Talk:Mexican drug war/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

in re Cartel alliances, Los Zetas

think it's noteworthy enough to include in the short summary for LOS ZETAS that they were trained at the US Govt's School of Americas. In a book by Richard Grant named God's Middle Finger, they are described as "an elite unit of Mexican paramilitaries" but Grant seems to imply that they are part of the Mexican government, since he says "in the late 1990s they switched sides and started working for the Gulf cartel..." -- so i'm not quite sure how to phrase that for WP. (btw, i'm also posting this on the main wiki article page for Los Zetas.) PrBeacon (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Jax Desmond

I deleted the entry concerning Jax Desmond Worldwide, as it transpired that is is a bravado/publicity stunt from a newbie company composed on a single person without experience in combat and having never awarded any government contract. [1]. This fits within the WP:FRINGE for exclusion, and we should not allow their fringe opinion to appear more notable than it actually is. By the way, Wkipedia deleted his biography/commercial add for a good reason: [2] --BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Smuggling of Firearms error

I believe the Smuggling of Firearms section needs correcting as it is misleading in its mixed use of quantitative numbers and relative percentages. I don't want to make any changes without first discussing whether and how to correct it.

The Tracing section states that "An overwhelming majority of confiscated guns (90%) that were traced, originated in the United States." is misleading. According to a Department of Homeland Security Memo in Appendix III of the June 2009 GAO Report on "Fireams Trafficking" (GAO-09-709 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09709.pdf), "DHS officials believe that the 87 percent statistic is misleading as the reference should include the number of weapons that could not be traced (i.e., out of approximately 30,000 weapons seized in Mexico, approximately 4,000 could be traced and 87 percent of those - 3,840 - originated in the United States.)" This means that less than 13% of the firearms seized were traced back to the United States.

The most accurate statement would be in line with DHS's recommendation and to change the first paragraph in the Tracing section to read something like "Between 2004 and 2008 approximately 20,000 firearms were submitted to the ATF for tracing by the Mexican government. In 2008, approximately 30,000 firearms were reported seized by the Mexican Attorney General's office. Of which, about 7,200 were submitted to the the ATF for tracing. Approximately 4,000 were traceable and of those 3,840 originated in the United States. 145 of the trace requests were linked to a multiple sale. 69% of the firearms traced to the United States originated in Texas, California, and Arizona. 95% of the traceable firearms were traced back to gun shops or pawn dealers. [GAO-09-709]"

I am in favor of rewording that paragraph using the GAO report as long as it brings an enhanced clarity. However, I'd like to see some clarification on the number of firearms confiscated up to 2008 and those submitted up to 2008. Also, didn't you want to mention that less than 13-17 % of the firearms seized were traced back to the United States? You are doing quite well, would you compare the same information presented in the "Controversies" section and amalgamate the text so that it is consistent? We should probably keep some -orthe best- high quality references already present. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Casualties

I am aware of the latest official tally of casualties, however, it will be outdated next week. Will revert and update to the El Universal count as they have a system with daily updates. We can keep a reference to the 'official' tally, however. Thank you. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Now 22,700 civilians killed in this war.Here is yahoo refrence.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100414/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_drug_war_mexico

That refrence contain casualties of 2007, 2009 and 2010(January-March).

• 2,837 civilians killed in 2007
• 9,635 civilians killed in 2009
• 3,365 civilaisn killed in 2010(January-March)

• 121,000 terrorists killed from 2006-present.

Mexican officials have never released casualties count until this week and released no information on their information collection method. No reason to believe it is more accurate than the current count, still, the Yahoo reference is included; however, the count in this article has been following that of the coordinated press effforts which utilize confirmations from multiple sources, as well as daily updates. By the way, the total of casualties is NOT 121,000. That is the total of detentions; of those, some developed into arrests and a few were sentenced to prison. Thank you. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the IFAI (the government agency dedicated to ensure transparency) has put the released numbers in question, as the SEDENA was unable to explain how they got them: [3]. I have been following this war for many years, if you have questions on the casualties, please ask. Thank you. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Problem with Controversies - Gun Supply

The reference that its supposed to come from FOX News, which they reference CNN, doesn't exist. Reference number 70.There are multiple references, some already found in the article, that counter the first paragraph of the Gun Supply section. Since the first paragraph, of that section, doesn't have a valid reference (or Link because its a broken CNN LINK), it shouldn't be included. Pedroau (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

That's because someone changed the link. The original link was http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/02/myth-percent-small-fraction-guns-mexico-come/. SJSA 02:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

IP right shock

The IP editor is right. While it's preferable to reword relevant and notable text, rather than simply remove it for copyvio, it certainly isn't acceptable to add the copyvio text back once it has been removed. The copyright issue has to be solved before the information can go back in the article. BillMasen (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is entirely done by copyrighted text. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 18:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

quoted, not copied. Either quote it or rephrase it. It's not hard! BillMasen (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that "According to the New York Times..." is enough. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 23:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"Although quoting involves copying of another's work without permission, it is generally considered one of the uses permitted under fair use in the United States: Wikipedia - fair use....400 quoted words from a 500-page book were ruled to be infringement. Editors are advised to exercise good judgment and to remain mindful of the fact that while brief excerpts are permitted by policy, extensive quotations are forbidden." --BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Drug war is not for government takeover

Since this article is semi-protected, I can't edit something that I read in the introduction; that the drug cartels have the "objective of overthrowing the government of Mexico". This is extremely misguiding, to say the least. Drug cartels want to be able to do their business...which is drug trafficking. They would like to control federal, state and local governments so that they achieve this objective, but this is very different from an objective of "government takeover". I would rewrite the sentence to say:

The Mexican Drug War is an armed conflict taking place among rival drug cartels who fight for regional control, and between the drug cartels and the Mexican government, which seeks to reduce drug trafficking and consumption in the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patsignoret (talk • contribs) 14:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. That was a fringe report that does not reflect reality. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Categorization

JCDenton2052, the conflict is between organized crime gangs and security forces. There is no intention to overthrow the government so it does not match your categorizations. Thank you, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

President Calderón disputes this. He said "This has become an activity that defies the government, and even seeks to replace the government." and "They are trying to impose a monopoly by force of arms, and are even trying to impose their own laws." JCDenton2052 (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello JCDenton2052. President Calderon's government did not file any official report claiming "insurgency, revolution and civil war". He mentioned defiance; Defiance happens in many ways and contexts and do does not automatically imply "insurgency, revolution and civil war". In addition the UN, OEA etc. do not consider "insurgency, revolution and civil war" going on in Mexico. Calderon did not use those words but used analogies, rhetoric and demagogy (appealing the prejudices, emotions, fears and expectations of the public — typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalist, populist or religious themes). An extremely common occurrence in Mexican politics, not meant to be taken as an official Presidential State of the Union. Please note that this article's categorizations should not be based on a few individual's opinions, but be based on reality and facts. For example, yesterday the president of Iran -Mahmoud Ahmadinejad- claimed in the UN meeting that the 911 terrorist attacks were planned and performed by USA government, however I see nobody changing categorizations in Wikipedia's articles to match such statements. A president's demagogy and rhetoric can never be taken by this (or any) encyclopedia as facts.

I want to note also that violent organized crime also takes place in USA, Canada and many other nations, and hardly anybody considers it as "insurgency, revolution and civil war". I consider that instead such misleading categorizations you could add one sentence of Calderon's speech in the section named "Presidency of Felipe Calderón", because so far, the majority consensus in this page is against using such categories. Thank you, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Correct forum for discussing changes to this page

This is the forum for discussing improvements to this article. User talk is good for some things but pretty bad for general content disputes because it tends to miss input from other users. The above categorization issue is a content dispute. Thundermaker (talk) 13:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Revolution?

First I'm going to state my POV: Drug cartels thrive on violence because the government refuses to protect them from each other. If drugs were legal, drug dealers would act pretty much the same as cellphone service providers -- regular capitalists.

Does the drug cartel seek to replace the government with one who would legalize drugs? Of course not. They would lose their income. They use arms to protect themselves, to prevent competition, and to prevent government interference. This is defiance but not revolution.

However, the funding of drug cartels comes from drug users, who do not recognize the right of government to control drugs. It is possible they'd support a revolution if there was one, but without agreement from those who are armed, there isn't.

Does Calderón mean to say that the cartels wish to set up their own government, building roads, regulating labor, and sending diplomats to foreign countries? I don't think so. The cited article is about how they are expanding into protection rackets, that's all. Thundermaker (talk) 13:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Blog Del Narco

Why is there no mention of the blogger that is now famous for depicting a neutral stance at the drug war and who shows videos of executions?--Packinheat2u (talk) 06:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Oaxaca cartel

I am proposing to delete the entry on the Oaxaca cartel, as it is only one of many branches working for the Tijuana Cartel, and one of nearely 50 minor cartels operating in Mexico. It does not stand out over the other (unmentioned) minor cartels. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Diario de Juarez

The Diaro de Juarez (newspaper) published a front-page editorial after two of its reporters were killed, the title translates to "What do you want from us?". It called the gangs "de facto authorities" and sought a truce between the press and the gangs. Seems like a major change, how should we document it? L.A. Times translation is here. Thundermaker (talk) 11:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello. According to this Associated Press report, this was the motive of the editorial:

"We weren't speaking directly to (drug gangs). It was an open message," El Diario director Pedro Torres said in one of dozens of interviews since the editorial appeared Sunday. "We wanted to provoke a reaction that would call attention to what's happening in Juarez, and in the end, I think we met our objective."

So I don't think we can document this as a factual report of gangs being "de facto authorities" in Juarez, but a heart-felt editorial that remarks -once more- the dissonance in Mexico of reporters being murdered for publishing critiques to cartels and the subsequent repression of freedom of the press. It certainly captured a feeling of helplessness. It is noteworthy the proposed plan to provide government protections for journalists facing threats. I agree that it is a rich editorial that we can discuss here, verbalize and refine for its inclusion in this article. Cheers, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The AK-47 is already select fire weapon.

This is en error in the article "Mexican Drug War": - 30% of AK-47 assault rifles seized have been modified to select fire weapons, effectively creating assault rifles for use by the cartels - The true story is that AK-47, AKM, AK-74, AK-100 series, etc (nearly all other Kalashnikov family weapons) are initially build as a selective fire weapons. You can check it in Wiki, searching by "AK-47". They have a fire selector with 3 positions: SAFE - AUTO - SINGLE. Seems like the journalists in this source missed the point or had something other in mind. Probably, it's translation misstake. Please, correct this strange misstake! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.175.172.115 (talk) 12:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

True, and I bet there are very few true AK-47 in Mexico. Most are clones or AK-47 style rifles.--BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Firearms Smuggling

Attn: BatteryIncluded. I just wanted to let you know that the embedded reference in the quote that you changed, was an integral part of the original quote. I don't particularly mind, but it does change the quote (and the impact) away from the original.... (Computer Guy 2 (talk) 06:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC))

"BatteryIncluded" is insisting on including (and re-inserting) a totally unsupported quote from a Boston Globe editorial which refers to "55% of the guns "picked up" are assault rifles.". The complete editorial quote is, "Mexico has strict gun-control laws, prohibiting purchase of assault rifles [absolutely false] and requiring gun purchases to be registered with the government. Even so, 55 percent of weapons picked up are assault rifles - which can be bought legally in much of the United States [false - by definition, assault rifles are selective fire see Wikipedia definition]. These military-grade weapons easily out-muscle the Mexican police." The editorial goes on to claim "According to US and Mexican law enforcement oficials (sic), 90 percent of the guns picked up from criminal activity are purchased in the United States." - a completely false statistic discredited by the DOJ Inspector General in 2010. Further, no analysis exists anywhere for the number of "assault rifles" picked up by the Mexican government. Those figures have never been released.

This unsupported editorial quote has no place in Wikipedia. (Computer Guy 2 (talk) 18:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC))

Your insistance to express your interpretation of "the truth" even if it contradicts the cited references is in violation of Wikipedia's pilars, in particular with references, and WP:Truth: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Please read them and act accordingly. Cheers. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Where is the "truth" relative to this question? The quote cannot be verified. The citation is an editorial opinion (which they freely admit), and is not backed up by any facts - anywhere. I don't believe Wikipedia was intended to be a forum for preconceived unsupported opinions that fly in the face of supported facts. Perhaps you should re-evaluate your position and act accordingly. Sincerely, (Computer Guy 2 (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC))

It is not one person's "opinion" in print, it is the official percentage cited by officials from both sides of the border: Reportedly, 90% of confiscated guns that could be traced by the ATF, originated in the United States.

Please feel free to cry "conspiracy", but please do it in a blog or forum. Cheers, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

To "BatteryIncluded": I have no idea what you're talking about - but it isn't what I was discussing. My discussion was specifically the "55% of the guns "picked up" are assault rifles" quote for which you cited an unsupported and unverified Boston Globe editorial. I'm puzzled where you got off onto the old 90% controversy, but it wasn't what I was trying to discuss. In fact, your latest statement further discredits the Boston Globe editorial 90% position. If you can't see that, then I probably couldn't explain it to you. I also have no idea where you came up with this "conspiracy" accusation.... But what I do know is what should have been a reasonable discussion between rational people has turned into a colossal waste of my time and energy. As far as I am concerned, if you aren't interested (for the benefit of Wikipedia and it's readers) in sifting out the facts from the misinformation, lies and propaganda being spread around, then you can play with yourself..... Bye.....

(Computer Guy 2 (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC))

Above you wrote:

According to US and Mexican law enforcement oficials (sic), 90 percent of the guns picked up from criminal activity are purchased in the United States." - a completely false statistic

So now you are telling me it was your evil twin brother who wrote that? Or maybe another conspiracy of the ATF against you? I will not continue this discussion as you 1) lack of seriousness, and 2) you lack of understanding of core policies such as Wikipedia:Truth, Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:Original research. Cheers,

--BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a thread regarding this at WP:EAR#Getting flamed for trying to improve an article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War. I suggest that you both assume good faith and work together to improve the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Computer Guy, without really looking at the merits of the argument, the note that you are trying to include is inappopriate. Grsz¹¹ 01:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Which note? The one where I was trying to get BatteryIncluded's attention? I completely agree! It wasn't appropriate but it wasn't intended to remain as a permanent inclusion. What I was originally trying to accomplish was remove the "55% assault rifle" quote from the paragraph because it was quoted from an unreliable unsupported editorial opinion. If it were true, I would have no problem with it. However, the Mexican government has not released any analysis of the total universe of guns seized by them (some 300,000 plus). If someone wants to quote a recovery rate for semi-auto versions submitted for tracing in a given year and cite an authoritative source (Congressional Research Service, Office of the Inspector General, etc), I would have no problem with that. But to cite a biased source such as the Boston Globe editorial page, or the Violence Policy Center might cause objections.

We should be very careful how we include and use the term "assault rifle". By definition (even on Wikipedia), these are "selective fire" arms. Semi-auto versions are manufactured and might have come from the United States. However, the selective fire versions did not - because they cannot legally be bought in the States (unless properly registered).

(Computer Guy 2 (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC))

"What I was originally trying to accomplish was remove the "55% assault rifle" quote from the paragraph because it was quoted from an unreliable unsupported editorial opinion. If it were true, I would have no problem with it. -ComputerGuy"

"I completely agree! It [my addition] wasn't appropriate but it wasn't intended to remain as a permanent inclusion. -ComputerGuy"

I give up. Can somebody please spoon-feed to ComputerGuy Wikipedia's policy on WP:References and WP:Truth? He does not seem able or willing to read/understand them. Thanks. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"Orange pillar (4: Code of conduct and etiquette) Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner. Respect and be polite to your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and avoid personal attacks." (Computer Guy 2 (talk) 03:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC))

Computerguy look under the save button: If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. review the tutorial if you want to avoid frustrations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.128.112 (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Edits made to the firearms issue

Grsz:

Much of what you removed weren't errors..... I'm a bit short on time right now, as I'm on travel. However, I'll point out a couple of removed items that were verifiable and supported by the citations. For example, in the OIG Report, Figure 8, the following information from ATF data on traces is presented:

Year Unsuccessful / Successful

2005 857 / 661

2006 1063 / 841

2007 10920 / 4059

2008 19541 / 6360

2009 15062 / 6664

Since the OIG didn't spoon feed us to provide totals, we have to add the columns ourselves and we find: Unsuccessful: 47,443 Successful: 18,585 out of a total number of attempted traces: 66,028. Calculating the percentage of successful traces = 28% (rounded) - as I stated. And you're right, that percentage wasn't explicitly mentioned anywhere in the document. However, I don't think adding a column of figures and calculating the percentage is original research.... Or does your opinion differ?

Stating there is controversy surrounding these figures is obvious reading the cited sources. Consequently, I wouldn't call it original research or editorializing.....

The U.S. Firearms Trafficking to Mexico Report by Colby Goodman (University of San Diego) which was cited by BatteryIncluded in so many places, quoted "In May 2010, for example, the Mexican government, which has received training from ATF to better identify firearms, said that of the 75,000 firearms it seized in the last three years about 80 percent, or 60,000 firearms, came from the United States.18" Mr. Goodman repeats this assertion three times in his report.

Checking footnote 18 (which I guess you did), and going to the first source, Ifound an entirely different quote, to wit: "Calderón said his government had seized 75,000 guns in Mexico in a three-year period and found that 80 percent of those whose origin could be traced were bought in the United States." No reference to 60,000 firearms - that was a conclusion by Goodman (and some others), who conveniently ignored the difference between 80% of 75,000 and 80% of the guns whose origin could be traced.....

Of course, by definition, the only guns which can be traced, are those of U.S. origin. For all practical purposes, the U.S. has the only tracing system in the world, and it can only trace U.S. origin guns.

As a side note, it is very interesting to observe that Goodman's report is packed with footnotes (very scholarly). However, a closer look reveals that over half of his footnotes refer to anonymous conversations with various unnamed ATF employees (and retirees), and a few conversations with the Violence Policy Center. Not authoritative nor verifiable sources.......

Based on hard data, the 80 - 90% figure of guns traced to the United States (which is widely reported), is pure fabrication - no matter who said it. The facts (such as provided in the OIG Report, and not disputed by ATF), simply don't support that statistic, and those who have said it, have not backed up the assertion with hard data. We have to wonder why representatives of ATF, who certainly knew better, would have repeated a false statement - particularly when testifying before Congress. Perhaps we need to remember they have a vested interest in this controversy..... And, just because a lie is widely told and often repeated, doesn't make it a verifiable fact - despite what Lenin said. "A lie told often enough becomes the truth." Lenin

I think we lost a lot of meaningful factual, verifiable information with your editing, but that's the way the game is played on Wikipedia.... When I return from travel, if I have the time and inclination, I'll restore some of the verifiable facts which were removed.

(70.184.248.6 (talk) 13:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC))

POV issues

The gun sections suffer from POV because User:Computer Guy 2 refuses to accept any edits to the article other than his own. Please review WP:OWN and WP:NPOV. Also, just because something is stated in a reliable source does not mean it is worth including here, ie, stop adding every marginal, slight mention ever to support your agenda. Grsz¹¹ 22:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

ComputerGuy, a single-purpose user, is proselytizing his point of view on gun control, he is unable to discuss the issue with integrity, keeps violating WP:Truth, WP:POV and WP:OR, he keeps reverting all correct WP:MOS edits in favor of blatant copy/paste interviews. In addition, he sometimes misrepresents the reference enclosed to his entries and is unwilling to accept any feedback.

Yes, Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. That is the central concept that ComputerGuy has failed to understand. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech. The fact that Wikipedia is an open, self-governing project does not mean that any part of its purpose is to explore the viability of anarchy. Cheers, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Working with other Editors

A quote from Grsz11, "There is no issue other than Computer Guy's unwillingness to work with others.."

Here's my reply, "I'll be happy to work with you. Will you do the same?"

To reiterate my post on 9 November 2010, on the Editor Assistance page, "I am going to assume good faith and I personally invite you, "BatteryIncluded", to put aside our personal differences (if any) and engage in a rational discussion of the issue. I promise not to "flame" or try to intimidate you. Will you do the same?"

I can't say it any more clearly.....

Sincerely,

(Computer Guy 2 (talk) 14:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC))

You can say that, but your actions have proved it isn't true. You've undone my action simply stating "I disagree" with no additional comment. Grsz¹¹ 15:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

See below. Leave comments under the comment section before trying to change it any and we'll see what we can do. Grsz¹¹ 15:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected the page in the hopes to foster discussion. But note that I would prefer to not keep it protected long, so please try to iron out the disputes here on the talk page.

And note: if edit warring continues after the page protection is lifted, it's probably fair to guess that one or more blocks may be handed out instead. - jc37 22:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The section

The United States government, primarily through Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is assisting Mexico with technology, equipment and training. The United States is only able to trace firearms manufactured in the U.S., or imported into the U.S. In February 2008, William Hoover, Assistant Director for Field Operations of ATF testified before Congress that over 90 percent of the firearms that have either been recovered in, or interdicted in transport to Mexico, originated from various sources within the United States. ATF acting-director Michael Sullivan stated that 90 to 95% of guns recovered in Mexico could be traced to the United States. Other reports state that 80 to 90% of the firearms that could be traced originated in the United States.

According to ATF officials, "approximately 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico that have been traced were initially sold in the United States." However, there have been issues with the ability to successfully trace seized guns. A 2010 Department of Justice report stated that, "In FY 2005, 44 percent (661 of 1,518) of Mexican gun traces were successful. The success rate fell to 27 percent (4,059 of 14,979) in FY 2007 and remained only at 31 percent (6,664 of 21,726) in FY 2009. We found that the rate of successful traces was far lower for traces initiated in Mexico than for those initiated in the United States."

In May 2010, President Felipe Calderon gave a speech to the United States House of Representatives. In his speech, Calderon stated that in the last three years, Mexico has seized 75,000 guns and successfully traced 80% of those to the United States.

The ATF has reportedly traced more than 22,848 firearms recovered in Mexico from 2007 to 2009 and confirms that Texas, California and Arizona, respectively, are the top three U.S. states where U.S. firearms are purchased and later trafficked to Mexico.

In 2009, Mexico reported that they held 305,424 confiscated firearms, but submitted only 69,808 recovered firearms to the ATF for tracing between 2007 and 2009. Overall, 83% of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico were not or could not be traced.

Most trace requests that are submitted to ATF from Mexico are considered "unsuccessful" because of missing or improperly entered gun data. The gap between seizures and traces is a statistic that gun-rights groups say puts in question whether the majority of illegal guns in Mexico really come from the United States.

On October 6, the Associated Press reported that "The ATF says many guns used by Mexican cartels are bought in the United States, with Arizona and Texas being major sources, but it no longer releases estimates of how many because the numbers have become too politicized." "It doesn't matter if 20 percent are coming from the U.S. or 80 percent," ATF deputy director said. "We know a lot of guns are going to Mexico and it's a problem."

Comments

• I think the bolded paragraph ("According to ATF...") is unneeded. It repeats a 90% figure already given by other sources. No need to repeat. Grsz¹¹ 15:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The bold quote is completely different than the quote in the article. Did you change it? There is a major difference between 90% of seized guns and 90% of traced guns. I disagree with removal of the original quote. This was simple political posturing by ATF. The only guns which can be traced are U.S. origin. (Computer Guy 2 (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC))

I didn't. I just copied from the article as it is now to here. Grsz¹¹ 16:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh okay, this was your preferred version: According to ATF officials, approximately 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico that have been traced were initially sold in the United States."[67], but this does not appear to be corroborated by the U.S. Department of Justice on a September 2010 preliminary evaluation of Project Gunrunner,[68] which stated, "Many crime guns seized in Mexico are not traced, and the percentage of traces successfully conducted is low and declining. Even when traces succeed, the results are often untimely and cannot be used to generate investigative leads."

Saying that most are not traced doesn't directly contradict that 90% of traced guns are from the US, but introduces a new fact all together. We need to separate them, as they aren't directly related. Leave the ATF number alone, and then use the DoJ report to state that many are not traced, as is done in the next paragraph. Grsz¹¹ 17:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Calderon says "Just to give you an idea, we have seized 75,000 guns and assault weapons in Mexico in the last 3 years, and more than 80 percent of those we have been able to trace came from the United States." So that quote is accurate. So change it just to Calderon's words and leave out the secondary source. Grsz¹¹ 15:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Leave Goodman out of it, and simply quote Calderon - even though Calderon's quote isn't verified with facts. It was just political posturing. (Computer Guy 2 (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC))

That's why we attribute it to Calderon, of course he's a biased source, but at least we show that he said it. Grsz¹¹ 16:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think just leaving that bit to Calderon is fine. It removed Goodman by it's better to have a primary than secondary source on this. Also saying that the media has inflated (a POV term) the number isn't right. These numbers change over time, based on whatever source the report uses. Showing that one has given a higher figure, you can't generalize a global "inflation" of the numbers. Grsz¹¹ 15:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there has been a "general inflation" of the numbers as they rose (in the press) from Goodman's imaginary 60,000 number (wherever he sourced it) to some 63,000 (m/l) to "nearly" 70,000 and now to "some" 70,000. Numbers (hard data) don't change over time, but reporting does. The higher the figure, the more "dramatic" the impact. A quick Google search will illustrate my point. Nevertheless, that's not crucial to the point of the section.

The major issue is to bring in the DOJ OIC Report (hard data) to counteract the inaccurate 80 or 90% figure.

I think if we include the number of traces data from DOJ this helps this. Grsz¹¹ 16:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I've not done a word-for-word comparison of the section as published, with this one. Did you make other changes? (Computer Guy 2 (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC))

Suggested revised section: (I had to do some real work today, and had to postpone working on this section)

Gun origins (Proposed Revision)

The United States is only able to trace firearms made in the U.S., or imported into the U.S. A Department of Justice report stated that, "In [fiscal year] 2005, 44 percent (661 of 1,518) of Mexican crime gun traces were successful. The success rate fell to 27 percent (4,059 of 14,979) in FY 2007 and remained only at 31 percent (6,664 of 21,726) in FY 2009. We found that the rate of successful traces was far lower for traces initiated in Mexico than for those initiated in the United States." The ATF has reportedly traced more than 22,848 firearms recovered in Mexico from 2007 to 2009 and confirms that Texas, California and Arizona, respectively, are the top three U.S. states where U.S. firearms are purchased and later trafficked to Mexico.

In 2009, Mexico reported that they held 305,424 confiscated firearms, but submitted only 69,808 recovered firearms to the ATF for tracing between 2007 and 2009. Overall, 83% of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico were not or could not be traced. The gap between seizures and traces is a statistic that gun-rights groups say puts in question whether the majority of illegal guns in Mexico really come from the United States.

Most trace requests that are submitted to ATF from Mexico are considered "unsuccessful" because of missing or improperly entered gun data.The U.S. government, primarily through ATF, ICE and Customs and Border Protection is assisting Mexico with technology, equipment and training.

In October 2010, the Associated Press reported that "The ATF says many guns used by Mexican cartels are bought in the United States, with Arizona and Texas being major sources, but it no longer releases estimates of how many because the numbers have become too politicized." An ATF official said, "It doesn't matter if 20 percent are coming from the U.S. or 80 percent ... We know a lot of guns are going to Mexico and it's a problem."

Comments

Unless we want to add a "Controversy" paragraph to the section, I suggest we omit the controversial statements (even if they are backed by citations), as that only seems to invite problems. The proposed revision is succinct, is based on hard data from an authoritative source, is neutral, verified and accurate - as best we can determine. I've done a "cut and paste" of the current published version and have tried to avoid substituting my words. I've also tried to avoid the "catch phrases" that would offend and inflame people on all sides of the issue.

Your comments are invited.

(Computer Guy 2 (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC))

For NPOV, we have to include the ATF stance. They are the official position after all. Include something like ATF officials have stated 90-95, and President Calderon said 80 and I think we'd be okay. Grsz 11 05:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The ATF official position is included, but don't take my word for it. The references and citations are provided. The hard data quoted from the DOJ OIG Report is current official ATF data, and ATF did not dispute it. ATF has officially backed off of the 90% figure, and now (2010) says it doesn't matter whether it's 20% or 80%. (Personally, I think it does matter - and so does the DOJ OIG.....but I'm not going to include my personal pov)

If we include the ATF 90% figure, and Calderon's 80% figure, I'd strongly suggest we put those into a "Controversy" heading - otherwise it could be considered not NPOV. The hard data in the current citations clearly show the 90% and 80% figures to be erroneous and misleading - not to mention inflammatory!

(Computer Guy 2 (talk) 05:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC))

There is no POV issue if you attribute it to who said it. Adding a controversy section is inflammatoy. I don't believe anybody is purposely trying to be misleading, really just a matter of how they say it. Grsz 11 15:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

On this issue, I respectfully disagree. The 90% (or 80% or 95%) figure is a complete fabrication - no matter who "said" it. Looking at the context where it has been repeated shows it was misleading. None of those who "said" it have backed it up with any hard facts. Giving voice to a deception is not npov, nor does it have a place in an encyclopedia.

If any of the 80%, 90% or 95% figures can be verified with hard facts and not an unverified opinion, then I would absolutely agree to the inclusion. If it can't be backed up with facts, then if the "90%" figure is included, a rebuttal should also be included.

(Computer Guy 2 (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC))

I welcome ComputerGuy reaching out in civility and I look forward to improve this encyclopedic with neutrality. I have no time to edit much these days but here is my thought on the Tracing section: In the past, many numbers and statistics have been published by both countries' governments and their media. We know that in recent years there has been an increased (if still limited) collaboration between the ATF and Mexican authorities regarding gun tracing, therefore the OFICIAL information has been evolving and changing. I suggest we pay attention and include the recent official reports, omit the older (outdated) ones, omit opinion blogs with editorial comments and update the article with trhe current figures from the ATF and the official evaluation of the ATF report by the GOJ.

I'd also like to see less entries quoting percentages overlaping different time ranges. Even if correct and weel sourced, it is the final interpretation/assessment that we need to capture. For the sake of simplicity and clarity, we may not want to present the statisticlal prodcedures and endless subtotals from years past, but present the current official conclusions/assessments even if contradictory between agencies. If the reader wants to seek indepth details of these lengthy reports, they can follow the cited reference/source. Cheers, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with BatteryIncluded (gasp!) :-) We've had too many years of inflammatory rhetoric and political posturing to wade through, and it's been difficult to sift out the facts. In entirely too many cases, we (including government agencies) try to place blame without knowing the facts. It now looks to me that some (more) accurate figures are now available, and (thanks to the DOJ OIG) ATF has now moderated their political position. The current trace figures appear to include legitimate U.S. weapons sales to Mexican police and military which have been diverted (by theft or corruption) to the cartels, and then traced back to the United States. I can only hope ATF or the OIG will identify these numbers, so the U.S. can concentrate on the actual problem, and not a fabricated problem. That being said, I suspect all of us would agree with ATF's Kenneth Melson, "We know a lot of guns are going to Mexico and it's a problem." As long as ATF is honest and forthright with it's official conclusions/assessments, then their current figures should be presented in this article.

(Computer Guy 2 (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC))

Good, so we will clean the section from outdated info, blogs and editorials and concentrate on the most recent and competent assessments. Now, I am still trying to understand your grievance. Can you please explain in a brief fashion, what do you understand to be contradictory between the ATF report (90% guns) and the DOJ report (90% guns)? They both state: "About 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico that ATF has traced were initially sold in the United States." Cheers, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, be happy to.... The 90% figures in the OIG report (twice) was "According to ATF officials" with similar citations. In other words, the OIG report twice reiterated the old ATF claims. But the 90% claims are false, as the OIG went on to prove. It appears to me that the OIG wanted to discredit the 90% claims in a politically nice way, rather than just calling it a lie.

When the OIG obtained hard data on seized Mexican guns from ATF, it showed a far different result:

"In [fiscal year] 2005, 44 percent (661 of 1,518) of Mexican crime gun traces were successful.

The success rate fell to 27 percent (4,059 of 14,979) in FY 2007 and

remained only at 31 percent (6,664 of 21,726) in FY 2009."

All these percentages are a long way from 90%.

Figure 8 shows the detail by year, from 2005 through 2009. Doing the math shows an average trace success rate of 28% for 2005-2009. Again, nowhere near 90%.

Neither the ATF nor the OIG mentioned interdicted firearms seized in the United States but intended for Mexico, so it's not possible to determine if those were included in with the Mexico guns. Of course, all interdicted firearms would be U.S. origin because they would have been seized in the United States. They also didn't mention legitimate U.S. sales to Mexican military and police, but we are confident that some were among the seized and traced guns....

Again, I have no axe to grind on this issue. I'm only interested in accurate reporting of the facts. If someone, whether ATF, Calderon or the Violence Policy Center, is trying to mislead us, then I intend to point it out.

As always, if I've misunderstood any of the figures or the OIG report, please let me know so I can adjust my understanding.

(Computer Guy 2 (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC))

What is the report page number that explains this? Cheers ---BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to point you to the November, 2010 version of the OIG Final Report; http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e1101.pdf The data seems to be a little clearer. On page 1, the 90% figure is mentioned, and the explanation is in footnote (7), "However, in September 2010, in response to a draft of this report ATF told the OIG that the 90-percent figure cited to Congress could be misleading because it applied only to the small portion of Mexican crime guns that are traced." (See above - only 28% were traced 2005-2009, and it appears ATF is now saying 90% of the 28%.....)

Beginning on page 73, there is much useful information. On page 76 is the discussion of the percentages of successful traces mentioned above 44%, 27%, 31%, etc. along with Figure 8 giving the precise figures 2005-2009.

If ATF is saying 90% of the guns traced were sourced from the United States, then this is nonsense. By definition, all guns successfully traced came from the United States. Only U.S. guns (manufactured or imported) are recorded in ATF's Firearms Tracing System at the National Tracing Center.

I could go on, but I'll wait for your comments.....

(Computer Guy 2 (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC))

and it appears ATF is now saying 90% of the 28%" -ComputerGuy

OK. I'll take a look at that. Please hang on, it is a 118 page paper....

Cheers, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for locating the final (November 2010) OIG report. After taking a look at the relevant sections, I realize that the issue of percentages is so convoluted that not even the ATF or the OIG know the facts with any kind of meaningful accuracy. This section of the report basically lists the multitude of problems hindering the ATF for a functional gun tracing. I agree that the number of traced guns by no means represent the actual number of guns seized or their origin; because only the USA databases are used, all of the "successfully" traced guns ought to have originated in the USA. I agree that the 90% number is artificially high and the ATF admited it in this report. We will certainly remark that. Tonight I won't have a draft for you but believe me that is not going to look like what we have now. Regarding the manual of style, user Grsz11 is completely right, please trust us with the formatting and Wikification. I will submit my draft to you sometime this weekend. Cheers --BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

To BatteryIncluded: You're right.... The percentage issue is convoluted and difficult to sort out. After reading so many of these reports (including some from special interest groups), I think I'm beginning to get a handle on it. (emphasis on 'beginning') Kenneth Melson (ATF) is right about the figures being politicized (especially by ATF!), but that's no reason for ATF to withhold the data - if the data can be verified. However, I suspect the ATF tracing system is so fouled up, that they can't provide accurate meaningful statistics - and shouldn't be trying. Speaking as an old computer Systems Analyst, the data elements in the tracing system were not designed for that purpose, and, by definition, cannot accurately produce meaningful statistics. The old data processing lingo is Garbage in, Garbage out. No matter how you sort and 'spin' flawed data, accurate results cannot be produced - but preconceived results can easily be produced; "Figures don't lie, but liars do figure".....

As a retired Systems Analyst, I could easily list many of the flaws in the source data, and many of the flaws in attempting to match seized Mexican guns through eTrace - but that is mostly original research.

I'm looking forward to the new version. Feel free to reformat and Wikify my Proposed Revision 2.

(Computer Guy 2 (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC))

---

I prefer this version over the one below. Less based on synthesis and opinion. Grsz 11 19:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Grsz: Revision 2 (below) actually has less synthesis and opinion than the above version (other than my side comment which isn't intended to stay). Please let me know where you find any synthesis and opinion and we can talk about it. Have you read the November 2010 Inspector General Report? (http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e1101.pdf Much of Revision 2 is based on it, and you generally can't get much more authoritative and accurate than an Inspector General Report...... They don't take any BS off of anyone.

(Computer Guy 2 (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC))

Well for one, the newer version is sloppy, and needs quite a bit of editing. Stand alone quotes need to go, some references are missing. Grsz 11 21:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm... I don't see "sloppy", and don't see the need for "quite a bit of editing" unless you intend to remove referenced facts. The quotes are essential as they're direct from the citations. However, I agree that some references (citations) are missing and should be inserted. Can you be specific regarding "sloppy" and needing editing?

(Computer Guy 2 (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC))

Not right now, but in time. For starters, the paragraph that is only quotes needs atleast some context like "According to" or "A report said" Grsz 11 21:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I just added an in-line citation to the paragraph you mentioned. Further to the quotes, you might be interested to know that the only information provided to the Mexican police is the name of the first selling dealer in the United States, and the name and address of the first purchaser of the firearm. Regardless whether the gun was stolen or sold later, or whether the buyer was innocent or not, that first purchaser is identified to Mexican police. This information is pretty much worthless to the Mexicans, and it's not surprising that the Mexican police aren't satisfied with the results.

Any additional comments or critiques are welcome. As I've stated before, I'm interested in presenting verified facts so we can see an accurate picture of the Mexican gun situation. Anything that improves understandability of the section is welcome - as far as I'm concerned.

(Computer Guy 2 (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC))

Gun Origins (Proposed Revision 2)

The United States is only able to trace firearms made in the U.S., or legally imported into the U.S. In tracing seized Mexican guns, the tracing process can only point to the manufacturer or importer, distributor, then to the retail dealer and first purchaser, both of which are considered firearm trafficking suspects by ATF. If the trace originated from Mexico through eTrace, the first purchaser's name and address is provided to Mexican police who requested the trace. The firearm may have been subsequently stolen from an innocent original purchaser or sold - perhaps many times, but this cannot be detected by tracing system. The average age of traced Mexican guns is 15 years, and the statute of limitations for straw purchases is 5 years.

According to the Department of Justice Inspector General Report, "Mexican law enforcement authorities do not view gun tracing as an important investigative tool." "One Mexican official stated that U.S. officials talk of eTrace as if it is a “panacea” but that it does nothing for Mexican law enforcement."

ATF reported they successfully traced 18,585 firearms (out of 66,028 attempted traces) to the United States between 2005 and 2009. (611 in 2005, 841 in 2006, 4059 in 2007, 6360 in 2008, and 6664 in 2009) and reported that Texas, California and Arizona, respectively, are the top three U.S. states where U.S. firearms are purchased (possibly many years ago) and later trafficked to Mexico. A 2010 Department of Justice Inspector General report stated, "In [fiscal year] 2005, 44 percent (661 of 1,518) of Mexican crime gun traces were successful. The success rate fell to 27 percent (4,059 of 14,979) in FY 2007 and remained only at 31 percent (6,664 of 21,726) in FY 2009. We found that the rate of successful traces was far lower for traces initiated in Mexico than for those initiated in the United States." (Comment: This is a very interesting statement. Are seized Mexican guns only submitted for tracing from Mexico? Or do the traces initiated in the United States only include non-Mexican guns? Or only Mexican seized guns? It makes a huge difference, but the report doesn't say....)

In 2009, Mexico reported that they held 305,424 confiscated firearms, but only 66,028 seized firearms were submitted for tracing by the ATF between 2005 and 2009, and 18,585 (28%) were successfully traced. 47,443 (72%) could not be traced for various reasons.

The gap between seizures and traces is a statistic that gun-rights groups say puts in question whether the majority of illegal guns in Mexico really come from the United States.

Most "unsuccessful" Mexican trace requests submitted to ATF are the result of invalid serials, missing or improperly entered gun data.The U.S. government, primarily through ATF, ICE and Customs and Border Protection is assisting Mexico with technology, equipment and training.

In October 2010, the Associated Press reported that "The ATF says many guns used by Mexican cartels are bought in the United States, with Arizona and Texas being major sources, but it no longer releases estimates of how many because the numbers have become too politicized." ATF's Deputy Director, Kenneth Melson said, "It doesn't matter if 20 percent are coming from the U.S. or 80 percent ... We know a lot of guns are going to Mexico and it's a problem."

(Computer Guy 2 (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC))

Correction requested

In Mexican_Drug_War#Current_cartels please make the following adjustment:

Replace:

Since February 2010, the major cartels have aligned in two factions, one integrated by the Juárez Cartel, Tijuana Cartel, Los Zetas and the Beltrán-Leyva Cartel‎‎; the other faction integrated by the Gulf Cartel, Sinaloa Cartel and La Familia Cartel.

With this suggested improvement:

Since February 2010, the major cartels have aligned in two factions, one composed of the Juárez Cartel, Tijuana Cartel, Los Zetas and the Beltrán-Leyva Cartel‎‎; the other faction constituted by the Gulf Cartel, Sinaloa Cartel and La Familia Cartel.

Justification:

Poor wording, likely due to a false friend confusion; The Spanish phrase integrado por does not translate into English as integrated by. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.227.62.137 (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Gun origins (Proposed Revision #3)

Based on the discussion above, I propose this revision based on the official November 2010 OIG review on ATF’s Project Gunrunner. Indeed, the 90% gun figure turned out to be falsely high and although the OIG evaluation presents (in a table) percentages significantly lower, they remark that the gun tracing system so far is pretty much broken and no reliable figures can be quoted. To this, we may add the fact that within the ATF itself they seem to have different definitions to what constitutes a successful gun trace. We could list some of the most important factors reportedly hindering tracing:

---

The U.S. government, primarily through ATF, ICE and Customs and Border Protection is assisting Mexico with technology, equipment and training. Project Gunrunner is part of ATF’s effort to collaborate with the Mexican authorities and the "cornerstone" has been the expansion of eTrace, a computerized system to facilitate tracing guns which were manufactured in or imported legally to the U.S.A.

Since 1992 (and as recently as 2009), the Congressional Research Service has stated that the ATF tracing system is an operational system designed to help law enforcement agencies identify the ownership path of individual firearms and it was not designed to collect statistics. Nevertheless, on February 2008, William Hoover, Assistant Director for Field Operations of ATF testified before Congress that over 90% of the firearms that have either been recovered in, or interdicted in transport to Mexico, originated from various sources within the United States. However, following a review by the U.S. Office of the Inspector General (OIG) on September 2010, the ATF admitted that “the 90% figure cited to Congress could be misleading because it applied only to the small portion of Mexican crime guns that are traced.” During this 2010 review by the OIG, the ATF could not provide updated information on the percentage of traced Mexican crime guns that were sourced to (that is, found to be manufactured in or imported through) the United States, and the November 2010 OIG analysis of ATF data suggest a much lower percentage, ranging from 27% to 44%. The OIG analysis of ATF data concluded that ATF’s attempts to expand gun tracing in Mexico have been unsuccessful.

Although the number of trace requests from Mexico has increased since FY 2006, most seized guns in Mexico are not traced. In accordance with Mexican law, all guns seized by the Mexican government must be surrendered to the Mexican Army within 48 hours. It was determined that after the Mexican military obtains custody of the guns, ATF or Mexican federal police is unlikely to gain timely access to them to gather the information needed to initiate traces. Mexican Army officials interviewed by OIG personnel said their role is to safeguard the weapons and that they have no specific authority to assist in trafficking investigations. To gain access to the weapons, ATF officials must make a formal request to the Attorney General of Mexico for each gun, citing a specific reason that access is needed, demonstrating that the requested information is related to a Mexican criminal investigation, and providing a description of the gun with the serial number. Yet, if ATF had the gun description and serial number, ATF officials would not need to request access to the gun. Due to these barriers, ATF and wider Department efforts to gain access to weapons in Mexican military custody have not been successful, therefore, the majority of seized Mexican crime guns are not traced. The report states that the poor quality of the tracing data and the resulting high rate of unsuccessful traces suggest that the training is insufficient, training has been provided to the wrong people, or there are other unidentified problems with Mexican law enforcement's crime gun tracing.

The final OIG report, which was released on November 2010 concludes that because ATF has not been able to communicate the value of gun tracing to Mexican law enforcement officials, they are less likely to prioritize their efforts to obtain tracing information from seized crime guns and enter it into eTrace. This hinders ATF’s plans to deploy Spanish eTrace throughout Mexico. Because the expansion of tracing in Mexico is the cornerstone of Project Gunrunner, this presents a significant barrier to the successful implementation of ATF’s Gunrunner strategy. The OIG report also revealed ATF has been unable to respond to many training and support requests from Mexican government agencies, and ATF’s backlog of requests for information from Mexican authorities has hindered coordination between ATF and Mexican law enforcement. In addition, it was found that ATF has not staffed or structured its Mexico Country Office to fully implement Project Gunrunner’s missions in Mexico.

In 2009, Mexico reported that they held 305,424 confiscated firearms, but submitted data of only 69,808 recovered firearms to the ATF for tracing between 2007 and 2009. The gap between seizures and traces is a statistic that gun-rights groups say puts in question whether the majority of illegal guns in Mexico really come from the United States.

Feedback and edits are welcome. Cheers, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments to Revision 3

BatteryIncluded, it looks like you've done a credible job on the rewrite. Like you, my available time isn't abundant, but I'll comment in detail as soon as I can. One immediate minor comment to your first paragraph: eTrace has been used by Project Gunrunner, but wasn't implemented because of Gunrunner. eTrace was implemented in January, 2005, long before Gunrunner was suggested.

In the meantime, I've located an older document relating to eTrace and ATF's tracing system which you may find of interest. Sorry to say it's not an easy read and is very technical, but will shed a lot of light on the tracing system's flaws - some of which directly apply to tracing Mexican guns. http://www.saf.org/journal/10/BLACKMAN.htm#_edn23

Regards, (Computer Guy 2 (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC))

Easy to do a "credible job" when the most recent and reliable data/sources are available (e.g: Nov 2010 report). I believe that we can mention all the faults and details of eTrace and Gunrunner but in their respective articles, as this one is already too long. Here it will sufice to mention the top issues only and provide the sources. Grsz11 and ComputerGuy, I applaud your enthusiasm for accuracy, please feel free to edit this review and/or blend all 3 reviews. Cheers, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to help keep things in perspective and provide more food for thought.... Nearly 20 years ago (1993), the Congressional Research Service officially concluded: "The ATF tracing system is an operational system designed to help law enforcement agencies identify the ownership path [Note: To the first purchaser only] of individual firearms. It was not designed to collect statistics....the firearms selected for tracing do not constitute a random sample and cannot be considered representative of the larger universe of all firearms used by criminals, or of any subset of that universe...."

The fundamental ATF tracing system hasn't changed since 1993 - but we're seeing far more unjustified publicity and reliance upon statistics supposedly produced from it - including traced Mexican guns and the guns "most favored by drug cartels" ..... Virtually any statistic produced by the ATF tracing system is highly suspect and cannot be relied upon as accurate, authoritative or representative of the "universe" of seized Mexican guns. Nevertheless, ATF keeps "pumping out" statistics until some authority (such as the DOJ OIG) steps in and calls their bluff.

Now, "Don't shoot the messenger...". I'm just pointing out that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes! I recommend we include a disclaimer (such as the above quote), but leave the detail discrediting to the other topics.

(Computer Guy 2 (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC))

It isn't up to us to come to those conclusions, which has been the problem with a lot of the back and forth here. Wikipedia publishes information as it appears in reliable sources, we merely reflect what the sources say. Now, if there are sources that discuss what you bring up, then fine, but just you pointing something out isn't good enough for WP. Grsz 11 04:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. That's why I referenced the source. Tomorrow, I'll have the citation for it.

(Computer Guy 2 (talk) 04:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC))

To Grsz: You made a good point here, and I originally missed it. To paraphrase from the source, a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, is original research - and not allowed under Wikipedia guidelines. As a relatively new editor, I was unaware that all of this was considered original research..... I may still point out an occasional synthesis in the discussion area to emphasize a point, but avoid it in the articles. Thanks! (Computer Guy 2 (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC))

I made a few edits to paragraphs 1 and 2. Your comments are solicited! (Computer Guy 2 (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC))

Looks good to me. Having the block lifted, I will next transfer the corrected revision #3 to the article. Cheers, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

To BatteryIncluded:

Sorry, I didn't intend to put my "Computer Guy 2" signature under your Revision 3 back on 21 Nov. I was correcting a typo in the last ref close ( < ref / > ) and somehow changed it by accident. Sorry about that. (Computer Guy 2 (talk) 13:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC))

I made a minor revision to new Revision 3 paragraph to remove a conclusion ("therefore" - which wasn't in the citation), and substituted the wording from the original OIG Report. Any comments are welcome. (Computer Guy 2 (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC))

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4