Talk:Deltona massacre

I literally tripped over this page and had no idea it existed. While there is 'something' nice about it existing, the focus was heavily on the attackers and not on the victims. Tito was a friend, and I'm only one of many. I rearranged the page to focus on the human loss, and not the lives of the people who savagely murdered these defenseless victims.

I encourage everyone who suffered at the hands of these criminals to help make the toll of their actions clear by posting similar information to what we've started for Tito.

-jay

I couldn't believe it when I came across this page. I knew Tito too, and I just had to add to what you wrote, because he knew alot of people both in and out of Inwood whose lives he touched in the deepest ways. While your paragraph was touching, I thought that what I added would show the depth of the wounds we all suffered when his life was ripped out of him. He will never be forgotten, and will always be loved.

-Boop

@Boop: no question that that he was a great guy, and a great loss. I can only speak for him from his days uptown, but there's no doubt he was a great person everywhere. Now how do we get those newspapers to change the pictures they are using, he looks worse than the criminals. -jay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jherrero (talk • contribs) 15:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

@jay

i would think that at this point, it's too late because they are not really publishing anything on this horrendous crime anymore now that the perps are behind bars and the trial is over...i would think though that before the anniversary, in case they ARE planning to print anything, that if his loved ones would write all of the Orlando area papers, and send them better pics of him to print, maybe they'll take our heartfelt words into account and use at least one of those pics instead of that disgusting pic they put of him in the Daytona News Journal and Orlando Sentinel. - Boop —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettyboop1774 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

@jay

I emailed a couple of pics that I got when i went to his funeral, to the Daytona News Journal, and asked that they replace that mugshot looking pic of him...hopefully they will take care of it...other than those two pics,the only pics i have of him are hard copy and pics of him with me, so I figured those wouldn't be appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettyboop1774 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

@boop I'm not expecting them to change the pic, but it still upsets me. It just triggered another bone I had to pick with some local papers here. When the NY Post ran the story they didn't even bother contacting the family, they, literally, grabbed a terrible shot of some random latin kid and used it for the story. The adrenaline rush had us ready to beat down any reporter who passed the house -- lucky for 'us' no one showed. So at least the florida papers used an actual picture, I just wish it was a better one -- that mugshot looks something awful.

Anywho. I'm waiting for whoever 65.184.215.14 is to modify the page again. Seems it wasn't enough to ask nicely, so now I've got to keep an eye out <sigh> nothing is easy. Jherrero (talk) 05:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

@boop OK, so while 65.184.215.14 couldn't bother signing in, and decided to strip down the section on Tito, s/he may have a point. So rather than take down your stuff boop (I'm looking at you 65.184.215.14), I'm proposing a comprimise. I've combined our notes into the following:

A beloved friend, Father and son; Tito was in Florida in search of an enhanced life.
Despite a loving community of friends and family in Inwood, Manhattan Tito wanted
to search outside his normal comfort zone. Tito left a big impact on the lives of
everyone he knew in one way or another. He always had a sense of humor about everything,
was a good teacher when it came to life lessons and could teach someone that had given up
on life how to make the best out of life and find joy again. He is now, and will continue to be,
dearly missed by us all.

So I'll set a deadline, let's call it one month from today. No objections then I'll post it.

@65.184.215.14 I updated the page comment to respectfully request that changes be posted to discussion first. No kidding, this kinda means something to the people who bother to login. Jherrero (talk) 05:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

@65.184.215.14 - Here's why its important

As it were, the only thing Tito will be remembered as by the world at large is for being a victim. His 28 years will be boiled down to the 28 minutes one random night when he was in the wrong place at the wrong time when monsters came to visit.

He, as I sure everyone who was with him, was more than that and it should be reflected somewhere. Every other search will discount his existence -- except this one.

Go ahead and pull it again, I'll just put it back up.

PS have the decency to login and use your account when you edit the page next time.

Jherrero (talk) 05:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is not... (regarding WP:MEMORIAL)

Jherrero, I respect your view and I agree that this is a cruel and gut-wrenching personal tragedy beyond words. There's much more to it, but I just want to keep my words on my personal feelings and emotions short right now.

The problem is... you're a little too close to the subject of an encyclopedic article on a tragedy. I mean this as a gentle suggestion, and not a personal affront; you might want to consider taking a wiki-break or increasing distance from the article, however difficult it is.

The main thing here is that 65.184.215.14 is correct in his edits; he (or she) is editing according to Wikipedia policy. Thing is, The Wikipedia Project (WP) policies are not always something that we personally agree with, but were formulated for the best of reasons. So we gotta trust that the WP is doing the right thing with their policies.

You may not have been aware of this particular Wikipedia policy: Not a memorial site for the deceased, but he likely was, and seems to have acted accordingly. Wikipedia is many things to many people, but some things it is not: it is not a blog, nor is it a memorial website for the dearly departed. It is an encyclopedia which has to stick to the facts and to generally disregard emotion and charged atmospheres. That may seem cold and callous to someone who truly loved the dearly departed, but the policy was formulated for good reasons and has proven its worth across a great many articles over a long period of time.

If you wish to maintain a memorial for Tito, then I would strongly encourage you to set up a website of your own dedicated to him, or to write a book, or to create a video, or to do interviews with the media, amongst many other forms of self-publication and expression. But Wikipedia is, unfortunately, not quite the right place for this. I know you had the best of intentions, but it's just... sadly... not fully compatible with Wikipedia's policies and goals.

You may also want to be familiar with the three-revert rule. It may take a while to get used to its nuances and scope, but it's an important rule that especially applies during times of contentious edit disputes.

Please accept the above information in good faith and I do encourage you to read up on WP policies and seek out WP administrators' advice if you have any doubt or questions about validity of these things. You have lots of places here on WP to ask others for their opinions and perspectives; I highly encourage you to seek out other viewpoints from experienced WP denizens to better balance your own viewpoint as well as check or verify what I'm saying here.

To hear from an experienced WP editor for one-on-one advice and feedback: Wikipedia:Editor_assistance. If interested, more information on various WP policies and guidelines. Or just ask other people in other parts of WP what they think of this issue: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment. You have plenty of opportunities to talk with experienced Wikipedians and use them as a sounding board to 'feel out' how things are likely to go here on WP for any given issue. I thought I'd mention that since seems like you might not be familiar with all of the avenues you have available to you.

Please also accept my sincerest apologies; I feel bad as a human being doing this but given the policy, 65.184.215.14 is correct so I believe that I am obligated to revert your resubmission of the text under dispute. (I will, however, hold off deletion of the text in question for a while to give you a fair opportunity to discuss it further and convince me that I am misinterpreting WP policies.) I am not in any huge hurry, so please take your time -- within reason, of course.

I know you had the best of intentions and had good faith, and may be new to how WP conducts things. There's just no easy way to discuss something this sensitive and emotion-packed, but I'm trying my best to explain a position that I know will make me look very unpopular in your eyes. And, before anyone asks, no, I have no idea who 65.184.215.14 is and have never talked or associated with him/her.

I've been in your shoes before; well-meaning but uninvolved Wikipedians sent out a speedy AfD (Article-for-Deletion) request for an article of someone I knew well who had just passed away under very difficult circumstances and was notable for his work over decades in his community. It was the hardest thing for me to accept, that people would actually argue to nuke his WP page. I knew him well, quite a few knew of his work, but I had to abide by whatever the WP community came to terms on. I had to recuse myself from editing or voting on this related to this; that was painful and the hardest thing to do. As was accepting whatever the final outcome was, even if it meant deleting his WP page.

But you gotta remember that none of this is personal, and none of this is a comment on anybody. It's just simply the normal rules that applies to every single article being consistently applied. I was too close to the subject and article, and went through my own buckets of tears. But ultimately, I agreed to abide by what more experienced wikipedians ultimately chose to do with it. Right or wrong by my personal feelings, doesn't matter. Had to bite teeth and swallow it, and accept it. Once I did, it was a little easier to deal with it. I no longer get mad thinking about that incident. I'm at peace with it. My friends and the deceased's business associates honors him in our own ways outside of WP. So the guy will always be remembered by his family, friends, and people who he touched, even if he doesn't have a WP page for him anymore. That's what counts.

I never met nor was lucky enough to know Tito, but he sounds like quite the valuable guy beyond words; my condolences -- even today -- for your immense loss. Dsf (talk) 00:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Dsf - I Get It, And Respect Your Comments so let's try this again.

First and foremost, on behalf of my friends, family and all the people who lost Tito, please accept my sincerest apologies on the loss of your friend, and the loss of the page. I would also like to thank you for pointing out the situation and the conditions of your position.

So here's where I am; upon cursory review of the guidelines I will agree that the section on Tito grew beyond what is acceptable. In fact after posting to 65.1 I tried to review the Tito section from an objective view point and came to a similar conclusion: it read more like a memorial and less like a knowledge entry. I posted a response to boop indicating such and proposing new language (see: Jherrero (talk) 05:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC) on this same page).

In reviewing the guidelines I now see that even with the updated section we are still outside the normal parameters. So, yes, give me some time to drill it through and boil it down to an appropriate, guideline-driven section. But I plan to keep it a section; albeit with a smaller image and appropriate edits.

Here's my argument for why; its an excerpt of in the Wikipedia:Notability (people)

People notable only for one event

When a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively

unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election, consideration needs to be

given to the need to create a standalone article on the person. If reliable sources only

cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be

unwarranted.

Coverage in Reliable sources may at times be extensive and may expand upon the

person's background, but information on the person should generally be included in the

article on the event itself, unless the information is so large that this would make the

article unwieldy or sources have written primarily about the person, and only secondarily

about the event. In that case, the discussion of the person should be broken out from the

event article in summary style.

Emphasis intended -- My point is that I think I have a case here, and, from what I can see, the guidelines support it. That stated, the current section is inappropriate, and, as indicated, I'll need to rework it to meet the guidelines specified.

It also occurred to me that my hidden comment to not touch the section may have been what created the 65.1 identity, since it seems that no one would want to be branded, or possibly abused, for taking action (this is understanding only, forgiveness will take time). As such I will change it to ask that anyone who does edit it is respectful of the subject matter and the guidelines

More to follow, thanks for your help and (shot at 65.1) for logging in. Jherrero (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

More never did follow. --68.45.180.34 (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)