Talk:Interior ministry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Politics (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

"The way it was"[edit]

I would like to point out, that since User:Instantnood has taken to using "previous version" or "refraining from adding controversial edits until the dispute is settled" as excuses for promoting his point of view, may I call for him to exercise greater initiative on his part. For example, he reverts my edits which involve the addition of "Hong Kong, China", without explicitely expressing his objections when the proposal was first put up in Wikipedia talk:HK wikipedians' notice board. He claims he is justified to do so due to "disputes" which arise from such edits. If that is the case, I clearly made it known from the above page and in other pages, that I dispute the term HK appearing in country lists without any relevant quantifyers attached, be it in terms of the ", China" tag, being classified as a sub-entry of the PRC, or with footnotes and others notifications. As such, if Instantnood wants to preach what he says, than to reciprocate, he is also disallowed from adding Hong Kong from any country list.--Huaiwei 16:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes Hong Kong is a special administrative region of the PRC, and "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" is its official name, and it joins international organisations under the name "Hong Kong, China", I don't agree it is necessary to state its full name or "Hong Kong, China" every single time Hong Kong is mentioned on Wikipedia. "Hong Kong", with a wikilink, already provides adequate information to readers. Pretty much like we normally don't write "the Commonwealth of Australia", but "Australia".
If I were promoting my point of view user:Huaiwei is doing just the same thing. She/he edited many articles to change "Hong Kong" into "Hong Kong, China", or move listing of Hong Kong as a subsection of China, despite opposition at the talk page of the Hong Kong wikipedians' notice board. As it is not likely any consensus can be reached shortly I am having a policy to keep things as they were until the disagreements are finally settled, that is, to keep the format it first appears in the article. If its earliest edit to write Hong Kong is in the form "Hong Kong, China", I'd keep it as it is (the same applies to listing as separate section or as subsection of China). At the same time I'd edit with the format I prefer when I'm adding materials about Hong Kong to articles previously with no reference to Hong Kong. I consider this a way to avoid more edit warring, and I would expect the other parties to do the same. So far user:Huaiwei may not have discovered this, and is probably carrying on tailing my edits and modifying them according to his point of view. — Instantnood 16:37, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
tl;dr after the first two sentences. Australia is a country, HK is not. SchmuckyTheCat 18:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
If there are content-disputes, we leave that aside for now, since the issue is more to do with conduct anyway as per the "dispute" at hand. I dont deny my pushing of POV the way you do, and which you claim I shun responsibility from. I do not think you are in any better position to comment on this at all. Since both of us are equally attempting to push a POV, than perhaps you would agree that equal restrictions should be in place to prevent both from pushing forth a POV? Your "policy" is what is it...your policy. I saw it as unfair, and I saw you utilising it as a veil to continue pushing your POV across. If that is what you want to continue doing, than do you not think we should apply the same standards on your own edits?
Your solution clearly does not work. If you insist that the "first version" is "preferred", than may I know how you would define it? In some articles, you call first version to refer to the first version of the title. In some cases, you call it the first versions before the disputes. In this case, you call it the first instance you put in an edit which is a promotion of your POV. In other words, every single case of these "first versions" are simply the versiona you prefer. You consider that fair? I find that pretty amusing. So I suppose in order to "counter" your "policy", I must now try, as quickly as I can, to add "Hong Kong, China" to every article in wikipedia before you have a chance to add "Hong Kong"? Ridiculous!
And so, I should have the liberty to similarly form my own "policies" to counter your POV-pushing, wont you think so? Since you want others to avoid contentious edits, than yes, you jolly well adhere to that as well. As I said before, I am now going to aggresively remove all your efforts in adding "Hong Kong" to country lists without the neccesary quantifyers. If you react dismally to my latest salvo, you only have yourself to blame for formulating your own "skewed policy" and forcing a response like this from me.
Last but not least, you shall continue to discover "tailing edits" so long that you persist in doing the exact same thing to others.--Huaiwei 05:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
No. If you do a bit homework you can tell I do not always restore to an earlier version that represent my point of view. Stop making denunciations that even you yourself are aware that's not true facts. If you're going to be agressive, be bold, and good luck. — Instantnood 08:29, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
I have done enough homework to speak out against someone who continues to push POVs while hiding behind pretentious viles of "reconciliation". Your above statement is yet another sparkling example of this. Constant denials is not going to erase your edit histories, and no, you didnt get 2 arbcoms and a RFC for nothing. I have always been aggresive against the aggressive, so lets see how it goes, yah? ;)--Huaiwei 09:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Let's say, Universitas 21, Electronic Road Pricing and national dish. Is my denial of your denouncements backed? Those are actually not 2 ArbCom cases. It was reopened based on technical ground (it was closed without the required 4 net support vote). And please don't take the advantage of the kindness of other people who have not taken any action against you to be agressive and to push forward your point of view. — Instantnood 10:15, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

United States "Interior Minister"[edit]

Hello everybody.

Would anybody object if I removed the U.S... Secretary of the Interior from the list in this article and replaced it with the U.S. Attorney General? I feel like the Secretary of the Interior, while having "Interior" in the title, doesn't really belong on this list because the function of its office is better covered by the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General. And the difference between the two is sufficiently explained in a paragraph in the body text of this article.

What do you guys think? – Novem Lingvae (talk) 09:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Please remove it! It has nothing to do with this page. But neither does the Attorney General. ASJ94 (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I did a little research, and the United States Department of Justice is in charge of all the federal law enforcement agencies (such as FBI, ATF, US Marshals), administers federal prisons, and runs the immigration courts. To me, that suggests that the Attorney General does at least as much as the Director of Homeland Security in terms of policing, national security, and immigration. Which is why I want to add that position instead of just removing the Secretary of the Interior. – Novem Lingvae (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the change. – Novem Lingvae (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Church-State relations[edit]

While researching Church-State relations, I noticed that the interior ministry is often the ministry that deals with issues regarding religions and their proper place in society. It would be interesting if we could add a short note on this in the article. ADM (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)