Talk:Emmett Till/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

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)

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)

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)

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".[1]

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)

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)

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)

Yes, I agree. Great suggestion IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

This was recently discussed. See above. Gandydancer (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. [2] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I could certainly live with that. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 18:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

It's OK with me either way. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

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." Gandydancer (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

No one is arguing to keep it out of the lead, the issue is the lead sentence. Britannica: Emmett Till, in full Emmett Louis Till (born July 25, 1941, Chicago, Ill., U.S.—died Aug. 28, 1955, Money, Miss.), African American teenager whose murder catalyzed the emerging civil rights movement. [3] We are not writing a POV essay or theses, where we seek to make a brief or otherwise commentary argument, we are writing an encyclopedia article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, as shown above, there were arguments to keep it out of the lead or lead sentence. I quoted what you specifically stated. And there's Gandydancer's arguments above. As shown above and below, my argument is that the lead sentence should begin with the "he was murdered after being accused of flirting with a white woman" aspect. Or "after being accused of making verbal or physical advancements toward a white woman." Whatever gets the core summary across. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Flyer, the accusation of verbal and physical advancements came after the murder when Carolyn needed to make up a good reason for it to have happened. At first all she said was that Till had "insulted" her. How would you feel about this wording: "...was lynched after allegedly insulting a white woman." Gandydancer (talk) 12:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not what most sources state; so I wouldn't go for that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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.

---

Should we include the "accused of showing an interest in a white woman" aspect in the lead or specifically the lead sentence? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC) This is a condensed summary of the dispute. I should have kept the collapsed portions from showing up on the RfC page, and I perhaps should not have had the initial summary be so long (although describing a dispute in a paragraph, and not just a single sentence, for an RfC is common). [4]

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 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 "falsely 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 "falsely 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 "falsely 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, May 2017

• No -- my preferred version would be "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." K.e.coffman (talk) 03:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
• Yes. Whether we include "flirted with" or some other wording, the above sources and many more clearly show that the Till case is first and foremost described as a case where a black male was murdered for a perceived romantic/sexual interest in a white woman. In fact, sources list it as the prime example of that. The "murdered after showing an interest in a white woman" aspect is literally how the case is summarized and recognized whenever it is reported, except that the words "flirted with" or "flirting with" are used. Per WP:LEAD, the lead is meant to summarize; it's not meant to go into in-depth detail. We can get the point across without "flirted with" or "accused," but this key, historical aspect -- Till being murdered because of his perceived romantic/sexual interest in a white woman -- should be retained in the lead. To any concern of blaming the victim or painting Till in a bad light, I argue that stating why he was murdered is not blaming Till. Nor is it giving WP:Undue weight to the murderers or painting Till in a bad light. I also argue that Wikipedia is not the place to right the great wrongs. By not being the place to "right the great wrongs," I mean it is not up to us to state that we should alter the description simply because we don't like "flirted with" or "accused." It is up to us to follow WP:Due weight, meaning what the preponderance of reliable sources state. We can also use logical reasoning that challenges using "flirted with," which is what we have been doing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
• Yes I am new to the article, but not the subject. Obviously Emmett Till's murder is important to the general context of the Civil Rights era and the race-based crimes associated therewith. The fact that the crime was committed based on the belief that Mr. Till had in some way "come on" to a white woman strikes me as deserving of being one of the first pieces of information conveyed. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 03:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
• Yes Like Dumuzid, I'm not unfamiliar with this incident (tho not intimately, I'll confess). Till's alleged interest was a primary motivation for his lynching; the falsity of the claims of assault, AIUI, only bear on his conviction, not his lynching. It was, AIUI, Till's comments that got him lynched; whether that can be called "flirting", absent knowledge of exactly what was said, IMO should prohibit us characterizing it one way or another, but not from calling it causal, for it clearly was. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think yes/no is very helpful here, AFAIK, nobody thinks that the element of (perceived) sexually inappropriate/flirtatious behaviour should be omitted, it is simply a case of where and how to render the info. My personal pref is to not include in para one, but to place in para 2 as part of a more complete and qualified account of the whole story, including the initial 'flirting' and later false accusations made in the court by Mrs B. Nobody knows what happened in the store, there are various partial accounts and we can all guess that it was almost certainly relatively innocent on Till's part, but none of us knows. We cannot use 'falsely accused' of anything at that time since we do not know what the initial accusation made by Mrs B was, although it was almost certainly him being perceived as being "uppitty" and probably with a sexual element. 'Possibly flirtatious' would be the strongest thing we could be certain of in respect of what happened in the shop. Pincrete (talk) 09:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC) … … NB to closer this is purely a comment, my vote is made below. Pincrete (talk) 11:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
• Objection and comment - This RfC is a clear misrepresentation of supposed sides and therefore not neutral and is defective: the issue is where in the lead the discussion should go. This RfC is also bizarre, because the subsidiary issue before this RFC was framed is precise wording, and this RFC offers nothing but a list of maybe possibly a half dozen things.
  • Britannica lead sentence: Emmett Till, in full Emmett Louis Till (born July 25, 1941, Chicago, Ill., U.S.—died Aug. 28, 1955, Money, Miss.), African American teenager whose murder catalyzed the emerging civil rights movement.[5]
  • Encyclopedia of African American History: 1896 to the Present, Oxford University Press (2009). v.4., p.468. lead sentence: TILL, EMMIT, LYNCHING OF. In summer 1955, just after turning fourteen, Emmitt Louis Till was sent by his mother Mamie Till-Bradley, to stay with the family of his great uncle Moses Wright near Money Mississippi in the Mississippi Delta. (bolding in original) [6]
• So it is fallacious to claim it must be in the lead sentence to write an encyclopedia article. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Extensive discussion ensues regarding the clarity of the RfC

:::There is no misrepresentation. The vast majority of reliable sources, when initially describing or summarizing the incident, note that Till was murdered after being accused of flirting with a white woman. And if this RfC is bizarre, it is only due to the fact that editors felt that the solution to the "flirted with" aspect was to bizarrely remove the description altogether. This RfC is about that removal and whether or not to use "flirted with" or another wording in its place if the description is restored. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC) Yes, there is misrepresentation of supposed sides. The issue previously being discussed was the lead sentence, not removing the incident from the lead entirely. And, as I noted in giving sources, we are writing an encyclopedia article, and their first sentence do not mention it. We are not writing something else, in a book or article -- we are writing a long form expository description. And it is bizarre because no one was opposed is having it in the lead section, and you made-up a vote, with misrepresented sides in the middle of a discussion, with half baked fragments, practically designed to not to lead to multiple confusing responses. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC) There is no misrepresentation of supposed sides. Anyone can see that. Your claim that no one was opposed to having it in the lead sentence is contradicted by Tryptofish removing it from the lead sentence and what he, Gandydancer and others stated after that removal. And, as others have noted, an encyclopedia should begin with the "murdered after being accused of showing an interest in a white woman" aspect. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not like other encyclopedias. At all. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC) You have again misrepresented, I never claimed editors are not opposed to having it in the first sentence, they are opposed to having it in the first sentence. You misrepresented that as wanting it out of the lead section entirely. Your rejection of reliable encyclopedia sources just shows you are POV pushing, which is of a piece with your misrepresentations. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC) You have again claimed that I have misrepresented when I have not. But do continue to do so; I'll let editors continue to read what was actually stated. It's right here on the page for them to read while you are going on and on about how wrong I am about what they have stated. For example, Tryptofish, although agreeing with your approach, stated, "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." Notice that he stated "lead," not "lead sentence"? Notice that he stated it's not that important to state why? Notice that Gandydancer agreed with Tryptofish and stated more on the matter, about this aspect being difficult to address in the lead? Notice that SlackerInc1 is satisfied with how the lead currently is? I'm certain that if I had not objected, the lead would have remained without any mention of this aspect, except for the "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." part that is in the fifth paragraph of the lead. That is, until the day someone else were to come along and object in my place. And either way, I framed this RfC to mainly be about the lead sentence. As for POV-pushing, your editing at this article and justification for keeping this important aspect out of the lead sentence is clear-cut POV-pushing. I'd like you to go ahead and note what you think my POV is, though. Go ahead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Oh, and pointing out what wording the vast majority of reliable use/what the vast majority of reliable sources do and stating that Wikipedia is not like other encyclopedias is not rejecting your sources. It's weighing the literature, per WP:Due weight. I am very clear on my user page/talk page that I follow WP:Due weight, even when others go against it. If anything, you are ignoring sources. To omit the debated aspect from the initial line is the minority route to take; the literature overwhelmingly supports that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Again, you have misrepresented. I never proposed taking it out of the lead entirely, I in fact proposed moving it all up in the lead to the second paragraph. Tryptofish, agreeing with me was agreeing with moving the incident discussion up in the lead. And neither GandyDancer nor Tryptofish are a "side" as you have misrepresented. The issue they were discussing in context was the first sentence not the lead as a whole. Similarly, SlackerInc1 you misrepresented, they merely stated the lead was not perfect but better. They are also not a side. WP:UNDUE best practice has always been consulting encyclopedias, because that is what we are writing. It is UNDUE to state things over an over again in the LEAD - the incident has to be discussed in the lead and should be done fully in the second paragraph and in context both chronologically and with the attendant uncertainties as NPOV requires (and it will thus be one of the first things people learn) Splitting it up between the first sentence and then repeating in the lead is UNDUE. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Notice that I stopped focusing on you? I focused exactly on what was stated by others. Perhaps you should go back and read everything. I'm not about to sit here and keep debating you on your interpretations. I do not agree with your view of SlackerInc1's position, for example. To me, yes, he seems perfectly fine with the lead as it currently is. And, yes, it is very clear to me that the others would be fine with the debated bit being omitted from the lead altogether. In the RfC, I accurately laid out the viewpoints. I stated what one viewpoint is and what the other viewpoint is. That is, by definition, two different sides. I do not agree with your side -- whether it's excluding the text from the lead sentence or from the lead altogether. And I reiterate that the RfC is specifically (well, mainly) about the lead sentence; so you going on about my view of what others meant about the lead in its entirety is futile. You stated that "WP:UNDUE best practice has always been consulting encyclopedias." No, it has not been. And if you are so confident of that, go ask at that policy talk page. WP:DUE is about going with what the preponderance of reliable sources state; they support the initial mention of this core aspect that you keep trying to excise from the lead sentence. One or two encyclopedias do not trump what the preponderance of reliable sources state. Furthermore, encyclopedias, like many book sources, fall under WP:Tertiary, which is second on the list of acceptable sources. And our lead paragraphs usually do begin with the most important aspects and then elaborate on them later in the lead; that is not WP:UNDUE in the least. You are wrong, period. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Stop misrepresenting people if you do not wish to discuss it, you have continued to misrepresent people, repeatedly. Now, you have misrepresented policy. WP:Tertiary policy says you are wrong, as you attempt to read WP:DUE out of context - it says to consult encyclopedias, on issues of WP:UNDUE. It prevents your original research of taking disparate mentions in various sources out-of-context to suit your POV, because we are writing an encyclopedia article not Flyer 22 Reborn's cherry-picking. The incident is subject to conflicting report, NPOV explicitly requires it in context be presented that way. But you don't want to because you want to push your POV and OR, and not follow encyclopedic presentation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Sighs. More of the same, I see. You are even reading WP:Tertiary wrong since some book sources I've included, the ones you keep ignoring for your point of view, are tertiary as well. WP:Tertiary is also clear that some tertiary sources are more reliable than others. And regardless of what it states, the WP:DUE policy is clear. Cherry-picking in this case is you ignoring what the preponderance of reliable sources (sources that have not been taken out of context by me in the least) state and trying to use one or two encyclopedia sources as justification for ignoring them. I am not the only editor here who has noted that the preponderance of reliable sources state "flirting with" or similar and initially. Consulting a few encyclopedias is not necessary whatsoever in this case considering that the vast majority of reliable sources state "flirting with" or similar and initially. No Wikipedia policy or guideline supports you on what you are dong in this case. WP:Tertiary states that tertiary sources "may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." The WP:DUE weight in this case is not debatable at all, no matter how much you want it to be. And like I stated, I'm not about to sit here and keep debating you on your interpretations. Feel free to keep debating all by your lonesome, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC) And while we're on the subject of writing encyclopedias, I don't think you have a clue about what it means to write one. If you do, then don't be shy about pointing to your stellar work. I certainly would not be shy about pointing to mine. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC) So, on top of misrepresentation, now you are resorting to poor logic and irrelevancies - your appeal to your claimed authority as an encyclopedia writer is ridiculous -- it is both laughable and bizarre -- your claimed expertise is of no weight, at all. And once again you have misrepresented. I am for presenting it in the lead, I am not against presenting it in the lead, so I am not ignoring anything, we should just present it as the encyclopedias do which is not in the first sentence, per TERTIARY policy and NPOV policy which both require we present it in context with the conflicting facts. Alanscottwalker (talk)15:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC) The poor logic is yours. And, from what I see, it is because you do not understand these policies well. That is where being able to write Wikipedia articles -- not just any encyclopedia -- well comes in. As noted on my user page/talk page, experienced and less experienced editors commonly misapply the WP:NPOV policy. Your interpretation of the policies are interpretations I have combated and overcome time and time again. You can claim misrepresentation and that TERTIARY and WP:NPOV agree with you all want to, but you are wrong. And, so far, this RfC is supporting what I have argued. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Now your comment shows it does not understand logic. Your appeal to your own authority is the poor logic. Your comments on your encyclopedia writing are so laughable, in part because they are so megalomaniacal. Your misrepresentations and now appeal to your own authority are not combating anything. They are just misrepresentations, and comments puffing-up of your own-self. Your comments are truly overwrought -- following sourced encyclopedic writing is not against the wiki - your argument is nonsense-on-stilts, given the purpose is to be an encyclopedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Okay, I'm done discussing this matter with you. You haven't a clue what you are talking about; my arguments, NickCT's arguments, and those who have argued similarly, show that. You are clearly only looking to argue with me. You (wrongly) complain about misrepresentation, and yet you are quite clearly doing it over and over again in your arguments. Get the last word if you want to; it won't change that you are wrong. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC) You're the one who decided to come to where I commented and to come speak at length -- so don't blame me -- if you did not want to, you could have stayed out of where I commented, and I would not have discussed with you. So, now you are appealing to a claim that someone agrees with you - that's just another illogical appeal. So, someone thinks whistling is ok for the for the first sentence and that's not even a choice presented in the RFC. That means nothing but confusion. The situation is patent -- you misrepresented sides, to prejudice people in your favor -- that's what makes an RfC defective - you presented it as people not wanting it in the lead at all, which is false, I and others specifically wanted it prominently in the lead in the second paragraph, but not in the first sentence, and as there are conflicting facts and descriptions of events, per encyclopedic sources. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Very last comment to you and then I am done replying to you about this: Respond to you? Of course, I was going to respond to you since your comment concerned me and made faulty statements. As has been made clear, the RfC is framed as to whether or not the disputed bit should be in the lead sentence or lead at all. Editors obviously have a chance to assess if the content should be in the lead sentence or lead at all. So you acting like the fact that it mentions "the lead" and not solely "the lead sentence" has biased the RfC is so beyond asinine that it makes me give even less credence to your logic. You have interpreted the aforementioned others' comments as not being fine with the lead excluding mention of the disputed bit; I interpreted it differently. You know, just like our policies and guidelines are interpreted differently by different editors. From what I saw (I SAW), some editors would be fine with the disputed bit not being in the lead at all, and I can hardly be blamed for that interpretation when one editor specifically stated, "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." And when the sentiment after that was literally that the matter is too complicated to be addressed in the lead, not just in the lead sentence. Mentioning that NickCT and others agree with me is valid, considering that they are looking at sources and the literature as a whole. They are not simply going on some faulty opinion. And make no mistake about it, your argument that "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' " is beyond faulty, for reasons already noted. Pincrete was the first one to point out that "the killers said this" argument is faulty. After that, I noted that it is your interpretation for why they killed Till; the vast majority of reliable sources state that they killed Till because of his alleged interest in a white woman. See, this is another example of following WP:Due weight, not alternative statements/what is in the minority. That one or two encyclopedias do not begin by noting the core aspect -- that Till, a black boy, was murdered for his alleged interest in a white woman -- does not even begin to trump the fact that the preponderance of reliable sources do. WP:NPOV does not at all support the idea that we should not go in the direction of the preponderance of reliable sources and instead copy what one or two encyclopedias have done. Neither does WP:TERTIARY. Again, you are free to ask about this at those policy talk pages and see what others state, but I know that they will not be agreeing with you on that. "Whistling" does not have to be one of the options I listed. This RfC includes discussion, and discussion means alternate proposals. I asked a simple question in the RfC: "Should we include the 'accused of showing an interest in a white woman' aspect in the lead or specifically the lead sentence?" I then elaborated. That you are upset about me stating "the lead" instead of solely stating "the lead sentence" does not matter. At all. The question is what editors are responding to, and they are not dumb. They are looking at the sources I presented and at other sources. The result would not be any different if I had stuck to "the lead sentence" throughout my wording in the RfC. All of your deflecting, including your bad-faith accusations, is just noise. Thankfully, others see past that noise. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC) So, you have responded to me again, although you already said you were done responding to me -- should we expect you to misrepresent over and over this is your last time. My arguments are so convincing for you to have to come back time-and-time again to restate your misrepresentations. And now, you are misrepresenting the history of the RfC, as you should be honest about - you created a long preamble to your multi-part question, wherein you misrepresented sides (as GandyDancer again tells you below) - it was only after some time (and several responses and my and Pincrete's objection) that someone else changed your presentation [7] because you did not follow the proper form for a RfC by proposing something brief and neutral. But your misrepresentations persisted. And again, they persist. You appeal to someone you say agreeing with you by saying put "whistling" in the lead sentence. Yes, I pointed out what the killers themselves said (they don't mention whistling) and that is part of the historical record, we are relating, it has nothing to do with approving of what the killers' say. And again, I have argued we should not ignore sources, we should put them in context and with the varying accounts, as the encyclopedic sources do, and that is fully inline and required with NPOV and TERTIARY. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC) For the record, I've always felt and have said many times that I felt the reason for the murder were too complicated for the first sentence of the lead, not the lead. If Flyer had been reading my posts with an open mind she would, IMO, know that. The one post that she points out of mine was unfortunately a writing error on my part and note that I said I agreed with Alan's version (which did keep some sort of reason in the lead). As for whether or not this RfC was written in a biased fashion, I will say that it was somewhat confusing when Flyer's long YES vote never even mentions the lead sentence but rather makes the vote to be about including the reason in the lead at all. I would guess that people new to the article would be swayed by her YES post. Gandydancer (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC) As you can see, I just responded above. We can also ping all the editors and see if they were logically swayed to vote "yes" simply because I did not stick to "the lead sentence" throughout the RfC. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Ping time: Dumuzid, ‎Trekphiler, NickCT, DoctorJoeE, David Tornheim, Markbassett, SW3 5DL and Seraphim System, do you feel that I manipulated you into voting "yes" because I stated "lead" in addition to stating "lead sentence," as Alanscottwalker claims above? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC) No. While my comment above is certainly ambiguous, I understood that we were talking about the very first sentence in the article, and that's what I also meant to convey. I can't envision a coherent and properly weighted introduction which delays even until sentence two. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Me neither -- and I concur with others that this discussion is long since officially off the rails. Why? It's not as if we're writing a nuclear arms agreement here. The sources are pretty clear: a black kid had a momentary encounter with a white woman, the details of which are disputed, and he was murdered for it. Why don't we just say that, fill in the details in the body of the article, and move on? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 20:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC) User:DoctorJoeE, your summary is excellent a black kid had a momentary encounter with a white woman, the details of which are disputed, and he was murdered for it., my primary disagreement here, (not with you), is that all proposed text so far omits the details of which are disputed. We don't know whether he flirted/whistled/whatever with sufficient certainty to put it as the (implied) motive, I would support any concise text that stuck to what we know. Pincrete (talk) 10:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC) Then, once again, let's just do that -- make a concise statement of the undisputed facts (my suggestion is above) in the first sentence. The various disputed "details", as specified in the source material, can be enumerated later in the lede, or in the article body (preferably both) without any opinion in WP's voice as to which is correct, or more likely. I don't see how anyone interested in maintaining WP:NPOV could object to that. The larger point is that this discussion is mired in minutiae and a decision needs to be made already. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 12:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC) @Flyer22 Reborn and Alanscottwalker: - Lolz. Scary wall-of-text debate guys. I'm not going to weigh-in on whether I think the original question was misleading or not. That seems like a question for the closer. If AlanScott really feels like this was a bad RfC, I don't see what stops him from launching a second, clearer RfC when this one closes. NickCT (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Indeed, and as the multi-part question proposed actually suggests we were arguing for it out of the lead entirely (and we were not), it is perforce misleading, about others. And since it is literally, not possible, to not envision doing it as encyclopedia sources do - not in the first sentence -- it's got to be misleading presentation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Alanscottwalker, I think your "envision" language is a reference to my comment. If not, feel free to disregard. I just think that conflating "I can't" with "literally, not possible" is giving far too much credit to my cognitive (and optical!) powers. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC) "do you feel that I manipulated you into voting 'yes'". I don't. My view was the same regardless of first sentence or first 'graph, 'cause the first implies the second. More to the point, if it's important enough to be in the first 'graph, it may be important enough to be in the first sentence, & in this instance, since it's fairly key to the lynching, first sentence makes sense. That said, if it got "demoted" out of the first sentence, but was in the lead, it wouldn't cause me sleepless nights... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 01:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC) NickCT, the issue I have with multiple RfCs soon after the other is that it's akin to WP:Forum shopping. It's sometimes used by editors to try to get the result they want, and it can be considered WP:Disruptive. The replies in the RfC, including yours, show that editors focused on the lead sentence, and this is also clear by Dumuzid's comment above. So I don't see that another RfC that is specifically about whether or not the debated bit should be in the lead sentence is justifiable. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC) @Flyer22 Reborn: - Would agree with you if AlanScott intended to ask the exact same question. As I see it, it sounds like he wants to question solely what the lead should/should not include, which is slightly different (i.e. less comprehensive) than what you've asked in this RfC. Why not just do another quick RfC if Alan objects so much. If you guys are at logger-heads to determine "neutral" RfC wording, please ping me. I'd be happy to work up a brief, clean and simple RfC for you. Regardless, you took the right action by launching this RfC. If Alan thinks it's ambiguous, it's up to him to push for a cleaner/better RfC. NickCT (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC) I'd rather stick to the current RfC; if another RfC is about what the lead should/should not include, then that concerns whether or not the debated aspect should be in the lead sentence, and I really don't want to debate that all over again. I'd repeat myself, listing the same sources (and/or more sources), making the same arguments. We are already repeating ourselves enough as it is in this one. On a side note: SW3 5DL is another editor who feels that the RfC wording is fine. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC) And I agree with SW3 5DL that the above derailment should be hatted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Due to tl;dr I stopped reading partway down, but I agree with myself and I don't want to be on a "side". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC) NickCT, since it seems that you are impartial to the aforementioned bickering, do you mind hatting it? It's clearly WP:Too long; didn't read and can discourage editors from weighing in on the survey. Or maybe someone else would be willing to hat it? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC) I will hat if I hear no objections in the next 24hr. NickCT (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC) Just what do you propose to hat? Everything after my "Objection and Comment" of 11:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)? That's ok (although I don't think it is necessary) but if it is other hatting, just leave it, as is, please. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC) NickCT, I am happy for you to exercise your judgement about what should be hatted, conditional on others being able to 'make visible' anything they consider valid content. There's an awful lot of 'bickering' above. There is also quite a bit of constructive dialogue (dialogue IMO is where two people who don't agree, try to find common ground) and valid comment on content (which is when editors give reasons for giing credence t. Pincrete (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Include in lede. First sentence. Read as follows: - " After allegedly whistling at a white woman" - After glancing at the sources on this subject, most of them specifically make reference to "whistling". I'm no expert on this subject, and I'm not sure how much backing there is for the "whistling" allegation, but we ought to simply follow the sources on this one. NickCT (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

NickCT, I believe I am right when I say that the "whistle' is allegedly after Bryant had already gone to get her gun because of something Till said or did and when Till and the others were already 'running away'. The alleged whistle is the 'parting shot' of whatever it is that angered Mrs B. This to me confirms that something like Dr JoeE's text below needs to be opening sentence and more complex/disputed details in para 2. Pincrete (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Pincrete: - You may be right. I don't know much about this subject. That may be the allegation and/or the reality of what happened. But to a certain extent, I don't care. I only really care about what I see in the majority of sources, and, after brief review, I see a whole bunch of sources that say simply "whistled" without going into the details. Frankly, I think that's what we should do in the lead. Give a simplified, non-nuanced and verifiable explanation in the lead, then deal with the nuances int he body.

Sometimes you trade a little bit of accuracy for a whole lot concision. And that can be OK in a lede. NickCT (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Why? When it is perfectly easy to say that the details are disputed and may include wolf-whistling and or flirtatious remarks. As per Encyclopedia of African American History text quoted by Alanscottwalker below. Pincrete (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Pincrete: - Easy huh? So you should be able to propose a wording then. NickCT (talk) 04:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

NickCT, you are seeing "whistled at" more than "flirted with" in the sources? As seen above, I mainly saw "flirted with." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Flyer22: - Great question! Honestly, I didn't look real hard, but at first glance, it appeared that "whistled at" was more common. Really though, I'd support either "whistled at" or "flirted with". NickCT (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• Absolutely. What NickCT said. I've advocated that exact lede sentence (or a close semblance) every time it has come up -- and it has come up repeatedly, unfortunately. I don't know why this is so contentious -- just follow the sources. A black kid from Chicago had a momentary interaction with a white woman in Mississippi, and was murdered for it. That summarizes the article quite succinctly, yes? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 17:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. Whatever we want to call what Till supposedly did to precipitate the events that followed, we really don't need to say it in the first sentence. Lead section, yes; lead sentence, no. Given the cultural norms of the place and time, it's hard to conclude that knowing the specifics—whistling, flirting, propositioning or whatever—is vital to understanding what came after. I'm not so sure it's particularly important even to know whether there was any truth to the woman's allegation. When it came to lynching, all manner of pretexts were employed to justify the unjustifiable. In that environment, it was sometimes enough just to happen to cross paths with a white person—i.e., to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
• FYI: Further from the multi-page article in the Oxford Encyclopedia of African American History - 2nd paragraph: "During the first week in Mississippi, on 24 August 1955, Till and a group of black teenagers went into town. [A few sentences on type of store and who owned the store and that Carolyn was working]. Responding to boasts from Till about having dated white girls in his hometown, some in the group dared Till to ask [Carolyn] for a date. No definitive version of what transpired in the store exists. Witnesses have variously claimed that Till leaned in and said something to Bryant, that he gave a "wolf whistle" or said "bye, baby" as he left the store, or that he did some or all of those things. [Sentences about Till's stuttering and whistling problems, followed by Carolyn's testimony - end of second paragraph]." Third paragraph begins: "Whatever happened in the store, the teenagers immediately departed town." . . . Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
• comment OK, I've spent the last few days reading everything I could find on the murder and watching several documentaries. As Nick says above there is very wide agreement that Till whistled at Carolyn but not much else. (In fact, as I said above, I really doubt that he said anything of a sexual nature at all. I'm guessing that he may have touched her hand when change was exchanged, said "yeah" rather than "yes'um, looked squarely at her rather than down, etc. He had no reason to show off when none off his peers were present.) And Carolyn had every reason to make up a more impressive story what with her husband on trial. IMO Nick's suggestion for a lead sentence " After allegedly whistling at a white woman" is excellent. Gandydancer (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
• Either 6. "After speaking to a white woman in a grocery store." or omit from lead sentence but include later. I think the "whistling" proposal just sounds too quirky for a lead sentence. Anything with "allegedly", "falsely accused", or an attempt to characterize the sexual nature of whatever happened is going to be doomed to some element of inaccuracy. It's certainly important to include this in the lead, but it does not have to be put into the first sentence. Till is remembered for being the victim of an appalling lynching, and there is no such thing as a rational explanation for a lynching, so there are few ways for us to explain it rationally without going into more details than can fit into a lead sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Trypto, what do you mean by "speaking to a white woman in a grocery store?" Do you mean he spoke to her about a purchase or do you mean he spoke to her in a sexual manner? I assume that you don't feel that he was killed for asking for candy and pop, so I must assume that you believe something similar to Carolyn's version of the incident. Gandydancer (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I mean that the sources tell us that some sort of interaction happened in the store, but we will never know exactly what was said. My personal opinion (not a reliable source) is that he asked for something that he wanted to buy (one source, I think, refers to bubblegum), and was killed because his killers were looking for an excuse to kill. As I said above, we won't find a rational reason for his killing, and therefore I don't feel a need to provide a reasonable-ish sounding reason. Please do not assume that I agree with the killers' story. (Also, as pointed out above, the whistle may have come after the killers had already decided to do the lynching.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I've never seen a source other than Carolyn that says that "some sort of (verbal) interaction" occurred in the store. Till's cousin said that he neither saw nor heard Emmitt say anything out of line and that Carolyn did not appear upset. As I said above, I'm inclined to believe he "may have touched her hand when change was exchanged, said "yeah" rather than "yes'um, looked squarely at her rather than down, etc." At that time that was enough to have made her angry. Keep in mind as well that the townspeople were pissed off about those niggers that had gone north to Chicago and then came back down for a visit and forgot their place. So IMO, if we are going to use WP's voice to say that they had a verbal exchange we need to source it. Do you have a source? As for the reason for killing him it seems as plain as plain can be to me. They were both enraged when Emmitt stood his ground. For example, when they took him from his uncles house, as he was getting dressed when he started to put his socks on they said he didn't need socks and he replied that he wore socks with his shoes. At that time I think that we can say for a fact that no black person had ever talked back to them. This issue may not seem very important to some white folk but it makes a whole lot of difference to many black folk who always refused to believe Carolyn's version. Gandydancer (talk) 03:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

To add, above you said, "(Also, as pointed out above, the whistle may have come after the killers had already decided to do the lynching.)." I have no idea where you got that from. Many witnesses said that Till whistled at her when she came out to the store to go to a car just moments after Till and his cousin left the store. Gandydancer (talk) 03:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

About the whistle thing, I got it from Pincrete's reply to NickD, just above. As for the rest, whatever. I'm fine with omitting it entirely from the lead sentence and covering it more clearly lower in the lead. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure who is being asked what here, but what (I think) I said was not that the lynching was decided by the time of the possible 'whistle', but that Mrs B was already angered by SOMETHING at that point, and on her way to get her husband's gun from the car. I personally don't think it is either knowable, nor terribly important what exactly happened between Mrs B and Till, he offended the values of that place and time in some way and was brutally murdered as a result.Pincrete (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

(Trypto we had an edit conflict) Thanks to both of you. I've known Trypto for a long time and I know that he is both an excellent editor and very easy to work with. Pincrete, I must admit that this story of this murder does twist very strongly at my heart strings and it seems to me that I place more importance on the truth of what happened on that day (perhaps because I'm a woman and have for many years worked to help to empower women?). Till's only offense that we can say for sure about was his wolf whistle. Interestingly, as I read the more modern reports of the incident they now are mostly all using that incident rather than as used to be used,"flirted with". For me I would be satisfied that the opening sentence not give any reason for his murder but that that be included in perhaps the 2nd para. But, I know that Flyer has spent many, many, MANY hours of work to improve and keep up women's articles and I feel strongly that her opinion be given more weight than others. So, for that reason I'm wondering if putting "whistled at" in the first sentence would be an acceptable possibility for her. Gandydancer (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

In any case, the ongoing discussions have pretty much persuaded me that there is simply no good way to reduce the description to a brief phrase that could fit in the lead sentence. So I've just changed my opinion to omitting it from the lead sentence, but including it later in the lead section. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Tryptofish, Till is remembered for being a black boy who was murdered after an alleged flirtatious interaction with a white woman. Look again at the sources I've included on the matter. Look at many more. This aspect is almost always noted first when describing/summarizing this case. Stating that he was murdered after this alleged interaction is not justifying a thing with regard to the killers. Anyone with sense can see that the murder was unjustifiable. And some sources I've listed do, in fact, state "allegedly" or similar. I don't see why "allegedly" or similar is needed if we simply note the reported Bryant confession immediately after the "accused of making verbal or physical advances towards a white woman" piece. There is no need to use "flirted with." As for "whistled," as I stated in the Discussion section below, "wolf-whistled" is more accurate. But there is no need to state "whistled" or "wolf-whistled" either. "Verbal or physical advances" takes care of the "flirting with" and "whistled" issues. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22, I don't think anyone doubts that the element of some kind of inappropriateness, probably of a cheekily sexual/flirtatious nature is almost certainly at the core of this incident, the perceived offence that got Till killed. What some of us would rather do, is place a more nuanced account in a sequential place in para 2, which acknowledges that we don't know exactly what that offence was and the details are still disputed, some older claims have been discredited etc. I simply don't think it is possible to be both accurate and concise in the opening sentence about the initial offence. Pincrete (talk) 07:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Pincrete, I know what you (and others with your viewpoint) are arguing; I just don't agree, except for including a more nuanced account. In the Discussion section below, I proposed to include the brief, more nuanced summary immediately after the "murdered after showing an interest in a white woman" aspect. I just don't find the argument that this aspect can't reasonably go in the lead sentence believable, especially given that it was in the lead sentence for years and that neither "flirting with" nor "whistled" (or "wolf-whistled") need to be used in the lead sentence. Bryant's reported 2008 confession does not mean that we cannot include the fact that Till was murdered for a supposed flirtatious interaction with Bryant. From what I know of the history/impact and how the sources treat/describe this case, the "murdered after showing an interest in a white woman" aspect should be in the lead sentence. Even using "interest" instead of "flirted with" or "whistled" (or "wolf-whistled") would be better than removing it from the lead sentence altogether. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Flyer I just hate that wording using "showing an interest". In the first place, I don't (goddamn :)) believe it... And we've only her statements to back it up. I have to admit that I get a little testy when it comes to giving any credence what so ever to any thing she said. My preference remains leaving it out of the opening sentence. I'll repeat what I said above, how would you and the others feel about using the wording "...after allegedly insulting a white woman" as she first described the incident. Gandydancer (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

You know, I had not previously thought of after allegedly insulting a white woman, but now that I see it, I think it's the best idea that I've seen so far. Unlike any of the previous proposals, it does not imply a specific kind of action (such as speaking, whistling, flirting, etc. etc.) that would have constituted the alleged insult, and therefore does not put us into the position of speculating about exactly what had happened, and it fits with pretty much any account. I strongly support doing it that way. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I also prefer "allegedly insulting " to other options, or "after offending a white woman in a ...". I have to say that "allegedly showing an interest" is vague but implies a definite sexual interest on Till's part, rather than a 14-year old's cheekiness, with a flirty component, that it may well have been. Pincrete (talk) 07:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• Include in lead but not in the lead sentence. The lead should reflect all the topic in the article according to the amount of weight given in the article. There is enough about the motivation of the attackers to mention it in the lead. However, the lead sentence should describe the person, and why he is known, not the motivations of his murderers. LK (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
• Yes I have read quite a bit of material on this before coming to this article, including the original breaking news articles, I think in Time Magazine and maybe some other small publication, and my memory of everything I read comports with the idea that he was lynched for flirting or otherwise showing "inappropriate" interest in a white woman. I'm pretty sure I did not start with Wikipedia. I don't remember the whistling or speaking part, but I remember the "inappropriate" eye contact, had enraged the men who lynched the boy. Strong yes, as based on my recollection that would be a key aspect of what appeared to have triggered it. Willing to reconsider if someone points me to sources, especially those that are more recent by respectable historians, if those sources suggest that is was not sexual interest, or an explanation why this is of lesser importance than some other material that might go in the first and lead sentence(s). Wherever it goes, I currently believe it should be very early in the WP:LEDE, and I support having it in the first sentence. It looks like there are pile of sources above that say it is sexual interest that triggered it, which is what I remember too.--David Tornheim (talk) 06:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• 3 I think 3 is the best one to fit, if it's being included at all. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 20:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• Just follow the 1950s wording - this was a lynching over a wolf-whistle. I'll suggest stop trying to reframe it in 2017 perspective and language, it was the perception in 1955 that killed him. Markbassett (talk) 00:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

But perspective and language have changed significantly since the 1950s. More evidence has come to light, and with it, more uncertainties. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Not all sources refer to the alleged whistle, most of them, especially fuller accounts, do not give it as the reason for the attack, rather Till's verbal 'cheekiness'. AFAIK those sources that refer to the whistle, speak of 'whistling at', not of 'wolf-whistling', the latter is usually more overtly sexual. Pincrete (talk) 09:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Pincrete: - We don't have to have consensus among the sources. If the large majority of sources refer to the whistle, we should too.

We can parse out the nuance and uncertainties in the body of the article. Leave the lede simple. NickCT (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting leaving out the whistle, simply moving it from sentence 1 (where it implies primary or sole motive) to para 2 of lead (where it sits alongside other uncertainties in sequential order). Also not turning it into a 'wolf-whistle' unless sources state that explicitly, which I believe they don't. Pincrete (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Rivertorch point is he was killed before the later evidence and later wording. So phrased as "killed for flirting, later shown false" seems more right than "killed for a false claim". The killers did not do it because of the falsity of the claim, and the womans 21-st century retraction was not in the picture at the time the trigger was pulled -- so seems better to present that in text as an afterwards. Markbassett (talk) 00:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Yes - it should be included in the lead sentence. It was why he was lynched. murdered. Follow the RS for specific wording. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Adding Comment: It seems Emmett Till was not "lynched" in the usual sense of that word, i.e., a noose around his neck and hung from a tree. History.com says something very different. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• Not in opening sentence Include in para 2 of lead in chronological sequence of events, complete with the info that it is uncertain/disputed what actually happened. It can't be included in first sentence without sacrificing accuracy IMO and that is not a price worth paying simply to put the possibility/probability of a mildly 'sexual' element to Till's behaviour into 'pole position'. The fact that he was very brutally murdered is a great deal more important to state clearly than 'muddying the waters' with the ostensible 'excuse' offered by the killers. Pincrete (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Yes include NickCT whistling version in first sentence Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• No I'd prefer any reason for the murder to not be in the opening sentence. It is a complicated aspect of the murder and would best be explained in perhaps the second paragraph. However, at this point it seems that most editors prefer something in the opening sentence. If we change the wording from "flirting", which has been used for years, I would suggest we switch to "whistled at" since that is something that has been accepted since the incident by most who either witnessed it or have written about it. A google search for info on Till following the release of the 2017 book reveals that the news sources of the first two pages of the search use the term "whistled at". No site mentioned the possibility that Till had made any sort of sexual advance towards Bryant, no matter how minor. Gandydancer (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Include but not in the first sentence. I decided to read this article as a reader which does not know anything about Emmett Till (for sake of clarity) reasons and to suppose a thought process if all I had read was the lead of this article. The WP:LEAD policy makes it clear that the lead must include all of the most important aspects of an article, since it is what most readers read, and for a lot of them, what they only read. I read the bit in the article about He spoke to 21-year-old Carolyn Bryant, the married proprietor of a small grocery store there. and afterwards got a bit confused. I know what happened because I've watched documentaries about it, and it's arguably the most famous case of a lynching, but strangely, the article doesn't even make even an "alleged" mention of it. As to the particulars about it, it appears that yes, the reliable sources do describe Till was murdered after being accused of flirting with a white woman. It is also strange that the lead will comment about it later Carolyn Bryant disclosed that she had fabricated her testimony that Till had made verbal or physical advances towards her.[2][3] but not mention the initial accusation in the first place. So yes, I am in favor of including it. Perhaps the . "After being falsely accused of making verbal or physical advances towards a white woman." bit since she admitted it was a false accusation, and it wouldn't violate WP:BLP in that regard. Tutelary (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
• Include in a second sentence of the first paragraph: Two white men abducted and murdered him over his alleged behavior during a brief interaction with 21-year-old white woman Carolyn Bryant. I agree with Tutelary: this is a narrative hole in both the first and second paragraphs. Since Till's action could be misinterpreted (the stutter-protective whistle), a violation of racial ettiquette (touching her hand), or deliberately romantic/sexual, no short description is encyclopedic, but the connection between allegation and abduction/murder is core to the story of his life and death.--Carwil (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Carwil, so you are stating that the lead should begin with a brief, vague summary, and then explain the matter later in the lead? Since it seems you are stating that the lead should still explain the matter, how early on do you think it should happen? Second paragraph? As for your proposed wording for the lead paragraph, I do feel that "alleged behavior" is way too vague, and is teasing the reader. If we go with "verbal or physical advances," which is what the fifth paragraph already does, that is at least clearer. It covers the matter without being too descriptive and without being too vague. And we can then explain what we mean by that later in the lead (preferably the second paragraph). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

The problem is "verbal and physical advances" is inconsistent with Bryant's later statements, with the possibility of a misinterpreted whistle, etc. Let's consider a phrase used later in the article: allegedly "violating the rules of Southern racial etiquette" (the later text says "caste etiquette"). This consistent with the statements of perpetrators, witnesses, and advocates.--Carwil (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Carwil, I appreciate you suggesting something else. The issue for me is that not only do the vast majority of reliable sources report that Till was killed because Bryant accused him of making a romantic/sexual advance towards her (usually by using the word "flirted"), but Bryant is reported to have admitted that this part of the story is false...at least in terms of something sexual or menacing. We have an entire section about it, and there is nothing in that section to suggest that Bryant was lying about this part of the story being false, or that she misremembered that no sexual advance was made. If going by that report, all that is clear is that she does not remember everything that happened. I'm thinking in terms of a historical viewpoint (as seen by sources I supplied above) and a WP:Due weight viewpoint, which is why I am having such a difficult time with objections to going with the "killed because he was accused of flirting with Bryant" narrative, whether we use "reportedly" or "allegedly" to help address the bit of doubt. And, again, it's not like we have to use the words "flirting with" to get the romantic/sexual advance aspect across. There is no doubt in my mind that the Till case will always first and foremost be described as a case where a black male was killed because of his perceived interest in a white woman. And that is what the case is most well known for. And right now...there is a disconnect in the lead in this regard, as made clear by Tutelary (and by me before that). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

I would go with the following: "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 being accused of making verbal or physical advances towards a white woman, Carolyn Bryant. He spoke to Bryant in a small grocery store. 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."

This way, the core description of the story is included in the first sentence, and we explain the matter immediately afterward. We could also use the traditional "flirting with" wording, but, as noted above, there are issues with that. And "whistled at" doesn't seem sufficient, unless we state "wolf-whistled." I never supported "falsely accused," as should be clear by my initial post on this talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I think most of that is good for the second paragraph of the lead. But in the first lead paragraph (as more so, the current first paragraph does) we should convey why the life and death of 14 year-old Till is of great import, and that has to do with his connection to the civil rights movement, including his brutal death during a lynching by white men, and their going free for his murder. Moreover, Carolyn, whatever her faults, did not murder, but having the lead paragraph like you have, puts it all on her shoulders, for all time to come. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I also think that it is too much for the first paragraph, but would be OK for a subsequent paragraph. I believe that the first paragraph should focus primarily on his importance as a figure in the history of civil rights, as opposed to whatever details were alleged by his killers. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree that the above is trying to squeeze too much into opening sentence/para. If we need to say anything specific about the 'store incident' in para 1, how about "following an altercation with a white woman in a store in ..." Some kind of altercation occurred in the store, but its exact nature is uncertain. Pincrete (talk) 08:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that altercation is too strong a word: a noisy argument or disagreement, especially in public. "I had an altercation with the conductor" synonyms: argument, quarrel, squabble, fight, shouting match, disagreement, contretemps, difference of opinion, falling-out, dispute, disputation, clash, fracas, wrangle, blowup, skirmish, run-in, war of words, donnybrook I think that "insulted" is the much better choice. Gandydancer (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

"After offending a white woman in a grocery store" .... ? Then put all the disputed stuff later in the lead in sequential order. That she was offended is certain (she went out to get her gun). Why and what exactly offended her is disputed, though it probably had a 'flirty/sexual' element. Pincrete (talk) 08:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Pincrete, as I've said again and again I highly doubt that he offended her in a 'flirty/sexual' manner. I'd like to see this article reflect my best guess as to what happened as well as yours or anybody else. I believe that now and I believed it before C.B. admitted that she had lied. So with that recent admission of hers I'd like to be sure that this article makes it plain that the only undisputed evidence is the whistle and that anything to the contrary is likely a lie. Perhaps we could add to the article the info from the FBI report re mores of that time (as I mentioned above). Gandydancer (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Almost all sources refer to 'flirty and/or 'whistling at', though I'm putting 'flirty' in inverted commas because, in the context of what was deemed inappropriate by a white woman in that place and time, it may have been so innocuous as to be invisible in 2017 and 'whistling at' is after she was already getting her gun, so cannot be the initial cause of offence. However, note that I'm suggesting avoiding any use of the words flirty/sexual in the first sentence and leaving any final decision as to whether the behaviour was at all cheeky/flirty/sexual to the reader. Does it matter that much? 14 year old boys approaching 21 year old married women only ordinarily risk a slap in the face and/or being laughed at and/or being reported to their mums, not a barbarously cruel death. Pincrete (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how my proposal for the lead paragraph is that much longer than what Alanscottwalker proposed. In fact, my proposal is what Alanscottwalker proposed. Look at the collapsed template above where the proposals are. The only difference is that I rightly proposed that we include the "after being accused of making verbal or physical advances towards a white woman" bit in the lead sentence, and I tweaked the flow.

I don't agree with using "after offending a white woman in a grocery store"; this is because sources don't usually use that wording. "Offending" is vague. "Interest" is vague as well, but it at least implies romantic or sexual interest, which is what the overwhelmingly majority of reliable sources report. I agree with "after being accused of making verbal or physical advances towards a white woman" or something similar. I've made my case for why. So, at this point, I'd simply be repeating myself. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Are you using lead paragraph loosely, as in, a paragraph somewhere in the lead? For the first paragraph, I never proposed anything like what you proposed, and have explicitly opposed it for the first paragraph. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

"OK, where are we at? Seems we're down to three good choices. 1) No mention of the reason 2) after allegedly insulting a white woman" and 3) "after being accused of making verbal or physical advances towards a white woman" Is this correct? Gandydancer (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, just so it is clear, no mention is no mention in the first sentence, not, no mention anywhere in the lead section. For me no mention somewhere in the lead is not something I would support, although I do support, not the first sentence, in part because it will be discussed soon after in a subsequent paragraph in the lead. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that was my understanding...perhaps I should have make it clearer. Gandydancer (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, the RfC is leaning toward including the interaction in the lead sentence. As you know, the main issue with doing that is the "flirting with" or "whistling at" (or "wolf-whistling at") wording. I'd rather not use either of those, given the aforementioned issues. But I see no issue with stating "after being accused of making verbal or physical advances towards a white woman." So I still stand by that. I disagree with using "insulting" for the same reasons I disagree with using "offending." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, I haven't added it all up. Flyer, you are saying that at this point feedback says to include something in the lead sentence? Gandydancer (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

That is what the RfC shows so far. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Flyer22 Reborn since no one knows what either Mrs B or the two killers accused Till of prior to his murder, where do you find "after being accused of making verbal or physical advances towards a white woman". Who exactly accused Till of either at that stage and according to which source(s)? 'Flirting', AFAIK is the only sourcable accusation as an initial cause (whistling is outside when she is already getting her gun) and we all pretty much agree that 'flirting' is unhelpfully vague and possibly disputed.Pincrete (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Pincrete, it does not matter that we do not know exactly what was stated or exactly what occurred. What we do know is that Till was murdered after allegedly flirting with a white woman and/or allegedly grabbing her. The reliable sources are clear on this. Stating "after being accused of making verbal or physical advances towards a white woman" is simply another way of stating that. And this wording has had support earlier on (above); so I don't see any solid reason for opposing it. I could ask you and others where did you get "after offending" and "after insulting." How is that vague wording better? We should be going by what the sources state, period. And we can convey "flirting" without using "flirting." The wording "verbal advance" clearly takes care of that. "Physical" is not even needed, since most of the sources state "flirted with" or "flirting with."

On a side note: Everyone, there is no need to ping me; this page is obviously on my watchlist. If I don't respond immediately after someone has replied to me, this is because I am busy with something else on Wikipedia or am off Wikipedia (for hours, a day, or more than a day). I also prefer not to debate all day. So I might be waiting until I'm done with other things on Wikipedia before commenting here and leaving afterward. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

We know for a fact that the first known mention of 'possibly grabbing' or indeed mention of any possible physical contact is weeks after his death, and of course was later withdrawn, so I think 'physical' is a non-starter. We cannot know what Mrs B accused Till of at the time but the wording implies we do, since she is the only one who could have accused him. Find me a source that says what Mrs B accused Till of on the day, because I can't find one though the wording implies we know or are at least certain 'flirting' was alleged by her on the day. We know that she got angry and went out to get her gun from the car. Yes, what Till said or did probably had a cheeky/flirty element to it, but how much is unknown. I think we are 'busting our guts' here to get a simple version into sentence one and actually no accurate simple version is possible of the 'initial cause', so let's delay it a sentence or two but render it accurately. Pincrete (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

We should be following the sources; I don't find that as difficult as is being made out here. I repeat: The vast majority of reliable sources state that Till was murdered for his interaction with a white woman; those sources usually use the term "flirting with." It is a fact that Till was murdered because of his perceived interest in a white woman. It was because he said something and/or otherwise did something (no matter if it was a misunderstanding or all a complete lie). The words "making verbal or physical advances towards a white woman" covers that. The "murdered for his interaction with a white woman" aspect is almost always reported first when reporting on this case. See again the sources I listed above. Because of this and what Dumuzid stated in the #Survey, May 2017 section above with regard to "Civil Rights era and the race-based crimes associated therewith," I will continue to feel that it is completely unreasonable to not include this piece in the very first sentence. The current lead sentence is inadequate. I've already stated why it is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree completely that the interaction with Bryant was the initial cause and that interaction almost certainly had an element which she (and later the men) found inappropriately sexual coming, from a black male. I disagree totally that 'perceived interest in a white woman' makes that clear, it sounds to me as if he was overtly making passes at her. AlanSW has actually shown that several encyc articles omit this from sentence one, and one could equally argue that Northern urban black meets Southern rural white is a central aspect. An important factor which I feel is not being allowed for is the age and quality of sources, a 2004 FBI investigation or lengthy book/article is obviously more carefully researched than a brief earlier article, and while I haven't looked at all, the longer ones I have looked at make it clear that EXACTLY what happened at the store is disputed, beyond the fact that Mrs B was offended and angry enough to go out for her gun (at which point the whistle may have happened).

If we HAVE to have an account of what happened in the store in the very opening, I don't think 'possibly flirting with' can be bettered, but I'd still rather a delayed, fuller and more nuanced account. Pincrete (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how I forgot the suggestion "After allegedly whistling at a white woman" which is a good one as well. Gandydancer (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

BTW Flyer, you said above that the word "insulted" is seldom used. Actually it is frequently used in the more recent accounts (since the book came out). For example: Ms. Donham’s husband Roy and his half brother J. W. Milam were charged with murder. Documents show that Ms. Bryant told her lawyer at the time that the teenager had “insulted” her. But by the time of the trial, Mr. Tyson writes, Ms. Bryant had become “the mouthpiece of a monstrous lie,” claiming that the teenager had grabbed her around the waist while uttering obscenities. The fraudulent testimony was meant to convince the court that Emmett’s behavior justified his death. Gandydancer (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Pincrete, I don't agree with your rationale; I've already been over why. And "perceived interest in a white woman" is certainly clearer than using "insulting" or "offending." There is no doubt in my mind that readers will take "interest" to mean "romantic and/or sexual." And it is the "romantic and/or sexual" element that sources mean when they state "flirting" or "wolf-whistled." Also, do you mind moving your second comment in the Survey section so that it is with your initial comment there? Both comments are essentially stating the same thing and I would hate for the closer to accidentally think they are by two different posters.

Gandydancer, "insulted" is not the the term that is usually used to initially describe this incident. I'm against it because of that and because it is vague. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Flyer, you need to consider that with the release of the Till book we have a lot of new information to work with, and we should be using it. At this point using the wording, "perceived interest in a white woman" or "after being accused of making verbal or physical advances towards a white woman" is not only not factual, it is racist in that it gives credence to the suggestion that all black men are a threat to decent white folk and their wemmonfolk. There is much better evidence that Till unknowingly broke some sort of rule such as touching her hand in the exchange of change, etc. For example, in a recent article: Days after the arrest, Ms. Bryant told her husband’s lawyer that Emmett had insulted her, but said nothing about physical contact, Dr. Tyson said. Five decades later, she told the F.B.I. that he had touched her hand. To say it is too vague makes no sense at all, IMO. To say "insulted" or "whistled at" are the best choices. Gandydancer (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Gandydancer, you've noted that you are biased on this matter. I think that editors need to stop letting their emotions drive their arguments on this. I'll attempt to keep my emotions out of it as well, although it's natural for emotions to come with the territory on this topic and especially when debating another on one's motivations. I have considered all sides. Reporting on why Till was killed -- which is that he was a black boy with a perceived interest in a white woman -- is not racist. The act of killing him was racist. Reporting on it is history. Regardless of what actually happened, what got Till killed was the Bryant accusation that he was interested in her. She clearly interpreted what Till did in a romantic and/or sexual way. If not that, she certainly let people believe that it was her interpretation. And if not that, I don't see why Tyson would state "she said with respect to the physical assault on her, or anything menacing or sexual, that that part isn't true." The "interested in her" aspect is important for the reasons that the sources state that it's important. Reporting on it, whether first or later, does not "give credence to the suggestion that all black men are a threat to decent white folk and their wemmonfolk"; it is clear to anyone who reads the lead and the article as a whole that Till was unjustly murdered. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Flyer, I think that bias was a bad choice of words on my part and I should have done better. Obviously I did not intend to make it sound like I thought this or that without any serious thought going into what I think. Just for the record, I feel that my arguments are reasonable and well-thought out and for you to make a big deal out of this is not helpful for this discussion IMO, since feelings are getting raw enough already without adding any fuel to the flames. Anyway, you state, "Regardless of what actually happened, what got Till killed was the Bryant accusation that he was interested in her." As I have said again and again we have no idea whether or not he made some sort of sexual remark or, for example, merely made hand contact in the exchange of change, a radical mistake for any black person at that time in that place. You keep refusing to accept that what happened before the trial and what was actually said at the trial are two different things. After all, what was she going to say?...that they killed him because he touched her hand? Of course not because she had to make it sound like he had made a strong sexual advance on her. You keep wanting to make it clear, black and white, not "confusing", etc. but it's not so easy at all ...All the more reason that it should be left out of the lead first sentence in the first place, IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Gandydancer, it's not a matter of black and white for me. Well, except for the racist aspect of it that was very much about black and white. I'm not ignoring or neglecting anything. As for the rest, you can consider my "20:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)" reply to Pincrete below my reply to you as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I was not using black and white in a racial sense...again a poor choice of words on my part, I guess. As to the post below, yes, we do need to follow the sources and the more recent sources do not use the "sexual interest" sort of suggestions as you say. They use "whistled" or "insulted" since the 2017 Till book came out. Anyway, like a lot of us here I am pretty sick of this and wish for a close ASAP. I think it was a mistake to not take Trypto's advise and have "some sort of survey", as he said below. Gandydancer (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I know that you did not mean black and white in a racial sense. As for sources, I'm sticking with my due weight argument and the fact that we supposedly have Bryant on record specifically stating "with respect to the physical assault on [me], or anything menacing or sexual, that that part isn't true." As for another survey, the current is specifically about the issue at hand. If a second one undermines the consensus that comes out of that one, I will only view it as a survey meant to get around consensus. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Re what got Till killed was the Bryant accusation that he was interested in her. She clearly interpreted what Till did in a romantic and/or sexual way. If not that, she certainly let people believe that it was her interpretation. Apart from accusations made for the first time at the trial (since withdrawn). When did Mrs B accuse Till, to whom and of what exactly? There is very possibly a perception on Mrs B's part that a 14-year old black male, behaved inappropriately to a 21 year old married white woman, but was that a direct-face look? Cheeky behaviour? An explicitly sexual remark? Touched hands? I don't think anyone knows and we shouldn't pretend we do. Pincrete (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, it's not about knowing exactly what was stated or otherwise done. It's about following the sources with due weight. Have a look at what WP:Right the great wrongs states, or what WP:False balance states. Following the sources is not about us knowing exactly what happened, any more than that it is the case for a lot of other historical incidents that we were not there for. We have what most sources state and what Bryant supposedly told Tyson. At this point, we are just repeating ourselves. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Other editors are as familiar with basic policies as you are I think. Quoting policies like 'weight' is a bit pointless unless you say which sources you give weight to and which you don't and why. The whole point of my post is that you seemed very clear about what Mrs B said, did and felt, all of which are no better than guesses, very possibly right, but guesses nonetheless. I'm the one who says we really don't know and should say that. Pincrete (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

If they are as familiar with the basic policies, then they should know that weight does apply. The WP:False balance aspect of it very much applies. I have already noted what I am referring to when it comes to due weight -- Till, a black boy, being killed because of his perceived interest in Bryant, a white woman. Others have argued the same in this RfC. I was not arguing what Bryant stated, except for what Tyson reports she stated. In fact, I was very clear that "it's not about knowing exactly what was stated or otherwise done." I was arguing what the preponderance of reliable sources state, sources that you continue to disregard or cast doubt on because we don't know exactly what happened, even though the same exact thing can be stated about various other historical events where we are simply following what the sources state with due weight. We were not there in person for those cases either. We do know that Till was killed for a perceived interest in Bryant. You keep arguing about what might have happened and that we don't know exactly what happened, as if that changes the fact that Till was killed because the killers perceived him to have been flirting with Bryant. The sources, for example, do not state that he was killed because they thought that he simply looked at her funny. You are arguing the same thing again and again. And so am I. I've resigned to the fact that we will not be agreeing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC) l

Once again, when you don't agree with another editor, or other editors, you ignore anything that does not fit your perception. There is no evidence that "Till was killed because the killers perceived him to have been flirting with Bryant". It is just as likely that he was killed because he stood his ground and did not obey the strict rules for black behavior that existed at that time, for example not looking a white woman in the eye or failing to be careful to not make any skin contact when exchanging money. ...or telling white men to wait till he put his socks on before he was abducted in the middle of the night. Gandydancer (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Once again, I am not ignoring anything. Once again, I am following what the preponderance of reliable sources state. And, no, I don't think it's just as likely at all that the men murdered him simply because he supposedly stood his ground. I think it is very clear that they were going to kill him the moment they went searching for him. And any other speculation, such as "not looking a white woman in the eye or failing to be careful to not make any skin contact when exchanging money," is just speculation not supported by the sources, while the "Till was killed because the killers perceived him to have been flirting with Bryant" aspect is overwhelmingly supported by the sources and Tyson specifically stated that Bryant commented on that aspect. It's not supposed to be about what we think -- that's the point. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Above, you stated, "After all, what was she going to say?...that they killed him because he touched her hand? Of course not because she had to make it sound like he had made a strong sexual advance on her." I don't know how I can iterate the following any clearer: Except for the account by Tyson and sources specifically examining her accusation, it does not matter that we do not know if she was lying or not. That she was seemingly lying about something does not negate what got Till killed. The issue is what got him killed and how that impacted society. Whatever she claimed and/or let people believe is what got Till killed. By her supposed own admission, a sexual element was a part of the accusation. The accusation and how that impacted society is what the sources are reporting on. The accuracy of the accusation is another matter, one that is already addressed in the article and can be addressed in the lead paragraph. And, yes, I know that you and some others are opposed to it being in the lead paragraph. I know why. I just do not agree. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK, the first time any accusation was made by Mrs B, was just before the trial, and has since been largely withdrawn by her. We aren't disagreeing about whether any of her accusations are true or not, we are disagreeing as to whether we now know what the accusations were in the days between 'store' and 'murder', ie what she told local 'whites' and the two murderers or how they 'heard' that. Did the accusations have a 'flirty/cheeky' element? Probably/possibly, but AFAI can see there is real doubt as to what exactly happened in the store and therefore why exactly he was killed, beyond the obvious that two white men felt entitled to murder Till because they thought he didn't behave as they thought he should. Pincrete (talk) 10:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I looked at the first two pages of a Google search of articles from news sources since the book came out and every last one that mentioned a reason said "whistled at". None said, "making verbal or physical advances towards a white woman." The reporting of Till's murder has shifted since Bryant's admission and we need to do the same. Gandydancer (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Pincrete, above, you stated, "Almost all sources refer to 'flirty and/or 'whistling at'." WP:Due weight states, "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a 'see also' to an article about those specific views." The WP:False balance portion of WP:Due weight states, "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity.'" Now compare that to what you, Gandydancer and two others are arguing. As for the rest of what you stated, I feel that I've already addressed this; so I won't repeat.

Gandydancer, "verbal or physical advances" is already in the lead, all the way down in the fifth paragraph. And I've already noted what it covers. There is no problem at all with stating "making verbal or physical advances towards a white woman." You disagree; I already know that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes I strongly disagree. The lead states, "Carolyn Bryant disclosed that she had fabricated her testimony that Till had made verbal or physical advances towards her" but that refers to her remarks at the trial and it is accurate. According to the NYT article after Tyson's book came out, "Days after the arrest, Ms. Bryant told her husband’s lawyer that Emmett had insulted her, but said nothing about physical contact, Dr. Tyson said. Five decades later, she told the F.B.I. that he had touched her hand." https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/emmett-till-lynching-carolyn-bryant-donham.html Gandydancer (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

And we will continue to disagree on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

That's better (for the Survey section). Thank you, Pincrete. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether it might be useful to have some sort of follow-up survey or RfC, in which there could be a smaller set of choices from which to choose. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Brilliant minds think alike. I was thinking the same thing. Gandydancer (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Allow the current RfC to play out first. We should not have two RfCs going on at the same time. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I think a second RfC would be ok, we could even close this one to refine the langauge. I think it's run long enough, and there is nothing wrong with rewording an RfC after extensive discussion. Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

This one is specifically about whether or not the debated aspect should be in the lead sentence, though. So, yeah, I'd rather we get that debate out of the way first. And I'd rather we wait and let the RfC close organically. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course it should be in the first sentence, IF an accurate form of words can be found to put it there and the RfC does not even propose particular text for the first sentence. People are agreeing without it being clear what the proposed text is. The key as far as I'm concerned is accurate info, deciding how to order that text efficiently and clearly is secondary. I would agree to any form of words that made it clear that it is pretty unclear/disputed what actually happened in the shop, but that it was possibly 'flirty' and angered Mrs B. Pincrete (talk) 09:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It should be in the lead sentence, per my and others' comments. The RfC question pertains to whether or not the "interest" aspect should be in the lead sentence. No matter the wording, it should be there. I'm not going to repeat to you my rationale for why. Your idea of accurate info is based on you and the rest of us not knowing exactly what happened; my argument in that regard is that this is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work.

On a side note: I may not have advertised this RfC enough. So I will advertise it a bit more via relevant WikiProjects (such as WP:WikiProject Politics, WP:WikiProject Media and WP:WikiProject Culture, although WP:WikiProject Culture is inactive). I'll also leave a note at WP:Neutral about it, since there have been WP:Neutral arguments made here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I also alerted WP:Law, WP:Sociology, WP:Death, WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research‎. We also got a recent comment from Tutelary, who I think followed me here from another article (no complaints on that). I would alert WP:Women, but it somehow seems "off," given Bryant's accusation. If someone else feels that WP:Women should be contacted, or WP:Men, for that matter, feel free. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I had decided to look over some WP:RFCs and in doing so, I commented on a few and I also saw this one, and thought I was give my thoughts. That's all. Tutelary (talk) 17:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Also contacted: Talk:African Americans, Talk:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–1968), Talk:Civil rights movements and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human rights. Editors who are familiar with me from the African Americans article might opt to weigh in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

No consensus, leave first sentence as is

I've gone through the entire RFC and it appears there is no consensus for changing the first sentence. Yes, a number of people say they're open to having the first sentence refer to what happened in the store, but no specific language or information is close to gaining overall consensus. As a result the first sentence should remain as it is, reading "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." The current sentence covers the most relevant information from a historical point of view while the issue of what exactly happened in the store, which is still heavily debated as evidenced from this RFC, is described a few sentences later in the lead. I should also point out that new evidence on what happened is still coming out, as with the recent media coverage about Carolyn Bryant lying about Till. --SouthernNights (talk) 12:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't view "no consensus on specific wording" as the same thing as "no consensus for changing the first sentence." The RfC is not about specific wording. It is about whether or not the "accused of showing an interest in a white woman" aspect should be in the lead sentence. And, from what I see, WP:Consensus, which is not about headcount but about the strength of arguments based on our rules, is for a change to the lead sentence. And if WP:Consensus was about headcount, it currently stands that more editors are for changing the lead sentence to include the piece than not (10 for "yes" and 6 for "no."). The RfC includes a comment and a vote by two different editors, which should not be mistaken as four different votes. Without the "accused of showing an interest in a white woman" aspect, there is a key historical aspect missing from the lead sentence. This is overwhelmingly evident by the literature, including the sources I listed, and when we consider the reported 2008 confession by Bryant. We should be adhering to WP:Due weight. We should not be engaging in WP:Recentism. And, as mentioned by Tutelary in the Survey section (and by me before that), the current lead is inadequate because it currently does not explain at all why Till was killed, and it has the "Bryant disclosed that she had fabricated her testimony that Till had made verbal or physical advances towards her" piece all the way down in the fifth paragraph without first explaining the "accused of showing an interest in a white woman" aspect. Why should be included, regardless of the argument by certain editors that we don't know exactly what happened. We know what most sources state, and that is what we should be going by. It is not for us to debate what happened and ignore the literature, and give as much or more weight to the few sources that don't state "flirting with," "whistling at," or "wolf-whistled." The WP:Ignore all rules policy should be used with care; it is not being used with care in this case. And either way, the "Bryant disclosed that she had fabricated her testimony that Till had made verbal or physical advances towards her" piece should not be all the way down in the fifth paragraph. And it is certainly poor lead structure to include it without first explaining the "accused of showing an interest in a white woman" aspect.

On a side note: I feel that the title of this section may bias the closer to close this RfC as "no consensus." I don't see why you felt a separate section was needed for your comment. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly that Bryant's recantation should NOT be down in para 5, but that is irrelevant to what goes in para 1. Pincrete (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Another point is that the lead sentence and lead paragraph are two different things (well, except for when the lead sentence is considered a paragraph, as in a single-sentence paragraph). Although I think that the aforementioned accusation bit should be in the lead sentence, I'd be okay with it being somewhere else in the lead paragraph. And if it's not to be put in the lead paragraph, it should at least be in the second paragraph, and early on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

My two cents: I've been away from this discussion for about three weeks, and obviously missed a lot of the back-and-forth. But I would just say that the entire lead section looks greatly improved from when I originally joined this debate. I think it should be left exactly as it currently is. SlackerInc1 (talk) 07:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

SlackerInc1, greatly improved simply because it removes the encounter material? Greatly improved, despite the lead currently not explaining why Till was killed (because some editors argue that "we don't know what happened" despite what the vast majority of sources state) and including the "Bryant disclosed that she had fabricated her testimony that Till had made verbal or physical advances towards her" piece all the way down in the fifth paragraph without first explaining the "accused of showing an interest in a white woman" aspect? That is not a greatly improved lead. That is a mess of a lead. I know your arguments, as seen with the edit you made here, for example, but the solution is not the way the lead currently is. Even editors who are not for the encounter bit being in the lead sentence are for it being elsewhere in the lead (and not the way it currently is). Frankly, I am so disappointed with the rationales given for justifying this removal that I find this dispute to be even worse than the WP:Neutral dispute that led to the incorrect moving of the Murder of JonBenét Ramsey article. That is another "we don't know what happened" case. But WP:Neutral did not support that move at all, and this was at least made clear by another RfC focusing on a similar issue (although the closer noted that his close was not based on the "title of the article" issue). Likewise, I do not see how WP:Neutral in any way supports the lead as it currently is or the bit never being placed in the lead sentence or lead paragraph. But I've already gone over my arguments on that. And now, since editors are at an impasse on this issue, it seems that we will have to come up with some other solution. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22, I agree that the lead is 'out of kilter'. The reasons I strongly opposed "after being falsely accused of flirting with a white woman" are threefold, firstly the sentence says you KNOW Till was accused of flirting at the store, not at some later date, many sources say he was so accused, many don't .... secondly the word 'falsely' says you know Till didn't flirt (errrrr bit strange, why did she accuse him then? Does she like getting boys into trouble? Some kind of misunderstanding? The phrase begs more questions than it answers) .... thirdly 'flirting' is very vague and subjective, 'falsely accused of flirting' doubly so, though there is probably no better word for 'lightly sexual banter' than 'flirting'.... If we MUST have a 'motive' in para 1, 'after reportedly flirting with or whistling at', seems to be supportable. We don't know what happened, but we do know what has been reported. Pincrete (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Pincrete, I don't support "falsely accused." I was clear about that. I do support "after reportedly flirting with," per sources I've listed above. I could also agree to "after reportedly flirting with or whistling at." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, "after being falsely accused of flirting with a white woman" is just wrong on so many levels, there is nothing bad about its being gone. Flyer22 Reborn, I don't even stand by the edit I made (back before I even realized there was an RFC and all that). In the subsequent discussion, I have come to understand that it is not even clear the accusations of grabbing and sexually harassing Carolyn Bryant came before Till was killed, as opposed to being a post hoc rationalization for his murder. We may never know what she told her husband and brother-in-law, but it was probably something about Till flirting with her. However, I strongly oppose any reference to "falsely accused" in this context, for two reasons: (1) We don't know that it was false that Till attempted to flirt with her--in fact, it is more logical to assume he did than that she decided randomly to target him for no reason whatever. (2) We are implicitly validating the racist codes of the time by using the verbiage "falsely accused". People are "accused", falsely or not, of crimes or immoral/unethical actions. You don't say "John was falsely accused of politely greeting Jane." Not even if there are multiple witnesses to attest to the fact that John did not greet Jane at all. So we should not buy into those judgements. If we desperately need an explanation in that part of the lead (and I don't believe we really do), it needs to be something like "after telling her husband Till had in some way violated the racist social codes of the Jim Crow-era South in the way he interacted with her". Then you can add something about how at trial, Bryant had testified that Till grabbed and sexually harassed her, but later recanted this testimony, which was presumably exaggerated in order to make an all-white Southern jury sympathetic to Till's killers. SlackerInc1 (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Tiny detail, but Bryant's testimony was actually given in the absence of the jury, who appear to have been already 'tied up' before the trial. Much of the defence appears to have been a mere 'fig leaf', a pantomime performed for the benefit of outsiders. Pincrete (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

SlackerInc1, notice editors in the RfC are not arguing to retain "falsely accused." I've argued against using "falsely accused." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, that's good to hear. Maybe I'd be a lot clearer on your position if you just offered your verbatim text as to what the lead should be? Or at least the first paragraph? SlackerInc1 (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

SlackerInc1, see the beginning of the #Discussion section for my proposal to solve the issue that some have with using "flirting with" or even your addition of "harassing and grabbing." What do you think of that? Alternative wordings are also suggested in that section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• I want to bring up again a suggestion made earlier by Pincrete that I think is very good, and that seems to have gotten lost in the wall of text: "after offending a white woman in a grocery store". This way, we completely bypass the impasse over what exactly we should say that Till did, and we do not need to worry over "allegedly" or "falsely accused". It's indisputable that the sources indicate that she was "offended", whether rightly or wrongly, and whether it was caused by a whistle, flirting, harassing and grabbing, or whatever. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I challenged that because it is a bit too vague for my tastes and I feel that it teases the readers. I've heard the arguments for it, but I just don't agree. To reiterate, we already state in the fifth paragraph of the lead the following: "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." And it's stated again, in a slightly different way, in the "Encounter between Till and Carolyn Bryant" section. And then it is elaborated on in the "Admission that testimony against Till was false" section. So, for the life of me, no matter how hard I try to see the issue, I do not see the issue with stating "accused of making verbal or physical advances" in the lead sentence or elsewhere in the lead paragraph. When it comes to Pincrete's suggestions, I much prefer his latest suggestion of "after reportedly flirting with or whistling at" to "after offending." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

But I would go with "after offending" rather than nothing being in the lead sentence or lead paragraph about the encounter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, those are very understandable arguments. From my perspective, I would slightly prefer "after offending" to leaving it out completely, but I would strongly prefer leaving it out completely to most of the more specific but problematic alternatives. And given how difficult these discussions have been, I'm hoping for something that is acceptable to enough editors to achieve consensus. I actually agree with your point about it teasing the reader, and it's something I've been trying hard to come up with a solution for. What makes me comfortable with this option is that it is more informative than saying nothing, and that the details get cleared up just a few sentences later, where there is more room to provide the needed nuances. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

We are not supposed to tease the reader, though. And right now, the details do not get cleared up just a few sentence later; so that is something else to work on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's not exactly a flagrant example of "teasing". Just not trying to fit the entire page into one sentence (and please do not take that overly literally either). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Given some of the synonyms for "flagrant," mainly "blatant," "glaring," and "obvious," the words "flagrant teasing" are not completely off the mark. Either way, to me, the teasing should be avoided. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Re: I do not see the issue with stating "accused of making verbal or physical advances", at the risk of repeating myself, the issue for me is twofold. Mainly this text implies that we know what accusations were made prior to the killing (as opposed to at the trial), I would say that beyond Till's behaviour possibly/probably having a 14-yr-old male bravado/flirty/cheekily sexual element, we don't know either what Till did, nor what Carole B accused him of at that time. Secondly, I think 'making advances' somewhat overstates what sources say about Till's alleged behaviour. 'Flirting', for all its vagueness, implies words or behaviour with a mild sexual element - without characterising intent. 'Making advances' to me implies a conscious intent to seduce, which, given that he was 14 and she was 21 and married and that the year was 1955, seems very unlikely. The underlying problem for me is that we don't know for certain what happened at the store, nor indeed what exactly the killers thought had happened there, but that Till probably crossed a sexual barrier that a black male should not have crossed according to local white values.Pincrete (talk) 08:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Trypto, I think that I was the one that suggested "allegedly insulted" and I think it's not too bad but like all the rest one can find faults with it as well. I'm in general agreement with Pincrete except that we have no way of knowing whether Till crossed any sexual barrier of that time or merely crossed some sort of behavior barrier such as failing to say "yes mam" rather than "yeah". See for example the examples given in the FBI report. Also, I read an interesting review of all the news accounts, both North and South, written leading up to the trial and every last one of them referred to Till's whistle with no suggestion of any other inappropriate behavior, which suggests that the story that Bryant concocted to free the men (and later said was false) was made up and voiced at the time of the trial, and not before. IMO, with all the reading I've done, and it's a lot, I'm of the opinion that he crossed a "negro" behavior line of that time and not a "sexual" behavior line. I'd guess that most people, North and South, then and even now, found it hard to believe that a "negro" could be killed for whistling and felt/feel that he must have made some sort of sexual advance in the store, no matter how slight. To my way of thinking that is somewhat racist thinking in that it perpetuates the firm belief of Southern whites of that time that black men were out to try to have sex with their women... (Though of course, that thinking was not restricted totally to the south nor to that time alone.) Gandydancer (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I think we agree. When I say 'sexual' I mean it may well have been something so small, that we would barely know what to call it (a smile? a look? failing to make a point of avoiding hand contact?). I think both RS and circumstantial evidence suggest this was something that a male should not do to a female if he were black at that time and in that place, unfortunately we don't know what that was. Pincrete (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Gandydancer, I do remember "allegedly insulted", and as I previously said, I like that one too. However, we really do have to say "allegedly" if we say "insulted", but there is no need to say it with "offended". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I firmly believe the store must be mentioned, but I think it's obviously true we must be mindful of the limits of our knowledge of what happened. I would suggest something along the lines of "after a disputed interaction with a white woman," or the like. I think the racial component is important, as well as that something happened. The theories of what exactly transpired can be left for the body of the article. Just the way I see it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The "offending" wording does indeed include both the store and the racial aspect. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Pincrete, yeah, we are repeating ourselves and it does not appear that either camp is relenting. Well, maybe except for you, Dumuzid? I am considering the alternatives, but I cannot agree to any of the vague suggestions. Pincrete, like I just told Carwil above, "The issue for me is that not only do the vast majority of reliable sources report that Till was killed because Bryant accused him of making a romantic/sexual advance towards her (usually by using the word "flirted"), but Bryant is reported to have admitted that this part of the story is false...at least in terms of something sexual or menacing. We have an entire section about it, and there is nothing in that section to suggest that Bryant was lying about this part of the story being false, or that she misremembered that no sexual advance was made. If going by that report, all that is clear is that she does not remember everything that happened. I'm thinking in terms of a historical viewpoint (as seen by sources I supplied above) and a WP:Due weight viewpoint, which is why I am having such a difficult time with objections to going with the 'killed because he was accused of flirting with Bryant' narrative, whether we use 'reportedly' or 'allegedly' to help address the bit of doubt. And, again, it's not like we have to use the words 'flirting with' to get the romantic/sexual advance aspect across. There is no doubt in my mind that the Till case will always first and foremost be described as a case where a black male was killed because of his perceived interest in a white woman. And that is what the case is most well known for. And right now...there is a disconnect in the lead in this regard, as made clear by Tutelary (and by me before that)." As for your specific arguments, especially your "we don't know exactly what happened" argument, I already addressed those arguments in the #Discussion section above and in this one; so I won't be repeating myself on that. At least not in this RfC. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

A few brief points, I've just checked the sources above, none of them say Carole B accused Till (at the time), I believe there are some reports that say it was someone else who informed Mr B. Also I stick by my conviction that one cannot rationalise anything from Carole B's recanting, there is nothing irrational in saying "I can't (or don't wish to) remember what happened last Monday, but I know I lied about it on Wednesday". The net effect is that we are certain the explicit accusations made in court are false, but we have no idea what really happened. We simply have no record of any kind from the prime witness, Carole, but tons of peripheral indicators that something cheeky/flirty possibly/probably happened. 'Flirting' is flawed, but it's the term sources use, it's ambiguous, but perhaps that is inevitable and/or intentional and all attempts to make it clearer seem to flounder into guesswork territory AFAI can see. Pincrete (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

If you are referring to the sources I listed, the sources do not have to state "at the time"; they state that Till was murdered because he was accused of flirting with a white woman. That is the narrative that the vast majority of sources use, and I maintain that it is the narrative we should be using to begin the lead, whether in the first or second sentence. Or at least somewhere in the lead paragraph. It is the historical and most widely used narrative for this case. Elaboration is for later in the lead. We should not be sitting here stating, "Gee, we don't know exactly what happened. So let's ignore what the preponderance of reliable sources state and push that to the side." It really is not for us to "flounder into guesswork territory." Following what the preponderance of the literature states is supposed to prevent floundering into guesswork territory. Whatever your opinion on the reported 2008 Bryant interview, she is reported to have stated that "with respect to the physical assault on her, or anything menacing or sexual, that that part isn't true." We specifically state that Bryant reportedly falsified the sexual aspect of her story. Not just that; we state that "Carolyn Bryant disclosed that she had fabricated her testimony that Till had made verbal or physical advances towards her." If we are not sure that she included "flirting" in her viewpoint when she stated "with respect to the physical assault on her, or anything menacing or sexual, that that part isn't true," then we should not have the "verbal or physical advances towards her" wording in the article. We should be sticking to her exact wording. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

To me, too, it appears that "we are repeating ourselves and it does not appear that either camp is relenting". We can keep this up ad infinitum, in which case "no consensus, leave first sentence as is" will indeed be the result, or some editors are going to need to compromise a little if anything at all is to be added to the lead sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

However this RfC closes, I don't think that the lead sentence will stay as is. Eventually, something regarding this historical matter will be added to it. And, really, I would have preferred that you reverted and left the WP:Status quo while we debated, or that you had at least replaced "after being falsely accused of flirting with a white woman" with "after reportedly being accused of flirting with a white woman." Two sources I listed above state "allegedly." Some others state "reportedly." I could have gone along with "after allegedly flirting with a white woman" too. Or some form of "allegedly." And then have the "different stories" and recant aspect immediately after that. The lower part of the lead would elaborate. But here we are. Cases like this certainly make me want to close RfCs since, even though I can somewhat see where you and others are coming from, I don't think that the "against" arguments are strong. The RfC will probably be closed as "no consensus," but I think that consensus certainly supports a change. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

As I already said, a "consensus" that there should be some sort of change becomes meaningless if there is no consensus as to what that change should be. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Not if the consensus is for the "accused of showing an interest in a white woman" aspect. The RfC asks: Should we include the "accused of showing an interest in a white woman" aspect in the lead or specifically the lead sentence?

Wording on the matter is not much of an issue as long as the wording is not too vague or missing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, no such consensus actually exists. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

By the way you are defining consensus. Not by the way that I am defining WP:Consensus, which is supposed to be based on the strength of the arguments. I've noted that I see no strength in the "oppose" arguments (which are still the minority at this point), certainly not any policy- or guideline-based ones. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Well see all the support for your position that you want, but I don't see it. IMO the strength of the "oppose" arguments, myself included, is even stronger, or at least equal, than the "supports". Gandydancer (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Explain how the "oppose" votes are supported by any of our policies or guidelines. I fail to see how the arguments are supported by WP:Neutral, especially the WP:Due weight portion of it (which is the core of what being neutral on Wikipedia means), or WP:Lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that "not in the first sentence" does not mean "not in the first paragraph." Tutelary's comment seems like he is for the bit coming early on. And Carwil specifically stated, "Include in a second sentence of the first paragraph." When we look at all of the comments stating "Yes," "Include," or similar, there is a consensus to include the piece early on. Some closers argue "rough consensus" while citing our policies or guidelines. In this case, "rough consensus" is for the material being in the lead sentence or otherwise in the lead paragraph. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I don't mean to come across as dismissive of your views. And I apologize if I'm come across that way. It's rather we simply strongly disagree with each other on this matter. It's clear that we won't agree on everything. I know that you had great respect for me prior to this debate, and I hope that this debate hasn't diminished that respect too much. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Certainly it has not changed in the least, even though it seems that we can not find agreement on this one issue. This is what makes WP so great, IMO. Good people and yet different perspectives. Gandydancer (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

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.

After RfC discussion

Bryan Henderson (giraffedata), thanks for the close. Although the vote counts were not exactly even (since ten people were for the piece being in the lead sentence, and eight, including Rivertorch's comment, were not for it being in the lead sentence), I can understand why you called the vote counts on that front even. You stated, "The consensus is that the 'accused of showing an interest in a white woman" aspect should be included in the lead." But you also stated, "The consensus I'm describing is for the aspect of the reason/motivation/stimulus for the murder being such an interaction with a white woman, not the actual wording quoted above."

With this edit, Tryptofish, who was for adding vague wording to the lead on the matter, added "after offending a white woman in a grocery store," and stated, "RfC is closed, and this is consistent with the close. Not necessarily intended to be the final outcome, but this seems a reasonable way to avoid endless further tl;dr." Do you feel that your close supports this wording? Because I don't see that it does. And even if we retain that piece in the lead sentence, the lead still needs to explain the interest/flirtation aspect, especially since we still have the following in the fifth paragraph: "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." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

My close does support adding that, but it also supports adding it to the second paragraph and adding every other wording that's been bandied about instead. The only consensus I found is that the lead is better off mentioning a white woman as stimulus for the murder than not mentioning a white woman as stimulus for the murder. This edit adds that mention.

There are, by the way, three places in the lead right now that the white woman issue shows up: 1) that first sentence; 2) The second paragraph mysteriously says the victim spoke to the wife of one of the killers. Without any linkage, this is a totally irrelevant piece of trivia. 3) The fifth paragraph (by my count) says Carolyn Bryant recanted testimony that has not previously been mentioned, so again, there is no apparent relevance. I assume this mess is just classic communal editing corruption.

I believe the consensus demands that the lead say that that conversation was the motivation for the murder, and that was because of alleged flirtatious or offensive or something content of the conversation. Though the discussion thus far has not resulted in consensus as to whether that should go in the lead sentence or not, it looks to me like further discussion could develop a consensus to put all that information in the second paragraph and something sufficiently vague in the lead sentence. "after offending a white woman" is not sufficiently vague, but with enough weasel words, such as "allegedly" it probably could be. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Bryan Henderson (giraffedata), thanks for responding again. Not sure if I should keep pinging you. Yeah, I do think that the current lead is a mess regarding the "interest in a white woman" aspect, and I've started a discussion on the matter below: #Structuring the rest of the lead with regard to interest/flirtation aspect. What you stated about the mess is exactly what I mean. If the followup discussion is ignored, this (to me) means that I should start an RfC about the lead structure. But I'd rather that another RfC not need to be started. And starting one about specific wording for the lead sentence with regard to the "interest in a white woman" matter seems futile; there have been two about that thus far (including mine, although mine more so focused on whether the aspect should be in the lead sentence or lead at all).

Regarding your commentary about including "a white woman as stimulus for the murder," the issue I am having with the current lead is that "offending" is vague and that the lead currently does not go on to explain the matter. Per WP:Lead and WP:Due, it should. The wording "after offending a white woman in a grocery store" does not really convey "accused of showing an interest in a white woman." I state this because I think that most people would take "interest" to mean "romantic sexual" and/or "sexual interest," which is why some people were opposed to including it in the lead sentence. Also, most of the opposing editors stated they were okay with the matter being explained somewhere in the lead, but that they objected to it being in the lead sentence. And the other ones who stated that it should be in the lead but not the lead sentence argued for clarity/expansion on the matter being included somewhere in the lead; "early on" is what I got from the comments. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

'Allegedly' would not be needed before 'after offending', I don't think anyone doubts Mrs B was offended and went to get her husband's gun from the car, causing all the boys to 'disappear'. It is only the cause of the offence which is disputed/unknown and what accusations were made against Till at that time AFAIK. Pincrete (talk) 07:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

"Allegedly" is not needed either way. And I don't think anyone in the RfC was for use of "allegedly." Regardless, it is time for us to work out the structure of the lead, per previous comments about the structure and now per Giraffedata's comment about its disarray. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

"Allegedly" is suggested by Bryan above, though we agree it is not needed. Pincrete (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

When I made that edit, I was, and remain, very friendly to the possibility of replacing it with something else, if that something else has sufficient consensus. And I knew when I made the edit that Flyer22 would object to it, but I made the edit anyway, because frankly I expect, based upon the discussion so far, that Flyer22 would object to anything that would have any possibility of getting consensus with the rest of the editors here. And I am gratified that Bryan agrees that the wording is (along with many other conceivable options) consistent with the close. I do not think that the wording is inappropriately vague, but I am amused that Flyer22 considers it too vague while Bryan suggests that it is not vague enough. That should pretty well tell anyone with an open mind that this is a subjective matter about which editors are unlikely to achieve unanimity. Anyway, adding more detail to the rest of the lead, as is starting now, is a good idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Pincrete, from what I see, he was not suggesting "allegedly"; he stated "but with enough weasel words, such as 'allegedly' [the wording] probably could be [vague]."

Tryptofish, if I was not open to consensus, I would not have started the RfC. But, yes, I do not support pseudo-consensus that violates our rules. I'm glad you find my efforts to adhere to the WP:Neutral policy and WP:Lead guideline amusing. I find it amusing that certain editors are acting like we are committing some atrocity by following the WP:Neutral policy and WP:Lead guideline and noting in the lead what the vast majority of reliable sources note about this case. I do not appreciate being treated like some pest that ought to be silenced/go away while a certain group of editors get to continue to do what they want to do at this article, rules be damned. I objected to your edit because I viewed it as nothing but a silencing attempt and because it only supports those who are more than happy with being vague about this aspect of the case in the lead. I do not see a consensus for being vague in any sense. I understand that you are stating that your edit wasn't meant to be a silencing matter, but the edit summary does indicate otherwise, despite it also stating "not necessarily intended to be the final outcome." While we are focused on what Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) stated, you should focus on the parts where he stated "but [my close] also supports adding it to the second paragraph and adding every other wording that's been bandied about instead" and "I believe the consensus demands that the lead say that that conversation was the motivation for the murder, and that was because of alleged flirtatious or offensive or something content of the conversation." The RfC consensus is very clear that the flirting matter should be in the lead, regardless of whether or not it is placed in the lead sentence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, adding more detail to the rest of the lead, as is starting now, is a good idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)