Talk:Noah S. Sweat

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Noah S. Sweat article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Mississippi / State Legislatures Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Mississippi portal This article is supported by WikiProject Mississippi (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. State Legislatures.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal 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.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Noah S. Sweat be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Notability

With all due respect to this individual and his descendants... As I understand it, simply being a representative in local state government is not necessarily enough notability to justify a Wikipedia article. Are there any other sources which can be used to prove this individual's fame? Please see Wikipedia:Notability (people). --Elonka 16:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will add a reference to William Safire's book in which he categorizes Soggy Sweat's speech as one of the best political speeches in history (pg. 876) --Acadac 20:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doublespeak?

Would someone please explain how this speech is an example of doublespeak?

Drawing attention to the dual nature of the subject being discussed has nothing to do with doublespeak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.170.6.189 (talk) 08:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done You're clearly right about this. Even if "doublespeak" had some different meaning in political discourse, there's no evidence for that. Also the statement that the speech is doublespeak that was formerly in the article was an unsourced opinion. Thus I took it out.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Text of Speech

Is the speech text reliably sourced? I notice that Perry's later recitation of it differs slightly. Davidships (talk) 10:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Noah S. Sweat. 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/20120714122102/http://orig.clarionledger.com/news/0305/25/oorley.html to http://orig.clarionledger.com/news/0305/25/oorley.html

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 04:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a picture?

His nickname is based on his appearance 2600:1700:B2F0:11B0:4436:B76D:60D1:173 (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: example of the informal fallacy of equivocation

The speech is a common example of the informal fallacy of equivocation, and the phrase "if-by-whiskey" is often used as shorthand for an argument that prevaricates to avoid committing fully to a single position of a controversial issue.

One does not have to commit fully to a single position. This appears to be a systemic flaw in western philosophy and its associated systems (jurisprudence, etc.) One can take both positions, without any fallacy whatsoever. For example, take the example of war. Both sides in a war suffer casualties and injustices. To a disinterested observer who stands outside of the war looking in, one can see the benefits of defending one side or the other, and the harms and risks. The same is true for a wide range of issues. Another good example is of resource extraction and use pertaining to the environment and its ecosystems. For humanity, this has historically been described in terms of civilization, progress, wealth and prosperity. But for non-humans, it is often a form of ecocide. And in this example, a third view exists, which is that the destruction of the non-human sphere often results in degradation of the human sphere. Why should one commit fully to a single position when the philosophical reality necessitates understanding all of the positions in relation to their proponents? If there is a fallacy here, it's the fallacy of bifurcation, not equivocation. This is not a form of false balance. In this example, the benefits of alcohol also have their risks. Why would we need to commit to either the benefits or the risks? It's a single, unified whole, inseparable, intertwined, and interconnected. Viriditas (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]