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 Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) at 02:47, 12 May 2017 (→‎What to call what allegedly happened in the grocery, and what actually happened there: Replied and started RfC with sources.). 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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
No it's not. But more importantly, that just shows your interpretation of the events. - Boneyard90 (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
According to some sources he did not say anything, but rather whisted (wolf call) at her. Gandydancer (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

I changed it to "after being accused of harassing and grabbing a white woman". It had read "after being falsely accused of flirting with a white woman", which is wrong on a number of levels. The preponderance of the evidence suggests that he was at least flirting with her; but it is not a crime to be "accused" of flirting (not in a modern, non-racist perspective anyway). Bryant accused him in court of the following (taken directly from the later section of the article): "Bryant testified during the murder trial that Till grabbed her hand while she was stocking candy and said, 'How about a date, baby?'[30] She said that after she freed herself from his grasp, the young man followed her to the cash register,[30] grabbed her waist and said, 'What's the matter baby, can't you take it?'[30] Bryant said she freed herself, and Till said, 'You needn't be afraid of me, baby,'[30] used 'one "unprintable" word'[30] and said 'I've been with white women before.'[30]" This account has been disputed and should certainly not be trusted automatically for the reasons others have cited. But it seems beyond dispute that she ran out and grabbed a gun from her car. Given that this store was mainly patronized by African Americans, it is a dubious assumption that she did so randomly in response to one particular young black man who had done nothing out of the ordinary. In any case, it was her accusations of harassing and grabbing her that spurred all subsequent action, so those accusations are the most salient in a neutral article in that introductory position. To put "falsely" anything is to take an editorial position. We just don't know what he did, and even if it had been exactly what she claimed, it cannot in the 21st century be argued to justify a lynching anyway. SlackerInc1 (talk) 02:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit. Nobody accused Till of "harassing" Bryant, so you're engaging in impermissible original research by using the word. The "preponderance of evidence" shows, and has always shown, that Bryant lied in 1955. She finally acknowledged that ten years ago. Nothing that is based on her allegations and perjured testimony is "beyond dispute". You're wrong -- "falsely" is not an editorial position but an accurate description of the facts now known (even by white people) to be true. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 03:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Original research? It's not original research to use a word like "harass" to describe someone chasing a woman around, grabbing her twice, saying "what's the matter, baby? I've been with white women before". But even if it were, you say "Nobody accused Till of 'harassing' Bryant" even though the citation in this very article for what Bryant, in your words, "finally acknowledged that ten years ago" is from the Smithsonian article, which says "Bryant told Tyson that her claims that Till touched and harassed her were false and that she didn’t remember what had happened that evening." So although I didn't know one of the sources used the word "harass", and it shouldn't matter, they in fact did. In any case, you have not acknowledged some important points: (1) What Bryant accused Till of, however falsely, was much more serious than "flirting", which is not something one "accuses" another of as it is not a crime; (2) The 2006 FBI report (https://vault.fbi.gov/Emmett%20Till%20/Emmett%20Till%20Part%2001%20of%2002/view) says that multiple (presumably sympathetic) witnesses, local boys who accompanied Till to the store, acknowledge that they egged him on to talk to her before he went in, heard him whistle (at what is disputed by some), and then drove off in a panic afterward. So it is far from proven "false" that Till flirted with Bryant, and it in fact appears true by the preponderance of evidence. But again, flirting is not a crime, and she did accuse Till of grabbing and harassing her, so I'm changing it to "falsely accused of harassing and grabbing a white woman", and people can find the rest of the details of the disputed accounts of what exactly happened in the store in the section below.SlackerInc1 (talk) 13:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One more point I had intended to respond to but neglected to. You said "Nothing that is based on her allegations and perjured testimony is 'beyond dispute'." But the only thing I said is "beyond dispute" is that Bryant "ran out and grabbed a gun from her car". This was attested to by multiple witnesses, and I have seen no account from anyone that she did NOT do this. If you know of evidence that this part of the story IS disputed, you ought to add it to the appropriate section of the story and cite your source.SlackerInc1 (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say something supportive, SlackerInc1, but then the same individual who mauled and gagged me the last time would just do it again. 2604:2000:9046:800:E024:8CEC:F13:40F3 (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I think it is useful to include the info on the store being boycotted and their going bankrupt because the killers were acquitted locally. Other sources say the white community turned against them after they admitted to the killing in the Look article.Parkwells (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
(Insert)Agree -the insecure poor whites thought he had violated their mores and crossed a line in terms of his behavior to the young white woman; their lynching was extrajudicial punishment directed as terrorism to intimidate the entire black community - that was evident by the maliciousness and violence of the beating and mutilation before his death.Parkwells (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

Beyond the dictionary definition, which describes the mob actions of the most well-known lynchings around the turn of the 20th century, many scholars and civil rights groups have noted and documented the changing character of lynchings from the 1930s through the 1950s. The killers were trying to avoid exposure and did their work in secret, sometimes accomplished at night by a small group or a few men. In fact, the sheriff and mayor of LaGrange, Georgia received international coverage in January 2017 for their apologies at a reconciliation hearing for the failures of their offices to prevent the lynching of Austin Callaway in 1940, which was accomplished in the middle of the night by 6 men. They abducted Callaway from jail in the middle of the night and fatally shot him outside of town. Abduction of a person to another place where he is beaten and murdered, and his body is mutilated and hidden, does qualify Till's murder as a lynching. The outsize violence was part of the pattern of lynchings.Parkwells (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

References

  1. ^ http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/sumner-mississippi-restoring-courthouse-upgrading-square-in-effort-to-make-peace-with-infamous--e-ep-326295951.html
  2. ^ http://djournal.com/news/emmett-till-opening-the-doors-to-understanding/
  3. ^ http://www.etmctallahatchie.com/pages/resolution.htm
  4. ^ http://www.npr.org/2015/09/25/443205842/six-decades-later-acquittal-of-emmett-tills-killers-troubles-town
  5. ^ http://www.emmett-till.org/

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree. Gandydancer (talk) 02:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree. Please consult a dictionary if the meaning of the word "reportedly" is unclear. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 16:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
(Insert)MShabazz - I added a refutation of the "not a lynching" above - from the 1930s through the 1950s the number of big mob events had declined, but authorities, civil rights groups and academics have continued to define events that included armed abduction, mutilation and murder as lynchings. (regardless of the dictionary definition, which is limited.) As I noted above, in January 2017 the sheriff and mayor of LaGrange, GA apologized at a reconciliation hearing for the failure of their offices to have prevented the lynching of young Austin Callaway in 1940. He was abducted from jail by 6 men who took him outside town in the middle of the night and shot him several times, leaving him for dead. He was found and died the next day. The NY Times described the event as a lynching, no question. The outsize violence and mutilation of Till certainly makes this murder fit the lynching pattern.Parkwells (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because of discussions of Callaway's and similar cases, the NAACP in 1940 broadened its definition of lynching to include small groups of vigilantes.[1][2]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Alan, I think you're right on this one. Gandydancer (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Agree that this needs to go where it provides context against the information it contradicts. ResultingConstant (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - it needs to be with the section reporting so much about what Till purportedly said and did.Parkwells (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emmett Till lead sentence RFC

Involved close. almost 2 months of RFC Really obvious that A (no change) is not acceptable. Past that its a bit difficult to determine a consensus. Although WP:NOTAVOTE looking at the vote totals in instructive. 8 B, 23 C , 9 D. Personally I see D as a more extreme version of C. At this point I think it is clear that there is consensus against the status quo, There is consensus for "additional context", with perhaps a sub-consensus for a more extreme rewrite lead. At this point I am going to close this RFC, and suggest that IN TALK someone propose changes that can start as a basis for a collaborative rewrite of the lead. ResultingConstant (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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.

sources for updated information

And many more. Ultimately most of these are reporting from the book by Timothy Tyson "The Blood of Emmett Till" https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Emmett-Till-Timothy-Tyson/dp/1476714843

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • A - Magnolia677 (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
+1 for that! The sentence as written, as well as this very survey, seem to concede that a Black teenager flirting with a white woman is grounds for lynching the former. It's not. Period.184.145.42.19 (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with some of your conclusions, of course the main issue here is that the boy was brutally murdered and no one was ever convicted, but I'm UK and failing to tell me that the 'catalyst' for the murder was an accusation of inappropriate behaviour fails to deliver context. Let me be clear, even if Till had put one hand inside her blouse and tried to put the other up her dress (and nobody has even suggested anything like that), this would still be a brutal extra-judicial killing of someone who was barely adult, nothing could possibly justify what was done to him. However, failing to tell me what prompted the murder just leaves me puzzled. A few years later people were killed for starting voter registration initiatives. Knowing that one could be killed for encouraging people to exercise their legal rights tells me a lot, it doesn't justify the act. Knowing that Till could be killed for what is probably an extremely trivial violation of social-mores in that place in that time, serves to emphasise the brutality of the act, not justify it and knowing how a jury responded tells me a lot about how embedded those values were, or how frightened the jury was of being 'out of line'. Pincrete (talk) 13:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
And as I have observed the subsequent discussion, I want to add that A (no change) is something that I now find very objectionable, because the present language about "flirting" really does get it wrong. And I see no good reason for B (leave it out), because it is becoming clear to me that C: "after being falsely accused of flirting" is emerging as a preferable choice. (By the way, I appreciate the recent edit that changed "murdered" to "lynched", as that is clearly more precise.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • D (in the form suggested by ShanonFitzpatrick, change from initial vote for 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). Note that I voted for C in early February 2017 because at the time ResultingConstant was insisting that D was not viable, there were few participants, and C was the lesser of the evils. Note from my comments earlier in the talk page that I do not support including debunked "flirtation" or other forms of victim blaming in the lead (the current version of the first sentence does not have the word flirtation but is still is centered on the testimony of an admitted liar, Carolyn Bryant). In the intervening time, it is clear that many users in fact do support a more thorough and systematic revision of the lead even if though this poll was narrowly constructed to avoid that option. Tmerlis (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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) See below for my revised thoughts on this.[reply]
  • 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. [reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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) I would also support Parkwell's D, below. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • C context is good.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • C. Per the updated information/sources and in new context.CuriousMind01 (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • C, using Tryptofish's varient, "after being falsely accused of flirting". That the only known witness has now recanted is certainly relevant. - SummerPhDv2.0 21:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • D, but failing that: B -- the flirting accusations do not belong in this sentence, IMO. D is the preferred option, as the lead needs to be rewritten, as noted in the Threaded discussion below. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • C with the inclusion of "falsely accused", or failing that, B. It absolutely cannot be mentioned in the lead without language unambiguously making it clear that the accusation was false. Articles have to represent the most up-to-date information available, especially in the lead. Leaving it at just "reportedly" fails to capture the fact that the reality is now known for certain. (I would argue that this was already the case long, long before the recent interview, but it at least provides a good impetus to revisit the topic.) --Aquillion (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • B + C - the lead should summarise the article, and "flirting" is just one of the disputed accounts of what happened as discussed in detail in #Encounter between Till and Carolyn Bryant. Propose "was lynched in Mississippi at the age of 14 after he reportedly encountered a white woman at a store." . . . dave souza, talk 17:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • B or something closer to D (I think, but the choices are unclear) I agree with almost everything said by Alanscottwalker, that the big issue isn't whether he was/was not flirting (which isn't usually punishable by the extra-judicial killing of a 14-year old!), the issue is that he was murdered and no one was punished. Where I disagree with AlanSW is that I see no harm in including "after being accused of XYZ" per Tryptofish's first suggestion, since this is the motivation of the murder and a significant part of the narrative. I would point out that her later admission that she lied is not a retraction of the 'flirting' accusation, it merely states that the details are lies or exaggerations (ie he did not really boast of his experience with white girls or say specific indecencies nor attempt to put his arm around her). 'Flirting' is subjective (unlike saying or doing specific things), it is possible, even probable that Till said or did things which she (and the murderers) thought were 'cheeky' or inappropriate for a black 14-year old boy to say or do to a married, adult white woman (if he had said "that's a pretty dress Mrs Bryant", they might have thought it inappropriate, if he had smiled in the 'wrong way', ditto, who knows how tiny the real cause of offence was). Therefore a 'flirting accusation' cannot be 'true' or 'false', her specific claims might be, but not the general impression, which is subjective and 'culture-specific'. Perhaps 'flirting' would be better as "after being falsely accused of making sexual advances", which does seem to be verifiably untrue. Regardless, the 'shop' incident is merely part of the narrative, which, whatever actually happened there, is a bit of a smokescreen, the boy was cruelly murdered because he may or may not have offended a young white woman in a way that was probably very trivial. Pincrete (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)(modified)Pincrete (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • C Summoned by bot, but with less weight given to the "flirting" stuff, which is obviously not a reason to torture and kill someone. In other words, simply state the facts, saying that "flirting" was given as a reason and that this has been disputed by the woman involved. Coretheapple (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly C Wikipedia reflects current knowledge, as it is reflected in the available sources. What we currently know about the affair should be included in the article. The specific information, i.e. about Till's guilt, is evidently of such importance that the information should be in the lede. Therefore, the relevant sentence should read in something like the following manner:

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 he was falsely reported as flirting with a white woman..

Proposed additional wording in italics. - The Gnome (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that "reported" is the wrong word. It's not like what happened was a "report". I much prefer "after being falsely accused of flirting", and it sounds like quite a few other editors agree with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. You are correct. -The Gnome (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • C, specifically with the "falsely accused" wording. --DavidK93 (talk) 07:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • D, or modified C. I know the RFC offered us three choices, but let's think about this more. I also know the shorthand for how Till's lynching has been described historically, but let's step back. Let's use the Lede to immediately give more context. The fact that he was an outsider, at a time when conservative southerners felt under attack by the North, played into his lynching, too. The whites used him as an example to show they weren't going to be pushed around. The year before was the Brown v. Board of Education ruling by the US Supreme Court, which leaders of the white South had vowed across most classes to resist. So consider:

<<Emmett Till was a 14-yr-old African-American visitor from Chicago who was lynched in 1955 in a small Mississippi Delta town by poor white men who thought he had violated their Jim Crow customs. Two armed men abducted the teenager from the home of his great uncle, and brutally beat and mutilated him before fatally shooting him, and throwing him in the river. The outsized punishment was intended as a warning to all blacks. The two men were acquitted of murder that year by an all-white jury. The case galvanized outrage in the country and Till became an icon of the Civil Rights Movement. In 2017 a writer revealed that the white woman who had originally claimed to have been insulted, recanted her testimony in a 2008 interview.>> I'm not saying that we have to write all this - but that the Lede should convey more of these facts, than just "he was lynched because he flirted."Parkwells (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • D per Parkwells, or some similar rewrite that puts Till, his lynching, and the reaction to it in context in the first paragraph. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • C This seems like a no brainer to me and I don't think we need to make a big deal about it (the edit). Just adjust the wording to reflect the newly revealed information. Keep it short and to the point. Remember this is the lead which is for brief summaries of the most important points about the subject. The details can be filled in below. It looks like there is a strong consensus for this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • D Agree with Parkwells and ShanonFitzpatrick. --John, AF4JM (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • C The new information should definitely be added to the lede. "Reportedly flirted" is still true, because it was reported that it happened because of the flirting, it just happened that the reported claims are now proven to be BS. More context is definitely needed. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • D, but failing that: B -- "Flirting" does not belong at all. Flirting is not a crime to be "accused" of. As for "falsely", it's not at all clear Till didn't try to flirt with her. (To say Till was lynched because he was "falsely accused of flirting" implies that it would have been justified to lynch him had this claim not been false!) And she did in any event accuse him of something more serious: grabbing her without consent, which other witnesses denied and which accusation a historian has said she recanted in 2007. SlackerInc1 (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • B per Alanscottwalker, and perhaps per basic decency. It doesn't seem terribly important what supposed infraction the victim was alleged to have committed—certainly not important enough to go in the lead sentence. In some small way, it could even be seen to lend legitimacy to the murderers' actions and the culture that encouraged them for us to place this information, however carefully worded, so prominently in the article. There were all manner of accusations that led to people being lynched in the American South, and it seems wrong to be so fixated on the specific pretext these particular asswipes decided to employ. D might be a reasonable second choice because it provides useful context, but this context really should come after the lead sentence. Also, the word "poor" in the phrase "poor white men" in D is potentially ambiguous and largely beside the point. RivertorchFIREWATER 14:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
(Insert) Parkwells (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)I agree with ShanonFitzpatrick that another solution needs to be considered. I think we can get more into the first paragraph of the Lede by rewriting it. I suggested one approach in "D" above.[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Alanscottwalker, I concur with what you say about 'flirting' being imprecise and problematic. As I understand matters, the retraction by her is a retraction of the testimony she offered in court (ie no boasting about experience with white girls, no attempting to put his arm around her). As I understand matters, we are no closer to understanding a) what she says happened in the store b) what she accused Emmett of in the store c) what she later told her husband and the other murderer had happened. The false accusation is therefore in court AFA we know. Something happened in the store and we don't know what (except guessing that it was probably extremely trivial, but sufficient to enrage the whites involved). I'm not of course saying this in any way to justify the murder, because nothing possibly could. The story is a brutal murder, something Emmett said or did, or which they believed he had said or done, was the catalyst and gives context, not justification. Pincrete (talk) 11:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pincrete, I agree with your take most of those I've seen here. She said in 2007 that she specifically retracted claims that Till harassed and repeatedly grabbed her. Framing it as being about a "false accusation" of "flirting" both implies that "flirting" is a crime to be accused of and that it would somehow even partly justify the lynching if it were true that he tried to flirt with her. Furthermore, taking the line that this all happened after these boys came in and quietly bought a candy bar (or whatever it was) may make it appear to some like something is being swept under the rug, which is the last thing anyone educating the public about civil rights subjects should want. No one that I have seen has disputed that the boys left the area in a panic (even relocating to different homes in some cases), or that Bryant went out to her car to grab a gun. It strains believability to the breaking point to claim that these things happened despite nothing out of the ordinary (for the Jim Crow South) happening in the store, especially when the 2006 FBI report says the local boys who went to the store with Till urged him to go "talk to the white lady" after they say he bragged of having a white girlfriend (they must feel bad about having egged him on that way, given that he didn't know how things worked down South--even though the actual guilt obviously lies with those who kidnapped, tortured, and murdered Till).SlackerInc1 (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that being falsely accused of harassing and grabbing is qualitatively different from being falsely accused of flirting, although there certainly is a sort of quantitative difference, a difference in degree of severity. But either way, it's false. Getting the perspective of the accusers right does not seem to me to be the primary consideration here. So going into more detail about something that is false anyway, in order to make the accusations appear more logical, strikes me as a bad editorial choice. On the other hand, avoiding presenting Till in an unsympathetic light does seem appropriate to me. Given that the emphasis, especially in the lead, should be on Till's importance as a civil rights figure, and not on a forensic analysis of the false accusations, I don't see much to be gained by trying to spell out the accusations further. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tryptofish, point taken about wanting to avoid "a forensic analysis of the false accusations". So I'm not wedded to keeping anything about "harassing and grabbing". However, "falsely accused of flirting" is just terrible. (1) Flirting is not a crime to be "accused" of! (2) The preponderance of the evidence indicates that he most likely DID flirt with her. As he should have had every right to do. (3) The "recanting" described by historian Timothy Tyson is referenced in many articles, but there are only two direct quotes ascribed to Carolyn Bryant: "That part's not true" and "Nothing that boy did could ever justify what happened to him". So *what* part is not true? We are never given the statement of Tyson's she is responding to. Every source that quotes her, supplies their own supposition as to what is "not true", but it seems blatantly obvious to me they are speculating or making assumptions. She didn't say "What I said wasn't true", she said "that part's not true". Without knowing what "that part" is, it's wishful thinking to just apply it to everything she said. The second quote, "Nothing that boy did could ever justify what happened to him", tells us that she understands that his kidnapping/torture/murder was a vast overreaction to *something* he did. It does not say he did nothing out of the ordinary for Jim Crow custom of the time, and it in fact implies the opposite. So I'm open to suggestions, but again: "falsely accused of flirting" is getting way out over our skis. Maybe you could just end the sentence "...was lynched at the age of 14." Then people can find the details down below.SlackerInc1 (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come off it already. Go to the library and borrow a copy of the book, or spring for a copy, and read what Carolyn Bryant Donham told Tyson, not what a magazine writer says she told him (which has been mostly wrong, beginning with the date of the interview).
"As I sat drinking her coffee and eating her pound cake, Carolyn Bryant Donham handed me a copy of the trial transcript and the manuscript of her unpublished memoir, More Than a Wolf Whistle: The Story of Carolyn Bryant Donham. I promised to deliver our interview and these documents to the appropriate archive, where future scholars would be able to use them. In her memoir she recounts the story she told at the trial using imagery from the classic Southern racist horror movie of the 'Black Beast' rapist. [footnote describing archive omitted] But about her testimony that Till had grabbed her around the waist and uttered obscenities, she now told me, 'That part's not true.'" (page 6) — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Malik Shabazz that there isn't much point in parsing the falsity aspect of it. And it seems to me to be pretty obvious that a person can accuse another person of something other than a legally-defined crime (for example, someone could hypothetically accuse me of being a lousy editor, and that could certainly be accurately described as an accusation). So what we are left with is whether there is a better choice of verb than "to flirt". I'm trying to think what that might be. Perhaps it could be something like "falsely accused of making sexual advances to", and I guess I could go along with something like that, but I'm not seeing a compelling need for lengthier language. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Malik Shabazz's quoting of the book is very helpful and much appreciated. I'm still seeing my "falsely accused of grabbing and harassing" language as being fitting; but as I've said before, I'm not wedded to it. I do however think it's more precise and accurate than "making sexual advances to". But "making sexual advances to" is still better than "flirting", for all the aforementioned reasons. I also continue to believe it would be fine to just end it with "...was lynched at the age of 14." I'm having trouble understanding why so many people (or anyone, really) would consider "falsely accused of flirting" to be their hill to die on. SlackerInc1 (talk) 07:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Alanscottwalker I was merely responding to your "everyone knew all along" comment, not pushing for anything in the article. Per my !vote (and creation of this RFC) I think the "flirting" should either be removed from the lead sentence, or at a minimum put into the context with the new information. Regarding your quoted description above, in general I think we should avoid euphamism/analysis, and wherever the "encounter" is mentioned, directly quote what was said to have been done, and of course the new refutation. ResultingConstant (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. You were responding to Gandydancer. If 'flirt' is euphemism, it should not be in the first sentence, at all.Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not act as if whites rationally apportioned punishment for violation of their social codes. It was arbitrary, and the very unpredictability was a way of keeping power over African Americans. Every insult did not result in a person being lynched.Parkwells (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 [3] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 editor is willing to give up. Why? 192.222.197.155 (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)192.222.197.155 (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Flirting is being discussed in the RfC, so please let the process work that one out. Racism and lynching come up later in the lead, so they are not being overlooked. It's worth considering not making the first paragraph too wordy. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about something more like:" Emmett Louis Till (July 25, 1941 – August 28, 1955) was an African-American teenager from Chicago who was lynched at the age of 14 in a small Mississippi Delta town by two white men who thought he had crossed their Jim Crow code. They were acquitted of murder by an all-white jury. The brutality of the murder galvanized outrage in the country and Till posthumously became an icon of the Civil Rights Movement. In 2017 a writer revealed that the white woman who had originally claimed to have been insulted, recanted her testimony in a 2008 interview."Parkwells (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Editors should make sure they read Huie's 1956 article (I put link on the article page) in which the killers talk of what they did; they complain about Till, but you get the feeling his actions had little to do with what happened. They more or less say they were going to punish him as an outsider and show they couldn't be pushed around.Parkwells (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Jason M. McGraw, "Defining Lynching in Order to End It: The Lynching of Austin Callaway and How It Shaped the Debate on How to End Lynching", Northeastern University School of Law 2015, Civil Rights and Restorative Justice Clinic; accessed 31 January 2017
  2. ^ Christopher Waldrep, "War of Words: The Controversy over the Definition of Lynching, 1899-1940," Journal of Southern History (February 2000), Vol. 66, No. 1, 98
  3. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/10/us/history-of-lynchings-in-the-south-documents-nearly-4000-names.html?_r=0
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)[reply]

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

Icon

Do you think a better way of describing Till would be as a martyr instead of as an icon? Drgood13 (talk) 03:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC) User:Drgood13[reply]

Not really. Icon is much more neutral, and many more sources describe him as an icon than a martyr. ResultingConstant (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rosa Parks

Should the brief mention of the connection between Till and Parks be highlighted more? Drgood13 (talk) 03:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC) User:Drgood13[reply]

Probably not. Per WP:WEIGHT we should be covering detail in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources. Parks and Till have both had thousands of pages written about them individually, but very little covers the intersection of them. ResultingConstant (talk) 04:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"After reportedly sexually assaulting..."

Does "After reportedly sexually assaulting..." belong in the very first sentence? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, absolutely not. But there is an RfC about that, just above. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence being discussed at the RfC is as follows:
  • 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.
It says nothing about assaulting. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you are definitely correct about that, sorry I missed it. Yes, that's appalling, and I just changed it back. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2017

I believe the article is in error when it states "Emmett Till was falsely accused of flirting " the article does not confirm this by the proofs it gives.It should read "Emmett Till was accused of flirting" this would neither assume guilt or innocence of flirting.In any case a heinous crime was perpetrated on Emmett Till irregardless. Thank you Darryl raposo 108.198.64.21 (talk) 00:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Relevant discussion is ongoing elsewhere on this talk page. RivertorchFIREWATER 17:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed name change to artilce

I propose to change this article to "Murder of Emmett Till". The subject of this article is only notable due to his murder and the timing of his murder during the mounting Civil Rights Movement. Other articles based on notable murders use this form of title. If this murder had happened now, then this proposed title would most likely have been used. A Wikipedia essay called Wikipedia:"Murder of" articles may be helpful in this discussion.

Relevant past discussions:

Mitchumch (talk) 07:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. There are reasonable arguments on both sides of this question. I would note that other exceptions to this form remain (and each of those may deserve to be revisited individually) but in this case the scope of the article clearly does not turn on an event (the murder itself) but rather has a much broader focus. Of the first ten sections (i.e., before "See also"), seven deal with aftermath and legacy. RivertorchFIREWATER 16:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could go either way on this, but I lean somewhat to the view that there is enough content about the person, separately from the event, to support keeping it as a biography. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak support. Almost everything written about Till is in the context of his murder. Certainly much more is written (in the real world) regarding the event rather than the person, and our article content mirrors this weight. The title probably should too. If this were a new article, there is no question it would follow WP:BLP1E and WP:EVENT, but since this is a historical article, and the person has become a martyr/symbol for the civil rights movement, there is a reasonable argument to the contrary. ResultingConstant (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose I think that Rivertorch said it very well. While it is true that "other articles based on notable murders use this form of title", the murder and the following events became a national event in which "Till posthumously became an icon of the Civil Rights Movement." Gandydancer (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't see a better title for Emmit Till, the boy, and Emmit Till, the "icon". The article is on his life, his death, and what meaning sources have taken from those for decades. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Falsely accused" aspect mentioned in the "Encounter between Till and Carolyn Bryant" section

As currently seen in the "Encounter between Till and Carolyn Bryant" section, an editor added the following: "According to historian Timothy Tyson, Bryant admitted in a 2008 interview that substantial parts of her testimony were false." But this is already covered in a subsection of the "Later events" section. Having it in both sections is overkill. Not to mention..."falsely accused" is already in the first sentence of the lead.

I was aware of the recent RfC regarding "falsely accused," but I didn't feel like commenting on it at the time. If I had, I would have leaned toward the side of not having too much WP:Recentism on this matter...although I would have supported the confession being somewhere in the lead (and a section on it lower; obviously, the article should mention it somewhere in the lead and have a section on it). I would have also noted that all we have for this false accusation aspect is Timothy Tyson's word. I'm not stating that he is lying. For years, it was highly suspected that Emmet Till never flirted with the woman. But I am wary of going on one historian's word that another admitted to lying. If we know the admission to be fact, we should not need "According to." See WP:In-text attribution.

And another thing: The lead says "falsely accused of flirting with a white woman." In the subsection of the "Later events" section, it states "she said with respect to the physical assault on her, or anything menacing or sexual, that that part isn't true." Flirting is not always sexual. So is her confession referring to flirting with her, grabbing her and being sexual with her? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your first paragraph issue was already discussed above. It's important context to have the recantation mentioned when the trial testimony is discussed in detail. Please refer to the fuller comments in the section above the RfC on "testimony". (And as to another issue you raised, it is stated as "according to" and it is one sentence in that section). As for your last paragraph, the first paragraph lead is different from how I !Voted in the RfC -- among other things, I think the use of "flirted" is euphemism (or imprecise), so should not be there, so I can't help you with that, other than to note many people went the other way. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not important to have that bit there for context, when the context is already in the lead and already has a full section devoted to it. It is unneeded and redundant in the "Encounter between Till and Carolyn Bryant" section. And as for "according to" being used there, that wording hardly matters when the lead currently straight up states "falsely accused." The close of the RfC did not conclude with any particular wording. It's stated there that consensus was for a change. And the change currently in the article, for the lead, is "falsely accused." And "flirting with a white woman" is the wording numerous sources use; so I don't mind that part. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, it's important to to discuss the testimony when we discuss the testimony - and the testimony is discussed there in that section. Your pointing to multiple screens away in the lead and at the end of the article (where additional information is provided) is not putting it in context, it's taking it out of context, explicitly so, for anyone reading the section on the testimony. As for your other issues, the RfC closed, and suggested the way forward was proposals, so why have you not made a proposal? Option D from the RfC might give you a start on your proposal. As for "flirted", your OP seemed to complain that "falsely accused of flirting" is inaccurate or unclear because that was not the clear recantation of what he did.Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not important in that section whatsoever. It's overkill, and I've made my case for why. We clearly won't be agreeing on that, but I argue that readers are not going to miss "falsely accused" in the lead, and they probably won't miss the specific mention of the matter in the lead either. They certainly are not going to miss the "Admission that testimony against Till was false" heading that is clear as day in the table of contents. Removing the aforementioned text from the "Encounter between Till and Carolyn Bryant" section is not taking anything out of context. Anyone reading that section without that bit there would be reading it within the context of that time frame, and would get the reported confession on the matter afterward. The reported confession is not a direct aspect of the testimony. As for proposing text, nah; I can see that this matter is too contentious and that "falsely accused" is likely to be re-added to the first sentence even if removed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "encounter between Till and Carolyn" is precisely the subject of the recantation and recantation of the testimony is a direct aspect of the testimony. We are writing about this and providing factual information in 2017. This is not a short story, where we pretend we don't know what is going on. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't agree that the content is needed in that section, or that it's a direct aspect. If I start to see it in history books, then maybe I will change my mind on that. There is no pretending that "we don't know what is going on"; I've already stated why. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The entire section on the "encounter between Till and Carolyn" is based on the fact, that the facts of the encounter are in dispute: "The facts of what took place in the store are still disputed." Neutral discussion of the factual dispute, 'Carolyn said one thing happened, and then later, it is reported, said no, that's not what happened' is NPOV. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Like I stated, we won't be agreeing. And our WP:NPOV policy is about weight; it is not about artificial or subjective balance. The "According to historian Timothy Tyson" aspect has enough weight in the lead and in its own section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing artificial or subjective about 'she said this happened, and she said this did not happen'. Those are facts. But 'she said this happened' but you don't want to say 'she also said this did not happen' in the section dedicated to what happened is the opposite of NPOV, it is skewing the evidence concerning what happened. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is subjective, and an example of artificial balance, to have that piece in that spot. It is completely unnecessary and poor article structure. I will continue to maintain that this piece, which is not even Bryant's words but rather an "According to" mention, does not belong there. I will not be changing my mind on that. So us repeating our views on it is futile. If there was not a whole section dedicated to this aspect -- a section that readers can easily spot -- I would feel differently. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To the contrary, your argument seeks to subjectively and artificially separate the accounting of her statements on what happened creating a false balance in the section dedicated to what happened, and the questions about what happened. Your poor article structure claim is just stressing the basis for your argument is pushing subjectivity and artificiality in the POV service of not giving the reader all the evidence, when the evidence is introduced. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And you can keep repeating that, and engage in WP:Recentism at every part of the article where the update is not needed; I won't be agreeing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The section contains Carolyn's statements about what happened in the store and Simeon Wright's statements about what happened in the store, so not being up front about all Carolyn's statements is unjustifiable, and can only be justified by POV pushing. And there is nothing recent about doubts concerning Carolyn's story, so the documenting of additional basis for that is not about recentism, at all, it is about the facts. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alanscottwalker, doubts about a story is one thing. One (ONE) historian claiming that Bryant stated something, and then peppering that claim throughout the article (in the lead, in the aforementioned section and its own section, and maybe eventually elsewhere in the article) is indeed WP:UNDUE and WP:Recentism. I'm clearly not the only one who has argued this. If it's just in the lead and its own section, then it's not WP:UNDUE. I don't have any POV issue when it comes to Bryant or Till. It's not like I'm some white supremacist or similar. I do, however, have an issue with going on the lone word of what one historian stated, with no proof offered (I'm skeptical and wary like that, and I know that a number of historians have falsified matters in the past); that lone historian's word was recently reported. And because of this and everybody rejoicing over what he stated, editors let this article fall prey to WP:Recentism. For example, "flirting" means different things to different people. A person not making any sexual or physical advances on someone does not mean that the person did not flirt. More than once, boys and men have innocently flirted with me. I state "innocently" because I didn't find the comments sexual. By contrast, comments I've received from other boys (in this case, teenage boys) and men is what I would term sexual harassment. I'm not stating that Till innocently flirted with Bryant (back then, a black boy or black man even innocently flirting with a white woman was enough to get him hanged), but, given that scholarly sources use the phrasing "flirted with" for this case and the historian states that Bryant said "with respect to the physical assault on her, or anything menacing or sexual, that that part isn't true," it would be good to know if Bryant considered that Till innocently flirted with her. It would be good to know what "flirting" means in the context of the scholarly sources vs. the historian claim as to what Bryant stated.
Yes, you included "According to." But what is the point of "According to" when the first sentence of the lead currently states "falsely accused"? How can editors have the WP:Lead sentence state that Till was falsely accused, and then have the "Encounter between Till and Carolyn Bryant" section state "According to"? This is the type of sloppy writing I am talking about, and on a WP:GA no less. He either was falsely accused, or he wasn't. Or we're not sure. It's either simply a claim by a historian or it's a fact. To state that it is POV-pushing to not have this lone historian's claim in the section about the Bryant and Till encounter, when the lead currently states "falsely accused," additionally includes the lone historian's clam, and when there is an entire section dedicated to that lone historian's claim, is mostly lost on me. At present, with or without that piece in the "Encounter between Till and Carolyn Bryant" section, no reader is going to walk away from this article thinking that Bryant was correct. So your POV-pushing argument is invalid.
From what I see, the article needs some reorganization and not just with regard to including the historian piece in the "Encounter between Till and Carolyn Bryant" section. The "Bryant testified during the murder trial" paragraph should not even be in that section. It should be in the Trial section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, get a consensus to reorganize the whole thing, but the current article contains a section of detailed recitation of everything that is said about what happened in the store - there just is no getting around that what Carolyn said in 2008 is about what happened in the store, whether you want to believe that historian or not. Carolyn did testify during the trial about what happened in the store but her testimony was not actually offered in the trial to the jury because the judge excluded it - it was however widely reported.
As for the lead, I have said I am all for being open to changing it, you just have to make a proposal.--Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to agree to disagree on including the piece in that section, but I see your point about not including the Bryant testimony in the Trial section. Above, I see that you, Markbassett, Pincrete, SlackerInc1 and Tryptofish have also discussed whether or not to use "flirted with." Again, the issue in this respect is that the words "flirted with" are used by scholarly sources...but the historian claim uses different wording. This makes it confusing when it comes to what we should use, as, like both you and I noted, "flirting" can be a broad term. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to the ping, I'm very receptive to finding a less euphemistic alternative for "flirting", but I have trouble thinking of an alternative that does not end up sounding disparaging about Till. I don't have a problem with it being in the "Encounter" section in addition to elsewhere on the page, because it is directly relevant to the encounter. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to the lead paragraph, I'm also having an issue with the inconsistency. Why are we framing the lead sentence as a fact matter with "falsely accused," but are then leaving it as an "According to" matter later on? "According to" specifically lends doubt to the claim; see WP:In-text attribution. I think that because more sources use "flirted with" than the words reported by Tyson, and because "flirted with" is historical wording regarding the case, we should retain that. My solution would not have been to add "falsely accused," though, since Till was not savagely murdered by the men with the knowledge that he was falsely accused and since we do not know if Bryant did consider Till to be flirting with her. Tyson's reported words speak nothing of flirting; they seem to focus on sexual harassment. So, in that respect only (disregarding any possible POV-pushing motive), I understand why SlackerInc1 made this edit. I would have opted to retain "flirted with" without "falsely accused," and then included the following in the lead paragraph as well: "In a 2008 interview, first made public in 2017, Carolyn Bryant disclosed that she had fabricated her testimony that Till had made verbal or physical advances towards her." Or something like that. Right now, that piece is buried in the fifth paragraph. The lead currently has six paragraphs. Wikipedia articles usually only have four, per WP:Lead. I don't see how including that sentence in the lead paragraph is any more recentism than "falsely accused." I understand why "falsely accused" is there, though: People feel that Bryant lied about everything, and this also means that Till never flirted with her. The older sources are also likely using "flirted with" to mean sexual advancements. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What to call what allegedly happened in the grocery, and what actually happened there

In the preceding section, several editors are discussing whether the use of the word "flirting" is an appropriate shorthand for describing what allegedly happened in the grocery. The nature of Carolyn Bryant's accusation against Till has never been entirely public, because news reporters in 1955 printed what they thought was appropriate, not necessarily what happened in court, and because the trial transcript disappeared for 50 years. (A copy surfaced briefly in the early 1960s but it was destroyed in a house flood.) It was never seen again until the early 21st century, when the FBI found "a copy of a copy of a copy" in a private home. It took weeks to transcribe and was not released to the public until 2007. As Timothy Tyson says, it "allows us to compare the later recollections of witnesses and defendants with what they said fifty years earlier."

In her testimony, which, I will repeat, virtually everybody present knew was exaggerated or untrue, Carolyn Bryant said that Till had grabbed her hand forcefully, and let go only when she pulled it away. She said he asked her for a date, chased her down the counter, blocked her path, and grabbed her waist with both hands. She testified that he said "You needn't be afraid of me. [I've], well, ---- with white women before." (According to the transcript, she refused to say exactly what Till had said or even indicate what letter of the alphabet the word started with.) She said she was finally able to break free from his grasp, with great difficulty. Then, she said, "this other nigger came in from the store and got him by the arm. And he told him to come on and let's go. He had him by the arm and led him out." She bizarrely added that on the way out of the store, Till stopped in the doorway, "turned around and said 'Goodbye.'"

Is that flirting? Is that assault? What is it, beside an improbable pack of lies that any person not drunk on white supremacy would laugh at?

In 2008, Carolyn Bryant handed a copy of the trial transcript and her memoirs to Tyson (he doesn't say whether it was a 1950s original version of the transcript or a 21st century version). He told her he would deposit them in a historical archive. He wrote, "about her testimony that Till had grabbed her around the waist and uttered obscenities, she now told me, 'That part's not true.'"

"I struggled to phrase my next question. If that part was not true, I asked, what did happen that evening decades ago?"

"'I want to tell you,' she said. 'Honestly, I just don't remember. It was fifty years ago. You tell these stories for so long that they seem true, but that part is not true.'"

Tyson says that he later received a copy of Carolyn Bryant's lawyer's notes from his first interview with her, after her husband and his half-brother had been arrested in 1955 for Till's murder. In what Tyson describes as the "earliest recorded version of events", Carolyn Bryant said only that Till had "insulted" her, not that he had grabbed her, and certainly not that he had tried to rape her. As he puts it, "The documents prove that there was a time when she did seem to know what had happened, and a time soon afterward when she became the mouthpiece of a monstrous lie."

Although she couldn't remember in 2008 what had actually happened in 1955, she was adamant that "Nothing that boy did could ever justify what happened to him."

So what allegedly happened in the grocery, and by what shorthand should we describe it, and what actually happened there? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that your summary does a very good job of clarifying what we are trying to figure out here, thanks. After re-reading it, my answers to your questions are as follows. As for what allegedly happened, it was more than one thing, but for our shorthand, maybe we should change the euphemistic after being falsely accused of flirting with a white woman in the lead to after being falsely accused of inviting a white woman to have sex with him. It seems to me that this is a plain statement of what the false testimony really boiled down to. And as for what actually happened, we don't have a reliable source for that, but we know that it was considerably less than what the allegations were. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Detail, but the 'falsehood' is invented later, after Emmett was dead. What we have at the time is unknown still. Pincrete (talk) 09:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
However it is described, it should be moved out of the lead sentence, it is neither necessary to highlight in the lead sentence nor uncomplicated enough to write about it there. Besides if we really want in the lead sentence some phrase on why the killers killed him, we should look to something from the Look magazine article where they admitted the killing, the reason seems to have been Till's defiance when he was with the killers and 'teaching a lesson' to all "niggers".[4]
But, I suggest this is what is important for the lead sentence: "Emmett Louis Till (July 25, 1941 – August 28, 1955) was an African-American teenager, lynched in Mississippi at the age of 14, whose murder became a defining moment in the Civil Rights movement." Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly object to "after being falsely accused of inviting a white woman to have sex with him." Keep in mind that we are merely Wikipedia editors and it is not our place to use phrasing that I have yet to see used in any other online report of the murder. Using the word "flirting" has been problematic for years and I wish there was something better, but it seems to me that we are stuck with it... (Don't misunderstand my use of the term "merely" - I have a great deal of admiration and respect for many, many of our editors... :) ) Gandydancer (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean it in bad faith, of course. Just responding to the question as asked. But I think that what Alanscottwalker said is the best idea of all: just delete the whole thing! For the lead, we can just say that he was lynched, and it's just not that important to say why. After all, there is no such thing as a "good" reason for a lynching. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. Great suggestion IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with general drift of losing problematic 'flirting' , but this is not 'lynching' as that term is generally understood (mob killing), therefore suggest 'murdered' or use of 'method of killing'. Pincrete (talk) 08:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This was recently discussed. See above. Gandydancer (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what your understanding of "generally understood" is, but a lynching, by definition, is an illegal extrajudicial punishment by an informal group -- and Till's murder is cited as a prototypic example of a lynching in virtually all civil rights literature (and general historic literature as well). Having said that, "murder" is probably a better descriptor for the purposes of this article. I would also suggest adding in lede that Carolyn Bryant was white, since that was his alleged "crime" - talking to a white woman. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All the dictionaries I could see and WP describe lynching as an extra-judicial killing by a mob, which was also my understanding in UK. I noticed after leaving my comment that some sources appear to use the term 'lynching' in this case, I am happy to defer to US editors on this one. Pincrete (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to define how many persons constitute a "mob". I think there is no question here that more than one individual participated in the killing. I'd be inclined to change it back to "lynched". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The current lead is worse. I completely disagree with removing why he was murdered out of the lead sentence as this is a key aspect of the topic and the current lead paragraph causes readers to wonder why he was murdered. That is not how a good WP:Lead sentence is written. Including why he was murdered in the lead sentence is not blaming the victim, any more than it is blaming the victim when it is included in the lead sentence or lead paragraph of scholarly sources. The current lead paragraph teases the reader and the reader does not find out why Till was murdered. It is not until the fifth paragraph of the lead that "verbal or physical advances towards her" is even mentioned. I see we are going to need another RfC. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And Alanscottwalker Tryptofish should self-revert that suggestion. It is supposed to be a suggestion, after all. I see no consensus above for the change. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for how to word the lead sentence: I suggest using what is already used; instead of "flirting with" (although that is the historical wording and is still widely used today), I suggest using "after being falsely accused of making verbal or physical advances towards a white woman" or "after allegedly making verbal or physical advances towards a white woman." No matter how you look at it, the core of the story is that Till was murdered because he was accused of showing a romantic interest in a white woman. And this core aspect of the story should be in the lead sentence. Even the wording "after being falsely accused of showing a romantic interest in a white woman" or "after allegedly showing a romantic interest in a white woman" would work. And I don't see why we are removing "murdered" and replacing it with "lynched." How he was murdered should be saved for later in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this suggestion; I think "murdered" is a better initial descriptor, as I've already said, and the reader should learn immediately why he was murdered; that's Journalism 101. Any of the above lead-sentence alternatives would provide an accurate (and encyclopedic) initial summation. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 01:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer, as always you make a lot of sense. But I really do hate the wording, "after being falsely accused of flirting with a white woman" and I'm glad to see it gone since we really don't know what Till said to her, or did to her. If he actually grabbed at her (which I don't believe), that's beyond flirting. But if he just said, "Hey baby, how about a date" that would be "flirting" and it would not be correct to say he was "falsely accused" of flirting. Plus, I'd make a pretty good guess that he was actually murdered for being uppity to white folk as much as anything else. I'm still in favor of leaving any reason out of the first sentence. Gandydancer (talk) 07:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Gandydancer, but I'm going with WP:Due weight on this one, as well as the WP:Lead guideline. So I stand by my proposed wordings. I don't view leaving this core aspect out of the lead sentence as a valid option. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer22 Reborn, apologies if I'm repeating myself, but Till wasn't 'falsely accused' of anything in the shop. The 'false accusations' (attempted grabbing and being verbally suggestive), are first heard in the court. Whatever accusations were made by her in the shop are neither false nor true, since we don't know what they were, though they were probably of being (in her eyes), sexually inappropriate. Pincrete (talk) 08:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with Flyer 22 Reborn's various points: 1) That is not why he was murdered. He was murdered because he talked back to the killers when he was with the killers and to teach all "niggers" a lesson. [5] 2) WP:LEAD specifically says don't overload the first sentence, and it stresses we are not writing journalism, trying to overload the lead sentence is poor lead sentence writing. 3) Pincrete is right, and "romantic interest in a white woman" appears to be original research, especially when put together with "false". 4) The lead paragraph does use the word murder, as well as lynched. 5) He was shot is how he was murdered -- rather, lynched is a commonly used descriptor of the circumstance of his murder, not how.
However, it would be fine to move up the "verbal or physical advances towards her" sentence higher in the lead section, but it is not core to the lead sentence. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We can change the second paragraph of the lead to: Till was from Argo, Illinois,[1] near Chicago, and was visiting relatives in Money, a small town in the Mississippi Delta region. He spoke to 21-year-old Carolyn Bryant, the white, married proprietor of a small grocery store there. The details of their encounter is a matter of some dispute but in a 2008 interview, Bryant said, "[n]othing that boy did could ever justify what happened to him", and she disclosed that she had fabricated testimony that Till had made verbal or physical advances towards her.[3][4] Several nights later, Bryant's husband Roy and his half-brother J. W. Milam went armed to Till's great-uncle's house and abducted the boy. They took him away and beat and mutilated him before fatally shooting him and sinking his body in the Tallahatchie River. Three days later, Till's body was discovered and retrieved from the river. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alanscottwalker, I hate to say it but Emmett 'talking back' at the time of the murder is the murderers' later account and is likely to be self-justifying (we only meant to frighten him a bit), it would actually take a very brave person indeed to continue to 'talk back' under that level of violence. Having said that, I think moving up the account of the store incident and murder as suggested by you would be an improvement. Pincrete (talk) 11:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. But, yes. It is their account of why they killed him and as as far as is known the only accounting of why they killed him from the only people who could begin to know, which means we can't say they unequivocally killed him for something earlier. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While the current version might not be perfect for my taste, it is a far sight better than what it was before. So I generally disagree with Flyer22 Reborn in this dispute, and agree with Alanscottwalker and others. This is the first time I've participated in one of these dispute resolution deals on Wikipedia, and I'm pleasantly impressed by how it turned out. SlackerInc1 (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well Slacker the fat lady hasn't sung yet :), but it's always so good to work with a crew that is so reasonable and in control of their ego. I wish to god it was always like this all the time... Most of us know and respect each other, so that helps a lot. Gandydancer (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just got back here, so I am just now seeing the request that I self-revert. I'm not going to do that, and there have been other subsequent edits by other editors that include points being discussed here. But I'm still very receptive to alternative ways of writing it – I certainly did not see my edit as "the last word". The problem that I see is that editors just have not come up with an agreed-upon alternative. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me float this, just another idea: "Emmett Louis Till (July 25, 1941 – August 28, 1955) was an African-American teenager who was lynched in Mississippi in 1955 at the age of 14, after speaking to a white woman in a grocery store." --Tryptofish (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I could certainly live with that. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 18:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer AlanSw's approach, 'after speaking to a white woman' is not very informative IMO unless the content/nature of the conversation is establiahed, which most seem to feel cannot be done in a few words. Pincrete (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK with me either way. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care for that at all and still feel it's too complicated to get it in the opening sentence. I like Alan's suggestion above though the wording "He spoke to 21-year-old Carolyn Bryant," does not seem exactly right to me. The only two people that know for sure whether or not he spoke to her (in a sexual manner) are Emmitt, who is dead, and the woman. We know this: Till's cousin, Simeon W.right, writing about the incident decades later, questioned Carolyn Bryant's account. Entering the store "less than a minute" after Till was left inside alone with Bryant, Wright saw no inappropriate behavior and heard "no lecherous conversation." Wright said Till "paid for his items and we left the store together. It is known that the woman went out to her car after they left and it's agreed that Emmitt whistled at her. I think it's very possible that was their only interaction--and back then that would have been more than enough. Gandydancer (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another version: Four days later, Emmett, several cousins, and a few neighbor kids drove into town to the Bryant Grocery and Meat Market, where 21-year-old Carolyn Bryant was working behind the counter. Till entered the store and purchased bubble gum; when he left, Carolyn followed him to the door. A Northerner unfamiliar with Southern etiquette, he then waved, said "goodbye" (not "goodbye, ma'am"), and, according to family members, directed a wolf-whistle at the young white woman. She became upset and went toward a car -- to get a gun, according to trial testimony. Till and his frightened companions got in their own car and sped off toward home. And a version where Carolyn made the whole thing up: 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." [1] Gandydancer (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To address everyone, Alanscottwalker's argument that "this is not why he was murdered" seems to be Alanscottwalker's interpretation. He even stated above, "Besides if we really want in the lead sentence some phrase on why the killers killed him, we should look to something from the Look magazine article where they admitted the killing, the reason seems to have been Till's defiance when he was with the killers and 'teaching a lesson' to all 'niggers'." No, going by their actions and all of what they've stated on the matter, that's not how I viewed their attack on Till. They immediately went looking for Till after Bryant's accusation and were clearly out to teach him a lesson either way, whether or not one wants to believe they weren't going to kill him until he supposedly showed defiance. Back then, one way that a black boy or black man meant being "put in his place" was to know that he "should not mess with a white woman." The core description/summary of what happened is indeed the following: "Emmett Till was murdered after being accused of flirting with a white woman." That is how the story is described. That Till was murdered for that accusation, which is even evident by the murderers' words and Bryant's words, is supposed to be in the lead. Plain and simple. Racism is a big part of the story and so is the fact that Till was accused of flirting with Bryant, a white woman. Not having that description in the lead sentence is problematic and is against WP:LEAD. WP:LEAD states, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." It also states, "The lead is the first part of the article that most people will read. For many, it may be the only section that they read. A good lead section cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article, but not by teasing the reader or hinting at content that follows. The lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view. The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate."

I've already offered alternatives that solve the "flirting with" aspect. And I see that other alternatives have been offered since then. "Romantic interest in a white woman" is not original research when people consider that the core aspect of flirting is romantic and/or sexual interest and that Till was said to have made sexually suggestive advancements on Bryant. And it's not as though I did not also suggest the wordings "after being falsely accused of making verbal or physical advances towards a white woman" and "after allegedly making verbal or physical advances towards a white woman." And it's not like we cannot forgo even including "falsely accused" and instead relay the reported Bryant confession early on, after the lead sentence.

I've gone ahead and started an RfC on this because this issue is far too important to be settled by a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Although an RfC can be considered a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS matter as well, I'll advertise the RfC by alerting the associated WikiProjects (the ones seen at the top of this talk page) to it and I'll leave a note about it at the WP:Village pump (miscellaneous). I have provided sources in the RfC regarding the "Emmett Till was murdered after being accused of flirting with a white woman" aspect to show how the incident is initially described by sources and that this is not simply a claim by me that sources do this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should we include the "accused of showing an interest in a white woman" aspect in the lead or specifically the lead sentence?

Above this RfC on the article's talk page, there is a debate about whether or not to mention "flirting" (as in "Emmett Till was murdered after being falsely accused of flirting with a white woman.") in the lead sentence since flirting can mean different things to different people. There is also debate about whether or not to use "falsely accused" because we don't know if the flirting aspect, depending on the definition of flirting, was a false accusation. What we do know is that it's reported (by a historian) that Bryant lied about Till making a physical assault on her or making a menacing or sexual comment regarding her. Because of the "flirted with" issue, any mention of Till being murdered after being accused of showing an interest in Bryant was removed removed from the lead sentence (and therefore from the lead in its entirety). One view is that the lead should not mention the "accused of showing an interest in a white woman" aspect because we should not focus on why the killers murdered Till; we should not highlight his attackers. And it is too complicated to address the confrontation between Till and Bryant in the lead. If we include "falsely accused," we might be describing the flirting aspect wrongly. The other view is that why he was murdered is a key aspect of the topic and the current lead paragraph causes readers to wonder why he was murdered and teases the reader. This violates WP:LEAD, considering that Bryant's accusation, the fact that she was white and Till was black, and that he was murdered because of her accusation, are core aspects of the story and is how the story is summarized in numerous books and articles. Including why he was murdered in the lead sentence is not blaming the victim.

So my questions are: Should we or shouldn't we mention the "accused of showing an interest in a white woman" aspect in the lead? And if we should mention it, should it be in the lead sentence and should we forgo including "flirted with" and/or "accused"? Below are sources showing the Bryant and Till incident being summarized as him being murdered after being accused of flirting with a white woman. And alternatives to using "flirting" or "accused."

Some sources using the "after being accused of flirting with a white woman" aspect.

1. This 1997 "The Oxford Companion to African American Literature" source, from Oxford University Press, page 148, states, "The 1955 lynching of fourteen-year-old Emmett Till, a black boy accused of flirting with a white woman in Mississippi."

2. This 1999 "Sex, Love, Race: Crossing Boundaries in North American History" source, from NYU Press, page 519, states, "Mississippians had murdered fourteen-year-old Emmett Till for flirting with a white woman."

3. This 2002 "The Lynching of Emmett Till: A Documentary Narrative" source, from University of Virginia Press, page 258, states, "Emmett Till, a young Negro down from Chicago on a visit, was murdered, allegedly for flirting with a white woman."

4. This 2006 source, from Salem Press, page 648, states, "The most famous example of a black man who was lynched for flirting with a white woman was Emmett Till."

5. This 2009 "Radio Free Dixie: Robert F. Williams and the Roots of Black Power" source, from University of North Carolina Press, page 94, states, "The murder of fourteen-year-old Emmett Till, butchered in Mississippi in 1955 for flirting with a white woman, drew the racial and sexual boundaries of the Jim Crow South in blood for the world to see."

6. This 2009 "Alice Walker: The Color Purple and Other Works" book, by Marshall Cavendish, page 27, states, "Emmett Till, a young teenager accused of flirting with a white woman, was killed in Mississippi."

7. This 2010 "To Serve the Living" source, from Harvard University Press, page 124, states that Till "was brutally killed after he was accused of flirting with a white woman, Carolyn Bryant."

8. This 2010 "Research Guide to American Literature, Volume 6" source, from Infobase Publishing, page 32, states, "The murder of fourteen-year-old Emmett Till in August 1955 for allegedly flirting with a married white woman in Mississippi galvanized civil-rights organizers and inspired writers as well."

9. This 2010 "Asian American Studies Now: A Critical Reader" source, from Rutgers University Press, page 269, states, "the torture, lynching, and mutilation of Emmett Till, a black fourteen-year-old who was accused of flirting with a white woman, shocked the world."

10. This 2012 "The Oxford Handbook of Modern and Contemporary American Poetry" source, from OUP USA (Oxford University Press USA), page 385, states, "For instance, two poems from The Bean Eaters (1960) explore the 1955 lynching of Emmett Till, a Chicago youth who was murdered in Mississippi after being accused of flirting with a white woman."

11. This 2014 "Documenting the Black Experience: Essays on African American History, Culture and Identity in Nonfiction Films" source, from McFarland, page 59, states, "Perhaps, one of the most glaring examples of this 'outsider' mythology came in the aftermath of the 1955 lynching of Emmett Till, a fourteen-year old Chicago native, who was murdered in Mississippi for reportedly flirting with a white woman."

12. This 2015 "Martin Luther King, Jr." source, from Routledge, page 59, states, "The segregationists appealed, and the hopes raised by the Court's ruling were overshadowed six weeks later by news that white Mississippians had abducted and killed a visiting, 14-year-old black boy, Emmet Till. The murder was reportedly prompted by Till's flirting with a white woman in the local store."

13. This 2015 "Violence in American Popular Culture [2 volumes]" source, from ABC-CLIO, page 115, states, "the real-life beating and lynching death of teenager Emmett Till in 1955 by three white men for supposedly flirting with a white woman."

14. This 2017 "African Americans and Jungian Psychology: Leaving the Shadows" source, from Routledge, page 118, states, "Emmett Till, a teenager who was visiting family members in Mississippi in the summer of 1955, had been accused of 'flirting; with a young White woman. In order to protect the white innocence of this woman, Till was tortured and murdered by the woman's husband and her brother."

15. This 2017 "Hate Crimes: Causes, Controls, and Controversies" source, from SAGE Publications, page 162, states, "Almost 100 years after the Civil War, in 1955, 14-year-old African American Emmett Till was murdered in Mississippi for flirting with a white woman."

16. This 2017 "Rest in Power: The Enduring Life of Trayvon Martin" source, from Random House Publishing Group, page 94, states, "People were already comparing Trayvon's death to Emmett Till, the fourteen-year-old from Chicago visiting family in Money, Mississippi, where he was lynched on August 28, 1955, after being accused of flirting with a white woman."

Alternatives to using "flirting" or "accused."

1. "After being falsely accused of making verbal or physical advances towards a white woman."

2. "After allegedly making verbal or physical advances towards a white woman."

3. "After being falsely accused of showing a romantic interest in a white woman."

4. "After allegedly showing a romantic interest in a white woman."

5. "He spoke to 21-year-old Carolyn Bryant, the white, married proprietor of a small grocery store there. The details of their encounter is a matter of some dispute but in a 2008 interview, Bryant said, "[n]othing that boy did could ever justify what happened to him", and she disclosed that she had fabricated testimony that Till had made verbal or physical advances towards her."

6. "After speaking to a white woman in a grocery store."

Survey

Discussion

Milam and Bryant "returned to Mississippi" from where?

In the fourth paragraph of the lede, we find the following sentence: "After Milam and Bryant's acquittal, they returned to Mississippi, but were boycotted, threatened, attacked and humiliated by locals; Milam died in 1980 at the age of 61, and Bryant died in 1994 at the age of 63." I can't find any support in the rest of the article for the idea that they had left Mississippi during(?!?) or shortly after the trial, at least not in any significant way that would require stating that they "returned". It seems they left Mississippi after being boycotted etc., and perhaps returned even later on, but that would still make the implied timeline of this sentence inaccurate.

Shouldn't it read something more like: "After Milam and Bryant's acquittal, they initially remained in Mississippi, but were boycotted, threatened, attacked and humiliated by locals, leading them to unsuccessfully attempt to evade their infamy in Texas for several years before returning to Mississippi; Milam died in 1980 at the age of 61, and Bryant died in 1994 at the age of 63." That's getting pretty long, though, I know. SlackerInc1 (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that "they returned to Mississippi" was odd wording too, so generally I would agree -also the body suggest it was the admission that really got people mad (Perhaps, we do not have to include in the lead anything about where they were so: After Milam and Bryant admitted the murder in Look magazine, they were periodically subjected to boycotts, threats, attacks and humiliations by others; Milam died in 1980 at the age of 61, and Bryant died in 1994 at the age of 63) Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/27/emmett-till-juanita-milam/5873235/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emmett_Till&oldid=779963000"