Comments:Santorum neologism spreads to Romney

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Comments on this page were originally made using the LiquidThreads extension, which is no longer supported. It has since been exported to wikitext, but the export process was not perfect so comments may appear slightly oddly.

Start a new discussion

Comments from feedback form - "The article is poorly written ..."

The article is poorly written and after reading it twice I am still unclear exactly how "Romney" or "Romneying" is defined, how this relates to the well-known Santorum neologism, or why this is notable (3,000 likes does not notability make). 69.31.35.200 (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

More info at http://spreadingromney.com/ -- Cirt (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

If your are going to refer to a source for more information, should there at least be some more information available? This article is little more than pushing a Democratic agenda story that has almost no play in the real world. However, I am not that suprised. 66.44.182.212 (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for sharing your personal opinion! -- Cirt (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You refer to the website for additional information. The website has no information, only the definition. Please explain your response. 66.44.182.212 (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, heh, I was just answering your first question initially about the definition. -- Cirt (talk) 02:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Your initial reply did not answer the question. What is the point in referring to the website for more information when the website offers no additional information at all. Not quite sure what is newsworthy about some random Romney hater creating an attack website in the first place. 66.44.182.212 (talk) 05:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It's evidently newsworthy enough for TIME, New York Magazine, MSNBC, and The Atlantic. -- Cirt (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "Clearly written by a Democrat ..."

Clearly written by a Democrat with an agenda. 62.78.234.31 (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "Pure political posturing. Thi..."

Pure political posturing. This is a non-story that is being pushed by the left. It also seems to be used to further the santorum website in order to help out Savage's slur campaign against Santorum. 66.44.182.212 (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for sharing your perspective of the right. Most interesting. -- Cirt (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "Pretty funny stuff, I say."

Pretty funny stuff, I say. One doesn't even need to take effort to smear Mitt or Rick. Just wind them up and let them go. 69.199.30.18 (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. :) -- Cirt (talk) 07:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Earliest mention of Twitter on Wikinews?

Just wondering if this is the earliest mention Twitter? If so should't Category:Twitter be added to this article? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)