Dec 22, 16 / Cap 21, 00 18:33 UTC

Ministry is a negative title for our group names  

Ministry sounds too 1984 (read the book, it will give you shivers to use ministry for anything). and/or too religious. (see dictionary definitions) try the less controversial "bureau" or "department" or "cabinet"

Dec 22, 16 / Cap 21, 00 18:36 UTC

Hmm, i find it ok, if you take administration then the ministry fits well.

Grtz, Dirk.

Dec 22, 16 / Cap 21, 00 18:37 UTC

Department sounds more neutral. I agree. It moves the government closer to the citizens.

Dec 24, 16 / Cap 23, 00 18:06 UTC

The connotation threw me off at first, but the definition fits.

Dec 24, 16 / Cap 23, 00 23:01 UTC

There's plenty to look at and say its a bit too Orwellian, but I feel this is a weak attempt to grasp at straws.

Dec 25, 16 / Cap 24, 00 01:27 UTC

Connotations can say a lot more than definitions, and "ministry" has a strong negative connotation.

Words are arbitrary labels which humans assign to concepts. The reason that English-speaking people call an "orange" an "orange" and not a "tomato" is a basically because humans chose to, in theory the labels could be changed. A dictionary is a good way to get a sense of the concept to which the label is assigned.

The dictionary definition of "ministry" is "(in certain countries) a government department headed by a minister of state.' google. and a "minister" is defined as a "head of a government department" google..

Therefore, the direct dictionary definition of the word makes perfect sense. But there is a connotation that is possibly stronger than the definition!! I cringed when I saw the government departments were titled "ministries." It conjures up thoughts of terrible, oppressive governments. I think people make first impressions rapidly, and not always rationally. Perhaps a more neutral moniker should be considered?

  Last edited by:  Joseph Dasenbrock (Asgardian)  on Dec 25, 16 / Cap 24, 00 01:29 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Jan 3, 17 / Aqu 03, 01 21:12 UTC

The Orwellian part of this is the fact that people are ignoring the definition and relying on "what they feel" about a word. That leaves anyone (including governments) to haphazardly repeat certain phrases with concepts that don't belong together, which causes the negative connotation. That creates post-truths and facts that aren't facts. That is Orwellian.

An "orange" was a "norange". Misinterpretation, lack of clarity, and no motivation to verify what things should be is what leads to problems.

Are we going to rely on connotation or are we going to set the record straight? Agreeing with Kajiim, let's not grasp at straws.

  Last edited by:  Jonathan Henrich (Asgardian)  on Jan 3, 17 / Aqu 03, 01 21:13 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time