Talk:ATF gunwalking scandal/Archive 1

(Copied) Talk:Operation Wide Receiver
EDIT: Original doc stated no charges, however, the AP story cited in source #3 states nine were charged, and 2 plead guilty.

No source that the guns in Operation Wide Receiver ever made it to Mexico. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.12.74.131 (talk) 04:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

needs work
This needs work for a lot of reasons. Possibly one of the most important is that one of the sources cited, defending the Bush administration, is an editorial written by Katie Pavlich, who is a conservative political commentator and columnist. In other words, her job and the job of the cite is to advance a point of view rather than report factual information. Her column is used as evidence that claims regarding guns crossing the border are false, but she does not even source that info in her column. Maybe I'll try to work on this, because it could be an important piece of history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazydan (talk • contribs) 19:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, having done some more reading, there were a number of operations similar to this, fast and furious, etc between 2006 and 2011...there should probably be a new article covering all of them. maybe I'll work on that instead... Hazydan (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It would be nice if you could give this article some work. There's a lot that still needs to be covered here. We would greatly appreciate it. I haven't had enough time as I wish I had to get this thing going. And, there's not a lot of (credible) info out there, so the work should be meticulous, unbiased, and carefully cited. In fact, you can check Project Gunrunner, which is the main project of all the operatives, like Operation Fast and Furious and this one as well. Any contribution would be useful, thanks! ComputerJA (talk) 00:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed..Operation Fast and Furious doesn't look too great either actually (it's basically just a list of everything bad that happened)..how about a new article called ATF gunwalking scandal or something similar, that covers all gunwalking from 2006 in detail? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazydan (talk • contribs) 04:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. As long as we redirect the articles of the OFF and OWR into it and make sections in the ATF gunwalking scandal regarding these two operations, to avoid any confusion. One article would make it a lot easier for people to have easy access to it and contribute to the growth of the article much faster. Good idea. ComputerJA (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

have at it...
I've done a lot of the work so far, but this could use a good exploration of the aftermath and investigations of gunwalking. I'm pretty busy so I encourage everyone to work on it. Hazydan (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The following statement in the 1st section is not accurate:

The method of Operations Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious was questioned by the ATF field agents[10]

The [10] citation is the 1st house oversight hearing where agents testified about their objection to Fast and Furious methods. To my knowledge there was no discussion in the record on Operation Wide Receiver because they weren't questioning methods employed during that operation. Removing "Wide Receiver" from the sentence will make the statement accurate. I will change it tomorrow unless someone can show me testimony in that 1st House oversight hearing where agents questioned methods in Operation Wide Receiver.--Wigglesworth11 (talk) 18:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I added a citation documenting that Wide receiver was questioned at the headquarters level (Hoover) not the field agent level and further distinguished Wide Receiver from fast and Furious. Naaman Brown (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Jaime Zapata
I've read some suggestions that his killing was related to Fast and Furious, but recent revelations seem to indicate that he wasn't. The gun came from Texas, from a source not linked to the operation...it sounds more like a simple illegal export of a weapon, which apparently happens often, rather than having ATF involvement. My Spanish isn't perfect, but I don't think the linked source says specifically that it was a F&F weapon. We should be careful on this issue. Hazydan (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

http://oversight.house.gov/images/stories/Letters/2011-10-25_DEI__Grassley_to_Holder-DOJ_-_Zapata_ATF_Fast_and_Furious_Osorio_Brothers_due_11-8.pdf Includes 28 Mar 2011 letter Sen. Charles Grassley to ATF Acting Director Melson. Unanswered questions on 15 Feb murder of Jaime Zapata. Grassley had sent a list of questions 4 Mar to Melson and received in reply a letter 8 Mar from DOJ Assistant Attorney Weich, which did not answer specific questions asked about the murder weapon. Otilio Osorio, brother Ranferi Osorio and their neighbor Kelvin Morrison were identifed as suspects at least by 9 Nov 2010 when they supplied 40 firearms to ATF informant as part of an investigation of Los Zetas. (The arrest of the 3 announced 1 Mar 2011 after death of Jaime Zapata.) One of 3 guns used in the assault on Jaime Zapata traced to purchase by Otilio Osorio 10 Oct 2010 in Dallas/Ft. Forth. A weapon recovered near the border Eagle Pass TX 7 Aug 2010 traced to purchase by Morrison 30 Jul 2010 with two weapons traced to Ranferi Osorio; the suspect vehicle was observed being loaded with weapons 29 Jul by ATF. The Grassley to Melson letter includes copies of ATF traces on Morrison and Ranferi weapons recovered 7 Aug (traces requested 9 Sep 2010 completed 15-17 Sep 2010; one noted the gun dealer had alerted ATF to multiple purchases by suspect.) In this Dallas/Ft. Worth operation (part of overall Project Gunrunner) we have ATF interdicting some of the guns before they cross the border (shades of "Wide Receiver"), obviously failing with others. The "Gunwalking" involved not immediately arresting the suspects in hopes of getting leads on Los Zetas cartel (shades of "Fast and Furious" but not part of the Phoenix operation). This was not a matter of petty illegal export: the Osorio brothers were allowed to walk guns as part of an ATF sting and several opportunities to arrest on good cause were missed (obliterated ser. num. alone is a felony). Naaman Brown (talk) 10:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * First, let me say I didn't mean to imply that there's ever anything "petty" about illegal weapons export; rather I was saying that there was no evidence that the ATF deliberately allowed a gun to .walk that later killed Zapata. Anyway, having read that letter, I don't think anything has changed there What I gather from the letter is an accusation of incompetence at the ATF (in that they should have been following Osorio more closely due to his record), and that Melson attempted to downplay that mistake in communications with Congress. This occurred during a Texas investigation under Gunrunner (but unrelated to Fast and Furious, Wide Receiver, etc.). If the ATF had done a better job, they may have had a chance at preventing the export of the weapon in question, but that's all - they didn't know it had been purchased at the time. You could say that about any illegal weapons export...it's not really a scandal. If you want to write in this article that Zapata was killed by a walked gun, you should find a couple of reliable media sources that say so explicitly...otherwise it's original research. Hazydan (talk) 04:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I would not say Zapata was killed with a walked gun. From about forty govt docs and media reports I have followed, under Project Gunrunner ATF agent Dodson and others stated the understood SOP was close surveillance and interdict ASAP, no walking onto the street much less across the border. "Gunwalking" in the sense of Operation Wide Receiver (guns across the border to be interdicted by Mexican LE) or Operation Fast and Furious (guns across the border to be followed by crime scene tracing) implies an ATF deliberate policy of no interdiction. The Dallas/Ft. Worth operation was allowing guns to "walk" onto the street but the goal was interdiction after intel gathering.
 * By "petty" I meant small time with neither ATF involvement nor cartel connection. Naaman Brown (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, I think we are actually in complete agreement. My original point above was that the 2nd half of this sentence in the article: "In addition, government sources mention that more than 200 Mexicans were killed as a result of this operation,[27] along with the U.S. agent Jaime Zapata.[28]" is probably misleading and not supported by the cite. It should be either removed or reformatted to explain that in spite of some early suspicion, he was not killed by a F&F gun. I think some of your info about Gunrunner could work well as part of this article or at Project Gunrunner. Hazydan (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Replacing
Guys, you can all can replace the things I write on other places in this article where it is more relavent. Sometimes I feel that what I edit usually doesn't correlate with the rest of the paragraphs, and since I usually don't have time to read and re-read the article, I know I can trust you guys to take care of it. Thanks and sorry for the inconvenience.

P.S. - Is there any Spanish-speaking users and readers here? CNN Mexico has several good quality articles on the gunwalking scandal. I have two weeks for my break, so I'll take good care of it, but if you guys want to take a look at them, go for it. ComputerJA (talk) 04:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

White Gun operative
Just recently, another ATF weapon operation, known as White Gun, was brought to light on the news. It was apparently run to capture El Chapo Guzmán and members of the Sinaloa Cartel around the same time of Operation Fast and Furious. It's good stuff. I'll be out for some time (and since there haven't been any common ground on whether the operations are stings or not), I don't know if I can write this now. Cheers. ComputerJA (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * See discus WG above. The goal of Fast and Furious was to allow guns across the border, then somehow bring down cartel heads through the magic of gun tracing as the guns turned up at crime scenes. White Gun as described was meant to surveill and arrest people caught red handed. Big diff. Naaman Brown (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Background section
Regarding a recent format change: it seems to me that the Background section should cover the events that preceded gunwalking operations, and the reasons that the tactic was eventually used. For example, the Mexican drug war, drug/weapons trafficking across the border, and the ineffectual strategies that preceded it (that's not to say that gunwalking worked, of course). Instead, the recent change makes a large part of that section a summary of the gunwalking operations themselves, rather than leaving that in the lede where I think it belongs. Thoughts? hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 21:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Since I haven't heard anything I think I'll move some of the content back. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 21:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Sting
I'm surprised that some editors are insisting on keeping the "sting" designation which the media keeps repeating. There was no intended "sting".

By Wikipedia's own definition, a sting is "a deceptive operation designed to catch a person committing a crime". Exactly how many persons did ATF catch committing the crime? The ATF Gunwalking operation had no intention of catching persons committing the crimes. Look beyond parroting mass media. Solo I Fatti (talk) aka Computer Guy 2 (talk) 03:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If you want to strictly follow that definition (sounds like you do), you should note the "designed" in there. Whether the operation was a success is irrelevant to whether it was a sting or not (it apparently wasn't the first, and it is the second). And in any case this gunwalking did lead to some arrests as noted in the article. The intention of the operations is, to a degree, a matter of opinion for a number of reasons. Whose intentions are we talking about? The agents in the field who had every desire to apprehend the suspects? Their immediate superiors who told them not to? The high levels of the administration who weren't the ones who decided to gunwalk across the border and whose understanding of the operation was probably vague? And how do we know what any of them were truly thinking anyway?


 * But when you get down to it none of that is very important to what we write in the article. By Wikipedia policy, parrots is exactly what we are supposed to be. If we are inserting our own facts or drawing our own conclusions, that's original research. It should say sting because that's what reliable sources say, whether we agree or not. V hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 17:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Unless someone can tell me, consistent with wikipedia policy, why it shouldn't say sting, I'll add it back later with cites specific to the word. One of the references already in the article even has sting in the title, and a number of others throughout use the same language (I read them all while doing this, believe me). As I've said, it's verifiable, it adds context, and it does fit the definition as I argued above. Are there reliable news articles or government sources that specifically say it's inappropriate to call it that? hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 17:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * A "sting" is an undercover operation designed to catch a person with a demonstrated proclivity toward crime by use of a pretense. An example of a "sting" is when police get word that someone is seeking contraband (eg, weapons or drugs) or illegal services (eg, a hitman) then to have an informant or undercover operative meet that person to record evidence for arrest. Many of the Project Gunrunner operations did just that, including the Tuscon "gunwalking" operation called Wide Receiver (the intention was to have the Mexican authorities interdict the traffickers after they crossed the border). With the operation Fast and Furious, the goal was apparently to allow the guns across the border with Mexican police and ATF officials in Mexico left in the dark, and to use eTraces as the guns were recovered from crimes to lead somehow to the crime bosses. Whatever OF&F was, it was not a conventional "sting". The ATF field agents who objected to OF&F had participated in Project Gunrunner "stings" and knew the difference: perhaps we should look to their testimonies to clarify this issue. Naaman Brown (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that these fit the definition of a sting, but I'm not going to bother arguing it at this point. Because it's my opinion, and it doesn't matter. Let me phrase the two important questions another way: (1) if several reliable news sources call it a sting, what standing do we have to say it wasn't? According to wikipedia policy (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV etc), the answer is that we have none, unless maybe there are other sources that specifically dispute the description. (2) Are we going to follow wikipedia policy? Hopefully the answer is yes. Can anyone find a way to dispute my two questions and answers? hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 02:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It appears we are making some positive progress in discussing this issue. As best I can determine, all the citations that refer to Fast and Furious as a "sting" are secondary sources - primarily news media which tries to glamorize the issue to increase readership.  primary sources appear only to call it an "Operation".  If any of you have found a primary source which legitimately calls it a sting, then I will gladly withdraw my objection.  By primary source, I am talking about government documents (DOJ or ATF or ICE or FBI), including letters, reports and emails, or any of the reports from Senator Grassley or Congressman Issa.


 * "With the operation Fast and Furious, the goal was apparently to allow the guns across the border with Mexican police and ATF officials in Mexico left in the dark, and to use eTraces as the guns were recovered from crimes to lead somehow to the crime bosses." This appears to be a reasonably accurate description of OF&F.  If anyone can show how this process could have led to the "bosses" or to "take down a cartel", I'd like to hear it.  Once the guns walked, there was no way to connect to anyone - except the original straw buyer.


 * Regarding "Wide Receiver", the article in Business Week, (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/the-guns-that-got-away-11172011.html?campaign_id=rss_search) should be required reading. That operation might have been intended as a sting, but OF&F simply doesn't fit the criteria - regardless of what the secondary sources say....   Solo I Fatti (talk) aka Computer Guy 2 (talk)  03:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That article looks interesting...I look forward to reading it. Meanwhile, I'd ask that you and anyone else involved in the debate read WP:NOR in full. I'm glad you brought up primary and secondary sources, but probably not for the same reason you are. As noted there, the article should be based mostly on secondary sources, NOT primary sources. I'll even quote from that policy: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. [...] Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." If we try to infer from primary sources ourselves, that leads to exactly these kinds of difficult disagreements. I think I've asked this before, but do you have any reliable sources (of any kind) that specifically say it is WRONG to call these sting operations? If they say nothing about it, or if it is left open to interpretation, then we must rely on what our reliable secondary sources say. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 17:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been away on travel and was unable to respond earlier to your interesting response. I've read WP:NOR, and what I originally considered to be primary sources are in fact reliable secondary sources.  To the best of my knowledge, none of the primary sources (the whistleblower accounts) refer to F&F as a "sting".  Even the Attorney General doesn't call it a "sting".  The "reliable" secondary sources (Congressional investigative reports and accounts) and better news sources do not refer to it as a "sting".  The only sources calling it a "sting" are (not so reliable) news media sources seeking to sensationalize Fast & Furious by slapping a pejorative label (or buzzword) on the operation, but I fail to see how you could consider these as authoritative.  We particularly see certain biased news media sources attempting to "spin" certain aspects of the operation for their own agendas.  For example, the frequent reference to "Bush did it first" mantra....  Just because several news media sources call it a "sting" doesn't make it factual.  Now, I couldn't care less if you insist on calling it a "sting", since that reflects more on your ability to separate sensationalized news from authoritative factual accounts.  By the way, there are numerous sources that say it's wrong to refer to F&F as a "sting", but you probably wouldn't consider any of them to be "reliable", since they aren't the The Washington Post or The Christian Science Monitor.....  Wikipedia editors should do more than parrot sensationalized news media accounts.  Calling Fast & Furious a failed "sting" attempts to minimalize the issue and misleads readers away from what appears to be a much more sinister purpose of the operation, which had horrible consequences.   Solo I Fatti (talk) aka Computer Guy 2 (talk)  15:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You may have noticed that I contributed most of this article, and plan to contribute more, which should demonstrate in itself that I have no interest in minimizing the issue. I've been saying for a while that I would be interested in reading reliable sources stating that it's wrong to call this a sting, so by all means show me some. If you want to argue that media sensationalism is a problem, you will have to find someone else to argue with, because I agree completely. But I don't see "sting" as inherently sensationalism or pejorative or invalid for any other reason...it's a useful descriptive word. Having said that, it sounds like you have a strong desire to include information from some sources and not others, which I find is a common sign that someone has a strong point of view and should be careful about staying neutral. Show me an American who prefers to watch Fox News over MSNBC or vice versa, and I'll tell you their political leanings. But we are not supposed to pick and choose on that basis. Fox News and MSNBC are both reliable in many contexts (and perhaps not in some others). hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 11:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You're right, I have a strong desire to include some information and not others. To explain, I have a strong desire to see facts presented on Wikipedia, and to keep out the various 'spins' and other such nonsense generated by vested interests and presented in the media.  Of course, I'm certainly not neutral but try very hard to keep to the facts and post in an objective manner.  Does this make me a bad editor?  Maybe, but facts need to be presented in preference to conclusions.....  The term "sting" is a conclusion - and, I'm sorry, but that also includes conclusions based on which news programs we watch.  To gather facts, we shouldn't pick and choose based on the news source, but certainly should pick and choose based on veracity.


 * The term "sting" isn't inherently sensationalist, or pejorative, but is being used as such by certain media sources and parroted by others. "Sting" is a descriptive term for a specific type of undercover law enforcement operation.  If F&F was designed to build a case to arrest gun traffickers, then it might well be called a "sting".  However, this appears not to be the case.  The known facts indicate there was little (or no) ATF intention to interdict or follow the purchases or the trafficking, or to arrest any of the straw purchasers or smugglers.  ATF actively encouraged and facilitated purchasing, trafficking and subsequent smuggling.  Tracing of the firearms only took place after guns were recovered at crime scenes in Mexico or the United States.   Only after whistleblowers went public and the story broke were some of the straw purchasers arrested and charged (probably as a PR effort), but none of the so-called "big fish" ATF was 'reportedly' pursuing.


 * I wasn't aware you posted most of the gunwalking scandal section, and I personally commend you for your efforts. Solo I Fatti (talk) aka Computer Guy 2 (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * My time is severely limited, but I was able to quickly find the following: "....in the case of Gunwalker there are no classic features of a sting whatsoever. Guns were sold by American gun stores under specific orders of the ATF to ..... straw purchasers, who had been given large sums of U.S. tax dollars, who then took the guns across the southern border where they wound up being used in heinous crimes committed by Mexican drug cartels. "  and "In a legitimate sting operation, agents are not ordered to 'stand down' when the criminals have been caught red-handed."  Both quotes are from a source blacklisted by someone from Wikipedia (Orwell was right.... To paraphrase, "All 'facts' are equal, but some 'facts' are more equal than others." ?)   Now, there are clearly some inaccuracies in the article, and Straw purchasers didn't directly transport the guns to Mexico - that was the function of the traffickers & smugglers.  However, the stated principle is accurate.  Did I "pick and choose"?  Absolutely. On the other hand, to your credit, the overwhelming majority of news media reports (improperly) refer to the operation as a "sting".  Solo I Fatti (talk) aka Computer Guy 2 (talk)  15:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting...when you say "blacklisted" do you mean some random editor said it shouldn't be used, or that there was an admin or a group consensus that it shouldn't be used? If it was the first I don't see how that's authoritative or binding in any way, but if it was someone with authority we shouldn't try to use it no matter how much we may want to. It seems to me that since, as you say, the majority of the media say sting, we should lean in that direction as a matter of policy. I think it would be appropriate to either remove the word 'sting' or note the disagreement in the article if you could present a couple of relatively unbiased statements from relatively unbiased sources (i.e. not an editorial piece, and not from a lobbying/partisan/political action group) saying that it should not be called a sting. Until then, it's worth remembering that there were a number of operations over close to 5 years. Some parts may not have looked like stings, or some people involved may not have acted like they were, but I think the stated goals of the operations and the fact that there were people indicted for them makes the word "sting" reasonable. How successful the operations were or the timing of the arrests doesn't affect that definition and isn't really for editors to judge for ourselves. Stings fail all the time, after all, but they are still stings. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 21:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I said blacklisted because the source is in a Wikipedia blacklist. "Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist.".   You said earlier, "I've been saying for a while that I would be interested in reading reliable sources stating that it's wrong to call this a sting, so by all means show me some".  I provided you with an example, and now it appears you are rejecting it out of hand....  You said, "....it's worth remembering that there were a number of operations over close to 5 years.  It's also worth remembering that the title of the article is "ATF gunwalking scandal" - not "Operation Gunrunner".  There weren't a number of gunwalking operations over 5 years - that we know about. Operation Gunrunner operated over some 5 years and contained stings.  The gunwalking scandal was ATF intentionally allowing guns to walk and be smuggled into Mexico. This ATF practice was not a sting, and I provided an outside citation to verify it.  The stated objective (of Operation Gunrunner) was to "stem the flow of firearms into Mexico".  Gunwalking, primarily F&F, violated any number of laws as well as the fundamental objective of Operation Gunrunner by allowing, encouraging, facilitating and participating in the very action they were ostensibly trying to prevent.  This wasn't a "sting gone wrong", but a deliberate and intentional ATF conspiracy facilitating and promoting the smuggling of guns to Mexico..... which may well have also involved other government agencies including the United States Attorney Office.


 * Now, you asked me for a citation saying it's wrong to call it a sting (which I provided), so I now ask you to provide any citation logically concluding that it is a sting. Not 'calling' it a sting mind you, but setting forth logical arguments that it is a sting....  Solo I Fatti (talk) aka Computer Guy 2 (talk)  15:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * By citation I meant a link to a source. I looked over your response multiple times but I don't see one; I only see a quote that could come from anywhere, and which you say comes from a source blacklisted by wikipedia, so obviously we can't use it. It seems to me that by wikipedia standards the burden of proof is on you to provide reliable sources for what you want to include in the article. It isn't on me to refute an issue you have with information from media sources that are considered reliable. If you have a reliable source, could you post it? (sorry if I missed it). Until then, I like your enthusiasm, but I don't think we are going to get anywhere. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 19:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The WP blacklisted source for "In a legitimate sting operation, agents are not ordered to 'stand down' when the criminals have been caught red-handed" is an op-ed at www.examiner.com a conservative blog. Granted that is an opinion piece at a partisan blog. The author relied heavily on ATF whistleblower field agent testimony in The Department of Justice’s Operation Fast and Furious: Accounts of ATF Agents 14 June 2011 Joint Staff Report to the chairs of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and Senate Committee on the Judiciary. PDF 51 pages. Link


 * According to ATF agent Dodson, one of the whistleblowers, policy for Project Gunrunner did not support the Operation Fast and Furious method; on the standing order for ATF’s Firearms Enforcement Program: "what it is trying to tell you is you don’t have to effect the arrest or the interdiction right there in the store. It is telling you that you can allow it to happen until that guy leaves the store and meets with the person that he bought the gun for, then you can effect the arrest. It is not telling you that you can watch this guy purchase thousands of firearms over 18 months and not do any follow-up on it."


 * Normally under Project Gunrunner the straw purchaser would be followed from the gun store until transfer was made to the actual buyer, then ATF agents would move in and take the purchaser, the buyer and the guns into custody. Under Operation Fast and Furious Agents Dodson, Casa and Forcelli all testified about being ordered to "stand down" rather than interdict and make siezes: those involved and the guns were allowed to disappear without surveillance, against the better judgement and training of the field agents.


 * However, in the 51 pages of the Staff Report, the ATF agents' testimony does not refer to it as a "sting". The only use of the word "sting" is in a footnote: "60. Dennis Wagner, Sen. Chuck Grassley: Guns in ATF sting tied to agent’s death, TUCSON CITIZEN, Feb. 1, 2011." From reading that article, the term "sting" appears to be a news media label, not a label applied by the field agents or the congressional investigators. Link
 * --Naaman Brown (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Excellent research Naaman Brown! And from "Sting Operations", by Graeme R. Newman with the assistance of Kelly Socia, published by the U.S. Department of Justice (Link: ), we have the following quote:  ".... the clearest, defining feature of sting operations nowadays is that there is a point that ends the operations with a “gotcha,” when police suddenly reveal themselves and catch the offender “in the act,” often on video or audio recording devices."  Operation Fast & Furious continually failed the "gotcha" test.  Of course, making this logical connection is "original research".....  However, simply omitting the term "sting" does not need a citation. Solo I Fatti (talk) aka Computer Guy 2 (talk)  17:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Claiming that the stings were "labeled stings by the press" requires a reliable source; neither source provided asserts that the operations were "labeled stings" by the press. Those sources simply called the operations stings, as do our articles.  Xenophrenic (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You said, "Those sources simply called the operations stings". On that we agree.  The way the wording appeared in this ("our"?) article is defining the operation as a sting, and that's inaccurate.  Just because the press "calls" it something doesn't make it so. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_Defeats_Truman).  The edit I provided clearly states the press called the operations stings, exactly as you said.  There is no reason for you to be reverting my edits so long as I am accurate.  Nor is there a reason for you to start an edit war over this issue, as it appears you are starting.  Kindly remember the Wiki "Assume good faith" doctrine, as I am doing.  Solo I Fatti (talk) aka Computer Guy 2 (talk)  06:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You said, "Just because the press "calls" it something doesn't make it so."
 * No one is saying it does.
 * You said, "There is no reason for you to be reverting my edits so long as I am accurate."
 * Yeah, actually there is. We aren't citing you as a source for content in the article. Let's stick with reliable sources, please.
 * You said, "The edit I provided clearly states the press called the operations stings, exactly as you said."
 * Uh, no. That's inappropriate.  We can't cite me as a source for content in the article, either.


 * The multiple reliable sources we are citing in our article refer to the operations as stings, so it is therefore appropriate and accurate that our article do so as well. I understand that you hold the opinion that the operations weren't stings, but you have yet to provide reliable sources that refute the sources we are using.  You've been advised above to adhere to Wikipedia's editing policies, WP:V, WP:NOR and particularily WP:NPOV, which clearly states:
 * Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.
 * You are in violation of Wikipedia's editing policy by attempting to present the "sting" description to our readers as somehow inaccurate, or only an opinion of "the press". You've been asked by multiple editors to provide reliable sources to support your edits, and you have not done so, and you have instead attempted to edit war your preferred verbiage into the article.  Xenophrenic (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The WikiPedia article currently uses "sting" in only two places: the lead, and a footnote (ref Horwitz, Sari. "A gunrunning sting gone fatally wrong". The Washington Post. Retrieved 23 October 2011.) citing a 25 Jul 2011 article. In a follow up article (Sari Horowitz, "Earlier ATF gun operation ‘Wide Receiver’ used same tactics as ‘Fast and Furious’", Washington Post, 6 Oct 2011) the same reporter used "operation" not "sting" to describe Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious.
 * The headlines or lead sentences of (some) news reports on Operations Wide Receiver (WR) or Fast and Furious (F&F) call the "gunwalking" operations "stings". A headline is not really a reliable source on a subject: in typical newspaper work, headlines and "grabber" lead sentences are often written by editors, much to the dismay of the reporter or journalist who actually wrote the articles.
 * Government agents, cooperating FFLs and Congressional investigators discussing these operations or investigations do not call them stings. "Sting" is a media misnomer that has nothing to do with the nature of F&F (see Sting operation for examples of typical stings). Just because the press are imprecise does not mean Wikipedia should follow suit, especially in the lead paragraphs.
 * o Joint Staff Report, "The Department of Justice’s Operation Fast and Furious: Accounts of ATF Agents", 14 Jun 2011. Neither ATF agents nor Congressional investigators use the word "sting".
 * o Colby Goodman, "Update on U.S. Firearms Trafficking to Mexico Report", Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Mexico Institute, April 2011, discusses F&F but does not use "sting".
 * o Joint Staff Report, "The Department of Justice’s Operation Fast and Furious: Fueling Cartel Violence", 26 Jul 2013, 60 pages, does not use "sting" in describing F&F.
 * o Letter from Sen. Grassley to USAG Holder 13 Apr 2011 includes e-mails between cooperating dealer and ATF officials on F&F. Nobody called it a sting.
 * o DOJ OIG, "Review of ATF’s Project Gunrunner November 2010", 151 pages, overview of Project Gunrunner the parent of Operation Fast & Furious and Wide Receiver, does not mention sting operations under several policies and strategies discussed.
 * --Naaman Brown (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the list of sources that do not use the word "sting". I see that those sources also do not refute that the operation(s) are stings. I'm sure there are plenty more sources that also use alternative word choices, but they are not helpful here. Do you have reliable sources that actually refute the "sting" description presently used by our reliable sources?

While I agree with you that news headlines often use sensational wording to catch a reader's attention, I see no indication that "sting" is such a word. As noted by another editor above, the word appears to be used appropriately. In addition, many of our sources also use the word within the body of the articles, and upon further review, I see that it is also used in the follow-up articles by those same sources (see the links in the sidebars). Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I used "imprecise" to describe "sting" as a label for gunwalking. Yes, editors will use "imprecise" and/or "sensational" words in rewriting heads, such as the Horwitz article head. Maybe to editorial desk jockeys all undercover investigations are stings, but ATF agents, congressional investigators and journalist/reporters don't call it a sting, so why would their reports be expected to refute a label they did not discuss? Failure of a source to refute an unmentioned claim is not confirmation of that claim. --Naaman Brown (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * [Discussion not pertaining to article improvement moved to editor's Talk page for continuation.]
 * Xenophrenic and Hazydan asked for a source refuting the "sting" word, and one was provided. It was denigrated and then ignored.  Xenophrenic has accused this editor of Edit warring - but Xenophrenic is the one reverting my edits as I attempted to make the article more accurate.  It appears the word "sting" is a sacred cow with Xenophrenic and Hazydan (possible sockpuppets?) considering themselves sole arbiters of edits on this article.


 * The primary problem with using the "sting" term is as described more fully above. Whoever included the term in writing the article has couched the phrase in such a way as an attempt to define the ATF operation as a "sting".  As this editor and Naaman Brown have attempted to show, primary sources and the most reliable secondary sources do not use the term at all.  The press sources cited in the article use the term as a "news media label" or buzz word for sensationalism; none appear to have made the effort to logically conclude that the ATF operations fit the definition of a "sting".  To the contrary, at least one article has made the effort to refute the conclusion.  Nevertheless, this Wiki article identifies the operations as a "sting" and all efforts to intimate otherwise have been immediately reverted.


 * This editor attempted to reach consensus by first removing the inappropriate term "sting" from the article. That edit was quickly reverted.  Ultimately, trying to be conciliatory to reach consensus, this editor accepted the suggested wording by Xenophrenic when he stated, "Those sources simply called the operations stings".  This editor agreed with that assessment (but did not use Xenophrenic as a "source"), and revised the edit to read, "'(ATF) ran a series of “gunwalking” operations (called stings in the press) under the umbrella of Project Gunrunner'", which appeared to be the most accurate way to describe the operation, yet include the term "sting".  This edit was immediately reverted by Xenophrenic.  This editor promptly reposted his edit reminding Xenophrenic that those were his words (still not using Xenophrenic as a "source").  My edit was immediately reverted by Xenophrenic, who then accused this editor of engaging in an edit war.  Just in case Xenophrenic doesn't remember, he is the one doing all the reverting - thus Xenophrenic is the one engaging in an edit war.  Your threats and attempts to intimidate other editors aren't the best ways to build consensus....  In Good Faith,  Solo I Fatti (talk) aka Computer Guy 2 (talk)  16:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC) (This editor doesn't "opt out")


 * Multiple reliable sources used in the article call the operations stings. You are in violation of Wikipedia's editing policy by attempting to present the "sting" description to our readers as somehow inaccurate, or only an opinion of "the press". You've been asked by multiple editors to provide reliable sources to support your edits, and you have not done so, and you have instead attempted to edit war your preferred verbiage into the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Xenophrenic, you said, "Multiple reliable sources used in the article call the operations stings". Again, I agree with you.  The sources all "call" the operations stings, but none, repeat, none have established, demonstrated or proven they are, in fact, "stings".  Your sources are stating, and you are parroting, "opinions".  You sling the phrase "reliable sources" around as if "your" sources speak "ex cathedra" with papal infallibility.  The term "sting" may be your personal dogma and sacred cow, but let me assure you, it is not to the rest of us.


 * It is not up to you to lecture me or any other editor on any subject..... I'm always willing to rationally discuss topics, but when you choose to lecture me, then you've crossed the line.  I've fully discussed and supported my edits on the discussion page, and the edit warring is solely yours.  You are doing the reverting.  Yes, I've been asked by you and hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ to provide a source for my edits - even though you have absolutely no authority to require such sources.  Naaman Brown and I have done so as a courtesy, and you have done nothing but denigrate and ignore our sources.


 * You request "please do not alter another editor's User page again". Oh, sorry, my mistake. I meant to post on your talk page as you did to me.  That's now corrected.   -Xenophrenic


 * In Good Faith, Solo I Fatti (talk) aka Computer Guy 2 (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Multiple reliable sources used in the article call the operations stings. You are in violation of Wikipedia's editing policy by attempting to present the "sting" description to our readers as somehow inaccurate, or only an opinion of "the press". You've been asked by multiple editors to provide reliable sources to support your edits, and you have not done so, and you have instead attempted to edit war your preferred verbiage into the article.  I'll check back periodically to see if reliable sources (just one, even) are forthcoming. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Repeating your frivolous statements does not strengthen nor authenticate your faulty position. In Good Faith, Solo I Fatti (talk) aka Computer Guy 2 (talk)  23:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Accusing me of being a sockpuppet and accusing others of assuming bad faith, while ending many of your posts "in good faith," is what might be called pious baloney, to use a recently popular phrase. I don't appreciate it. I looked over some of the sources listed above, and I don't think any of them state that calling gunwalking a sting is wrong. Some of them simply don't use the word sting, and some of them define the term, but that isn't helpful in this case. If a news article on the sky says it is blue, and a scientific journal makes no comment on the topic, should our article state, "The news media often calls the sky blue," simply because some sources don't address it? What if another article defines blue as being a shade different from that of the sky? Should we use that as a reason to remove the word blue from our article? No, that would be inappropriate logically and by wikipedia policy. If I missed something please tell me specifically where to find it. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 01:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Same Sting Discussion (cont.)
Welcome back to the discussion, Hazydan... No offense was intended, and I didn't "accuse" you - When you dropped out and Xenophrenic took over, it looked like a possible sockpuppet operation, and I raised the question. However, I soon realized that wasn't the case. In the case of "bad faith", that was Xenophrenic's words from his own User Page - and only after I was being specifically and falsely accused by Xenophrenic of Edit Warring, violating Wiki editing policies, and more.

The Examiner article referenced by Naaman Brown and myself specifically refutes the "sting" label. None of the citations in the article "have established, demonstrated or proven the operations are, in fact, "stings"." (see below).

My interest is solely in the accuracy of the article, not picking fights with other editors. (That being said, I won't back away from a fight, either....) In the interest of accuracy, there is one exception to the inappropriate use of the "sting" term, and that is within Operation Wide Receiver. One specific sale was a failed "sting" when the Mexican authorities failed to interdict the guns on the Mexican side of the Border. None of the Fast and Furious sales fit the description of a "sting", regardless of the media labels....

Before you posted your last entry, I wrote the following - and believe it's still appropriate to include it.

To Hazydan: After checking the edit history of the article, I realize you were the original author (who included the term "Sting" in the original text) and I want to again personally commend your effort in creating the article. Good work! Now, based on the discussions above, with the analysis by Naaman Brown and myself, there is no dispute that many sources "call" the ATF operations stings, but none of the sources have established, demonstrated or proven the operations are, in fact, "stings". The sources are therefore stating media "opinions" or labels, rather than fact. That being said, I want to ask if you will concur with the following words to replace the original text: "(ATF) ran a series of “gunwalking” operations (called stings in the press) under the umbrella of Project Gunrunner". This is very little different than your original text, but clearly notes that it's the press "calling" the operations stings, and not Wikipedia - or any other authoritative source. (I'd also agree to include some exception for the Wide Receiver "sting".) I'd much rather work cooperatively with you and the other editors. If we can forge some agreement to reword it, then I'll no longer object to the use of the term "sting", and, in my opinion, the sentence will be far more accurate. I will also be happy to positively and cooperatively contribute to improvement of the article. (I do have some considerable experience in this area.) I look forward to your response. By the way, when I say, "In Good Faith", I mean it. Solo I Fatti (talk) aka Computer Guy 2 (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * While that wording may be technically true, I don't think it's appropriate. The primary reason is that this is not actually backed up by the sources: they simply say it was a sting, rather than saying that the press is calling it a sting. Virtually our entire article takes information from media sources, but that doesn't mean every sentence should start off with "According to the media..." or something similar. Also, the implication is that the press may be wrong or that there is some kind of dispute, which also may or may not be technically true, but in any case should be backed up by reliable sources. I think it would be best to avoid using an opinion piece blacklisted by wp to back up your position. As I've said before, find even one reliable source (straight news article is probably best, but there are other options if there is no obvious bias) that says, for example, "ATF gunwalking was not a sting operation," and I'll be much more open to any change you want to make in that regard.


 * On a separate note, I'm slowly trying to write up a good aftermath section because that should basically take care of the merge. If you or anyone else would like to focus on the Background section I think that would be great. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 06:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It being a "sting" isn't backed up by any of the sources, either. As you said, "they simply say it was a sting", which isn't backed up by anything.  Simply saying something is so - is not factual nor verifiable.  Wiki directs us that "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."  Media "saying" it is a sting is not verifiable.


 * I never said we should use a blacklisted source (Examiner.com), although I could certainly dispute the blacklisting - Examiner.com factually broke the gunwalking story long before the popular media even mentioned it, and they have published a Journalist's Guide to gunwalking specifically listing reliable secondary sources (Congressional letters and reports, for example). Both Naaman Brown and I verified that Examiner.com published a factual article contesting and refuting classifying gunwalking as a "sting" - an independent outside resource pretty much as you originally requested.  We, as editors, need to be reporting verifiable facts, not media (or Op-Ed) opinions and buzzwords.  As you probably have gathered, I'm not giving up on this.  Again, no offense intended.  Lets try to find common ground. And again, my interest is in accuracy.  Among those who know what took place in Texas & Arizona and is still taking place there and in Mexico, retaining the "sting" identifier means the article may not be taken seriously - but that's my opinion....  Solo I Fatti (talk) aka Computer Guy 2 (talk)  07:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The Examiner.com is blacklisted as an unusable source for a reason. It does not meet Wikipedia's requirements as a reliable source.  I'm thrilled that "Both Naaman Brown and [you] verified that Examiner.com published a factual article," but that is meaningless here, as neither of you qualify as a "reliable source" either.  I've asked repeatedly for you to supply a reliable source to support your proposed edit, and you have yet to produce one.  If you are having this much trouble finding even one reliable source to support your assertion, in an otheriwse widely reported on issue, then perhaps that is a clue.


 * I can make a couple suggestions. If you really wish to "dispute the blacklisting" of Examiner.com, then raise your concerns at WP:RSN.  Secondly, perhaps you can find Wikipedia-compliant support for your assertions in the "reliable secondary sources" you say are listed in the "Journalist's Guide".  Xenophrenic (talk) 10:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * [Neither you nor "your" sources speak "ex cathedra" with papal infallibility. Further, your sarcasm does nothing to promote a productive discussion - quite the opposite.  Belittling other editors and other sources does little for your credibility. Solo I Fatti (talk) aka Computer Guy 2 (talk)  14:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)]


 * [Thank you for your suggestions. Now, let's move on to a more productive discussion.  Solo I Fatti (talk) aka Computer Guy 2 (talk)  14:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)]


 * No sarcasm, and no claims of infallibility from me, so maybe you confuse me with another editor. You personally disagree with wording used by reliable sources, and you offer a single source blacklisted by Wikipedia that claims to refute that wording.  I've reviewed this whole talk page, and while I've seen objections raised by you, Naaman Brown and Computer Guy 2, I have yet to see reliable sources presented that directly refute the reliable sources in the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No sarcasm? I suggest you re-read your post.  Or perhaps you can't recognize your own sarcasm?  And, yes, I personally disagree with false information promulgated by your "reliable sources".  Solo I Fatti (talk) aka Computer Guy 2 (talk)  19:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Those aren't my sources. They were in the article long before my first edit to the article.  I did check that they meet Wikipedia's requirements as sources suitable to cite for assertion of fact.  I'll continue to patiently wait to see reliable sources presented that directly refute the reliable sources in the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Aside: some sources are polemicists and even if right can be dismissed by skeptics as sources based on their being known as promoting causes or POVs. However, I went to the source cited by examiner.com which was more reliable than the examiner.com, just as on another subject I went to a source cited by Ward Churchill which proved to be a more reliable source than Ward Churchill.
 * To the subject at hand:
 * This ref: (Sari Horwitz, "A gunrunning sting gone fatally wrong", The Washington Post, 25 Jul 2011.) is cited to call gunwalking a "sting".
 * My query: "did you choose the word "sting" to describe Fast and Furious in the headline: Sari Horwitz, "A gunrunning sting gone fatally wrong", The Washington Post, 25 Jul 2011."
 * Horwitz' answer: "The editors at The Washington Post write the headlines, not the reporters. Thank you for your interest,"
 * --Naaman Brown (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Solo I Fatti and Hazy Dan that Wide Receiver (Tucson 2006-2007) had elements of a sting operation. Fast and Furious (Phoenix 2009-2010) was a grandiose plan to allow 2,000+ guns across the border unmolested, then somehow take down cartel heads through gun tracing, an almost religious obsession with Newell, but scarcely a "sting". Naaman Brown (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Another useful resource (probably also banned by Wiki) is CleanUpATF.org. This is a primary source and is useful for background information.  For Wiki purposes, both CleanUpATF.org and Examiner.com can be mined for "reliable sources" as both contain citations to "reliable" secondary sources.  Solo I Fatti (talk) aka Computer Guy 2 (talk)  15:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think verifiability means what you think it means, at least by WP standards. Verifiability means that it is published in reliable sources. It doesn't mean that the reliable sources provide mountains of evidence to quench the thirst of any possible skeptic. Reliable sources include straight news articles from the types of mainstream media sources that are cited in the article. In other words, the media saying that something is so is exactly the definition of verifiable. Thus, "sting" is verifiable from reliable sources. Sort of how Kim Jong-il's death was verifiable because the AP, CNN, NYT, North Korean TV etc etc reported it; we didn't need them to provide a copy of the death certificate. Since this discussion seems neverending, I want to distill it to the most basic possible issue, which is why I suggest keeping the examiner out of the discussion (I didn't think you were asking to use it as an article source.) It is in my quest to make this as simple as possible that I have continued to ask for a reliable source saying that gunwalking was not a sting. Until that is provided, I don't see this going anywhere. P.S. to Naaman Brown: there are a number of sources cited in the article and available elsewhere that use the term sting...if that particular one seems dubious to you, we can change it out for another. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 06:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

This article contrasts Fast and Furious with another operation White Gun: Richard A. Serrano, "Another ATF weapons operation comes under scrutiny", Los Angeles Times, 12 Jan 2012.
 * "In Fast and Furious, more than 1,700 firearms were lost after agents allowed illegal gun purchases in U.S. gun shops in hopes of tracking the weapons into Mexico. In White Gun, the ATF ran a traditional sting operation with undercover agents and confidential informants trying to snare suspects working for the Sinaloa drug cartel."

-- Naaman Brown (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. This is getting closer to the sort of thing I'm asking for. But the contrast between White Gun and F&F is implicit and vague, and he used the qualifier "traditional." I don't think anyone who knows about F&F, including reliable sources, has tried to claim that it was a traditional sting operation. This got me curious to see if Serrano had called gunwalking a sting, which he has, multiple times(ex1, ex2, and there are others from him and LAT in general). So I think it's best to wait for something that says, explicitly, gunwalking was not a sting, as I've asked for before. As another option, if you find some details in reliable sources about how this was different from "traditional" stings, I would be happy to see something about that in the article, rather than worrying about the term "sting" itself. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 21:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * When I have questions about my interpretation of what someone else has written (Ted Goertzel, Bruce McCullough, Alex Tabborok, Sari Horwitz, etc.) I sometimes query them to make sure I am not filtering their words through my experiences or biases, as I did with Serrano:
 * Query: "Would you describe the "gunwalking" scheme of Fast & Furious as a "sting" or as something else?"
 * Reply: "Gun tracking operation."
 * With gunwalking, "sting" deserves scare quotes. Naaman Brown (talk) 15:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm I read the whole debate, but while I did so I couldn't avoid thinking; I never ever heard the mexican media calling it a "sting" operation, that really makes you wonder about the whole impulse behind the US media calling it like that...
 * So while you could argue its ok to call it a sting operation because the US media calls it like that, I could argue the exact opposite, theres really no reliable source in mexico that calls it a sting operation.--Lolcattz (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-fast-furious-20120319,0,3662110.story
 * Richard A. Serrano, "Gun-tracking operation caught top suspect, then let him go", Los Angeles Times, 19 Mar 2012.
 * --Naaman Brown (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Introduction
I found this entry a couple of weeks ago, and while there is a lot of good information here I believe that much of this entry is not written from an NPOV. Further, there are some technical issues with the designation of specific firearms, and with the differentiation between Project Gunrunner and its component Operations (Fast & Furious, Wide Reciever, etc.)

I have been following this scandal closely since it broke, and want to make sure that the information is available and correct. As such, I intend to make this entry my primary focus on Wiki for a while.

In light of my own strong opinion on this subject - I'm very much opposed to what the ATF and the administration has done - I would like to invite the community's review of my edits on this entry. I affirm that my contributions here are in good faith, and as such I felt it necessary to disclose my own political motivations beforehand. If there is a community member with an opposing view who could assist in this, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Lwsimon (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I wrote most of the article myself, so you have my attention. I think technical info in the article (firearms for example) is consistent with sources, but if not I'm happy to see it fixed. Depending on the opposing view you are looking for, I may be able to provide it on some issues. I think the big problem with articles like this is that editors tend to make inferences based on what they've read, rather than simply repeating facts from reliable sources to create a clear and concise article. I look forward to any improvements. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 19:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Hazydan - I wouldn't have guessed that the article was primarily the work of one person. As for the firearms, one of the big problems I've encountered is that even traditionally reliable sources often get the details grossly wrong when it comes to firearms. It is the norm to find multiple published articles from major news outlets with conflicting details. With the Wiki's guidelines in mind, the only way I've found to resolve these conflicts is to source to legal documents - court cases, police reports, and in the case of Gunwalker, published Congressional correspondence. In this entry, there are a couple of references to "assault rifles" that initially caught my eye - none of the weapons purchased by straw buyers qualify for this term, as none were select fire.


 * I believe I can write without drawing my own conclusions - but I feel like I'm somewhat walking the line by involving myself in an entry for which I am actively politically involved; that's why I came here first. I'm working on an overall outline based on the the existing entries for Watergate, Iran-Contra, and the Lewinksi Scandal. Once that outline is complete, I'll post the bullet points here for discussion and go from there. Lwsimon (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 18:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

house of death case as backgroud?
should the house of death case be mentioned as background to us agency corruption along the border? 68.193.168.214 (talk) 09:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I actually had to google that... I don't see it as being notably related. The section needs work, and it barely mentions the drug war at all right now (it should, but other aspects of the drug war are more important). hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 18:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a Wikipedia page: House of Death was a site used by the Juarez Cartel for executions up to 2004 and a ICE/DEA informant was involved. ATF Project Gunrunner (2004-present) and its "gunwalking" offshoots (2006-2010) had no direct connection to that. Naaman Brown (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

partisan labeling
I agree that there has been a lot of partisan finger pointing at both the Bush and Obama administrations for their respective roles in this mess. As a consequence, I identified the named decision making participants in OF&F by those who were originally appointed by Bush, Gonzales and Obama. Breuer was an Obama appointee, but his name is linked to his page that includes that history. The same for Ogden, and the circumstances of his quitting are discussed on his page. Melson was appointed by Gonzales and not removed. He has a page. Leonhart was installed as deputy by Bush, then nominated to replace her boss, but the Senate Judiciary committee never acted on her appointment. Obama left her in place. Burke was a long-time Arizona state and U.S. Senate Democratic staffer, dating back to Senate Judiciary in 1989, before Obama selected him as U.S. Attorney for the Arizona District. I did include a link to the press release that covered that last appointment. If individual culpability were to be assigned, he would certainly be a candidate for the top of the list both for his okaying the ostensible legality of the questionable operation in Arizona and his lying to the press about the circumstances of its operation. Activist (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I have to revert this stuff. A few points:
 * 1. The talk section you put this in is 6 months old, originally from a different article's talk page then copied to this one (not really sure why, but whatever), and has nothing to do with what you want to discuss. I'm going to move it.
 * 2. I agree with your first statement that there's been a lot of finger pointing. You then go on to point fingers at a lot of people. Huh? But more importantly, most of your additions are also unsourced, while at the same time giving the impression of being sourced by the citations already in place.
 * 3. One addition duplicated content already in the article but was unsourced, while the original is sourced. Not necessary. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 05:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Itemized list of walked guns
I have not seen a detailed list of the number and types of guns walked. If there is a total quantity, there ought to be a quantity for each make and model. Can somebody who is familiar with the sources either put such a list in the article or explain in the article how there can be a total without an itemization? Thank you.CountMacula (talk) 07:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll look, but I've not seen a list split by type. Lwsimon (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks.CountMacula (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't think we need an itemized list in the article, and it could be pretty long. Using such a list as a source for information might not be a bad idea, and I think a few of the sources have at least partial lists. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 15:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If the guns could be counted in say five or ten or twenty classes, it would tell a lot. Minimally they could be classified as long gun or handgun and by ammunition.  I think it is important to know whether two or ten or a hundred semi-auto 50 cals disappeared, for instance.  But I do not see any serious attempt at a quantification in the article.CountMacula (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)