This is an archive of past discussions about Emmett Till. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Also keep in mind that part of the second paragraph does currently state, "Years later, Bryant disclosed that, in 1955, she had fabricated testimony that Till made verbal or physical advances towards her in the store." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
This is exactly the language that recently went through an RfC that is higher up on this talk page, and I'm disinclined to re-wage the same dispute again so soon. Speaking precisely, he was falsely accused of what that woman had said that he had done, but it is not false to say that she was observedly offended. However misguided, she definitely was offended. Once we start going down the road of trying to encompass, in the lead paragraph, all of the things that he was falsely accused of, we get to where editors were unable to get a consensus to fit it all into the lead paragraph. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Tryptofish; we just went through a big discussion about this, and "after offending a white woman in a grocery store" seems to be the best we could come up with to satisfy both sides. I do not agree with the lead sentence not mentioning anything about the grocery store matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
it was also objected to at the time it was added, and not by me. Also, Tryptofish, can you cite specifically your source for "observably", who observed her? Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
If we are to rehash, yes, after Tryptofish added the wording, per his interpretation of the RfC, I stated, "Don't agree that the RfC supports that vague term terminology, but I've asked about on the talk page, and rest of the lead is still a concern in that regard." We then discussed it, and the closer of the RfC supported Tryptofish's wording. The closer also supported what I was stating, but, as the discussion wore on, it was clear that "after offending a white woman in a grocery store" was the best we could come up with to satisfy (or sort of satisfy) both sides as far as the lead sentence goes. We ended up placing the "flirted with" aspect in the second paragraph. The votes in that latest RfC, and the discussion aspects above and below it, make clear the divide. And that divide includes editors other than Tryptofish supporting "offended" for the lead sentence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I was referring specifically to when that last part was added. There was an objection to the "offended" clause in the most recent discussion after the RfC. At any rate, I still have questions for Tryptofish. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
About "observedly", that was just a poor choice of word on my part. (It felt wrong to me when I wrote it, but it was what I came up with at the time.) But it's only here in talk, not on the page itself, so I don't think that it's worth having a dispute about. But as for it being verifiable, there's a ton of sourcing that she reacted negatively to whatever happened. OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I second that present text is a good compromise. Phrasing is 'woolly', but that's because what happened is unclear, beyond the fact that it angered her and even more so Mr B when he returned. Pincrete (talk) 07:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I had a busy summer, including a few weeks "off the grid" followed by moving to a different state, and missed everything that occurred after roughly early June. But I want to note that I don't agree that "offended" makes everyone happy, as I'm not happy with it. There is a difference between "a white woman felt offended by the way Emmit Till acted" (which I would be fine with) and "Emmit Till...was lynched after offending a white woman". The former only says that a presumably racist woman in the Jim Crow Deep South felt a certain way about a black teenager's behavior; the latter implies that the teenager did something inherently offensive. These are fine shades of meaning, subtle differences, I grant you; but they are important nonetheless. SlackerInc1 (talk) 02:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
SlackerInc1, where did I state that I was happy with it? A compromise does not necessarily mean "happy." Notice that I stated "or sort of satisfy" above? It's just obvious that there is only so much we can do to satisfy or sort of satisfy both sides. A compromise does not mean that both sides are 100% happy with whatever was at dispute. It means they met each other halfway. Do we really want to keep debating these matters over and over again? And as for what led to Till's lynching, I'm going to go ahead and point to the latest RfC again instead of repeating myself. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I wonder of some version of 'took offence' works for others? I basically agree with Flyer, but throw this out for consideration. I partly agree with SlackerInc1 that there is a small difference of inference between the two. Pincrete (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I would endorse something along these lines. While it's unclear what, if anything, Mr. Till actually did, it's uncontested that offense (or offence!) was taken. Given the state of the history and the reliable sources here, I think this is the most neutral construction. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
So are we proposing "after a white woman took offense with him in a grocery store" in place of "after offending a white woman in a grocery store"? If we go by some of the past arguments, that could be taken as putting the blame on Bryant when others on this talk page have argued that we don't know if Till actually did do something to offend her, rather than Bryant simply taking offense for some lame reason. On other other hand, "after offending" is easily taken as putting the blame on Till. As long as we keep "was a 14-year-old African-American who was lynched in Mississippi in 1955", and the "white woman" and offense aspects, I'd accept the change. How about you, Tryptofish and Gandydancer. As for "alleged," that has already been rejected times over. has had some objections (not as much as "falsely accused"). And I don't think "alleged behavior" is any better. Not to mention...it's vague and does not touch on the offense aspect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Also pinging Carwil, since, in the "Structuring the rest of the lead with regard to interest/flirtation aspect" section, he stated, "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." For the record, I don't think that the current wording puts any blame on Till. It's just the way it was back then: If you offended a white woman while being a black boy/black man, you were subject to being punished, even if the offense was lame. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I tried to get a satisfactory text, but all my ideas had problems. Perhaps "after a white woman took offense at his behavior in her grocery store" since it establishes customer/owner and possibly adding a footnote to 'offense' to explain the known and disputed circumstances. I'm a bit wary of it all sounding as though they both just happened to be shopping somewhere or of it all sounding so vague that it puzzles more than it informs. I do think the one certainty is that she took offence, Pincrete (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
But it is possible, he was 'just shopping' - but that to her, he just did not act like others 'of his kind' acted - she perhaps did not understand how he could act 'friendly' or in some sense 'equal', like 'regular' people do - and that if you get in her mind-set, she is perhaps understandably confused, upset, and even scared. For example, what could she think, if he, looked her straight in the eye, trying to be conversational, said, "I have white friends'? In that sense, she and the other guy who later recanted could have been in a similar mind-space - perhaps, they just did not understand him.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
By 'just shopping', I meant two random people who just happened to both be in their local Walmart/Tesco simultaneously. I wasn't implying that Till did anything other than try to get gum! Pincrete (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I'll start my reply by saying that I do get the point, that "offended" can be construed as "giving offense", whereas "taking offense" can occur even if no offense was given. But I still say that I would rather leave well enough alone. We get to the point of counting angels on the head of a pin when we try to parse the fact that sources indicate that Till probably did do something (but what?), beyond simply being present, that resulted in Bryant reacting negatively – but at the same time, we want the first sentence to express the editorial opinion that Bryant was wrong to have taken offense. If we could accomplish that with clear and direct language, I would support doing so. But, anything like "after a white woman took offense at him in a grocery store" in place of "after offending a white woman in a grocery store" ends up as a much more syntactically complex sentence, that sounds like what it would be: something written by committee. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
How about "after he was accused of offending a white woman in a grocery store?" Any mileage in that? Just a thought. Dumuzid (talk) 00:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I have been (grudgingly) following this conversation and IMO it is just plain nuts and unfair to again start to hash this over so soon after we all spent so much time on it. I am dead set against making any change at this time. Gandydancer (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
No, I have nothing against them at all. It is those of you that worked on the coming to a solution that I'm talking about. Also, please don't think that I really think anyone is nuts, it was just a manner of speaking. Gandydancer (talk) 03:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Sure, politely respond to not be unfair to their views, but for the love of god do not suggest changes in the wording so soon after the dust finally settled after the last discussion. I spent many hours working on that discussion. I read the FBI report again (twice, at least), the old information and all the current information that came out after the release of the information from the book. None of us were totally happy with the lead but it seems that all of us came to an agreement that consensus had been reached. To so quickly throw the RfD out the window, with no new information related to the murder coming out, is the reason for my irritation and my unwillingness to so easily change our wording. Gandydancer (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree in principle to the 'passive' construction, but any text so far suggested (including my own), either slips into 'guesswork' about what happened between Bryant and Till, or is so vague as to be unhelpful (something happened which probably led to him being killed). Pincrete (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I feel very embarrassed to say this but I've changed my mind. Flyer said above, "So are we proposing "after a white woman took offense with him in a grocery store" in place of "after offending a white woman in a grocery store"?" I can now see that she and anyone in agreement was correct. I guess that my hackles were up and I was not paying attention. Per Sources: Notes obtained by The Clarion-Ledger reveal that she gave a different story when she first spoke to defense lawyers in 1955, saying Till “insulted” her but mentioned nothing about touching her.http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/emmett-till-eyewitness-dies-saw-1955-abduction-of-his-cousin/ By way of comparison, I may feel offended/insulted by something that another editor says but that does not mean that it was necessarily offending/insulting. Sorry for taking so long to get this... Gandydancer (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, I still agree with what you said before. What I keep getting stuck on is that I find "took offense with him" an awkward construction. The words "took" and "with" just sound odd to me here. I do, however, recognize that it would be (subtly) more accurate than what we have now. I tried to find words with meanings similar to "offense" that would allow for more direct language. How about, very simply: "after a white woman became angry at him in a grocery store"? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)::Well I'm plenty embarrassed, that is for sure -- so thanks for the smile. I'm fine with the wording proposed (but not your new suggestion). Gandydancer (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Eh, I really don't like the "angry" suggestion. It just seems off and doesn't really convey the complexity of the offense aspect. "Offending" is vague, but that is because we settled on having the details in the second paragraph. It's vague, but it's better than "angry." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't like the flow of it. Why not just go with "after a white woman took offense with him in a grocery store"? I think this flows better than "after a white woman said she was offended by him in a grocery store." The latter proposal is somewhat misleading. By this, I mean that the first proposal just leads me to think she took offense with him for some reason. But the latter can lead one to think that she was offended by him simply being in the grocery store. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
This is hard, isn't it? I feel the other way around about the flow. I've given a try to see if I could help with making a change here, but the more discussion that I see, the more I'm convinced that the existing sentence is going to be the least objectionable option. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Tryptofish, yeah, after repeatedly reading both proposals -- "after a white woman took offense with him in a grocery store" and "after a white woman said she was offended by him in a grocery store" -- especially aloud, they are both now giving me the "she was offended by him simply being in the grocery store" vibe. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Although we cannot know for sure, it sounds like, per sources, that that's what really happened: she just didn't like seeing him there at all, because of his skin color. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't doubt that his skin color was a part of it, but it's not really what the sources state (unless noting the racism of the time). As we know, there are conflicting reports about Till's actions. He may very well have whistled and Bryant considered it a wolf whistle; we know that this is what his mother both implied and stated might have been what happened. Of course, we also have the recant aspect. I would simply like the lead sentence to not give the wrong impression in any regard (whether it's Till's actions or Bryant's actions). I would prefer that it not be vague either, but we've already gone down that discussion route. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
The same goes for my proposal. But what I suggested was more of a question than a proposal anyway. We can wait and see if others want to go with your latest proposed wording. I'm not keen on it, but I won't be strongly opposing it either. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Good, thanks. I agree that we really need to see what more editors say. Given the tl;dr here, I'll make a summary for those who don't want to go back and read it all. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Question: Is "offended by him" supposed to mean that Bryant believed that Till caused offense? Or simply that Bryant took offense with him? I assume it means the latter, but I've read the proposed wordings so many times that they have started to lose meaning. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Given that it's what she said, as opposed to what happened, it could probably be either. I consider it the same thing as "said she took offense with him", but better written. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
When it comes to exactly what happened, I prefer to take the word of Simeon Wright who was right there at the store when it happened. He said that Emmett was in the store for only about a minute when he went in, he witnessed nothing unusual and walked out of the store with Emmett when Emmett whistled at Carol, at which point they all knew that the Southern Code had been broken and fearfully and quickly went home. As to what Emmett did in the store that offended Carol? Read anything from that time about the behavior expected of African Americans, read the FBI report, or even the trial transcript. It could have been simply, and innocently, not calling her "ma'am". BTW, Simeon died a couple of days ago. Could he have reached out to me from the grave? Just kidding, I think? Gandydancer (talk) 02:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm very impressed, Gandydancer, that you changed your mind. That is one of the hardest things to do and therefore you should not feel embarrassed--just the opposite. I'm sorry I wasn't around for the rest of the discussion and vote, but I like the change you all made! SlackerInc1 (talk) 07:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Options under consideration
At this point, editors are considering three possibilities:
"after offending a white woman in a grocery store" (on the page now)
"after a white woman took offense with him in a grocery store"
"after a white woman said she was offended by him in aher family's grocery store"
I prefer #1, my 2nd choice would be 2. 3 implies that his mere presence offended and we know what she said, which we don't, only that she got angry and went for her gun. 2 also implies offended by his presence and also seems clumsy. While fine in principle, I think that the change to make her the offend-ed rather than him the offend-er, is more effort than it is worth. I also suggest that whichever is chosen 'a grocery store' become 'her grocery store' or 'her family's grocery store', if we need to be precise. Pincrete (talk) 05:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I think 2 and 3 could work -- they would also work with editing "him" from the clause, because we already know he is the subject of the sentence, and he is the one who was killed in the sequence . . . after a white woman in a grocery store claimed she was offended." . . . after a white woman in a grocery store took offence." . . ., etc. But if you want to leave "he" in, how about " . . . after a white woman in a grocery store claimed he offended her." . . . or "said" . . . or instead of offended, "insulted".Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I hate to visit old ground, but we have no idea what she said at the grocery store - if anything. We know what she did, which was to go out to get 'her' gun from the car. This all takes us back to where we were weeks ago, namely we know something happened at the store, which ultimately led to his killing, but have no reliable idea what that was. Pincrete (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
How does your point address any of these - unless, you turn yourself against your own preferred version - we know she claimed to have been insulted/offended - we know she told people something happened, we know when his killers went to find him, they demanded the one "who did the talking", which she later called insult and that he was killed. There is no one else, besides her who can claim she was offended or that he offended her, and certainly not Wikipedia editors. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
We don't know what she said to Till nor what she claimed to the two killers, except by interpreting what they said later (sure, what they said later implies that Till had said something cheeky/offensive to their ears). I've always treated 'offending' as shorthand for 'doing and/or saying something which caused her to get angry and go out for her gun'. Half the argument for me previously was avoiding saying that we know what was said or done in the store - or by her to the two men. Pincrete (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC) … … ps the one "who did the talking", would equally rule out a whistle as the cause of offence! We simply don't know! Pincrete (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Then why are you arguing we can positively say she was offended. As I have noted for a long time now, its all in dispute, including the whistle. You put odd weight on went outside and got a gun, when who is the source for that, her -- and apparently no one was preventing her from walking out the store right past everyone and it's still consistent with her claim of offense/insult or other retracted claim of offensive contact. But its the disputes that means we can't say in our own voice that he offended her, we can only say, she claimed/alleged offense. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC) We could go back to Carwill's "interaction" suggestion, which would look something like "after a disputed interaction with a white woman in her grocery store." Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) "In any event, after Wright and Till left the store, Bryant went outside to retrieve a pistol from underneath the seat of a car. The teenagers saw her do this and left immediately.[36] It was acknowledged that Till whistled while Bryant was going to her car". I understood that the gun was one of the few details which is undisputed and I accepted 'offended' as an acceptable shorthand, as I would have accepted 'angered'. I agree that we have very little idea what happened, I also think we don't know what/whether anything was actually said in the store, but whatever happened there... it led to his murder. Pincrete (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Too much of a teasing factor; per WP:Lead, we shouldn't tease the reader. It's questionable enough that we state "offending" without clarifying until the second paragraph, but "took offense from something Till allegedly said or did" is even worse. Same goes for "after a disputed interaction with a white woman in her grocery store." Even though we clarify in the second paragraph, the lead sentence still should not tease. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Which brings it back to number 3, which is fine, or . . . "after allegedly offending a white woman in her family's grocery store." They are certainly no more "teasing" than what's there now. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
The initial three options above are less teasing than "took offense from something Till allegedly said or did" or "after a disputed interaction." As for "after allegedly offending a white woman in her family's grocery store," I would go with "reportedly" in place of "allegedly" since editors have had objections to "allegedly" in the past. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
And yet we couldn't get all editors to agree to "after allegedly flirting with or whistling at a white woman" or "after reportedly flirting with or whistling at a white woman," which would be the better lead sentence. Either would. Despite the options I gave in the RfC, which included "allegedly," I also noted that we could use "allegedly" or "reportedly" in front of "flirting with," like numerous sources do. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
But, of course, that's in the past (sort of). I wouldn't strongly object to "after allegedly offending a white woman in her family's grocery store," but previous arguments have been made that Bryant was offended. "Allegedly" in this instance calls into question whether or not she was actually offended. I get that it's meant to indicate that Till probably did not intentionally cause offense, but it still suggests that he might not have offended her. If she was offended, she was offended, regardless of how silly it was for her to be offended. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Alleged is about what he did or said, not about his intention. It is unknown/disputed what he did or said; it is known that she alleged it to be insult/offense. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
And like I stated, "allegedly" in this instance calls into question whether or not she was actually offended. Stating that "she alleged it to be insult/offense" questions whether she actually was offended. The wording "after allegedly offending a white woman in her family's grocery store" reflects on Till's behavior, however, not hers. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes Till's behavior, as claimed/alleged by her. ", after allegedly offending a white woman in her family's grocery store", is not about her feelings, either (even if one assumes/believes/knows-as-a-truth she felt that way). It is what she (and her husband who also claimed insult when she did, and perhaps others) alleged/said/claimed. Till was not legally tried or convicted for any allegations regarding his speech or acts (the factual basis for which are in any event unknown or disputed), but the allegations of offense were still made - he was alleged to have offended, he was allegedly offending. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I've changed #3 to say "her family's grocery store", and I believe that this would be a good revision to any of the options, including the page now, regardless of the main outcome of this discussion. For me, my top choice is #3, and I disagree with the criticism that it implies that we know what she said in the grocery store. It just implies that she said something to that effect in the time leading up to the lynching, and that seems undeniable. (I would also keep that she was offended "by him", simply for the precision.) My second choice is #1, and as I said above the section break, I think that #2, although not inaccurate, is inarticulate. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I'd go with the modified #3, since although my immediate reaction to all the options explored is that they are all either synth-y or tease-y, I accept Tryptofish's point that Carolyn must have said something to someone (Till or her husband, probably both) to indicate her offense/anger, even if we don't know what exactly. I agree that #2 is 'clunky'. Pincrete (talk) 06:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
We disagree on there not being a wholly satisfactory and concise way of saying this, but I understand what you mean since there have been disagreements about how to word the lead sentence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Also, Pincrete, even with the modification to 3, I still fee that it, like you stated, "implies that his mere presence offended." I noted this, and you noted this afterward; so we agree on that point. But it seems you feel that the addition of "her family's grocery store" changes the vibe in that regard? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
A single sentence is always going to be less than perfect for a situation with X unknowns (and a few partly known nearly knowns?). Adding HER grocery store simply fixes one of them for me, and fixes owner/customer, rather than both of them just happening to be doing the weekly shopping in a limbo. Pincrete (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Since I still feel that "after allegedly flirting with or whistling at a white woman" or "after reportedly flirting with or whistling at a white woman" should be a part of the lead sentence, and that either is sufficient (far more sufficient than any of the latter proposals) before going into detail later in the lead, I reiterate that "we disagree on there not being a wholly satisfactory and concise way of saying this." But we've been over all that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
It looks to me like we might have an emerging consensus, albeit not universal delight, for the revised #3. Unless someone objects strongly in the next day or two, perhaps we can close this discussion and go with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Accuracy
We need to at least tweak the opening sentence so it accurately reflects reliable sources. I changed "was lynched in Mississippi in 1955, after a white woman said she was offended by him in her family's grocery store" to "was lynched in Mississippi in 1955, after being accused of offending a white women in her family's grocery store". Per sources Carolyn Bryant did not initially tell Roy Bryant about her interaction with Emmitt Till at their store, but rather there was reportedly talk in town about whistling and it got back to Bryant. 'Till, a 14-year-old from Chicago, reportedly wolf-whistled at Donham, then Carolyn Bryant, on Aug. 24, 1955. She reportedly didn't tell her husband, who found out days later from a customer at the store.[3]. DynaGirl (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
DynaGirl, I think your recent 'tweak' is an improvement, but I did object to this as it implies that we know what Till was initially accused of, either by Mrs B or Mr B. As you say we don't what Mrs B said to Mr B, (if anything) - there are various conflicting accounts about how and what Mr B heard about the interaction. There are also I believe conflicting accounts of whether Till whistled - and when. In the store 'at her' or simply outside unconnected to her. There is VERY extended discussion in the archive. Till did something very trivial to offend Mrs B, (or Mr B on her behalf?) but the only living person who knows what that is says she can't remember! Pincrete (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, when they went to kidnap Till, they demanded "the one who did the talking", no mention of touching or whistling. And, perhaps she or her sister-in-law were in the car that night. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think there's any need to add whistling to the opening sentence. Offended is fine and the whistling accusation is explained further down in the lead anyway.DynaGirl (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Removed BLP violation
Someone added, as a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice that Carolyn Bryant was with Roy Bryant and Milan in the car the night they abducted Till. But none of the sources cited supported this as a statement of fact and I couldn't find any other sources that do so, so I removed it and added what the sources actually said. According to the Look magazine interview: [4]Had there been any doubt as to the identity of the "Chicago boy who done the talking," Milam and Bryant would have stopped at the store for Carolyn to identify him. But there had been no denial. So they didn't stop at the store. At Money, they crossed the Tallahatchie River and drove west. According to the FBI report cited [5] Mose Wright said Before Milan and Wright entered the car with the boy they asked someone in the car if this was the boy and someone said "yes". When asked if the voice was that of a man or a woman Wright said "it seemed like it was a lighter voice than a man's". I edited article to reflect what the sources cited state. DynaGirl (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
This text " Given the timing of the publicity around Emmett's father, although the defendants had already confessed to taking Emmett from his uncle's house, the post-murder trial grand jury refused to even indict them for kidnapping". Source here. This appears to be an opinion and not well sourced. Putting it here as I'm not very familiar with this aspect of the story. Pincrete (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I suppose it is an opinion but pulling from the talk archives, it just has not been worked in as it should have been: ""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."[6] . . . "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." [7]" Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the text has not been worked properly - but I couldn't see how best to fix it, so brought it here rather than simply remove. If I understand the facts properly, the unprecedented, and 'mysterious' release of details about Till senior's rape charges were 'leaked' to the press shortly before the Grand Jury verdict - Till's mother had not previously known of the circumstances of her husband's death. It has been widely speculated that this was done to either affect the GJ verdict, or to minimise public reaction to that verdict - to imply "like father, like son". An additional complicating factor is that some have questioned the fairness of senior's original court martial. The stuff is important IMO, but I don't see exactly how to render this. Pincrete (talk) 09:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Willie Reed, who was 18 years old at the time, saw the truck passing by and identified five people on the truck with Till. Reed recalled seeing J.W. Milam and Roy Bryant in the front seat, while Henry Lee Loggins and Leroy "Too Tight" Collins were in the back with Till.[1] Both Loggins and Collins worked for Milam and were allegedly forced to help with the beating.[2][3]
Actually the first source used (Reed) says that he saw two black men (inc Till?) in the back of the truck, but no mention of either name. The third source is only Loggins' (estranged) son repeating his belief that his father was involved. Loggins son is also referred to later in FBI testimony, but I am unable to check what that says. I know that there was speculation about others being involved, but don't know 'the whole picture' on that. Pincrete (talk) 10:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I've been reading through the 2006 FBI report and there's a detailed section on Willie Reed. See pages 60-61 [8] According to the 2006 FBI report, Reed testified in 1955 that he saw a truck with 4 white men in the cab of the truck, and 3 black men in the sides of the back of the truck, and one black boy sitting in the middle part of the back of the truck, which Reed identified as Emmett Till. The FBI report notes that in contemporary media interviews Reed identifies 2 white men in the truck (Bryant and Milan) and two black men in the back of the truck (Levi "Too Tight" Collins and Hubbard). DynaGirl (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh dear me! More and more complicated. I did a temp fix on the above text as (on the basis of these sources), we couldn't say that Reed had identified Loggins and Collins. The first source above is further compromised by the fact that much of it appears to be a post-death interview with Reed's widow. Pincrete (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
It is most probable they are both under copyright. They were famous news-photogs in 1955. They may be same photo manipulated differently too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Then I suppose I'll search for its non-WordPress source and flag it as a copyright violation if I find it, then, if someone else doesn't do so while I'm gone. I suspected this myself, since I find it hard to believe one would be free-licensed while the other isn't. Anyway, thanks for the reply. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 19:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2018
This edit request to Emmett Till has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
If you don't own the copyright - or the copyright is not in the public domain, we can't use the pics. The video is posted by 'Time'. Pincrete (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I have the book, and I summarized what Carolyn (not Candice) Bryant told its author here, including specifics about what she said was untrue. If you think the article is inconsistent with my summary of the book with respect to Bryant's retraction, please let us know so we can make appropriate changes to the article. — MShabazzTalk/Stalk20:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2019
This edit request to Emmett Till has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Would like to add the only Museum established to the Life and death of Emmett Louis Till.
Though this crime is widely described as a lynching this seems to be stretching the term. Vile murder for sure. Perhaps it would be better to be more specific and use some expression like 'murdered in circumstances often described as a lynching.' Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.168.247 (talk) 10:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
If it "is widely described as a lynching", then that's how we describe it! Surely, the killing does not have all the hallmarks of a 'classic' lynching (large mob doing it very publicly). I would hazard a guess that the term is widely used, because of intent (to send a message and as a punishment for violating social norms).Pincrete (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
The notion of an 'intention to send a message' is problematic in this case. Since the body was hidden by being sunk in the river, then clearly the actual intention was to cover up what happened rather than to send a message to anyone. Therefore this must strictly-speaking be a murder not a 'lynching' if 'sending a message' is the criterion upon which such a judgment is to be made. But it's an emotive issue, and I'm sure others will disagree and think me unduly pedantic. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.173.183 (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
"Sending a message" was simply my conjecture as to why RS call it a lynching rather than a plain murder - the point however is that they do call it a lynching, therefore so do we. Pincrete (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Lynching is a specific type of murder. It seems like you're implying that calling it a lynching would somehow justify it or make it seem "less" than a "normal" murder in some people's minds. I don't think that's correct. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Sources call it lynching, so we call it lynching, we already also call it murder like 8 words after lynching for the same reason. This idea that it has to be one or the other makes no sense. But lynching it is because it fits in the all to well traveled mode of extra-judicial retributive 'justice' being meted-out to a lone offender to restore the social status quo (in this case, as in many others, enforcing the color line, here's JW Milam:" "Well, what else could we do? He was hopeless. I'm no bully; I never hurt a n* in my life. I like n*—in their place—I know how to work 'em. But I just decided it was time a few people got put on notice. As long as I live and can do anything about it, n* are gonna stay in their place." . . . ). No one had to find the body to know what message was sent. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Average income
"Mamie Carthan was born in Tallahatchie County, where the average income per white household in 1949 was $690 ($6,960 in 2016 dollars). For black families, the figure was $462 ($4,660 in 2016 dollars)."
This edit request to Emmett Till has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The first sentence states Emmett Till was "lynched". The second paragraph, second to last sentence states, "They took him away and beat and mutilated him before 'shooting' him in the head..."
This appears confusing, was he lynched or shot. Most other references state Emmett Hill was was shot.
This also causes other references to 'lynch', 'lynched', and 'lynching' to be confusing or misleading regarding Emmett Hill. BK1996 (talk) 13:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Not done. The sources use lynched. There are many ways to lynch someone -- anyway someone may be killed, hurt, or harmed can be used. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
I have the same question. The historical marker is there so I'm sure it's the right place, and it's the only establishment except for a fire station on the main road in Money, which is tiny. The gas pumps say 28.9¢. deisenbe (talk) 21:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I feel certain that the photo is not correct because this building bears no resemblance to the store, which was BTW a two-story building with the owners living upstairs. Here's a good pic: [11]Gandydancer (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Bit of a mystery then, for some reason I have a recollection that there was a gas station across the street (where Curtis Jones was playing checkers?) but that's just a guess. Should we take it out for now? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I'll update it if you give me a day. This was on the west side of the road. Was Bryant's also on the west side? I saw nothing of the severely damaged original building, I wonder if it was beyond repair and demolished. deisenbe (talk) 00:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
The gas station is a few yards south of the remains of the grocery store, both on the west side of the road. The current Google street view photograph is from October 2009, but shows both buildings.[14]Mighty Antar (talk) 12:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Also, compare these two pictures of the sign with the remains of the store in the background 20132018. You could contact the heritage group that Pincrete gave you a link for to ask about it, but nothing should stand in the way of us correcting the gas station picture's identification, thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
While we are on the subject, I question the usefulness of some of the other pics in the gallery eg: "Minuscule sign, at left, pointing to Emmett Till Historic Intrepid Center, Glendora, Mississippi, 2019". And yes, if the gas station pic is only nearby (as seems to be the case), I don't think it adds anything to the article. Pincrete (talk) 13:05, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I have no objection to trimming. So, as to keep things straight note the "Interpretive Center" [15] (Sumner) is different from the "Intrepid Center" [16] (Glendora). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Glendora Gin. Sign outside Emmett Till Historic Intrepid Center, Glendora, Mississippi, 2019
Sign identifying site of house of J.W. Milam, near Glendora Gin, 2019. Milam was one of the two that murdered Emmett Till.
Sign at location of killing of Clinton Mellon, violent act related to Emmett Till's murder, 2019
The reconstructed Ben Roy Service Station that stood next to the grocery store where Till encountered Bryant in Money, Mississippi[1], 2019
I agree that the "minuscule" one could be removed. BTW, wondering who Clinton Mellon was I found this [17]
It's very interesting and here are a couple of quotes from that article that I suppose Southerners would recognize right away but Northerners (like me) would not understand till it is explained to them. It is quite chilling to think about.
"Kimball’s story would be hard for any jury to believe, because they would know…. “[You] cannot provoke a Negro attendant to talk like that no matter how much you irritate him, particularly a trusted Negro such as Clinton Melton.”
"The jury also knew that “no white peckerwood gin manager, the best friend of J. W. Milam, would let a Negro talk like that without doing a little whupping right there on the spot.” Gandydancer (talk) 14:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I just reverted a series of edits by Ekpyros (as well as subsequent edits by Flyer22 Reborn and Pincrete) about Carolyn Bryant's recantation (or not). The edits struck me as heavily POV, with lots of use of weasel wording. The edits by Flyer22 Reborn and Pincrete both identified issues with the edits, as well. It didn't seem to me like the large problems were fixable on a small scale, hence the blanket revert. I have no particular expertise or knowledge on this question, and I am hoping that by starting this discussion I can encourage other editors to find an appropriate way to incorporate any recent developments. --JBL (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
This edit request to Emmett Till has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change "Emmett Louis Till (July 25, 1941 – August 28, 1955) was a 14-year-old African American who was lynched in Mississippi in 1955, after being accused of offending a white woman in her family's grocery store." to "Emmett Louis Till (July 25, 1941 – August 28, 1955) was a 14-year-old African American who was lynched in Mississippi in 1955, after being falsely accused of offending a white woman in her family's grocery store." he was falsely accused. Joshie2124 (talk) 02:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Joshie2124, he certainly offended her (and local sensibility) in SOME way - what that 'offense' was and whether it was something that we or even reasonable people at the time would regard as anything more than (perhaps) mildly 'cheeky' teenage behaviour. which might have been OK 'up North', or whether it was some kind of complete misunderstanding - are things we still don't know. We've thought hard here about how to accurately describe the little that is known about exactly what happened in the store. Pincrete (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Edit to the Representation in Culture section
Emmett Till is explicitly mentioned in Toni Morrison's "Song of Solomon", pages 80-82. In this novel, the discussion of his death and the well-placed mistrust that authorities would prosecute the murderers is unfortunately and abhorrently still extremely relevant and I think it is important to include this work in this section.
Matteroffact35, most sources refer to it as a lynching, so we do also - although it was not a 'classic' lynching. The body of the article gives the fuller picture as to what is believed to have been done to him and by whom - although the grisly details and exact sequence are not known.Pincrete (talk) 10:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020
This edit request to Emmett Till has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change the cause of death, Emmett was accused of cat calling a white woman so 2 old white men BRUTALLY beat him until his face was unrecognizable. Don’t sugar coat it he was not only shot, it was a hate crime. 2601:646:8600:4E80:D1D6:7C31:A3ED:7785 (talk) 05:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Change "The open-coffin funeral held by Mamie Till Bradley exposed the world to more than her son Emmett Till's bloated, mutilated body. Her decision focused attention not only on U.S. racism and the barbarism of lynching but also on the limitations and vulnerabilities of American democracy". to "The open-coffin funeral held by Mamie Elizabeth Till-Mobley exposed the world to more than her son Emmett Till's bloated, mutilated body. Her decision focused attention not only on U.S. racism and the barbarism of lynching but also on the limitations and vulnerabilities of American democracy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by WimKP (talk • contribs) 19:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi. That is a quote, so cannot be changed, even though Bradley was her name from her dissolved second marriage, it was used at the time, and occasionally since. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Biographical details of perpetrators
Most articles on famous crimes have some biographical details of the perpetrators, like date of birth and date of death. That information is available, see for example this article. Of course, the main focus of the article should be on the victim, but I think a few brief factual details about the perpetrators (such as their dates of birth and death) would not be out of place. Mr248 (talk) 02:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2020
This edit request to Emmett Till has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
young Cassius Clay (later famed boxer Muhammad Ali)
should be changed to Muhammad Ali (formerly Cassius Clay)
this is because of Muhammad Ali dislike of his previous name Cassius Clay as one based around racism and a name that didnt respect his African heritage. refering to him by Cassius Clay first is insulting. Undeadermens (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Ali was known by that name at the time. This is standard practice on WP, to use the THEN name, for example with single/married names. It would be insulting to deny that Ali later changed his name from his 'slave name', but it's history that he was born and first became well known as 'Clay'. Pincrete (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Knowing full well that "A person named in an article in which they are not the subject should be referred to by the name they used at the time being described in the article." is the guideline offered by the WP:MOS, I think it's worth considering how offensive that guideline is to Ali: Ernie Terrell repeatedly called Ali "Clay" and suffered a prolonged punishment at the hands of Ali, who shouted "What's my name" at Terell in a 15-round fight on February 6, 1967. "Clay" was an insult. Vexations (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
If you do not understand the difference between writing an encyclopedia article and taunting an opponent, you probably should not be involved in the former activity. --JBL (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2020
This edit request to Emmett Till has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In episode 3 of Lovecraft Country there is a scene where four kids engage with a ouija-board. One of those kids is Emmett Till, asking if he should take his trip to Mississippi. The board answers "no". 89.220.227.52 (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Not done This is trivia. There is moment where a character who resembles Till (Bobo, played by Rhyan Hill) appears, but it is not Till. No independent, reliable sources are provided. Vexations (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
In episode 8 of Lovecraft Country ("Jig-a-Bobo") they clarify that Diana Freeman's friend is indeed meant to be Emmett Till. His public funeral is the main focus of the episode and overshadows everything that happens in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcomfitzcarraldo (talk • contribs)
Not done Wikipedia articles are not holding spaces for every piece of trivia that relates in some way to the article subject. --JBL (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
The definition of "lynching"
Just wondering whether a "revenge murder" by two men (Bryant's husband Roy and his half-brother J.W. Milam) can even be considered a lynching? Where's the prerequisite mob and mock justice? Looks like a plain murder to me. 93.225.135.40 (talk) 09:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
This issue is raised from time to time - the bottom line for us is that sources writing about the killing refer to it as a lynching, so we do as well. The elements of 'peremptory justice' and 'sending a warning to others' make it fit a classic lynching, the fact that it was not 'done by a mob', less so. But, as I said, we don't decide these things, simply follow sources. Pincrete (talk) 10:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Edit reverted, would like to dispute
On November 30, the first sentence said, "Emmett Louis Till (July 25, 1941 – August 28, 1955) was a 14-year-old African American who was lynched in Mississippi in 1955, after being accused of offending a white woman in her family's grocery store." I changed this to "Emmett Louis Till (July 25, 1941 – August 28, 1955) was an African American who was lynched at the age of 14 in Mississippi in 1955 after being accused of offending a white woman in her family's grocery store." Well, I don't remember what exactly I changed it to, but I don't know how to view reverted edits. But it was something along those lines. Anyway, the reason I made this edit is that he was lynched at 14, but being 14 is not his identity. Being African American is part of his identity. He wasn't always 14, but he was always African American. Whoever reverted my edit, can you please share your reasoning? Thanks. Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
@Mrytzkalmyr: in order to view past edits on any Wikipedia page, look for the tab or button that says "View history". (When in desktop mode, it will be at the very top of the page, I'm not sure about mobile view.) Here is a direct link. It was reverted in a series of edits (an inconclusive back-and-forth between Pincrete and Alanscottwalker). --JBL (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Hardly a 'back and forth'! I introduced the word 'boy' during a revert of Mrytzkalmyr because I thought it important to establish his sex - the name not being obvious, Alanscottwalker thought 'boy' problematic. I reverted Mrytzkalmyr, whose text I acknowledge was slightly more accurate, because I thought the improvement in accuracy, was not worth the 'clunkier' phrasing. If others prefer Mrytzkalmyr's text, by all means ignore my reservations. Pincrete (talk) 08:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Toni Morrison's "Song of Solomon"
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Small addition, but in "Song of Solomon" by Toni Morrison, Emmett Till's death is mentioned, specifically between pages 80-82 of chapter 3. This could be added right after the mention of another Toni Morrison book ("Representation in culture" paragraph 3). Suggested edit:
In Toni Morrison's Song of Solomon (novel), Emmett Till's death is mentioned, specifically to ask the question weather Till's death was warranted or expected as he was "acting big" in the South, or weather no one, regardless or race, should be murdered for a whistle.[1]
Done Both instances of "weather" should be "whether", but I've written something a bit more concise: Toni Morrison mentions Till's death in the novel Song of Solomon (1977) and later wrote the play Dreaming Emmett (1986) ... — Bilorv (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Carolyn Bryant denies she recanted
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Hello, would someone be able to make some changes to reflect the fact that Carolyn Bryant/Donham and her family deny Timothy Tyson's claims that she recanted to him? It seems misleading to present this recantation as 100 per cent undisputed, especially as Tyson admits the key quote -- "that part isn't true" -- is missing from his tape recording of the interview.
So, for example, this section in paragraph 2:
Decades later, Bryant disclosed that she had fabricated part of the testimony regarding her interaction with Till, specifically the portion where she accused Till of grabbing her waist and uttering obscenities; "that part's not true," Bryant stated in a 2008 interview with historian Timothy Tyson.[2][4][5]
Should be changed to the following:
In 2017, historian Timothy Tyson claimed that Bryant had disclosed she had fabricated part of the testimony regarding her interaction with Till, specifically the portion where she accused Till of grabbing her waist and uttering obscenities; "that part's not true," he said Bryan told in in a 2008 interview.[2][4][5] However, Bryant's daughter-in-law, Marsha Bryant, who was present for the two tape-recorded interviews between Bryant and Tyson, insists Bryant “never recanted”. Tyson acknowledges that the "that part's not true" quote is not present in his recordings, claiming that she said it when he was “setting up the tape recorder”.[1][2]
Obviously the 'Admission that the testimony against Till was false' should also be revised; I would suggest the following:
Alleged admission that the testimony against Till was false
In 2017, author Timothy Tyson released details of a 2008 interview with Carolyn Bryant, claiming she disclosed that she had fabricated the most sensational part of her testimony.[2][5][126] Tyson said that during the interview, Bryant retracted her testimony that Till had grabbed her around her waist and uttered obscenities, saying "that part's not true".[127][128] However, Bryant's daughter-in-law Marsha Bryant, who was present for the two tape-recorded interviews Tyson did with her mother-in-law, insisted she “never recanted” and accused Tyson of acting “unethically”. “Why would she recant to somebody she just met?” she said in comments to the Mississippi Clarion Ledger, which said the family dismissed the recantation claims as ridiculous. Tyson admits that “It is true that that part is not on tape because I was setting up the tape recorder,” but has produced a photograph of hand-written notes which he says he took during the interview, reading “That pt wasn’t true. … 50 yrs ago. I just don’t remember. … Nothing that boy ever did could justify what happened to him.” The originals are said to have been subpoenaed by the FBI.[3] [citation: https://eu.clarionledger.com/story/news/2018/08/21/emmett-till-carolyn-bryant-donham-recant-quote-missing/1017876002/]
The jury did not hear Bryant testify. The judge ruled it inadmissible, but the court spectators heard. The defense wanted Bryant's testimony as evidence for a possible appeal in the case of a conviction.[2][3] In the 2008 interview, the 72-year-old Bryant said she could not remember the rest of the events that occurred between her and Till in the grocery store.[2] She also said: "nothing that boy did could ever justify what happened to him".[128] Tyson said that Roy Bryant had been verbally abusive toward Carolyn, and "it was clear she was frightened of her husband". Bryant described Milam as "domineering and brutal and not a kind man".[128] An editorial in The New York Times said regarding Bryant's alleged admission that portions of her testimony were false: "This admission is a reminder of how black lives were sacrificed to white lies in places like Mississippi. It also raises anew the question of why no one was brought to justice in the most notorious racially motivated murder of the 20th century, despite an extensive investigation by the F.B.I."[129]
The New York Times quoted Wheeler Parker, a cousin of Till's, who said, "I was hoping that one day she [Bryant] would admit it, so it matters to me that she did, and it gives me some satisfaction. It's important to people understanding how the word of a white person against a black person was law, and a lot of black people lost their lives because of it. It really speaks to history, it shows what black people went through in those days."[6]
In a report to Congress in March 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice stated that it was reopening the investigation into Till's death due to unspecified new information.[130][131]
I think the above is both fair to Tyson, who has produced a photograph of notes which he says he took during his interview with Bryant, and to Bryant herself, given she denies the recantation, the recantation is not in Tyson's recordings, and she is still alive -- facing a number of investigations (which may be ongoing?) related to the killing and could become a target during these volatile times, particularly if people reading the current version of the article get the impression she does not dispute Tyson's claims but has never faced consequences for offering false testimony regardless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBM00001 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Just a note to remark that there were some very poor edits related to this a few months ago, leading to two discussions that didn't go much of anywhere and have been archived here. There are also lots of past discussions of how to characterize Bryant and Tyson in the earlier talkpage archives (earliest discussion is here but much of archives 3--6 is devoted to this topic). --JBL (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
IMO the less than useful edits began when so much detail was put in the lead, it should not be that much -- the testimony was not allowed in the trial, and it is subject to dispute, including from the anonymous witness in the store and the named witness who entered the store when Till was there. We should not discuss it in detail in the lead, because than we also have to have the details of all these disputes for neutrality. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Alanscottwalker's approach, of minimising the detail in the lead is a sound one IMO. I wonder whether the text about the Tyson version of a recant can be phrased in terms of what his book says, rather than what Bryant allegedly recanted. It would be tempting to forget Tyson altogether, but I suspect the Tyson book is now too embedded as part of the narrative.Pincrete (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Per previous, long discussions, and per WP:Due weight and WP:Lead, we should retain the following in the lead: "He spoke to 21-year-old Carolyn Bryant, the white married proprietor of a small grocery store there. Although what happened at the store is a matter of dispute, Till was accused of flirting with or whistling at Bryant. In 1955, Bryant had testified that Till made physical and verbal advances." It took a lot of discussion to come to a compromise about how to relay the flirting with/whistling matter in the lead. And it is information that should obviously be in the lead. As for the rest, the article spends significant time on the "Bryant's testimony" aspect, both in the "Encounter between Till and Carolyn Bryant" section and the "Trial" section, and it includes a whole section about the "Bryant recants part of her story" aspect. So these facets should also be in the lead. How much should be there? We can discuss. Either way, this is a big article and the lead is meant to adequately summarize it, including any prominent controversies. When it comes to neutrality on Wikipedia, we have to keep in mind that it's largely about WP:Due weight and that we have to avoid giving false balance (per WP:False balance). Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh, and I agree that if Bryant states that she did not recant, we should include that. Briefly in the lead, and in a bit more detail lower in the article. That is a WP:BLP issue. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I strongly agree that the lead needs editing, I question whether the Tyson interview should be included in the lead at all considering how questionable it is, and that the entire subject has its own section (with its own subheader) in the article. At minimum it needs to be severely cut, as it currently takes very undue priority considering how a)unsubstantiated it is and b)how relatively less important this discussion half-a-century later is compared to the violence committed and the exoneration of the murderers. The current lead makes it seem as though Carolyn Bryant's statements and actions were the most monumental aspect, rather than the actual lynching, trial, and influence of Emmett Till's death. I tried to make such an edit, but it was reverted by User:Gandydancer who explained "editors have worked extensively on the wording of this article"- but failed to note the changes discussed have yet to be made. Would it be possible to remove any mention of Tyson from the lead, but instead to add after the line regarding her testimony, that the testimony itself was at odds with statements she made before and after the trial? Or we could simply omit any mention of her testimony in the lead, considering all of the aspects that make it unreliable, and that the jury never even heard it. SanDWesting (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with SanDWesting that the 'Tyson input' is now probably too convoluted by Tyson's claims and the supposed 'recantation' of the admission made on Bryant's behalf, that it detracts from the main narrative in the lead. What Bryant supposedly said to Tyson always was fairly ambiguous (nothing that boy did …). Even at the time the Bryant testimony (which wasn't heard by, and therefore had no effect on the jury ) was pretty universally regarded as 'sexed-up' anyway. Now it appears to be anyone's guess as to whether it's Tyson or Marsha Bryant who's closer to the truth. Pincrete (talk) 08:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I strongly support the wording in the lead that is being questioned. I don't believe that "it takes undue priority considering how a)unsubstantiated it is and b)how relatively less important this discussion half-a-century later is compared to the violence committed and the exoneration of the murderers." If anything, this information in the lead is even more important than ever. It was always doubtful that Till grabbed her and used foul language. But keep in mind that in that day African American men were still expected to call a white man sir and never look one directly in the eye, etc. But of course in a court room she could not say that he only whistled and that was enough to justify killing him. Regarding this concern by SanDWesting, "The current lead makes it seem as though Carolyn Bryant's statements and actions were the most monumental aspect, rather than the actual lynching, trial, and influence of Emmett Till's death." Actually that is what the whole thing was all about: Negros wanted to sexually assault innocent white women and the menfolk needed to defend their honor. So they lynched him. Even though he was just a boy. Though he was from Chicago and that was another problem because they didn't like Northerners coming down interfering in their way of life. As for questioning the works of a historian as to what she told him, all things considered I would put more weight into what he said than a white person who was involved in the lynching. Gandydancer (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I'll reiterate, I think the detail in the lead is too much, and has been, and that is where the lead went wrong. It should be removed. The opaqueness of what he did or did not do, what he may have done, or not done, is not and never has been the focus of why it all matters in history, nor encyclopedically. - Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Please stop reopening the request until a consensus exists for a change. The template isn't there to promote discussion, it's to get a specific edit that has consensus made to the article. I think the template you're looking for can be found in WP:RFC. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
What I keep getting stuck on is that I find "took offense with him" an awkward construction. The words "took" and "with" just sound odd to me here. I do, however, recognize that it would be (subtly) more accurate than what we have now. I tried to find words with meanings similar to "offense" that would allow for more direct language. How about, very simply: "after a white woman became angry at him in a grocery store"? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Not done: Spintendo 13:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Done Thank you for your suggestion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Emmett Till Memorial Highway, US 49E, Tutwiler, Mississippi, 2019
Minuscule sign, at left, pointing to Emmett Till Historic Intrepid Center, Glendora, Mississippi, 2019
Emmett Till Historic Intrepid Center, Glendora, Mississippi, 2019
Glendora Gin. Sign outside Emmett Till Historic Intrepid Center, Glendora, Mississippi, 2019
Sign identifying site of house of J.W. Milam, near Glendora Gin, 2019. Milam was one of the two that murdered Emmett Till.
Sign at location of killing of Clinton Mellon, violent act related to Emmett Till's murder, 2019![The reconstructed Ben Roy Service Station that stood next to the grocery store where Till encountered Bryant in Money, Mississippi[1], 2019](//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/Ben_Roy_Service_Station.jpg/167px-Ben_Roy_Service_Station.jpg)
The reconstructed Ben Roy Service Station that stood next to the grocery store where Till encountered Bryant in Money, Mississippi[1], 2019
Not done This is trivia. There is moment where a character who resembles Till (Bobo, played by Rhyan Hill) appears, but it is not Till. No independent, reliable sources are provided. Vexations (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Done Both instances of "weather" should be "whether", but I've written something a bit more concise: