Talk:South African farm attacks

Lacks credibility

I compare the opening lines of the English-language wikipedia article about "South African farm murders" with the Afrikaans-language article about "Plaasmoorde", as translated by Google translate:

English: The South African farm attacks refer to the claim that white South African farmers are murdered at a higher rate than the murder rate in the general population of South Africa.

Afrikaans: The term farm murders refers to murders on farms, especially the murders committed to South African farms since the end of the apartheid system in 1994.

The English-language article says it's a theory (a "claim"); the Afrikaans language article says it concerns a specific kind of murders.

English: A November 2017 analysis by the BBC found that there are insufficient data to estimate a murder rate for South African farmers.

Afrikaans: According to available statistics, 6,122 farm attacks occurred between 1991 and 2001, leading to 1,254 deaths. The number of deaths doubled in the next eight years to 3,037. Research by the Institute for Security Studies found that a farmer's probability of being killed is almost four times greater than that for an ordinary citizen and twice that of a police officer.

The English-language article says there are insufficient data; the Afrikaans language article provides data.

Plainly speaking: the Afrikaans language article is less vandalized than the English-language article. The English-language article reads as if making political statements.

does the Afrikaans language article cite reliable secondary sources for those numbers and statements? If so, can you link to them here? Rockypedia (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

For those numbers three references are given:

1 "Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks" https://africacheck.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Final-Report-Committee-of-Inquiry-Farm-Attacks-July-2003.pdf (also a reference on English-language wiki)

2 "Farm Attacks and Farm Murders Remain a Concern" https://issafrica.org/iss-today/farm-attacks-and-farm-murders-remain-a-concern

3 "Two more S.African farmers killed: death toll now at 3,037" http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/267463

A source of bilingual English/Afrikaans information is the Hansard of the SA parliament. This just popped up by typing "farm murders" in the search engine of parliament.gov.za: "If one looks further, beyond the fact that the farmer and farm murder rate is 133 per 100 000, it is the agricultural sector that contributes 6,9% to GDP." https://parliament.gov.za/storage/app/media/Docs/hansard/2bcd8f0e-7132-4786-9641-f242800f4e55.pdf

The murder rate for South Africa is 34 per 100 000 (according to wikipedia); if the murder rate for farmers is 133 per 100 000 that is substantial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.227.136.106 (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The most recent reliable source as well as previous reliable sources simply do not support these claims: BBC. --I am One of Many (talk) 03:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Beginning of lead sentence

@Rockypedia: Please read this. Now, I don't see how your version is clearer than mine, but I can see how yours is redundant. From Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section § First sentence:

Keep redundancy to a minimum in the first sentence. Use the first sentence of the article to provide relevant information that is not already given by the title of the article. The title of the article need not appear verbatim in the lead.

wumbolo ^^^ 14:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Rockypedia: You literally have this on your user page: Favorite word that I learned on Wikipedia: Concision wumbolo ^^^ 14:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay take it easy buddy. Researching my wikipedia background isn't going to win you any friend points. I was simply reverting the lead of the page to a version that had been stable and acceptable for a very long time, because the new version read very clunky and awkward. If you want the old version changed to "your" version (see WP:OWN please), then feel free to start an RfC about it, which I will happily join. Otherwise please respect the WP:CYCLE and accept the fact that your bold edit has been reverted. Rockypedia (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree, the older version was better. --I am One of Many (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Rockypedia: Can we go step by step? Do you really need "South Africa" mentioned three times in the sentence? wumbolo ^^^ 15:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I looked at the first sentence based on this question, and while I was looking for a way to remove at least one "South Africa" or "African" from it, unfortunately the only options I came up with made the sentence more confusing/ambiguous. So, yes, I'd say leave it as is. Rockypedia (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

All of the mentions of "South Africa" appear to me essential to the meaning of the sentence. The first references the title of the article, the second is needed for a definite description of the farmers as South African and the third, is a definite description of the comparison group, all South Africans. So, I don't see any problem. --I am One of Many (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

When working on opening (well, actually the entire article, but particularly the opening) should keep in mind words to watch and adhere to WP:SAID, avoiding words like "revealed" and "claimed" etc. --DynaGirl (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

U.S. or Australia?

The source says, "There have been similar pushes for the United States to take in South African farmers, though they have failed to gain widespread attraction or political momentum. Critics say that the movement to take in white farmers has links to the far right, which have long spread the idea of a “white genocide” taking place in South Africa."

Park3r and I have been back and forth on this a couple of times. The question is whether the second sentence is referring to the far-right in the U.S. (mentioned in the preceding sentence or in Australia (most of the rest of the article.[1]

I believe it refers to the U.S. for a couple of reasons. For openers, if the second sentence in that paragraph refers to Australia rather than the U.S., it is very poor style to Frankenstein the two sentences together into a pseudo-paragraph, discussing two distant but related ideas: 1) a push for the U.S. to take in farmers has no traction 2) a movement in Australia is connected to the far-right. (In fairness, it seems to be a far-right push with little traction in both countries.)

Park3r points out that the second sentence in the source links "take in white farmers" to this article. IMO, this article strengthens the case for it referring to the U.S, as it is discussing the "white genocide" conspiracy theory. The second article's references to the supposed "white genocide" are:

• a change.org petition directed to U.S. president Trump
• a podcast from Michigan, U.S.[2]
• "This was the province of Stormfront five, 10 years ago, white genocide in South Africa..." (Stormfront is a U.S.-based hate site, founded by David Duke supporters.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

It's a minor point in the grand scheme of things. And this movement is transnational, especially in the internet era (it seems to have taken hold in the US, Australia and South Africa). I stand by my assertion, but I'm willing to allow for the location to be removed, or for the sentence to be reworded so the location becomes less important. Park3r (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

It's happening now with Trump's tweet. I suppose this page will get a lot more heated quite soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.141.235.58 (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Siener van Rensburg

Regarding this edit:

A couple of problems. The Archive.org page really doesn't appear to be a WP:RS at all, and it doesn't mention the farm attacks, making its use here WP:SYNTH. If their belief in the "prophesies" of Siener van Rensburg are absolutely vital to understanding these attacks, this should be directly supported by reliable sources. If only a single reliable source mentions this at all, why does it belong in the lede? The lede is a summary of the body, and if this isn't mentioned there, than overloading the lede with info is inappropriate. Grayfell (talk) 08:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch Paper

"Human Rights Watch has described a general trend of escalation in "farm attacks" since 1994, and noted a lack of government response to them."

This sentence above was all that was mentioned of this paper and I was a bit taken back by this when I read it. This complete lack of context to me made it seem like the HRW were backing the general claims of "white genocide" by white South Africans and the government's disregard of it. However I read the source and have since made some edits including actual language from the paper. The paper was actually all about how the government response has been failing BLACK South Africans in the farms, so yeah I think this section reads MUCH differently than it did when it just had that one completely out of context statement above.

Mutilation and gang rape are often part of the Modus Operandi in the attacks against South African Farmers

I added mutilation and gang rape as part of the lead, because these forms of sadistic torture are part of the modus operendi of the attacks against South African farmers. Why do these facts get removed? TonyMorris68 (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

If there is a source for this being a general modus operandi i think it can go in the article body, but it is unnecessary detail in the lead.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Many of the female victims in the farm attacks are often sexually assaulted by the perpetrators, it is a well-known fact in these crimes, primarily because South Africa is considered to be one of the rape capitals of the world According to the Wiki article on rape in South Africa, "The rate of sexual violence in South Africa is among the highest in the world.[1]" TonyMorris68 (talk) 07:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Which is not in anyway evidence that this is part of the MO of farm attacks. We need a source that says so. And no, wikipedia is not a reliable source.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for misogyny. The article on South Africa rape and it being one of the rape capitals of the world provides numerous sources for the rape epidemic there. Moreover, the reports of torture, mutilation and rape are very widespread concerning the South African farm attacks. No one disputes sexual assault, disfigurement of victims and sadistic torture often precedes the murders in these farm attacks. It is common knowledge. TonyMorris68 (talk) 07:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not deal in common knowledge unless it is sourceable to reliable sources. If it is so widespread as a part of farm attacks it should be an easy task to find one or more sources that state so.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

How many articles do you want me to post supporting the notion of a rape epidemic in these farm attacks, there are hundreds of them. In an article by RT (2018), 'South Africa’s white farmers reportedly being murdered & tortured off their land' and concerning the South African government's reticence of the sadistic violence occurring in these crimes. Article Quote: AfriForum is trying to work with police and government to raise awareness.

“If we see a white farmer being tortured, being burned with torches or clothing irons, gang-raped, we don’t see any focus on these cruel crimes,” said Ian Cameron, head of AfriForum Community Safety. Cameron explained that the government views farm attacks as “normal” crime. “The cruelty that goes with farm attacks is disproportionate compared to other crime,” he said. “An urban crime might last 10 minutes, but [on farms] people can be tortured for up to nine hours.”. In many of the articles of about these attacks, where there are survivors, sexual assault is commonly discussed as part of the violence. Farmers in South Africa claim they are being targeted in 'horrific' attacks survivor describes being gang-raped, a common theme in the news articles about survivors of these sadistic attacks. Article: Farmers wife shot, raped in front of ‘wire tied’ children, Hackney "During an attack at Heuningkloof farm in Hackney in the Eastern Cape on Friday evening 23 March 2018, a woman (44) was shot in the lower back and also raped infront of her young children." Another article from newsweek, A WHITE FARMER IS KILLED EVERY FIVE DAYS IN SOUTH AFRICA AND AUTHORITIES DO NOTHING ABOUT IT, ACTIVISTS SAY Hannetjie Ludik, 56, from Pretoria, told the paper that three armed men broke into her family’s house, stole money and raped her. South Africa farm attacks: Brutal crimes landowners face "South African farmers have been subjected to an escalating campaign of attacks characterised by extreme brutality, rape and torture, with 82 people killed in a record 423 incidents last year." ‘Bury them alive!’: White South Africans fear for their future as horrific farm attacks escalate "NEARLY every day, horrific acts of rape, torture and murder are carried out on a community under siege. WARNING: Graphic." and "Victims are often restrained, harmed with weapons such as machetes and pitchforks, burned with boiling water or hot irons, dragged behind vehicles and shot. Female victims are often raped during attacks." I think the intended goal to keep out the prevalence of sexual violence from the lede is misogynistic and Wikipedia is not a place for misogyny. TonyMorris68 (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Journeyman documentary about South African farm murders

I added an external links section and started it with a documentary. How Long Will The White Farmers Of South Africa Survive? Documentary by Journeyman Pictures. Please feel free to add other external links. TonyMorris68 (talk) 05:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia articles are not repositories for links, and the one linked here, which lean white-nationalist is not acceptable.--I am One of Many (talk) 06:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring. Never implied Wikipedia was a repository for links. When someone talks about their family being murdered, it doesn't make them a White Nationalist. The video was relevant to the events going on in South Africa, as conflict escalates. TonyMorris68 (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

When a link is challenged it stays out until there is a consensus for inclusion.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? Shall we take it to the resolution board? TonyMorris68 (talk) 07:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to take it wherever you like. just don't editwar to put in external links without being supported by a consensus of editos on the talkpage.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I brought up the documentary hear for discussion, so lets discuss this documentary. Does it provide fair and balanced insight about the situation in South Africa to warrant it's inclusion? The documentary seems to be non-biased. Are there Wiki guidelines about adding external links? I know Wiki is not a link repository, but some external links provide contextualization. TonyMorris68 (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

South African Farmlands Documentary by Lauren Southern

Would like to discuss the addition of the documentary by Lauren Southern known as, "Farmlands" 2018 documentary about South African farm land confiscation to external links in the article. TonyMorris68 (talk) 06:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't in the habit of adding links to videos by alt-right activists ... please see WP:EL. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The documentary seemed to take more of an alt-left or left leaning position that the accusations of genocide were overblown, that it was more an epidemic of racial violence, not a race war. The documentary also appeared to talk with people of all color and on all sides of the issue, including government officials who were seeking to change the laws of the country/constitution. Many Africans had the opportunity to voice with clarity their positions on bridging the economic inequality with land reform/redistribution. Which seems fair. TonyMorris68 (talk) 07:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Alt-left isn't a thing. Regardless, it runs afoul of WP:ELPOV. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

If the documentary was alt-right, at least it would have some significance, but right now, it's basically "I don't know anything and here's a handful of interviews with the victims' families". The "External links" section is a part of the encyclopedia, and it should contain links to knowledge, not videos without even speculation. wumbolo ^^^ 18:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The documentary gives voices to people on all sides of the discussion, Black, White, those creating the land repropriation laws and those suffering from them, including voices from those cleaning up the massacres of South African farmers. The documentary appears to give all sides an opportunity to voice their opinions. TonyMorris68 (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

A bunch of opinions don't add much value. wumbolo ^^^ 19:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Wumbolo, I pretty much agree with your assessment of the video, it provides no information. I do think it is highly biased toward the white-South African farmers since it uncritically focuses on them. South Africa is very complex, which is the more reason to keep this article as neutral as possible and stick as closely as we can to reliable sources. --I am One of Many (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

On what basis should we determine weather a documentary provides information on the highly complex SA Farmland murders? TonyMorris68 (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources? has it been favorably reviewed?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

LOL. You expect the brainwashed anti-white swine that edit this "encyclopedia" to include this documentary? The "alt-right" aren't a "reliable source", for some unexplained reason. The giant cultural Marxist shit that's become the excuse for Western academia is however, again for some unexplained reason. 146.255.14.121 (talk) 09:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey that's totally unacceptable calling Wikipedia editor's swine. Go take a long hike and chill out. Meditate on this: do you think you're ever going to convince people of your political position, desire to contribute or concerns, by equating them with the filthiest of unkosher domesticated farm animals? Do you think that kind of verbal strategy is going to appeal to someone's reason, commonsense, fair-mindedness or logic? Try to learn how to make your case and point, without resorting to 8th-grade playground bullying tactics. Why the IP address? Do you not even know the Wikipedia basics of signing up and reading the rules for participating in a dignified manner? I know this subject about terrorism against South African farm owners and workers is very contentious and controversial, and many of the editors seem to have alt-left activist political agendas here, but would you please mind keeping it calm, cool and civil to a great degree, without invoking dehumanizing pejoratives like "swine", which are obviously unproductive. Do you think you are going to get a consensus amongst the anti-Boer / pro-communist activist editors who dominate this article here by calling them pigs?! Not a chance, troll! Wikipedia is not a place to vent frustrated emotions. If you have reliable news article links to back up your position then present them here, but throwing ad hominem personal attacks is not going to fly here at all. Put up or shut up. In other words, don't come back until you have something intelligent and productive to provide here in the form of research, scholarship, reliable news articles, etc... In the meantime, I hope someone bans your IP address. TonyMorris68 (talk) 10:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Basic Capitizalization Grammar

I am One of Many, The words white or black, should be capitalized when referring to people. TonyMorris68 (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Some sources used in this article follow this convention, and some do not. Neither white people nor black people (for example) capitalize these terms. South African sources do not universally capitalize the terms, so WP:ENGVAR doesn't seem to apply. Since this is a stylistic concern, consistency within Wikipedia should not be ignored either. Grayfell (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a source on Wikipedia for determining whether to capitalize or not? For instance, I would use Jewish instead of jewish when describing people. According to APA, racial and ethnic groups are designated by proper nouns and are capitalized: Black and White.TonyMorris68 (talk) 02:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I do not know of such a resource. Thembu, Tamil, Afrikaners, Greek... these should be capitalized, but "black" and "white" are not always capitalized by reliable sources, and it is these sources Wikipedia uses. Note that "Black South African" redirects to Bantu peoples in South Africa, which demonstrates how important context is when trying to tackle these issues.

I do not think everyone who capitalizes black and white is wrong to do so, but I think it is outdated. Reducing entire peoples to only a handful of simplistic categories and then treating these categories as special is a relic of scientific racism, and should be discarded. Again, I don't think every source which capitalizes is racist, but if sources are doing this merely because of habit or inertia, that's a sign it's time to update. Grayfell (talk) 03:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Did I understand you correctly that you're asserting the issue of whether or not to capitalize words used to describe common racial designations is a form of scientific racism?! Please, can we please have a civil discussion about capitalization grammar without trying to racialize it with accusations of bigotry and prejudice? All, I'm asking for is a direct source on Wikipedia which provides guidelines on when to capitalize a word or not, this doesn't need to devolve into a discussion about pseudo-scientific racism. It is my understanding that broadly defined racial groups, Arabs, Hispanic, Asian, Jewish, Black and White, are capitalized as proper nouns and nouns due to mostly common cultural, genetic and even geographical locations. When I looked up the issue on the Internet the APA stated White and Black should be capitalized when referring to people. Now going back to the race issue, but trying to be more objective, the reason I believe we should capitalize white and black, is because race advocacy websites often capitalize one word to the detriment of another. To quote Merril Perlman: A website originally registered to the man accused in the Charleston killings, Dylann Roof, capitalizes “White,” but not “black,” as do many other white supremacist sites. Publications aimed at blacks often capitalize “Black,” but not “white,” and there are strong feelings that “Black” should be capitalized...some have argued that “Black” and “White” should both be capitalized, the way Asian, Hispanic, Arab, etc. are. DiversityInc. has a column called “Ask the White Guy,” and in 2009 its author, Luke Visconti, explained, “Why the ‘B’ in ‘Black’ Is Capitalized at DiversityInc.” His reasoning, in part, is that “Our capitalization of ‘Black’ is both a reflection of reality and of respect” (Merril Perlman, Columbia Journalism Review). Would it be better if I went back to the references, and looked to see whether or not they capitalize the words or not. It seems disrespectful to not capitalize hispanic or black when it refers to Black people or Hispanic people. I'm trying to be racially sensitive to spelling, and not depreciating Black people by lowercasing the word black. TonyMorris68 (talk) 03:40, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be conflating ethnicity and race. The former uses proper nouns. While I prefer capitalized racial categories, it's not what wikipedia does. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• Ah yes, "accusations". I twice said, in a single paragraph, that not everyone who capitalizes these terms is wrong or racist, and only that we should consider updating our language. It's not possible to discuss this issue without "racializing" it, because it is a question about race in an article about race and racism. Grayfell (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Historically, neither "white" nor "black" have been capitalized in this articl. Also, as I stated in my edit summary, for some reason, "white" was capitalized more often than "black", which suggests possible WP:POV in the original efforts to capitalize. Finally, this article has had a long history of problematic edits. Indeed, several years ago, I was outed on the Stormfront (website) for my efforts to remove bias from this article.--I am One of Many (talk) 04:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for your racism and bigotry. Historically bad grammar is still bad grammar, whether some words are lower case and others arent. Neon-Nazi, White supremacist websites, usually spell Black people, as black people, it is meant to depreciate them, as if they are not worthy of capitalization respecting a proper noun or proper name. You are engaging in racism by spelling Blacks as lowercase "blacks". Please stop dehumanizing people of African descent. TonyMorris68 (talk) 05:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@TonyMorris68, be careful with the unwarranted personal attacks. By the way, you were the one that repeatedly reverted to a version with "white" always capitalized and "black" capitalizes only a few times. I agree that Neo-Nazi and and white supremacist websites like to capitalize "white". Wikipedia is not a Neo-Nazi or white supremacist website, and so don't engage in such garbage.--I am One of Many (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Ttump covfefe

I've tagged that section with {{Contradict|date=August 2018}} <!-- August 20 2018 "*The [[South Africa|South African]] government begins the process of seizing land from white farm owners. [https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=12110366 (NZ Herald)]" --> from Wiki's own newspageas it's making news that Trump did not initiate or pull from thin air.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Whitewashing and stalking

The user D.Creish mass-removed reliably sourced content about Tucker Carlson and Trump's rhetoric on discrimination against South African [white] farmers, and completely misrepresented what Trump said and whether it was factually correct or not[3]. The user stalked me to this page (never edited it before), just as he stalked me to another page yesterday (where the user also mass-removed reliably sourced content). The content should be restored immediately. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Please remove the PAs. I restored a version that had been basically stable for a few days (although I removed a copyrighted youtube clip of the Tucker Carlson show.) What about the current version "misrepresents" what Trump said? D.Creish (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Trump talked about land seizures AND widespread killings. There were literally more than half-a-dozen high-quality RS that debunked Trump's statements, which you of course did not feel that it was pertinent to mention that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Most of those sources were good. If you can use them neutrally minding BLP go ahead. D.Creish (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

"most of those sources are good" are you sure about that? NBC would be considered a biased source by anyone in their right mind. also tucker (who I watch on fox news frequently) came back to this subject after trumps statement, and showed video of the leader of the african national congress, stating in a speech "let's wipe this whiteness from our land", basically the ANC leader is endorsing the seizure and killing. thats racism if I have ever saw it, and im not for racism of any kind.