Talk:South African farm attacks/Archive 2

message: Hi JvB,
I have moved the discussion on hate speech to the section that already deals with "kill the boer" etc, and have removed the links to white supremacist websites, and made the links to reputable media into references.  Let's once again see whether we can find a middle ground here. --Slashme 13:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Struggle songs and hate speech

message: Please ONLY SIGN under the proposed name you prefer; any ongoing discussion should take place in the section above. This poll will close on Monday, 9 October 2006.
Change name to "South African farm attacks"
#Zunaid 06:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: “Farm attacks” is the official South African whitewash terminology for “farm murders” see:  --Jvb – October 1, 2006
Change name to "Violence in rural South Africa" or something similar
#or alternatively to "South African farm attacks" if this name is not possible - htonl 09:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll

message: I take it there is a good consensus to move the article. Will do so now. Zunaid 11:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus to move to [[South African farm attacks]]

message: After the page move I discovered a slew of redirect pages with inappropriate and POV titles. I've nominated all of them for deletion (it can be found here). In addition, WikiWizzy's arguments about POV, echoed by FayssalF's arguments about WP:NPOV and WP:WTA above prompted me to nominate the titles using the word "murder" as well, as they can be construed as implying a viewpoint. Zunaid 14:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect pages up for deletion

message: I live in South Africa, and we don't talk about "farm attacks", we talk about "farm murders"... Shouldn't the title be changed to farm murders? Farm attacks suggest that people aren't always murdered, but that wouldn't be under this topic then, so I suggest the title change. --Adriaan90 12:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh. Here it's not even WP:RTFA, it's read the non-archived talk page just above your post. Mikker (...) 22:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever, fool. Thanks for your sweet comment. --Adriaan90 12:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must say despite Adriaan90's agressive response, his suggestion is valid. The term in South Africa is Farm Murders. You would not refer to the genocide of Jews in World War II as Jew 'attacks'. SparrowsWing 08:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Um hello can you see I'm supporting your point of view here? SparrowsWing 20:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhm hello can you see that I never said you didn't? You're changing the subject. I don't really think you know what you're talking about. --Adriaan90 04:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you have any references for your claims? If not you aren't really contributing. --Adriaan90 04:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title? Please. 

message: I have removed the following:
:Fact checking organisation Africa Check has stated that black and coloured farmowners account for less than 38.4% of victims of farm attacks, while accounting for 89% of South Africa's population. Although definitive statistics on the race of farmowners are not available, estimates suggest that, for example, only some 2.96% of farms in the Free State Province are "black-owned", regardless of the proportion of South Africans who are Black. 
There are several problems with this segment: Firstly, Africa Check said 38.4% of victims of farm attacks were "described as being black, coloured or Asian". That's not "less than" 38.4%, and it's not just owners but any victims. Secondly, Africa Check does not contrast this figure to the total share of black and coloured people among the South African population. That would be a stupid thing to do; if those really were farm owners, they would need to be contrasted to the share of black and coloured people among the South African farm owners, which may be significantly lower than 38.4% and almost certainly is lower than 89%. So the first sentence misleadingly combines disparate sources of data to make a point that none of the sources makes. The second sentence also cherry-picks data, and its source doesn't discuss farm attacks at all, giving no indication how the statistics in that source would relate to the number of farm attack victims. Combining disparate statistics to make broader points about the racial makeup of farm attack victims that are not supported by the sources is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics and synthesis 

message: This page should be made a featured article and shown on the front page of the English language version of Wikipedia to help spread the word to the wider public. 2601:8C:4102:1210:651A:285A:DAB:5AD5 (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  This should be made into a featured article 

message: I have never been to RSA but according to this news item the official statistics are not reliable:
http://www. eutimes.net/2015/03/murders-of-south-african-whites-hidden-by-fraudulent-natural-death-certificates/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.160.157 (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  statistics 

message: (I am not an RSA citizen, have never been to RSA, but curious why there are demos just now. These figures make the perception of reality credible.)
71 murders and 369 attacks, source is F. Mbalula, though data was only released on the condition of not publishing
http://www.farmingportal.co.za/index.php/farmingnews/breking-news/item/11632-will-it-be-gloves-off-in-anc-showdown-with-south-africa’s-commercial-farmers?
http://ewn.co.za/2017/10/29/farm-murders-an-outright-act-of-terror
Also a disreputable source
http://freewestmedia.com/2017/10/31/afrikaners-come-together-on-blackmonday-to-protest-ongoing-farm-murders/
I first updated the table of the article, which was removed because the last source was neo-nazi. Again, no idea. I just thought if they mention in the article that they got it from a government minister, it would be credible regardless of the web site that published the data.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.160.157 (talk) 11:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  statistics 2016