Talk:Benoit
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Clanging?
I added "See also Ben Wa balls".
Themindset reverted, apparently accusing my edit of clanging: "are we really going to start linking things because they sound like each other? what about pianist?"
I put it there because 652 people seem to be confused. They know the name Benoit, and then they hear about the marbles on a string with an homophonic name and enter "Benoit" into search, not knowing that it's actually spelled "Ben Wa". Those are the people I wanted to send to the proper article. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 02:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Firstly, a google search with fewer than 1000 hits should not have any merit in a discussion of namespace content. Secondly, the precedent of placing homonyms in the 'see also' section is a dangerous one indeed. Does this not mean we would have to link pianist to penis? (10200 hits, by the way) We would then have to place Break in the article on Break, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum. Themindset 02:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Despite how much I'd like to see a 1/6 scale droid that plays a 1/6 scale pianoforte, "penis" [pʰinɪs] and "pianist" [pʰiənɪst] are both familiar terms and not strict homophones. "Ben Wa" and "Benoit" are unfamiliar, and they are homophones [bɛnwa]. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 04:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Of course I admit that my example is silly, but I am trying to appeal to your sense of reason as well as humour. I believe the reasoning used to include an unrelated homonym is of the 'thin-edge-of-the-wedge' variety; and that simply reading the article and seeing that it does not have to do with vagina-balls should be sufficient to clarify the meaning of Benoit for the reader. Themindset 17:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Let me state the use case more explicitly: Someone is familiar with the name Benoit and hears Ben Wa balls mentioned on an oral medium such as in person or radio or TV without captions. How does a fellow search on English Wikipedia for an article on something that he has heard about but not read about? Believing that the title should be something similar to "Benoit balls" and not finding a link from Benoit would lead one to believe that a lack of an article about "Benoit balls" is one of the many holes in Wikipedia's coverage, not just that it was spelled wrong. The link from Rome (disambiguation) to Rom seems to demostrate that my position is at least common practice. If there's a policy or guideline supporting your position, please cite it so that I can bother the policy maintainer crowd and not you. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 00:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Unfortunately, all I could find was Wikipedia:See also, which is unsatisfactory. I do believe that Ben Wa balls are unrelated to Benoit - but of course you will say that it is related by how it sounds. I respect your position, but I disagree with it. And I have a feeling that various Wikipedians would have various opinions on this question. I would suggest perhaps we open a co-operative RFC to resolve this. What do you think? Themindset 19:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Some discussion has taken place off-wiki related to the list of homophones in Jew (disambiguation).[1] But I agree that we need to get this issue exposed so it can be settled. So how do we go about this? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 00:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Based on what I saw in Jew (disambiguation) and We (disambiguation) and Con, I'm almost ready to put it back in. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 23:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
<de-indenting> Unfortunately, there are plenty of examples on both sides. Neither meat nor meet refer to each other, and I'm sure we could go about finding examples to support each view indefinitely. Themindset 02:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- The words "meet" and "meat" are more familiar than "Ben Wa" and "Benoit", and "Benoit balls" is up to nearly ten thousand Google hits. I noticed someone else added a link to Benoit balls, which redirects to the vaginal balls article, and I fixed it to skip the redirect. Now how does the RFC process work? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 05:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Another case: But and Butt disambiguate to each other. I guess this is settled, and I can unwatch, as I'm not interested in the fight over Chris Benoit's description. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 18:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Chris Benoit
What is the issue for mentioning he is a supected murderer? It is notable, and clearly citable. His page is half dedicated to wrestling, and the other half to the murder. What is the issue?CraigMonroe 17:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- The murder was in the past week. Some editors of Wikipedia articles, especially those who also contribute to Wikinews, tend to give undue weight to current events because the national news media bombard the public with current events about celebrities. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 21:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Did you even read WP:Undue? It appears you didn't. Itstates, "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." So where is a published verifiable source that says he didn't commit the murder? Unless this exists, there is no undue weight. So again, where is the source that states otherwise, or is it simply your opinion that he may not have done it?
- I'm not sure "innocent until proven guilty" completely applies here, but as long as the case is under investigation, I feel the word "murderer" in this disambiguation article is inappropriate. It also seems out of line with all the other entries on the page. For example, Chris Benoit is deceased, yet neither he nor any of the other Benoits are identified as dead or alive. As well, no other names on the page mention alleged or confirmed criminal activity. (It would be interesting to see how other murder-suicides are handled in Wikipedia.) I think it's best to find another way to say it, or leave this information to the main article. When I have a good solution I'll change it myself. On the face of it, it just looks wrong.--Diggnity 14:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- First, thank you for using the talk page to respond. It is much appreciated. However, as for my second point, you are correct that “innocent until proven guilty does not apply,” but, your personal belief that “it just looks wrong” goes directly against Wikipedia policy. Under WP:verifiability, “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.” All that is needed is a verifiable source stating the fact being used. In this case, there are hundreds of sources saying Chris Benoit murdered his wife and child. This fact, as demonstrated by the massive media coverage is also clearly notable—in fact, it is arguably more notable than his entire wrestling career though, the two seem to go hand in hand. Looking at the Chris Benoit page, the opening paragraph deals with two main points, the murder he committed, and his wrestling career. Thus, it seems as if its inclusion on the router page is reasonable. As for a comparison between other murder-suicides (I have to admit I don’t know of many examples) but it seems as if the general consensus is to include a brief statement of the criminal act they committed. See [2] and [3] (Note, these pages use far more specific information than “alleged murder.” They state details about the crime. In my opinion, it would be easier to keep it to two words.). As to my next point, the fact criminal acts aren’t included under the other people named Benoit is entirely immaterial to whether it should be used with Chris Benoit. The criminal history is only included if notable. As far as a router page, only the most notable information is included. I am unaware of any Benoit having a notable enough crime to be included. Again, the rule for inclusion would weigh against inclusion if this were a minor, or non-notable act. The fact is, we are dealing with a double murder-suicide that has made national headlines. As to my final point, if there were any credible sources that stated he didn’t do it, there would be a reasonable argument to exclude the term; however, at this moment in time, the national media, state prosecutor, state police, and even the coroner’s initial report are in agreement as to the cause of death: Chris Benoit. Though from my view, Wikipedia policy in no way requires or warrants it, how about in compromise, it read: Chris Benoit: wrestler involved in murder-suicide?CraigMonroe 15:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- By "looks wrong" I merely meant the appearance of the entry didn't fit the appearance of the rest of the page, not that I was disputing the facts. I think "wrestler involved in murder-suicide" reads much better.--Diggnity 18:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- First, thank you for using the talk page to respond. It is much appreciated. However, as for my second point, you are correct that “innocent until proven guilty does not apply,” but, your personal belief that “it just looks wrong” goes directly against Wikipedia policy. Under WP:verifiability, “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.” All that is needed is a verifiable source stating the fact being used. In this case, there are hundreds of sources saying Chris Benoit murdered his wife and child. This fact, as demonstrated by the massive media coverage is also clearly notable—in fact, it is arguably more notable than his entire wrestling career though, the two seem to go hand in hand. Looking at the Chris Benoit page, the opening paragraph deals with two main points, the murder he committed, and his wrestling career. Thus, it seems as if its inclusion on the router page is reasonable. As for a comparison between other murder-suicides (I have to admit I don’t know of many examples) but it seems as if the general consensus is to include a brief statement of the criminal act they committed. See [2] and [3] (Note, these pages use far more specific information than “alleged murder.” They state details about the crime. In my opinion, it would be easier to keep it to two words.). As to my next point, the fact criminal acts aren’t included under the other people named Benoit is entirely immaterial to whether it should be used with Chris Benoit. The criminal history is only included if notable. As far as a router page, only the most notable information is included. I am unaware of any Benoit having a notable enough crime to be included. Again, the rule for inclusion would weigh against inclusion if this were a minor, or non-notable act. The fact is, we are dealing with a double murder-suicide that has made national headlines. As to my final point, if there were any credible sources that stated he didn’t do it, there would be a reasonable argument to exclude the term; however, at this moment in time, the national media, state prosecutor, state police, and even the coroner’s initial report are in agreement as to the cause of death: Chris Benoit. Though from my view, Wikipedia policy in no way requires or warrants it, how about in compromise, it read: Chris Benoit: wrestler involved in murder-suicide?CraigMonroe 15:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure "innocent until proven guilty" completely applies here, but as long as the case is under investigation, I feel the word "murderer" in this disambiguation article is inappropriate. It also seems out of line with all the other entries on the page. For example, Chris Benoit is deceased, yet neither he nor any of the other Benoits are identified as dead or alive. As well, no other names on the page mention alleged or confirmed criminal activity. (It would be interesting to see how other murder-suicides are handled in Wikipedia.) I think it's best to find another way to say it, or leave this information to the main article. When I have a good solution I'll change it myself. On the face of it, it just looks wrong.--Diggnity 14:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Did you even read WP:Undue? It appears you didn't. Itstates, "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." So where is a published verifiable source that says he didn't commit the murder? Unless this exists, there is no undue weight. So again, where is the source that states otherwise, or is it simply your opinion that he may not have done it?
Why not just wrestler?
- See Chris Benoit article for the clear answer why--not to mention my lengthy post above. CraigMonroe 16:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand that he was involved in a murder suicide but why should a small part of his life take precedence?
- Its an issue of notability. 20 years from now, two things will be remembered about Chris Benoit: (1) he was a professional wrestler, and (2) that he murdered his wife and child. I would even go so far as to say that the later--the murder--will overshadow his accomplishments in the wrestling arena. These facts remain true today. The fact that the murders/suicide may have only occured over 3 days of his life is irrelevant to its notability. For proof, do a quick search on google with the terms "Chris Benoit," and "murder" you will get thousands of hits. These acts made international headlines and took him from a man known in wrestling circles to a person discussed at the average dinner table. This is why it needs to be mentioned. Note how the description is written in a manner as impartial as possible. It does not call him a murderer, it simple mentions his involvement in a murder-suicide. Is any of that deniable? I think not. I hope this answers your question.CraigMonroe 22:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
It doesnt really matter he was a professional wrestler not a professional murderer
- You don't have to be a "professional murderer" to be notable for a murder. Under what basis do you make this assertion? For example, even though found innocent, under the page Simpson, OJ's router statement includes a mention of the accussation. So again, under what wikipedia guideline are you asserting that a man that has been confirmed to have murdered his family and recieved MASSIVE national media coverage on this issue is not notable for this fact??? Have you even looked at his article? He is probably more notable for the murder than for his wrestling. CraigMonroe 23:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- It's completely ridicules this even warrents a debate. I love wrestling, and I loved Chris Benoit, but he murdered his wife and child, then took his own life. I understand some people are in denial, but the purpose of wikipedia is to be informative and accurate, not selective with what information it wants to give in light of protecting someone people may have used to view as a hero. Chris Benoit, like it or not, is famous for being the wrestler who murdered his family, so trying to hide or even mask that is pointless. TheJudge310 23:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
