Talk:Emmett Till/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

"Falsely accused" aspect mentioned in the "Encounter between Till and Carolyn Bryant" section

As currently seen in the "Encounter between Till and Carolyn Bryant" section, an editor added the following: "According to historian Timothy Tyson, Bryant admitted in a 2008 interview that substantial parts of her testimony were false." But this is already covered in a subsection of the "Later events" section. Having it in both sections is overkill. Not to mention..."falsely accused" is already in the first sentence of the lead.

I was aware of the recent RfC regarding "falsely accused," but I didn't feel like commenting on it at the time. If I had, I would have leaned toward the side of not having too much WP:Recentism on this matter...although I would have supported the confession being somewhere in the lead (and a section on it lower; obviously, the article should mention it somewhere in the lead and have a section on it). I would have also noted that all we have for this false accusation aspect is Timothy Tyson's word. I'm not stating that he is lying. For years, it was highly suspected that Emmet Till never flirted with the woman. But I am wary of going on one historian's word that another admitted to lying. If we know the admission to be fact, we should not need "According to." See WP:In-text attribution.

And another thing: The lead says "falsely accused of flirting with a white woman." In the subsection of the "Later events" section, it states "she said with respect to the physical assault on her, or anything menacing or sexual, that that part isn't true." Flirting is not always sexual. So is her confession referring to flirting with her, grabbing her and being sexual with her? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Your first paragraph issue was already discussed above. It's important context to have the recantation mentioned when the trial testimony is discussed in detail. Please refer to the fuller comments in the section above the RfC on "testimony". (And as to another issue you raised, it is stated as "according to" and it is one sentence in that section). As for your last paragraph, the first paragraph lead is different from how I !Voted in the RfC -- among other things, I think the use of "flirted" is euphemism (or imprecise), so should not be there, so I can't help you with that, other than to note many people went the other way. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

It is not important to have that bit there for context, when the context is already in the lead and already has a full section devoted to it. It is unneeded and redundant in the "Encounter between Till and Carolyn Bryant" section. And as for "according to" being used there, that wording hardly matters when the lead currently straight up states "falsely accused." The close of the RfC did not conclude with any particular wording. It's stated there that consensus was for a change. And the change currently in the article, for the lead, is "falsely accused." And "flirting with a white woman" is the wording numerous sources use; so I don't mind that part. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course, it's important to to discuss the testimony when we discuss the testimony - and the testimony is discussed there in that section. Your pointing to multiple screens away in the lead and at the end of the article (where additional information is provided) is not putting it in context, it's taking it out of context, explicitly so, for anyone reading the section on the testimony. As for your other issues, the RfC closed, and suggested the way forward was proposals, so why have you not made a proposal? Option D from the RfC might give you a start on your proposal. As for "flirted", your OP seemed to complain that "falsely accused of flirting" is inaccurate or unclear because that was not the clear recantation of what he did.Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not important in that section whatsoever. It's overkill, and I've made my case for why. We clearly won't be agreeing on that, but I argue that readers are not going to miss "falsely accused" in the lead, and they probably won't miss the specific mention of the matter in the lead either. They certainly are not going to miss the "Admission that testimony against Till was false" heading that is clear as day in the table of contents. Removing the aforementioned text from the "Encounter between Till and Carolyn Bryant" section is not taking anything out of context. Anyone reading that section without that bit there would be reading it within the context of that time frame, and would get the reported confession on the matter afterward. The reported confession is not a direct aspect of the testimony. As for proposing text, nah; I can see that this matter is too contentious and that "falsely accused" is likely to be re-added to the first sentence even if removed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The "encounter between Till and Carolyn" is precisely the subject of the recantation and recantation of the testimony is a direct aspect of the testimony. We are writing about this and providing factual information in 2017. This is not a short story, where we pretend we don't know what is going on. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I can't agree that the content is needed in that section, or that it's a direct aspect. If I start to see it in history books, then maybe I will change my mind on that. There is no pretending that "we don't know what is going on"; I've already stated why. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The entire section on the "encounter between Till and Carolyn" is based on the fact, that the facts of the encounter are in dispute: "The facts of what took place in the store are still disputed." Neutral discussion of the factual dispute, 'Carolyn said one thing happened, and then later, it is reported, said no, that's not what happened' is NPOV. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Like I stated, we won't be agreeing. And our WP:NPOV policy is about weight; it is not about artificial or subjective balance. The "According to historian Timothy Tyson" aspect has enough weight in the lead and in its own section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing artificial or subjective about 'she said this happened, and she said this did not happen'. Those are facts. But 'she said this happened' but you don't want to say 'she also said this did not happen' in the section dedicated to what happened is the opposite of NPOV, it is skewing the evidence concerning what happened. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

It is subjective, and an example of artificial balance, to have that piece in that spot. It is completely unnecessary and poor article structure. I will continue to maintain that this piece, which is not even Bryant's words but rather an "According to" mention, does not belong there. I will not be changing my mind on that. So us repeating our views on it is futile. If there was not a whole section dedicated to this aspect -- a section that readers can easily spot -- I would feel differently. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

To the contrary, your argument seeks to subjectively and artificially separate the accounting of her statements on what happened creating a false balance in the section dedicated to what happened, and the questions about what happened. Your poor article structure claim is just stressing the basis for your argument is pushing subjectivity and artificiality in the POV service of not giving the reader all the evidence, when the evidence is introduced. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

And you can keep repeating that, and engage in WP:Recentism at every part of the article where the update is not needed; I won't be agreeing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The section contains Carolyn's statements about what happened in the store and Simeon Wright's statements about what happened in the store, so not being up front about all Carolyn's statements is unjustifiable, and can only be justified by POV pushing. And there is nothing recent about doubts concerning Carolyn's story, so the documenting of additional basis for that is not about recentism, at all, it is about the facts. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, doubts about a story is one thing. One (ONE) historian claiming that Bryant stated something, and then peppering that claim throughout the article (in the lead, in the aforementioned section and its own section, and maybe eventually elsewhere in the article) is indeed WP:UNDUE and WP:Recentism. I'm clearly not the only one who has argued this. If it's just in the lead and its own section, then it's not WP:UNDUE. I don't have any POV issue when it comes to Bryant or Till. It's not like I'm some white supremacist or similar. I do, however, have an issue with going on the lone word of what one historian stated, with no proof offered (I'm skeptical and wary like that, and I know that a number of historians have falsified matters in the past); that lone historian's word was recently reported. And because of this and everybody rejoicing over what he stated, editors let this article fall prey to WP:Recentism. For example, "flirting" means different things to different people. A person not making any sexual or physical advances on someone does not mean that the person did not flirt. More than once, boys and men have innocently flirted with me. I state "innocently" because I didn't find the comments sexual. By contrast, comments I've received from other boys (in this case, teenage boys) and men is what I would term sexual harassment. I'm not stating that Till innocently flirted with Bryant (back then, a black boy or black man even innocently flirting with a white woman was enough to get him hanged), but, given that scholarly sources use the phrasing "flirted with" for this case and the historian states that Bryant said "with respect to the physical assault on her, or anything menacing or sexual, that that part isn't true," it would be good to know if Bryant considered that Till innocently flirted with her. It would be good to know what "flirting" means in the context of the scholarly sources vs. the historian claim as to what Bryant stated.

Yes, you included "According to." But what is the point of "According to" when the first sentence of the lead currently states "falsely accused"? How can editors have the WP:Lead sentence state that Till was falsely accused, and then have the "Encounter between Till and Carolyn Bryant" section state "According to"? This is the type of sloppy writing I am talking about, and on a WP:GA no less. He either was falsely accused, or he wasn't. Or we're not sure. It's either simply a claim by a historian or it's a fact. To state that it is POV-pushing to not have this lone historian's claim in the section about the Bryant and Till encounter, when the lead currently states "falsely accused," additionally includes the lone historian's clam, and when there is an entire section dedicated to that lone historian's claim, is mostly lost on me. At present, with or without that piece in the "Encounter between Till and Carolyn Bryant" section, no reader is going to walk away from this article thinking that Bryant was correct. So your POV-pushing argument is invalid.

From what I see, the article needs some reorganization and not just with regard to including the historian piece in the "Encounter between Till and Carolyn Bryant" section. The "Bryant testified during the murder trial" paragraph should not even be in that section. It should be in the Trial section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Fine, get a consensus to reorganize the whole thing, but the current article contains a section of detailed recitation of everything that is said about what happened in the store - there just is no getting around that what Carolyn said in 2008 is about what happened in the store, whether you want to believe that historian or not. Carolyn did testify during the trial about what happened in the store but her testimony was not actually offered in the trial to the jury because the judge excluded it - it was however widely reported.

As for the lead, I have said I am all for being open to changing it, you just have to make a proposal.--Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree on including the piece in that section, but I see your point about not including the Bryant testimony in the Trial section. Above, I see that you, Markbassett, Pincrete, SlackerInc1 and Tryptofish have also discussed whether or not to use "flirted with." Again, the issue in this respect is that the words "flirted with" are used by scholarly sources...but the historian claim uses different wording. This makes it confusing when it comes to what we should use, as, like both you and I noted, "flirting" can be a broad term. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Responding to the ping, I'm very receptive to finding a less euphemistic alternative for "flirting", but I have trouble thinking of an alternative that does not end up sounding disparaging about Till. I don't have a problem with it being in the "Encounter" section in addition to elsewhere on the page, because it is directly relevant to the encounter. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

When it comes to the lead paragraph, I'm also having an issue with the inconsistency. Why are we framing the lead sentence as a fact matter with "falsely accused," but are then leaving it as an "According to" matter later on? "According to" specifically lends doubt to the claim; see WP:In-text attribution. I think that because more sources use "flirted with" than the words reported by Tyson, and because "flirted with" is historical wording regarding the case, we should retain that. My solution would not have been to add "falsely accused," though, since Till was not savagely murdered by the men with the knowledge that he was falsely accused and since we do not know if Bryant did consider Till to be flirting with her. Tyson's reported words speak nothing of flirting; they seem to focus on sexual harassment. So, in that respect only (disregarding any possible POV-pushing motive), I understand why SlackerInc1 made this edit. I would have opted to retain "flirted with" without "falsely accused," and then included the following in the lead paragraph as well: "In a 2008 interview, first made public in 2017, Carolyn Bryant disclosed that she had fabricated her testimony that Till had made verbal or physical advances towards her." Or something like that. Right now, that piece is buried in the fifth paragraph. The lead currently has six paragraphs. Wikipedia articles usually only have four, per WP:Lead. I don't see how including that sentence in the lead paragraph is any more recentism than "falsely accused." I understand why "falsely accused" is there, though: People feel that Bryant lied about everything, and this also means that Till never flirted with her. The older sources are also likely using "flirted with" to mean sexual advancements. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Milam and Bryant "returned to Mississippi" from where?

In the fourth paragraph of the lede, we find the following sentence: "After Milam and Bryant's acquittal, they returned to Mississippi, but were boycotted, threatened, attacked and humiliated by locals; Milam died in 1980 at the age of 61, and Bryant died in 1994 at the age of 63." I can't find any support in the rest of the article for the idea that they had left Mississippi during(?!?) or shortly after the trial, at least not in any significant way that would require stating that they "returned". It seems they left Mississippi after being boycotted etc., and perhaps returned even later on, but that would still make the implied timeline of this sentence inaccurate.

Shouldn't it read something more like: "After Milam and Bryant's acquittal, they initially remained in Mississippi, but were boycotted, threatened, attacked and humiliated by locals, leading them to unsuccessfully attempt to evade their infamy in Texas for several years before returning to Mississippi; Milam died in 1980 at the age of 61, and Bryant died in 1994 at the age of 63." That's getting pretty long, though, I know. SlackerInc1 (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I thought that "they returned to Mississippi" was odd wording too, so generally I would agree -also the body suggest it was the admission that really got people mad (Perhaps, we do not have to include in the lead anything about where they were so: After Milam and Bryant admitted the murder in Look magazine, they were periodically subjected to boycotts, threats, attacks and humiliations by others; Milam died in 1980 at the age of 61, and Bryant died in 1994 at the age of 63) Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Wording in the lead regarding Tills body needs to be changed

The lead states, "Problems identifying Till had affected the trial, possibly contributing to Bryant's and Milam's acquittals." That statement is not accurate. Reading the FBI report that includes a transcript of the trial makes it very plain that there was no question that the body was that of Till. The article correctly states, "The defense's primary strategy was arguing over the identity of the body pulled from the river. They said it could not be positively identified, and they questioned whether Till was dead at all." But in truth there was no "problem"; almost everyone, including most of those on the jury, knew very well that the body was that of Till. I'd like to see that wording changed. Gandydancer (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The defence also argued that the two men had 'dropped off' Till while he was still alive, ie that there was no evidence of them killing him, merely driving him away from Moses' house. Pincrete (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Using this information: "in court, the defense team questioned whether the body pulled out of the river with a fan tied to its neck with barbed wire was actually Emmett, or even black," I have tweaked the wording. Gandydancer (talk) 13:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I've rephrased slightly as we don't know that ID-ing the body was the reason/sole reason for exhumation, they may have wanted to do other forensic tests. Pincrete (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

New Investigation?

See, [1] and [2] [3] there are reports of looking at the Till case again and other closed civil rights murder cases. Should we mention? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I would say not yet, this appears to be 'calls for' at the moment, if it happens, yes imo.Pincrete (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The last says the investigation was reopened May 10. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, I only read the first two.Pincrete (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I am a bit on the fence about this; obviously reliable sources have found it noteworthy. That being said, it's very inchoate and recent. I guess I would take a "wait and see" approach, but if a sentence were added mentioning the "reopening" it certainly wouldn't bother me. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that it is very noteworthy and should be added. Gandydancer (talk) 11:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

If an official investigation has been opened into this specific case, then it absolutely should be included. If its a general investigation, or an "unofficial" investigation by some advocacy group or some such, then it should not. The NYT article is paywalled, so I cannot read it. However as far as I can see it is the only article claiming that the DOJ has actually re-opened the investigation. I would think an actual re-opening would have gotten more coverage though. In light of all the other sources which read "considering" or some such, it makes me doubt the accuracy of the lone NYT story. ResultingConstant (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

That's odd, I have no idea why the nyt is paywalled for you but not for me and that's not a reason to doubt its accuracy -- the other sources are from before the investigation was reopened -- at any rate can you view [4]: "Assistant Attorney General Acosta announced that the Justice Department and the Mississippi district attorney for the 4th Judicial District are reopening the investigation of the 1955 murder of teenager Emmitt Till." Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Lynching section suggestion

I would like to remove this paragraph from the Lynching section.

Confusion about Till's whereabouts and lack of a positive identification of the body retrieved from the river compounded issues in the case that eventually influenced the trial. Hodding Carter in the Delta Democrat-Times, a local Mississippi newspaper, reported that Till may have been hidden by his relatives or perhaps returned to Chicago for his safety.

I have been unable to verify that Carter held that position - perhaps it was mentioned in passing...or something. Carter sounds like he was very liberal and the info that I have found has been more like this:

After the verdict, Hodding Carter, publisher of the Delta Democrat-Times in Greenville, “who perhaps more than any other editor could see through the racial phantasmagoria, understood that the kidnapping confession ‘meant nothing to the grand jury. Unfortunately, it is going to mean a great deal to Mississippi and none of it will be good.’” Carter tied the failure to indict for kidnapping to Mississippi’s “racially-inspired terror” that, in turn, contributed to the state’s declining population and depressed economy (p. 146). http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=22799

At any rate, as far as I can tell the "confusion" about the ID of the body was manufactured by the lawyers of the defendants. ...which is not to say that it wasn't believed to some extent, in the same way that we have plenty of people in the U.S. that believe Trump's tweets, etc. Gandydancer (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

And this:

When Emmett’s bloated corpse was pulled from the muddy Tallahatchie River just ten days later on Wednesday morning, August 31, his great uncle was able to confirm his identification largely from Louis Till’s signet ring. When doubts later surfaced as to whether or not the body was Emmett Till’s—a doubt raised by Sheriff H.C. Strider and put forward by Milam and Bryant’s legal defense team—Hodding Carter, Jr., editor and publisher of the Delta Democrat-Times (Greenville) was quick to remind everyone of the ring: it would take some kind of elaborate (and impossible) planning for a planted corpse to have such a ring. Later, when it was discovered that Louis Till had been hanged in Italy for raping two white women and murdering a third, not a few white Mississippians intoned, “like father, like son.” http://tillmemoryproject.com/winona-train-depot/ Gandydancer (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems that there are no objections to removing this paragraph. Gandydancer (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

What Bryant can't remember

Flyer22 Reborn, re this, the "all these parts of her testimony were false" refers to the specific accusations earlier in the para (attempt to touch, unprintable word, been with white women) made at the trial, all these Bryant admitted were lies. I'm fairly sure that when pressed she claimed she couldn't remember what actually happened, not that she couldn't remember all. I don't think this is logically inconsistent, but more important, I believe it is an accurate record of what she later said. Consistent/inconsistent becomes academic of course if in 2008 she still wished to be evasive about some things. I don't object to someone making the phrasing clearer, but I'm fairly sure that Bryant claimed to not remember, not to only partially remember. Pincrete (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC) .... this is the text of Vanity Fair:-

Carolyn—in 2007, at age 72—confessed that she had fabricated the most sensational part of her testimony. “That part’s not true,” she told Tyson, about her claim that Till had made verbal and physical advances on her. As for the rest of what happened that evening in the country store, she said she couldn’t remember.

I think we are both part right, and I've modified slightly. Pincrete (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

My mistake, since the 'Bryant 2007 retraction' is better covered later, the text here should probably be minimal.Pincrete (talk) 11:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that minimal is much better for the lead. Gandydancer (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not a lead matter we were disputing, Gandydancer. It's the text that was in the "Encounter between Till and Carolyn Bryant" section as compared to what is stated in the "Admission that testimony against Till was false" section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out my mistake Flyer22 Reborn. Gandydancer (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Article comments re Till's appearance

The article states: "In 1955, Emmett was stocky and muscular; he weighed about 150 pounds (68 kg) and stood 5 feet 4 inches (1.63 m) tall. Till was only 14 years old, but whites in Mississippi claimed that he looked like an adult.[14]" That ref is from the Look mag article--read it and see if you feel that it's an appropriate ref for anything. I don't. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 04:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Look, actually says that 'Preacher' (Moses) said 'he looked like an adult'. Either way, I can't see what it adds. Till was a little bigger than Mrs B, a whole lot smaller than either of the two men who abducted and killed him. Pincrete (talk) 13:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that Wright supposedly said that...of course what about all those other direct quotes...I never thought that Look would have stooped so low...it was a different day and a different time though...bias is no longer so blatant, though still there. Anyway, glad to see that you agree. Gandydancer (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

See no disagreement, I deleted that info. Gandydancer (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see that mention of his height is that important. It kind of comes across as a justification for killing him, as if to state that he looked like a man instead of a boy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't mind the initial bit, but the "Till was only 14 years old, but whites in Mississippi claimed that he looked like an adult" piece is a bit odd, in the sense that it can seem like it's entertaining a justification claim. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Everyone in that piece is introduced in the same way (name, age, weight, height, build)! Pincrete (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you stating that you don't get a justification feel from the passage? In the case of Till, it's not simply giving his height, build, etc., it's stating "Till was only 14 years old, but whites in Mississippi claimed that he looked like an adult." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

It's disputed who said it, but it hardly seems to matter, especially as we have a photo. It does read as implying justification. Pincrete (talk) 07:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Encounter between Till and Carole Bryant section

Article contains this paragraph:

The facts of what took place in the store are still disputed. According to several versions, including comments from some of the kids standing outside the store when Till walked in,[26] Till may have wolf-whistled at Bryant.[27] Following his disappearance, a newspaper account stated that Till sometimes whistled to alleviate his stuttering.[28]

I'd like to replace this para because without fail accounts, both black and white, old and new, say he whistled at her when she went out to the car to get the gun. As for the stuttering, this is almost never mentioned and I do not see it important enough to include here. (BTW, I already removed the sentence about perhaps whistling when he bought gum as suggested by his mom.) Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Although details might be better amended, I think the para is useful, details about what happened are/have been disputed. Pincrete (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I waited three days and it seemed that there was no disagreement. You did reply to my other post so I know that you saw this one. It seemed to me that there was no disagreement about removing that info. Gandydancer (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I also think that the bit is useful, per Pincrete. I haven't been much paying attention to all the new discussions on this talk page, mainly because I'm busy with matters on and off Wikipedia and turn up to respond to previous or new disputes, check on articles, and then disappear for a day or two again (usually two to four days). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, per NickCT's comment in the RfC and similar comments by others, a lot of sources state "whistled" or "wolf-whistled." So we should be reporting this as well. We shouldn't be excluding "whistled" or "wolf-whistled." So I think that both pieces you removed should be restored. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I restored the piece since there are two objections to the removal so far. I think we should discuss this first. If anything, I feel that the whistling and stuttering aspect adds to Till's defense. And that includes this bit. If Till was simply whistling with no sexual intent, which some people believe, that means that his whistle may have been wrongly interpreted as a wolf-whistle. Having been around stuttering people before, I can confirm that certain words can initially come out as a whistle. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding this comment (I was responding before you removed it), by "busy," I was simply explaining why I was not paying much, if any, attention to other discussions on the talk page. As for the stuff you removed, I thought that the whistling aspect had been removed in its entirety, but I see that it's still covered in the "In any event" paragraph. That paragraph only focuses on whistling, however. A number of sources note "wolf-whistling" as well, and that Bryant may have interpreted the whistle as a wolf-whistle. For example, this 2003 "Getting Away with Murder: The True Story of the Emmett Till Case" book, from Penguin, page 46, states, "When the boy saw her outside, she said he whistled at her, the two note 'wolf whistle,' before his friends pushed him into their pickup and drove away." So I'm stating that I think that both the whistling and wolf-whistling aspects, as well as the stuttering aspect, should stay. The stuttering aspect is important with regard to the whistle perhaps being misinterpreted by Bryant. This 2011 "Of War and Men: World War II in the Lives of Fathers and Their Families" source, from University of Chicago Press, page 170, for example, states, "Some claimed that Till had made 'indecent advances' and wolf-whistled at a white woman, Carolyn Bryant, whose family owned the store. Emmett Till's mother, Mamie Till-Mobley, however, rejected this assertion, saying that her son sometimes whistled when he got stuck pronouncing a word (she gave, as an example, bubblegum)."

So I agree that "after he left the store" is more accurate. What I object to is removing any mention of "wolf-whistle" and the stuttering argument Till's mother's made. That stated, some witnesses stating that he whistled at her in the story should perhaps be kept since it seems to be supported by a reliable source in the article. I state "seems" because the source is a dead link. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

"Exit whistle" is mentioned later, this refers to (disputed) earlier whistle, I can't access the source so can't say how sound it is. Regardless of the whistle, the "we don't know exactly", seems important to say. Pincrete (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I noted that the "In any event" paragraph covers the part about Till apparently having whistled after exiting the store. I'm stating that it's important that we retain the wolf-whistle aspect and the counter by his mother, which is seen here and by the 2011 source I listed above. I don't much care if we retain the "whistled in the store" aspect. Like I noted, the "whistled after exiting the store" aspect seem more accurate. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Per my argument above, I've re-added (followup edit here) the mother's account of the pronunciation aspect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I very much agree that all this needs to be in the article, see my reference to Oxford's Encyclopedia, in the RfC. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)