Talk:Emmett Till

Tidying up this talk section?
Apologies- I don't know the protocol about deleting messy talk sections but this one is a hot mess. There are two opinion-based discussions about the topic rather than the article. This isn't the place for them. Are we able to just delete them? It's not a good look for the website to be honest. Mr Blumenthal (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Mr Blumenthal, talk pages on 'hot' topics are not infrequently toxic, so this one is relatively mild. Unless content is unequivocally offensive or wholly off-topic or obvious trolling, deleting is frowned on. The content automatically, periodically, self-archives (see top of page), but can be manually archived by copy-pasting to the most recent (highest number) archive if clearly redundant. Pincrete (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know; I still feel like I have a lot of Wikipedia etiquette to learn! Hope you had a nice Christmas :) Mr Blumenthal (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Why was the recent discussion deleted from the Talk section about the questionable "recantation" by Ms Bryant that likely never happened yet WK treated almost as a fact, by including it in the main section of the encounter between Till and Bryant rather than just relegating it to Later Developments? 137.43.212.106 (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you replied to my thread as I did not archive (not delete) that discussion, but, based on what Pincrete said, I assume that the discussion was automatically archived due to elapsed time. It could also be because the conversation became a general discussion about the subject of the article, which is not the purpose of a talk page. If you have a problem with the article, please explain these issues (including which secondary sources you take issue with) and back up your recommendations using sources of your own. Mr Blumenthal (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Anyone interested in copy editing?
Hello, friends. I wrote this article back in 2010. This was before Carolyn Bryant Donham came out with her statements, so a lot has happened since I wrote it and retired from Wikipedia.

As a result, the article has lost cohesion which happens when a lot of editors add info. It needs a good copy edit. I'm asking if anyone is interested in getting it back into shape with me. If so, I'll start a sandbox and we can start there.

If not, I can try it myself but don't @ me with ya nasty comments when it's posted. I don't intend to watch it after I'm done so it will need to be watched by someone who has a regular presence here. That's easier to do when you know the source material.

I'll wait a few days for replies. Moni3 (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * "Hello, friends. I wrote this article back in 2010. This was before Carolyn Bryant Donham came out with her statements, so a lot has happened since I wrote it and retired from Wikipedia."
 * Which "statements" were you referring to? The only statements I'm familiar with were by Duke history professor Timothy Tyson, who had previously supported the Duke Rape Hoax. Tyson asserted that Carolyn Bryant Donham had recanted her court room testimony during a tape recorded interview with him. However, after Tyson had deposited the audiotape with the UNC archive, UNC reported that the tape contained no recantation by Mrs. Donham. Again, which "statements"?!2603:7000:B23D:C116:F9D0:B547:E089:EF39 (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The other "statements" referred to may be Bryant's memoir, I Am More Than a Wolf Whistle, which was leaked in 2022. This article says it was leaked by an "anonymous" source, but the article about the memoir says that Tyson was responsible for the "leak." Which is correct? Muzilon (talk) 05:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Correct. It's extremely unlikely that Bryant ever made such a statement of recantation to Tyson. All we have is hearsay among three people in a room - one claiming something was said and the other two denying it was said. But think about it logically, why would Bryant go out of her way to make her life difficult by telling her side of the story, only to recant it decades later and then immediately deny recanting it. It makes zero sense.
 * So, in order to adhere to high standards of neutrality and objectivity, Wikipedia needs to thread extremely carefully with hearsay. From the 'Encounter between Till and Carolyn Bryant' section, the following should be deleted: "According to historian Timothy Tyson, Bryant admitted to him in a 2008 interview that her testimony during the trial that Till had made verbal and physical advances was false. Bryant had testified Till grabbed her waist and uttered obscenities but later told Tyson, "that part's not true." As for the rest of what happened, the 72-year-old stated she could not remember. Bryant is quoted by Tyson as saying, "Nothing that boy did could ever justify what happened to him." However, the tape recordings that Tyson made of the interviews with Bryant do not contain Bryant saying this. In addition, Bryant's daughter-in-law, who was present during Tyson's interviews, says that Bryant never said it." 
 * I have no problem with this likely fraudulent recantation being left in the 'Later Events' section so readers can make up their own minds. 137.43.106.63 (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Info Box Accused?
Carolyn Bryant is listed in the info box as "Accused," while I'm sure she could be accused of several things, or unless there is some other definition of accused I am unaware of, this isn't accurate. At the moment I can't think of the correct term, but thought I'd drop a note of anyone wants to fix it. Dmwilliams1979 (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Was Emmett Till born out of wedlock?
"Emmett Till was born to Mamie Carthan and Louis Till on July 25, 1941, in Chicago." My understanding has always been that Till's parents were married at the time of his birth. The sentence in the article implies that they were not married. If they were married, the sentence should read, Emmett Till was born to Mamie and Louis Till on July 25, 1941, in Chicago. 2603:7000:B23D:C116:F9D0:B547:E089:EF39 (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Your understanding is correct, Emmett was born approximately 9 months after Mamie and Louis married (so probably conceived in wedlock). It isn't unusual to refer to the mother in that fashion, in order to introduce her 'born' name, but it is potentially misleading, so I will rephrase. Her 'born' name isn't much used and isn't important in this article. Pincrete (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)