Talk:Zebra murders

This is a sentence that is poorly written and has terrible grammatical errors which makes the sentence opaque, i don't know what the author was trying to say, here's the sentence in the Killing resume sentence in the last paragraph, "They went back to the friend's house in Vernon St., and while Shields was working at the back of the station wagon they boorowed for the rug he was shot repeatedly." Is that boorowed word supposed to be borrowed or burrowed?

Editorializing in last section

As abhorrant and gruesome as the murders may be, the last paragraph goes too far to say that there is a "continuing climate of anti-white setiment [sic] in the United States." so i changed this sentence. The author states that reverse racism is the reason there has been no media attention after the fact: this is only speculation. I also altered two other sentences I felt were dramatic hyperbole. It was my goal to exercise restraint. Perhaps others will want to look at this last paragraph/section and further revise it.

More generally I think this article lacks a style that is completely formalized. There are a few spelling/grammar errors, and much of the article is somewhat vague and speculative. I admit that I am ignorant to the facts of the cases.

Thanks for the feedback. I have to admit my mistakes on this article. The last paragraph was nicely done. I have heard of this case long time ago and I have to delve a lot on this. I have to admit that I editorialized on this; I should have exercised restraint on that. RashBold 18:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

No, it is NOT going to far. I don't care if you call me a "racist", or for that matter anything else you may want to call me, for saying so. The same applies to everyone else on here. Gringo300 01:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Editorializing throughout

"The zebra killings were the work of an extremist sect of the black nationalist group, the Nation of Islam. According to their beliefs, the white race was created by a black mad scientist named Yakub, who, some say, wanted a race of inferiors to rule over. Furthermore, the Death Angels believed that they could earn "points" towards Paradise when they died if they killed as many whites as possible. In their racist teachings, they saw the whites not as human beings, but as "blue-eyed devils" or "grafted snakes"."

I recommend clarifying in this passage that it is a fundamental tenant of NOI belief, and not just that of this subgroup of murderers, that whites are devils, created by a mad scientist etc and so on. Before he got a clue, Malcolm X believed this and I assume Louis Farrakhan still does as this was taught to the black muslims by the dishonorable Elijah Mohammed.

Although reasonably well written, this article appears to have a more sinister sub-text.

Throughout the article's history, repeated mention has been made of a California organization that at its least extreme would be considered a white advocacy group and at worst a racist front organization. Clearly the references are intended to pique readers' interest in this group.

Similarly, the one book on the topic referred to is a popular tract for white power groups. Finally, the last paragraphs made repeated references to the perceived guilt of multiple defendants who, like it or not, were acquited in court.

In deference to the efforts of the main contributors, I've deleted only these three elements. I will, however, flag the entire article for POV, as a wider range of source material should be considered. Ferg2k 06:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Tagging as 'controversial' rather than npov. I'm hoping for wider discussion on this.

Although speculative, the first removed section contains the beliefs of the investigating officers. They had reason to believe 71 murders were committed by the death angels which (given the membership requirements) would suggest more than the work of just four men. Since the task force confirmed 15 members by late 1973 would entail that as many as half of the bodies have not been found. Yes, the task force could be wrong, and the killings could be the work of the convicted only; but this would not be supported by Harris giving their details to the police, or how the police found evidence to suggest they were part of the group. I believe that there should be a mention of what the ZTF thought and why they belive it. Whether or not you agree with the statement "White Americans are more often cast and more easily seen as the perpetrators, not the victims, of hate crimes." is a matter for the individual and to be put to vote. I would Keep it based on what I see in the media and even here (until today the only race-related articles under the hate crimes category saw whites as the perpetrators). Ud terrorist 13:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I propose the first deleted section be replaced with the following

"While the Zebra killings were officially solved, the task force were not satisfied that all of the killers were caught. They had confirmed seventy-one initiation killings by the Death Angels in San Francisco and had reason to suspect recent murders in Berkley, Long Beach, Oakland, Pacifica, Palo Alto, San Diego, Santa Barbara, and Los Angeles were also the work of the group. This number would denote the involvement of more than the four convicted Death Angels; as many as 15 men were known to be members of the group, leaving open the possibility that death toll could pass one hundred. The end result would be that the Death Angels, whatever thier strength, were the most prolific american serial killer ring.

Ud terrorist 16:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

"Although speculative" is my key concern here. Wikipedia's principles of verifiability and NPOV require that any unproven statements be worded carefully. You might want to consider wording such as "some members of the task force" in place of attributing the view to the entire task force. You would also need to cite your sources for this.

Note that the offending deletions had wording the totally violated these principals in stating that persons who were acquitted in court were guilty after all. Whatever one's own views, the opinion of a court of law has to be given substantial weight. Ferg2k 16:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

This is typical banter for black apologists. Saying the evidence is only “speculative” is OUTRAGEOUS! Seven victims survived attacks at CLOSE RANGE and described the perpetrators as black. On top of that there were 108 witnesses to the crimes. And lastly Jessie Lee Cooks admitted to the crimes.

A more accurate and thorough article needs to be written on this case. (Anonymous User)

"Note that the offending deletions had wording the totally violated these principals in stating that persons who were acquitted in court were guilty after all. Whatever one's own views, the opinion of a court of law has to be given substantial weight. Ferg2k 16:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)"

No Zebra suspect was ever acquitted in a court of law. The persons who have repeatedly made this claim are either ignorant regarding the case or mendacious; in either event, they have zero credibility.

As for the beliefs of the Zebra Task Force, no one ever claimed that there were 71 Zebra murders in San Francisco. Gus Coreris did not believe that the NOI killings went beyond San Francisco. Whatever John Fotinos believed, he apparently took to the grave with him. The number 71 comes from Richard Walley of the California State Department of Justice, who was not a member of the ZTF. But Walley, who died in 1974, was talking about NOI death squads across the state. And there was no lack of corpses; the issue was whether all of the murders in question were NOI killings.

The feds were convinced that at the time, the NOI death squads operated on the East Coast, as well.

Clark Howard (1979) believed that the NOI murdered "just under 270" white Californians during the early 1970s, but he has never substantiated his figure, and he's since clammed up. 70.23.177.216 05:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The number of people murdered and the extent of NOI's involvement are aggravated issues. Clark Howard's book appears to be the only serious study of the murders, and though he appears to have done considerable research, his work is vitiated by its New Journalism approach, in which he hides his sources and dramatizes instead. He makes a pretty convincing case that the four convicted were just part of a larger movement, but Just citing his book appears to me to be insufficient, since usually we don't know where he got his information. cb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.23.156 (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Saleem Erkat

I removed the aside "(Saleem Erkat, although an Arab, was apparently mistaken for white)" because it is unscientific nonsense. There is no biological distinction between a "white" European and a "white-looking" Middle Easterner. There is no "whiteness gene" that is possessed by people living on one side of Istanbul and not the other. If a person appears white, then they will be treated as white, and that is the sole criterium for being "white". Just for good measure, I feel it's necessary to mention also that the terms "white" and "caucasian" are not coterminous, and that it's impossible for someone to "look Hispanic".

Yes, there's supposed Whites who have brown eyes, dark skin and black hair (the black Irish), they aren't White by the truest definition, a blonde- haired, blue eyed, Nordic person from Sweden is about as White as you can get, a Spanish- Turk isn't stricltly speaking White.

One more thing...

There is another reason why the Zebra murders were largely forgotten nationally: it was overtaken by events of a larger significance to the nation, the Watergate scandal which was reaching its climax at around that time. RashBold ^{Talk to me} 19:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The Zebra murders weren't forgotten; they were suppressed. In 2005, Marxist history professors at Southern Illinois University Carbondale took out an ad in the school newspaper, publicly condemning, and sought to destroy the career of a libertarian colleague, for merely giving his students an optional reading on the Zebra murders. Two years earlier, when two San Francisco Examiner reporters mentioned the murders in an article, they dishonestly reduced the number of dead to seven, and refused to mention the racial character of the killings. The Zebra murders were never "overtaken by events."

If I claimed "Jim Crow was overtaken by events," you'd stroke out.

Too many brainwashed Americans see racism in a loaf of white bread. Of course, as has been muttered by too many, only white people can be racist, right? RIGHT???!!!! 68.13.191.153 14:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Even white racists try to use the case for their own goals, a black hate crime is no less than a white hate crime. If anyone provides good references, I will solve WP:POV issues with the article. Kasaalan (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Arrests

"Almost at once, local black leaders denounced the arrests because of its apparent racist undertones". Wouldn't it be more correct to say that "local black leaders denounced the arrests on the grounds of their apparent racist undertones"? Unless, that is, it is always apparently racist to arrest someone because they are black. Or should I say "looks black"?

Wheelchair Users

Are not confined to their wheelchairs. Having a wheelchair means you aren't trapped in bed, as in the days before they were invented. It sucks to be paralyzed, but it's even worse to feel confined by a mobility aid.Berkeleysappho 11:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is a mess

Congratulations, many people have contributed to making this article such a mess of apologist/race baiting tripe that it can't even be edited properly. For example there is a neutrality tag, which ISN'T ADEQUATELY DISCUSSED ANYWHERE. Then there are the misused and misplaced source requests, and the obvious attempts to turn an article with a race related subject into yet more new-school apologism. If your goal is to turn this article into something that in no way references that the perpetrators were black, leave because your input is useless and unwelcome, and probably vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.29.215 (talk) 14:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a complete mess. So much information like only one temple was involved and the scope was limited to and so forth and so on. Every attempt has been made to exclude facts to narrow the scope as much as possible. It should be deleted and rewritten by someone with understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.78.119 (talk) 07:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Shockingly bad article. The problem is that these appalling hate crimes have become somewhat 'totemic' for the far right. They are frequently referenced on forums like Stormfront.org and even by groups such as the BNP in England as an attempt to prove that "Whites, not Blacks, are the real victims of racism". Another, related issue is that the liberal intelligentsia probably have conspired not to discuss or publicize them for the reasons of PC. We need a fair and balanced article by people without an ax to grind Irisismykid (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

article

This article is mostly unsourced, and most of the sources are not in the mainstream. If there was a massive murder spree by blacks against whites, I think the mainstream press would have covered it somewhat. I am removing much of the statements without mainstream citations. Ruy Lopez (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Readded, and I re-removed them tonight. Those sections have been unsourced for almost ten months, they need reliable sourcing before they appear on Wikipedia. Dayewalker (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

They did. Remember the Rodney King riots? The San Francisco press is a little more "culturally sympathetic" and it's easily believable that it wouldn't have received massive coverage.

270 Murders

Two IPs have been adding the following information to the lede. "They were part of a larger racially-motivated murder spree committed by black Muslims in which approximately 270 whites were killed in Northern California."

I've deleted this twice as unsourced, the most recent addition was sourced to a called "The Zebra Project," which isn't a reliable source. This number seems way off to me, but I'm certainly not going to edit war over it. Does anyone have a better source for the total? It seems that if 270 people were killed, there would be far more reliable sources in this article. Dayewalker (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)