Talk:Emmett Till/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

First sentence of article is out of date and unacceptable

My attention was drawn to this wikipedia article as a result of the 2017 publication that revealed Carolyn Bryant lied under oath about her interaction with Emmett Till (that is, she lied about Till "flirting" with her). So, I find it inaccurate for "reportedly flirting" to be in the first sentence. Yes, this did shape the discussion surrounding his murder and clearly has place later in the article. However, it is *incredibly* disrespectful to a child murdered because of his race to suggest that he was possibly responsible in any way for his death, which is what repeating the debunked lie about "flirting" in the first sentence of the article does. I see in the history of the article that other users have made changes to make the first sentence more faithful to the known facts in 2017 and these continually get reverted.

"Emmett Louis Till (July 25, 1941 – August 28, 1955) was an African-American teenager who was murdered in Mississippi at the age of 14 after reportedly flirting with a white woman." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmerlis (talk • contribs) 17:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Gandydancer (talk) 02:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The first sentence is correct. This is what happened. Till was murdered in Mississippi after reportedly flirting with a white woman. Everything else...the funeral, the trial, the admission by Bryant 50 years later that she had lied...doesn't change the first line. Wikipedia users who read the lead section will see the chronological summary of events. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Please consult a dictionary if the meaning of the word "reportedly" is unclear. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand the meaning of "reportedly." THE POINT IS THAT THIS PASSIVE VOICE CONSTRUCTION--BASED ON A STORY PERPETUATED BY THE [equally "reportedly!"] LYING WIFE OF ONE OF TILL'S MURDERERS--DOES NOT BELONG IN THE LEDE. The lede is the place for the most important info. about a wikipedia subject. The most important things about Till are 1) His identity as a young murder victim; 2) The fact that his murder was symbolic of larger systems (racial terror and judicial lynchings) that characterized the Southern United States in the 1950s; 3) Those who ADMITTED TO MURDERING THIS BOY were never punished. ShanonFitzpatrick (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The first sentence does not need to include debunked ("reportedly") events. I suggest "Emmett Louis Till (July 25, 1941 – August 28, 1955) was an African-American teenager who was murdered in Mississippi at the age of 14 by white supremacists." To quote Magnolia677, this is correct. This is what happened. Till was murdered by white supremacists. Neither Magnolia677 nor MShabazz have offered any substance to their insistence on reverting edits (thank you for the condescending suggestion that I consult a dictionary), while I and other users have clearly explained why this is a problematic first sentence. Tmerlis (talk) 03:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Either the first sentence needs the additional context ("after Bryant reportedly accused him of "flirting" with her, an accusation she later recanted") or the entire concept of flirting should be removed from the first sentence. ResultingConstant (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I have made repeat attempts to fix this first sentence. Among the tactics I have tried are: 1) simplification (just explaining that he was murdered); 2) adding additional disclaimer about Bryant; 3) adding fact that his admitted murderers were never brought to justice; 4) adding context about Civil Rights Movement. EVERY SINGLE TIME my edits have been reverted by those who think it is better to emphasize the (debunked!) and unethical claim that he was murdered after "reportedly flirting with a white woman"--these editors have also removed all other contextual information I have provided. ShanonFitzpatrick (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

If traction for a new consensus does not develop here, a wider RFC may be appropriate, but the key is that such a RFC MUST be neutrally worded and formed. ResultingConstant (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I am always reluctant to enter these sorts of discussion, but I must agree with what I think is the consensus here. Emmett Till was murdered after he reportedly flirted with a white woman. This is not outrageous enough for you? Even if it was true? Is flirting with a woman a capital crime anywhere? The fact that the "white woman" in question has finally admitted that her testimony was false (is there a statute of limitations on perjury in Mississippi?) can certainly be added as a postscript in the lede (and in the article) -- but the basic facts are that an innocent black man was murdered for allegedly flirting with a white woman. Whether he actually did, or not, is irrelevant to the basic fact that a heinous lynching crime was committed, and the criminals went unpunished. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 03:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The lede, as it is currently worded, chooses to EMPHASIZE his "reported" [passive voice!] flirtation WHILE REFUSING TO ACKNOWLEDGE the more important parts of the story (the fact that justice was viciously and pursposefuly denied by the Jim Crow court system. This is problematic and wrong because 1) It fails to fulfill the function of a lede--which is to convey immediately the MOST IMPORTANT SIGNIFICANCE of the article subject; 2) While you may think that this detail is not important, THERE IS A LONG HISTORY OF white Americans using accusations of black rape, African American hyper-masculinity, and white innocence in order to justify SYSTEMIC LYNCHING. Including this sentence is similar to saying that a woman who was raped "was reportedly wearing a short skirt," i.e. unacceptable. ShanonFitzpatrick (talk) 03:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

No, any rape is unacceptable (and illegal) whether there was "provocation" or not. Similarly, any lynching murder is unacceptable (and illegal), regardless of the circumstances. The "most important significance", as you describe it, is that Till was brutally murdered for some alleged social faux pas. The Jim Crow aspects of the case are thoroughly discussed in the article. And please stop with the capital-letter "shouting" -- your intended emphasis is quite clear without it. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 04:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Get a grip, Shanon, and stop shouting. The fact is, thousands—if not millions—of reliable sources say Till was murdered because of Mrs. Bryant's report that he had flirted with/whistled at/said rude things to her.

One new book raises interesting possibilities. The book doesn't dispute that the report that Till flirted with/whistled at/said rude things to Mrs. Bryant is what led to his murder. It agrees 100% with that account of history, because those are verifiable facts. It says that, for the first time, Mrs. Bryant has said she lied in 1955. Did she or didn't she? We will probably never know, because she gave the author an interview in 2007 and hasn't been seen in public since the late 1950s.

We are writing an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. We should continue to report what every reliable source on the subject says: that Till was murdered on the basis of a report of what allegedly happened between him and Mrs. Bryant. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

There are lots of sources describing the world as flat and that the sun revolves around it. We don't use them though because we know they are outdated and incorrect. ResultingConstant (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

With all respect: (1) 14th-century treatises do not qualify as reliable sources by any definition that I'm aware of; and (2) if you can't see the difference between your example and the discussion at hand, you might want to take a seat and just watch for awhile. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll keep shouting until you hear. Till was not murdered because he flirted. He was murdered because he was a victim of SYSTEMIC, MURDEROUS ANTI-BLACK RACISM and the perpetrators were never brought to justice because of SYSTEMIC LEGAL DISFRANCHISEMENT of African Americans. The "reported" flirtation was the EXCUSE that the murderers used. It is important to NOT CENTER THE MURDERERS' NARRATIVE in the lede to this article because: 1) the passive voice use of the word "reportedly" gives credence to DISCREDITED LEGAL TESTIMONY while at the same time creating space for victim-blaming narratives. THESE VICTIM-BLAMING NARRATIVES helped Till's murderers avoid punishment and for years have shielded C. Bryant's potential complicity in Till's murder. 2) Some of wikipedia community has decided that emphasizing Till's reported flirtation IN THE LEDE is more important than emphasizing that Till's murder was part of a wider historical campaign of LYNCHING in the USA and a CATALYST FOR THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT. I strongly disagree with this argument and have explained why. ShanonFitzpatrick (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep shouting, then. I have news for you, though.

It wasn't "SYSTEMIC, MURDEROUS ANTI-BLACK RACISM" that snatched Till out of his bed in the middle of the night and lynched him. It was men, racist white Southern men, acting as they could be expected to when they heard what Till reportedly did.

PS - Where was your outrage when the lynching of Emmett Till was deemed not to be a lynching by Wikipedia editors a few days ago? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Because of discussions of Callaway's and similar cases, the NAACP in 1940 broadened its definition of lynching to include small groups of vigilantes.

I support removing passive voice ("reportedly") from the lede, and replacing the part about flirtation with the fact that neither his known murderers or his accuser were ever brought to justice. 192.222.197.155 (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Later events

Can I get input on whether the following two "later events" should be added to the article? First, this source states that "Milam's and Bryant's stores, which catered almost exclusively to local blacks, were boycotted and within fifteen months all the stores were either closed or sold. Blacks refused to work on the Milam farm, and J.W. turned instead to bootlegging." The PBD documentary about Till's murder also stated that a boycott put Bryant out of business. Does anyone have a more reliable source than the one above? Also noteworthy is that Sheriff Strider narrowly missed being shot in the head while he sat in his car in Cowart, Mississippi in 1957. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Magnolia, IMO the Sheriff Strider info is not important enough to include. However, I feel that the Milam and Bryant info may be important enough to add. But I'd like more input from others before giving a definite yes. This effect was local, not national--would this really matter considering that there is room for only so much info in such a broad reaching article? Gandydancer (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Why is Till's father's demise referred to here as "died" which makes it appear that it was the product of something natural when, in fact, he was executed for rape and murder in Italy? this gives the appearance of a whitewash.

Also consider that whatever approach Till made toward Bryant, it would be construed today as "sexual harassment" and might need to be referred to as such for a clearer understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Elixson (talk • contribs) 05:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Which source says how Till's father died? How does it describe the context? It certainly should be included, briefly, if reliably sourced.

I think that the clearest understanding of Till's behaviour is by describing what he was alleged or believed to have done, not a modern interpretation of how such actions would be viewed in our particular milieu. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

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

this is in response to the query/ies about Till's father's death. i found an article in the Chicago Tribune, from 2005. it's not very long, but it gets into the context fairly well. the context around the army's racial issues, at least. (nothing around the "moral waiver" being given for domestic abuse/attempted murder, though.) but, i'm not sure why it should be included at all.

certainly there should be something noting that Tills didn't have his father around when a child. but i'm not sure why it matters what happened to Louis after he was absent from the family. i mean, it's an interesting story, but this doesn't seem the place for it. (strangely, the only WP article that talks about moral waivers claims it didn't happen before the 1960s.) i can't think why someone would want to include it here. well, i CAN think of reasons, but they are all "blame the victim" reasons. anyway, here's the article:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2005-09-25/news/0509250486_1_jim-crow-army-till-official-army

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/join_the_army_or_go_to_jail/ Colbey84 (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

After reading this page in its entirety, I feel that it does a tremendous job of discussing the story in great deal, and describing its impact it had on the Civil Rights Movement. in light of recent events I believe that more information should be added regarding the fact that Carolyn Bryant admitted her testimony was a lie. It is touched upon briefly at the beginning of the introduction, but should be added to the end of this section. The fact that she stayed quiet for so long makes me question her motives for coming out at this point in time.Mattmorton (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The testimonial fabrication - placement where it occurs in the narrative

So, [1] was reverted with the claim of no need. That makes little sense. Purported false testimony is now integral to this trial, as it would be for any trial (you can't say one without the other). It also is nearly impossible to imagine the testimony ever being discussed again without mention of the fabrication claim (no matter what happens in the future) - it "needs"- or at any rate should be -- mentioned precisely there with the trial testimony (when we state the then "explosive" claims), regardless of where else it may be covered. I'm not picky about how it's mentioned there with a note or otherwise ,but it should be mentioned right there.Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Alan, I think you're right on this one. Gandydancer (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

You make a good point. Just a note that the section I added later in the article entitled "2007 Tyson interview" is quite detailed, and is worded exactly to what the sources said. It may be best to keep this more detailed summary there as well. Also, could we try to use the same sources for all three additions? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree that this needs to go where it provides context against the information it contradicts. ResultingConstant (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree - it needs to be with the section reporting so much about what Till purportedly said and did.Parkwells (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

"After reportedly sexually assaulting..."

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

In my opinion, absolutely not. But there is an RfC about that, just above. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The sentence being discussed at the RfC is as follows:

• The lead sentence/paragraph of the Emmett Till article currently reads : Emmett Louis Till (July 25, 1941 – August 28, 1955) was an African-American teenager who was murdered in Mississippi at the age of 14 after reportedly flirting with a white woman.

It says nothing about assaulting. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Wow, you are definitely correct about that, sorry I missed it. Yes, that's appalling, and I just changed it back. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2017

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

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

Flirting ?

The introductory section says that Emmett was murdered "after reportedly flirting with a white woman." Flirting is something consensual and there is no source quoted in the article saying that the woman agreed with Emmett's conduct. On the contrary, there are sources quoted saying that Emmett had a derogatory conduct towards the woman. Thus "after reportedly flirting with a white woman" must be replaced by "after reportedly having a derogatory conduct towards a white woman". Marvoir (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit. The dictionary definition for derogatory is "showing a critical or disrespectful attitude". Please provide references that state that Till had "a derogatory conduct" towards the woman. Gandydancer (talk) 11:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I've been following the revisions of "flirting" and "derogatory comment" for a while. The evidence doesn't completely support that Till said something derogatory. "Hey baby" may have come close, but he may not have even said it. What seems clear is that Carolyn Bryant interpreted Till's actions--whatever they were--as flirtatious and inappropriate. The word "derogatory" is too limiting, and absolutely paints Till's behavior as aggressive, which isn't completely supported by facts. The editors who frequent this article appear painfully aware of their need to remain neutral. The facts will speak for themselves, and readers will come to their own conclusions. But let's not enable readers to come to the wrong conclusions by using loaded words that really don't belong. Richard Apple (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The article says : "Carolyn Bryant later asserted that Till had grabbed her at the waist and asked her for a date. She said the young man also used "unprintable" words." That is well "reportedly having a derogatory conduct", more derogotary than "flirting". Marvoir (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

No it's not. But more importantly, that just shows your interpretation of the events. - Boneyard90 (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

And Ruby Bates and Victoria Price asserted they had been raped. Her assertions can't be turned into facts for the lead paragraph. This would have been a classic "he said, she said" situation were it not for the inconvenient fact that Carolyn Bryant's husband eliminated any possibility of there being a "he said" portion.

I'm not sure "flirting" is the best possible way to introduce the event, but I see no evidence that Tlll's words or actions would be unquestionably characterized as "derogatory". I could go with "made advances toward", or possibly "flirted and possibly made offensive remarks". Of course, one problem with the latter alternative is that "offensive" can be even more subjective than "derogatory". At that time and place, it's likely that many young white women alone in a store would be offended – and frightened – by a black teenager doing anything other than staring at the ground mumbling "yes'm" or "beggin' yo pahdon ma'am". Fat&Happy (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Although I think "flirted" is fine, since flirting can be one-sided, or can be be done despite being un-wanted, I suppose there are alternatives: "spoke in a suggestive or provocative manner", "attempted to flirt", "spoke flirtaciously", "flirted using language of questionable nature".... - Boneyard90 (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

According to some sources he did not say anything, but rather whisted (wolf call) at her. Gandydancer (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

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

It is completely unacceptable--given what we know about the falsification of C. Bryant's testimony and the long history of white Southerners claiming rape in order to justify lynching--to have the lead sentence of this article talk about Till's alleged "flirtation." ShanonFitzpatrick (talk) 05:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

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

I reverted your edit. Nobody accused Till of "harassing" Bryant, so you're engaging in impermissible original research by using the word. The "preponderance of evidence" shows, and has always shown, that Bryant lied in 1955. She finally acknowledged that ten years ago. Nothing that is based on her allegations and perjured testimony is "beyond dispute". You're wrong -- "falsely" is not an editorial position but an accurate description of the facts now known (even by white people) to be true. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Original research? It's not original research to use a word like "harass" to describe someone chasing a woman around, grabbing her twice, saying "what's the matter, baby? I've been with white women before". But even if it were, you say "Nobody accused Till of 'harassing' Bryant" even though the citation in this very article for what Bryant, in your words, "finally acknowledged that ten years ago" is from the Smithsonian article, which says "Bryant told Tyson that her claims that Till touched and harassed her were false and that she didn’t remember what had happened that evening." So although I didn't know one of the sources used the word "harass", and it shouldn't matter, they in fact did. In any case, you have not acknowledged some important points: (1) What Bryant accused Till of, however falsely, was much more serious than "flirting", which is not something one "accuses" another of as it is not a crime; (2) The 2006 FBI report (https://vault.fbi.gov/Emmett%20Till%20/Emmett%20Till%20Part%2001%20of%2002/view) says that multiple (presumably sympathetic) witnesses, local boys who accompanied Till to the store, acknowledge that they egged him on to talk to her before he went in, heard him whistle (at what is disputed by some), and then drove off in a panic afterward. So it is far from proven "false" that Till flirted with Bryant, and it in fact appears true by the preponderance of evidence. But again, flirting is not a crime, and she did accuse Till of grabbing and harassing her, so I'm changing it to "falsely accused of harassing and grabbing a white woman", and people can find the rest of the details of the disputed accounts of what exactly happened in the store in the section below.SlackerInc1 (talk) 13:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

One more point I had intended to respond to but neglected to. You said "Nothing that is based on her allegations and perjured testimony is 'beyond dispute'." But the only thing I said is "beyond dispute" is that Bryant "ran out and grabbed a gun from her car". This was attested to by multiple witnesses, and I have seen no account from anyone that she did NOT do this. If you know of evidence that this part of the story IS disputed, you ought to add it to the appropriate section of the story and cite your source.SlackerInc1 (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd say something supportive, SlackerInc1, but then the same individual who mauled and gagged me the last time would just do it again. 2604:2000:9046:800:E024:8CEC:F13:40F3 (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Emmett Till lead sentence RFC

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

---

The lead sentence/paragraph of the Emmett Till article currently reads : Emmett Louis Till (July 25, 1941 – August 28, 1955) was an African-American teenager who was murdered in Mississippi at the age of 14 after reportedly flirting with a white woman..

Recently (interview in 2007, published in 2017), the "white woman", Carolyn Bryant, revealed that she had lied regarding the events at the store. “That part’s not true,” she told Tyson, about her claim that Till had made verbal and physical advances on her. As for the rest of what happened that evening in the country store, she said she couldn’t remember.

How should the lead sentence/paragraph deal with this updated information?

• A) No change.
• B) Remove "after reportedly flirting with a white woman"
• C) Include information in the lead sentence/paragraph which provides the new context.

ResultingConstant (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• C, but failing that B. While the "after reportedly" portion is technically correct, it is woefully inadequate given updated information. Yes, there are hundreds of sources that describe the event this way. Sources which were written prior to Bryant's revelations. Per WP:BEGIN we should be giving a concise summary in the lead sentence/paragraph, which we are not currently doing. Also, per WP:RSCONTEXT newer sources often invalidate older sources. ResultingConstant (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• C, but failing that B. How about something like "... following a false report of flirting with a white woman."? Felsic2 (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• C - First para second sentence. It should be made clear that it was not known to be false until much later. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• A - Magnolia677 (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• D- None of the Above. (but failing that, B) This first paragraph needs to be totally rewritten to highlight the historical significance of Emmett Till's murder in a way that does not center the narrative of the murderers and their defenders. This survey does not acknowledge this option. The point is not just that there is new information about the lies told by his accuser--it is that flirtation does not belong as part of the lede "context" ShanonFitzpatrick (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

+1 for that! The sentence as written, as well as this very survey, seem to concede that a Black teenager flirting with a white woman is grounds for lynching the former. It's not. Period.184.145.42.19 (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with some of your conclusions, of course the main issue here is that the boy was brutally murdered and no one was ever convicted, but I'm UK and failing to tell me that the 'catalyst' for the murder was an accusation of inappropriate behaviour fails to deliver context. Let me be clear, even if Till had put one hand inside her blouse and tried to put the other up her dress (and nobody has even suggested anything like that), this would still be a brutal extra-judicial killing of someone who was barely adult, nothing could possibly justify what was done to him. However, failing to tell me what prompted the murder just leaves me puzzled. A few years later people were killed for starting voter registration initiatives. Knowing that one could be killed for encouraging people to exercise their legal rights tells me a lot, it doesn't justify the act. Knowing that Till could be killed for what is probably an extremely trivial violation of social-mores in that place in that time, serves to emphasise the brutality of the act, not justify it and knowing how a jury responded tells me a lot about how embedded those values were, or how frightened the jury was of being 'out of line'. Pincrete (talk) 13:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• A It's fine the way it is now. Let the body of the article discuss the 2007 interview. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• I suggest, instead, changing "after reportedly flirting" to either "after being accused of flirting" or "after being falsely accused of flirting". Putting it one of those ways makes it represent the current sourcing more accurately. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding: this is C in a specific form. I came here from the RfC notice, and was not previously involved in this page. I find it strange to learn that editors have been reverting such changes. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

And as I have observed the subsequent discussion, I want to add that A (no change) is something that I now find very objectionable, because the present language about "flirting" really does get it wrong. And I see no good reason for B (leave it out), because it is becoming clear to me that C: "after being falsely accused of flirting" is emerging as a preferable choice. (By the way, I appreciate the recent edit that changed "murdered" to "lynched", as that is clearly more precise.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• D (in the form suggested by ShanonFitzpatrick, change from initial vote for C) Myself and others have made substantive critiques about why the first sentence should be changed. Only a couple of people have expressed support for keeping it the same in the talk page, though they have aggressively reverted revisions (changes along the lines of what Tryptofish suggests have been made and reverted, so that is a vote for C). The editors who want to keep it the same have not provided meaningful reasons for that position. Tmerlis (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC). Note that I voted for C in early February 2017 because at the time ResultingConstant was insisting that D was not viable, there were few participants, and C was the lesser of the evils. Note from my comments earlier in the talk page that I do not support including debunked "flirtation" or other forms of victim blaming in the lead (the current version of the first sentence does not have the word flirtation but is still is centered on the testimony of an admitted liar, Carolyn Bryant). In the intervening time, it is clear that many users in fact do support a more thorough and systematic revision of the lead even if though this poll was narrowly constructed to avoid that option. Tmerlis (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
• C While the current wording could plausibly be construed to offer no judgment on the veracity of the allegation against Till, it is unnecessarily leading. The current, accurate information - that Till was falsely accused - can be more plainly stated. -Darouet (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• A or C Sorry, people, but the ten-year-stale disclosure of one person's 50-year-late "gee, I made it up" crocodile tears reported in a single book doesn't change the 60 years of history that have passed, the thousands of books that have been written, etc., none of which were predicated on the truthfulness, or lack thereof, of a young white Southern woman. Black Americans have known for centuries that white people can't be trusted to tell the truth when it matters, now white people are starting to see that for themselves. (What next, a U.S. president who says the news is untrue when the facts don't support him? You people elected him in November.) We knew she was lying in 1955,we knew it in 2007, and it's not news to us in 2017. What's surprising to us is that you think this is earth-shattering news. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC) See below for my revised thoughts on this.
• C, but failing that B.Lynnkozak (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC) — Lynnkozak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• I vote D (failing that B or C). There was never any proof of the flirting accusation, and that accusation has now been admitted as a lie. Rather than keep that lie in the opening paragraph, the entry should highlight the importance of Till as a symbol of white supremacist brutality and martyr of the civil rights movement—which is his primary historical significance. jonwilkesbooth 19:44 EST, 6 Feb 2017 — jonwilkesbooth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• C, specifically in the way Tryptofish has suggested above. If C fails, then A would be my second choice. SkyWarrior 04:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
• C - "Reportedly", to me, sounds like there would be truth to Till flirting when, in fact, he did no such thing. I would replace it with "allegedly" or "falsely accused" and explain to the reader later in the lead why the claim is false. I think it is ridiculous this is as big an issue to some editors reverting attempted changes. An innocent teenage boy was savagely beaten; he at the very least deserves clarity in the events leading to his murder.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
• B The "flirting" true or false is not the lead, and we should not suggest that it is any kind of excuse (true or false). Also the lead paragraph should mention the admitted murderers went free: Emmett Louis Till (July 25, 1941 – August 28, 1955) was an African-American teenager who was murdered in Mississippi at the age of 14. The brutality of his murder by two white men, and the fact that his murderers went free, drew attention to the mistreatment of African-Americans. Till posthumously became an icon of the Civil Rights Movement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC) I would also support Parkwell's D, below. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• C, specifically the version suggested by Tryptofish. That being said, A is not such a bad option, even if not ideal. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
• C context is good.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
• C. Per the updated information/sources and in new context.CuriousMind01 (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
• C, using Tryptofish's varient, "after being falsely accused of flirting". That the only known witness has now recanted is certainly relevant. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• A - the way it is matches the sequence of events and the preponderance of events to of the story. (And there was no specific proposed text so I'm taking 'good' over an unknown.) The 'reportedly' both indicates the situation at the time and does not state it as a fact so it's OK. To give the 21st century bits greater prominence seems both WP:UNDUE weight and WP:RECENTISM. This was a significant thing of 1955, the 2004+ parts should be mentioned but they're just not as important as the 1955 parts and the context then. Both the LOOK article and the influence of Scottsboro boys and Emmett Till for To Kill a Mockingbird and later Civil Rights movement seems more deserving of attention than the 2017 web yak. Markbassett (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• D, but failing that: B -- the flirting accusations do not belong in this sentence, IMO. D is the preferred option, as the lead needs to be rewritten, as noted in the Threaded discussion below. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• C, using Tryptofish's varient "after being falsely accused of flirting". All of the information and context, including that recantation, can then be added to the body in greater detail. Rockypedia (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• C I also think C is best with perhaps Trypto's "after being falsely accused of flirting" unless someone comes up with something better. Gandydancer (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• C with the inclusion of "falsely accused", or failing that, B. It absolutely cannot be mentioned in the lead without language unambiguously making it clear that the accusation was false. Articles have to represent the most up-to-date information available, especially in the lead. Leaving it at just "reportedly" fails to capture the fact that the reality is now known for certain. (I would argue that this was already the case long, long before the recent interview, but it at least provides a good impetus to revisit the topic.) --Aquillion (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
• B + C - the lead should summarise the article, and "flirting" is just one of the disputed accounts of what happened as discussed in detail in #Encounter between Till and Carolyn Bryant. Propose "was lynched in Mississippi at the age of 14 after he reportedly encountered a white woman at a store." . . . dave souza, talk 17:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
• B or something closer to D (I think, but the choices are unclear) I agree with almost everything said by Alanscottwalker, that the big issue isn't whether he was/was not flirting (which isn't usually punishable by the extra-judicial killing of a 14-year old!), the issue is that he was murdered and no one was punished. Where I disagree with AlanSW is that I see no harm in including "after being accused of XYZ" per Tryptofish's first suggestion, since this is the motivation of the murder and a significant part of the narrative. I would point out that her later admission that she lied is not a retraction of the 'flirting' accusation, it merely states that the details are lies or exaggerations (ie he did not really boast of his experience with white girls or say specific indecencies nor attempt to put his arm around her). 'Flirting' is subjective (unlike saying or doing specific things), it is possible, even probable that Till said or did things which she (and the murderers) thought were 'cheeky' or inappropriate for a black 14-year old boy to say or do to a married, adult white woman (if he had said "that's a pretty dress Mrs Bryant", they might have thought it inappropriate, if he had smiled in the 'wrong way', ditto, who knows how tiny the real cause of offence was). Therefore a 'flirting accusation' cannot be 'true' or 'false', her specific claims might be, but not the general impression, which is subjective and 'culture-specific'. Perhaps 'flirting' would be better as "after being falsely accused of making sexual advances", which does seem to be verifiably untrue. Regardless, the 'shop' incident is merely part of the narrative, which, whatever actually happened there, is a bit of a smokescreen, the boy was cruelly murdered because he may or may not have offended a young white woman in a way that was probably very trivial. Pincrete (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)(modified)Pincrete (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• C Summoned by bot, but with less weight given to the "flirting" stuff, which is obviously not a reason to torture and kill someone. In other words, simply state the facts, saying that "flirting" was given as a reason and that this has been disputed by the woman involved. Coretheapple (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• Strongly C Wikipedia reflects current knowledge, as it is reflected in the available sources. What we currently know about the affair should be included in the article. The specific information, i.e. about Till's guilt, is evidently of such importance that the information should be in the lede. Therefore, the relevant sentence should read in something like the following manner:

Emmett Louis Till (July 25, 1941 – August 28, 1955) was an African-American teenager who was murdered in Mississippi at the age of 14 after he was falsely reported as flirting with a white woman..

Proposed additional wording in italics. - The Gnome (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that "reported" is the wrong word. It's not like what happened was a "report". I much prefer "after being falsely accused of flirting", and it sounds like quite a few other editors agree with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree. You are correct. -The Gnome (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• C, specifically with the "falsely accused" wording. --DavidK93 (talk) 07:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• D, or modified C. I know the RFC offered us three choices, but let's think about this more. I also know the shorthand for how Till's lynching has been described historically, but let's step back. Let's use the Lede to immediately give more context. The fact that he was an outsider, at a time when conservative southerners felt under attack by the North, played into his lynching, too. The whites used him as an example to show they weren't going to be pushed around. The year before was the Brown v. Board of Education ruling by the US Supreme Court, which leaders of the white South had vowed across most classes to resist. So consider:

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

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

Threaded discussion

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

ShanonFitzpatrick While I understand your point, at this time you are unlikely to gain much traction for that position. As with many things in the real world, lodging a protest vote or not participating tends to leave one with their least desired option (which for you I imagine is option A). You are unlikely to get what you want right now. But you could have something better. ResultingConstant (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

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

I guess so, and have appended that to my comment. My initial thinking was that "C" was non-specific, whereas I want to make a specific suggestion. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I am the one who requested this survey, in response to a round of changes that I initiated, so I am justified in articulating my argument about why the survey options are not adequate. My point is that the survey is PREMISED on the idea that something about flirting needs to be in the first sentence, and since I disagree with this premise (and have presented rationale and a range of concrete alternatives), I voted D. ShanonFitzpatrick (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Option "B" has no mention of flirting in the opening sentence. You are absolutely entiteld to your opinion. Just realize that your opinion is in the very small minority currently, and if this ends up being a difficult to measure consensus will be some weight in the pile of "no-consensus" which is effectively a vote for keeping the status quo. WP:NOTVOTE notwithstanding. ResultingConstant (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

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

I am still struggling with this. Partly I think because I do not have the Timothy book (does anyone?). He was accused of something with a white woman, but his murder is horrifying (I think all the major sources agree), no matter the truth of falsity of that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Alanscottwalker - you can look at google books, but I suggest it would be better to look at texts of the time or at least beforre that book, texts like the Look article (1956), or the A death in the delta (1992), the fragments of Behind the lynching (1955), or the FBI trial transcript. You're just not going to get much from a single source and not going to get the 1950s information or attitudes from a 2010 book. Markbassett (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I have read those sources before - they are not helpful for deciding whether "flirting" is lead sentence material. I am wondering what the new book actually says about "flirting" and how far up in his lead, because "flirting" is a very broad and imprecise word, and it's certainly not a legal accusation. If you want detail of accusations made against Till in the 1950s, the place to do that is further down, because what he was actually accused of was both untrue and not just "flirting". As for 1950s social mores in Mississippi or the south, that is not even begun to be discussed in that sentence. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, I concur with what you say about 'flirting' being imprecise and problematic. As I understand matters, the retraction by her is a retraction of the testimony she offered in court (ie no boasting about experience with white girls, no attempting to put his arm around her). As I understand matters, we are no closer to understanding a) what she says happened in the store b) what she accused Emmett of in the store c) what she later told her husband and the other murderer had happened. The false accusation is therefore in court AFA we know. Something happened in the store and we don't know what (except guessing that it was probably extremely trivial, but sufficient to enrage the whites involved). I'm not of course saying this in any way to justify the murder, because nothing possibly could. The story is a brutal murder, something Emmett said or did, or which they believed he had said or done, was the catalyst and gives context, not justification. Pincrete (talk) 11:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Pincrete, I agree with your take most of those I've seen here. She said in 2007 that she specifically retracted claims that Till harassed and repeatedly grabbed her. Framing it as being about a "false accusation" of "flirting" both implies that "flirting" is a crime to be accused of and that it would somehow even partly justify the lynching if it were true that he tried to flirt with her. Furthermore, taking the line that this all happened after these boys came in and quietly bought a candy bar (or whatever it was) may make it appear to some like something is being swept under the rug, which is the last thing anyone educating the public about civil rights subjects should want. No one that I have seen has disputed that the boys left the area in a panic (even relocating to different homes in some cases), or that Bryant went out to her car to grab a gun. It strains believability to the breaking point to claim that these things happened despite nothing out of the ordinary (for the Jim Crow South) happening in the store, especially when the 2006 FBI report says the local boys who went to the store with Till urged him to go "talk to the white lady" after they say he bragged of having a white girlfriend (they must feel bad about having egged him on that way, given that he didn't know how things worked down South--even though the actual guilt obviously lies with those who kidnapped, tortured, and murdered Till).SlackerInc1 (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that being falsely accused of harassing and grabbing is qualitatively different from being falsely accused of flirting, although there certainly is a sort of quantitative difference, a difference in degree of severity. But either way, it's false. Getting the perspective of the accusers right does not seem to me to be the primary consideration here. So going into more detail about something that is false anyway, in order to make the accusations appear more logical, strikes me as a bad editorial choice. On the other hand, avoiding presenting Till in an unsympathetic light does seem appropriate to me. Given that the emphasis, especially in the lead, should be on Till's importance as a civil rights figure, and not on a forensic analysis of the false accusations, I don't see much to be gained by trying to spell out the accusations further. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Tryptofish, point taken about wanting to avoid "a forensic analysis of the false accusations". So I'm not wedded to keeping anything about "harassing and grabbing". However, "falsely accused of flirting" is just terrible. (1) Flirting is not a crime to be "accused" of! (2) The preponderance of the evidence indicates that he most likely DID flirt with her. As he should have had every right to do. (3) The "recanting" described by historian Timothy Tyson is referenced in many articles, but there are only two direct quotes ascribed to Carolyn Bryant: "That part's not true" and "Nothing that boy did could ever justify what happened to him". So *what* part is not true? We are never given the statement of Tyson's she is responding to. Every source that quotes her, supplies their own supposition as to what is "not true", but it seems blatantly obvious to me they are speculating or making assumptions. She didn't say "What I said wasn't true", she said "that part's not true". Without knowing what "that part" is, it's wishful thinking to just apply it to everything she said. The second quote, "Nothing that boy did could ever justify what happened to him", tells us that she understands that his kidnapping/torture/murder was a vast overreaction to *something* he did. It does not say he did nothing out of the ordinary for Jim Crow custom of the time, and it in fact implies the opposite. So I'm open to suggestions, but again: "falsely accused of flirting" is getting way out over our skis. Maybe you could just end the sentence "...was lynched at the age of 14." Then people can find the details down below.SlackerInc1 (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, come off it already. Go to the library and borrow a copy of the book, or spring for a copy, and read what Carolyn Bryant Donham told Tyson, not what a magazine writer says she told him (which has been mostly wrong, beginning with the date of the interview).

"As I sat drinking her coffee and eating her pound cake, Carolyn Bryant Donham handed me a copy of the trial transcript and the manuscript of her unpublished memoir, More Than a Wolf Whistle: The Story of Carolyn Bryant Donham. I promised to deliver our interview and these documents to the appropriate archive, where future scholars would be able to use them. In her memoir she recounts the story she told at the trial using imagery from the classic Southern racist horror movie of the 'Black Beast' rapist. [footnote describing archive omitted] But about her testimony that Till had grabbed her around the waist and uttered obscenities, she now told me, 'That part's not true.'" (page 6) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Malik Shabazz that there isn't much point in parsing the falsity aspect of it. And it seems to me to be pretty obvious that a person can accuse another person of something other than a legally-defined crime (for example, someone could hypothetically accuse me of being a lousy editor, and that could certainly be accurately described as an accusation). So what we are left with is whether there is a better choice of verb than "to flirt". I'm trying to think what that might be. Perhaps it could be something like "falsely accused of making sexual advances to", and I guess I could go along with something like that, but I'm not seeing a compelling need for lengthier language. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz's quoting of the book is very helpful and much appreciated. I'm still seeing my "falsely accused of grabbing and harassing" language as being fitting; but as I've said before, I'm not wedded to it. I do however think it's more precise and accurate than "making sexual advances to". But "making sexual advances to" is still better than "flirting", for all the aforementioned reasons. I also continue to believe it would be fine to just end it with "...was lynched at the age of 14." I'm having trouble understanding why so many people (or anyone, really) would consider "falsely accused of flirting" to be their hill to die on. SlackerInc1 (talk) 07:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment -- concur with the sentiment expressed above by ShanonFitzpatrick: "This first paragraph needs to be totally rewritten to highlight the historical significance of Emmett Till's murder in a way that does not center the narrative of the murderers and their defenders". K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm open to that. I wish I could write well and I'd come up with something. I think everyone, well at least everyone other than plenty of racists, knew that she lied all along, but to have her say it somehow adds quite a new slant to the historical telling of the murder. Could someone take a try at writing something? Gandydancer (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hrm, I don't know that I'd go that far. certainly there is no question that he was murdered, completely unjustifiably, and without even the smallest level of defense. And certainly the trial against his murderers was complete BS. But it is possibly that he (foolishly considering the time and place) did or said something that was perceived as inappropriate. Again, that completely in now way justifies anything that happened to him. But boys are well known for doing foolish things. And a kid from the north might not have known how strict the "rules" were in the south. Bryant's new revelations indicate that he didn't. But I don't think it was always "obvious" that he didn't. Merely that even if he had, everything after was still completely unjustified. ResultingConstant (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

You say: "it is possibl[e] that he (foolishly considering the time and place) did or said something that was perceived as inappropriate." So, why do you wish to discuss "flirting" in the lead sentence, at all? It seems your argument is that it's possible he was "flirting", even if not in the way it came out at the trial. Does not the new information make the whole "flirting" scenario much more complicated, than an overboard and imprecise mention in the first sentence? The article I linked above, describes the accusation against Till this way: "She claimed that Till had grabbed her, made sexual advances, flirted with her and then wolf-whistled at her as he walked out the door." [[2]. So, that accusation covers more than flirting. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker I was merely responding to your "everyone knew all along" comment, not pushing for anything in the article. Per my !vote (and creation of this RFC) I think the "flirting" should either be removed from the lead sentence, or at a minimum put into the context with the new information. Regarding your quoted description above, in general I think we should avoid euphamism/analysis, and wherever the "encounter" is mentioned, directly quote what was said to have been done, and of course the new refutation. ResultingConstant (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, no. You were responding to Gandydancer. If 'flirt' is euphemism, it should not be in the first sentence, at all.Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Let's not act as if whites rationally apportioned punishment for violation of their social codes. It was arbitrary, and the very unpredictability was a way of keeping power over African Americans. Every insult did not result in a person being lynched.Parkwells (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Based on changes I have previously made (unacknowledged in the survey) and recent changes made after the survey, I have changed the first sentence to: Emmett Louis Till (July 25, 1941 – August 28, 1955) was an African-American teenager who was murdered in Mississippi at the age of 14 by white supremacists. The brutal murder, and the fact that the murderers were never punished, drew attention to the long history of racism and lynchings in the United States. Till posthumously became an icon of the Civil Rights Movement.ShanonFitzpatrick (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Aaand reverted. Please don't make changes to the lead, especially to the sentence in question, until this discussion has been closed. SkyWarrior 20:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that parts of those changes went too far, but I'm very sympathetic to making more of the lead paragraph about Till's importance, rather than about the murder itself. (After all, this is a bio page about Till, rather than an event page about his murder.) I'm going to make a more modest edit to that effect, restoring the more uncontroversial parts – but please feel free to revert. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Someone tell me what is "controversial" and "too far" about my completely factual lede sentence. "Drew attention to the long history of racism and lynching in the United States" is a fact, and a central fact about Till's importance as a historical figure. How many monographs published by scholars of US history do you want me to cite? 10? 20? 30? Let me know, and I will do it. The constant attempts by the wikipedia community to insist that the lead paragraph for Emmett Till's page 1) include information about his "alleged flirtation" [see above conversation]; 2) won't include any active voice naming of his murderers' (or accuser's) identity and their links to white supremacism (documented later in the article); and 2) acknowledgement that lynching (not "mistreatment") was a systemic part of US history NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE WIKIPEDIA COMMUNITY. ShanonFitzpatrick (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

This was the edit that I made: [3]. Let's discuss if there are specific changes you would like to make following that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking this seriously. Here are the issues: 1) The word "mistreatment" is a gross understatement and euphemism that deserves no place here. For contextualizing information, please see 2) This page is getting media attention because of the editors' persistent attempts to CENTER (by putting it in the lede!) the completely discredited excuse given by Carolyn Bryant and Till's murderers for his death. This narrative emerged after Till's death as justification for his murder, part of a long history of white supremacists defending lynchings through arguments that they were defending white women's honor from black men (and BOYS, here) stereotyped as "hypersexual." Look how hard I and others have lobbied to make the lead to Till's page say anything about the Civil Rights Movement, which rallied around the horror of his murder. If you look closely at the history of this page, you will see systematic, repeated reversions of attempts to excise racism and inaccurate euphemisms from parts of this article. ShanonFitzpatrick (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

After reading your comment, I just changed "mistreatment" to "persecution". I had added the word "mistreatment" a few days ago, but in retrospect I think that you are right that it's a bit WP:WEASELy. Media attention? It would be helpful to link to that, as it would be good for editors to know about any possible WP:Canvass or WP:MEAT issues. Also, you might perhaps want to take a look at WP:RGW. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Seriously though: Do you think that "persecution" is more factually accurate and specific (the goal of our writing, right?) than "history of racism and lynching?" Note how much resistance mentioning *anything* about violence or racism has faced in this talk discussion. Then think about why people seem so determined to preserve a reference to an accusation of "flirting" when there is ZERO credible evidence cited anywhere in this article that this happened. We do not even have evidence that he talked to Bryant. Yet "flirting" is something that no editor is willing to give up. Why? 192.222.197.155 (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)192.222.197.155 (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Flirting is being discussed in the RfC, so please let the process work that one out. Racism and lynching come up later in the lead, so they are not being overlooked. It's worth considering not making the first paragraph too wordy. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

How about something more like:" Emmett Louis Till (July 25, 1941 – August 28, 1955) was an African-American teenager from Chicago who was lynched at the age of 14 in a small Mississippi Delta town by two white men who thought he had crossed their Jim Crow code. They were acquitted of murder by an all-white jury. The brutality of the murder galvanized outrage in the country and Till posthumously became an icon of the Civil Rights Movement. In 2017 a writer revealed that the white woman who had originally claimed to have been insulted, recanted her testimony in a 2008 interview."Parkwells (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Editors should make sure they read Huie's 1956 article (I put link on the article page) in which the killers talk of what they did; they complain about Till, but you get the feeling his actions had little to do with what happened. They more or less say they were going to punish him as an outsider and show they couldn't be pushed around.Parkwells (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

References

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

Proposed name change to artilce

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

Relevant past discussions:

• Requested move (June 2010) - 21 June 2010
• Rename discussion redux (October 2010) - 5 October 2010
• Article title? - 28 August 2012

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

• Oppose. There are reasonable arguments on both sides of this question. I would note that other exceptions to this form remain (and each of those may deserve to be revisited individually) but in this case the scope of the article clearly does not turn on an event (the murder itself) but rather has a much broader focus. Of the first ten sections (i.e., before "See also"), seven deal with aftermath and legacy. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
• I could go either way on this, but I lean somewhat to the view that there is enough content about the person, separately from the event, to support keeping it as a biography. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I've been thinking about this, and although I still accept that this is a borderline case, I've pretty much moved to the Oppose view. It does seem to me that there is enough content outside of the murder to justify a bio page, and the fact that we treat James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner as individual bios leads me to see this page similarly. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
• weak support. Almost everything written about Till is in the context of his murder. Certainly much more is written (in the real world) regarding the event rather than the person, and our article content mirrors this weight. The title probably should too. If this were a new article, there is no question it would follow WP:BLP1E and WP:EVENT, but since this is a historical article, and the person has become a martyr/symbol for the civil rights movement, there is a reasonable argument to the contrary. ResultingConstant (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose I think that Rivertorch said it very well. While it is true that "other articles based on notable murders use this form of title", the murder and the following events became a national event in which "Till posthumously became an icon of the Civil Rights Movement." Gandydancer (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see a better title for Emmit Till, the boy, and Emmit Till, the "icon". The article is on his life, his death, and what meaning sources have taken from those for decades. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)