Jump to content

Talk:Emmett Till

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 137.43.106.63 (talk) at 11:00, 10 August 2023 (→‎Timothy Tyson's claim she recanted is unsubstantiated.: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleEmmett Till has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 20, 2010Good article nomineeListed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 28, 2009, August 28, 2010, August 28, 2012, August 28, 2015, and August 28, 2018.

Emmet till represented in Movies

Tales from the Hood 2 is a 2018 American horror-comedy anthology film directed by Rusty Cundieff and Darin Scott and executive-produced by Spike Lee. The film is the sequel to Cundieff and Scott's 1995 horror anthology Tales from the Hood. The segments "Good Golly", "The Sacrifice", and "Robo Hell" were directed by Rusty Cundieff. The segments "The Medium" and "Date Night" were directed by Darin Scott

mainly in this instance, "the sacrifice"

In 1955, young Emmett Till (Christopher Paul Horne) is brutally beaten and lynched for speaking with a white girl in Money, Mississippi. In the present day, an interracial couple is expecting a child, following a miscarriage in the previous year. The white mother, Emily Bradley (Jillian Batherson), keeps having dreams where Emmett tells her that he is not sure if they deserve the child, and she fears he may be trying to take their baby away. She runs to the window and yells to someone unseen to leave her alone. The black father, councilman Henry Bradley (Kendrick Cross), is visited by his mother, Mama Bradley (Greta Glenn), who insists that Emily does not need the stress of him being involved in an election campaign. Henry says that his mother is only saying that because he is supporting Republican gubernatorial candidate William Cotton (Cotton Yancey), whom she believes is targeting voting locations in predominantly black districts for closure. Dr. Martin Gwinnett (David Dahlgren) examines Emily and says that she is fine, but that she should stay in bed and think good thoughts. Henry holds a fundraiser at the house, where William Cotton states that his mission is to take Mississippi back to its core values, joking that Henry would have been serving them in those days. As he is collecting campaign contributions, William appraises Henry for the event, where it is revealed that Henry is supporting William because he has promised to make Henry mayor if he becomes governor. Emily comes downstairs and announces that Emmett is choosing to live, meaning that her child will have to die. She grabs a knife, runs out into the yard, throws it at the spirit of Emmett, which her husband and the fundraiser guests cannot see. Mama Bradley brings an elderly man, Mr. Winters (Wayne Dehart), who was with Emmett on the night of the lynching and can see his spirit. Winters says that Henry must change his vote so that the voting locations are not closed, but Henry accuses his mother of concocting the story in order to get him to change his vote. Gwinnett returns and determines that the fetus is indeed shrinking. When Henry says that he is the father, Gwinnett insists that he will not work for an interracial couple. Emily suddenly insists that Henry kidnapped her and isn't her husband before she hits him with a lamp and Gwinnett drives her away. After being confronted by his mother and touched by Winters, Henry finally sees the spirit of Emmett, who mentions that he has been "blessed with a chance to see the future." However, Emmett laments that Henry is voting against the interests of his people, deciding that the horrific death he endured was all for nothing. Henry is also visited by the spirit of Carol Denise McNair (Jayla McDonald) and her friends from Sunday school who were killed in the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing. This is followed by a visit from James Chaney (Brandon J Williams), Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner (Stephen Doerfler), as well as Medgar Evers and Martin Luther King Jr. (Terrance Sims). The final visitor is Mamie Till, Emmett's mother, who insisted on a public funeral service with an open casket so that her son's beaten face could be photographed and seen by the public, sparking the Civil Rights Movement. Henry refuses to believe any of this is happening or respect the sacrifices and refuses to change his vote, leaving Emmett to decide to go back and do things differently, apologizing to his killers for speaking to the white woman he spoke to. Winters explains that if Emmett chooses to live instead of die, then his sacrifice will never occur, resulting in the Civil Rights Movement grinding to a halt, explaining that this is the reason why history has inexplicably altered. William Cotton arrives in SUVs labelled "Klan Patrol" as Emily accuses Henry of rape. Cotton and his men beat Mama Bradley and attempt to abduct Henry. He quickly promises to Emmett that he will vote against the closure of the voting locations. Emmett informs him that that is no longer an option, mentioning that Henry will have to go the extra mile and sacrifice his life. Henry agrees to do it and allows himself to beaten to death by the Klan Patrol. As history returns to normal, Henry's spirit senses that his child will now live. He and Emmett disappear, with Mama Bradley expressing her pride in her son. 2604:3D09:B989:7300:690B:DAA:ACAC:4519 (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Tyson's claim she recanted is unsubstantiated.

The FBI was unable to substantiate his claim that she recanted her testimony and claimed Timothy Tyson himself made "inconsistent explanations" to the FBI. See: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/07/14/opinion/heres-proof-against-carolyn-bryant-donham-emmett-till-case-is-it-enough-convict-her/

The article presents his view as facts, but there is nothing to suggest it ever happened other than him saying so. Peppercats (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has many levels of complexity - Bryant's original testimony was not heard by the jury at the trial anyway. It was something of a PR exercise by the defense, so I don't know how that affects the legal position, but people widely use legal terms like 'recant', but I'm not sure if you can recant something that had no bearing on the verdict anyway, and may have had no legal status.
What we say is : According to historian Timothy Tyson, Bryant admitted to him in a 2008 interview that her testimony during the trial that Till had made verbal and physical advances was false.[46][47][48] Bryant had testified Till grabbed her waist and uttered obscenities but later told Tyson "that part's not true".[49] As for the rest of what happened, the 72-year-old stated she could not remember.[50] Bryant is quoted by Tyson as saying "Nothing that boy did could ever justify what happened to him".[51] However, the tape recordings that Tyson made of the interviews with Bryant do not contain Bryant saying this. In addition, Bryant's daughter-in-law, who was present during Tyson's interviews, says that Bryant never said it.[52][53].
I don't think our text presents Tyson claim of her "changing her story" as fact though, his version and the daughter in law's version are simply recorded. But even if Tyson is to be believed, Bryant remained vague about what DID happen, even as she withdrew the most sensationalist accusations against Till - accusations which no one had ever given much credit to anyway (that a 1950's 14-year old grabbed her waist, forced her against a wall while he claimed to have already had sexual relations with several white women - using a word Bryant was too 'genteel' to use in front of the reporters!). Pincrete (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While there is no doubt that African American people suffered violent lynchings in the deep south in the 50s, this is a very sensitive case and objectivity is paramount as a result. In the 'Encounter between Till and Carolyn Bryant' section, surely the following section should be removed by Wikipedia as it is effectively misleading hearsay from a dubious source occurring 53 years after the incident, and anyway it is covered later on in the 'Claim that Carolyn Bryant recanted her testimony' section: According to historian Timothy Tyson, Bryant admitted to him in a 2008 interview that her testimony during the trial that Till had made verbal and physical advances was false. Bryant had testified Till grabbed her waist and uttered obscenities but later told Tyson "that part's not true". As for the rest of what happened, the 72-year-old stated she could not remember. Bryant is quoted by Tyson as saying "Nothing that boy did could ever justify what happened to him". However, the tape recordings that Tyson made of the interviews with Bryant do not contain Bryant saying this. In addition, Bryant's daughter-in-law, who was present during Tyson's interviews, says that Bryant never said it.
Also, Pincrete opines that "Bryant remained vague about what DID happen, even as she withdrew the most sensationalist accusations against Till - accusations which no one had ever given much credit to anyway (that a 1950's 14-year old grabbed her waist, forced her against a wall while he claimed to have already had sexual relations with several white women - using a word Bryant was too 'genteel' to use in front of the reporters!)." I'd have thought that Bryant was anything but vague. Her testimony never changed, unlike those of others. And why give her accusations no credit? - It's not that unusual for a 14 year old boy to reach physical and sexual maturity to the point where he is bigger and stronger than a five foot tall adult woman. 89.100.13.116 (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What are the changes you want to make and where are the sources? If you give Bryant's original testimony any credit, you are the only one who does, and much of it is contradicted by the testimony of others. Pincrete (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about the recantation here, aren't we? So the source for the changes I want made is Tyson himself; and my point is he's a dubious source - he has no record for her recantation (which her family denies), only dubious hearsay. So I think it's misleading that his contribution should be presented almost as facts. (If he could provide such incredible revelatory evidence of recantation, I'd want Bryant charged with perjury 53 years later. Otherwise, I'm surprised she didn't sue him for slander.) Again the changes I want made are that I feel the following sentences should be removed from the 'Encounter between Till and Carolyn Bryant' section - ie, According to historian Timothy Tyson, Bryant admitted to him in a 2008 interview that her testimony during the trial that Till had made verbal and physical advances was false. Bryant had testified Till grabbed her waist and uttered obscenities but later told Tyson "that part's not true". As for the rest of what happened, the 72-year-old stated she could not remember. Bryant is quoted by Tyson as saying "Nothing that boy did could ever justify what happened to him". However, the tape recordings that Tyson made of the interviews with Bryant do not contain Bryant saying this. In addition, Bryant's daughter-in-law, who was present during Tyson's interviews, says that Bryant never said it. Again, I have no problem with these sentences being presented later on in the separate section on her recantation, as they effectively are, as a sort of an aside or later development.
If you give Bryant's original testimony any credit, you are the only one who does. Am I really??
Futhermore, I still don't know why you think the Bryant testimony on what happened in the store was vague. She was quite clear and consistent about what happened to her. Do I also have a right to call Simeon Wright's account vague because what he recounts on coming into the store a minute later doesn't suit me?? (Even though I think what Wright says about what he witnessed in the store is actually more vague because he only stated decades later how he saw nothing lecherous yet, open to correction, he didn't state this at the time and should have.) 89.100.13.116 (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are many reasons why Bryant couldn't be prosecuted for perjury - including the fact that her testimony wasn't heard before a jury, only reporters, so I doubt that it was ever covered by perjury laws in the first instance. It probably had no more legal status than a statement on the court steps. Add to that the immense time-lag and as several articles make clear, the chances of her being successfully prosecuted were always near zero. Lying to reporters to save your husband from a murder charge is not a crime. We don't present Tyson's claim as fact, but since his claim eas widely covered by the press, it is part of the narrative and is presented as such. Tyson, Bryant and Bryant's daugter-in-law all could be lying or exaggerating partly or wholly. We can only present the story as it is covered in the balance of WP:RS, not try to litigate whose version is true. Her 'recantation' to Tyson is vague because it merely says some things didn't happen and she thinks Till didn't deserve what happened to him, it doesn't say anything about what did happen, not even confirm any previous claims.
I'm not going to continue this discussion, you appear to think that WP should be acting as 'judge and jury' in this matter - which we don't do. We simply reflect coverage of the case in the majority of sources. If you want to write an article for a publisher elsewhere arguing that Bryant was telling the truth all along and Till did sexually assault and insult her, that's up to you - good luck with that. Even if you were right, I think you'd find it hard to persuade anyone that - even if he had had his hands all over her, and his words were grossly offensive - that he 'deserved' that fate. Pincrete (talk) 06:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lots to unpack there but essentially yes, there's no point in continuing this discussion. I just reiterate that I think those sentences should be removed from the 'Encounter between Till and Carolyn Bryant' section in the interest of WP objectivity. Because for decades, the basic and misleading story goes that Emmett Till was killed for merely whistling at a white woman. But if we choose to #believeher, he was actually killed for something more serious - sexually assaulting a woman. We will never know what really happened in that store but whatever it was, it was serious and threatening enough for Bryant to storm out of the store to get her pistol.
And off course, I don't think Till 'deserved' that fate. That would make me no better than say, some historian lying about a recantation 53 years later to try and sell copies of his book. 89.100.13.116 (talk) 12:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It sound like you do believe Till deserved his fate.
You keep dancing around words and making stinging accusations.
It is very common for racist white people to escalate situations with members of other races far far beyond what's necessary, then complain about the cowardness or savagry of their reactions to blatant murder threats. See how Emmett Till turned out for the crime of existing in the wrong direction. The sheer number of sources, legal documents, and character suicides from all involved in his murder so that we can posit that Till "Might" have not done anything in a way that doesn't smell of some hogwashed Reddit/Twitter post.
Considering that I don't agree with your proposed changes MayDay2099 (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"It sound like you do believe Till deserved his fate."
No, I don't actually. I don't think sexual harassment or assault should carry a death sentence. And in the case of Emmett Till being a juvenile and his level of assault/harassment inside the store being threatening but not being that serious, I don't believe he should have really been punished at all, just cautioned perhaps. There's other complications like (akin to the modern day #metoo zeitgeist), maybe what Bryant considered threatening, Till thought was just flirting. Furthermore, if the store incident went to trial before the lynching, if I were the judge I'd have possibly acquitted Till because without CCTV or impartial witness testimony, there's no solid evidence Till committed any sexual harassment or assault, just effectively hearsay. Now I think it's perfectly reasonable to feel (as I do) that Till sexually harassed Bryant, more than just a mere whistle. She felt threatened enough to storm out to get her pistol for protection, and Wright must have had some good reason to go into the store to retrieve Till - Wright didn't purchase anything himself and he wasn't in there long enough to browse. That Bryant didn't keep the pistol at the counter in her store at all times, seems to suggest she never had any problems with customers previously - black or white.
But none of this is about me, or you, or whether or not I'm the racist that you emotively pronounce. It's about Wikipedia objectivity - or the lack of it in this case where they are effectively presenting an extremely dubious recantation claim by Tyson as though it were almost a fact. As I assume you're aware, that is what I've been discussing since the beginning and despite what you say, that is the only 'stinging accusation' I'm making here. Now I read this article from a reputable source where the author states about the dubious Tyson claim of recantation missing from his recording; "This is crucial information Tyson needs to explain in order to preserve his own credibility." (https://eu.clarionledger.com/story/opinion/2018/08/29/she-lied-he-died-not-so-fast-emmett-till-expert-says/1085520002/) . Well, for some strange reason, Wikipedia don't seem to think Tyson lacks credibility. So I ask you the question, do you think Tyson's explosive claim of a recantation lacks credibility? If not (seeing as you disagree with my proposed changes), why not? 137.43.106.63 (talk) 10:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly happened in the store is not known - or now- knowable. Simplistic accounts such as the wolf-whistle, have no more evidence than some mildly cheeky or misunderstod gesture. The idea that Till would be either confident enough or aggressive enough to have sexually touched her, is not supported by those who knew him in Chicago, who record him as fairly gentlemanly, but in the end we don't know and can only conjecture according to our own pre-dispositions. There are anomalies in all accounts. The killers when they came for Till referred to his words, not any deeds, which would be surprising if they were incensed by any actual molestation by him.
One can also endorse or question Tyson's account of her 'recantation' - everybody has potential motives to have misheard/misremembered/misunderstood - but we aren't ever going to know now, unless the unlikely event of Tyson or her d-in-law changing their mind. We present the various accounts, interrogating them isn't our business nor likely to yield anything very productive IMO. Pincrete (talk) 10:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"What exactly happened in the store is not known".
I agree, I've basically alluded to this twice in my previous posts."
"Simplistic accounts such as the wolf-whistle".
I've also alluded that I don't think the whistle was serious, even if it did happen. It's what happened in the store is my focus.
"The idea that Till would be either confident enough or aggressive enough to have sexually touched her, is not supported by those who knew him in Chicago, who record him as fairly gentlemanly".
And I'm sure if asked, those who knew Roy and Carolyn Bryant in Money, Mississippi, would also give a glowing character reference of a couple incapable of the wrongdoing. Should we believe them?? 137.43.106.63 (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall Till's family going on a violent rampage over the very real death of Emmett. Only Roy, Carolyn, and possible 13 others murdering a child over an imagined offence, lying about it, admitting to is all high and mighty, then lying about it again.
That's why, generally, RS believe Till's family's recollections of Emmett and not the Bryants' own self righteous depictions of themselves. If wikipedia existed in the 50s perhaps your perspective would be taken seriously. MayDay2099 (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "child" had like 50 pounds on Carolyn and was much taller Pepper-0 (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I asked the Wikipedian exactly this earlier when he/she stated that, "Bryant accusations, no one had ever given much credit to anyway (that a 1950's 14-year old grabbed her waist, forced her against a wall...)." Why give her accusations no credit? - It's not that unusual for a 14 year old boy to reach physical and sexual maturity to the point where he is bigger and stronger than a five foot tall adult woman. Which was the case here. 137.43.106.63 (talk) 11:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The last bit actually isn't so, despite finding the men guilty, they were socially excluded for the rest of their time in the area (because of the trouble they had bought on the community presumably). The two men certainly had a local reputation for excess. But neither of us will ever know for certain their mostivation/justification, except we do know the scale of their violence to Till - which is unarguably disproportionate to even the greatest imaginable offence by him, and their total absence of remorse. Pincrete (talk) 13:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Bryant was also physically involved and appears to have successfully convinced the masses otherwise in the sands of history. By accusing a black child of sexual crimes, she essesntially pointed a loaded gun at him. She knew this. Luckily we have reliable sources to allude to the perspective that, via personal experience with those types of white folk, I consider to be the objective truth. MayDay2099 (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there are indicators that Bryant was not the person who told the men about the initial incident. Pincrete (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but will MayDay2099 consider this to be the 'objective truth'?? 137.43.107.142 (talk) 10:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if we are going to construct a character profile of those involved based on the descriptions of those who knew them, then according to Wikipedia this is what Emmett's mother had to say about her own son: "She recalled that Emmett was industrious enough to help with chores at home, although he sometimes got distracted. His mother remembered that he did not know his own limitations at times. Following the couple's separation, Bradley visited Mamie and began threatening her. At eleven years old, Emmett, with a butcher knife in hand, told Bradley he would kill him if the man did not leave. Usually, however, Emmett was happy. He and his cousins and friends pulled pranks on each other"
I think his mother's description is quite illuminating, and I can draw from this a profile of a teenager quite capable of doing what he was accused of in the store - he certainly didn't seem like the shy, retiring type!
"Emmett was industrious enough to help with chores at home, although he sometimes got distracted".This could quite easily translate as a mother's polite way of stating publicly that Emmet was fairly prone to disobedience.
"he did not know his own limitations at times." Could easily translate as, he was rambunctious.
"At eleven years old, Emmett, with a butcher knife in hand, told Bradley he would kill him if the man did not leave." What we have here is a serious tough nut alpha male kid who doesn't scare easily, and he's only eleven! Are such teens more likely to engage in risky behaviour?
He and his cousins and friends pulled pranks . Well, I might put it that he played something of a prank inside the Bryant store. But possibly what he thought was harmless fun, this petite woman five inches smaller than him and on her own, regarded it as threatening. 137.43.107.142 (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can construct 100s of possibilities based on our own preferences and prejudices - but WP has no place for any of them, only reliably sourced facts. Pincrete (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... and that's exactly why I'm telling WP that Carolyn Bryant's 'recantation' is not a reliably sourced fact. She denies she ever recanted, and there's no evidence she ever recanted. Yet WP presents it as a fact, as I've outlined in my posts from two weeks ago. But there's not much more I can add, that doesn't include us going around in circles. 89.100.13.116 (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except we don't present the 'recant' as a fact, but as a claim by Tyson and it wasn't Bryant who denied saying it, but her daughter-in-law. It isn't even really a 'recant' since she had, or claimed to have, forgotten most of what happened, merely an admission that the punishment was excessive and the claims about his behaviour exaggerated . We aren't going to investigate who was telling the truth, doing so would be fruitless. Pincrete (talk) 04:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it wasn't Bryant who denied saying it, but her daughter-in-law.
Yes, Carolyn Bryant denied the recantation alright. Did you not know?! It's all here in the DOJ's website:
The woman however, when asked about the alleged recantation, denied to the FBI that she ever recanted her testimony and provided no information beyond what was uncovered during the previous federal investigation. Although lying to the FBI is a federal offense, there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she lied to the FBI when she denied having recanted to the professor. There is insufficient evidence to prove that she ever told the professor that any part of her testimony was untrue. Although the professor represented that he had recorded two interviews with her, he provided the FBI with only one recording, which did not contain any recantation. In addition, although an assistant transcribed the two recordings, neither transcript contained the alleged recantation. The professor also provided inconsistent explanations about whether the missing recording included the alleged recantation or whether, instead, the woman made the key admission before he began recording the interview. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-officials-close-cold-case-re-investigation-murder-emmett-till 89.100.13.116 (talk) 22:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course Bryant would deny it. Adding that she denied recanting wouldn't add anything of substance to the article. All that matters is what other sources say. Please refer to WP:MANDY
Notice how the article only says that Bryant's daughter'' said Bryant never recanted. I'm new here, but that appears to be the acceptable alternative. Correct me if I am wrong please. MayDay2099 (talk) 23:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course Bryant would deny it.
Why would Bryant recant on something only to deny the recantation afterwards? What does she have to gain, other than going out of her way to make her own life hard?
Notice how the article only says that Bryant's daughter said Bryant never recanted. I'm new here, but that appears to be the acceptable alternative. Correct me if I am wrong please
No, you're right, her daughter also denied that her mother recanted. In fact, the entire family did. 89.100.13.116 (talk) 00:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would Bryant recant on something only to deny the recantation afterwards? What does she have to gain, other than going out of her way to make her own life hard?
If my words and actions resulted in the death of a child, even if I felt I was 100% justified, and I admitted to potentially exaggerating my accusations, then learned a large swath of people considered me very uncool for what happened ~ 60 years ago, I might watch what I say.
Or maybe I'm 75 years old and might have misspoken. At least in my POV
That's a reasonable situation where Bryant might say one thing, then take it back.
No, you're right, her daughter also denied that her mother recanted. In fact, the entire family did.
This is devolving into a senseless arguement. We should anchor back to your suggestion or stop talking altogether
Correct. Which is why the article mentions the family denied this. Not Bryant herself. MayDay2099 (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention the mere possibility of her (A) straight lying or (B) exaggerating created such huge reaction and a renewal of interest toward this murder.
Even if she did tell the truth of what Emmett did to her (Which she did not) Tyson's claim itself generated so much media buzz and social commentary on all the incidences where a white woman did in fact lie on a blacck child, teen, or man, that we simply must include Tyson's claim and reactions to said claim in the article.
Many believe it to be fact. Including me. But it is not presneted as fact and the whole article makes it clear there are many perspectives based on multiple accounts, all in which are honored in some way. Take issue with them? MayDay2099 (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many believe it to be fact. Including me.''
Facts by their nature are not faith based. You don't just 'believe' them. They are or they aren't. But as I told you earlier, well known Till scholar Devery Anderson (and the DOJ) believes that Tyson's recantation claim lacks credibility whereas you state its a fact. So who do I believe, you Mayday2099, or well established Emmet Till scholar Devery Anderson?
there are many perspectives based on multiple accounts, all in which are honored in some way. Take issue with them?
I would take issue with them if they were dubious and not relegated significantly further down the article to a separate section like the 'Later Developments' section, so they don't mislead readers into thinking they have credibility they don't deserve, like that recantation that you believe is a fact. For example, there are many conspiracy theories on the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. It would be remiss of WK to put these at the forefront along with the official version when explaining what happened that day. But it's perfectly fine for WK to confine them to a separate section further down the article on JFK conspiracy theories. 89.100.13.116 (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can explain to you why my opinion is the way it is but wikipedia isn't the place for it.
Point is, Reliable Sources say that Tyson claims that Bryant admitted to making everything up. Cue a major reaction from people who are angry about Emmett Till's murder. That is why this information is in wikipedia. It is notable.
When conspiracy theories and ideas that Bryant was a Sexual Assualt victim surface to the point of a major media reaction, regardless whether or not people agree, feel free to bring that source here and I will personally add it into the article for you.
Let's try not to devolve into a further opinion based arguement. Please funnel your responses to a single thread. I admit my opinion has no place here, but I didn't open this discussion with my own either. Just continued something I should not have egged on. MayDay2099 (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2023

The beginning of the article reads „(Till) was a 14-year-old boy who was murdered…“ That is grammatically unfortunate as Til was not born at age 14. it would be better to word it „was a african american boy from Chicago who got widely known for being brutally murdered at the age of 14 while on vacation at a relative‘s home…“ 213.55.188.26 (talk) 08:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the phrasing is clear and don't see any ambiguity - "got widely known" is very colloquial anyway.Pincrete (talk) 10:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Note: I made a few changes based on your suggestion, but I'm unable to insert the sentence you suggested. DreamRimmer (talk) 11:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Pincrete, If you are comfortable with my changes, you can mark this edit request as answered at any time, and you are free to undo it if you feel it is not perfect. DreamRimmer (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mark this edit request as answered because you have responded to it, and I believe your opinion should be considered as well. DreamRimmer (talk) 11:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neutral about your changes - the previous was slightly more succinct, this marginally more accurate. Either way I don't think there is or was a problem with either grammar or clarity. It could be argued that his youth was an important part of his 'fame', but that isn't seriously compromised since we still call him a 'boy'. Pincrete (talk) 12:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your thoughts. This edit request is now marked as answered. DreamRimmer (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Must be noted

During this time in history the south was dominated by the democratic party and it should considered in the telling of this gruesome tragedy, doing otherwise would make this story basically a false depiction of a historical event… 2603:6080:EB09:FDC:A55E:E118:2F8F:90DE (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly explain the relevance and who thinks this important? Pincrete (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emmett_Till&oldid=1169645534"