Talk:Ecuadorian police break into the Mexican embassy in Quito

Tasks

None of the quotes in the article can be found in either article originally provided as a source. I Found a source for two of the quotes and added it. This may make one of the original sources redundant.

The article will fail review unless sources are provided for all quotes.

I also removed the statement "therefore, considering the asylum illegal, they proceeded to the arrest of Jorge Glas" to avoid assigning intention.

Do we know it was the National Police of Ecuador?

The article jumps around as well. It needs to follow the reverse pyramid structure. I've done some re-arranging but I think more can be done before it is reviewed.

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 14:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@ProtoplasmaKid CNN claims[1] Canseco told a CNNE reporter "What you have just seen..." I can't find any source that mentions a television crew filming the events live and taking that statement from Canseco. Can you find a source for that or should the statement be changed? Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 15:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Michael for the reviewing. My apologies in advance since my native language is not English, so part of my intention for being here is learning. I answer your comments here:

• What are the third quote that are not verified?
• Yes it's confirmed that was the Elite group of the National Police of Ecuador
• In the video of the raid can be seen TV cameras recording and with live broadcasting backpacks. I will try to find the source that I heard that was a live cast. If not, this sentence could be removed without any problem.

Thanks!, --ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I have not found support for the quote attributed to Alicia Bárcena, where she describes the action as a 'flagrant violation of the Vienna Convention.' This quote does not appear in any of the three sources.

Similarly, I could not verify the statement from the Ecuadorian government that called Glas' asylum 'inconsistent with established legal conventions,' as it is absent from the sources provided.

I'm not saying either quote is untrue or inaccurate — I can't verify either way. That's why policy requires we provide a source for every piece of information.

To clarify the coverage of the events at the embassy, news agencies were present and actively reporting from outside the premises. Initially, I misunderstood and expected that the reporters were inside the embassy alongside the police, based on the description of the events being 'recorded live.' This might not require immediate attention now that the article is published.

However, the quotes likely need to be addressed. @Bddpaux or @Heavy Water, could you please share your thoughts on this?

We have just less than eight hours left of the 24-hour grace period to correct any errors post-publication. After that it becomes more difficult to issue corrections. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 15:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

The AP article mentions Bárcena said on X this was a violation of the Vienna Conention on Diplomatic Resolution, but I can't find the verbatim quote either. The situation with the other quote is a little more complicated: CNN, which an invisible comment beside that sentence cites, says Ecuador described Mexico's actions as "contrary to the conventional legal framework". The direct quote was rephrased by Michael, ironically. Regardless of what "recorded the events live" was supposed to mean, as Michael said earlier it appears unsourced (so there's no way of determining its meaning) and the credit for the quote conflicts with CNN's crediting of itself. If the talk page exists, the review gadget forces the reviewer to check a box stating they've read the talk page, for this very reason. Had the reviewer actually read it, they could've ensured the article wasn't published with the problems with the Bárcena quote and "recorded the events live" present. Heavy Water (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I should have removed the {{review}} template when I found the unsourced quotes and started to edit the article. I also should have been more careful with replacing the "illegal" quote with a paraphrase. I must have double-clicked the word illegal, replaced it with a paraphrase of what CNN stated, and left the quotation marks behind. I didn't even see the quotes until reading your comment—probably because I "knew" what it was supposed to say, having re-worked it. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 23:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Excellent catch. I was a bit tired when reviewing. Jump in there and fix things.—Bddpaux (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Notes for reviewer

I have added citations using <!--html comments--> that can only be seen when using the source editor. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 14:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Adding coordinates

Adding -0.22, -78.5125 to the coordinates in Ecuador, is Quito, from the national police of Ecuador. 199.212.250.163 (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

It isn't exactly a horrible crime, but gps co-ordinates are a bit odd in this instance.....not wrong, just odd. And: Why don't you consider getting a sign-in name, instead of just an IP address? --Bddpaux (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Review of revision 4775740 [Passed]

Revision 4775740 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: We need more Central America and South America coverage. Good work! The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4775740 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: We need more Central America and South America coverage. Good work! The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.