Talk:South African farm attacks

"Blacks" and "whites" outside of quotes

"Unsubstantiated claims that such attacks on farmers disproportionately target whites", "Proponents of the theory that farm attacks disproportionately target whites point", and "Some South African blacks...".

Look, this might come from a non-SA point of view, but I do think such phrasings come off as a bit shocking for your a good chunk of global English readers, so could we reconsider rephrasing these? 2803:4600:1116:12E7:590A:EE54:1EDB:5A80 (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

As an American, I have no idea what you find shocking about this phrasing. People talk like that all across the English speaking world 118.231.129.28 (talk) 03:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

It's standard South African English usage, especially when talking about race. MOS:EUPHEMISM would seem to apply. Park3r (talk)

Newsweek as Credible Source & Racially Motivated Homicide

This objectively verifiable fact of reality was removed from the article on grounds that Newsweek is no longer a credible source, whereas WP:RSPSS states Editors should discuss Newsweek on a case by case basis. Thus, three additional sources from Reuters, New York Times, and The Independent were added, underpinning the nature of these murders as racially motivated, and the comment should stand. While the article's tone conflating "white farmers being murdered" with "white genocide" is little more than Reductio ad absurdum, denying the existence of an overwhelmingly racial element to these targeted homicides should be considered an act of intellectual treason. Otodus Meg (talk) 05:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

This is hardly an objectively verifiable fact of reality. Let's break down your edit:

• While the murder of white farmers is racially motivated was sourced to news.com.au. This source doesn't even come close to supporting that claim. In fact, the only mention of motivation is from an interview, where the interviewee says "It is not clear what the motive for this murder is." Also, "white" is only mention as the color of a vehicle.
• and causing protest was sourced to The New York Times, Independent, and Reuters. The NYT gave several reasons for the protests—which included mention of both sides, incidentally—and also debunked the racial conspiracy theory. Reuters also covered both sides of the protests and debunked the racial claims. The Independent only mentioned the farmer side of the protest, but they were careful to mention that only some of the farmers were pushing the racial claims—which the article also debunked.
• these murders peaked in 2018 with a white farmer murdered every 5 days was sourced to Newsweek. Newsweek says nothing about the murders peaking in 2018. The source does repeat a claim about "one white farmer has been killed every five days", which it attributes to "white nationalist lobbying group AfriForum". We can't put that claim in Wikipedia's voice, even if it were repeated in an unquestionably reliable source. Newsweek then goes on to put this in context and debunks the racial claims. Overall, the article is low-quality with a clickbaity headline, which is why we tend to avoid Newsweek.

To sum up, there's no way this edit is acceptable. The sources, by and large, do not support the claims. When they support some of the claims, those claims are cherrypicked, which violates all of our content policies. Woodroar (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• Leaving aside the credibility of Newsweek, the citation in your edit[1] didn't match the article you cited. You cited it as A White Farmer is Killed Every Five Days in South Africa but the article title is A White Farmer Is Killed Every Five Days in South Africa and Authorities Do Nothing about It, Activists Say. The article clearly states that it is repeating the view of activists, but it was truncated and changed to support a factual assertion. Park3r (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

EFF President Julius Malema chanting "Kill the Boer! Kill the Farmer!"] to a full stadium screaming ideologues in Johannesburg is objectively verifiable. It's on video. You can watch it yourself. The same can be said for a calmer Malema discussing calls to Hwhite genocide. Both objectively verifiable.

Gaslight elsewhere, comrade. Otodus Meg (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Article is biased. Four key elements excluded which points towards a more balanced view of the article

Wikipedia isn't a platform for original research
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The easiest thing in life, is using statistics to prove a point which is not necessarily true; often citing references out of context. This is especially evident where the writers themselves are unable to disconnect their emotion and bias from a scenario in favour of being objective (even of that implies them writing things which they themselves do not necessarily support in their heart, in an effort to remain objective and true). For instance: "The most dangerous thing in the world, is a bed, because most people in the world, die on a bed." So at all cost, please stay away from a bed! Yes, this is statistically correct, but the conclusion is wrong, because it does not take medical reasons behind humanity's tendency to die during sleep, into consideration. Now, take into account 4 of the following facts (none of which is included in the above article, and all which can be found if searched on Google): 1.) Part of the key elements to build unity during various banned political groups during Apartheid, was to sing certain songs to build unity in the ranks of its members (who were often banned by the Apartheid Government due to acts of terrorism). One key song was (and still is) "Kill the farmer, Kill the boer". Would this, under no instance, whatsoever, influence SOME people to kill farmers? 2.) The singing of abovementioned song was taken to court, due to the ex-leader of the ruling ANC's youth wing leader (who became leader of the political activist group, EFF), still singing the song publicly at gatherings. The court deemed it not to be racially driven and not banning the song, since it forms part of the country's cultural Heritage. The same (ANC government appointed) court, banned the old Apartheid National flag from being displayed, since that encited hatred. If this was in any other country, would the courts have ruled the same? Are these not both equal (but altering) parts of the same coin? 3.) The South African Government stopped reporting (or even documenting) racial statistics on victims and perpetrators of crimes, a few years post Apartheid. On the other hand, many other official government forms still require racial information "for statistical purposes", such as when applying for a job. So the "existence" of facts supporting racial motivation, does therefore not exist and any other source who documents such info is unfortunately deemed as "inciting" or being racially biased and therefore viewed as being untrue (irrespective of whether it may be true or not). 4.) A list of victims of farm murders (not farm attacks) are documented (by friends/family members) on a stone wall in Bothaville on the site of the biggest Agricultural Show Premises (NAMPO). It is listed per name and per region and can therefore be traced to verify accuracy. This list is already quite expansive. (Noted, this is the only instance where Wikipedia doesmention one line on this, but it eludes to elaborate to the potential significance thereof to prove or disprove the narrative of the article). In addition to the above, no details of the exact court reports on the vehement nature of some of the attacks (which can be verified from court archives) are mentioned. The details and the magnitude of some of these attacks which are sometimes committed on belated children, may guide the reader to gain insight to form his/her comclusion. In the end, it comes across that Wikipedia unfortunately fails during the course of this article in providing objectivity. It states conclusions, based on seemingly filtered reports and leaves out many opposing views or seems to wade much of it down which comes across as having rendered judgement on what is fact and what is not. It does not mind how much an editor agrees or disagrees with certain facts. It is not the purpose of the editor to choose the conclusion. A reviewer and editor needs to objectively state ALL opposing views, leaving the reader to choose what conclusion he or she whats to come to. It has scientifically proven that with identical twins who have an alcolholic father, that the one child becomes an alcoholic and the other does not. When enquiring as to the driving factor behind they themselves reverting go alcoholism or not, both provided the exact same reason: "Because my father was an alcoholic." Can we therefore please avoid trying to state a conclusion, but rather give all sides in a balanced and objective way and rather leave the reader to decide what to be true or not? 196.253.245.154 (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC) Unfortunately, Wikipedia isn't a place for balanced perspectives. ChonokisFigueroa (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC) Well said 83.83.206.27 (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia isn't a platform for original research. These "elements" are not actionable, and cannot become actionable as presented. Grayfell (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

logical error

The phrase under the Motives section: "The South African government believes the chief motive for attacks is robbery. This position was shared by Afrikaner rights group Afriforum in a 2017 interview, where they stated that they do not believe that there is a racial motive associated with all attacks."

Does not make sense. You can't draw the conclusion that A supports the notion that main motive is not X just because they say not all motives are X. 105.185.135.248 (talk) 13:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory?

In what way is it a "conspiracy theory"? It isn't. 47.185.120.223 (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

In the way the reliable sources describe it EvergreenFir (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

In other words, in the way that left-biased "reliable sources" are only used as references. Meanwhile sources with high reliability like The Citizen (South African newspaper), are conveniently excluded.

https://ground.news/interest/the-citizen_8f4e4d

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-citizen-south-africa/

Instead mixed reliability sources, especially left-biased mixed reliability sources and outdated articles linked from said sources, are preferred. This is a fact. ChonokisFigueroa (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

It's the standard biased practice on Wikipedia, sadly. They claim the content must be from a neutral point of view, while only allowing sources they deem "reliable" which all coincidentally have the same ideological bias. It's essentially become a political propaganda outlet. Noxian16 (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Evergreenfir, while it may not be the definition of genocide yet, the calls made to violence are genocidal level, and that was mentioned none. Bopswiki914 (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2023

Julius Malema has made calls to violence, saying "Kill the Boer, the Farmer" at a recent chant for his EFF candidacy. While the EFF is a new party, it is rising in popularity. One of the main points for his campaign as of 2019 is to expropriate land of whites in South Africa, without compensation. Elon Musk weighed in on Malema's rally, after seeing the video, and said they "are pushing for genocide.".

https://www.foxnews.com/media/south-african-political-leader-calls-violence-against-white-citizens-rally-kill-boer-farmer Bopswiki914 (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. see WP:FOXNEWS, if you have an alternate source, post it here and reopen the request then Cannolis (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Even with a WP:RS, this is undue for the lead; it's essentially about one comment by one person. --Aquillion (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)