Changes

Line 67: Line 67:  
::I like your comment on change, Rob, it made me laugh :) Anyway, I don't see how an argument that Obama's slogan being "change" is any reason to title his article to what he is less commonly known as/less traditional. It's pushing it, in a sense. Besides, being a conservative, I would think that you wouldn't want to follow Obama's way of thinking ;) [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 13:40, 27 February 2010 (EST)
 
::I like your comment on change, Rob, it made me laugh :) Anyway, I don't see how an argument that Obama's slogan being "change" is any reason to title his article to what he is less commonly known as/less traditional. It's pushing it, in a sense. Besides, being a conservative, I would think that you wouldn't want to follow Obama's way of thinking ;) [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 13:40, 27 February 2010 (EST)
 
:::Conservatives are for change, both economic and social.  They want to change tax law and abortion rulings, for example.  Above all, change public education.  Being anti-change is just a vulgar stereotype held by closeminded and intolerant people.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:09, 27 February 2010 (EST)
 
:::Conservatives are for change, both economic and social.  They want to change tax law and abortion rulings, for example.  Above all, change public education.  Being anti-change is just a vulgar stereotype held by closeminded and intolerant people.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:09, 27 February 2010 (EST)
 +
::::I can agree with that. But ''why'' "change" how Obama's article is titled when others are titled either without their middle name or with their middle name if they are commonly known and identified by the name, in some cases. Simply changing something doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing, there has to be reason, and the reason has to be, well, reasonable. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 14:44, 27 February 2010 (EST)
31

edits