Talk:Chris Benoit/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I know that the D.A. said that Chris killed his wife and son, but he didn't mention any type of test that they did to collect the DNA evidence from the cord around Nancy's throat or the cord around Chris's throat. I may just be watching too much CSI and stuff but he didn't mention it. I thought that might be important to mention.Anybody else think he should have mentioned this or am I the only one who would like more information like this? And why are some reporters trying to tie Sherri Martel's death in with this? Aren't they separate? (MgTurtle 19:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)).

DNA doesn't matter in this case. They can piece the timeline together without it. Also, they are tying Martel in with this because she didn't die of natural causes, and Benoit died just a little bit after she did. The Hybrid 20:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Since when do the police get to decide if asomeone has committed murder. All they can do is point that the evidence supports such a hypothesis, if he were alive he would have to go to trial before such a statement could be made and his being dead doesnt change that,

Actually, being dead DOES change that. A dead person does not have anywhere near the same rights as a living person. A dead person does not get a trial. At best there may be a civil trial but a ruling will likely take years. When all the parties are dead, the authority falls to the invesitgators and local prosecutors to determine what happens. By making their ruling, which you edited the article to include, they confirmed Benoit committed the murder. Whether or not you believe this to be true, the news media have reported this as such, thus it can be used in the article. CraigMonroe 20:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

There are some official procedures that still have to be completed by the police department before they can declare the case closed and put the murder-suicide on the record, but it is pretty much a done deal. The Hybrid 20:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The article says Benoit couldn't wrestle his last match because of a family emergency. I suppose he had a family emergency, but it's a little bit of a misleading way to explain that he went psycho and was killing off his family. Celedor15 21:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The WWE didn't know at the time. All they had were his text messages. The Hybrid 21:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Well the article doesn't say anything about WWE and text messages, it says, "On June 19, 2007, Benoit wrestled his last (WWE) match defeating Elijah Burke to be a contender for the vacated Championship and was going to face fellow contender CM Punk at Vengeance. However, Chris Benoit was absent due to a family emergency." Yes, it was a family emergency. But ah... I think we can be more descriptive or at least point to a different part of the article. This part needs to be updated... especially if he was dead by the time of the match. Celedor15 02:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Still, that item should be updated in light of information availableUcscottb4u 22:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't the on-air explanation that it was a family emergency? Slap it in quotes and call it a day. Drjayphd 22:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The Hybrid -- Is that official? That it being called a "family emergency" was due to his text messages to the WWE calling it as such? Either way, it should be placed in quotes, and cited... I agree that it's misleading as it is now, and doesn't even make it clear that it's referring to the deaths. He was rather courteous, though, wasn't he........... --Somnilocus 00:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

They called it a family emergency because he had told them when he missed the life show that his wife and son were throwing up blood due to food poisoning. There is a timeline up on WWE.com now. The Hybrid 07:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Recommend changing the last paragraph in the 2006-2007 section as follows:

On [[June 19]], [[2007]], Benoit wrestled his last match, defeating Elijah Burke in a match to determine who would face [[CM Punk]] for the vacated ECW Championship at [[WWE Vengeance|Vengeance]]. Benoit missed the weekend [[house show]]s, telling WWE officials that his wife and son were vomiting blood due to food poisoning.<ref name="WWE timeline">[http://www.wwe.com/inside/news/detailedbenoittimeline Detailed WWE/Benoit timeline]</ref> When he failed to show up for the pay-per-view, viewers were informed that he was unable to compete due to a "family emergency," and that he would be replaced in the title match by [[John Hennigan|Johnny Nitro]]. Nitro went on to win the match and become ECW Champion.

Comments? Rdfox 76 12:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yea, the above looks good. Someone's got to get on the ball though. It still says the silly "family emergency" when the guy, his son, and his wife were all dead by match time. It's been days now, and the only reason the article isn't corrected is because it's been protected, only certain people can edit it, and they apparently aren't taking notice. (Yea, I'm ornery, and the world will go on whether I win this one or not.) Celedor15 22:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The last coherent communication they'd gotten from him said that he would miss the Saturday house show due to a family emergency (his words), presumably related to his claim that Nancy and Daniel had food poisoning and were vomiting blood. Therefore, when he no-showed Vengeance, their explanation to the viewers simply used his explanation from the night before. Rdfox 76 02:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks good the way it is now. They didn't know he was dead by match time. It says viewers were informed he had a family emergency, which is trueDrumac 02:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we should note that WWE has now pulled the Benoit tributes and his profile from WWE.com and his merchandise from WWEShop.com since the grisly details of the murder-suicide have become known. Jeff Silvers 23:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose merchandise for a murderer wouldn't sell well, I guess. — Moe ε 23:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Not true, murderer merchandise tends to sell quite well! There are those who would jump in because they're going to be collectors items, there are those who would jump in because they are still fans regardless of what happens, there are those who had never heard of benoit til the murders who might want to jump in, etc....  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 23:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Toys R Us has reportedly pulled all Benoit merchandise from their webstore & will probably from their physical stores in the next few days. I tried searching for his merchandise on the Toys R Us site & nothing came up, but every other wrestler I tried immediately came up.--Hndsmepete

00:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

tonight's ECW broadcast will start off by having Vince McMahon apologize for running the Benoit Tribute last night. that proboly needs to be added to the section on the raw tribute (once it happens of course).

Wow, it's good to hear they pulled it. I was getting a little peeved last night what with all the "Rest in peace, Chris" messages left here on Wikipedia, and then USA Network running that "tribute" to him. I mean, the well-wishers messages and the tribute came far after the murder accusation, and even though I wasn't saying "Oh that's it then, he did it absolutely," I sure wasn't wishing him well after I heard it was possible he did it. If there was a chance he did it (and there was last night, with lots of notice, too) then no one should be wishing him the best up in heaven, like one message I saw on USA. If you wished him well before hearing the murder angle, then there's no problem. USA however should have known that by 8pm on the west coast, there was a possibility of him killing them, and just maybe should've held off on saying what a respectable guy he was. Triple H was saying how much Benoit respected his family. Obviously not enough to let them live. Granted, the WWE, wrestlers, et. al. probably didn't know by the taping, but USA should have known, or at least waited a day just in case. Who runs a tribute literally hours after hearing someone is dead? I mean, when you hear he's dead, and his wife, and his kid, it's not likely someone else did it. Unfortunately, if they're all inside together, crime statistics will tell you what to expect. Even before the murder angle came out, the news said he and his family are dead, I had a feeling he was unfortunately involved and withheld any remorse for him. That's just usually how it ends up when you have that initial scenario, and they should know better. If you hear anyone is dead, wait a minute before you miss them or run a tribute, 'cause they may just have killed a child. You never know. Wilhelm Screamer 00:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link to an article about Mcmahons apology. 1 --Hndsmepete 00:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

WWE did not know the details. Contractually, they had two hours of live tv to fill. The other wrestlers did not want to perform that night. WWE made a decision based on past experience to do a tribute. Unfortunately, WWE has had experience with athletes' tributes (Eddie Guerrero & Owen Hart among others). I do not believe that double murder and suicide would be the first reaction. Frog47 19:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Wilhelm Screamer you're a bastard straight up, Jordon_1993 Bold text

I'd like to point out that Wilhelm Screamer is completly wrong. Here is the time line of events for WWE. All times are eastern. 4:00pm they get word Benoit and family were found dead. This is 4 hours from the planned LIVE Vince McMahon tribute show airing. Those plans are scrapped and at some point between the hours of 5:00pm-6:00pm they tell the wrestlers and staff at the arena and post the sad news on wwe.com and announce that that Raw will now be a tribute to Benoit, the time slot was 3 hours simply because that Raw was planed to be 3 hours. 8:00pm rolls around and the tribute show begins with Vince McMahon. 10:00 PM Fayetteville Sheriffs department issues statement announcing it was a murder-suicide. At this point there was one hour left in the tribute show and there is no guarantee the WWE even heard about the announcement at that time. So the media jumping on Vince and the WWE is totally uncalled for. UnknownToaster 01:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that no matter what he did, he was passionate for the sport, and you can't deny him that because of something he did at the very end of his existence. I find it hard to believe he killed his wife and son, but if it is true, then I still think killing his wife was on accident, and thinking that his son would never respect him again was possibly another truth. If this all turns out to be wrong, and the autopsy shows that there was extraneous circumstances, then Wikipedia will look foolish for jumping the gun before all of the information has been brought to light. However, I still believe he should be respected as a professional wrestler, if not for a human being, and should be in the WWE Hall of Fame. If they don't put him in there, I'll push for it every chance I get. Well, anyways, I just wanted to say that please stop Benoit bashing for now. Getting angry and assuming so much won't do anything but worsen the blow to the hearts of many. Reports stating that they "believe" something has happened doesn't mean it's fact. It just means that evidence points to it. Evidence doesn't always work out the way you want to. Also, stating all these news sources...there have been plenty of instances where you should not trust the news. I'd rather wait until all facts come to light, and then put it on Wikipedia. But I guess I'm along in that thought process. AMReese 03:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, if you go and read www.com's timeline, it indicates that they found his wife bound by her arms and feet...I don't really think that you would consider that an "accidental" death. Their marriage was obviously topsy turvy and in 2003 they should have been separated so this would have never happened. I mourn for the loss of his wife and child and in some way for him, due to the fact that he was an amazing wrestler, I just can't get over it either... -- Shatterzer0 03:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

On ECW Vince, in so many words, basically gave Chris Benoit an F.U. after what was revealed. I'll say it, Chris Benoit was my hero, he gave me the fire to work toward achieving my dream of getting into radio. I admire him as a wrestler and a performer who went out there and gave the fans their money's worth, and they respected him for that. I also agree with Shatterzer, I cannot buy for one minute that he killed his wife and son, I reject that on principle he smothered his wife and son, I cannot fathom that, what would have been his motive?BigBoi29 18:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)BigBoi29

Stop saying you can't buy that he murdered his family. First off, anyone is capable of anything. Second, you didn't know the guy. You didn't know what his marriage was like. You saw him on tv. you saw him wrestling. How many of us act different when we are out in public? And as for a motive, people do crazy stuff. Maybe steroids had something to do with it. It seems pretty obvious what happened. I'm not closing my mind to other possibilities, but until they come out we can just assume this is what happened. They have expert people examining the bodies. I trust them to do their job. nuff said on thatDrumac 02:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

True that Drumac, what I should have said was, and like Booker T and Steve Blackman have both said, I am going to wait untill the whole story comes out.BigBoi29 16:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)BigBoi29

Well, who knows why he did it, people say it's from concussions and steriods, maybe he was just one of those people that believed he and his family would be happier in the after life. His son was Autisic and that caused alot of stress between him and his wife. Wrestlers are on the road 360 days out of the year and that too puts alot of stress on someone. So who really knows what caused him to go out of his mind and kill his family and off hisself. He has a history of violent behavior, his wife filed for divorce in 2003 claiming he was aggressive towards her. So maybe this was all premedatated. But at least he knew what he did was wrong and i just think he didn't want he's family to suffer anymore so that could be the reason for killing them. And do to the fact that he couldn't live without his family and live with the fact that he killed them, he hung himself. The text were sent out as a call for help, he wanted someone to either find him dead, or he wanted someone to stop him from killing himself cause he knew that he deserved to be punished for his actions. No one knows why, nor will anyone ever know why, just Chris Benoit and God knows why he did it. He was a respectable man in the wrestling industry because of what he did for the buissness. But outside of the ring, he is just another man with problems he couldn't live with.

Thats the thing. He could live with it. People who commit suicide ( Like my uncle or my brother) chose the permanent soloution to a temprorary problem. (He wasnt autistic, the son. He had a growth disability that hindered his mental capacity) Its a pathetic scummy thing to kill an innocent child and your wife, when if he was so miserable he should have just killed himself. As far as roid rage, I dont buy it. Why is it no one of fame has to pay for what they do? If he was alive wed just put him in rehab. No one pays a price anymore. Sad. Sad. Sad. Nimrauko 19:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The media seems to be going this route with the story, claiming it to be the cause for Benoits actions. And honestly it is pissing me off. Perhaps something on this should be added to the article. Correcting the media. The wiki page on anabolic steroids completely debunks "roid rage" and does a fantastic job of it. UnknownToaster 01:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia makes no claims of accuracy in regards to medical issues. Also, the purpose of Wikipedia is to state the theories, not disprove them. The Hybrid 07:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

True, but we should probably mention WWE's position that the nature of the crimes indicate premeditation and not the "rage" typically associated with steroid abuse. Jeff Silvers 13:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that we must mention the steroid angle from all angles, but we really need to be careful. The media is getting ready to politicize this event. They have already had a couple of people on calling for what I'll dub steroid reform. They’re calling for stricter laws regarding what legal prescriptions can be given for, harder regulations to prevent illegal distribution, ect. We need to be careful in how we go about this thing. We are all intelligent enough to know that it wasn't roid rage. However, we also know that many people trust this site for their news. We are opinion makers just like the people on TV. As such, we should do the best we can to be the only true fair and balanced news source on this issue. The only way to do that is to present the facts without the pollution of personal opinions. I countered UnknownToaster because he was suggesting the insertion of bias into the article. The only thing that we need to do in order to show those who read this article that roid rage is a farce is present all of the facts, and nothing but the facts. However, we can't tell the readers that we are doing it in the article, as this is an encyclopedia. I don't think that we should jump into this as we must be careful to remain neutral, but we do have to do it with some speed. Peace, The Hybrid 14:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

perhaps we need a media coverage of the murder section that talks about the focus of the media on the roid angle and the wwe reaction to said focus. We can't really talk about the problems of jumping to the assumption or reference talk about the lack of proof that roid rage exists unless a media source covering Benoit brings this up(doing so would be considred original research).harlock_jds 14:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have written a rough draft at the bottom of the page. The Hybrid 14:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Laying bibles next to bodies = consciousness? - Tempmoomoo

Yes. It's not something that someone does during a blind, spontaneous rage. Doesn't mean the guy was sane or anything, only that the murders were thought out, premeditated acts, something inconsistent with the stereotypical image of roid rage (whether or not such an effect is real). He tested negative for steroids in April, once the toxicology reports get released, we'll know whether or not he was on them. If he was on steroids, it doesn't let us conclude that they played a part, but if he wasn't (the steroids were for his kid's Fragile X), then it definitely rules it out.

Could someone expand the lead? It currently has the lead sentence and another saying that he died. I would hope that he's notable for more than just a double murder-suicide.

It appears the world's turned their back to him. 22 years in the wresting business, and you won't hear of any of the good from it after today because of how the media is portraying him. Even the WWE is at least trying to stand up for him, but have turned on him. At least that's my opinion. Those that respected him for his career should continue to do so as he was a great wrestler. However with this week's actions, those people will be few and far between.

Mike

01:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Mike, it's very hard to stand up for someone who murdered their wife and child, regardless of who that is. I understand your feelings, as I have been a huge fan of Benoit since WCW, since I was a kid. I have always felt that he was the best technical wrestling in the history of the WWE. But the facts are that he was a murderer, and it hurts me just to write that. I, and many like me, can not stand up for a murderer of his own 7 year old son. --Rabbethan 02:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, you murder a woman and a goddamned child, then take the coward's way out, people are bound to turn on you. I can hardly even look at his face without feeling sick.

Nosleep1234

02:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to stand up for the guy. You shouldn't condone his actions. The thing that irks me right now is how everybody is looking at him as nothing more than a murderer. I still respect what he did as a wrestler, and always will. All I wish for right now is that people who respect him as a WRESTLER continue to do at least that much, and not side with the population that only sees the now passed murderer. I'm just as disgusted by his actions this weekend as everybody else, but that doesn't mean that I'm condemning the man for the "good" he did in his life as a wrestler. I'm sorry to pollute this page with my personal opinions, but I'm hoping somebody can at least see where I'm coming from with what I'm trying to share.

Mike

03:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I certainly hope that nobody sees where you're coming from, as your desire to cheer a murderer is most unfortunate. Vidor 00:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Mike, he is nothing more than a murderer. --Janus Shadowsong | contribs 15:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Technically, from a Wikipedia standpoint, he's certainly more than a murderer; Benoit met the requirements of

WP:NOTABILITY

even before the incident; the lead, by Wiki standards, should summarize all the reasons that he's notable, not just the one that took him out of being just covered under the entertainment guidelines.

On the other hand, looking at the lead as it stands now, the only change I would consider making to it is noting that he held multiple championships in all three major promotions; it does a good job of summarizing his notability in the wrestling world as well as in the general news field. Rdfox 76 16:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I havent turned my back on him at all, and I do appreciate what he has done as a wrestler. Benoit was my hero, but I just cannot fucking believe for one second that Chris Benoit killed his wife and son. I'm fucking crying as I type this, because I don't want to believe this. I cannot believe this.BigBoi29 18:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)BigBoi29

I'm not really defending Benoit per se, but the facts are that no one knows the whole story yet and I'm not sure if we ever will. I have a question here that I think many have over looked now: What if he didn't kill his wife and son? What if someone killed all three of them and just planted all of this? If thats the case, nearly everyone on earth will be apologising. I'm just saying, before we start saying this and that about Chris Benoit, let the police gather all of the facts first. I personally don't thing he did it. MADCATsProductions 00:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess some would categorize me with that group of die hard fans who refuse to believe that Benoit is a murder, or has the ability to be one. I'm not. I understand completely that as it stands now, it is his fault that all three of them are dead. I understand that right now this murder overshadows anything else he's done in his life. I understand that people won't be able to see past the word murderer in his list of notable "accomplishments" (for lack of better terms). The thing that I'm expressing though is that when people seperate Chris Benoit the wrestler from Chris Benoit the man, they can appreciate what he did as a wrestler even if they think he is a complete piece of &#(% as a man. When I think of his WRESTLING career, I don't think of him missing the Venegence PPV to murder his family, but instead think of events such as Wrestlemania 20, or his best-of-seven series with Booker T in 1998. THAT is what I would hope people would see when they think of the WRESTLER.

I really don't care if people think "he's nothing more than a murderer." This is an encyclopedia, not a forum. An article of this length should have a lead of three or four paragraphs that fully summarize the article, instead of just two paragraphs of two sentences each. Rather than talking here about your feelings, it'd be much more helpful if someone who knows about Benoit could be productive and expand the lead.

ShadowHalo

01:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The WWE has his texts up that he sent to "Co-workers". I'll just add the link here: http://www.wwe.com/inside/news/chrisbenoittimeline and leave it up to others to determine the value of adding this info. Billywhack 02:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

WWE has posted a more detailed timeline now as well. http://www.wwe.com/inside/news/detailedbenoittimeline

Can someone post what the text messages actually say? I can't read the above since my job blocks wwe.com. I'd like to see what the text messages said. --SGT Tex 14:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The first one, and the last three are him giving the receiver of the texts his address, and the second one gives the location of his dogs. The Hybrid 14:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, he wanted to be found TheHammer24 05:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

WWE released a statement about the facts of the case. Kingjeff 02:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

http://www.wwe.com/inside/news/chairmanbenoit basically vince stating the show must go on. --Duality344 02:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Why doesn't the lead sentence say he is a murderer? That's pretty important information being left out. I'd add it, but the page is fully protected?--Sonjaaa 04:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What's your rush? Rklawton 04:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention, it has to be proven whether or not he is a murderer. The death could, once again, be accidental. It could be a matter of manslaughter, which I don't think rests on equal terms with the cold-blooded sound of "murder". Also, just having bind markings on ankles and wrists could have been something else, and I'd like to know why. Personally, I hope this is all a misunderstanding...Like Chris Benoit found his wife and son dead, then hanged himself. I hope that's the reason, because I don't think I could handle someone who loved his family so much to out-and-out murder for no reason. I know it's just speculation, and pointless theory, but I'm just saying that until all the facts are revealed, let's not go and accusing one of the all-time pro wrestling greats, not to mention a guy that's frequently complimented on the love of his family, of murder. I want to wait until the autopsies are performed and the information is released. The wife may have killed the son and herself, then Chris killed himself. It's hard to know right now. AMReese 05:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Was she bound when they found the bodies? And I'm glad I'm not the only person on the planet who wants to wait and see what develops.Bsbfan4alex 06:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

During the press conference, the sheriff did say that Nancy's hands and feet were bound by tape. Also, I agree that we should wait because there is a slight difference between manslaughter and murder (although both are terrible). TJ Spyke 06:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

She was bound when they found the bodies. Dionyseus 06:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Many scenarios have been popping into my head. The wife accidentally or purposefully killed the son, admitted it to Chris, and he killed her in anger, then later committed suicide. Or, as much as I hate to think it, Chris killed his son on accident, killed his wife Nancy on accident, and then he committed suicide. There's many scenarios that could be present with the current information available. That just goes to show that jumping to conclusions about Chris is just doing more and more to damage his legacy. Also, the autopsy might show alcohol or drug intake in the wife's body, which would blow the case wide open. You never know. AMReese 06:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The scenarios you listed are impossible because the autopsy revealed that she died on Friday, his son died on Saturday, and he died late Saturday/early Sunday, and they were strangled to death (nothing accidental about that). Dionyseus 07:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

And you've seen this autopsy report? Thats funny, cause the county coroners office has said it wont be released until Monday at the earliest.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That was stated in the press release as the findings of the autopsy. The Hybrid 07:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

So that final paragraph saying that he did kill them, is that final now? Alienpmk 07:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is not speculation when numerous news reports, and statements by Prosecutors and Detectives have stated he committed the murder. For example, [[1]]. To claim that it maybe manslaughter is a terrible argument. In case you are unaware, manslaughter is murder without the element of intent. The fact he bound, killed the wife, killed the son hours later, placed the dogs outside in the pool area, left the back door unlocked, and texted his friends exhibit--unquestionably--that he had the intent and left little doubt to the killer's identity. Not to mention, telling co-workers his wife and son were sick and throwing up on saturday--a full day after his wife was killed. As far as rationalizing that it wasn't him that committed the murder, this rationalization is purely speculation unless you have a legitimate source that states he didn't do it. Unless you find such a source, the overwhelming support for the fact that he murdered them[[2]][[3]][[4]], and the massive publicity on the case merits its inclusion in the openning sentence.CraigMonroe 11:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

this is getting silly, i would rather have the admin (or the community) focus on reporting what is being said in reliable sources rather than worrying about 'the truth' or 'protecting his rep'. He's being called a murderer in every major media outlet and by the cops... what else do we need? the idea of 'is this manslaughter?' is silly... the only way he could be accused on manslaughter instead of first degree murder (or whatever0 is in a trial and we ant put a dead body on trial. Once again wikidedia is not about the 'TRUTH' just about reporting what can be cited to a reliable source and in this case we don't have to worry about the 'Biography of a living person' guidelines (which are tougher) because we have no living people.harlock_jds 12:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "manslaughter" vs. "murder". Harlock jds is absolutely right. If it's not in a reliable source, don't waste time talking about it here and absolutely do not try to insert it into the article. This is NOT

a discussion forum

.

--Richard 19:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

According to AP she filed for a divorce in 2003 due to "cruel treatment" and wanted full custody of their son and child support, while Chris sought joint custody. Here's the link to the AP article. Dionyseus 05:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not mentioned because it was never carried out. Putting such a contradictory thing in Wikipedia is rather unnecessary. If the problems were resolved, apparently, why put that in there? It's not really important. AMReese 05:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Why would it matter whether or not the divorce was carried out? What matters is that she filed for a divorce and cited "cruel treatment" as one of the reasons, I think this is a precedent for the eventual murders, and thus notable. 06:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Because the filing could have been made impulsively and without thinking it through, and after thinking on it, she decided to reverse it. Any number of things could have happened to reverse her decision. If she was really serious about it, she would've followed through with the divorce AMReese 06:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is notable. If nothing else, it will help serve as an extended time line to the current tragic events. As is clearly apparent, this wasn't a friendly marriage. CraigMonroe 11:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Notable - relevant in light of the marriage's tragic end. Rklawton 12:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is notable, as well. I posted about this earlier (#Info to add). TMZ.com released copies of Nancy's restraining order and the divorce papers. The link is here. Maybe these should be included, too. Nikki311 16:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's notable. So what if she withdrew it? It happened and she alleged abused. Please read

Notable. Anchoress 17:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Notable. I agree that this is notable, because it's probably the only insight to the former status of Benoit's personal life. --Stoppedcode12 16:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Born in '99 or '00? Koberulz 08:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yahoo.com makes it sound like the son was on steroids and was given to him by his parents. Is Yahoo a credible source? Kingjeff 13:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

yes but it doesn't say that. --Fredrick day 13:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Not directly. Kingjeff 13:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

well that's your answer. We don't imply things in wikipedia articles. --Fredrick day 13:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You're probably one of those people who tries to have an answer for everything. Kingjeff 13:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what you mean by that, but he's entirely correct. Jeff Silvers 13:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you checked my userpage? It's says "This user can do no wrong, especially when it comes to editing Wikipedia." Kingjeff 13:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no where in the Yahoo article does is even imply that he gave his son steroids. There is a problem with your user page, because you would "do wrong" had you edited the article to state that Benoit gave his son steroids. That would be called vandalism. Legendotphoenix 14:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying to accuse me of going around vandalising pages? Kingjeff 17:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

In several articles it talks about how Daniel was receiving growth hormones. Another story I read this morning (which the link to that article is no longer available) talked about Daniel having some kind of disease that made him how he was. That's all I'm willing to say about that because I don't remember all the details and like I said the link isn't available.

I heard about this too. Kingjeff 17:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

it's also possable that he was perscribed HGH for his conditionharlock_jds 14:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I now have a link to a story about his illness. (http://www.news1130.com/news/topstory/article.jsp?content=20070626_212836_4500) Take it for what it's worth.

Mike

15:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I said before...any birth year for him? I'm assuming 2000, since it would logically be post-marriage, but one can never be sure. Koberulz 18:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The story of needle marks and HGH for the son from espn.com, it reads as follows: "In an interview with ESPN.com on Tuesday, Ballard indicated that the boy had needle marks in his arms. The district attorney said he believed that the boy had been given growth hormones for some time because the family considered him undersized." http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=2917133 UnknownToaster 21:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The boy had

It should be added to the article some inconsistencies with the police investigation. On June 25, when the story first broke, It appeared Chris Benoit killed his wife on Saturday, Daniel on Sunday, then himself on Monday. By the next day, after the preliminary autopsy, they say Daniel was killed first on Friday and then Nancy early Saturday before killing himself late Saturday or early Sunday. Then, the text messages were revealed by WWE.com, all during the day on Sunday. If he killed himself late Saturday or early Sunday, how could he have sent those messages?

I think Benoit's Death should get its own article, especially as it drags out. This is no longer just a normal wrestling death like Eddie Guererro, it is now a murder case that is being watched by all of mainstream America and beyond. It is the top news story in a pretty busy week (wildfires/flooding ravaging the U.S., Paris Hilton, Tony Blair quitting after 10 years,) If Michael jackson's case and O.J. Simpson's case have their own articles, then i see no reason why this shouldn't. <----

because you are looking into a crystal ball and assigning this a future importance it does not current have? If this is still being mentioned internationally in a couple of weeks I will be very surprised (Indeed I haven't see a single mention on UK news programs or channels). Those other cases had sustained interest because of the trial. There might be something that suggests that we need a separate article at some stage but I don't see it yet. --Fredrick day 13:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Who said that he killed his son first and the wife second? From all the reports I've seen of the autopsy, his wife was killed on Friday, his son was killed on Saturday, and he killed himself late Saturday/early Sunday. Dionyseus 17:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, sir. The Hybrid 17:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I said ^^^As it drags out. The WWE may try to downplay it's importance but that's just to distance themselves from having a murderer on it's roster, lol. But this WILL I repeat, WILL drag out because the details of the case are still sketchy and there's that big contreversy of did Benoit or did Benoit not kill his family due to steroids, and whether they can conclusivly prove whether or not Benoit was responsible, for the waning, but still notable skeptics out there (like his friend Bret Hart). But I guess you're right, when that bridge comes, we will cross it.

Edit: You also must take into consideration that Michael Jackson's case was big not because of the circumstances, but because of the fact that it was Michael Jackson.

we'll see if any creditable articles come out skeptical of benoit being the murderer, until that happens adding information about a "Controversy" if he did the killing or not is totally original research and has no place in the article.harlock_jds 14:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If a controversy section is added either to this or a brand new article, it should only be about the conflicts between the WWE and the mainstream media's use of "roid rage," along with WWE's "five points" on their website. These are the only verifiable aspects. D4S 15:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

One of the problems I have with Wikipedia is that it gives a soapbox to conspiratorial crackpots and all manner of reality-challenged fools, and nearly every article has s large "Conspiracy" section. Anyway, get ready for the flood to hit as soon as the article is unprotected. Both here and at the IMDb boards, wrestling fans just REFUSE to accept reality. They're saying the family was killed by burglars, that the wife killed herself and the kid and Benoit commited suicide out of "distress", that they were murdered by a rival wrestler (look up Kayfabe guys), that the police/government framed him, or that he somehow "accidentally" killed them and offed himself out of remorse (how a hulking wrestler can "accidentally" bind a woman's hands and feet then strangle her to death, then "accidentally" smother his son with a pillow the next day eludes me). The admins should be extra-vigilant about keeping the fanboys from adding "alternate theories" to the page because they can't accept that their spandex-clad idol was a juiced-up, homicidal savage. Childe Roland of Gilead 14:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Dude, read this talk page. Everyone like that shut up after Tuesday's press conference. Get with the times, and on some chill pills dude. The Hybrid 14:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Im still trying to work out how anyone would think he was framed by police ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 14:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hybrid, I've been reading "alternate theories" on message boards as late as this morning. This happens with nearly every "controversial" subject. Just wait 'til they unlock the page. Childe Roland of Gilead 14:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I know how bad message boards can be; that’s why I refuse to deal with them anymore. I was saying that Wikipedia appeals to a more intelligent crowd, typically anyway :P. I'm also personally seeing to it that this page stays locked until at least Saturday, when I will beg for a longer time period, as I also know that wrestling vandals are complete dicks. The Hybrid 14:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

we'll just revert original research out... not sure if we need total protection since many of us are resionable editors and vandalaisim is easilly fixed (and all vandals are complete dicks). The woman article seems to be doing fine with simi protection.harlock_jds 15:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Benoit was more famous. I want full protection for as long as possible because most admins hate WP:PW, and once it gets unprotected they will never full protect it again. The vandalism at a rate of every 30 seconds, LITERALLY, with semi-protection before the full was established shows how bad it can get. Just trust me when I say we need it, please. The Hybrid 16:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

In a couple days, we'll drop it to semi protection because the mission of Wikipedia means that articles need to be protected for the least time that it is viable, and also because most of the facts are now known. Hybrid, I would also caution you to think about this.. Alkivar, who most of the PW folks had trouble with, kept his eye on the article for multiple DAYS so you guys could get edits on the page. I'm also willing to work with you guys here. Not all, not even most admins, not even many admins have a problem with PW, and a lot of those who do have Wikipedia based reasons for it. SirFozzie 16:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand why the biased ones hold that bias; I agree with what they say, even. However, they also tend to take their frustration out in seemingly abusive ways. I left before it got too bad, and even now refuse to get involved, but I do watch it. Anyway, I respect the hell out of Alkivar and you, but you both are exceptions to the rules. Many admins write off requests from the project without even looking the issue over. The Hybrid 16:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Moan, the protection expires in around 12 hours. We're fucked. The Hybrid 17:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Nah.. I'm pretty sure we'll keep it semi'd and then if things somehow get crazy again, we'll full protect again. SirFozzie 17:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of Vince McMahon and WWE trying to distance himself from Benoit (banning his name form telecasts, pulling all Benoit merchandise, cancelling the upcoming tour of Canada, confiscating all Benoit posters at WWE events, and apologizing for paying tribute to him the day he was found dead?

yeah, someone should mention that. I'm surprised it hasn't been put in yet. I'd do it myself, but I don't know where to put it, and I'm not a very good writer. I'm about ready to throw up because of all that has happened in this tragedy. I hope they find a motive other than roid rage. This is horrible. One Fried Egg 15:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

because we can't add any infomation to the article.harlock_jds 15:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay the guy is a double killer - a murderer, add that to the article. The text is too innocent now, like he died in his sleep with his wife & kid. --MoRsE 15:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"Fayette County district attorney Scott Ballard confirmed that Chris Benoit had murdered his wife and son. His wife was bound at the wrists and feet, while there were no signs of restraint on his son, both died of asphyxiation. It is reported that his wife died on Friday, his son died on Saturday, and Benoit killed himself later Saturday evening or early Sunday morning. Benoit's body was found dead of asphyxiation hanging by the cord of a weight machine in his basement. It was also reported that there was a Bible by both Nancy and Daniel's bodies." Hm, that sounds pretty graphic to me. I think it's fine. The Hybrid 15:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

WWE has stricken everything they could with Benoit's name from the record. Apparently, Wrestlemania 20 was HBK vs HHH. Unforgiven 2004 had William Regal in a handi-cap match against Flair and Batista. And at Survivor Series, Randy Orton, Maven and Chris Jericho faced off against Triple H, Batista, Edge and Snitsky in a Survivor Series rules match. The only place they couldn't erase history is their title history page. They can't deny that they gave him gold. And yes, the page does go into detail. Just because it doesn't say that in the opening introduction doesn't mean that the circumstances of his death isn't there. Garistotle 15:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What're you talking about? The Wrestlemania XX page at wwe.com is still intact along with all of Benoit's matches from other PPVs. D4S 17:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

But the opening intro needs to be updated. right now it is pretty sugar coated.harlock_jds 15:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The intro says what it needs to say: That he was found dead on June 25. Anything more than that belongs in the Death section, where it is.Garistotle 16:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The fact he murdered his wife and kids deserves a mention in the opening. It would be different if they had died in their sleep. CraigMonroe 16:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The most I could see (and agree with) being added is a note on the line about his death about how his death was the result of a double murder/suicide.Garistotle 16:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

So lets get this straight, you agree that is should mention the death, a murder/suicide, but you don't think it should mention he did it??? That seems very notable, given the massive publicity, possibly even more notable than his wrestling career. I can't see how it shold be left out.CraigMonroe 18:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Nancey's page currently has the following. I think something like it could be added here too "On June 25, 2007, Nancy, her husband Chris Benoit, and their son Daniel, were found dead by police in the family's Fayetteville, Georgia home, victims of an apparent double murder-suicide perpetrated by Chris Benoit." It simply states what happened (as we know it and can cite).

I agree, though i think some verbosity could be left out. Particularly, the fact the police found them. That is an issue notable for inclusion, but not necessarilly in the opening. However it is written, at the least, it should have the people involved, their relationship, and the fact Benoit killed them. More detail can be found in the Death section.CraigMonroe 19:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I felt that leaving out that Benoit was a VICTIM of a double murder/suicide would imply that Benoit did it. And, given that I did not SPECIFICALLY make a statement regarding what I felt the line should contain, there is no way for you to know whether or not I meant to include the fact that Benoit apparently perpetrated the act. Garistotle 19:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

since the cops have said he was the last one to die in the double murder/suicide that makes it pretty clear that he was not a murder VICTIM unless you bolieve in zombies or the likeharlock_jds 03:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry if I disagree with you. I feel that the fact he committed it needs to be explicitly stated. To leave it out and assume others will draw the connection is an unnecessary step. The fact is, 20 years from now, two things will be remembered about Benoit: (1) he was a wrestler, and (2) he murdered his family. These are the two things that need to be unequivically stated in the opening. Whether or not you "SPECIFICALLY made a statement regarding its inclusion is irrelevant." The ommission of the statement in your prior post made me think otherwise. If I was wrong, I appologize. However, your rational that "leaving out that Benoit was a VICTIM of a double murder/suicide would imply that Benoit did it" seems to state otherwise. So to clarify, in your view, should the opening explcitly state he killed his family??? Again, I appoligize for missunderstanding you--if I did. CraigMonroe 19:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Most murderers like Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer have the fact that they murdered people listed in their opening paragraphs. Even someone like O. J. Simpson who was leggally found not guilty of murder has is listed near the beginning of his article because that is what he is most closely associated with. Chris Benoit will no doubt go down in history as "that wrestler who murdered his family" because that is very much a defining aspect of his life. Just because his fans are in shock and want to sugarcoat it does not change the facts. I think it's very important that it be listed in the opening. Bngrybt 00:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The AP story is saying that Benoit called a co-worker on Saturday saying he missed his flight and he sounded groggy and said "I love you" and that was "out of context". Does anyone know who this coworker was? Monday night Chavo said the last time he talked to Benoit he said "I love you", but Chavo made it sound like they always said that to each other. Also, which co-worker did he tell that his wife and kid were throwing up because of food poison. And who did he send all the text messages to? I can't view the wwe.com page from work, so I can't see the timeline and I just wanted to know who he was in contact with over the weekend?--SGT Tex 15:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

WWE won't release who the exact co-workers are. And I didn't hear anything about him saying that his wife and kid were throwing up. I just heard about the one that said the dogs were in the pool area and the back door was open, and the five different ones that said his home address. One Fried Egg 15:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

On prowrestling.com (take the site for what it's worth), I've seen those same reports as well as in the detailed timeline on WWE's website. That link is a few sections up.

Mike

16:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The AP story says:

When a co-worker who usually travels with Benoit called him later from the Houston airport, Benoit told the co-worker his wife, Nancy, was throwing up blood and that his son, Daniel, also was throwing up. Benoit said he thought it was food poisoning, according to WWE.

This is all so strange.--SGT Tex 16:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

To One Fried Egg's comments about the throwing up part. Those comments weren't in text messages but instead were in voice conversations with a co-worker. According to WWE's detailed timeline, the part about them throwing up was first mentioned on Saturday at around 4:30 PM.

On Foxnews.com it said that the beginning of a few of the text messages said, "C, S. My physical address is..." They also said that the two people who received the text messages where the same two who spoke with him on the phone Saturday. - T-75|talk|contribs 22:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm just curious where user:garistotle (from a few sections up) got the information stating the WWE have removed all references of Benoit's career? I,ve found references of his match with MVP at Wrestlemania 23 --Duality344 16:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Must have been added back in recently last night. I scoured the WWE Shop site last night and found nothing. No mention of him anywhere on the site, except for the the statements they are making regarding his death and in the title history. That being said, I didn't check the Wrestlemania 23 page, so maybe it was in there to. Garistotle 16:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I was just on WWE's site and he's still listed with Wrestlemania 20. Maybe he's off all the listings on WWE Shop, but he is still referenced here and there on the main site.

Mike

16:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think they're not going to completely deny the fact that he was employed with them, but the want to make clear they don't want to make any "blood money" from his merchandise. --Duality344 16:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

They are still gonna list him in things like match results, they are just gonna remove anything that could be seen as honoring him (tributes, his profile, merchandise, etc.). TJ Spyke 20:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

In an article on NYTimes.com[5], there is a short interview with former wrestler Chris Nowinski who is trying to persuade the coroner to allow a brain exam to see if his concussions might of had anything to do with his actions. In the article on prowrestling.com talking about the NY Times article, it mentions how Nowinski was able to link the suicide of NFL defensive back

It is worth stating that Nowinski is, besides a former wrestler, a Harvard graduate and authored a book about the effect of concussions on football players and wrestlers. --Rabbethan 16:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, Nowinski's wrestling career was cut extremely short (less than two years) by post-concussion syndrome, leading to his interest in the subject. Rdfox 76 17:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What does this have to do with Chris Benoit? BigBoi29 18:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Nowinski is trying to have brain scans done on Benoit, who has a history of injuries all over his body, head included. The Hybrid 18:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe if another news service picks this up, it would be something of interest to add to the article. Given Benoit's history with injuries, including a concussion here and there, as well as Nowinski's history with them and his research it would definitely be a worthwhile note, especially IF the media would pick it up. As for writing a potential contribution, don't ask me, I'm not good with that kind of thing.

I think the NYT is good enough to include on it's own no need for another source to pick it up harlock_jds 18:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying that another source would be nice that way there's something other than a 5 sentence interview in the NYT article and the notes in Waters' article about Nowinski persuing this for Waters' suicide. Although those two sources, as well as other info that's more than likely available about Nowinski's actions with that suicide, are enough to give this some of credibility.

Mike

19:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's the New York Times. That is the most famous newspaper in America, so I would say if nothing else covers it that it is worth mentioning. The Hybrid 19:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

One of the things that's coming to my mind now, which is why I'm throwing the second source thing out, is how when I did research projects in school I'd always need at least 2 sources with the same info. One of those CYA things.

Mike

19:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

OMG, you've got to be kidding me. Just add the damn line. Here, if you feel two dimwitted to do that kind of thing, I've got a statement to add for you: "An alternate motive for Benoit's suicide-murder has been proposed by former wrestler Chris Nowinski, now a respected authority on brain trauma in sports. Nowinski suggests that Benoit's violent and erratic behavior was a result of long-time concussions incurred during his career, which may have led to feelings of rage and paranoia.[6] Nowinski's "concussion theory" has largely been disregarded by coroners, who scoffed at his request for a brain scan of Benoit. "

There, it's that easy. I'm amazed what a weak democracy we have at Wikipedia. Some people have the ability to lock articles from people like me who cite sources, while others will write lore without any references whatsoever. If you have a good source, use it and don't doubt yourself!

Weak democracy? Actually,

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Fatjabba

22:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Some media organizations have

premeditation in addition to the lack of a toxicology report, and the fact that the steroids found within Benoit's home were legally prescribed to him.^[3]

What does everyone think? The Hybrid 14:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

As written, this is a great neutral stance on the roid rage subject. The media with their accusations and the WWE defending the subject with their facts and that they too are waiting for the toxology report. Until that report is released, nobody can say with certainty that steroids played a part in the deaths.

Mike

16:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Would someone please update the article? The Hybrid 17:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

A roid rage that lasted three days, and had warning signs weeks beforehand? Koberulz 18:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

we aren't agreeing with the catagorazation just saying that is the angle most of the media coverage is taking.harlock_jds 18:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the good news is Nancy Grace from CNN had Alex Marvez on recently, and he pretty much pwned the Roid Rage thing, so some people know the truth out there, at least. The Hybrid 18:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this at some point link to Anabolic steroid#Popular misconceptions? –– Lid^(Talk) 19:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Both the roid rage and the Chris Nowinski information are good and I feel should be added the the article. UnknownToaster 21:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried suggesting this earlier, but apparently nobody saw it... I recommend changing the last paragraph of the career section to more accurately describe the situation as to why Nitro substituted for Benoit on the Vengeance PPV. I'm thinking this might work:

On June 19, 2007, Benoit wrestled his last match, defeating Elijah Burke in a match to determine who would face CM Punk for the vacated ECW Championship at Vengeance. Benoit missed the weekend house shows, telling WWE officials that his wife and son were vomiting blood due to food poisoning.^[4] When he failed to show up for the pay-per-view, viewers were informed that he was unable to compete due to a "family emergency," and that he would be replaced in the title match by Johnny Nitro. Nitro went on to win the match and become ECW Champion.

Thoughts? Comments? Rdfox 76 17:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC) I would changed failed to notified...

Benoit notified officials he would not be attending the pay-per-view event...

And then the rest of your statement would work at that point, that the views were informed.The Cleveland Browns are awesome! 17:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I used "failed to show up" because the WWE timeline indicates that he never contacted them to notify he wouldn't be showing up, he simply no-showed. Rdfox 76 17:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought somewhere I read that he txt messaged people during the event and that he told his co-worker he normally travels with once they got to Texas that he wasn't going to show up at the event for PPV because they were throwing up blood(His family members).The Cleveland Browns are awesome! 18:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, that was a mistaken report from one of the wrestling dirtsheet sites; check the WWE timeline at http://www.wwe.com/inside/news/detailedbenoittimeline for details on what messages were sent, and when. The last text messages sent by Benoit were at about 4AM on Sunday, which jibes fairly well with the time of death ("late Saturday/early Sunday") mentioned at the press conference yesterday. Rdfox 76 18:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Added {{editprotected}} template, since nobody seems to have any objection to the idea. Rdfox 76 20:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

After the sentence "They cite evidence of premeditation in addition to the lack of a toxicology report, and the fact that the steroids found within Benoit's home were legally prescribed to him. [91]'" There is a ' that doesn't belong. Placed right after citation 91. It should be removed. Also, Citations 89-91 should be formated. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

From the statments I have seen/read, I did not once hear an apology for airing the tribute episode of Raw. Am I missing something? fadedx 18:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologize for what? The article doesn't claim he apologized. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you watch ECW? I haven't, but apparently it happened there. Koberulz 18:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

He did not use the words "I'm sorry" or "apologize" or "regret", but he did make it clear that Benoit's name would not be mentioned anymore, and that the tribute would be for everyone (beside Benoit) affected by the tragedy. The tribute section of the death should mention that a) the Raw tribute was before the facts were known and b) that WWE is now refusing to distribute the tribute show, and c)has seemed to cut all ties to Benoit (i.e. merchandising, his WWE profile, etc). I can provide sourcing for this once the protection expires. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't see the need for a straight up apology. They acted in the best interest at the time based on the available information. Granted the talk about him committing the crime was already in place, I feel like Vince and the WWE did what was right Monday and Tuesday. Monday for doing the respectable thing at the time and remembering his career, and Tuesday stating that they would go on with the show and push the Benoit issue to the side as it pertains to their programming.

Here is a youtube video of it [7] ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 20:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw the videos and read the statement, but it wasn't an apology, yet everybody seems to be calling it so. He doesn't once say that he is sorry for airing the tribute. He just makes clear that the current circumstances were not known when it was aired. It wasn't an apology. fadedx 21:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree and I dont think he has anything to apologise for at the time they had no idea and people would be yelling at him for not doing one. ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 21:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, he has nothing to be sorry for. In fact I feel blessed that he did the tribute. It gave me and millions of other fans one last night to look over some of the greatest moments in his career before finally being forced to condemn him. The Hybrid 22:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That video has been deleted by WWE, it seems that WWE has been on the war path to delete any evidence that there ever was a tribute, threatening lawsuits against anyone that carries the video or screenshots of it. For some reason it seems that they would rather it never existed and that they prefer the public never seeing or hearing about it again. JayKeaton 02:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think it's time for an admin to add the American and Canadian Murderer categories, among possibly other categories about child killers, wife killers and death by suicide? The facts are not in dispute. (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, probably. However, the protection ends in around 12 hours (0_o), so we can just add it then. Now, I must go claw my ears off in anticipation. The Hybrid 18:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

anyone know his citizenship status? was he American citizen or still a Canadian citizen (living in the states doesn't say anything... he could have just been a permanent resident and not a citizen)harlock_jds 18:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, since the killings took place in America, but he was of Canadian decent, he should probably go in both. The Hybrid 18:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

for other notable murderers the nationality tag falls only with the nation he was a citizen of. Look at the guy who did the va tech shooting for a debate on this and the consensus. We aren't forced to follow suit here but consistency would be nice (and it's a really good example of someone who was not a citizen but killing people in america).harlock_jds 18:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm convinced that you're correct. I do believe that he was still a Canadian citizen, so yeah. The Hybrid 19:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I might have to do some digging around, but I believe he did get American citizenship after moving to Atlanta.Garistotle 19:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

how long ago did he move to GA? if it was less than 5 years i don't think he could have gotten his citizenship yet (might be 3 years not sure). harlock_jds 20:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Benoit has been living in Atlanta for at least 9 years (he was arrested for DUI in 1998 while living in Atlanta). TJ Spyke 20:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Added Canadian murderers category. NawlinWiki 20:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Benoit was a dual citizen. D4S 20:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Not until he's been adjudicated of that fact. Do not put up murderer categories until it's been made official by a reliable governmental source. Corvus cornix 20:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you want them to do, handcuff his corpse? Last time I heard, it was the police who declare if a murder happened not the government. Fighting for Justice 20:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the police do not declare if a murder happened, a coroner's inquest does that. Once that has been completed, then the category can be placed here, but until such a time as that happens, putting a murderer category here is

original research. Corvus cornix

20:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No it is not. THe scene is very indicative of a murder. THe police have not called it anything less. There was nothing natural about any of their deaths. Are you suggesting Nancy Benoit tied herself up? Chris Benoit hanged himself for the fun of it. Fighting for Justice 21:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You've been there? You've seen the scene? You know for 100% certainty that Benoit wasn't murdered and the scene set up to look like a suicide? Look, I'm not saying that it's likely that it didn't happen the way the press is saying it looks like it happened but what I am saying is that Wikipedia cannot declare someone a murderer without proof.Corvus cornix 21:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

we can call him a murderer as long as we can cite quality sources that call him a murderer. We have plenty of those.harlock_jds 21:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No quality source would say such a thing. Corvus cornix 21:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

they are saying he killed his son and wife... that is the same as saying he murdered them.harlock_jds 23:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Corvus cornix, while a court may require an inquest (in the US it is nto always required, but lets not get into that) wikipedia makes no such requirement. All that is required on Wikipedia is a reasonable source that states the fact to be cited. In this case, there are literally thousands of quality sources stating he murdered his family, this the tag and statement can be used. As another poster aptly pointed out, Wikipedia is not a search for truth; It is a search for citable and reliable content. While some content may be more reliable than others, the fact a less-reliable but still quality source states a fact does not preclude its inclusion. In other words, legal certainty is not required, and never has been.CraigMonroe 21:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What's a reasonable source, and how would they know the facts, vs. speculation, if there has been no official decree? Corvus cornix 21:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

who cares the article can allways be edited to show the 'current facts'harlock_jds 23:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

CraigMonroe, are you referring to the same reputable and reliable news sources that jumped the gun and awarded a presidential election to Al Gore only to come back an hour or so later and say "Whoops, our bad!". I think the facts speak pretty well for themselves, but you are correct, Wiki is not a search for truth, it is a search for fact. And I think that I would be perfectly comfortable considering this an "alleged" murder-suicide until the coroner reports his findings.

In an effort to be the first one on the story, news agencies are famous for jumping the gun, let's not join them. Trusilver 21:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That happened 7 years ago! Get over it. It's 2007 and the police have declared it a murder-suicide. Allege is a weasel word. Oh and they called the Presidency for Bush not Gore. Fighting for Justice 21:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No, originally they called it for Gore in an effort to be the first ones to the starting block. Regardless of when it happened, it's an excellent example of the media jumping to conclusions that may not be factual. And I suggest you do your homework and read WP policy some more, "alleged" is a perfectly reasonable word when legitimate suspicion exists that has not been factually proven.

If you are capable of linking to "weasel words" you are capable of reading it. A weasel word is used to misrepresent of obfuscate fact and the only person that is capable of determining "fact" in this has not yet spoken. Do I think he did it? Hell yes I do, but I don't get to make that conclusion and neither do you. Trusilver 21:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

As for the media jumping to incorrect conclusions, all I think that needs to be said there is three words: "Dewey Defeats Truman." Rdfox 76 22:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not the media some times gets it wrong is not the issue. Wikipedia allows the information to be posted as long as there a reasonable source that states the fact. Here is one[[8]]. Again, wikipedia is not a search for the truth. Wikipedia is only a search for verifiable information. WP:Verifiability. As for the earlier remark that no reputable source would call it a murder without a coroners inquest. I am sorry if the standards the media and wikipedia apply to avoid libel cases are less than your liking. If you have an issue with this, propose a change to wikipedia guidelines, or contact your local legislator. Again, as long as there are verifiable sources from a reasonable source, the statement can be used. Watch: Chris benoit murdered his wife and child[[9]].CraigMonroe 22:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to Trusilver's last post, no one here, and certainly not wikipedia is making the conclusion. We are simply reporting the facts as they are presented. Again, wikipedia is not the search for the truth but only verifiable information. Currently, the facts, as shown through hundreds or reliable independant sources, not to mention the police, state prosecutors, Georgia state crime lab, and the county medical examiner's preliminary autopsy report, are all saying Benoit murdered his family. Since these are the facts, backed up by sources, they can be placed in the article. Do you have any sources to the contrary? Without them, this entire point is moot. CraigMonroe 22:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Every internet, video and print news source I have read has somewhere around an even toss over whether or not they say "murder-suicide" or "alleged murder-suicide", so there are references to go in either direction. The difference is that when it comes to current events, my position is that is it's best to give the benefit of the doubt until the evidence is irrefutable. Trusilver 22:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough, killing someone isn't the same as murdering someone. Chris may have killed his family, but we need an official ruling as to whether or not it was murder - else we're committing original research, and we just don't do that here. How could this case not be murder? Well, what if he was temporarily insane at the time? If so, then this whole thing would be just a horrible tragedy. At any rate, it's best to just sit tight and see what the authorities come up with. Rklawton 23:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The intro should read:

On June 25, 2007, Benoit was found dead in his home in Fayetteville, Georgia, along with his wife, Nancy Daus, and their 7-year old son, Daniel,[2][3] in an apparent

murder-suicide

.

Why isn't it? That is clear, tells you exactly what happened, and is not POV. Bytebear 00:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I like it. Rklawton 00:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

So do I, completely. I like the sound of "apparent" better than "alleged" anyway. Trusilver 02:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, it needs to state the cause--Chris Benoit. Whether you like it or not, every news source has reported it as such. If you have a probelm, how about it say, a murder-suicide allegedly committed by Chris Benoit. I have no problem with that. Frankly, it is assinine that you have a problem with its inclusion in the opening when there will be an entire section stating he did it. Unless there is a change, it deserves inclusion. As far as waiting for a ruling...what ruling? Since when have they began charging the deceased with murder? Even the medical examiner's "inquest" will nt define Benoit as the murderer. Potentially, there may be a civil trial but that would take years to settle. You are asking for things that will not occur. As I have stated a dozen times, WIKIPEDIA IS NOT THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH, IT IS THE SEARCH FOR VERIFIABLE INFORMATION. There are hundreds of verifiable sources stating he did it. CraigMonroe 01:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I feel, the people who are objecting to this murder category are die-hard Chris Benoit fans who are having a tough time accepting that he did the unthinkable to his family. If these people simply separate the man from the wrestler this outcome would be easier for them to accept. Fighting for Justice 05:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

FfJ, you know what they say about assumption? I've never even watched wrestling, I just don't like the idea of sacrificing Wikipedia's factual integrity by jumping the gun. I suggest you read

WP:AGF. Trusilver

18:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Is the "Criminals who committed suicide" category really appropriate, since he technically was never charged? D4S 16:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The only reason he can't be charged is because he killed himself afterwards. Fighting for Justice is completely correct, the people who are saying not to include this are being ridiculous. For the Virginia Tech shootings, did the editors wait until the coroner's inquest (I don't even believe they had one) to say that the killer was a killer? No, it's not necessary, the police have provided all the details. Looking back at the archive of this talk page, people started out by saying that the WWE wasn't a good enough source to say he was dead, then that local papers weren't a good enough source, and when it went to the AP saying that it seemed to be a murder-suicide, they wanted to wait to say that he did it because something else could have happened. Even after the police confirmed it, many wanted to wait until an "official press conference" and after the press conference, some wanted to wait until the official police report came out. Now, apparently that's not good enough and we need an official coroner's inquest verdict to say that a murder happened. This is getting ridiculous. I know you like the guy, but it is Wikipedia's job to report what news sources are reporting that the police in this case are saying. --Gloriamarie 16:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Gloria, dead on. CraigMonroe 16:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur The Hybrid 17:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I did like the guy, but I'm DEFINITELY NOT excusing his horrific actions because he was a fan favorite (I was the one who added the "Murder-Suicide" and "Sportspeople who committed suicide" categories). I'm talking about the literal sense of this category. Benoit was not a criminal, i.e. charged with a crime, before he killed his family, so adding him to this category isn't completely accurate. D4S 17:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The legal definition of a "crime" and a "criminal" says nothing about "it's only a crime if you get caught. He broke the law when he murdered his family, thus he is a criminal JayKeaton 18:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I know my argument seemed ridiculous, but I'm just focusing on accuracy. I agree with Jay. D4S 18:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Professional wrestling star Chris Benoit may have killed his 7-year-old son with a chokehold, Fayette County's district attorney said Wednesday.

The bodies of Benoit, his wife Nancy, and son Daniel were found in the family's exclusive Fayette County home Monday afternoon. Authorities say the deaths appear to have been murder-suicide.

District Attorney Scott Ballard said the boy had internal injuries to the throat area, but showed no bruises, indicating he may have been locked in the crook of his father's arm. Previous reports have said the boy had been smothered or strangled.

Nancy Benoit, 43, had bruises on her back and stomach consistent with someone pressing a knee into the small of the back while pulling on a cord around the neck, Ballard said.

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/fayette/stories/2007/06/27/0627metbenoitchoke.html

--Fredrick day 18:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, assuming that's what really happened, that conclusively proves that roid rage wasn't the cause. I know someone who was locked in a hold like that for more than an hour without suffering even brain damage. That is also somewhat good news, as the boy would have gone unconscious in no more than 2 minutes, so there wasn't much suffering involved for the child. The Hybrid 18:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

While that case would rule out "roid rage", it doesn't rule out the possibility of dementia, possibly brought on and intensified by numerous concussions over the years.Garistotle 19:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

the comment about the crippler crossface is not sick and childish... it's a legit question... some of the wrestling dirtsheets (although not the mainstream press) are indicating some of his wrestling training could have been used in the killings

No, they said that it was a choke hold. The crossface applies very little pressure to anywhere that could be fatal. The same guy who was in the choke hold has also been put in the crossface, and he said what little bit of his body it hurt wasn't anywhere important (it was just below that one spot between your shoulder blades that you can't scratch). The crossface doesn't actually hurt your neck or shoulder, all it hurts is your back when the applier rolls back, but the leverage is so terrible that it does next-to-nothing. The Hybrid 19:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

how is it a legit question? the crossface would not cause anyone to suffercate, the comment was a lame attempt at a sick joke by the sort of moron that appears at ttimes like these.Skitzouk 19:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I

assume good faith, even to the point that I look like an idiot, because I don't care if I do or not. Peace, The Hybrid

19:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Hybrid... I wrestled in high school (eons ago) and have been crossfaced before, and the real ones do hurt... so I was naturally curious... not a sicko cracking a joke

I know what you mean, the real crossfaces really do hurt, like across the face. :) — Moe ε 02:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As a former high school state champion, I can verify that crossfaces(legal ones in wrestling for high schools) do hurt and can leave marks across the forehead and face area. The Cripper Crossface although can hurt the back and arm sholder area, it can not choke a person out. I put someone in that same crossface(Crippler) for over an hour without them passing out from choking, because it's not a choke hold.The Cleveland Browns are awesome! 14:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was talking about his version, the "Crippler Crossface", like across the chin and mouth. I wasn't addressing the real "crossface" versions. The Hybrid 20:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I was put in it for ages by someone at school ages ago and didnt get choked out ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 20:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that Chris Benoit would have used his own finishing move on his own kid? crambone

Well, he was able to bring himself to kill him, but the Crippler Crossface doesn't choke a person out, so it wasn't the move he used. The Hybrid 21:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

If Benoit wanted to kill someone, he would have used the STFU. --Maestro25 22:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

In the infobox, his death date and retirement date are listed as the 25th, while the first sentence has it listed as the 24th. Whichever one is the agreed upon date should be used consistantly in all three spots (and whatever other locations pop up).

Fixed, though I don't believe the actual date of death has been determined. -- Gogo Dodo 23:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Either way, as long as it's consistant there shouldn't be many complaints.

Mike

02:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Should there maybe be something in talking about his murder/suicide talking about how the majority of retail outlets have since removed any Chris Benoit action figures and DVDs? I'm sure something will be properly sourced to show that this is the case in the next couple of days, if it hasn't been already. The only places I've been able to find anything with Benoit's name on it so far is Amazon and Ebay. (note that I haven't checked wrestling-specific sales sites such as Ringside Collectibles)Garistotle 19:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention Amazon's way of trying to make a quick buck off the situation...

Mike

19:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

They had the merchandise before Chris Benoit was post-humorously accused of murder. Besides, would you take all the merchandise off the shelves of Chris Benoit, if you had the chance to make money off a tragedy such as this? A lot of people say that war is profitable. Why not death? AMReese 00:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about them trying to make a buck off the situation, I'm talking about the shameless plug of his DVD in the note about his death when you search WWE.

Mike

02:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

They are doing autopsies and toxicology and lord knows what else we are not told about. Why not wait until there is absolutes of what happened here? Right now it seems like guessing. Of course this is just my opinion but I think it all should stay out of the article until all is really known. Of course changing the info box to him being dead should be done, but then again when it is know when he died for sure. --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

We can never know anything "for sure", we just have to believe that the police told us the truth. And the police have told us that he killed his wife one day and his little boy the next, followed by himself. The police could be lying to us, but I sort of trust the police. They risk losing their jobs if the public find out they lied. JayKeaton 08:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I believe the Police as much as I believeVice President Dick Cheney isn't a part of the executive branch of government. Some days he is, some days he isn't. Same as the Police, They tell you want you want to hear, and if you drill them down, they change their story just like roaches disappear with lights turned on. If you believe everything the police and government tells you then let me tell you something, I think Paris Hilton is the smartest person in the world.(Sarcasm)The Cleveland Browns are awesome! 15:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone wanted to hear that he murdered his own family, I certainly didn't. Dionyseus 15:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I feel bad for the whole family but mostly for the 7 year old kid who seemed to have a rough life his whole life.The Cleveland Browns are awesome! 15:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are comments and other information keep being deleted from this page? I already notice like 2 of mine that have been deleted.The Cleveland Browns are awesome! 15:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not like I been vandalising anything on this page but been talking about the Benoit issue, I notice other people's comments were taken away, as if someone restored an old Archive.The Cleveland Browns are awesome! 15:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

it looks like the newer comments were put on the new archive page instead of the older ones... not sure whyharlock_jds 15:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed it's been like that every few days, I wonder if Wikipedia is trying to make sure nothing is crazy on here for when the cops get on here, but why do that if you could just view the archive.The Cleveland Browns are awesome! 15:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't like how stuff has been deleted as well. Very much a paranoid reaction which is uncalled for. Pratyush

The page is being archived. There's nothing wrong with letting it grow a little; whoever is doing the archiving should probably stop. It is important to note that Wikipedia is not hiding from the police. In fact, we contacted the police over this issue. We are not worried about police. Sean William @ 15:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Calm down there Sean, I wasn't implying that any person that posts on wikipedia or on this specific page had anything to hid, I'm just stating the truth, that I been on this page for 5 days and it's beening modified and posts are being deleted...that's all I meant.The Cleveland Browns are awesome! 15:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I'm just trying to dispel any possible rumors. Sean William @ 15:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Understandable, most people are dumb and I'm sure now on Wikipedia, there are going to have a lot more people on here trying to say we started some kind of cult action of predicting something that happened in the News. I say, it was probably either vandel who got lucky, or someone from the WWF that posted something they shouldn't have.The Cleveland Browns are awesome! 15:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm also kinda pissed. All my comments have been on how the article should be written even in the wave of current events and mine keep getting deleted. It's like people are only interested in the new news, and could care less on how CORRECTLY write an article, distiguishing between what is encyclopedic and what isn't. I keep saying that Wikipedia is not a news broadcasting service and none of the new stuff on the article involving his death is actually encyclopedic material. It's not encyclopedic to show the text messeges that he sent out before his death, or even how he killed his family. Also all this extra info to an extent is considered

CRUFT. --VorangorTheDemon

17:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It could be to limit the talk page from becoming massively large. Salisbury Steak (complaint dept. - contribs) 15:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but some pretty important pages and comments were deleted that directly related to the event. I think some admin or someone is making person choices to crop this down before the cops gets on this page. That's my opinion. If I'm not right, then restore the pages back to where they were. There wasn't anything on the page before it started getting deleted today that was not approiate or did not speak about the article directly....I think someone is getting scared that this page is in Polices eyesight now.The Cleveland Browns are awesome! 15:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I am just stating what is at the top, you might have to find an admin for explination on this one man, I am not one. Also using a colon(:) will indent your post so that it looks like a response and not all one response, no offense. Salisbury Steak (complaint dept. - contribs) 15:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

How about some help admins for User:2-Bar Quack on this? Salisbury Steak (complaint dept. - contribs) 15:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I am still learning some of the coding here on Wikipedia. LOL, yeah, I mean, I just don't understand why people would delete stuff it if it directly relates to the page and the info we are finding out about him. I mean, I got enough rights to go in there on his page and make changes, but I like to talk about them here before anything and to be honest, I don't even want to touch his page until all the facts come out. People been jumping quickly to want to make changes to his article page, I just figured until we get more details about it, we can use this page to gather information in what we are going to do for his article once the tox. test comes back.The Cleveland Browns are awesome! 15:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

People should be more like you then, instead people will put anything on the page just for the purpose of saying that "he's a killer" and reasoning that with half-ass truths when the whole story is not there. Salisbury Steak (complaint dept. - contribs) 16:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

A lot of it is being archived because this page gets very big (there's a section at the top listing archives). That and the fact that admins have to try to keep this from turning into either a general message forum for Chris, and/or a conspiracy theorists forum. If a post isn't useful to building an article on Chris Benoit and/or the murder of Nancy Benoit and Daniel Benoit, it is likely to be removed quickly. There is still a record of every post made (you can view it in history), so if there WAS an issue the police needed to look at, they certainly will be able to. SirFozzie 16:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't know what bearing this has (if any), but Bruce and Bret Hart have each given interviews to Sun Media in Canada. Both give very different theories as to what may have happened... Bruce Hart: http://www.torontosun.com/News/Canada/2007/06/29/4299824-sun.html Bret Hart: http://www.torontosun.com/News/Canada/2007/06/29/4299822-sun.html I doubt if this warrants a major mention, but in case it does (if someone is compiling a section dedicated to the theories surrounding the murder/suicide), there's a couple more.--Garistotle 15:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Bruce Hart is a jabroni. I believe Bret more than I do him. Bret at least has nothing to gain with his name in the paper, Bruce does. I think Bret is right on this one. He probably knows Benoit better than most people since Stu was Benoit's teacher, I'm sure since Bret and Benoit about the same size, they probably trained a lot together.The Cleveland Browns are awesome! 15:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is the Toronto Sun quoted it is the Calgary Sun that should be quoted [10], check the posting time, 1:39am MST. Toronto is not the only city in Canada like some banana-republic in South America. Wiki Canada entries seem generally controlled by Toronto people whereas American entries seem to be from all over the United States, but that is no excuse to not quote the correct Canadian news source.

Hi Atikokan. To answer your question about why I provided the Toronto Sun link as opposed to the Calgary Sun link, it's simple because that is the paper I found it at, so thats the one I linked from. You'll note that I did not attribute the interviews to the Toronto Sun, but rather to Sun Media (which is correct). I apologize if you felt at all slighted by my linking the Toronto Sun rather than the Calgary Sun.--Garistotle 16:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, it seems that the Toronto Sun link IS correct as the originating source. Steve Simmons, the writer of the story 'Freak', is based out of Toronto, as he has a Toronto contact phone number and is listed on the Canoe site as a Toronto Sun journalist. --Garistotle 16:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that some of us should focus on the rest of the article and chill out on the death section. It's in serious need of a re-write, most of it is

Thank you, and I don't know enough about Benoit to re-word the article, so I'll leave the re-write to you. The way that ALL articles should be written is as if you were explaining it to people that have no idea who the person is (which I bet that numerous people who have come here in the past week don't have any idea who he actually is, they've just heard of some pro wrestler named Chris Benoit on TV who murdered his wife and son, and they want to know more about him). --VorangorTheDemon 18:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the new photo. The old one was better.The Cleveland Browns are awesome! 19:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The new photo does seem to show him a little grumpier-looking than usual in my opinion.

Crenel

20:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the picture from the day (Friday) that Chris went to the doctor's office? (MgTurtle 22:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)).

The doctor one is a much better photo for the info box. Especially seeing as is wrestling info box will likely be changed into a non wrestling one soon. JayKeaton 02:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a free image and probably got deleted. Chopper Dave 01:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I know that the D.A. said that Chris killed his wife and son, but he didn't mention any type of test that they did to collect the DNA evidence from the cord around Nancy's throat or the cord around Chris's throat. I may just be watching too much CSI and stuff but he didn't mention it. I thought that might be important to mention.Anybody else think he should have mentioned this or am I the only one who would like more information like this? And why are some reporters trying to tie Sherri Martel's death in with this? Aren't they separate? (MgTurtle 19:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)).

DNA doesn't matter in this case. They can piece the timeline together without it. Also, they are tying Martel in with this because she didn't die of natural causes, and Benoit died just a little bit after she did. The Hybrid 20:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

DNA doesn't matter? I thought it was procedure during any murder case! I understand everthing that the D.A said about no one else being in the house, I just thought it was procedure to do that.I might just need to look more towards real life instead of stuff on T.V. Sorry. Also with the Martel case, they keep saying that she was friends with Nancy's ex-husband, Kevin Sullivan, even though her sister doesn't think they were really close friends. (MgTurtle 22:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)).

In real life DNA testing is avoided when possible, as it is extremely expensive. Yes, Martel was friends with Sullivan. I haven't heard the sister's comments, so I can't comment on the situation there. The Hybrid 22:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep DNA testing is very time consuming and pricey, the CSI shows have really made it a little bit harder on us, as everyone expects us to be able to instantly check DNA, or do other off the wall stuff like lifting fingerprints from something porous. Some things just aren't possible. Dureo 06:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Another reason why they probably didn't do DNA is that it's Benoit's own house, so his DNA is everywhere, making it nearly impossible to distinguish what DNA contributes to the case, and what doesn't. The could look for his epithelial tissue (skin) in the cord that he strangled his wife with, but again, how reliable is it because it's in his own house? Another reason is that DNA is usually only used for convicting people in cases, and the suspected killer is already dead; and they don't have reason or tangible evidence to suspect anyone else. --VorangorTheDemon 18:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Since when do the police get to decide if asomeone has committed murder. All they can do is point that the evidence supports such a hypothesis, if he were alive he would have to go to trial before such a statement could be made and his being dead doesnt change that,

Actually, being dead DOES change that. A dead person does not have anywhere near the same rights as a living person. A dead person does not get a trial. At best there may be a civil trial but a ruling will likely take years. When all the parties are dead, the authority falls to the invesitgators and local prosecutors to determine what happens. By making their ruling, which you edited the article to include, they confirmed Benoit committed the murder. Whether or not you believe this to be true, the news media have reported this as such, thus it can be used in the article. CraigMonroe 20:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

There are some official procedures that still have to be completed by the police department before they can declare the case closed and put the murder-suicide on the record, but it is pretty much a done deal. The Hybrid 20:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The police dont get to decide or there would be no trials merely a police state, and a done deal (a few wikipedians thinking it so) doesnt mean anything,

SqueakBox

22:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No, but investigators of the crime scene do and they stated it was a double

murder-suicide. Verifibility, which would be the news media and the police investigations, are more important than the truth. — Moe ε

22:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That is, without a doubt, the saddest true summation of Wikipedia I've ever seen. Liu Bei 18:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand the ruling stands unless someone brings hard evidence against the decision to give good reason to the authorities to reopen the case. His father did not deny that Chris did it, he wants to know whether or not drugs were a factor. Dionyseus 03:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Dionysus, you nailed it on the nose. It would be different if Benoit was alive. As I pointed out earlier, a dead person does not ahve the same rights as a living person. Some people can't accept this. Its as if they want the authorities to charge a dead body with murder and put it on trial. Speaking from experience, the courts have better things to do. If they are looking for vindication for Benoit, they will probably have to wait for a civil trial decision in a year or two. Other than that, the determination by local authorities is basically final. Even if you don't believe this, the fact there are numerous articles saying he committed the murder is enough to meet verifiability requirements and allow it posted in the article. CraigMonroe 12:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Chris' career is narrated as if he were an athlete competing in an (unscripted) sporting event. It sounds as if it has been written by a fan, rather than an objective observer..

I have to say, as someone who has never watched WWE wrestling, this article is incredibly meandering and difficult to follow. You have to ask a serious question as to whether every scripted event in the man's wrestling career is worthy of mentioning in a wikipedia article and whether it should be, as you say, described as though he were an athlete competing in a genuine sporting event. Surely the direct correlation here isn't a genuine sportsman but an entertainer - such as a theatre actor or someone taking part in a musical. It's far from an encyclopedic tone. Blankfrackis 02:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, all the WWE wrestler's pages are written in this fashion. They all need HUGE overhauls. I think some sort of task force needs to be created to tackle these articles, one at a time, maybe. DurinsBane87 19:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well since wrestlers have no extended page for their characters, it makes sense it's written in the way it is. Take, for examples, actors in television shows. You can take Matthew Fox, and then there will be a link to the character he plays on Lost, Jack Shephard. Since wrestling is a television show, a similar approach could work, but is entirely unnecessary. Since one has to believe that until recently, most people who frequent the pages of wrestlers are wrestling fans, it’s hard to argue why the pages are structured how they are. Most wrestlers you see on television are known for nothing else other then wrestling, so if they were to have separate “character” pages, their normal page would look pretty bare. Ultimately though whether wrestling is a scripted sport or not, the men and women still have (scripted) careers, and that leads to real accomplishments whether pre determined or not. Maybe on a page like this, most people aren’t interested in knowing every single feud Chris Benoit had in his career, but there are some people who are interested, and as thus, it should be there for those who want to read it, and is entirely scrollable for those with no interest. TheJudge310 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently WWE has banned all their superstars from talking to the media. This is possibly if a wrestler starts making comments about Chris -Sha0000 22:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Could this be because of all the former WWE superstars talking about all the wrongdoings in the WWE?I mean, Bret Hart, Chris Jericho,Road Warrior Animal, Debra, and Chyna have all come out against the WWE and its policies about drugs and the way things are done. Granted some of the previously mentioned people did say that the drug tests are working but maybe that's why. It always seems like Vince doesn't want anything bad to be said about his company even if it's true. Just my thoughts. (MgTurtle 23:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)).

I agree MgTurtle. Vince was quite quick dismiss steriods as the cause of Benoit's murders, and even made up excuses to why it couldn't of been steriods. If they find steroids in Benoit's system, that could be the end for the WWE. Vince will get his license taken away and all the other wrestlers could be out of jobs. Benoit could've been on steriods but then went off them for a while before the test that he had in April, and then went on them again. Some athletes do that, they take steroids only occasionally so they have a better chance of passing tests. And you notice that all those wrestlers that you named have either gotten fired, suspended, or have chosen to leave the WWE? Coincidence? I beg to differ. --VorangorTheDemon 18:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• That may be jumping the gun just a bit Vorangor. This definately isn;t the first time Vince's employees have been caught using steroids, and even McMahon himself has admitted to using them. Given this is the first time that the effect of the steroids has lead to a major news controversy, I doubt that it'll be enough to end his illustrious career, especially with WWE's "wellness" program. And if Vince does get his license revoked, it won't be the end of the company I assume, as Linda, Stephanie, or Levesque could take over, and all three have a much cleaner record (if that counts for anything at all). Sherick 21:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

one of the new reporters said that since pro wrestling is staged and the WWE is "sport enterntainment", that he basically doesn't have any of the sports commissions to to drug tests for his wrestlers.And they acted like Vince couldn't be throughly investigated because of this fact.But the police could do something if they knew that Chris was taking steroids after the drug test, right.Also former superstars who were with the WWE after Eddie died and they did the regular drug tests say the drug tests are random and very good.But then again, they could just be saying that. Who truely knows? (MgTurtle 00:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)).

I wasn't jumping the gun at all Sherick. I never said that Vince WOULD lose his license, I said that he COULD lose his license. There's a difference, and Vince almost lost the business in the '90's due to his wrestler's taking steriods. Granted that this isn't the first time that the WWE has been caught with steriods, but (if the effect of Steroids actually were the cause of Benoit's actions) this is the first time that it's resulted in extreme collateral damage. The death of a woman and child. No doubt the feds will get involved, and I'm positive that they'll do quite a bit more then slap Vince on the hand and tell him no. --VorangorTheDemon 04:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This isn't true at all. A bunch of wrestlers, including John Cena, were discussing the issue on Larry King Live. DRaGZ 07:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

As he's clearly no longer wrestling, is this the best infobox to use? I'm not sure where

Good point, a lot of that info doesn'r really apply any more. What can we change it to? JayKeaton 02:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Make a new infobox for deceased athletes if one doesn't exist yet.

Crenel

02:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Former Wrestler!!! --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:PW generally leaves the infobox regardless of whether or not they are active, as the info is relevant when considering how their career went. However, if you would like to change this, then feel free to bring it up on the project talk page. Peace, The Hybrid 02:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the information about the wikipedia editor who vandalized Benoit's article before his wife's death should be removed. First of all, the poster admitted that it was all a big coincidence. Secondly, there is a link to information about the controversy in the WikiNews box. Thirdly, Jimbo Wales has said, "writing about what happens on wikipedia in articles is a bad idea in almost all cases." Lastly, this is just giving other anon IPs reasons to vandalize articles: they might get lucky and get information added about them into the article itself. It really should be deleted, but I'm not going to do it yet so people can voice their opinions on the matter. Nikki311 04:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the person who posted it is also in the hands of the police, so he's not out of the woods yet, and his "word" is looking weak in the eyes of the media. The fact that there is two wikinews articles on it alone says that it needs a decent entry here. And third, regardless of what Jimbo says, and I mean that with all do respect, this controversy hit the media, and there was signifigant coverage, to the point to where Jimbo had to go on Headline News to speak publicly about it. It meets all criteria for insertion onto the article, and is referenced, so I think it should stay. — Moe ε 04:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the wikipedia vandal was reported through the mass media, mostly in the internet mass media, but it has still been reported, thus it is notable JayKeaton 04:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia angle is the lead in many of the mass-media stories. To ignore it would be to appear to be hiding it. The current wording is NPOV and, frankly, well-written in my view. I think it should stay. Cmichael 05:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It was on the front page of CNN for a time. Not the cover story, but still. It doesn't get more mainstream that that. Liu Bei 18:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure this would encourage vandals? After all, this guy is getting an anal exam from police. This may actually discourage it if his real name is outed.--Bedford 05:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter if it encourages vandals because Wikipedia is not censored JayKeaton 05:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

They're talking about it on Fox News right now. Jtpaladin 13:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

it could have been chris benoit himself! §UB619! 17:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the thing. Terrible to contemplate. You killed your wife 3 days ago and her body is in another room. You killed your 7 year old son 2 days ago and his body is in a still different room. It's just after midnight Sunday-to-Monday and you're about to hang yourself with a cable from an exercise machine. You log on to Wikipedia (or actually you just browse to Wikipedia without logging on), and you type in something about your wife... It's almost a relief that it was a silly vandal. I hope the guy gets a good going over by the police, sitting alone for hours in a room with a 2-way mirror and all that... If you want to be cute about things like this, do it on one of the countless web forums or your own blog. Wikipedia is serious and if you want to play with it, prepare for serious consequences. JDG 18:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The IP address was traced to Stanford, Connecticut (coincidentally is location the WWE headquarters, but to be discovered that it was not connected to the WWE). The person with the IP later returned here after seeing the report on Fox News and apologized for the vandelism, stating that it was coincidence, and that they had no prior knowledge of the murders or his wife's death. --VorangorTheDemon 18:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Vorangor-- Sub619 and I know it was just a vandal. That's why I said "It's almost a relief that it was a silly vandal". We were just imagining a disturbing but very possible scenario... Wikipedia has a lo-n-n-ng future ahead of it as a very well-known planet-wide resource. Someday a criminal will post details of a crime, challenging law enforcement (and Wikipedians) to put the puzzle together. Or perhaps a slightly cleverer criminal will post disinformation here hoping to send the cops and/or feds up an empty trail... All this is easy to imagine, and if I may be so bold as to offer Jimbo advice: it will be best to keep Wikipedia/media rather decentralized and amorphous, with no real "legal department" to be subpoenaed for deposition or testimony. You'll need a "volunteer spokesperson" like Ms. Cary Bass on an ongoing basis, but if you begin to present a standard corporate public face, you'll find yourselves incurring expenses like a corporation. And these expenses might be enough to entirely offset donations in some future year, which could be disastrous. Mimic the Internet itself and things should be ok. JDG 19:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Every well publicized crime such as Disappearance of Madeleine McCann has the law enforcement personnel wasting their time with chasing down info from psychics, tipsters, "investigators" and other helpful people sending them on wild goose chases, because if they don't investigate each one, no matter how looney sounding, they will just get criticized all the more. Edison 00:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Although Jimbo seems to disagree, I think this story will be what all Wikipedia critics use to bash the site as a whole. Those who don't understand what this site is (and claims to be) will reduce Wikipedia to "the place where some kid posted about someone being dead and got lucky." If Wikipedia desires mainstream acceptance (and maybe that's a bigger "if" than I realize), this kinda story can't become commonplace. It creates an untrue reputation that Wikipedia is as reliable as an imdb.com message board. I consider myself somewhere in the middle of the critics and supporters of Wikipedia. I think it's a great idea that can be improved by a simple tweaks. This story may help bring about the "everyone must register" rule that would immediately knock out a large chunk of the nonsense here. Everyone would still be able to contribute under that system, but it would eliminate those not really serious about the work here. Wesleymullins 18:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

People have proposed the "IP addresses create account" rule before, but it's always rejected, as it not meeting the "free encyclopedia" part of our name. IP addresses editing is a foundation issue, nothing that can be changed just on Wikipedia. — Moe ε 21:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Would also be nice to see this issue spark a renewed interest in holding people accountable for their actions on here, especially those who delete or revert edits. From what I have seen, people can make "honest mistakes" about what they think is right/wrong and go unpunished, which I believe is a mistake. There should be as much pressure to "get it right" as their is to not be a troll. When someone clearly has a false sense of what is/isnt appropriate content here (someone who just doesn't "get it"), they should be treated like those who are here for less than noble intentions. Wesleymullins 01:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine, if you don't want to let it go, thats your choice, I replied to your above post just to tell you that that his been proposed before, and nothing else. You seriously take anything I say out of context. — Moe ε 02:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that goes against

WP:FAITH. I could be wrong... Jezebel Parks

02:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the original point, frankly the whole thing smacks of people getting far too excited at the prospect of something on a wikipedia article making the news. It's not very notable, regardless of whether it made the media or not. If you look at the edit it's not like the person responsible had written something specific such as "he killed his wife then hung himself in his weight room" - that would be interesting. Just saying his wife died is very much in the realms of random vandalism and the fact that it turned out to be true is nothing more than a coincidence. It only became a story because it was wrongly thought that it could have been something more significant such as Benoit himself editing it (I have no idea why someone jumped to that conclusion). Someone randomly vandalising a wikipedia article with a vague statement which later turns out to be true is not newsworthy in my opinion. It's probably happened thousands of times before due to the law of averages. Blankfrackis 02:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, mate, how often does someone vandalise an article with the message 'due to the death of his wife' or something similar, properly written and everything? Okay, that probably happens sometimes, though not quite as often as you seem to believe. Then, how often does it turn out to be true, not that it happens sometime later, but that it was true at the time it was written though the police did only find out 14 hours later? I'd say that already makes it extremely unlikely, if still perhaps remotely possible. Then how often does it happen that the person who posts this is located at the organisation this guy is affiliated with? I mean, the odds are astronomical; I can hardly believe it was 'just random coincidence'. Berry2K 07:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean it happens all the time with murders, I meant it presumably has happened numerous times with other events. My opinion is that it's only of any importance if it turns out that there really was some link between the person who made the edit and the murder/suicide - which is what you're implying in your post. Frankly, I don't think there's any danger of that, the odds of this specific event happening in relation to this specific case may be astronomical, but the odds of random entries happening to coincide with an unknown event are very low given the high number of random edits. There are a whole host of false rumours about people dying which have made it on to wikipedia, that one of them turned out to be true is not particularly surprising. More importantly the edit itself was very vague, it didn't even say she was murdered. If you have a different opinion then you're entitled to it, but as far as I'm concerned it doesn't merit inclusion in the article. Blankfrackis 14:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm just saying: what's more likely? That this person who has been indirectly linked to the case (through the WWE) just completely randomly posted a bit of specific and correct information to wikipedia, or that he had some way of knowing or suspecting this. Personally I think the latter is rather more likely. Berry2K 13:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

In my view? The former by quite some distance. It's not specific information as far as I'm concerned, at the time it was posted Benoit had stated that he was missing the event due to issues with his family. If you want an indicator of how the human brain takes in that kind of information look at this yahoo answer session before the truth was known -

MH - "Why was it johnny nitro and cm punk at vengeance instead of benoit and cm punk?

PCS - "he had a personal emergency"

Jason - "Benoit had to rush home on Saturday to tend to some kind of personal/family issue. No details yet but hopefully everything turns out well."

THK - "Benoit had a personal family emergency he had to tend to. Hope everything is all right."

Kia - "Something about his wife, it was an emergency."

Yahoo Answers

Is it incredibly surprising that someone took this information which was hovering around at the time and said that his wife had died? The edit didn't even say she had been murdered. It's a minor elaboration or a guess at what the truth behind the story was, it's not a random edit suddenly coming out with specific and correct information which nobody else could have known or suspected. Blankfrackis 22:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It is quite true that Wikipedia should almost never write about Wikipedia - but when an incident on Wikipedia is being reported by major news organisations, that's quite another matter. It's not the most notable thing about Benoit's murder-suicide, but I think it deserves the one paragraph it was given. At the least it deserves a sentence or two. Dcoetzee 22:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Being reported by the media doesn't necessarily make it significant though. Lots of things have been reported by the media under the premise that they're more important than they actually turned out to be. Think about hoax calls purporting to be from serial killers which have made the news and turned out to be some guy fooling around in his living room - incredibly interesting when you think the message comes from a serial killer and incredibly uninteresting when you discover it was some bored teenager playing a prank. I think this incident is very much in that category, it didn't actually have anything to do with the murder/suicide and if you look at the details of what was written (and more importantly what was known at the time - see the Yahoo answers session above) it isn't particularly shocking or unusual in my opinion. However everyone's entitled to their perspective. Blankfrackis 00:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't the investigation looking into this as a possible murder? Does anyone else think "roid rage" is improbable since the murders occured over the course of several days? Why would he need to tie up his wife. These questions, combined with the the supposed prediction posted on wiki, make for a very fishy case. Sounds like there's a good possiblility he owed money to someone and they murdered the family members over the course of three days.

"He was regarded as one of the best technical wrestlers in his time." in the first paragraph. I don't know performance wrestling terms, but can anyone else suggest a way to distinguish his being one of the best wrestlers of the performance wrestling from real sports wrestling such as "Freestyle wrestling" and "grappling"? Anyone that reads this page may think that it is talking about like the Olympic sports wrestling, when it is actually talking about the "entertainment wrestling". I don't want people to be mislead or confuse him for a different class of wrestling that he was not a part of or "one of the best" of JayKeaton 05:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

As he was trained at the New Japan Dojo, Benoit is regarded as a legitimate catch wrestler. east.718 20:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

He also had training with Stu Hart as a submission wrestler, (Shoot) wrestling. He was as techincal as you get. Up there with freestyle. Even when Benoit wrestled, he used real wrestling freestyle moves when doing his job. The Cleveland Browns are awesome! 14:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC) He trained closely with Bruce Hart, who has had some negative things to say about him since this incident but can't really be counted as reliable. User:AlmightyRod east.

Seriously, the Benoit story has quickly developed into one of the most, if not THE most reported news stories of any kind in the year 2007. Anyone who has heard the story at this point has been living under a rock, Chris Benoit (for the wrong reasons) just turned into a household name. This story is affecting sports in general, not just WWE. Wrestlers, past and present have been appering on mainstream news shows (Greta Van Sustren, Anderson Cooper, Bill O'Reilly) talking about this. It needs a page of its own end of story. The FBI are on the verge of entering this case, how much bigger does it need to become for it to be a notable story? Benoit's tragedy has brought up the moral dilemma of athletes (I know WWE isn't techinacally athletics, but still) being role models, and also has brought up the issue of steroids and performance enhancing drugs. Come on guys, you should at least give this case its own page if for nothing else, it made Wikipedia more famous, lol. <-------Darth Caton

WWE is athletics, even if it is scripted. --

hiphopchamp

21:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there needs to be a new page it's just gettin' rediculous. I'm vote one for a page JUST on the whole Benoir tragedy. --

Zero Cool

05:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's very notable, I have yet to meet anyone who hasn't heard of it. Dionyseus 05:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all the above. Fighting for Justice 06:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Fourthed. I came here with the intention of saying that we should try to trim down the section on his death, but it would also seem to merit its own page, given its significance to wrestling as a whole (IMHO, much more than

The Fingerpoke of Doom). Hezekiah957

06:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I vote for a whole new page for the story and all the hysteria involved. The murder/suicide can be briefly discribed here and linked there like a lot of other stories. Billywhack 06:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll second that nomination. A new page would be worthy of such an event, and it would clear alot of clutter on this page. Evilgohan2 07:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

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. Perhaps there has been extensive coverage in the American media, but not so much outside America. You might want to get out from the 'rock' your under and learn that there is in fact a world outside of the good ole US of A and wrestling Nil Einne 08:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be worth considering either trimming down his career section or moving it to a different page. Most traffic to his page will be seeking information about him, his family troubles and his death. I don't think most people coming to this page are here to read about Chris being dramatically deserted by "Edge" during some fight and having to take on two other wrestlers alone (although I'm sure the commentator said something like "In all my years of commentating, I have never seen anything like this!"). I mean this page is full of information about Chris pinning someone down in 22 seconds one round, and 34.69 seconds the next, smashing peoples arms with ladders, being hit by chairs in rematches.. all sorts of things like this. And there are massive lists of Chris's wrestling moves too, they should at least be hidden so they can appear on demand. All this stuff should be moved to a page for "Chris Benoits pro-wrestling accomplishments" or something like that. I don't think you can seriously say that a list of his moves and an in depth history of every little thing he did on the world wrestling television program is more notable than his personal problems and sensational murder suicide. It seems to me that his biography it is being dominated by his world wrestling career part of his life, this biography page starts with his early life, followed by five pages full of his wrestling career, then his death at the end. It's the wrestling that is out of proportion here, no the death JayKeaton 06:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems like pretty standard practice for wrestler articles to have an amount of detail comparable to that which is in Benoit's article. A recap of feuds is common, as is a list of signature moves. In no way does the inclusion of his wrestling information (feuds and the like) detract from the information about his death. I feel quite the opposite of you, that his article is being dominated by the murder-suicide. It's also pretty standard, from what I've seen, to arrange articles like this (see Eddie Guerrero's page). Hezekiah957 07:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

But he's not just a wrestler anymore, unlike Eddie Guerrero who is only a wrestler. This page is now the biography of one of Americas most famous killers JayKeaton 07:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that seems to be the way things have gone.Evilgohan2 07:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with creating a whole new page. Other people don't have single pages on a certian event that occured in their lives (whether they've murdered or otherwise, we don't have a single page on reports of Ted Bundy's murders or Ed Gein's murders, and they're probably just as famous as Benoit for murdering). Even if we did make a new page, it'll no doubt be merged into this one later on. If you really want to make Benoit's murders the main subject of this page, what we should do is re-write his page that way. And as a side note, whoever is doing it, stop removing acceptable comments from this page. You can be reported for incivility if you keep it up. All mine so far have been deleted, and they haven't violated anything for the talk page. If you delete this one, I'll find out who you are and report you. --VorangorTheDemon 15:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there is no reason why the information on this page can't be trimmed down. There really is no need for a new page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that slimming down this page is the best option. Benoit's wrestling career is notable and all that I've read says he was well-respected throughout the wrestling world. He is famous outside of the wrestling world for being a murderer. I guess it makes me think of what the policy is for editing articles for other people famous in groups but maybe not so well-known as a whole. An example I can think of would be maybe John Carmack, who outside of the technology circle isn't that well-known or even notable. If he was to murder and become famous throughout the nation, what would take precedent, what he gave to the technology circle or the event of murder? Benoit was famous for being a great technical wrestler as is said on his page, so why would it be necessary to trim down that part of the article to make it more centered around one event in his life, even if it has made him famous? I know that some of the details may be quite in-depth, but this is an encyclopedia talking about the life of a person, and I don't think that selectively cutting pieces out in order to adjust the balance of notable events is the right move. Paris Hilton doesn't have a page specifically for her recent arrest and jail time, but that had a ridiculous amount of news coverage. So, really, I think the death section could be used to present information about the case, and nothing else. The death section should only hold the facts of the case. I think that anything else, including what the WWE has done in response, or anything regarding what people have done, should go to their article, not Benoit's. That way, the death is presented as it should be and it does not cause, in my view, considerable controversy regarding what was more important in the life of Benoit, his wrestling or his murders. That's just what I see here. Goofyman 20:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Persoanlly i the parts about the wikipedia angle on the murder needs to be put on a seperate page since it really doesn't relate to Benoit at all.as for the carrer section it seems a bit overdone... do we really need a angle by angle retelling of the wrestling storylines he's been in?harlock_jds 20:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we should wait a few weeks until the case is closed or solved, there's still facts that are unclear and quite a few un-answered questions. And as I said, there's no reason for another page, it's the same person, just from 2 different views. If another page is created, I guarentee that it'll be merged into this one later on. And not every detail about his murder/suicide is encyclopedic. The content word for word of the text messeges that he sent out serve no encyclopedic purpose. Neither does what he said to Chavo on the phone, ect, ect. --VorangorTheDemon 04:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the text messages and phone calls can easily be external links for anyone that is interested in them. And like I said, the list of his moves and titles he has won can be put into box entries with the default view as "hidden", so it doesn't take up any room on the page, but if anyone cares to read them they can unhide it and the lists will instantly be there JayKeaton 20:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

As per the fact that WWE has stripped ALL mentions of Chris Benoit from their website, any related sources linking to WWE.com need to be replaced. If a suitable replacement cannot be found, then they may need to be removed, with the viable exception of WWE's statement in regard to possible roid rage and the ensuing media blitz post Monday, 6-25-2007 when the speculation really began, as that was also conferred upon by both Linda McMahon and Vincent Kennedy McMahon whom both, respectfully, made appearances on the Today Show and Good Morning America. Evilgohan2 07:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Replacements are ideal, but if none can be found, the links should not be removed. Assuming the linked information was useful, of course. Nufy8 15:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the linked information was of course useful and obviously reputable, however, it has been stricken. I guess it must stay.Evilgohan2 02:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

WRE

) 01:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If you type Chris Benoit into the search on the www.wwe.com website and once the search has come up, if you click on one of the results, it doesn't load and it goes directly to the home page...

Here's a link to the website. The Hybrid 05:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)