Talk:South African farm attacks/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2022

Change the sentence about international awareness, where it says Suidlanders, should actually be Afriforum Shackdweller (talk) 11:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: No source says about Afriforum RealAspects (talk) 11:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

logical error

The phrase under the Motives section: "The South African government believes the chief motive for attacks is robbery. This position was shared by Afrikaner rights group Afriforum in a 2017 interview, where they stated that they do not believe that there is a racial motive associated with all attacks."

Does not make sense. You can't draw the conclusion that A supports the notion that main motive is not X just because they say not all motives are X. 105.185.135.248 (talk) 13:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Newsweek as Credible Source & Racially Motivated Homicide

This objectively verifiable fact of reality was removed from the article on grounds that Newsweek is no longer a credible source, whereas WP:RSPSS states Editors should discuss Newsweek on a case by case basis. Thus, three additional sources from Reuters, New York Times, and The Independent were added, underpinning the nature of these murders as racially motivated, and the comment should stand. While the article's tone conflating "white farmers being murdered" with "white genocide" is little more than Reductio ad absurdum, denying the existence of an overwhelmingly racial element to these targeted homicides should be considered an act of intellectual treason. Otodus Meg (talk) 05:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

This is hardly an objectively verifiable fact of reality. Let's break down your edit:

• While the murder of white farmers is racially motivated was sourced to news.com.au. This source doesn't even come close to supporting that claim. In fact, the only mention of motivation is from an interview, where the interviewee says "It is not clear what the motive for this murder is." Also, "white" is only mention as the color of a vehicle.
• and causing protest was sourced to The New York Times, Independent, and Reuters. The NYT gave several reasons for the protests—which included mention of both sides, incidentally—and also debunked the racial conspiracy theory. Reuters also covered both sides of the protests and debunked the racial claims. The Independent only mentioned the farmer side of the protest, but they were careful to mention that only some of the farmers were pushing the racial claims—which the article also debunked.
• these murders peaked in 2018 with a white farmer murdered every 5 days was sourced to Newsweek. Newsweek says nothing about the murders peaking in 2018. The source does repeat a claim about "one white farmer has been killed every five days", which it attributes to "white nationalist lobbying group AfriForum". We can't put that claim in Wikipedia's voice, even if it were repeated in an unquestionably reliable source. Newsweek then goes on to put this in context and debunks the racial claims. Overall, the article is low-quality with a clickbaity headline, which is why we tend to avoid Newsweek.

To sum up, there's no way this edit is acceptable. The sources, by and large, do not support the claims. When they support some of the claims, those claims are cherrypicked, which violates all of our content policies. Woodroar (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• Leaving aside the credibility of Newsweek, the citation in your edit[1] didn't match the article you cited. You cited it as A White Farmer is Killed Every Five Days in South Africa but the article title is A White Farmer Is Killed Every Five Days in South Africa and Authorities Do Nothing about It, Activists Say. The article clearly states that it is repeating the view of activists, but it was truncated and changed to support a factual assertion. Park3r (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

EFF President Julius Malema chanting "Kill the Boer! Kill the Farmer!"] to a full stadium screaming ideologues in Johannesburg is objectively verifiable. It's on video. You can watch it yourself. The same can be said for a calmer Malema discussing calls to Hwhite genocide. Both objectively verifiable.

Gaslight elsewhere, comrade. Otodus Meg (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)