Talk:Suicide of Kurt Cobain

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance). Death: Suicide Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Suicide task force (assessed as Mid-importance). United States: Washington / Seattle Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Washington - Seattle. Alternative music: Nirvana Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of the Nirvana task force, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 November 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Donkey Kong Bubble pop: 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)[reply]

@Pbritti Perhaps a blockquote of the note would suffice? Donkey Kong Bubble pop (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Donkey Kong Bubble pop: 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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 Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaze Wolf: 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)[reply]

Aside from the noted copyright issues, noting that I don't think a higher resolution image would particularly improve the article. Obv others have a different opinion, but a readable resolution strikes me as more ghoulish than informational. CAVincent (talk) 05:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

What "current FBI investigation"? Source? Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? I don't have time at the moment to figure out how to revert all of this, but such a change needed a discussion. I strongly oppose this change. CAVincent (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted this undiscussed move per WP:RMUM. @Par âpre aux astres, do not move this or other pages again until and unless you establish consensus for such a move. General Ization ^Talk 20:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]