Comments:Santorum neologism spreads to Romney
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.
Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.
Contents
Thread title | Replies | Last modified |
---|---|---|
Earliest mention of Twitter on Wikinews? | 0 | 15:32, 7 May 2023 |
Comments from feedback form - "Pretty funny stuff, I say." | 1 | 07:17, 29 February 2012 |
Comments from feedback form - "The article is poorly written ..." | 7 | 17:35, 21 February 2012 |
Comments from feedback form - "Pure political posturing. Thi..." | 1 | 23:14, 19 February 2012 |
Comments from feedback form - "Clearly written by a Democrat ..." | 1 | 20:15, 17 February 2012 |
Just wondering if this is the earliest mention Twitter? If so should't Category:Twitter be added to this article?
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.
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).
More info at http://spreadingromney.com/
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)
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)