Talk:2024 raid on the Mexican embassy in Ecuador

Reactions
Do we want to try to enforce some content policies on the reactions section so it doesn't get too cluttered with unimportant statements? I tried removing all reactions cited to WP:PRIMARY sources in order to bring the section in line with WP:DUE but was reverted. – Novem Linguae (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @189.217.192.251 please discuss here before again adding such reactions. a lot of officials are going to say a lot of things. we should not be cluttering the entry with it. when officials DO things, we can evaluate and add as necessary. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 01:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In a meeting the Venezuelan president has recently announced the closure of its embassy in ecuador is this notable to include in the reactions section? Mochatbh (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Gobierno de Venezuela anuncia el cierre de su embajada y sus consulados (BBC Mundo) Exactly the sort of development that should be included over and above nebulous expressions of outrage. If anything else concrete like that emerges from today's CELAC meeting of heads of state/govt, the event will probably warrant its own paragraph. Moscow Mule (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Nicaraguan Support in Infobox
Do we include "Supported by: Nicaragua" in the infobox? I understand they broke ties with Ecuador in solidarity with Mexico, but Nicaraguan forces weren't in the raid itself. - MateoFrayo (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)


 * This would have been less awkward if the word belligerents wasn’t in the infobox. Support a previous rev referring to them as parties. Borgenland (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Belligerents changed to 'parties involved'; Nicaragua removed. Moscow Mule (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And "Commanders and leaders" reads as too military for this context; I tried putting the presidents under "parties involved", see if that survives community scrutiny. Moscow Mule (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The choice of using Template:Infobox military conflict is quite awkward in itself, as this isn't an actual war or battle. I can't think of a suitable alternative though; Template:Infobox civil conflict and Template:Infobox military operation both seem slightly off in different ways. Worst case scenario is that we resort to using the generic Template:Infobox event.
 * Listing the Secretariat of Foreign Affairs under "units involved" also looks quite strange to me, since it isn't really a "unit" in the usual military or policing sense. Liu1126 (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Units involved" jars. Maybe it'd be better to ignore that parameter in the infobox (and, in any case, the Ecuadorian national police is probably in the back seat compared to the Ecuadorian foreign ministry in terms of involvement). Moscow Mule (talk)

Requested move 17 April 2024

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 05:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

2024 raid on the Mexican embassy in Ecuador → Ecuadorian raid on the Mexican embassy in Quito – According to the consensus in the RM discussion for Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus which itself follows a precedent set by the title of United States bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, articles covering attacks on embassies perpetrated by sovereign states are to be titled thus "(Adjectival form of perpetrating state) (nature of attack) on the (adjectival form of victim state) in (host city)". ― Howard • 🌽33 14:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 07:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 02:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment The year is not necessary which I support removing, but while the embassy is in Quito, the embassy is representative to the country as whole, not the city or just the city. For embassy and consulate article titles they have the city location, but this is not an embassy article rather an event pertaining to the diplomatic office. So it should be titled either Ecuadorian raid on the Mexican embassy or Raid on the Mexican embassy in Ecuador. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. I didn't want to get involved in the move war during the first days of this article's existence, but I was happier with the various "Mexican embassy in Quito" formulations rather than the present "Mexican embassy in Ecuador". On the grounds of "embassy to Ecuador" vs. "embassy in Quito", which is the usage I'd instinctively follow. And the precedents gives are compelling. Moscow Mule (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Law Enforcement, WikiProject International relations, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject Ecuador, and WikiProject Mexico have been notified of this discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose for three reasons: 1) The guideline WP:NCEVENTS calls for for the year of the event in the majority of cases. 2) The exception of NOYEAR states that "Some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it". Much like at Talk:2024 Iranian strikes in Israel, which is trending towards inclusion of the year, we have no historic perspective just yet. 3) WP:CONSISTENCY with the majority of article titles about embassy-related incidents (examples: 1955 seizure of the Romanian embassy in Bern, 1964 United States Embassy in Libreville bombings, 1971 Yugoslav Embassy shooting), etc). NOYEAR should be reserved for historically significant events, like the Iran hostage crisis. Here, the year should be kept. Pilaz (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I am certain that every history article on Wikipedia covers a "historically significant" event. If it was historically insignificant then there would be no reason to include it as an article. As it stands, an Ecuadorian raid on a Mexican embassy is unprecedented, so including a year in this case provides no disambiguation. WP:CONSISTENT (assuming that is the intended article which is linked in your message) compels us to follow the precedent of the titles of articles covering attacks on diplomatic missions perpetrated by sovereign states, i.e. that the title needs to remain consistent with both the titles of United States bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade and Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus. The latter article has already been through an extensive RM discussion which has set the precedent for the titling format which shall be applied for attacks on diplomatic missions perpetrated by sovereign states. Finally, the titles you have presented as example do not follow this precedent as they all concern attacks on embassies which have been perpetrated by non-state actors (such as Romanian émigrés, unnamed Gabonese bombers, or Croatian militant separatists) whereas the precedent which I have described only concerns those attacks perpetrated by sovereign states. ― Howard • 🌽33 19:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Localized consensus does not overrule the WP:NCEVENTS guideline, which states very clearly that the year should remain in the majority of titles related to events, which is why a majority of breaches of diplomatic locations and attacks on diplomatic locations include the year. See List of attacks on diplomatic missions. United States bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade is very obviously the exception given how much historicity it has maintained, and the "precedent" you talk about regarding Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus is about to be overturned at WP:MR. Pilaz (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see how "United States bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade" is "very obviously" the exception. What makes this specific event so much more "significant" than any other attack on embassy article? What does it mean for an event to "maintain historicity"? WP:N states that all Wikipedia articles must cover a subject which is notable, otherwise it is to be deleted, and I don't see any meaningful difference between "significant" and notable.
 * If indeed the community consensus at WP:MR decides to revert the title of Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus, then I will ultimately accept original title of "2024 raid on the Mexican embassy in Ecuador" for this article. However, that would mean also that United States bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade should also be moved to "2024 United States bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade". The Iran hostage crisis does not have an exception to the rule because it is "historically significant", but because of WP:COMMONNAME. ― Howard • 🌽33 06:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus has been moved to Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus as a result of a move review on procedural grounds because the "no consensus" finding in the RM should have returned it to its original title (but consensus was found to remove the year per WP:NOYEAR). A new RM to move it to a title with the same format as this RM was also started --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 11:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In that case, I feel like a wider standard should be implemented for the titling of these articles. This isn't a format we can decide separately on three different articles. ― Howard • 🌽33 11:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. WP:NCWWW indicates article titles for events should contain "When", "Where" and "What" in the title. Titles should also be concise without being overly precise. Adding "Who" to the title seems superfluous and pedantic to me, and would only be justified if other naming criteria and article sources clearly supported the longer name as the most recognizable one. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 04:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In that case, should we start an RM for United States bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade as well? ― Howard • 🌽33 12:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If all 3 articles' fates are to be linked (as seems likely) then perhaps an RFC to decide on all 3? --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to start an RFC, so I'd be thankful if you could do it. ― Howard • 🌽33 13:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Without necessarily taking a position as to the best title for this article, I see no reason why this must be consistent with United States bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade or Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus. In those cases, Country A attacked Country B's diplomatic mission in Country C. In this case, Country A attacked Country B's diplomatic mission in Country A. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment. I do not see the the need for an RFC for renaming the other articles. What I see is that those titles are more recognizable common name used by sources. These names use a format of "Who", "What", and "Where", omitting the year or the "When" aspect of the title. As such, the names deviate from the normal way of naming events, but that is because the names are based on those used in sources, or by consensus by the editing community for individual articles. I see no reason to disturb the consensus that has been reached in particular cases for the sake of consistency. There are 5 criteria and consistent naming is only one of them. Having some diversity in naming is like throwing out the rules for those particular cases, because the naming is more appropriate. The intent of these guidelines is to come up with succinct and recognizable titles that summarize the article subject for readers. The guidelines need to be tempered by common sense, and my objection to the proposed move is that it is more verbose and complex than necessary, which makes it harder for the reader to understand. Wikipedia should provide useful articles for readers that they can understand readily. Good titles assist with this aim. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment on the occasion of its relisting: Whatever is ultimately decided, I'm calling again for "in Quito" rather than "in Ecuador". Take a look at the incidents listed on List of attacks on diplomatic missions: working backwards, ...on the Iranian consulate in Damascus, ...on the Azerbaijani embassy in Tehran, ...of the Russian embassy in Kabul, North Korean Embassy in Madrid incident, Karachi Chinese consulate attack, ...of the German consulate in Mazar-i-Sharif, ...of the Pakistani embassy in Dhaka, etc., etc. All the cities (some distinctly obscure: Mazar-i-Sharif is Afghanistan's 4th largest city, btw) rather than the countries. Moscow Mule (talk) 04:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)