Talk:Edward Williams (Victorian judge)

Should "slaveholder" be in the lead sentence?
I removed " and slaveholder" from the lead sentence based on reading the full two paragraphs of the reference and also his entry in the Legacies of British slave-ownership database which indicate that Edward Williams was a beneficiary of compensation, but did not directly own slaves himself. Jack bulldog 2012 reinstated it based on one sentence in the Links in the Chain reference, which is not supported by its own references.

Whether Williams owned slaves remotely from England in his teens or not, this is not what he was known for, and need not be in the lead sentence of the article about his whole life. His father is described as owning slaves "with his sons", but Sir Edward was the sixth son, so it is more likely that his older brothers were the sons in question given that slave emancipation occurred in 1834. The reference to "Burton and his sons" appears to be and says "four sons" in 1821 when Edward was only 8.

I would like to hear a reasoned argument that the lead should describe Williams as " an English-Australian lawyer, politician, judge and slaveholder." --Scott Davis Talk 12:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC) ( since I mis-typed the first time ) --Scott Davis Talk 12:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. It appears that Edward Willams was not a slaveholder, at 8, but very much part of a slaver family. He probably owned slaves but this is not evidence of it. User:Jack bulldog 2012 21:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * That is why I removed "and slaveholder" from the lead sentence, but kept the description further down the article that talks about the family connection and compensation. I've added a location for the slaves for clarity too. --Scott Davis Talk 22:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)