Talk:Bully Pulpit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.

The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

Hold on a sec, what happened? This seems like a perfectly good encyclopedic stub, not just a wiktionary entry. The paper should be at Bully Pulpit, not here. GreenReaper (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to transfer it to Bully Pulpit, but I'm not sure how? It would be great if you can help me. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulpits (talk • contribs) 22:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I came here looking for information on the use of the White House as a Bully Pulpit -- famously by Theodore Roosevelt. I heard Barack Obama use the term and was intrigued. I can't honestly say I find this article on a niche student publication at Cornell overly encyclopedic.

As sources, for accusations that a rival publication has conspired with porn stars, it cites the subject of the article. Doesn't come across as NPOV. The list of founders and leadership comes across as vanity, frankly.

I note that there is no entry for the decades-old student publication at my alma mater which is a federal corporation, and whose staffers have gone on to work for major newspapers. Why not? Mainly because it's simply not encyclopedic. It's not something relevant.

I'm inclined to propose this for deletion, though certainly willing to listen to opposing arguments before doing so. Holmwood (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Dear Holmwood,

I added another reference (primary) for Cornell Review's collaboration with pornstars. Perhaps, it is time that you start a wiki entry for your alma mater newspaper? I just don't understand why the Bully Pulpit is being targeted, when other publications, such as Cornell Progressive, The Cornell Centrist, Cornell Review, and thousands of other college publications have entries.

As for enyclopedic, I'll try to add more third party reference sources, but some other publications don't have any references at all, the Bully Pulpit has 10!

If you feel the language NPOV that can easily be fixed. Just point to some areas where you think there should be some changes. I'll be happy to accomodate. I hope we can work together. Thank you. --Pulpits (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)