Talk:Elián González

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: [1] 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)

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)

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)

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)

---

How do we know Mr. Gonzalez was loyal to the Cuban government? Bear in mind that criticism of the goverment 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.

• 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

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 sincer 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 familymembers 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 foreing 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)

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. [2]. 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)

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.

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)

'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)

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)

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)

"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)

Birthday?

His birthday is also listed on January 19th. ???

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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"

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)

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 [3], 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? [4]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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: [5].

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.[6]--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 [7] 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)