Talk:South African farm attacks/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive 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.

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 1 December 2005 and 31 December 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:South African Farmer Murders/Archive02. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Slashme 06:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

Rewrite

I've just finished rewriting what was an extremely biased article, Rainbow Nation. One of my links ends up here, to Farm Murders. Would anyone object if I take some time out to review the links, my own factual (verifiable) data, and rewrite this article with a more neutral viewpoint? This would most definetly entail a complete change in existing text.

Objections?

Ssteedman 21:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

After looking at your other edits, I would welcome your input on this article! --Slashme 08:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

  • An excellent idea - I'm intending to have a go in the next few days, so hopefully we can combine efforts. Humansdorpie 22:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I've just gone through the external/media links sections with a fine tooth comb and discovered the following:
  1. Many of the links point to privately hosted websites (i.e. not newspapers or internationally recognised organisations)
  2. Many of the links point to different areas of the same website
  3. Many of the links point to the same content hosted on different websites
  4. On these sites themselves there does ot seem to be any citation of sources, thus quoting any information from these sites in the article does not satisfy WP:CITE, which requires that information be cited and referenced from reliable sources
  5. In at least one case the link pointed to an article not related to the farm murders
  6. In at least one case ("Names of the murdered") the names are forwarded by individuals posting on an MSN forum. This info is thus "first hand" and is uncorroborated with an official source e.g. police/news reports and thus constitutes original research, violating WP:NOR
  7. As far as I could determine (and maybe someone could correct me if I'm wrong), none of the allegations and statistics mentioned in the article are verified by the sources cited, the sole exception being the "313 per 100,000" (which ironically is quoted wrong in the article as 331 per 100,000)
In light of 1,2,3 and 5 above, I can only conclude that someone is trying to "flesh out" the Sources and External Links section to make it seem as if there is substance to the article (IMHO there is already enough substance and evidence without trying to make it seem as if there is more). The word "sources" in this case is misleading as per 7 above.
In light of ALL the above, I've rewritten the article, making the follwing changes:
  • Consolidated the external and media links section into one and removed the word "sources" per my arguments above
  • Removed duplicate links to the same website where possible
  • Removed links to duplicated content on different websites
  • Removed most links to privately hosted websites, especially those with uncorroborated information
  • Added a link to a News24 search for "farmer murders" which automatically consolidates all the relevant news topis from that website into one place, and is a MUCH more reliable source of info than any of the others
  • Added a {{needcite}} tag to each statistic and allegation made without corresponding information in the External links
  • Added an {{unreferenced}} tag to the article
  • Removed the "see also" section as nowhere in the article is the volkstaat alluded to AT ALL

Zunaid 15:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

POV

I am not an expert on the subject, but this article certainly seems biased to me! See the discussion on Talk:Farm murders. --Slashme 11:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I support a merge of these pages - it seems like a case of Wikipedia:Content forking. Wizzy…☎ 12:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I also support a merger of both pages, but it’s not because the text contains unpleasant elements that it is biased. The mass murder on a specific category of people is really happening :--Jvb – December 05, 2005
In my opinion this specific article now is NPOV. Does somebody have any objections to remove the tag? --Jvb – December 09, 2005
Can we do the merge first ? Wizzy…☎ 08:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree, but how should we proceed? Perhaps first simply paste the other “farm murders” article below here for some while and then gradually see what is double or POV? Because it is a very sensitive affair, I propose to take enough time for it. --Jvb – December 09, 2005

I see that some text has been added about farm murders outside South Africa, so maybe now a complete merge is not appropriate. I thin the best is to leave the general text there, and leave a brief paragraph about ZA, one about Zim, and above the ZA paragraph, put in a "main article" link to this page. --Slashme 14:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. But I would indeed restrict “farm murders” to South Africa and Zimbabwe. Ireland is on another continent and in another period of time. --Jvb – December 09, 2005

Short notes to be included into article later

There is another point of view to be taken into account besides that shown in the article as it is at present. I am no expert, as I said above, but these following sources might be taken into consideration as well. --Slashme 15:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[...]Attacks could occur on any day of the week, although there was an increase on Fridays, possibly because farmers often have large amounts of cash ready for the workers’ wages on that day.
There were 1398 victims of farm attacks in 2001. Of those 147 or 10.5% were killed, and 484 or 34.6% of the victims were injured. About 12.3% of the female victims were raped. It should be noted that 71% of all rape victims were black.
Money was robbed in 31.2% of the cases, firearms in 23.0%, and vehicles in 16.0%. Other popular items were cellular telephones and other valuables. There is a very common misconception that in a large proportion of farm attacks nothing is stolen. That is not so: investigations by the Committee have shown that various items are stolen in by far the greater majority of cases, and, in those cases where nothing is taken, there is almost always a logical explanation, such as that the attackers had to leave quickly because help arrived.
The Committee identified some 2 644 cases on the NOCOC database for 1998 to 2001 where the apparent primary motive was obvious. In 89.3% of those cases the motive was clearly robbery, in 7.1% it was some form of intimidation (such as crops or buildings being burnt down), in 2.0% some political or racial motive could be discerned, and in 1.6% it was labour related, such as a dispute over wages. In those cases where intimidation, political or labour related motives were present, robbery was almost always committed as well.
Of the 1398 victims in 2001, 61.6% were white, 33.3% black, 4.4% Asian and only 0.7% coloured. If one looks at the previous four years, it would seem as if the proportion of white victims are decreasing and the black victims increasing. [...]
  • But don’t forget the farmer’s voice. Not everything is explained in the report[1].
  • Attacks on white farm dwellers were almost double the number of attacks against black farm dwellers, almost five times as many white victims were murdered compared to black victims, and the levels of violence directed against victims were unexplainably high.
  • Sufficient evidence existed that not all victims were robbed. There was also evidence that, in some cases, the attackers waited for hours for the victims to return. "If theft was the driving force, why would they not take what they want and leave?" the TAU asked. There was also clear evidence of victims being tortured before being murdered, which indicated vindictiveness.
  • "The reported lack of investigative ability, the growing distrust in the SAPS, the reference that less than 50% of reported cases are investigated, and the fact that less than 10%of crimes terminate in a successful prosecution, are reasons for serious concern."
  • And what about the report's credibility[2]?…The report, meant to have been released on Wednesday, was held back as Nqakula and Justice Minister Penuell Maduna were "not satisfied with certain aspects" of it… They (the ministers) did not specify what the problem was exactly… This action casts doubt on the integrity of the report… This creates the impression that the commission has found that the causes and motives for farm murders were more than criminality…
--Jvb – December 05, 2005

UNEQUAL PROTECTION The State Response to Violent Crime on South African Farms (Human Rights Watch)

The rural protection plan was presented as a comprehensive initiative aimed at addressing the concerns of all residents of commercial farming areas in relation to violent crime. In practice, however, the plan has significantly increased insecurity for black residents of and vistors to commercial farming areas, as they have become the targets of sometimes indiscriminate "anti-crime" initiatives. Members of the commandos, police reservists, full-time soldiers and police, and others participating in the rural protection plan have committed serious abuses against farmworkers and other farm residents. There are reports of abuses, ranging from the staging of illegal roadblocks to murder, by commando units in several areas, especially those operating in southern Mpumalanga and northern KwaZulu-Natal. Members of the Wakkerstroom commando, one of several commando units controlled by local farmers in this border region, are accused of assault, torture, forced and illegal evictions, and murder of farm residents.
Farmworkers and residents face great problems if they wish to report assaults by farm owners or managers, starting from a fear of retaliation should they speak out. The police are frequently unresponsive, sometimes hostile, and may even refuse to open a file. [...]
The state response to violent crime against farm owners is much more determined and effective--even if resource and other constraints mean that police response times are often too slow and police detective work inadequate, and that the state has therefore also relied on self-help initiatives from the farm owners. [...]
  • The commandos, did they really commit such serious abuses? Before judging, please also take in consideration the following source [3] (From the South African quality newspaper Mail & Guardian) What a pity that no reasons were given by the government about phasing out the commando system, so that in advance no public political discussion was possible about the fact of the matter. --Jvb – December 07, 2005

Weasel words

  • I believe there probably is a need for this article, but not in its present form, which contains a large number of anonymous claims, and data that are unsupported and in some cases directly contradicted by reference publications. Rather than edit this article without explanation, I have highlighted some of the faults below:

Humansdorpie 19:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


Since the end of apartheid in South Africa in 1994, over 1750 white Boer farmers (I can't find any official data to support this claim. This site suggests that 1790 farmers have been murdered, but it is clear from a cursory examination that not all of the 1790 people listed are white, of Afrikaans descent or farmers; indeed, victim number 1781 is an unnamed, alleged farm attacker!) have been murdered throughout the country. Attacks have also been recorded against the few wealthy black farmers (Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks in fact records that one-third of all victims of farm violence in 2001 were black). In most incidences, perpetrators tend to be young black males from poor communities nearby (Citation needed).

As a result of these crimes the murder rate for white farmers in the country is as high as 331 per 100,000, among the highest in the world for any given group of people (Perhaps someone can explain how this figure has been arrived at. In 2002 there were 112 farm murders out of a total farming population of 986,000 farm residents). As a result of these murders many farmers (How many? Citation needed) have fled the countryside for the cities (citation?) where they often settle in gated communities or protected suburban areas (do they? Citation needed), or have fled to other countries (Citation needed. This suggests that just 83 farmers or farm managers emigrated from South Africa between 2001 and 2003).

This depopulation has been extensive throughout the country (Citation needed). Of the 85,000 commercial farmers in South Africa in 1994, there remain only 25,000 today (I can't trace these figures: The 2002 agriculture census suggests that in 1993 there were 68,000 famers employing just over a million people; in 2002 they counted 46,000 farmers employing just under a million people.) This flight has disrupted the cycle of farming, (The what? Citation needed) and years of expertise have been lost to South Africa. Output has dropped 50%, (Citation needed. The 2002 agriculture census records that gross farming income has increased by about one-third between 1993 and 2002. The United Nations Food & Agriculture Organisation records that agricultural food production in South Africa has risen consistently since 1979, apart from a blip in 2001) and many farmers are reluctant to leave the house unless well armed (Citation needed).

Many theories have been put forth for the reason for these murders, including race and poverty. It has been suggested (Citation needed) that many poor people believe that land belonging to white farmers will be redistributed to blacks if the owners are killed or driven away. Simple jealousy or theft may be a motivation for many attacks (This verges on original research). However, theft and land redistribution do not seem to adequately explain some attacks (Citation needed). In severe cases, these killings and attacks could be called genocide (Substantiation for this claim would be helpful), as many cases of these deaths have seen no damage to or theft of property ("There is a very common misconception that in a large proportion of farm attacks nothing is stolen. That is not so: investigations by the Committee have shown that various items are stolen in by far the greater majority of cases, and, in those cases where nothing is taken, there is almost always a logical explanation, such as that the attackers had to leave quickly because help arrived." - Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks).

There is also evidence that, in some cases, the attackers waited for hours for the victims to return (Why does this indicate genocide? Citation needed). The age of victims of these murders has ranged from as old as 87 years to young infants. Elderly victims seem to be targeted above others (Citation needed. Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks suggests the opposite, that elderly people were targeted in only 28.4% of attacks).

Murder is not the only result of the thousands (Thousands? That infers two thousand or more annually) of attacks each year. The threat of damage or loss to property is very high, as is the possibility of being beaten, tortured or raped (Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks suggests 12.3% of female victims were raped). There have even been reports that women have been killed as a result of continued gang rape (Citation needed). Statistics tend not to be very clear on the exact crimes committed (On the contrary, Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks offers a good snapshot), although it has been discovered that murder is the result of about one-tenth of all recorded attacks.

It has been suggested (By whom? Citation needed) that the South African government is failing to take appropriate measures against these attacks. Several publications and media (Citation needed) have shown local officials in some areas have taking no action to stop or report crowds chanting violent and racist slogans, such as “Kill the Boer, kill the farmer.” (Again, citation, needed) Various measures have been taken by the local communities to increase their security, but the killings show no sign of stopping (Although Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks suggests the average murder rate has been dropping since 1998). Many farmers (Who? Citation needed) are angered by what they see as the government, media and international community ignoring the attacks.


Excellent analysis. Why not take a hatchet to the article? Take out the POV stuff, and leave a description of the two major positions. What the farmers' organisations say, and what the government and external analyses say? --Slashme 20:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

But who are the Weasels?

Mr. Humansdorpie in your text, you constantly refers to the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, the ANC government thus.

But what to think about the constant stream of articles like this in the Afrikaans-speaking press? [4]

Some days before the facts, in the neighbourhood of different farms, crowds sung in choir: “kill the boer, kill the farmer”, but the police didn’t do anything against it, although it is clear hate-speech. And then happened the following….

Mr van Vuuren, 53, had minutes before found his wife Celia's blood-spattered body when he arrived at the farm after having dropped off workers. Celia, 53, had been shot dead in the garden in front of their house at about 18:0 on Wednesday. The attackers did not take anything at all. The farmers' lobby Transvaal Agricultural Union's Dries Joubert describes the tens of thousands of armed murder attacks by roaming death squads, carried out primarily against Afrikaner farmers, as a low intensity war.

• "The fact that once again, nothing was stolen, proves that the police are wrong in constantly claiming that the only motive is crime."

• The chair of the Roedtan South farmers' association, Hendrik Botha, said he and the late Mr Van Vuuren had been at an auction and year-end function earlier that day.

• Botha said the unarmed Mr Van Vuuren had tried to flee his attackers after he'd found Celia's body.

• "But they shot at him and hit him in the leg through the bakkie's door," Botha said.

• It is not clear exactly what happened afterwards, but it is being guessed that the farm's electronic gate had opened too slowly for Botha to escape the killers.

• "Hennie, who was unarmed, was pulled from the bakkie at the gate, forced to stand on his knees - in a similar manner to being executed - and shot in the forehead. We found his body next to the bakkie," a shocked Botha said.

• "This was no robbery," said Botha. "It was murder, plain and simple."

Some comments:

  • Compare with the text that is served to English-speaking readers [5]. The Transvaal Agricultural Union even has been replaced by the more docile Agri SA.
  • SA Police are of course as always, simply treating this execution of yet another unarmed farmer as a routine robbery and are most certainly not looking for any death squads. In such circumstances, one must not be surprised that someone (or more people) by writing an article about Farm Murders, does by him- or herself what the SA government neglects to do and tries to draw a general line through what he or she reads on a daily base in Afrikaans. I'm sure that for those people, the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks’ report is nothing more than a light version of Hitler’s propaganda film “Theresienstadt, a present from the Führer for the Jews”.

--Jvb – December 27, 2005

Criminal campaign vs a terror campaign

Mr Botha is right. It was murder, plain and simple, but it not proof of a concerted terror campaign conducted by a strangely publicity shy organisation. Incidences of cold-blooded murder unfortunately occur everyday in South Africa, both in rural and urban areas. Is Mr van Vuuren's murder any different? Probably not. South African farmers have a right to fear for their safety. They are under attack, though not political, but definitely from criminal elements like the rest of us. They are isolated easy targets, a logical choice for criminals who want to get away with it. --Wesley ct 14:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Criminal campaign vs a political (=terror) campaign

I fear it’s not quite that simple. There are explosive political ingredients that you as a presumed English-speaker don’t hear much about. Not only the SA police force is understaffed, but meanwhile the Boer commandos are phased out and even more important, the sparse police resources are rather spent in a political way too. Note the suggestions that the South African Police Service is indirectly protecting the murderers by tracking the cars of farmers who are members of the Transvaal Agricultural Union farm protection programme [6] [7]. Has there ever been a public debate about such things in South Africa? --Jvb – December 27, 2005

It is often a mistake to rely on media reports. With regard to the Van Vuuren case, I have just spoken by telephone to Inspector Matjila, the investigating officer, who tells me that two men have been arrested (his telephone number is helpfully given in the News24.com report). The inspector says that, contrary to the media reports you quote from Beeld and News24.com, personal items were stolen, and that the motive appears to have been theft of Mnr Van Vuuren's vehicle. The robbers apparently fled the scene because they thought that the gunshots had alerted people living nearby. The murders are a tragedy, but - with the greatest respect - there is no evidence that they were politically motivated. Humansdorpie 16:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
And the crowds singing in choir: “kill the boer, kill the farmer”? What explanation does Inspector Matjila have for that? Reminds me of the Kristallnacht --Jvb – December 27, 2005
Has there ever been a public debate about such things in South Africa? - again, Wikipedia is not the place to start such a debate. Please do not insert your own opinions, arguments, or experiences. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wizzy…☎
I did not say that WE must start this debate. --Jvb – December 27, 2005

There is much acrimonious debate about this issue in the press in South Africa. However, if we are to make this a balanced article, I think it's not unreasonable for those who feel they can articulate one or another side of the argument to do so on the talk page. Then we should be able to collaborate on an article from a neutral point of view that expresses both points of view, and broadly identifies which groups hold which views. --Slashme 17:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

So you allege that there is much acrimonious debate about this issue in the press in South Africa? In the Afrikaans-speaking press I would say yes, at least more and more, but in the English-speaking press??? --Jvb – December 27, 2005

Debate

Jvb: Do you think that:

  1. The current article is written from a neutral point of view, or
  2. The current article is written from a partisan point of view and
    1. We can fix it by debating the issue and adding the opposing views
    2. We should not change it because the people holding the opposing views are wrong and evil
  3. None of the above
I'm from Flanders in Belgium. Flanders is the only region outside South Africa with a systematic interest in what happens to the Afrikaners in South Africa. We also can easily understand their language and we relatively have much contacts. There even is a feedback in that respect that for instance Vlaams Belang party refers to the South African multicultural hellhole as something to avoid.

The South African Multicultural Hellhole. That sounds like a bad place to live! Here in the South Africa where I live, the multiculturalism is refreshing and healthy, and not a hellhole at all. Maybe the Vlaams Belang Party should restrict its right-wing commentary to Flemish issues. --Slashme 14:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I read the article and for me it gives a good image of the situation. There is extreme and superfluous violence in the farm murders/hate speech and the SA government is doing the wrong things/not doing what it should do. “Kill the boer, kill the farmer” reminds me of the choirs once drumsinging “Deutschland erwache, Jude verrecke”. And the least one could say is that President Mbeki keeps very sparse in condemning it. Alternatively, one could argue that the advantage of the doubt should be given to those who no longer can defend themselves, the deceased.
The only little thing in the present article that I perhaps would change is the following: there have even been reports that women have been killed as a result of continued gang rape. Continued gang rape, I agree. Killed, I agree. But the link?
--Jvb – December 28, 2005

This continued gang rape from the link was actually a drug crazed murder and rape by a white man called Ronnie Grimsley who has been subsequently sentenced to life for the murder and rape of Tanya Flowerday. Wesley ct 15:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

There is one little thing you want to change. So, why the soapbox rants on the talk page, over things that are (presumably) adequately represented in the main article ? Wizzy…☎ 11:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I was invited here to a debate and used unofficial language, but what I said doesn’t contradict with the main article. BTW, it is not my fault that most of the Afrikaners individually refrain from using frank language about their frustrations once they are in contact with other people like you. You simply are not accustomed to such language. --Jvb – December 28, 2005

So I infer from that that you feel that the article was written from a neutral point of view? If so, do you feel that it adequately represents all the important partisan points of view, or that it represents the only sane and valid point of view? --Slashme 14:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

As you insist, in my view it represents the only sane and valid point of view. That the SA government denies is a shame of the same order as giving vitamins to cure aids patients. --Jvb – December 28, 2005

OK, now we know your position. However, as you can see, that is not the only position held by earnest, well-informed people. Remember, we are not here to advance our own points of view. It is healthy to have a point of view, and even to hold it strongly when editing Wikipedia, but you must keep in mind that if a large number of people hold a different view, we must represent both of these points of view when editing. Look for example at the article on Mother Teresa. It states the reasons that she is being proposed as a saint, as well as the criticism that has been levelled against her. --Slashme 15:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree as long as you keep in mind that I am not the writer of the article, I even don’t know that person. So at least there are TWO persons on Wikipedia who think like this. Thanks too for the reference to mother Teresa. Indeed, adding here a second paragraph with own subtitle in which the views of the ruling SA regime is explained can only add to clarify things. --Jvb – December 28, 2005

Absolutely. I agree that many people think that attacks on white commercial farmers are part of an orchestrated political terrorist campaign, just that that is not the only viewpoint. --Slashme 09:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Murder rate among white SA commercial farmers – control calculation

Average number of farmers over the last 11 years: (52.000 + 38.000)x1/2 = 45.000

Average yearly number of murders: 1700 : 11 = 154,5

Murder rate: 154.5 x 100.000/45000 = 343,33

--Jvb – December 28, 2005

And the figure of 1700 comes from...? Humansdorpie 19:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
And don't quote that Telegraph article which does not cite its sources, or that website that (as mentioned above) includes victims who weren't white commercial farmers (otherwise your calculation doesn't work). --Slashme 09:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The Telegraph is a very respected British newspaper. The reporter has made the addition the SA government doesn’t want to make.--Jvb – December 28, 2005
Saying that the Telegraph is "very respected" doesn't mean that everything that is printed there is accurate. A Newspaper article is not a sufficient source for statistics. You need the source of the statistics. And what exactly do you mean "has made the addition" Do you think the reporter added the death statistics up himself, or added them together from other sources? Or do you think the reporter is just copying the numbers from the same indirect, uncorroborated sources that you are using? --Slashme 14:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The Telegraph is really a big quality newspaper with high journalistic standards. The journalist must have verified his sources: governmental statistics, inventories of newspaper articles made up by farmer organisations…. BTW, if you want another source, the BBC: BBC: South Africa's bloody battle for land --Jvb – December 29, 2005
With the greatest respect, the article was not written by a reporter. It was written by the executive producer of a documentary about land reform, and the BBC article you cite was written by the director of the same documentary. These are not unbiased sources. Humansdorpie 16:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Roger Graef is better than a simple reporter. I looked up his biography [8]:
Roger Graef is a writer, filmmaker, broadcaster and criminologist.
He has been awarded the prestigious Fellowship to the British Academy of Film and Television in 2004, for his outstanding contribution and achievements.
He now joins Bill Cotton, John Thaw, Steven Bochco, John Schlesinger, Peter Bazalgette and Morecombe & Wise, having been recognised by the Academy for having achieved "great heights in their lifetime".
Roger also won a BAFTA in 2003, as the Producer of the Flaherty Best Documentary, Feltham Sings!
Among his more than eighty films, he is best known for his pioneering work in gaining access to hitherto closed institutions ranging from ministries and boardrooms to police, courts, prisons, probation and social work.
These influential films include the Thames Valley Police, which helped change the way the police deal with rape victims. In Search of Law and Order, took an unique look at some groundbreaking ways of changing juvenile rehabilitation. And The Secret Policeman's Ball - a film that helped make Miramax and Harvey Weinstein household names, and influenced a generation of commedians and musicians to try and change the World.
As a consultant and communications expert, he has served on numerous boards and government committees. He was a founding board member of Channel Four and a governor of the British Film Institute. Roger Graef has served on the board of the ICA where he created and chaired the ICA Architectural Forum.
And Clifford Bestall is a highly praised documentary maker with sound and valid knowledge of South Africa [9]
From now on the South Africans can no longer claim: “wir haben es nicht gewußt”.
--Jvb – December 29, 2005

The Daily Telegraph is however not a reliable source on crime statistics in South Africa. Perhaps stats from the South African Police Service, the South African Human Rights Commission or Agri SA would be less dubious. Wesley ct 09:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Roger Graef/Telegraph are reliable because compiling statistics about farm murders is not so difficult. The problem is rather that someone must be WILLING to do it. If you really can’t find reliable statistics about this in South Africa itself, then this is already a bad omen on its own, that even could be an indication that something is hidden.
And Roger Graef is the best to do the job.
--Jvb – December 30, 2005
I wonder why Clifford Bestall and Roger Graef's figures differ from one another's by 200? Humansdorpie 16:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Clifford Bestall writes MORE than 1,500 white farmers have been murdered, which is not in contradiction with the other. This can only refer to one stage in the counting process they did.--Jvb – Januari 2, 2005

Sections

I've tried to divide the article into sections so that it is clear to the reader that there are different points of view being considered in the article. I've also removed some of the remaining POV stuff, added some citations, added the primary findings of the Committee of Inquiry, removed the reference to Boer farmers - POV and not accurate. Humansdorpie 16:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Controversial

I think the article is now reasonably neutral, as it contains the main thrust of both points of view. I have therefore removed the POV tag, and replaced it with the controversial-article tag. --Slashme 09:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/o/u/Talk%7ESouth_African_farm_attacks_Archive_1_1aa7.html"