Talk:Ronnie Thompson (Georgia politician)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group.
 


"Shoot to kill" order[edit]

I may be wrong on this, but in the history of 1970 that I can find in the archives of the Telegraph, the rioting actually occurred earlier in the year when the forthcoming desegregation of the schools was announced. Thompson issued the "shoot to kill" order in the summer, in order to quell potential riots that he was anticipating when school opened that August. Check this site: http://www.mindspring.com/~teeth/caution/macontg100years.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.210.71.103 (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The Telegraph reported late. Thompson was reacting to perceived and expected agent provocateurs whom he expected every day, and he reported sniper fire directed at him, etc. He offered up multiple, "I would tell them to shoot to kill" and "There is only one way to deal with those who want to burn" quotes throughout the election. In fact, the real issue of the "shoot to kill" order shows up in the imposition of a curfew within the city (targeted, of course, at those urban people). For better documentation, look at the court papers during the trial on wrongful death and police brutality. The common textbook Making the Case, edited by Lawrence Behrens, has a nice presentation of the materials. The question of whether the rhetorical "I would shoot to kill" was literal was decided by the courts.

Huh?[edit]

The introduction here says that
"Buddy Kelly Moore, who completed a master of arts thesis on Thompson's career in 1976 at Georgia College & State University, opined that Thompson "shocked and fascinated observers with hard-line approaches to law-and-order, municipal unionism, and race relations.""
Does this mean that Thompson’s hard-line views shocked observers, or that observers who themselves had hard-line views were shocked by him?
On a broader issue, it’s a nice quote, but is Buddy Kelly Moore’s MA thesis a reliable source? Is it published anywhere? Accessible? Verifiable? Swanny18 (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a thesis. I came to look at this article to give a class background in Thompson and his strange position in Georgia history. Race relations in Macon, GA are strained today. Anyone looking at Georgia history recognizes that Macon has a hostility and entrenched resentment that is lacking even in Atlanta, where white resentment resulted in Lester Maddox being a hero to resistant conservative forces for his vow to beat any interracial couples that tried to enter his restaurant with an axe handle. Atlanta had multiple counteracting voices -- all of whom now better known to history than Lester Maddox, but Macon? Well, folks in Macon and who go to Georgia College (outside of Macon) are going to have to wonder at the retrograde, entrenched positions. Why, indeed, would there be a crack in the Democratic machine (the Talmadge machine)? Why would this go on so long? The opening here is what we call a thesis -- a position to be defended. This thesis is supported by facts. The rest of the article supports the thesis. Thus, it constitutes useful writing. The quote's grammar may be imperfect when pressed to the limit, but it's not bad. However, when I wanted my students to know who Ronnie Thompson was, it was jarring to see "Huh?" in the text and childish caviling over, "Is this an opinion? Do encyclopedia articles ever have synthesizing statements that might be construed as positions, and how can I prove those are neutral" written across the text.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.99.160 (talkcontribs) 15:22, 20 October 2013
I brought up the "imperfect grammar" of the quote because I was tickled by the shades of meaning it threw up.
But the second point is serious.
If this is “what you call a thesis” (and yes, I know what a thesis is) it is also what we call Original Research, which has no place in WP. Are you saying this whole article is simply a re-hash of someone’s master’s thesis? Because that raises all kinds of problems.
And the “childish cavilling” you took exception to is a reference to one of our guiding principles, that content must be verifiable and supported by reliable sources. If you are unhappy about that, then maybe this isn’t the place for you.
If the quote is to stay it needs to be cited (especially if it is going to be used more than once). If the thesis it came from has been published then there’s no problem; if not, then its just something someone said somewhere, and carries no weight at all. Swanny18 (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)