Talk:South African farm attacks/Archive 1

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)

---

Rewrite

I've just finished rewriting what was an extremely biased article, Rainbow Nation. One of my links ends up here, to Farm Murders. Would anyone object if I take some time out to review the links, my own factual (verifiable) data, and rewrite this article with a more neutral viewpoint? This would most definetly entail a complete change in existing text.

Objections?

Ssteedman 21:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

After looking at your other edits, I would welcome your input on this article! --Slashme 08:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• An excellent idea - I'm intending to have a go in the next few days, so hopefully we can combine efforts. Humansdorpie 22:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• I've just gone through the external/media links sections with a fine tooth comb and discovered the following:

1. Many of the links point to privately hosted websites (i.e. not newspapers or internationally recognised organisations)
2. Many of the links point to different areas of the same website
3. Many of the links point to the same content hosted on different websites
4. On these sites themselves there does ot seem to be any citation of sources, thus quoting any information from these sites in the article does not satisfy WP:CITE, which requires that information be cited and referenced from reliable sources
5. In at least one case the link pointed to an article not related to the farm murders
6. In at least one case ("Names of the murdered") the names are forwarded by individuals posting on an MSN forum. This info is thus "first hand" and is uncorroborated with an official source e.g. police/news reports and thus constitutes original research, violating WP:NOR
7. As far as I could determine (and maybe someone could correct me if I'm wrong), none of the allegations and statistics mentioned in the article are verified by the sources cited, the sole exception being the "313 per 100,000" (which ironically is quoted wrong in the article as 331 per 100,000)

In light of 1,2,3 and 5 above, I can only conclude that someone is trying to "flesh out" the Sources and External Links section to make it seem as if there is substance to the article (IMHO there is already enough substance and evidence without trying to make it seem as if there is more). The word "sources" in this case is misleading as per 7 above.

In light of ALL the above, I've rewritten the article, making the follwing changes:

• Consolidated the external and media links section into one and removed the word "sources" per my arguments above
• Removed duplicate links to the same website where possible
• Removed links to duplicated content on different websites
• Removed most links to privately hosted websites, especially those with uncorroborated information
• Added a link to a News24 search for "farmer murders" which automatically consolidates all the relevant news topis from that website into one place, and is a MUCH more reliable source of info than any of the others
• Added a {{needcite}} tag to each statistic and allegation made without corresponding information in the External links
• Added an {{unreferenced}} tag to the article
• Removed the "see also" section as nowhere in the article is the volkstaat alluded to AT ALL

Zunaid 15:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

POV

I am not an expert on the subject, but this article certainly seems biased to me! See the discussion on Talk:Farm murders. --Slashme 11:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I support a merge of these pages - it seems like a case of Wikipedia:Content forking. Wizzy…☎ 12:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I also support a merger of both pages, but it’s not because the text contains unpleasant elements that it is biased. The mass murder on a specific category of people is really happening :--Jvb – December 05, 2005

In my opinion this specific article now is NPOV. Does somebody have any objections to remove the tag? --Jvb – December 09, 2005

Can we do the merge first ? Wizzy…☎ 08:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but how should we proceed? Perhaps first simply paste the other “farm murders” article below here for some while and then gradually see what is double or POV? Because it is a very sensitive affair, I propose to take enough time for it. --Jvb – December 09, 2005

I see that some text has been added about farm murders outside South Africa, so maybe now a complete merge is not appropriate. I thin the best is to leave the general text there, and leave a brief paragraph about ZA, one about Zim, and above the ZA paragraph, put in a "main article" link to this page. --Slashme 14:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. But I would indeed restrict “farm murders” to South Africa and Zimbabwe. Ireland is on another continent and in another period of time. --Jvb – December 09, 2005

Short notes to be included into article later

There is another point of view to be taken into account besides that shown in the article as it is at present. I am no expert, as I said above, but these following sources might be taken into consideration as well. --Slashme 15:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Summary of the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 31 July 2003. Released by the SAPS on 26 September 2003 or visit

[...]Attacks could occur on any day of the week, although there was an increase on Fridays, possibly because farmers often have large amounts of cash ready for the workers’ wages on that day.

There were 1398 victims of farm attacks in 2001. Of those 147 or 10.5% were killed, and 484 or 34.6% of the victims were injured. About 12.3% of the female victims were raped. It should be noted that 71% of all rape victims were black.

Money was robbed in 31.2% of the cases, firearms in 23.0%, and vehicles in 16.0%. Other popular items were cellular telephones and other valuables. There is a very common misconception that in a large proportion of farm attacks nothing is stolen. That is not so: investigations by the Committee have shown that various items are stolen in by far the greater majority of cases, and, in those cases where nothing is taken, there is almost always a logical explanation, such as that the attackers had to leave quickly because help arrived.

The Committee identified some 2 644 cases on the NOCOC database for 1998 to 2001 where the apparent primary motive was obvious. In 89.3% of those cases the motive was clearly robbery, in 7.1% it was some form of intimidation (such as crops or buildings being burnt down), in 2.0% some political or racial motive could be discerned, and in 1.6% it was labour related, such as a dispute over wages. In those cases where intimidation, political or labour related motives were present, robbery was almost always committed as well.

Of the 1398 victims in 2001, 61.6% were white, 33.3% black, 4.4% Asian and only 0.7% coloured. If one looks at the previous four years, it would seem as if the proportion of white victims are decreasing and the black victims increasing. [...]

• But don’t forget the farmer’s voice. Not everything is explained in the report[1].

• Attacks on white farm dwellers were almost double the number of attacks against black farm dwellers, almost five times as many white victims were murdered compared to black victims, and the levels of violence directed against victims were unexplainably high.
• Sufficient evidence existed that not all victims were robbed. There was also evidence that, in some cases, the attackers waited for hours for the victims to return. "If theft was the driving force, why would they not take what they want and leave?" the TAU asked. There was also clear evidence of victims being tortured before being murdered, which indicated vindictiveness.
• "The reported lack of investigative ability, the growing distrust in the SAPS, the reference that less than 50% of reported cases are investigated, and the fact that less than 10%of crimes terminate in a successful prosecution, are reasons for serious concern."

• And what about the report's credibility[2]?…The report, meant to have been released on Wednesday, was held back as Nqakula and Justice Minister Penuell Maduna were "not satisfied with certain aspects" of it… They (the ministers) did not specify what the problem was exactly… This action casts doubt on the integrity of the report… This creates the impression that the commission has found that the causes and motives for farm murders were more than criminality…

--Jvb – December 05, 2005

UNEQUAL PROTECTION The State Response to Violent Crime on South African Farms (Human Rights Watch)

The rural protection plan was presented as a comprehensive initiative aimed at addressing the concerns of all residents of commercial farming areas in relation to violent crime. In practice, however, the plan has significantly increased insecurity for black residents of and vistors to commercial farming areas, as they have become the targets of sometimes indiscriminate "anti-crime" initiatives. Members of the commandos, police reservists, full-time soldiers and police, and others participating in the rural protection plan have committed serious abuses against farmworkers and other farm residents. There are reports of abuses, ranging from the staging of illegal roadblocks to murder, by commando units in several areas, especially those operating in southern Mpumalanga and northern KwaZulu-Natal. Members of the Wakkerstroom commando, one of several commando units controlled by local farmers in this border region, are accused of assault, torture, forced and illegal evictions, and murder of farm residents.

Farmworkers and residents face great problems if they wish to report assaults by farm owners or managers, starting from a fear of retaliation should they speak out. The police are frequently unresponsive, sometimes hostile, and may even refuse to open a file. [...]

The state response to violent crime against farm owners is much more determined and effective--even if resource and other constraints mean that police response times are often too slow and police detective work inadequate, and that the state has therefore also relied on self-help initiatives from the farm owners. [...]

• The commandos, did they really commit such serious abuses? Before judging, please also take in consideration the following source [3] (From the South African quality newspaper Mail & Guardian) What a pity that no reasons were given by the government about phasing out the commando system, so that in advance no public political discussion was possible about the fact of the matter. --Jvb – December 07, 2005

Weasel words

• 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)

Since the end of apartheid in South Africa in 1994, over 1750 white Boer farmers (I can't find any official data to support this claim. This site suggests that 1790 farmers have been murdered, but it is clear from a cursory examination that not all of the 1790 people listed are white, of Afrikaans descent or farmers; indeed, victim number 1781 is an unnamed, alleged farm attacker!) have been murdered throughout the country. Attacks have also been recorded against the few wealthy black farmers (Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks in fact records that one-third of all victims of farm violence in 2001 were black). In most incidences, perpetrators tend to be young black males from poor communities nearby (Citation needed).

As a result of these crimes the murder rate for white farmers in the country is as high as 331 per 100,000, among the highest in the world for any given group of people (Perhaps someone can explain how this figure has been arrived at. In 2002 there were 112 farm murders out of a total farming population of 986,000 farm residents). As a result of these murders many farmers (How many? Citation needed) have fled the countryside for the cities (citation?) where they often settle in gated communities or protected suburban areas (do they? Citation needed), or have fled to other countries (Citation needed. This suggests that just 83 farmers or farm managers emigrated from South Africa between 2001 and 2003).

This depopulation has been extensive throughout the country (Citation needed). Of the 85,000 commercial farmers in South Africa in 1994, there remain only 25,000 today (I can't trace these figures: The 2002 agriculture census suggests that in 1993 there were 68,000 famers employing just over a million people; in 2002 they counted 46,000 farmers employing just under a million people.) This flight has disrupted the cycle of farming, (The what? Citation needed) and years of expertise have been lost to South Africa. Output has dropped 50%, (Citation needed. The 2002 agriculture census records that gross farming income has increased by about one-third between 1993 and 2002. The United Nations Food & Agriculture Organisation records that agricultural food production in South Africa has risen consistently since 1979, apart from a blip in 2001) and many farmers are reluctant to leave the house unless well armed (Citation needed).

Many theories have been put forth for the reason for these murders, including race and poverty. It has been suggested (Citation needed) that many poor people believe that land belonging to white farmers will be redistributed to blacks if the owners are killed or driven away. Simple jealousy or theft may be a motivation for many attacks (This verges on original research). However, theft and land redistribution do not seem to adequately explain some attacks (Citation needed). In severe cases, these killings and attacks could be called genocide (Substantiation for this claim would be helpful), as many cases of these deaths have seen no damage to or theft of property ("There is a very common misconception that in a large proportion of farm attacks nothing is stolen. That is not so: investigations by the Committee have shown that various items are stolen in by far the greater majority of cases, and, in those cases where nothing is taken, there is almost always a logical explanation, such as that the attackers had to leave quickly because help arrived." - Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks).

There is also evidence that, in some cases, the attackers waited for hours for the victims to return (Why does this indicate genocide? Citation needed). The age of victims of these murders has ranged from as old as 87 years to young infants. Elderly victims seem to be targeted above others (Citation needed. Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks suggests the opposite, that elderly people were targeted in only 28.4% of attacks).

Murder is not the only result of the thousands (Thousands? That infers two thousand or more annually) of attacks each year. The threat of damage or loss to property is very high, as is the possibility of being beaten, tortured or raped (Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks suggests 12.3% of female victims were raped). There have even been reports that women have been killed as a result of continued gang rape (Citation needed). Statistics tend not to be very clear on the exact crimes committed (On the contrary, Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks offers a good snapshot), although it has been discovered that murder is the result of about one-tenth of all recorded attacks.

It has been suggested (By whom? Citation needed) that the South African government is failing to take appropriate measures against these attacks. Several publications and media (Citation needed) have shown local officials in some areas have taking no action to stop or report crowds chanting violent and racist slogans, such as “Kill the Boer, kill the farmer.” (Again, citation, needed) Various measures have been taken by the local communities to increase their security, but the killings show no sign of stopping (Although Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks suggests the average murder rate has been dropping since 1998). Many farmers (Who? Citation needed) are angered by what they see as the government, media and international community ignoring the attacks.

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)

But who are the Weasels?

Mr. Humansdorpie in your text, you constantly refers to the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, the ANC government thus.

But what to think about the constant stream of articles like this in the Afrikaans-speaking press? [4]

Some days before the facts, in the neighbourhood of different farms, crowds sung in choir: “kill the boer, kill the farmer”, but the police didn’t do anything against it, although it is clear hate-speech. And then happened the following….

Mr van Vuuren, 53, had minutes before found his wife Celia's blood-spattered body when he arrived at the farm after having dropped off workers. Celia, 53, had been shot dead in the garden in front of their house at about 18:0 on Wednesday. The attackers did not take anything at all. The farmers' lobby Transvaal Agricultural Union's Dries Joubert describes the tens of thousands of armed murder attacks by roaming death squads, carried out primarily against Afrikaner farmers, as a low intensity war.

• "The fact that once again, nothing was stolen, proves that the police are wrong in constantly claiming that the only motive is crime."

• The chair of the Roedtan South farmers' association, Hendrik Botha, said he and the late Mr Van Vuuren had been at an auction and year-end function earlier that day.

• Botha said the unarmed Mr Van Vuuren had tried to flee his attackers after he'd found Celia's body.

• "But they shot at him and hit him in the leg through the bakkie's door," Botha said.

• It is not clear exactly what happened afterwards, but it is being guessed that the farm's electronic gate had opened too slowly for Botha to escape the killers.

• "Hennie, who was unarmed, was pulled from the bakkie at the gate, forced to stand on his knees - in a similar manner to being executed - and shot in the forehead. We found his body next to the bakkie," a shocked Botha said.

• "This was no robbery," said Botha. "It was murder, plain and simple."

Some comments:

• Compare with the text that is served to English-speaking readers [5]. The Transvaal Agricultural Union even has been replaced by the more docile Agri SA.
• SA Police are of course as always, simply treating this execution of yet another unarmed farmer as a routine robbery and are most certainly not looking for any death squads. In such circumstances, one must not be surprised that someone (or more people) by writing an article about Farm Murders, does by him- or herself what the SA government neglects to do and tries to draw a general line through what he or she reads on a daily base in Afrikaans. I'm sure that for those people, the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks’ report is nothing more than a light version of Hitler’s propaganda film “Theresienstadt, a present from the Führer for the Jews”.

--Jvb – December 27, 2005

Criminal campaign vs a terror campaign

Mr Botha is right. It was murder, plain and simple, but it not proof of a concerted terror campaign conducted by a strangely publicity shy organisation. Incidences of cold-blooded murder unfortunately occur everyday in South Africa, both in rural and urban areas. Is Mr van Vuuren's murder any different? Probably not. South African farmers have a right to fear for their safety. They are under attack, though not political, but definitely from criminal elements like the rest of us. They are isolated easy targets, a logical choice for criminals who want to get away with it. --Wesley ct 14:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Criminal campaign vs a political (=terror) campaign

I fear it’s not quite that simple. There are explosive political ingredients that you as a presumed English-speaker don’t hear much about. Not only the SA police force is understaffed, but meanwhile the Boer commandos are phased out and even more important, the sparse police resources are rather spent in a political way too. Note the suggestions that the South African Police Service is indirectly protecting the murderers by tracking the cars of farmers who are members of the Transvaal Agricultural Union farm protection programme [6] [7]. Has there ever been a public debate about such things in South Africa? --Jvb – December 27, 2005

It is often a mistake to rely on media reports. With regard to the Van Vuuren case, I have just spoken by telephone to Inspector Matjila, the investigating officer, who tells me that two men have been arrested (his telephone number is helpfully given in the News24.com report). The inspector says that, contrary to the media reports you quote from Beeld and News24.com, personal items were stolen, and that the motive appears to have been theft of Mnr Van Vuuren's vehicle. The robbers apparently fled the scene because they thought that the gunshots had alerted people living nearby. The murders are a tragedy, but - with the greatest respect - there is no evidence that they were politically motivated. Humansdorpie 16:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

And the crowds singing in choir: “kill the boer, kill the farmer”? What explanation does Inspector Matjila have for that? Reminds me of the Kristallnacht --Jvb – December 27, 2005

Has there ever been a public debate about such things in South Africa? - again, Wikipedia is not the place to start such a debate. Please do not insert your own opinions, arguments, or experiences. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wizzy…☎

I did not say that WE must start this debate. --Jvb – December 27, 2005

There is much acrimonious debate about this issue in the press in South Africa. However, if we are to make this a balanced article, I think it's not unreasonable for those who feel they can articulate one or another side of the argument to do so on the talk page. Then we should be able to collaborate on an article from a neutral point of view that expresses both points of view, and broadly identifies which groups hold which views. --Slashme 17:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

So you allege that there is much acrimonious debate about this issue in the press in South Africa? In the Afrikaans-speaking press I would say yes, at least more and more, but in the English-speaking press??? --Jvb – December 27, 2005

Debate

Jvb: Do you think that:

1. The current article is written from a neutral point of view, or
2. The current article is written from a partisan point of view and
   1. We can fix it by debating the issue and adding the opposing views
   2. We should not change it because the people holding the opposing views are wrong and evil
3. None of the above

I'm from Flanders in Belgium. Flanders is the only region outside South Africa with a systematic interest in what happens to the Afrikaners in South Africa. We also can easily understand their language and we relatively have much contacts. There even is a feedback in that respect that for instance Vlaams Belang party refers to the South African multicultural hellhole as something to avoid.

The South African Multicultural Hellhole. That sounds like a bad place to live! Here in the South Africa where I live, the multiculturalism is refreshing and healthy, and not a hellhole at all. Maybe the Vlaams Belang Party should restrict its right-wing commentary to Flemish issues. --Slashme 14:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I read the article and for me it gives a good image of the situation. There is extreme and superfluous violence in the farm murders/hate speech and the SA government is doing the wrong things/not doing what it should do. “Kill the boer, kill the farmer” reminds me of the choirs once drumsinging “Deutschland erwache, Jude verrecke”. And the least one could say is that President Mbeki keeps very sparse in condemning it. Alternatively, one could argue that the advantage of the doubt should be given to those who no longer can defend themselves, the deceased.

The only little thing in the present article that I perhaps would change is the following: there have even been reports that women have been killed as a result of continued gang rape. Continued gang rape, I agree. Killed, I agree. But the link?

--Jvb – December 28, 2005

This continued gang rape from the link was actually a drug crazed murder and rape by a white man called Ronnie Grimsley who has been subsequently sentenced to life for the murder and rape of Tanya Flowerday. Wesley ct 15:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

There is one little thing you want to change. So, why the soapbox rants on the talk page, over things that are (presumably) adequately represented in the main article ? Wizzy…☎ 11:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I was invited here to a debate and used unofficial language, but what I said doesn’t contradict with the main article. BTW, it is not my fault that most of the Afrikaners individually refrain from using frank language about their frustrations once they are in contact with other people like you. You simply are not accustomed to such language. --Jvb – December 28, 2005

So I infer from that that you feel that the article was written from a neutral point of view? If so, do you feel that it adequately represents all the important partisan points of view, or that it represents the only sane and valid point of view? --Slashme 14:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

As you insist, in my view it represents the only sane and valid point of view. That the SA government denies is a shame of the same order as giving vitamins to cure aids patients. --Jvb – December 28, 2005

OK, now we know your position. However, as you can see, that is not the only position held by earnest, well-informed people. Remember, we are not here to advance our own points of view. It is healthy to have a point of view, and even to hold it strongly when editing Wikipedia, but you must keep in mind that if a large number of people hold a different view, we must represent both of these points of view when editing. Look for example at the article on Mother Teresa. It states the reasons that she is being proposed as a saint, as well as the criticism that has been levelled against her. --Slashme 15:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree as long as you keep in mind that I am not the writer of the article, I even don’t know that person. So at least there are TWO persons on Wikipedia who think like this. Thanks too for the reference to mother Teresa. Indeed, adding here a second paragraph with own subtitle in which the views of the ruling SA regime is explained can only add to clarify things. --Jvb – December 28, 2005

Absolutely. I agree that many people think that attacks on white commercial farmers are part of an orchestrated political terrorist campaign, just that that is not the only viewpoint. --Slashme 09:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Murder rate among white SA commercial farmers – control calculation

Average number of farmers over the last 11 years: (52.000 + 38.000)x1/2 = 45.000

Average yearly number of murders: 1700 : 11 = 154,5

Murder rate: 154.5 x 100.000/45000 = 343,33

--Jvb – December 28, 2005

And the figure of 1700 comes from...? Humansdorpie 19:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

And don't quote that Telegraph article which does not cite its sources, or that website that (as mentioned above) includes victims who weren't white commercial farmers (otherwise your calculation doesn't work). --Slashme 09:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The Telegraph is a very respected British newspaper. The reporter has made the addition the SA government doesn’t want to make.--Jvb – December 28, 2005

Saying that the Telegraph is "very respected" doesn't mean that everything that is printed there is accurate. A Newspaper article is not a sufficient source for statistics. You need the source of the statistics. And what exactly do you mean "has made the addition" Do you think the reporter added the death statistics up himself, or added them together from other sources? Or do you think the reporter is just copying the numbers from the same indirect, uncorroborated sources that you are using? --Slashme 14:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The Telegraph is really a big quality newspaper with high journalistic standards. The journalist must have verified his sources: governmental statistics, inventories of newspaper articles made up by farmer organisations…. BTW, if you want another source, the BBC: BBC: South Africa's bloody battle for land --Jvb – December 29, 2005

With the greatest respect, the article was not written by a reporter. It was written by the executive producer of a documentary about land reform, and the BBC article you cite was written by the director of the same documentary. These are not unbiased sources. Humansdorpie 16:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Roger Graef is better than a simple reporter. I looked up his biography [8]:

Roger Graef is a writer, filmmaker, broadcaster and criminologist.

He has been awarded the prestigious Fellowship to the British Academy of Film and Television in 2004, for his outstanding contribution and achievements.

He now joins Bill Cotton, John Thaw, Steven Bochco, John Schlesinger, Peter Bazalgette and Morecombe & Wise, having been recognised by the Academy for having achieved "great heights in their lifetime".

Roger also won a BAFTA in 2003, as the Producer of the Flaherty Best Documentary, Feltham Sings!

Among his more than eighty films, he is best known for his pioneering work in gaining access to hitherto closed institutions ranging from ministries and boardrooms to police, courts, prisons, probation and social work.

These influential films include the Thames Valley Police, which helped change the way the police deal with rape victims. In Search of Law and Order, took an unique look at some groundbreaking ways of changing juvenile rehabilitation. And The Secret Policeman's Ball - a film that helped make Miramax and Harvey Weinstein household names, and influenced a generation of commedians and musicians to try and change the World.

As a consultant and communications expert, he has served on numerous boards and government committees. He was a founding board member of Channel Four and a governor of the British Film Institute. Roger Graef has served on the board of the ICA where he created and chaired the ICA Architectural Forum.

And Clifford Bestall is a highly praised documentary maker with sound and valid knowledge of South Africa [9]

From now on the South Africans can no longer claim: “wir haben es nicht gewußt”.

--Jvb – December 29, 2005

The Daily Telegraph is however not a reliable source on crime statistics in South Africa. Perhaps stats from the South African Police Service, the South African Human Rights Commission or Agri SA would be less dubious. Wesley ct 09:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Roger Graef/Telegraph are reliable because compiling statistics about farm murders is not so difficult. The problem is rather that someone must be WILLING to do it. If you really can’t find reliable statistics about this in South Africa itself, then this is already a bad omen on its own, that even could be an indication that something is hidden.

And Roger Graef is the best to do the job.

--Jvb – December 30, 2005

I wonder why Clifford Bestall and Roger Graef's figures differ from one another's by 200? Humansdorpie 16:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Clifford Bestall writes MORE than 1,500 white farmers have been murdered, which is not in contradiction with the other. This can only refer to one stage in the counting process they did.--Jvb – Januari 2, 2005

Sections

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)

Controversial

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)

Edit of 18:00, 26 October 2006

As part of the edit I did, I commented out (but did not delete) the "Criticism" section due to the following concerns:

• The first sentence is just a broad statement without being backed up by a reliable source
• The second sentence (which IS referenced) is referring to the use of the well-known political slogan "Kill the Boer, kill the farmer" in a post-apartheid setting where it has been defined as hate speech. This is fine, but here is my problem: the connection between officials "not stopping crowds chanting this slogan" and the government "failing to take appropriate measures against these attacks" has no basis in fact. The editor who originally put this in created a logical leap in his own mind between the two incidents, which constitutes original research and is not permitted. The reason I commented it out instead of deleting is so that IF a reliable reference is found that makes this logical connection then it can be re-stated, citing the appropriate reference.
• The second paragraph of that section is also unreferenced and in fact does not seem to belong in that section.

I also removed the long-standing unreferenced "reasoning behind the attacks" speculation. There has been more than ample time given to find a reference to those claims. They can be added back in with a reliable reference. I also re-arranged the rest of the article to improve style and flow, putting the TAU's response to the Committee of Inquiry report in the correct chronological place, and moving GW's claims to the lead-in section as it seems more logical there. Zunaid ^(T•C) Please rate me at Editor Review! 16:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Reference added. Farmer armies in the killing fields --Jvb – October 27, 2006

That reference you provide is an article about farmers conducting patrols etc. It does not address any of the points I raised above. I'm off home now, but next week I'll write in a section about the farm patrols using the ref you provided. Zunaid ^(T•C) Please rate me at Editor Review! 14:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The suspended “Criticism of government” section of the article does address the points you raise. Indeed, saying that the police "are not part of the solution but part of the bloody problem" is, if not worse, saying the same as that “Critics of the government say that the South African government is failing to take appropriate measures against these attacks”. Therefore I unsuspended the incriminated section. --Jvb – November 7, 2006

I've rewritten the section to reflect exactly the quote that was made, with the correct attribution. I've also included a mention about the farm patrols in that same section. However, points 2 and 3 have still not ben addressed with the addition of this particular reference so I've commented them back out. Zunaid©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 14:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Crime Expo South Africa

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)

These editors are being paid to edit this article, and a photograph of them will be published shortly.--222.154.88.252 00:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

There's nothing wrong witht that. He or they had sufficient reason for leaving. --Adriaan90 08:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

A photograph of me!? I'd love to see this one, please!! Btw my name is Tebello Thejane, I'm 22 years old, and I live in Meyerton -- I can give you even more info should you need it. This should be interesting... o_O Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 09:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Should be merged with White Genocide Article

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)

Just related to this; why isn't genocide mentioned anywhere in the article? I can understand not wanting to objectively label the farm attacks as a genocide, but it seems like it would be relevant to the article to at least mention the fact that some people view the attacks as an act of genocide. Seems like a fair point to make to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.161.140.195 (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2015‎

Organize Campaign?!

Human Rights Watch, however, states that the term "farm attacks" (plaasmoorde in Afrikaans, farm murders) is misleading, as it suggests the presence of an organised campaign, rather than simply increased crime rates, and has criticised the South African government for giving the issue too much attention at the expense of the rights of other South Africans, such as farm labourers.[6]

I would not say that ALL the attacks are part of an organized campaign. But speeches of ANC leaders calling for "kill the Boer, Kill the farmer" are a strange coincidence towards this atrocities. And then there are the pledges of prominent ANC people to kill the Boers:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NKiePbTcAfY This one includes even Nelson Mandela Don't forget to few the pictures: http://www.africancrisis.org/Photos45.asp So the question remains, how to handle this in the article.41.208.196.148 18:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

the question of "Kill the Boer, Kill the Farmer" is addressed above. Provide an independent third-party reference (e.g. a news article) that makes the connection between the slogan and the attacks, and then it can be included in the article. Zunaid©® 14:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's a reference from an important SA news source: http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,9909,2-7-1442_2314200,00.html Booshank (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The number of 'black farmers' killed is misleading ! I could not confirm that anywhere :(. We should have that checked and if no one can give a nr. or at least a credible reference, it should be removed, me thinks. Otherwise this article will not be credible - it will be more like a 'personal opiniopn forum'.

It is genocide! Wake up. I am a SA citizen and know the facts. Why does everybody deny it, the same happened in Rwanda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.209.59.32 (talk) 08:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"Kill the Boer" does smell like Rwanda during their genocide now that you mention it....

P.S. - I don't know if it's organized, but it sure doesn't seem to be greatly discouraged by the corrupt government and the corrupt police don't seem to be rallying to the cause, you could almost call it "default approval by not taking action to stop it or effectively discourage it." -Invmog (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Not really. They constitute a small percentage of all crimes committed, the victims of most crimes not being white. Promoters of the genocide hypothesis also never mention the deaths of black farmers or the murder of farm workers by farmers. There is at present no genocide, no evidence to support the claim that one is in progress or even beginning. What this article is sorely lacking is proper statistics to show that the alleged genocide exists only in some people's fevered imaginations— Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.117.133 (talk) 10:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Anti-farmer hate speech info added

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)

Someone respects News24.com? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.30.79.194 (talk) 07:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Information on other racial groups?

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)

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)

Shoot the Boer

Why isn't it mentioned that Nelson Mandela sang this song as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.186.247 (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

If you have information to that effect which is supported by citations or documentation, you can add that yourself. This is Wikipedia. You have the power and facilities to make it better, without relying on others to do it for you. pietopper (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

You know better than that, pietopper. I've tried to edit Wikipedia before. The Leftists won't let you tell the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.230.104 (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2013‎

Neutrality tag

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)

It seems okay to me too. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 16:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• NOT NEUTRAL - This article is not neutral, and the tag should not be removed.--222.154.88.252 00:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Care to explain your reasoning? Zunaid©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 14:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It's sort of neutral, in the sense that it constitutes a hodgepodge of he-said-she-said arguments from different parties. However, there's a bit more to it than that. It's not clear how the different sources are weighted or chosen, however. ManicParroT (talk) 11:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is not neutral. Potjiekos (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

I think it now neutral. The tag can be removed. --I90Christian (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this article is neutral in fact it goes as far as to water down the facts as to not offend. I suggest you read the following article and test the facts contained there in, http://mobile.wnd.com/2013/06/in-jeopardy-future-of-white-south-africans/#8UfJ5rYFtx5iVUGk.01 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RSA Boerseun (talk • contribs) 12:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Article appears neutral enough to me, I believe that tag may be removed. Most assertions are not only referenced, but counterbalanced &/or mitigated by other assertions. This is difficult & politically sensitive material, yet the article bears the mark of conscientiousness & an attempt at equilibrium. --nielspeterqm (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

I read this article and it is not neutral, it looks like a debate is being had within the article, where a statement is made and directly thereafter another is made to try and discredit or diminish the previous one's value. It feels as if one half of the article tries to tell about a serious issue and the other half tries to not make it look so bad? KloppersJ (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

This should be added to the "Racism in South Africa" section

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)

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)

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)

• • IP91.177.253.221, editors here must take a neutral position. We can only use information from reliable sources and our articles must balance what is stated in those articles. I am One of Many (talk) 05:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

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)

References

Africa Check dishonest

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)

Genocide Watch source

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)

The following is a transcript of what Gregory Stanton: the President of Genocide Watch said in the Carte Blanche television program (a South African news magazine program) regarding the murder rate of the farmers which he calls a genocide under the Genocide Convention.

Link to the program transcript.

There should be more from the organization soon concerning this issue as I understand that they will be doing a follow up on the situation.

Ron7 07:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added the statistic of the boer murder rate in comparison with the rest of the population; it was in the Genocide Watch article referenced, and I added the reference to the Carte Blanche program transcript as it is in there as well.

[User Johnnyhurst]8:30 pm 5/17/2014

It seems that there is plenty of bias coming from the editors of wikipedia concerning

the situation in South Africa There is in fact an article by Genocide watch.

Genocide Watch is moving South Africa back to Stage 6, the Preparation stage in the genocidal process.  

Copyright 2012 Leon Parkin & Dr. Gregory H. Stanton Furthermore there is video evidence of Dr Stanton's testimony — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyhurst (talk • contribs) 00:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Update: At a press conference at the Transvaal Agricultural Union today, Dr. Gregory Stanton, Founding President of Genocide Watch, warned that early warnings of genocide are still deep in South African society, though genocide has not begun. Press Release, 5 December 2014, But ..."Since 2007, the South African government has denied and covered up the crisis by not releasing any breakdown of how murders are distributed among ethnic groups in South Africa. American and European governments have remained silent about the problem, reinforcing the campaign of denial..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jovton777 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Use of the word "Boer"

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)

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)

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)

There are instances that the term “Boer” can cause offence depending on the context in which it is used. However, this would be in the minority and in these cases the offence would be taken even if the word was substituted. The comment that it will be more often than not is untrue. Most Afrikaners will refer to themselves as “Boere”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.182.44.246 (talk) 11:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

In the above case the word "Boer" would fall into the same category as “Yank” or “Rehoboth Baster”, being positive and a term used by a group to describe themselves. It cannot be seen as a derogative term as in “Hotnot” or “Kaffir” which would be similar to “Nigger”.

I agree. People are proud to be called Boere.--Michael (talk) 11:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

White Privilege?

"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)

• Comment I removed the last bulleted section because (1) it was not supported by the sources and thus was WP:OR and (2) it was not part of the committee's report. Someone needs to do a careful edit of this article to find out what all of the reliable sources have reported on this matter. --I am One of Many (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Why is the introduction full of "nothing to see here" content? Substantive content doesn't belong up there. Further, why is, "There's no problem, see? Run along now," being used as the first presentation of the matter? Surely evidence contrary to the claims has to come after the claims if it's to make any sense. I propose a total rewrite. 118.210.98.42 (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

A subjective agenda?

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)

The article also references questionable sources, and there is a subjective undertone suggesting that some sort of genocide / systematic killing is occurring against whites. The article tends to focus on whites only, rather than the farming population at large. Potjiekos (talk) 06:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the irrelevant part of the quoted sentence above. As I've said, size of the white population is biased (because it excludes other cultural populations, and is irrelevant. This Wikipedia page is titled "South African Farm Attacks", not "White South African Farm Attacks". Potjiekos (talk) 10:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"According to the South African Human Rights Commission there have been 9,400 farm attacks." has no citation or source. Potjiekos (talk) 10:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

I have removed, from the opening paragraph, information that is biased towards white farmers. This page is about ALL South African farmers. I have also removed the information about "Genocide Watch" because it irrelevant. There is no genocide, nor is there any indication. Including such citations is hysterical and extreme and doesn't contribute to the page. Potjiekos (talk) 07:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

POV

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

Edits of 7 March 2016‎

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)

Lead

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)

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)

Number of murders vs. number of farm murders

@I am One of Many: 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)

• Sure, I quickly looked at it and noted that content had been removed. I failed to notice that the edit added content from the source. I admit, I was in a hurry this morning and we do have a lot of POV on this page. I reverted my edit and noted that the previous edit was not unconstructive. I then combined the content from the previous edit to the new one to provide a more comprehensive summary of the relevant statistics. --I am One of Many (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• Great, thank you. Grayfell (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)