Talk:Emmett Till

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)

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)

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 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)

With all respect: (1) 14th-century treatises do not qualify as reliable sources by any definition that I'm aware of; and (2) if you can't see the difference between your example and the discussion at hand, you might want to take a seat and just watch for awhile. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:15, 7 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.

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)

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)

The testimonial fabrication - placement where it occurs in the narrative

So, [1] 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.

ResultingConstant (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

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.
• C, specifically in the way Tryptofish has suggested above. If C fails, then A would be my second choice. SkyWarrior 04:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
• C - "Reportedly", to me, sounds like there would be truth to Till flirting when, in fact, he did no such thing. I would replace it with "allegedly" or "falsely accused" and explain to the reader later in the lead why the claim is false. I think it is ridiculous this is as big an issue to some editors reverting attempted changes. An innocent teenage boy was savagely beaten; he at the very least deserves clarity in the events leading to his murder.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
• B The "flirting" true or false is not the lead, and we should not suggest that it is any kind of excuse (true or false). Also the lead paragraph should mention the admitted murderers went free: Emmett Louis Till (July 25, 1941 – August 28, 1955) was an African-American teenager who was murdered in Mississippi at the age of 14. The brutality of his murder by two white men, and the fact that his murderers went free, drew attention to the mistreatment of African-Americans. Till posthumously became an icon of the Civil Rights Movement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
• C, specifically the version suggested by Tryptofish. That being said, A is not such a bad option, even if not ideal. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
• C context is good.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
• C. Per the updated information/sources and in new context.CuriousMind01 (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
• C, using Tryptofish's varient, "after being falsely accused of flirting". That the only known witness has now recanted is certainly relevant. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• A - the way it is matches the sequence of events and the preponderance of events to of the story. (And there was no specific proposed text so I'm taking 'good' over an unknown.) The 'reportedly' both indicates the situation at the time and does not state it as a fact so it's OK. To give the 21st century bits greater prominence seems both WP:UNDUE weight and WP:RECENTISM. This was a significant thing of 1955, the 2004+ parts should be mentioned but they're just not as important as the 1955 parts and the context then. Both the LOOK article and the influence of Scottsboro boys and Emmett Till for To Kill a Mockingbird and later Civil Rights movement seems more deserving of attention than the 2017 web yak. Markbassett (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• B -- the flirting accusations do not belong in this sentence, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• C, using Tryptofish's varient "after being falsely accused of flirting". All of the information and context, including that recantation, can then be added to the body in greater detail. Rockypedia (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• C I also think C is best with perhaps Trypto's "after being falsely accused of flirting" unless someone comes up with something better. Gandydancer (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

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)

Alanscottwalker - you can look at google books, but I suggest it would be better to look at texts of the time or at least beforre that book, texts like the Look article (1956), or the A death in the delta (1992), the fragments of Behind the lynching (1955), or the FBI trial transcript. You're just not going to get much from a single source and not going to get the 1950s information or attitudes from a 2010 book. Markbassett (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I have read those sources before - they are not helpful for deciding whether "flirting" is lead sentence material. I am wondering what the new book actually says about "flirting" and how far up in his lead, because "flirting" is a very broad and imprecise word, and it's certainly not a legal accusation. If you want detail of accusations made against Till in the 1950s, the place to do that is further down, because what he was actually accused of was both untrue and not just "flirting". As for 1950s social mores in Mississippi or the south, that is not even begun to be discussed in that sentence. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment -- concur with the sentiment expressed above by ShanonFitzpatrick: "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". K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm open to that. I wish I could write well and I'd come up with something. I think everyone, well at least everyone other than plenty of racists, knew that she lied all along, but to have her say it somehow adds quite a new slant to the historical telling of the murder. Could someone take a try at writing something? Gandydancer (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hrm, I don't know that I'd go that far. certainly there is no question that he was murdered, completely unjustifiably, and without even the smallest level of defense. And certainly the trial against his murderers was complete BS. But it is possibly that he (foolishly considering the time and place) did or said something that was perceived as inappropriate. Again, that completely in now way justifies anything that happened to him. But boys are well known for doing foolish things. And a kid from the north might not have known how strict the "rules" were in the south. Bryant's new revelations indicate that he didn't. But I don't think it was always "obvious" that he didn't. Merely that even if he had, everything after was still completely unjustified. ResultingConstant (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

You say: "it is possibl[e] that he (foolishly considering the time and place) did or said something that was perceived as inappropriate." So, why do you wish to discuss "flirting" in the lead sentence, at all? It seems your argument is that it's possible he was "flirting", even if not in the way it came out at the trial. Does not the new information make the whole "flirting" scenario much more complicated, than an overboard and imprecise mention in the first sentence? The article I linked above, describes the accusation against Till this way: "She claimed that Till had grabbed her, made sexual advances, flirted with her and then wolf-whistled at her as he walked out the door." [[2]. So, that accusation covers more than flirting. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Based on changes I have previously made (unacknowledged in the survey) and recent changes made after the survey, I have changed the first sentence to: 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. The brutal murder, and the fact that the murderers were never punished, drew attention to the long history of racism and lynchings in the United States. Till posthumously became an icon of the Civil Rights Movement.ShanonFitzpatrick (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Aaand reverted. Please don't make changes to the lead, especially to the sentence in question, until this discussion has been closed. SkyWarrior 20:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that parts of those changes went too far, but I'm very sympathetic to making more of the lead paragraph about Till's importance, rather than about the murder itself. (After all, this is a bio page about Till, rather than an event page about his murder.) I'm going to make a more modest edit to that effect, restoring the more uncontroversial parts – but please feel free to revert. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Someone tell me what is "controversial" and "too far" about my completely factual lede sentence. "Drew attention to the long history of racism and lynching in the United States" is a fact, and a central fact about Till's importance as a historical figure. How many monographs published by scholars of US history do you want me to cite? 10? 20? 30? Let me know, and I will do it. The constant attempts by the wikipedia community to insist that the lead paragraph for Emmett Till's page 1) include information about his "alleged flirtation" [see above conversation]; 2) won't include any active voice naming of his murderers' (or accuser's) identity and their links to white supremacism (documented later in the article); and 2) acknowledgement that lynching (not "mistreatment") was a systemic part of US history NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE WIKIPEDIA COMMUNITY. ShanonFitzpatrick (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

This was the edit that I made: [3]. Let's discuss if there are specific changes you would like to make following that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking this seriously. Here are the issues: 1) The word "mistreatment" is a gross understatement and euphemism that deserves no place here. For contextualizing information, please see 2) This page is getting media attention because of the editors' persistent attempts to CENTER (by putting it in the lede!) the completely discredited excuse given by Carolyn Bryant and Till's murderers for his death. This narrative emerged after Till's death as justification for his murder, part of a long history of white supremacists defending lynchings through arguments that they were defending white women's honor from black men (and BOYS, here) stereotyped as "hypersexual." Look how hard I and others have lobbied to make the lead to Till's page say anything about the Civil Rights Movement, which rallied around the horror of his murder. If you look closely at the history of this page, you will see systematic, repeated reversions of attempts to excise racism and inaccurate euphemisms from parts of this article. ShanonFitzpatrick (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

After reading your comment, I just changed "mistreatment" to "persecution". I had added the word "mistreatment" a few days ago, but in retrospect I think that you are right that it's a bit WP:WEASELy. Media attention? It would be helpful to link to that, as it would be good for editors to know about any possible WP:Canvass or WP:MEAT issues. Also, you might perhaps want to take a look at WP:RGW. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Seriously though: Do you think that "persecution" is more factually accurate and specific (the goal of our writing, right?) than "history of racism and lynching?" Note how much resistance mentioning *anything* about violence or racism has faced in this talk discussion. Then think about why people seem so determined to preserve a reference to an accusation of "flirting" when there is ZERO credible evidence cited anywhere in this article that this happened. We do not even have evidence that he talked to Bryant. Yet "flirting" is something that no one on this board is willing to give up. Why? 192.222.197.155 (talk) 00:40, 9 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)

Vanity Fair broke the story, so I assume they spoke with Tyson and I had assumed they were most accurate. They say 2007. However, according to the book (first page of the "Notes" section), the interview took place on September 8, 2008. Go to Amazon.com, click on "Look inside", and search the print book (not the Kindle edition) for 2008. It's the first search result. (There was an earlier interview in July 2008, according to the book's bibliography, but all quotes come from the September interview.)

I'll correct the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps, Tyson was first contacted in 2007 - not that we need to get into that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)