Talk:Commonwealth of Nations: Difference between revisions
HagermanBot (talk | contribs) m 81.86.138.193 didn't sign: "→Curious: " |
→1,100 million is not a number: "Oh yes it is!!!" |
||
Line 278: | Line 278: | ||
::Yup... by US definition, that is 1.1 billion but by the traditional UK definition, it's 0.0011 billion. 1,100 million is perfectly sensible. - [[User:Burwellian|JVG]] 14:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC) |
::Yup... by US definition, that is 1.1 billion but by the traditional UK definition, it's 0.0011 billion. 1,100 million is perfectly sensible. - [[User:Burwellian|JVG]] 14:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC) |
||
:::1,100,000,000 eliminates ambiguity and the appearance (to US eyes) of a ridiculously misformed number. [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>[[User:TShilo12|r]][[User talk:TShilo12|<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk</sup>]] 04:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC) |
:::1,100,000,000 eliminates ambiguity and the appearance (to US eyes) of a ridiculously misformed number. [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>[[User:TShilo12|r]][[User talk:TShilo12|<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk</sup>]] 04:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::: It's common practice to choose your exponential as desired, thus I have seen plenty of balance sheets for bluechip companies that refer to "thousands of K", "thousand millions", "billions", etc. Generally depends on the scale. All but two of the countries of the world have a population below 1,000,000,000 (which in English is called a milliard ;-), so milliards/billions are no more suitable measures of population than trillions or googles. |
|||
==what do you think?== |
==what do you think?== |
Revision as of 22:50, 28 March 2007
![]() | Commonwealth of Nations is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 16, 2005. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
![]() | Organizations Unassessed | |||||||||
|
![]() | There is a request, submitted by (unknown), for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: "Previously requested". |
Eurocentrism
"On the west coast of the USA, what is now part of Washington State and Oregon were first explored by Captain George Vancouver of the Royal Navy. The island State of Hawaii (the 50th U.S. state) was first visited by Captain James Cook in 1788 on his third voyage aboard the HMS Resolution." -- Absolutely no reference to the native inhabitants of these lands -- the fact is these places were not discovered as such at those dates, but discovered by Europeans... Man already inhabited these lands.
Top
Are the Pitcairn Islands part of the Commonwealth? Theanthrope 18:45 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)
- They're a British overseas territory, so they're not members in their own right, but by virtue of the colonial power being a member. - Chrism 17:44, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Does anyone mind me adding Template:Commonwealth of Nations to the Commonwealth countries pages -- Chrism 17:44, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Israel
I'm not sure where else to ask this, so I'll ask here. Has Israel ever considered (or been offered) Commonwealth membership? It seems almost to fit (if oddly), given the British heritage (of sorts). -Penta 06:20, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I don't think Israel has ever been interested, though I did see an article once (in the Economist, I think) which said the Palestinian Authority were interested in joining once they got control of their own land. -- Arwel 19:09, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Would Israel or the Palestinian Authority qualify? Surely they were never a colony as such, but a League of Nations Mandate which was simply allowed to expire.--garryq 17:09, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
See the list of members: "Mozambique (1995) (currently the only member never to have been part of the British Empire)"
- I removed an incorrect statement about David Ben Gurion, claiming that he suggested that Israel join the Commonwealth. Here is what he really said: He did not suggest that Israel should join the Commonwealth but that the relations between the two countries should be developed on the basis of common values, mutual trust, and genuine equality. [1] --Gabi S. 15:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Etc.
There's a lot of colons in this article (like in the paragraph about the 30% of the world's population, India and Tuvalu), and these look, well, odd in American english, but are they typical for British english? And since the Commonwealth is a chiefly British organization, it would seem more reasonable to keep them if the Brits use them. However, if not even the Brits use them, they should be cleaned up. --Golbez 15:14, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Would somebody please give context for the de Gaule suggestion? It's sorta irresponsible to give a tantalizing hint like that otherwise! Doops 18:53, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It seems implausible that de Gaulle, who was always concerned with France's freedom of action, and always suspicious of England and the Commonwealth, would ever have suggested this. Perhaps some remark of his was misconstrued, or perhaps User:Jtdirl, who added this on 21:00, 3 Jan 2003, is pulling our legs. Unless I see good evidence, I plan to remove this remark in two weeks. --Macrakis 23:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Colons should be semicolons.
Re: The colons.
In Britain, it's not normal to have that many colons used in that way. It looks like the author has been using colons where they should have used semicolons.
Why is Hong Kong not on the list? The former British colony used to be a member of the Commonwealth until returning to China until 1997.
- Colonies are not "members" of the Commonwealth - only sovereign states can be members. Andrew Yong 00:50, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sections
The "See Also" section has a link to a category (Category:Members of the Commonwealth of Nations, which is not very meaningful. Categories should be at the bottom of the article. This category also lists only a single member nation - I will remove it.
Also, I think the "List of members by continent" can be split to its own article, making this article flow better. The list of members has been provided in the template at the bottom, so this section is superfluous anyway. I will split it into its own article and link it from "See Also." --ashwatha 19:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- It says "Hong Kong could not join because it became an SAR of China in 1997". But could not China then join, like Cameroon did despite only a small part of it actually being a colony?
Or could Hong Kong not join as 'Hong Kong, China', the name it uses at international conferences?
I'm quite sure it could join if it so wished. Biofoundationsoflanguage 13:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
What is the problem with a republic?
The article refers several times to issues with members that become republics being ejected from the Commonwealth. It also says, though, that most members are republics. What is the problem with a member becoming a republic?
Lemuel 16:01, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
There is actually contradictory information in the article. I suspect that the paragraph near the top is correct, i.e. that there is now no problem with a republic joining the Commonwealth provided they recognise the Queen as "Head of the Commonwealth" - a post which does not seem to impinge on national government at all. DJ Clayworth 21:48, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- No, it is not contradictory. By the rules, a nation ceases to be a member once it becomes a republic unless it gets the permission of other members to stay on. It is true that a majority of the members are republics - they have just received permission from other members, a precedent set by India in 1950. I agree that it is paradoxical, but there it is. The reason for the rule is that the organisation was originally meant to be for countries which recognized Queen Elizabeth as head of state. But 1950 onwards, colonialism became outdated, so members began to let other members stay after becoming republics. --ashwatha 03:04, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- OK, I'm starting to understand. However, do countries still lose their membership once they become a republic? The Commonwealth Timeline just says "London Declaration allows republics to retain membership, acknowledging the British Monarch as Head of the Commonwealth." It doesn't look like a country loses its membership per se, but just acknowledges the Monarch. --Beirne 04:00, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
- They still need the permission of other members. Without this formality their membership lapses - this happened in 1961 when South Africa became a republic and more recently in 1987 when the second Fijian coup overthrew the government and declared a republic. In contrast, the first coup had no effect on Fiji's membership, and the third coup only resulted in suspension from the Commonwealth.
- Suspension as an option only dates from the 1990s - previously the rule was non-interference in other members' internal affairs. If South Africa in 1961 had not required the other members' permission to become a republic, it could have remained in the Commonwealth indefinitely, since there was (and probably still is) no mechanism for expelling a country from the Commonwealth against its will. Andrew Yong 13:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't think the membership lapses - South Africa voluntarily withdrew from the Commonwealth after it was suspended and it was suspended because the other members of the Commonwealth considered that it was in serious and persistant breach of the Commonwealths principles! Not because it became a republic ! The example of India is basicaly irrelevant - the question in 1949 was whether India could leave the British Empire which was considered at the time a basic requirement for membership and still remain a member ? .That requirement ceased to be relevant when all of the 'Dominions 'subsequently became Sovereign Nations in there own right. And thus no longer 'within the Empire' . ( note the common allegiance was to 'the Crown' not to the office holder of that office ) If a member substantialy changes its constitution today the question is - does it still comply with the Commonwealths principles ? ie : democracy and good governance . South Africa could very well have remained a member indefinitely . LEEJON 15/9/05
- You are confusing what happened with South Africa in 1962 with Zimbabwe in 2003. South Africa was never suspended - there was at the time no procedure for suspending a member - faced with opposition to its apartheid policies it decided not to seek the permission of the other members to remain as a republic, and consequently its membership lapsed when it ceased to recognise the Queen as its head of state.
- The common allegiance to the Crown is exactly what we are talking about. If a member ceases to bear allegiance to the Crown it ceases to be a member unless it gets permission to remain within the Commonwealth as a republic. End of story. Andrew Yong 12:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
The Commonwealth is a Costitutional Monarchy not a Republic the only country that has partial republic system is canada Dudtz
Dudtz - The Commonwealth is not a Constitutional Monarchy - some of the individual members of the Commonwealth operate as such but the Commonwealth itself is not a political entity , has no Constitution and no legal jurisdiction . It is a 'free association' of independant Sovereign Nations . The Queen is the titular 'Head' of the Commonwealth but NOT the Sovereign .[ LEEJON 31 Aug 05 ]
Members of the Commonwealth of Nations
Surprisingly, I see that Category:Members of the Commonwealth of Nations only contains Pakistan. As I couldn't find it in this article, is there any other page where I can find a complete and exhaustive list of the participant States? Thanks! (If possible, could I receive an answer on my it.wiki name, as I don't regularly check my Discussion page on en.wiki? This is my italian Discussion page This is the en.wiki one: Giorgio. (Drop a note) I'm here 11:16, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC))
- There is a link in the article:
- 6 List of Commonwealth members
- See List of Commonwealth Members by continent -- ALoan (Talk) 23:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- 6 List of Commonwealth members
I'm starting a concerted effort to fill this category, especially as the Commonwealth template has, somewhat contreversially, been deleted from all the country pages. TreveXtalk 18:58, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
In relation to Commonwealth realms becoming Republics - Asawatha mentions ' the rules'- What rules is he/she referring to ?
There is a general belief that as the original members ( all British Dominions ) had a common allegiance to the British Crown which was held to be a requirement for membership at the time . ) that becoming a Republic would break that requirement for membership . The problem is that the Dominions of 1931 have all since become Sovereign States and no longer have a common allegiance to the British Crown . They now owe their allegiance to their own Crowns as in 'Queen of Australia " etc.
The only connection now is in a 'personal union ' with Queen Elizabeth . As the Commonwealth is (now) 'a voluntary association of Sovereign States '.And as there is no longer a 'common' allegiance to the British Crown and the conversion of a 'Commonwealth Realm' from a Constitutional Monarchy to a Republic does not involve a change of Sovereign Nation status there should be no break in membership of the Commonwealth . The only other requirement is that the Republic must still acknowledge the Queen as the ' Head ' of the Commonwealth and of course as she is not the Sovereign of the Commonwealth this should not present a problem . LEEJON 28/7/05
- This is incorrect. The rule still is that any member who recognises the Queen as Sovereign must get the permission of the other members to remain within the Commonwealth if it wishes to become a republic. Andrew Yong 12:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Map
Um, admittedly, geography is not my specialty, but there is something wrong with the map in the article. What is the "country" to the center-left? func(talk) 00:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- You'll have to be more specific. Guyana? Belize? Canada? Ddye 01:52, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Um, you're kidding, right? The left-most part of the map, (which is no where near Guyana, Belize, or Canada), shows this crazy bunch of lines in the middle of the pacific, where no crazy lines should be. The (whatever it is) can be seen almost touching Australia on the right side of the map. func(talk) 03:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Vandalism
Do featured articles always have this much trouble? Twice since I logged on 10 minutes ago. Ddye 01:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Articles linked from the Main Page have a habit of being vandalized. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Pictures
I still believe some pictures of the representatives would be suited for this article -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:36, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore, consumers in Commonwealth countries retain many preferences for goods from other members of the Commonwealth, so that even in the absence of tariff privileges, there continues to be more trade within the Commonwealth than might be predicted.
- On what basis is this predicted? Does this not then still constitute an economic bloc? - Centrx 08:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ireland a republic in 1949 or 1937?
It says in the article that Ireland (the independent part) became a Republic in 1949. I thought that was in 1937 (after having been a separate monarchy since 1922).
- From Republic of Ireland - "On the 29 December 1937 a new constitution, the Constitution of Ireland, came into force. It replaced the Irish Free State by a new state called simply 'Ireland'. Though this state's constitutional structures provided for a President of Ireland instead of a king, it was not technically a republic. The principal key role possessed by a head of state, that of representing the state symbolically internationally remained vested in statute law in the King as an organ. On 1 April 1949 the Republic of Ireland Act declared a republic, with the functions previously given to the King given instead to the President of Ireland." -- KTC 13:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sun never sets on the Brtish Commonwealth???
It seems unlikely that the expression 'the sun never sets on the British Commonwealth' would have been used at all. The term 'British Empire' was in common usage, the term Commonwealth only enterng into common usage when the Empire began to break up.
Sun never sets on the Brtish Commonwealth???
It seems unlikely that the expression 'the sun never sets on the British Commonwealth' would have been used at all. The term 'British Empire' was in common usage, the term Commonwealth only enterng into common usage when the Empire began to break up.
Quiensabe 18:15 UTC 28 Jun 2005
Head of the Commonwealth
Is this statement really true, or just somebody's crazy speculation: "As a result it is not clear whether the current heir apparent to the British and many other Commonwealth thrones, Prince Charles, will automatically assume the position of Head of the Commonwealth or whether another head of state within the Commonwealth might be asked to assume that position."
Does anyone seriously think that the Head of the Commonwealth could ever be someone other that the British monarch? --JW1805 18:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
South Africa
the map shows South Africa is part of the commonwealth I know they did leave did they re-join Dudtz7/20/05 6:17pm est
- They rejoined in 1994, see http://www.dfa.gov.za/foreign/Multilateral/profiles/common.htm Ddye 00:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- See, List of members of the Commonwealth of Nations by name (or one of the other lists of members) for details of states that have joined and left. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Commonwealth's name in Australia
I live in Australia and if someone talked about "the Commonwealth of Nations" few would know what you were talking about. Despite Australia's offical name being "Commonwealth of Australia" the Commonwealth of Nations is always called the Commonwealth. Ted BJ 10:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that it's a bit of a non-issue here. Australians are intelligent enough to determine which "Commonwealth" is the topic of discussion. However, it's furphy to say that few would know what the "Commonwealth of Nations" is: of course they would!--Cyberjunkie | Talk 12:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
The Scotland Portal is now up and running. It is a project in the early stages of development, but I think it could be a very useful resource indeed, perhaps more for general readers (the vast majority I presume), rather than committed editors, who may be more attracted by the great possibilities of the notice board format: Wikipedia:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board.
Give it a Watch, and lend a hand if you can. It is (hopefully) fairly low-maintenance, but if we run with the "News" section, that will take dedication: time which I cannot commit to presently myself. Most other boxes need replacment/update only weekly, fortnightly, or monthly, plus the occasional refreshment of the Scotland-related categories. Anyway, I assume this is how the other Portals are run, so we can follow their lead.
Please add the following code - {{portalpar|Scotland}} - to your own User page, and you will have the link to the portal right there for easy access. I will investigate how other portals use shortcuts too.
Assistance from Wikipedians in the rest of the Commonwealth, and indeed everywhere, would be greatly appreciated!--Mais oui! 09:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Such good England!
arouse both some hostility and indifference in Ireland
- Arousing indifference: I can't bear to get rid of it.
202.175.143.143 04:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
United States
Shouldn't the United States be on the list? It was a former British Colony under the British Empire. How come the map doesn't include this? Zachorious 10:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Because the map is of the Commonwealth as it existed in 2005. The US is not now nor has it or its constituent states ever been a member of the Commonwealth. The secession of the 13 colonies predates the formation of the Commonwealth by over a century. Normandy was also British at one point but it's not on the list for similar reasons. Homey 21:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification! Zachorious 01:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
there needs to be a more in depth explaination of why usa isnt a member. homey's explaination makes no sense. "the secession of the u.s. predates the formation of the commonwealth by over a century, therefore, the u.s. shouldnt be a member". australia gained its independence in 1901. canada in 1867. so whats his point about usa independence predating the commonwealth? and where does it say that independence has to come after the establishment of the commonwealth? "Membership is open to countries that accept the association's basic aims and have a present or past constitutional link to a Commonwealth member. Not all members have had direct constitutional ties to the UK: some South Pacific countries were formerly under Australian or New Zealand administration, while Namibia was governed by South Africa from 1920 until independence in 1990. Cameroon joined in 1995 although only a fraction of its territory had formerly been under British administration through the League of Nations mandate of 1920–46 and United Nations Trusteeship arrangement of 1946–61. There is only one member of the present Commonwealth that has never had any constitutional link to the British Empire or a Commonwealth member: Mozambique, a former Portuguese colony, was admitted in 1995 on the back of the triumphal re-admission of South Africa and Mozambique's first democratic elections, held in 1994."
The United States could presumably apply for membership and be eligible to join if it ever chose to. However, I don't think the idea has ever been entertained by any of the parties involved. The relationship of the USA to Great Britain in modern times is far different than that of any current Commonwealth member. Also, the USA is already allied to most major Commonwealth states, including Britain itself, under the terms of other treaties and agreements. Jsc1973 21:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- What's your point, and what relationship does it have to the article? Tomertalk 05:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Termination of membership
The article currently suggests that only republics have/had to get the agreement of the commonwealth membership to remain in the commonwealth. I would assume/expect that other countries such as Malaysia which are NOT republics but upon their independence recognised different indigenous monarchs as their heads of states also had to get permission to remain as members. If I'm correct, the article needs to be corrected/clarified Nil Einne 14:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Categories Malfunction
- I CutNpasted these three categories directly off the main category pages...
and they are showing up as redlinks near the article bottom, not in the category bar. Political history of England + Political history of Australia + United Kingdom political history. Since there is no reason to trash the article, I'm placing the attention Template herein. FrankB 06:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thats because you didn't add the "Category:" to it (sans the quotes).--KrossTalk 11:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Naming
Most people refer to it as the Commonwealth and previously the British Commonwealth. The of Nations bit on the end is the offical title but no-one uses it. I have never heard of anyone referring to Australia as the Commonwealth, not even Bruce Ruxton. Wallie 18:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
FARC
Lack of references. Skinnyweed 23:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Current and possible future applicants
This section should be revised. Future applicants is completely conjectural and should be removed or seperated as another Wiki entry. And this part:The four nations which comprise the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales) have in recent years moved towards a more federal style of relationship. It is not impossible that these four nations may eventually be completely independent... does not make any sense at all, politically, historically, factually, or constitutionally. It should be removed.--Gary Joseph 05:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- Just you wait, Scotland will be independent before we can say "but..." ;) —Nightstallion (?) 11:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
But.....:-) Xerex
But..........?
And over 6 months later... "but"...? :-p Tomertalk 04:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Curious
Why hasn't the US joined? Have we been offered? Or does the rest of the Commonwealth not like us?Cameron Nedland 04:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
The Commonwealth would undoubtedly welcome such an influential nation, albeit one with controversial policies, such as the USA into the fold. However, the USA has not expressed interest, and accession to the Commonwealth requires an application.
- I think that the key reason the USA is not a member/has not been invited to join, is that it left the influence of HMG before the Commonwealth was formed! :-) More reasons I can think of:
1) British colonies/dependencies generally became independent by mutual agreement of HMG and the governance of the colony. However, the colonies that evolved into what we now call the USA gained independence by coup. There was no roadmap to independence, discussion, treaty etc. In fact, I hear that there is still no explicit acknowledgment of USA independence by HMG. Even though implicitly HMG has recognised USA for years. 2) the USA has a well-deserved reputation for being brash, headstrong and impetuous, I doubt very much that they would request to join an institution started by the colonial masters they disowned all those years ago! 3) the USA often refers to its premiership as "leader of the free world", as members of the Commonwealth this would change to "leader of the free world, well, second-in-command, anyway" ;-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.86.138.193 (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
George Bush's alleged advocacy of US membership
I'd never heard of this, before reading the article. Can someone provide a source please? Thanks. 158-152-12-77 23:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Also, the paragraph stating that Palestine, Rwanda and Yemen have applied for membership in the Commonwealth cites a web page which does not appear to be accessible: http://www.thecommonwealth.org/document/34293/35232/37061/chogm97communique.htm --Metropolitan90 08:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have removed the U.S. section as I could find no support for these statements which were added by an anon account on August 13 (the account is frequently blocked for vandalism but the edits to this article seem well-intentioned). Rmhermen 17:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- That Commonwealth link works for me. Paragraph 21 refers to Palestine, Rwanda and Yemen. -- Arwel (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, the link works for me now. --Metropolitan90 14:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Almost all?
The Commonwealth of Nations (CN), usually known as the Commonwealth, is a voluntary association of 53 independent sovereign states, almost all of which are former colonies of the United Kingdom. (emphasis mine)
Which weren't at one point colonies? Or is the only exception the UK?
- Mozambique never had any ties with the UK. josh (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
1,100 million is not a number
It says the population of India is 1,100 million, which is not a number. The correct population of India is 1.1 billion.
- It's a perfectly good and understandable number. Not everyone likes to use "billions" because of possible ambiguity. -- Arwel (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yup... by US definition, that is 1.1 billion but by the traditional UK definition, it's 0.0011 billion. 1,100 million is perfectly sensible. - JVG 14:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- 1,100,000,000 eliminates ambiguity and the appearance (to US eyes) of a ridiculously misformed number. Tomertalk 04:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yup... by US definition, that is 1.1 billion but by the traditional UK definition, it's 0.0011 billion. 1,100 million is perfectly sensible. - JVG 14:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's common practice to choose your exponential as desired, thus I have seen plenty of balance sheets for bluechip companies that refer to "thousands of K", "thousand millions", "billions", etc. Generally depends on the scale. All but two of the countries of the world have a population below 1,000,000,000 (which in English is called a milliard ;-), so milliards/billions are no more suitable measures of population than trillions or googles.
what do you think?
did the former colonies remained loyal to uk because the most part of the natives were exterminated (like in Australia) by the colons or get submissed to the colons (like in South Africa w/apartheid) ? are these personal guessings right?
- the colons, minority among the native majority remained loyal to uk in order to get protectied from an independence civil war led by colony natives against the colon authority.
- the natives were not able to vote the independence referendum unlike the colons?
thanks. Shame On You 07:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Fuji suspended.
[3] < Not sure how to adjust article to reflect that but thought it's something that people need to work in. - JVG 14:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Has Fiji's membership not since been "unsuspended"? Tomertalk 04:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
language and non-members
Are the United States, Ireland, and Fiji the only (partly) English-speaking nations which are not Commonwealth members? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.197.221.12 (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
Fiji's membership is suspended, not revoked. Only the nation itself can revoke its own membership. No expulsions. So that leaves Ireland and US, with Ireland having once joined, but left. So, that leaves the US as the only English-speaking nation to never be a Commonwealth member. 129.219.6.193 14:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not incredibly surprising, since the concept of the Commonwealth didn't come along until long after the US had declared its independence (and fought an incredibly bloody [and I would say "senselessly so"] war to obtain it). The very concept of the Commonwealth was originally one of recognition of British "paternity", of sorts, over the nations of the Commonwealth. The idea that the US would (or could, given the tone and rationale of its founding) acquiesce to such a concept or its resultant organization, defies logic and denies rationality. Ireland, bearing a great deal of well-founded resentment toward England and especially toward the Crown, has its own (very different) reasons for not wishing to continue its membership, and terminated it only once it felt safe from the threat of invasion for doing so. Tomertalk 04:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Question about the relevance of this text
The article presently contains the following text:
- The largest military spenders are the United Kingdom at US$48 billion, India at US$21 billion, and Australia and Canada at US$10.5 billion each. The Commonwealth of Nations is not a military alliance. see : List of countries by military expenditures
If the Commonwealth is not a military alliance, why is any of this text necessary (to say nothing of relevant)? Tomertalk 04:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Commonwealth Games
Are they really second largest games after the Olympics? I think the Asia games would be bigger.