Talk:Emmett Till

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Emmett Till article.
Article policies

Template:WPBiogjraphy

WikiProject Illinois This article is part of WikiProject Illinois, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Chicago Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles related to Chicago.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Civil rights role

Emmett Till had a major roll in the Civil Rights Movement. Most people give Rosa Parks all the credit when half know that it was really Emmett Till.

Rosa Parks engaged in a very courageous act of civil disobedience. Emmett Till didn't do anything but whistle at a white woman. The Emmett Till case is important in the history of the Civil Rights Movement, but he himself should not be considered a hero of it, as Rosa Parks is. --Angr 13:15, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
He allegedly whistled at a white woman. Who knows what really happened? Jdotpitts 13:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
The only people who really knew were the eyewitnesses, and they are all dead. At this point all we can say is that was the allegation. -Will Beback 20:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that he didn't exactly exhibit heroics, but Mr. Till still instigated one of the most important movements of our time. He deserves a good deal of respect for having lost his life, hero or not.
Please sign your edits to talk pages. Keep in mind that Wikipedia articles must conform to the Neutral point of view policy. Labeling Till a "hero" would violate that; the article does touch on his death's role in spurring civil rights activism. --Dhartung | Talk 09:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Emmett Till

The murder of Emmett Till in 1955 did not immediately set off alarm bells nation-wide that the struggle against racist injustice needed to be set in motion. Hundreds of African Americans in the south had been murdered in this or a very similar manner. This was a 14-year old boy kidnapped, beaten and brutally murdered by two grown men.

What probably galvanized the concerned element of America to take action was the reported manner in which this young man was murdered and the condition of his body as it lay in state for all to see. In this respect, the mother of Emmett Till, who insisted on an open-casket funeral, is responsible, in a sense, for "striking the match" that Rosa Parks used to "light the fuse" that helped set off the Civil Rights Movement in America.

Please sign edits to Talk pages. Um, OK, but that's more or less opinion (and phrased with internal contradictions). What was your main point? --Dhartung | Talk 29 June 2005 08:39 (UTC)

Emmett was a murder victim. He did not "instigate" anything. Whatever he may, or may not have, have done, and that will never be known, there was no heroics involved. It was a matter of at least two, if not more, torturing, and beating a scared, and defenseless child based on allegations. Getting murdered is not heroic!

I agree with the other poster that Till's mother was the one who really got the ball rolling in terms of public perception of hate crimes in the south. Emmett no more "got the ball rolling" than J.W. Millam and his psychotic, bullying racism did. This wasn't a lynching, this was the murder of a defenseless child, and even hard core racists in the south at the time were upset over this. Bryant, and especially Milam, were the vilest of the vile, and they both died horrible deaths and were shunned deservedly.

-Yako Fujimato

[edit] pic

i noticed that the picture of him after his death isnt here. is there a reason? it is pretty graphic. --Jaysscholar 01:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

There should be a separate page linking to the post-mortem photo of Till, with the "possibly disturbing image" warning, like it is (or was) on the Abraham Lincoln page. FamousBobby 03:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


I think it's ridiculous the picture isn't on here. I also don't think it should be censored to a separate page. The mutilated face is the most abiding memory of the Till murder to most people. Furthermore - not to suggest that any whitewashing has gone on - isn't the description of his murder a little brief? It just says that his murderers 'brutally beat him'. That just sounds like they roughed him up pretty bad, not that they cut of his ear, gouged out an eye and shot him point blank with a .45. Granted, any sort of lynching has a level of brutality that does not necessarily need to be described in great detail, but I think it needs more stress here. The picture would obviously convey that. Gunstar hero 17:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

"Any sort of lynching"??? Are you stating Till was lynched? He was not lynched. Not all racially motivated killings are "lynchings". Lynching is a very public killing done with no attempt to dispose of the body, in fact in a lynching, the body is usually left in a very public place for all to see. In the Till case you had a racially motivated kidnapping and killing of a child that was done in near secrecy in a secluded place. Then you had the killers clearly attempting to get rid of the body in a river by weighing it down. I wish people would learn the correct meaning and definition of a word before posting. -Yako Fujimato

"In 1955, Mamie Till tried to get her government to bring the truth to light. She sent a telegram to President Eisenhower urging that “justice be meted out to all persons involved in the beastly lynching” of her son." [CBS]. His mother seemed to consider her son's death a lynching.

--Michael Altfield 168.28.136.13

(Please don't reorder conversations arbitrarily.) The photograph has been uploaded, but it was not properly tagged for fair use or otherwise deemed to violate copyright rules, thus it was deleted. Wikipedia is not censored.--Dhartung | Talk 21:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't Mammie Till determined to release the photo with the intention of people seeing the horror that was bestowed upon her child? Surely, she had the rights to at least one photo of post-death Emmett Till. Surely, she would have been willing to release it for wikipedia. Who owns the rights to the photo? Did she GIVE them to anyone? --Michael Altfield —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.28.180.20 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Formulation

There was a sentence I simply didn't understand:

At about 2:30 AM on 28 August, Roy Bryant and his half brother, J.W. Milam, kidnapped Till, once physically afflicted by polio, from his uncle's house in the small cotton town of Money, Mississippi.

What is once physically afflicted by polio doing in the middle of that sentence? It doesn't seem to fit. Thue | talk 19:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


Yes It's a total non sequiter! They might have well have said "At about 2:30 AM on 28 August, Roy Bryant and his half brother, J.W. Milam, kidnapped Till, who greatly enjoyed playing baseball, from his uncle's house in the small cotton town of Money, Mississippi.

[edit] Picture of Emmitt Till

Do we have a picture of him? The one in the template doesn't work and the one that was in an earlier version obviously wasn't him. Capitalistroadster 00:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Pictures

I live in Mississippi, and within the last year or so I've taken pictures of (a) the new signs on US 49 naming the road the Emmett Till Highway, west of Greenwood, and (b) The old Milam store, or more accuratly, its ruins, in Money. Would these be any use for this page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.183.52.185 (talk • contribs) 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that the highway signs, at least, would be neat to have. Hbackman 01:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wealthiest black?

Negroes who lived in the Southern States in the 1950s were not wealthy. They wore straw hats, overalls, and work shoes called brogans. The article is rife with distortions and the overuse of the word "black." A negro was called a "boy" until he reached the age of 60 and never called "black." An old negro was called "uncle." This article deserves an NPOV designation because it is full of propaganda. I doubt that "wealthy blacks" exist in Mississipi, today. Superslum 14:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

That is a generalization. In any group there will be extremes -richest and poorest. "Wealthy" is absolute, but "wealthiest" is relative.
  • When Mamie Bradley came to Mississippi.. she stayed in the home of Dr. T.R.M. Howard in the all-black town of Mound Bayou. ... Howard was a major civil rights leader and fraternal organization official in Mississippi, the head of the Regional Council of Negro Leadership (RCNL), and one the wealthiest blacks in the state.
Howard was a surgeon and entrepreneur who owned an insurance company and other business. -Will Beback 23:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
If he was a "surgeon," he did not work in a medical facility because he was banned due to his ethnicity. (If he was a negro "surgeon" who lived in northern States such as Pennsylvania and Ohio in 1955, he could not work in a medical facility. Employers would have snickered at him. Negroes shined shoes for a living in 1955 in the United States). If he owned an "insurance company," he dealt in pennies, not in dollars.
Wealthy people own property. Merely being a "surgeon" does not qualify a person as being wealthy. Maybe he owned three or four straw hats instead of only one or two, so people now call him "wealthy." Lately, national newspapers have started the practice of coupling "wealthy" and "black" together to produce a new phrase: "wealthy black." If you examine the economic structure of the United States in 1955, you will not discover "wealthy blacks," you will discover shoe-shine boys.
In 1955, in Mississippi and other southern States, a negro could not enter a shoe store and try out a pair of shoes prior to purchasing them. The same policy applied to clothing stores. Negroes purchased their garments first, took them home, then put them on. There were no "wealthy blacks." The Emmett Till page is NPOV because it contains myths which are being portrayed as truthful indications of conditions in the United States in 1955. Superslum 14:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Have you even read the article on T.R.M. Howard? I assume you have since you edited it. Unless that article is incorrect, Howard was indeed a landowner, a practicing surgeon, and a businessman. The economic conditions you describe undoubtedly existed in large areas, but there were exceptions. -Will Beback 20:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I did not edit T.R.M. Howard because I had never heard of him before I read the Emmitt Till page. Whomever he may have been, he was not a wealthy negro living in the United States in 1955. President Bush is an example of a wealthy man because he owns 1,000 acres (about 400 hectares) of land. T.R.M. Howard may have been a "surgeon" who operated exclusively on negroes in 1955 because colored doctors and dentists were commonplace in the United States in 1955, but they have disappeared due to the dumbing down of Negroes process that was installed by the Federal government in the 1960s. Superslum 20:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Still, I think you may be missing the point (no offense) -- as Will noted, we aren't talking absolutes ("Howard was a wealthy black man") but rather relatives ("Howard was one of the wealthiest black men in Mississippi at the time"). Saying that he was "one of the wealthiest" doesn't imply that he was actually wealthy. I think that most people will realize that that community as a whole wasn't particularly wealthy, and will realize that saying that Howard was one of the wealthiest people in that community doesn't mean that he was rolling in money. Hbackman 02:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
A few weeks ago the New York Times mentioned that New Orleans, Louisiana where Hurricane Katrina destroyed homes contains "wealthy black residents." I don't believe that the references to "wealthy blacks" are accurate. As I stated above, national newspapers mention "wealthy blacks" in their publications. That is new verbiage which appeared in the United States very recently. The New York Times is noted as being a newspaper that prints fabrications. I hope that the Wikipedia doesn't follow in that newspaper's footsteps. (However, I believe that there will be an increase the use of the phrase "wealthy blacks" in the Wikipedia). A peasant is a peasant, not a "wealthy black resident." Numerous peasants live here in the large "super-slum" which exists in the county where I live. Peasants live in New Orleans. Those peasants are not "wealthy black residents." I am similar to Tom Thumb who stuck his finger into a leak in a dike to keep the land from flooding. I believe that the term "wealthy black residents" is here to stay, yet, I am still willing to oppose its usage. Superslum 06:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Superslum, this article's Talk space is not for you to engage us in an interminable discussion about your views of the wealth of blacks, or lack thereof. If you have a citation about Dr. Howard, then we can discuss changing the reference in the article. If you only have your own opinion, then please read the Wikipedia policy on WP:OR. At this point I do not see how an article about Hurricane Katrina has any relevance to this article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Any article that containsfalsifications may be discussed. I know that those negroes of 1955 were not "wealthy" people, therefore, I placed an NPOV into the article. The alleged facts in the article are falsifications. Someone promptly removed my NPOV instead of removing those falsifications. There are many other similar falsifications throughout the Wikipedia. Superslum 12:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Then it is your responsibility to show us authoritative sources for your claims of falsification. You can't just say it. --Dhartung | Talk 18:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
BTW, though you didn't edit T.R.M. Howard, you did leave a note on its talk page. [1]. Apparently you think that Howard and the Till family should be called "colored" instead of "black". I don't know how familiar you are with modern America, but the term "colored" is not used anymore. -Will Beback 21:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Any fool knows that no one called colored people "black" in 1955. That is my "authoritative source." It is a falsification of facts to describe negroes who existed in 1955 as "blacks." The signs in the segregated bus stations read "colored." ("Colored" section of the waiting room, "colored" drinking fountain, "colored" restroom, "colored" eatery). A truly bizarre development has taken place in the United States over the last 50 years. Historic facts have been discarded and replaced by alterations of history. I see no reason why people should perpetrate the creation of a fraudulent history. This is all that I have to say about this page. I'm getting nowhere, fast. Goodbye. Superslum 05:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)



[edit] Mistake

I appolligize for this problem. I was certain Emmett Till was going to his uncle's house until I saw one to three sources verifying the written note. I appolligize for the mistake and have made sure to change it back to great uncle. Firecracker13 00:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to detail and your honesty! --Dhartung | Talk 02:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Could you at least apologize for your spelling? --65.110.241.209 04:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


It's ok we forgive you.

[edit] The allegations

The allegations, by most involved black and white, were that Emmett Till did much more than just "whistle". Some accounts have Emmett putting his arms around Carolyn's waist and saying words like "I've got something for you baby." Other reports do not have him touching her at all, just uttering crude remarks. Carolyn testified at the trial that Emmett said, "What's the matter baby, can't you take it? You needn't be afraid of me!" But whatever occurred, it was enough for Carolyn to retrieve a pistol from the back of the store. Most sources, which included Till's friends, say that Emmett, just before he exited the store, whistled at Carolyn Bryant. Emmett, who most likely did not want to seem fearful in front of his peers, called out, "Bye baby!" By then his friends had come off the front porch and physically pulled him off the premise.

Whatever he did, not one source stated he only "whistled". That was a media created falsehood. Life magazine even engaged in this sort of whitewashed reimaginings. Life states that his father, Louis Till, died heroically in France during WWII, when in fact he was a serial killer rapist who was executed in Italy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakofujimato (talk • contribs)

The wording in the article indicates that there are a range of reports. Do you have specific contradicting sources you could let us know about? --Dhartung | Talk 17:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I am utilizing a number of sources, (then) contemporary newpaper reports, witness testimony, and the killer's contentions in the 'Look' article.
What my point is the events, them and now, present an incident with many contradictory accounts.
1) You have the contentions of Carolyn Bryant, and Juanita Milam, which must be taken with a degree of skepticism due to the fact their husbands were on trial for Till's killing, had they would have clear motivations for being less than truthful about the incident.
2) You have the "eyewitness" accounts of the children outside, who could only hear the alleged "wolf whistle" outside, and could not have any knowledge of what Till, said or did not say to Mrs Bryant.
My point is that it has been reported as fact that Till simply whistled at Mrs, Bryant, and was murdered for this, when in fact whatever occured in the store has been the disputed for decades. To simply state Till "only whistled" is to accept one account of the incident, and this started with northern newspapers not reporting the entire story.
To accept one version of what happened for no other reason than it makes the killer's (and the south for that matter) even more vile (and they were vile and evil cowardly men-no doubt) , and to make sure Till as almost totally innocent and some sort of 'hero'(equally absurd) is politically correct historical revisionism at it's worst!
Yako Fujimato —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakofujimato (talk • contribs)
Please sign your posts on talk pages, using four tildes ~~~~.
Let's be clear here. You state "it has been reported as fact that Till simply whistled at Mrs. Bryant", but I do not find wording in the Wikipedia article which states this. This is the wording in the article: "While in the store, Till allegedly whistled at, or openly flirted with, Carolyn Bryant and this action greatly angered her husband when he returned home several days later from an out-of-town trip." Please make your objections about the article itself, and not what other people are saying about the case. Who, exactly, is this "You" that you're addressing? Certainly you don't seem to be describing our article on Wikipedia. --Dhartung | Talk 00:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hate crime

i do not see how this murder should been seen as an important event for the civil rights movement. it has absolutely nothing to do with it. this wasn't a hate crime, this seems more like a 'crime passionelle'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.53.138.11 (talk • contribs)

That could just as easily describe nearly every lynching in history, a hate crime because it was applied disproportionately against blacks and other minority classes. The Till murder was widely publicized and directly inspired many people, black and white, to work in the civil rights movement. Wikipedia is just reporting what happened here. --Dhartung | Talk 20:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elderly woman

I spent many summers visiting my grandmother in Webb, and in a recent conversation, Emmett Till was brought up. My friend (who grew up there, and around the time of the murder) said something about an elderly woman that lived near the Till family and had befriended them, and there had been allegations that Emmett had raped her. EEWWWW! His friends probably would,ve said something! I don't know if this would have been a separate occurance, or what. I'm just wondering if anyone here might have heard anything like this? I'm not quite sure what to think of the story, but I have no reason do doubt his word. Posie 04:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

We need a reliable source that would verify such accusations. He was only in town seven days, you know. --Dhartung | Talk 05:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US 49 re-naming

I'm not quite sure during what month in 2005 US 49 was renamed for Till, but I know it isn't August, as the article said, because the time-stamp on the photo of the sign that I have uploaded is July. So I changed this to read simply "in 2005." I want to say it was April, but I'm not sure.

Also, If anyone wants a picture of the Chaney/Goodman/Schwerner sign on MS 19 in that article, I can get one of those, becuase I'm down in Neshoba all the time. --Throatybeard 15:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How many lynchings in Jim Crow Mississippi

A previous user wrote there had been over 500 lynchings in Mississippi since 1882. No source was cited, nor was there an explanation of the choice of 1882.

A major investigation of Southern lynchings, Brundage 1993, disconfirms the claim of "over 500". This book is the result of research to figure out in detail what the causes of lynchings were between 1880 and 1930 -- short term and long term causes, and in their regional and time variation. Brundage focused on the two states at the statistical extremes: Virginia with 57 lynchings, and Georgia with 490 odd. So no state had over 500 since 1882. Another thing: lynching almost -- not quite -- ceased after 1930; times had changed. Of course there was still every other manner of persecution, including false criminal prosecution. But where there had been about 4,000 lynchings throughout the South between 1880-1930, between 1931 and 1960, there were just a handful. W. Fitzhugh Brundage, 1993, Lynching in the new South: Virginia and Georgia, 1880-1930. Hurmata 22:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

1882 is chosen because the most highly regarded source for lynching statistics is Tuskegee University (formerly Tuskegee Institute) which was founded in 1881 and kept statistics from 1882. The total Mississippi lynchings of blacks for 1882-1962 was 539 according to their statistics. [2] Jvbishop 19:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diction

I question the use of "ordinary blacks" in this article. I won't remove it just yet, as to give others the opportunity to ponder this phrase.--Ranhalt 04:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hm. It sounds a bit clunky, but I think the idea is to suggest a broad survey rather than centralized propaganda. I think some of the language from the Moore article might be more helpful, though. --Dhartung | Talk 07:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I noticed several instances of vandalism lurking in the text that weren't noticeable at a quick glance. (Several words and phrases had been deleted and had profanity and offensive language replacing them.) I found the last version that seemed clean copied/pasted it in as the latest version but didn't have time to look thoroughly and make sure it's the most current clean revision. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.33.85.205 (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks. The article attracts a great deal of one-time vandals, possibly because it's assigned to younger school classes due to the age of the subject. Sometimes it's hard to keep them all straight, so any help is appreciated.--Dhartung | Talk 01:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unrefrenced

Can someone say why there's an unreferenced tag on this page? Maybe someone could put in citation needed tags? CJ 15:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Because one unreferenced tag at the top is better than 100 "citation needed" tags on every assertion. This article needs to be thoroughly rewritten to sources with attribution (especially for the parts -- like the wolf-whistle bit -- that are disputed and have different accounts). --Dhartung | Talk 19:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Pictures

I heard once that his mother gave him an open-casket funeral, despite the severity of his mutilation, to remind "folks of what they done". Was there ever a picture taken? --le petite robot 14:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he had an open-casket memorial service, as our article states (there's a whole paragraph on it). There were photographs in Jet; one of them was uploaded at one time, but without a proper fair use rationale, so it was eventually deleted. --Dhartung | Talk 20:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"...despite the severity of his mutilation...". The photo in question does not display severe mutilation, but rather a state of bloating and decomposition.--Historicalhonesty | Talk 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Murder

I cna't see any legitimate reason to avoid calling the subject's death a "murder". It has been called that by the U.S. Justice Dept.[3] I haven't heard of any legitimate source disputing that assertion. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 20:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The people described in this section as having kidnapped Emmett were acquitted of murder. The US Justice department doesn't even have jurisdiction over murder cases; there is not a federal crime of murder per se; their opinions are just that. Given that there is no proof this was a murder, rather than an accidental death, manslaughter, or justified killing, how can it be characterized as such? If we have no idea of the circumstances of his death, how can we characterize it as a murder? It's not even an "alleged murder" because there is no allegation by the relevant authorities that a murder took place, and the only apparent killers were irrevocably acquitted of that. This would be like saying OJ Simpson murdered his wife. To quote wikipedia "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with 'malice aforethought.'" What evidence do you have that this was a premeditated murder? None that I can tell. Fourdee 21:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
We have ample evidence that everybody in law enforcement viewed it as a murder. Must we trot out the links? OTOH, do we have even a single source which questions that characterization? Does anyone claim that it was an accident, or even manslaughter? If there are no sources which support the assertion then it is original research: we'd be deciding on our own how to characterize the death. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 22:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't suggest it be characterized any other way than a "death", which is supported by the known facts. This article states that Milam and Bryant admit they killed Emmett, yet describes the killing as a murder, despite the fact that they were acquitted of murder in a court of law. Killing does not directly equate to murder, and the final authority on that was a jury. The police may allege that a murder occurred, but it is far from a known fact. That sort of fact is determined in a court, and the court said otherwise.
Further, the section labeled "murder" or "death" does not describe his actual death at all, so the label is doubly inappropriate. It should be changed to kidnapping or abduction.
Since murder is a biased, pejorative term (it says the act was wrong or illegal - much like the "brutal" that was here unquoted initially), unless it has been found in a court of law, the neutral term for it is killing or death. This should be applied to any article on wikipedia. This is actually quite an important distinction and probably applies to very many articles. Fourdee 22:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Saying "maybe it was an accident" is hardly a step towards NPOV. The overwhelming consensus of sources is to label Till's "death" a murder. Ford MF 02:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
The overwhelming consensus of "sources" giving their opinions is irrelevant. "Murder" is an opinion (or an allegation) not a fact unless that fact has been determined by a court of law. The killers were acquitted in a court of law, therefore, no murder. If we found an overwhelming consensus of "sources" saying Hitler was evil, should the wikipedia article read "Hitler was an evil man"? No. The jury said this was not murder, or there was not enough evidence to prove murder. Either way, to persist in labeling it a murder is factually incorrect and biased (and would be libelous if they were alive). Many sources offering an opinion can only be cited as an opinion. Fourdee 05:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me say this another way, since the current Wikipedia:NPOV doesn't make this distinction clear enough, but does already state this several different ways. There are two kinds of opinions. One kind is an opinion of fact, like the opinion that the universe was started by a big bang or that humans evolved from lower lifeforms. The other kind is a value judgment like that an action was brutal, or wrong, or evil. Value judgments must never be stated as fact per NPOV policy. This use of "murder" is a value judgment (or simply false) since the legal status of this killing was already determined not to be murder.

I simply cannot accept, nor does the WP:NPOV policy accept, or WP:Verifiability allow, calling someone who was acquitted of murder a murderer as a blank statement of fact via the subject heading. Fourdee 05:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we are calling anyone a murderer, nor should we. We should say that a murder occurred. It is universally known as a "murder". Due to the circumstances it's impossible to believe it would be considered an accidental death or other form of manslaughter. It would be just as ludicrous to say that Nicole Brown Simpson "died" rather than state that she was "murdered". ·:·Will Beback ·:· 07:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, some perpetrators admitted it. If OJ Simpson were to admit murdering his wife, would you still insist it was not a murder because he hadn't been convicted? ·:·Will Beback ·:·
To me, the article appears to call the two men murderers. They are described as having done the killing and it is called a murder. Yes, I think that "murder" outside of a legal conviction is a pejorative label which is not appropriate in a neutrally phrased article. Even if OJ stated explicitly "I murdered Nicole" it would be a non-neutral term. It would be appropriate to say that "according to OJ himself, he murdered Nicole" but that otherwise the term "murder" should only be used on Wikipedia to describe a criminal conviction of murder, or the (clearly identified) allegation or opinion of some person. Where do we stop applying the label "murder"? In the Boston massacre (they were acquitted of murder)? In the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre? In the Reign of terror? In the Bombing of Hiroshima? Someone thinks all of those things were murder (and there are countless more examples). "Murder" outside of a legal conviction is a mere value judgment, a pejorative label, and there is a perfectly suitable neutral replacement for it - "killing". I would like this bias removed from all articles regardless of how I personally feel about the events.
Murder can mean two things: One is the crime of murder, which the final and absolute authority in this case decided it was not (for whatever reasons). The other is a pejorative label for a wrongful killing, which is a value judgment, and therefore not NPOV. Fourdee 08:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I think your logic is a little off here on several aspects. Firstly, you are confusing criminal conviction with criminal acts. If the US Justice Dept can describe the death as murder then that is sufficient evidence for us to use the term, because it provides us with a credible reference, the first of many. Secondly, you are pushing a POV on the use of the word that is clearly at odds with the consensus. If you want to change everyone's point of view then you should produce credible references to support your POV - the fact that you hold an opinion is simply not a good enough reason to insist everyone should agree with you. Phaedrus86 09:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate [[Fourdee]]'s concern for accuracy and neutrality. However I think we are taking a good intention to an extreme. For example, take a hypothetical case in which one man kills another, and is conviced of murder, but the convictions is later overturned on a technicality unrelated to the type of killing or intent. By this narrow interpretation the victim would no longer have been murdered, merely "killed". Or, to take another famous case, was JFK really assassinated? It never went to trial. Maybe his death just happened. I think we need to recognize other sources beyond jury trials. If there are diverging opinions, if someone thinks Till was killed in self-defense for example, then we should include those too. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 09:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. --KenWalker | Talk 02:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Louis Till

There are no primary sources leading to the facts of what happened to Louis Till. The fact of the segregation of the United States military directly bears on his life and death. For anyone to press the views of the arch-segregationist Eastland in trying to make the case of the inheritance of any trait such as flirting, as is what Emmett Till was accused of and was killed for, is intemperate and at odds with the facts that are known. Use of the term allegedly in the case of Louis Till is on point because there are no known facts about what led to his death. The case of segregated armed forces personnel at Port Chicago, about which much more is known, bears directly on how black soldiers and sailors were treated in the segregrated armed forces. To argue that segregation is not relevant history is at odds with the facts of history. Skywriter 17:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The sources cited, i.e. PBS and the (African-American) historian who produced the most recent documentary on Emmett Till, are sufficient sources for the assertion. If you've got a reliable source that speaks of a controversy over Louis Till's history, please cite it. I couldn't find one. At any rate, such a debate would be more properly located at the Louis Till article, not here. Louis' crimes are anyway, to my mind, less important than the fact that Eastman cynically and manipulatively tried to use them as a PR lever against Till's mother and the prosecution of Till's murderers.
Also please be aware of how close to 3RR you are approaching. Ford MF 17:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I intend to place a disputed tag on this article because of the widening gap in opinion about the addition of questionable information about Louis Till that prejudices this article. Fact is we do not have sufficient information about the circumstances surrounding the death of Louis Till. The introduction of a secondary source that assumed, based on Eastland's claim, is directly prejudicial.
Failure to point out that the United States Armed Forces were segregated and that black GI's were provably treated badly, and even court-martialed for racist reasons, such as the Port Chicago incident, is also deeply prejudicial. Leaving out historical facts is convenient for those who are pushing the POV of the late Senator Eastland, and yet it is a glaring error that can not be ignored.Skywriter 18:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
You have still not addressed the concerns of more than one editor about sourcing any theoretical controversy regarding Louis Till. Do you actually have a source that disputes those claims made by PBS about Louis Till? If such a reliable source exists, I, and I'm sure your fellow Wikipedia editors, would be very interested. Barring that, everything you've said above, and everything you introduced into the article, is plainly original research. You are essentially asserting, without sources, that, for reasons of institutional racism, Louis Till might not have been guilty. Or, you seem to imply, possibly might not have been convicted and hanged at all (although that does leave the troubling question of why he never came home from Italy.)
I think you are missing the forest for the trees here anyway. The most salient point here is not what and how Louis Till was convicted and executed, but that a segregationist senator tried to use such information against the Till family during the trial against Till's attackers.
I am unaware of any consensus-based "gulf" here. As far as I am aware the sole detractor is yourself. Ford MF 22:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The question to you, Fordmadoxfraud, is what beyond "Henny Penny said that Lucky Ducky said that.... the sky is falling down" is here proof that Louis Till was tried and executed for alleged cimes for which thousands of black men have been lynched-- and that is of having sex with white women? Where are the facts? The PBS film maker is saying that the allegation was made that tended to throw dirt on the murder victim's family and eventually no one was punished for murdering the teen-ager. If you are so certain of the facts of what led to the death of Louis Till, please supply something more than repetition of a rumor. It maybe true. It may not be. It smells distinctly like the murders of many thousands of black men in the United States, men who were lynched for allegedly "raping" white women. This is an old story. If you are so sure of the rumor, why haven't you provided the names of the women, especially the dead woman?

May I remind you that in the segregated armed services of the United States, black sailors were tried and convicted of mutiny under conditions that were clearly racially biased. They also called that military "justice." http://www.oah.org/pubs/magazine/deseg/chronology.html#Anchor-Chronolog-39544 http://www.oah.org/pubs/magazine/deseg/exhibit%20a.html#Anchor-Exhibi-12240 This is the same military that you are sourcing claims about a black GI, only you are not sourcing military records, you are sourcing a segregationist politician. The facts of the Port Chicago explosion from WWII demonstrate the effect of the segregated military on miltary justice in the United States during World War II. Please demonstrate how the hanging of Louis Till is in anyway different from the thousands of lynchings of black men that have occurred in the United States? Or of the type of segregated justice meted out after the explosion at Port Chicago where the single largest loss of African American life took place in World War II (15 percent of black deaths from that war). http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1979/2/79.02.04.x.html Or provide the facts of the Louis Till trial beyond repetition of a rumor begun by a Mississippi politician who hated black people. Surely you have something more substantial to base your claim? Or is it just your point of view that causes you to believe the Henny Penny rumor mongering? That Louis Till is dead, there is not doubt. What led to his hanging is unresolved. Skywriter 22:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

That's your argument? "I don't actually have a source that mentions Louis Till, it just smells bad"? Ford MF 23:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I see you are having a difficult time here, Ford, and I'd like to help you.

Assume for a moment, you are accused of raping three women and killing one, would you like to know the victims' names? Are details important, Ford? Who are the women Louis Till raped and or/murdered? Got facts, Ford? Or did you take to heart that cover story in Esquire(Jan. 2003) encouraging you to start wild Internet rumors. Skywriter 23:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The two things relevant to this article are 1) that Emmett's father was hanged by the army for rape and murder 2) that it was raised around the time of the trial. The topics of segregation in the military, cases of negroes wrongly prosecuted, whether Louis Till really did it, who was raped or murdered - all that may be relevant to the Louis Till article (as long as you aren't trying to introduce original research) and perhaps you should take it over there. This article is about Emmett. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 00:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to claim in this article-- without reference to any facts-- that Louis Till is guilty of rape and murder, that is central to why there is a dispute tag on this page. It is not as though there was not a pattern of executing black Americans during World War II for interactions white Americans were not hanged for.

"Under a unique agreement between the American forces and the British government, US troops were tried by the Americans, under US law on British soil. This happened even when the crimes were permitted against British citizens. Rape was not a capital offence in Britain at the time, but it became one for black soldiers accused of raping the local British girls.In many cases the short trials were based on flimsy evidence and then followed by swift executions.[4]

"In their 1995 study - Executing US Soldiers in England, WWII: The Power of Command Influence and Sexual Racism, J. Robert Lilly and J. Michael Thomson concluded that: “The Visiting Forces Act of 1942 permitted the American military to use capital punishment in England as an extension of discipline...... Its purpose was to control a perceived danger: the socializing of African American troops with British females, and the possible explosive violence between Caucasian and African American troops.” ...[5]

"When Private Leroy Henry was accused of raping a woman from Bath he was saved from execution only after over 30,000 local people wrote to Eisenhower to protest the man's innocence. Most African American troops accused of sexual assaults on white locals were not so lucky. Of the 18 soldiers executed in England during the war 11 were African-American and three were Hispanic-American. Nine of those executed were convicted of murder, six of rape, and three of both." [6]

Either prove the claim or take it out. Fact-challenged is fact-challenged. Provide evidence or leave it out. Those are the rules. Skywriter 00:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It's already cited in the article. Numerous sources report this, including the author of a book on this case. Whether he was "really guilty", whether or not it was "right", whether or not a white soldier would've been hanged for it, whether or not those Italian girls had it coming for being white - that is all irrelevant. We are reporting what he was executed for. Cited fact stays. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 00:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The assertions are in fact already sourced appropriately, Skywriter. As the disputing party, the onus is on you to produce a reliable source that indicates the information about Louis Till is untrue or irrelevant. You have not done so. None of the references you have provided even mention Louis Till, only speak to an institutionalized racism in American military culture circa WWII, which no one is disputing. Ford MF 00:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, fordmadoxfraud. You don't introduce rumor with the expectation that you will be believed. Facts must be substantiated. So far, you introduce rumor and expect readers to accept it on faith alone. That hasn't happened. Provide evidence or delete the rumor.Skywriter 01:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether to take you seriously or not. There are a lot of trolls on these articles lately and this would be an excellent one.
Like we've been saying, it's already cited. We have sources, they are in there. The author of a book sympathetic to Emmett says that's what happened (and so do many other sources). In the absence of a counter-citation that's more credible, this needs to stay. It's part of the story. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 03:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
After checking his/her edit history, I don't at all think Skywriter is a troll, just a well-meaning contributor pushing a POV unsupported by the citations. Ford MF 03:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Also I wonder if we couldn't get a few more editors' voices here, since I think the addition of the {{disputed}} tag is unproductive and premature. If the people who watch and regularly edit this article cannot come to a consensus, that's fine, and we should all discuss it here. If not, I think the "dispute" here falls under the purview of undue weight and the tag should go. Ford MF 03:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of any more voices on this subject, here's an offer for compromise-- The item on Louis Till relies on 2 links to a discussion in which the film maker states that the peripheral subject of Louis Till is off topic to the subject of what happened to Emmitt Till. In that I concur. There are no details proving what is claimed about Louis Till. It distracts from this article and since Emmitt Till, did not know Louis Till, and Louis Till therefore had no effect on his life, I propose that all discussion of Louis Till, except naming him as Emmitt's father, be moved to the Louis Till page. In the absence of agreement, I propose that this issue go to mediation.Skywriter 04:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree. The supposed circumstances of Till's death are very much germane to Emmett's life (or death, at least). Again, (again, again) the story here is not a documentation of the elder Till's crimes, but the fact that a segregationist senator leaked such info to the press in an attempt to discredit the Till family to prejudice the public against them at a time when Till's murder case was going to trial. That is very much an issue that should be covered in article. If you are as similarly unmovable as I am, I'm fine with arbitration (though I have a feeling it'll be declined as premature). Frankly, I'd prefer some other editors on this article chime in with opinions, since the raging debate seems limited to three editors, tops. Ford MF 14:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Significant biographical facts about someone's parents are always relevant enough for a mention, especially since this issue was in the news at the time of the trial. And how is merely linking to the Louis Till article a compromise? -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 16:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please lock this article away from editing by the public

When I looked at this article this morning, some of the words had changed to things I would not even repeat out loud. It appears this article is a chronic target of cheap vandalism, and I recommend protecting it--at least protecting it from users who are not registered, e-mail authenticated, and logged in at the time they change things.

Liam Brown (sorry, I'm not going to put up my e-mail here, seeing the mess I saw on the article this page is about.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.115.126 (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emmett's great uncle's name

. . . Was Mose, not Moses. It even refers to him as such later in the article, which should be enough to corroborate my apparent fiat (I can provide further corroboration if necessary). I wasn't trying to vandalize; please don't revert it back again. --AOEU Warrior (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I found a reliable source[7] that confirms that his name was Moses and have changed the name back. Jons63 (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. I've personally always seen it as Mose, but PBS seems to vacillate between the two: [8] and [9]. My guess would be that he was generally known as Mose, but was either called Moses on his birth certificate or in more formal situations. In any case, the LOC is pretty legit, so I won't revert it once more. --AOEU Warrior (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Relevant obit in this week's news

John Ed Cothram, the former sheriff's deputy who investigated the murder, & testified for the prosecution of his indicted murderers, died 15 March, according to today's edition of my local paper. -- llywrch (talk) 06:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Emmett_Till"
Personal tools