![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Howzit all.
I'd like to inquire as to why the image of those wooden crosses marking the deaths of South African farmers keeps getting removed from the article. I'm not an especially regular contributor to this page, but I've noticed it has been repeatedly added and taken down over the course of the past five to six years, and I'd very much like to know what the initial issue with the media was, or at least what steps were made to discuss its presence.
Again, from the perspective of a relatively neutral third party, that image does appear relevant. An article about the mortality rate of police officers in the US could be well illustrated by photographs of a police cemetery, for instance. Likewise, an article about violence against farmers in RSA could be well illustrated by crosses representing murdered Saffie farmers. I can understand if the pretext for removal is that it may provoke an emotive response on an already controversial topic; however, as far as dismissing the photo as outright irrelevant to the page content, I would have to disagree.
Thanks, -- Katangais (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
A discussion has been created at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#South_African_farm_attacks. Ne Yorker ( talk) 23:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
This is a worthless left-leaning article as is typical of Wikipedia. Wikipedia didn't even have a story on this for years and years just like the media won't report it and I almost wish it still didn't have an article on Wikipedia because this is all nonsense. The attacks are from the South African government. It's made to look random so that the government will not be criticized. It's a land grab. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.230.104 ( talk) 17:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I compare the opening lines of the English-language wikipedia article about "South African farm murders" with the Afrikaans-language article about "Plaasmoorde", as translated by Google translate:
English: The South African farm attacks refer 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.
Afrikaans: The term farm murders refers to murders on farms, especially the murders committed to South African farms since the end of the apartheid system in 1994.
The English-language article says it's a theory (a "claim"); the Afrikaans language article says it concerns a specific kind of murders.
English: A November 2017 analysis by the BBC found that there are insufficient data to estimate a murder rate for South African farmers.
Afrikaans: According to available statistics, 6,122 farm attacks occurred between 1991 and 2001, leading to 1,254 deaths. The number of deaths doubled in the next eight years to 3,037. Research by the Institute for Security Studies found that a farmer's probability of being killed is almost four times greater than that for an ordinary citizen and twice that of a police officer.
The English-language article says there are insufficient data; the Afrikaans language article provides data.
Plainly speaking: the Afrikaans language article is less vandalized than the English-language article. The English-language article reads as if making political statements.
@ Rockypedia: Please read this. Now, I don't see how your version is clearer than mine, but I can see how yours is redundant. From Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section § First sentence:
Keep redundancy to a minimum in the first sentence. Use the first sentence of the article to provide relevant information that is not already given by the title of the article. The title of the article need not appear verbatim in the lead.
wumbolo ^^^ 14:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
@
Rockypedia: You literally have this on your user page: Favorite word that I learned on Wikipedia:
Concision
wumbolo
^^^
14:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
When working on opening (well, actually the entire article, but particularly the opening) should keep in mind words to watch and adhere to WP:SAID, avoiding words like "revealed" and "claimed" etc. -- DynaGirl ( talk) 00:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Regarding this edit:
A couple of problems. The Archive.org page really doesn't appear to be a WP:RS at all, and it doesn't mention the farm attacks, making its use here WP:SYNTH. If their belief in the "prophesies" of Siener van Rensburg are absolutely vital to understanding these attacks, this should be directly supported by reliable sources. If only a single reliable source mentions this at all, why does it belong in the lede? The lede is a summary of the body, and if this isn't mentioned there, than overloading the lede with info is inappropriate. Grayfell ( talk) 08:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
The source says, "There have been similar pushes for the United States to take in South African farmers, though they have failed to gain widespread attraction or political momentum. Critics say that the movement to take in white farmers has links to the far right, which have long spread the idea of a “white genocide” taking place in South Africa."
Park3r and I have been back and forth on this a couple of times. The question is whether the second sentence is referring to the far-right in the U.S. (mentioned in the preceding sentence or in Australia (most of the rest of the article. [1]
I believe it refers to the U.S. for a couple of reasons. For openers, if the second sentence in that paragraph refers to Australia rather than the U.S., it is very poor style to Frankenstein the two sentences together into a pseudo-paragraph, discussing two distant but related ideas: 1) a push for the U.S. to take in farmers has no traction 2) a movement in Australia is connected to the far-right. (In fairness, it seems to be a far-right push with little traction in both countries.)
Park3r points out that the second sentence in the source links "take in white farmers" to this article. IMO, this article strengthens the case for it referring to the U.S, as it is discussing the "white genocide" conspiracy theory. The second article's references to the supposed "white genocide" are:
I added mutilation and gang rape as part of the lead, because these forms of sadistic torture are part of the modus operendi of the attacks against South African farmers. Why do these facts get removed? TonyMorris68 ( talk) 18:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
I've tagged that section with {{Contradict|date=August 2018}} <!-- August 20 2018 "*The [[South Africa|South African]] government begins the process of seizing land from white farm owners. [https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=12110366 (NZ Herald)]" --> from Wiki's own newspageas it's making news that Trump did not initiate or pull from thin air.-- Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 15:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I am One of Many, The words white or black, should be capitalized when referring to people. TonyMorris68 ( talk) 01:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
"Some South African blacks have sought to retake land which they have made claims to". Retake,really? Can this be more biased? When did they own it in the first place? Second, even if they(blacks) had is it the same owner or its descendant? Most certainly is not! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.87.34 ( talk) 08:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Conversation continues on reddit. Drmies ( talk) 14:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Is it time to lock this article? Is it time to get major admin overview and control established here? This article is devolving into a vicious circus sideshow, it's like watching patriot prayer fighting a street battle with Antifa. This article is becoming a kind of Charlottesville Riot 2.0. It is so racially charged now, that we are going to need it closely monitored and the activist editors put on close watch. There seems to be a problem brewing with this article in an explosive way, with left-wing anti-White racist activist editors trying to downplay the violence against these White South African farmers, especially with the relentless effort to erase sexual assault, rape, mutilation and torture from the lead. I added rape to the murder part in the lead and it keeps getting deleted. I provided articles above in another talk section about these attacks also involving rape, and undoubtedly this is being done as a form of terrorism to frighten the White South African farmers. Most leads of articles don't always put sources and references, this is a fact in many articles. I provided sources however to talk section above. I'm becoming very concerned that the complicated issue of White farmers being the overwhelmingly targeted in these racist and terrorist farm attacks is being suppressed by Wikipedia activist-editors who are playing partisan politics and trying to control the narrative. I think we should put a lock on the article immediately and get a team of admins to watch this article closely. It seems as if it's being racialized with accusations that it's a kind of Nazi talking point to indicate that it is white south African farmers who are the super majority of the victims. This is very insulting to Jews, that people are surreptitiously trying to nazify anyone who helps to expand the article in a fair and balanced way. These (white and black) farmers are being tortured, raped, mutilated, murdered and it's clear the violence is being done as a form of terrorism. It looks like we have Antifa, Left-wingers and pro-Communists trying to control this article and make it seem like only extremists are bringing up the fact this is all very clearly primarly targeting european south africans. Please call in a team of admins, this article needs meticulous monitoring. I don't like seeing all the racism in this article, especially the false accusations of smearing people White Nationalism over these talking points. TonyMorris68 ( talk) 03:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Wow, I want to remain neutral in this. but this talk page is getting pretty charged, I was the one that made the statement about what Carlson said on fox, and the night I wrote it he did one show with no segment on it, and the next day stories pop up in my feed that say he "backed-down" even though the segment I mentioned actually provided more evidence.
|
I added an external links section and started it with a documentary. How Long Will The White Farmers Of South Africa Survive? Documentary by Journeyman Pictures. Please feel free to add other external links. TonyMorris68 ( talk) 05:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Would like to discuss the addition of the documentary by Lauren Southern known as, "Farmlands" 2018 documentary about South African farm land confiscation to external links in the article. TonyMorris68 ( talk) 06:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I have notified dispute resoloution, please remember to stay civil. Billster156234781 ( talk) 18:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
The user D.Creish mass-removed reliably sourced content about Tucker Carlson and Trump's rhetoric on discrimination against South African [white] farmers, and completely misrepresented what Trump said and whether it was factually correct or not [3]. The user stalked me to this page (never edited it before), just as he stalked me to another page yesterday (where the user also mass-removed reliably sourced content). The content should be restored immediately. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 21:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
This is not the first timewell it's your third. wumbolo ^^^ 14:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I am going to create a separate Wikipedia talk page where we can continue this discussion. can we all agree that this article's talk page should only be filled with edit requests, not this dispute. I will copy and past the dispute section into this talk page. when it is complete I will submit the link. Billster156234781 ( talk) 19:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
As a matter of common domestic crime, this issue creates little interest on the international level. The only measurable international responses to this issue as far as I can see are in response to the charges of conspiracy. The section regarding statements made by foreign figures should be included in the discussion about the white genocide conspiracy theory as they have no other stake in this. By separating "international reactions" (to the conspiracy theory) from the conspiracy theory itself, it feels that the article is inadvertently giving more credence and undue weight to this part of the topic. Ham Pastrami ( talk) 22:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Howzit all.
I'd like to inquire as to why the image of those wooden crosses marking the deaths of South African farmers keeps getting removed from the article. I'm not an especially regular contributor to this page, but I've noticed it has been repeatedly added and taken down over the course of the past five to six years, and I'd very much like to know what the initial issue with the media was, or at least what steps were made to discuss its presence.
Again, from the perspective of a relatively neutral third party, that image does appear relevant. An article about the mortality rate of police officers in the US could be well illustrated by photographs of a police cemetery, for instance. Likewise, an article about violence against farmers in RSA could be well illustrated by crosses representing murdered Saffie farmers. I can understand if the pretext for removal is that it may provoke an emotive response on an already controversial topic; however, as far as dismissing the photo as outright irrelevant to the page content, I would have to disagree.
Thanks, -- Katangais (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
A discussion has been created at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#South_African_farm_attacks. Ne Yorker ( talk) 23:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
This is a worthless left-leaning article as is typical of Wikipedia. Wikipedia didn't even have a story on this for years and years just like the media won't report it and I almost wish it still didn't have an article on Wikipedia because this is all nonsense. The attacks are from the South African government. It's made to look random so that the government will not be criticized. It's a land grab. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.230.104 ( talk) 17:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I compare the opening lines of the English-language wikipedia article about "South African farm murders" with the Afrikaans-language article about "Plaasmoorde", as translated by Google translate:
English: The South African farm attacks refer 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.
Afrikaans: The term farm murders refers to murders on farms, especially the murders committed to South African farms since the end of the apartheid system in 1994.
The English-language article says it's a theory (a "claim"); the Afrikaans language article says it concerns a specific kind of murders.
English: A November 2017 analysis by the BBC found that there are insufficient data to estimate a murder rate for South African farmers.
Afrikaans: According to available statistics, 6,122 farm attacks occurred between 1991 and 2001, leading to 1,254 deaths. The number of deaths doubled in the next eight years to 3,037. Research by the Institute for Security Studies found that a farmer's probability of being killed is almost four times greater than that for an ordinary citizen and twice that of a police officer.
The English-language article says there are insufficient data; the Afrikaans language article provides data.
Plainly speaking: the Afrikaans language article is less vandalized than the English-language article. The English-language article reads as if making political statements.
@ Rockypedia: Please read this. Now, I don't see how your version is clearer than mine, but I can see how yours is redundant. From Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section § First sentence:
Keep redundancy to a minimum in the first sentence. Use the first sentence of the article to provide relevant information that is not already given by the title of the article. The title of the article need not appear verbatim in the lead.
wumbolo ^^^ 14:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
@
Rockypedia: You literally have this on your user page: Favorite word that I learned on Wikipedia:
Concision
wumbolo
^^^
14:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
When working on opening (well, actually the entire article, but particularly the opening) should keep in mind words to watch and adhere to WP:SAID, avoiding words like "revealed" and "claimed" etc. -- DynaGirl ( talk) 00:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Regarding this edit:
A couple of problems. The Archive.org page really doesn't appear to be a WP:RS at all, and it doesn't mention the farm attacks, making its use here WP:SYNTH. If their belief in the "prophesies" of Siener van Rensburg are absolutely vital to understanding these attacks, this should be directly supported by reliable sources. If only a single reliable source mentions this at all, why does it belong in the lede? The lede is a summary of the body, and if this isn't mentioned there, than overloading the lede with info is inappropriate. Grayfell ( talk) 08:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
The source says, "There have been similar pushes for the United States to take in South African farmers, though they have failed to gain widespread attraction or political momentum. Critics say that the movement to take in white farmers has links to the far right, which have long spread the idea of a “white genocide” taking place in South Africa."
Park3r and I have been back and forth on this a couple of times. The question is whether the second sentence is referring to the far-right in the U.S. (mentioned in the preceding sentence or in Australia (most of the rest of the article. [1]
I believe it refers to the U.S. for a couple of reasons. For openers, if the second sentence in that paragraph refers to Australia rather than the U.S., it is very poor style to Frankenstein the two sentences together into a pseudo-paragraph, discussing two distant but related ideas: 1) a push for the U.S. to take in farmers has no traction 2) a movement in Australia is connected to the far-right. (In fairness, it seems to be a far-right push with little traction in both countries.)
Park3r points out that the second sentence in the source links "take in white farmers" to this article. IMO, this article strengthens the case for it referring to the U.S, as it is discussing the "white genocide" conspiracy theory. The second article's references to the supposed "white genocide" are:
I added mutilation and gang rape as part of the lead, because these forms of sadistic torture are part of the modus operendi of the attacks against South African farmers. Why do these facts get removed? TonyMorris68 ( talk) 18:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
I've tagged that section with {{Contradict|date=August 2018}} <!-- August 20 2018 "*The [[South Africa|South African]] government begins the process of seizing land from white farm owners. [https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=12110366 (NZ Herald)]" --> from Wiki's own newspageas it's making news that Trump did not initiate or pull from thin air.-- Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 15:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I am One of Many, The words white or black, should be capitalized when referring to people. TonyMorris68 ( talk) 01:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
"Some South African blacks have sought to retake land which they have made claims to". Retake,really? Can this be more biased? When did they own it in the first place? Second, even if they(blacks) had is it the same owner or its descendant? Most certainly is not! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.87.34 ( talk) 08:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Conversation continues on reddit. Drmies ( talk) 14:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Is it time to lock this article? Is it time to get major admin overview and control established here? This article is devolving into a vicious circus sideshow, it's like watching patriot prayer fighting a street battle with Antifa. This article is becoming a kind of Charlottesville Riot 2.0. It is so racially charged now, that we are going to need it closely monitored and the activist editors put on close watch. There seems to be a problem brewing with this article in an explosive way, with left-wing anti-White racist activist editors trying to downplay the violence against these White South African farmers, especially with the relentless effort to erase sexual assault, rape, mutilation and torture from the lead. I added rape to the murder part in the lead and it keeps getting deleted. I provided articles above in another talk section about these attacks also involving rape, and undoubtedly this is being done as a form of terrorism to frighten the White South African farmers. Most leads of articles don't always put sources and references, this is a fact in many articles. I provided sources however to talk section above. I'm becoming very concerned that the complicated issue of White farmers being the overwhelmingly targeted in these racist and terrorist farm attacks is being suppressed by Wikipedia activist-editors who are playing partisan politics and trying to control the narrative. I think we should put a lock on the article immediately and get a team of admins to watch this article closely. It seems as if it's being racialized with accusations that it's a kind of Nazi talking point to indicate that it is white south African farmers who are the super majority of the victims. This is very insulting to Jews, that people are surreptitiously trying to nazify anyone who helps to expand the article in a fair and balanced way. These (white and black) farmers are being tortured, raped, mutilated, murdered and it's clear the violence is being done as a form of terrorism. It looks like we have Antifa, Left-wingers and pro-Communists trying to control this article and make it seem like only extremists are bringing up the fact this is all very clearly primarly targeting european south africans. Please call in a team of admins, this article needs meticulous monitoring. I don't like seeing all the racism in this article, especially the false accusations of smearing people White Nationalism over these talking points. TonyMorris68 ( talk) 03:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Wow, I want to remain neutral in this. but this talk page is getting pretty charged, I was the one that made the statement about what Carlson said on fox, and the night I wrote it he did one show with no segment on it, and the next day stories pop up in my feed that say he "backed-down" even though the segment I mentioned actually provided more evidence.
|
I added an external links section and started it with a documentary. How Long Will The White Farmers Of South Africa Survive? Documentary by Journeyman Pictures. Please feel free to add other external links. TonyMorris68 ( talk) 05:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Would like to discuss the addition of the documentary by Lauren Southern known as, "Farmlands" 2018 documentary about South African farm land confiscation to external links in the article. TonyMorris68 ( talk) 06:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I have notified dispute resoloution, please remember to stay civil. Billster156234781 ( talk) 18:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
The user D.Creish mass-removed reliably sourced content about Tucker Carlson and Trump's rhetoric on discrimination against South African [white] farmers, and completely misrepresented what Trump said and whether it was factually correct or not [3]. The user stalked me to this page (never edited it before), just as he stalked me to another page yesterday (where the user also mass-removed reliably sourced content). The content should be restored immediately. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 21:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
This is not the first timewell it's your third. wumbolo ^^^ 14:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I am going to create a separate Wikipedia talk page where we can continue this discussion. can we all agree that this article's talk page should only be filled with edit requests, not this dispute. I will copy and past the dispute section into this talk page. when it is complete I will submit the link. Billster156234781 ( talk) 19:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
As a matter of common domestic crime, this issue creates little interest on the international level. The only measurable international responses to this issue as far as I can see are in response to the charges of conspiracy. The section regarding statements made by foreign figures should be included in the discussion about the white genocide conspiracy theory as they have no other stake in this. By separating "international reactions" (to the conspiracy theory) from the conspiracy theory itself, it feels that the article is inadvertently giving more credence and undue weight to this part of the topic. Ham Pastrami ( talk) 22:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)