Talk:Emmett Till/Archive 2

FYI--FA possibility
My library books need to be returned in about a month. I don't plan to take the article to FAC, but I think it is FA quality. All that is missing is the nomination and questionable commentary as a part of that process. Although the instructions at FAC require the main nominator to be the lead writer of the article, or at least closely associated, I'll be happy to indicate my approval of the nomination wherever. I have no problem with the article at FA, but I vacillate between wanting to make sure the article is the best quality it can be and wanting to throw spoiled fruit at commentators at FAC who note the sublimely ridiculous during the nomination process. It's a quirky personal thing for me. No doubt an editor with a lot more patience than I would do fine.

The article gets on average more than 3,000 hits a day. A day on the main page would no doubt attract hundreds of thousands of readers, but at the same time, the article attracts enough hits a day that this is not a topic that needs to get a day on the main page.

Any talk page watchers want to think about it? I'll remain involved in the article as I am able. --Moni3 (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Emmett Till Source
The site emmetttillmurder.com is widely respected by all scholars of the Emmett Till murder: Davis Houck, Chris Crowe, Chris Metress, Chris Benson, Keith Beauchamp, and others. One person simply does not have the right or justification to decide, on his own, that this site should not be in the reference section when it, above all others, should be. Also, if you google Emmett Till, this site comes up second, under Wikipedia. Jordancelticsfan (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * From my talk page:
 * Please read the WP:RS policy and the WP:EL policy, specifically the links to be avoided.
 * Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting.
 * Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority.
 * First, calling the site the "definitive internet source on Emmett Till" is impossible and an astonishing claim that instantly calls into question its reliability.
 * Second, the site is not edited by a third party, as is necessary for any reliable source.
 * Third, it seems to promote, via the "Speaking Engagements" page, a possible conflict of interest.
 * There is nothing on the emmitttillmurder.com website that is not in the article already. Linking to it is not inherently necessary. It does not provide a view or aspect of the murder, trial, and outcome that has not already been cited by much better sources.
 * Adding: in the reading I did for this article, no sources mentioned Anderson as an authority on the Till murder. Anderson seems to call himself an authority. The Southern Quarterly Journal article is edited and fact-checked as an academic journal. Its contents are considered reliable and can be used as a source for the article. It is, for the moment, inaccessible to me, but it is linked nonetheless at the bottom of the Further reading list.
 * Another published author, Susan Orr-Klopfer, previously edited the article as User:Sklopfer. She self-published two books about Till that also cannot be considered reliable sources, linked, or used in this article because they were not checked by third party oversight. In one of them, she claims Till was mentally retarded, a fact that was used in the media discourse by the white Southern press in 1955 and directly refuted by Till's mother.
 * I am not making this decision by myself. I am merely enforcing the policies that have been agreed upon by the Wikipedia community. A website's location on a Google search does not make it more reliable. --Moni3 (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Section 'Early childhood'
...has black families moving North due to (among other reasons) "disparate legal conditions". I don't see support for this on page 15 of the edition of Whitfield I can view with Google. Maybe this was meant to be "disparate living conditions"? Also, I'm not sure that 'disparate' is well understood by student readers, maybe we could finesse the whole thing by saying "unequal living conditions", or, better yet, "difficult living conditions"? --CliffC (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Quick response: if you're just looking for a source to confirm this, try the FBI report (in Bibliography section) starting on p. 14.
 * A much more extensive discussion of racial legal disparities can be read in Whitaker's 1963 thesis (also in the Bibliography section), starting on p. 24 and going through the next chapter.
 * I can't really say why Whitfield is cited to the sentence. I have to look it up in Whitfield, which I am happy to do in a few hours. I don't have the book right next to me. I can't remember citing that particular sentence--things get muddy after a few months--but I thought it fairly common knowledge that blacks lived under Jim Crow, making them a separate class in every social sense. If the legal conditions blacks lived under needs a specific source, I can add it.
 * I most certainly meant the article to say that blacks lived under different legal conditions at the time (and for decades preceeding when) Till was killed. I think articles should be comprehensible by intelligent 11th graders who should have a dictionary handy. I think "disparity" is a perfectly fine word for this education level. If you disagree, I'm not motivated to slap anyone with gloves and bring on a duel or anything. --Moni3 (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was pointing out that the text is not supported by the citation, fine with me if you change either to match the other. If you retain 'disparate', it might be helpful to give a 'such as...' example; based on vandalisms I see here and elsewhere in WP, it's not a given that all our readers are up to the 'intelligent 11th grader' level, or care to use a dictionary.  Should we write to that level without good reason?  --CliffC (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll fix the citation to make it more solid in a few hours, after I see Whitfield. And I tend to think a good high school-level vocabulary should be used in the best of articles. Well, all articles, but I'm a pragmatist. Regardless of the article assessment, I tend to try to write for FA level. Every once in a while, I come across an editor who dislikes the use of "atypical" or "disparate" or something. It's not a big deal. I don't want to dumb down the writing--it's not full of jargon in my opinion--but I can find another word. Whatevs. --Moni3 (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Here we come to the limitation of citations and cohesive writing. This is the first paragraph:


 * When Mamie Carthan was two years old, her family moved to Argo, Illinois as part of the general migration of black families to the North to escape lack of opportunity and disparate legal conditions.[2]
 * The fact that Carthan moved to Argo came from her memoirs. A general mention of the Great Migration is in Whitfield on p. 19. Specific details about the economic differences are in Whitaker (1963), the FBI report, and Beito and Beito. Specific details about the legal differences are in Whitaker (1963), the FBI report, Till-Mobley and Benson, and Beito and Beito. Whitfield discusses at length the intricacies of why lynching was used to keep black men in line and the white Southern fear of sexual contact between black men and white women in the first chapter of his book.

So I'm going to ask what it is you would like to see regarding citations. I did not think that a discussion about the different legal treatment blacks and whites enjoyed (or did not) was necessary here, although it is an interesting reflection on how life was different 60 years ago. The FBI report discusses how if whites had a problem with the behavior of black sharecroppers, they settled it with the white landowner on whose land the black sharecropper lived. This covered debts or general offenses, whatever they might be. The white landowner decided punishment or worked as an intermediary to settle the disagreement. Blacks had no legal standing anyway. Interesting, but not really relevant to Till's case. In the article, the point of this sentence was that Carthan was one of hundreds of thousands of blacks moving North in the Great Migration, which was caused by lack of economic opportunity and second-class legal status of blacks in the South.

I can cite the last sentence of the paragraph to one or more of the sources that discuss the specific legal problems blacks in Mississippi encountered, thereby covering the phrase about disparate legal conditions. --Moni3 (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to make it so complicated. Let's change "disparate legal conditions" to "unequal treatment under the legal system".  This gets rid of the $2 word 'disparate' and provides a term that IMO is clearer than 'legal conditions'.  Using simpler English is not 'dumbing down' as long as meaning is not changed.  Then let's cite whatever we end up with to a work that supports it — the lack of support to understand the phrase "legal conditions" at "Whitfield, p. 15" is what brought me here.  I have no problem with the way the rest of the paragraph is written or cited, it's fine.  Best, CliffC (talk) 02:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Unknowingly?
Emmet Till was 14 years old, and he bragged about having sex with white women in Chicago, an activity which, even in the North, would have been considered odious at the time. He was related to various persons who were, or who should have been, intimately familiar with segregation and the local customs and mores of rural Mississippi, and who should have educated him about the place. Unless he was mentally retarded, there is no way he could not have known the danger to which he was exposing himself by grabbing the hand of a white woman. I am not defending what happened to him, but the overwhelming stupidity of his actions is absolutely mindboggling. If the article is to include the word "unknowingly," that needs to be explained.John Paul Parks (talk) 06:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt very, very much that Till bragged about having sex with white women. Bryant and Milam said this in their interview with Huie in 1956, among other things that were inaccurate. It was all they needed to justify killing Till in their own minds. Till's own mother wrote about this in her memoirs. She was very clear that he should be contrite and polite to whites in the South. But he was 14 years old, and whether he whistled to overcome a stutter or grabbed Carolyn Bryant at the waist, he did not seem to understand what crime he was committing. The desire to be held in esteem by other teenagers I'm sure factored into whatever he did to or near Carolyn Bryant. His action may have gotten his ears boxed in Chicago; no one told him it might get him killed in Delta country. He was not retarded, although white Southern writers alleged that he must have been to do something like he did. --Moni3 (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I think your last sentence demonstrates that we are basically in agreement: Bryant and Milam's conduct is inexcusable, and Till's conduct is inexplicable. I seriously doubt that Till had sex with any white women, and probably not with any black women either! The best explanation, I suppose, is teenage bravado run amok. Someone (his mother, some other relative, a friend, somebody!) should have explained Mississippi culture to him. Being brave is one thing, being stupid is another.John Paul Parks (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think Till was stupid.
 * However, it doesn't really matter what I think. Just what has been written in reliable sources. --Moni3 (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Racially Motivated Crimes
The article states that there were many racially motivated crimes in the South, but it provides no citation and no examples.John Paul Parks (talk) 06:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * See the last paragraph in Early childhood for cited explanation. --Moni3 (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The article refers to lynchings as "these racially motivated murders". Technically that is not true. Mostly lynchings were for crimes, real or imagined.  Whites as well as blacks were lynched.

The reference to a "severely divided racial caste system was predicated upon avoiding interracial relationships. Although this occurred, particularly among white men and black women, the protection of white women from black men was the hinge upon which the caste system functioned, and although it rarely happened, even the suggestion of sexual contact between black men and white women carried the most severe penalties for black men" is both irrelevant and inaccurate. Segregation was not primarily sexually motivated.203.184.41.226 (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, some statements add too much "racially motivated" flavor to it. --91.57.155.29 (talk) 11:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Set the record straight for Emmett Till
To make Emmett Till's page as correct as possible and not throw dirt in the face of this young man. Let us get the record straight by listening to his cousin and witness to the events that happened, Simeon Wright: http://simeonwrightspeaks.com/v1/ (guest user)(03/27/11) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.40.178 (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What needs to be clarified in this article? --Moni3 (talk) 11:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Emmett Till sexually assaulted Carolyn Bryant, according to her sworn testimony as discussed later in the article. That is not "flirting." The beginning of the article should be changed accordingly.Mikedelsol (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Infobox
The infobox for Till seems unnecessary and I'm suggesting that the article would be better without it. Infoboxes, for some reason, have their fans, so I'm posting this here for discussion.

Nothing in the infobox cannot by gleaned by reading the first paragraph, except the technical issue of where he died, which does not seem to be that notable. The last two parameters "Cause of death" and "Ethnicity" are nearly unintentionally funny, doing less to inform readers than restate the blindingly obvious. Can anyone else come up with a good reason to keep this? --Moni3 (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, to be honest, none beyond "I like it", and we're pretty much used to seeing one in good articles (small "ga"). Of course, background information is only "blindingly obvious" to those who come looking for the article, or who read the lead before the infobox, not those who glance at the IB after happening upon it by chance. Is anything lost in the way of microformats if the IB is eliminated? And truly, what is gained – two column-inches of screen real estate? Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The infobox now offers his DOB and location, DOD and location, cause of death and ethnicity. Aside from the location at death, nothing in the infobox cannot be learned in the first sentence in the article, or the image.
 * There comes a point--and I guess my opening this discussion is asking if this article has met that point--where an infobox has so little information, or information of such little value, that leaving the infobox there is an overall negative. To me, it's not a matter of real estate but the overall quality of the article. Infoboxes weren't really created for teenaged murder victims. Till's short life and story cannot be summarized or categorized in an infobox, but it looks like Wikipedia is trying really hard to do that. As if an infobox makes the article more official when pragmatically the article would be the same or better without it. --Moni3 (talk) 12:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The article would clearly be "the same or better" without the infobox. Other than the image I don't see the point, and the image doesn't need to be attached to an infobox to appear with the intro.--Cúchullain t/ c 12:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Moni and Cuchullain, for the same reasons they articulate above. Carcharoth (talk) 06:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

"almost every story about Mississippi returns to Till, or the region in which he died"
Seriously people, this has got to be deleted or qualified as a metaphor or a myth, because it's patently untrue, not to mention absurd! Please fix this which mars an otherwise really nice article. Softlavender (talk) 10:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It's an opinion from a historian, made clear in the sentence, and cited. What's the issue? --Moni3 (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It's written matter-of-factly, and not stated as opinion. Even if it were, I'm not sure it's more than one historian's opinion. I have to agree with SoftLavender.--Chimino (talk) 04:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * An opinion like this is not a fact, nor is it plausible. The origin may come from a historian, but that does not prevent extreme exaggeration.203.184.41.226 (talk) 05:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not just opinion, it is POV. Furthermore it is preposterous. The killing of this young man was not of such vast significance that it overshadows everything else that has ever happened in Mississippi.203.184.41.226 (talk) 01:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * So change it to say 'Events surrounding Emmett Till's life and death continue to resonate, leading the historian Paul Hendrickson to remark that nearly every story about Mississippi touches upon this one "in some spiritual, homing way"' and cite that quote as being from Sons Of Mississippi. 86.187.6.64 (talk) 11:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It's true---the wording is a preposterous violation of NPOV. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Emmet Till's Casket
We can be more specific about the acquisition of the casket by changing "His original casket was donated to the Smithsonian Institution" to "His original casket was donated to the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture." (Jlutz88 (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC))

Here is the source:

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/aroundthemall/page/2/?s=nmaahc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlutz88 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Till's father executed by Army
Left unreported in all the weeping and wailing documentaries is that the father was convicted of raping and murdering white women while in the Army and executed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Till. 72.221.83.190 (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * And how, exactly, is that relevant to this article? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * it's in the article appropriately placed in the Media discourse section. --Moni3 (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that it would be customary to mention the cause of death of a family member, if known, and especially if it is as unusual as is the case here. A lot of biographical articles on Wikipedia do this, and I cannot see any reason to not include it. My suggestion is that the line "... and died in 1945" is changed to "and was executed by the military in 1945".
 * It is true though, that the subject is discussed further down the page, and it should not be much longer a paragraph than what I wrote above.
 * --Olsjoh (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2011 (GMT+1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.238.198.211 (talk)


 * someone should execute every family member of the 2 murderers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.199.245 (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Till's father being executed demands an explanation. Any biographical article should cover the barest facts of the subject's upbringing, and certainly a father executed for raping and killing women would have a bearing on someone's development. But Till and his mother never knew this. They found out about it the same time everyone else did...Well, Emmett never learned it, but Mamie did in October 1955 when 2 Mississippi senators leaked it to the press to make a point about the Till verdict. It needs to be covered the same way the sources cover it, and they do--but they mention it in the chronology of how things unfolded in 1955. Where it is placed in the article is the same way sources treat it: newspapers in Mississippi wrote about Louis Till for two months--almost as much material on Emmett, who was the actual focus of attention. That attention, according to sources, indicates quite a bit about the mindset of Mississippians at the time, and how white popular opinion treated Till (and tangentially, Carolyn Bryant). Therefore, this is how the article summarizes the information. --Moni3 (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe, i interpreted the line: "Mamie Till Bradley and her family knew none of this, having only been told that Louis had been killed for "willful misconduct" as that they knew that Louis was executed, but not for what?
 * I also no not think that the fact that Emmett was unaware of the details of his fathers death makes it irrelevant in a biographical article.
 * It was certainly irrelevant in the trial and the crimes that preceded it, but the article is about the person Emmett Till, and not solely about his murder, thus an "early life" section should mention a fathers execution.
 * --Olsjoh (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2011 (GMT+1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.238.198.211 (talk)
 * I don't know exactly what it is you're trying to accomplish here, so help me out. The information is in the article. To state it higher in the article, to say that Louis Till was executed in the Army in 1945 for raping and killing women in Italy, in the Early childhood section is distracting. It demands a full explanation immediately. Otherwise, you plant a giant stumbling block for readers to brush by it and not address it in full. Then the article must abandon this whopper of a statement to cover the rest of the material about Till's murder when Louis Till's execution really had nothing to do with Till's life, murder, and the trial of his killers. Then it has to revisit the information to cover it as newspapers did. It's ungainly, bad writing, disorganized, and it would make the article worse. Not to mention that the article should follow as closely as possible the way sources treat the information. Placing emphasis on Louis Till's crimes in a way that sources do not, such as focusing on the information twice or suggesting that it was important to Emmett Till's upbringing, violates WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH. Unless you can find a source that states Emmett's development was shaped by his father's execution, or the execution had a direct bearing on Emmett's murder and the ensuing trial, then it is not essential to explain this information in the Early childhood section. It doesn't matter what you or I think, only what sources have published on the topic. Right now, sources treat Louis Till's crimes and execution the way it is summarized in the article.
 * So what is it you are suggesting be changed within the policies of excellent standards for articles on Wikipedia? --Moni3 (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * His father's heinous crime and subsequent justified execution, while not pertinent to the Emmett Till article per se, is something that cannot simply be brushed aside. It needs to be mentioned under Emmett's early life in regards to who the father was, and a link to the father's wiki profile where readers can find out the whole story. A father rapes and murders White women and is justifiably executed, then the son at least sexually molests a White woman and is justifiably executed, and this is not relevant to the discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.104.107 (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Some people are so naive when it comes to war crimes. War rape is as common as common can be and it always has been. As for Emmit's dad, read this:


 * According to American historian J Robert Lilly, there were around 3,500 rapes by American servicemen in France between June 1944 and the end of the war.


 * "The evidence shows that sexual violence against women in liberated France was common," writes Mr Hitchcock.


 * "It also shows that black soldiers convicted of such awful acts received very severe punishments, while white soldiers received lighter sentences."


 * Of 29 soldiers executed for rape by the US military authorities, 25 were black - though African-Americans did not represent nearly so high a proportion of convictions.

I'm willing to bet that the other four were not white either. I'm also willing to bet that Emmit's dad was a "proud American", also known at that time as an "uppity nigger". Which is not to say that there are not plenty of remnants of that sort of thinking still today.Gandydancer (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Gandy, Louis Till was convicted of rape/murder, not just rape. You are comparing the statistics for rape with a murderer/rapist. At the very least you have a misunderstanding of the facts you are citing, but "i'm willing to bet" that you are arguing in bad faith.

24.220.190.225 (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been editing pages here for some years but just discovered how to find talk pages, as there seems to be no link from the entry page. Me recent correction of this page was undone.

I have no objection to discussing any controversy around Louis Till's execution later in the article, but to state that he "died" is an utter deception and a-historical fabrication that should have no place in Wikipedia. The section on early childhood does not need to include the rape and murder charges, since that is where the controversy lies, but it MUST state that the father was executed by the military as a matter of simple fact.

To do anything else is deliberate deception, whatever the motives. Riversong (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This page has been viewed about 134,000 times in only the last 30 days. It appears that consensus is not dissatisfied with the way the article handles the death details. I, for one, am in agreement with Moni3's statements re the way the article is set up. Gandydancer (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Because the information about Louis Till's conviction and execution were not learned by his family or the public until 1955, in the context of the media coverage after Emmett Till's death, I agree that it is appropriate to discuss it at that point in this article. Emmett and his mother did not know about it when he was younger. And for a time this news overshadowed that of Emmett's murder.Parkwells (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The statement that Till's father died in France in 1945 is wrong and apparently deliberately misleading. He was executed in Italy. There is no logical basis for not stating this fact. If the death of his father is mentioned, the reason should be mentioned. There would be no reason not to mention that he was executed - except deliberate censorship.Royalcourtier (talk) 09:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You need to read the article before deciding what it does or does not say. Gandydancer (talk) 11:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I concur with the addition of the information about Louis Till in the "Early Life" section. Saying simply that he "died in 1945" makes it sound like an accident or illness. It should be "executed for [crime]; however, the family did not know the reason for his death until ~ ". THAT would be responsible account of all facts, and readers should be neither deceived (by omission), nor led to believe in any connection. - Boneyard90 (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Strongly disagree. While it is true that by leaving the information out of the section when the father is first mentioned the reader is led to believe that it was an accident or an illness.  However, for the readers that are truly interested in the boy's life and legacy, interested enough to read the entire article, the information is included at the time that it was revealed--it is not left out of the article and there has not been, as some have suggested, an effort to withhold the information.  I don't know about all other editors, but I write my articles for readers that read the entire article.  I believe that anyone that does not agree with Moni's sequence of events needs to take a look at her user page and read her notes about this issue (above).  Gandydancer (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Casket photograph
This edit inserted the following paragraphs in the Funeral and reaction section:


 * This is an excessive amount of information that reiterates what has already been stated about Till and the press, and goes into detail about lynch photography that is irrelevant to this article. What is the purpose for its inclusion?
 * No sources are associated with these citations. What book is associated with Harold and DeLuca? Benson? etc.? If it is decided that this information is relevant, these sources need to be included in the Bibliography section, formatted as the other sources have been.
 * There are other considerations, such as POV and consistency of style that also need to be discussed, but the fact that much of it seems superfluous or possibly irrelevant is much more important to tackle first.
 * If the image warrants this much information, perhaps it is time to consider creating an article for the image alone. Consider the article for Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima.

For the meantime, I've removed the edits until these questions can be resolved. I look forward to other editors discussing this. --Moni3 (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that as presented this information is not appropriate and needs to be discussed, and that it was best to remove it for now. But I do believe that it certainly does warrant a mention in the article.  I like it when Wikipedia opens little worlds of information for me that perhaps I should have learned in school or as part of the general information that one learns during their life, but due to the fact that upper-class whites write our history was not aware of.  I knew sort of in the back of my mind that there sure were a lot of photos of lynchings!, but I had no idea that there was a "name" for it--lynching photographs. Reading the above information I learned that Southern whites routinely took photos to pass around and even made them into postcards.  See this site:   I would think that the fact that when the Emmit Till photo of Till in his casket was published and for the first time a "lynching photograph" was used and had quite the opposite purpose and effect of the hundreds of previous photos, it would be important to mention that in the article. This would in effect be the first time a rotting corpse was taken down from a tree and then placed in a beautiful, silk-lined coffin surrounded by flowers and viewed as a protest, rather than a trophy or used to intimidate. Gandydancer (talk) 11:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

black support and white sympathy
I'm in no way aquainted with the aftermath of Till's murder, but was there a significant difference in the reaction of white and black people to it? If so, what were blacks supporting?

I refer to the part of the introduction that says: "Tens of thousands attended his funeral or viewed his casket and images of his mutilated body were published in black magazines and newspapers, rallying popular black support and white sympathy across the U.S." Fimbulfamb (talk) 13:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Article title?
I'm sure this has been discussed before, but shouldn't this page be at Murder of Emmett Till? He's not notable as a person for what he did in his brief life; he's notable for his death and the consequences that followed. This isn't really a biographical article, it's about an event (or series of events) in American history. Anyone else have any thoughts? Robofish (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Talk:Emmett Till/Archive 1


 * Talk:Emmett Till/Archive 1 Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I concur and would support the move. The article is about the boys death and its aftermath. His notability stems directly from its death and subsequent implications. The move would also be in line with many other articles on similar topics. Boneyard90 (talk) 23:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Moni3 rewrote this article a couple of years ago and I have a tremendous amount of respect for her work.  Since she is now retired and won't be leaving any comments, I'd suggest that editors read her opinion on a name change.  I'll post it in part here:
 * The murder of Till is no longer the primary focus of the article. The funeral, trial, role in the Civil Rights Movement, and subsequent investigations about Till take as much weight as his murder. The combination of all the materials written about Till and the impact events leading up to and following his death had on Civil Rights in the U.S. should be re-examined. WP:ONEEVENT no longer applies. --Moni3 (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Gandydancer (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree with that statement as it does not address the issue of what did Till do in life that made him notable. There are plenty of articles that deal with death separately. John F. Kennedy and Death of John F. Kennedy are treated seperately, because the event and its implications are seperate from the life of the man. See also Marilyn Monroe and Death of Marilyn Monroe. However, for a case a litte closer to Till's, see Murder of Oksana Makar, for an example of someone without the notability for a biographical article, but whose death prompted public reactions that resulted in greater social changes. For one that is closer to Till's in time and demographic, see Murder of Louis Allen. Boneyard90 (talk) 11:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see how anyone could read Moni3's eloquent posts and not agree with her viewpoint. I doubt you'll get much support for a name change. Gandydancer (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Eloquent or not, one editor does not arbitrarily decide when a policy applies to an article and when it does not. And that's what Moni3's opinion is, a very arbitrary and unilateral decision. Boneyard90 (talk) 13:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't have time to make the move proposal, but I will support a move if it is suggested. The last discussion was pretty weak, with only 4 editors contributing, and that was two years ago. Until the next move is suggested, I am pulling the WP:Death banner, as biographies are not within the scope of the project. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I was just about to suggest a name change, but Moni's opinion makes sense to me.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

emmitt till
im sorry that they did that to you my heart goes out to you. segragation is a horrible thing. because of your mother, martin luther king jr and other amazing saved our lives — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.169.132.2 (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

NPOV and unencyclopaedic
This article includes elements that are decidedly unencyclopaedic. For instance "Since 1882, when statistics on lynchings began to be collected, more than 500 African-Americans had been killed by extrajudicial violence in Mississippi alone. The majority of the incidents took place between 1876 and 1930; though far less common by the mid-1950s, these racially motivated murders still occurred. Throughout the South a severely divided racial caste system was predicated upon avoiding interracial relationships" doesn't read to me as an unbiased unemothional account. It is also factually wrong. Lynching is not racially motivated - many whites were lynched. The reference should be clear - it is referring to racially motivated killings (often by lynching - though notably Till was not lynched), not lynchings, as such.203.184.41.226 (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "Lynching is not racially motivated - many whites were lynched." Do you have a source for that? Gandydancer (talk) 06:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that I'm not taking sides in any ensuing argument or discussion; I just always and everywhere see "Do you have a source for that?" as synonymous with "Game on!". So, yes, whites were lynched: here ya go. But it is a logical error to make some sweeping assertion that since whites were lynched, lynching was not racially motivated. Far more often than not, as the linked text also asserts, it was either explicitly and deliberately racially motivated, or  precipitated by prejudice. GlitchCraft (talk) 11:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

There were many whites lynched, as well as blacks. The Wikipedia article on lynching makes that clear. Lynching was mob justice, race was irrelevant. This article remains POV. Another example is the extreme statement that the "reaction among whites in the South was to constrain blacks forcefully from any semblance of social equality". That cannot be anything other than a biased and POV statement.203.184.41.226 (talk) 08:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Lil Wayne apologises for use of Emmet Till lyric
I think the Lil Wayne paragraph in the popular culture section should be updated noting he has apologised to the family. Here is a link to the article and the letter: lilwaynehq[dot]com/2013/05/lil-wayne-writes-a-letter-of-apology-to-emmett-till-family/

- Wednesday 1st May 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.134.83 (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Emmitt Till - and Lil' Wayne
I think there should be mention on the page about Lil' Waynes muse of Emmitt Till in a recent (and controversial) song.

The song lyrics where Lil' Wayne mentions Emmitt Till are

'Pop a lot of pain pills Bout to put rims on my skateboard wheels Beat that p***y up like Emmett Till'

The song is 'Karate Chop'

Lil' Wayne has recently issued an apology to the family for the lyrics and the record company has also written an apology to the family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.74.59 (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

2003 Episode of The American Experience
The 2003 episode of The American Experience was a documentary film titled "The Murder of Emmett Till" that was produced and directed by filmmaker Stanley Nelson. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.69.178 (talk) 01:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Section "Influence on civil rights"
In the section "Influence on civil rights", it states: "Myrlie Evers, Medgar Evers' wife—and eventual widow—stated that Till's case resonated so strongly because it shook 'the foundations of Mississippi, both black and white—with the white community because it had become nationally publicized, with us blacks, because it said not even a child was safe from racism and bigotry and death.'"

According to this source, Myrlie made this comment in 1985, so stating she was an "eventual widow" isn't correct. As well, Myrlie's quote seems to have been tweaked a bit. I suggest:

"Myrlie Evers, widow of Medgar Evers, stated in 1985 that Till's case resonated so strongly because it 'shook the foundations of Mississippi—both black and white, because...with the white community...it had become nationally publicized...with us as blacks...it said, even a child was not safe from racism and bigotry and death.'" Magnolia677 (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2014
I am a history instructor and Mamie Till-Mobley was a guest speaker for my class for three years. We met at her home in Chicago. I just posted an hour long interview we did with her on a google site I created. It is VERY high quality. I hope you will add it to the external links ASAP. Thanks

https://sites.google.com/site/mamietillinterview/

Wilsonite (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This is very interesting, and that it is video helps as possibly to qualigy as WP:PRIMARY, but I am not sure that this meets the criteria for external linking WP:EL due to the self published and unreliable (in wiki terms)  nature of the hosting. Lets see what others have to say Gaijin42 (talk) 03:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I have posted a question about this site at the External Links Noticeboard External_links/Noticeboard. It may help your case, if you could provide additional sourcing information ON THE WEBSITE (saying it here doesn't really help). IE, date and time, location of the videos, who the "author" is, copyright & licensing status etc. This would help ensure that wikipedia is not linking to any copyright violations. Due to the good work you ahve done in the videos, it will be the assumption that these are taken from some documentary or something, in which case we cannot link to them as a copyright violation. So if you could remove that barrier it would be helpful. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I have added all the requested ownership info about the video on the site. It should meet all the criteria now. It is simply the video of her interview. If you search the web there is NO OTHER video interview of here like this available at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilsonite (talk • contribs) 13:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * , since you're already familiar with this request... — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 17:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

✅ Gaijin42 (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Section "Influence on civil rights" - voting
Corrected material from Whitfield, p. 62. His book is viewable on Google books. He said that 41% of the total state population was black. In the Delta, the population was (and is) majority black. Today in the state overall, the black proportion is 37%. (The state had a black majority into the 1930s, when many left to go to Chicago and other northern cities in the Great Migration.) The numbers of registered voters Whitfield refers to (265 and 90) were from three counties, not all of the Delta counties. By the end of 1955, he says that in fourteen counties there were no registered black voters. Note: blacks and many poor whites were disfranchised by Mississippi's new 1890 constitution that incorporated a poll tax, as well as later laws requiring literacy tests, white primaries, etc.Parkwells (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Use term "Great Migration"
The Great Migration refers to a major demographic change as African Americans moved out of the South to the North and Midwest, and later West Coast in search of opportunities. I think the term should be used in this article, as it is when most historians refer to it. Through the Great Migration, a major social phenomenon, African Americans became a mostly urban population in the first half of the 20th c. - and it totaled more than 6.5 million people. Using the term is a way of teaching readers about it.Parkwells (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Watch that infobox
Till didn't die in Money, Mississippi. It is unclear what town or county he was in when he died.

This is why infoboxes are often deprecated.

It would be accurate to leave the infobox place of death vacant, or remove the infobox entirely. --97.88.72.82 (talk) 12:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2015
he was murdered

Killerninja1234 (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * as you have not requested a change. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  17:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Change the word "boy" to "teen" or "teenager" in the first sentence.
After the death of Willie Louis (Willie Ree) I came to Wikipedia to read about the Emmett Till murder. I was shocked to see him described as a 14 year old "boy" in the very first sentence. While it is an accurate description, the use of the word "boy" is very inappropriate in an article where the subject was murdered because of his race. Having grown up in the South I can tell younthatnthe term "boy" is very racially tinted and used extensively as a racial slur. Perhaps the term could be changed to teen or teenager. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.9.216 (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Nope. I see your point, but he actualy was a boy. When to switch to calling someone man instead could use a defined rule, however. Say, 18 or over. That is the rule used nationwide in the school system. Those in sports in high school are on the 'boy's' team; college sports players are on the 'men's' team. The racial slur aspects would only exist in context; do whites of the same age get called 'boy'? Wikipedia can do that, surely. A note on the connotations you mention that some people draw could be a useful addition, tho. 2.28.140.71 (talk) 11:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2015
Metress is cited twice in the References, but his name is misspelled as "Mettress" in the Bibliography. This request is to correct the spelling in the Bibliography. See WorldCat to verify the spelling.

50.53.51.6 (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ - thanks for spotting that - Arjayay (talk) 08:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Jimmy Hicks' Employer
Hello!

Todd Steven Burroughs here. I'm a student of Black newspaper history. (Cited several times in "Mumia Abu-Jamal" entry. Thanks for that!)

Just wanted to correct the record you have here about Jimmy Hicks, one of the Black press pool during the trial of Bryant and Milan.

Paragraph 3 into "Trial," you say that Hicks was part of the Black newspaper wire service "National News Association." Actually, it's "the National Newspaper Publishers Association." You can look up NNPA.

I'm sensitive about this not only because of my scholarly focus, but because I used to work for the very same wire serivce in the 1990s and early 00s!

By the way, I'm also 90 percent sure that at the time, Hicks was filing for his paper, The New York Amsterdam News, and those articles were syndicated by the NNPA. Hicks' New York Times obit said he was a "top editor" of the Amsterdam News in 1955. That's how it worked with NNPA, then and now. So he worked for the Amsterdam locally, but represented NNPA nationally for this trial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.54.168 (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * not sure you'll see this, Todd, as it's been awhile since you wrote it and the page hasn't been changed. however, i DID look up the NNPA (and they even have a WP article).  i'm going to change it, although i'm going to use the group's first name here, as it wasn't changed to National Newspaper Publishers Association until 1956, and the trial was in 1955.  (and actually, i ended up slightly editing the NNPA article and adding some info there, too.) Colbey84 (talk) 06:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Disenfranchisement of blacks by "Democrat-dominated" legislatures
This is extremely misleading to those without a good knowledge of American political history since the Civil War. All the state legislatures in the south were almost entirely made up of Democrats from the end of Reconstruction in 1877 until the late 1960s because southerners so hated Abraham Lincoln (who was a Republican) and what he represented that they simply wouldn't vote for a Republican. Today, and since the 1970s, state legislatures in the south are virtually all Republican because southerners walked away from the Democratic Party for supporting Civil Rights legislation. Perversely, the south's sticking to the Democratic Party for so long in the 20th Century made possible the election of the the very Democratic politicians who eventually undid racial segregation in the south. And of course, all the former Democrats in the south, and their descendants have become Republicans now because anger over the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the other desegregation measures finally overcame the grudge southerners held against the party of Lincoln. SO — let's not kid ourselves that the national Democratic Party ever set out to disenfranchise African-Americans. It was the so-called "Dixiecrats" — and they're all Republicans now.

I removed the "Democrat-dominated" reference and replaced it with "all-white." Gillartsny (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The original wording was better. No sense in removing the demonstrable fact that the legislature was Democrat-dominated.--Cúchullain t/ c 23:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * the original wording was not better, as it was/is misleading, since, without a detailed explanation of the changing make-up and platforms of the major political parties over the last 150-200 years, a reader will not have a true understanding. again, this is sourced, so the best option here would be to get the actual sentence from the source and put it in quotation marks. Colbey84 (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC) alternately, here's some rewrites:"In 1955, The Chicago Defender urged its readers to react to the acquittal by voting in large numbers—a reminder that most blacks in the South had been disfranchised since the turn of the century.""In 1955, The Chicago Defender urged its readers to react to the acquittal by voting in large numbers—a reminder that most blacks in the South had been disfranchised since the Reconstruction period, through both legislative methods and intimidation."

Question re including recent information
Juanita Miliam recently died and a news report carried this information:

''Juanita accused Carolyn of fabricating the entire story. "The only way I can figure it is that she did not want to take care of the store. She thought this wild story would make Roy take care of the store instead of leavin' her with the kids and the store. … the only thing to me would upset her would be if she wanted Roy to stay at the store more."''

I wonder if we should try to work this into the article? Gandydancer (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * i think this would be a great addition to the article.Colbey84 (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2015
There is a simple spelling mistake in the final paragraph of the "Early Childhood" section:

A resurgence of the enforcement of such Jim Crow mores was evident following World War II.

It should say Jim Crow laws, not Jim Crow mores.

Thank you in advance, Dane

Dncat (talk) 06:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 07:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the immediate implementation of this change needs to be revisited. Going to the trouble to create a piped link from "laws" to "mores" clearly indicates something other than a simple spelling error. In fact, the surrounding paragraph is not discussing the narrow topic of Jim Crow laws, but rather the entire race-based class system and lifestyle. "Even the suggestion of sexual contact between black men and white women" was not illegal, but it could still be a capital offense. That's not laws, it's mores. The original wording said "these mores" and was changed to "such Jim Crow mores" on 19 March 2014 by . The pipe was added three months later by . "Jim Crow" was more than a few laws restricting who could vote and what section of the bus they could sit in (http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/what.htm), and the previous wording properly reflects that fact. 2600:1006:B113:6281:14E8:C473:9B00:7111 (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Edit-undo.svg Undone: This request has been undone. Now please discuss it and resubmit an edit request if necessary once consensus has been reached.  True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 21:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * okay, what? TrueC said the request was undone, and i guess the original request WAS...but the rest of the concerns raised by the anon-User were ignored. that sentence shouldn't say "Jim Crow" anything.  "mores" is probably correct, rather than "laws," but i don't know enough about the actual laws to know if the previous sentence could have referenced one; perhaps one of the OLDER laws in the Black Codes?  certainly marriage and sexual relations/interactions WERE legally controlled during that...time period.
 * the sentence should either be re-written, or, much better, since it seems to be from a book, get the actual sentence, and put it in quotation marks. Colbey84 (talk) 13:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * here's a possible rewrite: "After WWII, when African-American veterans started pressing for equal rights in the South, there was a desire by some to enforce the social and cultural mores–by any means–that had previously been enforced by a stricter adherence to Jim Crow laws, or the earlier Black Codes."


 * Colbey84 (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC) - i've been going thru the source. it only uses "jim crow" 2 or 3 times (and is over 200 pages long).  it did not use the term when talking about the time period after WWII.  this is the closest sentence i found, on page 51.
 * "Lynchings increased immediately after the end of World War I, when returning Negro soldiers, filled with new attitudes that reflected their greater degree of freedom, overstepped the traditional Jim Crow restrictions."

Till's sexual harassment of Carolyn Bryant is sanitised beyond belief here
I find this a little alarming. In an effort to avoid "blaming the victim", why do we need to sanitise or minimise what said eventual victim did? He clearly took more liberties than described, used more vulgar language, and did it continually - behaviour that by our modern standards would very likely result in charges for sexual harassment, if not assault. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.107.129 (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And you can supply some reliable sources to support these assertions? Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Carolyn Bryant's sworn testimony is at least reliable to show that Till allegedly committed sexual assault.Mikedelsol (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Yet Simeon Wright's account and, more importantly, the FBI investigation, have proven Bryant's testimony false. Mt xing (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2016
Hi, I am writing this to speak about writing on this page. Why? Because of how construed the story really is. There are so many phrases that don't interpret what REALLY happened, what REALLY had been said, and how devastating the actions REALLY were. The use of words in certain phrases greatly change the atmosphere of the situation. Just because he's black doesn't mean you can mention his actions in such a disgusting way. Yet when WHITE CRIMINALS are presented in cases or pages here on Wikipedia, they are given an emotional background and their info is written WAY LESS SEVERE.

Marbeeno18 (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

This is not an edit request, which would require a specific change to be suggested. However, you may have a valid concern. If you can point out specific instances where you think the text is inappropriate, and what would be improved text, you may suggest it here. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't get it
It seems to try to imply that nothing happened, saying how the other kid was in the store and said he didn't hear anything or see any inappropriate behavior, but then why did the woman rush out to get her pistol, and why were the boys scared? Why did they get upset and leave? If suggests that they knew something had happened and were nervous. Same with Till wanting to go home to Chicago. Then, when they show up at the house, he asks him if he was the one who "did the talking", and he says "yes". This all suggests that he said something to her, not that he "was trying to ask for bubble gum and whistled".

I also don't see what is wrong with saying the victim was "alleged" or "accused" of sexual harassment: whether her testimony was accurate or not, it is a fact that she accused or alleged that he did it, thus it is a perfectly factual statement. AnnaGoFast (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Original research: Till sexually assaulted Bryant?
Yesterday an editor repeatedly changed the lead to say that Till was murdered "after allegedly sexually assaulting a white woman." I'd like to invite the author to comment on why that isn't original research. Where are the reliable sources that say Till sexually assaulted or allegedly sexually assaulted Bryant? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * As the article itself states, Carolyn Brant testified under oath that she was sexually assaulted by Till. Hence Till "allegedly sexually assaulted Brant"Mikedelsol (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * As the article states where (beside your fervid imagination)? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 05:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * PS: Don't change the section heading again. Thank you. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 05:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This isn't the first (or even the second) time that someone has tried to introduce that nonsense into the article, based on zero sourcing. Even the "flirting" charge was tenuous (and disputed). The only interaction generally agreed on was a whistle - which is why I would limit the description to "whistling" if it were up to me; but since others have insisted on including the disputed testimony, "whistled and allegedly flirted" (or "possibly flirted") would be the most accurate wording.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  06:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

This never happened racist views at the time need to be taken into consideration as well as the hyper sexualization of young black men. They thought Till was in his 20's when really he was a young boy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.83.56.54 (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * this has come up a couple times on this Talk page. a few people pushing for the term "sexual assault," and back-and-forth over how to even qualify that ("reportedly" "allegedly" ?).  i was struck by the use of "reportedly," although when i thought about "allegedly," that didn't seem too much better.  so here's a couple other options.  notice that the "action" has been moved from Tills to his accuser. meaning, the "debate" would move from "what did that black child do to that woman?" to "what did that white woman accuse that child of doing?"Colbey84 (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Emmett Louis Till (July 25, 1941 – August 28, 1955) was an African-American teenager who
 * was lynched in Mississippi at the age of 14...
 * ...after being accused by a white, female store clerk of inappropriate behavior towards her."
 * ...after being accused by a white woman of speaking suggestively to her."
 * I think the first of these would be the best option, although "store clerk" is questionable. Wouldn't "store keeper" be better? I should point out that I am no expert on the issues involved: I looked up the article after hearing a passing reference on a radio programme and thought that the opening sentence sounded a bit odd, at least to British ears.  Tigerboy1966  10:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2017
there is an extra "after"....." lynched in Mississippi at the age of 14 after after being falsely accused" 63.88.62.157 (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for catching that mistake! (I think it was my fault.) I've fixed it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

iconography
Hi, this is not a very like important comment, but I think that iconography of Emmett Till needs to be discussed on this page in some manor. the idea of dead of black youth has not ever been new. Yet Till is one of the first this boy is the first in notable black death in a long line of dead black people. I think the lack of discussion of this media/ pop culture iconographic figure not only limits our understand and power of racism. but also treats these as historical events rather than modern events. To ignore his connection to black lives matters. To trayvon and all other modern victims that mirror him is kind of a major issue. With this article. Theres just an overall lack of the present in this section. It acts as if civil rights are over. I think most these sections issues are very current and need to link with modern movements — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donwashington38 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2016
"Throughout the South, whites publicly prohibited interracial relationships (while indulging in affairs with black women) as a means to maintain white supremacy."

I have a journalism degree and have worked as a writer and copy editor. This is an informative article however the material in parentheses above absolutely does not belong in an encyclopedia entry. It is not a verifiable fact and seems to be more of an opinion. I consider the entire sentence questionable but have no doubt that "(while indulging in affairs with black women)" should be removed. 97.80.184.131 (talk) 08:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  21:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I didn't notice this edit request until now, but I just made the change. It doesn't require consensus, just a little bit of common sense and an application of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Carolyn Bryant's admission to lying
The article currently reads "The white woman, Carolyn Bryant, admitted to Vanity Fair in 2017 that she had lied.[1]". This is incorrect. The same Vanity Fair article listed as the source says that, in fact, Bryant said this during an interview with Duke University researcher Timothy Tyson in 2007. In his new book, "The Blood of Emmett Till" (2017), Tyson published the part of the interview in which Bryant confessed to having lied. Vanity Fair then reported on the story. I do not currently have permission to edit the article but I think the original source of the confession should be credited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adriobi (talk • contribs) 19:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Second sentence is seriously inaccurate
I understand why the article is locked, though it's sad that it's necessary to do so. Anyway, that means I have to come here to point out that the following sentence is seriously innacurate: “The white woman, Carolyn Bryant, admitted to Vanity Fair in 2017 that she had lied.” If you read the very article that is linked to at the end of the sentence, you will see that in fact I hope that someone can rewrite the sentence to correct these errors, perhaps something like this: "The white woman, then known as Carolyn Bryant, admitted to the academic Timothy Tyson in 2007 that she had lied."
 * her name is NOT now Carolym Bryant, since she has since remarried twice and it is not clear from the source just what her name now is
 * she admitted her lie to Timothy Tyson, author of The Blood of Emmett Till (Simon & Schuster 2017), NOT to the magazine (and anyway, how can anyone say anything to a whole magazine, as opposed to the author of a magazine article?)
 * she did so in 2007, NOT in 2017.

Strict accuracy is obviously important if Wikipedia's reputation is to be maintained, but perhaps especially so in articles such as this one, on a serious topic that has been, and (judging by the editing lock) continues to be, the subject of other serious inaccuracies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.197.170.130 (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Carolyn Bryant Admitted she lied
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixbWTJDU7gA&list=UU1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ&index=5 84.108.48.51 (talk) 03:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Vanity Fair article
Should the new details from Vanity Fair be added to the "trial" section or to "later events"? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Thanks for bringing it up.  Gandydancer (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Interveiw(s) with Bryant 2007? 2008? both?
We have 2008 2007, track down and questioned in 2007, 2008 but also there were two long conversations with Bryant anyone got more info on when and ideas on dealing with this?Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Vanity Fair broke the story, so I assume they spoke with Tyson and I had assumed they were most accurate. They say 2007. However, according to the book (first page of the "Notes" section), the interview took place on September 8, 2008. Go to Amazon.com, click on "Look inside", and search the print book (not the Kindle edition) for 2008. It's the first search result. (There was an earlier interview in July 2008, according to the book's bibliography, but all quotes come from the September interview.)
 * I'll correct the article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Perhaps, Tyson was first contacted in 2007 - not that we need to get into that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Rosa Parks
Should the brief mention of the connection between Till and Parks be highlighted more? Drgood13 (talk) 03:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC) User:Drgood13


 * Probably not. Per WP:WEIGHT we should be covering detail in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources. Parks and Till have both had thousands of pages written about them individually, but very little covers the intersection of them. ResultingConstant (talk) 04:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Icon
Do you think a better way of describing Till would be as a martyr instead of as an icon? Drgood13 (talk) 03:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC) User:Drgood13
 * Not really. Icon is much more neutral, and many more sources describe him as an icon than a martyr. ResultingConstant (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2016
Please change "teenager who was lynched in Mississippi" to "teenager who was murdered in Mississippi" because Emmett Till was not lynched. He was beaten, shot, and then thrown into the Tallahatchie River. http://www.biography.com/people/emmett-till-507515 http://www.biography.com/people/emmett-till-507515 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/till/sfeature/sf_look_confession.html

2601:588:C401:3080:A4F3:2796:20C3:4761 (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * According to Merriam-Webster, a lynching is when a person is "put to death (as by hanging) by mob action without legal sanction". That describes Till's murder. At the time of Till's murder, according to PBS, Roy Wilkins described it as a lynching. More recently, historian Christopher Metress wrote a book (published by an academic press) titled The Lynching of Emmett Till: A Documentary Narrative. I don't think there's any credible argument whether the murder was a lynching. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

There is clearly a more than a credible argument when the accepted definition of lynching stipulates that there is a component of public spectacle, which is not present. What you "think" is a matter of complete irrelevance here. The fact that Roy Wilkins described it as such makes no difference either. It doesn't fit the known definition of lynching. Again lynchings are public, not covert and the perpetrators took pains to hide the body rather than leave it somewhere where it would be discovered. Unless you change the definition of lynching to include all racially motivated murders. The two half-brothers who murdered Till could not be considered or defined as a "mob." A "mob" is defined as "a large crowd of people, especially one that is disorderly and intent on causing trouble or violence." Bryant and Milam can not be accurately described as a "mob" by any known definition. Again, the fact that it was a racially motivated murder of a child does not make it a lynching. (67.234.159.68 (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC))


 * Beyond the dictionary definition, which describes the mob actions of the most well-known lynchings around the turn of the 20th century, many scholars and civil rights groups have noted and documented the changing character of lynchings from the 1930s through the 1950s. The killers were trying to avoid exposure and did their work in secret, sometimes accomplished at night by a small group or a few men. In fact, the sheriff and mayor of LaGrange, Georgia received international coverage in January 2017 for their apologies at a reconciliation hearing for the failures of their offices to prevent the lynching of Austin Callaway in 1940, which was accomplished in the middle of the night by 6 men. They abducted Callaway from jail in the middle of the night and fatally shot him outside of town. Abduction of a person to another place where he is beaten and murdered, and his body is mutilated and hidden, does qualify Till's murder as a lynching. The outsize violence was part of the pattern of lynchings.Parkwells (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Restorative justice
In 2007 the community of Sumner, Mississippi and Tallahatchie County led by the Emmett Till Memorial Commission (ETMC) held a public ceremony of racial reconciliation and offered an official apology to the Till family. From 2007 until 2015 the ETMC raised over 1.8 million dollars to restore the Sumner Courthouse back to it's 1955 character and opened up the Emmett Till Interpretive Center in order to live out the original apology that stated "racial reconciliation begins by telling the truth." The courthouse is now open to the public and the Emmett Till Interpretive Center is used to continue the work of restorative justice and racial healing.

Content added here