Talk:Zebra murders

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

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?

Contents 1 Editorializing in last section 2 Editorializing throughout 3 Saleem Erkat 4 One more thing... 5 Arrests

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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".

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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"?