Talk:Medgar Evers

Bobby DeLaughter

The final sentence about the prosecution of Byron De La Beckwith mentions unrelated corruption charges against DeLaughter. I would like to remove this as it bears no relevance to the assassination of Medgar Evers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.85.237.86 (talk) 04:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

With no dissenters I have done so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.85.237.86 (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Pop Culture References

Hi, Medgar Evers was featured in the 2011 movie, The Help, and his assassination figured prominently. That's what led me to this page. Coukd you please include something mentioning this? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.28.231 (talk) 03:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello 70: If you continue reading below my comment here to the end of this section, you will see why several editors (including me) take out references to The Help when they appear. Put simply, the film is not about Medgar Evers and is not part of his legacy. Evers' assassination is used as a minor plot point and is not related to the structure or movement of the film; it is something like a "casual mention" discouraged by the MOS. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 05:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Amazing work wiki, the list of songs in the "Assassination" section is almost as long as the description of the events. YOU GO GIRLS, keep those amazing priorities raging strong. Maybe we could instead include an "In pop culture" section or what have you, but it's up to you folk. walka walka walka I'm not sure if actual historical events are more important than the various works of entertainment they inspire to the majority of users here, and it's your place so run it however you please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.78.174 (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

One more to add, he was mentioned in Mad Men series 3 episode 5 80.7.79.102 (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Quite a lot of overlap has emerged between the section on assassination (which I would assume should just have info about the killing) and the section on pop culture, with songs and writings mentioned in the former. Lord Spring Onion (talk) 10:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

In terms of the pop culture section, I believe that anything within the realm of media that refers to Evers can be included. It is not to stay that the addition is of equal significance to other sections, such as "Legacy" but it does have it place on the page where wiki even defines pop culture to include "the totality of ideas, perspectives, attitudes, memes, images and other phenomena" that is given general consensus. As a result, the page should include the reference made to Evers' death in Mad Men or at least involve a discussion of it, and how it is somehow different from a reference made in a song or any other TV show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Everydayman22 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but not so - not at all. You are looking at the wrong article. Pop culture is a "definition" article; the operative guidelines appear in WP:POPCULTURE. Please note:

• "Exhaustive, indiscriminate lists are discouraged, as are passing references to the article subject."
• "However, passing mentions in books, television or film dialogue, or song lyrics should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources. For example, a brief reference in film dialogue may be notable if the subject responds to it in a public fashion—such as a celebrity or official quoted as expressing pleasure or displeasure at the reference."
• "In determining whether a reference is notable enough for inclusion, one helpful test can be to look at whether a person who is familiar with the topic only through the reference in question has the potential to learn something meaningful about the topic from that work alone."

There is much more in the article that excludes "passing mentions" from inclusion in an article. Nothing significant to Evers' notability is communicated in Mad Men or The Help. To the contrary - major historical figure Evers is used in those shows to give credibility and apparent weight to the shows themselves. If you want to mention Evers in Mad Men - that mention should be in the article about the show, not about Evers.Sensei48 (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks for expressing so clearly exactly what i was thinking about saying in response here, and doing it more thoroughly and clearly than i would have been able to do. i concur completely with what Sensei48 has to say here. Everydayman22, it quite possibly belongs in the mad men article, but it really doesn't belong here.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Based on Sensei48 comments concerning "pop culture," I now have a better understanding of how they are used on wiki pages. So, I would be sure to refer to the operative guidelines in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Everydayman22 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

FBI

To anon user. Claiming FBI complicity with the murder of Evers needs citation at the very least. What evidence can you point to ?

College

The date of him entering college, in 1958, conflcits with the rest of the dates in the article, perhaps you meant 1948? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.120.181.46 (talk) 10:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

References

I would disput the inclusion of Scott's book on Beckwith in his article. Scott's work, Glory in Conflict, does not comply with the npov and is far from scholarly. The best scholarly work on Evers is found in Dittmer's Local People. Scott was an associate of Beckwith's and shared his supremacist views. He makes a futile attempt to link the Evers' asassination to Lee harvey Oswald and the Kennedys. Even the so-called "transcripts" quoted within the book leave out any evidence that would damn Beckwith. Glory in Conflict is pure racist literature and nothing else. The only place it has value is in a conversation of Beckwith's ideology; an ideology that drove him to shoot Evers in the back. References to this book for any other reason, at best, risky.

The above note was added by ) 17:42, June 28, 2006 69.85.217.252 (Talk) (References)

I concur with the above note and will delete Scott from the reference section. Skywriter 19:06, 28 June 2006

The Jackson, Mississippi airport named for him is actually called the "Jackson-Medgar Wiley Evers International Airport", per http://www.jmaa.com/JAN/default.htm . I found the "citation needed" tag on that paragraph a little odd since it's what I'd call uncontentious information, so I intend to add the reference and remove that tag. I'm posting it here because I'm an extremely inexperienced editor, and it opens a can of worms that would logically lead to editing the associated article for the airport at the page Jackson-Evers_International_Airport. Since the airport article needs so much to effect this change, I'll wait a bit to see if anyone takes up the task. Ezriilc (talk) 02:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Welty short story

before evers' murder was solved, eudora welty wrote a shorty story character study of one of the suspects. i suggest that this synopsis of his life and legacy include reference to welty's "where is the voice coming from". -amanda- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.111.144.80 (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

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 02:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Murdered activists

I deleted this category because I'm in the process of deleting the entire category page for "murdered activists". Evers is listed as both a murdered and assassinated activist - only one of which is accurate (assassinated). Envirocorrector 13:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. In the future, it'll save everyone time if you use edit summaries to describe what you're doing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

KILLED

WHO IS THE PRESON THAT KILLED HIM? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.223.196 (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Byron De La Beckwith. Kingturtle (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Images

Please upload the images from enWiki to the Commons, there's a Commons:Category:Medgar Evers --CopperKettle 05:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Removing incorrect "Conviction Overturned" citation

I removed this statement cited to a book written before Beckwith died. His conviction was upheld on 12/23/1997, not vacated on that date. Don't take my word for it, read it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.173.224.32 (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

mergers

This articule needs a bit of an overhaul. I'd merge the NAACP field secretary into Activism. As much of the NAACP section is just a repeat and adds nothing to the articule.

Also there are a number of music references in the Assassination section that should be moved to to the In popular culture section.

Also in the In popular culture section, I'd move the paragraph starting "Ever's widow, myrlie, became. . . " into the Life section before "In 2001, . . . " as this paragraph has nothing to do with popular culture.

Jrincewind (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Edits June 2011

The "In Popular Culture" section as included here was indiscriminate in its inclusion and effectively trivialized Evers. Consequently, I made the following edits:

a. Took the genuinely and historically significant elements of Evers' legacy and and put them under a subhead so named.

b. Adhered to the policy of WP:IPC, which states that "However, passing mentions in books, television or film dialogue, or song lyrics should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources" by editing out just such casual references that add nothing to an understanding of Evers' life, work, and notability. Sensei48 (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"In Popular Culture" is a synonym for "Trivia". All the "information" in that section is trivia. Using the title "In Popular Culture" is a disingenuous attempt to include trivia without accurately describing it as such. =//= Johnny Squeaky 06:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

While I tend to agree in general, Wiki does allow for WP:IPC. However, what remains in the section, now more correctly named "cultural depictions" - a completely reputable addition to many biographies on Wiki - is just that. A New Yorker story by a major American writer of the Southern Literary Renaissance and treatments in music and film by major artists like Dylan, Ochs, Simone, and Reiner are not the same as say, a few seconds in The Simpsons or a "mention" in the lyrics of a song about something else. These are not strictly speaking part of Evers' legacy, but they are significantly indicative of the impact that his assassination had and continues to have decades after the fact.Sensei48 (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently "disreputable" about the inclusion of "trivia", and as proof I offer that it is specifically not disallowed. The issue to me is the proper naming of content, that it is a silly and dishonest distraction to avoid the proper naming of a category of content simply because some have deemed the title (but apparently not the content) to be "low brow". Wikipedia should step above such nonsense and require proper naming of content. If it's "trivia" than that's what it is. If the content is to "low brow" for Wikipedia, than get rid of the content. =//= Johnny Squeaky 19:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure where either "trivia" or "low brow" (both inherently POV terms) apply to what remains in that section. Welty, New Yorker, and the others I cite above aren't "low brow" except in an extremely narrow culturally elitist sense. Your remark above about "Wikipedia should step above such nonsense" articulates a point of view that, as I said above, I share to a degree - but neither you nor I determine what content is acceptable in Wikipedia - and my final sentence above is the rationale for inclusion and proper naming.Sensei48 (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

"Trivia" is an accepted category lable at Wikipedia. If you do not want the "trivia" label, remove the content. I can do it if you like.... =//= Johnny Squeaky 20:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

We seem to be speaking at cross purposes here. The content in the section is not trivia, and there is a current consensus of 3 editors who today have reverted your edits that have labeled it as such.User:Wtshymanski points out in the edit summary that the cultural depictions are noted in the lede, and User:Spanglej notes that there is no consensus to term this section "trivia." The consensus as it exists at the moment is that those two editors and I are opposed to the trivia tag and to referring to the material as such. Only you are promoting that description. Wikipedia's protocols are clear about what to do in a case like this.Sensei48 (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

"In Popular Culture" sections and sections that contain similar content are in fact "trivia" sections. Accept the "Trivia" template, or integrate the information into the article. =//= Johnny Squeaky 21:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

"In fact"? Hardly. According to your POV they are. "Accept the trivia template"? Why? You have neither justified that appellation or responded to my comments above about the validity of the material included in the section. More significantly, you have not responded to the fact that three editors have reverted your attempts to attach the tag and label. This is a case of a single point of view on the issue - yours - outvoted by three other editors. A consensus opposes your highly idiosyncratic understanding of the issue, and on Wikipedia, the majority rules in such cases.Sensei48 (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Jonny, I'm not sure why you are issuing ultimatums. Many editors here are not agreeing with your assessment. The article has changed a great deal since June 2011 (re heading); there has been much collaborative work done since then and discussion about how to proceed. 'Trivia' suggests the content is non-substantive. In my view the content of the popular culture section is substantive. The points in the section as not "passing references" in songs or film. The works are about Evers or feature him / his assassination as a key aspect. You have exceeded the three revert rule in the past few days and are close to breaking it again today. Wikipedia is a collaborative project first and foremost. Span (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The Help

Do people find it problematic that the entry states that Evers is "featured" in The Help in the THIRD sentence? First, he is not "featured," he is briefly seen in the film on a television and his death is covered BRIEFLY (a little more in the film than in the book). The first part of a wikipedia entry should explain what is most significant about someone. Does the person who made this change really think that this is one of the most significant things about him? To that end, I am editing this out. If the person who added wants to put it back in, I would suggest that it is one of a few things mentioned in a popular culture section that would include Ghosts of Mississippi (a more significant film about him, to be sure) and any other popular culture references. Rawreader (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)rawreader

Seems like an edit war is brewing, given it's been reverted several times. I agree with you, and to make things worse, the most recent edit adds a link to some advertisement, where a link to another wikipedia entry or similar would have been more appropriate. Warthog32 (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Not to worry - eliminating promo and advert does not constitute an edit war. It is simply honoring Wiki guidelines. The editor who keeps inserting this ought to be ashamed - putting this shameless promo into the lede is especially disgusting.Sensei48 (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Some time has passed and hopefully there is an opportunity to re-evaluate this issue. I came to this page because of the Evers death in the film, and I imagine many other readers have done and will do so, as well. I think there may be at least some bad faith assumption in thinking that anyone who wants the film mentioned in this article, not in the lead but in the Pop culture section, is somehow shilling for the movie and dishonoring Evers legacy. After watching the film a second time, I think that his death is actually a pivotal event in The Help in a respectful way, as it causes many maids to come forth and tell their story, buttressing the book's authenticity. However you may feel about the way race relations and civil rights struggles are presented by the book/film -- and I happen to disagree with the overall criticism from the Assoc. of Black Women Historians, although they do mention the film's attention to Evers in their 'Open statement to fans of 'The Help' -- I urge you to reconsider the inclusion of this bit of pop culture in its relevant place.El duderino ^(abides) 11:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the sentiments against inclusion are articulated well above, and I am not sure that your measured responses here overcome the fact that the Evers material in the book and film is completely oblique to the plot. However, we need always to be open to reconsideration on Wiki, and certainly is a majority of editors working on the article feel that it should be included, then so be it. However, it was added back today, and I am going to rv it pending further discussion here. Sensei48 (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

That statement from the Assoc. of Black Women Historians is thoroughly condemnatory and the most well-articulated argument against inclusion here. I'm afraid that someone will need an equally powerful contrary opinion as a source to justify inclusion. Sensei48 (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Double Jeopardy

Everyone is protected from being tried twice for the same crime (Fifth Amendment), regardless if "new evidence" arises at a later date. Why was Byron De La Beckwith not afforded this basic Constitutional right? Was there something else mentioned in the article that I'm missing as to why they brought him back up on murder charges three decades after the alleged murder? I understand a mistrial can be retried, but the same evidence was used, except for some hearsay at a Klan rally about him bragging about the murder. Hardly "new evidence". It seems so-called 'civil rights' leaders elevated to god-status and can enjoy (even if postmortem) extralegal protection. [sarcasm] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.29.16.118 (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Hung jury seems to indicate that Evers got the special protection due to every American citizen; De La Beckwith's first two trials resulted in hung juries. You can't hang a defendant if the jury is hung. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Malvina Reynolds song

The question is whether this should be included:

Malvina Reynolds mentioned "the shot in Evers' back" in her protest song, It Isn't Nice.

My feeling is that it should not be. We should have popular culture appearances of the subject in the article only when the references themselves help the reader to understand the subject of the article more clearly than they would otherwise in a way which is not reasonably inclusible in the article itself. I know the Reynolds song, and as good a song as it is, I don't think it's appropriate for this article on Evers. Perhaps it could be discussed in Reynolds's article? Alternatively, if a reliable source could be found that discusses the Reynolds song explicitly in the context of Evers then it's possible that that would mean it was appropriate for inclusion here. WP:IPC is worth reading as a guideline for these discussions.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The "shot in Evers' back" is one of two examples (the other being lynching) mentioned in the penultimate verse as a reason to protest even though it isn't nice. See the lyrics at Western Kentucky University's site and decide for yourself if it's an important theme of the third verse (and thus the song) or not. To me, it's more than a mention. DOSGuy (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, I know the song. I just don't think that it illuminates anything about Evers in an important or unique enough way to include in this article. It doesn't present any new perspectives on Evers. The only thing that would change my mind about this is a reliable source that makes the kind of arguments you're making for its inclusion.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that it's one thing if a song is 'about' an incident. It's another if a song, TV programme, film etc, mentions an incident 'in passing'. WP:IPC says that if the mention itself is referenced as notable in secondary sources, then okay. Articles get littered with lines to the effect that "Bart Simpson said 'lightning rod' in episode 8". [NB, I responded here before seeing the recent edit changes to the article - if there's a source that cites the song then ok]. Span (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 March 2013

After sentence "Evers walked twelve miles to school to earn his high school diploma" add "Evers recalls walking to his elementary school in first grade in Decatur, MS and being yelled at and hit with items sailing from the windows by white children riding in a school bus. This was a common scene in Mississippi during the Jim Crow Era and one of Evers’ earliest memories of racial inequality in the South." and the add "Evers and his siblings attended all black school for the duration of their primary and secondary schooling and were used to receiving less than adequate resources and supplies."

Remove "The Evers owned a small farm and James worked at a sawmill" and replace with "Evers was the son of a laundress and sawmill worker who taught their children the importance of religion, hard work, and education." and then add "Decatur was never short of public acts of racial prejudice, especially with the large number of lynchings that occurred here during Jim Crow era. One of Ever’s clearest memories of racial violence was when he was fourteen years old. He witnessed Willie Tingle dragging behind a moving vehicle from a rope through the streets of his hometown and was then shot dead and hung in public for insulting a white woman, though this was merely a rumor. Evers remembers seeing Tingle’s bloodied clothing cast off where his body was hanged for months after his death, burning the image of African American oppression into his mind."

After "...James and Jesse Evers; the family also included Jesse's two children from a previous marriage.", include "Evers was the closest with his older brother Charles, whom he admired in typical younger brother fashion. Medgar depended on Charles for valuable instruction for things such as swimming, fishing, and hunting, among other things and was Medgar’s confidant for most of his childhood and adolescent life."

Remove "From 1943 to 1945 he fought in Europe with the army, and was discharged honorably as a sergeant" and replace with "Evers was a sophomore at an all black high school in Newton County when he decided to voluntarily enlist in the United States army in 1942, partially because he wanted to experience the world outside America and partially because his older brother Charles enlisted a mere twelve months earlier." Then add "He was accepted and served in battle on the beaches of Normandy as well in the French campaign." . Then add "While in the army, Evers was forced to serve only with blacks, as the troops were segregated. This angered Evers because blacks in the American army were fighting for freedom on international soil and yet would not experience this freedom upon domestic soil." Then add "When Evers was honorably discharged from the army in 1946, he returned to Decatur and wanted to register to vote at the local elections. To Evers, voting meant citizenship." and "Therefore, he and four friends went to the elections in order to vote and were forced to leave at gunpoint by whites."

After "In 1948 Evers enrolled at Alcorn College (a historically black college, now Alcorn State University) majoring in business administration; he also competed on the debate, football, and track teams, sang in the choir, and was junior class president", add "He was editor of Alcorn College campus newspaper and the annual and was recognized for his academic endeavors in Who’s Who in American Colleges"

After "On December 24, 1951 he married classmate Myrlie Beasley, with whom he eventually had three children, and received his BA the following year", insert "Myrlie Beasley was a nursing student." then insert "Evers became aware of the NAACP for the first time his senior year at Alcorn College when he attended an interracial debate between students from Millsaps, an all white college, and Tougaloo, an all black college. He joined the NAACP immediately after learning of its existence and contributions."

After "The couple moved to Mound Bayou, Mississippi, where Evers became a salesman for T. R. M. Howard's Magnolia Mutual Life Insurance Company", insert "traveling salesman for Magnolia Mutual Life Insurance and became exposed to the impoverished plight of many southern African Americans, which sparked his passion for serving in the NAACP to achieve rights for blacks."

Remove "In this position, he helped organize boycotts and set up new local chapters of the NAACP" and replace with "In his position as field secretary, Evers worked largely behind the scenes collecting, organizing, and publicizing civil rights abuse cases specific to Mississippi. However, when he got wind of the Pearsall Plan, which sought to enact legislation giving the General Assembly the ability to give funds for the private schooling of students who was sent to an integrated school against the wishes of his or her parents, he became frustrated with the lack of enforcement of the Brown vs. Board of Education 1954 Supreme Court decision. This frustration caused Evers to become involved in more public forms of action. These more public forms of activism manifested in Ever’s organizational help in establishing the Jackson Movement, an attempt to end racial segregation in Jackson, MS. He led black Jacksonians to push for educational integration in the local schools, parks, and public libraries, as well black employment in the police force and community offices. Ever attempted to achieve these goals through nonviolent demonstrations, sit-ins, and business boycotts and gained the attention of white supremacists and white civil rights activists." Leahromulus (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

As a new account holder you should now be able to edit semi-protected pages. Please remember that we aim for a neutral point of view in editing, not forwarding an agenda or adding editorial comment. Thanks Span (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as soon as you make 10 edits and have had an account for 4 days, you will be able to make this edit. Please keep in mind what Span mentioned above. - Camyoung54 talk 19:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

References

Legacy

While searching for something else, I wondered why Seattle had a swimming pool named for Medgar Evers. As far as I can tell, he has no particular association with Seattle.

A public swimming pool in Seattle was "upon community petition in 1969, named to honor MEDGAR WILEY EVERS" and completed in April 1970. https://www.seattle.gov/parks/history/EversPool.pdf (handwritten, part of the Sherwood historical notes on the Seattle parks system)

seattlepools.org/wp-content/uploads/file/Seattle%20Pool%20History.doc

Medgar Evers Pool Medgar Evers is a 25 yard + 15 yard 240,000 gallon pool that opened in April 1970. The pool was named after the slain civil rights leader Medgar Wylie Evers. Built with Forward Thrust bonds, it was the first pool built with these levy funds and it's "unique" architectural design immediately started causing problems and construction delays for the contractors. Facility Amenities include: Sauna 1 meter diving board Rope Swing Weights Machine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.64.56.45 (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Who are the other three

Who are the other three in this photograph?

http://jacksonfreepress.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com/img/photos/2013/06/05/EVERS_and_three_men_courtesy_MDAH_edited_t670.jpg?b3f6a5d7692ccc373d56e40cf708e3fa67d9af9d — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdRicardo (talk • contribs) 18:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Medgar Evers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004234230/http://www.naacp.org/pages/naacp-history-medgar-evers to http://www.naacp.org/pages/naacp-history-medgar-evers
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6PLj9XvLc?url=http://www.naacp.org/pages/spingarn-medal-winners to http://www.naacp.org/pages/spingarn-medal-winners
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004234230/http://www.naacp.org/pages/naacp-history-medgar-evers to http://www.naacp.org/pages/naacp-history-medgar-evers

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Cause of Death

Okay, it's obvious, he was shot in the back. But the article states that "the bullet ripped through his heart." Then he got up and staggered to the door, was taken to a hospital and denied entrance, and died 50 minutes later. I'm not an M.D. and don't play one on television but people who have had bullets 'rip through their heart' do not usually live that long. And no, I am not a racist and do like Medgar Evers but that extremely unlikely statement discredits the entire article. 116.231.75.71 (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Nobody else responded to this? I did a quick search and came up with varying accounts. The FBI and NAACP said Evers was shot in the back. The NY Times in a 2016 report said the bullet ripped through his back. A 1963 Life magazine article on his funeral said the bullet ripped through his heart. In my first sweep, where I didn't make note of the sources, he died at his house, on the way to the hospital and at the hospital. All that said, our unidentified contributor above makes a good point, though according to other articles in a search on this specific topic, while a shot through the heart is almost always fatal, it is possible to survive. That doesn't make sense given how quickly you'd lose blood, but for sure, surviving 50 minutes without treatment doesn't seem possible. In any case, this deserves to be looked into. BTW, I couldn't access the source used in the article. Allreet (talk) 10:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Medgar Evers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120717222233/http://www.allrovi.com/movies/movie/v62616 to http://www.allrovi.com/movies/movie/v62616

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Medgar Evers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140121031957/http://mdah.state.ms.us/senseofplace/2013/06/17/medgar-evers-direct-action/ to http://mdah.state.ms.us/senseofplace/2013/06/17/medgar-evers-direct-action/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160316232404/http://www.seattle.gov/parks/history/EversPool.pdf to http://www.seattle.gov/parks/history/EversPool.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Weird sentence

Hi,
it might be just me, but there is something in the sentence
"Evers was the first African American to be admitted to an all-white hospital in Mississippi,
a questionable achievement for the dying activist."
that just does not feel right.
As if he should have tried harder to get into that hospital. Like, why didn't he get himself shot before, like?
If that tragic event needs a qualifier, it surely must be the, for want of a better bitter expression, sad irony of people being assassinated before they can gain entry to a race segregated hospital. The "questionability" is all on the admission policies, and not at all on the victim.
Thar said, I'm not a native speaker, and may have misunderstood the language; and I certainly won't be so bold as to try to 'improve' the wording. So ... i'd be grateful for a better proposal, or just some comforting words. T 88.89.217.90 (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Notable addition to film section deleted unwarrantedly.

The deletion of the following paragraph I had added to the Film section of the article is unwarranted, and indeed pretty ridiculous, at least on the grounds given in the edit summary for the deletion:

The 2011 film The Help has one scene that shows live footage of Medgar Evers on national TV news encouraging citizens to boycot commercial businesses in Capitol Street in Jackson, Mississippi, arguing that "these are stores that help to support the White Citizens Council, the council that is dedicated to keeping you and I (the niggers that he had just explicitly mentioned in the previous sentence) second class citizens." The next scene in the movie occurs on the night in which Mr. Evers was assassinated, where two "colored" characters are ordered to get out of a bus in which they are travelling by the driver, because some "colored guy got shot," and police are monitoring and stopping the traffic on the main thoroughfares in the city. When the main character Abileen, a black maid in uniform, finally gets to her friend Minny's house, after having to run on foot in the the darkness by herself (and tripping and falling on the dirt also), original radio news tapes from 1963 are describing in detail Mr. Evers assassination in the background.

The article already has a special section for appearances of the subject on film, where the very relevant paragraph above was duly and correctly added. A mention of the appearance in such a section would be more than warranted in any case, but the paragraph above contains much more than that, because these appearances of the subject show live original national TV news coverage of the subject. This real radio and TV news coverage of the subject is not available anywhere else, and it is highly relevant and notable for the subject of the article. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 23:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

You say the, "The language is verbatim from nation". If that is the case then the paragraph is not only prohibited from Wikipedia as a copyright violation, but both of your edits plus the above talk page post will have to be revdeled as Wikipedia cannot contain copyright text even in its archives.

Incidentally, you have now reverted this three times. Four times is an automatic bright line block. 86.164.128.177 (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

This reply is not actually signed the reverter, but in any case, you are not replying to any of my arguments. What, are you sayng that text that is quoted from national TV news footage cannot be duly cited in quotation marks in article? The vertatim language is duly quoted in quotation marks. Ridicoulous!

The appearance of Medgar Evers in this movie as described in the paragraph is not incidental AT ALL! The subject of this article, Medgar Evers, and his assassination, are CENTRAL and significant to the entire plot of this movie. The plot of the movie actually revolves in great part around the activities of Mr. Evers.

I added this very relevant paragraph to the film section, and it was deleted once by a different editor. I re-added it. It was then now removed twice by you, meaning that you have reverted my edit twice now. My insertion of a new relevant paragraph in the film section of the article is a due addition, not a revertion. You are the one reverting my addition. I will re-insert it once again. If you revert my addition a third time I will have to appeal to third uninvolved parties. You edit my paragraph, but the mention of the appearance of Medgar Evers in the film section of his article needs to be there, because it is as important, if not more important, than the two mentions that are already there in the section. The appearance of the person in this 2011 movie cannot be deleted, it needs to be there as much as any other appearances of the person or character in any other movie. Thanks, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Did you see the discussion from 2011 above? Did you notice the extremely peripheral mention of Evers in our very own article about "The Help"? Seems disproportionate to go on at length here, when it's barely noticeable in the film's own article. You might as well link the JFK biograph to that movie, he gets mentioned, too. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

If the inserted text is a quotation of any source (even a TV coverage) then it cannot be included unless the source has specifically released it either into the public domain, a share alike licence or specifically for inclusion in Wikipedia then it cannot be included (even if in quotes). Any use of the quoted text is a WP:COPYRIGHT violation and it cannot be included. Editors who flout the copyright are liable to be blocked from editing.

Oh and both you and Wtshymanski are at 4RR and are definitely edit warring. 86.164.128.177 (talk) 14:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I reviewed the 2011 discussion above now. That discussion definitely leaves open the possibility of the mention of Mr. Evers in the film section, plus it has a strong, well-written recommendation from one editor for it. The opposing view is based on an editorial piece of a black women historians association, but however correct that editorial view is or however strongly and editor agrees with it, the editorial would not and could not say that the mention of the appearance of Mr. Evers in the film cannot be mentioned in the film section of this article. You have reverted me three times now, without any convincing reply to my arguments, and I am going to report you to the appropriate board. If I had time I would expand the mention of Mr. Evers appearance in the movie article also, but unfortunately I do not, and the move article is less important to me that this one, about Mr. Evers himself. There is no reason in the world that his appearance in the movie cannot be mentioned in the film section of this article. If the mention seems disproportionate to the importance of the appearance in terms of length you could have edited it and shortened it, instead of deleting altogether. Until I have time to deal with the pseudo-legalistic objection I am going to reinsert a shorter mention of the appearance, and see if it also keeps being deleted without reason. warshy ^(¥¥) 20:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I have worked on my addition above and I have removed any quotations from it. It is still being removed by an IP editor, now on grounds that the reference to the movie does not have a "citation." The fact that the subject of this article and his assassination appear on the linked movie as a significant part of the plot is a fact seen on the movie itself and on the movie page and it does not need any additional reference to confirm it. This IP editor who does not want to identify him or herself is edit-warring here, for some other non-apparent reasons.warshy ^(¥¥) 18:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

You don't think this is a clue that the addition is seen as a relatively trivial pop-culture mention that has no encyclopediac value for this article? The proper place to mention this incidental appearance is at the article for the film, not here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The appearance is already mentioned in the article for the film, and no, it is not "a relatively trivial pop-culture mention" for all the reasons already explained. It has no encyclopedic value for this article in a film section (popular culture sub-section)? This is absolutely false. So, the footage shown in the movie and the place it plays in the movie plot in NOT trivial (it is quite unique, I have never seen something like that before anywhere), and the mention definitely does belong exactly how it was inserted and in the spot it was inserted. We'll leave it a this for the time being. warshy ^(¥¥) 16:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

At 6RR, the only edit warrior around here is yourself. As you have already been advised, the film itself is not the required WP:SECONDARY source. Films are rarely accurate portrayals of history, that is why a secondary source is required. The one you provided fails to mention most of the claims in your paragraph. Also a self penned piece of original research in the apparent form of a note is not an acceptable reference, and neither is a Wikipedia article. 86.164.128.177 (talk) 12:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I have found the reference I needed for including the paragraph back in the place where it was in the article to begin with. It is the review of the movie in the New York Times by the Times' movie critic Manohla Dargis, here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/10/movies/the-help-spans-two-worlds-white-and-black-review.html

If you read it you will notice that the Medgar Evers assassination night scene described in my short paragraph about the movie (and that was unwarrantedly deleted) OPENS the entire review and also adds some more historical detail about Mr. Evers' assassination importance in the Jackson, Mississippi, desegregation struggle in general, and in the movie plot in particular. Based on this reference I will be reinserting the paragraph. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The New York Times review that you cite above does not even begin to cover the paragraph that you added.

1. The review does not mention any TV news live footage being shown in the movie, so your first sentence is still unreferenced.
2. The review does not mention any original radio news tapes being included so your second sentence also remains unreferenced.
3. The review does not state that the two main characters (or indeed, any characters) discuss the events.
4. The review only mentions maids sharing their experiences with Skeeter but does not state what those experiences are. There is no mention of any maids joining any anti-discrimination efforts (In fact there is no mention of anti-discrimination efforts at all beyond Martin Luther King's famous speech). Thus the third sentence is unreferenced.

The paragraph remains unreferenced and any attempt to reinsert it will be met with a reversion until proper supporting references are forthcoming. 86.164.128.177 (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Among many other pieces of important information about the movie and the historical period, the second paragraph of the review opens by saying specifically: "When she gets to safety, Aibileen learns that the man who has been shot is Medgar Evers, the civil rights activist who was gunned down in Jackson, Miss., on June 12, 1963, in front of his home." She and Minny, the two main characters, are "learning" these facts from radio news tapes that are playing in the background while they discuss the events. All the other information you say is not "referenced" is just a simple and straightforward description of what is happening in the movie, in these two key scenes that are directly related to the subject of this article. They, and all the other issues, can be corroborated by simply watching the scenes, and the movie in general. Such a simple and direct description does not need to be referenced word by word. The only way to reference such a simple description word by word would be to provide a transcript of the script of the movie itself, the screenplay as written by the writer. I have not seen this being done in any other instances of references to movie scenes in Wikipedia. warshy ^(¥¥) 22:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

In any case, this is an article about the person not the film. Any reference must also positively establish that whatever the movie portrayed, it must be historically accurate (something that movies rarely achieve). 86.164.128.177 (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

This is nonsense! This is a section ("Film" under "Popular Culture") about how a person is portrayed in movies. A paragraph about a specific movie needs to just be accurate in its description of how the person is portrayed in the movie. That is all, nothing else. My short/condensed paragraph, with the due reference as indicated, does exactly that in a very accurate and precise manner. It is also due and warranted where it was inserted. warshy ^(¥¥) 18:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Let me clarify a little more. Movies in general are works of art and fiction. This movie in particular, is definitely a work of fiction. The historical accuracy or lack thereof of a work of fiction/art is on the eye of the beholder. However, the specific portrayal of Mr. Evers in the particular movie being discussed here is historically VERY accurate, because it is based on real news footage of the time. That is an additional reason why this particular portrayal of the person is so notable, and due here in this section as suggested. warshy ^(¥¥) 19:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

If it is a work of fiction, then it has no place here as, by your own admission, it clearly does not tell us anything encyclopaedic about the subject of the article. All the fiction belongs in the article about the movie where it can be as fictitious as it likes. 86.146.209.211 (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

More nonsense. What you are saying is basically that Wikipedia should not have a bottom-of-page sub-section on Popular Culture and/of Film in such biographical articles at all. You can suggest that to Wikipedia, but at this point in time many biographical articles such as this one do have such a section, including this one. And the reason they do, is that readers of Widipedia in particular and of encyclopedia in general can and do glean a lot from works of fiction on a certain historical person. I, for one, have learned more about Mr. Evers and his effectiveness and accuracy as a fighter against racial discrimination in the Jim Crow era US South from the scenes in the movie I am referring to here than I have learned on his entire Wikipedia article about him. This is because a picture is worth a thousand words, but a movie sequence of pictures with soundtrack, including original national TV news footage from the period itself, is worth much more. Its worth cannot be truly quantified is simple words. Its worth is indeed inestimable. warshy ^(¥¥) 17:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

By your own words: you have made an even bigger case for its exclusion. You state that, "I … have learned [sic] more about Mr. Evers and his effectiveness …". However, by your own admission, you have also stated that much of what you have learnt is not necessarily accurate. Your quote from above, "Movies in general are works of art and fiction.". You go on to claim that, "This movie in particular, is definitely a work of fiction". Thus it is not encyclopaedic in any shape or form precisely because you require additional sources to separate the fact from the fiction. You then go on to claim, "The historical accuracy or lack thereof of a work of fiction/art is on [sic] the eye of the beholder". No it isn't. Any historical accuracy is entirely what can be proven to be correct, not what you perceive to be correct. Without the proof, it remains unproven fiction (certainly from an encyclopaedic viewpoint). 86.146.209.211 (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Funny... (Not really!). I am bowing out of here, closing off this talk page discussion section I opened myself. I don't have time for this stupid charade anymore. This was the first time I touched the hot-button political area of race relations in the US on Wikipedia, and I had an inkling that it might be hot. But I did not realize at first how hot it really is, and that I may get burned by the heat. Well, I did, and I've learned my lesson. Editing Wikipedia for me is just a small hobby on the side, when/if I have some spare time for it. There are certain political war-zones here I don't even get close to, and this is certainly one of them from now on for me. I may watch some of them from the sidelines, but I don't have the time for war-of-attrition edit warring tactics and all the crap that goes with it. I'll leave it for the pros. Out warshy ^(¥¥) 21:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

This discussion has never been about race relations in the US and there has never been any associated 'heat'. This discussion is about you, unilaterally, wanting to add information about the article subject from a movie whose factual accuracy is, by your own admission, questionable. This discussion is about you, ignoring two people telling you that it does not belong here (and that there is historical consensus on the point). I would have no problem with a link to said movie as a 'see also' at the end of article as long as it did not claim it to be a factual portrayal.

In general terms references to the appearance of an article subject in popular culture is regarded as un-notable WP:TRIVIA. Appearances of some object in the background of a TV programme or movie is a pretty clear cut case, but a movie where the subject is a person and appears, is rather less clear cut. For the movie to be notable and encyclopaedic (for the subject's article), it does have to be demonstrably historically accurate. The article on the movie itself is a different kettle of fish because the movie is now the subject of the article. 86.146.209.211 (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Make that three people. I figured that the two editors referenced had a good handle on most of the clear points against inclusion, and I had my say about it extensively above a few years back. However - should this irrelevancy pop into this article again, I'll be first up with the RV. Sensei48 (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Question to User:Wtshymanski

Wtshymanski,

You latest revert to the new sentence add to the page has the following edit summary:

see talk page - still not relevant to Medgar Evers, pop-culture trivia)

You can definitely argue that the sentence added is pop-culture trivia. That is precisely the reason it was added to the section called "In Popular Culture," sub-section "Film."

The facts are: This is a film that carries live footage of the subject of this page, Mr. Medgar Evers. talking on national TV about discrimination in Jackson, Miss., where he lived and was an activist, as the page explains. That is his notability to this encyclopedia. The footage and the context can be seen in the film clip shown in the first reference to the sentence added. Did you look at it?

So, the sentence added is in the right section and it definitely pertains to the subject of the page, Mr. Medgar Evers.

So how in the world can you rather randomly state that it is "still not relevant to Medgar Evers"???? It is definitely relevant to Medgar Evers and to his notability (because it shows it live), and it is precisely in the section called Pop-Culture, as it should be. Can you please explain why you will keep removing this sentence when it is re-added now? Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 17:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Should we also add "Driving Miss Daisy" to Automobile? Or that episode of "Seinfeld" where they talk about the assasination added to the article on Kennedy? Certainly lots of footage of cars being driven in that film. Not every place I saw X on TV or film iis a suitable item to add to an article about X. Beaten to death above, or in the archives. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, thank you for the answer/explanation. All your sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek comparisons are shallow and they don't stand up to simple logic and common sense, in my view. Nor do they stand up to the historical truth of the matter, and historical truth will have a place in Wikipedia, in the end, I believe. We'll just have to wait for enough non-biased editors to look at this matter objectively again some time. warshy ^(¥¥) 22:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

See also User talk:Parplaywright#Thank you! where all the old arguments and no new ones have been presented.

There also appears to be a view by warshy that IP address editors have no place here.

Edit summaries such as, "The IP with the bunk about what WP is or not with regards to contemporary art and movies is back..." and, "Censoring IP removing duly referenced material in the proper section of the article. Three reliable sources references for this film content now. Watch this because the IP is edit warring, trying to remove duly referenced material in the proper section of the article." are hardly likely to impress. IP editors editors are as entitled to edit here as any one else. Your attempts at belittlement are just a transparent and unashamed attempt to gain the moral high ground. "Wikipedia, the encylopedia that anyone can edit" (my emphasis).

No source provided so far has established that either The Help or any of the events portrayed in it are anything other than fiction (and that the film was fiction is from your own evidence). As you have already been notified, the You Tube excerpt does not establish otherwise (and You Tube is unacceptable as a reference). As for your other two references, one you have been told already that it is a review site for fictional works (in this case for the fictional book from which the film was derived - and films rarely follow the book anyway). The remaining reference is silent on the issue of whether the film is fact or fiction. They may be references that film contains the claimed (fictional) content but not that the content is historically accurate. In any case the point has been repeatedly made that Evers is an incidental character in the film which, in the absence of proof to the contrary, is a fictional photoplay of a fictional book. You keep referring to the film as "historical truth", but we are still awaiting any evidence.

And finally as for your allegations of edit warring, you are currently at 8RR over the issue, well over the 3RR limit that establishes edit warring. No one else in the current spat is even at 1RR, because removal of material not supported by reliable sources is one of the core editing policies of Wikipedia. So far you have just rehashed the same arguments over and over again and added nothing new. What is obvious is that you continued inclusion of the content is WP:POINTy at best. 86.154.151.124 (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Someone buried the lead

You have to read two full paragraphs before you reach the most notable fact about Medgar Evers' life: his assassination. That murder was monumental in the civil rights movement, granted not as significant as King's but not far behind either. Certainly it was more important than Evers' war record, field secretaryship, college degree, NAACP award and all of the other trivia you have to wade through before getting to what any other encyclopedic article would be sure to include in the lead sentence. Say his name and the thought of how he died is bound to be the first to come to mind. I'll gladly re-write it but would like to hear from other editors first. Allreet (talk) 09:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Certainly agree. The assassination is almost as important as Evers' NAACP Mississippi work, and the two are of course closely related (if you do the rewrite please keep his field secretary position as most prominent). Thank you for noticing the absence of the assassination in the lead paragraph. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I changed the lead to include information on Medgar's death/assassination. This parallels lead sentences/paragraphs for other Civil Rights figures who were murdered, notably Martin Luther King Jr. and James Chaney, as well as similar victims such as Emmett Till. The lead paragraph originally (or at least as recently as April 2019) ended with a sentence on his assassination. An editor changed this innocently enough thinking it was redundant with the beginning of the third paragraph. However, he did not consider the notability of the assassination regarding Medgar's life and work. Allreet (talk) 06:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Was he exhumed

There are pics on the web and a history of his exhumation 30 years after his dead and his body looked so intact that they decided to watch him for a second time. 2603:9000:5E01:728B:E167:99D6:6A18:D40D (talk) 02:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Army rank

The article refers to his rank as sergeant. His headstone shows his rank as Tec 5 (Technician fifth grade). Technician fifth grades (sometimes referred to as technician fifth class) were the same pay grade as corporals, but were ranked one level below corporals. [[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C44:6F00:D890:5C6B:2F87:D5B4:6EC6 (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)