Talk:Chris Benoit

Please note that this talk page is for discussion of changes to the Chris Benoit article. Off-topic discussions, including tributes, are not appropriate for Wikipedia and will be REMOVED. Thank you for your cooperation.

POV and Context

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

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

Media

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wrestler infobox

As he's clearly no longer wrestling, is this the best infobox to use? I'm not sure where WP:PW stands on deceased wrestlers but many of the fields in the current infobox are irrelevant now. DavyJonesLocker 01:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Make a new infobox for deceased athletes if one doesn't exist yet. Crenel 02:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The Wikipedia controversy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe that goes against WP:FAITH. I could be wrong... Jezebel Parks 02:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Best technical wrestlers

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

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

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

It's Time for a new page

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

I agree that there needs to be a new page it's just gettin' rediculous. I'm vote one for a page JUST on the whole Benoir tragedy. --Zero Cool 05:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Fourthed. I came here with the intention of saying that we should try to trim down the section on his death, but it would also seem to merit its own page, given its significance to wrestling as a whole (IMHO, much more than The Fingerpoke of Doom). Hezekiah957 06:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I'm doubtful I would have heard of this story were it not for wikipedia and I'm sure this applies to most of the world. Perhaps there has been extensive coverage in the American media, but not so much outside America. You might want to get out from the 'rock' your under and learn that there is in fact a world outside of the good ole US of A and wrestling Nil Einne 08:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The Benoit Family Incident, it was hardly an "incident", an incident is when a celebrity swears at a photographer and the media jump on it. The Benoit Family Murder, again that would not be a wise thing to do, CHRIS murdered his family, it involved him, it wasn't someone else that was notable that murdered his family and his family isn't notable except for the fact that they were murdered by Chris Benoit. Just like the George W Bush page is mainly about his presidency, when he was initially famous for being the son of a former president. Chris was initially known in the wrestling world, but now he is famous for the murder of his family. The page needs to change to reflect that, just like the George W Bush page changed to him being president. If anything his killing his entire family makes his wrestling career less notable, so a lot of the fan fluff from the page should be cut back to make way for a more solid biography of this semi famous wrestler and internationally famous murderer. The murders are not a side note, they are now THE note of the page. You seem to be forgetting that this is now a biography or a killer/former wrestler, not just the history and fan fluff page of a wrestler JayKeaton 08:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

WWE sources need to be replaced

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

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

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

Archive.com may still have usable copies of the data. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Was Benoit an American?

Does Benoit belong in the American categories (and is he a Canadian American)? While some people (myself included) believe permanent residents should be considered American it has been the general trend of wikipedia to go strictly based on citizenship because that is a non debatable (and non POV) standard. see the archived discussion at Seung-Hui Cho for some good back and forth on this.

So that being said did Benoit ever become a citizen of the united states? If not then should we should remove all of the American categories? harlock_jds 03:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

He moved his permanent residence to America a while ago, it wasn't something recent, so either he was an illegal alien to the US, or he was American. And considering he was touring the United States with the WWE for approxiamtely 3/4 of a year in the U.S., yes, he had to be a citizen. — Moe ε 05:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No he could have been a permanent resident (aka had his green card) which allows him to live in the united states but does not grant him citizenship. Many people stop at this point instead of actually getting their citizenship (because it's time consuming and doesn't really give you that many additional rights). He did not HAVE to be a citizen no matter how long he lived in the states.harlock_jds 11:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe Benoit ever became an American citizen. Although he was a permanent resident, he was never reported as ever attaining American citizenship. Furthermore, Chris always considered himself Canadian only. He always mentioned being proud to be Canadian, as well as, being announced from Edmonton. In fact, when WWE decided to start billing him from Atlanta, he was very upset with the company and stated that they cannot strip him of his Canadian citizenship (this information can be found on www.slam.ca, where there are many Benoit articles and interviews). Also, I do not believe that he should be listed as Canadian-American just because he was a permanent resident in the United States. The fact is that he was a Canadian citizen, was born in Canada, grew up in Canada, and always identified as a Canadian only. And I do believe that wikipedia should only list someone as Canadian-American only if they hold dual citizenship because there are many Canadians that live or have lived in the United States that haven't become citizens and only view themselves as Canadians. Furthermore, in another article, Wayne Gretzky is listed as a Canadian, when in fact he is Canadian-American since he holds dual citizenship (he acquired American citizenship years ago). And the general consensus on that article is that although Wayne is Canadian-American, it is felt he should only be listed as Canadian because of his strong identity as a Canadian. Therefore, the same should apply to Benoit because everyone recognizes him solely as a Canadian, and there aren't any records to my knowledge that he ever became American. I don't think it would be accurate to list him as Canadian-American just because he was a permanent resident. And permanent residency does allow you to work and live in this country without being a citizen, so it should not be assumed that he had to be American. User: Senorcanadiense 08:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that someone who lives in and is permanent resident of a country should normally be identified as a person from the country, as well as from the country they have citizenship with. However self-identification trumps all and if it's true (based on reliable sources) that he did not consider himself an American then we should not call him an American. Indeed we should mention this fact in the article. However reliable sources are important here, not fan speculation, OR, or what happens in the WWE (as wrestling is a scripted entertainment medium, it's easily possible the reason he was identified as Canadian there had nothing to do with what he wished to self-identify with). Unless a reliable source can be found that he did not consider himself an American then yes, he was a Canadian and an American Nil Einne 08:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Like i said i before agree with you about Permanent residents being considered Americans but that isn't a unanimous POV (even among people with permanent residency). I think in order to be neutral we have to stick with Citizenship (which is pretty undebateable). Also note thatbefore all of this happened Benoit wasn't considered an american in any catagory... not sure why he is now.harlock_jds 13:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I identify as Canadian, although because I work in entertainment, it's quite possible that I might end up working (and therefore living) in the United States. If I lived all my life identifying as Canadian (which I would), and did not try to attain American citizenship, and yet after my death people started calling me an American when I wasn't around to correct them -- well, I get *really, really* upset thinking about that happening in my future. If, Chris Benoit self-identified as Canadian and held only Canadian citizenship, he's Canadian -- period! (That covers both legal and personal preference -- what else is there?) I realise that a murderer's preferences may not count for much, but a Canadian's preferences do, thank you very much.--65.95.121.252 03:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I've decided to include some quotes from Chris himself, as well as, the links to the articles they are found in.

Source 1

"When I found out they were going to (do that), I didn't just go with it," explained the 5-ft. 11-in., 220-lb. Benoit.

"I went and sat down and had a one-on-one conversation with Vince (McMahon). I went right to the horse's head and said, 'I don't feel quite comfortable with it. Why are you doing it?' "

McMahon, the WWE's top executive, told Benoit the company was going with a different approach and the Canadian, probably a little reluctantly, accepted the reasoning.

"Am I supposed to quit? Who's going to take care of my family? If that's the direction they want to go in, what am I going to do? I'm going to make the best of it, which is what I'm doing," said Benoit.

Benoit notes the WWE hasn't yet stripped him of his Canadian identity by asking him to turn heel on Canada and play villain to wrestling fans north of the border.

"They haven't asked me to go out as an angle on TV and renounce my citizenship or knock Canada or knock where I'm from," he said.

Would he consider going anti-Canadian if asked to do so?

"I'd have an issue with it, just like when I found out they were going with where I reside," said Benoit, who trained in the legendary Hart Dungeon with the late Stu Hart.

He's a got a work visa to ply his trade in the U.S. and Benoit has absolutely no intention of becoming an American citizen -- ever.

"Yeah I live in Atlanta and two of my kids (Megan and Daniel) were born in Atlanta and it doesn't take away from where I'm from and what I'm about," Benoit said.

"And believe me, when I retire, I'm going to be back up here in Canada, in Calgary or Edmonton or B.C."

"I'm a Canadian at heart."

Source: http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Wrestling/2004/04/18/427743.html

Source 2

Benoit's most loyal fans would have noticed a change since Wrestlemania 20.

Product of Atlanta?

He had always walked down the aisle to the ring, announced as hailing from "Edmonton, Alberta, Canada," but since winning the title, Benoit's entrance has been altered to "now residing in Atlanta, Georgia."

The change was not Benoit's decision, but a move by the WWE to have all of their "faces" (good guys) announced as from the United States.

Don't be discouraged, faithful Crippler Cronies.

"I had to move to Atlanta for work purposes. I'm sure a lot of families have been split up because they have to do what's best."

"I do reside in Atlanta but that hasn't changed anything as far as what I consider my home."

"I could get on the mic and run my mouth but I do my talking in the ring ... They say home is where your heart is and I consider Edmonton my home."

Source: http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Wrestling/2004/04/18/427740.html

Source 3

"Every time I come out and hear my name announced and they're saying from Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, I'm very proud of that," said Benoit, regarded by many insiders as the best pound-for-pound wrestler in the world. "I'm proud of where I came from, proud that Stu Hart trained me."

Source: http://slam.canoe.ca/SlamWrestlingBenoit/benoit_00apr16.html

Source 4

"It doesn't take away from the fact that I'm Canadian and from Edmonton," 36-year-old Benoit said during a visit to the Sun yesterday.

Benoit even took it up with McMahon.

Besides, Benoit vowed, no American twist to his on-stage moniker could ever terminate the veteran grappler's patriotic ways.

"They haven't stripped me of my citizenship and are not knocking Canada," he said.

"When I plan on retiring I'll be up here in Canada, either Calgary or Edmonton."

Source: http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Wrestling/2004/04/17/426667.html

User: Senorcanadiense 07:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Well that's indisputable I'm afraid, there's no question he should be listed as a Canadian. Incidentally, there was no question about that even before these quotes, it isn't common practice to list people's nationality on the basis of where they live. It's always been citizenship. Blankfrackis 14:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well if it matters I did a quick Google search and everything I saw said he is a Canadian. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Mentally handicapped son?

[source] states that Benoit's son was mentally handicapped. Can someone please explain? Especially with those rumours of him taking drugs... Unreliable source? Hoodie 11:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the issue of whether Daniel had fragile X syndrome is by no means settled with the parents of Nancy, who spent time with the child regularly, saying they were not aware of any such issue, ESPN --Justanother 11:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

That's bizarre, I heard he had autism.--VorangorTheDemon 04:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Fragile X Syndrome in many ways can be compared to autism. I think that was mentioned in the WWE.com article. Legendotphoenix 15:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

why

does it have to be repeated so much in his article that he killed his family?BlueShrek 03:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Because it's what he's more widely known for. Benoit was known for as a wrestler, but now he's more widely known as the wrestler who murdered his family. --VorangorTheDemon 04:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

But why does it have to be in the opening of the article?BlueShrek 16:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Because that is what is is notable for, and the lead (opening) of the article is to be a summary of the major points of the article. The murder-suicide is a major point of the article (or at least should be). - T-75|talk|contribs 18:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"Because he killed his family" is the answer JayKeaton 04:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

WWE's Reaction

Why is the last section even in the article? It only repeats things already said before and it's not written very encyclopedic. "Some people say" shouldn't be in the article and it shouldn't say "as of this morning" or "this afternoon". --SGT Tex 14:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --Guyver8400 15:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thirded. Legendotphoenix 15:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Fourthed, and removed. Contained too many weasel words and it already repeated in the paragraphs above it. — Moe ε 16:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The WWE has taken down some popular fan-created Benoit tributes (even ones that were made LONG before he died) from YouTube [1]. This seems rather notable that WWE is going to YouTube and ranting about their copyrights when you can search and find direct promos from them on the site, yet they are removing fan-created music videos.71.158.182.251 18:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Archive?

Should we start to archive all the murder-suicide related stuff on the talk page? I really don't think anything notable is going to happen that would deserve being added further to the article. Or at lease archive this page, as it's getting entirely too long? Legendotphoenix 15:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Archiving finished. — Moe ε 16:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The Benoit family murder-suicide tragedy

Its time to start a new article. At the moment, the murder-suicide section is way too large. Any thoughts.  QuackGuru  talk 16:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously, and it was decided that we shouldn't. He is just as famous for murdering his family as he is for being a wrestler, if he isn't more famous as a killer, so the article on him should reflect that. The Hybrid 16:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

He is more famous as a killer than a wrestler. I recommend a summary here and a new article started. This has made national headlines.  QuackGuru  talk 16:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I highly suggest we wait awhile. This article is fine for now. Not to mention, for all we know, all the rumours of it being someone else could be true. --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 17:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Just give things time to calm down. Once we have all the facts we can trim down the death section by removing speculation etc. I also don't think the wikipedia controversy will be important long-term. The latter parts of his career could probably be trimmed a bit as well. DrWarpMind 18:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Him being more famous as a killer is precisely the reason that we should not trim the section in this article, and then create a new article. This article must have all of the information regarding the murder to be a good article. The Hybrid 18:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Him being more famous as a killer is precisely the reason that we should trim the section in this article, and then create a new article. This article should not have all of the information regarding the murder to be a good article. WHY? The inclusion criteria is an article on Chris Benoit and not also the murder. Please read the title of this article. It does not say: The Benoit family murder-suicide tragedy. We have essentially two articles in one. What next?  QuackGuru  talk 19:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed--Guyver8400 19:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Look at the OJ page. They don't have a seperate page for the murder. Only for the trial. And he was FAR more well known than Benoit was. DurinsBane87 19:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but O.J. Simpson was found not guilty of murder, so there couldn't be a page about that. (And the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman wasn't a big story. The trial was the big story.) The Chris Benoit murder/suicide is one of the biggest news stories of 2007 - and will get bigger as WWE faces the consquences of the fallout. It should be its own article because of that. But it's okay to wait a while so we have a better idea of how to put it into context. Celedor15 20:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

As well, the title would be OR because I haven't seen any common name given to the case by the media yet. I think it is fine on this page, and there really is no need to make a new one. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

What title would you suggest for the new article. I recommend we start a subpage for the new article.  QuackGuru  talk 02:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Once all the facts finish, the section can be condensed. Chris Benoit is most famous for being a murderer. the information belongs in this article. DurinsBane87 02:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)]

Incorrect, He is more famous for being a professional wrestler that is why the the murder got some much news. ExtraDry 02:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, guys, but anyone who doesn't watch wrestling didnt know who he was. Now everyone knows who he is. Not because he wrestled. People know him because he murdered his family. It's sick. But it's true. DurinsBane87 02:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

While that is correct, He would not of got the amount of publicly if he was some random guy off the street. So becouse he was a wrestler is why the murder made so much news. ExtraDry 03:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

that's true, but the fact remains that he's a household name because of his murderous actions, not his wrestling actions. DurinsBane87 03:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If a random citizen killed his wife, child, and himself, how notable would it be compared to this incident? I don't like the word famous, because it implies a positive connotation. He is now infamous for the incident, but I just wonder what the national news response would be. The initial buzz was because of his stardom, I believe. The problem I have with creating a brand new article is the question of notability. How worthy is this incident to have its own page? The Wikipedia policy says that it needs to be significant, reliable coverage, but I believe that notability comes once the buzz dies down. Will Benoit's fame make this story more notable than a normal person? Why does this particular event constitute notability though others don't? This event seems as if it will stick with the wrestling fans longer than the normal people. I guess I think of news stories in the recent past in America, such as the DC sniper attacks in 2002. How often do people think about that event? If it is often then alright, but is it? Notability seems to derive from the effect on history. How important is this event? Wikipedia should not be used to store present news, this is not a time capsule. If this event is deemed important enough to deserve notability and thus its own article, then so be it. I think that without knowing why this horrible event occurred, we can't make a reasonable judgment. If this is the catalyst of reform because of something that is revealed in toxicology or something, then it would be more notable than it is now. His family is not notable, and he is simply because he is a wrestler. I believe that saying he is more infamous for killing his family than wrestling is kind of awkward, because he is more infamous for killing his family because he is a wrestler. Five years from now, why will people look back at this, because he was a wrestler who killed his family or because he killed his family? I believe it will be the former, and I believe that this is the reason that a death page is unreasonable, unnecessary, and that the death section here should be trimmed maybe, or at least kept as is and just let the article go on. Goofyman 06:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The Benoit family was not notable besides the fact they were killed by Chris Benoit. I strongly oppose putting this on a new page, it needs to stay where it belongs, on the killers page: wiki/Chris_Benoit JayKeaton 04:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Not true. His wife was big in professional wrestling for two decades, and the child was the offspring of two famous people in wrestling. Granted, wrestling fame often isn't as big as fame in other venues, but this was still a "celebrity" family. And certainly our celebrity oriented culture has put more emphasis on this murder suicide than other similar incidents not involving celebrities. Just a couple weeks ago there was a guy who killed six people, including himself, in a domestic dispute here (Delavan, WI), and it hardly made a ding in the news. Benoit's murder/suicide was a huge story. The media and the popular culture are obsessed with celebrities. Celedor15 21:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the media likes celebrities. And this celebrity murdered his entire family. His family never made news reports and unless they rise from the dead and start their own talk show, his family wont make the news reports for anything else. Benoit killing his family and then killing himself is, as they say, Benoits business. And it is Benoits news. JayKeaton 04:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that his family lacks notability on its own. Wrestlers aren't considered by the majority of the public to be "A-listers" by any means, much less a retired manager. Anyway, the only cases that I'm aware of where murders get there own articles is when a large number of murders, like over 20 or so, committed by a serial killer over a long stretch of time gained national media attention. Even then, not all such cases receive articles. I see no reason to remove perfectly relevant, sourced information from this article, nor do I see a precedent for it. The Hybrid 06:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Benoit's doctor charged

[2] Anchoress 03:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I post a whole source about this yesterday, what happens, gets deleted, but the person that says Titties, he's article stays. I hate this website sometimes.The Cleveland Browns are awesome! 12:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Relax. The "titties" comment was an unregistered IP doing some petty vandalism. I have deleted it from this topic.. I think Benoit's Doctor getting charged does belong in this article (or any possible separate article on the crime) as it is a direct result of the murder/suicide.--Garistotle 14:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

it's not a mater of relax or not, I modified this page probably a dozen times the last 2 months, yet others get a way with vandalism and I'm just trying to help out with knowledge I find out since I'm a Web Designer, i'm on the net all the time, so I get up to date info right away so I try to update this page as I find out..just seems like Wikipedia isn't as free sourced and everyone able to work on the pages as they say you can. I already had the Doctor information up on here to talk about it as we were going to talk about things before we put them on the article page, but again, my information got deleted and I even provided sources of where I got the info from....it just shows you how crappy Wikipedia is starting to get especially with this page since it's so "popular" now.The Cleveland Browns are awesome! 19:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Gary Wadler speaks out...

Concerning the "Roid rage" issue Dr.Gary Wadler has stated "that was a premeditated act and that's not rage, I would wonder whether there was some underlying psychiatric abnormality that was unmasked by being on steroids," [[3]]. I believe this should be integrated into the article, considering the status of Dr. Gary Wadler who currently serves on the World Anti-Doping Agency's (WADA) Prohibited List and Methods Committee and has served on its Health, Medicine, and Research Committee. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Whomever removed his comments, please explain here before removing them again. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

He was at the scene? he examined the bodies? he's got the police files? --Fredrick day 18:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

He's an expert on Anabolic Steroids and their effects. He currently serves on the World Anti-Doping Agency's (WADA) Prohibited List and Methods Committee and has served on its Health, Medicine, and Research Committee and he has served as: Medical Advisor to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, a Trustee of the Board of the American College of Sports Medicine and of the Women’s Sports Foundation. If his opinions aren't relevant on the issue then no ones is. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

POV

I find it very disturbing that a post from Stamford Conn. 14 hours before bodies were found is being so easily dismissed. I also find it strange that the evidence has not been followed completely before a conclusion is drawn.

As a criminal justice major going into forensics the post on wikinews needs to be more deeply investigated...stranger things have happened then murder made to look like sucide.

Just a thought unfortunately I am shocked if this truly was a murder sucide as the media is telling us I am very saddened because Chris Benoit was one of my favorite performers in the WWE to see this as what he will be remembered for is very tragic.

(68.224.239.100 06:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC))

Police have been investigating the person who made the post, but that's all I know at the moment. Arrowny 12:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Categories

Yes, Benoit purportedly murdered his wife and son, according to police investigations. The nature of this case is sufficient under the category murder-suicide (which in itself has its own article). Any additional categories are redundant and add ambiguity - categorization should be specific.

Technically, Benoit was not convicted by a Canadian court of law and therefore cannot be categorized as a either a Canadian criminal or a Canadian murderer. Plus, Benoit is notable as a wrestler - the people included in Categories such as "Canadian criminals", "Canadian murderers", "Criminals who committed suicide", "Murderers of children", are known specifically for those purposes. Throwing Benoit in with the likes of Paul Bernardo does not help users find what they're looking for any better.

I am not condoning what he did, nor attempting to push a POV on the categories. However, there is a standard with articles which sometimes is forgotten in the heat of the moment - I am sure there are many people who are upset by what has transpired, but we must maintain consistency. --Jay(Talk) 17:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Benoit is notable as a wrestler - that is what he was originally notable for - however, he's now always going to be notable as "the wrestler who killed his family" - OJ doesn't come up in many conversations about being an actor or a footballer those days. --Fredrick day 17:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the Murder-Suicide category fits the description best without overloading the section with categories.--Garistotle 18:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

i think Canadian murderer and Canadian suicide should be included because the category murder-suicide is a subset of the 2 larger categories. if someone was doing research and wanted to see all of the articles categorized as Canadian murderers they should find Benoit in that list instead of having to include murder-suicide in their search criteria. as for Canadian criminals i can see dropping it since he can't be convicted. of a crime.harlock_jds 18:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Makes sense in theory. But technically, you shouldn't be using Wikipedia for research anyway... unless you want a bad grade. Rypcord 18:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

em.. yes you should be using wikipedia for research, no you shouldn't be citing it - there is a difference. It's perfectly legitimate for someone to use wikipedia to get the list of murderers and then use reliable sources for further information and to confirm. So the suggestions that you shouldn't ne using wikipedia for research (in the broader sense) is incorrect. --Fredrick day 18:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Ok captain, next time I'll be much more direct in meaning my citations exactly next time instead of using a broader term such as 'research'. Rypcord 18:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Somebody removed catagory "murderers of children". I don't think there is any loophole in convictions which state that Benoit did not murder his child, so I have added it back in. It should not be removed again unless the police come out and say "Sorry, we got it wrong, his sons death was an accident, he was not murdered". JayKeaton 04:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

He was never, and cannot be, convicted of murder, thus we cannot add him to a category of people who committed murder. — Moe ε 04:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between "Murderer" and "Convicted of Murder". It's possible to be a "murderer" without also being convicted of the crime. Unless the "murderer" category states that it is a category only for convicts, then there's not reason not to apply the category more broadly given proper citations. Rklawton 05:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No one has has added "Convicted murderers of children", which is why the category is "murderers of children". JayKeaton 06:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

not fragile X

it was on the news that his son possobly didnt have it

Source please? — Moe ε 21:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The source is most likely the Internet wrestling community. Socby19 02:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Socby19

Oh lord, well, when it's on FOX, CNN or something, let me know, but the internet wrestling community tends to be wrong sometimes :/ — Moe ε 02:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, like when some random IP heard a rumour that his wife was dead and added that to the page. Wait a second... --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 02:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It's been on all the news stations saying that Nancy's family and Chris's family didn't know about the condition. Also the medical reports, along his Daniel's teachers said that he didn't have any learning disabilities and that he was of normal size for his age. I don't have a true source but that's what's been said on the news. (MgTurtle 02:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)).

Really.. I'll go look into that. — Moe ε 03:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Found some sources that aren't from the pro wrestling community: [4] [5] It appears that investigators do not believe that that child had fragile X syndrome at all commenting as there was no prior records of his disability, etc. — Moe ε 03:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hulk Hogan's comments

Hogan said that Nancy was into satanic stuff. This was quoted on one of the news programs. Could he be referring to her time with Kevin Sullivan's satanic group? No one else related to this case or who were friends of Nancy and Chris said anything like this! I don't believe anything that Hogan says (since he does tend to exaggerate things completely) but i thou8ght i should mention this.(MgTurtle 04:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC))

Seems that is correct. [6] [7] [8] Hogan suggested that Benoit and Nancy had a domestic issues that arose because Nancy "worshiped the devil". — Moe ε 04:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I know that the Benoits and Hogan were all in WCW around the same time and stuff and they may have seen each other in the WWE but can we verify when he last saw the Benoits or it it just speculation still. I mean if he knew them well, wouldn't it be more known like Benoit and the Guerreros being friends and stuff like that? I'm just saying! (MgTurtle 04:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)).

Hogan is just wildly speculating. There is nothing out there to show that Hogan & the Benoit's even associated outside of wrestling shows. This is just what Hogan does, he speculates about things he doesn't know & makes it come across as if it were fact. He has always done stuff like this in order to put himself over.--Hndsmepete 02:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This may also be a form of speculation, but can Nancy's parents sue Hogan for slander or for saying things that are untrue? I know Hogan's always speculated, I mean just listen to the way he tells the story of 'Slamming the 800-pound giant'! I can't believe that the news believes his stories but whatever. (MgTurtle 02:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)).

I put the Hulk Hogan thing back in, because even though it is speculation on his part, the fact is that he still said it and has gotten a lot of critasisim over it. The Neverdoll 07:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Neighbor

There's also a report that says that a neighbor of the Benoits found the bodies and now she is in hiding from the media. The report also said that the WWE was trying to contact her. Does this adda new twist to this already bizarre and tragic story? (MgTurtle 04:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)).

Is it verifiable from a reputable source? --Jddphd 04:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll start looking. — Moe ε 04:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I found one link thats not a pro wrestling site [9] about it, but I must say that it is strange because it says that "Regan said McFague was close to Nancy and her son, who suffered from Fragile X syndrome that causes mental retardation, but that she didn’t care for Benoit." And if you see above, his fragile X syndrome status has been questioned, and this story is slightly newer than the one above by a couple of hours. Strange. — Moe ε 05:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

On the news program, she said that she found Benoit strange but they didn't say why or go any further into it. Sorry I didn't have sources for those two bits of information. I'll make sure I have a source the next time. (MgTurtle 05:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)).

I have also heard that the neighbor called the cops, and the WWE said they called the cops out of concern for Benoit. I'm sure WWE wouldn't have said that they called the cops if they really didn't, that would look bad for them if they were found out JayKeaton 09:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand on this angle, both WWE and the neighbor called the cops; the police went over to the house, but didn't want to enter the building on their own because Benoit's rottweilers didn't know them and were acting territorial. The dogs knew and liked the neighbor, so they asked her to accompany them into the house so the dogs would accept their presence, and she ended up being the one to actually find the first body. Yet another bizarre twist in a bizarre story, but nothing sinister or mysterious. Rdfox 76 23:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I read this in the local paper the other day: Neighbor who found Benoit family flees to Hub CrimsonScholar 22:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Benoit changed his will?

I read somewhere that Chris Benoit had changed his will to where his sole beneficiaries were his older two kids plus his ex-wife. Also he had taken out a new life insurance policy...All of this happened like less than a month before this tragedy... I can't find the link anymore but it was kind of really odd to read that, especially if he was still with Nancy and Daniel. -- Shatterzer0 17:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I have heard the life insurance thing... not the changing of the will. From the information I heard, he opened a second life insurance policy (entirely possible) where the sole benefiaries on that were his ex and two kids. --Garistotle 17:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrestlinginc.com has a story on it...they are a reliable resource. Probably the only wrestling media on the web that I trust. It states that Nancy confronted Chris about it and wanted him to change it but he refused.

WWE After the incident

I was checking up on the WWE website and found that in addition to all stories, merchandise, and vidoes related to Chris Benoit were gone. But on the Power 25 from June 23rd, his spot was whited out and when the next Power 25 came out he did not revieve the farewell for losing his spot

Currently on WWE 24/7 they have an airing of WCW Nitro from 2/10/1997 and his match and all references to him on that episode have been deleted. If you need a citation the only places you'll probably find one is on wrestling sites.--Hndsmepete 02:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Benoit was also removed from the "Power Is Back" pre-intro to all WWE projects. There used to be a quick shot of Benoit holding up the world title after his Wrestlemania 20 victory. I believe that the change to the pre-intro was made begining with the Friday Night Smackdown episode that aired on June 29th 2007.

Sorry to burst your bubble but he hasn't been whited out from the Power 25 on June 23rd, http://www.wwe.com/inside/power25/061607/ --Duality344 13:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)