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)

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

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  Eve rgr een Fir  (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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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)

Fact checkers
"Fact checkers have widely identified the notion of a white genocide in South Africa as a falsehood or myth". Wich fact checkers? What does it even mean to be a fact checker? Are we talking about the same fact checkers who are censoring the social media and the internet in generally to protect their leftist bolshevik ideology? It is easy to find sources that support the "white genocide" idea. Why do I have the feeling that none will be accepted on wikipedia, unlike the leftist "sources"? 46.97.176.204 (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The specific sources that are cited in support of that statement are the NY Times and the Washington Post. You may disagree, but the general consensus on Wikipedia is that both are reliable sources - see WP:RSP, for example. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Noticing Things
I noticed the lede, which should summarize the Article, instead spends all it's words talking about what "South African farm attacks" are NOT. Further, while it mentions race, it does not mention proportionality. I also notice that when searching Google for "South African Farm Murders", gives quoted text from the lower half of the body of the Article, rather than quoting the Lede itself. Perhaps it's because even Google recognizes that the Lede does not summarize the topic. 2603:8081:3A00:30DF:913A:7503:F588:72A6 (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)