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 Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. 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 Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 316. 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)

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?
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  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 14:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Doesn't seem to have the proper sourcing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)