Talk:Chris Benoit/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

A Small Grammar Error that I Cannot Fix Because of Lockdown

Umm, I don't know if I am entering this discussion correctly, but I just wanted to point a small thing out. In the section about the murder-suicide, there is a bit about his induction into a hall of fame being rescinded by vote, and the article mentions that this is similar to other halls of fame. The grammar of this last fact is incorrect in that it uses the incorrect plural "hall of fames". Since this article is under complete lockdown, I thought I would just mention it to the discussion so that someone who has access can fix that error. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.197.63.139 (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Other than forgetting to sign by typing ~~~~ after your comment, you entered it perfectly. Thanks for letting us know about the grammar mistake; it's since been fixed. Cheers, The Hybrid 23:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Clarification as to Malenko's comment

I believe the article needs clarification as to Dean Malenko's comment about "training him would go down as the worst thing he ever did" as to whether he was referring to training Benoit or training Marc Mero.

AndarielHalo 01:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Continued protection

Why is this article still protected from editing? I really think the situation has died down enough to allow regular unrestricted editing, as evidenced by the recent relative lack of vandalism and media coverage. 66.186.33.226 23:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It is probably a good idea to keep it protected for now. The lack of vandalism is most likely due to the fact that IPs can't edit the article. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he can just, I don't know, register? Mshake3 23:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If people really wanted to vandalize it, then they would simply register an account and wait four days. I think the fact that no one's doing this shows that people have stopped caring enough to go out of their way to make bad faith edits. This article shouldn't stay protected forever, as protection interferes with Wikipedia's base concept of being built by the community. Now seems as great a time as any to remove protection. Protection should only be used in the most severe cases of multiple bad faith edits, and I believe it simply no longer applies at this point. 66.186.33.226 00:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the casual vandal knows they can do that, nor do we want to go out of our way to explain that to them. No comment on article protection in this case, however. ~Kylu (u|t) 00:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I unprotected it; the protection has lasted over a month. If vandalism starts again I'll protect it again. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That didn't take long. Mshake3 01:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That's just one edit. It takes sustained vandalism from multiple IP editors to justify semiprotection. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Now THAT didn't take long. Mshake3 03:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it was a good try. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we fully protect this article cuz it's gettin' rediculous now!!! --Zero Cool 17:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it at least qualifies for semi-protection, because there have been more than 10 vandalism edits done by IPs within the last 24 hours. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the protection log, semiprotection expired about 36 hours ago. I can semiprotect it again if the vandalism doesn't trail off quickly. Just drop a note on my talk page, or go to WP:RFPP. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

On that note... How long are the edit wars going to go on over the words "Discovered, determined" etc. and "believed". Does it really make a differance what the wording is? All it's doing it letting possible vandalism slip by unnoticed because it gets lost in all the "it's not proven!" edits. TheJudge310 23:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I simply edited the lead paragraph because I thought that the use of the word "believe" made it seem outdated, since the investigators seem 100% sure that he did it. So, I changed it to "discovered" and that was immediately reverted. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The new picture is in bad taste, it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.160.203.124 (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

What new picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpion0422 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

His PPV winning streak in 2004

I can only count 4 PPV victories after he won the championship at Wrestlemania XX. 1. WM XX, 2. Backlash, 3. Bad Blood, 4. Vengeance. Now, where were the other 3 PPV victories?? I think it would be appropriate to edit it to 4 PPV victories since his reign was 5 months and 7 straight PPV victories would have been impossible. Mal1988 10:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Without checking, couldn't he have won 3 before? I know he won the Royal Rumble that year.

He beat A-Train at No Mercy 2003, his team won at Survivor Series 2003, the Rumble, then the four mentioned above. But what a useless factoid anyway. Nosleep1234 15:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The Bias against Wrestling

In my opinion, this talk page is full of bias against Chris Benoit because he was a professional wrestler and people consider it a lower form of profession. I believe this has affected the decisions of people regarding the Chris Benoit page and the Chris Benoit Murder-Suicide page. As examples:

1. "I'm doubtful I would have heard of this story were it not for wikipedia and I'm sure this applies to most of the world."

This statement is absolutely ridiculous, as Chris Benoit's murder because the "it" story, the top story the media was covering at the time. (That was partly because it was a murder that involved a celebrity, and partly because it involved issues of steroids and the demons of professional wrestling.) As far as the issue not applying to say, Europe, there are very few news stories that do get worldwide attention, save for something like Princess Di's death. Had it been a baseball player, nobody would pull this out as the yardstick. But because it's about a "wrestler", the bias is there.

2. "Sorry, guys, but anyone who doesn't watch wrestling didnt know who he was. Now everyone knows who he is. Not because he wrestled."

This contributor is trying to say that Benoit wasn't really a celebrity because he wrestled, but because he murdered. Others have stated similar thoughts. This is ridiculous. Once again, if it was a baseball player, people wouldn't say, "Anybody who doesn't watch baseball didn't know who he was." Or if he was a rock star or a soap opera star - despite applicable examples for all of those. "He's not an A lister" someone said. No, he wasn't Hulk Hogan. But just because you're not Babe Ruth doesn't mean you're not a famous baseball player. Benoit was known to millions. That's why it was a big story: our media and pop culture are fixated on celebrities. Just before Benoit died, there was a murder-suicide in Wisconsin: a man shot his ex wife, their four children, and then killed himself. This got no national attention. Benoit's situation was worlwide news. Nobody says, "Michael Vick is most widely known as a dog killer, not a football player" despite the fact that it's true now.

3. "There's nothing encyclopedic about a single event (of any magnitude) in a person's life."

Then why do we have a page for the Death of Diana, Princess of Wales and the John F. Kennedy Assassination? I know there's going to be back pedaling here: "Well, those are big events." Well, what about Death of Dale Earnhardt? Racing fans forgive me, but the guy wasn't an immortal celebrity along the lines of Di and Kennedy. He was more along the lines of... Chris Benoit. They are especially similar in that The Dale E situation led to a great discussion and then changes in the safety of racing. Benoit's murder-suicide is having the same effect in wrestling, with possible congressional hearings upcoming.

4. "Quit comparing it to O.J."

Well, if you can find another famous athlete who murdered two people, then had the media go wild with the story because of all the issues involved, let us know.

5. "Anything that would be put into [The Chris Benoit Murder Suicide] article now would only be a stub."

I'm guessing this person doesn't know much about the the situation and professional wrestling. It's actually quite a lengthy.

I ask that those of you who do have a bias against professional wrestling, believing it to be a less proper business than others, please refrain from letting this bias become part of the wikipedia articles. 68.75.89.53 16:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You are so right in everything here. Unfortunately good points don't change how people view a proffesion.71.153.26.133 05:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Google and SEO

I was curious how Benoit's name came up on the search engines, number one, I was positive like most things was wikipedia, what surprised me what this is what it listed instead of the normally the first few words on google as the description.
Chris Benoit, his wife Nancy, and their 7-year-old son Daniel were found dead in their Fayetteville, Georgia home on June 25, 2007. ...
I think this needs to be resolved, it gives the impression that Benoit is only known for kiling his family and himself. It should have something in there about being a former wrestler that was known for killing his family, as it reads, it just speaks of him as normal every day guy who's family died. I know Google does their own web spidering, but they take what's listed mostly on the page and that's why that came up instead of his name and everything else in the front of the article. I think some mixing up the layout of the article needs to be done to give full SEO qualities.The Cleveland Browns are awesome! 16:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems like this is the wrong place, or wrong people to talk to. Like you said, Google does their own spidering, and there's no need to change an entire article just because the top google search result reads Benoit as a normal guy who died with his family. Anyone who types "Chris Benoit" into google already knows who he is anyway. TheJudge310 22:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is the wrong place to talk to-- it's the right place! What the poster above was saying is that when you do a search for Benoit and this article comes up-- as in here, what comes up as the description of the Wikipedia page is not a description of the article, such as, for example, the Ron Paul Wikipedia article here here: "Hyperlinked encyclopedia article about the Texas Congressman and candidate for President." Rather, it says Benoit, his wife Nancy and son were found dead. It should instead say "Hyperlinked encyclopedia article about the wrestler." That is not controlled by Google at all, but is actually controlled by Wikipedia. It's found in the meta tags of the HTML on the page. I'm not sure who at Wikipedia is in charge of coding and all that, but it is definitely done on Wikipedia's side and not Google's.--76.182.88.254 22:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

As the user said above, I do believe this is the right place, Google spiders their own sites, but they take the text as the content that's there, so if you look at the article, by the wording in the first couple of pages, you will realize that this is wrong and the site could have better SEO so you know you are finding the right person and information. And on the comment below mine above here, not everyone knows that Benoit was a wrestler but it seems everyeone knows him now as a "killer"(again I use this term losely because I was not there that night. If you got by this I said now, then if everyone knows he's a killer, but someone is trying to find famous former wrestlers who have died, will they find Benoit, not if they don't search his name up right, considering how many Chris's there are in wrestlings. So, Search Engines are important when doing research, everyone knows that. I'm not talking crazy, I think this article can be fixed and the right SEO done to it to at the same time.The Cleveland Browns are awesome! 20:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Can I reedit this first couple of wording of the page to match up, any suggestions, it's got to be about a sentence long and has to explain that he's a former pro wrestler who is believed to kill himself and family. Please come up with wording for this and I'll make the proper SEO changes to Google for you.The Cleveland Browns are awesome! 20:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Michael Benoit (IPA: [bə'nwɑ]) (May 21, 1967 – June 24, 2007) was a Canadian professional wrestler who wrestled for Extreme Championship Wrestling, World Championship Wrestling, and World Wrestling Entertainment. A World Heavyweight Champion in both WCW and WWE, he was widely regarded as one of the most popular and gifted technical professional wrestlers of his generation.[2][3]

As well as winning the top titles in several wrestling organizations, Benoit won numerous other titles, in both single and tag team wrestling. In World Championship Wrestling, Benoit won the WCW Television Championship three times and the United States Heavyweight Championship twice. In tag team wrestling Benoit won the WCW World Tag Team Championship twice, once with Dean Malenko and once with Perry Saturn. In the WWF/E Benoit also won the United States Championship another three times and the Intercontinental Championship four times. He and Kurt Angle were the first winners of the WWE Tag Team Championship. Benoit also won the WWF/E World Tag Team Championship twice with Edge and once with Chris Jericho. Benoit also won the 2004 Royal Rumble and was the WWE's 12th Triple Crown Champion.

Chris Benoit, his wife Nancy, and their 7-year-old son Daniel were found dead in their Fayetteville, Georgia home on June 25, 2007. Investigators believe that Benoit murdered his wife and son and later hanged himself.[4]

but if you look at the search results, it comes up with only this as the search engine since that's the most popular thing that was on the site once the site was updated, it's orginal header was reading below

Chris Benoit, his wife Nancy, and their 7-year-old son Daniel were found dead in their Fayetteville, Georgia home on June 25, 2007. Investigators believe that Benoit murdered his wife and son and later hanged himself.[4]

To fix this, it might just need to be resubmitted and sent back to Google to spider again. Any Suggestions?The Cleveland Browns are awesome! 20:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps better wording such as, "Chris Benoit, a former wrestler, was found dead at home with his family who was believed to have killed his family by police investigation." That sounds more right than, they were found dead and he killed his wife and kid and hung himself. It at least knowledges to everyone he was a former wrestler as well, which is how he orginally became famous enough to have to start locking this page.The Cleveland Browns are awesome! 20:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed someone changed this, but it's still not good enough for him. Look below how it is listed on google.om

6] This prompted him to be a wrestler, so when he began wrestling, he was initially billed as "Dynamite" Chris Benoit. He also began using the Diving ...

This doesn't talk about him other than he's a wrestler and use to be called Dynamite Chris Benoit. I just think that the SEO could be better suited for him by writing out something general that hits everything about him.The Cleveland Browns are awesome! 17:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Mind-boggling

It's mind-boggling that my edits were reverts when they were tidier, had more links, and were more relevant to the facts. If you have a problem with something, that's fine, but to revert all the changes I made just because you're desperate for control is ridiculous, especially when it's actually perverting the truth (i.e. saying 'Benoit killed them, he just killed them' when it's been proven time and time again that there is reasonable doubt and the investigation is still ongoing).

Don't bother doing it again, I won't be defeated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Multiplebraininjuries (talk • contribs) 15:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

First off, Benoit died in Fayetteville, not Atlanta. The championship information is in the above paragraph, so I removed it, and the exact phrasing of the final paragraph has been much discussed and the version before you edited it was the most accepted version by consensus. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents but I think Scorpion's version is good and accurate as far as I've been able to get. The editing back in forth is making for it to be real difficult to read the article knowing the reverts going on. I read the article to keep up with what is going on. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pissed off that I put a link on here yesterday to review to see if it was worth putting in the article and someone edited it out like it didn't belong in this area, okay...if putting sources from AP articles about this issue and putting it here instead of just editing it right in the article, the article is locked, but I could have edit it myself, but I didn't, I rather post it over here and see what other people think and then someone just edit's it right out, THIS WEBSITE FN' SUCKS and THE PEOPLE IN CHARGE of edits are retarded, this is a talk page to talk about what edits we might or might not want in the article, I didn't post something that was chatting, now I can't even get my point across nor find that link again because it's gone. Thanks a lot to someone that wants to be in charge of this page instead of acually reading what I said. Wikipedia is no longer fun anymore. I get so angry because people don't even send you a message or anything before someone deletes something that you search and found. The source was Yahoo.com, I mean come on, how basic can it be....but I guess people don't want this page to acually grow, they just want people to fight and fight, well, I'm done with Chris Benoit and this stupid page. You guys don't even know how to SEO a page right nor write exactly what happened to him without being biased to him or the issue at hand. This isn't free will and free speech, this is free to editors who want to delete other people's stuff even when it's relevent to the article. The Cleveland Browns are awesome! 14:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

First: The article you posted had no new information; the results of the tox screen showing elevated testosterone levels was reported over a month ago and noted in the article, along with information on the reported reason for it (his doctor treating him for depressed natural testosterone levels due to long-term steroid abuse). Second: There is no confirmation that testosterone levels had any connection to the murders; there is at least as much evidence that it was connected to Benoit's history of multiple concussions, and the determination of which was at fault will not be made for months, if ever. Third: Wikipedia is not written for SEO purposes; it is written to follow the standards of the Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the version of the lead that is currently on the article follows MOS guidelines. Fourth, I think you may be letting yourself take things a bit too personally; in this case, I'm gonna paraphrase what Joel Hodgson first said in 1989, something that's a good piece of advice for everyone in all aspects of life... Just say to yourself, "It's just a Wiki, I should really just relax." Rdfox 76 15:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually... The article he posted yesterday gave new information, or should I say updated. Editing it out of the talk page is silly, but I do think that stating it in the article itself would probally have ended up being redundant. Still not something to take so personal though, half the time on wikipedia your stuff is accidentily edited away as an editor tries to stop someone else's vandalism. Looking over yesterday, it appears the person who removed it isn't even someone with a wikipedia account, so all someone really did was vandalize you in a way. TheJudge310 17:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Sorry to everyone, my mother just died last week and I'm just having a really rough time about it so I probably vented a lot in that last post of mine.

2. It did provide new info in there and that's why i posted it over here, so that I could have people talk about it, it wasn't new to us because we been following this story on this page, but it still was documented in court papers so it was new news. It was updated info and it also talked about his doctor so I figured it was important here.

ATLANTA — The amount of testosterone prescribed to pro wrestler Chris Benoit far exceeded the normal amount for a hormone disorder he was purportedly being treated for, federal prosecutors said in new court papers.

That's what it said, I'm just cuting and pasting.

3. I never said that had to do with the murders, I just wanted to see if everyone thought its important enough to say something about it, which is why it posted it here instead of on the real page, which I could have done if I wanted to, but I was being mindful of it. This story will continue for a while and I was just wondering if this should be documented or not, that's all, I was generally asking a question(which is what I thought the talk page was for).

4.Wikipedia Manual of Style-not sure what this is, on the SEO stuff, you should see how it comes up in the search engines, it just doesn't make sense is all i'm saying and the only way to fix that is on this page, that's all, that's what I meant by that.

5. I probably am pretty close to this topic as it involves my former favorite wrestler. I want to make sure the article is at least correct and right, that's all, it's important to me.

Okay, I'm done ranting now. LOLThe Cleveland Browns are awesome! 18:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please except my sympathy over the loss of your mother. I know how hard this is with losing my father many years ago. Take it one day at a time and things will get better I promise. Just take the time to mourn and try to think of the good things. --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I too want to express sympathy (and how the hell did I ever miss this diff in my watchlist?); I've never lost a parent, so I have no idea what you're going through. I'm not entirely certain what the details of Wiki policy regarding SEO is; maybe you should ask if we could get a clarification on the issue at the Village Pump? As for the Manual of Style, it's located at WP:MOS, not the link I mistakenly gave; it's a real page-turner! ...OK, I admit it, it's about as entertaining as watching the mold grow in my fridge, but it's got a lot of good tidbits buried in it regarding how to make sure Wiki articles are written to the same standards regardless of topic.

I feel pretty close to this article, too, because Benoit was my favorite wrestler, too; it was almost as big a shock to hear about his death as it was for me to hear about my paternal grandfather's death a few years ago. (No, I never got to spend much time with him, so the bond was pretty weak.) Still, I hope we can all come to an agreement regarding these questions and end up with the best damned article on Benoit's life and death as we possibly can! Rdfox 76 13:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Category: Murderers of children

I would like to know know who keeps tagging Benoit under that category. He is under a more narrow category "People who killed their own children". "Murderers of children" implies that he killed multiple children or somebody else's, but the category "People who killed their own children" is more accurate. Please don't put this article under that category again. Thanks

That is your opinion, and I do not agree. Chris Benoit murdered a child - therefore he belongs in the category "Murderers of children". Singular is just as applicable as multiple. The category should stay. !! Justa Punk !! 11:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a grammatical point that you are making incorrectly. We might as well reject the category because he's a murder, not a set of murderers. However, you are correct - there is no need whatsoever to put him into a category if he is already in that category via a subcategory. I am removing the redundant parent category. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just added it back; I didn't see this note at first. It's a relevant and fair category, so I don't see why it should be removed. I also don't see how "Murderers of children" implies that he killed multiple children or someone else's. It just means he is a murderer of a child, which is true (unless you want to have a stick up your ass about him not being "convicted" of murder or something). Both nouns are in the plural because the category, obviously, has more than one entry in in it. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

He's already in a subcategory of it, so why does he also need to be in the parent category? You wouldn't put him in the "2007 deaths" and "Deaths by Year" categories. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

try reading the edit summary for the reason

Can I please be afforded the benefit of the doubt? Your biting sarcasm is not helpful. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 01:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It's also not necessarily a parent category. Marvin Pentz Gay, Sr. is in [[Category:People who killed their children]], but obviously not [[Category:Murderers of children]]. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't sarcasm, I asked you to read the edit summary. It is a parent category because it contains the other category. If you look to Category:Murderers of children, you will notice that the other category is inside that one. Likewise, if you go to Category:People who killed their children, you'll see at the bottom that it's categorized under the parent category (that is what "parent category" means). Let's do some basic set theory. If the set X contains the set Y, and x is a member of X, then x is a member of Y. To go out of our way to state the latter is redundant - saying "x is in X" is all that's necessary. If you take issue with the categorization scheme, you'll have to work that out at the appropriate category pages. Also, FYI, link to a category by adding a colon: [[:Category:People who killed their children]] → Category:People who killed their children. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarification re: NJPW

In the NJPW section of the article, I noticed something that may or may not be a mistake: in the section header, it describes his stint with the company as ending in '94. In the body of the section, though, it makes a reference to him in NJPW in '95 (the Super Juniors tournament). So, what's the deal? Hezekiah957 05:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If that's the Super J Cup tournament, I believe NJPW brought in workers from promotions worldwide for that tournament every year, including from direct competitors. I do know that part of the reason Benoit chose to sign with WCW instead of WWF was that WCW had the operating agreement with NJPW that would let him do the occasional touw with New Japan, so it might be related to that, too. Rdfox 76 13:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction?

The article gives Benoit's death as June 24, 2007 which was a Sunday. Howver, in the section about the murder-suicide it says:

The station reported that investigators had discovered that Benoit murdered his wife and son over the weekend and hanged himself sometime on Monday.

Is this just a mistake by the station? 81.145.240.225 (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

it was a mistake, it was widely agreed later that he died sometime Sunday, Nancy Friday night and Daniel Saturday. Skitzo (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Snap Suplex

Didnt he use a snap suplex quite often? Could it be added to the movelist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.6.156 (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hall of Fame

In his accomplishments it says that he is in the Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame.His induction is going under a new vote this year,shouldn't that be noted.To me that is a relevant note to this article.--WillC (talk) 05:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC) 05:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Something that you don't know

I created a account so i could edit the Chris Benoit page, however it is locked so, i want to tell you that one part is missing, could you write this down too.

• Worlds Best Brawler award: (2004)

• Worlds Best Technical Wrestler award: (1994, 1995, 2000, 2003, 2004)

• Worlds Five Star Match award: (1994, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005)

• Worlds Match of the Year award: (2002, 2003, 2004, 2005)

• Worlds Most Outstanding Wrestler award: (2000, 2004)

• Worlds Most Underrated Wrestler award: (1998, 2002)

• Worlds Readers Favorite Wrestler award: (2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007)

• Worlds Wrestling-Feud of the Year award: (2004)

• Worlds Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame award: (2003) - Men kom ikke i Hall of Fame efter tragedien.

• Worlds Rank 44# of 500 other Wrestlers award: (1993)
• Worlds Rank 43# of 500 other Wrestlers award: (1994)
• Worlds Rank 46# of 500 other Wrestlers award: (1995)
• Worlds Rank 18# of 500 other Wrestlers award: (1996)
• Worlds Rank 10# of 500 other Wrestlers award: (1997)
• Worlds Rank 19# of 500 other Wrestlers award: (1998)
• Worlds Rank 20# of 500 other Wrestlers award: (1999)
• Worlds Rank 3# of 500 other Wrestlers award: (2000)
• Worlds Rank 3# of 500 other Wrestlers award: (2001)
• Worlds Rank ?# of 500 other Wrestlers award: (2002)
• Worlds Rank 69# of 500 other Wrestlers award: (2003)
• Worlds Rank 1# of 500 other Wrestlers award: (2004)
• Worlds Rank 13# of 500 other Wrestlers award: (2005)
• Worlds Rank 29# of 500 other Wrestlers award: (2006)
• Worlds Rank 4# of 500 other Wrestlers award: (2007) - He was removed after the tragedy.

--Chris Benoit 1992 (talk) 12:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Figure four leg lock

i never saw Chris Benoit do a figure four leg lock and if he did it must have been in his early career and that should be noted SocialistRevolution (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That's true. Benoit used the figure-4 against Kurt Angle in Backlash at some year I can't remember in an Ultimate Submission Match somewhere in 2001. I agree in the benoit page it should clearly state this. Just in case, some punk asks for sources, go to YouTube type in "The Olympic Medalist vs The Rabid Wolverine" Which is in 4 parts and they can clearly see it. I think it is mentioned on the page of the Backlash in that year BestBenoitFan (talk) 07:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC) I miss chris so much, man

Crossface

It's prety well known here how much WWE has cut any and all references to Benoit, but at the recent No Way Out PPV Shawn Michaels used the Crippler Crossface on Umaga. I think this should be mentioned on either Michael's page, or Benoits. The reasons I think it would be important are that it is something that no one in the WWE has used aside from Benoit, it is NOT a normal submission by Michaels (considering he has never used it before), and this is the first time to see the move inside WWE since the Benoit incident. The commentators did not name the hold, but anyone with two eyes can see that it was an arm-trap crossface.65.112.243.131 (talk) 09:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as what's verifiable is concerned, the crossface is just another wrestling move. No mention can be made within policy. SexySeaBass 09:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect, Anon - Shawn HAS used it before. Against Randy Orton at the Survivor Series when he couldn't use the superkick. !! Justa Punk !! 02:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

How has WWE removed all references to him? You lie. There is a royal rumble 2004 page on the WWE website with photos of his win and he is listed in the results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.229.70 (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

What puzzles me is that According to Benoit, the Crossface was "borrowed from Dean Malenko" Which makes the crippler crossface Malenko's move and he is a frikin road agent so the Crossface shouldn't be removed in the games or history of WWE. Another point the diving headbutt was a legendary WWE superstar, Dynamite Kid's, Move so why did they remove that aswell? I personallly think they are disrespecting Chris Benoit (Which is what they wanted to do from the start), Dean Malenko and Dynamite Kid so that is why I am pissed off with it. I want to create Dynamite Kid but nor his clothes neither the headbutt is fucking in it, MAN! COME ON! It's not like if Chris Benoit was the dominant creater of the crossface!

wikipedia is not a forum. This is not a place for your personal thoughts/opinions, but a place for improving the article. Thanks, ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 16:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hanged Himself??

in the second paragraph it says he hanged himselfm now thats not a reak word, it should say hung himself, i would change it but the page is locked, so could someone please fix it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.28.118 (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

real*, and i just noticed it says hanged all throughout the article, it really should say hung, as hanged isnt in the english dictionary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.28.118 (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No. "Hanged" is a special-purpose term for the past tense form of someone being lethally suspended by ligature. See Hanging for language information on this special-purpose version. Rdfox 76 (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hanged is used when referring to actually hanging like Benoit did. Hung is used for like "I hung out with him" or something like that.

RandySavageFTW (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

o rite, my mistake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.28.246 (talk) 09:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Article pretext bias

This article reads as though pro-wrestling is a legitimate sport. It isn't. People are harping on about Chris Benoit and his "accomplishments" like he is an Olympic marathon runner. He is a stuntman. Performing tricks that are visually entertaining. Nothing more. My opinion is that this man is nothing more than a steroid abusing murderer. 114.77.66.191 (talk) 07:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion which is not neutral. Pro wrestling is not legit but still technically a sport. Benoit was a more active actor. People look at actors and their accomplishments as if they are great. The article needs improvement yes, but if you want you can go right ahead and work on it.--WillC 11:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Chris Benoit's height

Chris Benoit was never billed 5'11". His height bill was 5'10". Numerous video games, trading cards, etc back this up. I'm aware this page is locked for the obvious reasons, but that's driving me nuts. Please change it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.101.57.67 (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

WWE ignoring Benoit's Royal Rumble win

It seems that the WWE isn't acknowledging that Benoit won the 2004 Royal Rumble. Perhaps something about this could be added to the article.Unisock (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It is mentioned here already, in a form that covers all aspects of his WWE career. The Rumble win is included in this and there is no reason to mention specifics. !! Justa Punk !! 03:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Jesus, man, get with it! The WWE isn't acknowledging ANYTHING about Benoit EVER. They've taken Wrestlemania XX, Backlash 2004, and other DVDs out of print featuring Benoit prominently. He's literally become, as in the TWF (The Wrestling Fan) forums, "GUY WHO NEVER EXISTED" in the WWE. AndarielHalo (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

auctually thats isnt true, he is still in the History of the WWE Championship DVD, They didnt take off the United States Championship match from Wrestlemania 23 DVD. Also its wrong of WWE to try to make it like he hasent existed. Chris Bennoit is the greatest technical wrestler to ever live. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.241.250 (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason he isn't being recognized is because the extent of his crime. The WWE does not want that to be projected as part of their image. Haysead (talk) 13:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll add that the US title match at Wrestlemania 23 was not a major part of the show, so they aren't featuring him prominently. The point is NOT to present him ina positive person light (as opposed to positive wrestler light). The material that featured him prominently (WM 20, the following Backlash and the previous Royal Rumble) paint the person as a good person - especially Backlash because it was in Edmonton. !! Justa Punk !! 00:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. They removed WM 20 because Benoit was the ME. He won the WHC. Thats too positive, and makes the E look like they support him and what he did. They want nothing to do with that. There are still old copies, but they are few and far between. Killswitch Engage (talk) 04:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Still doesn't explain why he's blurred out on The Legacy of Stone Cold Steve Austin DVD in a small backstage segment. That didn't exactly put Benoit in a positive light. I think they've just forgotten to blur him out, or not bothered. I can't blame WWE for doing what they are to Benoit, but I still don't agree that he should be removed from all mention. Would they do the same if John Cena (killing the WWE Championship's credence doesn't count...) or Batista killed somebody? Who knows. --Kaizer13 (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

They would. And there is a chance that Benoit was blurred off the SCSA DVD because (dare I say it) Stone Cold said so! Probably legit as well by Steve. !! Justa Punk !! 04:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually WWE added him to the list of top Royal Rumble winners so it may show that they may start giving out the DVD and other merchandise again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawisrob2 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

5 star match

Under Championships/Accomplishments there is no mention of his 5 star match with Great Sasuke from '94. Please add this in. Herotastic (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

the article states that benoit drove from his home(assumed to be in quebec) to calgary, and that it is a three hour drive. The distance is over two thousand miles, and over twenty four hours driving time. Unlock all pages, you hypocrites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.48.184 (talk) 11:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it would be roughly three hours' drive from Edmonton, to which Chris and his parents moved from Montreal when Chris was quite young. 24.224.254.38 (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Murder theory by Satanists

I came upon this article (http://www.johnnyleeclary.com/files/page.php?p=69) from the motivational speaker (ex-wrestler) Johnny Angel. I am not sure how much credit can be given to his opinion, but I believe that it is worth noting (Under the Death Section of the article) that there is another theory to the presumed double-murder-suicide, even if the official account is otherwise. I mean I am not a fan of Benoit, but the whole killing does not make complete sense to me, so I think we owe it to the reader to direct them to investigate more.

--Wyjay (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That site does not appear to be a reliable source and generally we don't mention theories, unless it's an extremely main stream theory that has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

editsemiprotected

{{editsemiprotected}} "This was further helped by when Benoit was fifteen..."

should be changed to

"When Benoit was fifteen..."

Done —Ms2ger (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Date of death contradiction

The date of death at the top of the article is cited as Sunday, June 24, 2007, however, the body of the article indicates that he died on Monday, June 25, 2007. The citation listed for the second date leads to a dead link. I've had trouble finding a source that cites the proper date. Some list Sunday and some list Monday. Can we get some clarity on this? Is the date of death even definite? -- Uncle Dick (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No one knows the exact date for sure because he was alone when he killed himself. The bodies were found Monday, that's the only thing anyone can say FOR SURE. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I just found this article, which summarizes the final report issued by the Fayette County Sheriff's Department. It indicates that Benoit did in fact die on Sunday, June 24. I will update the article accordingly. -- Uncle Dick (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

To be honest, I think it's about time this page was semi protected again. The amount of IP vandalism is still at an intolerable level - and because this page has been semi protected previously, I would suggest that it be permanent. Or at least for a major period of time (such as six months at least). !! Justa Punk !! 03:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Just bumping this up in the hope an admin with this on their watchlist sees this message. IP vandalism is continuing - lately involving the lead section. !! Justa Punk !! 07:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested semi-protection. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What happened? The protection was removed and now IP's are at it again. !! Justa Punk !! 02:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• I officially ask that an admin semi protect this page again - and retain it for at least six months. This page is clearly a target for anonymous IP's and it needs to be curtailed. !! Justa Punk !! 03:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the place to request semi-protection. You should request it at WP:RFPP. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 07:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUqkTWk75jY —Preceding unsigned comment added by JuanShoKz (talk • contribs) 00:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of murder in header

Why does any mention of Benoit murdering his family keep keep on vanishing from the header? This is easily one of the things he is most notable for (esp among non wrestling fans) and is easily more significant than him winning various titles and wining the Royal Rumble.harlock_jds (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably just vandalism. Mention of the murders needs to be kept in the lead. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

ah i see i got confused when trying to see who removed the information and thought it was an established editor instead of a anon editor that has been adding RS about this on other articles which is why i brought it up here. Nevermind. harlock_jds (talk) 22:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse, but don't dare undermine Benoit's accomplishments for his murder-suicide case. Those accomplishments were highly meaningful for the skill he possessed, its only he messed himself up in the long run. Now, I'm finished ranting. Continue on with ya'll wiki editing Contributions/192.30.202.6 (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

They were meaningful for pro wrestling, yes. But he's known to more people for the murder-suicide than for his wrestling accomplishments (which I agree were quite significant). Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

He is the second of only three men to hold both titles within their respective promotions (the others being Bill Goldberg and Booker T).

kevin nash bret hart hulk hogan big show that i know of who have hold both titles within their respective promotions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.211 (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That quote is referring to the World Title (the one presently held by CM Punk) and not the WWE Title. Nash, Hart, Hogan and Show never won the World Title in WWE. They won the other title. !! Justa Punk !! 06:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

did anyone else notice

did anyone else notice that after this, the wwe stopped hyping the ecw roster as extreme and stopped calling them extremists like theyd regulrly did, should that be mentioned anywhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.69.138 (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Since it is original research and speculation on your part, and you have no reliable sources to prove your claims, no it should not. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 01:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, unsigned comment, they did stop referring to ECW wrestlers by that, but since WWE themselves have made no concrete mention as to why they did it, its just speculation. Drunknesmonsta (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Category: Professional Wrestling Deaths should be removed.

This category is reserved for wrestlers who died in the ring, or as a direct result of in-ring injuries.

Though one could possibly attribute Benoit's in-ring concussions to his mindset at his death, this is a stretch.

Can someone fix this? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT rdfox 76 (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Who says that category is reserved for that specific purpose? Where is the consensus? !! Justa Punk !! 13:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't fix it, Rdfox. The article is protected. And Punk, concensus or not, if you take a look at the articles in the category, they all have dying from in-ring injuries in common. Except for Benoit. The category is also related (according to the page) to Deaths in Sport, which also only lists athletes who died while competing. Not going to ruin my day if you keep it like this, just trying to help things on Wikipedia make sense. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Chris Candido didn't die in the ring or from in ring injuries and he's listed. !! Justa Punk !! 12:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Candido died of a infection stemming from surgery on a broken leg, which occured in the ring (or just outside of it, technically). A bit more indirect than the others, but still direct enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Blood clot, my mistake. Still counts, either way. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to go that way, Benoit's death was indirectly related to dementia caused by shots to the back of the head in the ring. That's as direct as what you are claiming about Candido. !! Justa Punk !! 08:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Decent argument, but again, indirect and hard to verify. Even if Benoit's brain damage and resulting apparent dementia could be 100% linked to his in-ring concussions (which is unproven), there's no evidence that dementia causes people to kill themselves or others. The dementia would have inhibited his judgment, and maybe even caused some delusions that he based his fatal actions on, but the cause of death is still strangulation. He may just as well done the same thing for entirely unrelated reasons, without any concussions at all. If Benoit had eventually died of the brain damage alone, you may have had a valid point.

In Candido's case, the clot developed as a result of damage caused by his broken leg. And that's precisely what killed him. Straightforward A-B-C chain of events. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a straight forward chain of events with Benoit's dementia as well. It has been verified by Benoit's father and Chris Nowinski who has the experience and pulled out of wrestling in time. How else could he have had those concussions? Wrestling was Benoit's life and that's enough proof of the link to the same level as the proof of Candido's. !! Justa Punk !! 00:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying Benoit's dementia wasn't caused by his in-ring injuries. It almost certainly was, or this was at least a huge factor. I think you're missing the point. The dementia didn't kill Benoit. He killed himself. Far from a wrestling ring. Many dementia sufferers don't kill themselves and their families, and many people who do do not suffer from dementia. I can't make my point any clearer, so if you're still convinced you're right, there's no use arguing it any further. If you want to "win" at the sake of Wikipedia's accuracy, go ahead. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It was in that demented state that he killed Nancy and Daniel and then killed himself. No one person wins on Wikipedia - facts win. !! Justa Punk !! 03:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Punk, I definitely see where you are coming from. You are saying that in ring injuries (concussions), led todementia, which, in turn, led to benoit's suicide. but the Dementia did not kill him directly, as an infection would. Another example would be Owen Hart. Owen hart fell from the rafters, the impact of the fall led to a tear in his aorta, which caused his lungs to fill with blood, and killed him. The fall, led directly to the cause of death. Benoit's injuries did not directly led to his death, they led to mental issues, which led to HIM killing HIMSELF by strangulation. (to those who are anti caps, i apologize.) Dimentia does not equal strangulation, Benoit's cause of death and, therefore, I must agree with Hulk. -Blackmachismo131 (talk) 01:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You actually supported me and the facts with your commentary. Chain of events - no matter how many - that led to the death of a wrestler. Thank you for your support. !! Justa Punk !! 05:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You still seem to be utterly missing, or willfully ignoring, the point. Nobody is arguing that it hasn't been reasonably proven that Benoit's brain was damaged, and that damage came from wrestling. It's as matter of fact as any fact gets. BUT...dementia is a state of mind, in the same way (though on another level) that being drunk or depressed is. If Benoit had merely gotten drunk at a bar, before coming home and doing what he did, would you honestly say that bar caused his (and his family's) death to a degree where you could put in a theoretical "Deaths in O'Flanagans" category? Or say his wife said or did something that made him depressed. Could you imagine saying she caused the tragedy? The chain of events is basically the same in all these scenarios, up until the states of mind. What one does with that state of mind once they get it is up to them, and Benoit chose to strangle himself. Hence, to paraphrase another famous Canadian wrestling theory "Benoit screwed Benoit", not Vince, and not wrestling. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrestling played a part. The end. !! Justa Punk !! 00:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The weight machine also played a part. Should we create a "weight machine-realated death" section, and put benoit in it? Maybe anything that he has ever done, that has killed anybody, like driving, or playing sports, should have a category and he can go in all of them, because life is nothing but a long chain of events that eventually leads to our death. Blackmachismo131 (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Now you're getting ridiculous. The weight machine was a tool to achieve what was wanted. Step back from that and look at the bigger picture about causation. !! Justa Punk !! 03:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I am being ridiculous to try to prove to you that the point that you are making is ridiculous. Okay here is a more relevant example. Brandon Lee played Eric Draven in the 1994 movie The Crow. He was killed on location when a prop firearm malfunctioned. Chris Farley was an actor. He died of a cocaine/morphine overdose. Assuming that there was (there isn't really) a section of actors who were killed in the making of movies, does Farley deserve to be there? No, no he does not. Even applying your argument to the situation (something like "the pressures and demanding nature of his job drove him to use drugs, and thus overdose" does not work, as he was not killed directly by the making of a movie. A piano on a set did not fall on his head, or something like that. Much like benoit. He did not kill them in a triple threat match after attempting a diving headbutt from the rafters,adn choking them out withthe crippler crossface; with the available knowledge, paranoia, caused by dimentia, and possibly heavy drug use caused him to kill his family. While your original point that it is not stated anywhere that the section is only for those who died in the ring, or of direct causes of wrestling, that is how the section has been used and we must respect the rules that have bee npreviously established by wikipedia mods. Blackmachismo131 (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong again. Farley died from - at best - psychological trauma from the job he was doing. This is DIFFERENT from Benoit. Benoit's was from physical trauma, that could ONLY have come from the ring and nowhere else. That was not the case with Farley. If you want to keep arguing an impossible point then do so - and I'll kill the point in one fell swoop as I have here. Suggest you do something different and not waste your time here. There have been no rules to this that have been previously established by anyone let alone mods - unless you want to link me to this supposed ruling. !! Justa Punk !! 05:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Justa Punk. To say that Benoit would have killed himself, his wife and his son, should he have never of entered the ring at any given point in his life, in the manor that he did so, is ridiculous, and this is what BlackMachismo seems to be stating, rather indirectly, in this situation. In regards to Chris's time spent in the wrestling industry as an available and active performer, events following the murdering of his family lead to him doing so; yes, he did not die inside of a wrestling ring, but indirectly speaking, the cause of this fate was partially created due to the amount of time he spent inside of one. Contact with the mat, no matter how padded or protected it may be, will cause injury and disability within those who are controversial both in their career and out. Depression after Eduardo Guerrero died, may not have killed him alone; but combined with the drug use (normal amount or heavy amount), the technicality of his wrestling style (giving him a disadvantage with avoiding continuous contact with impact towards the floor), simple, ordinary things became lethal, deadly 'causes'. Benoit had no motive - only conspiracy can be made to defend the known, non-detailed (in the sense that sources allow you to see the stage, but dont let you BACK stage) and supposed facts. To call Chris Benoit, the personal man, a 'Cold Hearted Killer' is disgraceful. He, as himself, was not a Killer. He, as himself, with confusion, trauma, depression, physical damage, etc, created this mess. Chris Benoit did not screw Chris Benoit.

Chris Benoit, The Wrestler, screwed Chris Benoit, The Personal Man. *The Canadian Crippler* Posted: 14:07, 29 September 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCanadianCrippler (talk • contribs)

First two pictures in 'In Wrestling' section.

I propose these should be changed.
Sharopshooter photo: because you can't see either of their faces (rope is blocking)
Diving Headbutt photo: blurry/grainy.
Anyone else agree? --Scythre (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I will second finding a better crossface picture, but the headbutt picture as good as it will get. I think it looks pretty cool, but that is beside the point. The picture is that of a rapid mtion, so anything better than that is not going to happen. It would need to have been taken with a high res camera meant for vapturing motion, and yyou will not find a free web image taken with that kind of camera, and in that high of a resolution. A gif would be the only improvemnet that could be made, like the one of JBL goosestepping in his article. Blackmachismo131 (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

What is Benoit "Best Recalled" for?

I've been watching the header bounce back and forth for the last few days with editors flip-flopping the verbiage over whether Benoit was "best recalled" for his wrestling skills, or the murders-suicide.

Much like real life, jumping in the middle of a fight between others usually means you just get knocked out and the fight continues anyway, but I'll give it a try. To me, the operative question is when Wikipedia notes what someone is "best recalled" for, is it referring to "best recalled" by fans of that person or that person's industry, or is it referring to "best recalled" by the population at large? *If* that question has a clear answer, it seems that that answer might settle this issue. Specifically, if "best recalled" refers to the population at large, I think it's clear that he's best recalled for the murders-suicide. If "best recalled" refers to fans then, alas, the dueling edits rage on. --PoughkeepsieNative (talk) 08:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

He's best recalled for the murder-suicide, this coming from a pro wrestling fan. The lead might need total rewording, removing "best recalled" in favor of something else in the first place. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say the phrase "best recalled" should be reworded or removed entirely in this instance. It's subjective, and ends up coming to down to personal opinion, which is obviously unencyclopedic. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 12:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Now the question is how to reword it. Come to think of it, all of WP:PW's bio articles use "best known for his time in (insert promotions here)." That's all really subjective, isn't' it. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yup...still scratching my head at an answer here. Just the word "best" is inherently so subjective. Probably the reason that hasn't come up before on wrestlers is that someone's best-known promotion isn't as emotional an issue. I totally understand the intellectual issue on this for Benoit but, at an emotional level, I have trouble understanding how even his biggest fan could look you in the eye and believably say that he's currently better known for being a great wrestler than he is for the murders-suicide. How's this for making the case? The WWE itself removed all material about him from their website (other than his name with no hyperlink to additional info in title histories), destroyed all their DVDs with Benoit's biography, and redid any DVDs featuring him. Certainly, from a public relations perspective, that shows that it's the murders-suicide he's being remembered for, not the wrestling ability.--PoughkeepsieNative (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Funny...I was reading another article this morning, and it made me think of this issue...the article on Desi Arnaz, no less. Here's the approach taken there:

Desi Arnaz (March 2, 1917 – December 2, 1986) was a Cuban-American musician, actor and television producer. He gained international renown for leading a Latino music band, the Desi Arnaz Orchestra. But arguably, he is best known for his role as Ricky Ricardo on the classic American TV series I Love Lucy, starring opposite his real-life wife, Lucille Ball.

--PoughkeepsieNative (talk) 10:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Murderer

It says he was a professional wrestler but, it should also state he was a murderer.

Christopher Michael Benoit (French pronunciation: [bəˈnwɑ]) (May 21, 1967 – c. June 24, 2007) was a Canadian professional wrestler.(He's alos a famous murderer for the murders of his family.) He spent time working for several major promotions, including Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (CMLL), Extreme Championship Wrestling (ECW), New Japan Pro Wrestling (NJPW), World Championship Wrestling (WCW), and World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE). He was often referred to by the nicknames "The Crippler," "The Canadian Crippler," and "The Rabid Wolverine." my edit in the brackets

It does say that, but it's not necessarily needed in the first sentence of the article. It's mentioned in the lead and there are several sections and a separate article devoted to that fact. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. It does need to be in the first sentence of the article. He is known for two things: (1) wrestling and (2) murder. I would even say the murder overshadows everything about his wrestling, in particular by media exposure. If the wrestling is included in the first sentence, so should the murder aspects. CraigMonroe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC).

He is not "known" for murder. Yes he is believed to have killed his wife and youngest son, but he is most known for his long and successful wrestling career. Hell, the ONLY reason the murders got so much attention was because of the fact that he was one of the most popular wrestlers in the world. If he was just a normal person, the situation would have gotten no more than a mention in the local newspaper. Gary Glitter made news worldwide for his child molestation and pedophilia, but neither are even mentioned in his lead section (yet alone the first sentence). Even if it is mentioned in the lead, the most it should do is a brief mention (like in Phil Spector). Also, some of his title wins should be mentioned in the lead paragraph, at the minimum his 2 world titles should be mentioned. TJ Spyke 19:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Believed?...no he is the Murderer. DNA proved him to be the killer. If it was specualtion then WWE would not erase him from their hsitory books, THINK ABOUT IT. It should read "He was a professional wrestler but, also a Murderer(Punisher88 (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC))

Proof? WWE removed all mentions of him on June 26, 2007, right after it was known he could be a suspect. He is known as a wrestler and murder. Mainly wrestling. He is known as a pro wrestler who killed his family. Not a man who killed his family.--WillC 23:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

HOw bout "Chris Benoit is a Professional Wrestler and Murderer?"(Punisher88 (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC))

No. Should stay the way it is.--WillC 00:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

As a fan of wrestling your view is a little obscure, no offense. I am also a fan of Wrestling but, the murder part should also be in the headline as many people know him as a murderer of his family(Punisher88 (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC))

As far as I'm concerned, the current lead sounds good. I would not object to "believed to have killed his wife and son" be changed to "murderer." Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

In response to TJ Spyke. You are correct that he is known for wrestling however, he is also known for murdering his family. Whether the notoriety would be as great without his wrestling career is wholly immaterial to the discussion. To the average observer who does not follow wrestling--the vast majority of people--the murder is his major notoriety. The article needs to reflect this. You make it seem like there haven't been THOUSANDS of news articles written on the topic of his action of murdering his family. Additionally, the argument that he did not kill his family is absurd. There is no need to hedge the statements. All parts of the legal process have pointed to him---and no one else murdering his family. Thus, the use of the term "suspected" is wholly improper and is nothing but NNPOV. Unless there is a legitimate source calling it into question, any changes tot he contrary are simply vandalism. CraigMonroe (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You obviously don't have a clue as to what vandalism if you think that would be vandalism. Take a look at Wikipedia:Vandalism instead of making up crap. "Believed to have killed..." is fine, I don't see how you get "he did not kill his family" from that statement. Don't try and act like your opinion is the correct one and that anything other than saying "Benoit was a murderer" is vandalism. Maybe it should be in the lead, but definlty not the first sentense. After the first sentence, have something like "Benoit is believed to have [[Chris Benoit double murder and suicide|murdered his wife and youngest son]]...." TJ Spyke 18:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that you disagree. I should point out that this is not my opinion. THis is the opinion of investigators, the coroner, the sherrif, and the media. In fact, from what I gather from my research is that the ONLY OPINION is that Benoit murdered his family. Unless you can supply a verifiable link that calls this into question, this is a non-issue. Furthermore, as this is a non-issue, a fact supported by a compelte lack of any link provided tot he contrary, any statements contrary would be in violation of WP:Undue, WP:Verifiability and, yes, WP:Vandalism since all available evidence shows the edits are not in good faith. CraigMonroe (talk) 19:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but opinions aren't reliable sources. "Alleged" does not equal FACT. Since the article is about the WRESTLER, and the murders are covered elsewhere in the article, I have changed the wording so that it reflects this, as it puts the main focus back on his wrestling career, where it should be in the first place. ArcAngel (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, this article is about the person, not just his wrestling career. The murders received international media attention. It needs to stay in the lead, though I'm not fond of the new wording. I've reverted your edit. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I notice that CraigMonroe repeatedly uses the word "opinion", and even capitalizes the word for emphasis. While I certainly believe that he killed his family, it can never be proven. All witnesses are dead, and there will never be a trial. If you would actually read what is currently in the article with an open mind, you would see that it is the only truly neutral way of phrasing the statement. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Allow the reader to determine what happened. Some say he killed his family, some say he may have killed his family. The way it is now allows the reader to determine which is true. By saying he sis "suspected of murdering his wife and child" is more accurate than saying, "he murdered his wife and child" because we'll never know what happened that day in June 2007.--WillC 23:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm oversimplifying here but, at least from what I see as the standard in media, it seems that it is not factually stated that you "did"/committed a crime unless you are found guilty in a court of law. Regardless of the circumstances, or even witnesses, if you die before you are convicted, then it can never go beyond your being "believed" to have committed the crime. As an interesting point of reference, for whatever it's worth, I looked up Jack Ruby on Wikipedia. It is written that he was "convicted of killing" Lee Harvey Oswald, not that he "killed" Lee Harvey Oswald, because his conviction had been overturned on appeal and he was awaiting a new trial. Ruby killed Oswald on live TV, and the moment was immortalized in one of the most iconic photographs of the 20th century. If it's not proper to say that Ruby killed Oswald, then it's certainly not proper to say that Benoit murdered his wife and son, because as certain as the Benoit murders may seem, I'd make the case that there's certainly a higher level of doubt of Chris Benoit doing those murders than Ruby killing Oswald. --PoughkeepsieNative (talk) 23:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? Te authorities have made their official findings as to what happened. If the media has stated he is the murderer and that information is sourced, then there is no argument against citing it here. Also, your example of Jack Ruby is disingenuous as you are dealing with an overturned conviction. The facts are not the same--in any way. A better example would be Kenneth Halliwell since he killed a person, and committed suicide. In his article, he is described in the lead as a murderer. The real question is why this is even an issue? Debates ike this are what make wikipedia lack credibility. Cliesthenes (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Have people read through the arguments here? The guy murdered his family. It has been reported around the world. there is a section in the article devoted to it, along with a different article titled "murder suicide." Yet, people are claiming calling him a murderer is against wikipedia policy. For a larf, which policy is that? From my understanding, calling it anything but a murder would be against wikipedia policy as the murder is the only verifiable facts. Everything else is simply speculation. I understand some people are fans and may be in denial but facts are facts. Cliesthenes (talk) 04:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no doubt he murdered them and I was a Benoit fan. That being said, since there was no court and it was never "legally proven" it shouldn't be called a murder. The fact that there's a 0.000001% chance that someone else did it means the wording should be kept so that it is neutral. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious? The official ruling was that it was a murder suicide. The point of wikipedia is to use verifiable information, not accurate information. This was pointed out several times above. Seeing arguments like this makes me want to leave this website and not return. The real question is what is the underlying motive of these edits. You say there is a 0.0001 chance he didn't do it. I am willing to bet that the statistics for criminal convictions of innocent people have worse accuracy rate than that yet you seem to think a convictin would solve this issue. This sceneraio is particularly true since these facts happened two years ago. There has been no new evidence found, no new suspects, and no change in the official ruling which has the same legal authority as a trial. I think two things are happening here: (1) people are misunderstanding the legal process that occurs in situations like above where the official ruling has the same authority as a judicial ruling, and (2) some are letting personal biases get in the way of facts. I personally could care less if the article said he was a nice man who loved his family but this entire argument is absurd. I came here to learn about what happened and instead get a half-truth where the facts of the murder are slowly being eroded away. People, again, wikipedia is about verifiability ... not truth. For those really trying to edit in good faith, you need to start working towards that. /soapbox Cliesthenes (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The sources are just verifying speculation. It's almost definite that nobody will every know for sure what happened, because everyone involved is dead. The authorities can declare it a murder-suicide, which it almost certainly was, but that is just educated speculation, which violates Wikipedia's policy about Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." In the absence of a suicide note, unverifiable speculation is the best we'll ever get. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

GaryColemanFan, did you even read my post? Previously you latched on to the use of opinion but ignored the fact I stated it was the ONLY OPINION as it is fact. You then claim “If you would actually read what is currently in the article with an open mind, you would see that it is the only truly neutral way of phrasing the statement.” However, the problem with this statement is that is not what the sources said. If the only information available says he did it, then the only non-neutral statement is to follow what those sources state. Anything else is placing a non-neutral spin on the facts. By the way, I applaud you for not trying to disingenuously delete the murder facts from the article. I can see you are trying to improve the article but you are going a round-about way of doing it. Wikipedia policy is clear. The fact he IS a murderer is cited to numerous sources, as well as within the findings of Georgia’s version of a coroner’s inquest. Now you say this is a crystal ball issue. Since it is apparent that you refuse to read the rules you cite, let me point it out to you: "Wikipedia is not a collection of [b]unverifiable speculation[/b]." This statement of the rule is accurate but your application is lacking any logical reason since there IS VERIFICATION from numerous news sources and government officials whose duty is to verify these facts. What more do you need? The Courts and government need no more proof yet you seem to think Wikipedia requires more proof. CraigMonroe (talk) 17:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw a post in the history that needed to be addressed: "those sources are just reporting on people's best guesses (which is obviously the case, since everyone who truly knew anything is dead)." One major problem, criminal investigations, autopsies, and legal findings into causes of deaths are not "best guesses." The are legal findings of FACT. THey are more than opinion. Additionally, the coroner and investigators knows far more about the facts than anyone, probably even more than the people involved since it is known the son was drugged up and probably asleep at the time. Maybe even more so than Chris Benoit himself who may have had major issues with his brain and was heavily drugged. So it appears the other argument is based solely on some irrational logic. CraigMonroe (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Does it really have to be there?

I really don't understand why most people want the fact that he killed his family to be mentioned in the first sentence. Isn't an entire page, Chris Benoit double-murder suicide, and a section, Chris Benoit#death, enough to make people get the point? I, being a Chris Benoit and professional wrestling fan since 2000, am having a hard time to understand this. So therefore, i WILL remove the stupid text that says that and will try to edit it properly. Crazy Benoit (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the answer is simple. He made world-wide news for this and is probably better known for the murder than for his wrestling accomplishments. CraigMonroe (talk) 11:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Even as a Benoit fan, I agree that the murder (in some form of another) should be in the first sentence since it received international media attention. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. It is ecessary for Wikipedia's first sentence to have someone what they are famous for THE FIRST TIME! Anyway, what's it gonna give you for him to have a disgusting title like that? Why don't you two idiots just respect his life and career - apart from you know what - and respect his memory aswell? Crazy Benoit (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the deal here?

I'm not familiar with the context of the dispute, but I know there's one going on, and it would be in our best interests to see it resolved. What's going on here exactly? bibliomaniac15 02:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The dispute is over the content in the lead. Some want it to be worded as him being a "professional wrestler and murderer" and others as "is believed to have killed his wife and son." Both sides claim the other is violating WP:NPOV. I was one of the editors involved in the dispute and I'd simply like a resolution no matter what that may be as the discussion has simply gone in circles. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 02:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the way to resolve this is for someone to provide sources to back the idea that Benoit murdered his family and is recognised officially as a murderer by the county authorities should hold the whip hand here. If we can find a source that complies with WP:RS if not an official public document, then it should be noted in the lead that he is known for murdering his wife and son. If we can't - then it shouldn't. !! Justa Punk !! 07:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I already tried that by citing which states "Police have ruled their deaths a murder-suicide" directly after stating "Chris Benoit murdered." The edit was reverted by someone saying the information was not sourced. Additionally, there are other sources: . I can't find an official public document online but such a document should be unnecessary as the sources above meet WP:RS. I made the same arguments above a few posts above, and it did not solve the problem. Instead of following what the sources state, posters want to infer personal opinion into the facts. For example, see these responses:

- "The sources are just verifying speculation. It's almost definite that nobody will every know for sure what happened, because everyone involved is dead."

- "I have no doubt he murdered them and I was a Benoit fan. That being said, since there was no court and it was never "legally proven" it shouldn't be called a murder. The fact that there's a 0.000001% chance that someone else did it means the wording should be kept so that it is neutral."

- "Regardless of the circumstances, or even witnesses, if you die before you are convicted, then it can never go beyond your being "believed" to have committed the crime."

- "Allow the reader to determine what happened. Some say he killed his family, some say he may have killed his family. The way it is now allows the reader to determine which is true."

However, the fact remains these arguments are directly contradicted by the sources available, and the edits to the contrary of the sources which state known facts are to the detriment of the article. Additionally, a lot of changes need to occur to clean up the article as it reads like a current event, and not an encyclopedia article dealing with an even that happened two years ago. The first step should be removing the weasel words as there are legitimate sources that clearly state what occurred: a murder. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that arguments like those above have held back the article from when the murders occurred. To have the article move along, the first step is acknowledging this fact.CraigMonroe (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I would add a few things to Gavyn's post. First, there is a third group attempting to remove all mention of the murder. Second, the dispute goes beyond the lead as the remainder of the article needs extensive cleanup. The lead change is only the first step in a long process. Other than this, he is accurate in his assessment. I, like him, would also like a resolution. The arguments for the edits are under the "Murderer" section of the discussion page. From my perspective, it comes down to application of WP:RS, WP:Undue, and WP:Verifiability. Upon applying, it seems anything that is not supported by a legitimate source should not be in the article. Thus, the claims he did not commit the act, as having no sources, do not belong in the article. To be honest, it is a shame it came to this point. But is necessary because through the edit history it appears numerous similar edits have been attempted over the past two years, but a small number of posters have been withholding them to the detriment of the article. CraigMonroe (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I opted to not mention the third group simply because they have absolutely no case. And yes, this is the first step of extensive cleanup. The article needs major work. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of a confession, suicide note, or trial, all that's left is the authority's best guess, which is an educated guess but nothing more. Keep in mind that many people are put on trial by police and later acquitted because, regardless of how well the police process the evidence, sometimes they are wrong or just can't prove their case. Therefore, to say that something is 100% true because the police declared it so is simply not accurate. Somehow, you have been reading my edits and comments as me saying that Benoit isn't a murderer. I believe that he is. Since it can never be proven conclusively, however, any responsible reporting needs to state that he is believed to be the murderer.

The entire discussion is, in fact, an unnecessary waste of time. Rather than launch our own discussion about what to do, we can simply look at precedent. The Lee Harvey Oswald article has been a subject of debate for years. In the end, it has been determined that, because it cannot be proven conclusively that he killed John F. Kennedy (even with the findings of the Warren Commission), it cannot be stated conclusively in the article. This situation is a good parallel and we should act accordingly.

The current version of the lead is close to decent, but the first sentence is too long and clunky. The version that stated that he "was a professional wrestler who is believed to have killed his wife and son before committing suicide" is much easier to read. As a compromise, since CraigMonroe's only purpose on Wikipedia these days is to ensure that Benoit is called a murderer, I have no problem with switching out the word "killed" in favor of "murdered", as the killings were undoubtedly murders. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I also have no problem with it being the changed to "murdered." Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

As was previously pointed out by an editor, Wikipedia is not a search for truth. You seem to be trying to make it one. The argument about the police possibly being wrong is exactly the type of argument WP:Verfiability, and the crystal ball language in WP:Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not are trying to avoid. It is not the editor's job to say the officials with legal duties are wrong without a source that meets WP:RS. This is the CLEAR difference between the Benoit article and Lee Harvey Oswald. After all, the Kennedy Assassination there have been hundreds of books written about a conspiracy, and numerous newspaper articles. Do Benoit have even one book dealing with a conspiracy? Is there any article since the findings that has said he didn't do it? If these don't exist, your "precedent" actually supports my argument as they are placing sourced information. Furthermore, a better example would be the Andrew Cunanan article. Like Benoit, he murdered several people. Like Benoit, he committed suicide. Like Benoit, there was no suicide note (though Benoit's 5 text messages could easily be looked at as one). Like Benoit, there was no trial, only the investigation and the coroner's report. However, unlike Benoit, his article states "was an American spree killer who murdered at least five people, including fashion designer Gianni Versace, during a three-month period in 1997, ending with Cunanan's suicide." The only material difference is that Cunanan's killing took place over months instead of days. Following this, Benoit's article should read "was a Canadian Professional Wrestler who murdered his wife and son during a three-day period in 2007, ending with Benoit's suicide." Without sources to the contrary, any other statement is giving undue weight to wrestling conspiracy theorists who base their opinion, not on facts, but on having been a fan. I even attempted to find a source that would fit WP:RS. The closest I found was a blog from bleacher report , and a YouTube video claiming Kevin Sullivan did it . (Note the difference between this rationale and the Kennedy conspiracy theorists. Unlike with Oswald, these theories do not come from places that can be used in Wikipedia articles. So again, unless a source that fits WP:RS is found saying he did not due it, the investigators and coroner’s findings are the only appropriate statement of what occurred. In the very unlikely scenerio that these findings are later proven wrong, the article can be changed. Until then, it shouldn't, and more importantly, can't be written differently under Wikipedia rules. CraigMonroe (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I don't appreciate the statement as to my purpose on Wikipedia. My current purpose is to clean up a mess that has been allowed to exist for over 2 years. Even you admit the article is a mess. At the heart of that is that any changes to take the article from reading like a current event written before the facts were flushed out is reverted. This is the first step to changing that. CraigMonroe (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Gary, for the record, I am not saying he did it because the police said he did it. I am saying he did it because the police, and more importantly, the coroner and other officials who is given authority under Georgia law to determine guilt in such incidents said he is the murderer. CraigMonroe (talk) 23:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Craig, with all due respect - given the amount of objections here, you will need to come up with an original official document. I know you've put up other sources that fulfil WP:RS but if you are going to get your point over the line where it can't possibly be objected to, you need the official document. Do you see what I'm saying? !! Justa Punk !! 02:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have not had the opportunity to read all of this, I will attempt to do so tomorrow. IAC, in reference to the above comment, please be aware that "original official documents" are not always available. While any such documents may be public record, it doesn't mean we have access to them. Consider in the Michael Jackson case, while his death has supposedly been ruled a homicide, I have seen no official documents supporting this, and the coroners report is being held. Also, an official document could be considered a primary sources, and is not recommended. any reliable reference that states the official outcome of the investigation may be used to corroborate information in the article. Sephiroth storm (talk) 03:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this post. For the record Justa, I see what you are trying to get at, however, official documents are not always available and are wholly unnecessary under, particularly under WP:RS when reliable sources state what the outcome from officials given legal authority to make such outcomes. If this was an issue that was being challenged in a Court, there would be an argument to use weasel words, but since there is not and it appears there will not be, the use of alleged is improper and being used solely as a basis of support for a Benoit conspiracy theory. The basis for the argument against stating facts can be summed up by Gary when he claimed "Nobody can prove that he killed anyone, because everyone involved is dead. Did he kill them? Almost certainly. Does Wikipedia deal in "almost certainly"? Of course not." One MAJOR problem with this argument, which has been repeated above several times, under WP:TRUTH, "Truth is not the criteria for inclusion of any idea or statement in a Wikipedia article, even if it is on a scientific topic (see Wikipedia:Science). The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Under this, there is no issue and consensus should be clear. The rule is not even vague. CraigMonroe (talk) 10:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The thing is though, Craig, Wikipedia also operates on consensus. Now not withstanding what you say is true about verifiability versus truth under WP rules, the majority of users here appear to agree that the murder is alleged. That makes things a lot harder for you no matter what rules support your argument. I take the point made about primary sources by Sephiroth, but we aren't talking about a primary source by itself. We are talking about a primary source with secondary/third party source back up (that is - the material that Craig has already found and tried to use). I put it to the other users that if a primary source is found, would they change their minds and agree that the identification of Chris Benoit as a murderer (as distinct from an alleged murderer) is in fact correct? !! Justa Punk !! 11:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

So your argument is that the article should be written contrary to the sources cited? That doesn't make sense and is goes directly against policy and precedent in the Andrew Cunanan article. The consensus argument is a bit odd since under the rules, there should be consensus, which brings to question the underlying motives of some posters. CraigMonroe (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Craig, If there was a consensus that the sun is green, I don't think we should change the article to say so.

There are many issues here,

• If you were looking at a encyclopedia, with an entry on Chris Benoit, what would it likely say?
• I also have to look to WP:OR, Aren't we making a conclusion that he is believed to have killed his wife and son? The source for that section likely says he is the killer.
• Can any article say that a person is a murderer? It is a matter of record that individuals have been convicted of murder, and other crimes, on decent evidence, only to be exonerated.

I dealt with a similar issue with South Park Mexican. While many users, including myself, believed that the lead should state that he was a convicted child molester, in the end it was decided that the lead should specify what he was convicted of, leaving the user to judge from there. Something similar could be done here. I like the current lead, it states the facts, "Authorities concluded that Benoit killed his wife and son, and subsequently hanged himself." We only need to state what was concluded, not whether he committed the act. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question, First, an encyclopedia entry should include details of the death and details of his wrestling career. While not at issue, it should be noted that to majority of people who are non-wrestling fans, the facts of his wrestling career are not as important. Second, I agree with the WP:OR argument. The sources say he did it. Since the finings were released 2 years ago, the sources do not say "believed," or "suspected." It seems as if the edition of those words is pushing a POV. In this case, the POV is that he may not have done it, or the investigation was faulty, etc. Third, yes, an article can say a person is a murderer. Once convicted, or the final determination is made there is no issue with saying a person is a "murderer." If there were appeals left, I could see hedging the statement. However, the primary reason not to call someone a "murderer" would be for libel purposes and to fit WP:Bio, however, once the judicial determiantion is made, as has occured with Benoit, Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) applies which states "In particular, editors should remember that someone accused of a crime is not considered guilty of that crime until they have been found to be so under judicial process." Benoit was found to have committed the crime under Georgia's judicial process. Sephiroth, with all due respect, the argument about if anyone could be condisered to have commited an act is something better left to a philosophy debate instead of a debate about what should be included in an encyclopedia article. Besides, it is clear that a person who has went through the judicial process can be cited as a murder when sources fiting WP:RS have stated he is the murderer: John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Kenneth Bianchi, and an example factually closer closer to Benoit, Andrew Cunanan. Remember, under WP:TRUTH, "Truth is not the criteria for inclusion of any idea or statement in a Wikipedia article, even if it is on a scientific topic (see Wikipedia:Science). The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." There are numerous sources that state Benoit commited the murder: , , , , and . For the record, I felt the current version is the best example short of stating he committed the act.CraigMonroe (talk) 18:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

First off, thank you were admitting that his wrestling career is notable. I can't count the number of times I've dealt with people who consider it non-notable or wish it to be deleted for greatly reduced in scope. And yes, those things are not as important to non-wrestling fans. That being said, there are a multitude of reliable sources that can be used for his wrestling career. The article needs major work in that regard. I'd imagine even after cleanup, there will still be more info on his wrestling career in the article then the murder-suicide. That should be fine so long as it's sourced. In any case, I have no problem with the current version of the lead myself. It seems as if we're getting closer to being on the same page here. I'd hope the article can be unlocked soon so work can begin. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I am just trying to help improve this article. I edited after the murders, and I came back and was suprised to see it had not evolved since the murders two years ago. I agree the wrestling info is important.It needs to stay, however, people arguing for the removal of the murder info in favor of the wrestling info--you are not one of them--are wrong for obvious reasons. Out of interest, what will it take before the article can changed from the authority's opinions to "Benoit murdered" in your opinion? It seems numerous other articles have the language of "blank did blank" yet people seem to want to opposite which makes the entire article confusion and seems to puch the perspective that Benoit did not do it. Basically, what is the difference from this article and Cunanan? CraigMonroe (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Other than how the editors of said article are interpreting some Wikpedia guidelines, I'm not sure. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

In response to Craig, I agree that it should be allowed, I simply think that the lead as it exists at the moment is the MOST neutral to parties concerned. When I was invoovled in this: [1], the issue came down to whether a term,i.e murderer, rapist, ect. is Pejorative. Heres a link to the BLPN discussion: [2]. This would appear to be a similar situation. While I agree with calling him a murderer, for purposes of the encyclopedia, I believe stating his crime is sufficient. Sephiroth storm (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the current lead does a pretty good job of stating the facts. It's a little long and clunky, which I think could be improved by removing either "investigators" or "authorities" for ease of reading. Beyond that, I have no objection to how the lead is currently written. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Now that the current lead seems to have consensus, the underlying question turns to what is the difference between a lead stating "authorities found Benoit to have murdered his wife and child" and "Benoit murdered his wife and child" with both versions having a source to an article stating that fact? Neither is a statement by Wikipedia. From my understanding, the use of the source indicates that it is the source making the assertion and not the article. This is why it is nearly impossible to make a libel claim when a person uses a legitimate source as the basis for an assertion about a person. To me, it seems as if the only difference is that the former openly gives the basis for the assertion while using a link while the later only places the basis for the assertion in a citation. It seems the later is version is more beneficial as it is concise, while eliminating the potential for POV pushing by removing hedge-words while the former will still have the source but will have added language and a greater potential for POV pushing since it will necessarily include hedge words and an implication that he did nto do it and was only found to have done it, and more importantly the statement will be directly contradicting sources that stated he committed the murder. So to sum up, what is the real difference? Why not follow the sources with the statement that the sources say, which, mind you, is clearly the policy of Wikipedia? If the argument is that the findings may change, how would correcting the statement at a later date have a negative affect on anything since there are already countless articles stating he committed the act and the article will be citing those sources? Why does the .000001 percent chance that the findings are innaccurate here have a different outcome than the articles involving any other murderer, especially Cunanan whose culpability went through an identical legal process to Benoit? CraigMonroe (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Any answers???CraigMonroe (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

What more is there to say? You proposed a compromise solution, and people agreed to it. You immediately tried to back away from the solution that you proposed. I continue to disagree with your argument. You continue to disagree with mine. The sources say that the authorities concluded that he murdered his family before killing himself. Let's just say that the authorities found that he murdered his family before killing himself. Then we can all move on with our lives. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Gary, see my post above. I am not backing away from anything. I am taking baby steps, and trying to work towards the right answer. If you could provide some solid answers to my questions, those baby steps are more likely to end up toward your opinion. If instead you provide responses like the one above, they will end up simply forcing this debate to continue for longer than necessary. My questions are valid, and reasonable and go to the heart of the issue. Additionally, consensus is a never ending process. New facts always arise to change it. For the record, the sources--initially--said authorities concluded. Now they simply say he murdered his family. For example, read: "Steroids were among the prescription medications found by investigators going through pro-wrestler Chris Benoit's house, where he strangled his wife and young son last weekend before hanging himself." The reason the citation is removed is because after a fact reaches wide consensus, it is no longer an issue that needs attribution. CraigMonroe (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll post some input later. The only thing that has been decided is that the lead is good. Nothing else, one step at a time. We'll get this taken care of, dont worry. Sephiroth storm (talk) 08:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. CraigMonroe (talk) 13:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Any answers? CraigMonroe (talk) 12:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment from an uninvolved editor. To use a term as strong as 'murderer' about even a dead person should require very solid evidence. The sources quoted do not seem good enough to me to make this statement. One of the main sources, for example, is entitled 'Benoit probe ends: He is alleged to have killed wife, son'. To make strong statements we need very reliable and clear sources, not allegations. Is there no public statement from an official on the subject? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, see the sources cited throughout this discussion. These for examples: . The sources don't get any clearer than this. Still no answers to my simple questions? CraigMonroe (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You've received many answers. Move on. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

CraigMonroe, I cannot get the links you have given to work but they look to me to be news stories. To use a word like 'murderer' you need statement from a court or public official. Is there one? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

First, Gary, you have not answered my very basic and reasonable questions. Second, to Martin, yes. The coroner's inquest made the determination as to Benoit murdering his family. In cases like this, this is the "court." The articles repeatedly point to these statements. Additionally, for the record, under WP:RS, newspaper articles are more than sufficient and are actually preferred over primary sources. CraigMonroe (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion: Since I protected this page, it seems to me that I should probably dispense some sort of neutral opinion. My impression is that the locus of this dispute is in the wrong place. There are sources cited to indicate that Benoit did kill his wife and son, so I'm not sure why there's a beef with that. To me, the main problem with the protected version is in undue weight. Let's take a look at the first sentence:

Christopher Michael Benoit was a Canadian professional wrestler who was found by investigators and authorities to have murdered his wife and son before committing suicide.

Now what are Benoit's accomplishments? A list:

• "won multiple singles and tag team championships"
• "two-time world heavyweight champion"
• "one of the greatest technical wrestlers in history"
• "one of the most popular and respected performers in the history of professional wrestling"
• "spent time working for several major promotions"

I don't watch pro wrestling, and quite frankly I don't really want to. I don't even understand what all of these accomplishments mean. But I do know that these are accomplishments, and the fact that Chris Benoit's whole life time was bypassed to insert a lengthy fact about how he committed a suicide-murder in the very first sentence seems to me a case of overdue weight to a single event. Did it create much media sensation? But of course, it's a noteworthy event. I'm not saying that the fact should be entirely removed. I'm saying that there is too much weight in this first sentence on a single event in his life, rather than really summing up who he was and what he did. bibliomaniac15 03:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the lead should follow the main text, with reference to the family deaths being made later on in the lead rather than in the first sentence. After looking at the sources. I am still not convinced that we should use the word 'murder'. Why not use the wording of the sheriff's report, 'Sheriff’s Office concludes ..., Christopher Benoit took the lives of his wife, Nancy, and their son, Daniel, before ending his own life'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

First, I see the argument about undue weight with the insertion of the statement of the murder in the lead to be an unfounded argument. The murder made international news and raised the awareness of Benoit from wrestling circles to everyone else. Outside wrestling circles, his notability is more tied tot eh murder than wrestling. Biblio, be careful with this argument as there are some posters that have used similar arguments as an attempt to remove all mention of the murder. Second, consensus between wrestling fans and non-wrestling fans as to the inclusion of the information about the murder in the lead is clear. Third, what is not clear is the issue of murderer or "alleged" language. Fourth, to address Martin's question, the reason it should not be simply "Sheriff’s Office concludes" is because the Sheriff's office does not have the authority to make the binding legal finding. It is the coroner in Georgia. The coroner's finding carries the same weight as a verdict by a judge. The coroner ruled the death a murder-suicide perpretrated by Benoit. due to this, more recent sources simply state Benoit as a murder and no longer cite the sherrif as the basis due to the reality of tyhe udnerlying legal finding. Why such a legal finding is not enough for Wikipedia when it is enough for newspapers, the courts, and the state of Georgia is a question that still remains unanswered. Additionally, using the information you are arguing for contradicts the sources that said he did it and is not simply "alleged" to have done it. Fifth, there is an entire article dedicated to the topic that is titled murder-suicide. It seems to many posters want to create a double-standard. Besides, from sources dealing with murderers, and other murder-suicides, it appears your arguments goes against the general rule, see Andrew Cunnanan. CraigMonroe (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I was not objecting to the legal finding of the Sheriff but I was suggesting that we use his wording, 'Christopher Benoit took the lives of his wife, Nancy, and their son, Daniel...'. He did not use the word 'murder' so neither should we. I am not arguing that we should remove all mention of the family deaths, just that the lead should follow the main body of the article and not mention this in the first sentence. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

CraigMonroe, the coroner did not report the event... the Sheriff's office did, and in any event, the coroner has no legal standing to say it was a murder-suicide. He can legally only state the cause of death, not who caused it; he can only speculate on that point...Magus732 (talk) 04:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't ask for all mention of the murder to be expunged or removed, I simply stated that there's an imbalance in the first sentence. If there's an imbalance on one end, the simplest solution is to balance it out with something from the other end. bibliomaniac15 04:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Magus, I am sorry to correct you but you are entirely wrong on the facts and what occurs Georgia law when there is a murder-suicide. Take a read: [3]. As I stated the coroner (Medical Examiner) performs an inquest and legally defines the cause of death. Biblio, I missunderstood your statement, I appoligize. Martin, there are a dozen linked sources that say he murdered them. You are bringing up a debate that was settled a week ago. The term "murderer" is clearly supportable by Coroner's statements and sheriff's statement along with numerous source fiting WP:RS. CraigMonroe (talk) 12:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved editor who had never heard of Chris Benoit until this RfC. From what I have seen of the sources I still do not believe that they justify the description of 'murderer', especially in the first sentence of the lead. If we are going to say something about the family deaths early on then I would suggest something along the lines of '...notable for taking the lives of his wife, and son'. This is strictly factual, and supported by the wording of the most reliable sources. My comment remains that '...who was found by investigators and authorities to have murdered his wife and son...' is not justified, especially at the start of the lead section. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to correct you, CraigMonroe, but because the coroner's findings can be disputed by another coroner, they are not legally binding, in any sense of the word... no court in this country has to abide by a coroner's interpretations of the physical evidence, regardless of the circumstances, simply because they are just that: interpretations... medical science cannot determine who killed a person, only how, unless the killer carves their name in the victim's flesh... as to the case at hand, because the coroner does not have the final say as to the police report, and the Sheriff's office does, their wording should be used... Magus732 (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

However, all of that is beside the point... the point is that he was never convicted of murder, which means it would be technically accurate to say that he killed his family, not murdered them... Magus732 (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

To second the previous point, here is another example of how the media handles labeling an unconvicted murder: [4]. Just because CNN does this doesn't make it the standard, but it is someone that could be argued was even more surely a murderer than Benoit was, and he's still an "accused murderer" because he was never convicted in a court of law. --PoughkeepsieNative (talk) 08:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the coroner's inquest serves as the "conviction." It determines cause of death and legal culpability just like a trial. I find it amazing that such a finding will hold up in a Court of law--as it did in the determination of intestate succession where the medical examiners findings were used to determine that Benoit murdered his family thus predeceased the wife and child for the purposes of intestate succession--and in the trial of Benoit's doctor for illegally prescribing drugs that may have caused the murder.[5] [6] [7] Yet, some Wikipedia editors seem to think this is not enough. That is amazing. I think your first step should be to actually find out about the process before you make anymore unfounded allegations about how a finding works in such cases because so far, you have claimed a conviction is needed (Court convictions do not occur in a murder-suicide) that the coroner (Medical Examiner) did not make findings (links proved this wrong) that the Coroner can not state the person that caused the death (also proven wrong by links) and that only the Sheriff can make such a determination (links showed the coroner made the legal determination). Now you claim a coroner's findings may be disputed by another coroner and are not legally binding? Martin, you are wrong. The Coroner--the medical examiner appointed by the state's--determination is legally binding. It is the sole official determination of cause of death in a murder-suicide. It is used by the Court's to determine the order of death in probate proceedings and whether additional persons may be charged. May this finding be challenged ins a subsequent civil trial? Yes, but so can a criminal conviction. Now you claim medical science cannot determine who killed a person. Martin, give the argument a rest. Numerous links have shown you to be wrong, and for the record, DNA directly linked Benoit to cause of death of both victims. Even if we assume that there cannot be a legal finding on who killed the family (by the way, this is an absurd assumption) there are still numerous sources that fit WP:RS that say he is a murderer. They can be cited for that fact. If it makes you feel better, remember, truth is not needed for inclusion in Wikipedia, only verifiability. The fact he murdered his family is more easily verifiable than any other theory. Now that these your arguments have clearly been shown to be wrong, can we move forward with improving the article? CraigMonroe (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

PoughkeepsieNative, your argument about Unruh actually HELPS my side. Unruh was not convicted of murder because he was found to be insane, thus could not stand trial and could not be held criminally liable. This is shown in your article by repeatedly mentioning "Though the case never went to trial..." Additionally, despite your article, Wikipedia does not define him as a suspect: Howard Unruh. It simply says that "Howard Barton Unruh . . . was an American spree killer who killed 13 people on September 6, 1949...." So following this example, it seems the lead of stating Chris Benoit professional wrestler who murdered.... would be proper. CraigMonroe (talk) 12:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like based on the above, it should say "Chris Benoit professional wrestler who Killed" would be more proper. IAC, Craig's previous comment makes sense. There will not be any court case, nor to my knowledge, any deceleration by a law enforcement official, therefore, the coroners declaration is the only official cause of death in all cases involved here. If i'm not mistaken a coroner usually makes a deceleration on the COD for each victim, as well as deceleration of the circumstances of such an event. In this case, the cause of each person's demise, and then the declaration that the event of a murder-suicide, in which CB killed Nancy and Daniel. (We all know it was one of Orton's Punts to the head. Legend Killed. ;) Sephiroth storm (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

While I personally see no real difference between murder and killed, I have no issue with that. Such a statement would allow the article to be easily cleaned up. However, I should note the consensus reached earlier seemed to indicate murder was the proper term. What I have issue with is the inclusion of the phrase "according to authorities," or "alleged." The article needs drastic work, and the use of these phrases has caused the article to read like a current event for over 2 years. Such statements are wholly unnecessary now as the cause of death is clear--and no longer speculative. They were needed when the cause of death was unknown. CraigMonroe (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This "discussion" is absolutely ridiculous and totally unnecessary. To think that the article has been protected for this length of time because of this garbage... 212.139.68.178 (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There is no reason this debate should continue, yet people continue to make absurd arguments. To some, I guess protection is better than putting sourced facts without weasal words in the article. Go figure. CraigMonroe (talk) 11:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If you both see no difference between 'murdered' and 'killed' or 'took the lives of' then why not settle for 'took the lives of' as this was the sheriffs wording? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Because the official ruling by the coroner and investigators was a murder and there is an entire article dedicated to the incident that desribes it as a murder-suicide in its title. Chris Benoit double murder and suicide Your argument about them using "killed" is disingenuous considering the sheriff investigated and ruled it to be a murder-suicide. Additionally, there are other opinions that clearly state it was a murder. In the words of the local district attorney: "Fayette County is still investigating, but everything leads us to believe that this was a murder-suicide." [8] Or from the medical examiner: "Based upon this finding and the autopsy findings, it is our opinion that Daniel Benoit was sedated by Xanax at the time that he was murdered." [9] [10] However, if saying he simply "killed" his family--despite numerous sources to the contrary--will allow the unnecessary hedge words dealing with "alleged" or "investigators claimed" I have no issue with the change despite clear consensus on the topic having been reached previously on this issue, and the fact such statements would clearly be in violation of WP:RS, and WP:Undue(see above). Martin, are there any other arguments I can diffuse to move this along? There are plenty of sources to support my position. Every time I attempted to edit the page, I was able to cite 4 links that stated exactly how I edited the page. Despite the sources, the edits were not allowed. Such actions can only be looked at as having an underlying motive that differs from trying to actually better the article. Maybe we differ on this. So tell me, when the investigators, district attorney, and coroner (we can throw Benoit's family and even the WWE into the fold too) state that he murdered his family based upon numerous facts, why should we write the article as "killed his family?" The two terms are similar but distinct. Murder is appropriate since every fact indicates premeditation. This is what the authorites found. Somehow you know better? Why is that? Are we to ignore numerous links to these opinions in favor of your own opinion? So what happened that should cause us to ignore all these legitimate sources in Benoit's case when they are more than enough in numerous other articles dealing with a non-wrestler? (I ask these questions seriously since you seem to want to nitpick every issue contrary to what is factually correct so I am trying to understand your basis)CraigMonroe (talk) 04:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

As I have said before, I have no particular interest in Chris Benoit and no axe to grind. From all that I have read on the subject I also believe the most likely scenario is that Chris Benoit murdered his wife and child. However, what I think, or you think, is not what is important here. WP is an encyclopedia, which should be based on reliably verifiable information. An accusation of murder is a very serious one indeed and, even against a dead person, it is not one which should be made lightly.

Suppose that Benoit had survived. None of your quotations would be sufficient for us to state here that he murdered his wife and child; we could only state that if he had been convicted of murder in a court of law. Of course Benoit died and thus cannot ever be convicted of murder. In that case what we need to use the term 'murder' is a reliable verbatim quotation from the appropriate official which uses that word. Now I do not fully understand the legal system in the jurisdiction where the deaths took place but, as far I can see it is the Sheriff's department that has the official responsibility for investigating and reporting on the deaths. Many others are entitled to their opinions but they are not the ones who provide the official 'verdict'. The medical examiner may be an authority on the cause of death but he is not the official authority on the circumstances of the deaths an thus we cannot use his quotation to justify the use of the word 'murder'. Had Benoit survived and it been proven beyond doubt that he killed his wife and child it is still possible that he might not have been convicted of murder, he might, for example have pleaded guilty to a lesser charge on the basis that due to his mental state or some substance he had taken he was not fully aware of what he was doing. You might consider this unlikely in the light of the evidence but we cannot be sure.

We have a report from the Sheriff, the authority responsible for a long and extensive investigation into the entire case of the deaths including both immediate cause of death, and the circumstances surrounding them. The sheriff is expert at presenting his findings to the public and, no doubt, chose his words carefully to reflect the exact situation as he determined it. He said, “After careful examination of all evidence collected by investigators, the Fayette County Sheriff’s Office concludes that between Friday, June 22, 2007 and Sunday, June 24, 2007, Christopher Benoit took the lives of his wife, Nancy, and their son, Daniel, before ending his own life.” This does not use any weasel word like 'alleged' neither does it use the word 'murder'. That is what we should do here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Martin, discussing this with you is like banging my head against a wall.First stating Benoit murdered someone when you cite an article stating it was a murder-suicide is not making an accusation. The distinction might be too much for you to willingly understand, but the article makes the claim. Wikipedia simply cites what the article states. If I was to edit the article and make claims that he raped his son, then I would be making an accusation. However, I haven't done that. Additionally, there is already an article titled Chris Benoit double murder and suicide. Your point is clearly against consensus, and, wuote frankly, irrational. You seem to want to pick and choose your facts.

As already explained to you, by more than just me, the medical examiner makes the final determination in his "inquest." Thus, the entire part of your first paragraph is incorrect. Under US law, there is a due process requirement for any type of legal finding. The Sheriff does not have the ability to officially declare an act to have occured, just like they can't declare you guilty of a crime. They can give a ruling which represents their official opinion, however a due process check is needed. In the case of a living person, that check is the courts. In the case of a deceased person, that check is the coroner. This is why the coroner's findings are the official findings and why they carry the weight of a judicial determination. The coroner ruled this case a homicide. You have no argument. Others have pointed this out to you. Maybe it is time you let it sink in.

Additionally, you argue you want reliability while ignoring what reliability is for wikipedia. Under WP:RS, reliability is shown by citing newspaper articles from legitimate sources. You have been shown over a dozen that state it was a murder. Reliability has clearly been met. Citing a quote where an official said Benoit killed his wife does not change that since killing is clearly a component of a murder.

Additionally, the Sheriff is not an "expert at presenting his findings to the public." You make it seem like Fayette COunty is a large metropolitan area and not the rural area it is. I would say the Sheriff likely has never dealt with much publicity. Additionally, you entire argument is disingenuous and ignores what the sheriff/police actually did: "rule[] the death a double homicide-suicide" [11] So let me understand your "argument." Despite the coroner, sheriff/police, and District Attorney having all stated this was a murder, you want to cite a partial statement from a television interview where he stated Benoit took their life? Martin, this argument seems as if you don't realize taking the life of a person is a component of murder/ However, despite the clear irrationality of your "argument," I have no issue with changing "murdered" to "killed" if we remove the weasel words of "alleged" or "according to investigators." Its been two years, lets stop writing this article like a current event. CraigMonroe (talk) 12:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

From CraigMonroe's own post: "everything leads us to believe that this was a murder-suicide" - District Attorney. "it is our opinion that Daniel Benoit was sedated by Xanax at the time that he was murdered" - Medical Examiner. These are the sourced facts that prove your case? GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Gary, those are the opinions of the officials that took part it making the OFFICIAL RULING as to the murder-suicide. So yes, that proves my case. Really, do you think the opinion of the medical examiner that reviewed the facts is not important? Additionally, describing his ruling as only an opinion is a blatant lie. He made the OFFICIAL RULING, which is not opinion but is considered fact by operation of law. Now can we stop playing this game and get to improving an article that has not changed in two years? Everything I have posted is sourced. I the newspapers can cite the ruling as fact without attribution, so can Wikipedia, unless you seem to think a wrestler deserves special treatment for no reason other than being a wrestler? After all, that is the only difference from numeorus other articles dealing with murderers. Still Gary, are you willing to answer my simple questions from earlier? CraigMonroe (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

So, what you're trying to say is that these people are of the opinion that Chris Benoit probably murdered his family? As in, they are unable to say so with certainty because there are no surviving witnesses? As in, there is no possible way that it can ever be said to be fact? Please note that there are many cases in which investigating officers form a hypothesis that is later disproven in court. If a medical examiner states that he or she thinks that Person X killed Person Y but the jury disagrees, should Wikipedia still call Person X a murderer because of the medical examiner's opinion? I would say no. I hope you would, too. Since this case didn't get any farther than the opinion stage, however, nothing has been proven conclusively. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, canvassing from User:CraigMonroe. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Gary, your post has been addressed several times over. The problem with your logic is three fold: (1) we are not dealing with the sheriff's opinion, we are dealing with the sheriff's opinion that has been through the judicial process as designated by the state, i.e. the medical examiner. Such a ruling has the same effect as a court ruling. The "ruling" was that Benoit murdered the two and killed himself. (2) Even assuming there is a possibility that these facts can change, Wikipedia is not a search for truth. Wikipedia is simply a search for verifiable information. Benoit murdering his family, as this was the only legal determination, is the most verifiable scenario. (3)The medical examiner's opinion takes precedence here by operation of law. This is not a situation where a person survived and will go to trial and have a legal ruling different from the autopsy or inquest. Thus, you question about posting the examiner's opinion is inherently flawed. A better analogy would be should we post the court opinion after a verdict, since that is the legal credibility the ruling is given by a medical examiner in situations like Benoit's. The answer to this is clearly yes. If it is good enough for the courts, and newspapers it is good enough for Wikipedia Again, you are confusing opinion with a LEGAL FINDING OF FACT. If a medical examiner's opinion under these circumstances is simply an "opinion," then so is a judges ruling because they are treated the same. Are you starting to see how backwards your argument is? For the record, it has never taken a surviving witness to legally declare someone a murderer. Your logic starts with an assumption contrary to this point, and thus fails from the start. Now will you answer my questions?CraigMonroe (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Craig, just hold on a minute here. I am not saying that he didn't kill his wife and child; I am saying that the wording can be misinterpreted to suggest that he was convicted of murder, which he was not... saying he killed his family may not be as technically accurate as saying he murdered them, but it is more straighforward... and as Gray said, years of chair shots and other head injuries has caused tremendous brain damage... whether or not this contributed to what happened, we'll never know for certain... but because there is a genuine possibility that he killed his family after going into some sort of psychotic rage, it can't be stated to be murder without a conviction... however, I agree with you on the sourcing issue... since the source uses the terms "murder" and "murder-suicide", I'm afraid that's what we have to work with... Wikipedia policy and all that... Magus732 (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

My primary issue is not with "murder" versus "killed." For all intensive purposes outside of a strict legal meaning, they are the same. I have no issue with that change, if the words "alleged" or "according to" can be removed before a statement of fact. The cites should be enough. The "according" to is implied. Additionally, as to Gary's point, I can speculate on any murder, even ones that were convicted. It does not make the speculation a valid point. If he feels like writing a section with sourced material meeting WP:RS debating whether the legal findings of fact were wrong, he can. However, the inquest determined that the period that the deaths occured over (days) and the method: drugging the son, binding the wife, hiding weapons, and placing bibles by the bodies indicate the exact opposite of a psychotic rage (common sense would tell you it could happen for one but not both deaths, though we can always speculate as to what ifs in ANY factual scenerio). Additionally, despite the speculation which existed almost immediately after the discovery of the bodies, the official ruling was murder-suicide. And more importantly for the purposes of Wikipedia, as you mention, the source issue is clear since the source uses the terms "murder" and "murder-suicide", that's what we have to work with. As an editor, we can not pick and choose the facts that have been given. It seems to me, too many posters want to do exactly that. All the speculation in the world does not change what a valid and reliable source says, nor does it change the legal finding of fact. I don't think some of the posters here understand what a conviction is. Let me tell you, it is simply a legal finding of fact. For the 10th time, we have that now. Speculation does not change that. Let me remind you of the official statements stating Benoit murdered his family: official police ruling, Medical Examiners ruling, statements by the DA, and the ruling of the probate court distributing Benoits assets. The notion that a conviction is necessary is directly contrary to WP:RS. This fact is further shown by looking at other Wikipedia articles, for example, a conviction was not needed for Andrew Cunnanan. What is the difference between him and Benoit? I would say nothing that is material. A conviction was not needed to label Unruh a killer without stating alleged, or "according to investigators." He was declared insane and couldn't stand trial. Additionally, he is labeled as a mass murderer. Why is Benoit different? I see no reason why he is different. When By the way, I am still waiting for someone to address my questions from a few days ago. I feel a reasonable response could solve this. CraigMonroe (talk) 03:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with you... it should simply be re-written to say "... killed (murdered) his wife and son on (such and such date, I don't remember exactly)"... everything else is just screwing around to delay the article's completion... or, at least, that's how I see it, anyway... Magus732 (talk) 05:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree too that we can drop the weasel words. The definitive statement, in my opinion, is that released by the Fayette County Sheriff’s Office after a six-month investigation. The Sherrif would have been fully aware of all the evidence and information presented here plus, I am sure, much which was not released to the public. His department had the responsibility of studying this evidence, collected over a period of some six months, and presenting an official conclusion. This is, in my opinion, represents the most definitive official statement on the subject, and its exact wording is , "...Christopher Benoit took the lives of his wife, Nancy, and their son, Daniel, before ending his own life." I believe that we should use the same wording here, 'took the lives of', without any weasel words. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Remember that there are countless examples of police "studying [the] evidence, collected over a period of some six months, and presenting an official conclusion" only to be disproven. The sources say that the investigators formed an opinion that Chris Benoit was behind the killings. Nobody has ever proven (because nobody can ever prove) that Benoit was the killer, however. If it is simply an opinion, which it obviously is, then stating is as fact violates Wikipedia's policy on speculation. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually that is incorrect. Our policies prevent US from presenting our own opinions in the article, as well as biasing an article towards an opinion. We are obligated to include the opinion of the sherrifs department because there are reliable sources giving us that information. We are like a news agency in that way, we just report the information. As for something coming outt later, our articles are snapshots in time, we cannot change an article because at some point in time, something else may out. We have to write the article from an NPOV perspective, stating the facts, and any relevant information supported by Reliable sources. Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely. That's why the information needs to be presented as the investigators' opinion, since that's exactly what it is. It would violate Wikipedia policies to add an opinion that the investigators' opinion is a proven fact. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

What!? Have you been paying attention at all, Gary!? The sources provided for the article state what happened was a murder-suicide, which means that's how we have to say it in the lead... if his fingerprints are on the murder weapons, which they are, and he was the only one who could've carried the acts when they occured, which he was, the only thing missing is the conviction... since that can't happen, we have to put things as they are stated by people who have the legal authority to say "... so-and-so did this-and-that at such-and-such time and place..." that isn't an opinion in the sense that it isn't proven... Magus732 (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both Magus and Sephiroth. It seems as if we have or are close to consensus. Gary, see the numerous posts above. We are not dealing with an "opinion." We are dealing with a legal finding of fact. CraigMonroe (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

There has certainly not been a consensus reached. Magus732, can you produce a reliable report that his fingerprints were on the murder weapons? Even if you can, would it prove anything? Lots of people touch objects in their own houses. Secondly, how can you be sure that nobody else had an opportunity? That nobody had access to the house? That nobody could possibly have broken in? After all, that sort of thing certainly wouldn't be unusual in murder investigations. And the people who investigated definitely didn't say anything even close to your paraphrasing. What they did say was "everything leads us to believe that this was a murder-suicide" (District Attorney) and "it is our opinion that Daniel Benoit was sedated by Xanax at the time that he was murdered" (Medical Examiner). Do you still hold to your mistaken belief that they weren't giving their opinions, even after seeing that they made it clear that it was an opinion? GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Gary, I think you're confusing professional opinion with personal opinion... if a psychiatrist reaches a conclusion as to the diagnosis of a patient, it is his professional opinion... if he says he thinks the patient's taste in music was poor, that would be a personal opinion... only one of those has any bearing on what medications he prescribes, and that would be the former of those two... since he is not a telepath, and therefore cannot see the patient's thoughts, it is an opinion, but you would abide by his diagnosis nonetheless, would you not? Magus732 (talk) 04:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This entire "discussion" illuminates why Wikipedia is regarded by the media as an absolute joke. 212.139.68.178 (talk) 11:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Gary, you are wrong. Get over it. Even assuming you are right and the absurd argument you are making that the legally binding legal finding of fact is only an "opinion" we can still cite Benoit for murdering his family without attributing it to the authorities because the media has articles that cite it as such. [12] Additionally, the information will contain a link which means that the information is from another person (This is the entire basis for citing something). Thus, it seems as if your true underlying basis is placing undue weight on the possibility that the legal findings are wrong. If you want, write a section with sources that meet WP:RS discussing alternative theories. However, other than that, you have no argument so please give it a rest. Consensus is clear. Gary, if you want, you can answer the questions I have asked you to answer at least five times. If you have a reasonable response, maybe we could address your concerns. As for links dealing with fingerprints, I don't know. But the DNA--a better method than fingerprinting--has found not other DNA in the house. [13] Addditionally, the argument that someone else did it is logically weak, how many murderers place family pets in a locked area, text the location of the house and pets to friends of Benoit, place bibles on the bodies of victims, drug a child to he was unconscious when murdered, and then force a person to commit suicide, and all over a 3 day period without leaving DNA or other evidence? Gary, is this really what you are saying? Really? And yes, I agree with the anon poster, this discussion illuminates why wikipedia is looked at as a joke. It seems a small number of people can keep accurate sourced information off an article for years due to some irrational bias. Now it is time to move along. Let’s make the change and start the process to improve the article and remove the redundant information that has forcibly been added in for over 2 years. Gary, lets stop wasting time. CraigMonroe (talk) 12:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Was he "found by investigators and authorities to have murdered his wife and son before committing suicide"? Yes. Do we know with certainty that he murdered his wide and son before committing suicide? No. The current lead reflects what is in the sources without claiming speculation as fact. The proposed changes do not. Let's leave it alone. Problem solved. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Gary, I think you are itnentionally miscosntruing wikipedia policy. No one has to know for certainty what happened. In fact, the argument that certainty is needed before an addition is DIRECTLY CONTRARY to Wikipedia policy. See WP:Truth which even allows uncertain informtion to be placed in a scientific article with reasonable sources. Are you going to tell me that Chris Benoit has a higher standard than an article dealing with the splitting of an atom? Gary, are you starting to see how obtuse you are being? Gary, again, as you even cite in your quote, the authorities have made legal FINDINGS of fact, much like a Court. Due to this, we are not simply dealing with an opinion. However, it seems as if you don't grasp that the rerm "found" has a precise meaning in this context: a legal pronouncement as an official act. Don't you see that your argument is so weak that you are arguing against yourself now? Additionally, these findings are strong enough that numerous newspapers cite this as a murder with out attribution to authorities (an issue you continue to ignore). It seems as if your rationale is only that it is uncertain (apparently in your mind because I can find no uncertainty anywhere else--and I have tried) so we should follow YOUR opinion. Gary, again, your argument is directly contrary to Wikipedia policy. To be completely honest, I think you would see it this way if you weren't directly involved in editing so many wrestling articles. Your opinion has a clear underlying bias. Ignoring this, would you please answer my questions? I think if you did and gave a solid response, we might be able to end this. The fact you don't address them is telling. Even so, it seems we have consensus, it is time to move along. Let's improve the article. If we remove the need to for in text attribution throughout the article, the article will improve greatly and stop reading like a current even written by a 12 year old. One more thing, Gary, I think you need to read this section of wikipedia policy, as you seem to be acting directly contrary to it: WP:Righting Great Wrongs. Additionally, how you want to write and the underlying basis (YOUR opinion of uncertainty) for the change to this article is directly contrary to WP: Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Gary, you are asking us to "state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the consensus of experts)." Gary, there is consensus that Benoit murdered his family. There is ausch wide consensus that the media simply refers to Benoit death facts as "Benoit committed suicide on Sunday, the day he was supposed to wrestle a pay-per-view event in Houston. He already had strangled his wife, Nancy, and son, Daniel, and placed Bibles next to each victim." [14]. Note to lack of attribution which you continue to ignore. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find a single expert that has doubt. With this in mind, it seems you are attempting to "right a wrong." All I can tell you is that it has been 2 years, move on. The authorities were giving more than an "opinion." They were completing a legal process. The sooner you acknowledge this, the sooner we can improve the article. CraigMonroe (talk) 13:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You are treating WP:TRUTH as policy. It is an essay. Nothing more. Nothing needs to be changed. Please move on with your life and stop devoting all of your time on Wikipedia to one non-issue. Typically, single-purpose accounts are to be treated with a grain of salt. To accuse me of trying to "right a wrong" when you are doing that exact thing seems bizarre to me. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually I believe there is suffecient consensus here to move ahead. I personally like the way the article is currently. The lead states that they were found dead, and does not add undue weight. The death section reports the the broadcast of a television station's report of the case. I say we keep the article as it is, and make no major changes to those section without consensus. Any editor who finds reliable sources that should be included in the article is free to add appropriate information, in its own section, according to wikipedia policy. Are there any changes that need to be made as of now? Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it's fine as is. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that consensus has been reached for a statement that states "Christopher Michael Benoit was a Canadian professional wrestler who killed (or murdered) his wife and son before committing suicide." Sephiroth, You yourself stated "In response to Craig, I agree that it should be allowed." I disagree that consensus has been reached for the current lead as a permenant addition. Clearly, two recent posters (including myself) have indicated the lead is improper as written (I had placed you in this category given that you stated "It sounds like based on the above, it should say 'Chris Benoit professional wrestler who Killed.'" Additionally, you are setting a dangerous and irrational precendent that directly contradicts what has been done in numerous WIkipedia articles, while also ignoring numerous valid sources. Additionally, yes, you are giving undue weight to several perspectives, namely: (1) the irrational argument that a legal finding is an "opinion" and should be treated as such, (2) that he did not perform the act and only the investigators thought he did it, (3) that there are alternative theories as to what occured, and (4) that admins for wikipedia believe the level of inclusion in this article has a higher standard of verifiability than other articles of wikipedia and a higher standard of verifiability than the news media, Coroner, District Attorney, and Police. .

Additionally, the use of in text attribution is redundant. It also contradicts numerous sources that no longer attribute it since the facts have been accepted after two years of time.

Additionally, Gary's argument are patently absurd and based on an inherent bias. You have even admitted this when you stated "the coroners declaration is the only official cause of death in all cases involved here" Yet, he still maintains that they were giving an "opinion" and no official determination was made.

However, despite my strong opposition to the changes which seem to have been forced upon this article for two years by wrestling fans, there several things that need to be changed immediately. (1) Remove the portions in the lead dealing with discovering the bodies, and the missed WWE shows. Such information belongs the article but not in the lead. This is a major reason the article reads like a current event. (2) The wrestling information in the lead should be condensed. It belongs in the article but seems to fall away from the standard of other wrestling articles, namely inclusion of a list of major promotions in the lead, nicknames. (3) The last two sentences of the opening are for the most part redundant and can be condensed. (4) The Death section needs a lot of work. The overuse of in text attributions in the section is a key reason. (5) This section needs to change immediately: "The station reported that investigators had discovered, and would eventually cite as an official ruling, at Benoit murdered his wife and son over the weekend and hung himself sometime on Sunday, June 24." It is simply badly written. However, this type of editing seems to have been created by the forced placement of numerous in text attributions.

Since it is clear you want to push this through. How many in text attributions must we keep in the article? I ask this because from what I could count, there are at least 15 in the four paragraph death section alone. Some sentences even include two in text attributions, for example, they will state the opinion of a person then cite it to a particular TV station despite a citation link at the end of the sentence. Is this really necessary. Is it also necessary to open up several sentences with "it was reported?" Isn't that information, just like according to investigators, implied from the use of a link? Are we really assuming people are this dumb that they need this?

Isn't it easier to simply remove all these attributions and state facts like every other article on Wikipedia? Why is this article different? Are admins actually going to allow people to place this unnecessary information in the article for the sole bais of pushing a bias? If this is the new standard, when we will move to editing the majority of articles on Wikipedia that are written as facts, instead of "authorities stated...."

For the sake of resolving this, I repeat my still unanswered questions. what is the difference between a lead stating "authorities found Benoit to have murdered his wife and child" and "Benoit murdered his wife and child" with both versions having a source to an article stating that fact? Neither is a statement by Wikipedia. From my understanding, the use of the source indicates that it is the source making the assertion and not the article. This is why it is nearly impossible to make a libel claim when a person uses a legitimate source as the basis for an assertion about a person. To me, it seems as if the only difference is that the former openly gives the basis for the assertion while using a link while the later only places the basis for the assertion in a citation. It seems the later is version is more beneficial as it is concise, while eliminating the potential for POV pushing by removing hedge-words while the former will still have the source but will have added language and a greater potential for POV pushing since it will necessarily include hedge words and an implication that he did nto do it and was only found to have done it, and more importantly the statement will be directly contradicting sources that stated he committed the murder. So to sum up, what is the real difference? Why not follow the sources with the statement that the sources say, which, mind you, is clearly the policy of Wikipedia? If the argument is that the findings may change, how would correcting the statement at a later date have a negative affect on anything since there are already countless articles stating he committed the act and the article will be citing those sources? Why does the .000001 percent chance that the findings are innaccurate here have a different outcome than the articles involving any other murderer, especially Andrew Cunanan whose culpability went through an identical legal process to Benoit and is cited a murderer without the absurd need give an in text attribution before it?CraigMonroe (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If you can't win by logic, go for volume, right? Do you seriously expect anyone to read all of that? Especially given that it's probably just a repetition of your previous incorrect arguments? GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Gary, I don't expect you to read anything contrary to your opinion. Especially, since you haven't really responded to any post I have made to date. You haven't paid attention to any logic. You keep repeating yourself based on irrational bias but don't pay attention to what people are saying. Gary, your edits are directly contradictory to WP:RS and WP:Truth, and yes, you are trying to "Right a Wrong." Meanwhile, I am trying to fix the mess you helped create. Have you actually read this article? It needs MAJOR work. Also, to call me a "single-purpose account" is absurd. I edit more things than this. However, you are a single purpose account. How many non-wrestling articles do you edit? Not many... So I guess you should--by your own argument--be taken with a grain of salt. CraigMonroe (talk) 12:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Your understanding of single-purpose accounts and the weight given to Wikipedian essays are both faulty. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Gary, just a quick thought... based on everything you've said on this talk page so far, you're in violation of Wikipedia's policies on civility and verifiability... maybe it's time we called in an administrator to sort this all out, hmm? Magus732 (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? Where have I not been civil? Where have I objected to using exactly what the most authorotative sources state—that being, that authorities concluded that Benoit killed his wide and son before committing suicide? Remember, the exact words from the investigators included the words "believe" and "opinion", indicating that they are fully aware that they are only putting together an educated guess rather than a 100% certainty. Is the article at all incorrect as it currently stands? Of course not. So let's just move on. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No, Gary, I'm not kidding... and it's single-minded devotion like what you've posted above that leads me to point out said violations... if you think everything is fine the way it is right now, then you won't object to an outside opinion being introduced... if an administrator agrees with you, fine... if not, I don't want any complaints... agreed? Magus732 (talk) 06:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Where have I not been civil? Where have I objected to using exactly what the most authorotative sources state—that being, as the article currently states, that authorities concluded that Benoit killed his wide and son before committing suicide? GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You accused CraigMonroe (talk) of being a single-purpose account, Gary... I'd call that uncivil... Magus732 (talk) 06:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

And what about this; "If you can't win by logic, go for volume, right? Do you seriously expect anyone to read all of that? Especially given that it's probably just a repetition of your previous incorrect arguments?" That isn't uncivil? Magus732 (talk) 06:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Gary, it is not YOUR job to determine which source is "more authoritive." Especially since you refuse to admit there was a legal finding of fact made. Instead, you expect this article--as exception to numerous others--to cite this material in the article as opinion and not fact. Gary, these legal findings (you irrationally cite them simply as "opinions") are taken as fact by the courts. Yet, to you, Wikipedia has a higher standard of verifiability? Hello? Does this make sense to you? Additionally, if your argument was right, there would never be an article that states a person that commited a crime since it would always be the opinion of a judge, or a coroner, or a jury, or an investigator, or a witness, or etc. that he commited a crime. Does this make sense to you? Really? Such logic does not make sense to the Courts, or newspapers after facts reach consensus--typically through the legal process. (For example, this is why John Wilkes Booth can be called an assassin, or Andrew Cunnanan can be called a murderer, or Howard Unruh can be called a spree killer despite not having trials). When someone dies before trial, a different process occurs. Yet, you want to ignore that in favor of what YOU "feel" is "more reliable." Luckily, Gary's views are not the basis for inclusion in Wikipedia. In fact, you seem to want 100% certainty for the inclusion of informtaion, is there ever 100% certainty on anything? Luckily, certainty is not needed: WP:Truth, and WP:Verifiability which states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." . Gary, your edit is directly contrary to Wikipedia POLICY. So what is the underlying reason for why you want the article edited contrary to numerous findings while ignoring the elgal findign of fact? My guess would be your edit history gives clues as to the real reason why, namely your hundreds of wrestlign related edits. Additionally, you still haven't answered my questions. Why? Is it because there is no answer in your favor? It seems so. It appears, consensus is clear, time to remove the in text attribution. CraigMonroe (talk) 12:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This entire discussion has gone on FAR too long. And at this point, I can't even tell which side of it I stand on, and have honestly stopped caring. I just want the article unlocked so work on it can begin, regardless of what the resolution here turns out to be. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree it has gone on too long. In fact, I even agree we shouldn't be here. It wouldn't have come to this if Gary hadn't violated 3RR to stop the inclusion of sourced information. What I honestly can't understand is why someone wants to place "according to authorities" (or the like) in front of every sentence of the death section of the article when (1) the sources don't say that,(2) the link implies this, (3) such overuse of attribution is not used anywhere else in the article, and (4) other articles on WIkipedia don;t follow the same method. This causes a reasonable question in why those edits were made the way they were. The idea of wikipedia is to state facts. What Gary refuses to acknowledge is that EVERY fact on wikipedia is based on someone's opinion in some form or another. Whether that opinion is a scientist, a doctor, a historian, or the person that determines who is the WWE champion. It all comes down to an opinion. Some opinions carry greater weight, while others lesser. It just so happens that, by law, we are dealing with an "opinion" (I use this term for the sake of Gary understanding) that carries the weight of a legal finding of fact. This "opinion" was picked up by news sources to state Benoit murdered his family, used by the courts to find that Benoit murdered his families, used by the families to state that Benoit murdered his families, yet, Wikipedia won't allow it? Hello? There is a problem here. Why is this not enough? The only difference between Benoit and others is being a wrestler. I am sorry to wrestling fans, but being a wrestler does not change the rules. CraigMonroe (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that the administrator who looked over the situation agreed that you had violated 3RR and that I had not. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Really? 'Cause he didn't say anything to me... Magus732 (talk) 07:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Why would he? You weren't involved. There is no policy requiring that administrators contact uninvolved editors when dealing with 3RR reports. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Look, Gary... I apology for any failure of mine to remain objective... it was never my intention to single you out for ridicule or harassment... I was simply trying to piece things together... I'm autistic, okay? I don't always think logically or rationally... if I insuslted you in any way, I sincerely apologize... Craig, I suggest you do the same, if only to show your willingness to be objective in this matter... Magus732 (talk) 07:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Gary, he said he would have banned both of us. Additionally, you ignored everything else. Do you have any arguments? As for Magus, I am objective. I am using objective sources. Unlike some, I am not picking and choosing what to post. I want this article to read like the majority of wikipedia articles where facts have been stated. Gary seems to have an underlying bias as to why this shouldn't occur. CraigMonroe (talk) 13:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

"Benoit, his wife Nancy, and their seven-year-old son Daniel were found dead in their Georgia home on June 25th, 2007. Authorities concluded that, over a three day period ending on June 24th, Benoit killed his wife and son and subsequently hanged himself.[13][14] Since Benoit's suicide, numerous explanations for his actions have been proposed, including concussions,[15] steroid abuse,[16] and a failing marriage." Explain to me why this cannot be the agreed-upon standard, since it clearly suits all sides of the argument, instead of the arrogant omnipotence of the current 'agreed-upon standard' that the minority agreed on and the majority appears to have flatly rejected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tremmy (talk • contribs) 12:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, CraigMonroe, as for Gary having a bias, it is quite clear that you yourself are totally biased in the way that you worded your edit. This happened several months, maybe over a year, ago with some guy called Scorpion something, who kept reverting to a similar paragraph to yours. Eventually, people realised how unobjective it was and slanted against Benoit, and it was edited again to what you changed it from. Sooner or later, it will happen again. Just give up, you had absolutely no reason to change it. It was perfectly objective before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tremmy (talk • contribs) 12:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Section break

Inserted because I can agree that that section is too long. This is an interesting and difficult situation. Craig, I'll try to straighten my opinions out.

• "Christopher Michael Benoit was a Canadian professional wrestler who was found by investigators and authorities to have murdered his wife and son before committing suicide."

I think this is a decent statement, that can be supported by reliable sources. We should use a source here to show that it is backed up, and we should use either killed or murdered, whatever is in the source.

• "Benoit, his wife Nancy, and their 7-year-old son Daniel were found dead in their Fayetteville, Georgia home on June 25, 2007. Authorities concluded that Benoit killed his wife and son, and subsequently hanged himself."

Again, supported by sources. In my opinion, that makes the lead acceptable for inclusion.

Craig, it is my understanding that you want to state that CB killed them, instead of "believed, or concluded" I believe us coming to a conclusion based on the sources, rather than letting the source speak for itself. This will also cause the kind of problems we are seeing here, people will constantly come in and change it.

I think we should allow the article to stay as is for now, allow unprotection. If someone wants to make a contriversial edit, we can discuss it here. (This page does need to be archived, if someone wants to do that.) -Sephiroth storm

I have no problem with unlocking it. However, as it is written now, it is bad and against policy. First, there are numerous sources that simply say Chris Benoit murdered his family. These sources, include newspaper articles, investigative reports, coroner's reports, and Court findings of fact in the intestate proceeding. These sources do not necessarily cite it as "according to investigators." A major reason for this is there was a full legal finding made, and consensus has been reached. (It has been TWO YEARS after all.) Second, The issue is not inclusion of the information dealing with discovery of the bodies. The issue is whather usch information is needed in the lead. In my mind, the lead is for the bare bone facts of what is important about a person. The discovery of the bodies, while important on the day of discovery are not as important now so it should be moved to the death section. Hence, why--one of many reasons--this article reads like a current event. Third, I am not coming to any conclusion. I am letting the sources speak for themselves. Gary, and others, are the ones coming to conclusions that differ from sources. He assumes they are speculating. I am doing no such thing. Take for example this article [15] which states "Steroids were among the prescription medications found by investigators going through pro-wrestler Chris Benoit's house, where he strangled his wife and young son last weekend before hanging himself." Or how about this link [16] which states: "It was in his own home, over a June weekend, that the seemingly happy family man did the unthinkable. Benoit suffocated his wife and son, then killed himself, and his father is still shocked by what happened." I want to post facts as they are now known. Gary wants to post facts as they were written soon after the murder when facts were not fully known. CraigMonroe (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Craig. At this point, we need to reach a consensus and get on with it... Magus732 (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

How about this? "Christopher Michael Benoit (French pronunciation: [bəˈnwɑ]) (May 21, 1967 – c. June 24, 2007) was a Canadian professional wrestler who strangled his wife and son before hanging himself. [17]" CraigMonroe (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No. How about the current lead? GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an absolute joke. Llenden (talk) 03:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Damnit, Gary! You don't get it, do you? You were wrong. Don't be stubborn just to spite others... it won't end well for anyone... Craig, what you've written sounds fine... Magus732 (talk) 03:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You're so set in your ways that you're blinded to reality. Am I the only one being stubbord here? Of course not. The only difference is that I am the only one being stubborn defending truth in reporting (and yes, Craig, I realize that there is an essay—not a policy or guideline, but an essay that has holds absolutely no weight in any Wikipedia discussion—that says that Wikipedia is not about truth. I can't believe that you would defend an idea that is so obviously negligent. If any news organization reports it, Wikipedia accepts it as fact? Are you serious? As for Magus' comments about my posts being uncivil, I think that speaks to Magus' obvious bias more than anything else. If my posts are uncivil, what does that make Craig's claim that discussing issues with User:Martin Hogbin discussing this with you "is like banging my head against a wall"? Strange that you didn't have a problem with that statement. So, what we've got here is a Single Purpose Account (that being an editor that makes few or no edits outside of one specific article) who has engaged in canvassing and whose opinions should be closely scrutinized because SPAs are often biased editors with axes to grind, another editor that blindly follows the dictates of the SPA, and one other editor, none of whom can offer any proof of the veracity of the statement they want included. Should that be considered a consensus? If so, then Wikipedia's standards have definitely gone downhill. As the article currently stands, the statement can be conclusively proven. It adheres to Wikipedia's policy on neutrality and Wikipedia's policy against speculation, leaving the readers to come to their own conclusion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. My opinion is that Gary has no intention to listen to any descision that does not support him. Move to unprotect, if anyone violates the consensus or any other policy, they will be reported to the appropriate administrators. Sephiroth storm (talk) 06:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll listen, but until someone makes a valid point, I won't agree. All that can be said for certain is that investigators determined that Benoit killed his family before committing suicide. Nobody knows for certain if it is true, regardless of how likely it is. Why would we say any more than we know is true? GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Because that's not what the facts are saying, Gary... that's why we don't agree with you... Magus732 (talk) 07:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The very notion that I am biased is ludicrous, and more than that, insulting... I am interpreting the facts as I see them, same as you... the only difference is, my interpretation is one which is shared by many others... Magus732 (talk) 07:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Gary... that's enough... if you won't take my word for it, look up incivility for yourself... now that you mention it, yes, Craig's comment was uncivil... if you look at the page, I wasn't always of the opinion I am now... after taking a look at the arguments being made, however, I realized my interpretation was faulty... all we are asking you to do is no more than I've done; make sure no one else agrees with you, or admit that you might be wrong... the verifiable evidence is there... I, myself, have not gone through it, since, by now, enough has been posted that it would be academic to do so... find someone you trust, someone who isn't involved, and ask their opinion... then, come and tell us we're wrong, or remain firm by posting their finding... consensus doesn't mean everyone agrees... it means the vast majority, which is what has happened... Magus732 (talk) 07:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is based on the strength of arguments, not on a majority. Nobody has posting anything that proves that Benoit was the killer. Everything posted states that Benoit was determined to be the killer. The article currently says that Benoit was determined to be the killer. What, then, is the problem? That you insist on speculation and original research? That you believe that any state would be so negligent as to actually leave the ability to name the murderer to a coroner? Just wait until CSI gets a hold of this new twist. They'll be able to cut the episodes down to 8 minutes...all they'll have to do is bring the body to the coroner for an examination, and the coroner will magically be able to pull the murderer's name out of thin air despite examining only one of many pieces of evidence. Simply put, it's not broken. Nobody has provided any evidence that he definitely killed anyone. Wikipedia policy states that a neutral telling of the facts is required, as the facts can speak for themselves. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you... find someone... uninvolved... who agrees with you? That is the only thing I want to discuss right now... Magus732 (talk) 07:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You will only consider staying involved in the discussion if I violate Wikipedia's canvassing policy? I'm not sure I understand the logic. GaryColemanFan (talk) 08:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, no one has provided any evidence that he didn't kill his wife and child... they are dead; he is dead... something happened... Magus732 (talk) 07:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It's quite difficult to prove a negative. The day that Wikipedia allows murder accusations to be tossed around simply because there is no evidence that they aren't true is the day that the Wikimedia Foundation goes broke from all of the lawsuits that would be filed immediately. I certainly don't deny that something happened. In fact, my belief is that Chris Benoit killed his wife and son before committing suicide. Since it can't be proven, though, it would be negligent to report it as fact.GaryColemanFan (talk) 08:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Gary, before I read the rest of these posts, you made the absurd claim I am citing an essay for the truth statement. Gary, you are wrong. WP:Truth is an essay, however, it is based off WP:Verifiability, A POLICY, which states: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Which is what I cited earlier, and even pointed it out to you. Now you claim I am being "negligent" for citing this POLICY? Then you make an absurd argument that directly contradicts POLICY and claim "It adheres to Wikipedia's policy on neutrality and Wikipedia's policy against speculation, leaving the readers to come to their own conclusion." Gary, how can something fit the policy of nuetrality when you are blatantly ignoring every source to the cotnrary of your belief set? It has been two years. Legal findings have been made, cosnensus on the facts has occured, numerous news papers and reports simply cite it as a murder-suicide. Gary, if legitimate sources state the fact, no one is speculating or being non-nuetral. In fact, anything tot he contrary is speculation and non-nuetral. Haven't you figured this out yet? SO, let it be. You aren't even making sense any more. CraigMonroe (talk) 13:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, no lawsuits would be filed against Wikipedia for stating a fact defined in a news article. Any belief you have in that direction is more fantasy than reality. This is why links exist in these articles, and cites are required. However, if the article states something cotnrary to the link, there may be an issue. Which is another reason why your edits that refuse to follow current news reporting and numerous sources are problematic. Furthermore, citing a fact as stated in a newspaper article IS NOT NEGLIGENT. Hoever, writign to the cotnrary of sources may be. Gary, are you simply throwing legal arguments around without any understanding of how they work? From someone who is very interested in law, it appears so. I think you should read up on libel and move away from the Wikilawyering. CraigMonroe (talk) 14:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You clearly didn't read what I wrote. Please try again. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Gary, drop the canvassing argument. First, you claim it is "policy," it is not, it is a guideline. This type of argument seems to directly cotnradict the assertions made about only policy being enforceable when arguing against WP:Truth, an essay based on WP:V, and WP:Verifiability, A POLICY, which both state: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." I have given you the policy, here are the links: [18] , [19] . You say you believe in logic. It is in front of you. Now lets move on. CraigMonroe (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a good parallel would be another high-profile sports-related killing. In the O. J. Simpson article, the following statements are found: "Simpson was acquitted of the murder of Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman", "A jury found Simpson guilty of all charges on October 3, 2008", "The trial, often characterized as "the trial of the century," culminated on October 3, 1995 in a jury verdict of not guilty for the two murders", "Simpson and his co-defendant were found guilty of all charges on October 3, 2008". This is responsible reporting, as it lets the facts speak for themselves. Could I find reliable sources that state that OJ Simpson killed Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman? Definitely. A quick search through Google News shows that the San Jose Mercury News and Denver Post have stated it as fact. According to your own logic, then, do you believe that the O.J. Simpsons article should be rewritten to state in the lead that he is a murderer? GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

A good parallel is a case where a person was ACQUITTED? You are dreaming. CraigMonroe (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Try it again: read, think, reply. I'm sure you'll see where you went wrong. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Gary, I have tried, as have several other posters. You aren't making sense. Additionally, it helps when you make a claim that links back your assertion to give the links. I have searched through the San Jose paper and found no claim of the sort, and no claim by the Denver post. Again, when a person dies prior to trial, there is a seperate legal process. THis is why your entire argument is disingenuous. Gary, you say you believe in logic, then you spew "arguments" like this. Is it any wonder people are calling you out? CraigMonroe (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

For the record, these arguments of "try again" seem to be simply you trying to waste more time. If you identified the problem, we could work it out. Much like how I have repeatedly asked you to answer some questions so that we could narrow the issue down to reach resolution, you refuse to do so. So you are aware, I have moved to close this discussion based on consensus (based on RECENT requests by at least FOUR posters). It is apparent you are unwilling to work with anyone and are intentionally hindering the process (as has RECENTLY been now pointed out by THREE posters). It is time to move on. I think even you would agree with this.CraigMonroe (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Craig here, that OJ is not a good comparison as he survived. In my opinion, what is said in this article should be based on the final results of due process of law in the jurisdiction in which the events took place. As I understand it , this means the public statement made by the Sheriff's department at the end of the investigation. We should state this as fact just as we would state the results of a trial as fact. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I can live with that. So something to the effect of Chris Benoit, professional wrestler who killed his wife and son before committing suicide. CraigMonroe (talk) 13:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the precedents set on the Lee Harvey Oswald case parallel this situation better, Gary... he was killed before he could be brought to trial, but his fingerprints were on the murder weapon, it was the only gun fired in Dealy Plaza at the time of the shooting, and a test bullet fired from the gun with his fingerprints — which was the only gun recovered from the sniper's nest in the School Book Depository — matches a bullet removed from Kennedy... he did commit the crime but was never convicted... the conclusions based on the forensics in that case remain undisputed among mainstream historians... Magus732 (talk) 02:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Summary of opinions

I have gone back to the beginning of the discussion to determine the most recent statement of opinion from every editor. What I have come up with is:
212.139.68.178 - No meaningful input given
ArcAngel - Remove mention of deaths from lead altogether
Bibliomaniac - Undue weight is currently given to killings in first sentence
Cliesthenes - Oppose inclusion of "alleged"
CraigMonroe - Change to "was a Canadian professional wrestler who strangled his wife and son before hanging himself"
GaryColemanFan - Leave as is
Gavyn Sykes - Support inclusion of "believed to have killed" (or "believed to have murdered")
Justa Punk - Support inclusion of "alleged"
Llenden - No meaningful input given
Magus732 - Support CraigMonroe's phrasing
Martin Hogbin - Change to "who took the lives of..."
PoughkeepsieNative - Support inclusion of "believed to have"
Punisher88 - Change to "was a professional wrestler and murderer"
Sephiroth storm - Most recent comment about the phrasing was to leave as is
TJ Spyke - Support inclusion of "believed to have"
Wrestlinglover - Support inclusion of "suspected of"

In summary, it appears that 1 editor wants no mention of the murder, 5 support some variation of stating that he was guilty, 7 support some variation of stating that he is believed to be guilty, 1 believes that the first sentence needs more balance, and 2 think that the discussion is a joke. I don't see how this can be read as a consensus to state that he was guilty. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Gary, face it. There is consensus now. You are the only person still voicing an opinion contrary to the sources. You have turned this discussion into a joke. Additionally, no one is saying "guilty." They simply want to post what the articles state. Bring up your objections to the admin. If we do not resolve this, I will move for arbitration. Furthermore, you put this much effort into a post yet refuse to explain the flaws--in your opinion--in other's logic, or discuss the why the POLICY you are trying to post contrary does not apply, or answer simple questions that could solve this. Gary, please try to work with people. So far you have been disingenuous (to put it nicely), stated incorrectly that the truth statement is not part of policy, refused to admit articles state anything to the contrary of your opinion, been uncivil, inaccurately claimed violations of WP:Canvass, and ignored anything contrary to your opinion. Now you pull opinions from a month ago--who have not been involved with this discussion for weeks and put them on the same level as people that are still involved and have seen all information available. Gary, a month ago there was no consensus. Now there is. Live with it. CraigMonroe (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Another note, without even looking hard, it appears Gary has blatantly misrepresented the opinions of two posters (Sephirtoh, and Gavyn) as currently following his own view. It appears Sephiroth indicated he agreed with my last statement. Gavyn said he is of no current view on the topic and wants the discussion ended. I haven't looked at the other posts (and don't see any reason to as we CURRENTLY have consensus, Gary--alone--simply refuses to be a part of it). CraigMonroe (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you please direct me to the policy which dictates that editors not sticking around through a month-long discussion will have their opinions dismissed? GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Admins, see what we are dealing with? Gary, Consensus is a process of building. If we were to follow your irrational implied argument, consensus would not change from the initial post. This is not how it works. In the last month opinions have changed, concessions were made, and we have built a consensus. You simply refuse to be a part of ti and are seemingly trying to do everything possible to keep this discussion going. Additionally, and more importantly, admin, please note he has not rebutted the point that he misrepresented poster's opinions as his own. CraigMonroe (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Gary, can you point me to the policy that says you're right simply because you say you are right? You have offered no evidence that anyone flat out agrees with you... you have offered no evidence that our interpretation of the sources is wrong... what else is there to do except stall? Magus732 (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Craig, be careful with statements like you made at the end of the previous section... don't make this personal, because once that happens, it can't be undone... my biggest fear is that all of this will be ignored by the administrators because all we've done is hold a shouting match... that's why people think this discusion is a joke... no one is calling Gary out, Craig, and if you are, shame on you... you know better... Magus732 (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying not to make it personal but it is tough when a person won't listen, or explain their position. It is annoying that he wilfully ignores policy when it suits him, asserts people being wrong without explaining, assumes his opinion is the only one in the face of contrary evidence. I am trying but its hard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CraigMonroe (talk • contribs) 22:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It isn't hard, Craig... one only makes things personal when one takes it personally... I, myself, have never taken any of this personally... I sincerely believe that Gary is trying to edit constructively... if not, then I am not in a position to say so... Magus732 (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope you are right. I simply feel like I am attacked by him without reason. For example, his posts from today where he said "try again" or "I didn't read what he wrote." He makes it tough. CraigMonroe (talk) 00:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but you continue to encourage such behavior... try what I did; ask him to find someone who isn't involved, that agrees with him, and then see what happens... at this point, someone has to do something, or this will go on forever, no matter what anyone says... Magus732 (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

What you are asking violates Wikipedia:Canvassing, as it constitutes votestacking. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Magus, we tried that by using RfC. The process brought you as the disinterested poster. That only led to him claiming you were biased once you read the arguments and disagreed with him. I am open to another RfC or another method. It is a shame that ONE poster can hold back an entire article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CraigMonroe (talk • contribs) 03:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Then all that's left is administrative action... Magus732 (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Craig, the reason I refuse to believe that Gary's merely being uncooperative is because of what's on his userpage; clear evidence that he's a productive editor... it's why I move that we ask for arbitration. Thoughts? Magus732 (talk) 04:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I have just been involved in an arbitration process and I doubt that it will help much here. The arbitrators will not become involved in decisions over matters of fact they only decide on matters of conduct. Despite the strong feeling here the conversations have been relatively civil. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. While there have been some uncivil tinges, it has been ok for the most part. Gary is a good editor. It simply seems like this issue has struck a chord with him. My guess is that he was a Benoit fan. Nothing is wrong witht hat, but it isn't the type of unbiased opinion needed for this process. CraigMonroe (talk) 13:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Then we try another form of dispute resolution... *sigh* Now we're really spinning our wheels... Magus732 (talk) 02:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the kind words. I promise you that I am trying to act in the best interests of Wikipedia, and I believe the same of everyone else in this discussion. As for a personal bias, I haven't watch wrestling in 13 years, but I'll readily admit that I did enjoy Benoit's matches back in the mid-90s. I am disgusted, however, with what I believe that he did on that fateful weekend. Having gathered the opinions above (and if any of my conclusions are misleading, it was not deliberate..."Agreed" was vague, so I went with the previous statement from that editor), I don't believe that there is consensus to change the article. With that said, I'm going to bow out of this discussion and accept whatever happens. I understand that, with no editors actively involved in the discussion opposed to stating as a fact that he killed his family, that is ultimately what the article will probably state. In the immortal words of Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., "So it goes." Best wishes to all, GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That's very mature Gary. Lets move foreward. Ask the protecting admin to open it. Sephiroth storm (talk) 05:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for needlessly pointing that out, Sephiroth... that will certainly speed things up... I have a suggestion; if you're so keen on it, why don't you do it yourself, instead of asking someone else to?... Magus732 (talk) 06:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It is probably better if it came from Gary. I asked the admin to open it, but Gary responded there was no consensus. So the lead will read: "Christopher Michael Benoit (French pronunciation: [bəˈnwɑ]) (May 21, 1967 – c. June 24, 2007) was a Canadian professional wrestler who killed his wife and son before hanging himself. [20] [21] The cleanup will be based on this. Agreed??? CraigMonroe (talk) 12:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Magus, My intervention here extends only to this discussion. I have little interest in the article itself. Being as these gentlemen are the ones who were editing it, it is better for them to continue the process. I was only a third party. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Would it not be better to have the information in rough chronological order in the lead, as it is in the body of the article as in, "Christopher Michael Benoit (French pronunciation: [bəˈnwɑ]) (May 21, 1967 – c. June 24, 2007) was a Canadian professional wrestler. (some wrestling and other background stuff stuff) On 4 June 2007 he killed his wife and son before hanging himself. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I can live with that. What do you want included? CraigMonroe (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Include his major Championships, major companies worked for. BTW, why isn't there a table of contents on the talk page? Sephiroth storm (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought you said you weren't getting involved, Sephiroth... just kidding; I agree, a list of major championships and promotions is warranted... as to the table of contents, I don't have a clue... now that you mention it, that is weird... Martin, other than the stuff Sephiroth noted, your new lead sounds fine to me... Magus732 (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There was no TOC because there were headers in the /Comments page which were being transcluded inside the banners. I have no dealt with this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Do we have some kind of consensus then? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think so. A lot of the above changes are already in the opening, so it would mainly be a manner of clean up and ordering. CraigMonroe (talk) 13:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think so too. So, as long as nothing else happens, everything is set. Just need to get the page unprotected. Magus732 (talk) 03:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is to unprotect to allow cleanup. Opening will state as Martin indicated above. Thanks. CraigMonroe (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

I have reduced to semi-protection and will monitor the page for a while. Any further edit warring will result in full protection being reapplied. Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Contents of Talk:Chris Benoit/Comments

This article on Chris Benoit, despite having few, if any, flaws is very well written with lots of relevant detail about his twenty-plus year career. His early years are described as well as they could be with such limited information. NWO and WWF made the point across well, but I feel WCW could have a bit more detail that I am not qualified to write. WWE is well written in part of the fact it is more recent, as well as having detailed accounts.

Unlike most other wrestling articles, this one is written in a formal, less business-like way. It gives quality information in the trivia about how he wrestled previously as well as his title history.

Chris Benoit Article Grammar Error

In the article "Chris Benoit," there was an error in a verb form. "On June 25, 2007, Benoit, his wife Nancy, and their 7-year-old son Daniel were found dead in their Fayetteville, Georgia home. Police investigators have ruled that Chris Benoit murdered his wife and son and then 'hanged' himself." -Hanged should be hung.-

Alt175 19:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. "Hanged by the neck until dead". It's an exception. Comes from old English.

Can either of you provide a source that backs up your statement? Magus732 (talk) 04:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It's be best to ignore this section. I checked the edit history of Talk:Chris Benoit/Comments. All of this is from 2007 and not relevant to the current article. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think technically both are correct, though "hanged" would be slightly more proper: [22] [23]. Personally, "hung" sounds better to me but I left it as it was. CraigMonroe (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)