Talk:Genocide Watch

Ready to move to mainspace?

@TheSilksongPikmin @Yadsalohcin

What do you guys think about moving this article to the mainspace? I think it meets mainspace notability criteria and we can continue to expand after the move. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Go ahead! Thanks both... @Alexandraaaacs1989, @TheSilksongPikmin - Yadsalohcin (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I think it should get moved to mainspace, progress is always faster there. TheSilksongPikmin (talk | contribs) 19:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@TheSilksongPikmin @Yadsalohcin

Sounds good! I opened a move request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Uncontroversial technical requests since Genocide Watch is currently a redirect. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Note: I have closed the discussion at Talk:Gregory Stanton#How about a main article about GW?#How about a main article about GW?. I realise that's probably not the close anyone here wanted to hear, but I think in such cases this is better submitted to WP:AfC. It's hard to justify a move via RMTR which they are based on uncontroversial moves that are unlikely to be objected to, rather than moves that have effectively been opposed already. Regards, CNC (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. In that case, I'll support this notion in the "uncontroversial move" space request and use the AfC process instead. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 20:39, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Just saw TheSilksongPikmin already submitted to AfC. No problem then, thanks everyone for taking initiative on this. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA because of your opposition to the split off of this article previously, am pinging you to let you know that this article has now been approved through AfC. If you beleive the content is better merged than remain as a standalone then no hard feelings going to AfD. Maybe your opinion has changed then that discussion, as was based on without additional sourcing that you would nominate for deletion, but out of courtesy thought best to inform you. Regards, CNC (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Source 2 satisfies most of my concerns. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Good to know :) CNC (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and primary sources

@Buidhe

I see you removed me edit. I understand your concern regarding primary/secondary sources. I can see that Genocide Watch's alerts have been discussed in numerous other sources, including peer-reviewed publications:

• Book
• Genocide Studies International
• International Journal of Armenian Genocide Studies
• Forbes
• Time Magazine

Moreover, some of these are critical of Genocide Watch's perspective (see Henry C. Theriault's criticism of Genocide Watch here and here) Finally, if we compare this article to that of the IAGS, we see that article listing the positions and statements made by that human rights organization. Under what circumstances would you accept including GW's position/statement on Armenians/Nagorno-Karabakh?

Greensminded24 (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

If it is covered by independent RS and you cite those secondary sources (t · c) buIdhe 22:24, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Part of the content ("In 2022, Genocide Watch issued a warning...") appears to be covered in a June 2023 News article by Dr Aldo Zammit Borda, Reader in International Law at City, University of London and Ms Mijerita Khachatryan, LLM candidate in Public International Law, University of Westminster. - Yadsalohcin (talk) 09:47, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

thanks for the source. I added it as well as others. see new edit Greensminded24 (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2026 (UTC)