Talk:Bully pulpit

Untitled
"Agendum"? Is there any reason to use such an archaic word? john k (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

some examples, political and otherwise, might be good to
augment the etymology, since this is not a dictionary. It is a fairly significant term (tending to turn up fairly often in reportage around the time of the State of the Union address and other times also) though - still - hrm. maybe appearances of the term could "redirect" to Wiktionary, all the same... unless there's a sufficient reason not to. Anyone have a reason, and able to expand the article enough? (Erm, not me...) Schissel | Sound the Note! 22:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

If you try the Google Ngram viewer you can find an almost unmanageable number of uses of the words. There's a citation from 1902, a US Supreme Court Report, Justice Souter in Garcetti v Serballos. Something that is also interesting if you look in the Ngram viewer is that the now pretty well archaic meaning of "bully" - "very good" - had quite a long after-life in the expression "bully for you". In the US this expression was more commonly found than "bully pulpit" in published books right up to 1970 or so. Thomas Peardew (talk) 11:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Relation to "Bull Horn"
Does this use of the word bully relate to the similar usage in "bull horn" in any way? If so, that would be a bully thing to mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secretkeeper12 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 10:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

In Edmund Morris's biography (volume 2) he cites the phrase “a bully pulpit” as having been quoted by Lyman Abbott in “A Review of President Roosevelt’s Administration: IV,” in The Outlook, 27 Feb. 1909.

I'm not sure that this proves Roosevelt actually used the phrase himself, but it seems the earliest attribution. I looked up the article itself (somewhere here), and the actual context doesn't give any indication of date for Roosevelt saying it, but the words reported are in the opening para of the article (page 430 of the 1909 volume of The Outlook):
 * Half a dozen of us were with the President in his library. He was at his desk reading to us his forthcoming Message. He had just finished a passage of a distinctly ethical character, when he suddenly stopped, swung round in his swivel chair, and said "I suppose my critics will call that preaching, but I have got such a bully pulpit". Then he turned back to his reading again.

Thomas Peardew (talk) 11:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits
A recent edit removed the dablink/hatnote to similar Wikipedia articles that readers might be looking for. I restored it to the article because I think readers should know right away if they have possibly ended up at the wrong Wikipedia entry. Let's discuss if the information should be conveyed in a 'See also' section or if the hatnotes should remain. Shearonink (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with your revert. The hatnotes are needed for disambiguation purposes and are not relevant enough to the subject for a see also section. Their closes relation is with their titles, making the hatnotes more appropriate Opencooper (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Article contradicts itself?
I want to apologize as this is my first attempt at feedback and I'm sure I'm doing something incorrectly re format or "in the right place' but it seems, to me, the article contradicts itself by first saying Roosevelt used the term (as we understand it today) to mean a terrific platform etc. The next sentence, however, redefines it to the more...archaic definition and continues "Roosevelt used the word bully as an adjective meaning "superb" or "wonderful", a more common usage at that time.[1][2]" It seems to say he used it as a wonderful, terrible platform. Or perhaps placing "also" after Roosevelt in that sentence was meant, in that he had also, previously used the term as it's meant in the idiom "bully for you"? Thank you  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.28.40.151 (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * In the way that the words were commonly used a century or so ago, terrific wasn't a synonym for terrible. Instead it meant much the same as superb or wonderful. So there's no intended contradiction in the adjectives chosen. This short article is at least partly there to explain that Roosevelt didn't use his position in the White House for the purpose of bullying anyone: instead he meant that he was provided with a magnificent opportunity to get his ideas widely known. Pulpits were widely used by preachers in Christian churches: and the congregation normally had no opportunity to argue with the preacher. Thomas Peardew (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)