Jump to content

Talk:South African farm attacks: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
SineBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
2,554,072 edits
m Signing comment by 176.89.110.146 - "→Fact checkers: "
 
(182 intermediate revisions by 66 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
{{controversial}}
{{controversial}}
{{Calm}}
{{Calm}}
{{WikiProject South Africa|class=Start |importance=Mid |attention= }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject South Africa|importance=Mid}}
}}
{{Image requested|in=South Africa}}
{{Image requested|in=South Africa}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo=old(180d)
| algo=old(180d)
| archive=Talk:South African farm attacks/Archive %(counter)d
| archive=Talk:South African farm attacks/Archive %(counter)d
| counter=4
| counter=6
| maxarchivesize=75K
| maxarchivesize=75K
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}}
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}}
Line 14: Line 17:
}}
}}


== "Blacks" and "whites" outside of quotes ==


"Unsubstantiated claims that such attacks on farmers disproportionately target whites", "Proponents of the theory that farm attacks disproportionately target whites point", and "Some South African blacks...".


Look, this might come from a non-SA point of view, but I do think such phrasings come off as a bit shocking for your a good chunk of global English readers, so could we reconsider rephrasing these? [[Special:Contributions/2803:4600:1116:12E7:590A:EE54:1EDB:5A80|2803:4600:1116:12E7:590A:EE54:1EDB:5A80]] ([[User talk:2803:4600:1116:12E7:590A:EE54:1EDB:5A80|talk]]) 07:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
== Neutrality Discussion ==

{{not a ballot}}
I realize this is a sensitive issue, but Wikipedia has to maintain neutrality.Bhistory 13:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Any discussions are welcome here with regards to the neutrality of the article contents and future contents Bhistory 09:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Boershistory|Boershistory]] ([[User talk:Boershistory#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Boershistory|contribs]]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Also note that this article should not be used as original research for the purpose of establishing a conspiracy theory nor should it be used for the purpose of debunking any. This is where the lead needs to stay neutral to the content of the article.Bhistory 11:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Boershistory|Boershistory]] ([[User talk:Boershistory#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Boershistory|contribs]]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

The following sentence is misleading and not a representation of what the reference article:

While South Africa has more white farmers overall, black farm workers are more likely to be killed.<ref name="702burgerafriforumworkers"/><ref name="farFromBlackWhiteSmh">{{cite news |url=https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/blood-in-the-dust-the-plight-of-south-african-farmers-is-far-from-black-or-white-20180622-p4zn6u.html |title=Blood in the dust: The plight of South African farmers is far from black or white |first=Jewel |last=Topsfield |date=23 June 2018 |newspaper=[[The Sydney Morning Herald]] |accessdate=20 August 2018}}</ref>

Problems with the sentince:

According to the reference, demographically there are more white farmers than black farmers, and more black farm workers than white farm workers and therefore the reason that mostly white farmers are attacked vs black farmers and more black workers than white workers. Yet the statement in the lead conveys that there are more white farmers and yet more black workers gets killed thereby creating a skewed representation of what the reference articles had in mind.
Proposed Sentence restructure (establishing a balanced sentence):

White farmers and black farm workers are more likely to be targeted during farm attacks owning to the demographics on South African farms.<ref name="702burgerafriforumworkers"/><ref name="farFromBlackWhiteSmh">{{cite news |url=https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/blood-in-the-dust-the-plight-of-south-african-farmers-is-far-from-black-or-white-20180622-p4zn6u.html |title=Blood in the dust: The plight of South African farmers is far from black or white |first=Jewel |last=Topsfield |date=23 June 2018 |newspaper=[[The Sydney Morning Herald]] |accessdate=20 August 2018}}</ref> * Signed by [[User:Boershistory|Boershistory]] <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Boershistory|Boershistory]] ([[User talk:Boershistory#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Boershistory|contribs]]) 07:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)</small>

:The source currently specifically cites an ''expert'', saying that {{tq|"He adds that there are more black farm workers being killed, which could be representative of the demographics on farms. Burger says that just because, demographically there are more white farmers, it does not mean that black farmers are not being killed. The main take away for this is that farm murders are not about race, according to Burger."}} Your source quotes an activist, whose personal opinions are presented as a [[WP:FRINGE]] position and whose interpretation obviously cannot be described as fact in the text. This is in the context of the sentence before it (which is Berger's main point), that {{tq|However, there are no reliable figures that suggest that white farmers are being targeted in particular or that they are at a disproportionate risk of being killed.}} <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Aquillion|contribs]]) 11:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)</small>

The source you mention is an existing one whereby the existing sentence in misleading and therefore unbalanced since it ignores the demographics as stated in the source. Thus the problem is with the existing sentence. If you find the source not to be reliable then the entire source, reference and preceding sentence should not be included at all...? Why keep an existing sentence (which is presented as fact) as it is when its unbalanced and in your opinion unreliable?Bhistory 14:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Boershistory|Boershistory]] ([[User talk:Boershistory#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Boershistory|contribs]]) 14:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)</small>

I believe you may remove the sentence entirely if you find it to be incorrect however, reverting a correction thereto, which attempts to establish a balance and neutrality, is not an improvement to the article. Furthermore, since its an existing source it is not one I initially introduced. I merely checked if the article information was correctly utilized.Bhistory 15:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Boershistory|Boershistory]] ([[User talk:Boershistory#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Boershistory|contribs]]) 15:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)</small>

Hi, I have done a due diligence check on Johan Burgher [https://www.africaportal.org/contributors/johan-burger/] [https://issafrica.org/about-us/how-we-work] and I did not find anything presenting a [[WP:FRINGE]] position as you mentioned. However, feel free to share any info you might think to convince otherwise. Furthermore, with regards to the existing sentence which I have fixed, if you look at other locations were the source is used it confirms the structure of proposed sentence: you will find that the sentence {{tq|targeting farmers, who are usually white, and farm workers, who are usually black}} as an existing sentence in the opening lead. We therefore have a problem if you intend to keep the sentence (which you maintained by reverting my edit) as is. For now I do not agree that keeping an existing sentence which is misleading should take priority over fixing a sentence therefore I disagree with your action to revert the edit. Feel free to delete entirely the existing sentence then if you find the source to be in a [[WP:FRINGE]] position. But keep the edit as to not maintain confusion for the sake of the readers who do not always confirm through due diligence themselves.Bhistory 06:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Boershistory|Boershistory]] ([[User talk:Boershistory#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Boershistory|contribs]]) 06:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)</small>

:You edit was worded in a confusing way that doesn't seem appropriate for an encyclopedia. The above comments are also confusingly written, but I believe this suggests that you have misunderstood the cited sources. To put it simply, many sources explain that reliable statistics on race are scant, and documented attacks on black farmers and farm workers are under-reported by media. Wikipedia cannot misrepresent sources to falsely legitimize a fringe narrative. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 07:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
{{ref talk}}

: Hi [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] thanks for your reply. Neither misrepresentation nor fringe narrative intended. Only a rectification of a misleading sentence that is {{tq|While South Africa has more white farmers overall, black farm workers are more likely to be killed.}} As you said, Wikipedia should not misrepresent sources. And I agree. The problem I have with the sentence is that it can easily be interpreted as the following; {{tq|South Africa has more white farmers overall yet black farm workers are more likely to be killed.}} If you believe that I have misunderstood the cited sources then of course there will be others who will do the same resulting from the above mentioned sentence. Yet I do not believe that I have misunderstood the source because what I have proposed to change concurs with an existing sentence in the lead which states that {{tq|targeting farmers, who are usually white, and farm workers, who are usually black}}. Johan Burgher mention that there are more white farmers than black farmers, and more black workers than white workers, thus demographics is a contributing factor in farm attack victims. I still believe that by continuing to allow the sentence to read {{tq|While South Africa has more white farmers overall, black farm workers are more likely to be killed.}} will allow different interpretations. With a page such as this with a history of attempted vandalism one would think that an improvement, clarification and neutrality will be welcomed, yet I find the opposite to be true. [[User:Boershistory|BHistory]] 08:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
::This is still very confusing. It can be interpreted as... almost the exact same sentence? What are you saying? You have not properly explained the difference between the "right" and "wrong" interpretations. More black farm workers have been killed then white farm workers. You say that {{tq|...demographics is a contributing factor in farm attack victims}}. No, sorry, that's not supported by sources.
::[[Correlation does not imply causation]]. They are not necessarily targeted ''because'' of their "demographics". Most of the victims were, presumably, right-handed, that doesn't mean that victims where "targeted" based on their [[handedness]], or that it "contributed" to them being targeted. If that's not what you meant, I don't understand what you talking about. The point made by many sources is that this is an unfounded assumption. Your proposed edit misleadingly states that they are "targeted" because of their race, which absolutely not supported by sources.
::The only point of confusion I see here is that some readers will not realize that "farmers" are not the same category as "farm workers". Your proposal doesn't address this problem, however. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 22:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

: Hi [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] thanks for your interaction and response. I am glad that you pointed out the category of farmers and farm workers as it is indeed at the core of the problematic sentence structure. When one closely study the source, start with the heading: {{tq|More black farm 'workers' are killed than white farm 'workers' - Johan Burger}} it does not say '''More black farmers are killed than white farmers''' here is the difference and also where demographics come into play. It is surely an error to now mix up the farmer and farm worker by stating that {{tq|While South Africa has more white farmers overall, black farm workers are more likely to be killed.}} I find the sentence structure to be improper and not a representation of what the source meant, hence why I have attempted to rectify the sentence to include both categories but without avail, I would therefore be happy (as a compromise) if the sentence is removed entirely since its a misinterpretation of the source. [[User:Boershistory|BHistory]] ([[User talk:Boershistory|talk]]) 06:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

::The article does '''not''' say "More black farmers are killed than white farmers", so this is not a misinterpretation of the source. What the article says is fully consistent with sources. This is an informative and important point, and providing context is the purpose of encyclopedia articles, so your repeated proposal to simply remove it (regardless of motives) is misguided, at best. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 08:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

: Hi I agree it does not say that "More black farmers are killed than white farmers", it was an explanatory/exemplary comment to put into perspective since you did find it confusing. But it does say {{tq|While South Africa has more white '''farmers''' overall, black farm '''workers''' are more likely to be killed.}} which differs greatly from {{tq|More black farm '''workers''' are killed than white farm '''workers''' - Johan Burger}} and therefore the sentence is not correct and cannot be maintained. The sentence in itself compares white '''farmers''' to the deaths of black farm '''workers''' which is simply a strange statement and I cannot fathom why the sentence is constructed the way it is since the source is quite clear. If for informative purposes the sentence has failed to inform correctly. If for context it has failed to adequately portray the context of the article. By comparing farmers to workers in such a manner is at the core. If one deconstruct the sentence even further one would easily see the trouble. '''Statement 1 = While South African has more white farmers overall, Statement 2 = black farm workers are more likely to be killed.''' Its like comparing apples to oranges. Note the comma between the two statements unifying these statements. Statement 1 is followed by an explanation as if saying '''South Africa has more white farmers overall yet black farm workers are more likely to be killed'''. If you wish to keep the sentence as it is I am in disagreement with it. I have clearly explained why it is defective in a transparent manner. I'm sure there are other means to 'inform' and placing into 'context' that black workers are being killed than to maintain a defective sentence such as this. Do you have any proposals for correction or to maybe highlight Statement 2 in another way if that is you main concern? [[User:Boershistory|BHistory]] ([[User talk:Boershistory|talk]]) 08:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

::I dispute many of your statements here, but to avoid getting bogged-down in details, here is a proposal for discussion:
:::{{tq|While South Africa has more white farmers than black farmers, black farmers are also victims of farm attacks. Among workers, black farm workers are far more likely to be killed than white farm workers.}}
::I think the word "targeted" is unnecessarily inflammatory in this context. We must be very cautious not to create the impression that criminals are specifically selecting victims based on race, and avoiding the term "targeted" makes this a bit easier. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 22:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

:I agree about the term 'targeted' if used may create the wrong impression.
:The proposed sentence is much better than the existing one, but its should also be balanced. In this instance one should refer back to the source for guidance. Which tastes the following;
:::{{tq|“It is true that, if you look at just farmers, it is still mostly white farmers who get attacked. But that does not mean that black farmers and black workers are not killed.”}}
:::{{tq|He adds that there are more black farm workers being killed, which could be representative of the demographics on farms}}
:In order to balance this one have to consider the following from the source;
:{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Profession !! Quantity !! Likely to be attacked/killed
|-
| Farmers || More white farmers than black farmers || White farmers more likely
|-
| Workers || More black workers than white workers || Black workers more likely

|}
:Its now easier to understand why the source mentions demographics as representation.
:Follow this link to find and article on the quantities of murders on black and white which has reference to the source. For additional reading.[https://www.pressreader.com/south-africa/sunday-tribune-south-africa/20180107/281771334581449]
:Back to the sentence you propose: {{tq|While South Africa has more white farmers than black farmers, black farmers are also victims of farm attacks. Among workers, black farm workers are far more likely to be killed than white farm workers.}}
:I think it would be unfair to only emphasize the likelihood of black farm workers being far more likely to be victims and ignoring the likelihood of white farmers being far more likely to be victims. The word 'far' is also an over exaggeration 'far more likely' should rather be 'more likely'.
:Could we look at balancing the sentence maybe to something like;
:::{{tq|Demographically speaking South Africa has more white farmers than black farmers and although white farmers are more likely to be victims, black farmers are also killed. Among the worker class, farm workers are mostly black and are more likely to be killed than their white counterparts.}}
:We should be careful to make a balanced representation here because this is indeed a sensitive issue and victims are both black and white, farmer and worker etc. Looking forward to your feedback[[User:Boershistory|BHistory]] ([[User talk:Boershistory|talk]]) 07:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

::Your proposed edit is fundamentally confusing. There are multiple ways it could be interpreted, and some of them are contrary to sources. It would be totally inappropriate to say that white farmers are "more likely" to be victims. We do not know if an individual white farmer is more likely to be a victim than an individual black farmer, nor is it clear that race is the causal factor. Phrasing it as you have implies that it is a causal factor, which is directly disputed by multiple sources. This is a point Burger hammers on in all three of these sources. Would anyone claim that white and black farmers are otherwise completely equivalent in terms of wealth, location, and security? Of course not. These are individuals being murdered by other individuals, and we cannot choose just one factor in isolation while ignoring all the rest. So ''why'' would this detail matter in isolation? This is why saying "demographically speaking" is loaded. "Demographics" doesn't mean "race". Filler like this decreases clarity and allows for editorializing. As I hope you have noticed, almost every substantial source on this topic repeats how difficult it is to even compile basic statistics. Using statistics to imply conclusions is [[WP:OR]] (among other problems) and is unacceptable. In this case it is especially inappropriate, because sources directly dispute this conclusion. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 21:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

:Hi, your objection is vague. Please show me the same courtesy I have shown you when you dispute or make a recommendation to provide a clear explanation it would be helpful if you provide specific examples or extracts from the source. Nevertheless I will try to understand. You object the term 'more likely' yet is one you introduced initially. I'm sure we can propose an edit to not include the term 'more likely' if its a cause for confusion. When you say {{tq|"demographically speaking" is loaded. "Demographics" doesn't mean "race".}} apart from your opinion, here are some definitions of the word "demographics";

:::{{tq|"What Is Demographics? Demographics is the study of a population based on factors such as age, race, and sex. Governments, corporations, and nongovernment organizations use demographics to learn more about a population's characteristics for many purposes, including policy development and economic market research"}} find the link to the source here [https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/demographics.asp]
:::{{tq|"Statistical data relating to the population and particular groups within it"}} find the link to the source here [https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/demographics]

:Back to the proposed sentence {{tq|Demographically speaking South Africa has more white farmers than black farmers and although white farmers are more likely to be victims, black farmers are also killed. Among the worker class, farm workers are mostly black and are more likely to be killed than their white counterparts.}} taking into consideration your objections above it can easily be amended to the following;

:::{{tq|Although the majority of farmers being killed are white, black farmers are also murdered. Among the farm workers, of whom the majority are black, its mostly black workers being killed.}}

:I hope you find this revision well. [[User:Boershistory|BHistory]] ([[User talk:Boershistory|talk]]) 06:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Look at how long this sections is. Look at how many paragraphs you have posted over this. This is becoming [[WP:CIVILPOV]], all over a single sentence.
In addition to being very awkward wording, it also appears that your goal is to emphasize that white people are the victims. This is a waste of time, and a distortion of the stated intent of reliable sources. These sources specifically say, over and over, that we cannot assume that this is about race. This is the reason that Burger mentions that black workers are victims. If you cannot evaluate a source in context, there is nothing more that can be said. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 18:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

:Hi [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] your comment above is truly unfair.[[User:Boershistory|BHistory]] ([[User talk:Boershistory|talk]]) 19:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


:As an American, I have no idea what you find shocking about this phrasing. People talk like that all across the English speaking world [[Special:Contributions/118.231.129.28|118.231.129.28]] ([[User talk:118.231.129.28|talk]]) 03:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::Copy/pasting definition of "demographics" with a couple of arbitrarily selected sources is not a productive use of our time. Both of those sources support that demographics is not ''exclusively'' about race, and if you are acting in good faith, I trust that you would realize that's what I meant.
::Starting this with "Although" is a form of editorializing, as it presents this as somehow exceptional. The sources '''do not''' present this as exceptional, they present it as expected. Your proposal also emphasizes that most workers are black as a reason they are murdered, but fails to do this for white farmers! Since I have already explained my position that sources do not support this, I maintain that this is editorializing.
::If you cannot address the substance of these issues, focusing on the specific grammatical problems will not be productive. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 19:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


:It's standard South African English usage, especially when talking about race. [[MOS:EUPHEMISM]] would seem to apply. [[User:Park3r|Park3r]] ([[User talk:Park3r|talk]])
:[[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] I get the impression that you do not want to fix the sentence at all. You are acting as both admin and editor, butcher and shepherd, judge and jury. I surely have made a lot of compromises, and I seem to be the only one doing so. People who work will have a higher chance getting their hands dirty, but the work needs to be done. I have presented edits and were mostly met with disdain. I have hoped to solve this problem in the talk page with your assistance but its difficult with your downgrading comments and continual reverts. What we need here is an impartial perspective and therefore we have to consider dispute resolution.[[User:Boershistory|BHistory]] ([[User talk:Boershistory|talk]]) 07:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


== Article is biased. Four key elements excluded which points towards a more balanced view of the article ==
::"Continual reverts" is nonsense, and if you seriously want a discussion, knock it off with that. I have made two reverts to this article in the past month, and have tried to explain why I think your edits are inappropriate. You started this discussion with a warning template presuming that other editors are coming from somewhere else, but you haven't explained where you would jump to that assumption. One of your first comments here was how Wikipedia is not the place to debunk conspiracy theories, but this is not quite right. As an encyclopedia, we challenge misconceptions, including conspiracy theories. Reliable sources debunk these conspiracy theories, and so do we. These farm attacks are deeply connected to [[WP:FRINGE]] perspectives, and we, as editors, are not obligated to play stupid to this to humor unreliable sources or individual editors. We do not need to use OR to challenge this conspiracy, so warning against that only poisons the well for real discussion.
{{hat|Wikipedia isn't a platform for [[WP:OR|original research]]}}
::Just now you have accused me of getting my hands too dirty, while also... not getting them dirty enough? Just because I disagree with you don't mean you are impartial and I am not. You say you have made a lot of "compromises" but the burden is still on you to get consensus. You've complained about this single sentence for weeks now, and have not adequately addressed my concerns. I have tried very hard to explain the problems with your proposals. What kind "compromise" do you expect from that?
The easiest thing in life, is using statistics to prove a point which is not necessarily true; often citing references out of context. This is especially evident where the writers themselves are unable to disconnect their emotion and bias from a scenario in favour of being objective (even of that implies them writing things which they themselves do not necessarily support in their heart, in an effort to remain objective and true).
::I assume, from your use of terms like "downgrading comments", that you are not a native English speaker, is that correct? I am trying to be more accommodating for this reason, but your choice of words is confusing. Setting aside ''why'' your wording is confusing, it is still inappropriate, and will misrepresent a subtle point. The end result is wording that subtly, but fundamentally, misrepresents sources. This is totally unacceptable. If that is not your intention, good! Please slow down and try and understand what I am saying and why this is a problem.
::Forget the precise wording for now, and explain what you want the article to say in your own words. I believe the substance of the current sentence is important, so I block consensus on removing it completely. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 09:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


For instance: "The most dangerous thing in the world, is a bed, because most people in the world, die on a bed." So at all cost, please stay away from a bed!
::I'm just responding in order to get to the point at hand. The edit is not supposed to take away any substance, I just want to correct and balance the existing sentence because of the reasons already mentioned. If I could place the words directly from the source I would have, but it will obviously be a copyright violation. So if I consider your objections on the edit you reverted; you don't like the word 'although' (I am struggling to understand this double standards because the existing sentence starts with 'although') never mind. You also object to only mentioning that most workers are black, and not mentioning this about the white farmers. Considering your objections the revised edit will look like this;
:::{{tq|Among the farmers, the majority of whom are white, its mostly white farmers being killed, still, its important to note that black farmers are also murdered during farm attacks. Among the farm workers, of whom the majority are black, its mostly black workers being killed.}} [[User:Boershistory|BHistory]] ([[User talk:Boershistory|talk]]) 13:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
::::Completely unacceptable. The source you're citing summarizes it as follows: {{tq|Burger says that just because, demographically there are more white farmers, it does not mean that black farmers are not being killed. '''The main take away for this is that farm murders are not about race, according to Burger.'''}} Your rewrite leaves out that vital bit of final context in a way that uses Burger's argument to present the opposite of what he was saying. We use secondary sources to provide context, interpretation and analysis, not [[WP:OR]]. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 14:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


Yes, this is statistically correct, but the conclusion is wrong, because it does not take medical reasons behind humanity's tendency to die during sleep, into consideration.
:Hi [[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] the existing sentence needed to be fixed or removed. Since you have removed the entire part, I have no objection. Thanks. [[User:Boershistory|BHistory]] ([[User talk:Boershistory|talk]]) 09:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


Now, take into account 4 of the following facts (none of which is included in the above article, and all which can be found if searched on Google):
== Attribution: Afriforum ==


1.) Part of the key elements to build unity during various banned political groups during Apartheid, was to sing certain songs to build unity in the ranks of its members (who were often banned by the Apartheid Government due to acts of terrorism). One key song was (and still is) "''Kill the farmer, Kill the boer''". Would this, under no instance, whatsoever, influence SOME people to kill farmers?
/* Possible motives */ Attribution: Copied from [[Afriforum]] on the 27th of June 2019 Content Summary: Expansion on the land ownership as well as the number of farmers. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Boershistory|Boershistory]] ([[User talk:Boershistory#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Boershistory|contribs]]) 10:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


2.) The singing of abovementioned song was taken to court, due to the ex-leader of the ruling ANC's youth wing leader (who became leader of the political activist group, EFF), still singing the song publicly at gatherings. The court deemed it not to be racially driven and not banning the song, since it forms part of the country's cultural Heritage. The same (ANC government appointed) court, banned the old Apartheid National flag from being displayed, since that encited hatred. If this was in any other country, would the courts have ruled the same? Are these not both equal (but altering) parts of the same coin?
== Copyright problem removed ==


3.) The South African Government stopped reporting (or even documenting) racial statistics on victims and perpetrators of crimes, a few years post Apartheid. On the other hand, many other official government forms still require racial information "for statistical purposes", such as when applying for a job. So the "existence" of facts supporting racial motivation, does therefore not exist and any other source who documents such info is unfortunately deemed as "inciting" or being racially biased and therefore viewed as being untrue (irrespective of whether it may be true or not).
[[File:Copyright-problem.svg|32px]] Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.radiofreesouthafrica.com/bury-alive-white-south-africans-fear-future-horrific-farm-attacks-escalate. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, ''unless'' it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see [[WP:COPYRIGHT#Using copyrighted work from others|"using copyrighted works from others"]] if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or [[WP:Donating copyrighted materials|"donating copyrighted materials"]] if you are.)


4.) A list of victims of farm murders (not farm attacks) are documented (by friends/family members) on a stone wall in Bothaville on the site of the biggest Agricultural Show Premises (NAMPO). It is listed per name and per region and can therefore be traced to verify accuracy. This list is already quite expansive. (Noted, this is the only instance where Wikipedia doesmention one line on this, but it eludes to elaborate to the potential significance thereof to prove or disprove the narrative of the article). In addition to the above, no details of the exact court reports on the vehement nature of some of the attacks (which can be verified from court archives) are mentioned. The details and the magnitude of some of these attacks which are sometimes committed on belated children, may guide the reader to gain insight to form his/her comclusion.
For [[WP:Copyrights|legal reasons]], we cannot accept [[WP:Copyrights|copyrighted]] text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of ''information'', and, if allowed under [[fair use]], may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and [[WP:CS|referenced]] properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original ''or'' [[WP:Plagiarism|plagiarize]] from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our [[WP:NFC#Text|guideline on non-free text]] for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations '''very seriously''', and persistent violators '''will''' be [[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. <!-- Template:Cclean --> [[User:StudiesWorld|StudiesWorld]] ([[User talk:StudiesWorld|talk]]) 12:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


In the end, it comes across that Wikipedia unfortunately fails during the course of this article in providing objectivity. It states conclusions, based on seemingly filtered reports and leaves out many opposing views or seems to wade much of it down which comes across as having rendered judgement on what is fact and what is not.
*Additional problems with the recent edits include [[WP:NPOV]] as we should not be making claims such as that these attacks are terrorist in nature in Wikipedia's voice. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


It does not mind how much an editor agrees or disagrees with certain facts. It is not the purpose of the editor to choose the conclusion. A reviewer and editor needs to objectively state ALL opposing views, leaving the reader to choose what conclusion he or she whats to come to.
It seems there is a selected group of editors working 24 hours per day to delete and block anything and anyone who edit information/vision of the subject that disagrees with the opinion and views of this group. Anything suggesting that white farmers are victms of extreme violence is deleted and the editor blocked. Someone deleted my editing(just one phrase and citing an australian serious newspaper) and "justified" it just saying my editind was not "constructive". Wish such degree of biased edting behaviour, it is becoming ridiculous the lack of even try to disguise the level of partisanship. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Rogerbacon123|Rogerbacon123]] ([[User talk:Rogerbacon123#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Rogerbacon123|contribs]]) 14:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


It has scientifically proven that with identical twins who have an alcolholic father, that the one child becomes an alcoholic and the other does not. When enquiring as to the driving factor behind they themselves reverting go alcoholism or not, both provided the exact same reason: "Because my father was an alcoholic."
Hi Rogerbacon123, it will be a sad day when this article is no longer open to new information which might improve this article in a truthful an transparent manner. Therefore its necessary to voice your concerns. There is no reason for you to stop being involved. You may always turn to this talk page and start a discussion, invite the editor who did the revert to discuss the reasons and clarify your initial edit. Become more involved and invoke transparency. Having a user page also helps a lot, its a place where other editors can make contact and many are willing to help newcomers with tips and procedures. [[User:Boershistory|BHistory]] ([[User talk:Boershistory|talk]]) 11:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


Can we therefore please avoid trying to state a conclusion, but rather give all sides in a balanced and objective way and rather leave the reader to decide what to be true or not? [[Special:Contributions/196.253.245.154|196.253.245.154]] ([[User talk:196.253.245.154|talk]]) 08:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
== material copyrighted at radio free south africa ==


:Unfortunately, Wikipedia isn't a place for balanced perspectives. [[User:ChonokisFigueroa|ChonokisFigueroa]] ([[User talk:ChonokisFigueroa|talk]]) 19:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Please discuss before readding. This looks like a straight forward use of material copyrighted elsewhere. Even if an intermediate source used it, we cannot use it here.&nbsp; [[User:Dlohcierekim|Dlohcierekim]] ([[User talk:Dlohcierekim|talk]]) 17:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
:Well said [[Special:Contributions/83.83.206.27|83.83.206.27]] ([[User talk:83.83.206.27|talk]]) 17:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
::Wikipedia isn't a platform for [[WP:OR|original research]]. These "elements" are not actionable, and cannot become actionable as presented. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 20:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
{{hab}}


== Conspiracy theory? ==
== Using material from Africaans Wikipedia ==


In what way is it a "conspiracy theory"? It isn't. [[Special:Contributions/47.185.120.223|47.185.120.223]] ([[User talk:47.185.120.223|talk]]) 17:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
"Research by the Institute for Security Studies found that a farmer's chance of being killed is almost four times greater than that of an ordinary citizen and twice as large as that of a police officer." (Translated by Google.)


:In the way the [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] describe it [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 17:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Reference ("Plaasmoorde: Dié wat agterbly". Netwerk24.com. 9 Oktober 2014. Besoek op 5 Mei 2016.) is in Africaans and requires registration or subscription. However, as it is acceptable on Africaans Wikipedia, it is likely acceptable on English as well. The current article, "South African farm attacks", suffers from a lack of reliable data, which the reference provides. [[Special:Contributions/23.121.191.18|23.121.191.18]] ([[User talk:23.121.191.18|talk]]) 19:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
::In other words, in the way that left-biased "reliable sources" are only used as references. Meanwhile sources with high reliability like [[The Citizen (South African newspaper)]], are conveniently excluded.
::https://ground.news/interest/the-citizen_8f4e4d
::https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-citizen-south-africa/
::Instead mixed reliability sources, especially left-biased mixed reliability sources and outdated articles linked from said sources, are preferred. This is a fact. [[User:ChonokisFigueroa|ChonokisFigueroa]] ([[User talk:ChonokisFigueroa|talk]]) 19:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
:::It's the standard biased practice on Wikipedia, sadly. They claim the content must be from a neutral point of view, while only allowing sources they deem "reliable" which all coincidentally have the same ideological bias. It's essentially become a political propaganda outlet. [[User:Noxian16|Noxian16]] ([[User talk:Noxian16|talk]]) 23:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
::Evergreenfir, while it may not be the definition of genocide yet, the calls made to violence are genocidal level, and that was mentioned none. [[User:Bopswiki914|Bopswiki914]] ([[User talk:Bopswiki914|talk]]) 14:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
:::Why was my comment removed? Guess (((they're))) trying to shut me down? Oy vey. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/176.89.110.146|176.89.110.146]] ([[User talk:176.89.110.146#top|talk]]) 15:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2023 ==
:You mean [https://www.netwerk24.com/Nuus/Ondersoeke/PLAASMOORDE-DIe-WAT-AGTERBLY-20141002 this link]? Since you do not have access to the article, and neither do I, there is not a lot we can do with this. Please do not add information which you cannot [[WP:V|verify]] with your own eyes. I would also advise you to avoid machine translation, as it can introduce serious errors which are easy to miss. Every Wikipedia project has their own standards for sources, so while this one may be reliable, it is not automatically reliable. [[WP:CONTEXTMATTERS]], and sources must be judged on their own merits.
:Since that source is from 2014, and the article currently includes more recent sources, I think we can do without it, for now. If you disagree, perhaps [[Wikipedia:WikiProject South Africa]] could be of help. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 05:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


{{edit semi-protected|South African farm attacks|answered=yes}}
== Percentage of White Murder Victims ==
Julius Malema has made calls to violence, saying "Kill the Boer, the Farmer" at a recent chant for his EFF candidacy. While the EFF is a new party, it is rising in popularity. One of the main points for his campaign as of 2019 is to expropriate land of whites in South Africa, without compensation. Elon Musk weighed in on Malema's rally, after seeing the video, and said they "are pushing for genocide.".


The article repeatedly claims that white farmers are not disproportionately targeted during farm attacks. That may or may not be true, but the article does not provide any statistics comparing the number of whites and blacks being killed. I have not read through every source cited in the article, but the article itself does not showcase any statistical data on the topic. What percentage of farm attack victims are white? Given that a sizable portion of the article is dedicated to debunking theories of "white genocide", we should include statistics that show the number of victims by race. If such evidence currently does not exist, then perhaps it is unwise to dismiss the notion that white farmers are being disproportionately targeted. [[User:Jgriffy98|Jgriffy98]] ([[User talk:Jgriffy98|talk]]) 04:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


https://www.foxnews.com/media/south-african-political-leader-calls-violence-against-white-citizens-rally-kill-boer-farmer [[User:Bopswiki914|Bopswiki914]] ([[User talk:Bopswiki914|talk]]) 14:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
== "Racial vitriol is an element in some of the murders" ==
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' please provide [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> see [[WP:FOXNEWS]], if you have an alternate source, post it here and reopen the request then [[User:Cannolis|Cannolis]] ([[User talk:Cannolis|talk]]) 18:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
*Even with a [[WP:RS]], this is undue for the lead; it's essentially about one comment by one person. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 03:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


== Fact checkers ==
This should not be in the lead of the article because it's [[WP:UNDUE]]. Also because this loose imprecise claim lends credence to what the article clearly delineates is a [[WP:FRINGE]] theory. There are countless motivations for all the crimes and murders that occur in the world – it's undue to highlight what may have motivated one or a few of the murders. [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] ([[User talk:Snooganssnoogans|talk]]) 15:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


"Fact checkers have widely identified the notion of a white genocide in South Africa as a falsehood or myth". Wich fact checkers? What does it even mean to be a fact checker? Are we talking about the same fact checkers who are censoring the social media and the internet in generally to protect their leftist bolshevik ideology? It is easy to find sources that support the "white genocide" idea. Why do I have the feeling that none will be accepted on wikipedia, unlike the leftist "sources"? [[Special:Contributions/46.97.176.204|46.97.176.204]] ([[User talk:46.97.176.204|talk]]) 14:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
:A good chunk of the article is dedicated to debunking White Genocide conspiracy theories and the idea that white farmers are targeted in particular (and rightfully so). However, by reading the article, one gets the impression that race is not a factor at all in any of the murders of whites. If anything is given undue weight, it's this. If the murders of white farmers are going to be mentioned along with the reaction of right-wingers and white nationalists, then this would be useful context. The information I added does not change the thesis of the article, it is only supplementary.
:The specific sources that are cited in support of that statement are the NY Times and the Washington Post. You may disagree, but the general consensus on Wikipedia is that both are reliable sources - see [[WP:RSP]], for example. <span style="font-family: Constantia">[[User:Mojo Hand|Mojo Hand]] ''([[User talk:Mojo Hand|talk]])''</span> 03:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
::(((Their))) sources and lies. The only ones you’re allowed to use. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/176.89.110.146|176.89.110.146]] ([[User talk:176.89.110.146#top|talk]]) 15:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Noticing Things ==
:I fail to see how it is a "fringe theory" as it is factual information from a reliable source that actually debunks White genocide in its article but also doesn't leave out this information like you want. Saying that it may have motivated "one or a few" of the murders is also disingenuous, considering a lot more white farmers are murdered than that but that's beside the point. You haven't really given a valid argument for its removal.


I noticed the lede, which should summarize the Article, instead spends all it's words talking about what "South African farm attacks" are NOT. Further, while it mentions race, it does not mention proportionality. I also notice that when searching Google for "South African Farm Murders", gives quoted text from the lower half of the body of the Article, rather than quoting the Lede itself. Perhaps it's because even Google recognizes that the Lede does not summarize the topic.
:If other editors feel that it is undeserving of being in the lead, then I am fine with it being moved to the body. Which is something you could have done by the way, instead of removing the text altogether because you didn't like it. --[[User:Nolanfranyeri|Nolanfranyeri]] ([[User talk:Nolanfranyeri|talk]]) 19:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
[[Special:Contributions/2603:8081:3A00:30DF:913A:7503:F588:72A6|2603:8081:3A00:30DF:913A:7503:F588:72A6]] ([[User talk:2603:8081:3A00:30DF:913A:7503:F588:72A6|talk]]) 22:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:49, 19 October 2024

"Blacks" and "whites" outside of quotes

[edit]

"Unsubstantiated claims that such attacks on farmers disproportionately target whites", "Proponents of the theory that farm attacks disproportionately target whites point", and "Some South African blacks...".

Look, this might come from a non-SA point of view, but I do think such phrasings come off as a bit shocking for your a good chunk of global English readers, so could we reconsider rephrasing these? 2803:4600:1116:12E7:590A:EE54:1EDB:5A80 (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an American, I have no idea what you find shocking about this phrasing. People talk like that all across the English speaking world 118.231.129.28 (talk) 03:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's standard South African English usage, especially when talking about race. MOS:EUPHEMISM would seem to apply. Park3r (talk)

Article is biased. Four key elements excluded which points towards a more balanced view of the article

[edit]
Wikipedia isn't a platform for original research
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The easiest thing in life, is using statistics to prove a point which is not necessarily true; often citing references out of context. This is especially evident where the writers themselves are unable to disconnect their emotion and bias from a scenario in favour of being objective (even of that implies them writing things which they themselves do not necessarily support in their heart, in an effort to remain objective and true).

For instance: "The most dangerous thing in the world, is a bed, because most people in the world, die on a bed." So at all cost, please stay away from a bed!

Yes, this is statistically correct, but the conclusion is wrong, because it does not take medical reasons behind humanity's tendency to die during sleep, into consideration.

Now, take into account 4 of the following facts (none of which is included in the above article, and all which can be found if searched on Google):

1.) Part of the key elements to build unity during various banned political groups during Apartheid, was to sing certain songs to build unity in the ranks of its members (who were often banned by the Apartheid Government due to acts of terrorism). One key song was (and still is) "Kill the farmer, Kill the boer". Would this, under no instance, whatsoever, influence SOME people to kill farmers?

2.) The singing of abovementioned song was taken to court, due to the ex-leader of the ruling ANC's youth wing leader (who became leader of the political activist group, EFF), still singing the song publicly at gatherings. The court deemed it not to be racially driven and not banning the song, since it forms part of the country's cultural Heritage. The same (ANC government appointed) court, banned the old Apartheid National flag from being displayed, since that encited hatred. If this was in any other country, would the courts have ruled the same? Are these not both equal (but altering) parts of the same coin?

3.) The South African Government stopped reporting (or even documenting) racial statistics on victims and perpetrators of crimes, a few years post Apartheid. On the other hand, many other official government forms still require racial information "for statistical purposes", such as when applying for a job. So the "existence" of facts supporting racial motivation, does therefore not exist and any other source who documents such info is unfortunately deemed as "inciting" or being racially biased and therefore viewed as being untrue (irrespective of whether it may be true or not).

4.) A list of victims of farm murders (not farm attacks) are documented (by friends/family members) on a stone wall in Bothaville on the site of the biggest Agricultural Show Premises (NAMPO). It is listed per name and per region and can therefore be traced to verify accuracy. This list is already quite expansive. (Noted, this is the only instance where Wikipedia doesmention one line on this, but it eludes to elaborate to the potential significance thereof to prove or disprove the narrative of the article). In addition to the above, no details of the exact court reports on the vehement nature of some of the attacks (which can be verified from court archives) are mentioned. The details and the magnitude of some of these attacks which are sometimes committed on belated children, may guide the reader to gain insight to form his/her comclusion.

In the end, it comes across that Wikipedia unfortunately fails during the course of this article in providing objectivity. It states conclusions, based on seemingly filtered reports and leaves out many opposing views or seems to wade much of it down which comes across as having rendered judgement on what is fact and what is not.

It does not mind how much an editor agrees or disagrees with certain facts. It is not the purpose of the editor to choose the conclusion. A reviewer and editor needs to objectively state ALL opposing views, leaving the reader to choose what conclusion he or she whats to come to.

It has scientifically proven that with identical twins who have an alcolholic father, that the one child becomes an alcoholic and the other does not. When enquiring as to the driving factor behind they themselves reverting go alcoholism or not, both provided the exact same reason: "Because my father was an alcoholic."

Can we therefore please avoid trying to state a conclusion, but rather give all sides in a balanced and objective way and rather leave the reader to decide what to be true or not? 196.253.245.154 (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Wikipedia isn't a place for balanced perspectives. ChonokisFigueroa (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well said 83.83.206.27 (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a platform for original research. These "elements" are not actionable, and cannot become actionable as presented. Grayfell (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theory?

[edit]

In what way is it a "conspiracy theory"? It isn't. 47.185.120.223 (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the way the reliable sources describe it EvergreenFir (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, in the way that left-biased "reliable sources" are only used as references. Meanwhile sources with high reliability like The Citizen (South African newspaper), are conveniently excluded.
https://ground.news/interest/the-citizen_8f4e4d
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-citizen-south-africa/
Instead mixed reliability sources, especially left-biased mixed reliability sources and outdated articles linked from said sources, are preferred. This is a fact. ChonokisFigueroa (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's the standard biased practice on Wikipedia, sadly. They claim the content must be from a neutral point of view, while only allowing sources they deem "reliable" which all coincidentally have the same ideological bias. It's essentially become a political propaganda outlet. Noxian16 (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Evergreenfir, while it may not be the definition of genocide yet, the calls made to violence are genocidal level, and that was mentioned none. Bopswiki914 (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why was my comment removed? Guess (((they're))) trying to shut me down? Oy vey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.89.110.146 (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2023

[edit]

Julius Malema has made calls to violence, saying "Kill the Boer, the Farmer" at a recent chant for his EFF candidacy. While the EFF is a new party, it is rising in popularity. One of the main points for his campaign as of 2019 is to expropriate land of whites in South Africa, without compensation. Elon Musk weighed in on Malema's rally, after seeing the video, and said they "are pushing for genocide.".


https://www.foxnews.com/media/south-african-political-leader-calls-violence-against-white-citizens-rally-kill-boer-farmer Bopswiki914 (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. see WP:FOXNEWS, if you have an alternate source, post it here and reopen the request then Cannolis (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fact checkers

[edit]

"Fact checkers have widely identified the notion of a white genocide in South Africa as a falsehood or myth". Wich fact checkers? What does it even mean to be a fact checker? Are we talking about the same fact checkers who are censoring the social media and the internet in generally to protect their leftist bolshevik ideology? It is easy to find sources that support the "white genocide" idea. Why do I have the feeling that none will be accepted on wikipedia, unlike the leftist "sources"? 46.97.176.204 (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The specific sources that are cited in support of that statement are the NY Times and the Washington Post. You may disagree, but the general consensus on Wikipedia is that both are reliable sources - see WP:RSP, for example. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(((Their))) sources and lies. The only ones you’re allowed to use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.89.110.146 (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noticing Things

[edit]

I noticed the lede, which should summarize the Article, instead spends all it's words talking about what "South African farm attacks" are NOT. Further, while it mentions race, it does not mention proportionality. I also notice that when searching Google for "South African Farm Murders", gives quoted text from the lower half of the body of the Article, rather than quoting the Lede itself. Perhaps it's because even Google recognizes that the Lede does not summarize the topic. 2603:8081:3A00:30DF:913A:7503:F588:72A6 (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:South_African_farm_attacks&oldid=1252061091"