Talk:South African farm attacks

Neutrality Discussion

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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boershistory (talk • contribs)

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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boershistory (talk • contribs)

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.

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. * Signed by Boershistory — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boershistory (talk • contribs) 07:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The source currently specifically cites an expert, saying that "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 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquillion (talk • contribs) 11:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boershistory (talk • contribs) 14:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boershistory (talk • contribs) 15:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I have done a due diligence check on Johan Burgher [1] [2] 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 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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boershistory (talk • contribs) 06:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

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. Grayfell (talk) 07:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Hi Grayfell thanks for your reply. Neither misrepresentation nor fringe narrative intended. Only a rectification of a misleading sentence that is 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; 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 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 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. 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 ...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. Grayfell (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi 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: 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 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. BHistory (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. 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 While South Africa has more white farmers overall, black farm workers are more likely to be killed. which differs greatly from 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? BHistory (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:

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. 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;

“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.”

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;

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.[3]

Back to the sentence you propose: 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;

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 feedbackBHistory (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. 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 "demographically speaking" is loaded. "Demographics" doesn't mean "race". apart from your opinion, here are some definitions of the word "demographics";

"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 [4]

"Statistical data relating to the population and particular groups within it" find the link to the source here [5]

Back to the proposed sentence 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;

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. BHistory (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. Grayfell (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Grayfell your comment above is truly unfair.BHistory (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2019 (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. Grayfell (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

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.BHistory (talk) 07:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

"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.

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?

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. Grayfell (talk) 09:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

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;

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. BHistory (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Completely unacceptable. The source you're citing summarizes it as follows: 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. --Aquillion (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Aquillion the existing sentence needed to be fixed or removed. Since you have removed the entire part, I have no objection. Thanks. BHistory (talk) 09:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Attribution: Afriforum

/* 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boershistory (talk • contribs) 10:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

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 "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept 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 referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our 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 blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. StudiesWorld (talk) 12:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• 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. Simonm223 (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerbacon123 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

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. BHistory (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

material copyrighted at radio free south africa

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.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Using material from Africaans Wikipedia

"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.)

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. 23.121.191.18 (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

You mean 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 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. Grayfell (talk) 05:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Percentage of White Murder Victims

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. Jgriffy98 (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

"Racial vitriol is an element in some of the murders"

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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2020 (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.

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.

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. --Nolanfranyeri (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)