Talk:Mexican drug war/Archive 3

War on Terror?

Hello. user Diving2010 tagged the article as part of the series of War on Terror. Although there is a terrorist component to the Mexican cartels, the Mexican Drug War is not part of NATO military operations against militant Islamists. Your thoughts? --BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Not part of the War on Terror. Cartels definitely use "terror" tactics, but they are not considered by U.S. State Department to be "Terrorist organisations" [1]. The Interior(Talk) 05:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Link

To BatteryIncluded: After our thoughtful discussions, I'm surprised you removed the link to: http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Mags/Calderon.htm and labeled it as an "Opinionated blog". Perhaps you should go back and take a second look. As I read it, I find it to be a well documented reasoned approach with authoritative references and citations. I found no "opinions" and nothing inaccurate in that link. I'll be happy to discuss any specifics with you, and I welcome your thoughts and comments.

Regards, (Computer Guy 2 (talk) 13:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC))

Surprised? We agreed to remove blogs. If you feel strongly about this one, suit yourself. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that opinion blogs have no place in Wikipedia and should be removed. However, this link is to the text of an article published by "America's 1st Freedom" magazine, August 2010. The text in the link is much easier to read than the digital version of the magazine. Regards, Computer Guy 2 (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It certainly isn't a reliable, neutral source. It's an NRA publication. Grsz 11 16:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

.....and the existing citations from the Violence Policy Center, the ATF, and similar are "reliable, neutral sources"? Just because it's published in an NRA publication means that the author isn't reliable nor authoritative? Does it mean that the facts (with citations) are inaccurate? Are you saying that all NRA published sources should be banned? Are you saying that facts from the "other side" should be banned and Wikipedia shouldn't present a balanced viewpoint? Please explain..... Regards, Computer Guy 2 (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize it was being added as an external link. However, are any of those related articles about guns necessary as external links? They're rather topically-specific, whereas the article is about the drug war as a whole. Links should be related at the more general level. Grsz 11 18:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't being added. It had been there for some time before BatteryIncluded removed it, and I undid the removal. The topic of the link is a very well done analysis of Calderón's speech before Congress and a discussion of the "Drug War" and weapons trafficking. It seems to me to be a voice of sanity in a sea of vitriolic rhetoric and propaganda. The article ends as follows: "While Mexico’s problems are not America’s fault, most can agree with the objective of trying to prevent the Mexican drug gangs from acquiring any American arms. But as the “real” facts show, curtailing the Second Amendment rights of Americans is not a valid answer to correcting the extremely dangerous situation." Sounds like a reasonable, reliable, neutral position to me.... Regards, Computer Guy 2 (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Reference format

ComputerGuy, please note that the use of bare links for references is not appropriate, you may want to use this automated reference generator: http://toolserver.org/~magnus/makeref.php Thank you, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't aware of that tool. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Additional words from the ATF Report

To BatteryIncluded: Regarding the additional words you just added. I considered including those sentences, but decided it was really redundant to what was written higher in the paragraph and didn't really add anything of significance. It's kinda the same old ATF mantra. Do you think it adds something significant?

On the other hand, the fact that ATF has acknowledged that the U.S. isn't the only source of firearms and munitions is significant. This was my motivation in posting that the ATF report mentioned Guatemalan sources.... (and not some sinister agenda....) I think it's now clear there are multiple sources of Mexican firearms.

I located still another authoritative report which indicates many of the guns come from previously legitimate sources in Mexico, "A percentage of the weapons, the seller said, come from Mexico via Ministry of Defense personnel who provide [them] in part from weapons seized in raids, or stolen from the ministry's own arsenal." In addition, there appears to be a firearms registration system in Mexico which can easily trace Mexican origin firearms without any need for ATF involvement. This deserves more research (not original research).

Sincerely, Computer Guy 2 (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Undoing my edit

To Grsz: I fail to understand why you undid my one sentence minor edit - and doing so without discussion is inappropriate, after all the discussions which went on before. You said "we dont really need a detailed account of the constitution". Who is "we"?

A one-sentence explanation of why it's difficult to buy firearms in Mexico is highly appropriate to understanding the demand for smuggling firearms into Mexico - and not just by drug cartels. Individual Mexicans have been smuggling firearms into Mexico for far over 100 years. Since it's extremely difficult to buy them in Mexico, individuals still buy in the U.S. (for their own protection) and smuggle them into Mexico.

Frankly, I don't understand why you consider Mexidata an unreliable source - as you also previously considered any NRA publication to be unreliable. Do you have another agenda that we should know about? I'm presuming you are editing in Good Faith, but an explanation is in order.

Sincerely, (Computer Guy 2 (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC))

I am completely allowed to undo any edit with no discussion whatsoever. Further reverts would be considered inappropriate, but not the first. Frankly, I can't understand how you could consider Mexidata.info reliable. The opinion columns' there are self-published, and as the individual cannot be considered experts (because who the hell are they?) they are not appropriate as sources. Grsz 11 18:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

To Grsz: You're always a source of entertainment.... You didn't answer who "we" is, so I must conclude it's just "you". Like you, I'm allowed to edit whatever I wish - and I will continue to do so - regardless.

I note your objections to Mexidata.com, but fail to see how their quote from the Mexican Constitution could be considered "unreliable". I did not source any opinion data from the article. By your definition, no editorial nor news article could be considered reliable because they can't be "considered experts (because who the hell are they?)" Your words.... Regarding Mexidata, "Barnard Thompson, editor of MexiData.info, has spent 50 years in Mexico and Latin America, providing multinational clients with actionable intelligence; country and political risk reporting and analysis; and business, lobbying, and problem resolution services." I grant he may have written that himself, but that's who wrote the article - not some half-wit journalist (instant expert) who publishes an article in a newspaper after 15 minutes reading a Violence Policy Center press release.

In Good Faith, (Computer Guy 2 (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC))

I won't be engaged with users who respond with personal attacks. Grsz 11 19:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I neither intended nor do I see a personal attack here. A little humor, maybe.... A spirited discussion? Yes. But no personal attack.

In Good Faith, (Computer Guy 2 (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC))

And, by the way, the reference you inserted, "See also: Gun politics in Mexico", is quite a good one and adds a lot to the entry....

In Good Faith, (Computer Guy 2 (talk) 01:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC))

Edit request from Spawinte, 24 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please change "Casuality numbers have escalated significantly over time."

to

Casualty numbers have escalated significantly over time.

due to spelling mistake in casualty.

Spawinte (talk) 10:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit Comments

To BatteryIncluded: I didn't undo your edits, but added an English-language citation that will be easier for most folks to read. I also qualified some of the statements to be more accurate. For example: Century Arms, with approval of ATF, legally imported the rifles in question, which were then legally modified in the United States to a different configuration (resembling the full-auto military versions) following ATF guidelines. Many, many thousands have been sold, and some have been recovered in Mexico and show up on traces. The statement about the "ban" on imports of semi-auto "assault rifles" was misleading. It's only certain configurations of semi-autos that are banned.

If you want to discuss this further, I welcome your input. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Your edit seems OK to me. Since I cannot open the references from the justice dept., I will comment later. Cheers, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

To BatteryIncluded.... Here are the links.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/az/press_releases/2011/US_v_Avila_Indictment.pdf

http://www.justice.gov/usao/az/press_releases/2011/US_v_Flores_Indictment.pdf

http://www.justice.gov/usao/az/press_releases/2011/US_v_Broome_Indictment.pdf

http://www.justice.gov/usao/az/press_releases/2011/US_v_Aguilar_Indictment.pdf

http://www.justice.gov/usao/az/press_releases/2011/US_v_Abarca_Indictment.pdf

http://www.justice.gov/usao/az/press_releases/2011/Fast_Furious_Map_ATF.pdf

Computer Guy 2 (talk) 01:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I know where the links are, thery were just not opening. The indictment is against people involved in straw purchases; the indictments state that the suspects lied in their ATF form 4473 regarding the true name of each client. This does not support your entry that the ATF "allowed and facilitated the sale of over 1,000 firearms destined for Mexico". Your entry implies a conspiracy in colusion with the ATF. Please explain your reasoning or indicate the document and page number. Thanks. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Response:

Sorry, I thought there might be a problem with the citation links, so I provided direct links for assistance.

The indictments are exactly as you said, although I did not intend to imply a conspiracy of collusion. Implicit in the detail contained in the indictments, is the clear evidence that ATF knew the sale was taking place (implying cooperation with the dealer or dealers involved) and that ATF followed the suspects after the purchase to determine the disposition of the guns - but did not intercept the purchasers, nor interdict the firearms to prevent transport to Mexico. These indictments describe events between Sept. 2009, and Dec. 2010 - well over a year, without ATF intervention. There is further information that the dealers involved knew these were "straw man" sales but were told by ATF to complete the sale. "According to the whistle blowers, at least one gun dealer wanted to stop participating in sales like those to Avila sometime around October 2009. However, the ATF allegedly encouraged the dealer to continue selling to suspected traffickers and asked the dealer to forward information about the sales to the Bureau." (From Senator Grassley) This indicates ATF facilitated the sales. There is more corroboration from other dealers.

Why ATF chose to allow the sales to continue unhindered for over a year can only be guessed, although I'm sure they had specific law enforcement goals and objectives in mind. Nevertheless, the map provided in the original citations clearly shows that many of the guns purchased with the tacit (or explicit) approval of ATF were, in fact, transported to Mexico, and recovered there. This alone justifies inclusion of the paragraph - particularly under a paragraph titled "Gun Origins".

Operation "Too Hot to Handle" is essentially similar, lacking some of the detail provided in the other indictments. http://www.justice.gov/usao/az/press_releases/2011/PR_02172011_Macedo_Saucedo-Cuevas%20et%20al.pdf

Senator Grassley is currently investigating this situation, and some of the material can be found at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/48549160/RosettaStone and elsewhere. You may find this material of interest and perhaps should also be added as a citation. It is not without controversy, as ATF, naturally, has denied all such allegations, so perhaps a disclaimer is in order. Senators Lieberman and Lugar are also investigating the allegations.

At a minimum, this is a shocking situation and completely contrary to the goals and objectives of Project Gunrunner. The paragraph is also contrary to conventional wisdom about the agency, however, that doesn't mean it isn't factual.

I've attempted to describe the situation as objectively as possible, but wording and citations certainly could be better. If you can suggest a better way to describe this situation, I would appreciate your input.

This is not original work by me, and the information therein can be verified on any number of websites.

New Links:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/02/22/agent-brian-terry-policy-silence/

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4550036/exclusive-family-of-murdered-border-agent-speaks-out/?playlist_id=87937

Computer Guy 2 (talk) 05:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The most relevant reference is the one you did not quote: the petition from Senator Grassley. It is a good one and certainly is a very interesting document that must be included.

The stated purpose of this ATF operation is "to identify, disrupt and dismantle the most serious drug trafficking, weapons trafficking and money laundering organizations [...]" And you wrote: Why ATF chose to allow the sales to continue unhindered for over a year can only be guessed, -CG Evidently the ATF followed the chain of supply in order to shut it down; it is a very common law enforcement procedure and it does NOT imply a conspiracy in colusion with the ATF as your entry currently suggests. Anyway, since you acknowledge that your intention was not suggest a conspiracy in colusion with the ATF, your entry will be rewritten to make mention to Sen. Grassley's objections; this avoids WP:synthesis. I propose something like this:

Under ATF Operation "Fast and Furious" and "Too Hot to Handle", the ATF set to identify, disrupt and dismantle the most serious weapons trafficking organizations.(Ref: indictements) To this purpose, the Phoenix ATF Office allegedly allowed and facilitated since 2009 some Arizona licensed gun dealers to continue selling to known and suspected traffickers and asked the dealers to forward information about the sales to the ATF.(Ref: Sen. Grassley) Indictments filed in federal court show the sale of over 1,000 firearms (AK-47 rifles, AK-47 pistols, FN 5.7mm pistols and .50 caliber rifles) likely destined for Mexico,(Ref: Sen. Grassley) however only 375 of these firearms were recovered in U.S. and it is assumed that the rest were successfully smuggled into Mexico, where about 195 have already been seized at crime scenes.(Ref: Sen. Grassley + Fast'n Furious chart)

Feel free to edit and expand this until we reach a consensus. If this issue against the ATF grows, we could make a sub-section for it and add more details. Cheers, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't have the time to assimilate and incorporate all the information I found, but did the best I could in the time I had.... I agree with you in speculating that ATF 'probably' was following the chain of supply, but when some of the perps were buying 40 AKs at a time, something should have been done - and quickly. A no-brainer. For the sake of Mexico, surely ATF didn't need to allow over 1,000 guns to be trafficked. According to the ATF Fact Sheet on Project Gunrunner, "Project Gunrunner’s objective is to deny Mexican drug cartels the "tools of the trade", which is precisely what ATF didn't do. See http://www.atf.gov/firearms/programs/project-gunrunner/ As best I can see, the indictments were only brought against the first purchasers, and not the traffickers themselves. However, I need to read the entire indictments before I reach that conclusion.

As time permits, I'll rework the paragraph. I'm sure we can come to a consensus.

Computer Guy 2 (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Operation Gunwalker

UPDATE! CBS News just blew the lid off this story. ATF agent reported the number of guns involved at over 2,500. "Gunrunning scandal uncovered at the ATF" http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/02/23/eveningnews/main20035609.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

Computer Guy 2 (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed entry. Not as subdued as your last one, but that was before the CBS report..... I welcome your comments.

ATF's "Project Gunrunner’s stated objective is to deny Mexican drug cartels the "tools of the trade" by stopping the sale and export of guns from the United States into Mexico. However, under ATF's Project Gunrunner (dubbed Operation Gunwalker), Operations "Fast and Furious" and "Too Hot to Handle", are alleged to have done the opposite. [2] Indictments filed in federal court, and statements of ATF agents obtained by CBS News, show that the Phoenix ATF Office, despite protests from the gun dealers involved, and without notification to Mexican officials, allowed and facilitated the sale of over 2,500 firearms (AK-47 rifles, FN 5.7mm pistols, AK-47 pistols, and .50 caliber rifles) likely destined for Mexico.(Ref: Sen. Grassley) and one specific gun is alleged to be the weapon used by a Mexican national to murder Customs and Border Protection Agent Brian Terry on December 14, 2010. Only 375 of these firearms were recovered in the United States and it is assumed that the rest were successfully smuggled into Mexico, where about 195 have already been seized at crime scenes.(Ref: Sen. Grassley + Fast'n Furious chart)

Computer Guy 2 (talk) 04:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, the CBS News pretty much presents it that way. I have no time now but lets incorporate the references in proper format and move it to the article...probably under its own section which should make reference to a controversy. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm short on time as well, but will get it properly formatted as soon as I can.

Computer Guy 2 (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

BatteryIncluded: Where did you find this info? "purportedly to elucidate the supply chain." I agree this is probably what they were doing, but haven't found (or don't remember) a source. I have also seen references to ATF wanting to track the guns as they are seized in Mexico, and allowing the sales to intentionally 'pad' the U.S. origin statistics, but I was reluctant to include it. It seems to me that sale and tracking of contraband tobacco and alcohol may be a good law enforcement technique, but allowing the sale of contraband firearms, explosives or atomic weapons is probably a bad idea - with deadly consequences. I haven't had a chance to get the Grassley citation included as yet, but will soon. I'll also be wordsmithing the section as time allows. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

ATF managers allegedly made a controversial decision: allow most of the weapons on the streets. The idea, they said, was to gather intelligence and see where the guns ended up.[3]

--BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I saw that. No offense intended, but I think the original wording gets the message across much more clearly.... Computer Guy 2 (talk) 01:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Hi!

• Booth, William and Miroth, Nick. "Mexican drug cartel forces lawyer's video confessions." The Washington Post. Saturday October 30, 2010.

This is about a cartel video of Mario Gonzalez, brother of Patricia Gonzalez. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

"Mexican cartels" writing style

The writing style within the Mexican cartels seems to be rather un-encyclopedic. Not being an expert on the subject myself, not even understanding the jargon used, would somebody be able to fix this? Simoniester (talk) 11:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Map

I added a map based on a Stratfor report from 2010. There is every possibility that I fouled something up though....... error fixes would be most welcome. Wnt (talk) 09:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Strength

Vicboy, during the last several years, users have added a wide range of "foot soldiers" number and nobody has been able to quote a source supporting their entry. If you are sure of this number, just quote the source or abstain from reverting the page. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed unreferenced sentence

In the text regarding importation of weapons, reference 68 is used as a citation for information regarding purchasing of semi-auto weapons, and subsequent conversion. A sentence was added after that to indicate that was not possible because of restrictions in the US (the link to the reference fell after the added sentence, indicating it was backed up by the reference too). However, the latter sentence is not supported by the reference, and seems to have been added erroneously, after the fact, or as POV pushing. I have removed that sentence. Please do not revert without adding a citation for that claim. I can find no such reference in 68; rather it specifically states the opposite. Just perusing the rest of the article, there are several others claims that seem to be POV pushing, whose sources are questionable or for which the link from the source to the claim is questionable. If someone is actively monitoring this page, I'd suggest you check your reference list for RS compliance and that the references used match the claims made.Jbower47 (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems like many USA pro-gun rights activists are on the defensive since there are legal motions to toughen gun-related laws and possibly reinstate the ban on semi-automatic assault rifles, this allegedly to reduce the smuggling of these firearms from USA to Mexico, where organized crime members outgun police and many military units. The controversy has spilled into this Wikipedia article by some single-purpose users against the semi-auto rifle ban in USA, and evidently are trying to minimize the significance of semi-auto rifles traffic from USA to Mexico. Yes, there are other firearms sources but I have found it a challenge to keep their entries neutral/ unbiased and properly referenced. Thank you for your help and your continuing monitoring. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Just as a follow up, upon re-reading the text in the article, I realized it was not just the clause I removed that was an issue. The sentence started with "It is a common misconception that". However, the reference (p. 19) does not state it is a common misconception, it states that its is actually happening. I have modified the sentence to reflect this.Jbower47 (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Editing for neutrality

BatteryIncluded: Regarding your rewording my post. In the interest of accuracy, please take another look at the citation.

"Analysis of source location trace data for specific market areas, when adjusted for time-to-crime, may not only reveal actionable investigative leads, but also that secondary sources (e.g., gun shows, thefts and private sales) are a greater source of trafficked crime guns than licensed dealers."

It does not say that the analysis does reveal, or will reveal, or has revealed. This entire paragraph is an ATF call for additional analysis because it might reveal that secondary sources are important. This is pure speculation, not evidence. If you prefer a different word than speculation (guess, possibility, conjecture, surmise, guesswork, theory, meditation, venture, supposition, etc.), please use it. But it is inaccurate to say ATF reports this. And, in fact, ATF presented no evidence to support their conjecture.

Computer Guy 2 (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't reply now but I'll get back at you tomorrow. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I changed it back to more neutral-sounding words. As mentioned before, let's discuss it. Regards,

Computer Guy 2 (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for my delay in commenting; it is hard to do so with an old mobile phone. Yes, in that document the ATF seems to be hypothesizing about it and made no reference to a study or data. I'm OK with the wording you chose. Any news into the "Fast and Furious" scandal? I read that the Mexican government is quite upset about it and is demanding an explanation, but who will the ATF will respond to? They keep ignoring Senator Grassley. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. It is important to get past ATF propaganda, weed out conjecture and get to the facts..... Exactly why this agency deals in propaganda is an open question, but it may simply be their negative corporate culture. There's been a number of developments with the 'Gunwalker' scandal, and most have been well reported by CBS News (but ignored by the other networks....) When the story broke, ATF officially issued an internal memo through their public information office as a plea for more positive press releases to counteract the bad press... However, Phoenix Assistant Special Agent in Charge George Gillett is now cooperating with Congress. ATF Special Agent Rene Jaquez has opened up to CBS. The (now retired) ATF Mexican Attache, Darren Gil (highest level ATF employee in Mexico and possibly pressured into retirement) has come forth to CBS and I presume all are cooperating with Congress. Congressman Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government reform has also issued subpoenas to ATF - which they can't ignore. It appears ATF management is more interested in stonewalling (not my words), and covering up the scandal than coming clean.... A recent FOIA response (with many emails back and forth) makes this pretty clear. Rightly so, the Mexican Government is more than upset - more like outraged.... It also appears that William Newell (Special Agent In Charge - Phoenix) has had his reassignment to Mexico City as the Attache withdrawn, partly because the Mexican Government might bring him up on charges. [Correction: William Newell is still going to be transferred to Mexico City.] I recommend you review http://www.cleanupatf.org/ for some 'in-house' background and for new developments. Regards Computer Guy 2 (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Additional interesting information: George Iknadosian (X-Caliber Guns)in Phoenix. At the same time ATF was encouraging and facilitating gun trafficking to Mexico (Gunwalker) through other dealers, Arizona (with ATF) was prosecuting George Iknadosian for the exact same thing. Phoenix Judge Gottsfield concluded that the ATF and Arizona state evidence against Iknadosian was insufficient to support conviction and tossed out the entire case with a directed verdict of Not Guilty. According to his attorney, Iknadosian is still fighting to recover his assets, which were seized at the time of his arrest and which he says are worth an estimated $2.2 million. He has sued the government for wrongful and malicious prosecution and for refusing to return his assets despite state court decisions ordering the government to return his property. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Drug Czar: Not a Credible Source

"As of early October 2007, the U.S. drug czar announced figures showing that the war had significantly affected the drugs trade in the United States. In 37 cities across the country, the price of cocaine had risen by as much as 50%, while the average purity has dropped by 11%, evidence that the cocaine supply had been sharply curtailed by the war on drugs.." Why would anyone believe this propaganda? This is like printing statements from Hitler in 1945 declaring German victory is near. GeneCallahan (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I have not seen any other reference stating that the cocaine traffic has diminished. I'm OK with deleting the entry; besides, it is outdated. I give you the honors....Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Updated Study on Arms Trafficking

BatteryIncluded: You should take a look at "Update on U.S. Firearms Trafficking to Mexico Report" by Colby Goodman, published by The Wilson Center's Mexico Institute. I suspect you may find it very interesting. Seems he has taken a closer look at ATF's misleading statistics and Mexico's fabricated numbers and has come to an entirely different conclusion. Link here: http://wilsoncenter.org/news/docs/Goodman%20Update%20on%20US%20Firearms%20to%20Mexico.pdf I haven't had time to integrate it into the work we did on firearms trafficking, but hope to get to it in a week or three.... Computer Guy 2 (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"...officials have said there is often an unwritten, minimum threshold of 10 to 20 illegal trafficked firearms and one firearm used in a crime before a U.S. Attorney will accept the case, which appears to have led to the problems with ATF’s Fast and Furious Operation."

Holly cow.... good stuff in there. BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Goodman, "Update on U.S. Firearms Trafficking to Mexico Report", Apr 2011, has apparently moved: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Update%20on%20U.S.%20Firearms%20Trafficking%20to%20Mexico%20Report.pdf Naaman Brown (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

2011 Death Toll

The death toll for 2011 needs to be updated, it is most certainly higher than the current number of about 1300. Just April of 2011 on its own counted 1400 drug war related deaths. I would try and do it myself but I do not know Spanish and therefore have a hard time collecting figures. http://infosurhoy.com/cocoon/saii/xhtml/en_GB/features/saii/features/main/2011/05/04/feature-01 50.92.3.169 (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

El Universal newspaper stopped publishing the daily count and I have not found another source. BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Well then I feel it should be important that we think of some sort of comment or indicator to put beside the 2011 figure noting that these figures are not complete, what do you think? 50.92.3.169 (talk) 05:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Cartel Alliances

i might be wrong but aren't some gangs enemies, and fighting each other? perhaps we could change it to have 3 boxes like some other war pages i see.--67.67.219.38 (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I am not sure what it is you are requesting, but the main factions and their alliances/rivalries are explained in the current cartels section. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources

• Schiller, Dane. "Narco gangster reveals the underworld." Houston Chronicle. June 12, 2011.
• Castillo, Mariano. "Tales from Mexico's drug wars, WikiLeaks style." CNN. September 11, 2011.

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Operation Fast & Furious: BATFE-allowed smuggling of weapons to Mexico

This really should be included in this article, and it is just coming out into the media spotlight now: Operation Fast and Furious is a BATFE operation meant to take down the straw-purchasers and gun-trafficking network in the US that was sending the guns to Mexico. In the course of this, the BATFE allowed the firearms to be purchased and sent into Mexico, where they were used by criminal elements fighting the Mexican Government and each other. The intent was to trace the retrieved guns to track them back to the straw purchasers, but this ended up causing an untold number of unnecessary deaths in Mexico. I think someone who is more involved in this article should add mention of Op. Fast & Furious here. I'm not exactly sure how or where to weld it in here or I would do it myself, but I did add a 'see also' thing with the link.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello. It is aleady included under the section "Operation Gunrunner". Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears the intent may have had very little to do with tracking the guns back to the straw buyers, and a lot more to do with padding and justifying ATF statistics for overt political reasons.... Computer Guy 2 (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57338546-10391695/documents-atf-used-fast-and-furious-to-make-the-case-for-gun-regulations/ Sharyl Attkisson, "Documents: ATF used "Fast and Furious" to make the case for gun regulations", CBS News, 7 Dec 2011

Under Fast and Furious, gun dealers outted straw purchasers to ATF; ATF (Phoenix AZ) encouraged the gun dealers to make multiple sales to the suspected straw purchasers. Then 14 Jul 2010 ATF (HQ) Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF (Phoenix) SAC in charge of Fast and Furious:

"Bill - can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks."

Under Demand Letter 3 long gun multiple sales reporting (announced in the Federal Register Dec 2010 but suspended) is back on track. However, the gun dealers cooperating with ATF in Fast and Furious were already reporting suspected multiple long gun sales voluntarily.

Appears? If ATF HQ was totally unaware of what ATF Phoenix was doing, perhaps. Naaman Brown (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

the sample traced v the total population of Mexican crime guns

In 2009, Mexico held 305,424 confiscated firearms. Mexican authorities submitted data on 69,808 to the US ATF for tracing between 2007 and 2009, or 23% of total gun population. The WP article 24 Sep 2011 states Statistically, the property in the sample should reflect the population. flagged clarification needed.

However, further down in the article there is a chart of sources of weapons listing non-US origins for many of the Mexican crime guns especial grenades, rocket launchers and full-automatics (machineguns). Quite a few observors believe the property in the 23% sample traced reflects weapons the Mexican authorities suspect are US origin. Therefore, the property in the 23% sample does not reflect the total population, because it is preselected for US tracing. Logically Mexican authorities would not submit for US traces weapons they knew came from other countries. For instance, Latin American Herald Tribune (Caracas) has reported Guatemala as a major arms source for the Mexican cartels. Naaman Brown (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: a Timeline?

Commendable job on the page, to those who've contributed. I'm ignorant on the subject, so I'm just a humble reader. I've got a request for something that would help me and others understand this complex subject and get the "big picture"... that would be a timeline. Key events, what sparked what, etc. I'm far from qualified to tackle such a thing myself... if someone(s) more knowledgeable could find the time to work one into the article, it would be much appreciated. By me at least. :D Ex0pos (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

There's already a timeline for the Mexican Drug War. It's Timeline of the Mexican Drug War. It still needs a lot of clean up, though. And there's several notorious events that are still not mentioned in it. Hope this helps! ComputerJA (talk) 23:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Just what the doctor ordered... slightly embarrassed to have missed it! Thank you kindly. Ex0pos (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I'm here to help. Take care! ComputerJA (talk) 04:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The 'Timeline of the Mexican Drug War' is a collection of random news-clips. Their relevance is not mentioned. I have tried to work on it but I threw the towel. I hope someone with knowledge and patience will make it a real article. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Operation Wide Receiver

Turns out that BEFORE the Operation Fast and Furious, there was another similar project, Operation Wide Receiver (Spanish: Operación Receptor abierto), that allowed weapons to cross to Mexico illegally in 2006 and 2007. And, just like F&F, the weapons were lost as soon as they walked on Mexican grounds.

What do you guys think? Should a new article be created on this subject? Please help me expand on this subject. Thanks! ComputerJA (talk) 04:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright, guys. Here is the article: Operation Wide Receiver. Check it out. There's several sources online already that are coming up on this subject, so I hope we can expand on this together. Thanks! ComputerJA (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)