Talk:Chris Benoit

Rephrasing

Why has the opening paragraph been totally re-worded? It was perfectly fine as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Benoit&oldid=318911837 so why change it? Somebody please change it back, the current wording is totally inferior.

Check the month-long discussion above. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope, there was nothing wrong with the way it was originally worded. Nothing at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tremmy (talk • contribs) 12:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

What aspect of the current wording do you object to? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted back to what was agreed upon above. Tremmy, please do not revert back without further discussion. The consensus was that the current wording is appropriate. We really don't want this article locked again, and that's exactly what will happen if another edit war over this issue breaks out. That being said, I won't be reverting you again should you choose to revert back, as I'd rather not contribute to the article being locked again. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This re-phrasing issue has finally culminated in a way that we all, Benoit fans and non-WWE or Benoit people, agree on. 149.254.58.33 (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The current phrasing is also logically justified. It was based on the final statement made by the appropriate authority after the due legal investigation process of was completed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The article intro links to and describes Benoit as a "serial killer" which defines it as killing 3 or more over more than 30 days. Benoit's actions do not fit this definition, even if you count suicide as one of the 3 (which I would not).

Mistake in "Death" section

"During the investigation into steroid abuse, it was revealed that other wrestlers, including Eddie Guerrero, Brian Adams and Sylvain Grenier‎ had also been given steroids prior to their deaths."

Sylvain Grenier is not dead. 98.20.22.109 (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

His career is, but yeah, you has a point. --Kaizer13 (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been corrected with a further rewording... Magus732 (talk) 04:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Article protected

I have full protected the article again, since the edit war has started again and is merrily on its way. If you feel discussion at the talk page will not bring about a suitable solution, please follow the dispute resolution process. I'm not familiar with the situation here, but it seems to me at first glance that there may be sockpuppets involved as well. Has anyone filed a sockpuppet investigation if this may be the case? (I'm not sure about this though; I'm merely saying it without checking the problem in detail) ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that there did seem to be a few editors who suddenly had an interest in the article, but I am no expert. I will look at the histories, see what I can find. Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

After review, there appears to only be two editors involved in changing the article. Tremmy and Polmalo. Both do appear to have edits outside of this issue, though they are relatively new editors. I do find it interesting that in his discussion on the talk page he mentioned a issue that CraigMonroe had with a user a year ago, when he was not here, but it is possible that he simply found it. In reguards to protection, I do not see why Tremmy has an issue with the wording, the wording in the article is close to the version he supported on the talk page. Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I came here in response to the RfC and it seems to me that the dispute has been resolved with the current wording. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you dont mind, do you support the current wording? Sephiroth storm (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The current wording was agreed upon some time ago; someone had a fit because we wouldn't change it back... that's what happened... Magus732 (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I know, but there seem to be a few people who think a consensus wasn't reached. The best way I can see to fix this issue is to make it clear that there is a consensus on this version. Sephiroth storm (talk) 05:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I contributed a little bit early, but I left it alone after that. Is it possible that the edit war started because a vote wasn't taken? I realise that consensus isn't limited to voting per se, but if we can get two distinct versions settled upon and then put it to a vote - maybe we'll get somewhere without taking it to dispute resolution. Just putting that out there. Generally situations like this arise because of some vested interest in a particular POV - and that can happen on both sides. I'm not saying that's what's happened here, but if we can avoid a formal process I think all of us would be happier. !! Justa Punk !! 08:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

As someone who came here in response to the RfC, it seems to me that there are only a few editors left who are arguing and that most, on both sides of the dispute, have accepted the suggestion that we base the article on the final statement made by the appropriate authority after the due legal investigation process of was completed.

Specifically this would include the following:

• We state, without qualification (ie 'no claimed by...', or ,'authorities stated...') that Chris killed his wife and son (the exact words in the report were, 'took the lives of').

• We do not say more than the report says, particularly we do not use unsupported and accusative words like 'murdered'.

• The lead should be in rough chronological order, obviously with the deaths coming last.

This is how the wording is currently Martin Hogbin (talk)

Punk, I agree, I like votes, but i'm sure if we propose one, a user will point to the policy stating that voting does not indicate consensus. Personally, I disagree, but im for a vote. I agree with Martin, the current version was agreed upon. The only issue is how to prove a consensus, with such a lengthy dispute. Sephiroth storm (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That's the trouble with disputes like this, Sephiroth. When you get people who hold a view as right and won't be diverted from that view, they'll try and preach rules (like the one you mentioned) in order to derail the whole thing. The thing about a vote is that - even though the rule holds true - it still provides a guide to the feelings of interested parties.

So, I'm not an admin so I don't feel right starting the ball rolling but if someone can set aside a section for a vote based on what Martin has placed above as the "alleged" consensus (I'm only saying "alleged" to put the neutral ground in place so to speak for a vote), and get the parties to agree or disagree, and maybe state their reasons why. And the most important thing to do is not respond to votes that you don't agree with. That way people say their piece, and then a judgment can be made.

And by putting it here - we have a record of it as well in case of future issues. !! Justa Punk !! 07:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

One minor change that I would suggest, in accordance with the above proposal, is that we change, 'Since Benoit's suicide...' in the lead to, 'Since Benoit's death...' as the Sheriff did not confirm that he intentionally killed himself. Again the exact words in the Sheriff's reprt were 'took his own life', which wording I would also be happy with. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you are reading far to much into this issue. This is especially true since the death was ruled a murder-suicide. CraigMonroe (talk) 12:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Not so, the final report says only that he took his own life it does not use the words 'murder' or 'suicide'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Call for vote

This vote is to indicate consensus on the current version of the article, a support vote will indicate that you believe that the article as it stands is a fair attempt at a reasonable compromise of opposing viewpoints, is NPOV and is in accordance with Wikipedia policy. As an indicator of consensus, we will treat further disruption of the article in violation of the consensus established here, for support or not support, as a violation of consensus and disruption of wikipedia.

Support I believe the current article is encyclopedic in nature and presents all relevant information in a fair and balanced manner. Sephiroth storm (talk) 12:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Support The current article is fair and encyclopedic and has a rational objective basis. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Support The current version is correct, and there's nothing wrong with it. !! Justa Punk !! 21:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Support The current version is fine. Magus732 (talk) 04:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstain As I was heavily involved in the discussion before, I feel obligated to at least state that I neither support nor oppose whatever people choose to do with this article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I just want it unlocked so we can edit some of the poor grammar. "Chris Benoit has said, in his first match, that he used the move in his first match..."; "In a match with... they won the match..."... 214.3.138.234 (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Steve

reply to above You can list any necessary changes on this page, and an Administrator can deal with it. Sephiroth storm (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Support The current version is fine. CraigMonroe (talk) 12:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Full protection lifted

I have removed the full protection of this page, since consensus seems to be in favour of the current version and there were no recent objections. Please note that this "vote" is regarded as a summary of the discussions above on this matter, and not merely a poll to select one version. Also note that this is not an endorsement of one particular version; if any reasonable objections are raised in the future, the editors of this article should discuss about it to arrive at a suitable solution. And please do not resume edit warring; if an editor repeatedly tries to change the article to another version without discussion, consider warning them and reporting at WP:AN/EW instead of simply re-reverting. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 14:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Request to make a small change

Does anyone mind if I change, 'Since Benoit's suicide...' at the end of the lead to, 'Since Benoit took his own life...'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that the legal definition of suicide? There is also an article called Chris Benoit double murder and suicide, I would keep it, but thats my opinion. Sephiroth storm (talk) 03:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it is possible to take your own life by accident. See for example Erotic asphyxiation. I am not suggesting that that is the case here but we should not change the wording of the Sheriff's report to suit what we believe to be the case. We should say what the Sheriff's final report says, no more and no less. That seems to me to be a good principle that has resolved this argument and I would like to complete the job by applying it consistently. Are you OK with that? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose. Can someone archive this page? Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I take issue with that. It is not possible to "take" your life without a voluntary action. There is an underlying intent element. Furthermore, the incident was ruled a murder-SUICIDE. While I don't see a major issue here, it appears that this form of editing is of the same type that led this article down the slippery slope to where it was two months ago. This type of editing--directly contrary to numerous sources or edits like this which are made with a person's own subjective spin placed on what was decided--should not be allowed. For example, despite hundreds of articles saying it was a murder-suicide, ONE editor sees the need to change it to "took his own life" since there is no intent in his mind. From what I see, this appears to be nothing more than the same losing argument made earlier ont his talk page but with scope of the argument placed onto a different topic. For the 20th time, as NUMEROUS sources say it was a murder-suicide (this is in FACT the most cited description). I see no reason why Wikipedia needs a higher standard than hundreds of media sources. This is particulalry when consensus was reached on the topic. In other words, I see this "small change" as the first step toward a slippery slope to larger changes. CraigMonroe (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, WP is intended to be an encyclopedia and thus should conform to higher standards than the media. Secondly, I am not sure what you mean by 'slippery slope'. I have proposed that we base the article on the Sheriff's final report and I understood this to be the consensus. I cannot see how larger changes could be justified on this basis. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Martin, old buddy, you are wrong on all counts. First, Wikipedia cannot be held to a higher standard than the media since wikipedia's sources are the media. A quick review of WP:V clearly lays this fact out: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. " Second, you have not seen the final report. The only information you have is from the media articles. For example, this one which only discusses the final report and is titled "murder-suicide."[[1]] More importantly, your argument ignores the reality that "Police ruled the death a double homicide-suicide and are investigating whether steroids may have been a factor in the deaths." [[2]] However, you make this argument while refusing to cite what the official finding was. So you are aware, the "official" finding was that he hanged himself: [[3]] Heck, the DA, the official in charge of the investigation stated this: [[4]]. Given these facts, it seems to me that your point doesn't really exist. Third, if you want to base the consensus on the final report, please post a link to the report. Fourth, and most importantly, you seem to want to change the consensus that you agreed to which was list the cause of death as "hanged himself." You previously agreed to this then as soon as the discussion diesd down, you have moved to change the consensus. Lets not forget that You defined the terms of the consensus:

Not everything in the media is equally reliable. What you are quoting is just media opinion and speculation. What I suggest the article is based on is the exact wording of the Sheriff's report at the conclusion of the six month investigation. This is the 'official verdict' just as the result of a trial would have been had Benoit survived.

Actually, Wikipedia bases its reliability on the source. This is a moot point as you have yet to provide a link to the report. Thus, we are left with how the media reported this. Have your forgotten the two month long discussion already? CraigMonroe (talk) 13:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

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

The lead seems very different than what was agreed to. All I am saying is take a look back, you created the consensus. You seem unhappy with it, so now you want to change what you created. For the record, I am all for placing the information that was in the report in the article. It just so happens that you aren't placing the information that was actually in the report (I notice how you didn't cite to the report or an article that quotes the report). It appears you are picking and choosing the facts, namely that the man hanged himself. Cherry picking facts is exactly what led to the mess that was--and in many ways--still is this article. That is the slippery slope. To simplify, the sherrif's reports says he hanged himself. It was declared by all officials involved as a murder-suicide. This is what the article should state. No more, and no less.CraigMonroe (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The article still says, 'Benoit killed his wife and son and subsequently hanged himself' in the lead. I just changed 'suicide' to 'took his own life' because that was the exact wording of the Sheriff's report, there is no cherry picking, just one official final report from which I have quoted exactly.

I asked if anyone minded the change and got the OK. If you feel that strongly I guess you are within your rights to revert my change to the version that everyone supported. I was just trying to be consistent. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

As I requested before, link??? I will never understand how someone who has not in fact seen a document, in this case the final report (remember, this fact was discussed above), will claim what the document states and ignore everything to the contrary. So you are aware, the document was over 400 pages. You seem to think it only said one thing despite all the other evidence to the contrary? Don't you realize the medical examiner ruled it a suicide? How many articles need to cite the events as a murder-suicide before this argument will stop? CraigMonroe (talk) 13:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If you look here [[5]] you will see this statement: The Fayette County Sheriff’s Office released a brief summary of a six-month investigation into the tragedy at Benoit’s Fayetteville home. It says, “After careful examination of all evidence collected by investigators, the Fayette County Sheriff’s Office concludes that between Friday, June 22, 2007 and Sunday, June 24, 2007, Christopher Benoit took the lives of his wife, Nancy, and their son, Daniel, before ending his own life.” Note that the summary is in quotes, indicating that it is a direct quotation of the summary from the Sheriff's office at the end of the six-month investigation. The other media links contain the media's own descriptions of the events in their own words. The media usually like to dramatize events and thus use words like 'suicide' and 'murder'.

I notice that I have got the wording wrong anyway. Would you be happy with 'Since Benoit killed himself...'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Martin, that is what the article said before you changed it. Your basis for changing it from suicide--which means the same thing as what you have written--is a theorhetical argument about there being no intent found. Buddy, I hate to tell you, your argument is off base. It has been described as a murder-suicide by the DA, the Medical Examiner, and the Sheriff. Until you can cite the actual report (by the way it is 400 pages long), I see no need to look any further than what was stated by everyone involved. Your argument might have some credibility if the exerpt you were citing differed from the previous statements. However, I personally see little--if any--difference between describing the event as a murder-suicide, or you describing it as "Christopher Benoit took the lives of his wife, Nancy, and their son, Daniel, before ending his own life." It only seems to me that you are trying to subplant an underlying bias onto the issue while using unnecessary verbosity. Meanwhile, your argumentthis seems irrational as there is a seperate article titled Benoit Murder-Suicide. Despite this, lets look at what the Sheriff has said: [[6]], and [[7]]. In pertinent part, Lt. Tommy Pope of the Fayette County Sheriff's Department said "the deaths, which have been ruled a double murder-suicide, took place over at least 24 hours." In our haste, let's not forget the DA--the person in charge of the investigation: [[8]]. Given the fact that the only part of the report you have cited has indicated Benoit murdered his family then hanged himself with an exercise machine, which directly corresponds with numerous other statements by investigators that this was a murder-suicide, don't you think the burden falls to you to give a more comelling reason for a change away from what the experts said other than a portion of a 400 page report that you haven't seen and can't provide a link to that doesn't at all contradict the statement of their finding it a murder-suicide? I think it does. I also believe others felt the same way, which is probably why consensus was reached on the previous version. For the record, I think the argument that this was not a deliberate act is assinine, especially since the police repeatedly said he hanged himself by making a noose out of a weight machine. Hanging, by definition, is a deliberate/intentional act. This is not the case of a fall or someone pulling a Bangkok Carradine which may have been an accident. CraigMonroe (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You and the media are entitled to your opinion but that is all it is. I have given you a verbatim quotation from the Sheriff's final report. In other words these are the exact words that were in the Sheriff's report. The links you give are to media articles where the events, including the Sheriff's comments, are described in the words of the writer of the media article. These are not the same thing and should not be given equal weight here.

I came to this page as an uninvolved editor to help settle a dispute in which one side wanted to say things like 'murderer' and 'murdered his son' whilst the other side wanted to qualify everything with statements like, 'according to police he killed himself' or 'allegedly he killed his wife'. My proposed compromise we that we state as fact only what was actually said in the Sheriff's final report. This means the actual words of the report not media interpretations of it. It is a compromise. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, I am not sure why we are continuing to argue. If you are happy with, 'Since Benoit killed himself...' then so am I, let us change it to that. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Buddy, it is NOT the media's opinion. It is the opinion of the investigators, or did you ignore the links I gave you? Also, you did NOT give a verbatim quote from the report. You gave a "verbatim" quote from a summary of the report, while ignoring the incident was ruled a murder-suicide. Hello, did you even read your source? So please xplain to me how you can read this one quote as disproving everything else that was said by investigatords when it supports their claims?

You also misrepresent the consensus that you helped create. This was the consensus:

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

Now you say the facts should state as in the final report. Ok. Link me to the portion of the final report that says that the ruling of the Sheriff's department was wrong and that it was not a suicide.

I have always said say the facts should be stated as in the final report. Obviously the report does not say what the death was not. The report says that he took his own life.

Lastly, my point was there is no real difference between "killed himself" and "suicide." This is not the case of a bangkok Carradine. There is a clear rulignt hat youw ant to ignore. For some reason, you seem to think the sheriff didn't rule it a suicide. Why is that? What possible reason do you have for this? You have yet to show ANY support for this conclusion. So you are aware, let me lay it out for you again. Part of a suicide is a person killing themself. Thus, you pointing to a quote from a synopsis of a report stating this while ignoring the Sheriff, coroner, and DA's ruling makes little sense. You want to edit away from consensus. The burden is on YOU to show the edit is proper. From what I see, you want to wilfully ignore valid sources indicating the ruling of the department for an unknown reason. Prove to me there is a valid reason. CraigMonroe (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

We know what the Sheriff said because we have his quoted words. We know what words he used and what words he did not use. Everything else you refer to is media and personal opinion.

You seem to forget that I am fighting for compromise, there has never been a consensus to use words like 'murder' and 'suicide', that is what the edit war was all about when I first came here. There are editors who want to put 'alleged to have killed his wife' or 'police claimed that he killed his wife', I have argued against them to reach a compromise. As I have said before, I guess that you are within your rights to restore the lead to the version that everybody supported if you wish. Alternatively I am happy with 'killed himself' so we could go with that. In fact I will make that change now. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The official statements by the department, and the DA (the person IN CHARGE of the investigaton) are not personal opinion. More importantly, they place your argument in context. Also, to say you are "arguing for compromise" is a bit disingenuous. Compromise was reached. You are arguing away from the compromise. Still, prove to me there is a valid reason as I asked above. Is that so much to ask? CraigMonroe (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I understood that it was the Sheriff who had the final responsibility for deciding what happened. Do you have any evidence that the DA has the ultimate responsibility in this respect. Did he publish a final report, that is to say after the completion of the investigation. Do we have the exact words of this report?

I asked if it was OK to make a change and no one objected, so I made the change. Had you responded sooner I would not have made the change without your agreement. As I have said before you are within your rights to change the wording back to the version that was supported by everyone if you wish but I understood that you would be satisfied with 'killed himself'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Go back and read through the dozens of sources that I have provided. Meanwhile, you have yet to provide one that contradicts anything I have said. Let's look at what we have:I have sources that provide statements from the department stating is was OFFICIALLY RULED a murder/suicide. I have provided sources stating he DA is in charge of the investigation. I have provided sources from the DA saying it was a murder/suicide. In contrast, you have provided a quote from a synopsis of the report stating Benoit killed himself. Somehow, you feel this proves Benoit didn't commit suicide? Really? You claim to want to state what the report said yet ignore the ruling the department stated which is shown by the report. Please explain why the OFFICIAL RULING of the department should be ignored.CraigMonroe (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have seen no sources such as you describe, they are just media reports. Can you answer the questions that I asked with links. Do you have any evidence that the DA has the ultimate responsibility in this respect. Did he publish a final report, that is to say after the completion of the investigation. Do we have the exact words of this report? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Your first sentence is irrational as the media has underlying legal standards for what it may report, in particular quotes, and more importantly, wikipedia specifically allows media sources. Interestingly enough, your first sentence creates a major problem with your own logic. As has already been pointed out to you, you cited a media report as your source for the report. You now imply that such an action is improper (you make this assertion without any basis). This implication is contrary to your own actions. Yet, somehow, when I do the same for the police's official finding, which was a direct quotation from the department spokesperson, , yet, to you, mine are invalid. Pot, meet kettle? As for the answers to your questions, look five or six posts up as I have now explained to you several times. The Department stated its official ruling. The DA was in charge of tyhe investigation. The coroner determiend the cause of deaths, which were accounted for in the ruling. So you are aware, your entire argument does not hold water, the medical examiner--not the sheriff determines the cause of death. They have five options: (1) Homicide, (2) Natural, (3) Accidental, (4) Suicide, and (5) Undetermined. [[9]] As has been pointed out by several thousand media sources, they determined the third choice occured for Benoit, and the first for his wife and son. Yet, amazingly, you somehow want the Sheriff to determine the cause of death, and you somehow--against Georgia law--want them to chose a cause of death that does not fall under one of the four options. Go figure. CraigMonroe (talk) 01:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You still do not seem to have understood the difference between a direct verbatim quotation by the media, which will be indicated by 'quotation marks' and usually words indicating it is a direct quote, and the word of the media writers themselves. When writing in their own words, the media writers are quite rightly free to express their own views and interpretations of the words of others (especially as Benoit is dead and they are therefore free from the threat of a libel action) and this is exactly what they do. So I repeat my original questions: Did any other officials publish a final report, that is to say after the completion of the investigation. Do we have any of the the exact words of any such reports? If we have these we should take them into account, but not media opinion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Martin, then I guess a lot of the media must have taken liberties, since, to follow your selective "logic," we must also ignore the QUOTED statements from the DA and Sheriff's department stating it was a SUICIDE. As for other reports, yes. The medical examiner WHICH RULED IT A SUICIDE as per Georgia law. Have you even read any of the links I have given you? The cause of death is determiend by the medical examiner. The sheriff's department looks into the facts surrounding the cause of death to determine possible suspects, and in the case of a murder-suicide, they state the legal finding of fact along with the medical examiner who then certifies the findings through an inquest. The DA verifies these findings, and supervises the entire investigation. The DA has the final say and determines whether additional charges are filled, or additional tests are run. Yet, you want to ignore all of this and use a partial statement from a media report of a summary of a 400 page report that differs from all other pieces of evidence available in that is only says "killed himself" instead of "suicide"? You want to use this despite the fact it was OFFICIALLY RULED A SUICIDE? Martin, is that what you really want? By the way, I am still waiting for a link to the report. CraigMonroe (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The full Sheriff's report was not published, as you know, but I gave a link to a verbatim quote from the summary. Will you kindly give me any link to a final report by any appropriate authority which gives a direct quote that supports any of what you say. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, you blast the media on one hand, then use it as a source when it suits you. Meanwhile, you argue a direct quote of a synopsis properly explains the report yet ignore other direct quotes by people involved in the investigation that contradict you? Come on Martin. Get with reality. It was a suicide. The coroner, police, DA, and his family all agree on this point. Stop being so obtuse. Now you want a direct quote? Buddy, I have provided you with more info than you need, including direct quotes from the authorities (look about five posts up). For the record, there is no requirement for a direct quote. This is an asinine rule you are creating. Even without this, I have provided you direct quotes from the DA, and the department spokesperson stating it is a suicide. For the record, all that is needed is that the information be verifiable. Are you saying, the fact that he killed himself is not verifiable? Have you even read what you are trying to edit the page to say? It says the same thing as suicide. You simply want to use a half dozen extraneuos words for some unforeseen motive. It is time to move on. I am returning the page back to the consensus as you previously told me to do. CraigMonroe (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess you are within your rights to return the article to its consensus version but I am puzzled that you do not seem to understand what a direct quote is. If you have a link that gives a direct quote from the final report by any appropriate authority please give me the link. I cannot see one above.

I also do not know what you mean by, 'You simply want to use a half dozen extraneuos words...', I want to say 'killed himself' that is two words.. Also why do you ask, 'Are you saying, the fact that he killed himself is not verifiable?'? Those are the exact same two words words I want to say. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

First claiming a person does not know what a direct quote ads nothing to this debate. Additionally, since you continue to say a direct quote from the actual final report is needed (despite Wikipedia policy stating to the contrary), where have you cited a direct quote of the actual final 400 page report and not a synopsis? Additionally, why should we ignore the medical examiner's ruling? Statements by the Sherrif's department? Statements by the DA? Why should we ignore court rulings? You have not explained ANY of these questions. It was a suicide, as stated by NUMEROUS RELIABLE SOURCES. CraigMonroe (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I gave a direct quote from the Sheriff's own summary of his final report. The reason that I am suggesting a higher standard of sourcing than Wikipedia requires is that my suggestion was a compromise between one group who wanted to say 'murder' and 'suicide' and another group who insisted that the article should only say 'alleged to have killed..' and 'police claim that...' etc.

As I understand it the sheriff is the person who had knowledge of all the available evidence and coordinated the reports of the others that you mention. The others only saw their part of the story. Please correct me if I am wrong here. What are the court rulings you refer to?

The difference between say 'murder' and 'killed' is the intention and culpability of the person who did the killing. Because he killed himself, no one can ever know why Benoit did what he did and what his state of mind was at the time, we can only speculate. The physical facts, on the other hand, can be determined from the evidence. The evidence clearly shows Benoit killed the others and himself, it cannot show why. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments on the voting

GaryColemanFan, although you have decided to abstain, would you not agree that the current text is a good compromise between those who want to say things like 'murderer' up front and those who want to say ' reported to have killed...', 'alleged to have killed...' etc'? Do you also not agree with the a objective principle that we should base what we say on the final result of the due legal process? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Assistance

I assume an admin is watching this page. Well, if one would be so kind to add Template:WCW World Television Championship to the bottom. Make sure all templates are in alphabetical order as well.--WillC 00:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal

As WWE no longer makes any mention of Benoit, surely this page should be taken off Wikipedia? --94.4.211.169 (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Why? He's a notable person in history and fulfils all the requirements for an article here. That is a ridiculous suggestion. Why not do the same with Hulk Hogan? WWE no longer makes any mention of him either. !! Justa Punk !! 05:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Please remove this page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.170.188.150 (talk) 07:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 

I won't deny that Benoit's actions are reprehensible, but there's absolutely no reason to delete this page. WWE may no longer acknowledge Benoit, but that's irrelevant here. Neither of the Ws in "WWE" stand for Wikipedia. Spartan198 (talk) 05:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation of name

Can someone correct the pronunciation? I can't because the page is semi-protected. The correct pronunciation is [bənwa], not [bənwɑ]. 82.124.231.13 (talk) 10:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Date Of Death

Bellow his picture it says he died on July 25, 2007 when in fact he died June 24, 2007... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.223.90.84 (talk) 04:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)