Talk:ATF gunwalking scandal/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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)

"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)

Indeed, it is more of a controversy or a political tussle than a scandal at this point. However, this article as presently written is not about a controversy or a scandal, most of it simply describes the events of the program. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:37, 28 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)

Here is a good source: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/28/republicans-not-backing-down-on-contempt-votes/ . As the NRA is publicly demanding a yes vote, and stating that it will score a no vote negatively. 216.96.230.215 (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Format seems backwards,,

The format of the article seems inverted...one would expect an article on the programs, with a section on the "scandal" that resulted. Certainly there is precedent for scandal-as-primary sorts of articles (like Watergate), but in that case there isn't a program it's a part of...the scandal is the whole deal. In this case, I think we have a series of operations, part of which involved a scandal. I fear we're following the current events focus on the scandal and putting teh programs in the context of the scandal, instead of putting the scandal in the context of the programs. It's understandable because the issues surrounding the failures of the program are the most prominent right now. However, in terms of long term structure it seems like it makes more sense to refer to the operations (perhaps as "ATF Gunwalking Operations") and then have subdivisions for the operations and the issues that arose from them. While I understand it's not the arbiter, google results are at least an indication of the relative prevalance of a term. "ATF gunwalking scandal" without any modification, got me abut 54,000 hits. "ATF fast and furious" got about 1,280,000 results. I'm struggling to see why we would not entitle the article based on the most commonly used reference in secondary sources...especially given my first point about the scandal being a part of the programs, not vice versa.204.65.34.55 (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding titles, we already have "Operation Fast and Furious", and it properly redirects to that specific information -- as already noted when the same naming issue was raised just 3 days ago by User:87442 Charles a few sections above. As for article format highlighting and focusing on the scandals, have we defined exactly what the scandalous parts are? If it is that "hundreds of guns 'walked' across the border", that would apply to multiple operations. If it is that "hundreds of guns have shown up at crime scenes", that applies to guns trafficked under multiple operations, too. Are the specific killings (Terry, Zapata and others) related to the various operations the scandalous part? I have no objection to creating a section for each specific operation (Hernandez Op, Medrano Op, Baytown, F&F, Wide Receiver, et al) and then explaining the results, failures and issues -- but what "scandal" qualification must they first meet to qualify for inclusion in our article? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:18, 28 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)

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)

completely agree with the first commenter. The attempts to claim that Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious are really the same operation, conducted in the same manner is a strategy taken directly from the Democratic Party's playbook. As has been pointed out, they were completely separate operations, and only Wide Receiver was conducted with the knowledge and participation of the Mexican government. Nor have there been any evidence of a cover-up unearthed in relation to Wide Receiver. Trying to link the two is a pretty obvious attempt to shift blame away from the Bush administration. That an entry that is supposed to be related to Fast and Furious spends so much time discussing Wide Receiver is a dead giveaway.74.141.154.28 (talk) 05:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC

This article covers all gunwalking, and the space dedicated exclusively to Wide Receiver is exactly two paragraphs. The two operations are clearly differentiated here, but to claim that there are no links between them besides those invented for political expediency is not a claim backed up by the facts, like them or not. By the way, Rep Issa himself recently admitted that he had no evidence connecting the White House directly to gunwalking. If you have some reliable sources that he doesn't have, I'd like to see them so that they can be included. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 08:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Fortune article

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)

Come on guys, this Fortune article is a load of shit. The only agents Eban interviewed are those with the most to lose when the fallout from this really hits. Rescarpment (talk) 14:13, 29 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)

Editorializing

I don't see how Fortune magazine deserves to make that kind of editorial comment in the first paragraph of this article, as if they were some kind of ultimate authority on Fast and Furious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.164.227.163 (talk) 07:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

As an in-depth report, it is an authority on the subject. Nonetheless, the conclusion is a journalistic flourish, and is pretty clearly the authors' opinion / analysis of the subject. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The Fortune investigation isn't any more or less an "ultimate athority" than the other 17 sources also cited in the lede of this article. I agree that the conclusion that "the ATF never intentionally allowed guns to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels" is indeed the conclusion of the journalists after their analysis of the subject. Was there another expectation? I don't see the "flourish"; it appears to be a rather straight-forward statement, which is extensively substantiated in the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

House committee response

CNN/Fortune Article

This article it's timing and content seem to be very political, released the day before the contempt vote in congress.

Statement by Becca Watkins, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform spokeswoman, has issued the following statement: “Fortune’s story is a fantasy made up almost entirely from the accounts of individuals involved in the reckless tactics that took place in Operation Fast and Furious. It contains factual errors – including the false statement that Chairman Issa has called for Attorney General Holder’s resignation – and multiple distortions. It also hides critical information from readers – including a report in the Wall Street Journal – indicating that its primary sources may be facing criminal charges. Congressional staff gave Fortune Magazine numerous examples of false statements made by the story’s primary source and the magazine did not dispute this information. It did not, however, explain this material to its readers. The one point of agreement the Committee has with this story is its emphasis on the role Justice Department prosecutors, not just ATF agents, played in guns being transferred to drug cartels in Mexico. The allegations made in the story have been examined and rejected by congressional Republicans, Democrats, and the Justice Department.”

Should this link be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiamLiw (talk • contribs) 12:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Ya think? This has to be one of the most blatent revisionist history attempts I have ever seen. Now that it has reached an endpoint the new goal by the administration seems to be "Guess what, it never happened!". Not sure which is worse, that the Obama administration is pushing this narrative, or that people actually believe it. On a side note, if this is actually true, then what is Obama protecting? Arzel (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, you choose to believe politicians over the sources? If the involved politicians' denials of the material reported in the Fortune article is of any weight or credibility, then secondary sources will likely cover it. Meanwhile, The Fortune article is a lot more credible than much of the rest of the Wikipedia article, which apart from being somewhat rambling and aimless seems to miss the entire political dimension of the scandal. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I know this is a hot button issue, but let's try to retain a neutral tone, shall we? This is not a political discussion forum.204.65.34.55 (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I am okay with leaving this source out of this section until others have had the opportunity to discuss whether it should be included. LiamLiw (or others) -- can you find a less partisan and more detailed description of the article's inaccuracies? The Becca Watkins statement says that Issa did not call for Holder's resignation, but a cursory search shows that Issa called on Holder to "lead or resign." There's a semantic argument over whether or not "lead or resign" is actually a call for resignation, but I hardly think it's a gross inaccuracy that would disqualify the article from inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anotherpioneer (talk • contribs) 14:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is a source that would justify inclusion of the House committee response.[1] The UPI news story covers the Fortune story as an allegation and claims (rather than an investigation and conclusion), and also covers the response mentioned above. I've found only a few other reliable sources that cover the Fortune article, and none are of equivalent weight or reliability. A Politico piece[2] merely mentions that the article was written but does not analyze the article's trustworthiness. Same with a Business Insider piece.[3] Then a bunch of random chirping pro and con from news blogs, editorials, etc.[4][5] News sources don't often report on each other's articles as news events in themselves (their own version of WP:NAVEL) so we probably won't get a whole lot of insightful nonpartisan analysis on just how accurate the Fortune story is. Plus, with the Supreme Court ruling on health care, there's not going to be a lot of attention on the Fortune allegations for the moment. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

By most of the comments in this section, I can predict exactly where the people making them fall on the political fight over this issue. Congratulations, I guess, on making your political points, but I don't care. The Fortune article provides what appears to be an in-depth, verifiable, NPOV (as much as these kinds of articles can be, which is saying less than I wish it were) source for information on this topic. That this article disagrees with other sources or doesn't deal with certain issues or statements in the depth that others might wish doesn't change this. I wouldn't suggest that our WP article be thrown out and replaced with info from Fortune. I wouldn't suggest that we say that Fortune is right, and everyone else has been disproven . My question is, via wiki policy, can anyone tell me why we shouldn't take Fortune into account? Is there any policy/guideline reason that we shouldn't modify information about internal ATF disagreements, and at least elaborate on the different possible reasons that guns were allowed to walk? Because I think there are several reasons that we should make those changes. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 17:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure the Fortune article doesn't fit with wiki policy. This just out, and yes it is political but I think the Fortune article is very biased. I don't think this is an example of unbiased reporting.

http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=41536

For Immediate Release June 28, 2012

Fortune magazine piece on Fast and Furious

M E M O R A N D U M

To: Reporters and Editors Re: Fortune magazine piece on Fast and Furious Da: Thursday, June 28, 2012

The Fortune magazine piece on Operation Fast and Furious is problematic in several respects. Sen. Chuck Grassley began investigating the circumstances of the death of border patrol agent Brian Terry 18 months ago after whistleblowers came to him with concerns. The following statement is from Grassley’s office. Supporting documents are available here.

“The Fortune piece conspicuously ignores the most important fact in this case: ATF encouraged cooperating dealers to sell guns to known traffickers. That fact is key to understanding how ATF made a strategic choice to track the guns instead of stop them. The central claim of the article, that there was nothing ATF could have done to stop the illegal sales, is simply incompatible with the evidence. If it is true that ATF could not interdict and seize weapons due to legal hurdles beyond its control, then ATF had no business telling gun dealers to go ahead with the sales.

“The Fortune article asks the reader to believe that sworn statements by whistleblowers who put their careers on the line to expose the truth for Brian Terry’s family are merely conspiratorial fabrications for the sole purpose of getting back at their boss. It asks the reader to believe that the ATF Director, the Attorney General, the White House, and Congress all fell victim to the fabrication and completely misinterpreted or misunderstood the thousands of pages of documents that corroborate the whistleblower allegations. The Justice Department retracted its previous denials of those allegations last December 2. If the Fortune article is accurate, the Justice Department’s December 2 retraction would itself be a false capitulation under political pressure aimed at protecting senior DOJ officials at the expense of ATF field office personnel in Arizona.

“The Fortune article inexplicably credits the self-serving statements of the supervisors in Arizona responsible for overseeing Fast and Furious. There is no explanation as to why, given their obvious motive to claim there was no gun-walking to save themselves from criticism and punishment. That’s why the written records, the interviews on the record, and obtaining and weighing all evidence is so important. We can only draw fair, informed conclusions from the facts.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiamLiw (talk • contribs) 16:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

No offense, but the defense of the Fortune article by Hazydan is pretty lame. The following is a quote from his "defense":"The Fortune article provides what appears to be an in-depth, verifiable, NPOV (as much as these kinds of articles can be, which is saying less than I wish it were) source for information on this topic." He then contradicts himself, in the very next sentence, on the issue of verifiability: "That this article disagrees with other sources or doesn't deal with certain issues or statements in the depth that others might wish doesn't change this." So, the Fortune article is in-depth and verifiable, even though it is contradicted by multiple other sources and it isn't as in-depth as other articles on the subject? How exactly is it more verifiable than the multiple other articles that are admittedly in contradiction with the Fortune article? Statements made by the Fortune article are not verified merely because they exist. Here is another gem: "I wouldn't suggest that we say that Fortune is right, and everyone else has been disproven." You could have fooled me. That is exactly what you are saying. That the Fortune article is the only article deemed worthy of mentioning in the lead would seem to indicate whoever wrote this entry also believes that multiple other sources are wrong, whereas the Fortune article is right. Getting back to the subject of verifiability, it would seem that mulitple individuals involved in the investigation have pointed out numerous errors with the supposedly "verifiable" Fortune story. Another commenters reaction to the errors:"Interesting, you choose to believe politicians over the sources." Sources? One could ask why several people have chosen to believe Fortune rather than numerous other sources that contradict Fortune. I think we all know the answer to that question. Unless someone is willing to mention Grassley's statement in regards to the errors and assertions in the Fortune article and also detail the fact that the Fortune article is contradicted by multiple other sources, the mention of that article in the opening needs to be removed. That it is given precedence over every other report on the topic is pretty clear evidence of bias.74.141.154.28 (talk) 06:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be misinterpreting my remarks, and attributing statements or opinions to me that I do not have. Re-read what I said, keeping in mind that I was also responding to the concerns of others, and read WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV. I am not defending anything, or believing anything. The Fortune article is about as reliable, and the information in it considered as verifiable, as any other source. No more, no less. While I don't much care whether it is mentioned in the lede or not, it should be mentioned because its analysis differs so much from most other sources. Our entire article largely coincides with the assertions of Fortune's critics, so to claim that just by mentioning Fortune we are biased in its favor is nonsense. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 08:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Fortune Article - redux

Doesnt anyone think the Fortune article, relying almost solely on the statements of David Voth is a bit self serving? For example, this line from the article and sourced to the Fortune piece kind of smacked me in the face:

“However, other accounts of the operation insist that ATF agents were prevented from intervening not by ATF officials, but rather by federal prosecutors with the Attorney General's office, who were unsure of whether the agents had sufficient evidence to arrest suspected straw-buyers. “

These arent “other accounts”, this is Voth playing CYA. He sent an email on April 2, 2010 where he assured the agents in Phoenix that not arresting the straw buyers was all part of the big picture [6]

“Our subjects purchased 359 firearms during the month of March alone, to include numerous Barrett .50 caliber riffles. I believe we are righteous in our plan to dismantle this entire organization and to rush in to arrest any one person without taking in to account the entire scope of the conspiracy would be ill advised to the overall good of the mission”

Rescarpment (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I missed that part of the article that states the investigation relied solely on "the statements of David Voth". Could you point me to that specifically? It seems to contradict the article's statement that it interviewed far more people, and reviewed extensive documents. Also, your personal interpretation of the Voth letter's meaning is interesting, but you appear to be reading more into it than what is actually stated. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Dont split hairs, Voth accounts for most of the story's content and considering he's up shit creek without a paddle. My interpretation of the letter also happens to be shared by Charles Grassley but dont take my word for it, read it yourself. Rescarpment (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I have read it, and my point stands. Voth is just one of numerous sources cited in that report, and accounts for only a fraction of the information in it. Neither you, nor Grassley, qualify as reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Katherine Eban claimed five sources said that ATF had no gun walking tactic in Operation Fast & Furious. Were those five the heads of Operation Fast and Furious who were removed from their jobs in Aug 2011:

• Dennis Burke, US Attorney for Phoenix AZ under OF&F, retired.
• Kenneth Melson, ATF director, transferred to DoJ.
• David Voth, supervisor Phoenix, transferred to HQ office job.
• Bill Newell, SAC Phoenix, xfr to HQ.
• William McMahon, ATF deputy director of operations, xfr to HQ.

All but McMahon are named in the Fortune article. --Naaman Brown (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

She only spoke with people whose asses are in a real pinch now that the shit is hitting the fan. Self serving, definately but the royal throne sniffers in the media are doing all they can on this. Rescarpment (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

That is incorrect; perhaps you should actually read the article? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Identification of individual firearm

It is my understanding that federal law prohibits the ATF from creating a database of firearms. How are these firearms related back to the Fast and Furious? EconModerate (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

ATF cannot by law create a database of all legal firearms purchasers. Firearms in a criminal investigation can be traced through the manufacturer or importer records through the distribution system to the retail dealer transaction to the individual buyer on a 4473 form (which requires photo ID and a NICS background check), which form remains in possession of the dealer. If a dealer goes out of business, the 4473s are turned over to the ATF. It can be quickly determined if a gun was made in, or imported into, the U.S. through the maker/importer records. Determining the retail purchaser takes more effort to track down the 4473, but can be done if needed in an investigation. --Naaman Brown (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Retaliation against Fast and Furious whistleblowers

When the ATF whistleblowers, Special Agents John Dodson and Pete Forcelli, went public last year, Scot Thomasson headed up ATF Public Affairs. According to an eyewitness, Thomasson stated "We need to get whatever dirt we can on these guys (whistleblowers) and take them down." Now, Grassley and Issa say the agents have been put under the charge of ATF's Scot Thomasson who is Division Chief of the Firearms Operations Unit.

[7]

There should be a section in the article detailing this. Its all part of the sworn congressional hearings and should carry more weight than Voth's ass covering. Eucer (talk) 00:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

You want a whole section in this article about a guy saying mean things about whistleblowers? Why not wait until he actually "takes them down"? That would be a story. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 01:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

So congressional testimony about how the "ATF Needs To fuck These Guys" doesnt even warrant a mention? Eucer (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors don't do "mentions" just for mentions sake. Is there reliably sourced reporting on the matter establishing its significance, or just the blurb you quoted above? Xenophrenic (talk) 04:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

CBS News isn't a reliable source any more? [8] CBS News believed it was significant enough to put it in the headline: "... ATF manager ... allegedly threatened retaliation." Reasonable editors would take one glance at that headline and concede that a reliable and very notable source has "established its significance." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

CBS is a reliable source, sure. Just because they report something doesn't mean it is significant, and I don't understand your point about the headline. Any headline is going to reflect the subject of the report below it. Our article already includes some information about treatment of whistleblowers. My opinion is that this particular report isn't important enough to the overall topic to include it here, but you could always be WP:BOLD and see how it works out. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 05:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

what was that noise in the dead of night?

I think the wholesale early morning move of Operation Fast and Furious to a seperate article by IP User 24.104.78.206 without discussion or consensus is really something else. Opposed to wholesale move On the one hand, OF&F was a seperate revival of the earlier failed and questioned gunwalking tactics of Operation Wide Receiver and the cases of Hernandez and Medrano; but on the other hand, there was a continuity (ATF SAC Bill Newell and the Phoenix USAO obsession with pursuing only so-called kingpin cases) and OF&F does not stand alone out of context of the controversy over the discredited gunwalking tactic. --Naaman Brown (talk) 08:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course. But I find their edit summary "section is too abundant" to be an interesting critique. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 11:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Given that at least one editor has called for incorporating "ATF gunwalking scandal" into "Project Gunrunner", the idea that the OF&F section is "too abundant" and deserves a seperate article is ironic. --Naaman Brown (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

How does an article get updated to reflect

"I recently heard Katherine Eban talk about her reporting on “fast and furious” on the NPR show “The Connection” (http://onpoint.wbur.org/2012/07/02/fast-and-furious-fortune ) If she is right, those people who have been attacking Eric Holder (primarily D Issa and his committee in congress) has been perpetuating an enormous scam, a scam so large that it is astonishing

Under AZ law, it is legal for an 18 year old without a record to walk into a store and buy 20 AK47s with cash (apparently, stores advertise discounts for bulk purchases). And, it is legal for that 18yro to walk outside and sell those guns to someone else. The ATF was monitoring this, but under AZ and Fed law, they could arrest someone only if they had reasonable suspicion that one of the buyers had illegal goal: in the USA, you can't arrest someone cause you don't like em (at least in theory) or you suspect that they are a Drug Cartel Gun Buyer; you need evidence. The ATF could also make an arrest if the saw that the guns were going across the border (a violation of export law). The ATF agents were trying very, very hard to make cases, by monitoring and wiretapping, trying to build cases against this constant illegal activity (upwards of 2,000 guns a DAY go into mexico from the US) However, due to these laws, in many cases they were unable to make a case; in one instance, a gun sale occurred on the Sat of MLK holiday, and by the time the ATF agents got wind of the sale, the guns were gone for 3 days.

Further, there have been accusations that there is a list of “2,000 guns” supposedly walked deliberatley into Mexico so that ATF agents could track the cartel. Total lie – this is just a list the ATF compiled of LEGAL but questionable sales, those same sales they were trying as hard as they could to stop. So, you can see the whole story that the ATF was letting known criminals make straw purchases so they could follow guns is a total perversion of the truth, which is that lax gun laws pushed by the NRA and GOP caused this problem. Further, at least some of the ATF whistleblowers who testified to congress are suspect; one of them was not stationed in Phoenix , nor a part of FnF, and this agent had a long document history of antagonism with his superiors (complaining about the email ringtone on his computer, but, oddly, no complaints about FnF)

For reasons not entirely clear, the Obama admin is going along with this; it could be that they don’t want to upset the NRA/gun lobby prior to the election, or that they are incompetent (their inability to sell healthcare reform points to incompetence or arrogance)."24.91.51.31 (talk) 01:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of state gun laws, buying multiple firearms for immediate resale is a violation of federal gun law. It is a federal crime of "dealing in firearms without a license". The federal ATF and USAO enforce federal gun laws, not state gun laws. When something like dealer licensing and regulation of sales becomes a federal jurisdiction, most states drop their laws on the subject to avoid conflict. The absence of a state law does not prevent enforcement of federal law by federal police or US Attorneys. I notice from Katherine Eban's bio her academic credentials include English Literature and Creative Writing. --Naaman Brown (talk) 02:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe he was speaking about "straw purchasers", not asking for a straw man argument. Of course there are federal laws, but his point was that the ATF was struggling to make actual prosecutable cases. It is fairly obvious that the purchasers didn't state at the time of purchase their intent to "immediately resell" the guns or transfer them to a cartel -- and when large quantities of guns can be legally purchased, possessed and transported, there are precious few, if any, opportunites to make an arrest of substance. Your comment about Eban is amusing; if you can't make an argument against the facts, then try to dismiss or discredit the source of those facts, no? You point out "Creative Writing", while I note she is an investigative reporter with years of experience at multiple news agencies. Some folks see only what they want to see, I suppose. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not completely familiar with federal law enforcement procedures - do US Attorneys regularly prosecute individuals under state laws? Lwsimon (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

US Attorneys prosecute federal cases in federal court under federal law that, under the Constitution supremacy clause, supercedes state law on the same subject. Straw purchase is a federal violation of Title I of the GCA. ATF in Phoenix made straw purchase cases that would be prosecuted in CA, NM, TX, but Phoenix USAO for AZ refused to prosecute. Has nothing to do with state laws. --Naaman Brown (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Coulson, not just Dodson, allegedly complained about OF&F gunwalking

The DEA agent in charge in Tuscon, Tony Coulson (now retired) was widely quoted on OF&F in Feb 2012: DEA knew about Operation Fast and Furious (OF&F), ICE interdicted some OF&F gun shipments and were told to back off. They were told: ‘people above their pay grade’ had signed off on OF&F. ICE agent Ed Hamel who objected to OF&F was replaced with Layne France who cooperated with ATF on OF&F. It was obvious to DEA, ICE and FBI that ATF OF&F was allowing guns to walk contrary to practice in CA, NM and TX. Sources citing Coulson included:

• "Fast And Furious Gun Control Plot Was Widely Known", Investors Business Daily, 13 Feb 2012.
• Michel Marizco, "Source: Gun Walking To Mexico Known Outside Of ATF", Fronteras, 6 Feb 2012.
• William La Jeunesse, "Former DEA chief says 3 other federal agencies knew about Operation Fast and Furious", Fox News, 10 Feb 2012.

--Naaman Brown (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Of those three "sources", the IBD editorial merely cites and quotes the Fronteras interview, and the FOX piece attributes the same information to unnamed "sources" -- perhaps the same Fronteras source? I've read each of those sources and I see where there was "friction" between different agencies, but no actual substantiation to your "It was obvious to DEA, ICE and FBI that ATF OF&F was allowing guns to walk" assertion. Can you tell me if Coulson's allegations also appear in sworn congressional testimony, or only in CYA news media interviews? It appears to me that some sources are using the phrases "guns walked" and "guns were allowed to walk" and "guns were intentionally walked" interchangeably; disregarding whether "intent" or "neglegence" were even factors. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Why typify Coulson's remarks as "CYA"? Coulson as Tuscon DEA had no involvement in OF&F Phoenix AZ ATF gunwalking other than as an outside observor in a seperate agency. He was involved in drug interdiction and encountered gunwalker smugglers conincidentally. He is now a security consultant http://sai-dc.com/about/sai-team/anthony-coulson with Strategic Applications International. Why would he have to cover his ass over Fast & Furious? --Naaman Brown (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Anthony Coulson has clarified that the gunwalking episode he was talking about was 2008, run out of the Phoenix AZ ATF office. "This was Bill Newell and a couple of agents in Arizona who had carte blanche." Again, Newell was in charge of Phoenix ATF during both Operation Wide Receiver 2006-2007 and Operation Fast and Furious (2009-2011). Any "carte blanche" would have to come from someone above Newell's level.

Tim Steller, "Blog: Former Tucson DEA head says he was misinterpreted on Fast and Furious", Arizona Daily Star, 14 Mar 2012.

This part of the article is rather telling:

Also, congressional investigators called to talk to him. When Coulson clarified that he knew ATF "gun walking" going on in 2008, before Obama took office, you could "hear them not be interested in the story anymore." "I was naive to the fact that there was an agenda I had no control over. Whatever I said had to fit into that agenda," he said.

Sums up the "congressional investigation" rather clearly. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW 2008 and ICE uncovering gunwalking would be the Medrano case. --Naaman Brown (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits re: NRA's claim that F&F began as part of anti-gun agenda, et al

I've reverted the edits of a brand-spankin' new editor here. The edits cite an ABC article that doesn't mention Fast & Furious; they remove properly sourced content; they violate WP:SYNTH with phrases like "However..." when the sources indicate no such connection; and they use phrases such as "Obama's refusal to cooperate..." and "shows the president's broken claim..." as statements of fact which are unsupported by the cited sources -- and are instead assertions by politician's spokespersons. What is the new editor trying to convey to Wikipedia readers? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Sadly it seems like these are becoming zombie edits. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 05:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm reverting similar content additions for the same reasons noted above. The editor is still attempting to present the "assault weapon ban" discussion from the ABC source as related, when the actual source makes no such connection, and doesn't even mention F&F. In addition, I've removed the following text pending discussion as to its WP:WEIGHT in that section:

Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, said the "decision to invoke executive privilege implies that White House officials were either involved in the Fast and Furious operation or the cover-up that followed. The administration has always insisted that wasn't the case. Were they lying, or are they now bending the law to hide the truth?" Further, Obabma's executive privilege decision raises questions about his pledge to run the most open and transparent administration in history.

It is cited to this source which describes a "full day of sniping between folks on Capitol Hill and in the White House", including the above quote as well as responses to it -- responses that I see the Wikipedia editor has chosen not to include. The rhetoric (especially its one-sided presentation) doesn't appear to add anything of value to the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

This issue is extremely volatile and politically polarizing. It is probably best to stick with the facts on this and not go down the slippery slope of political debate.Sayitaintsojack (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The same editor/IP is also trying to insert this sentence: Critics argue that documents that refer to changing gun regulations come far after the inception of Fast and Furious.

I checked the cited sources, and they say nothing about "critics" making that assertion. It is the actual news sources, not mysterious critics, that convey the fact that those documents undermine the NRA/Issa/Conservative argument that OF&F began as a plan to promote new gun laws. I fixed the article (again), but this editor seems intent on edit-warring in his falsifications. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I've removed some content that was clearly WP:SYN. Specifically, the verbage "an assertion discredited by the fact that documents ..." is not at all supported by the references. The cited references do support criticism or debate over the NRA claim, but none of the references claim to discredit the NRA position.DrDanClark (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. From the cited CSM source (as I already noted just above):

Even though the NRA has decided to weigh in, the relationship between Fast and Furious and gun regulations is rather tenuous. As The New York Times's Jonathan Weisman points out, Internal e-mails from various government departments relating to Fast and Furious don’t show a push for more gun regulations. Those that refer to changing gun regulations come far after the inception of Fast and Furious, undermining the conservative argument that the entire operation was built in part on trying to influence American gun rules. Moreover, Issa has not revealed any documents showing discussion of an assault-weapons ban related to Fast and Furious.

And from the cited NYT source:

Darrell Issa, Republican of California, appeared on national television on Sunday to say he had e-mails showing that the architects of a federal gun-smuggling investigation intended to use the operation to build a case for reinstating the lapsed ban on assault-weapons sales ... Conservatives have speculated that the operation’s tactics were devised to build a case for greater gun control in the United States. ... But the documents supplied by the Senate Judiciary Committee refer to the A.T.F.’s existing right to issue “demand letters” to gun dealers, not to any new push for gun control legislation. And the term “assault weapons ban” does not appear. ... The Caucus asked aides of Mr. Issa on Monday morning to show the e-mail on the assault weapons ban that the chairman had referred to. None have been shown. (and also note...) Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has conducted the investigation into Fast and Furious with Mr. Issa, said they have found no e-mails mentioning the assault weapons ban.

There is no synth. I've returned the content you erroneously deleted. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Xenophrenic is (Personal attack removed) not maintaining a NPOV by constantly adding back material that is clearly WP:SYN. You need to stick to the facts (Personal attack removed).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.8.237.15 (talk) 04:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect, see above. Perhaps you could be more specirfic in describing your concern? Xenophrenic (talk) 04:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Forget that sentence, the entire paragraph people are trying to add the sentence to is POV and needs balance. Veriss (talk) 07:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

So news sources like the NYT and CSM are merely expressing a "point of view" when they say that the assertion of the NRA (and Conservatives) that F&F began as a plot to push more gun regulations doesn't hold water? I checked, and those aren't opinion pieces -- they are presented as reliably sourced assertions of fact. They cite the fact that out of the many thousands of emails, memos and other documents, only 3 say anything about a new gun rule, and those come long after F&F was implemented. Can you suggest a re-wording of "the entire paragraph" that you feel would be a more NPOV way to convey what the reliable sources are saying? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The sentance "The NRA and some conservatives insist that Operation Fast and Furious began as part of an antigun agenda to promote additional gun laws; an assertion discredited by the fact that documents that refer to changing gun regulations come far after the inception of Fast and Furious." should be removed for both WP:SYNTH and WP:POV. A word search for "dicredit", "discredits" and "discredited" on all of the referenced sources comes up empty. The word "discredited" is a synthesis that the original sources never state. Remember, too, that there are still many documents that are protected under executive privilege. This issue is not definitively resolved and to assert such words as "discredited" are not WP:SYNTH and WP:POV is unfair.PBWellington (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The CSM article, for example, calls the NRA assertion "tenuous" and "undermin[ed]". I don't really care one way or the other whether the info is included here, but calling it synth is probably unfair. Also, that para basically states that Holder was held in contempt and why, his response, that the NRA supported it and why, and the response of their critics. So it also seems reasonably NPOV to me. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 01:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors take what reliable sources say and present that information in our own words in Wikipedia articles, so you aren't likely to find the exact wording in both places (unless Copyright Laws be damned). As noted by Hazydan, the "tenuous" assertion that F&F began as a ploy to promote more gun laws was "undermined" by the actual facts. "Discredited", used instead of "Undermined" is neither WP:SYNTH nor WP:NPOV (you should read those policies carefully), as one is merely a synonym of the other - a different way of saying the same thing. See, for example, the Dictionary.com entry for "Discredit" and scroll down to where it lists synonyms. Unlike Hazydan, I think that section, and the political gamesmanship aspect of the whole issue, are still quite neglected and under-reported in this Wikipedia article.

As I've asked immediately above (and again above that): Can you suggest wording that would convey the same information that you would feel better about? Xenophrenic (talk) 02:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

CBS article: Documents: ATF used "Fast and Furious" to make the case for gun regulations

Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation "Fast and Furious" to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales. article link

Shoots to hell the narrative that this wasnt ultimately about tighter gun regs. Eucer (talk) 02:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

That narrative doesn't exist, and certainly isn't conveyed by the your link. But I see that you are new here, so that's an easy mistake for you to make. Perhaps you haven't read the above discussions or the Wikipedia article? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

An entire debate is unfolding on this discussion page right now under "Recent edits" that the NRA's arguement that gunwalker was used to push for more gun control is "discredited". Discredited by what? Given the CBS source and the link provided here, I dont think thats very fair or even very accurate. The title of this section is the title of the CBS article and I would appreciate it if you wouldnt change it. Eucer (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

If you are referring to "Demand Letter 3", that is already mentioned in the Wikipedia article. I don't know what "gunwalker" you are talking about, but no one is "debating" that agents didn't suggest using data from the F&F program (along with other data) to support a long-gun sale reporting requirement. They certainly did, and no one is saying they did not (see your own article link). You seem to be confusing "conducting a program to make a case for gun control" (the NRA's allegation) with "using sales data from an ongoing program to support a requirement to report certain specific gun sales" (what the ATF did). Regardless of how you try to spin it, the feds did not say "Gee, how can we build a case for gun control ... hey, I know, let's create a program to sell guns to drug cartels so we can impose sales reporting requirements ... now we need a catchy name for the program..." The facts show that the program was developed to catch bad guys. So once again, I'll ask you:

Can you suggest wording that would convey the same information that you would feel better about? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You are deploying a strawman here, the NRA has never said that the ATF was "conducting a program to make a case for gun control". The NRA has stated that the ATF was using the program as an argument for more gun control.

The NRA and Rep. Darrell Issa (R) of California, chairman of the House Government Oversight Committee, both believe the government has tried to use the Fast and Furious scandal to support arguments for more gun control

[9]

The NRA contended the administration wanted to use Operation Fast and Furious to win gun control measures. Democrats who normally support the NRA but who vote against the contempt citations would lose any 100 percent ratings from the group.

[Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/28/republicans-not-backing-down-on-contempt-votes/#ixzz1ztQSsKVO]

You monologue would have been more accurate had you wrote this: "Gee, how can we build a case for gun control ... hey, I know, let's use that one program we totally fucked up on ... you know, the one where we encouraged gun dealers to sell guns to drug cartels and didnt bother to inform the Mexican government or track the guns south of the border so we can impose sales reporting requirements"

Its Rahm Emanuel's "never let a crisis go to waste" tactic.

I am not surprised that the always 2nd Amendment friendly NY Times would pitch the debate this way, but I am surprised so many people who edit this article would pass it off with so little scrutiny. Eucer (talk) 00:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused..you started this discussion by saying "Shoots to hell the narrative that this wasnt ultimately about tighter gun regs," and now you are saying it wasn't ultimately about that, but that it was an afterthought? For someone worried about straw man arguments, you are going through quite a few logical fallacies yourself (nice ad homs at the end there). Do you have actual, concrete suggestions for the article or are you just looking for a debate? – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 01:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

You aren't the confused one, Hazydan. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

This is from the same 2nd amendment-friendly CSM article: NRA officials say the Obama administration's 'Fast and Furious' operation began as part of an antigun agenda – and that lawmakers who don't vote to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt will be held to account in November elections. You really don't want to drag Darrell "using F&F to support an assault weapons ban!" Issa into this mix, as he gets even more absurd than the NRA spokesfolks. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

You'd think that if the NRA thought this, it wouldnt be too difficult to find a quote from them to substantiate it. Problem is, one doesnt exist so leave it to the anti 2nd amendment press to put words in the NRA's mouth.

and if you keep moving my comments around, I am going to make a special little hole for all your talk page disscusions too. Eucer (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem. I've moved mine back to the section in which I made them, however. Go right ahead. As for the NRA, no need to "put words in their mouth" with all the silly stuff they say during election seasons. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Removed a sentence that continues to be debated as both WP:SYN and WP:POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PBWellington (talk • contribs) 19:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, I have removed a sentenct for both WP:SYN and WP:POV. The cited articles never mention the word "discredit" (or variations thereof). The words used by the cited sources are being twisted, misrepresented and synthesized to further the POV of the contributor. The contributor is also taking a myopic view of the issue in terms of her/his research. The fact that the Obama administration has declared executive privilege and has not fully disclosed the administration’s involvement in this scandal must be taken into consideration. To claim that the NRA has been “discredited” is a personal POV not substantiated by the cited references.50.122.164.16 (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

A bad start to an argument is to rehash one from 3 weeks ago that is laid out right here for your perusal, but which didn't lead to your preferred result. As already stated above, the sources call the NRA's assertions "tenuous" and "undermin[ed]." I normally wouldn't insult everyone's intelligence by quoting a dictionary, but I'll make an exception. Tenuous, as in weak, unsubstantiated, trivial, lacking a sound basis. To undermine is to weaken, injure, destroy, cause to collapse. To discredit is to refuse to accept as true or accurate, to injure or damage the reputation of. For reliable sources to say that a claim is undermined and shown to be tenuous by presented facts, is to say that it is being discredited. Simply because it is reworded does not make it synth. Unless you'd rather say that the NRA's claims are "unsubstantiated" and "destroyed" by the facts (as more direct synonyms), why not leave it alone? – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 23:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is explained as "Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them clearly and accurately. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all notable and verifiable points of view." The contributor of the sentence in question has only provided one source that call the NRA's assertions "tenuous" and "undermin[ed]." The contributor of this sentence fails to provide balance to the dispute and promotes one particular point of view over the other. PBWellington (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I have attempted to reconcile this conflict. In reading the NRA-ILA press release, they do not state that the "gun control agenda" was the rationale behind F&F. Instead, they clearly define the reason for their making the contempt resolution as recorded vote. As such, I've edited the section to include the NRA's own words on their reason for making it a recorded vote, and removed the reference to the Christian Science Monitor article, as it seemed to be supporting the assertion that documents using F&F to support gun control only exist long after it was put into place. As the contention that this was the reason for the program no longer exists in the section, it was irrelevant.

If you have a reference showing the NRA asserting that gun control was the reason for F&F, I would strongly support including both that reference and the CSM article as refutation. Lwsimon (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

@PBWellington: The contributor of the sentence is the Christian Science Monitor and the New York Times. Do you have an additional source that contradicts those contributors, or that will "provide balance to the dispute", in your opinion?

@Lwsimon: I have left your inclusion of the NRA rationale. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

@Xenophrenic: I have attempted to provide balance and to use the exact words that the sources have used. PBWellington (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

@Xenophrenic: I like your rewording and fixing my bad citation. But, the "exec priv" content is part of the controversy being discussed. I'm moving it back as it is counter-point to the claim that the conservative view has been undermined or is tenuous.PBWellington (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The whole article is about controversy. The NRA issue and the executive privilege issue are separate, and jumping from one to the other the way your edits cause the article to do is confusing and difficult to read. You are also duplicating content. Stop worrying so much about emphasizing the conservative view and actually read what's been written. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 23:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You are missing the whole point of the controversy by thinking these are separate issues. Here's a real simplified view: Side A claims that the Issa/NRA/conservative assertion is nullified by the documents that have been provided thusfar. But there's the problem, according to side B. The Obama administration and DOJ have not provided all of the documents and until such time, you cannot say side B's assertion is invalid. I'm removing the sentences "Representative Issa, the NRA and other conservatives have asserted that Operation Fast and Furious began as part of an antigun agenda to promote additional gun laws. This tenuous assertion is undermined because documents that refer to changing gun regulations come far after the inception of Fast and Furious." for WP:NPOV. The second sentence remains blatantly promoting one point of view if left standing alone without the counterpoint of the opposing view. I'm not trying to emphasize the conservative view, I'm merely trying to include it; something that you are worrying so much about suppressing. - PBWellington (talk) 04:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• The second sentence remains blatantly promoting one point of view if left standing alone without the counterpoint of the opposing view.

Please provide the "opposing view", and please include the reliable source(s) that convey that it is an opposing view, so that we may review it. Nothing in any of the sources provided to date conveys the "counterpoint" of which you speak. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I even understand the "counterpoint" claim. Regarding the NRA, side A is the NRA's claim that the administration planned gunwalking for ideological purposes and covered it up. Side B is that a few ATF agents discussed it after the fact, but there is no evidence for anything beyond that. Both sides are presented proportionately with available evidence for each. It is actually non-neutral to give both sides of a debate equal footing if there is more, reliable evidence for one side than the other, which is the case here. I can't claim that an article claiming the earth is round is non-neutral just because I don't have more evidence that it's flat. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 05:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Attempting to add balance and eliminate the lack of WP:NPOV that has been debated. Remember that WP:NPOV explains that "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all notable and verifiable points of view." This has been particularly problematic with the recent discussion. Please note also that the revision: 15:44, 26 July 2012‎ 71.182.114.50 (talk)‎ . . (67,067 bytes) (+769)‎ . . (→‎Investigations and fallout: Attempting to bring balance and WP:NPOV to a debated section.) was from me. I didn't realize that I wasn't logged-in. I undid my revisions under my IP and re-applied my revision under my username for clarity. PBWellington (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself, forcing me to do the same. Consistent with NPOV principles, both points of view are presented: the NRA claim that this operation was planned for ideological purposes and kept secret, and the opposing view that ATF agents discussed it after the fact, but there is no proof of the NRA's claim. Neither view is excluded. You seem to be upset that reliable sources present more evidence for one than the other, but for us to present that evidence is not POV. It is, by definition in fact, consistent with WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS. Stop trying to remove it. The exclusion is, again by definition, in the deletion that you are doing, and it is by definition inconsistent with NPOV. It's disruptive, and you should stop. When you have more evidence of the NRA claim by all means present it. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 17:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself, not looking at the issue from a high level and not allowing for balance. There is a single source, CSM, that claims that the Issa/NRA position is tenuous and undermined by the existing emails. Fine, their POV. Issa and the NRA are saying that the DOJ has not provided ALL of the documents, because Obama claimed executive privilege, and it's a sign that there's either a cover-up or an obstruction. To refuse not to allow the Issa/NRA POV to counter the CSM POV is not allowing for WP:NPOV. That is disruptive and you should stop.PBWellington (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• There is a single source, CSM, that claims that the Issa/NRA position is tenuous and undermined by the existing emails (and not the entirety of the documents that the DOJ has yet to provide).

Incorrect. Many reliable sources state that the "F&F Operation = Gun Control scheme" assertion is discredited, and for several reasons. Those sources include the presently cited CSM and NYT articles, but also the Fortune investigation report and others.

• Issa and the NRA are saying that the DOJ has not provided all of the documents, because Obama claimed executive privilege, and it's a sign that there's either a cover-up or an obstruction.

Correct. They have made this allegation. So?

• To refuse not to allow the Issa/NRA POV to counter the CSM POV is...

Whoa, partner! I think I see the source of your confusion here. The Issa & NRA allegation that OF&F was simply a criminal plan to further a gun-control agenda, and being "covered-up" by executive privilege, is not a "counter" to what reliable sources (NTY, CSM, Fortune/CNN, etc.) have reported. You have it backwards. The allegations came first, followed by the investigative reporting into those allegations. Those sources determined that the allegations were "tenuous", "frivolous", "just political theater", "to put it charitably, far-fetched", with evidence "undermining the conservative argument". No one is "To refuse not to allow" the gun-control conspiracy theory or the cover-up claim -- they are both already presented in the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)