Talk:Commonwealth of Nations

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.

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.

Commonwealth Games

Are they really second largest games after the Olympics? I think the Asia games would be bigger.

Rhodesia

Rhodesia was never a member of the Commonwealth, as it was a British colony right up to 1980. - (203.211.73.10)

CN

CN is not a widely-used abbreviation. The short form is the commonwealth.

Free association

The article states that the Queen represents "the free association of independent members". Having checked the reference it would appear that this is in fact a statement from the Statute of Westminster in the 1940's which related to acts of parliament no longer applying to dominions. It is a legitimate part of the history of the Commonwealth, but I cannot see anything which would support the statement that is current Commonwealth policy. Am I missing something? --Snowded TALK 15:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's legit. From the Commonwealth website [1] "HM Queen Elizabeth II is the Head of the Commonwealth and is recognised as the 'symbol of their free association' by members of the association." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, as confirmed by the recommendations of the Committee on Commonwealth Membership, as adopted by the 2007 CHOGM. That's pretty uncontroversial convention by now. Bastin 04:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

I just want confirmation that the first two paragraphs of the introduction, as thusly amended, confer an understanding of what the Commonwealth does. I intend that the following two paragraphs be replaced, in turn, by paragraphs that explain the history and evolution of the Commonwealth and then a (shorter) paragraph on the Commonwealth realms, etc. The introduction would thus look:

1. Name, objectives, and fundamental nature of the Commonwealth.
2. Functions and mechanisms
3. History and development
4. Irrelevance of Commonwealth realms and all that junk that people that illogically connect to the Commonwealth,

Still trying to wean this article away from those that think the Commonwealth and monarchy are inseparable... As if the umpteen articles that I've written on the constitutional history of the Commonwealth don't suffice! Bastin 04:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Date of establishment of the Commonwealth

The List of Commonwealth Members gives 1931 (the date of the Statute of Westminster 1931) as the relevant date. Is this correct? I note that the preamble to the SofW states:

And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this Act that, inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom:

The Anglo Irish Treaty of 1921 also referred to a "British Commonwealth of Nations" (ten years before the SofW).

So the preamble refers to an existing "Commonwealth" so I fail to see how it only came into existence in 1931. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Because it was formed in 1931? Feel free to provide references to the contrary. The two references you cite both use the term in a looser, more poetic sense, as it had been used since the 19th century. However, the establishment of all the countries as equal partners, rather than subservient to the United Kingdom, dates to 1931. Before 1931, the countries did not have independent foreign policies; not being able to have independent foreign policies kinda makes it hard to have relations with one another through an international institution. Hence all authoritative sources giving it as that date. Bastin 01:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Can't see it also being in 1921 with the example given above, but there was made mention of it when the Balfour Declaration of 1926 was done during the 1926 Imperial Conference. The Statute of Westminster 1931 just made it into law by the British Parliament in a legal format. So I would say 1926 is when it first was brought up & codified by 1931. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 05:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Re "Because it was formed in 1931? Feel free to provide references to the contrary." Can you provide a source for that 1931 date - I have not said it was 1921 or any other date. I want to know what the correct date (if there is one) is;

RE The Statute of Westminster 1931 just made it into law by the British Parliament in a legal format. I suggest you look at the SoW - nowhere does it state that a British Commonwealth of Nations is hereby established etc. Indeed, as I note above, in its preamble it refers to tbe BCN as already existing.

Does any one have any information concerning the date the BCN was established?

Regards. Redking7 (talk) 06:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

There are several important dates for the institution's development. 1887; date of first colonial conference; 1926 Imperial Conference and Balfour Declaration which the UK and dominions agreed they are "equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations."; 1931 SoW giving legal status to previous agreement at the conferences; 1949 London Declaration, founding of modern Commonwealth with the admission of India and acceptance of monarch as head. We should not pick one, but list each as it defines the evolution and codification of the Commonwealth. But 1921, I do not know about.Gary Joseph (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

User Gary Joseph - Thats what I always thought was the case. Once can't point to one "founding date" for the Commonwealth. I will change the List of members of the Commonwealth of Nations to try to make it more accurate in this respect. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why a discussion about the list is taking place here, but the Commonwealth secretariat [2] gives 1931 as the joining date, and that's what the list will say until you provide some kind of official source that states otherwise. Although I somewhat disagree with this statement, wikipedia policy is that The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Re "I have no idea why a discussion about the list is taking place here" - Obvious reason. The other page is not visited much. Not many editors there to participate. Re the Commonwealth website...I can't find the 1931 reference there. Please can you paste it here. Thanks. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

But those who look after the list (ie. me) are unaware of the discussion if it is held here. You have to look at the individual profiles, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa. It doesn't give a date for when the UK joined (but that's really not surprising). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Scorpion, that joining date you cite is an anomaly based on convenience. If they had simply put "founding member", that would have been consistent with history. The original dominions predate the founding of the modern institution. (This situation is unfolding similar to the disaster that resulted in the article for the American states and their joining dates.) Redking, the 1931 date is an important date in the founding and establishment of the Commonwealth, but it is not the only one. See [3]. Also, Scorpion, the Commonwealth is celebrating its 60th anniversary, that does not go back to 1931 or any date earlier. Let us not get stuck on fitting the information into a standard table and in the process lose the meaning of what happened. Unless of course Wikipedia has an rule against that too. Gary Joseph (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not smart enough to debate you point to point on Commonwealth history, so I'll have to take your word for it. The point is, wikipedia is based on verifiability. You say that the day those nations joined is different than what is listed at the Commonwealth's own website and that they are wrong? Okay, fair enough, but find an official source before changing it. Simply putting "founding member" member isn't good enough, I would like to have an official joining date in the table, otherwise it looks sloppy and incomplete. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

We are all smart enough to debate this. Besides, I was only trying to serve as mediator between you and Redking. I really could care less. But all is well ;).Gary Joseph (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree (again) with Gary Joseph. Re the verifiability point, the same website says the Commonwealth is celebrating 60 years (not 78), the "1931" date you mention for Australia, NZ and Canada are not even consistent - 2 of the three give the date as "1931 (Statute of Westminster)"; the other simply as "1931" (We all know the significance of the inclusion of the words "(Statute of Westminster)" - it was a way of acknowledging that for the countries concerned, there was no simple "date of joining", their membership was a result of a gradual evolution; Therefore, no verifiability has been demonstated by pointing to the pages concerned; Similarly (unlike on the List page), no date of joining is given on the UK country profile either...a further argument that the inclusion of the 1931 date was simply for convenience and not grounded on any sound reading of history. Thinking it through logically, it would be a nonsense to suggest a country like the Irish Free State was not a member of the Commmonwealth in 1930 (when its politicians swore an oath of alleigance expressly referring to the British Commonwealth of Nations) but was a member the following year....The discussion could go on but really the 1931 date does not stack up. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the term commonwealth was used for some time before that, but you have to remember that we are talking about the political entity called the Commonwealth of Nations. What is it you are proposing to do with the date joined column? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If not 1931, then when? GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No references for dates other than 1931 means no change. You can have a supposedly 'intelligent' discussion, but Wikipedia has rules. When I get home from work, I'll be happy to direct you to a number of academic articles that make it clear that 1931 is the appropriate date. In any event, Australia and New Zealand were not original members, since they ratified the Statute of Westminster after the others, and thus, did not have control over foreign policy. Bastin 20:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Redking, let it go. The problems are 1). there is obvious inconsistency of the information the Commonwealth Secretariat gives on its website ( an official source); 2). those wanting to complete the table do not care on resolving that inconsistency, but simply accepting the parts they want as a matter of convenience; 3). there is a persistent fallacy that there has only been ONE Commonwealth, and 4.) those attempting to complete the table are insistent on putting a DATE in the specific column. The latter point is interesting as the Commonwealth Secretariat does not list a "joining date" for the UK, and most historians don't list one either, but the Wikipedia table has a date nonetheless. I get so tired of people simply taking information, then regurgitating it back into a Wikipedia article without thinking about it. Emporis is a much cited source, but I am constantly finding mistake errors on that site and have on many occasions had the editors revise them. This is a case in point. But Redking, the resistance to resolving the inconsistency in a meaningful way and recognizing the different forms of the institution is obviously too strong. Let this "supposedly intelligent discussion" go. Best...Gary Joseph (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)