Talk:Chris Benoit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
Warning 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.
News On June 28 2007, Chris Benoit was linked from Digg, a high-traffic website.
All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.
News This page has been cited as a source by several media organizations. The citations are in:
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
Good article Chris Benoit was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chris Benoit article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Archive
Archives

Contents



[edit] GA?

The page has stabilised quite a bit in recent weeks, and I think it's a very good article, so should we perhaps consider giving it a GA run? -- Scorpion0422 17:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say it needs quite a bit more work. The randomly interjected names is an issue. We need to briefly explain who some people are like Stu Hart and whoever else. The name is just there, and some people have no idea what it means. Convienence needs to be part of a Good article as well. You can't randomly throw in names with links attached to them, it's inconvient for the average reader and confuses them. We need to write the article like we're talking to people that don't know anything about the guy. --VorangorTheDemon 02:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] rajah.com is a bad source

Their article repeatedly claims that no anabolic steroids were found in Benoit's body, which is flat-out wrong. He had massively elevated testosterone levels, and testosterone is an anabolic steroid. Their article also claims it was definitively proven that "roid rage" had nothing to do with the murders, which is also false. The medical examiner said he had no way to determine whether steroids were a factor in the murders. 71.203.209.0 14:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey there guy, as what I read, the testosterone was given to him becuase of low levels of it in his system because probably of pervious steroid use. That doesn't mean that testosterone was considered a steroid that could have elevated him to murder people. Most males have this produced already in their own body, Benoit or perhaps his son, had issues with it and it was prescribed...we can't say anything more or less until the doctor that is in trouble right now court cases passes to find out if the presciption was legal or not. As it is, even woman get testosterone in their system as well, just not as high as a level. You read probably too much stuff about Floyd the biker to think that it's a anabolic super steroid...as I said, your body naturely has this come from it usually. Testosterone is NOT an "anabolic steriod." If it were, then we would all fail steriod tests. Also, health stores such as The Vitamin Shop and others sell supplements[1] that boost testosterone, and are LEGAL substances.71.159.157.69 10:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course Testosterone is an Anabolic Steroid. It is an anabolic, steroid hormone...nothing to do with failed steroid tests --81.179.119.143 05:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Steroids don't cause you to kill your family over a period of two days. Rage is when you lose control of yourself quickly. Strangling takes several minutes. don't make excuses for the guy. there are many sites besides rajah that say that. rajah is reliable.

[edit] Google and SEO

I was curious how Benoit's name came up on the search engines, number one, I was positive like most things was wikipedia, what surprised me what this is what it listed instead of the normally the first few words on google as the description.
Chris Benoit, his wife Nancy, and their 7-year-old son Daniel were found dead in their Fayetteville, Georgia home on June 25, 2007. ...
I think this needs to be resolved, it gives the impression that Benoit is only known for kiling his family and himself. It should have something in there about being a former wrestler that was known for killing his family, as it reads, it just speaks of him as normal every day guy who's family died. I know Google does their own web spidering, but they take what's listed mostly on the page and that's why that came up instead of his name and everything else in the front of the article. I think some mixing up the layout of the article needs to be done to give full SEO qualities.The Cleveland Browns are awesome! 16:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems like this is the wrong place, or wrong people to talk to. Like you said, Google does their own spidering, and there's no need to change an entire article just because the top google search result reads Benoit as a normal guy who died with his family. Anyone who types "Chris Benoit" into google already knows who he is anyway. TheJudge310 22:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this is the wrong place to talk to-- it's the right place! What the poster above was saying is that when you do a search for Benoit and this article comes up-- as in here, what comes up as the description of the Wikipedia page is not a description of the article, such as, for example, the Ron Paul Wikipedia article here here: "Hyperlinked encyclopedia article about the Texas Congressman and candidate for President." Rather, it says Benoit, his wife Nancy and son were found dead. It should instead say "Hyperlinked encyclopedia article about the wrestler." That is not controlled by Google at all, but is actually controlled by Wikipedia. It's found in the meta tags of the HTML on the page. I'm not sure who at Wikipedia is in charge of coding and all that, but it is definitely done on Wikipedia's side and not Google's.--76.182.88.254 22:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

As the user said above, I do believe this is the right place, Google spiders their own sites, but they take the text as the content that's there, so if you look at the article, by the wording in the first couple of pages, you will realize that this is wrong and the site could have better SEO so you know you are finding the right person and information. And on the comment below mine above here, not everyone knows that Benoit was a wrestler but it seems everyeone knows him now as a "killer"(again I use this term losely because I was not there that night. If you got by this I said now, then if everyone knows he's a killer, but someone is trying to find famous former wrestlers who have died, will they find Benoit, not if they don't search his name up right, considering how many Chris's there are in wrestlings. So, Search Engines are important when doing research, everyone knows that. I'm not talking crazy, I think this article can be fixed and the right SEO done to it to at the same time.The Cleveland Browns are awesome! 20:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Can I reedit this first couple of wording of the page to match up, any suggestions, it's got to be about a sentence long and has to explain that he's a former pro wrestler who is believed to kill himself and family. Please come up with wording for this and I'll make the proper SEO changes to Google for you.The Cleveland Browns are awesome! 20:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Michael Benoit (IPA: [bə'nwɑ]) (May 21, 1967 – June 24, 2007) was a Canadian professional wrestler who wrestled for Extreme Championship Wrestling, World Championship Wrestling, and World Wrestling Entertainment. A World Heavyweight Champion in both WCW and WWE, he was widely regarded as one of the most popular and gifted technical professional wrestlers of his generation.[2][3] As well as winning the top titles in several wrestling organizations, Benoit won numerous other titles, in both single and tag team wrestling. In World Championship Wrestling, Benoit won the WCW Television Championship three times and the United States Heavyweight Championship twice. In tag team wrestling Benoit won the WCW World Tag Team Championship twice, once with Dean Malenko and once with Perry Saturn. In the WWF/E Benoit also won the United States Championship another three times and the Intercontinental Championship four times. He and Kurt Angle were the first winners of the WWE Tag Team Championship. Benoit also won the WWF/E World Tag Team Championship twice with Edge and once with Chris Jericho. Benoit also won the 2004 Royal Rumble and was the WWE's 12th Triple Crown Champion. Chris Benoit, his wife Nancy, and their 7-year-old son Daniel were found dead in their Fayetteville, Georgia home on June 25, 2007. Investigators believe that Benoit murdered his wife and son and later hanged himself.[4]

but if you look at the search results, it comes up with only this as the search engine since that's the most popular thing that was on the site once the site was updated, it's orginal header was reading below

Chris Benoit, his wife Nancy, and their 7-year-old son Daniel were found dead in their Fayetteville, Georgia home on June 25, 2007. Investigators believe that Benoit murdered his wife and son and later hanged himself.[4]

To fix this, it might just need to be resubmitted and sent back to Google to spider again. Any Suggestions?The Cleveland Browns are awesome! 20:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps better wording such as, "Chris Benoit, a former wrestler, was found dead at home with his family who was believed to have killed his family by police investigation." That sounds more right than, they were found dead and he killed his wife and kid and hung himself. It at least knowledges to everyone he was a former wrestler as well, which is how he orginally became famous enough to have to start locking this page.The Cleveland Browns are awesome! 20:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed someone changed this, but it's still not good enough for him. Look below how it is listed on google.om

6] This prompted him to be a wrestler, so when he began wrestling, he was initially billed as "Dynamite" Chris Benoit. He also began using the Diving ...

This doesn't talk about him other than he's a wrestler and use to be called Dynamite Chris Benoit. I just think that the SEO could be better suited for him by writing out something general that hits everything about him.The Cleveland Browns are awesome! 17:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attention

Didnt Ric Flair also enter as #1 and win the Royal Rumble? im not sure of the date but i believe it was in the past 2 decades.The juggreserection 08:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Flair entered as #2, not #1, in the 1992 Rumble, damn near causing Bobby Heenan a heart attack. He then went on to win the Rumble and thus his first WWF World Heavyweight Championship. Interestingly, he still holds the longevity record in terms of time, as Benoit's Rumble win was in a year with 90 second intervals instead of the "proper" two-minute intervals used in 1992; the net result was that Flair's Rumble was about five minutes longer than Benoit's. Rdfox 76 11:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Just as a side note as well, Shawn Michaels was the first individual to enter a Royal Rumble in the #1 position and finish first, not Benoit. — Moe ε 12:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Though Benoit was the first to enter #1, last more than an hour, and win the Rumble. The year HBK entered first and won, they were using 60 second intervals for some ungodly reason, and the whole match was only about 45 minutes long. Rdfox 76 14:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Isn't #2 basically the same as #1 anyway? They both start out in the ring so it really doesn't make a difference unless you want to get technical and whatever
Yep (see Mr. McMahon and Rey Mysterio). But Flair was #3. Mshake3 00:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Flair actually entered at #3 in the 92 Rumble...not #2. :twocents: 144.139.13.207 15:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning Up References/Footnotes/Notes

Since this article has a bunch of references, I thought it should be cleaned up with the following:

<!-- ----------------------------------------------------------
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes for a discussion of different citation methods and how to generate footnotes using the<ref>, </ref> and <reference /> tags
----------------------------------------------------------- -->
<div style="height: 220px; overflow: auto; padding: 3px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA; reflist4" > {{reflist|3}} </div>

For an example of it use see The Simpsons Movie.

Mr. C.C. 06:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] His PPV winning streak in 2004

I can only count 4 PPV victories after he won the championship at Wrestlemania XX. 1. WM XX, 2. Backlash, 3. Bad Blood, 4. Vengeance. Now, where were the other 3 PPV victories?? I think it would be appropriate to edit it to 4 PPV victories since his reign was 5 months and 7 straight PPV victories would have been impossible. Mal1988 10:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Without checking, couldn't he have won 3 before? I know he won the Royal Rumble that year.
He beat A-Train at No Mercy 2003, his team won at Survivor Series 2003, the Rumble, then the four mentioned above. But what a useless factoid anyway. Nosleep1234 15:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continued protection

Why is this article still protected from editing? I really think the situation has died down enough to allow regular unrestricted editing, as evidenced by the recent relative lack of vandalism and media coverage. 66.186.33.226 23:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It is probably a good idea to keep it protected for now. The lack of vandalism is most likely due to the fact that IPs can't edit the article. -- Scorpion0422 23:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe he can just, I don't know, register? Mshake3 23:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
If people really wanted to vandalize it, then they would simply register an account and wait four days. I think the fact that no one's doing this shows that people have stopped caring enough to go out of their way to make bad faith edits. This article shouldn't stay protected forever, as protection interferes with Wikipedia's base concept of being built by the community. Now seems as great a time as any to remove protection. Protection should only be used in the most severe cases of multiple bad faith edits, and I believe it simply no longer applies at this point. 66.186.33.226 00:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the casual vandal knows they can do that, nor do we want to go out of our way to explain that to them. No comment on article protection in this case, however. ~Kylu (u|t) 00:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I unprotected it; the protection has lasted over a month. If vandalism starts again I'll protect it again. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That didn't take long. Mshake3 01:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
That's just one edit. It takes sustained vandalism from multiple IP editors to justify semiprotection. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Now THAT didn't take long. Mshake3 03:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it was a good try. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Can we fully protect this article cuz it's gettin' rediculous now!!! --Zero Cool 17:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it at least qualifies for semi-protection, because there have been more than 10 vandalism edits done by IPs within the last 24 hours. -- Scorpion0422 19:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
According to the protection log, semiprotection expired about 36 hours ago. I can semiprotect it again if the vandalism doesn't trail off quickly. Just drop a note on my talk page, or go to WP:RFPP. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
On that note... How long are the edit wars going to go on over the words "Discovered, determined" etc. and "believed". Does it really make a differance what the wording is? All it's doing it letting possible vandalism slip by unnoticed because it gets lost in all the "it's not proven!" edits. TheJudge310 23:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I simply edited the lead paragraph because I thought that the use of the word "believe" made it seem outdated, since the investigators seem 100% sure that he did it. So, I changed it to "discovered" and that was immediately reverted. -- Scorpion0422 23:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


The new picture is in bad taste, it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.160.203.124 (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

What new picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpion0422 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Bias against Wrestling

In my opinion, this talk page is full of bias against Chris Benoit because he was a professional wrestler and people consider it a lower form of profession. I believe this has affected the decisions of people regarding the Chris Benoit page and the Chris Benoit Murder-Suicide page. As examples:

1. "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."

This statement is absolutely ridiculous, as Chris Benoit's murder because the "it" story, the top story the media was covering at the time. (That was partly because it was a murder that involved a celebrity, and partly because it involved issues of steroids and the demons of professional wrestling.) As far as the issue not applying to say, Europe, there are very few news stories that do get worldwide attention, save for something like Princess Di's death. Had it been a baseball player, nobody would pull this out as the yardstick. But because it's about a "wrestler", the bias is there.

2. "Sorry, guys, but anyone who doesn't watch wrestling didnt know who he was. Now everyone knows who he is. Not because he wrestled."

This contributor is trying to say that Benoit wasn't really a celebrity because he wrestled, but because he murdered. Others have stated similar thoughts. This is ridiculous. Once again, if it was a baseball player, people wouldn't say, "Anybody who doesn't watch baseball didn't know who he was." Or if he was a rock star or a soap opera star - despite applicable examples for all of those. "He's not an A lister" someone said. No, he wasn't Hulk Hogan. But just because you're not Babe Ruth doesn't mean you're not a famous baseball player. Benoit was known to millions. That's why it was a big story: our media and pop culture are fixated on celebrities. Just before Benoit died, there was a murder-suicide in Wisconsin: a man shot his ex wife, their four children, and then killed himself. This got no national attention. Benoit's situation was worlwide news. Nobody says, "Michael Vick is most widely known as a dog killer, not a football player" despite the fact that it's true now.

3. "There's nothing encyclopedic about a single event (of any magnitude) in a person's life."

Then why do we have a page for the Death of Diana, Princess of Wales and the John F. Kennedy Assassination? I know there's going to be back pedaling here: "Well, those are big events." Well, what about Death of Dale Earnhardt? Racing fans forgive me, but the guy wasn't an immortal celebrity along the lines of Di and Kennedy. He was more along the lines of... Chris Benoit. They are especially similar in that The Dale E situation led to a great discussion and then changes in the safety of racing. Benoit's murder-suicide is having the same effect in wrestling, with possible congressional hearings upcoming.

4. "Quit comparing it to O.J."

Well, if you can find another famous athlete who murdered two people, then had the media go wild with the story because of all the issues involved, let us know.

5. "Anything that would be put into [The Chris Benoit Murder Suicide] article now would only be a stub."

I'm guessing this person doesn't know much about the the situation and professional wrestling. It's actually quite a lengthy.

I ask that those of you who do have a bias against professional wrestling, believing it to be a less proper business than others, please refrain from letting this bias become part of the wikipedia articles. 68.75.89.53 16:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You are so right in everything here. Unfortunately good points don't change how people view a proffesion.71.153.26.133 05:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Small Grammar Error that I Cannot Fix Because of Lockdown

Umm, I don't know if I am entering this discussion correctly, but I just wanted to point a small thing out. In the section about the murder-suicide, there is a bit about his induction into a hall of fame being rescinded by vote, and the article mentions that this is similar to other halls of fame. The grammar of this last fact is incorrect in that it uses the incorrect plural "hall of fames". Since this article is under complete lockdown, I thought I would just mention it to the discussion so that someone who has access can fix that error. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.197.63.139 (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Other than forgetting to sign by typing ~~~~ after your comment, you entered it perfectly. Thanks for letting us know about the grammar mistake; it's since been fixed. Cheers, The Hybrid 23:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification as to Malenko's comment

I believe the article needs clarification as to Dean Malenko's comment about "training him would go down as the worst thing he ever did" as to whether he was referring to training Benoit or training Marc Mero.



AndarielHalo 01:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mind-boggling

It's mind-boggling that my edits were reverts when they were tidier, had more links, and were more relevant to the facts. If you have a problem with something, that's fine, but to revert all the changes I made just because you're desperate for control is ridiculous, especially when it's actually perverting the truth (i.e. saying 'Benoit killed them, he just killed them' when it's been proven time and time again that there is reasonable doubt and the investigation is still ongoing).

Don't bother doing it again, I won't be defeated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Multiplebraininjuries (talk • contribs) 15:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

First off, Benoit died in Fayetteville, not Atlanta. The championship information is in the above paragraph, so I removed it, and the exact phrasing of the final paragraph has been much discussed and the version before you edited it was the most accepted version by consensus. -- Scorpion0422 15:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Just my 2 cents but I think Scorpion's version is good and accurate as far as I've been able to get. The editing back in forth is making for it to be real difficult to read the article knowing the reverts going on. I read the article to keep up with what is going on. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 17:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pissed off that I put a link on here yesterday to review to see if it was worth putting in the article and someone edited it out like it didn't belong in this area, okay...if putting sources from AP articles about this issue and putting it here instead of just editing it right in the article, the article is locked, but I could have edit it myself, but I didn't, I rather post it over here and see what other people think and then someone just edit's it right out, THIS WEBSITE FN' SUCKS and THE PEOPLE IN CHARGE of edits are retarded, this is a talk page to talk about what edits we might or might not want in the article, I didn't post something that was chatting, now I can't even get my point across nor find that link again because it's gone. Thanks a lot to someone that wants to be in charge of this page instead of acually reading what I said. Wikipedia is no longer fun anymore. I get so angry because people don't even send you a message or anything before someone deletes something that you search and found. The source was Yahoo.com, I mean come on, how basic can it be....but I guess people don't want this page to acually grow, they just want people to fight and fight, well, I'm done with Chris Benoit and this stupid page. You guys don't even know how to SEO a page right nor write exactly what happened to him without being biased to him or the issue at hand. This isn't free will and free speech, this is free to editors who want to delete other people's stuff even when it's relevent to the article. The Cleveland Browns are awesome! 14:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

First: The article you posted had no new information; the results of the tox screen showing elevated testosterone levels was reported over a month ago and noted in the article, along with information on the reported reason for it (his doctor treating him for depressed natural testosterone levels due to long-term steroid abuse). Second: There is no confirmation that testosterone levels had any connection to the murders; there is at least as much evidence that it was connected to Benoit's history of multiple concussions, and the determination of which was at fault will not be made for months, if ever. Third: Wikipedia is not written for SEO purposes; it is written to follow the standards of the Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the version of the lead that is currently on the article follows MOS guidelines. Fourth, I think you may be letting yourself take things a bit too personally; in this case, I'm gonna paraphrase what Joel Hodgson first said in 1989, something that's a good piece of advice for everyone in all aspects of life... Just say to yourself, "It's just a Wiki, I should really just relax." Rdfox 76 15:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually... The article he posted yesterday gave new information, or should I say updated. Editing it out of the talk page is silly, but I do think that stating it in the article itself would probally have ended up being redundant. Still not something to take so personal though, half the time on wikipedia your stuff is accidentily edited away as an editor tries to stop someone else's vandalism. Looking over yesterday, it appears the person who removed it isn't even someone with a wikipedia account, so all someone really did was vandalize you in a way. TheJudge310 17:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Sorry to everyone, my mother just died last week and I'm just having a really rough time about it so I probably vented a lot in that last post of mine.

2. It did provide new info in there and that's why i posted it over here, so that I could have people talk about it, it wasn't new to us because we been following this story on this page, but it still was documented in court papers so it was new news. It was updated info and it also talked about his doctor so I figured it was important here.

ATLANTA — The amount of testosterone prescribed to pro wrestler Chris Benoit far exceeded the normal amount for a hormone disorder he was purportedly being treated for, federal prosecutors said in new court papers.

That's what it said, I'm just cuting and pasting.

3. I never said that had to do with the murders, I just wanted to see if everyone thought its important enough to say something about it, which is why it posted it here instead of on the real page, which I could have done if I wanted to, but I was being mindful of it. This story will continue for a while and I was just wondering if this should be documented or not, that's all, I was generally asking a question(which is what I thought the talk page was for).

4.Wikipedia Manual of Style-not sure what this is, on the SEO stuff, you should see how it comes up in the search engines, it just doesn't make sense is all i'm saying and the only way to fix that is on this page, that's all, that's what I meant by that.

5. I probably am pretty close to this topic as it involves my former favorite wrestler. I want to make sure the article is at least correct and right, that's all, it's important to me.

Okay, I'm done ranting now. LOLThe Cleveland Browns are awesome! 18:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please except my sympathy over the loss of your mother. I know how hard this is with losing my father many years ago. Take it one day at a time and things will get better I promise. Just take the time to mourn and try to think of the good things. --CrohnieGalTalk 23:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I too want to express sympathy (and how the hell did I ever miss this diff in my watchlist?); I've never lost a parent, so I have no idea what you're going through. I'm not entirely certain what the details of Wiki policy regarding SEO is; maybe you should ask if we could get a clarification on the issue at the Village Pump? As for the Manual of Style, it's located at WP:MOS, not the link I mistakenly gave; it's a real page-turner! ...OK, I admit it, it's about as entertaining as watching the mold grow in my fridge, but it's got a lot of good tidbits buried in it regarding how to make sure Wiki articles are written to the same standards regardless of topic.
I feel pretty close to this article, too, because Benoit was my favorite wrestler, too; it was almost as big a shock to hear about his death as it was for me to hear about my paternal grandfather's death a few years ago. (No, I never got to spend much time with him, so the bond was pretty weak.) Still, I hope we can all come to an agreement regarding these questions and end up with the best damned article on Benoit's life and death as we possibly can! Rdfox 76 13:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Figure four leg lock

i never saw Chris Benoit do a figure four leg lock and if he did it must have been in his early career and that should be noted SocialistRevolution (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That's true. Benoit used the figure-4 against Kurt Angle in Backlash at some year I can't remember in an Ultimate Submission Match somewhere in 2001. I agree in the benoit page it should clearly state this. Just in case, some punk asks for sources, go to YouTube type in "The Olympic Medalist vs The Rabid Wolverine" Which is in 4 parts and they can clearly see it. I think it is mentioned on the page of the Backlash in that year BestBenoitFan (talk) 07:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC) I miss chris so much, man

[edit] Category: Murderers of children

I would like to know know who keeps tagging Benoit under that category. He is under a more narrow category "People who killed their own children". "Murderers of children" implies that he killed multiple children or somebody else's, but the category "People who killed their own children" is more accurate. Please don't put this article under that category again. Thanks

That is your opinion, and I do not agree. Chris Benoit murdered a child - therefore he belongs in the category "Murderers of children". Singular is just as applicable as multiple. The category should stay. !! Justa Punk !! 11:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
That is a grammatical point that you are making incorrectly. We might as well reject the category because he's a murder, not a set of murderers. However, you are correct - there is no need whatsoever to put him into a category if he is already in that category via a subcategory. I am removing the redundant parent category. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just added it back; I didn't see this note at first. It's a relevant and fair category, so I don't see why it should be removed. I also don't see how "Murderers of children" implies that he killed multiple children or someone else's. It just means he is a murderer of a child, which is true (unless you want to have a stick up your ass about him not being "convicted" of murder or something). Both nouns are in the plural because the category, obviously, has more than one entry in in it. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

He's already in a subcategory of it, so why does he also need to be in the parent category? You wouldn't put him in the "2007 deaths" and "Deaths by Year" categories. -- Scorpion0422 01:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

try reading the edit summary for the reason

Can I please be afforded the benefit of the doubt? Your biting sarcasm is not helpful. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 01:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It's also not necessarily a parent category. Marvin Pentz Gay, Sr. is in [[Category:People who killed their children]], but obviously not [[Category:Murderers of children]]. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't sarcasm, I asked you to read the edit summary. It is a parent category because it contains the other category. If you look to Category:Murderers of children, you will notice that the other category is inside that one. Likewise, if you go to Category:People who killed their children, you'll see at the bottom that it's categorized under the parent category (that is what "parent category" means). Let's do some basic set theory. If the set X contains the set Y, and x is a member of X, then x is a member of Y. To go out of our way to state the latter is redundant - saying "x is in X" is all that's necessary. If you take issue with the categorization scheme, you'll have to work that out at the appropriate category pages. Also, FYI, link to a category by adding a colon: [[:Category:People who killed their children]] → Category:People who killed their children. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification re: NJPW

In the NJPW section of the article, I noticed something that may or may not be a mistake: in the section header, it describes his stint with the company as ending in '94. In the body of the section, though, it makes a reference to him in NJPW in '95 (the Super Juniors tournament). So, what's the deal? Hezekiah957 05:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If that's the Super J Cup tournament, I believe NJPW brought in workers from promotions worldwide for that tournament every year, including from direct competitors. I do know that part of the reason Benoit chose to sign with WCW instead of WWF was that WCW had the operating agreement with NJPW that would let him do the occasional touw with New Japan, so it might be related to that, too. Rdfox 76 13:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction?

The article gives Benoit's death as June 24, 2007 which was a Sunday. Howver, in the section about the murder-suicide it says:

The station reported that investigators had discovered that Benoit murdered his wife and son over the weekend and hanged himself sometime on Monday.

Is this just a mistake by the station? 81.145.240.225 (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

it was a mistake, it was widely agreed later that he died sometime Sunday, Nancy Friday night and Daniel Saturday. Skitzo (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Snap Suplex

Didnt he use a snap suplex quite often? Could it be added to the movelist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.6.156 (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WWE ignoring Benoit's Royal Rumble win

It seems that the WWE isn't acknowledging that Benoit won the 2004 Royal Rumble. Perhaps something about this could be added to the article.Unisock (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It is mentioned here already, in a form that covers all aspects of his WWE career. The Rumble win is included in this and there is no reason to mention specifics. !! Justa Punk !! 03:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


Jesus, man, get with it! The WWE isn't acknowledging ANYTHING about Benoit EVER. They've taken Wrestlemania XX, Backlash 2004, and other DVDs out of print featuring Benoit prominently. He's literally become, as in the TWF (The Wrestling Fan) forums, "GUY WHO NEVER EXISTED" in the WWE. AndarielHalo (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

auctually thats isnt true, he is still in the History of the WWE Championship DVD, They didnt take off the United States Championship match from Wrestlemania 23 DVD. Also its wrong of WWE to try to make it like he hasent existed. Chris Bennoit is the greatest technical wrestler to ever live. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.241.250 (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason he isn't being recognized is because the extent of his crime. The WWE does not want that to be projected as part of their image. Haysead (talk) 13:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll add that the US title match at Wrestlemania 23 was not a major part of the show, so they aren't featuring him prominently. The point is NOT to present him ina positive person light (as opposed to positive wrestler light). The material that featured him prominently (WM 20, the following Backlash and the previous Royal Rumble) paint the person as a good person - especially Backlash because it was in Edmonton. !! Justa Punk !! 00:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. They removed WM 20 because Benoit was the ME. He won the WHC. Thats too positive, and makes the E look like they support him and what he did. They want nothing to do with that. There are still old copies, but they are few and far between. Killswitch Engage (talk) 04:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Still doesn't explain why he's blurred out on The Legacy of Stone Cold Steve Austin DVD in a small backstage segment. That didn't exactly put Benoit in a positive light. I think they've just forgotten to blur him out, or not bothered. I can't blame WWE for doing what they are to Benoit, but I still don't agree that he should be removed from all mention. Would they do the same if John Cena (killing the WWE Championship's credence doesn't count...) or Batista killed somebody? Who knows. --Kaizer13 (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
They would. And there is a chance that Benoit was blurred off the SCSA DVD because (dare I say it) Stone Cold said so! Probably legit as well by Steve. !! Justa Punk !! 04:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hall of Fame

In his accomplishments it says that he is in the Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame.His induction is going under a new vote this year,shouldn't that be noted.To me that is a relevant note to this article.--WillC (talk) 05:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC) 05:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crossface

It's prety well known here how much WWE has cut any and all references to Benoit, but at the recent No Way Out PPV Shawn Michaels used the Crippler Crossface on Umaga. I think this should be mentioned on either Michael's page, or Benoits. The reasons I think it would be important are that it is something that no one in the WWE has used aside from Benoit, it is NOT a normal submission by Michaels (considering he has never used it before), and this is the first time to see the move inside WWE since the Benoit incident. The commentators did not name the hold, but anyone with two eyes can see that it was an arm-trap crossface.65.112.243.131 (talk) 09:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as what's verifiable is concerned, the crossface is just another wrestling move. No mention can be made within policy. SexySeaBass 09:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect, Anon - Shawn HAS used it before. Against Randy Orton at the Survivor Series when he couldn't use the superkick. !! Justa Punk !! 02:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
How has WWE removed all references to him? You lie. There is a royal rumble 2004 page on the WWE website with photos of his win and he is listed in the results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.229.70 (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

What puzzles me is that According to Benoit, the Crossface was "borrowed from Dean Malenko" Which makes the crippler crossface Malenko's move and he is a frikin road agent so the Crossface shouldn't be removed in the games or history of WWE. Another point the diving headbutt was a legendary WWE superstar, Dynamite Kid's, Move so why did they remove that aswell? I personallly think they are disrespecting Chris Benoit (Which is what they wanted to do from the start), Dean Malenko and Dynamite Kid so that is why I am pissed off with it. I want to create Dynamite Kid but nor his clothes neither the headbutt is fucking in it, MAN! COME ON! It's not like if Chris Benoit was the dominant creater of the crossface!

wikipedia is not a forum. This is not a place for your personal thoughts/opinions, but a place for improving the article. Thanks, ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 16:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Something that you don't know

I created a account so i could edit the Chris Benoit page, however it is locked so, i want to tell you that one part is missing, could you write this down too.

  • Worlds Best Brawler award: (2004)
  • Worlds Best Technical Wrestler award: (1994, 1995, 2000, 2003, 2004)
  • Worlds Five Star Match award: (1994, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005)
  • Worlds Match of the Year award: (2002, 2003, 2004, 2005)
  • Worlds Most Outstanding Wrestler award: (2000, 2004)
  • Worlds Most Underrated Wrestler award: (1998, 2002)
  • Worlds Readers Favorite Wrestler award: (2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007)
  • Worlds Wrestling-Feud of the Year award: (2004)
  • Worlds Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame award: (2003) - Men kom ikke i Hall of Fame efter tragedien.


  • Worlds Rank 44# of 500 other Wrestlers award: (1993)
  • Worlds Rank 43# of 500 other Wrestlers award: (1994)
  • Worlds Rank 46# of 500 other Wrestlers award: (1995)
  • Worlds Rank 18# of 500 other Wrestlers award: (1996)
  • Worlds Rank 10# of 500 other Wrestlers award: (1997)
  • Worlds Rank 19# of 500 other Wrestlers award: (1998)
  • Worlds Rank 20# of 500 other Wrestlers award: (1999)
  • Worlds Rank 3# of 500 other Wrestlers award: (2000)
  • Worlds Rank 3# of 500 other Wrestlers award: (2001)
  • Worlds Rank ?# of 500 other Wrestlers award: (2002)
  • Worlds Rank 69# of 500 other Wrestlers award: (2003)
  • Worlds Rank 1# of 500 other Wrestlers award: (2004)
  • Worlds Rank 13# of 500 other Wrestlers award: (2005)
  • Worlds Rank 29# of 500 other Wrestlers award: (2006)
  • Worlds Rank 4# of 500 other Wrestlers award: (2007) - He was removed after the tragedy.

--Chris Benoit 1992 (talk) 12:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Hanged Himself??

in the second paragraph it says he hanged himselfm now thats not a reak word, it should say hung himself, i would change it but the page is locked, so could someone please fix it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.28.118 (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

real*, and i just noticed it says hanged all throughout the article, it really should say hung, as hanged isnt in the english dictionary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.28.118 (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No. "Hanged" is a special-purpose term for the past tense form of someone being lethally suspended by ligature. See Hanging for language information on this special-purpose version. Rdfox 76 (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hanged is used when referring to actually hanging like Benoit did. Hung is used for like "I hung out with him" or something like that.

RandySavageFTW (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


o rite, my mistake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.28.246 (talk) 09:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)