Preventing Contribution's: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00313220500106196?src=recsys&journalCode=rpop20 :This, is NOT original research. ; http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00313220500106196?src=recsys&journalCode=rpop20 https://books.google.com/books?id=RBgoNN4MG-YC&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=genocide+in+the+caribbean+haiti+1804&source=bl&ots=9JjPVjgQAO&sig=mB2mTtsPls0Xwmwd2v8TSioZytY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi3u4vU1a_UAhWr4IMKHT37AZQQ6AEIlQEwEg#v=onepage&q=genocide%20in%20the%20caribbean%20haiti%201804&f=false
:This, is NOT original research. Here is a discussion BASED on this interpretation,
The genocide convention can be read by any individual whom chooses to read it or look it up. It IS my opinion, however it's only based on the literature cited and even contentions alternative. "Ethnic Cleansing, Extermination, massacre", are all used regarding roughly 4,000 to 5,000 human beings and regardless of revenge, the question is...was a racial, religious, ethnic or national group targeted for physical destruction in whole or part with intent to endure substantial extinction? Was it organized? If the answer is yes, considering this is a rare example of targeting a group for destruction ENTIRELY (not a common phenomenon and only found in Rwanda or the Holocaust), Idk how, when convictions for genocide have been secured (multiple) for this number of deaths. How do or why can people erase the word from an ENTIRE Wikipedia page, when...it's completely appropriate in light of these terms application to less concrete events, then this. It is sad that some use the events to their own political ends and therefore wwe must carefully ensure this page and information is protected from abuse, however a simple statement that the events are debated regarding their being genocidal is...necessary for any person to understand the events. Without such it ignored a very important element and debate about these events that shouldn't be erased from articles for personal...purposes. This is not original research and, I would hope I can add a brief but clear and factual statement that this IS a debate and important in its element. Hopefully people agree and review the individuals who despite my explanations continue to deny the ability to apply relevant information to the article. There is no bias to this, it's clear in academic circles and even non, and had every reason to be at least mentioned instead of deliberately ignored, race, religion doesn't matter in the face or peer reviewed academic material (much), common lay-man understanding, common sense, and the goal of an objective and informative public encyclopedia. Thank you and please review the trolling of the page to remove ANY mention of this term. Thank you. Please provide feedback if possible. Thank you!