Talk:Los Zetas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I do find this article interesting but it does seem to be a little speculative especially as there are no sources. - try google news search and the links at the bottom. if you understand spanish try youtube and mexican news sources. there has been an amazing blackout on the part of u.s. news on drug war violence until lately. -anonymous

  • WorldNetDaily is a fringe right-wing newsletter of zero journalistic merit. Before the 2003 Iraq war began they reported an Iraqi invasion headed toward Israel via Jordan. Similarly, I don't remember reading a single report about a minuteman getting shot by a sniper, or any other fantastical announcements like Zetas carrying cross border raids in military vehicles full of armed-to-the-teeth narco-mercenaries. If no credible references from mainstream US and Mexican papers can be provided I suggest that this article be deleted or significantly reduced. March 28, 2005 - Doug

I have added a link to an FBI report to the U.S. House of Representatives. I've been doing research on this group for a screenplay I'm writing and the Zetas are very much a real group. I've been in Mexico several times and the group is well known there. June 19, 2006 - Jorge Escobar

Uh dude, Z-4 is in charge now, not Osiel Cardenas. I unfortunately can't cite this because it's hearsay from a guy who's uncle is in the zetas, in Laredo Texas. I personally can't wait to become a cop to bust these idiots.

The sources do not reinforce the point of the article, which is to inform the reader that the media claims about Zetas are exaggerated or false. This article sounds more like a Snopes article than anything, and its claims about the Zetas are not well-substantiated or refuted in this article.Dirtydan667 11:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I lived in Texas for 17 years and ran with EMS in the Border Area. We were frequently briefed by the law enforcement community about the Zetas and Negros. There were many news reports, even on CNN, Foxnews, etc. --Degen Earthfast (talk) 13:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)--Degen Earthfast (talk) 13:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

"Los Zetas" are quite real and dangerous. In the following days I´ll try to gather references. Most of them will be local mexican news pages as "El Excelsior", "El Dictamen", "El Universal" etc. Would that help this article?

Here is an example:

Hope you don´t have much problems using a translator. Long story short: "Los Zetas" are killing all the illegal merchants in Veracruz and putting their own instead.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

School of the Americas[edit]

If the School of The Americas is at Ft. Benning, Georgia, Why did they train in the sweltering North Carolina heat? - b/c they would be deployed in mexico?

There are still numerous reports on groups of individuals dressed in para-military gear, in "offical looking" Humvees with heavy machine guns mounted, firing at and attacking U.S. Border Patrol Agents, and Civilians alilke.

the zetas are real and very very dangerous im from a bordertown and leave it at that! ive actually been in a restaurant when they come in broad daylight ask for everyone to raise their arms put their cell where they can see it order their food eat then pay for everyone and leave!!! trust me i wish u could say oh well free food but its soo scary! now what i heard is that not only where they trained in the us but have been trained in different countries with great military power. they where hired but the mx gov to clear out narcos and as soon as that was almost accomplished they turned their back on the gov and decided to take over the business, hence the start of a great power war everyones talking about.

There's a policy on Wikipedia of No Original Research; Although your story is interesting and frightening, it's simply not grounds for an article about what seems to be a ghost organization. The source articles, while engaging, are vague at best and at worst utterly oblique. I'm not going to tag this for deletion, because i believe it's an important piece of the drug trafficking subject, but it really needs some work. I'm starting today. Gilgamesh Rex 17:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The following info may substantiate & clarify, possibly add to the intro & reword how LOS ZETAS started: in a 2008 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, or at least hired by the U.S. and/or Mexico. He writes that they are trained at SOA in order "to go up against the heavily armed and defended cartels. In the late 1990s they switched sides and started working for the Gulf cartel..." (btw, i'm also posting this on the talk page for Mexican Drug War, in re Cartels summaries. As i said there, I'm not sure how to best work it into these articles) PrBeacon (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand what new information this source brings. It is well established and described in this article that they were former special forces who deserted and joined the Golf cartel as a private criminal army. If you want to add this book as a supplementary reference, go ahead. Cheers,
You're right, my comment wasn't about any new info. I referenced Grant in hopes of finding a better summary of how Los Zetas began. This wikipedia article begins with the somewhat misleading statement "Los Zetas was initially the criminal mercenary army for Mexico's Gulf Cartel." I'm not sure if the distinction is semantic or not, since the paramilitary group which first formed and then trained at SOA may not have taken the name Los Zetas until after they deserted the Mexican Army and started working for the cartel. Perhaps my reading of the article's Etymology section is unclear. PrBeacon (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I see the issue now and you are right. The introduction needs a rewrite. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


Los Zetas seem to have business dealings with U.S. gangs by providing/smuggling the drugs; I think it does not imply they are active gangs in every named state. If so, I'd like to see and include references to that effect. For the time being, I strongly suggest to exclude Category:Gangs in Texas, Category:Gangs in California, Category:Gangs in Florida, Category:Gangs in Chicago, Illinois, Category:Gangs in New York City, Category:Gangs in Detroit, Michigan, Category:Gangs in Louisiana. Cheers. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The School of the America's no longer exists...saying that they could have been trained at Benning is very speculative...they would not learn Special Forces Tactics at the Infantry School...for the US that is taught at Ft Bragg, SF Training goes on at WHINSEC... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Military History[edit]

I have assessed this as start class for Military History project but am not entirely convinced this falls into the scope of the project. This article is about a criminal organization that was started by ex-military personnel, not a military organization itself. Also their activities are criminal regardless of their tactical and technological sophistication. --dashiellx (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

"School of the Americas"[edit]

A couple of notes regarding this article. The training facility for U.S. allies formerly known as the "School of the Americas" is located on Ft. Benning, Georgia. The official name - changed around 1999 or 2000 - is now the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security and Cooperation, or WHInSeC, I believe. Check my nomenclature.

The special operations command at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina, might also have training programs for allied troops - no doubt they do. I have no knowledge of this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


WhisperToMe (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Mata Zetas[edit]

Literally they mean the people who kill members from the Zeta Cartel. And have killed numerous Zeta members. I believe they are also known as the Caballeros Templares, the Templar Knights. I think we should add a section or start finding some information about the Anti-Zeta people (Mata Zetas) and debunking their myths.

I am not signing my name because I rather keep myself anonymous for various reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Zete violence in mexico.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Zete violence in mexico.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

"Mata Zetas" resource, Zeta Killers[edit]

Mexico Fears Rise of Vigilante Justice; Gang's Claim It Killed 35 Violent Traffickers to Help Society Suggests Arrival of Paramilitary Groups in SEPTEMBER 29, 2011 WSJ page A10 in print. (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

More on Talk:Mexican Drug War. (talk) 06:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Founder: Arturo Guzmán Decena or Osiel Cárdenas Guillén?[edit]

I have been pondering this question for quite some time, and I have arrived to the conclusion (perhaps not the corrrect one, so that's why I'm consulting the talk page) that the actual founder is Osiel Cárdenas Guillén. He was the one who sought and recruited Los Zetas, and appointed Arturo Guzmán Decena alias Z-1, as the leader of the Gulf Cartel's armed wing. Osiel, techinically, founded Los Zetas, since he hired the mercenary group to work for his organization and his personal bodyguards. And, Los Zetas did not exist beforehand. Jesús Enrique Rejón Aguilar alias El Mamito claims after his arrest in a video posted by the Federal police forces of Mexico that Osiel Cárdenas Guillén is the founder of his organization.[1] I understand that this might not be encyclopedic, but it's still a valuable testimony from someone that is considered a "original Zeta."

Anyways, what's your call on this? Was Guzmán Decena only the leader? Should both be included as founders? Thanks. ComputerJA (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

After many years of following this war and related Wiki articles, I have to agree with you in that Los Zetas would not have come to exist if it was not for Osiel. Technically, the operations were handed from Osiel Cardenas to Guzman Decena. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk)
So that means that we should stick with Osiel or Guzmán Decena? Or should both me included? ComputerJA (talk) 05:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


This is Barrett Brown. The section dealing with OpCartel has several errors, starting with the first sentence, which seems to imply that OpCartel began with me. In fact, it began with a video put out by Anonymous Veracruz which had gotten 250,000 views before I got involved, at which point a number of media outlets had already reported on the kidnapping, the demands, etc. Towards the end, it's claimed that "the whole Anonymous organization" distanced itself from OpCartel. There is absolutely no mechanism by which this could occur, since Anonymous is not an organization in the traditional sense and there is no outlet that "speaks" for it. Between these two major errors are a number of smaller ones, but I'd like to see those addressed first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Good. I think there's no better person to take care of this than you, Barrett. Sorry if the info is incorrect or misleading; I take most of the fault, since I was one of the major contributors to that section. I based myself on the sources I had available. Please feel free to take care of the section yourself. Just make sure to cite what you claim to avoid any challenges or removals. Thanks! ComputerJA (talk) 03:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I should edit anything that involves me, but I've gone ahead and removed the sentence about the "whole Anonymous organization" so that it can be replaced by someone else. Barrett — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Terrorism section: Contentious label?[edit]

I feel that the Terrorism section should have another name, like Massacres or something similar. The word terrorism might actually fall under contentious labels (see WP:TERRORIST), and we should make sure that this label is extremely well-sourced, and that the sources "establish the existence of a controversy and that the term is not used to grant a fringe viewpointundue weight." As for the 2011 Monterrey casino attack, Sylvia Longmire, a drug war analyst, pointed out that this attack may not necessarily be a narcoterrorist one, because the Zetas were not planning a death toll of that magnitude.[2][3] Now, for the 2010 Tamaulipas massacre and the 2011 Tamaulipas massacre, the Zetas (according to the testimonies, of course) killed the civilians because they believed that the Gulf Cartel was going to recruit them.[4] Hence, it was simply another tragic incident of the turf war between these two groups. As for the 2008 Morelia grenade attacks, the three "Zetas" that were captured were, according to La Jornada, under the influence of narcotics; it was also mentioned that they were only hired to do this attack.[5] The massacre of the 27 farmers in Guatemala was a result of the turf with the Gulf Cartel after a dispute for lost merchandise.[6] The 2010 Puebla oil pipeline explosion was the result of the Zetas stealing from the pipes,[7] and the 2011 Durango massacres does not have sufficient info to conclude it was a terrorist attacks.

I'm not so sure if "heating up the plaza" should be included as a terrorist attack or as a simple turf war tactic. I think the latter.

What do you think? What should the section be called? ComputerJA (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

  • I don't have a problem with calling them narcoterrorists. The reasoning looks like a bunch of hair-splitting. In fact, the more I look at it, the reasoning looks like minimizing. But seriously, does calling a gang of murderous, criminal thugs "terrorists" really damaging thir reputation that much? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
When an organized crime gang detonates car bombs and throws hand grenades into a multitude, and kills inocents by the hundreds (if not thousands), there is no better other description than terrorists. That word has been used by the media. BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Scholars have disagreed on what exactly the cartels are. It could be that the Zetas are simply an overgrown criminal organization, or perhaps an paramilitary insurgency, or maybe a terrorist group. I don't know if I could completely buy the terrorist appellation, however. The designation of the Zetas as a "terrorist" group implies that it has a political (and ideological) goal behind what it does, like FARC and al-Qaeda. And while it has been said that they do have political actions behind what they do (like bribery and using fear tactics to force the State to act some way or another), those actions are merely means to get what they really have in mind: the money. Hence, the Zetas goal is money, not ideology.
Please do not get me wrong. I am in no way trying to defend these thugs. I simply want to bring to light that there is still an ongoing disagreement on what the cartels really are and on what their actions mean. ComputerJA (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't feel strongly on keeping that label. I'm OK if you want to reformat and/or rename that section. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I tend to agree with ComputerJA on this subject. We should try to stay neutral in our descriptions as much as possible. This reminds me of the somewhat analogous contentious subject of "political prisoner": certainly they are jailed for some (presumably) criminal act against the state (subversion, sedition, etc) and some in the media (particularly if said media IS NOT quartered within the territory of the state doing the imprisioning) may even call them "political prisoners", but they may be freedom fighters for others. The term terrorist, whether solo or embedded into the term narcoterrorist, can bring a somewhat similar contention issue as some in the public at large may view their mass murders, killing, etc, as non-random, not oriented (for the bulk of it anyways) towards the public at large or to innocent bystanders. This may look like an extreme comparison to some (and I am sure some would argue it to their death) but, do we consider it terrorism when the U.S. military kills innocent civilians during the course of the war against the Taliban, or do we simply dismiss it with some other term (read, "collateral damage")? Again, I am sure there are all sorts of "of course not, the U.S. is doing this and doing that" justifications that defenders of the US military will bring up, but that's precisely my point: that the word terrorist/terrorism is contentious. Point in case: simply because some group is "a gang of murderous, criminal thugs" that does not automatically qualify them as terrorists also. Furthermore, is the definition of terrorist intrisically tied to political motives like FARC, FALN, and al-Queida? Maybe not. Consider that a thief armed with an M-16 enters a bank full of customers in downtown LA and terrorizes everyone, takes his money and leaves. Was he a terrorist? If he had held a granade on his hand - which he never pulled the trigger on -- would that have changed the definition from robber to terrorist? Is a husband that terrorizes his wife with intimidation and loud screams a terrorist? I know I may be "pushing the envelope" here, but just wanted to provide a rather full range of issues/concepts that come into play in the drafting of a definition of terrorist that will please most people.
Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 08:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • This focus on whether there is a grenade or M16 in use is worthless, as is the yelling husband comparison. I won't even address your comments about the accidental deaths of civilians versus the intentional targeting of them because the comparison is so wrongheaded that explaining the ignorance would probably lead me to ignore AGF. If a reliable source calls them narcoterrorists, then what is the issue? This hair-splitting and litany of ill-conceived examples isn't helping. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
The issue is that there are many reliable sources calling people by all kinds of names and thus we will find RS's from both sides to support any point we want. When this sort of situation arises, it is best to just rename a subsection and re-orient it to providing actual facts. Name-tagging, at least in my book, does not qualify as an actual fact, especially when used a a section header.
If we want to say - in the body of the section - that PGR or that the FBI or that such and such called such and such cartel a terrorist organization, that (with RS citations of course) would be an encyclopedia worthy piece of information. But if we want to say that such and such cartel is a terrorist organization (even with RS citations) that is not encyclopedic because it is not factual -- it is just somebody's opinion printed by some RS. Hey, I want the bad guys caught as bad as you do, and I might even call them "gang of murderous, criminal thugs 'terrorists'" in the intimacy of my home. But such "information" -is not- encyclopedic and thus does not belong in WP:NPOV neutral encyclopedia. WP:LABEL is very clear on this issue. A review of that link may be in place for those disagreeing with the rename.
In any event, it seems to me that the consensus so far is:
Votes to rename "Terrorism" section header into "Massacres" = 3:
Votes to keep section "Terrorism" header or rename into "Narcoterrorism" section header = 1:
Seems to me this already calls for a renaming.
My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC) and I approve this message.
  • Why? Because 2 people have said yes in 24 hours? What is the rush? Battery has essentially said he doesn't care, unless he has more to add here. Regardless, a simple !vote isn't how this is done. Further, deciding that "it is best to just rename a subsection" isn't done by your decree and it usually merits more than 24 hours to discuss it when the move is opposed. Since I didn't even suggest that "gang of murderous, criminal thugs" be put into the article, your quoting it in the context you did just gives an implication that it was somehow wrong to say. "But if we want to say that such and such cartel is a terrorist organization (even with RS citations) that is not encyclopedic because it is not factual". Really? Wikipedia isn't really about WP:TRUTH, it is about what RS's have said, presented in a manner that doesn't give them undue weight. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Here you go: [8] Is the Dept. of Homeland Security reliable enough? Pay particular attention to Page 3 which talks about "cartels" and specifies the Los Zetas in a 2011 incident. The very last line of page three says "These are acts of terrorism as defined by federal law." Since you already said that if the FBI said it, that would be encyclopedic, I'd submit that DHS is every bit as encyclopedic. Further, coming directly from the DHS site, I'd say that is going to pass reliability tests. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Same document, page 6: "While not driven by religious ideology, Mexican drug cartels operate in the same

manner as al Qaeda, the Taliban or Hezbollah each sharing a desire, and using similar tactics to gain political and economic influence. These are acts of terrorism. Black’s Law defines TERRORISM (note: their all caps, not mine)as: activity that… appears to be intended--(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.According to the Congressional Research Service, “The massacres of young people and migrants, the killing and disappearance of Mexican journalists, the use of torture, and the phenomena of car bombs have received wide media coverage and have led some analysts to question if the violence has been transformed into something new, beyond the typical violence that has characterized the trade. For instance, some observers have raised the concern that the Mexican DTOs may be acting more like domestic terrorists.” The same info is repeated by a reliable media source here [9] Niteshift36 (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Another one, specifying Los Zetas and having an author call them narcoterrorists in a MSNBC piece. [10] Niteshift36 (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • A reliable source reporting claims that they may try to overthrow the Mexican govt in 2012. [11], again, calling them terrorists. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, it all comes down to how we define a terrorist organization. If you think that Los Zetas should be categorized as a terrorist group because they simply "act like domestic terrorists" and use similar tactics to terrorist organizations, then that's fine; however, you have to understand that the definition of terrorism varies (and a lot). Terrorism could also be defined as acts of violence that want to "attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature."[12] Clearly, the Zetas, although they do mess with the State, do not have an ideological goal behind what they do. They're in the business for the fast cash and big bucks.
Also, check the al-Qaeda page. If we are going to nametag the Zetas as terrorist, then we have to mention which organizations describe them as such: Is it the United Nations? Or maybe the Mexican government? Or is it only the United States that is looking to call them that way?[13] As far as I know, a member of the Republican party wanted to pass a bill in Congress that would treat the cartels are terrorist, but the whole thing is still undecided.[14] The Mexican government mentioned earlier and in response to any U.S. military intervention by saying that the "Organized crime is seeking to increase its illegal economic benefits" and that "They are not groups that are promoting a political agenda."[15]
Thanks for the reliable sources. I am also aware that the media often calls them narcoterrorists, but you have to be aware that there are counter examples to what you said. Plenty of them. In addition, I don’t know if you’ve read El Narco by Ioan Grillo, the Gangland by Langton, or Cartel by Longmire, but there is a disagreement on authors on what the cartels are.[16]

(Below are RS claiming cartels are not terrorists).

  • Miami Herald [17]
  • Small Wars Journal [18]
  • Congressional Research Service [19] "In Mexico, the goal of the traffickers is to corrupt the police and government at all levels to allow them to pursue illicit profits, but it is not to take control of the apparatus of the state. Thus, it remains a problem of criminality rather than a battle with insurgents or terrorists."
  • Homeland Security Today[20] "But Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), the ranking Democrat on Mack’s subcommittee says Mexico’s TCOs do not meet the legal definition of terrorism to advance political aims."
  • El Nuevo Herald (in Spanish) [21] "...calificar de terrorista a los carteles mexicanos es absurdo, porque los carteles mexicanos no tienen una agenda política."

Let's just aim for a neutral name for the section. If you want to hear my opinion, it all comes down to how we interprete the word "terrorism," but since there is a huge disagreement on what the cartels are, let's just call it a tie and aim for a new name that does not promote either side. Thanks and sorry for the long post. ComputerJA (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

  • ComputerJA, let's not get tangled in the web: it does not matter how "we" or the RS's define a terrorist organization (or "cartel" or "terrorist"). What matters is that, per Wikipedia MOS (WP:MOS at WP:LABEL) the term should not be used. And the reason is precisely because it is a contentious label and its use is a violation of Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. As you suggest, we should support using neutral names for the section, and "Massacres" is neutral while "Terorrism" is not. I was wrong in adding up the votes and thuis give the impression this requried a vote count. A vote count is not required because this issue is Policy and thus doesn't require a consensus: per WP:CONLIMITED, a local group cannot override WP policy. To recap, the basis for a section header change is Wikipedia's policy, and not the criteria of whether or not the current label is or is not supported by RS's. RSs are a moot point here, they are irrelevant in this case. To be more specific, RSs are irrelevant here even if they state that cartels are terrorist organizations. The reason for the irrelevancy is that they are not consistent with Wikipedia's policy NPOV. Go ahead and make the require modification and if anyone disagrees (not that there is more than 1 editor disagreeing), they can take it the WP:ANI. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.


Sure, thank you. And thanks to BatteryIncluded and Niteshift36 too. Which title would be appropiate for the section? 'Massacres'? 'Attacks against civilians?' Do you guys have any other suggestions? Thanks. ComputerJA (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
How about something like Intimidation and massacres? - BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
"Intimidation and massacres"? That sounds fair to me too. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.
Yeah, I'll take that too. ComputerJA (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  • What a bunch of double-speaking nonsense. First it was 'well if someone like the FBI said it, that would be notable'. Then, when that was shown, it's "it does not matter how "we" or the RS's define a terrorist organization". I gave you precisely what you said would be sufficient and then the target changes. RS's are not "irrelevant" by a long shot and your private interpretation of NPOV isn't in line with the rest of Wikipedia. There is no requirement that all info presented needs to be neutral. A spade can be called a spade. WE aren't calling them terrorists, Congressmen, authors and the DHS are calling them terrorists. Have numerous reliable sources called them terrorists? Yes. Is the reputation of a gang of murderous thugs that intentionally massacre innocent civilians going to be injured by calling them terrorists? I can't see how. Lastly, this shouldn't go to ANI. This should go to WP:NPOVN. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Since there are reliable sources for each side of the argument, let's find the balance WP:Balance. Also, remember that Wikipedia describes disputes, but does not engage in them. When editors use contentious labels like "terrorists," there should be enough information to help the readers understand what the controversy is about, which in this case is not available WP:LABEL. We (just like scholars and politicians) will never completely agree on this; however, I feel that defining what the cartels are bests suits in articles like drug cartels, Mexican Drug War, or even in this same article, but in a different section. We can include BOTH sides and say why the Zetas are "terrorist" or why they are simply an "overgrown criminal group" or even an "insurgency." ComputerJA (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I love how we're are worried about how "contentious" the word terrorist is, but we freely use the word "massacre", which is a helluva charged term. I've never said that there is only one POV, but I have contended, and still do, that eliminating the word terrorist (in whatever form) is wrong because the very reliable sources DO use it and often explain why they use it. This isn't someone trying to make their personal POV take precendence. Again, the notion that thugs who engage in massacres (your word) probably aren't going to suffer from an image problem because we repeat the fact that the DHS calls them terrorists. Balance it however you want, but eliminating the term is wrong. It's NOT NPOV to eliminate it. In fact, given the quality of sources that used it, eliminating it would actually run counter to NPOV. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Niteshift36, that's why I asked the other users if they had other names for the section. It could also be "Attacks," "killings," "Zeta operatives" or whatever. Check out the al-Qaeda page, and you'll see that they simply put "Attacks" to all the operatives they've carried out (see: Al-Qaeda#attacks and Timeline of al-Qaeda attacks). Anyways, I feel that if we want to decide if the 2011 Tamaulipas massacre was a terrorist attack or not, we should decide it there and individually. When I edited the page, I made sure to include the testimonies of the witnesses, along with what the Zetas said after their arrests and what that the authorities thought about the whole thing. Again, I'm not saying they should not be called terrorists, because you clearly brought RS to the table; I just think the section's name should be changed. What the cartels are deserves a completely different section, because there are counter-arguments as reliable as yours for it. ComputerJA (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Los Zetas logo image[edit]

Godfather puppetmaster logo

Hey. I wanted to know if it is fine for me to upload the logo of Los Zetas to this article. I uploaded a picture on Horst Overdick's article from the U.S. federal government and it had a logo of Los Zetas. (See:Overdick-chart.pdf) Here's the logo too: [22]. Is it fine for me to upload it and put it on the infobox? ComputerJA (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I think such image is usesul. But it is unknown if it will stay; It depends on the Wikicommons Gestapo. I have had images I created myself or unique original family historical Air Force fotos I have in my possession that I released to the public domain, deleted for trivial reasons or for no reason at all. Give as much info as you can.... y seguira siendo un volado. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Alright. Hopefully they do not end up erasing them. Thanks :p ComputerJA (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Interesting logo, in use of the "Godfather puppetmaster logo" from the 1972 film [23], which the hand-and-puppet strings exactly copies. I guess the Mexican drug cartels are a little short of good creative graphic artists. SBHarris 00:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • You're right :p I've also seen this logo of Los Zetas a lot too. [24] They're used especially for shirts and caps. ComputerJA (talk) 07:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Here's another image [25] It may be useful. ComputerJA (talk) 05:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Simply "Los Zetas"?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Los Zetas CartelLos Zetas – reading the article, it seems that this subject's name is "Los Zetas" and not "Los Zetas Cartel". If anything, it should be "Los Zetas cartel", because the word "cartel" isn't part of its proper name. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true. I prefer to simply call them "Los Zetas," though. That's how they are usually called by the media and how they even call themselves. But the other Mexican criminal groups, like the Gulf Cartel, are fine like that, because that is there actual name. Do you think we should consider renaming the article? ComputerJA (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I was toying with the idea. Now that you've confirmed that 'Los Zetas' is the generally used name, I definitely think we ought to rename it. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 16:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree. I'm down for that. Let's wait for other recurrent editors to write down their opinion. Thank you! ComputerJA (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
In favor. BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
In favor. I took a very cursory look to Google News, and the argument seems correct. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
In favor. Mercy11 (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 Done - Since we all agree, I took the liberty to perform the move. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Anonymous Removal[edit]

The section involving Anonymous is both silly and speculative, and does not deserve the space that it has. I will remove it, and perhaps if it must exist it can with a link to another page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, remove the section. It based on an event that was planned to happen that didn't happened because of another event that wasn't proven to have happened. Doesn't need five paragraphs. --MarsRover (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
MarsRover, feel free to remove it or reduce the section entirely, merging it somewhere else. ComputerJA () 04:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Rumored split in Los Zetas: Lazcano vs. Z-40[edit]

Until this is confirmed, the information is still a rumor. WP:SPECULATION. Nonetheless, here's an article about the rumored split in the organization. It's pretty interesting. Maybe after it materializes (if it does), this publication can serve the article well. [26] ComputerJA (talk) 03:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

  • More info on the alleged rupture. I'll be adding links here from time to time just in case it is proven true. [27] ComputerJA (talk) 05:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Important update by SEMAR: Lazano & Trevinio (Z-40) were never at war: [28]. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


no mention of the leader since Morales' arrest? (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

YesY Thanks for noticing. I just added some info on the new leader, Omar Treviño Morales. Thanks, ComputerJA () 03:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Los Zetas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Los Zetas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Los Zetas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)