|WikiProject International relations||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Politics||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
The article was in as High commissioner yet is about an office called High Commissioner. If both words in the title are capitalised, they should be on wiki, just as we don't write about Prime minister, Pope paul, etc. FearÉÍREANN 22:19 26 May 2003 (UTC)
Are High Commissioners appointed to/from Commonwealth republics which don't have the Queen as head of state? Ddye 03:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Nevermind, I answered my own question and clarified it in the article, though if someone has more insight into why they do in fact still appoint commissioners rather than ambassadors, they should definitely add it. Ddye 03:26, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Reasons why they are titled as High Commissioners rather than as Ambassadors.
Secondly, it indicates membership of the British Nations.
In the event that Ireland returns to the British Commonwealth, the Irish Embassy in Great Britain would be retitled as the Irish High Commission in Great Britain. - (Aidan Work 01:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC))
This article is clearly too long and full of unnecessary biographical information. These should if possible be placed in sub-pages, e.g. List of High Commissioners of Palestine. I also suggest that officials not actually known as High Commissioner, but Haut Commissaire, etc. should be dealt with more briefly in this article and in more depth in their own article, such as Haut commissaire. Andrew Yong 15:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that the section on High Commissioners within the Commonwealth of Nations, and possibly going back to the British Empire, be split to form a separate article. This would separate what are different positions (for practical purposes, High Commissioners are ambassadors), and would allow a more direct link for all articles related to modern High Commissioners from Commonwealth members. I haven't thought of an entirely appropriate name, but something along the lines of 'High Commissioner (Commonwealth)' would suffice. Bastin 17:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- If you read the whole Commonwealth section, you will find that it is absolutely NOT limited to the equivalent of present Ambassadors, but covers a whole range of -partially overlapping, sometimes even cumulated- functions in the colonial era, and the whole point of writing the bulk of the article was precisely to show the complex web, which would be shattered if split blindly Commonwealth/Elsewhere. If you insist on a split (I wouldn't go for it, but see you referencing point), it would therefore by wiser to limit it to the Bilateral SUBsection. Fastifex 11:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that the British Commonwealth & Empire section should be split off. Andrew Yong 16:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
It's probably worth a mention on this page the usage of "High Commissioner" with regard to the Eire. Ireland had a High Commissioner in Canada, and accepted a High Commissioner from Australia, but did when it came to Britain the title "British Representative" was used, and Ireland's man in Australia was "Minister Plenipotentiary Representative of Ireland in Australia" http://www.psa.ac.uk/publications/psd/1998/lloyd1.htm 08:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)