South Africa Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The term 'south african farm attacks' refers to the idea that whites are being disproportionately murdered? According to who? I have never heard a single person say this- ever, and the four sources you give as a citation are debunking it all without citing who exactly is making the claim in the first place. The claim is that white farmers are being murdered because they are white farmers. What does the proportion of other people being murdered for other reasons have to do with anything? This article reads like a Snopes fact check- sticking a claim in somebody's mouth so it can be disproved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.198.97.148 (talk) 04:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The article is in such a hurry to dismiss a proposed take on farm attacks as a White supremacist talking point that it forgets to define and discuss the phenomenon in the first place. Which at least makes the piece as it currently is so blatantly biased that it's immediately obvious what's going on. Ni'jluuseger (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article repeatedly claims that white farmers are not disproportionately targeted during farm attacks. That may or may not be true, but the article does not provide any statistics comparing the number of whites and blacks being killed (Stats show that white farmers are being killed at a rate of 56 per 100) . I have not read through every source cited in the article, but the article itself does not showcase any statistical data on the topic. What percentage of farm attack victims are white? Given that a sizable portion of the article is dedicated to debunking theories of "white genocide", we should include statistics that show the number of victims by race. If such evidence currently does not exist, then perhaps it is unwise to dismiss the notion that white farmers are being disproportionately targeted. Jgriffy98 (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I have to agree that the overall impression I get from the article is that it weighs especially to debunk theories of "white genocide". With regards to your proposal to include the race classification of victims; if you read the sources you will find that the statistics doesn't always mention the race of the victims among other statistical issues.BHistory (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I very much agree there has to be better statistical sources, if any. Gabbobler (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• As the article says, there are no reliable figures that suggest that white farmers are being targeted in particular or that they are at a disproportionate risk of being killed; this is cited to seven high-quality sources. In other words, the claims that the attacks disproportionately target whites are without basis; demanding that the article include statistics to disprove a claim that has no basis to begin with doesn't make any sense. --Aquillion (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a world of difference between "there is no reliable data on this" and "the data does not support such a claim" ... the wording there are no reliable figures that suggest that white farmers are being targeted in particular or that they are at a disproportionate risk of being killed is ambiguous on this point. A Thousand Words (talk) 05:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it is (and must remain) entirely unambiguous. The available data does not support such a claim (and available is always a limitation when talking about data); as the sources for the statement make clear, anyone who says that white farmers are being targeted is speaking without evidence and ought to be dismissed on those grounds. Any other wording would imply that there is ambiguity or uncertainty on that point, which there is not. See also WP:EXCEPTIONAL - claiming that white farmers may be being targeted is an exceptional claim and requires exceptional evidence. The "base case" when someone makes an exceptional claim like that without evidence is that it is dismissed out of hand. Without that requirement, conspiracy theorists and proponents of other WP:FRINGE theories could always dream up some additional possibilities that extend outside of whatever data is provided to them, imagining vast and terrible fantasies like these just outside the bounds of available data, then insisting that we treat them seriously despite the total and complete lack of evidence. --Aquillion (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The negation is problematic and is also the source of the ambiguity. Everything becomes clearer if the negation is removed. As an example: "Reliable data shows that the risk of being targeted is uniform across ethnicities" which a) both confirms there is reliable data and b) what conclusions are reasonable based on such data. Conspiracy theories do not interest me and wasn't the point of my previous point. A Thousand Words (talk) 07:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Bearing in mind WP:OTHERSTUFF, for instance France does not record religion of a perpetrator or suspect, therefore no conclusions can be drawn because the data is not recorded. That's an entirely different matter than if data was recorded but didn't show any over or underrepresentation. A Thousand Words (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are tons of reliable figures. Articles, photos and videos. As someone who lives in South Africa and has been a victim, this is a real thing. Headlines have been made. Do research and stop changing it that it seems like a myth. It's LITERALLY on articles. It's impossible for thousands of people to claim it when there is figures and evidence. Our economy also shows it. You are suppose to be giving facts not false theories. FreyaGoddess777 (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FreyaGoddess777: Please cite your sources so that Wikipedia can judge whether or not they are reliable. MarshallKe (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article treats Farm Murders like a conspiracy theory and the see also also leads to Conspiracy Theory's. My problem is that we should reword it, maybe with an emphasis that there are farmers being killed, and it's not just Afrikaners, there have also been reports of Zulu, Xhosa and other tribes of farmers being killed. 102.250.3.184 (talk) 08:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. I think because a larger proportion of farmers are white, the percentage of white’s being killed on farms are higher. Equine-man (talk) 12:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Sources? Woodroar (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having just read the article properly, I can’t believe how biased the entire article is. Political leaders of South Africa have on numerous occasions incited their followers to kill white farmers 1, 2, 3 amongst many other publications, so I don’t know how this can be classed as conspiracy theories. Equine-man (talk) 12:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've linked a few articles mentioning violent rhetoric but nothing about actually killings. Do you have sources about killings, specifically showing that they're politically/racially-motivated and that white farmers are disproportionately targeted? Or that "South African farm attacks" isn't connected to the White Genocide conspiracy theory? Woodroar (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs to be removed and replaced with real facts, as is this page is racist and anti minorities, please show me one statistic from a NON ANC sourse thats supports any of the claims made by this biased reporting. 2C0F:F4C0:230E:AAC:9960:FC2A:BB53:C814 (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current lede's definition of "South African farm attacks" is obviously odd, and probably unsupported by the sources. In normal usage, "South African farm attacks" refers to attacks on farms in South Africa, not to claims or conspiracy theories. The phenomenon might have associated claims and theories which should be mentioned, but they do not define the phenomenon. If this article is really about claims and conspiracy theories, it should be moved to a new page (something like "White SA farmer genocide theory"?). I tried to rewrite the lede, but was reverted. Does anyone oppose rewriting the lede to a more straightforward definition? Ornilnas (talk) 12:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lead has 28 sources, 16 in the first paragraph alone. That's a lot. At a glance, they do verify the content in the article: that white farmers don't appear to be murdered disproportionately (and that black farmers/workers are murdered as well), that white farmers don't appear to be targeted because they're white, that factors like distance/response time explain the crimes, and so on. Looking through Google news, this seems like a fair representation of the viewpoints in reliable sources, and perfectly in line with NPOV. Some sources do make a connection to the white genocide conspiracy theory and white nationalists, while others point to rhetoric that's been around since Apartheid. But most sources discussing the attacks in general simply debunk what's being said the public discourse without mentioning conspiracy theories at all.

I would not support a move based on any conspiracy theory naming because most reliable sources don't make that connection. I would also not support a significant rewrite of the lead that separates "this is what people are saying" from "this is why that's wrong" because most reliable sources take that debunking angle. We would need a significant number of reliable sources to flip the prominence of that viewpoint and I'm just not seeing that. Woodroar (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the lede need to start with "South African farm attacks refers to a claim"? South African farm attacks clearly do occur, regardless of their motivations or disparate impacts on certain racial groups. Does any of the current sources contradict a much more straight-forward opening sentence, such as "Every year, several hundred South African farm attacks lead to tens of murders of farmers and staff."? Ornilnas (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Take Islamic terrorism as an example. The lede starts with, "Islamic terrorism refers to terrorist acts with religious motivations carried out by fundamentalist militant Islamists". Should it be changed to something like, "Islamic terrorism refers to the claim that Muslims are disproportionally represented among terrorists"? Whether or not the latter claim is true, I think the current lede is obviously more appropriate. Ornilnas (talk) 03:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the analogy with Islamic terrorism is comparing apples with oranges. Our article on Islamic terrorism includes expert analysis on actual terror campaigns and the organizations behind them. The South African farm attacks, on the other hand, are largely separate attacks that some groups/people (mostly non-experts) claim to be anti-white organized crime. That's why we use "claims" so much. Reliable sources aren't dismissing the attacks as "claims", only that they're connected as "anti-white organized crime".

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we can't touch the lead at all. I agree that we should include some context, whether it's your suggestion of crimes/murders per year or maybe a number of attacks since 1996? But we should immediately go into summarizing and debunking the claims about the attacks because, as far as I can tell, that's what many or most reliable sources cover. Woodroar (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Islamic terrorism also includes analysis on individual terrorists with completely different motivations from the organizations, acting separately from them. The only thing they have in common is that they conduct *Islamic terrorism*. But that's not an argument for starting the article with "...refers to a claim that". If we are going to have an article on *South African farm attacks*, we should start by defining *South African farm attacks* (which is not a claim, but an actual phenomenon), like every other article on Wikipedia. Again, is *South African farm attacks* a claim? Does any of the sources treat it as a claim? Ornilnas (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources cited for the current definition clearly treat South African farm attacks as an actually occuring phenomenon, rather than a speculative claim. The first source analyses a "Recent spate of farm attacks", the second "a spate of farm murders in the Cape". The third claims that "Attacks on farms (...) are the nightmarish reality for those living and working on the land in South Africa". (The fourth is paywalled.) They clearly support a much more straightforward definition of *South African farm attacks* as a real phenomenon. Ornilnas (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ornilnas, I agree with you about adding context about what the South African farm attacks are. My preference is to explain when the attacks started—if we can find that in sources, so far I'm not having any luck—rather than yearly murders because it avoids fluctuation. But if you (or any other page watchers) have suggestions, I'd like to hear them. And yes, I also agree that the attacks are real and that reliable sources acknowledge that. As I mentioned above, we use "claims", as reliable sources do, to refer to the rhetoric about the attacks from places like AfriForum. Woodroar (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The word "occasionally" was just added to describe attacks on black farmers and workers. I believe this description runs counter to what the sources actually say:

• The Citizen mentions how black farmers and workers have been victims but that they don't get media attention, unlike white victims. The article opens by discussing the identities of 2 murder victims and later mentions more than 60 other crimes.
• The South African also mentions how white victims get more attention than black victims, as the term "farm attack" can exclude black victims and because AfriForum reports on white victims.
• CapeTalk mentions 30 murders in one province that weren't reported by the media.

The basic premise of these sources is that farm attack victims include both white and black victims, but that black victims are undercounted (or even uncounted) while more attention is being put on white victims. I don't believe that black farmers and their workers are occasionally also victims of violent attacks is an accurate summary. Woodroar (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The word "occasionally" is both appropriate and due, because it not only reflects the proportion of the attacks on black-owned farms compared to white-owned farms (a few dozen compared to multiplied hundreds), but also reflects the fact that the former is an incidental anomaly while the latter is both systematic and endemic. It is entirely appropriate to focus much more on white farmers because the number of attacks, especially fatal attacks, are exponentially greater. You can "not believe" that, but it doesn't change the fact. We must look at the sources overall, rather than focusing on just the three you cite above. It is true that attacks happen on black farmers too, and perhaps also at an increasing rate, but removing the word "occasionally" in this context presents a skewed perspective on the attacks because it creates a false balance WP:BALANCE. - JGabbard (talk) 03:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But the number of attacks on white farmers are not exponentially greater. The Washington Post cites a report saying 46 of 62 murder victims in a season were white (just under 75%) while ABC cites another report saying 59 out of 84 in a calendar year were white (just over 70%). That's based on reported murders—and the sources above mention that murders of black farmers and farm workers often go unreported. The BBC broke down the reasons why it's difficult to know either way. I mean, that's what the article is about, isn't it? There are attacks, some groups say that white farmers are disproportionately targeted/murdered, and plenty of reliable sources say that's either false or it's impossible to know. Our lead even mentions Heavily disputed claims that such attacks on farmers disproportionately target whites and There are no reliable figures that suggest that white farmers...are at a disproportionate risk of being killed. I have not read any reliable sources that say black farmers and workers are "occasionally" victims; the three cited to that statement clearly do not support it. Woodroar (talk) 04:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of the word "occasionally" was done prematurely. The fact that claims are "heavily disputed" means that distortion, obfuscation and obscurantism concerning these attacks is taking place. Closer analysis of facts and statistics, and comparison of all available sources (both those deemed "reliable" as well as independent media), is necessary in order to discern the truth of what is actually taking place in South Africa. Corporate media narratives will tend to hedge the black-led government from criticism over its hostile, anti-white, pro-violent crime policies, which spill over even into the black community itself. To claim that they are statistically comparable is a false equivalence. - JGabbard (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works. You boldly added an adjective, your edit was reverted (twice), and now you bear the burden of proof. Find a reliable source that directly supports the word "occasionally" and we can discuss it. We're not going to synth our way through statistics, especially those from unreliable sources, to determine how many murders of black people feels "occasional". Woodroar (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not many would dispute that a few dozen compared to 3,000 is absolutely "occasional." It should not be necessary to engage in a raging debate over a single word just to place those numbers into proper perspective. The denialism by corporate media of government-sponsored white genocide in South Africa is both galling and appalling, and it's not just farmers either. But you asked for sources, so here are just a few:

• Farm Attacks or ‘White Genocide’? Interrogating the unresolved land question in South Africa
• White Genocide? South African Politician: Kill Whites, “Their Women,” and “Their Children”
• South Africa Facing White Genocide
• How a Survivor of a South African White Farm Murder is Fighting Back
• White Genocide Nearly Imminent in South Africa

So a .org, an unreliable source, a source with no consensus as to its reliability, and a letter to the editor. Compared to, say, The Washington Post, Australian ABC, and the BBC. That's not going to move WP:WEIGHT one bit. Woodroar (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NYT, WaPo, ABC and the BBC have ALL had multiple embarrassing and revealing scandals related to "reliability." BBC was recently forced to admit falsifying and destroying documents relating to the death of Princess Diana so as not to impugn the monarchy. "Reliability" simply means that those outlets are controllable, i.e., they can be relied upon by entrenched political powers not to venture 'outside the box.' But reliability is a very lightweight consideration in terms of truthfulness and objectivity in journalism. Even if only 10 percent of what my cited sources say is correct, in conjunction with the sources we are already using, there is no room for debate about the inclusion of the word "occasional." And much more than that could be said. The present South African regime is a damnable, execrable, anti-white, genocidal institution, exceeding by light years the racism of the DeKlerk administration, and systematically replicating the 1804 Haiti massacre in slow motion, on a larger scale. - JGabbard (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]