Talk:Emmett Till

Timothy Tyson's claim she recanted is unsubstantiated.

The FBI was unable to substantiate his claim that she recanted her testimony and claimed Timothy Tyson himself made "inconsistent explanations" to the FBI. See: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/07/14/opinion/heres-proof-against-carolyn-bryant-donham-emmett-till-case-is-it-enough-convict-her/

The article presents his view as facts, but there is nothing to suggest it ever happened other than him saying so. Peppercats (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

This has many levels of complexity - Bryant's original testimony was not heard by the jury at the trial anyway. It was something of a PR exercise by the defense, so I don't know how that affects the legal position, but people widely use legal terms like 'recant', but I'm not sure if you can recant something that had no bearing on the verdict anyway, and may have had no legal status.

What we say is : According to historian Timothy Tyson, Bryant admitted to him in a 2008 interview that her testimony during the trial that Till had made verbal and physical advances was false.[46][47][48] Bryant had testified Till grabbed her waist and uttered obscenities but later told Tyson "that part's not true".[49] As for the rest of what happened, the 72-year-old stated she could not remember.[50] Bryant is quoted by Tyson as saying "Nothing that boy did could ever justify what happened to him".[51] However, the tape recordings that Tyson made of the interviews with Bryant do not contain Bryant saying this. In addition, Bryant's daughter-in-law, who was present during Tyson's interviews, says that Bryant never said it.[52][53].

I don't think our text presents Tyson claim of her "changing her story" as fact though, his version and the daughter in law's version are simply recorded. But even if Tyson is to be believed, Bryant remained vague about what DID happen, even as she withdrew the most sensationalist accusations against Till - accusations which no one had ever given much credit to anyway (that a 1950's 14-year old grabbed her waist, forced her against a wall while he claimed to have already had sexual relations with several white women - using a word Bryant was too 'genteel' to use in front of the reporters!). Pincrete (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

While there is no doubt that African American people suffered violent lynchings in the deep south in the 50s, this is a very sensitive case and objectivity is paramount as a result. In the 'Encounter between Till and Carolyn Bryant' section, surely the following section should be removed by Wikipedia as it is effectively misleading hearsay from a dubious source occurring 53 years after the incident, and anyway it is covered later on in the 'Claim that Carolyn Bryant recanted her testimony' section: According to historian Timothy Tyson, Bryant admitted to him in a 2008 interview that her testimony during the trial that Till had made verbal and physical advances was false. Bryant had testified Till grabbed her waist and uttered obscenities but later told Tyson "that part's not true". As for the rest of what happened, the 72-year-old stated she could not remember. Bryant is quoted by Tyson as saying "Nothing that boy did could ever justify what happened to him". However, the tape recordings that Tyson made of the interviews with Bryant do not contain Bryant saying this. In addition, Bryant's daughter-in-law, who was present during Tyson's interviews, says that Bryant never said it.

Also, Pincrete opines that "Bryant remained vague about what DID happen, even as she withdrew the most sensationalist accusations against Till - accusations which no one had ever given much credit to anyway (that a 1950's 14-year old grabbed her waist, forced her against a wall while he claimed to have already had sexual relations with several white women - using a word Bryant was too 'genteel' to use in front of the reporters!)." I'd have thought that Bryant was anything but vague. Her testimony never changed, unlike those of others. And why give her accusations no credit? - It's not that unusual for a 14 year old boy to reach physical and sexual maturity to the point where he is bigger and stronger than a five foot tall adult woman. 89.100.13.116 (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

What are the changes you want to make and where are the sources? If you give Bryant's original testimony any credit, you are the only one who does, and much of it is contradicted by the testimony of others. Pincrete (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

We are talking about the recantation here, aren't we? So the source for the changes I want made is Tyson himself; and my point is he's a dubious source - he has no record for her recantation (which her family denies), only dubious hearsay. So I think it's misleading that his contribution should be presented almost as facts. (If he could provide such incredible revelatory evidence of recantation, I'd want Bryant charged with perjury 53 years later. Otherwise, I'm surprised she didn't sue him for slander.) Again the changes I want made are that I feel the following sentences should be removed from the 'Encounter between Till and Carolyn Bryant' section - ie, According to historian Timothy Tyson, Bryant admitted to him in a 2008 interview that her testimony during the trial that Till had made verbal and physical advances was false. Bryant had testified Till grabbed her waist and uttered obscenities but later told Tyson "that part's not true". As for the rest of what happened, the 72-year-old stated she could not remember. Bryant is quoted by Tyson as saying "Nothing that boy did could ever justify what happened to him". However, the tape recordings that Tyson made of the interviews with Bryant do not contain Bryant saying this. In addition, Bryant's daughter-in-law, who was present during Tyson's interviews, says that Bryant never said it. Again, I have no problem with these sentences being presented later on in the separate section on her recantation, as they effectively are, as a sort of an aside or later development.

If you give Bryant's original testimony any credit, you are the only one who does. Am I really??

Futhermore, I still don't know why you think the Bryant testimony on what happened in the store was vague. She was quite clear and consistent about what happened to her. Do I also have a right to call Simeon Wright's account vague because what he recounts on coming into the store a minute later doesn't suit me?? (Even though I think what Wright says about what he witnessed in the store is actually more vague because he only stated decades later how he saw nothing lecherous yet, open to correction, he didn't state this at the time and should have.) 89.100.13.116 (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

There are many reasons why Bryant couldn't be prosecuted for perjury - including the fact that her testimony wasn't heard before a jury, only reporters, so I doubt that it was ever covered by perjury laws in the first instance. It probably had no more legal status than a statement on the court steps. Add to that the immense time-lag and as several articles make clear, the chances of her being successfully prosecuted were always near zero. Lying to reporters to save your husband from a murder charge is not a crime. We don't present Tyson's claim as fact, but since his claim eas widely covered by the press, it is part of the narrative and is presented as such. Tyson, Bryant and Bryant's daugter-in-law all could be lying or exaggerating partly or wholly. We can only present the story as it is covered in the balance of WP:RS, not try to litigate whose version is true. Her 'recantation' to Tyson is vague because it merely says some things didn't happen and she thinks Till didn't deserve what happened to him, it doesn't say anything about what did happen, not even confirm any previous claims.

I'm not going to continue this discussion, you appear to think that WP should be acting as 'judge and jury' in this matter - which we don't do. We simply reflect coverage of the case in the majority of sources. If you want to write an article for a publisher elsewhere arguing that Bryant was telling the truth all along and Till did sexually assault and insult her, that's up to you - good luck with that. Even if you were right, I think you'd find it hard to persuade anyone that - even if he had had his hands all over her, and his words were grossly offensive - that he 'deserved' that fate. Pincrete (talk) 06:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Lots to unpack there but essentially yes, there's no point in continuing this discussion. I just reiterate that I think those sentences should be removed from the 'Encounter between Till and Carolyn Bryant' section in the interest of WP objectivity. Because for decades, the basic and misleading story goes that Emmett Till was killed for merely whistling at a white woman. But if we choose to #believeher, he was actually killed for something more serious - sexually assaulting a woman. We will never know what really happened in that store but whatever it was, it was serious and threatening enough for Bryant to storm out of the store to get her pistol.

And off course, I don't think Till 'deserved' that fate. That would make me no better than say, some historian lying about a recantation 53 years later to try and sell copies of his book. 89.100.13.116 (talk) 12:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

It sound like you do believe Till deserved his fate.

You keep dancing around words and making stinging accusations.

It is very common for racist white people to escalate situations with members of other races far far beyond what's necessary, then complain about the cowardness or savagry of their reactions to blatant murder threats. See how Emmett Till turned out for the crime of existing in the wrong direction. The sheer number of sources, legal documents, and character suicides from all involved in his murder so that we can posit that Till "Might" have not done anything in a way that doesn't smell of some hogwashed Reddit/Twitter post.

Considering that I don't agree with your proposed changes MayDay2099 (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

"It sound like you do believe Till deserved his fate."

No, I don't actually. I don't think sexual harassment or assault should carry a death sentence. And in the case of Emmett Till being a juvenile and his level of assault/harassment inside the store being threatening but not being that serious, I don't believe he should have really been punished at all, just cautioned perhaps. There's other complications like (akin to the modern day #metoo zeitgeist), maybe what Bryant considered threatening, Till thought was just flirting. Furthermore, if the store incident went to trial before the lynching, if I were the judge I'd have possibly acquitted Till because without CCTV or impartial witness testimony, there's no solid evidence Till committed any sexual harassment or assault, just effectively hearsay. Now I think it's perfectly reasonable to feel (as I do) that Till sexually harassed Bryant, more than just a mere whistle. She felt threatened enough to storm out to get her pistol for protection, and Wright must have had some good reason to go into the store to retrieve Till - Wright didn't purchase anything himself and he wasn't in there long enough to browse. That Bryant didn't keep the pistol at the counter in her store at all times, seems to suggest she never had any problems with customers previously - black or white.

But none of this is about me, or you, or whether or not I'm the racist that you emotively pronounce. It's about Wikipedia objectivity - or the lack of it in this case where they are effectively presenting an extremely dubious recantation claim by Tyson as though it were almost a fact. As I assume you're aware, that is what I've been discussing since the beginning and despite what you say, that is the only 'stinging accusation' I'm making here. Now I read this article from a reputable source where the author states about the dubious Tyson claim of recantation missing from his recording; "This is crucial information Tyson needs to explain in order to preserve his own credibility." (https://eu.clarionledger.com/story/opinion/2018/08/29/she-lied-he-died-not-so-fast-emmett-till-expert-says/1085520002/) . Well, for some strange reason, Wikipedia don't seem to think Tyson lacks credibility. So I ask you the question, do you think Tyson's explosive claim of a recantation lacks credibility? If not (seeing as you disagree with my proposed changes), why not? 137.43.106.63 (talk) 10:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

What exactly happened in the store is not known - or now- knowable. Simplistic accounts such as the wolf-whistle, have no more evidence than some mildly cheeky or misunderstod gesture. The idea that Till would be either confident enough or aggressive enough to have sexually touched her, is not supported by those who knew him in Chicago, who record him as fairly gentlemanly, but in the end we don't know and can only conjecture according to our own pre-dispositions. There are anomalies in all accounts. The killers when they came for Till referred to his words, not any deeds, which would be surprising if they were incensed by any actual molestation by him.

One can also endorse or question Tyson's account of her 'recantation' - everybody has potential motives to have misheard/misremembered/misunderstood - but we aren't ever going to know now, unless the unlikely event of Tyson or her d-in-law changing their mind. We present the various accounts, interrogating them isn't our business nor likely to yield anything very productive IMO. Pincrete (talk) 10:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

"What exactly happened in the store is not known".

I agree, I've basically alluded to this twice in my previous posts."

"Simplistic accounts such as the wolf-whistle".

I've also alluded that I don't think the whistle was serious, even if it did happen. It's what happened in the store is my focus.

"The idea that Till would be either confident enough or aggressive enough to have sexually touched her, is not supported by those who knew him in Chicago, who record him as fairly gentlemanly".

And I'm sure if asked, those who knew Roy and Carolyn Bryant in Money, Mississippi, would also give a glowing character reference of a couple incapable of the wrongdoing. Should we believe them?? 137.43.106.63 (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't recall Till's family going on a violent rampage over the very real death of Emmett. Only Roy, Carolyn, and possible 13 others murdering a child over an imagined offence, lying about it, admitting to is all high and mighty, then lying about it again.

That's why, generally, RS believe Till's family's recollections of Emmett and not the Bryants' own self righteous depictions of themselves. If wikipedia existed in the 50s perhaps your perspective would be taken seriously. MayDay2099 (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The "child" had like 50 pounds on Carolyn and was much taller Pepper-0 (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I asked the Wikipedian exactly this earlier when he/she stated that, "Bryant accusations, no one had ever given much credit to anyway (that a 1950's 14-year old grabbed her waist, forced her against a wall...)." Why give her accusations no credit? - It's not that unusual for a 14 year old boy to reach physical and sexual maturity to the point where he is bigger and stronger than a five foot tall adult woman. Which was the case here. 137.43.106.63 (talk) 11:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The last bit actually isn't so, despite finding the men guilty, they were socially excluded for the rest of their time in the area (because of the trouble they had bought on the community presumably). The two men certainly had a local reputation for excess. But neither of us will ever know for certain their mostivation/justification, except we do know the scale of their violence to Till - which is unarguably disproportionate to even the greatest imaginable offence by him, and their total absence of remorse. Pincrete (talk) 13:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Carolyn Bryant was also physically involved and appears to have successfully convinced the masses otherwise in the sands of history. By accusing a black child of sexual crimes, she essesntially pointed a loaded gun at him. She knew this. Luckily we have reliable sources to allude to the perspective that, via personal experience with those types of white folk, I consider to be the objective truth. MayDay2099 (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Again, there are indicators that Bryant was not the person who told the men about the initial incident. Pincrete (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but will MayDay2099 consider this to be the 'objective truth'?? 137.43.107.142 (talk) 10:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, if we are going to construct a character profile of those involved based on the descriptions of those who knew them, then according to Wikipedia this is what Emmett's mother had to say about her own son: "She recalled that Emmett was industrious enough to help with chores at home, although he sometimes got distracted. His mother remembered that he did not know his own limitations at times. Following the couple's separation, Bradley visited Mamie and began threatening her. At eleven years old, Emmett, with a butcher knife in hand, told Bradley he would kill him if the man did not leave. Usually, however, Emmett was happy. He and his cousins and friends pulled pranks on each other"

I think his mother's description is quite illuminating, and I can draw from this a profile of a teenager quite capable of doing what he was accused of in the store - he certainly didn't seem like the shy, retiring type!

"Emmett was industrious enough to help with chores at home, although he sometimes got distracted".This could quite easily translate as a mother's polite way of stating publicly that Emmet was fairly prone to disobedience.

"he did not know his own limitations at times." Could easily translate as, he was rambunctious.

"At eleven years old, Emmett, with a butcher knife in hand, told Bradley he would kill him if the man did not leave." What we have here is a serious tough nut alpha male kid who doesn't scare easily, and he's only eleven! Are such teens more likely to engage in risky behaviour?

He and his cousins and friends pulled pranks . Well, I might put it that he played something of a prank inside the Bryant store. But possibly what he thought was harmless fun, this petite woman five inches smaller than him and on her own, regarded it as threatening. 137.43.107.142 (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

We can construct 100s of possibilities based on our own preferences and prejudices - but WP has no place for any of them, only reliably sourced facts. Pincrete (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

... and that's exactly why I'm telling WP that Carolyn Bryant's 'recantation' is not a reliably sourced fact. She denies she ever recanted, and there's no evidence she ever recanted. Yet WP presents it as a fact, as I've outlined in my posts from two weeks ago. But there's not much more I can add, that doesn't include us going around in circles. 89.100.13.116 (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Except we don't present the 'recant' as a fact, but as a claim by Tyson and it wasn't Bryant who denied saying it, but her daughter-in-law. It isn't even really a 'recant' since she had, or claimed to have, forgotten most of what happened, merely an admission that the punishment was excessive and the claims about his behaviour exaggerated . We aren't going to investigate who was telling the truth, doing so would be fruitless. Pincrete (talk) 04:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

it wasn't Bryant who denied saying it, but her daughter-in-law.

Yes, Carolyn Bryant denied the recantation alright. Did you not know?! It's all here in the DOJ's website:

The woman however, when asked about the alleged recantation, denied to the FBI that she ever recanted her testimony and provided no information beyond what was uncovered during the previous federal investigation. Although lying to the FBI is a federal offense, there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she lied to the FBI when she denied having recanted to the professor. There is insufficient evidence to prove that she ever told the professor that any part of her testimony was untrue. Although the professor represented that he had recorded two interviews with her, he provided the FBI with only one recording, which did not contain any recantation. In addition, although an assistant transcribed the two recordings, neither transcript contained the alleged recantation. The professor also provided inconsistent explanations about whether the missing recording included the alleged recantation or whether, instead, the woman made the key admission before he began recording the interview. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-officials-close-cold-case-re-investigation-murder-emmett-till 89.100.13.116 (talk) 22:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Well of course Bryant would deny it. Adding that she denied recanting wouldn't add anything of substance to the article. All that matters is what other sources say. Please refer to WP:MANDY

Notice how the article only says that Bryant's daughter'' said Bryant never recanted. I'm new here, but that appears to be the acceptable alternative. Correct me if I am wrong please. MayDay2099 (talk) 23:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Well of course Bryant would deny it.

Why would Bryant recant on something only to deny the recantation afterwards? What does she have to gain, other than going out of her way to make her own life hard?

Notice how the article only says that Bryant's daughter said Bryant never recanted. I'm new here, but that appears to be the acceptable alternative. Correct me if I am wrong please

No, you're right, her daughter also denied that her mother recanted. In fact, the entire family did. 89.100.13.116 (talk) 00:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Why would Bryant recant on something only to deny the recantation afterwards? What does she have to gain, other than going out of her way to make her own life hard?

If my words and actions resulted in the death of a child, even if I felt I was 100% justified, and I admitted to potentially exaggerating my accusations, then learned a large swath of people considered me very uncool for what happened ~ 60 years ago, I might watch what I say.

Or maybe I'm 75 years old and might have misspoken. At least in my POV

That's a reasonable situation where Bryant might say one thing, then take it back.

No, you're right, her daughter also denied that her mother recanted. In fact, the entire family did.

This is devolving into a senseless arguement. We should anchor back to your suggestion or stop talking altogether

Correct. Which is why the article mentions the family denied this. Not Bryant herself. MayDay2099 (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Not to mention the mere possibility of her (A) straight lying or (B) exaggerating created such huge reaction and a renewal of interest toward this murder.

Even if she did tell the truth of what Emmett did to her (Which she did not) Tyson's claim itself generated so much media buzz and social commentary on all the incidences where a white woman did in fact lie on a blacck child, teen, or man, that we simply must include Tyson's claim and reactions to said claim in the article.

Many believe it to be fact. Including me. But it is not presneted as fact and the whole article makes it clear there are many perspectives based on multiple accounts, all in which are honored in some way. Take issue with them? MayDay2099 (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Many believe it to be fact. Including me.''

Facts by their nature are not faith based. You don't just 'believe' them. They are or they aren't. But as I told you earlier, well known Till scholar Devery Anderson (and the DOJ) believes that Tyson's recantation claim lacks credibility whereas you state its a fact. So who do I believe, you Mayday2099, or well established Emmet Till scholar Devery Anderson?

there are many perspectives based on multiple accounts, all in which are honored in some way. Take issue with them?

I would take issue with them if they were dubious and not relegated significantly further down the article to a separate section like the 'Later Developments' section, so they don't mislead readers into thinking they have credibility they don't deserve, like that recantation that you believe is a fact. For example, there are many conspiracy theories on the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. It would be remiss of WK to put these at the forefront along with the official version when explaining what happened that day. But it's perfectly fine for WK to confine them to a separate section further down the article on JFK conspiracy theories. 89.100.13.116 (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I can explain to you why my opinion is the way it is but wikipedia isn't the place for it.

Point is, Reliable Sources say that Tyson claims that Bryant admitted to making everything up. Cue a major reaction from people who are angry about Emmett Till's murder. That is why this information is in wikipedia. It is notable.

When conspiracy theories and ideas that Bryant was a Sexual Assualt victim surface to the point of a major media reaction, regardless whether or not people agree, feel free to bring that source here and I will personally add it into the article for you.

Let's try not to devolve into a further opinion based arguement. Please funnel your responses to a single thread. I admit my opinion has no place here, but I didn't open this discussion with my own either. Just continued something I should not have egged on. MayDay2099 (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Must be noted

During this time in history the south was dominated by the democratic party and it should considered in the telling of this gruesome tragedy, doing otherwise would make this story basically a false depiction of a historical event… 2603:6080:EB09:FDC:A55E:E118:2F8F:90DE (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Kindly explain the relevance and who thinks this important? Pincrete (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Photo of Emmett Till in his Casket

I think it appropriate that there should be a photo of the battered body of Emmett Till in his casket on this wikipedia page, especially in view of the fact that Carolyn Bryant died this year without retracting her belief that she was a victim. https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/woman-center-emmett-till-lynching-admits-she-fabricated-testimony-1603602#slideshow/396896 Timtak (talk) 07:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, there is a photo already in this article with Till's body, although someone changed it to one including his mother and her future husband at center, instead of one focused on the body, perhaps that was not a great call, but it is there. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Racists and propagandists at Wiki

I’ve watched the movie titled Till produced by Orion Pictures. I went online to find more information about Emmmit Till, the 14-year-old young man who was murdered by racists in Mississippi in 1955 because of his skin color, the boy about whom the movie was made. I was disappointed to find that the whoever wrote about the story for your website about young Mr. Till still felt compelled to use language to segregate Americans in our country who happen to have brown, dark, or black skin as African Americans.

I have a good friend who is an immigrant from South Africa, obviously part of the continent of Africa. His skin happens to be white. He is Jewish and has relatives who were murdered in the Holocaust. Once he came to America and became a citizen here, he was an American. He is an American, not a Jewish American despite his Jewish ancestry. Since my friend is quite literally from Africa (he was born on that continent), do we refer to him as African-American? Heavens, no, we don’t! White people in the US only reserve that distinction for Americans who’s skin happens to be dark.

Are Americans of Chinese ancestry patronizingly referred to as Asian-Americans or Chinese-Americans? Do we refer to immigrants from Australia as Australian-Americans? No. Again, black Americans are the only people that white Americans choose to continue segregating in this idiotic way.

Part of what is sick and sad about the racism still practiced by people who choose to call human beings by names intended to distinguish them by their race is how readers of this comment will respond. So fixated upon race are the sycophants who control the online plantation commonly referred to as Wikipedia and other such outlets of white guilt, that MY race must, in their minds, factor into how to respond. What race is this person? You must know this in order to know exactly how I am to be insulted. If I am black, I am to be regarded with patronizing respect for my opinion, only to be ignored. If I am white, I should just be ignored and thought of as someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about - why? - again, because of race.

Please STOP insisting that Americans who happen to be black must be given their own special moniker in our country so we know that the American being referred to has more melanin in their skin, eyes and hair than Americans of other racial backgrounds. It’s condescending, it’s obnoxious, and it’s racist. Who knows, maybe it’s about time you idiots start trying to work for the colorblind ideal that MLK dreamed about rather than CONSTANTLY dividing people based upon the color of their skin. Maybe?

Yeah, I didn’t think so either.

Emmitt Till made the fatal mistake of speaking to a white woman as a fellow human being. He thought she was pretty and he said so. He was murdered for having the temerity to think he was equal to a white person… almost a century after a Civil War was fought, in part, on whether America’s slaves should be considered individuals with full Rights under the Constitution. And still to this day, certain white people who think themselves superior cannot seem to let go of the idea that the American status of people of a racial background different from theirs needs to be given a hyphen.

In answer to two of my previous two questions. Yes, some white people here do refer to Americans of Asian descent as Asian-Americans. And no, they do not do the same when it comes to people who’ve immigrated here from Australia. Hmm.

Please refer to Americans as Americans. Jdaitkins (talk) 05:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Jdaitkins, we don't refer to a person's race unless it is relevant, bordering on necessary for understanding. Emmett (not Emmitt btw) Till's race was the main reason he was killed and it would be avoiding the issue to not make that clear from the beginning. I don't know how the film presents Till's encounter with Bryant, but actually nobody knows what he did or said to her. It may well have been even more innocent than what you describe.

Denzel Washington's article simply calls him 'American', despite many of his most famous acting roles being distinctly 'black' ones. Helen Suzman is simply a South African and her white-ness and Jewish-ness are barely mentioned and not treated as 'defining' her, but it would be evading the issue to not mention that Nelson Mandela was "the country's first black head of state". His race defined his historical role, even if it did not define him personally. Pincrete (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Tidying up this talk section?

Apologies- I don't know the protocol about deleting messy talk sections but this one is a hot mess. There are two opinion-based discussions about the topic rather than the article. This isn't the place for them. Are we able to just delete them? It's not a good look for the website to be honest. Mr Blumenthal (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Mr Blumenthal, talk pages on 'hot' topics are not infrequently toxic, so this one is relatively mild. Unless content is unequivocally offensive or wholly off-topic or obvious trolling, deleting is frowned on. The content automatically, periodically, self-archives (see top of page), but can be manually archived by copy-pasting to the most recent (highest number) archive if clearly redundant. Pincrete (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know; I still feel like I have a lot of Wikipedia etiquette to learn! Hope you had a nice Christmas :) Mr Blumenthal (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Anyone interested in copy editing?

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

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

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

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