Talk:Apartheid Museum

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Maybe I'm missing something, but is the history section actually a history of the museum? It seems instead to be a confusing discussion of naming rights... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.54.202.74 (talk) 12:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that way to me as well. I'm going to clean this up and see if I can get more information on that name controversy. --NJR ZA (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Apartheid Museum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CORRECTIONS - LEGAL AND VERIFIABLE[edit]

Greetings All. I was very deliberate in using my ACTUAL NAME, once I decided to add to this page. I have been in litigation with Gold Reef City Casino for fifteen (15) years and my edit is based on what pertains in court records and the statutory forms and law. The WIKIPEDIA version placed by Gold Reef City Casino is EXTREMELY dishonest, and is DEFINITELY not an independent account. I have my version UNDER OATH with supporting documentation. I am willing to share our 200 page file with WIKIPEDIA. Beyond my personal need for the truth; my intervention may save WIKIPEDIA embarrassment once the story breaks worldwide - AND IT WILL. My every word is already UNDER OATH and also in the records of the National Assembly of Parliament of South Africa. I am still learning my way around WIKIPEDIA and hope to connect the version of Minister Rob Davies soon. Kindly direct me or . . . reject my input. Ironically - your own legal resources can vouch for the issues of law that I have covered. Mike Stainbank (talk) 01:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you say you are involved in litigation with the casino, you really should take a look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Wikipedia is not really the place for you to try and fight your legal battles or for you to try and right some great wrong. Your input is of course welcomed, but all editors are expected to comply with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines and the major changes you made to the article are problematic for many reasons. Much of the content you have added seems to be based upon your personal knowledge and not what is supported by citations to independent reliable sources. This is problematic because it present things according to your point of view and not in a neutral manner. Please understand that Wikipedia articles are only intended to reflect content which can be verified through examining independent reliable sources and not stuff that we as individuals may "know" to be true. Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball and has know way of knowing which still will break worldwide; therefore, it's best to actually wait for the story to break and has received coverage in independent reliable sources before adding any such information to the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Revert per WP:UNDUE, WP:POV and not least WP:V. To put it plainly we cannot accept this content before it has appeared in the mainstream press, and when that happens it will be neutrally summarised, without a slant in favour of one party involved in the dispute. Currently all we can do is to mention that there is a dispute. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Eish. Thanks to Theroadislong for taking the necessary steps. That article had rapidly descended into deep POV, and we are definitely better off having a temporary void here than a diatribe.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. Odd. Either way, there will never be enough space in this article for such a lengthy discussion of some dispute. Not gonna happen anymore, folks. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apartheid_Museum&oldid=1204906714"