Talk:South African farm attacks/Archive 1

message: DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between 1 December 2005 and 31 December 2005.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are
replying to if necessary.
Please add new archivals to Talk:South African Farmer Murders/Archive02. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Slashme 06:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

message: *I believe there probably is a need for this article, but not in its present form, which contains a large number of anonymous claims, and data that are unsupported and in some cases directly contradicted by reference publications. Rather than edit this article without explanation, I have highlighted some of the faults below: 
Humansdorpie 19:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent analysis.  Why not take a hatchet to the article?  Take out the POV stuff, and leave a description of the two major positions.  What the farmers' organisations say, and what the government and external analyses say? --Slashme 20:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words|Weasel words]] 

message: I've tried to divide the article into sections so that it is clear to the reader that there are different points of view being considered in the article. I've also removed some of the remaining POV stuff, added some citations, added the primary findings of the Committee of Inquiry, removed the reference to Boer farmers - POV and not accurate. Humansdorpie 16:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections

message: I think the article is now reasonably neutral, as it contains the main thrust of both points of view.  I have therefore removed the POV tag, and replaced it with the controversial-article tag.  --Slashme 09:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversial

message: A link should be added to the Crime Expo South Africa article, as it exposes the South African farm attacks / Farm murders. The editors (Zyxoas / Zunaid) above would be object to it, whilst stating that this article is neutral. --222.154.88.252 00:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 222.154.88.252 is a disgruntled ex-pat now in New Zealand, methinks, trying to justify their exit. Wizzy…☎ 07:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing wrong witht that. He or they had sufficient reason for leaving. --Adriaan90 08:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This is rather amusing; must say. Thank the FSM for emigration, that way we can get rid of some of our racists, moaners and wallies... Mikker (...) 18:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, get rid of them like Zimbabwe did, so South Africa can join its northern neighbours in progress, prosperity and success! I think this contributor should be awarded the Robert Mugabe Prize, or should that be the Idi Amin Prize? Booshank (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

text:  Wow what a disgusting thing to say. Do you think whites are the only people to be affected by crime and want to emigrate?? Go and take a look at News24.co.za and remove your blinkers. I fully agree that the link to Crime Expo should be added - most of the incidents there are not reported by newspapers as they are 'so common'. SparrowsWing 23:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm... no I don't think "whites are the only people to be affected by crime and want to emigrate". Where the hell did you get that from? And I've had more than my fair share of break-ins and other criminal events, so I'm not saying crime isn't a problem. I'm saying SA has an unusually large number of stupid idiots, people who do nothing but moan and racists. Thankfully, some of these emigrate. Good riddance. Mikker (...) 23:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I do apologise - I totally misread what you said. Crime is something that affects all people in South Africa ... and  you are quite correct - moaning will not change or improve things. SparrowsWing 23:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  I do not agree with the link to Crime Expo. It did not give an accurate indication of farm attacks - it was a sensationalist, attention seeking site, trying to hamper job creation. The 'editor' also didn't add comments from people who were against the site, or had good stories... bluntly ignored it, so it didn't give you an indication of that - only the bad things. While Crime in SA is a problem, that was not a constructive way to try and counter it. (White female living in SA) --Theabc 20:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crime Expo South Africa 

message: The deaths black on white now average 200+ a year in South Africa.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.109.131 (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Should be merged with White Genocide Article 

message: I added a section about the belief that farm attacks had a political motive and were linked to politicians' verbal attacks on farmers.
I realise this is a controversial topic but to cover it properly I believe we need to include the significant viewpoints, even if conflicting. The belief that farm attacks have at least in a part a political motive and that hate speech inflames some people to carry out attacks is certainly a significant opinion and must be included. As I understand it, this information was removed as uncited previously. Therefore I have provided a reference to the respected mainstream South African news site News24.com. Of course it isn't Wikipedia's job to decide which opinion is correct, merely to provide the verifiable significant views. I feel this had not been done properly by excluding the belief that attacks were politically motivated or linked to slogans such as "Kill the Boer, kill the farmer!", perhaps in an effort to avoid being controversial. Booshank (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone respects News24.com?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.30.79.194 (talk) 07:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-farmer hate speech info added 

message: There is no information on the percentage or racial make-up of other farmers or even a small background on the type of farming that white farmers do. This article is more racial than anything else. I can't cite this or use any of its references for academic use. 41.150.82.68 (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you would like to fix any problems or shortcomings that you see in this article, starting with removing or correcting any statements that you consider 'racial'. This is Wikipedia. You have to power to make it better yourself, without relying on others.pietopper (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Information on other racial groups?

message: I feel the article as it stands is fairly neutral and generally balances out the viewpoints presented, thus the neutrality tag should be removed. Comments? Zunaid©Please rate me at Editor Review! 11:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why it's not neutral? I think this is the best way to manage it.Can you explain it? --I90Christian (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

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

message: Under the "racism in Israel" section featured on the "racial segregation" cluster of articles there is a section devoted to racism against Jews. Being that the Jews are the majority in Israel this would mean wikipedia does not follow the "racism is power+bigotry" formula and therefore this article also should feature in order to ensure people know that these attacks are caused by general racism against white South Africans.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.72.141 (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't follow your logic.  Do you mean that Jews don't face racism? --I am One of Many (talk) 03:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

text: It's just pointless. Too much POV pushing on this page. I'm disappointed in Wikipedia. I am One of Many wins in his genocide denial crusade. Goodbye. 91.177.253.221 (talk) 05:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

text: I disagree that this should be added to a "Racism in South Africa" section and agree that there is most likely too much POV.  This not to say that there is no racism against white people, or any other group of people, in South Africa. The referancable sources I have been able to find so far state that attacks are not racially motivated even though they might at time involve racial slurs.  They are instead motivated by simple greed.  I have added one reference about that to the article already and another one to this sentence.. --Discott (talk) 12:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: This should be added to the "Racism in South Africa" section

message: Africa Check published the article cited. They did however not disclose that their author Nechama Brodie is a long time member of the ANC. I think that should be mentioned in the article. --197.228.32.86 (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Africa Check dishonest 

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

message: I read here that Boer is considered offensive, but I beg to differ. I know many Afrikaners who have no problem with being called "Boer", "Boerseun", "Boerman", "Boermeisie" or "Boervrou" and I don't think that Boer is meant as an offensive term in the context of "Shoot the Boer" even though they do mean to communicate "Shoot the Afrikaans Farmer". This would be similar to saying "Kill the Porra" or "Kill the Yankee", would it not? Aleksandar Bulovic' (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: More often than not, it is going to cause offence. Likewise, I know black people who have no problem with being called "nigger", "nigga", or "coon", yet it is clearly offensive to a great many people, and the same applies to the word "Boer". You're not disproving the word's offensive capacity by citing an example of someone you know who doesn't mind being called the word - all that proves is that somebody out there doesn't mind it, but that means nothing. 79.70.230.110 (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dear IP: Citing an example of someone you know who takes offense and being called a "Boer" only means that someone out there takes offense. It means nothing, especially coming from an anonymous source. pietopper (talk) 10:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the word "Boer" 

message: "Social inequity and white privilege are big issues in South Africa, and 10% of the population owns 80% of the farming lands." Whats with that line? White privilege in the modern South Africa? In the modern South Africa there isn't white or black privilege, if there is any, and by god I hate how people turned the word privilege into something bad, is ANC favoritism.
I suggest the removal of this line "Social inequity and white privilege are big issues in South Africa, and 10% of the population owns 80% of the farming lands." or the rephrasing of it, because it reads like a line from a Tumblr blog about "Social Justice".
This isn't a blog, this is an encyclopedia. 186.92.86.172 (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  White Privilege? 

message: This article does not look neutral in its tone and format.  While the 'facts' might be correct, the way in which they're presented appears to have a subjective agenda.  For example, "According to the South African Human Rights Commission there have been 9,400 farm attacks, an estimated 61% of victims are white while whites only make up 9,2% of the population.[3]"  How many whites making up South Africa's population is irrelevant unless the population of farm / land ownership is included.  Majority of South Africa's land is owned by whites (http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-01-23-who-owns-what-land-in-south-africa), so it stands to reason that more white farmers will be victims of farm violence.
Potjiekos, you are committing exactly the mistake you are accusing others of committing: most of the land does not mean most of the farmers, most of the land does not even mean the richest parts of the land since most of the land in South Africa is arid and owned by extensive white farmers in the Karroo. You should also analyze who gets killed: often they are poor white farmers, old white farmers. Nothing is stolen and the murders are especially vicious and gruesome. As far as blacks and coloureds being killed on farms they are often workers who are seen as collaborators of the white "baas" and who may help him. The real target is the "baas", the coloured/blacks labourers are eliminated as collateral dammage. It is a methodological error to count farm workers in the statistics to prove that the crimes against farm **owners** are not racially-based. To prove that point race-**ownership** should be considered, not the fact the certain races work on a farm.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.217.186 (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Both citations regarding the South African Human Rights Commission are wrong.  Which could be a journalistic error and lack of proper research.  The report named "Inquiry into Human Rights Violations in Farming Communities" by the SAHRC depict a different picture than stated above.  For example, regarding the farm workers abuses and human right conditions.  The report is available here: http://www.info.gov.za/otherdocs/2003/farming/ I will remove the quote referring to the SAHRC for the lack of direct citation from the source and contradicting reference from the same source. Analyzer99 (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

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

message: What POV? Gob Lofa (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Could an experienced editor please revert the last two changes, 17:10, 7 March 2016‎ SAJournoCT and 17:04, 7 March 2016‎ Fwlehmann. While the last two edits reflect images added to this page, the images are not of farm attacks, rather of a lady attacked at a train station in Centurion, Gauteng in South Africa. Shocking as they may be, they have no relevance in this article. Source with used pics here http://www.enca.com/south-africa/woman-seriously-wounded-centurion-gautrain-station. The net effect was to cast aspersion on the real article regarding a serious issue, e.g.: https://www.facebook.com/CICA.CrimeIntel/posts/852032988256391   — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekSmythe (talk • contribs) 20:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits of 7 March 2016‎ 

message: :The tag on the article claims the lead needs to be rewritten, but I can't find any discussion here - correct me if I'm wrong - pertaining exactly as to why. Is this a neutrality issue? Please remember when you add a tag to an article, the tag invariably points editors to the talk page where the problems mentioned in the tag are expounded upon. If this is just a case of random tagging without discussion related to fixing anything, it's an instance of drive-by tagging. 
:Feel free to re-insert the tag when you've opened a section here explaining what the rationale for adding it was and discuss specifically how you envision these issues being fixed. Until then we're whistling in the dark. --Katangais (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the history of this article, you will see that it was a mess when it came to neutrality and POV.  Over the last couple of years, it has been gradually been improving to the point that it no longer needs a neutrality tag.  When that tag was place, the article looked like it had been written by a group similar to the Stormfront.  I have no objection to the tag being removed.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: Hello. Could you explain why this edit was unconstructive? I'm confused by that. Since this article is not about all murders, but is more specific, listing the total murder rate seems like a non sequitur considering the rest of the paragraph. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of murders vs. number of farm murders