Talk:Elián González/Archive 1

Archive 1

Anti-Cuba bias

I removed this comment from the article:

Ironically, Cuba's official ideology calls for the abolition of the family.

It is blatantly false. The Cuban constitution explicitly endorses the family as the fundamental unit of society and treats it as the basis of economic activity and child-rearing. The only thing that could be interpreted as "anti-family" is the provision of state funded child-care. [1]. Unfortunately, I could not find any other english translation of the constitution, but based on my limited Spanish, this seems to be accurate. AdamRetchless 02:29, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

I think that this article is incredibly biased and probably contains a lot of anti-Cuba/Castro misinformation. This was introduced on May 8. I pulled out the most blatant lies, but I don't have the time to do all the research to identify the rest of it. Maybe the "old-timers" would care to clean this up? AdamRetchless 02:40, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

• With so many hot button topics touched by this article, the only way to address the bias accusations is write it so that both sides see it as equally biased against them. B.Wind 05:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

'Stereotypes'

Some argue that the media coverage of the affair couched their reports with stereotypes which would not have been tolerated toward any other ethnic group: Time magazine described the Cuban-led Miami city government as a "banana republic"; the May 1 issue of Newsweek contained phrases like "the fiery Marisleysis" (Elián's cousin, who was seen as a maternal figure to the boy) and "the hotheads around Lázaro"; the New York Times called the Miami Cubans "haters"; the Chicago Tribune called them "crazies"; Pat Oliphant, America's most widely syndicated editorial cartoonist, drew an ape-like Lázaro thumping his chest.

'Haters', 'Crazies' - nothing to do with 'stereotypes'. This may as well sit here until someone is willing to rewrite it, or the talk page is cleared. I like Pfalstad's suggestion re: 'the heated discussion in the media'. Colonel Mustard 23:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think though a legitimate argument could be made for including the "banana republic" remark and the "ape-like Lazaro" caricature in the article. I could not imagine a mainstream newspaper in another case portraying a black person as an oversized monkey or call a minority neighborhood in a major city a banana republic. Thats just me, but it seems pretty unique to this matter and the Cuban-American community in Miami. Because they are conservative Republicans, possibly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

• No, not because of their conservatism or being Republicans (at least one of the "Miami family" is a registered Democrat), but because the media outside of southern Florida could not relate to the passion of the Cuban (exile) community, which felt genuine pain, first in the battle for custody, and then after the Elián "retrieval."

• • The arguments on both sides are straightforward: Juan Miguel had custody of Elián, and once he requested the son's return, international law required that the US government comply with his request; Elizabeth Brotons sacrificed her life so that her son could escape Castro's clutches and taste the cup of freedom.

• • While the local English-language media played it fairly down the middle (but to some of the residents, it was mainly favoring the "Miami family"'s position), Spanish-language media in southern Florida had equally stereotypical representations of the "Ugly American" US government and how the father was a "puppet on Castro's strings." 147.70.242.39 22:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, it is easy for people outside of Florida to overlook: the majority of Miami-Dade County is Hispanic (in Hialeah, it's 90%). Furthermore, about half of the residents of the city of Miami were either born in, or descended from people who were born in, Cuba. 147.70.242.39 22:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ed Poor tries to balance pro-Castro POV with anti-Castro POV

I made a number of edits. Here is the latest:

Deleted from article:

But, instead of following procedure and placing him at a facility until his status could be resolved ...

This sounds like someone's point of view. It should be omitted or attributed.

I mean, really! Is there some policy AGAINST letting a young child whose mother died saving him from tyranny to live with relatives while his case goes through the courts?

Or is the advocate who wrote the above implying that procedure should have been followed for EVERY ASPECT of Elian's case? (If so, why did the federal government by-pass the courts and deport the boy without waiting for his relatives to finish the appeals process? Since when are family disputes settled by the executive branch?) --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 18:33, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Answering Ed's parenthetical question: international treaty trumps state law, according to Article Six (and others) in the United States Constitution, and the US is a signatory to a treaty that requires the return of an unattended international child to a custodial parent upon the parent's request. Also, Elián was never formally admitted to the United States (under wet foot/dry foot he was supposed to be repatriated immediately, but the Coast Guard took him to a medical facility first). In addition, the "Miami family"'s appeals made it to the Supreme Court twice, and the Justices disposed of them promptly each time. 147.70.242.39 22:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Marisleysis/Psychological treatment

The confinement of the "fiery" Marisleysis to the mental facility several times during this episode should be included though. When someone gets checked into a mental asylum and kids are involved, that is a legitimate news story.

• Please sign with ~~~~ whenever you post to a talk page, even if you haven't logged in.

Please see my comment about the lack of mentions of the emotional breakdowns of Marisleysis and the "penis incident," amongst others in the previous section. If there is a mention of her "breakdowns," the impact should be minimized to reduce POV. 147.70.242.39 22:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Some references for Elain's impact on the 2000 election.

For those that have been trying without success to get Elain's impact in the article, here are some references that appear to be "fair and balanced", or at least impartial.

Pre-Election discussion of Elian impact. 400,000 voters, 14 % shift, is 56,000 additional votes for Bush and against Gore. http://www.sptimes.com/News/110500/Worldandnation/Elian_swings_Cuban_vo.shtml

Another pre-election discussion of the Elian impact. http://www.fairvote.org/op_eds/elian.htm

FIU report of the Elian impact on the 2000 Election and on Gore not campaigning in the Cuban-American community. http://metropolitan.fiu.edu/downloads/battleground_20florida.pdf

Textbook excerpt about the Elian impact. "However, in 2000, in the wake of Elián's forcible return to Cuba, more than 80 percent of Miami Cubans voted for Bush, who won Florida, and thus the presidency, by only a few hundred votes." http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/9742/9742.ch01.html

Some non-Cubans in Miami (at least me) were offended not by the return of Elian, but by the WAY it was done. An armed ambush on Easter weekend without even an attempt at getting him through more polite means, after Waco and the FBI shooting, seemed like overkill. The boy's face seeing that gun did not help Gore's chances. Not likely to be a strong factor in the non-Cuban vote results, but likely more than 527 votes worth of impact. However, that is POV and I will not add it in the article. CodeCarpenter 20:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

RFC: Cuban Rafter Phenomenon link

Can I ask editor Wehwalt why he/she thinks that the University of Miami's excellently constructed site - The Cuban Rafter Phenomenon: A Unique Sea Exodus, which is a detailed study of the rafter phenomenon of the 1990s, is of no interest to readers here? This site provides essential background information. Given that the article itself attempts to describe some of the back story behind this, it is clear that the link meets Wikipedia:External links criteria. Giving people access to excellent, relevant resources like this is exactly what Wikipedia is all about.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 06:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd be fine with it if it were in the rafter article. I do not think it is appropriate for Elian's article, which should be as closely focused on him as possible. I suggest you add it, if it is not already, to the rafter article and put a see also to that WP article. But I have fought to keep this article narrowly focused on Elian, including the external resources. Additionally, Elian wasn't a rafter in the 1990's. What do others think?--Wehwalt 12:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, you are saying that this extensive University of Miami archive site [2], obviously designed with great care as an educational tool to help us learn and understand the rafter situation in the 1990s, is not appropriate for the Elián González page who was a rafter himself in the 1990s? [3]. Every lengthy study of González's story including our article includes a summary of the events described in the website - which has all manner of features such as timelines, maps, historical documents, analysis of the phenomenon etc. Here is the introduction to the site;

Welcome to The Cuban Rafter Phenomenon: A Unique Sea Exodus. In this digital archive you can explore the experiences of tens of thousands of citizens who have left Cuba in small boats, homemade rafts and other unusual craft.

I'll pass this on for other users to comment.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 14:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion. The link in question is not specifically about Elian Gonzalez, and doesn't seem to mention him at all on first glance. It is not relevant to this article, so it doesn't matter how well it was designed. You should add it somewhere else, if anywhere. Grouse 15:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Elian does not fit into the link, but the link would be a great start on a currently non-existent article, Cuban Rafters or Balseros (rafters). There is plenty of information on the Mariel Boatlift page, and specifics on the wet foot/dry foot policy, but no general page for the rafters and their history. Your document could fit well there, and the page itself would be able to tie in many of these other topics, and reference the plight of other rafters from Haiti for example. Do you think you could make that page? You appear to be able to find the details and write coherently, so it would be a good project for you. I have created three pages and one project, and those have felt much better when done than just adding links that might not get noticed at all. Be Bold and give it a try! CodeCarpenter 16:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You are right that a Balseros (rafters) article is necessary. But presently I don't really need another project as I have enough on my plate. I've made over 10,000 edits to Cuba articles so far - created scores of articles on the subject - I work on Portal:Cuba and Wikipedia:WikiProject Cuba - have worked to bring Cuba articles to featured status - have written Cuba-United States relations from scratch and currently monitor over 1300 Cuban related articles on my watchlist. With that in mind, and having what I think is a good idea of what is relevant to these topics and how to educate readers about subjects, I believe the link is relevant, refers to material within the article, meets Wikipedia policy and fits with wikipedia's goal of providing free access to educational information. If people consider that they have a better understanding of link policies, and how to develop articles on Cuba related topics, then I'll bow to their better judgement and not restore the link, which I personally think is a needlessly pedantic assessment and a shame to readers, who will be less able to access the relevant resource.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 17:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Fifth opinion. (I am commenting here in response to the request for impartial editorial input as requested at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/History_and_geography.) A dilemma here is that there is in-depth wiki information on the Elian case, but hardly any information on the overall Cuban exile phenomenon. Indeed, the “rafter” entry in both wiki and wiktionary fails to mention this alternate meaning of the word. The external website appears to be informative and useful, but I agree that it is not about Elian in any significant way. However, the Elian page had no pointer to Cuban_exile, which I have now added to the “see also” section and that page (though very brief) in turn has a pointer to the external rafter web site. That, in my opinion, is a more suitable location for that pointer, and it will allow anybody who is interested in the rafter aspect of Elian’s story to find the information. Indeed if you do a google search on "wiki cuban rafter" you will find that page and hence in turn the external site (if you do "cuban rafter" in google the site will come second, so it's not as if it's hard to find for people). If a new article is written on rafters in general, then Elian’s page could have that as well in the “see also” section. --Psm 00:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I created a stub for Balseros (rafters). BTW, there´s a documentary with that title: Balseros (film). It is a superb documentary Randroide 15:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment via RfC: Neutral party, came via RfC. The site is good but not for the Elián page, it goes on Cuban exile, where it is now, or related articles on the rafter phenomenon should they be created. I added a link to this page to the "See also" on the exile page as well. Hope that helps. IvoShandor 12:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment via RfC: If the site does not talk specifically about Elian, IMHO it should no be linked. An easy solution: To write in the Elian article that "Elian was a Balsero". I pasted the link there. Randroide 15:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the link does not belong here; a link to the article where it is linked is much better. --NE2 00:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Effect on the election of 2000?

Could this event have had an effect on the outcome of the 2000 election? Bush won Florida by a razor thin margin, and the White House's handling of the Gonzalez situation. Could the retribution have cost Gore the election? An interesting question.

• Considering that the official "winning margin" in Florida was only 527 votes, it is quite conceivable. On the other hand, there are some who assert that the Gonzalez situation was irrelevant since it was the US Supreme Court that decided the Florida outcome, and therefore the Presidential election, by a 7-2 vote and a 5-4 vote in Bush v. Gore. B.Wind 05:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

One must consider the percentage of Democrat vs Republican voters in the Miami-Dade area. Traditionaly, Democrats have outnumbered Republicans by more than 80%, and this fact is expressed in voting history since 1960. However, a voter of any party will likely never vote for his/her favorite candidate if such an individual does something to damage the relationship, i.e. the damage done to the Cuban community by the Clinton Administration in the wake of Elian Gonzales. The more than half the population of that area who traditionally voted Democrat instead voted for Bush or the other candidates.

Considering that Al Gore took the position that Elian should be allowed to remain in the U.S., in contrast with Clinton, I doubt that this issue had that much effect. Jtpaladin 13:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

POV article

So many facts about the entire incident have been left out of the article in order to tilt it towards a pro-Castro and Clinton Administration point of view that it's an utter atrocity to call this a Wikipedia article. I added some details about the Federal break into the home where Elian lived and added the fact that Janet Reno lied about negotiations having broken down prior to the raid. No where does the article mention that Castro claimed he wouldn't use Elian for propaganda purposes yet that's exactly what he has been doing since he got Elian back into his hands. Nor does anyone mention that Castro ordered that the street that Elian lived on be fixed up and painted so the media would show what a "nice" place it is for Elian to live. There's also no mention that Al Gore broke ranks with Clinton and supported Elian remaining in the U.S. More needs to be done to balance this article. Jtpaladin 14:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted your edits. Your edits, which included deleting the info that a family court judge had revoked Lazaro's temporary custody, and your inserts, which included a comment that in Communist Cuba parents do not have parental rights like in the U.S., are wildly POV. I'm sure they are well intentioned, but please be more neutral.--Wehwalt 04:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Movie

I believe there was a movie made about this whole story, but I can't remember what it was called, only that it has aired on Fox/ABC Family and I think Lifetime, but beyond that, I'm not sure. Perhaps someone who knows more could add something about that. Morhange 07:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

yeah, there was a movie but it was inaccurate and completely biased and one sided. That being the communist side. 74.236.50.81 17:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Aimee S.

Age of the Boy?

It says he was six years old at the time--and clearly was, judging from the pictures and my personal knowledge. But why then does it show his birth year was 1988? Steven 14:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Age of the Boy?

It says he was six years old at the time--and clearly was, judging from the pictures and my personal knowledge. But why then does it show his birth year was 1988? Steven 14:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous vandal. It happens... I have cleaned it up. Thanks for noticing. CodeCarpenter 15:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"Happy Elian" picture

The article claims the white house released the "happy Elian" photos. It's easy to find them via a Google image search, but the pics I found claimed copyright by the AP or by UPI. If anyone ever finds a US Government photo of "happy Elian", it'd be a good picture to insert in the article. Tempshill 18:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey, how about a nice picture of a happy Elian wearing his Young Communist uniform with Fidel Castro hovering over him? Will that make the grade? Jtpaladin 13:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I posted a photo in the "Elián returned to father's custody" section. I could not find a copyright claim or much information at all on the photo, including who exactly snapped it. However the PBS website where I pulled it from described it as "released by the government" so I would assume it is public domain. I'm not that up on copyright issues so if I'm wrong I'm sure I'll hear about it soon. Number3son 08:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

just read the article

I read this article, and I really think it doesn't do justice to the whole issue. At the time the case was going through the courts, most Americans thought he should be with his dad, but after the pre-dawn raid a lot of people changed their minds. And I think the ending of it is pretty lousy, pretty much saying he's a normal boy and he's better off in Cuba. As someone else mentioned on here, so what he told Larry King he likes Castro. People who live in those environments rarely come out and complain about their government. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bree123 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

I believe that the ending is pretty much ok as is - it's simply giving the facts. If you have a source for the assertion, "People who live in those environments rarely come out and complain about their government," then you can contribute it in the appropriate place. Umdenken (talk) 07:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source for "a lot of people changed their minds."?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

2000 election and the Elian affair

There's been a lot said on the issue of the Elian affair and the 2000 election. I believe the margin was, what, fewer that 1000 votes in Florida? I've appended this issue to the "Critical views" section, as it seems to belong at the end, to reflect the ramifications of the incident: [4].

There appear to be views to the contrary, that believe that my adding this is inappropriate. Does this seem like a valid addition? Is it skewed to POV? Is Marquez an acceptable source? He seems to me to be beyond acceptable, rather preeminent, but then I'm a sucker for his writing. Opinions? DBaba (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What makes Sr. Marquez an expert on presidential politics, despite his undoubted talents as a writer, it unclear to me. I do not think this should be in the Critical Views section anyway. I question whether we should be using the New Humanist anyway, not sure it is a rs. As for the election, I think the consensus on this page has been that this was speculative. If we are to put in something on this (and there have been those who said that Elian had no effect on a chaotic election, or that the effect on non-Cubans equalled or outweighed any anti-Clinton, we should certainly not put it at the conclusion of the article. That gives undue prominence to the theory. --Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

We can remove Marquez, if you insist. The point is, we can replace that quote with a thousand others: this is why it belongs in the article. We're not weighing the validity of a "theory", we're just being honest about the most prominent critical views--which are by their very nature "speculative".

Your apparent skepticism as to the validity of the interpretation, this is what has me going here. I'm not saying the perspective is correct, I'm saying that the perspective merely is, and as such warrants inclusion. Trimming it or relocating it, that seems to me a distortion; it steps out to a macro level, and a quite speculative one, and for that reason belongs to the section so designated.

I don't dislike that placement of the Marquez. But the remainder of the text you deleted, that seems to belong to the ending. DBaba (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me you want to end the article with an implied conclusion that the Elian affair cost Gore the election. That's sort of POV. You want to write the ending to the story. It's sheer speculation.

I don't want to eliminate valid theories as to the election. But shouldn't they be in one of the articles ON the election? We could note in this article that the effect Elian had on the election, if any, is disputed, and provide a link.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

These views belong in this article, and they belong in the critical views section. To fail to contextualize this issue with the US election cycle is completely ridiculous. I've given you the citations, and you're telling me that these CNN and NYT comments are my POV. I don't know what to say to that! DBaba (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

See my comments above. And yes, it does become POV if you want imply that Elian cost Gore the election. And it seems you. And how your allegation becomes a "critical view" is beyond me. In any event, how do you separate out the likelihood that any problem Gore had over Elian had to do with the inept way he handled it, proposing legislation to give him and Juan Miguel permanent residency when an overwhelming majority of the American people wanted the boy returned to his father in Cuba.[5]--Wehwalt (talk) 01:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I want to imply that Elian cost Gore the election? Where does that come from? I don't know how to make it any more clear to you: The entry is incomplete, and in fact warped, by its not being placed in its political context.

I am not arguing that Al Gore lost the election because of EG. I am telling you that the entry lacks its appropriate context. The significance of the electoral cycle context is further demonstrated by your link. The kid is gallup poll fodder. Why does the entry pretend otherwise? Why are there thousands of news pieces about Elian's effect on the election, but no mention of the election or Bush or Gore in the entry?

What you refer to as my "allegation", that's wildly out of line. All I've given you is a sentence with four sources on it, which you removed because of your own POV. If anything, a counterpoint should have been added. DBaba (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced, but I don't want to be accused of POV pushing, so I've added a subsection near the end. I think you need better references. Only one of them is really close to being on point. One says that Bush took an large majority of the Hispanic vote in Florida but this report says [6] he got only 49 percent. And let's both put the references into proper format.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This verbatim citation is unacceptable, why? DBaba (talk) 05:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Because the source is a book review of an article on the relationship between Fidel Castro and a news reporter! Thus the source has nothing to back it up. It is an offhand comment by a reviewer who is talking about something else.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you have illegitimate nitpicks with all of the other sources to the point, as well? I see you've taken it upon yourself to distort the end section, to obscure all lines of commentary that suggest that the EG affair negatively impacted Gore's presidential campaign. It's utterly fascinating to see you removing CNN and NYT in lieu of "Marks and Frederick Associates", and coming back with this obtuseness that one of the dozen sources I've furnished you comes in the (perfectly acceptable) context of a NYT book review. But this isn't fun for me. If you want to play a game to the disservice of the reader, to fulfill whatever political mission you're here to pursue, I'll leave you to it. Cheers! DBaba (talk) 23:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to revert it, regretfully. I don't have a political agenda. If it were a news article on this point, and if it were a widely accepted point (I don't ask for it to be universally acknowledged), well, I'd accept the point. But not an offhand comment on another subject. It's not enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Missing information about political context

Many news articles and editorials at the time wrote that the reason elected officials were so concerned with the affair was that Florida was a swing state, and the votes of the Cuban-American population in Florida was therefore very important — as indeed turned out to be the case in the 2000 U.S. presidential election. The article needs to discuss this, which it currently does not. —Lowellian (reply) 02:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

At one time it included some such information. Most of it violated WP:WEASEL and there was very few if any sources from the time. It is easy to see the affair through the prism of the 2000 election. But editors who posted such things as the Elian affair made the difference in the 2000 election found their posts challenged and deleted as impossible to prove. Give it a try if you like; we'll see what editors think of what is posted.--Wehwalt 02:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Bush v. Gore rendered such supposition moot. It was the 7-2 and 5-4 Supreme Court votes, not any "increased turnout of Cuban-American voters," that ultimately decided the U.S. Presidential election of 2000, and the controversy extended far beyond the borders of Miami-Dade County in Florida (remember the "butterfly ballot"?).147.70.242.40 20:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.therealcuba.com/elian_gonzalez.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilcompa (talk • contribs) 02:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Never got to hide.

"The" photogragh, by Diaz, was part of a series of shots he took, and in them you can see that Dalrymple never got a chance to hide. In fact, as you watch the sequesnce, the strange part is that the same agent aims his gun at the photographer, even though multiple photos had been taken, as if he was a danger to the agent. I will try to find the sequence of shots.... CodeCarpenter 13:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I could not find the last couple of shots, but I found a description by Diaz, www.outlawslegal.com/friendly/elian.htm, and apparently they were hiding in the closet, but not behind the clothes. CodeCarpenter 13:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

So, while fixing it, I realized the 100 protesters calling out "Assassins!" were not there. The reason the raid had occurred at that hour was due to a promise from the government not to come at night, and the encampment was mostly empty. If there were 20 protesters there at that hour, I would be surprised. But then, i have already been wrong once today, so I won't freak if proven wrong again.

Here is a link to the entire series of photos. http://www.hkpro.com/elian.htm Sperril 16:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I just want to add that the agent in the photos never aims his weapon at the photographer (Diaz). (Or at least if he does, there is not a photo of it.) Sperril 20:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

ohh my god...You weren't even there. his house outside was always filled with people from the press and other members of the community. when they raided the house there were more than 20 people outside. and by 5 AM the folks that were waking up to go to the work awoke to the news and hit the streets, so the street was filled by 7-8 AM. you were not there that day as i was, so please do not make such comments. user:bassman600

I was there. There were more than two hundred federal personnel used in the 'raid' I believe the figure given by Fox News at the time was 230, which may or may not include the eight SWAT equipped 'snatch' team.

One only had to watch the incessant reruns of the 'operation' on television to see that it was quick and violent. On the sudden arrival of the Federal forces one of the jeeps they used knocked over a man standing in the street. People in front of the house door who tried to speak with the agents were simply swept aside with the butts of rifles and then 'maced'.

The account of the state of riot in Little Habana after the Elion was taken are a joke. People had for days been driving around with both Cuban and American flags and sounding car horns. After the 'snatch' there was some American flag burning and a few (very few) car tyres were burned on street corners; there was anger because of the deception of Reno, but the only people 'rioting' were the media.

The canvassing of public opinion, in Alaska for example, but not in Little Havana, by Fox News is amazing, as were their reports of conditions in the streets which I was walking every day at the time. It is true that there were some people incensed by the preference given to an asylum application on behalf of Elian, the most outspoken of these were those from other islands in the Caribbean, like Haiti, who did not have, but wanted, the same rights as were given to fleeing Cubans. It is never difficult to find a 'redneck' in the mid-States who, if asked, will reject any immigrant who is not both white and Protestant and who would support the repatriation of any foreign alien child to any parent or other relative in the country he came from - be it Cuba, Mexico or any South American country.

The police turning out to clear the roads with gas and riot gear was an unnecessary action and they were so heavy handed with it that legal action was taken against them by some individuals they assaulted - one a female lawyer who had nothing whatsoever to do with the Gonzales case or what had gone on the previous night and who was on the sidewalk, certainly not obstructing traffic. Some shops closed and put up hurricane protection after the police appeared because the actions of the police on top of what many in the area saw as a betrayal of trust by the Federal Authorities could have caused a violent reaction. Wisely the police were quickly called back when it was realised that they had noting to do and their actions were in fact a further provocation to vocal but peaceful protest.

The references to those who would do anything to stop the federal forces and/or had certificates for conceal weapons and/or criminal records, made after the event, are incredible. Since when have known agitators to violence and criminals been issued with licence to carry concealed arms?

These were people, mostly naturalised Americans, exercising an American right to free expression and free speech, not criminals. Political agitation to vocal protest and to assemble to do so is a constitutional right in the USA - even to those who may have a criminal record - isn't it? There is no record of the arrest of any known criminal who was carrying a firearm either in or outside the house: that statement was spin after the event to try to justify unwarranted assault and damage to property by Federal forces. The raid was unnecessary, the family had made it clear before it occurred that they would hand the boy over if ordered to do so by the courts - what choice did they have?

I am British, I lived and worked in Cuba for five years, my wife is Cuban. While in the USA (I was there for two years) I found the level of ignorence about the Cuban State among ordinary Americans astonishing (similar perhaps to someone in England who has no knowledge of Northern Ireland). The media manipulation of the situation, particularly by Fox News, who just told outright lies on occasion, was equally astonishing: in fact outrageous.[[[User:Martin ZigZag|ZigZag]] (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)]

Whilst I'm here

Whilst we're here discussing the removal of an external link, could Wehwalt explain why he/she removed the well sourced section which detailed the impact the case had on the 2000 election added by Code Carpenter? Also, a "see also" link to a similar case added by someone was removed without sufficient reason, and with no policy precedent. Is this page operating in a vacuum, where wikipedia norms and standards do not apply? If further sources are required, which meet WP:V, linking the Elián case to the 2000 election, how about this which states;

The Elian Gonzalez episode resulting in Cuban-Americans voting

for Bush in 2000 to an extent not accounted for by neither their past voting behavior,

demographic characteristics nor changes in party registration between 1996 and 2000.

-- Zleitzen^(talk) 22:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Because after discussion upstream, such info was not added or was deleted from the article. I'm simply following what I believe to be the editorial consensus on this point. In addition, this article is about ELIAN GONZALEZ. It is narrowly focused on the boy. With the exception of a contextual introductory section, it is all about Elian. Such material may do well in the various articles about the election.--Wehwalt 22:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hrm. The last I saw of the discussion upstream was that there was the use of weasel words and a lack of citations. Two months back, I provided in this talk page the citations used, and noone commented on their lack of suitability. Therefore, the last thrust of the discussion upstream was that these sources and their commets could be used. You called my section speculation, implying there is no speculation in Wikipedia, but I can point to plenty of other well-sourced speculations in 9-11, Pearl Harbor, Napolean Bonaparte, William Shakespeare, and let's say on the random button as well. I will not revert, but I will offer to others to revert if they feel the section did not merit removal. The idea is valid, pollable, and therefore in my opinion encyclopedic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CodeCarpenter (talk • contribs) 23:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

The Political ramifications are the essence of Elián's story. It is why there is an article on him in the first place, and not on the many others who either made the journey or failed, including children in identical situations. There are numerous other factors which should be added the article as well, the intense Cuban American political climate in Miami during the 1990s, the grandmother's trip, the Sister O'Laughlin connection, the role of the CANF and many more. But the impact on the 2000 election is so important, tangible and verifiable that it seems extraordinary that someone took the trouble to give it some context - with sources that met WP:RS - only to see it removed as irrelevant.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 23:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I take your points. But by your logic, Zleitzen, the Elian article could have Elian as an active character in only a small part of it, with a long run up and a long wind down, including in the latter the studies as to what part the affair may have had on the 2000 Election, the lawsuits, the museum, who knows what else. I think this is a fine article at present dealing with Elian himself and concentrating on the time when he was in the US. I continue to maintain that such studies are inherantly speculative, but I will of course bow to the collective wisdom, if any (ha ha) of wikipedians. So lets see what other views are posited.--Wehwalt 00:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't think its a fine article. It's OK but it barely covers the period he spent in the US. There's no mention of the situation in the hospital concerning phonecalls and the channelling of the boy by a small section of the Miami family, there's no mention of the grandmothers week long trip which was at the centre of the story, there's barely a mention of Marisleysis and her dramatic role, there's no mention of the religious fervour that surrounded Elián wherever he travelled, Sister O'Laughlin is not mentioned, a key figure in the drama who "negotiated" between Elián's warring family and was suspected of taking payments and/or being intimidated by local activists etc etc.

The problem is, some of these points were mentioned in previous edits, but have been inexplicably removed. The way wikipedia works is that material is added, sometimes its poorly sourced and a bit rough. Provided it is not badly POV, false or off topic - which none of these were - it can be built on to create a better article. I don't have time to detail a fraction of the omissions, and this is not a priority article for me, but if someone else does - as Code Carpenter has with the impact on Florida politics - with sources - then they should remain to allow this article to grow. At present, the article is stifled and key details are being overlooked, I remember Beardo adding mention of the grandmothers that was removed without cause. My ideal article would be a thorough featured article that properly detailed Elian's life and time in the US, of which the raid was only one episode, alongside the surrounding political situation. That is what any detailed piece on Elián would be expected to provide. In cases such as this, where there is too much work and not enough time, my method is to wait for drive-by editors to add detail, which, providing it is helpful, can be cleaned up and sourced. I know the story inside out so I can tell if an addition is appropriate or not.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 01:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that details such as the grandmothers' trip, as well as details you haven't mentioned--Donato's journey from fisherman to family confidante, and even as talked-about possible mayoral candidate--should be included. But you have to build the body before you can build the wings, and what you are supporting is putting in material that may or may not be extraneous to the full article you envision, but certainly are extraneous today. Put in the details, and let's worry about the 2000 election later. Frankly, Zleitzen, given the expertise you tell us about in your previous post (I don't doubt it, people tend to get passionate about what they know about), you could have done a lot of what you propose in the time and space you have devoted to kvetching about my edits. I think there is a point at which this article could become overdetailed--i.e. it becomes a day by day chronology, but we aren't there by any means!--Wehwalt 01:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought, but what do you think of the idea of two articles? Keeping this one narrowly focused on Elian, with the additional materials I proposed, and having a second "Elian Gonzalez affair" or "Causes and effects of the Elian Gonzales affair".--Wehwalt 19:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The 'other side' that is missing is an understanding of the State of Cuba and why people would risk (and lose) their life to leave. Castro could barely conceal his delight at the opportunity presented by the incompetence and heavy handedness of the American media and legal system.

Day long protests were organised in Habana. The army and police were mobilised to march, people were given time off work to take part and issued with T-shirts and small flags (the gift of a T-shirt being a sufficient reason to comply with the order to participate), schools were closed and children taken by their teachers to 'protest' for the return of Elian. Most of the people protesting would know only what the State controlled media told them - that the boy had been kidnapped, against his will, from his father (they were not told Elian's mother had died trying to escape from Cuba) - just as in the USA most Americans formed opinions from what they were told via television and information about the marital status of the father and who Elian had been living with was sketchy at best.

There is a particularly 'sick' video clip on UTube at the moment, which can be found under Elian Gonzales, that pretty much sums up the level of concern and knowledge about Cubans in the USA from those who are not from Cuba or of Cuban descent. It 'works' at one level because for a little while it is completely believable.

I wish I could recall the name but I can't now; but a few months after the Elian Gonzeles 'incident' was forgotten by the average American (which would have been two days at most after the snatch raid), a Cuban woman, resident in America but not a citizen, embezzled several hundred thousand dollars (I believe it was about $300,000) from her employer and fled back to Cuba; taking with her her son who had been born in the USA. I don't recall if Washington or New York was brought to a halt and workers and school children given time off to protest in the streets for the return of an American citizen to his father. Unusually Castro seemed to welcome back this woman who had once rejected his authority in favour of 'an enemy State': I don't know what became of the money.

The 'Elian Gonzales Incident' was never about the boy, it was political opportunism. Fidel Castro, as usual, ran rings around American politicians and minority interest groups who did all the bickering for him and the 'incident' put Cuba front and center in American newspapers and Cuban Americans in a bad light - exactly as he had anticipated.

ZigZag (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No interest in eye witness accounts

I have had my contributions removed from both the article and the talk pages several times over the last few days and replaced with material, which was there previously, that I know to be untrue. I was there. For example: - The number of Federal personnel involved in the 'snatch of Elian Gonzalez was given by Fox News (not I admit the more reliable of sources) at the time as being two hundred and thirty. It was certainly not just eight as is again stated in the article - there may have been only eight with SWAT equipment who actually stormed and entered the house but the house and adjacent houses were surrounded by Federal forces to permit unimpeded access to the hose where the boy was living.

I am not sure on reflection that this article is a notable subject for inclusion under Wikipedia guidelines, it certainly appears to be used as a means of propaganda for some persons with a political agenda rather than encyclopedic information. (ZigZag (talk) 02:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)).

"No interest in eye witness accounts", you say. The short response to that is "that's right." Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, three of Wikipedia's policies for some background about this.

Regarding notability, Wikipedia:Notability says, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be a suitable article topic." This topic appears to qualify. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no reliable sources that can be said to be clearly independent of the subject in the article and I know there to be significant inaccuracies, what I can only assume now to be deliberate lies. This article is so 'polluted' that it ought to be 'pulled' as hearsay.

There is considerable difference between expressing a point of view and the reporting of eyewitness account. The article employs a disorientating mix of fact, omission, speculation, hearsay and lies.

(inserted comment regarding preceding paragraph) Eyewitness accounts may or may not be POV-biased. However, they are also original research. Please note the wikipedia policy Wikipedia:No original research. If, as you claim, the article employs distortions, unsupported speculation, etc. then it needs improvement. Such improvement should be accomplished within Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Unsupported exceptional claims can and should be removed and/or challenged with {{fact}} tags, and possibly discussed individually on this talk page. Note Wikipedia:verifiability#Burden of evidence. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(end inserted comment)

For example the assertion that there was a general acceptance that the boy had been 'coached' by his realatives while being interviewed for television. I heard this voice on the television interview several times in various broadcasts, there was no way to tell who was speaking, who they were speaking to or what was being said. The only thing that can be said about it with any confidence is that the voice is male and that there were very few words said by this voice. If Elian was being coached I would have expected any television interviewer to 'cut the take' and begin again or to identify who was talking to Elian - if anyone was. To say that there is a general acceptance of 'coaching' is not a reliable or accurate statement - there are many possible reasons why someone, even someone in the television crew, would say something the boy as he was being filmed, he was six years old not twenty-six. Much of what is written in the article can be deconstructed in the same way.

I went to Cuba during the time Elian Gonzales was in Miami, travelling via Mexico. Television in Cuba was even more dominated by the story than it was in Miami, but there was no mention at all of the attempt to reach Florida by sea or of the loss of the boy's mother. According to the Cuban media Elian had been kidnapped from his father by 'American Imperialist', quite how this had been accomplished and why the 'Imperialist' had chosen this boy was not explained - and no one asked. In the neighbourhood where I had previously lived in Habana the first knowledge they had of how Elian came to be in the States came from me. (Incidentally how is it known that the boat that was used had a 'faulty engine')

The media in the States was just as 'slanted' and views from within the different sections of the Miami community just as extreme. It was unfortunate that all this occurred in an election year and as the election grew closer the need to resolve the matter quickly grew to be critical for the reputations of high level politicians. ZigZag (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

After googling around a bit, I added some cite-supported info to the article about the alleged coaching, about the boat's engine failure, etc. Further details can be seen in the cited supporting sources. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Citing one news agency repeating what another has said is not cite-supported info. Repetition, even in another format, does not make something true or accurate. I have not read the book 'Cuba Confidential' which is quoted as a source but I will do so, I have ordered a copy. I have, however read the reviews previous readers have given to it on Amazon.com. There are a lot of them, (more than fifty so the book raised some passion), they are almost equally split in calling it 'truthful and well researched' or 'a pack of lies told by someone with a political agenda'. It seems people read such books in large part in the expectation of confirming and reinforcing what they already believe and to dismiss what they do not want to accept. One of the more level-headed reviews criticised the lack of source reference and the difficulty of following and verifying those which were given. There is a facility to read part of the book provided on Amazon.com and in the first few pages I came across what apperas to be a descrepancy with this from the Whikipedia article "The boat was operated by his mother's boyfriend, who resided in Miami and smuggled Cubans into the U.S. for money" The book tells us that the boat was built in Cuba by the boyfriend: who appears, according to the author, to have lived in Cuba, but I need to investigate that further.

Buy a boat in Miami or build one in Cuba? I know which would be the easier. A 50 horse-power outboard motor would be rarer than hen's teeth in the Cuban black market and there is no way any Cuban national could buy such a motor legitimately, even if he had the money for it. What boats there are in Cuba are owned by the government or by foreigners and are closely watched. Anyone who owned a boat of any description is long gone: there isn't even a fishing fleet. Cuban nationals who leave Cuba legally are not allowed to do so by boat, they have to go via the airport, there is no sea ferry to anywhere.

There is much about the supposed relationship between this boat-builder or smuggler and Elian's mother that does not seem to make much sense on closer examination.ZigZag (talk) 05:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

1. BBC (see this
2. cubanet.org, quoting a Fox News article (see this)
3. BNET, quoting insightmag.com (see this

WP:RS#News organizations says, in part, "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as The Washington Post, The Times in Britain, and The Associated Press." Admittedly, I accepted cubanet.org, BNET and insightmag.com as probably reliable pretty much at face value, and I presumed that cubanet.org wasn't misrepresenting its article attributed to fox News. Do you have a specific concern with these particular sources? Do you have other sources of similar or better reliability which contradicts the info in the articles which I cited? I haven't asked about these particular articles or sources at WP:RSN, but you are welcome to do that. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I though the reporting of what was going on in the Little Havana area of Miami by Fox News at the time to be, from own obsevations and experience, scandalously inaccurate, I am not in the least surprised that it would be relayed by a Cuban government agency.ZigZag (talk) 05:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note (regarding "I thought ... from my own observations ...") that the lead paragraph of WP:V says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." -- Boracay Bill (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." that is why I made my posts. But:- "All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth". Friedrich Nietzsche. I also agree with Nietzsche there. So ultimately everyone is assumed to be a liar and no individual can post anything unless others are prepared to verify it. Therefore we have the power of the group, no matter what their objective, overwhelming the testimony of the individual - any individual. What is that called? Politics? Does putting something into the format of a newscast or a book or a film make it true? In the final analasys nothing in Wikipedia can be said to be true - all things start with the individual. Without Fidel Castro Cuba would ...... ZigZag (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is not Nietzchepedia. The policies work reasonably well. While your knowledge is interesting, we can't verify it, so we can't use it. Still, you've helped us by goading us to insert more sources (I intend to advance this article to GA and FA, so there will be more sources) and you are welcome to help us improve it more within WP policies.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe your sources to be so flawed as to be worthless. I can do no more than offer an opinion of them based on my personal experiences of Habana and Miami before during and after the tragy at sea in which Elian's mother (and that is the only status she has) and others lost their lives. As I have said before, beyond the immediate family, this wasn't about the boy but about political manipulation from several different quarters - all of whom have distorted or suppressed what information was available and invented the rest to suit their views. I still feel that this article should be 'binned' as unsound. ZigZag (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome at any time to nominate this article as a candidate for deletion. It's quite unlikely that the article would in fact be deleted, as it's certainly a notable topic. We are bound to report only what the reliable sources have to say about it though - unfortunately, your own personal experiences and opinions will hold very little weight. A better strategy might be for you to systematically present your concerns here, one-by-one and accompanied by references which we can verify. If there are inaccuracies or distortions in the article, please do point them out - but please do it in a way that we can investigate and improve the article. Simply saying that it's "all wrong" or resorting to philosophical arguments about the nature of truth doesn't give us any basis to make the continuous small improvements that eventually make Wikipedia articles excellent. Franamax (talk) 02:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. An Articles for Deletion debate would be closed very quickly, probably within 24 hours, with the article kept. If there is POV in the article, please point it out and offer sources to justify changes. I think this article is NPOV. The reason we get people who think it is POV is that we don't go out of our way to attack Castro and Cuba; that's clear from the talk page. That's not what the article is here for.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That you are uncritical of your accepted sources is pretty clear, why they are accepted is not. One only has to read through the references to find contradictions even within a single source. Some of it is just error or sloppy reporting, some may be deliberate but this is so poor it can't be. [9]BBC "Elian's mother and 10 other would-be emigres died in the accident, while Elian and two other survivors came ashore clinging to the wreckage." Interest in the case in the UK was of course negligible. I was back in the UK in April of 2001 and I could find no one who had any recollection of the events or of the name Elian Gonzalez.

Mind you on one trip to Jamaica, which is not much further from Cuba than Florida, I commented to a shopkeeper that they had Bob Marley and Cuba had Fidel Castro, she asked what kind of music Castro played. Even though there were also plenty of Che T-shirts on sale in the shop, she had no idea who Fidel Castro was, just as most Americans don't know or don't care. The chiming in of Spain to support the Cuban government in the return of the boy, at the time a Cuban Minster was on a visit, which is given as a reference for international law, is transparently connected to trade agreements and Spain's huge investment in Cuba in tourist hotels and related business, while most of the rest of Europe remained oblivious or unconcerned about the political tensions created between America and Cuba and still are.

American media attacks on Castro are well documented and propaganda against the Castro regime is as prolific in the south of Florida as the Cuban government's propaganda against the Americans - a lot of it on both sides is 'hogwash'. I think you would have to see to believe the crude linking on Cuban television of Jimmy Carter to the KKK, the linking of Ronald Regan to Second World War Nazi firing squads, JFK's role in the 'Bay of Pigs', the effect of the embargo (which Castro certainly does not want removed) and so on, but the American 'spin' is just as bad, even if a lot more sophisticated. The Americans don't come out of this saga at all well. Castro knew exactly the kind of dog-eat-dog in-fighting his demand for the return of the boy would cause in an election year - the Americans didn't disappoint him.ZigZag (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that uncritical is a good standard for evaluation, unless applied even-handedly to all sources. Consider e.g., just the reportage with which a particluar editor happens to disagree, vs. reportage with the editor does agree from other sources. It is prefectly OK, even encouraged, to dispassionately report that source A says X and source B says Y, and that X and Y contradict one another. What is discouraged is expunging reportage from source A by an editor who puts more credence in the reportage by source B (presuming here that sources A and B are relatively equivalent in WP's perception of them as reliable sources — (tongue in cheek example: Fox News vs. MS-NBC reportage re the current US Presidential campaign). -- Boracay Bill (talk) 11:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree Boracay, as little reliance should be placed on what comes out of the studio of Fox News as is placed on announcements in the Cuban newspaper and television newscasts in Cuba. ZigZag (talk) 14:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Rewritten for neutrality

I have rewritten the article to eliminate many words like "claimed", which was, by the way, uniquely applied to the Government position, never to that of the relatives. I have cut out many diversions which were really not to the point, and tried to take as neutral a tone as possible in this difficult matter. I've also eliminated as many errors as possible, such as the "federal family court judge". There are no such things.--Wehwalt 17:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone has undone your good work Wehwalt. The article is not netural in tone and has many errors. ZigZag (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No persecution upon return self-contradictory; Citation Irrelevant

The no persecution line for those who return contradicts the point about ostracism for those the Cuban police catch. And the citation goes to a policy site; there's nothing there talking about people checking if there's persecution going on. This Wikipedia page got edited by a pro-Communist-Cuba type with an agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.57.252.21 (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The article as it reads now states that:

"U.S. Interest Section in Havana, in cooperation with international organizations, maintains follow-up contact with the returned Cubans. The result of this monitoring has been a conclusion that there is no systematic policy of the Cuban government to persecute those Cubans who have been returned."

However the source for this statement: [7] does not cite any reference to any report, press release or first hand source from either the U.S. Interest Section in Havana or any international organization.

The website has only the following assertion:

"This policy remains in effect and most Cubans who are intercepted trying to illegally enter the United States are returned to Cuba. To monitor whether the returned Cubans are in fact not subjected to persecution, the U.S. Interest Section (the equivalent of an Embassy except that we do not officially recognize the Castro regime) in cooperation with international organizations that have operations in Cuba, such as the International Organization for Migration, have maintained follow-up contact with the returned Cubans. The result of this monitoring has been a conclusion that there is no systematic policy of the Cuban government to persecute those Cubans who have been returned."

This "reference" offers no credible evidence of its assertion. It is not a substantive reference.

Without any first hand source, and in consideration that the uncited reference comes in a policy statement arguing against Cuban immigration, and immigration to the US in general, it is not a reliable second hand source.

Without a source citing actual evidence directly from the U.S. Interest Section in Havana or credible international organisations then the paragraph in the article must be considered unsourced, and I will delete it as untrue. 58.173.52.11 (talk) 07:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted. People can evaluate the source for what it's worth.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is no credible evidence of the monitoring of 'returnees' and that the assertion that there is fits with the agenda a policy statement arguing against Cuban immigration, and immigration to the US in general and it is not a reliable second hand source. ZigZag (talk) 09:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Edgardo Mortara

This reminds me of the infamous Edgardo Mortara case of the nineteenth century. 204.52.215.107 13:53, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the parallel or the relevance. B.Wind 05:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Certainly not relevant but the parallels; high level and community involvement, the clash of 'ideologies' and extreme views are self evident. ZigZag (talk) 09:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Verification

I would like to begin verifying some of the statements made in the article because I think some of them are doubtful. Let's start with this in the first paragraph:- "after the Miami relatives' appeals met several rejections by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta," What decision were the boy's relatives in Miami appealing and how many times were they allowed to appeal? Were these (multiple?) appeals about a single issue? I am not very familiar with American law, but in the UK an appeal can only be made on a point of law and can be made only once to the same court, I thought the same applied in the StatesZigZag (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC).

Lazaro lost on the merits, then he asked for rehearing and rehearing en banc. He was turned down.[8]. That being said, to say "several rejections" is odd language and confusing. I'll rephrase.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, so there was an appeal hearing (on the decision of the District Court not to grant asylum to Elian Gonzalez?) and an en banc hearing was also denied. I have read some of the documentation about allegations of excessive force by the INS or the other federal personnel, that the plaintiffs wanted compensation for, which also failed, but that is an entirely separate issue to that of either a custody claim or a request for asylum on behalf of the boy. ZigZag (talk) 05:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The statement in the article that only eight agents took part in the operation to take Elian Gonzalez from the house of his father's Miami relatives is contradicted by this article.

"*INS AWARDS AGENTS WHO RESCUED ELIAN GONZALEZ

Radio Havana Cuba-16 August 2000 22:45 Via NY Transfer News * All the News That Doesn't Fit Radio Havana Cuba - News Update - 16 August 2000 22:45

Atlanta, August 16 (RHC)-- INS agents who rescued Elian Gonzalez from his kidnappers in Miami last April received recognition for their bravery and sacrifice during a special ceremony held in Atlanta on Tuesday.

The director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Doris Meissner, awarded nearly 140 agents who took part in the April 22nd raid on the Miami house where the six-year-old was being held.

The INS director stated that her agents conducted themselves professionally, pointing out that no one was injured during the rescue operation. Meissner emphasized that the Immigration and Naturalization Service was proud of those who participated in the raid to free Elian from his kidnappers and, if faced with a similar situation, the agency would act in the same way.

Just hours after the rescue operation, Elian Gonzalez was reunited with his father and friends who were waiting in Washington, DC. Following numerous legal maneuvers by his kidnappers and right wing elements in the Cuban-American community and on Capitol Hill, the six-year-old boy was finally allowed to return home to Cuba two months later."

---

Fox News it seems also had it wrong, the figure they put out with their broadcasts was 230. The true figure is probably somewhere between the two given. It seems unlikely that all involved were given a bravery award, but that might be so. To suggest that that operation was carried out by just eight agents is just not credible - that might have been bravery.

I am not Cuban or directly involved but having seen some of what occurred I find the continual repetition of "No one was injured" to be offensive, it's probably intended to be - it was very obvious that some people were injured - unless Cubans don't count as people. The doing of injury with night-sticks and rifle butt was shown on television over and over again. There was also an interview with one of the injured shown on television after his release from hospital the next day: his head swathed in bandages. It's true no one was killed and there were no injuries to to federal personnel.

For Meissner to refer to the relatives to whom the authorities had given temporary custody of the boy as 'kidnappers' is patently absurd, that makes the authorities kidnappers too. One could, at a stretch, say his mother, who had legal custody of her son, had 'kidnapped' him from his father - but that is one hell of a stretch as he was not living with his father. 'Kidnapped' is the language to be expected from the Cuban authorities making 'political hay', not from the INS, especially not from the INS who handed him over to his relatives in the first place - and a term not to be supported here in an impartial and factual article, other than to say such emotive language was used both to stir up feelings while negotiations were taking place and to justify the way in which the boy was taken back by the INS . ZigZag (talk) 05:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Still need to review your full point, but in international law, I believe that for one parent to transport a child across international boundaries without the consent of the other parent, with the intent to deprive the other parent of access, partial custody, parenthood, etc. - is considered "kidnapping". The intent to "give my child a better life" doesn't factor in. Generally, or at least in modern law, both parents are equal in deciding what is best for the child. International law largely reflects that idea. The precise legal wording would be of interest here. As far as the relatives, once they refused to surrender their temporary legal custody, they could easily be considered as kidnappers, as they maintained unlawful custody (and to an extent, confinement) of a person and prevented that person's movement. Again, you need to consider the legal definitions. Franamax (talk) 08:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

And further to your points, the article mentions eight agents who actually entered the house. This appears factually true. Can you suggest good wording (and source) for the total number of particpating personnel - which were obviously more than eight! For some reason, likely subsequent editing or my own stupidity, I can't find the "no-one was injured" statement, so perhaps that's no longer an issue? Franamax (talk) 08:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I will await your review of my previous post. You basically write that you have not fully read my post but that the points it raises may no longer be an issue! I am not sure that having handed a child over to relations the INS could resonably claim that he had been kidnapped. The authorities seem to me to be in breach of their own guidlines about the returning of those fleeing Cuba who are picked up at sea.

That might be considered to be 'splitting legal hairs' because the 'wet feet - dry feet' approach is not statutory, but then so is claiming the boy's relatives to be kidnappers: the common perception of kidnapping (but perhaps not the legal definition) is that a child is taken from his home and relatives and held against his and their will- and the media are in the business of dealing with and even creating common perception, not in the creation of law.

I believe the kidnapping issue died with the boy's mother and had the authorities followed their own guidelines it could not have been raised again. In effect the American authorities perpetuated the kidnapping of the boy (if that is what it was) and handed him to a third party (his father's relatives), who they then accused of kidnapping. Cue - Casto dancing with delight. ZigZag (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's try to stick to the point of the talk page, which is to discuss how to improve the article. What is the point of this discussion?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The point of verification, which Wikipedia insists upon, is to establish the facts and remove what are merely various shades of opinion, distortion or even fiction. When the facts are established and incorporated in the article that improves it, except for those who prefer the fiction. ZigZag (talk) 03:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Zig, you're wandering off into philosophy again. You misread my post about a single issue possibly being resolved and construed the phrase as my not paying attention, then pontificated on your preferred (unsourced) definitions of kidnapping. Now you're meeting Wehwalt's plea for a specific point with more ambiguity. Do you have a specific suggested rewording? Franamax (talk) 03:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes of course, but when I last wrote 'contencious statements' in the article such as:- the father of Elion Gonzalez had remarried and therefore his wife was his second wife and also, that there were more than eight federal agents involved in the operation (I wrote 230 not the now verified? 140) I had these corrections removed as unverfiable. Now that I am trying to verify them, by not getting contradiction here, I am accused again of philosophy - and now pontification - it was not I who initially questioned the legal meaning of 'kidnapping', I merely answered the absurdity of the point raised and the fact that at least two of the 'sides' involved cynically used "kidnapped" as an emotive justification for their actions. Are you really as interested in getting an accurate and truthful article as you are in attempting to brow-beat me, because if not this could go on for some months ? ZigZag (talk) 07:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What you need to do is to find reliable sources that back up your proposed changes, as a threshold. However, if there was a significant constituency for the "kidnapped" belief, then you have to have it in the article under WP:DUE, whether it is actually right or wrong. You need those sources, because a hallmark of WP is verifiability. Until you have them, the question of right or wrong, accurate or no, doesn't arise.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What is a significant constituency and can you demonstrate the existence of one in this case on any point?

Whether or not the use of the word 'kidnapped' was appropriate after the death of the boy's mother is perhaps a mute point, but there is no certainty of the ignorance of Mr.Gonzalez about the proposed flight with Elian to Florida, his foreknowledge without reporting it to the Cuban authorities would have been a criminal offence that he would hardly have been eager to admit to. There is also no evidence presented that the boy was taken by his mother against his will.

Can you now accept on the evidence provided above i.e. the account of the awards given to 140 INS personnel for 'bravery' during the operation to recover Elian Gonzalez, that there were more than eight agents involved in that operation?

Are you able also to accept that the boy's father had remarried and was therefore married to his second wife (or can you demonstrate that he and the mother of Elian Gonzalez had not divorced but were only legally separated and he had not remarried ?) Both of these scenarios have reference support in the article - and I note in passing that some of the links to references in the article are 'dead', are dummy, have been removed at source or are just wide ranging 'rants' covering many events over a number of years.

I have had my amendments to the article removed on both the marital status of Mr. Gonzalez and the numbers of federal personnel involved in the recovery of the boy - removal which is contrary to improvement of the accuracy of the article. Is this sort of thing going to continue when I get into the more contentious areas, even when I can and do provide evidence of inaccuracy in the article as it is now presented? My agenda is to either get this article fair, balanced and accurate or removed completely. I am going to attempt the first course to begin with. ZigZag (talk) 22:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the point of this discussion? We certainly wouldn't put kidnap in the article as a fact, possibly we could while making it clear that was Meissner's POV, but I don't really think it is advisable. As for the number of INS agents, throwing a number at the reader won't make things clearer. That 130 agents number probably includes people who never came near the property, i.e., planners, officials, the tea lady who served the offices where they made plans, etc. As for ZigZag's belief that the article needs balance, well, I feel it is balanced now.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur. I do have some sympathy for noting that the extraction operation involved more than just the agents who entered the dwelling, but I haven't seen a proposed wording, so... Franamax (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The alterations I made to the article regarding the number of agents used was removed, but I am sure you know that as I have mentioned it at least three times now. I not sure that tea ladies and other people who never went near the property would have been given bravery awards but one never knows. I think that some balance needs to be put into the reporting of the two televison interviews mentioned in the article, I will have a look at that later today. Some editing so that an interview that took place five years later but is presented, even if with the date, sandwiched between daily occurances in Miami over a short space of time could improve the article, as could balanced comment on accusations from both sides concerning coaching of Elian during television interviews - something I have, in part, attempted previously - I replaced the word 'most' with 'some' so the article read 'some people', but that was also removed. ZigZag (talk) 09:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not much in the mood to play games here. Do you know how to show diff's? I don't see any edits that you've made to the article. Are you talking about a mention in an edit summary, by an anonymous editor, referring to "230 agents" and introducing the text "two hundred and twenty", along with zero sources and a large number of small POV changes? Is that where you're coming from? As above, what is the point of this discussion? Franamax (talk) 09:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You think I am playing a game? I have made some edits to the article, re the sequence of events and the television interviews as I said I would. I have also removed reference to the 'essay', an obvious fusion of fiction and fact, by the Colombian author which is, unsurprisingly from a reading of his biography, very pro Cuban government and anti-American. ZigZag (talk) 12:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I've reversed some of the edits. Note that the edits went way beyond what was stated in the edit summaries, and violate various WP policies, such as no original research and the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view (Mother's dying wish?) Please note that people are actually looking at the edits, not just the edit summaries, and will revert if necessary.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It's plain to see that you have some sort of personal agenda Wehwalt, your suggestion that Federal agents may have been used on the road to the airport (an opinion for which you offer no evidence at all) and not to clear the streets and surround the house and adjacent building is just daft especially in the light of bravery awards to 140 INS personnel (and possibly the tea lady - ha ha). I did not count the number of agents involved at the site of the house and you would not accept my count even if I had, but the weight of your opinion is it seems more important to you than achieving any sort of accuracy in this article.

If POV is not permitted what are the remarks of Gabriel García Márquez about the possible effects on the thinking of the Clinton administration doing in the article - along with a reference to a mawkish work of fiction telling the story of the Gonzalez family in Cuba (with large gaps, such as the reason for the divorce)?

Can you explain why the chronological reordering of the events and a balanced view of the television interviews and the reaction to them has been removed?

"The Mother's dying wish" was very much part of the reasoning of the Miami relatives, one of the 'boards' on which they repeatedly presented their case,there is already reference to it in other attached links, not POV at all. Please restore what you have removed. ZigZag (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I see my edits to the article are being blocked or are reverted within seconds of my posting them. ZigZag (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Mainly because you are not following the rules. Why don't you read up on Wikipedia policies?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Wehwalt. Zig, please discuss your proposed changes here, along with your reasoning. At least then we could point you to the relevant policies. Your opinions are simply not relevant here - all we care about is how the article can be improved with acceptable sources. Again, if you have problems with the existing wording, discuss it here. No-one I'm aware of is determined to support any particular POV - except perhaps yourself. Remember - verifiable and reliable sources. Franamax (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Franamax, you and Wehwalt seem to live in some sort of 'Alice in Wonderland' environment. You ask me to discuss changes here but when I do so you don't bother to read them. I ask questions, you ignore them. I see reading back through this discussion that you have defeated several other apparently reasonable people with your 'stick in the mud' approach and you are very 'cavelier' when it comes to substantiating what you yourself have posted or consider to be acceptable.

Take for example the views of Gabriel García Márquez on the political situation in Florida, his thoughts about the thoughts of Clinton and the possible effects on the 2000 election and contrast them with "The Mother's dying wish" pleas of the Miami relatives; which is the more accurate and relevant to what occurred in Miami in April of 2000 and the story of Elian Gonzalez ?

I would prefer you restored my edits than having to repeatedly do it myself. You might at least leave them there for a time, so that others who may be interested can amend or add to them if they wish, rather than just deleating everyting I add or reorder, without even reading what I have written as you appear to be doing. Others have previously complained of your 'delete all and revert' approach. What rules are you following with this approach, surely not those of Wikipedia? ZigZag (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again - propose your changes here on the talk page first. One at a time. If you have issues, we can discuss them - one at a time. Have a read too at WP:BRD, it's entirely normal that you change an article, it gets reverted, and discussion goes to the talk page. Pick GGM, make a section, we can discuss that single issue. We are reading your edits, they're controversial. Discuss your problems here, one at a time and we may be able to make some progress. If you are going to insist that your own personal opinion must be reflected in the article though, it's not likely we'll make progress at all. Franamax (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Discuss the specifics of what concerns you. For example, I don't have any problem with the removal of the Marquez material.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. Took it out, I did. Franamax (talk) 02:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Moving on

Thanks for that. Okay, one point at a time. The number of agents used in the operation to remove Elian Gonzalez from the Miami house who later received awards for bravery was one hundred and forty (if the awards had not been presented it would have been very difficult to establish the numbers). It is possible that not all involved received awards (e.g. the tea lady or those possibly patrollling the route to the airport that you introduced to the discussion ) and that the number of 230 given by Fox News at the time was accurate, but that cannot be easily substantiated. I have provided reference to the fact of these awards and the number of personnell who received them previously in this disscussion page. I believe that the correct numbers ought to be reported in the article i.e. 140 at the house (not just the eight SWAT equiped agents mentioned) and that a footnote in that section should report the bravery awards given to these federal operatives. I must say I find it strange to have in effect to ask your permission to post verified material in the article but if that is what I must do for now I will do it. ZigZag (talk) 04:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You certainly don't need our permission to edit the article - but neither do we need your permission to take it right back out again, if it doesn't meet policy bars. Talking it over first here is called gaining consensus and pretty much always works best. Now, do you have a specific proposed wording? Something along the lines of "8 agents, supported by around xxx others<reliable source>..."? Franamax (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have added "supported by at least 130 INS personnel" and cited http://www.radiohc.org/Distributions/Radio_Havana_English/.2000/2000_aug/Radio_Havana_Cuba-16_August_2000_22:45.(see INS awards) Perhaps not the more reliable source but I have not yet found where Radio Havana picked up news of this event. A Goggle on 'INS Awards' gives the impression that they spend a great deal of time awarding themselves. ZigZag (talk) 05:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest "eight agents, as part of an operation in which some 140 INS personnel took part.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Next point. These statements in the article "The boat was operated by his mother's boyfriend, who resided in Miami and smuggled Cubans into the U.S. for money." conflicts with other accounts of his residence Cuba and the construction of a boat there, (the purchase of a boat in Miami by a Miami resident would have been a much easier and a far less risky option). Is there any verification for the last two assertions? If not "...who resided in Miami and smuggled Cubans into the U.S. for money." should be removed. I think it can be accepted, although not proven, that it was he and not some other individual, that operated the boat. ZigZag (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a recent insertion. I'd lose it. It is a minor point, not really relevant to the Elian controversy. It doesn't matter who operated the boat, in my view.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

This does not scan properly, presumably because something has been removed before the word 'However'. Further the link [5] accesses no information at all. "The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) released Elián to his paternal great-uncle, Lázaro González. According to the Washington Post, Elián's father Juan Miguel González-Quintana had telephoned Lázaro from Cuba on November 22, 1999, to advise that Elián and his mother had left Cuba without Juan Miguel's knowledge, and to watch for their arrival.[5] However, Lázaro González, backed by local Cuban-Americans, soon took the position that the boy should remain in the United States, and not be returned to his father in Cuba." It is necessary to state that the father wanted his son returned to him and what reasons were given by his uncle for refusing this request. The emotive reason, often repeated by Marisleysis was that Elian's mother had died trying to get him to the USA and it was therefore her dying wish that her son should be brought up in America.(a pseudo legal argument which ignored the existence of the father). The other reasons were the 'better lifestyle' and the 'dictatorship of Castro' arguments. What was overlooked was that without the political argument, which was seized upon by various interested parties with their own agendas, it is extremely unlikely that the family would have even considered keeping Elian from his natural father in the way that they did.

The 'lifestyle' argument was considered by the Council of Christian Churches in the USA, as unimportant compared with bringing a child up with his natural parent in a loving home environment. There is substantive documentation of their trips to Cuba to meet with church leaders there along with the head of the American Interests Section in Habana and the Cuban authorities, which have not been mentioned in the article. ZigZag (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

So what change are you proposing?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

My own knowledge of Cuba led me to doubt that two telephone calls were made from a pay-phone to the USA, simply because the cost of such calls were $6 per minute (in 1998). How would such calls have been made on a Cuban salary? In addition such calls can only be made through an operator and, as they were to a country Cuba calls 'enemy' (and the USA calls 'hostile'), they would certainly have been monitored. They could have been reversed charge calls if made on a telephone account but only a State Associated Company or a foreigner, who could demonstrate a legitimate requirement, would have such an account (I had one when I lived in Cuba) and no director of an SAC would have dared to make such a call on a company telephone. People of lower rank would not have been given access. To give an idea of the degree of control, I can relate that when I worked for the Ministry of Sport and Education. The president of the federation of the sport I was involved with was permitted, as a cost control, to send two fax messages per year to overseas destinations (he could receive them without restriction). He was running all the international teams in his sport within that restriction. (That was in 1998, I expect there is probably access to e-mail by now).

I have other problems with these calls. I have read three different accounts of the timing of them. In the book 'Cuba Confidential' by Ann Louise Bardach, who interviewed the parties in Cuba some time after the events, no mention of them is made at all, but perhaps they just slipped the mind of Mr.Gonzalez when she interviewed him.

If a call was placed to the USA to inform a relative that someone was arriving illegally the caller would have been very careful to make it clear to the monitors, who would be certain to be listening and recording, that he was unaware of the intention to make the trip or of any preparation for it and to maintain forever afterwards the story that he had no foreknowledge of the proposed trip. It is a criminal offence in Cuba to fail to report such information to the authorities immediately it is known.

I also know from experience of individuals under such duress that it a common tactic in Cuba for the police or security forces to let someone know that the authorities are aware of a criminal act (even if it can't be proven) but that their future co-operation regarding the activities of their neighbours will keep them out of jail. It's a tactic used by police the world over, but Cuban jails are particularly unpleasant places, without the niceties and amenities and rights afforded to prisoners in most western countries and trivial things (or things we would consider a right) - like being justly critical of the government or a government official, are considered criminal offences.

All I can say with any certainty at the moment, having spent some days reading books and also material on the Internet about the Elian Gonzalez affair, is that people from all sides (and there are several 'warring' factions in both Cuba and the USA) are telling lies. Some are lying to protect themselves and their families, some for political reasons. There are also some doing it for money, lawyers and journalists (quite why there was a media 'frenzy' and people like the Atorney General and the Head of the INS became personally involved has never been properly explained).

With common sense and 'reading between the lines' with knowledge of both Habana and Miami- and knowing this started in an election year, it is not too difficult to arrive at an approximation of what probably happened - but that is not encyclopedic. I came to this topic after having been infuriated by a 'sick' video posted on UTube, with the intention of taking out some of what was obviously speculation or just plain wrong. I must admit now that I can't do that because my own knowledge is incomplete or relies on sources I can't entirely trust. I don't think there is anybody (who would be willing or able to post to the article) who does know the complete truth and is prepared to relate it - not at present anyway and very much doubt that much of any such account can now be verified.

I am going to withdraw. ZigZag (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

As you wish. You have helped to improve the article, though with experience in WP, you can find more efficient ways to do so. This is on my short list of articles to improve towards FA, though I had to pass this one over for now because it was too unstable, and I've brought controversial recent event articles to FA, see Natalee Holloway and Jena Six. So the article will get better, but I'm too busy with another article just now to do serious work on this one.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

A move and a small rewrite

The Biographies of living persons policy counsels us to cover the event, not the person in cases where the person is basically notable only for one thing. Accordingly, I've been bold and moved the article from its previous place under the boy's name, to "Elián González affair", and removed the infobox which besides giving few personal details was also inappropriate for this kind of article.

There wasn't much to rewrite, really, because otherwise the article seems to be about the controversy, and quite well written and researched. Thanks to everybody who has worked on it. --Tony Sidaway 18:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really to nitpick, but do we have any guideline as to how to title such articles? I know that I would have been more aggressive about supporting the "cover the event, not the person" approach were that the case, but I've always felt like I'm writing OR when trying to discriminate among: affair, case, controversy, event, incident, specifiers (such as kidnapping or murder, where appropriate), and probably some other not-quite-synonyms that I've missed. Serpent's Choice 14:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Elián González affair sounds better than my previous choice. I'll go with that. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to Elian Gonzalez affair (to eliminate the accent marks). No consensus as to what, if anything, to change "affair" to, defaults to no change.

We should have this under the kid's name per WP:TITLE and WP:NAME. --Wehwalt (talk) 07:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• move to Elian Gonzalez, since I don't remember seeing accents on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, etc, so it's not the English version of his name. 70.55.86.100 (talk) 08:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Crimmy, the kid was 8 years old and already having an affair? I didn't realize you could marry that young. Silly title. Move it to his name only. 199.125.109.107 (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you anonymous fellows for your feedback. Please familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy which counsels us to cover the event, not the person. This applies to titles as well. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

And you are maintaining that an eight year old had an affair? If you want to refer to the event, it wasn't an affair, it was an attempted illegal entry into the United States and subsequent deportation. Which is a ridiculous name for an article. Just use the boy's name. 199.125.109.107 (talk) 02:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No, of course Coccyx isn't. Affairs come in many kinds; love affairs are only one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per User:Coccyx Bloccyx. Cover the event, not the person (who is notable only because of the one event). --Born2cycle (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC

• How do you square that with WP:NAME and WP:TITLE?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not aware of anything in what I said that doesn't square with WP:NAME or WP:TITLE. If you think there is, please identify the section(s) and key wording. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• The whole bit in WP:NAME beginning "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." People would naturally search by his name, and on Google get 1.3 million hits vs. just 42,000 for the affair.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think there is a single English speaker that would not recognize the meaning of the current title. On the other hand, if the title is only his name, that may cause readers to wrongly think the article is biographical about the person. Searching is not an issue since the name alone already redirects here. But just because the name alone redirects here does not mean it is the most common name used to refer to the subject of this article, which is not him per se, but what happened to him. I'm not crazy about the current title, but I can't think of a better one, and I know just his name is not it. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment if the article is not renamed to his name, it should still be renamed to Elian Gonzalez affair, because the current title does not reflect English usage, since the US news organizations did not use accents. 70.55.86.100 (talk) 12:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I have inadvertently written 'Elian Gonzalez Incident' on more than one occasion and I think that a more suitable title. 'Affair' does not necessarily refer to adultery but it is I think the most common modern usage of the word. I still feel that this subject cannot be dealt with in an encyclopedic article as the truth is still impossible to discover. It might be better suited to Wikibooks and shown to be an example of political and cultural manipulation: it is certainly not biographical. ZigZag (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Robot Chicken

The afformentioned show made a sketch involving this particular incident. Should we mention it? And if so, where? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JIMfoamy1 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Name of article

I didn't notice the above discussion before I requested a move of the article to Elián González affair, or else I would have posted something here first--oops. But I think using the accents is preferable. The name just looks wrong without them. I looked at a bunch of newspaper sources and while a lot don't use the accents, the New York Times uses them at least some of the time (example example) and a few others use them inconsistently (e.g. "Elián Gonzalez"). The first page of results of a Google Books search [9] has the accents in 8 out of 10 (you have to click the result links to see the page scans: the google snippets omit them because their indexing software strips them out). I think books are preferable to newspapers on priority of sources grounds, and also that more recent exemplars are preferable to older ones (such as those made at the time of the incident). Newspapers are, as they say, the first draft of history; we're ideally aiming to document the finished copy, not the first draft. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 23:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You need to start a discussion here first, or link to the WP:RM page. I am reverting the move. This is the English Wikipedia; we don't use accents, we use the most commonly used format. Just restoring the status quo ante without prejudice to your trying again. Sorry.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we use the most commonly used format: we use the format preferred by the most reliable sources. And we certainly do use accents in names like François Mitterand, Pelé, Mel Tormé, Leoš Janáček, Estée Lauder, Paul Erdős, Kurt Gödel, or Søren Kirkegaard. As an extreme example, we certainly wouldn't use a misspelling instead of a correct spelling even if the misspelling were more common (Dolley Madison's first name is often misspelled "Dolly"). Anyway, at least as far as contemporary sources are concerned, I'm not even convinced that the version without the accents is the most common. Unless there are serious objections supported by sources, I think it should be moved back. Writing this particular name without the accents just makes us look déclassé foolish. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Addition: WP:UE and WP:EN are not much help here. I would interpret WP:EN#Divided_usage to suggest including the accents, but it's not a slam-dunk. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 01:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you relist it? The only defence I intend to make is that there was that RfC a year ago.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh man, it's really pretty draining to do stuff like that. If you don't have a definite preference on the matter, I don't think it was helpful for you to revert, given that nobody else seems to care about it enough to post now, nobody in the RFC seemed to care about it much even a year ago, and the source review presented in the RFC comments was very weak even compared with what I gave above. The name is written with accents throughout the article, for heaven's sakes. It would have been better to wait and see if anyone actually opposed the pagemove after the new sources had been provided, and just leave it in place if nobody opposed (i.e. per WP:BRD, your reversion makes you the Most Interested Person, and if you're so indifferent and everyone else is even less interested, then why did you revert at all?).

I really don't want to get involved in a debate on a political article like this. I just clicked on a link from someplace completely unrelated and then thought I was making a simple, gnomish correction and suddenly I'm sucked into a hellish research task. Anyway, news outlets seem to mix usage, with sites of audiovisual media outlets (TV news) mostly not using them, and print media (probably more relevant since we're talking about how something is written) going both ways. Here is the Miami Herald using the accents in 2008 though they didn't in some 2000-era articles I looked at. I don't know if they were consistent about it in either year, but my impression (not just from this) is that using accented characters has become more widespread in English-language publications in general, as Unicode is more pervasively available in computer and typography systems than before, and culture keeps becoming more global. Also, more carefully edited sources like books appear more likely to use them than deadline-driven news operations, since they are inconvenient to type on US keyboards, so I suspect that the non-use of accents in the news stories is more a matter of lazy typing than a deliberate stylistic choice. I like to think Wikipedia uses the careful approach. As I mentioned, 8 out of the top 10 Google book hits use the accents (I can list them if you want but the search link is above) plus I gave some NYT links earlier.

How does this sound? Wait a week and then move the page back unless someone objects. If someone does, then in principle we could have a more comprehensive sourcing and guideline discussion and seek a conclusion. In practice it's just too much hassle and I doubt I'd bother, but who knows. Really though, in a situation like this (no really definite convention across most sources), in my view we should honor the dignity of our article subjects (and our own ethic of care and precision), by writing their name the way they would write it themselves. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 09:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

If no one else chimes in, then OK, I will reverse myself on the move, I suppose. As for updating, at one point I thought I was going to push this article along towards promotion. It has never been a high prioritiy though and there are articles I can more easily impove without taking a lot of crap from the various people who have strong positions on this thing. Happy to work with a colleague though, if you want to help out, I have access to the NY Times archives.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

As there has been a requested move before, it should be listed again and the arguments presented as to why it should be moved. 69.228.171.150 the policy page for guidance on this is WP:UE and that says choose on the sources. Sources have to be evaluated as to quality etc not just on quantity and yes how recent they are. Saying that one is more common than another does not make is so, it is better to have a WP:RM and decide it there, by presenting evidence of your findings. -- PBS (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the BBC, the Independent the Guardian, the Telegraph, and the Times (mostly) use "Elian Gonzalez" what do the majority of US sources use? I am assuming that this article falls under strong ties to the U.S. (Wikipedia:NC#National varieties of English) -- PBS (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Born 1993 ? Or 1995 ?

I have just now made a small change to the article removing non-sourced information and commented in the edit summary that Gonzalez is now 18, not 16 . However, it seems to me that his birth date is wrong, because all of the other references seem indicate he was born in 1995 , (Fidel attending his 13th birthday party, etc.) . Or it may be those references are wrong . Scheaffer Sirls (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. He was certainly 6 in 2000.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Untitled

"González's mother had drowned in late 1999 while with her son and boyfriend, from Cuba to the United States." This sentence makes no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.164.79.5 (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

a little background -- miami as terror capital of hemisphere, reason for force in raid

It's good that the following quote is included: After being informed of the decision, Marisleysis said to a Justice Department community relations officer, "You think we just have cameras in the house? If people try to come in, they could be hurt."[14][15] Some people question use of force by agents in raid. But there were already threats of violence towards federal authorities by exiles if provoked, as seen by the above quote. Not to mention that many of the powerful exiles who had rallied around the Elian issue were known terrorists and affiliates of Luis Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch, the former known as the "Bin Laden of the Americas." Why, just 2 days ago, the terrorist Posada (bomber of the 1976 Cubana Flight 455, killing 78 people -- Posada carried out the terrible act, the worst act of air terrorism prior to 9/11, with the aid of Bosch and other CORU narcoterrorists) was honored in Hialeah, and weeks ago at a dinner in Miami, by many of the same powerful figures who rallied around the Elian issue. My point is that powerful figures in Miami, apparently mainstream due to their official positions, are actually narcoterrorist-affiliated and rather violent. Since there is a background of terror and violence in these circles, that should be mentioned as background for the use of force in this case (the Elian raid). Otherwise, ppl wonder why the federal agents went in with such force. also one thing is not mentioned in the article -- elian's own words on the event afterwards. in the years since the event, he has spoken to CBS and said "i never had a good moment in miami." 96.232.167.73 (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Penis incident

Does anyone have any information on this odd situation wher ehis grandmother pinched his penis? I heard this a while ago and it sounds so odd that I can't believe it really happened.

• According to the local (Miami) media, it did happen... but this article should stick as closely as possible to the main points of the matter. For that reason, I applaud the authors for not delving into the apparent emotional instabilities that were exhibited by Marisleysis while Elián was living with her. B.Wind 05:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Emotional instabilities? Do you know anything about Cuban family culture at all? --TJive 21:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

A neurotic crazy woman is a neurotic crazy human in any culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.210 (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That was the term that was bandied about the press (along with "emotional breakdowns") - and is very perjorative, not to say POV, regardless of the personal attack by the previous post. B.Wind's knowledge (or lack thereof) of Cuban family culture is irrelevant as he(?) was pointing out a plus on the article in the POV department. 147.70.242.39 22:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Superfluous accent marks?

I'm "mildly functional" in Spanish, not fluent at all, and most of my experience is practical, rather than learning formal grammar.

That said, it seems that the text of this article is full of accent marks that don't need to exist. As I understand standard Spanish rules, accent marks are placed to show emphasis on syllables when they don't conform to standard pronunciation rules.

Example: "González". The "za" would normally be emphasized under standard pronunciation, so there's no reason to accent it. And unless I'm mistaken, "Elián" would also be normally pronounced with the emphasis on the last syllable, so there's no need for the accent mark. Same for "Lázaro", "Fernández", and "Rodríguez".

"Cárdenas" is an example within the article of correctly showing emphasis on the non-standard syllable; without the accent, it would be pronounced "car DEE nahs".

Discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KBCraig (talk • contribs) 08:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Spanish accent rules:

1. Words with stress on last syllable have accent mark when they end end in vowel (a,e,i,o,u) n, or s ex. Elián, because it ends in n. 2. Words with stress on syllable before least have accent mark when they don't end in vowel (a,e,i,o,u) n, or s Ex. González has accent mark because it ends in z. 3. Words with accent in any other syllabe (besides the last two syllables) always have accent mark. Ex. Cárdenas because it has stress in a syllable other than the last two ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.210 (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Execution Accusation

Particularly, the claim that Cuban police execute those who attempt to leave Cuba is ENTIRELY false, and if it was going to be displayed, ought to have a source. The Cuban government may imprison them, and certainly excludes them from being able to partake in social or political roles or find jobs, but there are no executions as of the last few years.

"Last few years"? Thank God the murdering of people who wish to flee communist Cuba has slowed down. Jtpaladin 13:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The Cuban police do not 'execute' i.e. legally kill with the authority of the State, those trying to leave Cuba, but there are at least two recorded incidents of coastguard boats ramming and sinking a boat attempting to reach Florida and then turning fire hoses onto people in the sea with the result that many were drowned. In the most notorious incident in 1974 seventy-two people lost their lives, in a much more recent incident, more than forty were killed.

Having lived in Cuba for five years I am also doubtful of the ability of the staff of the American Interests Section to effectively monitor the welfare of Cubans returned to Cuba after having tried to leave illegally.

Those Cubans who win the 'lottery' and go to the United States legally,are immediately dismissed from any State job (the State runs practically all business in Cuba),have any real property they vacate confiscated, they also have their chattels listed and collected by a State agency. Televisions, fridges, etc. I know people who have been through the process. I doubt that people who are returned after an illegal attempt to leave are treated more favourably than those that are fortunate enough to be able to leave legally. Certainly providing aid to those attempting to leave illegally is a criminal offence which carries a hefty jail term (providing a boat for example). It doesn't make sense that those providing aid would be more harshly treated than those who leave but get returned. They may not be jailed because of the interest taken in them but returning to vacant property or to previous employment would not be a possibility. ZigZag (talk) 04:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

zxDoes anyone know his father's name? The article doesn't mention it. ? kcar1986

---

"Escaped"? He was kidnapped at great risk to his life, for chrissakes.

"Kidnapped"? Yes, everyone who escapes tyranny has been kidnapped. Jtpaladin 13:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

He was six years old and couldn't possibly make the choice to "escape" by himself. His mother kidnapped him and, not even knowing how to swim, took him through rough seas in a tiny boat. That's not heroic, it's stupid. Making false arguments isn't an act of heroism either, Jtpaladin. 76.115.59.36 (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't be stupid, how can a mother "kidnap" her son, listen to yourself for god's sake. She left the country, and obviously was going to take her son with her. No one knows the exact circumstances or the reasons for her leaving Cuba, so you're making a fairly big assumption in saying that he was "kidnapped". She was obviously doing what she thought at the time was best for her son moron. Megapeen (talk) 04:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to add one point: if the mother was ready to take such risks to escape Cuba that should give some idea of the magnitude of the tyranny that she was trying to escape FROM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.84.174 (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

---

How do we know Mr. Gonzalez was loyal to the Cuban government? Bear in mind that criticism of the government is a crime in Cuba, so merely not making anti-government statements is no proof of loyalty: it may be motivated entirely by fear of imprisonment. Also, there were newspaper reports that Mr. Gonzalez's parents (2 of the boy's grandparents) were arrested and kept in custody during the man's trip to the US. Also, no Americans (other than those who agreed with forcible repatriation) were ever allowed to speak to the man without a Cuban handler present.

• There's another issue besides US-Cuban relations, too. The boy's father had legal custody of the child, and the mother had attempted to flee with the boy without his consent. (Whether she had a political/economic motive or was just doing the same kind of parental kidnapping unfortunately common elsewhere is left to one's own judgement.) As a result, those interested in "Father's Rights" issues took up this particular cause as well.

No, the mother had legal custody of the child. She and the father were legally separated.

There is an incredible degree of muddle about what should be straighforward information retrieval, and would be almost anywhere but Cuba. It is easy to find reference to a divorce between Juan and Eliabeth, I have even found one source which states they were divorced before Elian was born. There is reference to a 'boyfriend' or lover who was a Miami based people smuggler, the same person is also reported to live in Cuba and to be Elian's step-father, although I have found no indication that Eliabeth remarried. There is report that Elian had not seen his father in months and others that he lived with his father almost full time. ZigZag (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• As far as Mr. Gonzalez's loyalties, no one can really know them but him - still, I think one can make a clear case that he had no desire to emigrate, as he had ample opportunity to do so while in the US. (As I recall, the child's grandparents also made trips here to see Elian, which rather casts the "in custody" story in a questionable light.) -- April

I have a source which suggests that Mr.Gonzalez had himself tried to leave Cuba on at least two previous occasions. http://www.autentico.org/oa09641.php The calls from a 'pay phone' to the USA (considered an enemy country by the Cuban government) are a puzzel. My own experience in Cuba is that such calls are monitored and cost (in 1999) $6 per minute. Not the sort of calls a private individual, working as a waiter on a Cuban wage, would contemplate making. ZigZag (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The grandparents came under Cuban supervision.

---

Summary of arguments on each side:

Stay in US

1. Mother died to save son from totalitarian regime, and her wishes should be respected.
2. Boy will enjoy freedom in US
3. Legal appeals had not yet been exhausted; issue should be settled by courts, not federal agency.
4. No way to tell father's wishes, as Cuban gov't forbade any unmonitored communication.
5. Father may have been pressured, as his parents were put in gov't custody during the affair.

Return to Cuba

1. Children should be with their father (if mother is dead).
2. Federal agency has jurisdiction, not courts.

1. Eliáns mother did not die to "save son from totalitarian regime". All information available points to her agreeing to take the risk of going to the US out of love for her then partner, not for any political motives. See for example "Cuba confidential" by Ann Louise Bardach, possibly the best book on the subject.

2. "Boy will enjoy freedom in US" is a politically motivated argument. One could just as well say "Boy will enjoy socialism in Cuba".

3. The court had made its decision. The father had legal custody of the boy.

4. Not true. There are no reasons whatsoever to doubt what Juan Miguel Gonzalez made very clear in every comment he ever made on the case both in Cuba as well as on US soil. After returning to Cuba, Juan Miguel has also made a political career there and even been elected member of their parliament which indicates that he is a sincere supporter of the Cuban political system. Remember also that it was Juan Miguel who went to Fidel Castro to ask for help to get the boy returned, not the other way around.

5. His parents were not "put in custody". As mentioned, his mother also visited the US before him. They also had several visits by - among others - members of the international press. If they would really have been "put in custody" it would have been known.

IMO, the only real argument that was put forward by those who wanted Elián to stay in the US was that any kid is better off in a rich country than in a poor country, no matter where his closest family members reside.

---

I changed all references from "Elián" to "Elian". I believe "Elian" is correct, and a search of Cuban web pages has a preponderance using "Elian". Tempshill 02:54, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Elián González is correct. If you need proof, Google shows:

elián -elian site:cu - 3,610
elian -elián site:cu - 247

--Wik 22:58, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)

• "Elián González" (accents on both) is correct (conforme a aclaración solicitada en w:es). –Hajor 04:47, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
• "Elián González" is correct, as shown in CNN in Spanish and the NY Times. Ruiz 05:12, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• "Elián González" Is the correct form in Spanish...but, I'm not sure of the policy finally taken with foreign names, to keep the spelling, or to eliminate the graphic accents? Of one thing I'm sure, either you put both accents, or you eliminate both (and also all the accents in all other foreing names) --User:AstroNomer

Excellent; thanks everyone for the help. Tempshill 05:49, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The Introduction

"After the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case, González was taken from his relatives at gunpoint and returned to Cuba in June 2000."

Whether or not this is true, does this belong in the summary? I'm not saying there shouldn't be controversial/shocking content in the article, but putting this sentence and phrasing in the last sentence of the introduction has a pretty clear intent. Charibdis (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Current Status

There's some mention, not sure where, in a news site, that Elian is now currently a member of the Communist Youth in Cuba, and sent a get-well card to Fidel Castro, addressing him as "grandpa fidel"

I just did a search and here's link to what Elian is doing today picture and article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.16.177 (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Mired in POV

This article makes global warming look pristine. It's highly biased in favor of the Florida Cuban communitiy viewpoints and against the view of a majority of U.S. citizens of that time that Elian belonged with his natural father, no matter where his father came from. The Cuban community indeed had very strong political motivations to prevent the boy's transfer back to a land they vehemently and justifiably hated. The political pressures from this community influenced the Gonzalez family to break federal law (or at best, flout it). The cries about some atrocity to "liberty" being perpetrated are laughable--a liberty to keep other people's children doesn't quite exist and never will.

"the view of a majority of U.S. citizens" have no opinion of any not-immediately-relevant issue beyond what the press spoon-feeds them. And Elian's mother had already "flouted" the Cuban dictatorship's law by fleeing the country (usually the desire for liberty entails exactly that: breaking a tyranny's laws); given that she'd done so with a new man, it's clear the "family" was already broken. The US had no compelling interest to honor the Cuban father's claims, but the Clinton administration chose to do so to make a scurrilous political point. Pax 21:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Someone needs to get out their NPOV scissors and go to work here. -- Stevietheman 04:20, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Interestingly, the "official ideology calls for the abolition of the family" bit is still in the article. What the hell? glasperlenspiel 08:34, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

This is clearly a non-NPOV article. I'm placing the NPOV template, and adding a link to Gabriel Garcia Marquez's account of the story.Orzetto 12:23, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What is the section on "Stereotypes" doing there? It has nothing to do with the actual controversy, and seems to be just another attempt to sway sympathy towards the Batista Cubans. (It's not accurate to call them "Miami Cubans" or "Florida Cubans"; there are Cubans in Miami who are not members of the Batista group, they just aren't very vocal.) It's easy to pick and choose out-of-context statements that don't show the full picture.

I agree, and I removed the way-over-the-top Castro comparisons. I think the whole section should be deleted, or perhaps reworked into a discussion of the heated discussion in the media, and quotes from some of the critics of the tone of the discussion. No copouts like "some argue..." Also, calling a bunch of people "crazies" is not stereotyping. Pfalstad 20:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete the section and pare all political arguments on both sides to a minimum. If there is going to be a discussion on the news coverage of the matter, there should be a comparison of the national coverage in the US vs. coverage in the Miami area, which was very different. Miami's news coverage bordered on advocacy for the "Miami family." B.Wind 04:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Elián González affair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061005012824/http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_cuba_policy to http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_cuba_policy

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Elián González custody battle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070709042649/http://www.time.com:80/time/photoessays/yip2000/yip_apr_1.html to http://www.time.com/time/photoessays/yip2000/yip_apr_1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Reason for protests

I have just read through the article. There was one part which was hard to understand – centering on "Approximately 100 people protested against the raid as it took place, with some calling the INS agents 'assassins'". I could understand his uncle and other relatives resisting his return to Cuba, but I could not guess what motivated these 100 people. I felt it needed explanation.

Now that I have read this talk page, I think I understand. They weren't protesting because they didn't want the boy to go back to his father, they were protesting at the heavy-handed methods of the police. I still feel that this needs to be stated in the article, rather than leaving the reader to find out from the talk page. (It may be obvious to Americans - but many readers are not American.) Maproom (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 22 April 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Elián González. As amusing as it is to read that he is now notable and remarkable because he "has a fiancée" and "wants to study engineering", there is nonetheless a solid consensus that he is overall notable in his own right per WP:GNG, and the article can be at his own name.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

---

Elian Gonzalez custody battle → Elian Gonzalez – Updates of his adulthood has made him more notable than he was years ago, especially when a reader reads "Return to Cuba" section. Alternatively, if he is not as notable as his own situation, revert to Elian Gonzalez affair? The article name was changed without discussion. I could discuss diacritics that were reinserted long ago but then re-removed per previous requested move (RM) discussion, but that would distract the main purpose of this discussion. We can discuss diacritics at another RM next time. George Ho (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support but either way restore to Elián González as per every other Cuban bio on en.wp. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support move to Elián González, with adjustments to the lede as needed to make this a bio on the subject rather than the event, and with the addition of recent images, if available. bd2412 T 20:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support move per all the above.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support Elián González per above. Banedon (talk) 00:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. The man himself is not notable. It's the custody battle, and the clumsy way the affair was handled by the authorities, that were notable. I would support a move to Elián González affair. Maproom (talk) 10:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

What about his return to Cuba and his adulthood, Maproom? George Ho (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

He returned to Cuba as a 12-year-old. As an adult, he has answered questions from journalists, but done nothing remarkable. Maproom (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

How are wanting to be an engineer and having a fiancée neither "remarkable" nor marks for higher notability? George Ho (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Is that a serious question? Wanting to be an engineer and having a fiancée may both be commendable, but they do not make someone notable. Maproom (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

What makes him notable is the fact that these facets of his life remain of enduring interest to people. bd2412 T 00:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support move to Elián González. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rovingrobert (talk • contribs) 10:47, 20 May 2016‎ (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Having moved the article, this talk page needs to be moved in parallel, though of course this will need an administrator as it isn't a simple WP:MOR. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Elián González. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.biography.com/people/eli
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090112215621/http://www.cubanet.org:80/CNews/y00/mar00/27e4.htm to http://www.cubanet.org/CNews/y00/mar00/27e4.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120218073045/https://www.radiohc.org/Distributions/Radio_Havana_English/.2000/2000_aug/Radio_Havana_Cuba-16_August_2000_22:45 to http://www.radiohc.org/Distributions/Radio_Havana_English/.2000/2000_aug/Radio_Havana_Cuba-16_August_2000_22:45
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070615032444/http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200514375.pdf to http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200514375.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://judiciary.senate.gov/oldsite/682000_pjl5.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130814042544/http://archives.cnn.com:80/2000/US/04/22/cuba.boy.05/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/04/22/cuba.boy.05/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080519123940/http://archives.cnn.com:80/2000/LAW/06/15/elian.appeal.01/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/15/elian.appeal.01/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130828022719/http://archives.cnn.com:80/2000/LAW/06/28/elian.stay.03/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/28/elian.stay.03/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130617162040/http://www.commondreams.org/views/032900-105.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/views/032900-105.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111023230321/http://www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2004/May/bortac.xml to http://www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2004/May/bortac.xml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elián González. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726121110/http://www.aclufl.org/legislature_courts/legal_department/briefs_complaints/elianamicus.cfm to http://www.aclufl.org/legislature_courts/legal_department/briefs_complaints/elianamicus.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Political ramifications section does not include "banana republic" protests against the mayor of Miami

See [10], [11] etc... -- AnonMoos (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)