Talk:Gregory Stanton

Cleanup

This page only has one reference, and one that is not appropriate per WP:BLP. It is more likely than unlikely that most of the information in this article is true, so I am pointing this out in the interest of those editing this article. As of now, it does not meet WP:NOTE standards due to a lack of third-party reliable sources. I am not going to propose that it be deleted, but there is good cause to do so. 24.16.133.58 (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Negative material: DRN discussion started

There is a dispute over material regarding a video store incident. A discussion on the topic has been initiated at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Gregory_Stanton_discussion. Please refrain from adding the material to the article again until the discussion has happened and consensus achieved. The WP:BLP policy strictly prohibits unfounded negative material about living persons. To comment on the issue, please comment at the DRN page, not here, to keep things centralized. --Noleander (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The result of the discussion is a consensus to leave it out. Roger (talk) 06:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Judging by the edit history, this stuff is still ongoing. Ironically enough, at least one user who has reverted removal of the material insisted that the dispute be taken to the talk page. You know, where this topic would be one of only three visible. I really have no skin in this game—though I think the material should be left out—but it seems like someone really ought to head off this dispute.

Again. 108.34.186.243 (talk) 07:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Could you please point me to the result of the discussion? The link just opens the general Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, not the specific Gregory Stanton discussion. My Wikipedia knowledge is limited, so it might be due to user error. Please advice me on how to find the discussion! HartaMarta (talk) 09:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

2019 - Gregory Stanton video store incident

For anyone looking for updated links to the discussions reference above: DRN and BLPN. Nole (chat·edits) 15:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

So I've reverted an edit by a one-edit account adding this content again, but opening up this discussion here. I'm probably on the side of that being very undue weigh, not worth more than a sentence or two at most. Nole (chat·edits) 16:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest that the video store incident, which is quite significant, should be included. The supposed consensus to leave the material out is based on the assumption that Gregory Stanton was overprescribed a medication, which led to his erratic behavior. According to the Washington Post article this was Gregory Stanton's line of defense in court, but there are no independent sources verifying this particular narrative. HartaMarta (talk) 10:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Iran and Israel

His stance on Iran and Israel would be of interest. --41.151.228.180 (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Reliability of GW

WP:RSN is discussing the reliabiity of GW here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Genocide_Watch:_Unreliable_source? The input of the editors of this page would welcome to assure broad and diverse discussion. Many thanks. Best regards, Armatura (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The archived discussion is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 316#Genocide Watch: Unreliable source?. Boud (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Photo

Looks like we need a Picture of Mr. Stanton, and we'll be all set. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunutubble (talk • contribs) 00:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done @Dunutubble ―Howard • 🌽³³ 18:59, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Picture of of Mr. Stanton

Does anyone have a picture of him here? We need to add that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunutubble (talk • contribs) 19:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

How about a main article about GW?

The following discussion 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.

---

Genocide Watch sounds quite important, judging by the section about it. I was surprised to see that it doesn't have a main article about it. Your thoughts on this would be much appreciated. Polar Apposite (talk) 06:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Polar Apposite If you can find more sources discussing GW as an organization, please link them here and we might be able to do that. However, at present, the sourcing doesn't not seem to support a separate article. There's nothing more to add beyond what's in this article. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• I would support the split because the organization and the person (this page) are two very different subjects and because the organization is sufficiently notable for a separate page, even if it is going to be brief. My very best wishes (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  @My very best wishes Again, please link to sources demonstrating that notability. Alyo (chat·edits) 20:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

References 22 to 35 currently on the page. However, after looking at them and excluding self-published and weak sources, I am not sure we have enough for a separate page. My very best wishes (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

No worries, I agree it's a bit of a shame, but I just don't see more out there. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Doesn't seem to have the proper sourcing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Support. I don't have much to say, but I feel that it is more useful as a separate page. The main reason not to is if we can't find enough material to fill the article properly, imo. JGHFunRun (talk) 23:38, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Strong support: It's pretty common for charities/NGOs to have articles. –DMartin 19:50, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@Dmartin969, charities/NGOs still need to meet GNG/WP:NORG. Do you have sources showing that GW meets that standard? Alyo (chat·edits) 17:48, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

It does not meet WP:NORG and if it is split without additional sourcing I would nominate it for AfD. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:35, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Years late, but strong support. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - mainly on the grounds that it doesn’t meet the requirements of WP:NORG. Surprisingly, I couldn’t find much in the way of WP:RS reporting either, and I feel that the existing section in Gregory Stanton is sufficient, along with the external links as listed. Lf8u2 (talk) 00:45, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Here's sources we could use to create an independent Genocide Watch page:

I agree sourcing is not amazing, but I think splitting it into a start/C-class page would be better than keeping it in its current state, even with sub-par sourcing. I've had to cite Genocide Watch quite a few times over the past few months, and every time I do, it feels so odd and disorganized having Genocide Watch link to Gregory Stanton's page. It feels very unencyclopedic. I really just think for clarity's sake it should be split off into its own section and hopefully sourcing will improve over time, and it seems like enough is written already that it could be its own article. I've seen many start-class articles with way less. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 13:25, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

There is quite a bit in JSTOR under his name, and it consistently mentions Genocide Watch in parallel. The information could potentially supplement a split and much of this is not cited already. In regards to what you linked above, most seems to come from obscure outlets I'm not familiar with (Karachi Times, Zimbabwean papers, some 404s maybe because of my location, etc.).

That said, I'd be willing to change to a weak oppose (or passive on split), as much of what is cited in the JSTOR search is not even covered as is. Lf8u2 (talk) 05:10, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Appreciate your openness to adjusting your view! My main view is having an org on a bio page is worse than having a page with less-than-ideal sourcing, but I'll back off of the discussion now as I've said most of what I have to say :) Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 13:05, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Support. It does have a good number of sourced material to make this its own article. Oneequalsequalsone (talk | contribs) 16:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Thoughts on opening an RfC to get this years-long discussion closed up? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Entirely unneeded, one can just do it. An RfC would waste too much time from editors and RfCs are usually not used for simple article splits. User:Easternsahara_{review and this} 17:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, in that case since there seems to be consensus in favor I'll draft up a new article. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

The WIP draft: Draft:Genocide Watch Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Support: Genocide Watch has enough reliable sources to create a C-class article. TheSilksongPikmin (talk | contribs) 22:27, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Support due to many sources demonstrating notability. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2025 (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.