Talk:Suicide of Kurt Cobain

message: This article appears slanted in the "Murder theory" presentation. The source Who Killed Kurt Cobain? The Mysterious Death of an Icon by Wallace Halperin is the lone source for much of it. Does anybody know if it's reliable? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't checked the credibility of the books you mentioned so I don't know about them but the Soaked in Bleach contents are surely reliable since it contains interviews, analyses & reviews of specialists, researchers,  experts, and eyewitnesses. Bionic (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely! I'm not so sure. This film details the events... as seen through the perspective of Tom Grant. Not an editor or journalist, but Tom Grant. This film, a docudrama, features dramatized re-enactments. From, we know, the perspective of Tom Grant. Not a typical source here. Mcfnord (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Nearly all claims in this article that the subject was murdered support the view that the subject's wife was the perpetrator. We quote a homocide detective who explicitly refutes the Grant thesis, but we don't have a citation. The article gives 3x the space to these discredited views vs. coverage of the death. That's probably a WP:UNDUE violation, but folk theories presenting alternative explanations of famous deaths aren't uncommon on Wikipedia (see folk theories claiming Suge Knight murdered Biggie and Tupac). We are not saying the claim in Wikivoice, but we are presenting it with incredible detail. Where that happens in coverage, the accused can speak. And Ms. Love has spoken clearly: Love says the claims are intended to distract from the fact that the CIA had been tracking Kurt Cobain for many years, and it was the stress of the CIA tracking the Nirvana front-man that led Kurt to committing suicide. The police don't think Love killed Cobain, but Grant clearly does, and we cover his claims in great detail. If a homicide investigator explicitly rejects an explanation, then it did not stand up to scrutiny of an NPOV-primary source. Some theory. So, where should we put the counter-claim by Love? 90% of the "evidence" implicates Love, so does she speak in the introduction to these folk theories? That seems like the only practical place to cover her counter-claims. Mcfnord (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: In a section accusing her of murder, she now addresses these accusations. Mcfnord (talk) 03:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accused counter-claim 

message: In a revert comment, an editor notes:
[Re]-Added "theories." Don't want to seem like we are giving these conspiracy theories any validity by calling them speculations. Also, it's common for singular style to be used in cases where multiple takes are included. It's a murder theory either way. But okay.
The word theory used popularly does differ from the word used within science, but let's pause to glorify the greatness that is theory in science. 
I don't like implying that these theories do what theories do. Theories are usually strengthened by evidence. That's not the case here.
The editor called the explanations "conspiracy theories" which I do prefer, so I've set it there for now. But when you look into conspiracy theories, you realize they tend to have traits that aren't quite here: Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth,[5][6] whereby the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than something that can be proved or disproved.[7][8].
I had high hopes for folk theories. Theories, sorta, but folk, as in people, popular, not scientific. I do see use of this phrase to describe this phenomenon. However, this phrasing also refers to research into tribal cognition, and the pseudoscience that governs how we think society works. In that sense, of pseudoscience, folk theory is correct. But not super-commonly used to describe this phenomenon. 
A third option I considered is theory in popular culture. It just seems too generous to call it a theory. In the case of Biggie and Tupak, and the implausable speculations that Suge Knight murdered them, those speculations are very popular, and definitely permeate popular culture. Still reluctant to call them theories, tho.
Here we see speculations from about 6 individuals. That must be a strike against theory. Theories get passed around and proved... typically when you get more evidence, it supports the theory, because a theory is more than speculation. Even a conspiracy theory has elements of "perfect knowledge" that can't be refuted, and I don't see that here.
If we want to use a scientific term, why not use hypothesis? These 4 or 5 crackpots hypothesize. I'm not even sure they test their hypotheses much.
So all of these are better titling than murder theories:
* Murder hypotheses
* Murder speculations
* Murder folk theories
* Murder conspiracy theories
I went with the other editor's idea for now but perhaps there's a better option here. Mcfnord (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "Murder conspiracy theories" looks best to me. "Hypotheses" sounds scientific, but these claims are not scientific. "Speculations" and "folk theories" are not as accurate as "conspiracy theories". Crossroads -talk- 03:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theories, speculations, and conspiracies 

message: To an extreme extent, the image of Kurt's suicide note is difficult to read. Perhaps a higher resolution image should be added? Donkey Kong Bubble pop (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not possible unless an image of the note is released without restrictions such as copyright. The current image is in a dreadfully low resolution so that we may use it under the parameters of fair use, which can be better understood by reading Wikipedia's policy on non-free content usage. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Pbritti Perhaps a blockquote of the note would suffice? Donkey Kong Bubble pop (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know this is going to sound odd but I'm fairly certain the contents of the note are owned by the Cobain estate and a blockquote would constitute plagiarism. Might be wrong, but I think what we have is the full extent of what's permitted. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Pbritti I've done some research and it seems the Estate has the rights to Cobains Image, which this note could fall under. Then again, there are despicable folk online who are selling T-Shirts with the suicide note on it, so anything is up for grabs here. Donkey Kong Bubble pop (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

text: Can they actually copyright the image of the note? Sorry if this sounds dumb, but it's literally just a handwritten note. So wouldn't that mean it falls below the threshold of originality? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 22:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Originality is an insanely low bar, so anything more than a couple sentences pretty easily sends the note into the realm of an original work. I can do additional digging but per the standards in this Harvard guide and the specific guidance in this blog post (which I include because it's a slightly different version of the same article published behind a WashPo paywall), suicide notes seem to be copyrighted. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

text: @CAVincent It's kind of redundant to have the image at all in the first place then. This isn't a traditional image, it's literally a piece of writing. If you can't read it, you basically just put Television Static on the page. Donkey Kong Bubble pop (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't object if you replaced the image with a picture of television static. (I mean, obv don't do that to make a point, but I assure you that I wouldn't be the one to revert it. I'd also be fine with just removing the image.) CAVincent (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Higher Resolution Suicide Note Image 

message: Hello, I'm glad this article is at B-class, even if there's still some glaring flaws to fix about. I want to state my suggestions for improving this article in whichever way necessary, mainly with the expansion of the background section (which I believe is where reasons for his suicide are stated), such as his lack of faith in family and his very problematic family history, along with his struggles with sudden fame, not only with the usual pressures of celebrity status but also his troubles reconciling said fame and influence with the underground/punk lifestyle and values he grew up with in all but the last few years of his life. The latter is noted by his wife Courtney Love, in this source of her reflecting on Nevermind's impact, saying Cobain was "happy about the album" but realized he'd look like a sellout if he displays such enthusiasm, denying significant amounts of satisfaction, and possibly a growth in self-esteem.
I am also surprised at the lack of anything related to In Utero, since it's been noted (especially retrospectively) by listeners and reviewers as containing many unhealthy signs of his then-current state. Lastly, I'm thinking of merging the reactions and memorial section into one aftermath section, and carrying over some info from his main article, and having the toxicology section being more of a general investigation section.
I'm open to further discussion on my proposed edits. If this topic does not go anywhere I will edit this article regardless. Thanks! Carlinal (talk) 05:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for improvement 

message: What "current FBI investigation"? Source? Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current FBI investigation?