Jump to content

Talk:South African farm attacks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 96.241.72.141 (talk) at 02:18, 18 September 2014 (Add this article to the Racism in South Africa cluster of articles or become hypocrites). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconSouth Africa Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

This is NOT the appropriate place for a general philosophical discussion about crime in South Africa or farm attacks. Not only is this talk page not the right place for it, Wikipedia is not the right place for it. Please stick directly and purely to the editorial question at hand, rather than a general philosophical debate. Any comments not related to the editorial content of the article may be removed.

Should be merged with White Genocide Article

The deaths black on white now average 200+ a year in South Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.109.131 (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Previous discussions

Rewrite —  POV —  Weasel words —  But who are the Weasels? —  Murder rate among white SA commercial farmers — control calculation —  Sections —  Controversial

Agricultural output / Missing mealies • Daily bloodshed - death squads • Racist Boers Nostalgic for Apartheid? • POV/research/Black negationism • Struggle songs and hate speech • Genocide • Title. • (Moved to talk page) • Biased • Proposed page move to South African farm attacks • Redirect pages up for deletion • Title? Please. •

A subjective agenda?

This article does not look neutral in its tone and format. While the 'facts' might be correct, the way in which they're presented appears to have a subjective agenda. For example, "According to the South African Human Rights Commission there have been 9,400 farm attacks, an estimated 61% of victims are white while whites only make up 9,2% of the population.[3]" How many whites making up South Africa's population is irrelevant unless the population of farm / land ownership is included. Majority of South Africa's land is owned by whites (http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-01-23-who-owns-what-land-in-south-africa), so it stands to reason that more white farmers will be victims of farm violence.

The article also references questionable sources, and there is a subjective undertone suggesting that some sort of genocide / systematic killing is occurring against whites. The article tends to focus on whites only, rather than the farming population at large. Potjiekos (talk) 06:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the irrelevant part of the quoted sentence above. As I've said, size of the white population is biased (because it excludes other cultural populations, and is irrelevant. This Wikipedia page is titled "South African Farm Attacks", not "White South African Farm Attacks". Potjiekos (talk) 10:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"According to the South African Human Rights Commission there have been 9,400 farm attacks." has no citation or source. Potjiekos (talk) 10:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both citations regarding the South African Human Rights Commission are wrong. Which could be a journalistic error and lack of proper research. The report named "Inquiry into Human Rights Violations in Farming Communities" by the SAHRC depict a different picture than stated above. For example, regarding the farm workers abuses and human right conditions. The report is available here: http://www.info.gov.za/otherdocs/2003/farming/ I will remove the quote referring to the SAHRC for the lack of direct citation from the source and contradicting reference from the same source. Analyzer99 (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I have removed, from the opening paragraph, information that is biased towards white farmers. This page is about ALL South African farmers. I have also removed the information about "Genocide Watch" because it irrelevant. There is no genocide, nor is there any indication. Including such citations is hysterical and extreme and doesn't contribute to the page. Potjiekos (talk) 07:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the information about the "Genocide Watch"? If it's notable in relevant, which it appears to be, why remove it? NPOV has to be non-biased. Invmog (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide Watch source

I've edited the sentence in the intro about the Genocide Watch article making claims about the murder rate per attack, as I cannot find any such claim in the article referenced, or anywhere else on the site. I've left the claim that it constitutes genocide. I've also emailed the organisation, asking them for more information about the article, as it makes no mention of the author, and uses only newspaper articles and one private website as its sources. (It also has the title "Dear Dr", suggesting that it was written by someone outside of their organisation, and sent as correspondence.) -Kieran 13:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The following is a transcript of what Gregory Stanton: the President of Genocide Watch said in the Carte Blanche television program (a South African news magazine program) regarding the murder rate of the farmers which he calls a genocide under the Genocide Convention.

Link to the program transcript.

There should be more from the organization soon concerning this issue as I understand that they will be doing a follow up on the situation.

I have added the statistic of the boer murder rate in comparison with the rest of the population; it was in the Genocide Watch article referenced, and I added the reference to the Carte Blanche program transcript as it is in there as well.


[User Johnnyhurst]8:30 pm 5/17/2014

It seems that there is plenty of bias coming from the editors of wikipedia concerning

the situation in South Africa There is in fact an article by Genocide watch. 

Genocide Watch is moving South Africa back to Stage 6, the Preparation stage in the genocidal process. [1]

Copyright 2012 Leon Parkin & Dr. Gregory H. Stanton Furthermore there is video evidence of Dr Stanton's testimony[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyhurst (talk • contribs) 00:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit of 18:00, 26 October 2006

As part of the edit I did, I commented out (but did not delete) the "Criticism" section due to the following concerns:

  • The first sentence is just a broad statement without being backed up by a reliable source
  • The second sentence (which IS referenced) is referring to the use of the well-known political slogan "Kill the Boer, kill the farmer" in a post-apartheid setting where it has been defined as hate speech. This is fine, but here is my problem: the connection between officials "not stopping crowds chanting this slogan" and the government "failing to take appropriate measures against these attacks" has no basis in fact. The editor who originally put this in created a logical leap in his own mind between the two incidents, which constitutes original research and is not permitted. The reason I commented it out instead of deleting is so that IF a reliable reference is found that makes this logical connection then it can be re-stated, citing the appropriate reference.
  • The second paragraph of that section is also unreferenced and in fact does not seem to belong in that section.

I also removed the long-standing unreferenced "reasoning behind the attacks" speculation. There has been more than ample time given to find a reference to those claims. They can be added back in with a reliable reference. I also re-arranged the rest of the article to improve style and flow, putting the TAU's response to the Committee of Inquiry report in the correct chronological place, and moving GW's claims to the lead-in section as it seems more logical there. Zunaid (T•C) Please rate me at Editor Review! 16:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference added. Farmer armies in the killing fields --Jvb – October 27, 2006
That reference you provide is an article about farmers conducting patrols etc. It does not address any of the points I raised above. I'm off home now, but next week I'll write in a section about the farm patrols using the ref you provided. Zunaid (T•C) Please rate me at Editor Review! 14:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The suspended “Criticism of government” section of the article does address the points you raise. Indeed, saying that the police "are not part of the solution but part of the bloody problem" is, if not worse, saying the same as that “Critics of the government say that the South African government is failing to take appropriate measures against these attacks”. Therefore I unsuspended the incriminated section. --Jvb – November 7, 2006

I've rewritten the section to reflect exactly the quote that was made, with the correct attribution. I've also included a mention about the farm patrols in that same section. However, points 2 and 3 have still not ben addressed with the addition of this particular reference so I've commented them back out. Zunaid©Please rate me at Editor Review! 14:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality tag

I feel the article as it stands is fairly neutral and generally balances out the viewpoints presented, thus the neutrality tag should be removed. Comments? Zunaid©Please rate me at Editor Review! 11:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems okay to me too. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 16:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain your reasoning? Zunaid©Please rate me at Editor Review! 14:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's sort of neutral, in the sense that it constitutes a hodgepodge of he-said-she-said arguments from different parties. However, there's a bit more to it than that. It's not clear how the different sources are weighted or chosen, however. ManicParroT (talk) 11:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not neutral. Potjiekos (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why it's not neutral? I think this is the best way to manage it.Can you explain it? --I90Christian (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it now neutral. The tag can be removed. --I90Christian (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is neutral in fact it goes as far as to water down the facts as to not offend. I suggest you read the following article and test the facts contained there in, http://mobile.wnd.com/2013/06/in-jeopardy-future-of-white-south-africans/#8UfJ5rYFtx5iVUGk.01 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RSA Boerseun (talk • contribs) 12:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article appears neutral enough to me, I believe that tag may be removed. Most assertions are not only referenced, but counterbalanced &/or mitigated by other assertions. This is difficult & politically sensitive material, yet the article bears the mark of conscientiousness & an attempt at equilibrium. --nielspeterqm (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I came across the article by chance. The content of the article does not match the sources well nor include article disputing the claims made in it. I'm very concerned about the neutrality of this article and I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. I am One of Many (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read this article and it is not neutral, it looks like a debate is being had within the article, where a statement is made and directly thereafter another is made to try and discredit or diminish the previous one's value. It feels as if one half of the article tries to tell about a serious issue and the other half tries to not make it look so bad? KloppersJ (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crime Expo South Africa

A link should be added to the Crime Expo South Africa article, as it exposes the South African farm attacks / Farm murders. The editors (Zyxoas / Zunaid) above would be object to it, whilst stating that this article is neutral. --222.154.88.252 00:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These editors are being paid to edit this article, and a photograph of them will be published shortly.--222.154.88.252 00:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

222.154.88.252 is a disgruntled ex-pat now in New Zealand, methinks, trying to justify their exit. Wizzy…☎ 07:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong witht that. He or they had sufficient reason for leaving. --Adriaan90 08:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A photograph of me!? I'd love to see this one, please!! Btw my name is Tebello Thejane, I'm 22 years old, and I live in Meyerton -- I can give you even more info should you need it. This should be interesting... o_O Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 09:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is rather amusing; must say. Thank the FSM for emigration, that way we can get rid of some of our racists, moaners and wallies... Mikker (...) 18:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, get rid of them like Zimbabwe did, so South Africa can join its northern neighbours in progress, prosperity and success! I think this contributor should be awarded the Robert Mugabe Prize, or should that be the Idi Amin Prize? Booshank (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow what a disgusting thing to say. Do you think whites are the only people to be affected by crime and want to emigrate?? Go and take a look at News24.co.za and remove your blinkers. I fully agree that the link to Crime Expo should be added - most of the incidents there are not reported by newspapers as they are 'so common'. SparrowsWing 23:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm... no I don't think "whites are the only people to be affected by crime and want to emigrate". Where the hell did you get that from? And I've had more than my fair share of break-ins and other criminal events, so I'm not saying crime isn't a problem. I'm saying SA has an unusually large number of stupid idiots, people who do nothing but moan and racists. Thankfully, some of these emigrate. Good riddance. Mikker (...) 23:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then I do apologise - I totally misread what you said. Crime is something that affects all people in South Africa ... and you are quite correct - moaning will not change or improve things. SparrowsWing 23:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with the link to Crime Expo. It did not give an accurate indication of farm attacks - it was a sensationalist, attention seeking site, trying to hamper job creation. The 'editor' also didn't add comments from people who were against the site, or had good stories... bluntly ignored it, so it didn't give you an indication of that - only the bad things. While Crime in SA is a problem, that was not a constructive way to try and counter it. (White female living in SA) --Theabc 20:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organize Campaign?!

Human Rights Watch, however, states that the term "farm attacks" (plaasmoorde in Afrikaans, farm murders) is misleading, as it suggests the presence of an organised campaign, rather than simply increased crime rates, and has criticised the South African government for giving the issue too much attention at the expense of the rights of other South Africans, such as farm labourers.[6]

I would not say that ALL the attacks are part of an organized campaign. But speeches of ANC leaders calling for "kill the Boer, Kill the farmer" are a strange coincidence towards this atrocities. And then there are the pledges of prominent ANC people to kill the Boers:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NKiePbTcAfY This one includes even Nelson Mandela Don't forget to few the pictures: http://www.africancrisis.org/Photos45.asp So the question remains, how to handle this in the article.41.208.196.148 18:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the question of "Kill the Boer, Kill the Farmer" is addressed above. Provide an independent third-party reference (e.g. a news article) that makes the connection between the slogan and the attacks, and then it can be included in the article. Zunaid©® 14:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a reference from an important SA news source: http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,9909,2-7-1442_2314200,00.html Booshank (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The number of 'black farmers' killed is misleading ! I could not confirm that anywhere :(. We should have that checked and if no one can give a nr. or at least a credible reference, it should be removed, me thinks. Otherwise this article will not be credible - it will be more like a 'personal opiniopn forum'.

It is genocide! Wake up. I am a SA citizen and know the facts. Why does everybody deny it, the same happened in Rwanda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.209.59.32 (talk) 08:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Kill the Boer" does smell like Rwanda during their genocide now that you mention it....
P.S. - I don't know if it's organized, but it sure doesn't seem to be greatly discouraged by the corrupt government and the corrupt police don't seem to be rallying to the cause, you could almost call it "default approval by not taking action to stop it or effectively discourage it." -Invmog (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. They constitute a small percentage of all crimes committed, the victims of most crimes not being white. Promoters of the genocide hypothesis also never mention the deaths of black farmers or the murder of farm workers by farmers. There is at present no genocide, no evidence to support the claim that one is in progress or even beginning. What this article is sorely lacking is proper statistics to show that the alleged genocide exists only in some people's fevered imaginations— Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.117.133 (talk) 10:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-farmer hate speech info added

I added a section about the belief that farm attacks had a political motive and were linked to politicians' verbal attacks on farmers.

I realise this is a controversial topic but to cover it properly I believe we need to include the significant viewpoints, even if conflicting. The belief that farm attacks have at least in a part a political motive and that hate speech inflames some people to carry out attacks is certainly a significant opinion and must be included. As I understand it, this information was removed as uncited previously. Therefore I have provided a reference to the respected mainstream South African news site News24.com. Of course it isn't Wikipedia's job to decide which opinion is correct, merely to provide the verifiable significant views. I feel this had not been done properly by excluding the belief that attacks were politically motivated or linked to slogans such as "Kill the Boer, kill the farmer!", perhaps in an effort to avoid being controversial. Booshank (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone respects News24.com? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.30.79.194 (talk) 07:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the word "Boer"

I read here that Boer is considered offensive, but I beg to differ. I know many Afrikaners who have no problem with being called "Boer", "Boerseun", "Boerman", "Boermeisie" or "Boervrou" and I don't think that Boer is meant as an offensive term in the context of "Shoot the Boer" even though they do mean to communicate "Shoot the Afrikaans Farmer". This would be similar to saying "Kill the Porra" or "Kill the Yankee", would it not? Aleksandar Bulovic' (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More often than not, it is going to cause offence. Likewise, I know black people who have no problem with being called "nigger", "nigga", or "coon", yet it is clearly offensive to a great many people, and the same applies to the word "Boer". You're not disproving the word's offensive capacity by citing an example of someone you know who doesn't mind being called the word - all that proves is that somebody out there doesn't mind it, but that means nothing. 79.70.230.110 (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear IP: Citing an example of someone you know who takes offense and being called a "Boer" only means that someone out there takes offense. It means nothing, especially coming from an anonymous source. pietopper (talk) 10:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Information on other racial groups?

There is no information on the percentage or racial make-up of other farmers or even a small background on the type of farming that white farmers do. This article is more racial than anything else. I can't cite this or use any of its references for academic use. 41.150.82.68 (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you would like to fix any problems or shortcomings that you see in this article, starting with removing or correcting any statements that you consider 'racial'. This is Wikipedia. You have to power to make it better yourself, without relying on others.pietopper (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot the Boer

Why isn't it mentioned that Nelson Mandela sang this song as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.186.247 (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have information to that effect which is supported by citations or documentation, you can add that yourself. This is Wikipedia. You have the power and facilities to make it better, without relying on others to do it for you. pietopper (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know better than that, pietopper. I've tried to edit Wikipedia before. The Leftists won't let you tell the truth.

POV

This is a worthless left-leaning article as is typical of Wikipedia. Wikipedia didn't even have a story on this for years and years just like the media won't report it and I almost wish it still didn't have an article on Wikipedia because this is all nonsense. The attacks are from the South African government. It's made to look random so that the government will not be criticized. It's a land grab. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.230.104 (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have reliable sources? The only thing that matters on Wikipedia is (1) are there reliable sources and (2) is the information in them neutrally summarized. I am One of Many (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the answer Do we have reliable sources? Yes! There are plenty of videos and news reports of the government (ANC) including Mandela singing songs to exhort the killing of white farmers (Boers or settlers.) And whites born in South Africa just have as much damn right to live there as anyone else anywhere in the world including an American born in America, or an Indian born in India. Even the blacks are settlers, they originated in central Africa and migrated south - Credo Mutwa. There were no blacks in Cape Town and the western Cape when the Dutch first arrived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.217.149 (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All you say may be true. I know no more about the situation in South Africa than what I read, but with Wikipedia, we must keep in mind that it is an encyclopedia. It is not a news paper or a fact checking organization. That is why we demand reliable, independent, secondary source. The videos you speak of may all be important evidence, but it is evidence for a newspaper or fact checking organization. We have to avoid interpretation and original research. Here is what I propose to you and anyone else who would like to make this an encyclopedic article. First, we should decide what are the reliable sources to include in this article. Second, we read them all and summarize their content in the form of an article. Third, we make sure the article does not slant one way or the other unless that is what the sources say. This will be hard work because where editors disagree, discussion will have to be held on this page until we reach consensus about some changes. I am One of Many (talk) 06:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This should be added to the "Racism in South Africa" section

Under the "racism in Israel" section featured on the "racial segregation" cluster of articles there is a section devoted to racism against Jews. Being that the Jews are the majority in Israel this would mean wikipedia does not follow the "racism is power+bigotry" formula and therefore this article also should feature in order to ensure people know that these attacks are caused by general racism against white South Africans.

  1. ^ http://www.genocidewatch.org/southafrica.html
  2. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylKgntJcP4s
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:South_African_farm_attacks&oldid=626028392"