Talk:Emmett Till/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

"Thar he" quote

While I certainly have mixed feelings and do understand the change to "there he is", IMO, all things considered, such as, "It was the most dramatic moment in the history of the new south?", a black man publicly accusing whites of murder, I strongly believe that we need to change it back to "thar he" which were his actual words. Sometimes the exact words should not be changed and this is one of those times. After all, would we monkey with one of the Native American's historical speeches to correct their wording to "proper" English? Gandydancer (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you can say "those were his actual words." (especially given the citation). He apparently pointed and said verbally the word, "there". How he pronounced it does not change that, he did not spell, "H-e, i-s, t-h-a-r." Moreover, we would not change everyone's spoken words to how they pronounced them, so should not change just his. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Correcting to proper English certainly wasn't my logic. My understanding of the footnote was that Mose had actually said "there he is", but that it had been reported in papers as "thar he". This is what the footnote says: The trial transcript says "There he is", although witnesses recall variations of "Dar he", "Thar he", or "Thar's the one". Wright's family protested that Mose Wright was made to sound illiterate by newspaper accounts and insist he said "There he is. … … If my understanding is incorrect, or if James Hicks, the reporter describing the drama, uses 'thar he', by all means restore. Pincrete (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Well now that sure is interesting. I looked at the trial transcript and you sure are right. I'm so glad that you caught that error Pincrete. Yeah for Wikipedia! Gandydancer (talk) 04:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I think what Hicks (the reporter) says, rather than what Mose says should be the decider (so long as the footnote is left to clarify). Hicks is being quoted, quoting Mose and we shouldn't correct Hicks anymore than we would correct Mose. Pincrete (talk) 07:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Structuring the rest of the lead with regard to interest/flirtation aspect

Like I stated in the #After RfC discussion section above, regardless of whether we keep the "after offending a white woman in a grocery store" part for 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."

The lead is still a mess on this front and this needs to be fixed. This addition by Tryptofish, which was his preferred wording, is not a solution to addressing the matter in the lead. It is only a solution regarding the the lead sentence dispute, and only for those who preferred that the aspect not be in the lead sentence. Those of us who supported the text being in the lead sentence were clear that the "flirting" aspect should be noted; we did not support the vague "offending" text. While Tryptofish and/or others no doubt would rather we stop discussing this topic (and I certainly would), I do not find that the issue is resolved. And the closer of the RfC clearly suggested further discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a start, but it still does not fully comply with what the closer stated above. It is still vague, as if we should continue to avoid any mention of the historical "flirting with" aspect in the lead, except for stating that "Carolyn Bryant disclosed that she had fabricated testimony that Till had made verbal or physical advances towards her." We should briefly note what the "verbal or physical advances" aspect of the story is and then note that "Bryant disclosed that she had fabricated" the "verbal or physical advances" part. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

But maybe I should simply be WP:Bold on the matter since others are being bold with this issue after the close. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Re: "store - murder -trial - retraction"

As one editor said already, the recent change to put the redaction in the 2nd para does not seem like a good idea to me. Yes it was a recent bombshell story, but in the long view everybody, North and South, black and white, knew very well that she'd lied. So while it's still explosive news, it fits better in telling the story as things unfold without need to let readers know about it as early as possible (in 2nd para). It was fine where it was. Gandydancer (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

nb edit conflict

I think the above edit simply 'muddies the water', leaping around from 1955 to 2008 to 2017 before relating sequentially what happened in 1955 is confusing and puts the cart before the horse IMO. Something happened in the store which has been reported in various ways, we don't know exactly what, it might involve 'flirting' or 'whistling' but we don't know. Then sequentially the murder, recovery and trial. At the trial Carolyn B claimed verbal and physical 'assault', withdrawn many years later. I think we are getting ourselves tied up in knots simply to characterise the 'interaction with a white woman' within the 'pole position'. Why? Would it be a very different story if we could find out tomorrow that there was no sexual element and he'd simply offended Southern pride? Pincrete (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

'The water is muddy' because the facts are in dispute (as you note) and we should say that, and now do say that (and when we say they are in dispute we should give some description regarding the dispute, which her recantation does very cleanly). And that should be said up-front. Moreover, in the body of the article, we discuss three named witnesses to the store incident -- two have recanted. She is not the only one (besides which, for sources following the story her recantation is not so much as a surprise, as not surprising) but her recantation does encapsulate the factual dispute very well. No we don't have to mention 2017, at all (we could also replace 2008 with 'later'(and I made those changes), it also does not matter, here, that her testimony occurred in September during the trial of the August murder (it was ruled-out of the trial), so I trimmed that. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree both that many pertinent facts are disputed and that we should not 'gloss over' the element of uncertainty. I just think that a chronological, sequential narrative would be clearer and that nothing is SO important that it needs to 'leap-frog' over that. Pincrete (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I see it as being in-time: it is a description of the in-store event - 'she now says, (not) X happened.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I obviously agree that the current wording puts the cart before the horse. Editors complained about this matter -- mentioning "she fabricated testimony that Till had made verbal or physical advances towards her" before explaining what the verbal or physical advances aspect are as being confusing -- in the RfC. The closer of the RfC, Bryan Henderson (giraffedata), also complained about this and stated, "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."

So the RfC consensus is for being clear on the flirting/whistling matter in the lead. Per the RfC, I propose that the second paragraph be changed to the following: "Although what happened at the store is a matter of dispute, Bryant accused Till of showing an interest in her; the accounts vary between flirting with or whistling at Bryant. Years later, Bryant disclosed that, in 1955, she fabricated testimony that Till had made verbal or physical advances towards her."

I'm thinking that "whistling" should be "wolf-whistled" so that readers understand the context of what a whistling offense means in this case, but I can be content with "whistling." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

"Grabbing her" is not reported enough in sources as the cause. As we've previously discussed, most sources use the terms "flirting" or "whistling." So I'm not convinced that the lead should mention grabbing, even though we state "physical advances" and readers might wonder what we mean by that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

"Grabbing her" refers to her court testimony, it is not disputed by any source what that testimony was, simply withdrawn by her years later. No one here has ever disputed that what happened in the store is a vital piece of information, the disagreement is how best to record that accurately and coherently. You cannot say "Bryant accused Till of showing an interest in her; the accounts vary between flirting with or whistling at Bryant", she never has accused him of 'showing an interest', unless that is referring to her court testimony, which is a great deal stronger than 'showing an interest' and happened months later. It is not Bryant who has used the terms 'flirting' or 'whistling at', this is how sources have attempted to summarise their interaction, we simply don't know what she said to Till or her husband at the time and it doesn't make sense to imply that we do.

I don't know whether 'whistling at' or 'wolf-whistling' is the more commonly used description in sources, though 'whistling at' is almost synonymous with 'wolf-whistling' in having sexual intent, but it would be difficult to justify that Till's mother could have thought wolf-whistling was accidental, certainly if one means the classic two-finger wolf-whistle. Whistling, in the presence of someone, carries completely different associations from 'whistling at' someone, so we should follow what sources say.

I'm sorry, but this suggestion is even more 'cart before horse', since it is willing to sacrifice accuracy and coherence, for reasons that I do not understand.

Suggestion: Sentence 1: who was lynched in Mississippi in 1955 after offending a white woman in a grocery store. The brutality of his murder etc. … … becomes … … who was lynched in Mississippi in 1955 after offending a white woman in a grocery store - possibly by flirting with or whistling at her. The brutality of his murder etc.

By doing this we get the possible 'sexual' element into sentence one and can give the more nuanced account at our own pace sequentially in the rest of the lead. Pincrete (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Pincrete, we've already been over the "flirting with" and "whistling" aspect. No matter what you or anyone else thinks may or may not have occurred in the store, it still stands that the vast majority of reliable sources state that Till was murdered for being accused of flirting with Bryant or for specifically whistling at her with a romantic/sexual element to the whistle (wolf-whistle). We've already been over that this is what "showing an interest in her" pertains to. Stating that "she fabricated testimony that Till had made verbal or physical advances towards her" is already addressing "showing an interest in her," yet we are not first stating this. Instead, we are jumping right to "she fabricated testimony that Till had made verbal or physical advances towards her." This is an incoherent order.

As for stating what Bryant did, I was initially going to suggest the following: "Although what happened at the store is a matter of dispute, Till was accused of showing an interest in Bryant; the accounts vary between flirting with or whistling at Bryant. Years later, Bryant disclosed that, in 1955, she fabricated testimony that Till had made verbal or physical advances towards her." But I changed it to "Bryant accused Till" because it is her accusation, of some type of interest in her, that resulted in Till being murdered. It ties into us stating "she fabricated testimony that Till had made verbal or physical advances towards her." You stated, "It is not Bryant who has used the terms 'flirting' or 'whistling at', this is how sources have attempted to summarise their interaction." And I did not have the matter worded to state that Bryant used those terms; I suggested "the accounts vary between." It's much better to state "accounts" than "sources."

I don't think we should use "possibly by flirting with or whistling at her" since the recant aspect exists. If Bryant stated that "she fabricated testimony that Till had made verbal or physical advances towards her," then Till having flirted with Bryant seems unlikely to have happened.

Either way, right now, it's mainly the editors who voted "oppose" in the RfC that are shaping the lead. So I'm going to go ahead and ping the editors who also stated that they would like to see the "interest in" aspect covered in the lead (although not all of them supported it being covered in the lead sentence). This will hopefully balance this discussion and move us toward agreement on how to structure the lead in this regard. Pinging: Dumuzid, ‎Trekphiler, NickCT, DoctorJoeE, David Tornheim, Markbassett, SW3 5DL and Seraphim System, LK, L3X1, Tutelary and Carwil. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Pincrete, would you be fine with my second proposal, which doesn't state "Bryant accused Till"? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC) Never mind on that question since you object to "interest in." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

nb edit conflict

You invent an expression not used by any source AFAIK (accused of showing an interest in her), which is not an accurate summary of either the initial trial accusation, nor the recantation, nor very good at summarising other witnesses nor the majority of sources. I don't understand the objection to "possibly by flirting with or whistling at her" , since that appears to be why you and most sources believe Till was killed and are the two expressions most used by sources. The recant only applies to the - much stronger - trial testimony and has no bearing on what happened or was said on the day. I have no objection to re-ordering though and wish we could just concentrate on clearly and accurately summarising sources. I do object to anything that implies we know what Bryant thought or said on the day to either Till or Mr B, because we clearly don't and never will. Your wording implied that Mrs B was the accuser, simply because, who else would it be when there were only two people present? Pincrete (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Q. Why is 'interest in' so important, when no source uses that expression, why is 'possibly flirting with or whistling at' so unacceptable when it is precisely what the sources say and succinctly says "we don't know for sure, but there was an element that was maybe cheeky/sexual". 'Flirting with/whistling at' may be adolescent cheekiness, 'showing an interest' does not convey that possibility at all. Pincrete (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I suggested an alternative wording to convey the "flirting with" aspect because you and a few others objected to "flirting with" for the lead sentence, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of sources use that wording, as you even admitted, and because I've also considered "flirting with" to perhaps not align with Bryant's words on the matter. As seen in the #"Falsely accused" aspect mentioned in the "Encounter between Till and Carolyn Bryant" section discussion above, I stated, "Flirting is not always sexual. So is her confession referring to flirting with her, grabbing her and being sexual with her?" And the reason I questioned this is because although the lead uses "verbal or physical advances towards her", the lower part of the article states "she said with respect to the physical assault on her, or anything menacing or sexual, that that part isn't true." So the first aspect is broader, while the second aspect specifically pertains to "a physical assault on her, or anything menacing or sexual." If Bryant spoke with the broader language, then this covers "flirting with." If she did not speak with the broader language, then we shouldn't either when it comes to her reported recants.

There have been a number of alternative suggested wordings that get the point across...but are not used by the sources. In what way is "interest in" not supported by "flirting with" or "made verbal or physical advances towards her"? In what way does the closer of the RfC stating that consensus supports "interest in" does not mean that we should make the "flirting with" accusation clear? The close clearly stated, "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." And that is what I am supporting and am trying to get in the lead, per the RfC. I am trying to resolve this matter instead of escalate it; for example, by taking the matter to a noticeboard because the close is not being adhered to.

You asked, "[W]hy is 'possibly flirting with or whistling at' so unacceptable when it is precisely what the sources say and succinctly says 'we don't know for sure, but there was an element that was maybe cheeky/sexual'? The whole issue with "flirting with" started before I arrived at this article. There was an RfC specifically because of the reported 2008 recant; editors objected to "flirting with" being in the lead because Bryant had reportedly since stated that Till made no advances toward her. This is why editors supported "allegedly" and so on. And if we look at the sources I supplied in the RfC, they variously state "allegedly" or "reportedly" and similar. To state "possibly" gives credence to the idea that Till flirted with Bryant, but, if we are to believe Bryant, in the broader context of the "no advances" wording, this did not happen. Do we need to know if Bryant meant "flirting with" by stating that Till made no verbal or physical advances on her? If Till made no verbal or physical advances on her, then this covers flirting. The definition of flirting almost always means a romantic/sexual interest, regardless of age, which is no doubt why the sources use that terminology. And beyond that, it means testing the waters for a mate (and as in more than just a friend). You are so concerned with what we don't know, and I've already stated a number of times that it is not up to us to debate what happened; it is up to us to follow the sources. So while you do not understand my objection to your proposed wording, I do not understand your objection to mine.

I now propose the following: "Although what happened at the store is a matter of dispute, Till was accused of flirting with or whistling at Bryant. Years later, Bryant disclosed that, in 1955, she fabricated testimony that Till had made verbal or physical advances towards her." This follows the sources, including via wording, and also mentions the important "accused of" aspect. If you think this wording implies that Bryant accused Till, the literature already implies that, if not outright stating so in some sources, and there is the matter of the recanting. If we have the recanting wording wrong, because it's too broad, then let's fix it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

At this juncture, my opinion is less than meaningful. This debate descended into a lot of verbiage I have not followed, so I'll let my previous remarks stand unamended. You may take that as you will. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• Responding to ping by Flyer22: The best course seems to use the lede sentence to sum up what happened to him and why. ". . .was murdered after being accused of whistling at a white woman." The sentence there now ". . .after offending a white woman." doesn't tell the reader anything. What does that even mean, 'offending a white woman?" I agree with Trekphiler that there has been an awful lot of commentary, and I'd add I don't see any progress. Perhaps another RfC with a clear choice, e.g. "Sentence A or Sentence B." But I'd make it only a choice between two sentences. More than that and it all goes sideways. And I'd add to that, refrain entirely from further commentary. Just the question, with a minimal discussion. Do not interfere with the Survey section by commenting after each iVote, etc. Have a separate discussion section but don't use it. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't object to Flyer's most recent text, though I think my suggestion covers the same ground and is more succinct (who was lynched in Mississippi in 1955 after offending a white woman in a grocery store - possibly by flirting with or whistling at her. The brutality of his murder etc.) Also my version wholly side-steps any issue of who may have accused Till of precisely what at various times by simply saying he may have done this - flirted with or whistled at her. But let others decide which is clearer.

Also it is a bit strange to me to refer to fabricated testimony before any mention of court, I would prefer to cover all post-store events sequentially. I long ago said that whilst 'flirting' is imprecise, there is no better word for something that can be flattering, cheeky or deeply offensive (to the receiver, if unwanted) but which has a mildly sexual component, and there really is no more succinct way of conveying that ambiguity - which is maybe why sources employed the term. Because so many testimonies have been withdrawn, 'possibly' is necessary IMO. That Till 'crossed a line' about how a young black male should behave to a young white female, is almost certain, what that behaviour was precisely is unclear. There is a mild irony to the fact that a male 'wolf-whistling' at a female in the street in 2017, might well be considered offensively sexist, but in 1955 be thought of as harmless adolescent behaviour.

I don't see the advantage of SW3's suggestion, we know for certain that Till offended Mrs B because she ran out to get her gun, that offence may have been caused by flirting and/or whistling or maybe by something else, it is possible to render that uncertainty accurately with very few extra words. Pincrete (talk) 09:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The lad was accused of whistling at this woman with sexual context and that is why he was killed. That should absolutely be in the lede sentence. These endless go-rounds you all engage in mean this article will not improve while you are all entrenched in crafting your own narratives. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Exactly what I've been saying from the beginning. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 18:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Except the two supposed primary witnesses to the flirting and whistling both recanted their testimony in the early 2000s, and there never has been agreement as to whether flirting and/or whistling took place. Some sources say one, some the other, some both, some I believe say we don't know. Mrs B, who claimed lewd speech and physical assault at the trial, has also admitted to lying, but declined to say what had really happened. It is no longer possible to know either what actually happened in the store, nor even what Till was accused of at the time by Mrs B and by the two men. We know that the reports at the time and for much of the time since have been about flirting and/or whistling and there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence that some kind of 'inappropriate behaviour' was what got Till killed, but we don't know what that was. Who has said that Till either flirted or whistled who has not subsequently withdrawn their 1950's testimony? One cannot ignore post-2005 evidence. Why do so, since it adds only a few words to the text to add 'possibly' in order to say 'this is disputed'. Pincrete (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

"Inappropriate behavior" - this says: "What happened in that store is unclear, but it has usually been portrayed as an example of a black boy from up North unwittingly defying the strict racial mores of the South at the time. Witnesses said that Emmett wolf-whistled at Ms. Bryant, though even that has been called into doubt. ¶ Days after the arrest, Ms. Bryant told her husband’s lawyer that Emmett had insulted her . . ."

I agree that is is incorrect to claim certainty about things uncertain. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Pincrete, I have an issue with "possibly" because of what I previously stated about it. It would only cause more issues since the recants have caused readers/editors to think that there was no romantic/sexual interest at all on Till's part. Readers who see "possibly" will want to add "allegedly," "reportedly," or "falsely accused of." Also, I think that the accusation part is important because there was an accusation, as sources note. And, really, the accusation aspect does point to Bryant having made the accusation. Even the "she fabricated testimony that Till had made verbal or physical advances towards her" part implies the "Bryant accused Till" narrative. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support I do support Flyer22's suggestion], which would hopefully make all sides happy. Right now, the current WP:LEAD is a bit incomprehensible, as I have stated before, saying 1955 after offending a white woman in a grocery store., which causes far too many questions than it answers. & What happened at the store is a matter of dispute—years later, yet it doesn't say what exactly the dispute is over. Again with Several nights after the store incident, which again just begs the question, "What is the store incident?" I believe Flyer22's suggestion will settle this bit for all. I was actually surprised that when I read the lead, the initial accusation of whistling wasn't mentioned, since I've watched documentaries about the subject and that's pretty much how they lay out the encounter. Tutelary (talk) 23:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
• I've been thinking hard about this, and I also support Flyer22's latest proposal for the second paragraph: Although what happened at the store is a matter of dispute, Till was accused of flirting with or whistling at Bryant. Years later, Bryant disclosed that, in 1955, she fabricated testimony that Till had made verbal or physical advances towards her. I think that it works very well in the second paragraph, and that this is a good way of wording it. (Quibble: I suggest adding "had" just before "fabricated", and then delete the "had" in "Till had made": ...she had fabricated testimony that Till made verbal....) I think that Pincrete's alternative, using a dash at the end of the lead sentence, is a little less good, because it provides less information, and because "possibly" goes too far (even for me! ) in the direction of vagueness when it comes in the first sentence. The second paragraph is the right place for this, and it improves the overall flow of the lead section. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Trypto's grammatical quibbles and would suggest another, namely: "Till was accused of flirting with", becomes "Till has been accused of flirting with", ie it has happened down the years. I do not oppose this text, with or without the quibbles, it covers the main points without 'papering over' ambiguities and uncertainties. Pincrete (talk) 07:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to quibble with your quibble. It is correct to say "was" instead of "has been" in this case, because it refers to a discrete event instead of events over a period of time (and "has been" instead of "had been" sounds vaguely like Till might still be alive). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

My quibble intention was precisely "has been down the years - at various times - reported as being accused of" rather than "was at a specific time accused of", partly because we no longer know the when or who of the original flirting accusation. But as already said, I wouldn't sink any agreement over a better (IMO) - rather than wrong tense. Pincrete (talk) 07:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Responding to the ping -- I'd favor the historically reported version of 'killed for reportedly', that he was killed for what the reports were about what happened. Second choice would be to simplify it out to just 'killed' without this odd 'after offending a white woman in a grocery store' and let the details happen later in the article. ( On another note -- the second line seems a bit too long-winded - 'the fact that' is odd, and 'long history of violent persecution of African Americans in the United States' seems soapboxing, better to just have the final line of 'became an icon of the civil rights movement'. ) Markbassett (talk) 00:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• I too support Flyer's text for the second paragraph (grammar quibbles aside). In the first paragraph, I re-suggest a second sentence: Two white men abducted and murdered him over his alleged behavior during a brief interaction with 21-year-old white woman Carolyn Bryant. I strongly oppose "offended [Carolyn Bryant]" because we have no knowledge of whether she was in fact offended, or if his reported actions merely offended her husband and not her. I'm willing to consider flirting or whistling, but have doubts about saying just one and not the other in the 1st paragraph.

An aside: In the end, the motive for the murder is not Till's behavior, but the racial expectations that governed it. Flirting, whistling, or even failing to act deferential could have been his action, but the reaction depended on harsh rules of racial etiquette and the killers' expectation that they would not be punished for violence against a Black victim. These need to be included in the lead, drawing on material below (e.g., "Even the suggestion of sexual contact between black men and white women could carry severe penalties for black men." as stated later in the article). --Carwil (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Carwil, I see what you mean about "offending."

To the others, thank you for helping this matter move along. Although the discussion has gotten heated at times, it's clear that we all care about this topic and want to do right by it. Quibbles aside, it seems we now have a consensus for the aforementioned wording of the second paragraph? If so, who should go ahead and implement the wording?

One more thing: I state again that if the "made verbal or physical advances towards her" wording is too broad with regard to Bryant and we should instead focus on "physical assault on her, or anything menacing or sexual," then we should change "made verbal or physical advances towards her" to "assaulted or made a sexual advance on her." I state this only in the context of the doubt that Pincrete keeps mentioning regarding whether or not Till innocently flirted with Bryant, and with regard to Bryant seemingly only commenting on "physical assault on her, or anything menacing or sexual" in her reported 2008 recant and stating that she does not remember anything else that happened. Otherwise...her fabricating that Till "made verbal or physical advances towards her" means that she is stating that no flirting happened either. If she didn't use such broad wording, maybe we shouldn't either. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

If you would like to go ahead and make the edit yourself, please feel free to. I agree that we seem to have consensus for it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I added it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

It's wrong to say we have no knowledge that Bryant was "offended", she claimed to have been "insulted". I do agree that we should say something in the lede about Till reportedly not conforming to racist standards. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Good point. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I can live with offended, but prefer the brief interaction language, since both Tyson and Anderson, in authoritative books, don't settle the question of what exactly Till did. "Angered" also seems appropriate. We have this: "Days after the arrest [of her husband and brother and law], 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." [1] Tyson's summary refers to text quoted in Devery S. Anderson's Emmett Till: The Murder That Shocked the World…: "Wednesday Aug 24 … (dark) boy came to candy counter & I waited on him & when I went to take money he grabbed my hand & said how about a date and I walked away from him and he said "what's the matter Baby can't you take it?" He went out the door and said "Goodbye" and I went out to the car & got pistol and when I came back he whistled at me—this whistle while I was going after pistol—didn't do anything further after he saw pistol." (The goodbye, itself was a racial offense because it wasn't followed by "Ma'am.") Was she offended? Scared? Willing to defend her right as white woman not to be flirted with? It's unclear.

Moreover, this statement came after her husband was jailed to face charges for the killing. And it's contradicted, as Devery S. Anderson notes on the same page, by Sherriff George Smith: "The Bryants were said to have become offended when young Till waved to the woman and said 'Goodbye' when he left the store." Later Smith stated "Till made an ugly remark to Mrs Bryant." Anderson concludes, "Although Emmett's actions inside the store are uncertain, they involved nothing more than him touching Carolyn Bryant's hand and asking for a date."

Tyson can't decide what happened: "something happened that Carolyn decided deserved, what? Something. Whatever it was made Carolyn angry enough to fetch a pistol. … It seems whatever happened in that store made her more mad than fearful." (54)

As best I can tell, two authors have labored on entire books (partly behind a paywall for me, right now) without concluding exactly what Till did.--Carwil (talk) 00:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Although I'm reluctant to belabor the point, I do recognize that some editors are still not entirely satisfied with "offended", so I'll try to reply to what you said about that here. I agree with you that it is closer to "angered" than to causing fear. I think that "offended" is more precise than "angered", because one can get angry about things that do not really offend – for example, she could be angered by someone not paying, or someone knocking merchandise off a shelf, which is clearly not what happened. (And, for what it may be worth, you just quoted a source that actually uses the word "offended".) The problem, however, is that this talk page has spent a wall-of-text without editors really agreeing about a brief characterization of whatever did happen, that is brief enough to fit into the lead sentence. I think we are going to have to settle for the "good enough", rather than the "perfect". But what I think is important at this time is to add the language agreed to here, to the second paragraph, because that way the lead does cover the incompletely-known facts. It's something the lead section can do, but the lead sentence probably cannot. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

As noted above, I went ahead and added my proposed wording. What do you or others think of what I stated about "made verbal or physical advances towards her" vs. "assaulted or made a sexual advance on her"? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Should we be concerned about the "made verbal or physical advances towards her" wording, or is it okay as is? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I see what you mean, there is a small overlap between 'flirting' and "made verbal or physical advances towards her", although the 2nd expression is used in the Vanity Fair source. It's the verbal bit that's problematic IMO although the 'physical' might also be phrased more strongly. If I remember correctly, the verbal stuff she withdrew was the "What's up with you baby? Don't worry I've ******d white women before" ..... "had made lewd propositions and attempted to grab her waist and corner her"? Pincrete (talk) 10:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

It's good, 'as is' - following the source.

On another matter, following-up on Tryptofish and Carwil comments, we should end the first sentence at "1955." and leave it all to the 2nd paragraph. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm very satisfied with the edits "as is", thanks everyone. About the question about "verbal or physical advances", I think it's fine. On the other hand, the sources do not really support changing it to "assaulted" (in the sense of "assault and battery", although I can certainly see how it looks that way in the present-day sense of unwelcome conduct), so I would not want to change that. As for shortening the lead sentence, please don't. We've been around and around on this, and quite a few editors have objected to ending the sentence at "1955", on the grounds that we need to say something there about the reasons for the lynching. All of this has been a compromise, with all of the limitations that compromising entails. But I think that what we have is quite successful, as is. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Gandydancer (talk) 11:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Me too. Pincrete (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The reason I question the "verbal or physical advances towards her" wording is because it makes it appear as though she lied about everything, but the reported 2008 recant only states that she lied about the "physical assault on her, or anything menacing or sexual," and there have been debates on this talk page that Till might have stated something flirty. Pincrete has made the possible flirty argument a number of times. In the article, we relay that Tyson stated that "she said with respect to the physical assault on her, or anything menacing or sexual, that that part isn't true." So I don't see how "assaulted" is not supported by the sources. And we also note that Bryant can't remember anything else that happened. So to state "verbal or physical advances towards her" is us stating that the flirting never happened, despite all the debate regarding us not knowing exactly what happened, and seems to be putting words in her mouth. Some sources, like Vanity Fair, might interpret "physical assault on her, or anything menacing or sexual" broadly to cover innocent flirting, but that doesn't mean that we should. All that stated, I won't press this issue. It's good that we finally have a compromise. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah good, we can finally experience the pleasure of listening to that beautiful old refrain that signals yet another successful Wikipedia fight well-fought that has improved this oft miserable place. I must say, reading the link that I added here and thinking of the great people that provided it, and seeing the improvements to this article, I fucking love this place! Gandydancer (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22, everything I say now is 'hunch', which is known around here as OR. Mrs B said she can't remember, but if you read the fuller account, she said something akin to, she can't remember because she has told the story so many times. That's a real phenomenon, we all have memories which we mainly remember because of having told them previously, but in her case she hasn't ever told the story publicly except at the trial. I think it reeks of avoidance on her part, of not wanting to remember for some reason best known to herself. Having said that, I think it probable that Till transgressed some M-F/B-W/married-single boundary, there's lots of circumstantial evidence (including the 'passion' of the crime), but how trivial or serious that transgression was, I've no idea. In WP terms, if somebody withdraws almost the entirety of what they have previously publicly said, and says they have forgotten the rest, effectively they have never said anything. We are all allowed our private hunches, but effectively we cannot conclude anything at all except it was less than overt physical or verbal 'hitting on' her, since she acknowledged inventing that. Effectively she did admit to lying about everything important to this case, even if one understands why she did that. Hunch also says to me that a 14 year-old boy in 1955 was much more likely to be being 'cheeky' than making any 'serious pass' at Bryant, but we'll never know. Pincrete (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Using collapsible option for mutilated body

Hello,
I believe the image of 'mutilated body from "Funeral, and reaction" should be collapsible like it was for a few seconds in this edit.

Requesting opinions from other editors. Best, —usernamekiran(talk) 21:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I would prefer not to collapse it. Generally in the past, the community consensus has been that, per WP:NOTCENSORED (and I know that you did not intend to censor anything), we don't hide images like that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Alanscottwalker: Initiated discussion as suggested. :)

And no, this is not unusual at all, I have seen it on many articles, but I can recall only one now: John_F._Kennedy_autopsy#The_gunshot_wound_to_the_head. It is a usual practice. What if a person interested in social history comes to the article, and sees this image? We are not deleting the image from the article, but we are simply giving an option to avoid seeing a mutilated body to the readers who are not interested in violence, and/or gore. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Yes, the image is totally relevant to the article, moreover, required there. I simply want to give a heads-up to the readers who came to the article for reading about society, racism or similar things; and not because of "murder". I mean, giving a warning to such readers seems fair. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wow, about that JFK image. I'd never seen that before, and hope to never see it again. But a lot of my reaction was to the color imagery of blood, which is different here. Personally, I don't think the image here is as shocking as the JFK one, and does not require a warning, but of course that's very subjective. I would not choose to collapse images of lynchings, in which we see hanged bodies, nor would I generally collapse images on medical pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I would be against collapsing the image. Wikipedia is not censored, and the image is relevant to the article at hand. And personally, I would even go as far as to remove the collaped warning over at John F. Kennedy autopsy#The gunshot wound to the head (though that would require another consensus it seems). We shouldn't censor/collapse images because they're too graphic, especially if they're relevant to the article. SkyWarrior 22:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to object on NOTCENSORED but I will object on grounds that these images being openly published in 1955 in a medium that does not allow for collapse or avoidance is an important part of the encyclopedic subject of this article, and it would therefore be a dereliction of good editorial judgement to collapse it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Alanscottwalker. The Kennedy photo is an obscure image and in my opinion, including it is pure titillation. Photos of Till's mutilated body in his casket, by contrast, may have been among the most widely shared images of 1955, and certainly they were among the most influential. Not including the Till image (or hiding it) would be like telling only half his story. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with other's reactions to this. Unlike the 'Kennedy', the photo here is not unduly 'anatomical' and there is no need to 'hide' it, especially as it was widely available at the time. Pincrete (talk) 05:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm also against collapsing the image. Some might also want to read past discussion at Talk:Trypophobia about collapsing a trypophobia image; apparently, one reason to avoid collapsing an image is technical issues. I've discussed that trypophobia image's effects on me, but I realize that the image is encyclopedic and informative. A picture is certainly worth a thousand words. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not exactly "insisting" on collapsing the image. But I do believe it should be. I am asking for opinions of others.

I think, it shouldnt be considered what kind of circulation it received when it was released, or in general past. And regarding this particular issue, I think more than 70% of readers of this article were not born even after a decade from the incident. What I am trying to say here is, it is a mutilated cadaver. Watching gunshot wounds, road accidents, live autopsies or (recorded) surgeries never disturbed me. (I am not a doctor, but a non- practising psychiatrist). It is a rule in India that a person representing the departed, should be present during the autopsy.) But this particular image gave me shivers, and made me a lot uncomfortable.

Basically, I think the image should be collapsible as it might give the same experience to a lot many readers, like it gave to me, and that flower's pattern gave to user Flyer22 Reborn.

We wouldnt be removing the image from the article, it would be just a heads-up. I am not sure how this would be a dereliction of good editorial judgement, or telling only half of the story. The image would be still there, but with a warning. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I am pretty sure we have given our opinion. If you don't understand about a prominently public image that is an influential part of the encyclopedic subject precisely because it was unavoidably publicly displayed, than either you are unfamiliar with the subject or we will just have to agree to disagree - it would literally be bizarre or silly or nonsense to hide this, given that a large part of its relevance comes from it being unavoidably publicly displayed.

As for the tryptophobia article, I opposed the image there precisely because the claimed relevance, which was 'it may or may not be relevant for some fraction of people with the condition', was and is so weak - and to add to the irrelevance most the supporters of the image were convinced it's not a real thing (which I have no opinion on, but which would mean it is by definition irrelevant to understanding anything). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The reason that many or most supporters supported the inclusion of the trypophobia image is exactly because they weren't convinced of the condition -- they'd never experienced it before and were skeptical that anyone else had; so they didn't feel that the image would be triggering for anyone (although one editor noted the image's effects on him and that he'd never been aware of the condition beforehand). They felt that it was important to display the type of patterns that the topic is talking about. And, really, lotus flower imagery is one of the top trypophobia images, if not the top. Either way, I'm glad that there are researchers who believe that the condition exists, regardless of whether or not it should be called a phobia, and that it's finally getting the scholarly attention it deserves. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I have another basis for not collapsing the image: WP:NDA, which, by my interpretation, actually discourages, even prohibits, such collapses. This is essentially the root of the issue at hand here, and discussion would need to be continued there if we want to change it and/or want more clarification. With that said, I'm also going to remove the warning over at John F. Kennedy autopsy#The gunshot wound to the head per my reasoning here (and yes, while I did say it may need another consensus, looking at the discussion it appears there is no real consensus, it was just done). Feel free to disagree with me, though. SkyWarrior 19:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

At the age of 14 years old ?

In UK Eng, 'at the age of XX' is perfectly OK, (ie one does not need 'years old' after the XX). If this is not also the case in US or WP Eng, please revert the change I made to someone else's change in the opening line. Pincrete (talk) 06:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your edit but I question that the wording of the opening sentence of the lead was changed in the first place. This article is a GA by some of our best editors and has been read by thousands and thousands of people who seemed to think it read just fine. I'm going to change it back. 11:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandydancer (talk • contribs) 11:51, September 8, 2017 (UTC)

I had no strong feelings either way, a mild preference for age last, but I thought full version of age in the middle was clumsy. Pincrete (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

"A historic moment"

This is something I've been thinking about for a long time. It was suggested that a black man had never testified against a white man in the South -- and lived -- until Till's great-uncle Mose Wright testified against the murderers. And the article also says:

"...calling it a historic moment and one filled with "electricity". A writer for the New York Post noted that following his identification, Wright sat "with a lurch which told better than anything else the cost in strength to him of the thing he had done." A reporter who covered the trial for the New Orleans Times-Picayune said it was "the most dramatic thing I saw in my career".

I think we should have a sentence in the lead that refers to Wright's brave testimony. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if the 'and lived' should be attributed (to PBS?). No feelings against inclusion in lead, as long as succinct text can be devised. Pincrete (talk) 05:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I get your point on the "and lived" wording and agree. Do you think we should just use the entire PBS quote? As for "succinct text", I'm not very good at that--you are pretty good IMO. Any ideas? Gandydancer (talk) 12:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not in favor, not because I am not impressed by Wright, but because of WP:LEAD and at present it is one sentence in the body from one source, and the subject of this article is Emmett Till -- perhaps in an article on the "Trial of x and y", it might belong in the lead, depending on how many sources I discuss it, in discussing the subject of the trial. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Alan, I think that there is a misunderstanding. The "and lived" wording is from an edit I made in the trial section that Pincrete thinks needs fixing (and I agree). What I am suggesting in this section is to add mention of Wright's historical bravery when he testified against a white man. It is well documented in many sources and I believe that in the past it has been decided that this article also represents a case that marks a new era in civil rights for black people. Gandydancer (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I was only addressing the lead, and I would want to have produced multiple RS that place this fact prominently in their intros to the subject of Till. For example, I don't recall seeing such prominence in the Oxford encyclopedia. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

US Army trial of Till's father

The article claims: "In 2016, reviewing the facts of the rapes and murder for which Till had been executed, John Edgar Wideman presented evidence suggesting that the conviction may have been racially motivated." This should be removed as it implies Till senior was wrongfully convicted. Wideman presented no evidence that the conviction was unsound, nor that it "may[!] have been racially motivated"—whatever that is suppose to mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.126.79.143 (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I looked into that a few years ago. I found some info on France and there is no reason to believe that it was different in Italy.

"According to American historian J Robert Lilly, there were around 3,500 rapes by American servicemen in France between June 1944 and the end of the war. "The evidence shows that sexual violence against women in liberated France was common," writes Mr Hitchcock. "It also shows that black soldiers convicted of such awful acts received very severe punishments, while white soldiers received lighter sentences." Of 29 soldiers executed for rape by the US military authorities, 25 were black - though African-Americans did not represent nearly so high a proportion of convictions."[2] Gandydancer (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I know of one instance in the UK (can't remember the name or details), similar to France. There was some doubt as to guilt, but certainly punishment appeared disproportionate (death) to that which would have happened had the perpetrator been white. We can't use any of this of course but it would be good if someone could check that we are accurately reflecting Wideman. Pincrete (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Your secondary source [= BBC website] fails to mention Hitchcock explains in his book how the combat records were taken into account, nor how Lilly discovered US Army documents referring to the numerous cases of rape by black US soldiers.

"Why the disparity in sentencing? Simply, it was much easier for a condemned white man to get a capital sentence reduced than it was for a condemned black man to receive the same leniency. This is because the Army, at the express request of General Eisenhower and the War Department, gave weight to an accused soldier's combat record during sentencing. The War Department in an order of August 2, 1945, stated that 'while a creditable combat record does not endow the individual with any special immunity, neglect to give it due weight is equally an injustice and an impairment of public respect for the Army's administration of military justice.' Yet not only a creditable combat record was required; even combat fatigue and 'exhaustion on the battlefield' were considered as mitigating circumstances. Since African-American troops rarely saw action in the front line, they usually had no combat record to shield them.

A second reason for the severity of sentences toward black troops is that Army justice saw sexual violence by African American troops as dangerous and threatening not simply to French women but to the moral order that the Army wished to establish in France. The Judge Advocate General Board of Review, in considering the conviction for rape by two privates of a woman in Bricquebec, near Cherbourg, just three weeks after D-Day, made plain its opinion that the rape of French women by 'colored American soldiers' was part of "a pattern which has made its unwelcome appear-ance with increasing frequency." This alleged pattern was denounced by the provost marshall of the Normandy Base Section as well: 'the reputation of American troops was badly besmirched at this time by the misbehavior of a small percentage of troops," and he noted that most of these undisciplinary attacks were caused by colored troops and great efforts were made to bring this situation under control, with special attention to the colored units.'"

- The Bitter Road to Freedom: A New History of the Liberation of Europe, by William I Hitchcock, pp.53-55. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.126.79.143 (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

quote === "it would be good if someone could check that we are accurately reflecting Wideman."

Um, his article's online, it's linked in the footnotes of this article! You're not accurately reflecting his article; he presented no evidence that supports this article's assertion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.126.79.143 (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Info from the 1944 US Army pamphlet “Let’s Look at Rape!” authored by “A Negro Chaplain”, paraphrased in the linked article: "Over 4.5 months, from D-Day to mid-October 1944, 179 French women lodged rape complaints against American soldiers; 90 percent asserted that their rapist was black." This corroborates the statements of the JAG Review Board and military policeman quote in Hitchcock's book [see above]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.126.79.143 (talk) 01:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

That's very interesting information. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

While those statistics about racial disparity in rape in WW2 are (morbidly) interesting, they have very little relevance to this article as non of the sources mention Till's father. It would be an extremely textbook case of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to put such content into this article absent a reliable source which has done this analysis in the context of Till's father for us. While there was certainly injustice and bias, and its possible that such injustice and bias was a factor in this particular case, the only thing which we have reliably sourced are the bare facts. He was convicted and executed. On the other hand, I'm tempted to say that the rape conviction itself is sufficiently out of scope for a biography of Emmett Till that it should be removed, except that it resulted in the execution of Till's father (at which time Till was ~5?) resulting in his permanent absence from Till's life, which does have relevance to till's bio. ResultingConstant (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The "relevance" such as it was: "During the trial of Emmett’s killers, Louis’s confidential military record was mysteriously declassified and leaked to the press just in time to sabotage any chance of a kidnapping conviction. Southern justice blamed the son for the sins of the father — and Emmett’s killers were swiftly acquitted by an all-white jury."[3] . . . "Private Louis Till’s confidential army service file, which covered the older Till’s hanging for rape and murder in Italy through a “kangaroo court-martial” during World War II, was apparently leaked to the press two weeks before a grand jury was to consider a kidnapping charge against Milam and Bryant (after they’d been acquitted for murder). This time, it was the ostensible sins of the father that precluded justice for the son: if Till senior was a rapist, surely Emmett had it in him, too." [4] See also, about the ring that identified the body and the dispute (note, 15)[5] and the 1955 political op-ed that shocked Till's family.[6] Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker Thanks. I still hold that referencing the statistics issue would be OR/SYNTH, unless there are reliable sources explicitly doing that. Regarding more in depth history of Till's father in the article, I think there is certainly room for that, but again reliant on sources. The two book reviews I think do not qualify as WP:RS (the authors of those articles are not historians, their analysis was not peer reviewed etc), however the books that they are reviewing may. (To clarify, I think the books are almost certainly RS for additional background on Till's father. However without knowing what those books actually say, and where they source from, it would be impossible to know what would be usable, in particular issues regarding rape statistics of US servicemen or information about the father's trial). The Henderson book however is likely more directly usable, but we can't go beyond what the source says (This is a footnote tho, which references a different Feldstein source? Perhaps that has something more?). The booker book as well I think is usable, but that doesn't seem to address the validity of the father's trial, nor the statistical issue, but does source the leaks and their effects. ResultingConstant (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, in the context of some of those quotes above it seems that the racial disparity seems more in terms of white soldiers getting away with it rather than black soldiers being unjustly convicted. While that certainly doesn't justify the use of the father's conviction/execution in the later trials, it should make us think twice about using/implying any kind of "the father was unjustly killed too" logic" ResultingConstant (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the sources don't connect the statistics mentioned above, my purpose was just to give background why the father's record comes-up in the Till murder historiography, even though the boy was not raised by him. --- I'm not sure there is anything more to do, than we have done. Perhaps some change to the sentence objected to, but that's not what seems to be proposed, it seems rather a proposal to is get rid of doubts about the father's situation, but it seems clear there are doubts in RS. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

RC said, "While those statistics about racial disparity in rape in WW2 are (morbidly) interesting, they have very little relevance to this article as non of the sources mention Till's father." That's right, they have no place in the article and I did not present them with the suggestion that they need to be in our article. They may be related to our talk page discussion, or maybe not. We offer opinions and suggestions here. I'm in agreement with Alan. Gandydancer (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Ditto what Gandydancer says. There is additional relevance to Louis' death in the manner and timing in which the info came out, which does have bearing on this case. I agree with ASW that this is probably appropriately and proportionately dealt with in the article (and in the right place). Pincrete (talk) 05:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2017

It would be good to source this sentence "An Emmett Till Memorial Commission was established in the early 21st century. The Sumner County Courthouse was restored and includes the Emmett Till Interpretive Center. The Emmett Till Memory Project is a website and smartphone app commemorating his life; fifty-one sites in the Mississippi Delta are associated with Till."

http://www.emmett-till.org/

http://tillmemoryproject.com/ 2602:302:D1F9:840:A9F7:1238:7116:74FD (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The claim is sourced (in the text not the lead), I will check to see if it can be put as an external link (if not done already). I think the lead text should summarise the numerous memorials, rather than simply this recent one.Pincrete (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2018

A short film, "My Nephew Emmett," was nominated for an Oscar in 2018. http://oscar.go.com/nominees/short-film-live-action/my-nephew-emmett 138.123.152.33 (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

While I think something involving this tidbit may be appropriate for the article, we will need a more fleshed out sentence or two to improve the relevance and understand-ability for the reader. Presumably an uncle of Emmett was involved in this film? Who? What does the film say? etc. ResultingConstant (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

It definitely should be in the article. Here's a link to a review: [7]. Anyone that reads this article will know who Mose was and what he did. Gandydancer (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, the Oscar link above is currently broken. So being Oscar nominated, it easily passes GNG, and could be included here, but the article you linked did include a bunch of important info. Most importantly, my impression based on the title was that Till's uncle was involved (and that it was some sort of documentary), but per the article you linked : was inspired by real-life videotaped testimony from the uncle of Emmett Till.[...] The film quietly imagines what it felt like to be Till's uncle Mose[...]movingly captures the old man's mounting dread and sense of powerlessness as he waits out the night in silence until racist thugs arrive.. Which I think is very important context for us to use in deciding how to include this movie in the article. In the end, because the movie is not directly relevant to the article (eg, it is not a WP:RS providing first person accounts or some such), I think I am chancing my mind that the additional context should be included, and rather this should be just a one line bullet point in the Emmett_Till#Books,_plays_and_other_works_inspired_by_Till section just like the other dramatized/fictionalized accounts (although it could mention the oscar nom in the bullet). The video tapes mentioned in the article are of greater interest to the article though, I wonder if they are available anywhere that we could link to or use as a source. ResultingConstant (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done ResultingConstant (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm tending to think more copy than just that. Quite a few people have been involved in this article and may show up for discussion. Should we wait and see?... BTW, someone should really make an article for this film and perhaps the film maker as well. It would make a good DYK. Here's another link: [8] Gandydancer (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I was just being WP:BOLD to deal with this edit request. As always other editors are free to expand. I agree the film passes GNG would make a decent stub article, though it might be difficult to get it long enough to meet the DYK requirements. I'm not sold on adding more in this article though (but not objecting). Beyond the Oscar, what makes this film worthy of more coverage than the other dramatized versions? ResultingConstant (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

If no one else responds I think that we can assume they are happy with your edit...and I will be as well. Perhaps if it gathers more media attention we can think it over once again. Gandydancer (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Someone has actually created the 'film' article, very much a stub at present, but I broadly agree that this should just be a mention here, per ResultingConstant's addition. Pincrete (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2018

Change "Till was born and raised in Chicago and in August 1955," to "Till was born and raised in Chicago. In August 1955," EpicLoss (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Done, with some clarification. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)