Talk:ATF gunwalking scandal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject International relations (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Firearms (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Law Enforcement (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States / Government (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Mexico (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

RE: inclusion of Justice department officials[edit]

Hazydan, I assume you are the one deleting edits that include information on Justice department officials' knowledge of Operation Fast and Furious? What gives? Without context and specifics on what their roles were, the reasons for Grindler leaving DOJ after the Inspector General reports are unclear. The fact that Grindler and Wilkinson knew of the link between the guns in the Terry incident and Fast and Furious in December 2010 is huge. As to your previous comments about O'Reilly, while I agree with you that someone not testifying is not proof they are hiding something, when that person is on the National Security Council and spoke frequently with the person most in the middle of the scandal (Newell), it is noteworthy. As for OCDETF, at a minimum it required going through DOJ to get wiretap approval. Because of the executive privilege we don't know much more. The plethora of evidence of federal agents and bureaucrats outside ATF knowing about Fast and Furious is important to the overall scandal. It should not be whitewashed. How about a special section on important players and what they did?

And you really think that the executive privilege and contempt events should not be part of the opening summary? Those are pretty key parts to the story, and will be questions on future high school history tests (Who was the first sitting Attorney General to be held in contempt of Congress?). Let's make it easy for them.

Regarding your previous argument that the "ATF gunrunning scandal" post would get too long with more details: that is just another reason to separate Operation Fast and Furious into its own page.

One technical question: can we link youtube videos? And one final hierarchy question, do you work for Wikipedia? Just trying to figure out this pecking order, and who is behind the acceptance or denial of edits. Doggedly, Myster Black (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems the person you are looking for is Xenophrenic, as listed in the article history. While I am an admirer of his contributions to wikipedia, I am most certainly not him. I'll address your other issues more or less in reverse. As far as I know, Youtube links are not forbidden outright, but they are generally discouraged, especially if they are not required as a source of information (as I think I mentioned, reviewing wiki policies like WP:RS is a good idea. The related WP:RSEX has a direct answer to your question and a funny acronym). I don't work for wikipedia, and edits are rarely "accepted" or "denied," but agreed upon by consensus (this is also covered in some of the basics that you might want to read).
One area where I would actually lean in your favor is putting a brief mention of executive privilege/contempt in the lead. Those were historic in their own way. On most of the other changes I'd agree with Xenophrenic, and in a sense because your own argument (what would be useful to put in a history textbook years from now?) is a good barometer of what is notable/encyclopedic. An official who is acquainted with someone involved in OFF, but with no evidence whatsoever that he was aware of the controversial tactics being used or culpable in any way, should not be mentioned. A lot of your other additions seem either non-notable in the same way, or somewhat misleading. An official can know the name of the operation or the fact that someone was killed without knowing about or being responsible for gunwalking, so in general I wouldn't put that in either, and by putting it in you risk misleading readers into thinking they were involved. The executive privilege claim was notable so it is in the article, but you can't use that as a reason to assume that there is hidden information that would prove these additions are worthwhile. If you wanted to put in a list of people who have actually been found culpable in some way, and what happened to them as a result, that might be worthwhile as long as it's kept reasonably brief. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 23:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I returned a mention of contempt and executive privilege in the lead, and we can see what people think. Just to add to my previous statement, it looks like some of your additions were poorly sourced, or repeated information already present in the article, or were of otherwise iffy quality. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 00:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
(relocated to here from an editor's Talk page:)
A little bird tells me you're the one responsible for reverting edits on the ATF gunwalking scandal page. Show yourself and let's duke it out. I will start by saying that there should certainly be more about DOJ and other federal bureaucrats' knowledge of Operation Fast and Furious on the page. In particular, this includes Gary Grindler and Monty Wilkinson. Kevin O'Reilly is another individual worth mentioning. Further, the testimony of Eric Holder on May 3, 2011 is key ("...I found out about Fast and Furious over the last few weeks..."), and I believe the best way to show his interaction with Issa are with a video. It appears you have deleted all of these things. Is that correct? If so, what say you?
Another edit of mine that disappeared is the addition of sections in the Operation Fast and Furious section, which I believe emphasizes the most important points including the murder of Brian Terry which is the event that made this whole thing a scandal. The section is pretty long at this point and some subheadings are worth including in my editorial opinion.
I am also of the opinion there should be an independent Operation Fast and Furious page. It is a bit Orwellian that someone searches for "Operation Fast and Furious" and there is no such page. All of the key events related to the scandal (direct orders to stop gun-tracking, Brian Terry's murder, Holder and others' potential perjury, Obama's executive privilege, Holder's contempt) are all related to Operation Fast and Furious specifically. Yes, there are other examples of gunwalking, but Operation Fast and Furious is a self-contained story. Get back at me. Myster Black (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Myster Black. I won't "duke it out" with you, but I look forward to working collaboratively with you and others to improve the article. With the recent shootings in the news, followed by renewed public discourse about violence, gun control, solutions, etc., it doesn't surprise me that this Wikipedia article is receiving renewed attention as well.
I have recently removed reference citations to YouTube videos, as they are not reliable sources, for the reasons mentioned and linked above by Hazydan. I also removed some additions that were cited to sources such as CNS (see WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 3#What_about_.22Cybercast_News_Service.22_.28CNSnews.29.3F) as also requiring more reliable sources. As to the merit of mentioning or expanding coverage of certain individuals, that can be discussed. It would be helpful if there were secondary reliable sources that convey the notability or significance of that information.
There have been discussions and attempts about having OF&F as a separate article, but that topic can not be adequately covered without also covering the related and often intertwined operations and individuals. Most of our comprehensive reliable sources (including the most recent OIG reports) also do not cover just specifically OF&F to the exclusion of the others. Your assertion that "there is no such page" is incorrect; if you search for Operation Fast and Furious, you are brought to the information on it. That isn't Orwellian, that's Wikipedian. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
To be honest, I have been interested in the case for much longer than the most recent emergence of gun control pushes. I have finally just decided to jump into Wikipedia editing. Since I have followed this case pretty closely, I find it a good place to start contributing.
While I still disagree with both you and Hazydan about whether Operation Fast and Furious should have its own page, for now I will edit in the structure that is there. As I have said before, information on federal officials' knowledge of Operation Fast and Furious is key to the scandal. While the question of who authorized and knew about the gunwalking is important, mere knowledge is worth mentioning, at least in some specific situations.
One is related to Holder's potential perjury. Emails between Burke and Holder's chief of staff Monty Wilkinson within hours of the Terry murder state the AG and Acting AG (Gary Grindler) were alerted. The DOJ OIG report confirm that Wilkinson and Grindler knew that Fast and Furious guns were at the Terry murder scene by December 17. The report claims Holder was not informed at this point. However, while the report does provide many important details, it is important to note this "comprehensive reliable source" comes from the department that Holder heads. Without an independent investigator, I would take that conclusion with a grain of salt. In summary, Holder's chief of staff Wilkinson's email stated he had alerted the AG hours after the Terry murder, a Border Patrol agent had been murdered and Fast and Furious guns were involved, top DOJ employees who speak with Holder daily knew of the link, this became a nation-wide story for months to follow, and Holder didn't know? I think it is certainly rational to at least question that conclusion. The following May (5 months after the Terry murder) Holder testified he had found out about Fast and Furious in the last few weeks. Only later did Holder change his argument and claim that his comment had been about the tactics in Fast and Furious. I've watched the testimony and I find it hard to believe he was answering a question about the tactics.
For all of these reasons, I am going to include information on the Wilkinson-Burke emails and Grindler's knowledge, with multiple links including to the actual DOJ documents of the Burke-Wilkinson email on the NPR website. Unfortunately, I cannot find articles about these emails from CBS (I'm surprised Sharyl Attkisson doesn't have an article on it as she is one of the few remaining investigative journalists out there), ABC, or NBC, which to be honest I find utterly ridiculous. That does not mean it's not a story. Myster Black (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Sorry about forgetting to sign.
  • As I have said before, information on federal officials' knowledge of Operation Fast and Furious is key to the scandal.
I realize that you have said that before. Again, what are the reliable sources that say that? My (limited) understanding is that the "scandal" is that so many guns were being allowed into the hands of the drug cartels without achieving the stated goal of catching the "big fish" and dismanteling those organizations. The efforts by disgruntled employees or certain politicians to play the blame game isn't the scandal, but politics as usual.
  • Unfortunately, I cannot find articles about these emails from [CBS, ABC, NBC, or investigative journalists]... That does not mean it's not a story.
Actually, that's a fairly strong indication. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
That is certainly part of the scandal. However, if Attorney General Holder committed perjury during the investigation, that is also a scandal. He claimed he had heard about Fast and Furious in the last few weeks in May 2011. He had been receiving memos about the Operation since at least July 2010.[1][2] He claims he did not read the memos, or that they were about a different operation. Operation Fast and Furious is directly mentioned in the memos. His Chief of Staff knew the link between the Terry murder and Operation Fast and Furious in December 2010. He claims he did not know the link. The DOJ OIG report states he first heard of Fast and Furious in late January or early February 2011 (page 299). [3] That directly contradicts his testimony under oath from May 3, and appears to be perjury. He then claimed that his statement from May 3 was about the tactics in Operation Fast and Furious. Having watched the May 3 testimony multiple times, I find that hard to believe, as do others.[4][5][6][7] Either he committed perjury, or he didn't know things he should have known during (many memos to DOJ) and after the operation (his chief of staff and others knowing the links between the Terry guns and OFF). Either way, that's a scandal. Myster Black (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
You apparently have way more faith in journalists than I. It is just as likely that journalists are lazy, partisan, or both. Myster Black (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not saying that "perjury" wouldn't also be a scandal; it's not the scandal this article is about. This article is about the botched Project Gunrunner operations, not the political hay trying to be made of it by partisans. It would seem that some of the proposed edits being made are an effort to promote unsubstantiated allegations made in the name of political gamesmanship, rather than what has been shown to have factually occured. I looked at the page 299 you mentioned, and I see that it states the OIG found no evidence that contradicts Holder's statements. I am aware of his statements that he heard of OF&F a few weeks to a couple months prior ... but I do not see how that amounts to perjury, nor do reliable sources. (No doubt there is no lack of partisans ready to twist every statement, misspeak, poorly chosen word or clarification into some nefarious conspiracy, however). Xenophrenic (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Either he committed perjury, or he didn't know things he should have known...
Wait, are you saying you aren't sure which? We shouldn't be introducing and advancing speculation in Wikipedia articles. That's better left to grandstanding politicians and partisan bloggers. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I wish that potential perjury by the head of the Justice Department would be more than political hay to you. It is a direct result of the Operation Fast and Furious investigations, so the connection to this scandal is pretty clear if you ask me. Without an independent investigation the case is difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, even more so with Obama's executive privilege claim (another reason why this event is very relevant to the story). However, Holder's May 3, 2011 testimony was inaccurate however you interpret it, and very well could be perjury. This should be clear in this article. I agree how it is worded is important. I can propose some more text for the fallout section, though I still believe the text in the operation section is important (see below). Myster Black (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── What you don't seem to be grasping is that what you know, or what you think you know, or what you think you might know are totally irrelevant, as it is for all editors. Unless there are reliable sources saying Holder perjured himself, then as far as Wikipedia is concerned, he did not perjure himself (as I've suggested multiple times now, you should familiarize yourself with policies like WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BLP which make this clear). There is already mention in the article of Holder's disputed testimony, and his later explanation, because those events are documented in reliable sources. I'm going to repeat myself to be clear: if you do not have reliable sources saying that high officials were aware of what was going on, then as far as we are concerned they were not aware, regardless of how likely any of us might think it is that they were aware. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 02:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It is clear that both Wilkinson and Grindler were aware within a couple days of the shooting that the guns in the Terry shooting were related to Operation Fast and Furious. That those two are the chief of staff to the attorney general and the acting deputy attorney general is significant,[citation needed] and should be in the article. They claim (their claims are not facts) they did not inform Holder because it was not a significant event.[citation needed] That is also a significant claim. Based on those facts, all of us can have our own opinions of who else knew..Myster Black (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I've re-read the cited source, and you are incorrect. That's not what the cited source says. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Please clarify what you mean by incorrect. Based on your edit to the text, you have a problem with the difference between the text reading "they claimed they did not believe the information was sufficiently important to alert the Attorney General..." vs. "they did not believe the information was sufficiently important to alert the Attorney General..." Is that correct? In my mind the claim comment is more accurate as the DOJ OIG report relies on what Wilkinson and Grindler told investigators. We don't know what they actually believed, only what they told investigators they believed. Myster Black (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • In my mind...
Therein lies the problem. We aren't conveying what is in your mind. We convey what is conveyed by reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
We all have our opinions, and mine is still that the statement of their beliefs as fact is presumptuous. However, due to the Wikipedia policy, I am OK with the text as is. Myster Black (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
How about "stated"? Myster Black (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Further, the DOJ OIG report states Holder knew of OFF in late January or early February. That does contradict his statement in May, and should be referenced as such.Myster Black (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
That is already in the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
The DOJ OIG report is not cited in the text related to the May 3, 2011 comments. Do you have a problem with me adding that there? Myster Black (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
How would I know? What page number, and what is your purpose for adding it? The content appears to already be cited to a source reference. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Another "reliable" reference never hurts (page 299). Myster Black (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Recently proposed edit[edit]

Within hours, Burke emailed Counsel to the Attorney General and Deputy Chief of Staff Monty Wilkinson about the shooting.[8][9][10][11] Wilkinson replied he had "alerted the AG, the Acting DAG, Lisa, etc." Wilkinson and Acting Deputy Attorney General Gary Grindler were then made aware that guns from Operation Fast and Furious were found at the Terry murder scene, but they stated they didn't believe the information was sufficiently important to alert the Attorney General about it or to make any further inquiry regarding the development.[12]

COMMENTS:

  • Would it be possible to get the specific page numbers for the OIG citations above?
  • I see a citation to "HotAir.com" listed above; not a reliable source for assertion of fact.
  • Just a cosmetic concern, but could you please put the reference citations after the punctuation?

Xenophrenic (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Page 297. Did I insert it correctly?
I have removed.
Word up.
I have made the changes, along with a slight change to the passage. Myster Black (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
(I've moved some of the punctuation around in the above text, since we're modifying it...) Is there a reason why you wish to insert OIG findings into what otherwise appears to be a chronology of events during the border shooting? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I made an additional change to the above wording to conform with Wikipedia's editing policies, but I still have concerns with its significance and with placement location. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
There are multiple other examples in that section where the DOJ OIG report is referenced, so I'm not sure why this is any different. I'd like to place this in the chronology of events where it fits. Since Grindler later steps down for this reason (and this is mentioned later in the article), this information is relevant.
I do also think that information related to these exchanges and other related specifics in the DOJ OIG report can also be included in the fallout section, probably around where Holder's May 3, 2011 testimony is mentioned and where Grindler's resignation is mentioned. However, top DOJ officials learning of the links between the guns and OFF hours after the shooting is relevant to the chronology of events. Myster Black (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
As for me, I don't have a problem with the IG report being referenced in that section as long as the information fits, but I don't really see the point in making this statement. It doesn't seem terribly notable to say (and this seems like the point of the addition) that Holder was aware of the death of an agent, which is to be expected, but not the tactics connected to the guns that killed him, which he has stated many times as already detailed in the article. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 02:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
The fact that the chief of staff of the attorney general and the acting DAG were aware of the link between the guns in the Terry incident and OFF within hours of the shooting is significant.[citation needed] That they claim (it is a claim and not a fact) they did not inform Holder because it was not important enough is also significant. Those facts should be stated, and the reader can take from it what they will.Myster Black (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
But they didn't claim that. Please re-read the cited source more carefully. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
They did not inform him because they claimed they did not believe the information was sufficiently important to alert the AG. Do you have a problem with the word claim or the lack of believe in my previous statement? If I had left out "believe" from the edit, that's my mistake. I have edited the text in the form I find most accurate along with adding the second clause from the DOJ OIG report "or to make any further inquiry regarding this development". Myster Black (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I have edited the text in the form I find most accurate...
But we don't do that when what you find most accurate conflicts with the cited sources.
Adding claimed does not conflict with the source. Myster Black (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Do you have a problem with the word claim...
No. Wikipedia does. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Well if it's a Wikipedia policy, then it's a wikipedia policy. I am OK with the text as it is. Myster Black (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
How about "stated they didn't believed..."? Myster Black (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I propose we add this text. Myster Black (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC) I propose adding "stated" to the text. Myster Black (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright I'm adding the text. Myster Black (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, you have a problem with "stated" as well? Myster Black (talk) 01:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Only when it changes the meaning of information conveyed by cited sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

RE: Primer on Fast and Furious scandal[edit]

The date of Brian Terry's death is wrong in "Primer on 'Fast and Furious' scandal". In addition, the date at which Lanny Breuer knew of gunwalking is also inaccurate. They are both off by a year. Those mistake make the overall article incoherent, and therefore it should not be linked. I had deleted the link, but it has been returned. Who returned it? Myster Black (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It appears to now be gone. Myster Black (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, since my comment CBS has fixed those two dates I mention above. However, I have found three other inaccurate dates in that article (another date related to Breuer's knowledge of gunwalking, the date of the wiretaps, and a date related to the IG report described as a motivation for gunwalking). 5 inaccurate dates in a single small article. I find that downright appalling. Myster Black (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's difficult, if not impossible, to find completely flawless sources these days. You've found some errors with CBS reports. Grassley claims to have found some errors in the OIG reports. The committee's "researchers" claim to have found errors in Fortune's report. But don't be appalled, it usually works out in the end. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Losing focus on the topic[edit]

This article is about a particular set of gun walkings and what ensued from it. Its fine to cover the history of ATF gunwalking (only) as a sidebar, but the article is drifting off topic / into lack of focus on its topic. For example, the first paragraph of the lead is about the history of ATF gunwalking rather than the topic. North8000 (talk) 12:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? One sentence in the first paragraph, about Project Gunrunner, might be considered "history," but it serves to introduce the topic. The rest is about gunwalking itself. Also, I think the lede has been rearranged a bit, but the content has been fairly stable, so to say that it's drifting or losing focus sounds strange. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 17:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I think that your post illustrates it. This isn't an article about gunwalking in general, it is about a particular scandal. And the beginning of the lead should be an overview of an overview of the topic, and it isn't. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
In other words, you want the lede to have more on the investigations, public reaction, etc beginning in 2011? That seems fair. I'm open to suggestions. I think it should still include the information on gunwalking itself, though. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 23:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
What I really mean is that the topic is really the 2009-2011 operation fast and furious scandal,and the wording is not in line with that. North8000 (talk) 02:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to make some changes in line with this. North8000 (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Be WP:BOLD! :-) Keep in mind, however, that while you feel the topic should be just about the 2009-2011 segment of operations, most sources and commentary that I've seen consider the "scandal" to be the walking of numerous guns and the deaths attributed to them. That scandal covers more than the 2009-2011 time window, as the same processes and people involved go back as far as 2006. I get the idea from some edit summaries that some folks would like to narrow the focus to just the stuff that falls under the Obama Administration timeline, but that is not where the "scandal" resides. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like we need the Operation fast and Furious article back. It is immensely wp:notable, the ones before it were small obscure and non-notable. North8000 (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Fast and Furious absolutely is notable, which is why it is covered in full right here. Before the merge, the separate articles were low-quality, low-information and generally confusing. The other operations are not obscure or non-notable, but this article still focuses more on OFF because it is the largest one. Keep in mind, all the gunwalking operations covered here basically happened in the same place and were run by a lot of the same people since 2006. There is an important continuity and relationship between the operations starting then. Gunwalking did not suddenly become a new idea or inherently more dangerous on January 20, 2009. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 19:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

For whatever reason (immense order-of-manitude increase in size, the clear trail to the murder, the alleged political motivations) Fast and Furious is the notable scandal. But the core question arises, what is the topic of this article? Is it gunwalking in general? Is it about the notable scandal (note that the title is singular) Is it unclear/unresolved? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing something, but you seem to be making a number of different, kind of muddled arguments, none of them with much support. Can you be specific about what changes you feel should be made? – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 20:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I will, but a key item in determining that is knowing: What is the topic of this article? Is it gunwalking in general? Is it about the notable scandal (note that the title is singular) Is it unclear/unresolved? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I think the topic of the article is clear from the title and the content. You seem to be hung up on the singular "scandal" for some reason, but there isn't a new scandal every time a different operation is revealed. The scandal is gunwalking, which became a scandal early in 2011, and Fast and Furious is part of it (the biggest of several parts). Now, rather than having a semantic or political debate, tell us what changes you want to make to the article. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 23:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
There could be many fixes. But the simplest one would be to change the title to "Operation fast and furious" and the obscure gunwalking that occurred prior to that could be included as background for it. North8000 (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I would disagree with a change in title to Operation Fast and Furious. The prior gunwalking is not obscure. It has been well documented, thoroughly investigated by various government entities in parallel with OFF, and reported on multiple times by the media. Keep in mind that, as documented in the article, the prior operations lost roughly 500 firearms, compared to roughly 1500 in Fast and Furious. Fewer, but still significant. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 01:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
If you want the real proof of the pudding, skim through the sources and look at their dates. After a quick look, it looks like 100% of media and 95% of all are 2011 and newer. North8000 (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid you've lost me. That doesn't sound like an argument for or against notability, anyway. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 01:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
It was just a rough indicator. But roughly speaking, Fast and Furious, and the fallout from it is what is wp:notable. Prior gunwalking probably not, and had little or no coverage at the time. North8000 (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm not sure I understand what pudding you are trying to prove. If your objection is over the use of recent sources versus old sources, common knowledge says that more recent sources are more reliable, as previous errors are corrected, additional information is uncovered, etc. If you are asserting that since sources about the topic overwhelmingly originate after the scandal is publicized we should only focus on the most recent part of the scandal, I respectfully disagree.

Since I know you can appreciate a good whimsical analogy... Say 3 demented guys get the idea to kidnap women, and hold them captive in a basement. They kidnap Mary in 2006, and hold her. Then they kidnap Suzy in 2009. Pressing their luck, they kidnap Jill in 2011 and add her to their collection. But Jill escapes and alerts the authorities, sparking a scandal. I'm fairly certain that journalists and law enforcement authorities aren't going to limit their "focus" to just Jill as the "notable" part of the scandal -- even though she was the one to escape, and she was the one to alert the authorities, and she was the most recent victim, and she was the one to spark a massive investigation. Of course the lion's share of sources about this subject are going to be dated post-Jill-escape, because before that the only thing to report on were sporadic missing-person cases. While the initial "breaking news" stories might have exclaimed "Missing Person Jill Located!", it's highly unlikely that more complete follow-up stories would be titled "Jill and a couple other obscure kidnap victims finally free". Xenophrenic (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

ATF gunwalking scandal needs cinemascope not a microscope big picture not a fractured view. There were common elements between OWR 2006-2007, Hernandez 2007, Medrano 2008, and OFF 2009-2011: foremost were "gunwalking" and "controlled delivery" contrary to standard Project Gunrunner practice (immediate interdiction according to testimony from ATF field agents and cooperating FFLs to DOJ OIG) and the decisions of Phoenix ATF SAC William Newell to allow gunwalking to lead to kingpins. Newell was in carge of OWR from Nov 2006 to Oct 2007, and over OFF). The world became aware of OFF first in Dec 2010 with the murder of Brian Terry, then OWR, Hernandez and Medrano were put under scrutiny. There are too many connecting elements to seperate the operations and cases: they are a progression. --Naaman Brown (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

There are severe problems here, (or in the lack of a "Operation Fast and Furious" article) but I don't intend to work on them right now. The sources overwhelmingly show that it is THE scandal. It's the one that hit the fan, it's the one that got the agent killed, it's the one that was an order of magnitude larger, it's the one that it is alleged that the administration did to create incidents to get support for gun control, it's the one that the Attorney General refused to release information on and was cited for contempt of congress on, it's the one that the sources are overwhelming about. North8000 (talk) 11:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Needs Work[edit]

Just a few comments on quality from an outsider. The lede in this article is terrible. The title of the article uses scandal, but there is nothing in the first paragraph that clearly states what the scandal actually is. The actions outlined certainly make it seem like things were botched, but finding out what made it worse than any other typical botched law enforcement operation was difficult. It mostly seems like a bunch of politicians and others engaged in a blame game. But is that enough to call it a scandal? Considering that this is one of only a couple of see also for the US BATF article, I thought it would be more significant. Either the article does a poor job of conveying the significance of the scandal or the incident itself is not all that significant. --108.216.65.238 (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The big, notable and very different gun-walking scandal was operation Fast and Furious This article seems designed to downplay that and it. North8000 (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)