Talk:1999 Tulia drug arrests/Archive 1

bizarre article that doesn't mention bob herbert's role
bizarre article that doesn't mention bob herbert's role. Bob Herbert was crucial to this case. How could this article fail to mention his role in any way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.39.78.68 (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

History POV
I've placed the POV tag because of the blatant POV of the section against the way in which the trial was conducted. Whether or not this is true, it should not be dramatised this way; as WP:NPOV says, even Hitler we don't call a bad man — we simply let the facts speak for themselves. Moreover, I see articles on the bottom, but this is otherwise unreferenced. Nyttend (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This piece reads more like an ad for a movie than an encyclopedia article. The information presented is incomplete and clearly biased (though one could hardly fault it for that, given the nature of media coverage surrounding the entire event; it's difficult to find any other information at all). Information about the local personalities involved (Bean, Gardner, and Blackburn) would help to make things seem a bit more even-handed. But, of course, any facts in this case will be viewed one way by one camp and another way by the other. If nothing else, why is the section on the drug bust at the top? Archer884 (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)archer884

Expanding the article
I think the Tulia incident should be it's own stand-alone article. That way, more points of view could be presented. That said...As to the perceived bias, the fact is that a miscarriage of justice had occurred, based on undisputed facts. You could argue about the good guys and the bad guys in this drama forever and a day, but the facts are facts. In this day and age, we cannot downgrade things like this. It is a short and slippery slope we live on, and freedom can easily be taken away, even if we like to believe it couldn't happen here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.103.114.107 (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The use of emotionally-laden verbiage ("miscarriage of justice"?) in an attempt to make a point unassailable serves mostly to demonstrate that the point is not so easily defended as to be immune to reasonable attack. You could argue from your white tower forever and a day, but the facts here are sparse and well-spun (not to mention universally disputed). Even the article itself appears clearly biased, as evinced by the presence of un-cited judgments by the author (lines like "essentially an impossible feat for an undercover officer working alone" come to mind) and the entirely empty "History" section at the top. J.M. Archer (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Bias? Please. The undisputed facts in the Tulia Incident are documented. A renegade law officer cut corners and fudged facts. At the very least, it was shoddy police work on a grand scale. It wasn't until hard questions were asked by the right people that this were brought to light. I don't know what rock you crawled out from under, but the news stories clearly implicated Tom Coleman in a miscarriage of justice. If it's just a matter of finding citations for the stories (they can be googled y'all), some one should verify and add them. I do agree this should be an article unto itself, for its implications in the US Justice System. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swilliamrex (talk • contribs) 04:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * At the risk of engaging in original research, how can a single man in a community of 120 males buy drugs from 40 of them, and not get noticed? The article may be poorly cited, but that is not evidence of bias. Also, how else would one call the squashing of 40-some related convictions other than a miscarriage of justice? Pietrow ☏ 18:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Who on earth ever claimed Coleman didn't get noticed? He's been accused of being an idiot, a liar, and a bigot. No one has ever accused him of being sneaky.


 * J.M. Archer (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Additionally, Pietrow: the "miscarriage of justice" referred to above is the convictions themselves, not the fact that they were thrown out. J.M. Archer (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the Tulia incident deserves its own article, which should certainly by cited in the currently existing Tulia article. Although the current article is a good effort in many ways, I can't help but feel that the part about the incident should be expanded. For one thing, I think that more should be said about the many people who worked to undo (not in the Wikipedia sense) the injustice, and the course of the appeals that eventually led to the freeing of the wrongfully convicted. I feel that this was a significant event, not just in terms of the number of persons affected, but also as a example of how, even with the safeguards present in the American criminal justice system, things can go so terribly wrong.Truth Is King 24 (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I am astonished that the Tulia 46 drug sting does not yet have its own Wikipedia page ! Please would someone knowledgeable on the matter remedy this ? Perhaps someone could nudge a local journalist ? Many thanks ! Darkman101 (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Expansion - 1999 drug arrest scandal
I would like to explore separating this section into its own article. I want to keep the meat of it the same, expanding it to cover both sides, better written and with better references. If people show interest, I will start a draft page that others can join in on. Let me know here if you think this is a good idea. Jake Jakubowski Talk 04:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)