Talk:South African farm attacks/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Percentage of White Murder Victims

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)

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)

• I very much agree there has to be better statistical sources, if any. Gabbobler (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

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

We need to change this whole thing's wording.

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)

• 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)

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

Conspiracy theory?

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)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2021

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)

 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)

"Occasionally"

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

NYT, WaPo, ABC and the BBC have ALL had multiple embarrassing and revealing scandals undermining their credibility. 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" is not credibility. It simply means that those outlets are controllable, i.e., they are beholden to and 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 "occasionally." 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 Mugabe's Zimbabwe and the 1804 Haiti massacre in slow motion, on a larger scale. - JGabbard (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll wait for reliable sources, thanks. Also, White genocide conspiracy theory. Aren't you topic banned from this? Woodroar (talk) 13:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@JGabbard: "The present South African regime is a damnable, execrable, anti-white, genocidal institution, exceeding by light years the racism of the DeKlerk administration" - you're living in a parallel universe. That comment is disgusting and frankly deeply racist. AusLondonder (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Are "South African farm attacks" a claim?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks for the clarification. I now realize that I was probably reverted mainly for moving most of the lede into the body, rather than changing the opening sentence. I've therefore rewritten only the opening sentence, to make it clearer what the article is actually about. I agree that the "every year"-wording is somewhat awkward and slightly irrelevant, but it's the best I can come up with for now. I'm fine with basically anything that doesn't define the attacks as a "claim". Ornilnas (talk) 03:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I've now been reverted twice, despite nobody actually arguing in favor of the current wording. Can someone explain why defining "South African farm attacks" as a "claim" is correct, and in line with Wikipedia policy/conventions? Or come up with a better wording than mine, without reverting wholesale? I'm fine with almost any other wording than the current. Ornilnas (talk) 04:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

If the reason for this second revert was that I removed the sources for the original "definition", I'm fine with putting them elsewhere in the lede or body. They just don't support the new definition; nor did they actually support the previous definition (as discussed above). Ornilnas (talk) 04:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Length and detail of lede

The current lede goes into very minute detail about a specific controversy regarding these farm attacks (whether they are racially motivated or not). While that controversy is indeed a very important aspect of the attacks, it could probably be much more succinctly summarized in the lede, and instead expanded upon in the body. I also think the controversy should come *after* describing the scope of the attacks (number of attacks, trends etc.), which are basic facts that underlie the resulting controversy. There are also way too many sources given in the lede; they generally belong in the body. Any thoughts? Ornilnas (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

My thought is that you have no consensus for the very drastic change you have made to the lede by replacing the first sentence "The term South African farm attacks (Afrikaans: plaasaanvalle) refers to the claim that white South African farmers are murdered at a higher rate than the murder rate in the general population of South Africa.[note 1]" with "Every year, hundreds of South African farm attacks (Afrikaans: plaasaanvalle) lead to the murder of dozens of farmers and farm workers.". I've reverted it. Please do not restore unless and until a consensus forms here. At a minimum, there needs to be a discussion of the sources (which were all removed by you). Bishonen | tålk 03:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC).

This section is about a proposed change which I haven't made. The change you reverted was based on the discussion in a different section, where nobody objected to changing the opening section. Please do add your thoughts to that discussion, so we can reach a consensus. Ornilnas (talk) 04:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

You made a change to the article lede, saying "See talk page" in the edit summary, and 11 minutes later you opened this section about the article lede, which you now tell me isn't what you referred to by asking people to see talk page. It seems to me you were asking for misunderstanding. But you're free to try to gain consensus in whichever section you like, AFAIC. Bishonen | tålk 04:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC).

Sorry for the confusion. But again, can you help us reach the desired consensus (preferably in the other section)? The discussion has been going on for almost a week, and nobody has opposed changing the wording of the starting sentence. The issue has also been brought up in other sections on this talk-page as far back as half a year ago, but has gotten almost no response. Ornilnas (talk) 05:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not up for that — it would involve more reading and writing than I have time for right now. But I do see your point that the article name and the definition involving a "claim" are a poor fit. I would have thought changing the article name was the better course, since the present one doesn't seem to fit the article very well altogether. In my opinion. However, I see above that Woodroar is against any "conspiracy theory naming", for what seem to me to be cogent reasons. Perhaps the two of you could work out a different kind of article name together? Or you can try to get more people involved - two is a lonely number. One way of doing this is to use the Third opinion process, which is specifically helpful for disagreements where only two editors are involved. But if you think, like me, that changing the article name is the better option, you can go straight to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial for a more focused discussion of, potentially, a new name. Bishonen | tålk 09:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC).

Thanks for the suggestion. I don't perceive Woodroar to be in disagreement with me concerning changing the first sentence, which is why I made a second attempt to change it. I do hope others join the discussion, to clarify why the current wording makes sense. If noone does, I don't think there really exists a consensus at all, just an extremely awkward status quo. In that case, I will probably attempt an (even more limited) change. I wouldn't mind moving the article, but that would be a much more sweeping change. For the time being, we can easily improve the lede massively by simply changing the first sentence. Ornilnas (talk) 10:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer to add a new sentence and then tweak later sentences for flow. (I'd also prefer if we could develop a consensus before making any more BOLD changes to the article.) My suggestion is something like this:

In recent decades, dozens of South African farmers and farm workers have been murdered each year in South African farm attacks (Afrikaans: plaasaanvalle). Afrikaner activist groups like AfriForum and Transvaal Agricultural Union have claimed that white South African farmers are murdered at a higher rate than the general population of South Africa. Such claims have largely been disbunked debunked, as there are no reliable figures suggesting that white farmers are being targeted in particular or that they are at a disproportionate risk of being killed. The African National Congress and other analysts maintain that farm attacks are part of a broader crime problem in South Africa and do not have a racial motivation. The claims are a key element of the white genocide conspiracy theory and have become a common talking point among white nationalists worldwide.

Just my $0.02. Woodroar (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I strongly support implementing this change as soon as possible. Any corrections or improvements can be addressed later, including whether to change the article name. (Although "disbunked" should be "debunked".) Ornilnas (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

My fingers were definitely moving faster than my brain on that one. Woodroar (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I strongly oppose implementing this change to the lede. The most notable aspects of the farm attacks is their frequent usage as a white nationalist conspiracy theory. Research and reliable sources, as is repeatedly shown in this article, maintain that farm attacks are a part of a larger crime problem in South Africa. The lede should focus on the conspiracy, not just farm attacks. Desertambition (talk) 04:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I applaud your effort to have the article moved. Does that mean you agree the current article/lede is not a good fit with the title? The current title refers to the *attacks*, not the associated *claim* (that white farmers are being targetted). Ornilnas (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 14 April 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page Not Moved. (non-admin closure) _signed, 511KeV ^(talk) 09:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

---

South African farm attacks → South African farm attacks conspiracy theory – Reliable sources frequently refer to the claim that white South African farmers are targeted and/or disproportionally murdered in South Africa as a conspiracy theory. The most notable thing about the farm attacks in South Africa claim is their frequent usage by white nationalists and relationship to the white genocide conspiracy theory. Information about crime can be added to Crime in South Africa.

White farmers: how a far-right idea was planted in Donald Trump's mind - The Guardian

The idea that there is a ‘genocide’ of white farmers in South Africa was once the province of conspiracy theorists but, thanks to News Corp’s media promotion, it has moved into the policy realm

The conspiracy theory of “white genocide” has been a staple of the racist far right for decades. It has taken many forms, but all of them imagine that there is a plot to either replace, remove or simply liquidate white populations.

Trump’s tweet echoing white nationalist propaganda about South African farmers, explained - Vox

The conspiracy theory is based on the very real — and very controversial — issue of post-apartheid land reform in South Africa. But the white nationalists who propagate it have taken what is a genuinely thorny issue and magnified it beyond all objective fact, twisting it into what they see as a nightmare cautionary tale of “white genocide.”

They're prepping for a race war. And they see Trump as their 'ray of hope' - CNN

The biggest problem with AfriForum’s claims about possible ethnic cleansing and farm murders is that they are not true, says Gareth Newham of the Institute of Security Studies (ISS), a South African research group.

"There is no evidence to support that. There is no evidence that a group of people are killing farmers for political purposes. There is no evidence that they are doing it because they are listening to political leaders. It is happening because of crime,” says Newham.

Is a ‘Large-Scale Killing’ of White Farmers Underway in South Africa? - Snopes

"The “large scale killings” phrase included in Trump’s tweet was an invocation of “white genocide,” a conspiracy theory popular among white supremacists who have for years been attempting to advance the baseless claim that white South African farmers are being systematically murdered en masse."

Farm killings and conspiracy theories on South Africa - The New Zealand Herald

President Donald Trump's promotion of a white nationalist conspiracy theory involving South Africa has prompted a fierce backlash there and fresh criticism in the United States that he is compromising American foreign policy to stoke his far-right political base.

White nationalists in the US and South Africa, where a fringe group called Afriforum has advanced the conspiracy theory, hailed the President's remarks. David Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan leader, thanked Trump on Twitter and tweeted an image of a white woman holding a sign reading, "Stop white genocide". Mike Peinovich, a far-right podcast host, called Trump's endorsement "Very big" and said "this is how we slowly chip away at the all-consuming anti-white discourse". Desertambition (talk) 04:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Strong Oppose the current title satisfies WP:NPOVTITLE and WP:NDESC. UPDATE: changing this to Strong Oppose as this looks like it would result in a WP:POVFORK at some point, which I doubt was the intention of NOM. We’d lose years of painstaking editing and consensus as the redirect will be replaced by an article discussing “actual farm attacks”.Park3r (talk) 08:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
  • The article title White genocide conspiracy theory satisfies neither of those things yet it still exists. June Parker (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    • WP:OTHER. Let’s keep the focus on this article. Park3r (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
      • You're the one who decided to deflect away from the article. You're saying the name can't enforced a POV or describe something, but plenty of articles already do that, especially articles to do with the white genocide bull. In additon to that the article title wrogly implies that the article refers to the very real issue of SA farmers being attacked (a majority being black) instead of the conspiracy theory that the attacks target white people and are a form of anti-white racism June Parker (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposed title infers that farm attacks do not take place at all, which is inaccurate. The conspiracy theory refers to claims of genocide amd the like. Greenman (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  I do not believe the title infers that. The farm attack conspiracy theory, as sources describe it, is the claim that white South African farmers are attacked/murdered disproportionately or are targeted because of their race. Sources consistently describe this as a conspiracy theory not founded in reality. Desertambition (talk) 11:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose. While the rhetoric from AfriForum and Transvaal Agricultural Union (and others) does sound like conspiratorial thinking, reliable sources tend not to call it that. I searched for "conspiracy" in all 28 sources used in the lead, and it's used only twice: by The New York Times to say that white South Africans believe the attacks are a conspiracy, and by the Pulitzer Center to describe conspiracy theorist Mike Cernovich. It's clear that most sources consider the rhetoric worthy of being debunked but they rarely go so far as to call it a conspiracy theory. Woodroar (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per others above. The current title is also shorter than the proposed title. Sahaib (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. Any new title should preferably allow for creating a new article about the actual attacks, if they become relevant in the future. South African farm attacks conspiracy theory does imply that South African farm attacks are... a conspiracy theory (not real), so it's not ideal. However, until an appropriate name is devised, the current title clearly refers to the actual *attacks* (which are real), and the lede should be rewritten to reflect that. After the move, the lede can be reverted. Ornilnas (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

  The article is already about the conspiracy theories. The first sentence is:

  "The term South African farm attacks (Afrikaans: plaasaanvalle) refers to the claim that white South African farmers are murdered at a higher rate than the murder rate in the general population of South Africa."

  That is a conspiracy theory. Desertambition (talk) 02:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

  Exactly. So with the current text, the article should be moved. If it isn't moved (which seems likely, given the response so far), the lede should be rewritten. Ornilnas (talk) 02:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

  The lede used to be about attacks, rather than “claims about attacks” until fairly recently. If the lede needs to be rewritten to reflect the current title, that would be better than moving the article. But I personally don’t see any problem with either the article title or the current lede.Park3r (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

  The current lede states that the attacks "refer" to a "claim". This is clearly incorrect. I have yet to see anyone explain otherwise, and so it should be fixed as soon as possible. Ornilnas (talk) 00:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I believe that this article should instead be named something like White South African farm attacks conspiracy theory, as the new title implies there are no farm attacks in South Africa, and the current title implies that this article is meant to refer to the very real attacks that mostly effect the black South Africans, but instead talks about white supremacy and conspiracy theories. June Parker (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose I did a Google search for "South African farm attacks conspiracy theory" it produced four hits, all to Wikipedia, one of which was to this discussion. So basically "South African farm attacks conspiracy theory" is a term invented by Wikipedia editors – what is being proposed is a clear breach of Wikipedia:No original research.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

  If there is no "standard" name for this claim/theory, is it autimatically Original Research to create a Wikipedia article about it? What do we then do about the article as it stands? Ornilnas (talk) 07:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  South African farm attacks is a notable topic. "South African farm attacks conspiracy theory" is an idea created by Wikipedia editors.

  When we say that there is no standard name for an idea, it means that there are many names for it. If this were the case here, there would be many search results on Google to reliable sources to these names, including the one you want.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  There is also a lot to be said to reverting to the version of 23 December 2019 and cautiously adding more up to date information from the present version, focussing on farm attacks in South Africa, and only mentioning the claims by Afrikaner extremists.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I favor keeping the status quo, since this article is about a series of farm attacks that have long been noted by criminologists, but have recently been seized upon by white genocide conspiracy theorists, and the conspiracy theory itself is only a complementary chunk of the article. I also favor changing the lead so that the first sentence refers to any attack on farms in South Africa, and immediately after that, why that is notable (i.e. among the conspiracy theorists). FreeMediaKid$ 04:42, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is the status quo acceptable?

The lede currently reads:

The term South African farm attacks (Afrikaans: plaasaanvalle) refers to the claim that white South African farmers are murdered at a higher rate than the murder rate in the general population of South Africa.

Attempts to alter the lede are met with reverts and suggestions to move the article; attempts to move the article are met with opposition and suggestions to rewrite the lede. Yet we must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I've yet to see anyone actually argue that the current lede is reasonable. It is clearly incorrect ("South African farm attacks" do not "refer to a claim"; they are a real phenomenon), borderline nonsensical (how could an "attack" be a "claim"?), and unsupported by the sources (which treat the attacks as real, not as claims about racial statistics or motivations). This needs to be fixed, even if all the potential solutions are disliked by someone. If someone thinks the current lede should remain unchanged, I request that they explain how the current language is reasonable. It's not enough to claim that it represents a consensus; that it's the result of years of painstaking editing; or that you don't like any of the potential solutions. Explain how it is correct, how the wording is perfectly natural, and how the current sources support it. If we can't do that, the current wording must go, however which way (rewrite, move, split, or even delete). Ornilnas (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer something like the following.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Version of the lead of 02:36, 23 December 2019

South African farm attacks (Afrikaans: plaasaanvalle) are violent crimes, including murder, assault and robbery, that take place on farms in South Africa. The attacks target farmers, who are usually white, and farm workers, who are usually black. Black farmers are also victims of violent attacks. The term has no formal legal definition, but such attacks have been the subject of discussion by media and public figures in South Africa and abroad. There is insufficient data to reliably estimate a murder rate for South African farmers. South African government data indicated between 58 and 74 murders on farms annually in the period 2015–2017; out of an annual murder count of 20,000 total murders in South Africa; these figures are broadly consistent with figures collected by the Transvaal Agricultural Union (TAU), a farmers' union. Due to the problems associated with counting the number of South African farmers and farm murders, it is unclear whether farmers are at greater risk of being murdered than other South Africans. Data released by the South African government in 2018 showed that the number of farm attacks had increased between 2012 and 2018, but that the number of murders on farms had decreased year by year during the period. During the same year farming organisation AgriSA reported on police statistics which suggested that the murder rate on farms had declined to the lowest level in 20 years, to a third of the level recorded in 1998. Unsubstantiated claims that such attacks on farmers disproportionately target whites are a key element of the white genocide conspiracy theory and have become a common talking point among white nationalists worldwide. However, 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. The Government of South Africa and other analysts maintain that farm attacks are part of a broader crime problem in South Africa and do not have a racial motivation.

References

References

I think that's obviously preferable to the status quo, but removing two years worth of editing is a big change which will meet with much resistance. My first priority is to change at least the first sentence, without getting stonewalled forever. Ornilnas (talk) 10:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

My preference is somewhere between the current and 2019 leads. I think that the 2019 lead is marginally better from an "introducing the subject to readers" perspective, and I'd like to see that preserved. But that lead also omits the whole reason that this subject is notable: AfriForum and Transvaal Agricultural Union (and others) made claims about white people are being disproportionately attacked, and media almost universally debunked those claims. In addition, the 2019 version buries the lead by placing the bulk of those responses in the third paragraph. My ideal lead would include an introduction of what the South African farm attacks are, perhaps the first three sentences of the 2019, and then move onto the claims and responses. Then we could dig into statistics, though much of that should be rewritten based on current sources. Woodroar (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I’m ok with reverting the opening sentence to the version above (I believe I wrote most of that sentence and it was both durable and factual and reflected consensus at the time). Perhaps we should solicit the opinion of the editor who rewrote the opening sentence and get their opinion on this. I certainly don’t think we should be WP:RGW in this article, and activist editing simply discredits the encyclopedia. Most readers are intelligent enough to draw reasonable conclusions about the material without being bashed on the head. Park3r (talk) 10:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

An awful lot of the sentences are the same. In some cases, POV wording has been substituted, e.g. changing "The Government of South Africa" to "The African National Congress".-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Extracts from the version of the lead of 09:40, 21 April 2022‎	Extracts from the version of the lead of 02:36, 23 December 2019
Data released by the South African government in 2018 showed that the number of attacks on farms had increased between 2012 and 2018, but that the number of murders on farms had decreased year by year during the period. During the same year farming organisation AgriSA reported on police statistics which suggested that the murder rate on farms had declined to the lowest level in 20 years, to a third of the level recorded in 1998.	Data released by the South African government in 2018 showed that the number of farm attacks had increased between 2012 and 2018, but that the number of murders on farms had decreased year by year during the period. During the same year farming organisation AgriSA reported on police statistics which suggested that the murder rate on farms had declined to the lowest level in 20 years, to a third of the level recorded in 1998.
Heavily disputed claims that such attacks on farmers disproportionately target whites are a key element of the white genocide conspiracy theory and have become a common talking point among white nationalists worldwide.	Unsubstantiated claims that such attacks on farmers disproportionately target whites are a key element of the white genocide conspiracy theory and have become a common talking point among white nationalists worldwide.
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. The African National Congress and other analysts maintain that farm attacks are part of a broader crime problem in South Africa and do not have a racial motivation.	However, 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. The Government of South Africa and other analysts maintain that farm attacks are part of a broader crime problem in South Africa and do not have a racial motivation.
The term South African farm attacks (Afrikaans: plaasaanvalle) refers to the claim that white South African farmers are murdered at a higher rate than the murder rate in the general population of South Africa.	South African farm attacks (Afrikaans: plaasaanvalle) are violent crimes, including murder, assault and robbery, that take place on farms in South Africa. The attacks target farmers, who are usually white, and farm workers, who are usually black. Black farmers are also victims of violent attacks. The term has no formal legal definition, but such attacks have been the subject of discussion by media and public figures in South Africa and abroad. There is insufficient data to reliably estimate a murder rate for South African farmers. South African government data indicated between 58 and 74 murders on farms annually in the period 2015–2017; out of an annual murder count of 20,000 total murders in South Africa; these figures are broadly consistent with figures collected by the Transvaal Agricultural Union (TAU), a farmers' union. Due to the problems associated with counting the number of South African farmers and farm murders, it is unclear whether farmers are at greater risk of being murdered than other South Africans.

References

References

Apparently the leading sentence was introduced by one User:Wes_sideman in 2020, without any discussion, and just stayed that way. Now I'm confused why trying to change it again is causing so much pushback. Ornilnas (talk) 11:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

South Africa Farm Attacks refers to *what*?

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)

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)

It seems this article has lately been improved at great pains. It still has obvious problems. The ethnicity of victims is discussed at the outset to make it clear that Black farmers and farm workers are also targeted; the ethnicity of perpetrators is not mentioned. (Too obvious? Well, there are poor White South Africans, too.) Nor does the article discuss the widely reported circumstance that farm murders often involve extreme violence, rape, torture and maiming. Ni'jluuseger (talk) 23:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)