User talk:Ac2204

Welcome
 Hello Ac2204, and Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:


 * Table of contents / Department directory


 * The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Need help?


 * Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
 * Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations


 * Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
 * The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
 * Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help


 * Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The [[File:Button sig.png]] or [[File:Insert-signature.png]] button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.


 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Ac2204, good luck, and have fun. – Aboutmovies (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

1804 Haiti massacre
As I explained to you on the article's talk page, you need to cite reliable sources that describe the massacre as genocide. The fact that you believe it fits the definition of genocide is original research, which is not permitted in Wikipedia.

Also, you can't add material in front of a citation to a source (Philippe Girard's The Slaves Who Defeated Napoleon in this instance) unless what you're adding is based on what the source says. It doesn't. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, this is a very long explanation, at the bottom and in the explanation are 7 sources, 5 various web sources, 2 peer reviewed books most desired by Wikipedia for any citation, but as you asked for sources I am providing that, literary, websites, lay-men with different sites for different purposes and two academically peer reviewed books, (others exist), along with a common sense and legal argument. If you wish to dispute the characterization in the article, that is appropriate, however with all of the sources I am providing to which MANY other articles assertions have less, is fully justified, and important. I will copy this to not have it removed, since it appears you erased my argument, preventing the elements of consensus and debate, I must reiterate with a scholarly piece of literature reviewed and cited by Glasgow University, Penn State and cites 7 other pieces of literature and references 4 dissertations and studies. The first link I provided was to support the contention that their is a substantial number of popular culture, and third party research outside of academic circles that state that the events in 1804 qualified as, "genocide". This is not a site as to any judgement to the reliability can be made as it is dedicated to this event. However it supports a contention that "lay-men", and non-genocide scholars view this event as such. (I used the term "genocidal" not that it was genocide, due to the acts, and the high level orders and specific intent that constituted the event. "Revenge" or "War", does NOT dismiss a contention of genocide. The CPPCG states, "Genocide means any of the following acts (during war or peace), committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part (substantial) (ICTY;Krstic Appeal, 2004.) a) Killing members of the group b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members c) deliberate infliction of conditions calculated to destroy the group.(the Haitian constitution mantain all ethnic groups except the French-Creole and those who married outside that group were to be afforded rights and citizenship, creating conditions following the very large and very fast, Presidential and cabinet led extermination operation of early 1804'. These are lay-men's assesment and NOT original research. One a website, (appearing to be a middle or high school student titles, "the Haitian Genocide".) An additional discussion in which the term genocide is applied by an individual sympathetic to the revolution is also cited. An individual in the discussion stated, "don't justify genocide", and the article itself describes it as, "an organized 'ethnic cleansing campaign' which ethnic cleansing IS a Crime against Humanity and CAN qualify as genocide as this student presentation also shows . This forum discussion also refers to these events as such though I give them significantly less weight due to the hostile nature of many in the discussion though some aren't hostile and it is citing a relevant book citing a higher death toll (24,000) I detest some of the hatreds, however nonetheless the other site held hatreds and still characterizes the events as, "genocide." As this fifth summary of the book I will cite further, it is a website objectively and this under the site is categorized under, "genocide." The fifth laymen description and characterization, the cumulation of different sites, some pro, one anti revolutionary and three undetermined already under countless other Wikipedia articles is frequently enough to place that under a page about an historic event. These support my contention from what, when ALL combined can be considered reliable, as a whole being FIVE sites of different sympathies yet the same description. It is three articles by lay-men describing these events as such. Now I will move to the most reliable sources according to Wikipedia's source page, pieces of literature academically cited, and peer reviewed, and widely available. The two books cited are in fact on "reading list", for Glasgow University and Penn State and are widely available on Google books and colleges. "Carribean Genocide..." Discusses events leading to, the events that occurred, cites 7 books and 4 dissertations and studies. It is heavily peer reviewed and cited by what I have seen at least 5 other books on Carribean history. This is, undoubtably a reliable source with peer review and a piece of literature which under Wikipedia rules is a preferred and, "the most reliable source." You are correct in that I should write only what can be supported in the two university employed, peer reviewed books, or five forums, news sites, and webpages provided. The second book, assesses Carribean history and acts he considers to be, "genocidal", by ALL groups in colonial Carribean history. This also is widely considered an authority on Carribean history and genocide, their associations. The book states in, "the Haiti genocide does not share the same ideals as 1943.." However it is maintained it was an act of genocide based on revenge. Which under the CPPCG, "war", and "revenge" are not...elements that at all dismiss acts of genocide, a genocidal period or a genocidal massacre. I will do my best to write in consistency with the authors and the five websites provided are simply to re-affirm the two peer reviewed books to which other books use, is recommended in Universities etc. I agree I failed initially to properly cite the sources statements...however after providing 7 sources, 2) of the highest quality that Wikipedia permits to be cited, 5 affirming the characterization as not only professionally described, but described as such by other individuals. Additionally the wiki article on citation cites "common sense", as being a "contributing factor", in references and citations. The wording of the Genocide Convention, it's explicit text, the act's that qualify, the result and specific statements by the principal high level perpetrators, (to which the population was reluctant to participate), physically anihilated the last remaining French-Creole (white people were NOT in my opinion and in fact the targeted group, it was French-Creoles whom were white that were as Germans and Poles were not affected but did help some escape. The ICTY has ruled in the case,"Prosecutor v. Popovic et al." and "Prosecutor v. Tolimir", ruled on the contention of a death toll of 4,900 identified to destroy a group, "in part" (the Bosnian Muslims) specifically states that this number is NOT too low to constitute genocide. "The targeted part of the group must be assessed in relation to the overall size of the entire group." In that case, the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica/Zepa are considered the targeted group and, "though a small percentage of the overall group, constitute a symbolic and essential part of the Bosnian Muslims of eastern Bosnia." This may seem irrelevant but is not at all, considering Dessalines in two months targeted the ENTIRE ethnic group of "French-Creoles of Haiti", for destruction which narrow down genocidal intent as being very clear and obvious regardless of the number. The operation was very well organized as described, well planned, and specifically intended to result in the white French-Creoles (Not all whites) for physical destruction. The common sense point of view, considering the CPPCG being based on genocides in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and provides an essential element to modern understanding of it, it is just as enslavement provides an essential description of what today is a "Crime against Humanity." As opposed to "forced labor", which does not describe the reality of slavery. Yes, you are correct I failed to follow the characterization with the information provided by the academic's which I will change. However precedent in countless Wikipedia articles that are not changed and cite substantially less authority and individuals, makes me believe it is an individual's opinion on whether they want "genocide", to be in this article vs. "massacre" or "extermination"...even though the result and intent explained in this article in any common sense, and academic AND cultural view is that it was a, "genocidal massacre". I am not stating it IS genocide, (though I've provided sufficient sources to do so) and you can cite the opposite opinion, nonetheless this IS appropriate for historic understanding, and has more then enough sources not even cited here as there are too many, that support a simple statement in the article of it being, "genocidal" or having the characteristics of such a crime. Be it revenge or other reasons, there is enough evidence and countless sources. To remove that is disingenuous and to remove my argument and sources is deliberately misleading. People have a right to discuss and find consensus. I hope that consensus is based on not a designation that genocide occurred...but that the destruction of an ethnic/racial/national group was obviously the intent and the number of victims parallels legal rulings. Thank you. I apologize to the length however I'd like to fully justify my contribution to this article. I will copy this discussion down and mantain it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ac2204 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Please stop what you're doing. You are not permitted to add original research to Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia defines "original research" as "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." The fact that you are not able to cite a book in which a recognized expert says the Haiti massacre was an example of genocide indicates that it is original research.


 * If you disagree that the material you are adding is original research, please make your case at Talk:1804 Haiti massacre or at WP:No original research/Noticeboard.


 * The next time you add original research to a Wikipedia article, I will report you to the appropriate noticeboard and you may be blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)