Talk:ATF gunwalking scandal

Merge proposal

I propose merging ATF gunwalking scandal and Project Gunrunner because the two articles are about the same thing, just with different names. I don't know or care which one should be the resulting name if the merge does in fact take place. Magenta 447 (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

No. As the ATF agents (Dodson et al.) objected to Operation Fast and Furious: the "gunwalking" was contrary to all their training and prior operations under the over-all Project Gunrunner, where SOP was to identify straw purchasers with cooperating gun dealers, follow the purchasers to the actual buyers for the cartel, and interdict them before the guns could reach the streets or cross the borders, usually when the straw purchasers handed the guns off to the actual buyers. That's like calling the "Bridge Too Far" botched raid equivalent to WWII. Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious were operations within Gunrunner an umbrella project with different goals and with several other operations that have not been scandals. The tactics of "gunwalking" were anomalies. --Naaman Brown (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with this, as noted at Talk:Project Gunrunner. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 09:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Content from Operation Fast and Furious

When Operation Fast and Furious was merged into this article, a lot of the content from that article was not added to this article. I have just now added the content from that article to this one. Magenta 447 (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

To clarify - this was a merge that took place several months ago, after consensus for the merge was reached at talk:Operation Fast and Furious. I simply moved info from that article to this one, which is something that should have been done several months ago. Magenta 447 (talk) 04:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Some of that info already exists in this article, and would thus be duplicated. Additionally, some of the information you have inserted here isn't directly related to the "scandal", and is simply background information better left in another article ... Project Gunrunner comes to mind. I see that you have also inserted information here that is tagged as "citation needed". Information shouldn't be introduced into an article if proper citations for that information are not present. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I had just copied that info from Operation Fast and Furious, but I agree with you that citations are necessary. But it should have been copied months ago during the merge. I didn't mean to duplicate any info, but those dupes should be removed individually, instead of erasing everything. Magenta 447 (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I was the one who finalized the merge, and I felt that all information (or at least everything relevant) existed here. In any case, it's possible that there was a minor omission here or there, but there is no doubt that almost everything was in this article before you started editing. Rather than copying large tracts of text, you should read through both and insert anything you feel is missing. Moving so much all over the place is disruptive. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 09:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

For example, part of your focus seems to be on AG Holder's controversial testimony. Before you started editing, this article contained the following, separated due to the chronology of the section:

"On May 3, Attorney General Holder testified to the House Judiciary Committee that he did not know who approved Fast and Furious, but that it was being investigated. He also stated that he "probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks," a claim which would later become controversial.[56][57] [...]

In October, documents were found showing that Attorney General Holder had been sent briefings on Fast and Furious as early as July 2010, contradicting his May statement that he had known about it for only a few weeks. The briefings were from the National Drug Intelligence Center and Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer. In response, the Justice Department stated that Holder misunderstood the question from the committee; he had known about Fast and Furious, but he didn't know the details of the tactics being used.[57]"

The second paragraph is still there for you to read. So, rather than adding new information, you have duplicated information and changed the flow of writing in that section. I consider this unhelpful. If you agree, I suggest you change or remove it, and then take a breath and read the article in full before making extra changes. If you disagree, why do you disagree? hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 09:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Hazydan. In the confusion during all of his duplicate insertions and revert-warring, I also inadvertantly replicated existing content. I've reverted the article back to its stable state, with the only difference being the addition of a (completely inappropriate, in my opinion) merge-request tag. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It probably got a little confusing. Thanks. Agree with you on the merge. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 04:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Original Source Material

Original Source Material can be found on this blog http://waronguns.blogspot.com/. The direct linked is block as spam, doesn't appear to be a spam site http://www.examinerdotcom/article/a-journalist-s-guide-to-project-gunwalker-part-one. The material is very detailed and is original source material. This information may be helpful in understanding the background on the scandal. The blocking of this material is very disturbing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiamLiw (talk • contribs) 16:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC) LiamLiw (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This is the original source material used by Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News, who just won the 2012 National Edward R. Murrow Award for reporting. LiamLiw (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think examiner is blocked because it is considered unreliable. The same is generally assumed of personal blogs. See WP:SOURCES for info on reliable sources. CBS News is considered a reliable source, so if you like them, I'd suggest finding those articles and use them as a source of information on this subject. Can you tell me where you read that Attkisson's reporting was from these sources? This is more for my personal curiosity than anything else. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 18:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I reviewed WP:SOURCES and I don't see a conflict with adding these sites as external references. The material seems to fits the criteria. LiamLiw (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Email Log correspondence with Cordrea and Attkisson http://www.examinerdotcom/slideshow/an-email-record. LiamLiw (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing at that link indicates that Attkisson's reporting was from those sources. Why not use a news report by Attkisson to remove all doubt? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Also see WP:ELNO for info specific to external links. The sources you are linking may be useful to journalists as original (primary?) sources as you claim, but they are against wikipedia policies. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 18:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I looked at WP:ELNO, I'm not seeing the specifics of what your talking about that primary sources are against wikipedia policies. Can you direct me to it. Otherwise it looks like the site is blacklisted, cannot find a reason for the blacklisting either no record, which is interesting. LiamLiw (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hazydan wasn't saying that primary sources are against Wikipedia policies. Examiner.com is indeed blacklisted as an unreliable source for use at Wikipedia. Your link to a blog (which you claim is a primary source) also does not meet Wikipedia's requirements as a reliable source. If you feel that information from those sites has been used by legitimate journalists, then you should find the related reporting by those journalists and cite those as sources. If you still feel a particular source qualifies for use on Wikipedia, you should raise that issue at WP:RSN. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Xenophrenic (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Correct. I was about to provide a similar response. Regarding examiner, I hadn't looked at the ban record itself before, so I found it here for anyone who is curious. It looks like there have been subsequent discussions since then, but the decision remains in effect.

There are a number of points at WP:ELNO that clearly apply to the waronguns blog, and other issues that at least make linking to it questionable. See points 11 and 13 for example. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 23:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, didn't realize how examiner.com worked. LiamLiw (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

"Dissident" ATF agents? Wouldn't that more correctly be described as "whistle-blowing ATF agents" or perhaps "ATF agents unsatisfied with their superiors' handling of the operation"? Article appears slanted with a sensationalist, anti-ATF, anti-administration bent - which I suppose is understandable given that Wikipedia sources from the media which isn't exactly going to make tons of money with NPOV, methodical and slow analysis. Pär Larsson (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I personally don't interpret the word dissident that way, but you may be right. On the other hand, whistleblower has its own POV connotations (implies someone telling the truth about illegal/immoral actions, and at personal risk). I'll give it some thought. I've had to deal with a lot of editors who thought the article wasn't anti-ATF and sensationalist enough, so we have to be doing something right. Regarding your edit, "fewer than" is not POV, and "around" is simply less precise. The source seems to be inaccessible, so I'll try to find another copy and see what it says. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 17:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

See my edit. I do think the wording is better now, actually. Thanks. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 23:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:UCN Operation Fast and Furious

I understand the rationale for creating a separate article 'ATF gunwalking scandal' in addition to the then-existing 'Operation Fast and Furious' article, but I totally disagree with the conclusion (by just five editors) to subsequently dissolve 'Operation Fast and Furious' into 'ATF gunwalking scandal' (see 'Talk:Operation Fast and Furious#lets make a new article' and Talk:Operation Fast and Furious#Merge proposal straw poll). The WP:UCN / WP:COMMONNAME guideline plainly states, "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural." IMHO, "Operation Fast and Furious" is about a million times more recognizable than "ATF gunwalking scandal".
Unless there are serious objections, tomorrow or the next day I'll copy over this article's 'Operation Fast and Furious' discussion to that article title. Per the WP:CONTENTFORKING guideline, I suppose we can consider this article as "the main article", rename this article as plural ('ATF gunwalking scandals', eg both Project Gunrunner AND Operation Fast and Furious), and finally per WP:CONTENTFORKING make sure "the handling of the subject ['Fast and Furious'] in the main article ['ATF gunwalking scandals'] is condensed to a brief summary". I can do all that, but thought it wise to pause for other comments. The name 'Operation Fast and Furious' should never have been discarded. --→gab 24dot grab← 20:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - I'm aware of the rule, but I don't think you are applying it correctly. The rule you are talking about should apply when you have 2 synonymous names for one topic (Normandy landings vs Operation Neptune), which isn't the case here. To explain: first of all, Project Gunrunner was an umbrella effort to stop gun smuggling. There have been many operations under that umbrella that are constructive, completely non-scandalous and not notable. There were around 4 operations under the umbrella that involved gunwalking, which is the scandal (and it is one scandal, not several, even if there were different operations). That is the purpose of this article. It is true that "Operation Fast and Furious" is more commonly heard than "ATF gunwalking scandal" or something similar, but OFF covers only a specific part of the topic. The important question is: What is the most appropriate name for the topic as a whole? Given WP rules, I think ATF gunwalking scandal is it, or at least close. Once you have solved that question, you then need to move on to justifying a WP:SPLIT (it's more a split than a fork, and forks are discouraged anyway), which should be justified by size or content relevance, which I don't think it is. In my opinion and my understanding of guidelines, this article is not long or detailed enough to justify a split. Additionally, I think any reasonable person who reads the article as a whole would agree that cutting out the part about OFF, and moving it to a new article, would be detrimental to this article and produce a less informative new one. If others disagree I'd be interested to hear why. As a final note, I don't think the number of involved editors who made the decision is relevant, but since you currently have no consensus whatsoever, I find your mention of it ironic. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 23:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose for the same reasons as User:Hazydan. —Compdude¹²³ 02:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Nah - While I didn't comment during the merge discussion, I would have joined in agreement with the unanimous decision of the five who did. The name "Operation Fast and Furious" has not been discarded, as you say, but still exists as a redirect to this article -- so not a single reader will get lost when seeking information specific to that subtopic. In fact, this article (ATF gunwalking scandal) is the number one hit on a general Google search for "Operation Fast and Furious". Stripping the OF&F content from this article, and placing it out of context in a minimalized article will only serve to misinform the reader, and I know that certainly isn't your intent. With Wikipedia article names obviously not the real issue here, I'm left wondering what the motivation is behind a proposal to move that subsection out of this article. The actual reasoning wasn't given above. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Update

Congress contempt charge for US Attorney General Holder: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18528798. BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

True, that's probably why there seems to be a spike in interest. Hopefully I'll get to it soon if no one else does first. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 03:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Gunwalking from 2006??

In light of this article - http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/282606/fast-furious-was-bushs-fault-andrew-c-mccarthy# - should this sentence be modified to distinguish between a "gunwalking" operation and a "controlled delivery" operation? "The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) ran a series of "gunwalking" sting operations[2][3] between 2006[4] and 2011."

I know little about this subject and the history but was surprised to see the two programs lumped together. PRONIZ (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You are citing an opinion piece of questionable factual value. Reliable sources show gunwalking happening in both cases. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 21:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Operation Confusion

There seems to be some confusion, especially with the way sources are being used, between Operation Wide Receiver and Operation Fast and Furious. Wide receiver only had a dozen or so losses, where Fast and Furious had hundreds. Some of the references being used in the Wide Receiver section apply to Fast and Furious. While Wide Receiver is mentioned, the facts being cited apply to Fast and Furious. Would someone help clean up the two sections? -- Korentop (talk) 11:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you be specific? If you are talking about the edit you made, that statement is backed up in the given sources as relating to Wide Receiver. Keep in mind there were at least 4 separate gunwalking operations. The rest of the section you edited itself refers to another of the operations which lost about 12 weapons. Meanwhile, Fast and Furious sold over 2000 weapons and is probably still missing more than half of them, so all the numbers are completely different. I don't know where you are getting your information. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 18:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

This article has major flaws that misinform and confuse the reader

This article jumbles together much of the information regarding "Operation Wide Receiver" and "Operation Fast and Furious" without distinguishing between the two. Here are some differences that should be mentioned in the article, but are not:

The first operation was done with the full knowledge, permission, and cooperation of the Mexican government. The second was done in secret, without any of those things.

The first operation used RFID tags to track the guns, which were followed by government agents and helicopters, and eventually retrieved. The second operation made no attempt to track or retrieve the guns.

The first operation isn't known to have killed any Mexican civilians. The second killed 200.

The first operation was done with the intent of going after the gun runners, drug dealers, and other criminals. According to this article from CBS news, the second operation was done with the intent of creating a new excuse to pass more gun control laws.

The first operation never tried to hide any information. The second did try to hide information, which resulted in a high ranking government official being voted in contempt by a Congressional committee.

This article needs to be improved to reflect these things.

87442 Charles (talk) 11:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not see where the article "jumbles together much of the information regarding" the multiple gunwalking operation. With regard to the 5 examples you gave, can you please provide supporting reliable sources? I see that you have supplied a single source that you claim shows "the second operation was done with the intent of creating a new excuse to pass more gun control laws". That sounded strange and interested me, so I carefully read the source you provided and discovered that you have misread -- and you have it backwards. What the source really says is that the ATF wanted to use Operation F&F gun sale information to support its request for multiple rifle sale reporting requirements. The intent of the operation was to track the guns to the higher-level traffickers and key cartel members; not to create an excuse for gun laws (which doesn't make sense anyway -- the operation didn't force anyone to try to buy these rifles). We have to be careful to differentiate between actual facts and partisan spin and misrepresentation of those facts. (A gunwalking sting operation "killed 200 civilians", instead of criminals killing civillians...?) The Wikipedia article already notes the ATF's interest in using F&F to support their request for more reporting requirements ... what reliably sourced information would you have it convey instead? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a sockpuppet, the same user as Magenta 447 and was just banned. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 17:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

That was obvious before I responded, but one must always keep up the AGF-pretense nonetheless ;-) Xenophrenic (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh...and a good job you do of it! hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 17:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

"Scandal"

The word "scandal" evokes emotional responses as well as partisan bickering. The Clinton-Lewinsky scandal was a "scandal", the Watergate scandal was a "scandal". The gun-walking controversy is too nascent and politicized to be deemed a "scandal". I believe "controversy" would better suit this article and its contents.--Drdak (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know...I think it qualifies as a scandal, in some ways more so than Lewinsky. However, I don't feel too strongly about your suggestion either way, so I wouldn't stand in the way of a change. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 17:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Gunwalking has been described as a "scandal" at CBS News (Susan Attkinsson), NYT (Sheryl Gay Stolberg), Politico (Josh Gerstein), Huffington Post (Laura Carlsen). Scandal is what it is seen as by many outside WP. --Naaman Brown (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why the Boston Herald and Outdoor Wire would be considered unreliable sources. Outdoor Wire been published online daily for over 11 years, and covers a broad range of topics related to outdoor sports and firearms. I've been reading it for many years and have always found it to be reliable and unbiased, with a lot of inside information that turns out to be accurate. Naturally, the Fast and Furious scandal (and don't let anybody tell you it's not a scandal with over 200 people dead) has attracted a lot of attention from lawful gun owners in the United States. It's funny how such news organizations as CBS News and the Washington Post have decided that the many distinctions between Wide Receiver and Fast & Furious aren't worth discussing. Wide Receiver was a legitimate, if poorly executed, law enforcement sting operation. Fast & Furious was just plain stupid at best and criminal at worst, and it was done with the blessing of Justice Department officials who should have known better. The details about the difference between these two operations are surfacing in several publications, the coverage is consistent (for example, they're all saying that tracking devices were put into the Wide Receiver guns), and I think these details are notable and reliably sourced. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 10:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your edits aren't even a close call. Of the two references you have inserted in the article, one is labeled as an opinion piece from what is a paper with a point of view (Herald), and the other (Outdoor Wire) is blatantly written from a point of view. Just read the piece you cite and the author is clearly advocating for certain opinions and actions. Additionally, the editorial policy and other standards of that website are unknown. I've never seen, in a single mainstream publication, a number of the claims made there, such as the RFID tags. I've seen the claim often in partisan publications that like to cite each other, but never from a true reliable source, and the implication that the RFID tags could be used to continuously monitor the guns seems unlikely anyway - RFID tags are generally useful more as barcodes than GPS locators. That's just one example of what sounds like very dubious info. On top of all of that, you've inserted a number of claims that are completely missing from the listed sources. I see nothing in the Outdoor Wire piece about Fast and Furious being present in 10 cities in 5 states (and this claim will sound incredibly suspect to anyone who is knowledgeable on the topic). Going back to RFID, your source says some guns had it, while you say all guns had it. The 1,300 number you inserted, while fairly self-evident if you do the math, is not stated in the article and is best left out without another source. The number of Mexicans killed should also not be hard to find from a better source. You see the theme. I'm reverting again. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 10:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

NRA Political Involvement

I was surprised that this article made no mention of the NRA's involvement with this "scandal" and with the contempt proceeding against Holder. Does it not seem appropriate to track their involvement? Jwhester (talk) 02:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I've heard only a little about suggested NRA influence...I don't know if it really needs to be included, but if you have a good source and you want to put a couple of sentences in there give it a shot. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 19:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

new information

Recent reporting (particularly the Fortune article linked by other editors already) seems to contradict a good deal of previously reported information, some of which is in this article. In particular, its discussion of motives and characterization of internal ATF disagreements. As a result, I think it may be best to completely remove specific details and implications about the internal disagreements, as this could even be construed as a WP:BLP issue. It may also call for going into more detail about the various reported causes for guns being allowed to walk. Any thoughts? hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 19:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the information in this FoxNews article regarding Dodson's plan to walk guns to Isaias Fernandez may also may necessitate some rethinking of the narrative currently being conveyed by this Wikipedia entry. 204.128.230.1 (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I was about to link to this article, and suggest talk about it. Interesting that a random IRS agent knows so much about this operation that nobody in the Department of Justice knows anything about. Also, I think many dates in this article need years attached, as "On May 3, Attorney" could easily be read to mean 2012, while I believe it refers to 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.219.35 (talk) 04:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)