Talk:Chris Benoit double-murder and suicide/Archive 1

Note
A note to editors. This article has a good change of being deleted, so please conduct any talk you might have on Talk:Chris_Benoit, otherwise you may find your discussion here is also deleted. Thank you JayKeaton 10:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Or not. RyanGrant 23:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Good Job
I just stumbled upon this page. I was taken back by how good it is. Everybody who worked on this project did a great job putting it together, keeping everything neutral, and presenting all the facts. It even looks like you had to face some adversity from people trying to get it deleted. Kudos. Mujarimojo 23:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

New Information
I have new news on this case so let me edit the page please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.58 (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete?
The first part seems redundant to the treatment in the Chris Benoit article, and should be treated in the one best place. However, I'm not sure where the Wikipedia Controversy would then be covered. Is the "Benoit family tragedy" a descriptive enough title anyway? On the other hand, if this is the main article, then the material in the Chris Benoit Double murder-suicide section should be scaled back. Busjack 20:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

deleted youtube video link from this comment page 71.41.176.98 (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There's nothing encyclopedic about this article. It belongs as extra information in Benoit's article. Also consensus was already done and opposal to create this article had the consensus before this article was even created. Someone created the article simply because they wanted to, and didn't consider the consensus. --VorangorTheDemon 23:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Title - tragedy?
I think 'Chris Benoit family murder-suicide' would be a more appropriate title. Anchoress 22:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. It shows no sign of neutrality (even though that's what it is to many). I suggest yours or Chris Benoit Murder-Suicide. D4S 06:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion is as good or better. But reading the talkpage, and based on previous similar articles, it might not survive anyway. But certainly the inflammatory name doesn't lend it credence. Anchoress 06:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree.  Both of your ideas work.  Well, that's my opinion.  Thanks,  Meldshal  42  21:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is this page still here?
The vote to split on the Chris Benoit page was 4 votes to split and 8 votes to oppose the split. But this article was created against consensus anyway. The discussion for deletion on this article itself was quite a big mess with people voting to keep but cut back, or delete but only until all the planets align. And what is with the title of this page anyway? The Benoit Family Tragedy? How is a troubled marriage resulting in the murder of his own family a tragedy? This article name fails on two points, it does not describe accurately what the page is and it completely stinks of POV. And the Chris Benoit page; could no one bring themselves to delete the fan written history or that list cruft of his "moves" to make way for this information on his actual death? I seriously don't get how any of the text on Chris Benoit is more important than his own death. This article here defies belief!!! JayKeaton 11:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It makes no sense to delete parts of his life to make way for his death. That's the main reason for this article; his murder-suicide has effected a lot of people. D4S 13:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Give it a couple of months, the story will have faded from mainstream media and will seem less important, then the page can be merged. This sets a terrible precedent though, and every headline grabbing murder case will now get its own page. -- Scorpion0422 23:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, every murder case whose perpetrator has reached the pinnacle of his profession multiple times, every murder case that’s effects have already been felt in the multi-million dollar industry the perpetrator worked in, every murder case with such controversy, speculation, and rumours - Kevin Sullivan the perp?! - every murder case like this will get its own page, and deserves its own page too - kind of like the O.J. Simpson murder case article. 82.27.21.157 07:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. A case that "grabs headlines" pretty much warrants an article by definition. And since notability is permanent, this article should never be merged. Everyking 08:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't compare it with the O.J. Simpson murder case article, that article deals with a case in the court of law, this article is about Chris slaying his family and then killing himself. You are just trying to stir the pot by saying these murders are comparable to a court case JayKeaton 08:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

As time goes on, a case seems less important and information seems less vital. There is no "Jeffrey Dahmer murders" or "Ted Bundy murders" or "John Wayne Gacey murders" because they happened a long time ago and thus there is no need for a week by week analysis. -- Scorpion0422 15:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I FEEL THIS PAGE SHOULD BE HERE. HOWEVER, WHY IS EDITING THIS PAGE STILL OPEN TO THE PUBLIC???? - ESPECIALLY AFTER THE WIKIPEDIA-BENOIT ARTICLE INCIDENT!!!!!! 72.38.234.177 06:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I can understand including information like this in Benoit's Wikipedia article, because it is a major part of his life and is notable. However, having its own page is completely ridiculous. Not only did the unofficial vote for a split fail, which makes me question why this page is even here if the opinion of a majority doesn't matter, but this is something where further information is simply not encyclopedic. I know that wrestling pages tend to be filled to the brim with what could be seen as gratuitous information, but this is about a single event, and whether or not it was an immense media story is irrelevant. An article about a person or thing or idea should only branch of when it consists of something that a direct and logical branch. For example, the separate pages for the death penalty, or the branching of cultures by specific countries. In this instance, Benoit's death is notable, but I don't feel that it is different enough from his life to warrant a branch. An encyclopedia article on Benoit should cover the history of Benoit in one area, not splitting off to describe various portions of his life. How has what happened influenced society as a whole? I think that unless an event affects the society in which is occurs, it should not have its own page, and I can't think of a good reason. This page needs to be removed immediately. There's already a page about Chris Benoit, and it's Chris Benoit. His son is not notable, is wife is hardly notable compared to him, so this is mainly because it's Benoit and it's wrestling and because of the allegations of steroids and all of that stuff, is it not? Goofyman 22:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This article was already put up for AfD and the consensus was no consensus, so it still exists. It is however now affecting as you say the "society in which it occured" because it happened in the community of wrestling and now 2 congressional panels are seeking information from the WWE regarding it's drug testing, as well as other documentation, therefor those things are rendered from the backlash this "incident" created. -- Shatterzer0 22:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the congressional panels are enough of an impact to warrant having its own page. This page seems like a lot of filler that could be taken out and replaced with mere sentences. The steroid debate was just that, debate. The toxicology showed no steroids in his body, and a play-by-play of the incident seems unnecessary to me. This event, in my opinion, is simply not big enough to warrant this page. Wikipedia should not be about making a page whenever there's a big event that will die down, like this. Heck, the recent bridge collapse in Minnesota, at the time of this writing, doesn't have its own topic, and I think it should be that way, even though it will undoubtedly be a bigger story than this ever was, spawning investigations and change, real change in society. This is one murder, and though it is sad and wrong, it's not notable enough for a page. I think the page should be renominated for deletion. Goofyman 00:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It isn't just "one murder," it's two. The bridge collapse in Minnesota, while horrific and indeed will carry an impact will have about the same impact as this.  You said the story has died down and agreed it has.  But now the government have 2 panels, one of them being the same one that looked into steroids in baseball and football.  The letter that was sent initially to the WWE said it was in "direct response" to the "ongoing Chris Benoit investigation."  If it gets renominated, it'll more than likely go to no consensus once again.  -- Shatterzer0 02:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * When I said one murder, I was referring to the incident at large, I apologize for the awkwardness of the wording. I believe that the bride collapse will have a great impact on bridge safety standards because of how commonplace bridges are. People will speak out, it'll be on the news for a while and there will be discussion of how things went unchecked and whatnot. When I try to determine how notable an event is, I ask myself how important the event will be ten years from now. Will it be the panel that is important, or will it be the event that put it on the panel? It may be both, but how much of the information on the page now is really necessary to explain the story? I can understand splitting because of the volume of information here, but the problem is I don't think it's necessary to have all of it. Maybe the section will be a wee bit longer, but certainly splitting it is too much. The ongoing Chris Benoit investigation has not conclusively confirmed that steroids were to blame, and all reports show that steroids are mere speculation, at least until it's proven. Why is so much information needed for a single event like this? Goofyman 02:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The bridge collapse is in the same vein as this, in a sense. Death happened, investigations are/will occur.  There is no real "need" so to speak for the length of the article, as it could be articulated into smaller portions, but it's up to the editors who "rule the roost" basically.  Steroids have almost been ruled out of the equation, as the steroid wikipedia entry even debunks that.  Steroids were just a scapegoat for a larger problem, which was the mental health and obsession of a man that went undetected.  The reason I believe the article was even created was because wrestling marks believe(d) that it would impact the wrestling world in a large manner and it's starting to (although wikipedia isn't a crystal ball.) I guess what I'm getting at is, it's here and it'll more than likely be here for the long haul due to indecisive editors, so there's no real reason to give as to why it is here, like the first entry says, it defies all logic in a sense. -- Shatterzer0 05:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Rename
As mentioned numerous times before by others, this article needs to be renamed. Due to the no consensus, it looks like it'll stay around for a while so its worthwhile to discuss this now. The best I've heard so far is Chris Benoit murder-suicide. What does everyone else think is best? DrWarpMind 19:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The page name certainly needs to change. Tragedy is not the right word, in a wikipedia context. Chris Benoit murder-suicide sounds perfectly fine to me, pretty NPOV and accurate to what has been reported. I see no problems with that name change. 82.27.21.157 21:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The name should be changed as soon as possible. "Tragedy" sounds like we are reading a WWE fan site that is trying to gloss over the facts and make Chris Benoit seem like a victim of the event, when he was actually the perpetrator JayKeaton 06:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and change it.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Steroids?
It says at the end of the paragraph regarding the toxicology report that no steroids were found in his system and references this article: http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/fayette/stories/2007/07/17/benoit_0717.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab

However the headline to this article says "Steroids found in Benoits system". So which is it? JOK3R 19:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Testostrone is a natural steroid found in the body and the kind in Benoit's body was a natural hormone not a synthetic or man0made steroid. So they were natural not fake but they are still steroids. Why wasn't there any alcohol in his system since they found 10 empty beer cans by his side in the gym where the police found him? Why wasn't that in the toxicology reports? (MgTurtle 19:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)).
 * This article seems to be saying there were artificial levels of testosterone in his system. The actual quote from the ME (according to this article) is: "There were no other steroid or artificial steroid-like drugs found in his urine.". Anchoress 20:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

GHB?
How is GHB relevant in terms of Benoit's toxicology reports? Granted, it is (ab)used by some bodybuilders, but it's not a steroid nor does it produce anything like "roid rage". In fact, it produces a general sense of well-being, sedation, and mild euphoria as well as fosters empathy and, as a result, significantly inhibits a person from committing acts of violence. -- Stereoisomer 22:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It would seem that, leading up to the release of the toxicology test results, there was some speculation that Benoit had become addicted to GHB, known as a "date rape" drug. It is said to be used often by pro wrestlers as a sleep aid during recovery from injuries, notwithstanding that it's illegal. It did not appear in the tests, however, so it's been largely ignored since.

Kelly170.37.244.10 12:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

autopsy
Just wondering if there has been any word on if or when the autopsy reports will be released--JB &#123;&#123;flagicon&#124;Canada}} 02:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The double murder is not prooven
There are two more theories about what happend.

1st: The Kevin Sullivan Theorie
 * I think this one is not believable.

2nd: Chris Benoit recieved a call from Nancy about that "familary problem". Chris went home and found Nancy who murdered Daniel. In case of that, Benoits ran amok on Nancy and killed her. After cleaning his mind, he murdered himself. --213.214.18.64 12:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * By now, I think at least 90% of people believe the double murder situation. If you don't, well you should look at every single piece of news coverage you find. By the way, Wikipedia is not a forum. Davnel03 18:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, wrong place for this. Your second theory is invalid because Nancy died first...But if you want a place with lots of info regarding the case, try here

The police and the media firmly believe that it was murder, well double murder, so nothing else really matters. Aliens could have actually done it in truth, but the fact is he murdered them as far as the world is concerned. There are people that actually believe aliens killed Elvis, but again it doesn't matter what they think, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. JayKeaton 23:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Does anyone else notice anything strange that the police ruled it as a double-murder suicide so quick. There are two very big similarities in the deaths of Chris Benoit and Eddie Guerrero one being that they both died right before they were going to get a world title, Chris getting the ECW World Heavyweight Championship and Eddie getting the World Heavyweight Championship. Another is the last man to be in contact with both Chris and Eddie before their deaths was Chavo Guerrero. Now dont you think its possible that Chavo was jellous and murdered his uncle and two years later his "best friend" because they were both going to get their second world title and he had not even recieved his first.

Could there also still be someone murdered his family while he was at the doctor's, which is a while away, then come home to see his family dead. The reason why he was so distraught when neighbors saw him was because he came home to this, then killed himself, because of it. 18:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

All we know is that something is messed up, and there was a murder. We just don't have any solid proof that Benoit did it. We just know someone did it. There were things missing from the home that were valuble to Benoit (i.e. letters to Eddie Guerrero). Also, if everyone thinks Benoit was on drugs, why didn't he destroy that evidence to protect the industry. Also, when Benoit was at the doctors, he was completely normal to everyone with no signs of stress. The picture taken of him looks like he's happy.

--I agree, but for the purposes of wikipedia, people aren't going to be searching for "Chris Benoit Murder Conspiracy." I think there should be a brief mention -maybe a paragraph then link for more "information" or what have you about the theories.-- Ken 3/1/08

"the co-worker" - chavo?
As it has been released that "the co-worker" WWE always referred to was indeed Chavo Guerrero, why isn't it reflected, especially in the 'Between murders' section? -- Shatterzer0 20:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Image
Okay...why does the article include an image of Chris Benoit's house? I fail to see what this is intended to illustrate. Calgary 20:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

That is where the murders and suicide happened. Tywddle 21:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * House image is generic (could be anywhere - only the caption says so). Not very useful IMO. --Eqdoktor 08:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Funerals
Nancy and Daniel had their funeral on July 14, but does anyone know about Chris's? D4S 01:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

They were all cremated in georgia and Nacncy's and Daniel's ashes were given to family and friends according to FindAGrave.com.Chris's were probably given to his parents.(MgTurtle 21:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)).

Rename?
The title implicitly makes the unattributed statement that Chris Benoit committed a murder-suicide - which while likely, isn't proven or even backed up by a criminal conviction carrying a burden of proof. Maybe something like Benoit family murders or Benoit family deaths would be more appropriate, with the investigators' beliefs stated in the article with appropriate attribution. Dcoetzee 23:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A criminal conviction is not needed/ The statement is verififiable under the standards set in WP:V. Nothing more is needed. Also, a criminal conviction will not occur when someone is dead. The medical examinaers inquest makes the ruling--as they have done. Nothing more will happen. He did it. As far as the law allows it under the circumstances, they ruled that he did it. What more do you want???CraigMonroe 07:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The backlash has begun.
Over at www.espn.com they have the full letter sent to the WWE by the same congressional panel that probed Major League Baseball over steroids as well, this is in direct correlation with the Chris Benoit murder-suicide case. -- Shatterzer0 04:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised it took this long. The investigation is a joke because they are making it seem as if Pro-Wrestling is a legitimate sport, the media hasn't treated it like one since the original Vince McMahon Steroid trial. You are absolutely correct with the correlation between Congress' probe of the WWE and the Chris Benoit Murder-Suicide, every article I've read has brought that up including Congress' letter to Vince.--Hndsmepete 09:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Fragile X
It was debated a few weeks back whether or not Daniel actually suffered from Fragile X Syndrome, and DA Scott Ballard released a statement about it saying, quote..

"Daniel's family denies that he suffered from either condition. As a result of the family's concerns, the Fayette County Sheriff's investigators and the District Attorney's Office have inquired into this matter. A source having access to certain of Daniel's medical reports reviewed those reports, and they do not mention any pre-existing mental or physical impairment. Reports from Daniel's educators likewise contradict the claims that Daniel was physically undersized. The educators report that Daniel graduated kindergarten and was prepared to enter the first grade on par with the other students."

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=2925280 there's an article about it. Th 2005

I went ahead and edited the article accordingly. Any objections? Th 2005
 * Nope, good edit! Davnel03 16:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Sullivan
The section on the article saying that Kevin Sullivan may have done it, and thus it was a triple homicide, needs sources ASAP.--Bedford 05:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead
Alright, here's the first thing I notice. The lead section should be a stand-alone summary of the article. It should introduce no new information. This means that everything in the lead should be expanded upon in the article.

Nancy Benoit
Therefore, the first sentences in the body, "On Friday, June 22, Benoit killed his wife, leaving her bound at the ankles and wrists and covered with a sheet in a room in their home. A bible was left by her body and she died of asphyxiation," needs improved prose and the information expanded. As it reads now, "she died of asphyxiation" seems more like a secondary thought when it should read as the primary. The first section should start with the finding of the bodies. It should explain who he is (WWE wrestler) and that evidence shows that events occurred as they are detailed currently.

The information regarding the divorce may be more appropriately placed in the "Possible motives" section with the addition of the information found in ref 13 which states "There is some belief within the police department that Benoit killed his wife after she said she was permanently leaving the marriage and taking son Daniel with her."

Between the two killings
Consider splitting the first sentence into two sentences. The first stating Benoit sent the text message. The second sentence stating what the text message said. Also, "According to the World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) website, the co-worker called Benoit back and Benoit sounded tired and groggy as he confirmed everything he had said in his voice message." WWE is cited but there is no reference. A link to the page on the WWE site should be included at the end of the sentence, formatted accordingly. If the website quotes Guerrero, include the quote [[rather than the current wording. There should also be citation after each quote.

Daniel Benoit
Again, the death by asphyxiation should be the primary thought with details of how the body was left as secondary. Also, indicate that evidence showed this. "The time at when this happened is not yet known," should be reworded to "At what time this happened is not yet known." The sentence, "Daniel had needle marks in his arm, suggesting that he had been given growth hormones because Benoit and his family considered him undersized," is not necessarily accurate. It should state that it is the opinion of the DA. The rest of the sentence, "which was theorized to be most likely the result of him suffering from Fragile X Syndrome" is not mentioned in the reference cited. The next reference use should be cited here. However, even that reference states that it is not certain whether or not the family felt the boy was undersized. This needs to be worded to show that.

Text messages
Chavo Guerrero does not need to be wikified again here. The details of the messages cites ref 9 as the source, but it makes no mention of text messages. This needs to be corrected to cite ref 10. Additionally, this reference claims all but message two are identical, including the use of the word "physical", that they were all sent from his wifes phone, and there is no mention of WWE officials receiving details of these messages two hours before the bodies were found.

Chris Benoit
See references section below regarding issue with ref 5 cited here.

Possible motives
"WWE attorney Jerry McDevitt appeared on MSNBC Live with Dan Abrams on July 17, 2007 said that Benoit was prescribed..." needs to be reworded. There is a word missing between the date and "said". It could also be split into two sentences.

If you get the ISBN for the book "Head Games: Football's Concussion Crisis", you can link it to Special:Booksources. The claim made in this sentence needs to be sourced. Also, see references section below regarding reference 12 cited here.

"His extensive brain damage, which "resembled that of an 85 year-old Alzheimer's patient" is believed to be the leading cause of the murders." Says who? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.218.9.138 (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Paranoia
"This behavior is consistent with Late-Onset Schizophrenia" - Who is making this claim?

Initial WWE response
The quote needs to be cited to the page on WWE's website. The second half of the paragraph is also in need of citation.

Wrestlers response
It says who commented, but there are no comments. Expand this.

Media response
Was it first thought that the family had been slain? What was the buzz? This doesn't really detail the "response".

Background
The quote here should be in the same format as the quote in previous sections. The first half of the second paragraph needs citation.

Toxicology results
Who is Dr. Kris Sperry? Include that he is "the state’s top medical examiner". The reference states that Daniel had four times the regular dose of Xanax in his system. The current, vague speculation in the article should be updated with this information. "...nor was there evidence of GHB, contrary to speculation." - The reference does not mention GHB.

Quick Facts
This section should be rewritten to correct the numerous misspellings and ludicrous capitalization errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.22.11 (talk) 11:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia controversy
The link to the diff needs to be included after the first sentence here. Links to the Wikinews and FOXNews.com should also be included as references. The quote must be referenced immediately after. Remove the redlink of hindrance.

Conclusion
Because the issues with the article are numerous, the article will not be listed as a GA at this time. However, once issues are addressed and the article is brought up to the standards listed at WP:WIAGA, the article may be renominated at WP:GAC. If you feel this decision was made in error, you make seek remediation at WP:GA/R. Regards, Lara  ♥Love  06:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Futher Investigation
Does anyone know if they have looked futher into the wikipedia controversy?ShadowWriter 02:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I asked about it on the Benoit article and someone semed to think that "That was all cleared up ages ago." I still haven't seen anything past "they may face criminal charges" which is what the police said when they seized the person's computer over a month ago.71.159.135.184 10:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing came about from it, and it was obvious the kid was just posting crap. MDowdal 02:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Gobel magazine
Would the editor please put the link in the article about this directly with the comments made? If not, maybe it should be deleted? -- Crohnie Gal Talk  22:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Popular Culture
Thinking out load,should there be a References in Popular culture section.

with a issue/page like this, i dont think this kind of artical needs a popular culture section Rgflame 01:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Chris
heya,

at present, the section on Chris reads as follows:

"The perpetrator, Chris Benoit, according to Scott Ballard, died of suicide by hanging.[4] When Benoit released the weights - about 240 pounds (110 kg), which weighed more than he did - it caused his strangulation. Ballard said the pull-down bar had been removed and Benoit's remains were found seated against the machine.[5]"

There seems to be missing content between the first sentence and the rest of the section - it mentions hanging then immediately goes into the use of weights without explaining exactly what happened. I'm confused. --Black Butterfly 12:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"No artificial steroids..." and claims rebutting the coroner
Someone with more medical knowledge than I would know this better, but wouldn't testosterone cypionate, the injectable steroid he was using, be considered artificial?

Also, I think it might be a good idea to quote some of the experts who spoke in the media refuting what Dr. Kris Sperry said about the 59:1 T/E ratio being normal for someone undergoing TRT. Anyone agree? --David Bixenspan 17:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Remains?
"Ballard said the pull-down bar had been removed and Benoit's remains were found seated against the machine"

"Remains" implies that some parts did not remain and/or that there was some "piecing" involved. If this is not the case, may I suggest "body" as a replacement word for "remains"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.243.195.136 (talk) 09:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, remains doesn't have that connotation. It's a slightly euphemistic but widely-used synonym for corpse, body, etc. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 19:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Duplication
I've been away from the Chris Benoit Wiki articles for a while, so have only just read this page for the first time. Having done so, I'm wondering how necessary it is, in the sense that a hefty chunk of it is EXACTLY duplicated in the 'Death' section of the main Chris Benoit article. Since there's already been a discussion on deletion of this article that fell through, should we now discuss severely reducing the section in the other article? I tend to agree that this event is notable enough for it's own article, but to me that means it should be given less space in the main page - one summarising paragraph and a link to this more detailed version should suffice. Fatjabba 13:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

conclusion
When the last one falls, and when it is all said and done,it has been 5 mounths,do we know wat happend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.24.105 (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Names of alleged vandals removed
Under the provisions of the policy WP:BLP I have removed the names of the three alleged perpetrators of the Nancy Benoit death notice incident. The reasons for doing so are as follows: the news source given has been partially edited to remove the names, and a statement indicating that police had yet to identify the user (note the singular) had been added. Similarly, an ABC News report linked to by the article no longer names anyone either. There is no reference to criminal charges being laid or court-of-law conviction. Unless a reputable news source (i.e. not a blog, but something like CNN) can be cited as the source for naming these three individuals, then having their names without citation could be seen as libel. 23skidoo (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

WWE's internal response: verifiability of section's statements
In the sources provided I can't find support for any of the sentences listed below: "the WWE's website removed all past mentions (including all news articles relating to the killings as well as the video tribute comments from Benoit's peers) of Benoit."

"Their merchandising subsite wweshop.com would follow suit in regards to all Benoit-related merchandise."

"However, Benoit merchandise, including action figures, is still available at retail stores."

Last two link to wikipedia articles for reference, but the fact isn't mentioned there. "WWE also has decided to edit out all matches that contained Benoit from rebroadcasts of matches from their extensive video library. (See WWE video library) Since the incident, no matches involving Benoit have shown up on any new DVD re-releases by the WWE."

"He was also removed from the WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008 video game after originally being included as a playable wrestler."

--M4gnum0n (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Text messages
The article says: "On Monday, June 25, WWE was notified of the text messages sent to Chavo Guerrero and Scott Armstrong"... But who send the messages? Please specify. 80.230.250.40 (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Version 0.7
This article does not appear to have broad enough appeal to be included in Version 0.7, which includes only the top 1% or so of articls. Walkerma (talk) 05:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

This article has been nominated for Version 0.7 of the offline Wikipedia release but did not meet the standards for importance. It has been put on Release_Version_Nominations/Held_nominations for further review. Please see that page for details.

Poor Writing
Edited/split this line in Responses/WWF Section as it's poorly written. Original Line "Although on other products such as wrestling figures on the back of the packaging figures of Benoit are advertised although WWE have started putting stickers over these."

Edited Line "On other products such as wrestling figures, Benoit figures are advertised on the back of the packaging. WWE have started putting stickers over these." Hope this change meets with approval. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 00:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Timeline
It says over a period of three days, the only way I can figure him killing someone over three days involves torture. The entire intro is messed up, both grammatically and factually. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Benoit&action=historysubmit&diff=140442953&oldid=140425583

WWE's reaction to the incident
The current section is too long and filled with unnecessary "information". I guess a few editors think they own the article, but I'm simply trying to make it look more like an article in an encyclopedia. The Cleanup Kid (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Details Are Concrete?
"The next night, after the details of the deaths became concrete, the company aired a recorded statement by its Chairman Vince McMahon before their ECW broadcast:"

Nothing about the details is truly concrete. Concrete is a weasel word in saying that this is how it's it and nothing you can do otherwise can change that. Something along those lines. A better sentence is: "The next night, after the some details of the deaths became available, the company aired a recorded statement by its Chairman Vince McMahon before their ECW broadcast:" I made a small tweak in it. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 17:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Times and dates
Why does the article need to specify a timezone in the infobox when it's for a three-day span? It's hardly a precision matter, then, is it? Similarly, why does the article body specify EDT so frequently? (It's on about six timings given, out of a total of around nine.) It's very hard to see why this matters so much - the whole thing took place in Fayetteville, GA so it's not like there's room for much confusion across time zones. If it's important then maybe one appearance per "block" of time-related stuff might not be so bad, but the current number of appearances seems excessive. I might consider just editing it myself but I'd be interested to know what others think. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Steroids Debate/Background
This section contains names of wrestlers associated with the SI article that covers the Arizona doctor, David Wilbirt, and other aspects of steroids in professional wrestling and other sports. In this section, Paul Levesque (Triple H) is mentioned in addition to Adam Copeland (Edge) as wrestlers who appeared on the list and were said to receive large quantities of HGH/anabolic steroids. However, when reading the article posted as a citation for that claim, there is absolutely no mention of Paul Levesque/Triple H. Randy Orton, on the other hand, is mentioned in the SI article, but is not mentioned in the wiki. Mentioning Levesque in connection with the SI article, and posting the citation, is quite misleading.

Unless a citation can be linked that states that Levesque was mentioned in the documents perused for the SI article, I think that his name should be removed from this section of the entry.

Miaaingeal (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia history
the article history on the English Wikipedia of Chris Benoit was edited or something because if you go to the June 25, 2007 history page, there is no edit made at 12:01 AM. Why is this so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.133.115 (talk) 14:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * They probably don't want people talking about it. How could someone know about Nancy Benoit's death 14 hours before police did. It doesn't fit with the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.45.113 (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Admin has the ability to erase edit history, but here. --Endless Dan 20:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The whole thing about Nancy's death was apparently a prank gone wrong. I still believe in a previous edit that the people named/accused were the ones.  Since they added their names to Wikipedia entries.


 * Perhaps this edit was made by Chris Benoit himself? I would not be surprised if this was the case, as Chris Benoit was very deranged in the head and irrational... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.212.76 (talk) 07:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Since the IP address came from Stamford, it is unlikely Benoit was responsible for the edits (he was in Georgia at the time of the edits). Also, I highly doubt that he took time out between murdering his son and commtting suicide to update his own Wiki page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.134.112 (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is the edit in question. The vandal's IP address is 69.120.111.23, made evident in a photo contained in this Newsvine article about the vandal's identity. ps60k (talk) 09:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

WWE.com mentions him a lot.
I remember it did seem like he vanished a while back, but as of today, there's a shitload of stuff about him there. Not just his name, either. Stuff like this and this. Do a site search with Google for the rest, I can't link them all.

So, should the bit about the censorship be deleted or rewritten into past tense? And, if rewritten, does anyone know when it stopped being "too soon" and the rules changed? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was no consensus, though a specific RM for Benoit family murder-suicide might yield consensus. --BDD (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Chris Benoit double-murder and suicide → Benoit family murders – Nice and concise, but still precise. Consistent with other articles which don't mention aftermath in the title. See above talk section for more detail and context. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC) 04:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Never sure whether this goes without saying, as nominator. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I just don't know about this move. Not sure if this is the best choice of title. It seems odd. I think we need a wide range of discussion on this move and the title choice. Not just from WP:PW but projects dealing with murder, etc. There may be naming conventions for these situations.-- Will C  04:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Not sure if you can list a requested move in various noticeboards like with an RfC (and forget how to do it with those, anyway), but that'd make sense. User:Tamfang above gets credit for the idea, and he's hardly a "wrestling editor". I'll alert the authorities at the Crime Wikiproject for now. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support This seems like the standard name for these types of articles. I wonder why it was never moved there in the first place. Feed  back  ☎ 16:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * How many of those (on the first page) were committed by a member of the family themselves... who then committed suicide? I see some were killed by outsiders, and even if the killers were killed by their own family, the killer didn't commit suicide. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 07:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I noted Murder of Zachary Turner in the section above. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I assume neither Zachary Turner nor his killer mother were notable independent of the crime, so that article is a different circumstance. Chris Benoit was notable independent of the crime: it is important accurately to note his suicide, as well as the murders of his family. Xoloz (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Good that you raised that distinction. However, I believe that the "Murder of Zachary Turner" page itself should be moved, given that his murdering mom also killed his dad. I would think that Shirley Turner is the most notable person. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 07:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support for concision, and also because Chris Benoit's suicide wouldn't be especially notable on its own, if it hadn't been a followup to multiple murder. Suicide of Chris Benoit ought to redirect to this article in any case, regardless of whether it's moved; that shouldn't be the primary title, but it would take care of any navigational issues for readers who are searching only for the suicide. 172.9.22.150 (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose original proposal; Support Benoit family murder-suicide. A distinction in the title is essential to make clear that Chris Benoit was not a murder victim, but a killer. As a title "...family murder" is used when the killer survives after having murdered multiple family members. Xoloz (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose original proposal; Support Benoit family murder-suicide. Important to make the distinction that while two members of the family were murdered, Chris Benoit committed suicide.LM2000 (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Eh, I don't really see how it's "important" to make that distinction. It's not like the title implies every Benoit family member was murdered. I feel the "suicide" part is just not really necessary and goes against the principle of conciseness. Iowa City Sueppel Murders doesn't make the "suicide" distinction either.  Feed  back  ☎ 18:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Either title is fine I suppose, I just tend to prefer this version for the reasons Xoloz specified.LM2000 (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to expand on this, since that was a pretty lame retort.. In the event that this move goes to no consensus, I'd like my vote to go towards the current proposed move (Benoit family murders) as it is an improvement over the current title. However my personal preference leans to include the "-suicide" as Chris was the most notable member of the family before this event and his suicide was similar to those in contact sports such as Junior Seau which sparked much debate on head injuries and drugs in sports.  The "-suicide" is also a more specific and precise title, though perhaps not essential.LM2000 (talk) 06:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose original proposal; Support Benoit family murder-suicide. It's not as if the Benoits were all killed by an outsider. The suicide part is significant as well and should not be omitted. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 07:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd rather the page stay at its current title than follow the original proposal. In terms of priority: 1. Bfm-s 2. CBd-mas 3. BFm starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 07:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support the murder-suicide title since it makes it more clear as to what actually happened.--70.49.72.34 (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Doesn't it sort of sound like the Benoit family committed a murder-suicide? I don't hate the idea, but that's how I read it. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I get the analogy you are using, eg. Manson Family murders. However, I think most people searching for the article will have the common knowledge that the Benoit family was not a collective group of killers.  If we assume most people don't have that common knowledge, then the current title "Chris Benoit double murder-suicide" is the best, most accurate title, even if it is a bit long. Xoloz (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't thinking of that family. Any family, really. Just the way "murder-suicide" is more an active noun. "x murders" seems to work for passive victims or active perpetrators, so in a case where "Benoit" means both, it fits. Short and precise works better than overly detailed; editors need to type the title, curious readers have the article itself for facts. Consider how much info we leave from "Wounded Knee incident", and what else that could mean to a noob (get well soon, Carlos Condit). Still a damn fine title for a good article. Concisely clickable, follows the Rule of Three. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand your thinking. My issue is that "Benoit family murders" could describe a theory of the killing in which an outsider was responsible for all the murders.  This is relevant to reality because the WWE basically operated on that premise immediately after the incident, during the Monday Night RAW tribute show.  Obviously, evidence later discredited that theory, and incriminated Chris Benoit.  I don't want the article title in any way to represent the notion that Chris was a victim.  In my mind, the desire for that precision outweighs the desire for conciseness. Xoloz (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That is simply not true. There are plenty of articles like Sharpe family murders where a member of the family committed the deed. Feed  back  ☎ 02:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * John Sharpe did not kill himself. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 07:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not what Xoloz and I are talking about. I already addressed the fact he committed suicide and why that doesn't need to be part of the name above, using Iowa City Sueppel Murders as an example. Feed  back  ☎ 06:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Steven Sueppel was hardly as notable as Chris Benoit. The Iowa City Sueppel Murders is not exactly a very good example to bring up that in the sense that it's not that well sourced... it's edit history revealed less than 50 edits, it has nothing discussed on its talk page, for some reason "Murders" in the title is capitalized and nobody has corrected that. I'm wondering how many people have actually read it. I mean that I don't think it's a good point of reference. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 13:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So what, you're arguing that article also be renamed to "murder-suicide"? Feed  back  ☎ 15:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind if the article was renamed to "Sueppel family murder-suicide". But just think about the current article "Iowa City Sueppel Murders" title and the difference between that article and this Benoit article is apparent. Very few people know who Steven Sueppel was, that's why "Iowa City" is even in the title, to enlighten people that "oh, so it was that murder-suicide in Iowa City". starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 02:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case, what would stop the same confused reader from thinking Benoit family murder-suicide means an intruder killed them, then committed suicide? Or that the 15 hurt at Wounded Knee all took an arrow in the knee? How many people will reasonably remember WWE's one-day hunch, yet nothing of the following seven years? Anyway, whatever consensus comes is fine by me. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose any move. The working title is perfectly fine as is.  Gloss •  talk  03:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 4 supports, 4 opposes. Looks like a mexican stand-off, boys. Feed  back  ☎ 10:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose it is fine the way it isWikiOriginal-9 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

About this "upstairs family room/office" thing
On the "Nancy Benoit" section, there is a sentence stating that, "On Friday, June 22, Chris Benoit killed his wife Nancy in an upstairs office." It was originally, "Chris benoit killed his wife Nancy in an upstairs family room.", but a few years ago, I changed "famly room" to "office", because I think I saw a video on YouTube which may have indicated that Chris murdered Nancy in or near an office rather than a family room. Can't remember exactly which video it is, though. Jim856796 (talk) 05:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage.) Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.wrdw.com/news/headlines/Hustler_targeted_for_printing_photos_of_dead_woman_138079373.html http://www.wrdw.com/news/headlines/Hustler_targeted_for_printing_photos_of_dead_woman_138079373.html and likely others. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

the title
With the hyphen, double-murder suggests that Chris Benoit hanged his double to cover his own tracks, but I don't see any mention of that scenario in the article. —Tamfang (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It could mean that without the hyphen, too. Like "child murder". But yeah, I can't see any point for the hyphen. It's not how we do it at double murder. But it is how we do murder-suicide. Or is that a dash? "Benoit double murder-suicide" would probably be best (with a dash, but I can't find it on my keyboard). By just using the surname, it applies to the murders and the suicide. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Or Benoit murders and suicide. But Benoit alone might be considered insufficiently specific; one could reasonably think it's about events in Benoit, Mississippi, or Benoit, Wisconsin. —Tamfang (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We really don't need the suicide in the title. That's not to say Benoit's life didn't matter (I'm still a big fan of his wrestling), but it was more a result of the event than the event itself. Some killers are arrested, some get away, some kill themselves. That's article detail. Compare to Columbine High School massacre or Murder of Zachary Turner. No suicide. Can't find many murder/massacres that do. Even in List of Palestinian suicide attacks, most don't. So Benoit murders could work. Concise, but until notable plural murders happen in places or by/to people named Benoit, it's distinctive enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * How about Benoit family murders? —Tamfang (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The use of a hyphen is certainly inconsistent with our double murder article which uses a space. This makes me wonder at what point we stop going triple murder or quadruple murder and use some other form of expression though. I don't get why we don't just pluralize it, like why not Chris Benoit murders and suicide or Chris Benoit murders or something? Ranze (talk) 05:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Contradiction
The article states the following contradiction (in bold print).


 * On Friday, June 22, Chris Benoit killed his wife Nancy in an upstairs office. Her limbs were bound, and her body was wrapped in a towel. A copy of the Bible was left by her body. Injuries indicated that Benoit had pressed a knee into her back while pulling on a cord around her neck, causing strangulation. Blood was also found under her head, suggesting she may have tried to fend off Benoit. However, officials stated there were no signs of immediate struggle. Police were unable to determine when she was murdered due to her body having already started decomposition upon discovery.

So, it starts by giving the date that the wife was murdered; it ends by stating that police can't determine when she was murdered. I know nothing about this case, so I cannot edit it. Perhaps another editor can do so? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks like someone ended up removing the second part:
 * Police were unable to determine when she was murdered due to her body having already started decomposition upon discovery.
 * Instead this comes after:
 * Toxicologists were unable to determine whether alcohol found in her body was there before death or a decomposition product.
 * Rotting also made it difficult to estimate pre-death levels of hydrocodone and alprazolam, found in "therapeutic levels" in her corpse.

Any idea where this idea of inability to determine ToD came from? Ranze (talk) 05:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Chris Benoit double-murder and suicide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110710195517/http://www.ericbischoff.com/BlogComments.asp?ID=47 to http://www.ericbischoff.com/BlogComments.asp?ID=47
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080108203236/http://www.cnn.com:80/2007/US/07/17/wrestler.murder.ap/index.html to http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/17/wrestler.murder.ap/index.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110718131954/http://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/20080204110990/sports/wire-sports/defence-seeks-delay-in-trial-of-personal-physician-of-late-pro-wrestler-benoit.html to http://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/20080204110990/sports/wire-sports/defence-seeks-delay-in-trial-of-personal-physician-of-late-pro-wrestler-benoit.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Chris Benoit double-murder and suicide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110829064034/http://www.wsbtv.com:80/news/15281734/detail.html to http://www.wsbtv.com/news/15281734/detail.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071116191052/http://www.wsbtv.com:80/news/14047066/detail.html to http://www.wsbtv.com/news/14047066/detail.html/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516081401/http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2007/2007_06_25.jsp to http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2007/2007_06_25.jsp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516085626/http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2007/2007_07_17.jsp to http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2007/2007_07_17.jsp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516082539/http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2007/2007_06_26.jsp to http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2007/2007_06_26.jsp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090206191728/http://www.wsbtv.com:80/news/18595253/detail.html to http://www.wsbtv.com/news/18595253/detail.html#-
 * Added tag to http://spring.newsvine.cFraom/_news/2007/06/29/808872-the-college-student-who-knew-about-the-benoit-murder-suicide-before-police
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714184300/http://network.yardbarker.com/all_sports/article_external/chris_benoits_sister_in_law_comments_on_2007_murdersuicide_and_more/13946689/ to http://network.yardbarker.com/all_sports/article_external/chris_benoits_sister_in_law_comments_on_2007_murdersuicide_and_more/13946689/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Triple-murder
Since some people consider suicide to be a form of murder (self-murder) couldn't we just call this the 'Chris Benoit triple-murder' ? That way it would be shorter. Although I think it is a bit presumptuous still, looking above at for "benoit family murders", wouldn't "Benoit family deaths" be the most neutral title we could pick? It would be more accepting of the whole 'Daniel was an accident' theory some are open to. Ranze (talk) 05:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No to all of this. Suicide is not the same as murder, the theories about Daniel's death are nonsensical as well as non-notable and a shorter title is not necessarily better.★Trekker (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Motive section
Shouldn't the "Possible motives" section include actual theories from the investigation and not just personal opinions from people who knew Benoit? Everyone has their own theory about the cause so what relevancy does Holly's personal one hold? It's also unsourced so I'm tempted to just remove it.★Trekker (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Daniel died via Crippler Crossface?
Does anyone think that we should report that police speculated that Daniel died not only by Chris' arms, but it was a variation of the Crippler Crossface that Chris used to kill his son? Even the book "Ring of Hell" by Matthew Randazzo V supports this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.28.242 (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please its a book and its has NO phyical proof. -Preceeding unsigned comment added by 122.107.194.157 (talk) 10:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The medical proof says that the injuries on Daniel Benoit are consistant with him being killed via a choke hold. So yes, there is physical proof that he was choked to death.  Whether or not it was actually with the Crippler Crossface, we still don't know. McJeff (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If it was a choke, then maybe it was a sleeper hold like choke. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ring of Hell is not a good source at all. Very poorly reasearched and written.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.134.112 (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm still waiting on evidence that this wasn't possibly just an accidental death. What if Nancy was the one who drugged Daniel and Chris was just playing? Ranze (talk) 05:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Just an accidental death" Good lord. You don't just smother someone to death by accident. Especially not after you just murdered your wife.★Trekker (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Removed sentences.
I was going to remove the following- "But in 2015 WWE brought back it's coarse language and everything the fans loved but are still very careful with how many head injuries they let their wrestlers get. It is speculated by the fans when Shane gets in control of WWE he will change the rating back to TV-14 but has said that he and the whole McMahon family are always going to be careful with how many head injuries wrestlers will endure and that chair shots to the head are the only thing that have been banned. " When I went to edit this out, someone had did so already. Just wanted to say I agree. Funny coincidence that I was going to remove that and as soon as I clicked edit, I could no longer find it. Someone beat me to it within seconds. 2601:483:100:CB54:1C1B:B640:914B:B56 (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)