Talk:South African farm attacks/Archive 2

Agricultural output / Missing mealies
I found this on Talk:South Africa, so I pasted it in, as I figured it was relevant:


 * And yet this year South Africa has had the biggest maize harvest in a decade with farmers actually quitting because of the low prices caused by overproduction??? ,


 * Moreover, statistics from the FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS also show that cereal production in South Africa since 1994 has certainly not been halved.


 * These figures from the same source also do not substantiate the halving of production claim.


 * By the way, there are approximately 46,000 commercial farmers in South Africa (Statistics South Africa, 2005), not 25,000.


 * But what to think about the folowing: Missing mealies may not exist--Jvb – January 2, 2005

From that article, it doesn't seem as if farmer murders are to blame. It seems that the supply and demand cycle is more at fault here. The farmers have been feeding the maize to their livestock, and hoarding it for next season, and many of them won't be planting it next year, because the price isn't right. Don't worry, we'll just import it from rich western countries who subsidize their farmers. But that's a whole other debate. --Slashme 13:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The estimates of the crop-estimates committee are disputed. Perhaps the SA picture is less fantastic than officially depicted?


 * And why do SA farmers want as much as R975 a ton to produce maize instead of something else? Everything is reflected in the alternative maize price (instead of producing something else), the SA farmer culls included.


 * The big trade deficit is indeed easily financed by capital flows, which make the Rand expensive and imports cheap. But I hope for your little “paradise” that precious metal prices will stay high, because next year the home grown maize will only be….HALF of what it used to be, as far as the South African Grain Information Service estimates.


 * --Jvb – January 4, 2005

All of which has nothing to do with farm murders. Maybe after next year's lower maize harvest, the farmers will see the higher prices and start planting maize again. And as for "farmer culls" - Hah. Strange sense of humour.

Have you ever visited South Africa? It's really quite affordable if you don't go to hotels that cater exclusively for tourists. I would advise against the summer, though. Autumn and spring are great seasons here. There really are parts of the country that could very well be described as "paradise". --Slashme 10:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Daily bloodshed - death squads
I find it interesting that for all the talk about racism and "Genocide" against the Afrikaners, the majority of murders (while I don't have statistics, you can tell because of it's most common in places like Soweto and Khaletayisha) are still be commited against black africans! and also, in regard to a comment made from a PAC minister: "You whites will be killed by(sic)flies when Mandela dies." is greatly emphasized to ridiculousness. that party won only 0.02% of the parliament seats, or 3 out of 400! that is the extent of this parties influence. P.S. a number of White south Africans are in parliament on behalf of the ANC. while a number crossed over from the NP and NNP, many of these people have even been reelected in black districts.

And the daily bloodshed among farmers goes on. Nothing stolen. --Jvb – January 4, 2005


 * Maybe the word "daily" is a bit strong. It seems to imply that this happens every day.  Compare this to the Einsatzgruppen that you like to compare this with.  If the South African Government, or even an organised group, wanted white South African farmers dead, this probably would happen every day.  --Slashme 14:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I meanwhile have understood that your optimism is "unfaltering", but just have look in the same newspaper and on the same day: Moreover, South African friends of mine tell me that not everything is written in the newspapers. --Jvb – January 4, 2005


 * So a farmer sees someone trying to break into his car, and shoots him in self defense after being attacked. The police are investigating a charge of murder (not surprisingly; whenever one person kills another they have to investigate it as a murder. It's probably not going to go anywhere, because his self-defense plea is quite reasonable).  What does this have to do with farm murders? And how is this criminal activity part of an organized campaign of killing against farmers?  Here the aim was clearly theft. --Slashme 05:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The farmer will be indicted for murder, see --Jvb – January 10, 2005


 * Jvb, please lets stick to the topic, and stay away from pointless rants about the ills of the world. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Thanks Slashme for translating the article - I see it has no information that can be used to improve this article. No more newspaper references to crime items please, unless it has solid information that backs up your conspiracy theories. Wizzy&hellip; &#9742;   06:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * To be fair to Jvb, the first article was on topic: A farmer's wife was shot dead at their farm near Makhado by a lone gunman; nothing was stolen. just the second one was way off. --Slashme 07:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Was the second article really way off? Lost in the translation: the two first days of the year, 13 murders have been recorded in Mpumalanga. But I will anticipate your next remark: although it is an article about farm crime (such as the other article out of the same newspaper on the same day) it is not specified how many of those 13 murdered actually were farmers. Why? Because the police doesn’t specify farm murders and the reporter cannot be everywhere? --Jvb – January 5, 2005


 * Most murders in South Africa are the result of spousal quarrels. The first two days of the year were holidays this year (Sunday fell on Jan. 1, so Mon. was a public holiday).  This is prime time for spousal and plain criminal murders among poor communities.  People get drunk and fight a lot.  Guns are everwhere in the townships, and knives are popular as well.  Every farm murder gets reported widely in the press.  Notice that the first article you quoted mentions near the end that the last farm murder was three weeks ago in Limpopo.  I somehow doubt that any of the 13 others were farmers killed by your putative well-organized death squads. --Slashme 11:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the clarifications, especially that fire arms are everywhere in the townships, even with the new gun law. But it is not said in the article that the last three weeks no farmers were murdered in Limpopo, it only states that a well-known murder happened three weeks before. Some more general statistics: 35 (approximately) farm attacks and 13 farm murders in Limpopo (5,3 million inhabitants)  were reported in 2005 up to 17/12/2005, see


 * For your information, another execution at the end of the year: To note, after he was murdered execution style - with a shot through the head, - his body was dragged for a long distance by the large group of armed black men who attacked the homestead.


 * He was dragged a couple of metres to the nearest ditch, not a "long distance" in anyone's language. And since when is TWO a large number? What the article says is that two men stopped him at the farm gate on a pretext, shot him and dumped the body in a ditch, hijacked his pickup truck, and drove to the farmhouse to steal guns.  His wife escaped.  Does this sound like a death squad or a robbery to you?  Don't inflate the stories. --Slashme 05:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What a pity that such stories only are published (in extenso) in the Afrikaans-speaking press.


 * And if you want to read more about the death squads, see: There have been reports, denied by police, that unemployed and criminal-minded blacks are paid almost £200 a time to ambush, slaughter and then kill white farmers, their wives and children.


 * --Jvb – January 5, 2005


 * Even your source only says "there have been reports, denied by police". What kind of evidence is that?  Stories told around the AWB braaivleis fire?  --Slashme 05:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Jvb - may I ask what your non-press sources are? I see that you do not live in South Africa, and I therefore assume you have limited contact with South Africans of varying races. While some of what you have suggested and reported is accurate, I feel that in some cases it's blown out of proportion. I live in South Africa, and have a huge amount of contact with different people. I have friends, both English and Afrikaans speaking, who live on farms in rural areas. For the last year I attended a conservative Afrikaans church, and my business associates are made up of a large cross section of white and black South Africans. It seems as if your statements are made based on information sourced from a small and involved group of people. Artagra 16:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry lads, but my source here is not the Afrikanerweerstandsbeweging (which would end the discussion) around the barbecue, but Trevor Grundy from the Scotsman, Scotland's national newspaper. That Afrikaner people perhaps dare to say more to the Flemish (inside and outside SA) can be explained in that way, that they expect there a listening ear. --Jvb – January 6, 2005


 * Trevor Grundy? Not exactly an unbiased source: he co-wrote Farmer at War, about guerrilla attacks on white Rhodesian farmers; besides, I make it a principle never to trust the word of an ex-Fascist. I think I'd rather be chatting around the braai with the AWB... Humansdorpie 23:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The book calls "Memoir of a Fascist Childhood". Thus this seems to be his parents’ choice. His own choice was that he got gradually disillusioned with the "Movement". So I would say, that’s at least someone you can trust that he is no fascist. And that’s perhaps the reason too why he got a column in the Scotsman. --Jvb – January 8, 2005


 * Even that story from the Scotsman that you're citing now only says "there have been reports, denied by police". No mention of who's reporting these inflammatory claims, just gossip.  That's not encyclopedic.  In fact, it's not even good journalism.  --Slashme 11:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You write: more inflammatory gossip from Flanders. But don’t shoot the messenger! --Jvb – January 6, 2005


 * Well, surely, some afrikaners like to talk to some Flemish people because they know how sensitive they are to some kind of thesis. That's more to do with white-skinned paranoia than about objectivity, I'm afraid. --FvdP 01:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There are three and a half million Afrikaners, of which one million already live in the Diaspora, the most productive ones. This must have a reason. It is because they are not allowed to work at home (having a white skin). Thus two and a half million left in South Africa. Of that two and a half million, there are hundreds of thousands - those who didn’t manage to get away - who have become very poor now - even with a good education - and who are engaged in a daily struggle against hunger. Moreover the Afrikaner language is gradually thrown out of public life. And then there are the farm murders. But my French-speaking confronting ego from Brussels calls it paranoia… --Jvb – January 8, 2005

Despite the dreaded Affirmative Action, a larger proportion of white graduates manages to find employment after one year of graduation than any other racial group in South Africa. As for the diaspora, a large proportion go overseas to make good money and get valuable experience, then return, due to their liking for ZA conditions. I know a number of these personally. --Slashme 10:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Racist Boers Nostalgic for Apartheid?
I wonder how many of the murder claims are hoaxes brought upon us by Trekboers who just want to go back to the days of Apartheid. If there are hoax murders, that ought to be put into the article as well. 205.188.116.196 01:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I challenge you to show the alleged hoaxes in lists like this:  . BTW, the agricultural organisations certainly have more documentation, which could be consulted by the excellent journalists mentioned before. --Jvb – March 16, 2006


 * It seems very unlikely that there are any hoaxes in the list. However, a little bit of research quickly shows that a significant proportion of the 1,820-odd deaths described on the cited web site as "crimes by blacks", "farm terror deaths" and "hate-crime executions against Afrikaners" are nothing of the sort. It's difficult to imagine, for example, how the deaths of Deon van der Walt and his father (listed as numbers 1813 and 1814 ) support the thesis of hate crimes against Afrikaans people, and the same goes for at least another 13 of the 65 names on the 2005 list. Humansdorpie 17:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Case “1814 ? Deon van der Walt “ is, such as you can see on the list, fitted with a question mark, because the case still was under investigation. Let’s hope that other farm murders aren’t forgotten too. --Jvb – March 27, 2006


 * Mmmm. There's a big difference between "forgetting murders" and challenging attempts by the stopboergenocide web site to use random murders as some sort of grisly makeweight to make their thesis more credible - the 2005 list also includes 10 black people (exactly how does killing black people count as "Boer genocide"?) I suppose my broader point is that if the web site cites suicides by white people, murders by white people, murders of black people, deaths of black farm attackers, the murder of a white girl in a Pretoria suburb by a white boy and a black boy, the murder of a woman allegedly by her housepainter (who it appears may actually be white), the death of an American missionary who disturbed thieves stealing computers at his mission college, and the possible suicide of an Indian lawyer as examples of "hate-crime executions against Afrikaners", then it does not approach its subject with enough research, honesty and rigour to be taken seriously as a reference. One in five of their 2005 cases do not meet their own definitions of "hate-crime executions against Afrikaners" - I think that casts serious doubt on their credibility as a reference source. Humansdorpie 16:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not the place to do original research. Famous journalists have done this for us. At any event, there are no known hoaxes, because this would imply that victims were invented. We somewhere found a list of farm murders and found on that list that about 1/5 of them don’t fit the category that we are looking for here. But, on the other hand that a number of murders are not incorporated in that list, is not invented by me, I was referring to the fact that up to 50% of deaths in some rural areas simply are not reported The global number in that list thus rather is an underestimation. --Jvb – March 29, 2006


 * When you say that famous journalists have done the research for us already, I hope you aren't referring to your paranoid white-supremacist blogger friends. As for your unreported murders, sure, 50% of deaths in some rural aren't reported.  Who generally disappears without a trace in society, the rich or the poor?  I find it highly implausible that that 50% represents a massacre of white commercial farmers! --Slashme 14:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Before accusing, I would advice you to read and reflect upon the following essay--Jvb – August 29, 2006

POV/research/Black negationism
I have removed a little bit of POV that has crept in around the Govt Committee of Enquiry. Also taken out the inferential leap that claims of genocide are supported by the statistic that over 60% of victims of farm attacks are white. Also added note for the 2004 report from the US State Department, based on figures from AgriSA, that confirms the continued downward trend in the number of farm attacks. Humansdorpie 13:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jvb, the statement that hideous songs allegedly play an important role in genocide aimed at white farmers is a) POV and b) reliant on a number of supporting propositions, none of which is specified or substantiated; I've removed it. I'm also unclear how reference 5 supports the statement that "Some lobby groups claim that the attacks are genocidal in nature. This is supported by the belief that many cases have involved murder with no damage to or theft of property". The reference (a 2004 US State Dept report) quotes the government report that "the perpetrators in the great majority of cases appeared to be common criminals motivated by financial gain". What if we conflate the two existing sentences and put something like, Some lobby groups claim that the attacks are genocidal in nature and believe that many cases have involved murder with no damage to or theft of property.? The next section then presents the government's response to those claims and beliefs. Humansdorpie 15:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I corrected the link (should be 4 instead of 5) and wrote the sentence about the songs in a more neutral way. --Jvb – March 29, 2006


 * Thank you, Jvb. You might like to reconsider again whether the "songs" passage is relevant:
 * It is a duplication of information in the Criticism of Government section, and we don't need two; I think the information belongs logically in the Criticisms section.
 * The statement is vague and imprecise. It is just an assertion that inflammatory songs "allegedly" "play a role" in genocide - which sounds suspiciously close to personal opinion.
 * The claim is based on a news web site/blog commenting on a 13-year-old news report and seven picture stills from a TV news report about a rape trial, which the blogger tells us "no doubt" shows a woman miming the shooting of white people. However we have only his word for it; she might in truth be pretending to shoot Thabo Mbeki, or Paris Hilton, or maybe the Teletubbies.
 * This is not a verifiable citation. It is an allegation, based on nothing more than opinion, from one slightly cranky and unashamedly partisan web site/blog run by a man who believes that the Earth is hollow and that alien "Mothmen" occasionally emerge from underground. I don't think this is a proper basis for such a powerful claim, and I hope you will consider removing it for the time being.
 * I am also puzzled by the claim that the ANC views hate speech as "nothing serious"; again, that sounds like personal opinion, do you have a citation for that, please? Humansdorpie 19:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * But who are the paranoid lunatics? I looked up some other references in the mainstream Afrikaans speaking press for the “powerful” claims made, see and


 * Former vice-president Zuma EACH DAY sings in public the controversial song: “bring me my machinegun”. But to the Afrikaans speaking press he claims that he doesn’t sing each time again: “bring me my machine gun”, but only “bring me my machine”, which following his “explanation” also could mean “bring me my SEWING machine” for instance. I suppose you understand that this is more than simple negationism. --Jvb – March 30, 2006


 * Feel free to edit the Jacob Zuma article. Or add a Zuma reference to this article. Humansdorpie is addressing references currently in this article, not tilting at windmills elsewhere. Wizzy&hellip; &#9742;   09:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. --Jvb – March 30, 2006


 * Hallo Jvb; thank you for changing some of the wording - eventually I feel sure that we will get a version that everybody is happy with. However, this section of the article is drifting away from its purpose, which is to support claims of genocide against white farmers. People singing inflammatory songs are not evidence of genocide. Press reports of people singing inflammatory songs are not evidence of genocide. There is no explicit claim made in any of the Beeld reports that murders of white farmers have been caused by songs; you may personally believe that the connection is obvious, but without any authoritative references it remains your point of view. Humansdorpie 14:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * In the following article, there is enough evidence that responsible persons make the link . And if Zuma even lies to condone his singing, then he certainly doesn’t see it as serious. Concerning the needed citation for Nelson Mandela “singing in public that he pledges himself to kill the whites”, I hope to find it next week. --Jvb – March 30, 2006
 * It is likely that Nelson Mandela used to sing violent struggle songs. Does he still?  Of course not.  Try to write stuff about the past in the past tense and stuff about the present in the present tense. --Slashme 14:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Beware of too hasty conclusions, even now Mandela doesn’t give up his traditional singing about killing the whites. --Jvb – August 19, 2006

Struggle songs and hate speech
Hi JvB,

I have moved the discussion on hate speech to the section that already deals with "kill the boer" etc, and have removed the links to white supremacist websites, and made the links to reputable media into references. Let's once again see whether we can find a middle ground here. --Slashme 13:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Genocide
It is fucking disgusting. Even babies and old people it is genocide. Fuck the rainbow nation. It’s a fucking joke. Just look at this

Title.
Is there a reason for the capitals? If it includes the murders of "young infants", should the title be changed? -- Jeandré, 2006-07-27t18:41z

(Moved to talk page)
Having lived as a farm labourer in South African farms I want to bring out one perspective. During apartheid white farmers (particularly Afrikaaners) hunted and killed black folks for sport. The deep seated hatred against black folks is strongest among the white farmers particularly the Afrikaaners. They have committed all kinds of brutal crimes i.e. rape, murders and more. You can confirm this with court records particularly the Bloemfontein judicial system is filled with these sorts of cases. Since the new government took over in 1994 some of these farm labourers attack white farmers in reaction to this brutal history. White farmers always portray themselves as victims but conceal the fact that the violence they are subjected to is a reactive phenomenon and has its roots in the past. If you think reasonably, it does not make sense for any human being to carry out unprovoked attacks against another human being for no valid reason. Obviously this does not justify the attacks but unfortunately as long as the truth is not told then these things will continue to happen and we will never learn anything from them. He who ignores history is bound to repeat it. I personally watched helplessly my mother being brutalized by an Afrikaaner farmer. He was armed with a gun in broad daylight and he threatened to shoot me if I intervened. Can you imagine being put on hold at gunpoint while your mother is being savagely beaten in front of your eyes? This happened in 1987 on the Doornkop farms near Soweto and Johannesburg. I am still traumatized from this experience. There was a time when I thought of taking an AK-47 to return to that farm to do some retaliatory damage in the hope of being cleansed from this traumatizing experience. Many who do not sublimate their emotional memories end up doing exactly that. What I have outlined is one big piece of the puzzle with respect to attacks against white farmers in South Africa. The black farmers who get killed are usually attacked by white folks. In 1985 as a television journalist for the SABC TV News in the Free State province I covered a story of a black worker who had been killed by his Afrikaaner boss. The farmer had decided to kill him in revenge of his Afrikaaner father that had been killed on the farm by unknown assailants. The farmer told us the unknown assailants had killed his father and farm worker. Other eye witnesses corroborated otherwise. The farmer had decided that his black farm labourer had to pay for this and since this was during apartheid there was no investigation into the crime and anyone who saw this lived in fear and the Afrikaaner went about his life as if nothing had happened. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zulumathabo (talk • contribs) 02:08, 3 August 2006.
 * On Afrikaner websites, I read about the constant defamation of white farmers on the SABC. Not only there is the coverage such as done by you, but also more refined the Bollywood films. BTW, don’t forget that most Holofarm crimes are committed by young black males who even didn’t exist in the Apartheid era. So personal revenge cannot be the major cause.


 * And why else do you think there is so much unnecessary brutality during the killings. Apparently, while stealing, raping, torturing and killing, the perpetrators think they are doing a good job. --Jvb – August 19, 2006


 * If you think reasonably, it does not make sense for any human being to carry out unprovoked attacks against another human being for no valid reason. - Sure, maybe the victims of anti-black violence in countries like Russia, Germany and China were attacked (and sometimes even killed) by traumatized youths who have read this article and its talk page. ---LeVoyageur 22:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all I would like to thank Khoikhoi for his warmest welcome and encouragement about following the rules and showing me the resources. Khokhoi you are doinga phenomenal job and I hold great admiration for you. I will learn from you and others here. Thank you.

Since making a posting regarding the mentality of impunity which prevails among white farmers regarding black farm labourers, I would like to make a few more points of fact. Before I do that let me just address the statement that some traumatized people will attack others because "...have read this article and its talk page". The most influencial thing is what you see in real life as opposed to what they say or want you to see. Experience does not lie. Moreover the purpose here is not to incite hate but to share our experiences.

I already indicated that my mother was brutalized by an Afrikaaner farmer on the Doornkop farms on the outskirts of Soweto and that I bear the scars of this savage attack against a defenseless woman who had provoked no one. This obviously took place in the pervasive atmosphere of impunity. I am reminded by a similar case whereby the white farmer Mr. Mark Scott-Crossley fed his former farm labourer Mr. Chisale into the lions in January of 2004. The BBC News team covered the story which can be sourced here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4492953.stm titled Killers fed farm worker to lions.

It is amazing that this story parallels my story in that Mr. Chisale had returned to this Phalaborwa farm to pick up his belongings in January 2004. My mother Mathabo had also returned to pick up her belongs at the Doornkop farm in April 1985. In both cases the white farmer acted violently and savagely with the result that in the case of Mr. Chisale he actually got eaten alive by the lions. In my case my mother was beaten and brutalized in front of me and I was kept at bay and helpless by the gun totting farmer.

Moreover my mother was not even properly dressed because I was waiting outside for her while she dressed up inside. The farmer just burst into the room where she was dressing and started assaulting her. All her under clothes were scattered on the ground and I went about picking them up one by one while she absorbed vicious blows from the bellicose farmer. I heard my mother cry aloud for her own mother who was not there. The apartheid system of justice was not there to help her. The following excerpt is a poetic record of that barbaric and sexist attack:

“that Doornkop farmer that feudal sexist Afrikaaner I remember him near Johannesburg He waged an undeclared war He emptied his vials of hate upon her, kicking her hard in daylight taking her life apart” It Was a Victim’s Fault from A Goodbye To My Little Troubles Copyright by Vusi Moloi © 1979 – 2004.

I am reminded of a journalist asking the Zimbabwean newly appointed Minister of Ocean Affairs in 1980 about how come Zimbabwe had a Minister of Ocean Affairs when there was no sea in Zimbabwe and he replied “it is just like apartheid South Africa. There is a Minister of Justice there but there is no justice.”

In a two-year study headed by the South African Human Rights Commission Ms. Charlotte McClain-Nhlapo whom I had a privilege of meeting in North America it was found that a culture of violence and impunity of violent acts against black farm labourers were rife. This is a study released in 2004 having been commissioned by Mr. Mandela. The Commissioner was appointed by Mr. Mandela. The BBC News reported on this report under the title South Africa's violent farms and it can be sourced here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3202871.stm using the web.

To put things in perspective the attacks against the farmers are not justified and I am not here to justify those acts of violence. No human being should attack another. If we are civilized as we would like to think we are then we should have the sophistication of solving the most difficult problems through logic. Racial hate diminishes the well-being of the victim as well as the racist.

I still find it incredible that despite the brutal apartheid experience that I have suffered I bear neither grudge no hate against Caucasians. In fact one of the greatest human beings that I worship the ground he walks on is Mr. Van Zyl Slabbert a hardcore Afrikaaner. He is the greatest human being and a very handsome guy too. He combines both brainpower and natural physical beauty and this is a rare combination. Moreover he is a very sweet human being. We are all blessed to have someone like him. There are many Afrikaaners in the same way including the great Afrikaaner woman legend Bettie du Toit. I have friends whom I love deeply who are Afrikaaners. It is not about hate but about human beings respecting each other and accepting each other for who they are. It is also imperative that victims of apartheid are able to get over their experience and rebuild the country. I hope that this humble contribution will cast some new light into the topic at hand. Zulumathabo 04:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There exists another version of the incident where such as you write “the white farmer Mr. Mark Scott-Crossley fed his former farm labourer Mr. Chisale into the lions in January of 2004”, BTW a version that only confirms my point of view :


 * SOUTH AFRICAN PRESS ASSOCIATION


 * "ANC to be charged with inciting violence"


 * The Democratic Alliance will lay a charge of incitement to violence against the African National Congress, South African Communist Party and Congress of South African Trade Unions in the Limpopo province.
 * DA spokesperson Sandra Botha said on Wednesday her party would lay charges after the three organisations brandished placards proclaiming: "Enough is enough -- Kill the farmer, kill the boer", "Tired with boers", "Fed up with killer boers" and "Castrate boers".
 * The placards were reportedly displayed during a court appearance of four men accused of feeding former colleague Nelson Shisane to lions in Limpopo earlier in February.
 * Four men -- Mark Scott-Crossley, Simon Mathebula, Richard Mathebula and Robert Mnisi -- appeared in court on a charge of murder and grievous bodily harm.
 * But charges against Mnisi were dropped after he agreed to become a witness for the prosecution.
 * Botha said: "Instead of urging all South Africans to unite in voicing their abhorrence of this incident, the ANC and its alliance partners have sought to sow racial divisions and enforce racial stereotypes."
 * She said the parties were spreading misinformation.
 * "Firstly, there are three people accused of Shisane's murder, only one of whom is white. There does not appear to be any racial motive in the alleged murder. Secondly, Mark Scott-Crossley is not a farmer. He runs a business from a smallholding."
 * Botha said the incident was not a true reflection of farmers, Afrikaners, whites, or any other grouping the tripartite alliance chose to target.
 * "If the ANC and its alliance partners insist on jumping to conclusions about racist motives and putting entire communities in the dock along with the accused, we will never heal the racial divisions of the past."
 * Last year, the South African Human Rights Commission declared the slogan "Kill the boer, kill the farmer" to be hate speech.
 * 02 / 15 / 2004


 * --Jvb – August 30, 2006

This one needs an answer. I am a white Afrikaans farmer. (female) I want to state to "haviglived as a farm labourer" that whoever he is, he is a lyer. I do not know of ANY white farmer killing any of his labourors. I grew up in a situation where our labourors were deemed "children" of my grandfather and my father, my father was even asked to clear up family fights among the labourers. Even though I am very happy that we are now all free of apartheid (it was a weight on our shoulders, for more than one reason) I seen that this talk page is visited by extremists on both sides. Lets face the facts: - it is true that crime in South Africa is very, very high. I have had a very close family member, an oly lady, that was brutally murdered. It is also true that there are a very high number of farm murders. This is common knowlege, it is a problem here in South Africa. The reasons for that, if believe, as with all crime in South Africa, is that rule of law is not upheld and that it is a danger to our society. To come back to the statements of "farm labourer". It is a case of believing what one wants. If one really want to believe this person, little can be done about it. (except for visiting South Africa and South African farms). Most (not all, every society has it's baddies) Afrikaans farmers are very devoted Christians, With Christian values, including that of love and respect. The depiction of me and my people as above is nothing but part of an attack on us. The article on farm murders was written, in my opinion, very objectively. The question is not if they occur, but why. That is not an easy one to answer, and I believe that the farm murders are also not a single case - there are a number of reasons, including common crime (by criminals, no use putting it on the shoulders of all black people, the murders are committed by the outcasts of society, who are getting more. That is the worrysome part. Too many children are growing up without familiy values, without parents; as a result of aids. I have heard statistics, that we have close to two million orphans of various ages. ) Some are racial attacks and other because of personal grievances - people get away with crime too easily... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.54.202.66 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 1 October 2006.

Biased
I am sorry, but this article was either originally written by an insane member of the Afrikanerweerstandsbeweging or someone who is extremely sympathetic to Afrikaner "Holocaust" Conspiracy Theories. Some controversial sentences don't even have sources (For Example "An orchestrated political terror campaign intended to drive white farmers off the land". This was listed as one of the reasons why farmers are getting killed. who's writing this shit?Stevo D 01:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is listed as one of the theories that have been put forth as the reason for the murders. This doesn't mean that it's listed as a reason for the murders, just that many people believe that.  Ask any right-wing Afrikaner and that's the reason they'll put forth.  If you're desparate, I'm sure we can get sources for this, but it's hardly a controversial statement. --Slashme 11:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

where are the credible sources? wasn't there a wikipedia rule about not using foreign language websites as sources for English Wikipedia Articles? Also, who ever written this article didn't know ALOT of black farmers were murdered too)


 * I refer you to the article, where it says
 * "White people were not targeted exclusively - in 2001, the report found that 61% of victims of farm attacks were white." --Slashme 11:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

and those that do often lead to completely biased sources (For Example,Stop Boer Genocide is a site created by those looking for a Boer Staat). This article is complete and utter crap. I recommend it for Speedy Deletion. Stevo D 03:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think your vote for speedy is coming on a bit strong here. This article is a serious attempt to show all the sides of the story.  It cites government sources and outlines the broad strokes of the conspiracy theories, with links to their claims.  If you think we did a bad job of referencing it, please help fix it.  And check out my extensive discussions with jvb above.  I think this officially makes me a moderate, as I have views to the left of me, views to the right of me as I go vaingloriously half a league onward ;-)  By the way, just for the record, let me state that I'm a white South African, happily living on a commercial farm ;-] --Slashme 11:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of farmers that have been killed. I don't really buy the conspiracies, but it is enough of a phenomenon that it should be recognised. Wizzy&hellip; &#9742;   09:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree with you completely. A lot of this article is simply stupid. I have tried in the past to make it more neutral, but other editors have been quite persistent in their pov. Mi kk er (...) 00:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't let them get you down. If you need editing help/support, just mail me.  I'm not around here all the time any more. --Slashme 11:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This is definitely a phenomenon that should be recognised as something apart from 'general' crime in South Africa. SparrowsWing 01:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed page move to South African farm attacks
I believe the title of the article should be renamed to the South African farm attacks. My reasons are as follows: All in all the current title is contradictary and should be changed. I'll give it a week for comments, and if there are no major objections will move it then. Zunaid 10:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Capitilisation. Wikipedia's naming policy for articles requires that at the very least the capitalisation of this article be changed to "South African farmer murders"
 * 2) The word "farmer" is too restrictive in this sense as even the article itself mentions that farm workers have been among the victims.
 * 3) The word "murder" is also too restrictive. Murder is a legal term for a crime which requires prosecution in a court of law to prove guilt (and is different from other legal terms such as manslaughter). I would have gone for "killings" but again, the article itself mentions that some attacks have not resulted in such.
 * Yeah, agreed. Mi kk er (...) 01:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That the word “farmer” is changed into “farm”, I agree.


 * But the word “murder” should be preserved.


 * Indeed, when I read the definition of “murder”,  I notice the following: …. a killing incidentally committed in the course of a felony (e.g., robbery or rape) is deemed murder…. So here we are speaking about murder, not about manslaughter.


 * That not everybody is killed is true, but nevertheless it is the main focus in the press, see
 * and


 * Further, here “murder” is the translation in English of a phenomenon already known since a longer period of time in Afrikaans as “plaasmoorde”, farm murders thus.


 * Therefore I prefer “South African farm murders”


 * --Jvb – September 16, 2006

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "moord" in Afrikaans used for both "killing" and "murder"? Or are there separate words for the two? If not then we should use the English term "killing" as "murder" has a legal aspect. I understand your argument about murder/manslaughter, but that's not the point I was trying to make (I could just as easily have used "genocide", which has a legal definition in iternational law). The point is, if I kill someone then you can categorically state that I have killed them. But to say that I have murdered them you have to prove in a court of law that the crime of murder has been committed (according to the legal definition of murder, and the usual "beyond reasonable doubt" arguments etc.) WHICH IS WHY newspapers will ALWAYS refer to "the accused" (as in "accused of murder"), even when they can freely report on the person having killed someone. I can be arrested on a charge of murder, but until I am found guilty, I am a killer, not a murderer.

It's the same with stealing. Stealing is an ACT (like killing), but the CRIME is theft/robbery/fraud (murder/manslaughter/culpable homicide/genocide). I hope you see the point I'm trying to make. It's not about the translation from Afrikaans, its about the meaning of the words used. If you want to stick with murder as the English term, then the article will be restricted to those cases which were successfully prosecuted, which is a MUCH smaller subset. It would also add the problem of confirming the numbers used in the article, we'd have to find a reliable reference for the number of successful prosecutions, e.g. from a newspaper article. Zunaid 14:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Zunaid again. Firstly, farms aren't being murdered, farmers are, so calling it South African farm murders would be nigh-on-nonsensical. (Farms, however, can be attacked, just like countries can). Secondly, Zunaid's arguments about murder vs. killing is wholly convincing IMO - murder has a very specific meaning, one that shouldn't be used freely. That murders are being committed is indubitable but surely the phenomenon being recorded is wider than murder? I.e. robbery, rape, theft are also important. An article about murder should, presumably BE about murder, not a wider phenomenon. Mi kk er (...) 18:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And 'murder' is POV - it implies guilt, and wikipedians will be restrained in contributing to the article. It is an identifiable phenomenon - but wikipedia is not a soapbox, so to point fingers (calling it murder) is not useful. We want documentation, and not opinion. BTW - I see nothing wrong with the grammar of "farm murder" or "farm attack" - it is clear the farm is not being murdered, it is the location. Wizzy&hellip; &#9742;   07:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * To Zunaid: The Afrikaans language indeed makes the difference between “to kill” and “to murder”, see for instance: . People were “gedood”, that means were “killed”. And, such as I already stated:  a killing incidentally committed in the course of a felony (e.g., robbery or rape) is deemed murder.


 * There also is no problem in combining the words “farm” and “murder”. This only indicates where the murders are committed: on the farm. There can be no doubt. Indeed a farm cannot be murdered. Thank you for reminding me.


 * --Jvb – September 18, 2006


 * To Wizzy & Jvb: still seems nonsensical to call it "farm murders" IMO (compare other locations: 'car murders', 'city murders', 'United States murders') but, anyhow, whatever. Doesn't matter really. The main argument I wanted to get across was this: there is a wider phenomenon than just murder, i.e., sometimes farms are attacked w/o killings taking place. This is part of the issue the article should (and does) cover so calling it "murder" with whatever words before it is inaccurate. Furthermore, as Wizzy rightly points out, it is pov to call it murder unless that has been proven in a court of law. "Killing" is a wide phenomenon, it includes: homicide (in several "degrees"), accidents, acts of self defense, manslaughter, etc.


 * On Afrikaans, erm, "gedood" is terribly archaic, it's the English equivalent of writing "connexion" instead of "connection". (Who the hell is writing these articles on af?). The word for "murder" is "vermoor", killing doesn't have an exact cognate in (modern) Afrikaans but "was dood gemaak" is "was killed (by someone)" and most other senses would be covered by other phrases ("is dead" or "died" etc.). Mi kk er (...) 21:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think "gedood" is formal written Afrikaans, but definitely not an archaic term: See google.co.za (the article in question was written by the editor of a Western Cape community newspaper). "Farm murders" may be a literal translation of the Afrikaans term plaasmoorde, but anyway it is common South African English usage. --LeVoyageur 11:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Le Voyageur: "Farm murders" may be a literal translation of the Afrikaans term "plaasmoorde", but anyway it is common South African English usage.


 * There also might be a wider phenomenon than “farm murders”, but that’s not the point. It’s the casualties that count. The others can recover or the rest can be repaired.


 * Moreover there is no problem calling it “murder”, because here we aren’t speaking about one individual accused in court who only may be called a murderer if proven. In general "being killed after an attack" is by definition murder, because, in general, a killing incidentally committed in the course of a felony (e.g., robbery or rape) is deemed murder by definition.


 * --Jvb – September 20, 2006

I'll agree to disagree then. I think Wizzy however makes a good point about neutrality. Anyway since this is disputed, I think we should contact more editors to get a better consensus. Please message other previous editors of this article to give their opinions. I've started to flesh out a proposed Straw Poll section (please edit as necessary), we can activate it once more editors have joined the debate (maybe next week?). Zunaid 08:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I prefer Farm attacks. Farmers and workers have been killed. It is a significant, vulnerable population, but in the statistics of violent deaths in South Africa it is probably a drop in the bucket. The reason it has an article here (and not Somalis in Cape Town, or other inter-tribal attacks) is because there are concerned wikipedians writing about it. Wizzy&hellip; &#9742;   09:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Don’t forget that the commercial farmers supply food for South Africa. Their death would not only be dramatic for themselves, but also for the others. --Jvb – September 25, 2006

Just to add my $0.02: I think "South African farm attacks" is the best name for this article: The issue is that people are being attacked on South African farms. The name should reflect that. --Slashme 09:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Not all the crimes under consideration are murders - some are rapes, robberies, etc.
 * Not all the victims are farmers - some are farm workers.


 * Agree - should be "South African farm attacks" - really it should be something more like 'Violent crime on South African farms' but I don't think that's going to happen. 'Farm attacks (or murders)', and the rhetoric around the issue in general, ignores violence committed by members of the farming communities on other members, focusing solely on outsiders entering the farms to commit crime.  While it is a real issue that needs attention, this attention perpetuates a culture of silence around violence within the farming community, and privileges the more active and powerful voices of commercial farming interests. Lionchow 16:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll
Please ONLY SIGN under the proposed name you prefer; any ongoing discussion should take place in the section above. This poll will close on Monday, 9 October 2006.

Change name to "South African farm attacks"
 * 1) Zunaid 06:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Lionchow - Talk 08:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Deon Steyn 12:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) -- Jeandré, 2006-09-26t19:10z
 * 5)  Imp i  20:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Obviously NPOV. "Murders" is a term which may be technically accurate but carry an implied viewpoint. Take a look at Words to avoid in Wikipedia/Article title. Szvest 22:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Mi kk er (...) 22:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Stevo D 01:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) --Slashme 06:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) --Jcw69 07:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC) The best of the 3 choices
 * 11) Wizzy&hellip;  &#9742;   09:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC) Not sure we really needed this poll
 * 12) &mdash; Khoikhoi 02:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 13)  Gronkmeister | Talk /Contrib 15:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Jeffklib 05:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Change name to "South African farm murders"
 * 1) --Jvb – September 26, 2006
 * “Farm attacks” is the official South African whitewash terminology for “farm murders” see: --Jvb – October 1, 2006

Change name to "Violence in rural South Africa" or something similar
 * 1) or alternatively to "South African farm attacks" if this name is not possible - htonl 09:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Only way to achieve real NPOV. --WickedHorse 21:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus to move to South African farm attacks
I take it there is a good consensus to move the article. Will do so now. Zunaid 11:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Redirect pages up for deletion
After the page move I discovered a slew of redirect pages with inappropriate and POV titles. I've nominated all of them for deletion (it can be found here). In addition, WikiWizzy's arguments about POV, echoed by FayssalF's arguments about WP:NPOV and WP:WTA above prompted me to nominate the titles using the word "murder" as well, as they can be construed as implying a viewpoint. Zunaid 14:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Title? Please.
I live in South Africa, and we don't talk about "farm attacks", we talk about "farm murders"... Shouldn't the title be changed to farm murders? Farm attacks suggest that people aren't always murdered, but that wouldn't be under this topic then, so I suggest the title change. --Adriaan90 12:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Here it's not even WP:RTFA, it's read the non-archived talk page just above your post. Mi kk er (...) 22:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Whatever, fool. Thanks for your sweet comment. --Adriaan90 12:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I must say despite Adriaan90's agressive response, his suggestion is valid. The term in South Africa is Farm Murders. You would not refer to the genocide of Jews in World War II as Jew 'attacks'. SparrowsWing 08:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Aggressive? Please! He told me to "Read the fucking archives"! I don't understand why you could say I am aggressive when yet he cursed at me. --Adriaan90 19:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Um hello can you see I'm supporting your point of view here? SparrowsWing 20:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Uhm hello can you see that I never said you didn't? You're changing the subject. I don't really think you know what you're talking about. --Adriaan90 04:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

But I can't tell you how many People try to equate the word "murder" with "genocide", which both of those terms, (except the former in certain rare cases) are invalid. Wikipedia attempts to take a neutral tone with every article, therefore, when not everyone gets killed, it's not murder, and it's not genocide, because that would imply killing over race, politics, etc. So then the name is valid and stays.

And besides, what are we going to do next? say how taxicab, banker, liquor store owner, [put high risk occupation here_________] are murdered in droves, targeted exclusively genocide, etc.? The reason for the farmer attacks are, that South African farmers be, they white or black or coloured, are richer than the average joe both through land and economic control, and in a country where wages are comparatively low, with such economic disparities comes certain responsibilities (and risks) Stevo D 00:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you have any references for your claims? If not you aren't really contributing. --Adriaan90 04:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a simple case of Wikipedia requiring as neutral terms to be used as possible. This has been mentioned by Wikiwizzy and others above. The term "murder" implies a POV, not-to-mention the fact that it has a legal connotation, whereas "attacks" is more neutral. Google searches for both the "attacks" and "murders" variations of the title bring up 4 pages each, so there does not seem to be a clear preference either way. We've had this out in the above section and re-opening this question isn't going to achieve much in the end. Zunaid 08:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

POV issues fixed
South African farm attacks were the subject of a research paper at my high school, and the article was woefully inadequate. This is a VERY contentious issue in the country, with numerous groups alleging genocide against white farmers while others contend it is part of a wider crime problem in which race is irrelevant. The role of race and whether it plays a part or not is a HUGE part of this problem and subject of frequent debate thus I was suprised to see the race minimized in the article. There have been numerous claims of bias above and most sources present fell into the liberal end of the spectrum, thus I have remedied this problem through the introduction of high-quality RS conservative commentators, such as National Review. Also, general cleanup. SweetSpicySour (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Introducing liberal or conservative WP:POV is unacceptable. --I am One of Many (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you'd like to elaborate? The article ALREADY has POV. That's why there's the tag, and the talkpage is littered with complaints. The current sources (The Guardian, Reuters, New York Times) all range from liberal to very liberal. That's WP:UNDUE. Per that policy, there's no reason for high-quality reliable conservative sources, like National Review or FrontPage Magazine, to not be in the article. The current version of the article is textbook POVPOSHING and makes no mention of genocide, despite that theory being popular amongst conservative sources so it's definitely not WP:FRINGE. Also, I never removed the liberal sources - merely balanced it out with conservative ones. Not sure what you're up in arms about, apart from WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Also, most RS make mention of race. There's no reason to have race minimized. SweetSpicySour (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Reuters is liberal? Drmies (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Your account is 2-days old, yet you seem to be very knowledgable of Wikipedia policy? Is this your first account here?  Have you been blocked before? --I am One of Many (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As I've fully disclosed on my userpage, this is a WP:SOCK account for privacy reasons. My main account is traceable to my real-world identity (and people IRL know I edit Wikipedia), and as the issue of racism and farm attacks are very contentious issues where I live, I need to keep these contributions separate in case they compromise my real-world privacy. All this is acceptable under Wikipedia sockpuppetry policy. Please respond to my content points. SweetSpicySour (talk) 00:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Your account may well be legitimate under "A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Wikipedia actions in that area" in WP:SOCK, but since you do have a very strong racial perspective, it probably would be a good idea to privately disclose your real account to a trusted administrator or arbitration committee member such as Drmies.
 * You have already admitted that you have a very conservative POV and it seems to me that your justification for using an alternative account also suggests that you have a WP:COI regarding race. My suggestion to you would be not to directly edit the article without consensus first.  Propose edits and get consensus.  The page information link indicates 71 people watching this page 9 who have recently visited, So, if you can remain patient, other editors will likely comment.  You could also raise your issues at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. My view is that "The Guardian, Reuters, New York Times" are not liberal sources, but reliable sources.  I do think that there is concern about FrontPage Magazine, which is described as "an online conservative political website" and National Review, which is "magazine and web site for conservative news, commentary, and opinion". --I am One of Many (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am One of Many, for now I'll accept the account given; in the end, it doesn't really matter for the issues at hand. Whether I'm to be trusted is another matter. Let me note that I have been editing this article, and I see my role here as that of an editor. Drmies (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Well. This version by SweetSpicySour, there are some issues. For starters the image and the caption--these aren't graves, they are commemorative crosses; misidentifying them is misconstruing for rhetorical purposes. The caption is tendentious too--"according to" seems to modify whether or not the commentator thinks that these killings constitute genocide, but that states as fact the claim that these attacks "disproportionately" target whites, which is a matter of contention, I believe. Drmies (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Where to start.
 * Why are we citing Xinhua News? I do not accept Inquisitr as a reliable news source (and I don't care what their political stance is). This is used to cite "attacks on South African farms occur at a rate several hundred times higher than those in any other country" (in both the pre- and post-SweetSour version), but this is unacceptable: we're referencing a fact to a Chinese news agency which cites...guess what, the "South African Solidarity Research Institute" is not some sort of university research lab, it's a "research" department of Solidariteit, a South-African union with strong white/Afrikaner/Christian sympathies. So I see no reason whatsoever to accept this statement and will remove it until we get a decent source saying it. And don't offer "but it's a news agency!" Its very source is suspect, if the news agency already wasn't.
 * National Review is so much an opinion magazine that its conclusions need to be considered carefully. One hopes its fact-checking is acceptable, but it depends (see Xinhua) on who delivers them their facts. I don't think they have a South-African research office.
 * Reuters, oh Reuters. They report--accurately, I suppose--that they have been given numbers that say farm attacks are on the rise, and fortunately they report where they got their numbers from--the TAU and AfriForum. What they don't say, unfortunately, is that the Transvaal Agricultural Union is heavily pro-Afrikaner/Boer, and that AfriForum comes out of the aforementioned Solidariteit. So I put no stock in those numbers whatsoever. So once these articles are judged for what they're worth (unreliable journalism for Xinhua and National Review, unreliable facts for Xinhua and Reuters), claims about "barbarity and disproportionate number of the attacks" become a lot more tenuous, since they already state in Wikipedia's voice what is as yet unproven, as far as I'm concerned. Drmies (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Following from these discussions regarding POV on this subject I would like to propose the creation of a section that covers that very dimention of this issue. Namely how divisive this issue is in South Africa and how it is viewed by different groups in society. I think it would add a lot to this article and might, if done well, even have the positive side effect of improving NPOV of the article as a whole.--Discott (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Statistics and synthesis
I have removed the following:
 * Fact checking organisation Africa Check has stated that black and coloured farmowners account for less than 38.4% of victims of farm attacks, while accounting for 89% of South Africa's population. Although definitive statistics on the race of farmowners are not available, estimates suggest that, for example, only some 2.96% of farms in the Free State Province are "black-owned", regardless of the proportion of South Africans who are Black.

There are several problems with this segment: Firstly, Africa Check said 38.4% of victims of farm attacks were "described as being black, coloured or Asian". That's not "less than" 38.4%, and it's not just owners but any victims. Secondly, Africa Check does not contrast this figure to the total share of black and coloured people among the South African population. That would be a stupid thing to do; if those really were farm owners, they would need to be contrasted to the share of black and coloured people among the South African farm owners, which may be significantly lower than 38.4% and almost certainly is lower than 89%. So the first sentence misleadingly combines disparate sources of data to make a point that none of the sources makes. The second sentence also cherry-picks data, and its source doesn't discuss farm attacks at all, giving no indication how the statistics in that source would relate to the number of farm attack victims. Combining disparate statistics to make broader points about the racial makeup of farm attack victims that are not supported by the sources is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

This should be made into a featured article
This page should be made a featured article and shown on the front page of the English language version of Wikipedia to help spread the word to the wider public. 2601:8C:4102:1210:651A:285A:DAB:5AD5 (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

statistics
I have never been to RSA but according to this news item the official statistics are not reliable: http://www. eutimes.net/2015/03/murders-of-south-african-whites-hidden-by-fraudulent-natural-death-certificates/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.160.157 (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

statistics 2016
(I am not an RSA citizen, have never been to RSA, but curious why there are demos just now. These figures make the perception of reality credible.) 71 murders and 369 attacks, source is F. Mbalula, though data was only released on the condition of not publishing http://www.farmingportal.co.za/index.php/farmingnews/breking-news/item/11632-will-it-be-gloves-off-in-anc-showdown-with-south-africa’s-commercial-farmers? http://ewn.co.za/2017/10/29/farm-murders-an-outright-act-of-terror Also a disreputable source http://freewestmedia.com/2017/10/31/afrikaners-come-together-on-blackmonday-to-protest-ongoing-farm-murders/ I first updated the table of the article, which was removed because the last source was neo-nazi. Again, no idea. I just thought if they mention in the article that they got it from a government minister, it would be credible regardless of the web site that published the data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.160.157 (talk) 11:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)