Talk:Emmett Till

Lil Wayne apologises for use of Emmet Till lyric

I think the Lil Wayne paragraph in the popular culture section should be updated noting he has apologised to the family. Here is a link to the article and the letter: lilwaynehq[dot]com/2013/05/lil-wayne-writes-a-letter-of-apology-to-emmett-till-family/

- Wednesday 1st May 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.134.83 (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Emmitt Till - and Lil' Wayne

I think there should be mention on the page about Lil' Waynes muse of Emmitt Till in a recent (and controversial) song.

The song lyrics where Lil' Wayne mentions Emmitt Till are

'Pop a lot of pain pills Bout to put rims on my skateboard wheels Beat that p***y up like Emmett Till'

The song is 'Karate Chop'

Lil' Wayne has recently issued an apology to the family for the lyrics and the record company has also written an apology to the family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.74.59 (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Change the word "boy" to "teen" or "teenager" in the first sentence.

After the death of Willie Louis (Willie Ree) I came to Wikipedia to read about the Emmett Till murder. I was shocked to see him described as a 14 year old "boy" in the very first sentence. While it is an accurate description, the use of the word "boy" is very inappropriate in an article where the subject was murdered because of his race. Having grown up in the South I can tell younthatnthe term "boy" is very racially tinted and used extensively as a racial slur. Perhaps the term could be changed to teen or teenager. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.9.216 (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Nope. I see your point, but he actualy was a boy. When to switch to calling someone man instead could use a defined rule, however. Say, 18 or over. That is the rule used nationwide in the school system. Those in sports in high school are on the 'boy's' team; college sports players are on the 'men's' team. The racial slur aspects would only exist in context; do whites of the same age get called 'boy'? Wikipedia can do that, surely. A note on the connotations you mention that some people draw could be a useful addition, tho. 2.28.140.71 (talk) 11:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Jimmy Hicks' Employer

Hello!

Todd Steven Burroughs here. I'm a student of Black newspaper history. (Cited several times in "Mumia Abu-Jamal" entry. Thanks for that!)

Just wanted to correct the record you have here about Jimmy Hicks, one of the Black press pool during the trial of Bryant and Milan.

Paragraph 3 into "Trial," you say that Hicks was part of the Black newspaper wire service "National News Association." Actually, it's "the National Newspaper Publishers Association." You can look up NNPA.

I'm sensitive about this not only because of my scholarly focus, but because I used to work for the very same wire serivce in the 1990s and early 00s!

By the way, I'm also 90 percent sure that at the time, Hicks was filing for his paper, The New York Amsterdam News, and those articles were syndicated by the NNPA. Hicks' New York Times obit said he was a "top editor" of the Amsterdam News in 1955. That's how it worked with NNPA, then and now. So he worked for the Amsterdam locally, but represented NNPA nationally for this trial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.54.168 (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

not sure you'll see this, Todd, as it's been awhile since you wrote it and the page hasn't been changed. however, i DID look up the NNPA (and they even have a WP article). i'm going to change it, although i'm going to use the group's first name here, as it wasn't changed to National Newspaper Publishers Association until 1956, and the trial was in 1955. (and actually, i ended up slightly editing the NNPA article and adding some info there, too.) Colbey84 (talk) 06:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Till's sexual harassment of Carolyn Bryant is sanitised beyond belief here

I find this a little alarming. In an effort to avoid "blaming the victim", why do we need to sanitise or minimise what said eventual victim did? He clearly took more liberties than described, used more vulgar language, and did it continually - behaviour that by our modern standards would very likely result in charges for sexual harassment, if not assault. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.107.129 (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

And you can supply some reliable sources to support these assertions? Fat&Happy (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Carolyn Bryant's sworn testimony is at least reliable to show that Till allegedly committed sexual assault.Mikedelsol (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Yet Simeon Wright's account and, more importantly, the FBI investigation, have proven Bryant's testimony false. Mt xing (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Flirting ?

The introductory section says that Emmett was murdered "after reportedly flirting with a white woman." Flirting is something consensual and there is no source quoted in the article saying that the woman agreed with Emmett's conduct. On the contrary, there are sources quoted saying that Emmett had a derogatory conduct towards the woman. Thus "after reportedly flirting with a white woman" must be replaced by "after reportedly having a derogatory conduct towards a white woman". Marvoir (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit. The dictionary definition for derogatory is "showing a critical or disrespectful attitude". Please provide references that state that Till had "a derogatory conduct" towards the woman. Gandydancer (talk) 11:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I've been following the revisions of "flirting" and "derogatory comment" for a while. The evidence doesn't completely support that Till said something derogatory. "Hey baby" may have come close, but he may not have even said it. What seems clear is that Carolyn Bryant interpreted Till's actions--whatever they were--as flirtatious and inappropriate. The word "derogatory" is too limiting, and absolutely paints Till's behavior as aggressive, which isn't completely supported by facts. The editors who frequent this article appear painfully aware of their need to remain neutral. The facts will speak for themselves, and readers will come to their own conclusions. But let's not enable readers to come to the wrong conclusions by using loaded words that really don't belong. Richard Apple (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The article says : "Carolyn Bryant later asserted that Till had grabbed her at the waist and asked her for a date. She said the young man also used "unprintable" words." That is well "reportedly having a derogatory conduct", more derogotary than "flirting". Marvoir (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

No it's not. But more importantly, that just shows your interpretation of the events. - Boneyard90 (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

And Ruby Bates and Victoria Price asserted they had been raped. Her assertions can't be turned into facts for the lead paragraph. This would have been a classic "he said, she said" situation were it not for the inconvenient fact that Carolyn Bryant's husband eliminated any possibility of there being a "he said" portion.

I'm not sure "flirting" is the best possible way to introduce the event, but I see no evidence that Tlll's words or actions would be unquestionably characterized as "derogatory". I could go with "made advances toward", or possibly "flirted and possibly made offensive remarks". Of course, one problem with the latter alternative is that "offensive" can be even more subjective than "derogatory". At that time and place, it's likely that many young white women alone in a store would be offended – and frightened – by a black teenager doing anything other than staring at the ground mumbling "yes'm" or "beggin' yo pahdon ma'am". Fat&Happy (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Although I think "flirted" is fine, since flirting can be one-sided, or can be be done despite being un-wanted, I suppose there are alternatives: "spoke in a suggestive or provocative manner", "attempted to flirt", "spoke flirtaciously", "flirted using language of questionable nature".... - Boneyard90 (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

According to some sources he did not say anything, but rather whisted (wolf call) at her. Gandydancer (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

No, alleged sexual assault, according to the sworn testimony of Carolyn Bryant.Mikedelsol (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

It is completely unacceptable--given what we know about the falsification of C. Bryant's testimony and the long history of white Southerners claiming rape in order to justify lynching--to have the lead sentence of this article talk about Till's alleged "flirtation." ShanonFitzpatrick (talk) 05:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

2003 Episode of The American Experience

The 2003 episode of The American Experience was a documentary film titled "The Murder of Emmett Till" that was produced and directed by filmmaker Stanley Nelson. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.69.178 (talk) 01:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2014

I am a history instructor and Mamie Till-Mobley was a guest speaker for my class for three years. We met at her home in Chicago. I just posted an hour long interview we did with her on a google site I created. It is VERY high quality. I hope you will add it to the external links ASAP. Thanks

https://sites.google.com/site/mamietillinterview/

Wilsonite (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Wilsonite This is very interesting, and that it is video helps as possibly to qualigy as WP:PRIMARY, but I am not sure that this meets the criteria for external linking WP:EL due to the self published and unreliable (in wiki terms) nature of the hosting. Lets see what others have to say Gaijin42 (talk) 03:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

wilsonite I have posted a question about this site at the External Links Noticeboard Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Emmett_Till. It may help your case, if you could provide additional sourcing information ON THE WEBSITE (saying it here doesn't really help). IE, date and time, location of the videos, who the "author" is, copyright & licensing status etc. This would help ensure that wikipedia is not linking to any copyright violations. Due to the good work you ahve done in the videos, it will be the assumption that these are taken from some documentary or something, in which case we cannot link to them as a copyright violation. So if you could remove that barrier it would be helpful. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I have added all the requested ownership info about the video on the site. It should meet all the criteria now. It is simply the video of her interview. If you search the web there is NO OTHER video interview of here like this available at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilsonite (talk • contribs) 13:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

@Gaijin42:, since you're already familiar with this request... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 17:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done Gaijin42 (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Section "Influence on civil rights"

In the section "Influence on civil rights", it states:

Myrlie Evers, Medgar Evers' wife—and eventual widow—stated that Till's case resonated so strongly because it shook "the foundations of Mississippi, both black and white—with the white community because it had become nationally publicized, with us blacks, because it said not even a child was safe from racism and bigotry and death."

According to this source [1], Myrlie made this comment in 1985, so stating she was an "eventual widow" isn't correct. As well, Myrlie's quote seems to have been tweaked a bit. I suggest:

Myrlie Evers, widow of Medgar Evers, stated in 1985 that Till's case resonated so strongly because it "shook the foundations of Mississippi—both black and white, because...with the white community...it had become nationally publicized...with us as blacks...it said, even a child was not safe from racism and bigotry and death."

Magnolia677 (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Section "Influence on civil rights" - voting

Corrected material from Whitfield, p. 62. His book is viewable on Google books. He said that 41% of the total state population was black. In the Delta, the population was (and is) majority black. Today in the state overall, the black proportion is 37%. (The state had a black majority into the 1930s, when many left to go to Chicago and other northern cities in the Great Migration.) The numbers of registered voters Whitfield refers to (265 and 90) were from three counties, not all of the Delta counties. By the end of 1955, he says that in fourteen counties there were no registered black voters. Note: blacks and many poor whites were disfranchised by Mississippi's new 1890 constitution that incorporated a poll tax, as well as later laws requiring literacy tests, white primaries, etc.Parkwells (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Use term "Great Migration"

The Great Migration refers to a major demographic change as African Americans moved out of the South to the North and Midwest, and later West Coast in search of opportunities. I think the term should be used in this article, as it is when most historians refer to it. Through the Great Migration, a major social phenomenon, African Americans became a mostly urban population in the first half of the 20th c. - and it totaled more than 6.5 million people. Using the term is a way of teaching readers about it.Parkwells (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Later events

Can I get input on whether the following two "later events" should be added to the article? First, this source states that "Milam's and Bryant's stores, which catered almost exclusively to local blacks, were boycotted and within fifteen months all the stores were either closed or sold. Blacks refused to work on the Milam farm, and J.W. turned instead to bootlegging." The PBD documentary about Till's murder also stated that a boycott put Bryant out of business. Does anyone have a more reliable source than the one above? Also noteworthy is that Sheriff Strider narrowly missed being shot in the head while he sat in his car in Cowart, Mississippi in 1957. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Magnolia, IMO the Sheriff Strider info is not important enough to include. However, I feel that the Milam and Bryant info may be important enough to add. But I'd like more input from others before giving a definite yes. This effect was local, not national--would this really matter considering that there is room for only so much info in such a broad reaching article? Gandydancer (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Why is Till's father's demise referred to here as "died" which makes it appear that it was the product of something natural when, in fact, he was executed for rape and murder in Italy? this gives the appearance of a whitewash.

Also consider that whatever approach Till made toward Bryant, it would be construed today as "sexual harassment" and might need to be referred to as such for a clearer understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Elixson (talk • contribs) 05:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Which source says how Till's father died? How does it describe the context? It certainly should be included, briefly, if reliably sourced.

I think that the clearest understanding of Till's behaviour is by describing what he was alleged or believed to have done, not a modern interpretation of how such actions would be viewed in our particular milieu. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

this is in response to the query/ies about Till's father's death. i found an article in the Chicago Tribune, from 2005. it's not very long, but it gets into the context fairly well. the context around the army's racial issues, at least. (nothing around the "moral waiver" being given for domestic abuse/attempted murder, though.) but, i'm not sure why it should be included at all.

certainly there should be something noting that Tills didn't have his father around when a child. but i'm not sure why it matters what happened to Louis after he was absent from the family. i mean, it's an interesting story, but this doesn't seem the place for it. (strangely, the only WP article that talks about moral waivers claims it didn't happen before the 1960s.) i can't think why someone would want to include it here. well, i CAN think of reasons, but they are all "blame the victim" reasons. anyway, here's the article:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2005-09-25/news/0509250486_1_jim-crow-army-till-official-army

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/join_the_army_or_go_to_jail/ Colbey84 (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

After reading this page in its entirety, I feel that it does a tremendous job of discussing the story in great deal, and describing its impact it had on the Civil Rights Movement. in light of recent events I believe that more information should be added regarding the fact that Carolyn Bryant admitted her testimony was a lie. It is touched upon briefly at the beginning of the introduction, but should be added to the end of this section. The fact that she stayed quiet for so long makes me question her motives for coming out at this point in time.Mattmorton (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Question re including recent information

Juanita Miliam recently died and a news report carried this information:

Juanita accused Carolyn of fabricating the entire story. "The only way I can figure it is that she did not want to take care of the store. She thought this wild story would make Roy take care of the store instead of leavin' her with the kids and the store. … the only thing to me would upset her would be if she wanted Roy to stay at the store more."[2]

I wonder if we should try to work this into the article? Gandydancer (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

i think this would be a great addition to the article.Colbey84 (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Watch that infobox

Till didn't die in Money, Mississippi. It is unclear what town or county he was in when he died.

This is why infoboxes are often deprecated.

It would be accurate to leave the infobox place of death vacant, or remove the infobox entirely. --97.88.72.82 (talk) 12:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Disenfranchisement of blacks by "Democrat-dominated" legislatures

This is extremely misleading to those without a good knowledge of American political history since the Civil War. All the state legislatures in the south were almost entirely made up of Democrats from the end of Reconstruction in 1877 until the late 1960s because southerners so hated Abraham Lincoln (who was a Republican) and what he represented that they simply wouldn't vote for a Republican. Today, and since the 1970s, state legislatures in the south are virtually all Republican because southerners walked away from the Democratic Party for supporting Civil Rights legislation. Perversely, the south's sticking to the Democratic Party for so long in the 20th Century made possible the election of the the very Democratic politicians who eventually undid racial segregation in the south. And of course, all the former Democrats in the south, and their descendants have become Republicans now because anger over the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the other desegregation measures finally overcame the grudge southerners held against the party of Lincoln. SO — let's not kid ourselves that the national Democratic Party ever set out to disenfranchise African-Americans. It was the so-called "Dixiecrats" — and they're all Republicans now.

I removed the "Democrat-dominated" reference and replaced it with "all-white." Gillartsny (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The original wording was better. No sense in removing the demonstrable fact that the legislature was Democrat-dominated.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

the original wording was not better, as it was/is misleading, since, without a detailed explanation of the changing make-up and platforms of the major political parties over the last 150-200 years, a reader will not have a true understanding. again, this is sourced, so the best option here would be to get the actual sentence from the source and put it in quotation marks. Colbey84 (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC) alternately, here's some rewrites:

In 1955, The Chicago Defender urged its readers to react to the acquittal by voting in large numbers—a reminder that most blacks in the South had been disfranchised since the turn of the century.

In 1955, The Chicago Defender urged its readers to react to the acquittal by voting in large numbers—a reminder that most blacks in the South had been disfranchised since the Reconstruction period, through both legislative methods and intimidation.

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2015

he was murdered Killerninja1234 (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as you have not requested a change. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 17:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Original research: Till sexually assaulted Bryant?

Yesterday an editor repeatedly changed the lead to say that Till was murdered "after allegedly sexually assaulting a white woman." I'd like to invite the author to comment on why that isn't original research. Where are the reliable sources that say Till sexually assaulted or allegedly sexually assaulted Bryant? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

As the article itself states, Carolyn Brant testified under oath that she was sexually assaulted by Till. Hence Till "allegedly sexually assaulted Brant"Mikedelsol (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

As the article states where (beside your fervid imagination)? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

PS: Don't change the section heading again. Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

This isn't the first (or even the second) time that someone has tried to introduce that nonsense into the article, based on zero sourcing. Even the "flirting" charge was tenuous (and disputed). The only interaction generally agreed on was a whistle - which is why I would limit the description to "whistling" if it were up to me; but since others have insisted on including the disputed testimony, "whistled and allegedly flirted" (or "possibly flirted") would be the most accurate wording. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 06:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

This never happened racist views at the time need to be taken into consideration as well as the hyper sexualization of young black men. They thought Till was in his 20's when really he was a young boy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.83.56.54 (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

this has come up a couple times on this Talk page. a few people pushing for the term "sexual assault," and back-and-forth over how to even qualify that ("reportedly" "allegedly" ?). i was struck by the use of "reportedly," although when i thought about "allegedly," that didn't seem too much better. so here's a couple other options. notice that the "action" has been moved from Tills to his accuser. meaning, the "debate" would move from "what did that black child do to that woman?" to "what did that white woman accuse that child of doing?"Colbey84 (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

"Emmett Louis Till (July 25, 1941 – August 28, 1955) was an African-American teenager who

was lynched in Mississippi at the age of 14...

...after being accused by a white, female store clerk of inappropriate behavior towards her."

...after being accused by a white woman of speaking suggestively to her."

I think the first of these would be the best option, although "store clerk" is questionable. Wouldn't "store keeper" be better? I should point out that I am no expert on the issues involved: I looked up the article after hearing a passing reference on a radio programme and thought that the opening sentence sounded a bit odd, at least to British ears. Tigerboy1966  10:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2015

There is a simple spelling mistake in the final paragraph of the "Early Childhood" section:

A resurgence of the enforcement of such Jim Crow mores was evident following World War II.

It should say Jim Crow laws, not Jim Crow mores.

Thank you in advance, Dane Dncat (talk) 06:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 07:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the immediate implementation of this change needs to be revisited. Going to the trouble to create a piped link from "laws" to "mores" clearly indicates something other than a simple spelling error. In fact, the surrounding paragraph is not discussing the narrow topic of Jim Crow laws, but rather the entire race-based class system and lifestyle. "Even the suggestion of sexual contact between black men and white women" was not illegal, but it could still be a capital offense. That's not laws, it's mores. The original wording said "these mores" and was changed to "such Jim Crow mores" on 19 March 2014 by Parkwells. The pipe was added three months later by Froid. "Jim Crow" was more than a few laws restricting who could vote and what section of the bus they could sit in (http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/what.htm), and the previous wording properly reflects that fact. 2600:1006:B113:6281:14E8:C473:9B00:7111 (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Undone: This request has been undone. Now please discuss it and resubmit an edit request if necessary once consensus has been reached. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 21:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

okay, what? TrueC said the request was undone, and i guess the original request WAS...but the rest of the concerns raised by the anon-User were ignored. that sentence shouldn't say "Jim Crow" anything. "mores" is probably correct, rather than "laws," but i don't know enough about the actual laws to know if the previous sentence could have referenced one; perhaps one of the OLDER laws in the Black Codes? certainly marriage and sexual relations/interactions WERE legally controlled during that...time period.

the sentence should either be re-written, or, much better, since it seems to be from a book, get the actual sentence, and put it in quotation marks. Colbey84 (talk) 13:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

here's a possible rewrite:

After WWII, when African-American veterans started pressing for equal rights in the South, there was a desire by some to enforce the social and cultural mores–by any means–that had previously been enforced by a stricter adherence to Jim Crow laws, or the earlier Black Codes.

Colbey84 (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC) - i've been going thru the source. it only uses "jim crow" 2 or 3 times (and is over 200 pages long). it did not use the term when talking about the time period after WWII. this is the closest sentence i found, on page 51.

"Lynchings increased immediately after the end of World War I, when returning Negro soldiers, filled with new attitudes that reflected their greater degree of freedom, overstepped the traditional Jim Crow restrictions."

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2015

Metress is cited twice in the References, but his name is misspelled as "Mettress" in the Bibliography. This request is to correct the spelling in the Bibliography. See WorldCat to verify the spelling. 50.53.51.6 (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done - thanks for spotting that - Arjayay (talk) 08:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2016

Hi, I am writing this to speak about writing on this page. Why? Because of how construed the story really is. There are so many phrases that don't interpret what REALLY happened, what REALLY had been said, and how devastating the actions REALLY were. The use of words in certain phrases greatly change the atmosphere of the situation. Just because he's black doesn't mean you can mention his actions in such a disgusting way. Yet when WHITE CRIMINALS are presented in cases or pages here on Wikipedia, they are given an emotional background and their info is written WAY LESS SEVERE. Marbeeno18 (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done This is not an edit request, which would require a specific change to be suggested. However, you may have a valid concern. If you can point out specific instances where you think the text is inappropriate, and what would be improved text, you may suggest it here. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't get it

It seems to try to imply that nothing happened, saying how the other kid was in the store and said he didn't hear anything or see any inappropriate behavior, but then why did the woman rush out to get her pistol, and why were the boys scared? Why did they get upset and leave? If suggests that they knew something had happened and were nervous. Same with Till wanting to go home to Chicago. Then, when they show up at the house, he asks him if he was the one who "did the talking", and he says "yes". This all suggests that he said something to her, not that he "was trying to ask for bubble gum and whistled".

I also don't see what is wrong with saying the victim was "alleged" or "accused" of sexual harassment: whether her testimony was accurate or not, it is a fact that she accused or alleged that he did it, thus it is a perfectly factual statement. AnnaGoFast (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2016

Please change "teenager who was lynched in Mississippi" to "teenager who was murdered in Mississippi" because Emmett Till was not lynched. He was beaten, shot, and then thrown into the Tallahatchie River. http://www.biography.com/people/emmett-till-507515 http://www.biography.com/people/emmett-till-507515 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/till/sfeature/sf_look_confession.html

2601:588:C401:3080:A4F3:2796:20C3:4761 (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

According to Merriam-Webster, a lynching is when a person is "put to death (as by hanging) by mob action without legal sanction". That describes Till's murder. At the time of Till's murder, according to PBS, Roy Wilkins described it as a lynching. More recently, historian Christopher Metress wrote a book (published by an academic press) titled The Lynching of Emmett Till: A Documentary Narrative. I don't think there's any credible argument whether the murder was a lynching. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

There is clearly a more than a credible argument when the accepted definition of lynching stipulates that there is a component of public spectacle, which is not present. What you "think" is a matter of complete irrelevance here. The fact that Roy Wilkins described it as such makes no difference either. It doesn't fit the known definition of lynching. Again lynchings are public, not covert and the perpetrators took pains to hide the body rather than leave it somewhere where it would be discovered. Unless you change the definition of lynching to include all racially motivated murders. The two half-brothers who murdered Till could not be considered or defined as a "mob." A "mob" is defined as "a large crowd of people, especially one that is disorderly and intent on causing trouble or violence." Bryant and Milam can not be accurately described as a "mob" by any known definition. Again, the fact that it was a racially motivated murder of a child does not make it a lynching. (67.234.159.68 (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC))

restorative justice

In 2007 the community of Sumner, Mississippi and Tallahatchie County led by the Emmett Till Memorial Commission (ETMC) held a public ceremony of racial reconciliation and offered an official apology to the Till family. From 2007 until 2015 the ETMC raised over 1.8 million dollars to restore the Sumner Courthouse back to it's 1955 character and opened up the Emmett Till Interpretive Center in order to live out the original apology that stated "racial reconciliation begins by telling the truth." The courthouse is now open to the public and the Emmett Till Interpretive Center is used to continue the work of restorative justice and racial healing.

References

iconography

Hi, this is not a very like important comment, but I think that iconography of Emmett Till needs to be discussed on this page in some manor. the idea of dead of black youth has not ever been new. Yet Till is one of the first this boy is the first in notable black death in a long line of dead black people. I think the lack of discussion of this media/ pop culture iconographic figure not only limits our understand and power of racism. but also treats these as historical events rather than modern events. To ignore his connection to black lives matters. To trayvon and all other modern

victims that mirror him is kind of a major issue. With this article. Theres just an overall
lack of the present in this section. It acts as if civil rights are over. I
think most these sections issues are very current and need to link with modern movements  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donwashington38 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC) 

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2016

"Throughout the South, whites publicly prohibited interracial relationships (while indulging in affairs with black women) as a means to maintain white supremacy."

I have a journalism degree and have worked as a writer and copy editor. This is an informative article however the material in parentheses above absolutely does not belong in an encyclopedia entry. It is not a verifiable fact and seems to be more of an opinion. I consider the entire sentence questionable but have no doubt that "(while indulging in affairs with black women)" should be removed. 97.80.184.131 (talk) 08:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  21:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't notice this edit request until now, but I just made the change. It doesn't require consensus, just a little bit of common sense and an application of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Carolyn Bryant's admission to lying

The article currently reads "The white woman, Carolyn Bryant, admitted to Vanity Fair in 2017 that she had lied.[1]". This is incorrect. The same Vanity Fair article listed as the source says that, in fact, Bryant said this during an interview with Duke University researcher Timothy Tyson in 2007. In his new book, "The Blood of Emmett Till" (2017), Tyson published the part of the interview in which Bryant confessed to having lied. Vanity Fair then reported on the story. I do not currently have permission to edit the article but I think the original source of the confession should be credited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adriobi (talk • contribs) 19:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Second sentence is seriously inaccurate

I understand why the article is locked, though it's sad that it's necessary to do so. Anyway, that means I have to come here to point out that the following sentence is seriously innacurate: “The white woman, Carolyn Bryant, admitted to Vanity Fair in 2017 that she had lied.” If you read the very article that is linked to at the end of the sentence, you will see that in fact

• her name is NOT now Carolym Bryant, since she has since remarried twice and it is not clear from the source just what her name now is
• she admitted her lie to Timothy Tyson, author of The Blood of Emmett Till (Simon & Schuster 2017), NOT to the magazine (and anyway, how can anyone say anything to a whole magazine, as opposed to the author of a magazine article?)
• she did so in 2007, NOT in 2017.

I hope that someone can rewrite the sentence to correct these errors, perhaps something like this: "The white woman, then known as Carolyn Bryant, admitted to the academic Timothy Tyson in 2007 that she had lied."

Strict accuracy is obviously important if Wikipedia's reputation is to be maintained, but perhaps especially so in articles such as this one, on a serious topic that has been, and (judging by the editing lock) continues to be, the subject of other serious inaccuracies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.197.170.130 (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Vanity Fair article

Should the new details from Vanity Fair be added to the "trial" section or to "later events"? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks for bringing it up. Gandydancer (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Carolyn Bryant Admitted she lied

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixbWTJDU7gA&list=UU1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ&index=5 84.108.48.51 (talk) 03:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

First sentence of article is out of date and unacceptable

My attention was drawn to this wikipedia article as a result of the 2017 publication that revealed Carolyn Bryant lied under oath about her interaction with Emmett Till (that is, she lied about Till "flirting" with her). So, I find it inaccurate for "reportedly flirting" to be in the first sentence. Yes, this did shape the discussion surrounding his murder and clearly has place later in the article. However, it is *incredibly* disrespectful to a child murdered because of his race to suggest that he was possibly responsible in any way for his death, which is what repeating the debunked lie about "flirting" in the first sentence of the article does. I see in the history of the article that other users have made changes to make the first sentence more faithful to the known facts in 2017 and these continually get reverted.

"Emmett Louis Till (July 25, 1941 – August 28, 1955) was an African-American teenager who was murdered in Mississippi at the age of 14 after reportedly flirting with a white woman." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmerlis (talk • contribs) 17:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Gandydancer (talk) 02:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The first sentence is correct. This is what happened. Till was murdered in Mississippi after reportedly flirting with a white woman. Everything else...the funeral, the trial, the admission by Bryant 50 years later that she had lied...doesn't change the first line. Wikipedia users who read the lead section will see the chronological summary of events. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Please consult a dictionary if the meaning of the word "reportedly" is unclear. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand the meaning of "reportedly." THE POINT IS THAT THIS PASSIVE VOICE CONSTRUCTION--BASED ON A STORY PERPETUATED BY THE [equally "reportedly!"] LYING WIFE OF ONE OF TILL'S MURDERERS--DOES NOT BELONG IN THE LEDE. The lede is the place for the most important info. about a wikipedia subject. The most important things about Till are 1) His identity as a young murder victim; 2) The fact that his murder was symbolic of larger systems (racial terror and judicial lynchings) that characterized the Southern United States in the 1950s; 3) Those who ADMITTED TO MURDERING THIS BOY were never punished. ShanonFitzpatrick (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The first sentence does not need to include debunked ("reportedly") events. I suggest "Emmett Louis Till (July 25, 1941 – August 28, 1955) was an African-American teenager who was murdered in Mississippi at the age of 14 by white supremacists." To quote Magnolia677, this is correct. This is what happened. Till was murdered by white supremacists. Neither Magnolia677 nor MShabazz have offered any substance to their insistence on reverting edits (thank you for the condescending suggestion that I consult a dictionary), while I and other users have clearly explained why this is a problematic first sentence. Tmerlis (talk) 03:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Either the first sentence needs the additional context ("after Bryant reportedly accused him of "flirting" with her, an accusation she later recanted") or the entire concept of flirting should be removed from the first sentence. ResultingConstant (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I have made repeat attempts to fix this first sentence. Among the tactics I have tried are: 1) simplification (just explaining that he was murdered); 2) adding additional disclaimer about Bryant; 3) adding fact that his admitted murderers were never brought to justice; 4) adding context about Civil Rights Movement. EVERY SINGLE TIME my edits have been reverted by those who think it is better to emphasize the (debunked!) and unethical claim that he was murdered after "reportedly flirting with a white woman"--these editors have also removed all other contextual information I have provided. ShanonFitzpatrick (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

If traction for a new consensus does not develop here, a wider RFC may be appropriate, but the key is that such a RFC MUST be neutrally worded and formed. ResultingConstant (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I am always reluctant to enter these sorts of discussion, but I must agree with what I think is the consensus here. Emmett Till was murdered after he reportedly flirted with a white woman. This is not outrageous enough for you? Even if it was true? Is flirting with a woman a capital crime anywhere? The fact that the "white woman" in question has finally admitted that her testimony was false (is there a statute of limitations on perjury in Mississippi?) can certainly be added as a postscript in the lede (and in the article) -- but the basic facts are that an innocent black man was murdered for allegedly flirting with a white woman. Whether he actually did, or not, is irrelevant to the basic fact that a heinous lynching crime was committed, and the criminals went unpunished. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 03:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The lede, as it is currently worded, chooses to EMPHASIZE his "reported" [passive voice!] flirtation WHILE REFUSING TO ACKNOWLEDGE the more important parts of the story (the fact that justice was viciously and pursposefuly denied by the Jim Crow court system. This is problematic and wrong because 1) It fails to fulfill the function of a lede--which is to convey immediately the MOST IMPORTANT SIGNIFICANCE of the article subject; 2) While you may think that this detail is not important, THERE IS A LONG HISTORY OF white Americans using accusations of black rape, African American hyper-masculinity, and white innocence in order to justify SYSTEMIC LYNCHING. Including this sentence is similar to saying that a woman who was raped "was reportedly wearing a short skirt," i.e. unacceptable. ShanonFitzpatrick (talk) 03:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

No, any rape is unacceptable (and illegal) whether there was "provocation" or not. Similarly, any lynching murder is unacceptable (and illegal), regardless of the circumstances. The "most important significance", as you describe it, is that Till was brutally murdered for some alleged social faux pas. The Jim Crow aspects of the case are thoroughly discussed in the article. And please stop with the capital-letter "shouting" -- your intended emphasis is quite clear without it. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 04:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Get a grip, Shanon, and stop shouting. The fact is, thousands—if not millions—of reliable sources say Till was murdered because of Mrs. Bryant's report that he had flirted with/whistled at/said rude things to her.

One new book raises interesting possibilities. The book doesn't dispute that the report that Till flirted with/whistled at/said rude things to Mrs. Bryant is what led to his murder. It agrees 100% with that account of history, because those are verifiable facts. It says that, for the first time, Mrs. Bryant has said she lied in 1955. Did she or didn't she? We will probably never know, because she gave the author an interview in 2007 and hasn't been seen in public since the late 1950s.

We are writing an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. We should continue to report what every reliable source on the subject says: that Till was murdered on the basis of a report of what allegedly happened between him and Mrs. Bryant. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

There are lots of sources describing the world as flat and that the sun revolves around it. We don't use them though because we know they are outdated and incorrect. ResultingConstant (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll keep shouting until you hear. Till was not murdered because he flirted. He was murdered because he was a victim of SYSTEMIC, MURDEROUS ANTI-BLACK RACISM and the perpetrators were never brought to justice because of SYSTEMIC LEGAL DISFRANCHISEMENT of African Americans. The "reported" flirtation was the EXCUSE that the murderers used. It is important to NOT CENTER THE MURDERERS' NARRATIVE in the lede to this article because: 1) the passive voice use of the word "reportedly" gives credence to DISCREDITED LEGAL TESTIMONY while at the same time creating space for victim-blaming narratives. THESE VICTIM-BLAMING NARRATIVES helped Till's murderers avoid punishment and for years have shielded C. Bryant's potential complicity in Till's murder. 2) Some of wikipedia community has decided that emphasizing Till's reported flirtation IN THE LEDE is more important than emphasizing that Till's murder was part of a wider historical campaign of LYNCHING in the USA and a CATALYST FOR THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT. I strongly disagree with this argument and have explained why. ShanonFitzpatrick (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep shouting, then. I have news for you, though.

It wasn't "SYSTEMIC, MURDEROUS ANTI-BLACK RACISM" that snatched Till out of his bed in the middle of the night and lynched him. It was men, racist white Southern men, acting as they could be expected to when they heard what Till reportedly did.

I support removing passive voice ("reportedly") from the lede, and replacing the part about flirtation with the fact that neither his known murderers or his accuser were ever brought to justice. 192.222.197.155 (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

PS - Where was your outrage when the lynching of Emmett Till was deemed not to be a lynching by Wikipedia editors a few days ago? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The testimonial fabrication - placement where it occurs in the narrative

So, [3] was reverted with the claim of no need. That makes little sense. Purported false testimony is now integral to this trial, as it would be for any trial (you can't say one without the other). It also is nearly impossible to imagine the testimony ever being discussed again without mention of the fabrication claim (no matter what happens in the future) - it "needs"- or at any rate should be -- mentioned precisely there with the trial testimony (when we state the then "explosive" claims), regardless of where else it may be covered. I'm not picky about how it's mentioned there with a note or otherwise ,but it should be mentioned right there.Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Alan, I think you're right on this one. Gandydancer (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

You make a good point. Just a note that the section I added later in the article entitled "2007 Tyson interview" is quite detailed, and is worded exactly to what the sources said. It may be best to keep this more detailed summary there as well. Also, could we try to use the same sources for all three additions? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree that this needs to go where it provides context against the information it contradicts. ResultingConstant (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Emmett Till lead sentence RFC

The lead sentence/paragraph of the Emmett Till article currently reads : Emmett Louis Till (July 25, 1941 – August 28, 1955) was an African-American teenager who was murdered in Mississippi at the age of 14 after reportedly flirting with a white woman..

Recently (interview in 2007, published in 2017), the "white woman", Carolyn Bryant, revealed that she had lied regarding the events at the store. “That part’s not true,” she told Tyson, about her claim that Till had made verbal and physical advances on her. As for the rest of what happened that evening in the country store, she said she couldn’t remember.

How should the lead sentence/paragraph deal with this updated information?

• A) No change.
• B) Remove "after reportedly flirting with a white woman"
• C) Include information in the lead sentence/paragraph which provides the new context.

Survey

• C, but failing that B. While the "after reportedly" portion is technically correct, it is woefully inadequate given updated information. Yes, there are hundreds of sources that describe the event this way. Sources which were written prior to Bryant's revelations. Per WP:BEGIN we should be giving a concise summary in the lead sentence/paragraph, which we are not currently doing. Also, per WP:RSCONTEXT newer sources often invalidate older sources. ResultingConstant (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• C, but failing that B. How about something like "... following a false report of flirting with a white woman."? Felsic2 (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• C - First para second sentence. It should be made clear that it was not known to be false until much later. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• A - Magnolia677 (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• D- None of the Above. (but failing that, B) This first paragraph needs to be totally rewritten to highlight the historical significance of Emmett Till's murder in a way that does not center the narrative of the murderers and their defenders. This survey does not acknowledge this option. The point is not just that there is new information about the lies told by his accuser--it is that flirtation does not belong as part of the lede "context" ShanonFitzpatrick (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• A It's fine the way it is now. Let the body of the article discuss the 2007 interview. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• I suggest, instead, changing "after reportedly flirting" to either "after being accused of flirting" or "after being falsely accused of flirting". Putting it one of those ways makes it represent the current sourcing more accurately. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding: this is C in a specific form. I came here from the RfC notice, and was not previously involved in this page. I find it strange to learn that editors have been reverting such changes. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• C Myself and others have made substantive critiques about why the first sentence should be changed. Only a couple of people have expressed support for keeping it the same in the talk page, though they have aggressively reverted revisions (changes along the lines of what Tryptofish suggests have been made and reverted, so that is a vote for C). The editors who want to keep it the same have not provided meaningful reasons for that position. Tmerlis (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• C While the current wording could plausibly be construed to offer no judgment on the veracity of the allegation against Till, it is unnecessarily leading. The current, accurate information - that Till was falsely accused - can be more plainly stated. -Darouet (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• A or C Sorry, people, but the ten-year-stale disclosure of one person's 50-year-late "gee, I made it up" crocodile tears reported in a single book doesn't change the 60 years of history that have passed, the thousands of books that have been written, etc., none of which were predicated on the truthfulness, or lack thereof, of a young white Southern woman. Black Americans have known for centuries that white people can't be trusted to tell the truth when it matters, now white people are starting to see that for themselves. (What next, a U.S. president who says the news is untrue when the facts don't support him? You people elected him in November.) We knew she was lying in 1955,we knew it in 2007, and it's not news to us in 2017. What's surprising to us is that you think this is earth-shattering news. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• C, but failing that B.Lynnkozak (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC) — Lynnkozak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• I vote D (failing that B or C). There was never any proof of the flirting accusation, and that accusation has now been admitted as a lie. Rather than keep that lie in the opening paragraph, the entry should highlight the importance of Till as a symbol of white supremacist brutality and martyr of the civil rights movement—which is his primary historical significance. jonwilkesbooth 19:44 EST, 6 Feb 2017 — jonwilkesbooth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Threaded discussion

I have neutrally notified several of the noticeboards regarding this RFC. ResultingConstant (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

ShanonFitzpatrick While I understand your point, at this time you are unlikely to gain much traction for that position. As with many things in the real world, lodging a protest vote or not participating tends to leave one with their least desired option (which for you I imagine is option A). You are unlikely to get what you want right now. But you could have something better. ResultingConstant (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Tryptofish Your suggestion is a particular implementation of "C" is it not?ResultingConstant (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I guess so, and have appended that to my comment. My initial thinking was that "C" was non-specific, whereas I want to make a specific suggestion. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I am the one who requested this survey, in response to a round of changes that I initiated, so I am justified in articulating my argument about why the survey options are not adequate. My point is that the survey is PREMISED on the idea that something about flirting needs to be in the first sentence, and since I disagree with this premise (and have presented rationale and a range of concrete alternatives), I voted D. ShanonFitzpatrick (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Option "B" has no mention of flirting in the opening sentence. You are absolutely entiteld to your opinion. Just realize that your opinion is in the very small minority currently, and if this ends up being a difficult to measure consensus will be some weight in the pile of "no-consensus" which is effectively a vote for keeping the status quo. WP:NOTVOTE notwithstanding. ResultingConstant (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I am still struggling with this. Partly I think because I do not have the Timothy book (does anyone?). He was accused of something with a white woman, but his murder is horrifying (I think all the major sources agree), no matter the truth of falsity of that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

See also, America always knew woman's Emmett Till story was a lie Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Interveiw(s) with Bryant 2007? 2008? both?

We have 2008 2007, track down and questioned in 2007, 2008 but also there were two long conversations with Bryant anyone got more info on when and ideas on dealing with this?Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)