Talk:South African farm attacks/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Obfuscatory, fringe lede

I re-wrote the lede to:

• reflect what RS say about the topic.
• remove trivial details.
• make clear that the 'white genocide' conspiracy theory (one of the primary reasons why this topic is notable and why most people are drawn to this page) is concisely explained as evidence-free and a falsehood (per RS).

My changes can be seen here[1]. The big problem with the old lede was that it was a garbled mess with way too much in-the-weeds information and random-ass data, and no succinct clarification that the notion that white farmers are being attacked in particular is without evidence and that the notion of a 'white genocide' is false. The old lede, by being obfuscatory, served to bolster the fringe 'white genocide' conspiracy theory, as it gave readers the impression that whites were being attacked and they were being attacked because they were white. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Thanks for trimming the lead. This was long overdue; the lead has been incoherent for years. But you removed plenty of well-sourced statistics etc. which you call "trivial details" but are in my opinion completely relevant for this topic. And these statistics were at least published by reliable sources, unlike the fringe lunatics you keep mentioning in the lead in a whole paragraph (that's a very big stretch from "concise"). wumbolo ^^^ 14:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

  However bad the past lead was, many of its editors and discussers have been banned since, and you should stop casting aspersions at the lead's writers' motivations. wumbolo ^^^ 14:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• What particular statistics do you want to keep in the lede? The current lede now notes the number of murders per year, and trends in both murders and non-lethal attacks. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• None, or as few as possible. Statistics belong to the body, reliably sourced of course. wumbolo ^^^ 14:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

What part of the article does the current lede [2] leave out or not accurately and proportionally summarize? The only justification for expanding it so far sounds a lot like WP:RGW [3] D.Creish (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The lede, as written by you, suggests that there is an open debate as to whether white are being targeted in these attacks. It's beyond me why you would introduce that kind of text when (i) RS make perfectly clear that there is no reliable data or evidence to suggest that whites are being targeted in particular, (ii) Carlson and Trump's claims were universally identified as false by fact-checkers, and (iii) when you know perfectly well that the overwhelming traffic to this page is driven by people who want to understand whether the claims that white are being targeted are credible or not. The version of the lede, as written by you, misinforms and misleads readers, and bolsters white nationalist fringe rhetoric, besides just being detached from what RS say. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

As for the baseless RGW accusation, you'll see that the version of the lede that I removed uncritically claimed that these attacks were "evidence" for the white genocide conspiracy theory, which is a violation of WP:FRINGE and misinforms readers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I think you're confused. There's no debate that white farmers and black farmworkers are being targeted in these attacks, the first sentence of the article makes that clear. There's also no debate that as I wrote in the lede the "South African government has disproportionately targeted white farmers in its land reform efforts." Considering the majority of farmland is owned by whites any land reform effort will affect whites as a percentage of the population disproportionately. The major sources broadly agree on these points. There's some disagreement about why whites are targeted. My version explains Carlson suggested racism (which is an accurate summary of his view per sources) while the government and AfriForum say it's not racism. The FRINGE view is the land reforms and attacks are part of a genocidal program. So far have I said anything you disagree with? D.Creish (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Your version of the lede currently sets up an open debate as to whether whites are being targeted due to anti-white racism when sources are as clear as they can be that there's no evidence that white are being disproportionately attacked and with a multitude of fact-checkers describing this as straight-up false. The sources do not at all "broadly agree" with your "actually, whites are being targeted" original research. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

You should at least read the article Land reform in South Africa. One of the reasons land reform is controversial (aside from its poor track record historically) is that land ownership is divided along racial lines. You're saying that's OR or disputed? D.Creish (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to read that Wikipedia article. The RS and the body of the article that we're in make abundantly clear that there's no evidence that whites are being disproportionately targeted in attacks or that they are targeted in attacks due to racial animus. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Looking back on the version of the lede that I wrote here, I recognize the defects in implying that Trump directly cited the attacks as part of the conspiracy theory. However, I also see lots of problems with the lengthy section version in this version. I'm a big fan of the more neutral summary-style that D.Creish came up with, currently on the page. If there are still improvements that need to be made, let's please start with this version. Bradv 21:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried to summarize the existing sections fairly. I think maybe the bigger problem is we're debating the lede and adding sources to expand it without debating the body. If we can get those body sections to where we all agree the lede should fall naturally from that. D.Creish (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing neutral about the lede. The lede, as currently written, does not reflect RS content, does not reflect the body, and misinforms readers and bolsters white nationalist rhetoric by being framed as "there's an open debate as to whether whites are being massacred because of anti-white racism". It's an utter disaster in every possible way. It would be an embarrassment to the Wikipedia project if this lede would be allowed to stand. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's a bit over the top. What specifically do you want changed? As D.Creish just said, the content and sources go in the relevant section; the lede should just be a brief summary. Bradv 22:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

There's also I think a disproportionate focus on the white genocide conspiracy theory. If you look back at a stable version (before Trump mentioned South Africa) there was no "white genocide" or "conspiracy theory" anywhere.[4] For some reason now it not only belongs in the lede but deserves it's own paragraph. The conspiracy should be the focus of the White genocide conspiracy theory article not this one. D.Creish (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The previous history of the article is a distraction, since the racial aspect of these crimes have always been a fringe conspiracy theory, according to many sources. Wikipedia doesn't validate fringe nonsense, and sideways endorsements of a theory by famous people do not give it statistical credibility. As an encyclopedia we cannot allow for WP:FRINGE theories to be legitimized in this way. Our main goal must be to explain the concept, and that must include explaining its many serious flaws. Grayfell (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

This article was an absolute train-wreck a month ago. It was an obfuscatory mess that [intentionally or not] lent credence to the white genocide conspiracy theory. The article was unsurprisingly widely shared by white nationalists and far-right conspiracy theorists to bolster their delusional claims about a white genocide. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The lede should reflect RS and say explicitly that (i) there's no evidence that whites are being targeted in particular, (ii) that the white genocide conspiracy theory is false, and (iii) leave out uncritical commentary by Carlson and Trump about whites being targeted. Can you explain why you want the lede to say "hey, there's an open debate as to whether whites are being massacred in South Africa due to anti-white racism" when half the RS in the article say that this viewpoint is false and not a single RS substantiates the viewpoint? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, now I'm confused. Why can't we be brief in the lede? It's now the same length as the relevant section in the article. Bradv 22:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Everything from 'International reaction' and below touches on the racial angle. That's between 1/2 and 1/3 of the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

But it doesn't summarize any of that, it's just a copy of the White genocide conspiracy theory section. That's not how ledes work. Bradv 22:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a concise paragraph that covers all the pertinent info on the racial issue (which covers anything from 1/3 to 1/2 of the article). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

To clarify: There are only two brief sentences specifically about the white genocide theory: one that mentions it and another that says it's false. The other two sentences (data on race, and the rationale for farm attacks) is applicable to content in other sections in the body. In fact, both of those sentences were in the old lede, but they were just put in the right paragraph by me when I re-wrote the old ridiculous lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

And how are we being brief in the lede by uncritically reciting Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump's falsehoods on the issue? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The previous lede had significant flaws, but it was quite stable for such a controversial topic, because it achieved consensus. With Trump’s Tweet, new editors became interested, and there are significant improvements, and the consensus shifted, with a lot of cruft removed. However, the last paragraph of the lede definitely needs improvement. An objective reader would be able to follow the facts without having them rammed down their throats. Destabilising the lede or inadvertently introducing POV issues risks the most important facts being wiped out in a future edit war, once the outrage cools and attention is diverted elsewhere.Park3r (talk) 08:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

There were a slew of problems with the old lede. Most damning, the lede was so absurdly bad that the article was being shared as propaganda by white supremacists as evidence for their delusional racist conspiracy theories. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Stylistic issues, and having outdated data aside (the outdated estimates accumulated over a period of years because the government had stopped releasing crime statistics for all crimes for some reason, and it’s also why conspiracy theories gained ground), the old lede was substantially the same factually as the current lede. Regardless, the issue is the last paragraph of the new lede, which certainly seems like an WP:NPOV violation. It is likely to result in the article getting NPOV tagged, which will be more damaging, because it would mean that a fairly accurate source of information will be discredited, because of a single paragraph.Park3r (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

While data is to be avoided in lead sections, if there currently doesn't exist much, it may be useful to at least mention some historical data. Right now, the lead has a WP:UNDUE problem in the third paragraph and a WP:recentism problem in the rest of it. wumbolo ^^^ 12:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

That's a very good question! Because there doesn't exist any "Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump's falsehoods on the issue". Only facts. And none of your sources' opinions will convince me that these opinions are somehow "worthy" of proving that Carlson/Trump said something that is not true, and that we can adjust a whole lead section (which is supposed to be neutral per MOS:LEADREL) to a couple of opinions. wumbolo ^^^ 20:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we stick to RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

No, we stick to NPOV. And only stick to some particular RS if we can determine that it's both reliable and relevant. wumbolo ^^^ 20:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I found the lede to be overly detailed, clunky, disorganized, and poorly written. I have revised and condensed it, moving the statistics and other specifics to the body of the article. SunCrow (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Before I even finished explaining my edits to the lede on the talk page, Snooganssnoogans had already reverted them in their entirety. I submit the proposed rewrite of the lede below for the review and comment of other editors. Snooganssnoogans, I would ask that you be mindful of WP:OWN and WP:TENDENTIOUS.

In attacks on South African farms, predominantly white South African farmers and black farm workers are subjected to violent crime including murder, assault and robbery. These attacks have been the subject of scrutiny by media and public figures in South Africa and abroad. While white nationalists have advanced the notion of a "white genocide" in South Africa, no reliable figures suggest that white South African farmers are being specifically targeted in farm attacks. The Government of South Africa, other analysts, and the right-wing Afrikaner rights group AfriForum maintain that farm attacks are part of a broader crime problem in South Africa and are not racially motivated.''

SunCrow (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

This version of the lead unnecessarily omits the Transvaal Agricultural Union, and gives even more WP:UNDUE weight to the fringe conspiracy theory. I will say a "no thanks" to that, but I do agree that the current lead is too detailed (I'd say more so with regards to the years than to the numbers). wumbolo ^^^ 15:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

The Transvaal Agricultural Union is itself an ideologically non-neutral organisation (to put it mildly). The industry body with the broadest remit is AgriSA. I wouldn't be concerned about giving the TAU a high profile. 12:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Recent reverts

Please discuss stuff here EvergreenFir (talk) 06:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Copy paste from IP
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Evidence of racially-motivated attacks & South African government complicity summarily reverted without reason (including on the Talk page) The idea of a "white genocide" in South Africa has been promoted by right-wing groups in South Africa and the United States and is a frequent talking point among white nationalists. Sixty-six percent of murders on South African farms have white victims and census figures suggest white farmers are at greater risk of being killed than the average South African. South African blacks have sought to "retake" land which they have made claims to, which the South African government has start to enforce. Third-party fact-checkers have identified the notion of a "white genocide" in South Africa as a falsehood or myth. The Government of South Africa, and other analysts, as well as the Afrikaner rights group AfriForum maintain that farm attacks are part of a broader crime problem in South Africa, and do not have a racial motivation. Select attacks have been deemed racially-motivated. References

When did radio stations and news articles become referances

This article is clearly written by someone outside of South Africa or that hasn't been here researching before writing. You use radio stations and anti-white news articles and use that as evidance based facts? Alarming that this article is blocked from editing. Jacquesixv (talk) 11:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jacquesixv: anti-white news articles that's neither a simple problem nor one we ought to fix. See WP:RGW, WP:BIASED. wumbolo ^^^ 11:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Black First Land First's Andile Mngxitama

A politician representing Black First Land First in South Africa made comments about targeting white people specifically to kill them. 1 2 3. Maybe this could be added to the article somewhere --RandomUser3510 (talk) 08:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@RandomUser3510: This says more about Black First Land First than about the farm attacks. We should not include this in this article as it's both a fringe reaction and per WP:BLP we shouldn't speculate whether the comment caused any killings. wumbolo ^^^ 09:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: I don't know about fringe reaction. Andile Mngxitama has over 80k Twitter followers and one of the articles says people were cheering him when he made the speech. Meanwhile this Wikipedia article says "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." citing older sources before this occurred. If I were to read the Wikipedia article it makes it seem like this group's sentiment doesn't exist --RandomUser3510 (talk) 09:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

We just can't link the comment to the attacks per WP:SYNTH and WP:BLP. Similar to how Capital Gazette shooting pretty much doesn't mention Trump because he is not relevant there. When (and if) there is any evidence that killings are inspired by this political party, you may bring it up. Right now, the article is unsuitable for including this reaction, as it includes no other domestic reactions. wumbolo ^^^ 10:15, 16 December 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.

Response to the above: Having actually read more from https://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/safrica2/ than you have, it would seem your only goal is to diminish the significance of attacks on white farmers. You even go so far as casting aspersions against white farmers despite there being a complete lack of evidence (as admitted in the summary article) on that matter. You deserve to have your right to edit revoked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.143.216 (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

@Aquillion: your recent edit implies that "farmers are white" is a fringe, racist belief, but it is supported by all the sources. @Snooganssnoogans, D.Creish, Bradv, Park3r, and SunCrow: pinging participants in the previous discussion about the lead. In my opinion, this long-standing content should be put back. The current lead sentence has many problems; I'd support reverting to a past revision, that'd be much easier than attempting to copyedit, which was unsuccessful by a few of us. wumbolo ^^^ 11:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I didn't remove it; I moved it to the part on race. And my issue is that what the source says is this: 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. But we were parsing it into this: a crime in which South African farmers, who are often white, and farm workers, who are usually black are victims of violent crime, including murder, assault and robbery. That implies (depending how you read it, either through WP:SYNTH or by stating it directly) that white farmers are usually the victims, which is the opposite of what the source says. That's why it's important to separate out the statement that "there are demographically more white farmers" from the sentence saying "farm attacks are XYZ." Additionally, I feel it's misusing the source to take a statement from an expert that "there are demographically more white farmers, but black farm workers are more likely to be targeted" and to use it in a way that cuts off the second part or places them in different parts of the lead. My version of "While South Africa has more white farmers overall, black farm workers are more likely to be killed." summarizes the gist of what the expert says more completely and places it in the appropriate part of the lead (one where that statement actually makes sense by putting it, as an accurate fact, in the context of the conspiracy theories that arose from people who got that fact wrong - ie. why does it matter that there are more white farmers but that more black farm workers die? It matters - according to the source - because those facts relate to the conspiracy theory.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

that white farmers are usually the victims, which is the opposite of what the source says. The source says this: demographically there are more white farmers [...] It is true that, if you look at just farmers, it is still mostly white farmers who get attacked. So no. wumbolo ^^^ 19:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

But the larger context makes it clear that the majority of victims are black farm workers, not white farmers. Using it the way you're suggesting (that is, taking a part where it says "yes, but..." and stripping away the context of the "but") requires pulling it out of context, since it unambiguously states that more black people are attacked in these attacks overall, just that white people are demographically likely to be farmers, and specifically and carefully establishes the significance of these details. Obviously, dropping it into the lead like that is misusing it as a source. More importantly, though, that source is clearly talking about it in the context of critiquing the conspiracy theories about farm attacks, which means that it should be covered in the appropriate place, in the paragraph devoted to the relevant conspiracy theory. --Aquillion (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I literally quoted facts from the source, and they support my points. You are the one misusing the source i.e. ignoring the parts I quoted. Even if the parts I quoted weren't in the source, the source wouldn't support your contention that farmers aren't mostly white. There are two possibilities: either the attacks are racially motivated, or they are not. If they are, then they probably target white farmers most of the time. If they are not, then we go by the demographics, which say that most farmers are white. Either way, this article's lead sentence should state that most farmers who are victims are white. And the "critiques of conspiracy theories" are well-established facts that belong to the first lead paragraph, definitely above the WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories, if they even deserve to be included. wumbolo ^^^ 20:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Genocide in lead

@Snooganssnoogans: regarding your revert, the policy WP:GEVAL says: "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." A lead should not contain a paragraph about a theory not accepted by any experts of fact-checkers which the lead even says. wumbolo ^^^ 13:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

You misunderstand the policy. What you're saying would apply if we simply stated that "XYZ say there's a white genocide" without clarifying that it's false. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

And from WP:UNDUE, "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views" wumbolo ^^^ 14:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

You're cherry-picking sentences to offer a misleading take on wiki policy. The full context makes clear that the sentence is about presenting the fringe view as a equally legit to the majority view (which is not the case in this article), "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth)." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

"as if" implies "if", which is WP:UNDUE. wumbolo ^^^ 14:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I pretty much agree Snooganssnoogans analysis. Sources support that this is pretty much a white nationalist conspiracy theory. Back in 2013 when I started editing the article for POV, I was outed on the Stormfront website and seriously harassed here, so it is important to explain the origin of the "white genocied" theory because it is not fringe.--I am One of Many (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. Thank you for editing Wikipedia. If neonazis hate what you're doing, you must be doing something right. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Good day, with regards to Wikipedia guidelines WP:CREATELEAD ; the lead should sum up the content of an article. Furthermore "there should not be anything in the lead that does not refer to specific content in the article and is not backed up by specific references found in the article. There should not be any unnecessary elaboration or detail in the lead. Elaboration should be reserved for the body of the article."Bhistory 14:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boershistory (talk • contribs) 14:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Article improvement Update Required

The article needs improvement and some of the links referenced needs repair. This article included many old references as well as outdated statistics. Here is a few examples I picked up;

• The South African Police Service declared in 1998 that there had been no evidence at the time of systematic organised attacks, although the matter was being investigated by special investigators

Comment: This statement was made with regards to info from 11 years ago and no clarity with regards to the official outcome of the 'investigation' through follow up is given

• According to Tshego's (Short G / Sterling) media reports, as of December 2011, approximately 3,158 – 3,811 South African farmers have been killed in these attacks.

Comment: The reference following this statement refers to articles written in 2009 and 2010, the 3,158 - 3,811 needs to be updated with new references

• Self-reported data from the Transvaal Agricultural Union state that 1,544 people were killed in farm attacks from 1990 to 2012

Comment: The sentence stops at 2012 and needs to be updated to current

• Farm murders and attacks between 1996–2007 & 2010–2016[33] South African Police Service statistics

Comment: Could this statistics be updated to current

• Criticism of response section

Comment: Mentioning the year will be helpful in tracking the chronological order of events

• Prevention section

Comment: The only prevention strategy compiled in 1997? Can this be updated

• Protest action section

Comment: the only protest action mentioned here occurred in October 2017 is this correct

• Lead

Comment: The lead should summaries the content of the article with reference from the article as per the WP:CREATELEAD

Bhistory 09:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boershistory (talk • contribs) 09:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019 Edits

I've rolled back a bunch of minor edits to the version last edited by @Snooganssnoogans: - let's try to not obfuscate the use of this issue to pump up fringe political perspectives. WP:FRINGE lays out pretty clearly how we're supposed to approach issues like this. Putting it bluntly, WP:DUCK and WP:FRINGE agree on matters of fringe political positions. Simonm223 (talk) 12:11, 21 June 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)

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)

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 [5] [6] 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.[7]

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 [8]

"Statistical data relating to the population and particular groups within it" find the link to the source here [9]

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)

Regarding the introductory paragraph that begins Unsubstantiated claims ... this entire is firstly editorialising text that appears elsewhere, and secondly appears to be a non-NPOV attempt to document what is a South African issue in terms of primarily US-source news media articles. All the citations in this paragraph are from politically left-wing non-South African sources, and are not direct references to any statistical or scientific analysis of the actual topic, and are better covered elsewhere in the article. I propose to remove this paragraph from the introductory header of the page.--122.58.101.251 (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, when you spend the entire article trying to prove a negative based on what a bunch of special interest groups are saying, that is possibly the least neutral approach you could possibly take. If the purpose of the article is to debunk a claim, that should be the title. Zabublex (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2020 (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)

"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)

I'm really concerned you say it's rightfully so they are being targeted. Gabbobler (talk) 02:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the text should be included in the article either in the lead or in the body. BHistory (talk) 10:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that adding "Boer" is WP:SYNTH since none of the cited sources even uses the term. I am One of Many (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I was referring to the sentence "Racial vitriol is an element in some of the murders of white farmers". Where was the term "Boer" added? BHistory (talk) 09:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

You can delete this cause I don't really care about being "within the right format" but the fact that the only article on Wikipedia about the killing of largely white farmers in South Africa is doing exactly what the president and leader of the police of South Africa are doing - denouncing any suggestion that whites are being racially target (WHICH THEY ARE) and that this IS in fact a big problem in South Africa (ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS CRIME HAS INCREASED...) is reason enough why I will never donate to this site even if it is useful for other things that are mostly pop culture related. This is a pervasive issue and is being government-sanctioned, yet I see no mention of this in this article. The government is perpetuating race war. And the whole BLM movement in America is just perpetuating it even more, which is why there are more cases since August 2020 of deaths than there have been in the last 2 years when the spikes in deaths truly escalated, which are also conveniently omitted from this entire article. There is no care about credibility or neutrality, here. You are just being complicit in perpetuating what the government of South Africa is perpetuating. And it's only going to get worse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.240.92 (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

It's also a concern considering there have been cases where racial vitirol was exactly the case. Gabbobler (talk) 02:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)