic) stated, "But you were the one who asked me to turn the discussion into an official move request." But nowhere did I state that you should turn it into an official move request months after people had moved on. It's one thing to turn it into an official move request when it's fresh. It's another to do it months later. Doing it the way you did made it so that it had fresh comments in the "Survey" section, and months-old comments in the "Discussion" section. And as for the rest, it's easy enough copy and paste a rationale from a previous discussion into a fresh one. I stand by what I sated above. Doesn't matter now anyway. The one you revived was partly fresh and is now closed. And per WP:Consensus can change stating that "proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive", don't start a new discussion about this every few months. Nothing will have changed with regard to the fact that the literature overwhelmingly treats Cobain's death as a suicide and the murder stuff as a conspiracy theory. No need to ping me to a page I am obviously watching. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC) You shouldn't have closed the discussion only hours after being opened. You did not follow the WP:CON. Evidently you intentionally only want to get your own way and have it done according to your personal preference in spite of others' opinions. ' Nothing will have changed '?? What kind of idea is that? You pinged some specific users that you know for the poll of an official move request which talks about a bias and determined in a way the bandwagon effect, you ignored my response on the page that you claim you're 'obviously watching' and the next day you're replying to me after closing the discussion? Since when do they handle WP:RM like this? This is "disruptive". As I already stated, I don't see anything wrong with the process since comments were made, discussions took place and it was time to vote just like what you asked me to do. Yes, it was done after a while and not right after the proposal, and that was simply because I'm busy and occupied with other tasks. All of the "opposes" in the discussion especially you, are treating the topic as a conspiracy theory and cherry-picking statements about policies you used or how are even your own personal analysis which is a faulty generalization but the thing is, this is a request of a retitling of an article not changing the content. The discussion is not even about the question of whether it was a suicide or murder. It would be reinforcing a conspiracy theory if the request was titling the article as "Murder of Kurt Cobain". The word "Death" is neutral and doesn't give a preconceived notion to the reader. This article is about his death, not the way he committed suicide. Bionic (talk) 06:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC) To editor Bionic: apologies for not researching deeply enough. I have reopened your move request and adjusted the dates to show that it was officially opened on the 27th of July with this edit. Hopefully, the WP:CANVASSING guideline has been followed in this request, because the new closer (it will be someone else, not me) may take that into consideration. Thank you for your edits! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 17:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC) Bi-on-ic (Bionic), you are busy going off at the mouth about me closing the discussion when I obviously did not close it. Paine Ellsworth was the person who closed it. As for "Nothing will have changed '?? What kind of idea is that?" That is not an idea. It is a fact. As has been made very clear in this discussion, the literature overwhelmingly refers to Cobain's death as a suicide. That is not going to change. And yet you and a few others are trying to undermine the literature by using the vague "death" title to further bolster the murder conspiracy theory angle, which is very much against WP:NPOV and WP:Article title. No one voting oppose is "cherry-picking statements about policies." Those are our policies! As for pinging specific editors? I pinged all of the editors who had previously commented on this matter. That is not a WP:Canvassing violation. As seen by the WP:APPNOTE section of WP:Canvassing, that is very much allowed, just like alerting this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this page is allowed per WP:APPNOTE. I can't make heads or tails of your other rambling. And, again, I stand by what I stated. And I do not need to be pinged to this talk page. Stop pinging me just to reply to me. Am I pinging you? No. Because it's not needed. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Also, why are you going around notifying all those editors to this discussion? It looks like you are randomly selecting editors to comment, which is an actual WP:Canvassing issue, especially given that we don't know those editors' relation to you. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Please don't try to turn it around on me and label your own actions on me. You're claiming you pinged all of the editors who had previously commented on this matter but I am talking about the first discussion where you started pinging specific users which to me seemed a little questionable but since you're an experienced Wikipedian I assumed that's a way of WP:CAN so I notified some editors too and suggesting that the editors have some kind of relations to me which is an absolutely false accusation is a WP:AOBF and ad hominem. Considering that It's not about winning, I don't understand why do you see this as a WP:BATTLEGROUND and resort to WP:BLUD. What's with the insistency? Everyone has their own opinions on this, hence, calling my response rambling & going off at the mouth was uncalled for. Bionic (talk) 09:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Bi-on-ic, your premise is faulty. You wrote, but I am talking about the first discussion where you started pinging specific users which to me seemed a little questionable but since you're an experienced Wikipedian I assumed that's a way of WP:CAN... No, it isn't. If you read the description of WP:CANVASSING, the first sentence starts off talking about general discussions, saying: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." That is exactly what Flyer22 did if you read her words. Inappropriate types of notification are covered here and are subdivided into four types, none of which apply to Flyer22's post at this discussion, which is just that: a discussion. Her call for help about moves in an informal, non-Rfc, non-Afd, non-RM discussion was in no way inappropriate. But nice defense by offense, maybe someone will get distracted by the red herring. Mathglot (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Alright. Thanks for the explanation Mathglot, but it was not needed. I didn't know that Flyer22 Frozen needs an advocate or spokesperson. You start off by saying No, it isn't. The not refers to what exactly? The fact that I said I found it questionable? So you get to decide how I should feel? I'm not allowed to question anything here? I didn't say that the so-called her call for help was wrong I said I found it questionable because they pinged those users immediately after the discussion started and that's it. I don't feel the need to to prolong this 'pinging discussion' since it is not important enough to spend so much time and energy. All I said was a response to 'Flyer22 Frozen's false accusation. Bionic (talk) 08:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC) Bi-on-ic, more incoherent arguments. Disagreeing with your faulty arguments and not standing for your WP:False balance editing is not me engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior or WP:BLUD. And bludgeoning? I haven't bludgeoned a thing. You, on the other hand? Anyway, I didn't turn anything around on you. My notifying the editors I did doesn't run afoul the WP:Canvassing guideline. What you did does, per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate notification. What you did was spam. And mentioning whatever relationship you may have with the editors you contacted is valid per what WP:Canvassing states. It's not even like you contacted two or three people. Yours was a substantial line of people. I highly doubt that you were referring to "the first discussion." And even if you were, those pings were neutrally worded and align with the WP:Canvassing guideline. Both BD2412 and Isaidnoway, especially BD2412, are routinely involved in move discussions. BD2412 is a top editor in that area. One of the bullet points at WP:APPNOTE is "Editors known for expertise in the field." Now whether one would call routinely being involved in move discussions "a field", it is an area of editing, and some editors have more experience in that area than others. I did not tell BD2412 or Isaidnoway to vote a certain way. And pinging editors for their opinions has been addressed at the WP:Canvassing talk page guideline times before. Including that as canvassing at that guideline page has been rejected more than once, for more than one reason. And regarding this? Per WP:REDACT, next time just strike through your post through that part of your post. Removing my username there takes my post out of context with regard to what I stated about you having pinged me. I would state that it also distorts the fact that you were talking to me when stating that I closed the discussion, but it's clear that you were replying to me. So I'll leave it at that. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC) So Flyer22 Frozen, all you said in your 'speech' is that when you pinged some users for the poll it was OK and totally in accordance with WP:Canvassing but If I do it there's something wrong with it and you allow yourself to accuse me and call it a 'valid point' but when I question the same thing about you it's 'faulty and incoherent'? and yes I was referring to the first discussion regarding your action and it does not matter whether you 'highly doubt' it or not. Again, yes, accusing other users that you know nothing about, labeling them, and assumption of bad faith is WP:PA & WP:AOBF and speaking with condescending and inappropriate language and adopting a disrespectful approach and dismissive attitude is WP:UNCIVIL. And about the WP:BLUD, Just take a look at the discussion and the volume of your comments; insistently responding to all the 'supports' and continuously arguing with them, is bludgeoning the process. Bionic (talk) 09:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC) More rambling. And dishonest and contradictory rambling at that. For example, comparing my pinging editors who are involved so that they can weigh in on this move discussion to you delivering notifications to random, uninvolved editors. And, for example, speaking of incvility while stating "I didn't know that Flyer22 Frozen needs an advocate or spokesperson." You even stated that I am "insistently responding to all the 'supports' and continuously arguing with them." What???? That is an outright lie, as anyone with two eyes can see. In the #Survey section, I was discussing the matter with one editor. In the old #Discussion section, I only replied to you. And I already addressed the two pings I made in the first discussion, which did not involve pinging editors to any "poll." I'm not going to sit here and explain WP:Canvassing to you again when Mathglot and I have been clear that I did not violate that guideline, and I have been clear with you that you did violate it. What you did wrong is right there, clear as day, at Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate notification. Your need to keep debating any of this is a no for me. Move on. This will be my last reply to you in this section since you have been blatantly dishonest to try to win arguments you can't possibly win, and since you sound like a newbie throwing whatever against the wall to see if it sticks. And if you keep pinging me, I will report you for WP:Harassment. I already told you to stop that because I do not need to be pinged to this talk page. And I certainly do not want to see an unnecessary red notification from you. Move on. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC) @Bi-on-ic and Flyer22 Frozen: If the two of you are going to carry on this vein, take it to an appropriate dispute resolution noticeboard. The exchange here ends now. BD2412 T 00:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC) BD2412, I stated, in part, "This will be my last reply to you in this section." This is not a dispute resolution noticeboard matter. It's a nonsense matter, and I am done. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC) BD2412, get off your high horse. You have a mop, not a mace. If you wanted to remark on a user-behavioral transgression, such as inappropriate use of talk pages to discuss user behavior, then you should have done so on (each of) their user talk pages. Commenting on it here, is just as inappropriate as the foregoing. Mathglot (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Question about your July 28 notifications

I wouldn't have bothered, Bi-on-ic, but since you brought it up, I do have a question about the canvassing issue. At #17:12, 29 July (now inside hatted portion; [perma] ), Paine Ellsworth wrote,

Hopefully, the WP:CANVASSING guideline has been followed in this request, because the new closer (it will be someone else, not me) may take that into consideration.

I noticed however that you (Bi-on-ic) notified at least these 19 editors on July 28 on their Talk pages. (Sample notification.) May I ask where you got that list of nineteen editors? I haven't been around since the beginning of this discussion, and there seem to be references to some other discussion which I'm unaware of, and that may well explain this. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Flyer22 Frozen did it first, then in the above discussion 'Flyer22 Frozen' and 'Mathglot' stated that pinging and notifying other users for a discussion is a normal and a way of Wikipedia:Canvassing. Their words, not mine. Bionic (talk) 11:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.