This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The 77 burned alive were part of the 88 slaves executed for their part in the 1736 failed slave rebellion in Antigua. This event involved more than the Royall family. Isaac Royall, Jr. (1719–1781) was an 18-year-old lad at the time and, yes, his family owned slaves (at least one was implicated in the failed rebellion), but the idea that he was "known for "extreme cruelty"" such that "on one occasion he had 77 slaves burned alive" is complete BULLSHIT and a complete misrepresentation of the facts; "on one occasion" as if there were other "occasions" of arbitrary murder. Scholarly/academic writings exist on all of these topics so why resort to the BBC for Wikipedia content, especially when they are caught in a lie? (postscriptum: I see the Wikipedia contributor implicated Isaac Royall, Sr. as "known for "extreme cruelty""—that is not in the BBC story—social justice fabulist Coughlan is referring to Isaac Royall, Jr., and yes this is absurd.) --Ingram (talk) 00:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article currently states that there were “several racist incidents” in the Harvard Law community that sparked the change. The source given to support this claim however, a NYT article written by a Harvard Law professor, explicitly mentions only one incident - an act of vandalism with unclear motives and intent - and further states that, from this one incident, many in the community infer the presence of more racism. The article should be revised to remove “several racist incidents” and replace that phrase with “an act of vandalism.” That is, unless there were in fact several racist incidents - in which case an additional source should be added to support and expand on that statement. 2601:703:105:A5E0:2906:A562:3D10:6844 (talk) 02:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
