Talk:Mexican drug war

/Archive 1

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.