Jump to content

Talk:Commonwealth of Nations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 79.119.217.157 (talk) at 08:25, 6 March 2012 (→‎India is not commonwealth!!!: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured articleCommonwealth 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 16, 2005.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 2, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
September 2, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 1, 2009.
Current status: Former featured article

Template:Findnotice

Map has no legend

The map has countries marked in blue and orange but no legend to explain what these mean. — 217.46.147.13 (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the link to the map itself, it told what those were. So I added in the info to give clarity. It even had green for Fiji, which I later saw close up & noted it too. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British Army

A citizen of the Commonwealth is eligible to join the British Army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.122.69 (talk) 08:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. --Lholden (talk) 09:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United States

I'm curious. Would the US' status as a former British colony qualify it to join the Commonwealth if it wished? Spartan198 (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would qualify under the guidelines, as referenced in the article Commonwealth of Nations membership criteria.
However, all Commonwealth membership is decided on a case-by-case basis by the assembled Heads of Government of the Commonwealth every two years. As such, were the US to apply (a very unlikely situation), there may well be such great opposition to American membership (it would dominate the Commonwealth in many respects) that they might reject the suggestion. Frankly, who knows? Bastin 13:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Theoretically the US could make an application to join the commonwealth, but i think only the original 13 colonies would be eligible to enter as it was those same 13 colonies that were under British rule prior to independenceEnglish n proud (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

nominal gdp vs ppp

isn't nominal gdp more widley used when sizing up economies ? it's noble to pretend price levels and exchange rates don't change or affect the core of economies, but in reality they do and have a direct effect on the financial well being of all nations, separating the rich from the poor countries. this article quotes ppp and thus has India being the largest economy but in nominal terms it is about the same size as Australia's (even its exports). Britain's economic size is by far the largest followed by Canada who's exports and nominal gdp are about 60 % larger than India's and Australia's. people appear to be more intested in nominal gdp as well. total page views for List of countries by GDP (nominal) is approximately 4 times that for List of countries by GDP (PPP)Grmike (talk) 05:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)grmike[reply]

Hi grmike, thanks for your noble suggestion. I am glad to inform you that India's GDP is now larger than Canada's and a LOT larger than Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.254.93.47 (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The English Used

As this article is for commonwealth states would it be no more appropriate to use Briton English here. That is realise as opposed to realize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.98.155 (talk) 09:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC) I agree. MrTranscript (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

jews; boner

The first establishment event is listed as jews, boner which seems rather unlikelyto be true. Any idea what this was meant to say before it was vandalised? Thom2002 (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. Fortunately, Wikipedia saves every revision of the page, so we can use the article history to restore it to any point and undo such infantile vandalism (Jewish penises... teeheehee... how funny). Bastin 23:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Flag

Please add the flag of the Commonwealth of Nations to this article! --84.61.146.104 (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The design of the flag is probably not in the public domain, so trying to find an image which meets our free licensing requierments will be well-nigh impossible, and I'm not sure how justifiable fair use would be in this article either. David Underdown (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use would apply to this article, because it illustrates the public identity that the Commonwealth chooses itself to represent. It would also apply to Flag of the Commonwealth of Nations, because it illustrates the subject. In both cases, there is no substitute.
I have contacted the Commonwealth Secretariat to enquire about the legal status of the flag. The Commonwealth Secretariat has a strange legal status itself, so I'm not sure where the flag stands. Bastin 15:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Anthem

Is there an officially (or unofficially) recognized anthem of the Commonwealth itself?--达伟 (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's an official one, but God Save the Queen, an anthem used by many of the Commonwealth's member states which are also Commonwealth realms, could be considered to be the Commonwealth anthem. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 14:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no Commonwealth anthem. God Save the Queen cannot be considered the anthem, and is only the national anthem of 2 Commonwealth members. It is used in connection with the person of the Head of the Commonwealth in those members where it is either the national anthem (United Kingdom, New Zealand) or the royal anthem (Canada, Australia, Jamaica, Tuvalu), but that is due to their domestic institutions, not those of the Commonwealth. Bastin 16:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

British Commonwealth

The Common Wealth should be united under on banner. A ellection should be made to make a leader of the commonn wealth. The monarchy Should remain in charge but at least they should have a goverment to controll it. etc the house of Lords.

It's a step towards enlightment Were everyone can get free education, medicle faciltys, strong defence, carehomes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.100.72 (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Map colours

I think that for traditional reasons the blue of the map should be red. Also orange is probably the worst colour possible for the Republic of Ireland! -- PBS (talk) 12:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno. The British Empire is red/pink, but the commonwealth is different. Maybe best not to confuse the two? I think it may be blue because of the colour of the commonwealth flag. Ireland has orange on its flag, but I think orange is the traditional colour for expelled/suspended/removed members of groupsChipmunkdavis (talk) 12:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The British Empire is traditionally red, its Commonwealth is traditionally blue on maps. MrTranscript (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revert move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. The consensus was to not move in the last discussion. Consensus here is to return the page to revert the move that was made without obtaining consensus. There is clearly no consensus to support moving this article at this time. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The Commonwealth → Commonwealth of Nations — Undo unilateral move by user without discussion. 'Commonwealth of Nations' is established name supported by numerous sources - subject to discussion if the editor is interested. Bastin 14:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Note to Closer: This page was moved without discussion and against the previous consesnus formed at Talk:The Commonwealth/Archive 2#Requested move, which was closed as "not Moved". As such, I request that a "No conseus" be taken as a return to the previous consensus choice. Non-consensual choices should not be forced simply because an admin chose to user his authority by deleting an existing page to clear the way for a move to force his own will against existing consensus. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I second that, although I hope it will also be remembered that positions must be based on valid arguments if they are to count in the weighing of consensus.--Kotniski (talk) 06:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have any sources for these claims, one way or the other? For me, it's far far more often referred to as "The Commonwealth", and that seems to apply on its own website too (although it does put "of Nations" at the top of the page). --Kotniski (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Commonwealth most often refers to the Commonwealth Secretariat, the main (but not only) intergovernmental agency of the Commonwealth. There is also The Commonwealth Foundation, Commonwealth of Learning, Royal Commonwealth Society and Association of Commonwealth Universities. It's laid out pretty clearly at [1].--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you actually now agree that "The Commonwealth" is the better title?--Kotniski (talk) 06:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NO. The Commonwealth can be pejorative name (not in ref. to Commonwealth of Nations but others) but is moreso a branding title of the Commonwealth Secretariat which, as stated earlier, is but one element of the Commonwealth of Nations.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where on earth do you get those claims from?? (Do you mean "pejorative"? Surely it isn't that, since they use it themselves?)--Kotniski (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A clarification was very much needed. Removed the pejorative altogether given that's a historical nitpick study reference relating to other Commonwealths, not CoN.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not seeing any arguments in favour of "Commonwealth of Nations". It's certainly not the common name, and I'm not even seeing any evidence that it's the official name. On the surface it looks like the move made perfect sense (though generally I agree that this sort of thing ought to be discussed first).--Kotniski (talk) 06:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert: doesn't seem to have been a move made with consensus. I don't know if "Commonwealth of Nations" is the ideal appropriate name or not, but "The Commonwealth" is pretty ambiguous. When I lived in Boston, "the Commonwealth" referred to the state of Massachusetts. Now that I live in New Zealand, it means the Commonwealth of Nations. When I visit Australia, it often means the federal government of Australia in my professional circle. Some sort of disambiguation is needed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But would anyone in Massachusetts or Australia honestly ever expect a Wikipedia article called "The Commonwealth" to refer to the Commonwealth of Masschusetts or of Australia? I don't believe there's any significant number of readers anywhere who would ever type in "The Commonwealth" with any expectation of seeing anything other than the article on this organization. --Kotniski (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – The official website of the Commonwealth gives the name as "Commonwealth of Nations". The "Commonwealth" is just the short name. The correct name of an organisation should always be the article title. The source cited by the editor who made the move did not even support his claim. McLerristarr / Mclay1 11:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It gives both names, and uses the shorter one much more often. It doesn't seem to say which one it considers "correct" (well obviously it considers both correct, since otherwise it wuoldn't be using them). Looking at some recent official documents from this organization, I don't really see any usage of the "of Nations" bit. But we should be more concerned with common usage, not official usage - obviously "The Commonwealth" is overwhelmingly the common name (isn't it?), so the only real reason we might have not to use it as the article title is if it's genuinely ambiguous.--Kotniski (talk) 11:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think we need to clear up what the organisation is actually called, and what is the "official" website. I note that the website run by Nexus Strategic Partnerships (commonwealth-of-nations.org) is being called the official site, though I am less certain of that. The site run by the Commonwealth Secretariat (thecommonwealth.org) is clearly an official site, and this page has the clearest and most up to date explanation of how the association is organised and named. In there the term "The Commonwealth" is used. It is also the term used most on Google - [2] (over 23 million hits compared to under 300K for "Commonwealth of Nations" [3]). Under WP:Commonname we should be using the name that readers most readily identify with. The wording is: "Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name."
I think it would be helpful to find accurate and reliable sources that trace the name changes, and to mention that in the article. In the meantime it would be appropriate to follow policy and keep this article name at The Commonwealth. SilkTork *YES! 18:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the text of the declarations, the last time "of Nations" appears is in the Singapore Declaration (1971). So I think we can safely say that even if "The Commonwealth" is a shortened name, then it's a fully usable one, something like "United Kingdom". The only potentially valid objection I can see is that the organization might not be the primary topic for that name (i.e. it's too ambiguous), but for me I don't think there's any realistic doubt as to what people would be looking for if they search for that name.--Kotniski (talk) 07:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Much as I agree that the move was premature, I think that judging by the more recent Commonwealth Declarations, "the Commonwealth" now has a good claim to be the proper or at least the default name of the Commonwealth - it is commonly referred to as such even in Australia. (Admittedly, "Commonwealth of Nations", though less common, has the benefit of being unambiguous: "Commonwealth" in Australian legislation refers by default to the Commonwealth of Australia, and "Commonwealth of Nations" is usual legal name in Australia for the larger organisation. Although "Head of the Commonwealth" is used in the Queen's Australian styles and titles, it is probably not conclusive, given that it is a stylised formulation (with a capital "H") that admits of no ambiguity, and was adopted when the Commonwealth was unquestionably properly known as the "British Commonwealth of Nations".) But in the final analysis, while "Commonwealth" would be unquestionably too ambiguous, I think this the Commonwealth (of Nations) is by far and away the "primary topic" for the article title "the Commonwealth". (Let's ignore the capital "T" in the definite article, because it is not in common use except at the beginning of sentences.) No Australian would ever expect "the Commonwealth" on Wikipedia to point to the Commonwealth of Australia. Andrew Yong (talk) 02:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think the original move way probably premature, but it does seem to be the case that the terminology "Commonwealth of Nations" is very rarely used, while references to "the Commonwealth" are standard. As such, I think this article should remain at its current location. The Celestial City (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: nomination withdrawn per WP:SNOW. Kotniski (talk) 11:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Commonwealth of Nations → The Commonwealth — We're back to where we should be according to procedure, although it seems that the discussion above actually led to the conclusion that "The Commonwealth" is the better title. So I'm proposing it again through the proper channels this time. The arguments can be found in the foregoing discussion - basically there's no other subject which anyone would reasonably expect to get to by typing "The Commonwealth"; and "Commonwealth of Nations" is a much less common name, in both general usage and official usage (it appears in the banner of a semi-official website, but otherwise "The Commonwealth" seems almost universal these days). Kotniski (talk) 10:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But as the previous discussion seemed to show, the title is not ambiguous (what else could anyone be searching for under that title? no-one's yet suggested anything), and the alleged official name appears to be nothing of the sort.--Kotniski (talk) 12:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, commonwealth, for one. Powers T 13:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why would anyone prefix that with "The"?--Kotniski (talk) 13:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reason one would say "the common welfare" -- as in "such-and-such is beneficial to the commonwealth of the nation." In further support of my opposition, it appears that most other reference works use "Commonwealth of Nations"; Britannica is the primary exception I've found so far. Powers T 13:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close we just discussed this. One day wait to reopen a discussion, and perform the opposite of what was just decided? As it was a discussion and not a speedy revert, there should be a fair period between discussions. If the move had been speedily reverted, then a discussion might be in order, but an entire discussion over the standard period of a week occurred. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 06:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except that towards the end of the discussion, when the arguments had been properly worked out, support seemed to be for the change. The fact that the article was (rightly) moved back to the original title in line with procedure is no reason for the consensus-forming process to stop.--Kotniski (talk) 10:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I too think the proposed title is unnecessarily ambiguous. The principal meaning of "the Commonwealth" varies considerably depending on the context in which one is living or operating. It can mean Massachusetts, the federal government of Australia, the interregnum government of England, and so forth. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But as I keep saying over and over, no-one typing in "The Commonwealth" is going to be looking for any of those subjects. There really isn't an ambiguity problem here, it's just a question of getting the name most commonly used in reliable sources.--Kotniski (talk) 10:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If someone typed in "The Commonwealth", I am inclined to think they would expect to end up at either Commonwealth or (more likely) Commonwealth (disambiguation). Just because you keep saying the same thing over and over doesn't mean others have to change their mind about this. One downside about reviving the issue so soon after a discussion on the same topic is that it is unlikely that consensus has had a chance to change in the short meantime. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - Agree that the most likely search target for "The Commonwealth" is either Commonwealth or (more likely) Commonwealth (disambiguation), and suggest redirecting to the DAB page. Also, since the previous moove discussion was closed with "There is clearly no consensus to support moving this article at this time", I'm not sure why the nom expects a different outcome 12 hours later, especially since the previous discussion ran for 27 days, which is more than enough time to gather attention. - BilCat (talk) 07:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well most people before supported it, so it seemed reasonable to continue discussing. I have no idea why you all think anyone looking for other meanings of the word "commonwealth" would ever prefix it with "the". (In fact, people looking for this article would most likely not prefix it with "the" either, but at least some of them will, and adopting this title allows us to use the name that we ought to want to give to this article - using a minority and old-fashioned name like "Commonwealth of Nations" is misinforming readers as to what the organization is generally called, so we should be doing everything possible to avoid it, not inventing frankly unrealistic scenarios to try to justify it.)--Kotniski (talk) 08:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why you thing people looking for "The Commonwealth" would add the "the" in their search, but my opinions is just as valid as yours, since you've no more supporting evidence for it than my "invented frankly unrealistic scenarios"! I'm just using common sense, as, the last time I checked, the bulk of WP's readership is still in the US, where there are 6 commonwealths unrelated to the Commonwealth of Nations. That does figure in to who is searching for what on WP. As to "Well most people before supported it", consensus is not a vote, so I still don't see a different outcome. You're the only one supporting it so far, so the outcome may bbe even stronger against it this time. - BilCat (talk) 09:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, though it would be nice to hear some arguments that actually make sense. Do you really think that someone looking for (say) Massachusetts is going to do so by typing in "the Commonwealth"? Being realistic - almost certainly not. So what reason is that for confusing readers by using a much less common name as the title for the present article? In spite of the number of people lining up to write "oppose" in bold letters, I still don't see any rational basis for their position. (And it doesn't even much matter if not many people are searching for this article by "the Commonwealth" either - they'll get here by whatever route just the same as they would at the moment, but when they got there they'd be properly informed about what the organization is called in today's world.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we accept your premise that the "official" name is "The Commonwealth", not the "Commonwealth of Nations", (which I have yet to be persuaded of), the consesus here so far is that the title "The Commonwealth" is ambiguous. Your arguments aren't persuading anyone, and the thinly veiled insults certainly won't help. - BilCat (talk) 11:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Insults? Don't know what they were, but I apologize if anyone took something that way. I don't claim that there is necessarily one "official" name, but previous discussion showed that "the Commonwealth" is now the far more common way of referring to the organization in both popular and official usage. Of course it's ambiguous (many titles are), but I'm trying to show that this is the clear primary topic, so the ambiguity shouldn't matter as far as choosing a title is concerned.--Kotniski (talk) 11:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If a title is ambiguous, then it's not the clear primary topic for that title. Encyclopedia Britannica lists the article under "Commonwealth, also Commonwealth of Nations". with no "The" shown anywhere. It's their choice that "Commonwealth" is the primary topic for the CoN, but for WP, it's not. In Merriam Webster's Dictionary, Geographical section, it's under "Commonwealth of Nations, also Commonwealth", but no "The". The "The" is just stylistic, and we don't generally see it capitalized in most pubilsehd sources. So the alternative is to have Commonwealth (association of nations), or something similar, as a DABbed title. In the end, the other common alternate title, Commonwealth of Nations, works best, as it is already disambiguated. - BilCat (talk) 12:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a good point about the "The". Essentially, the "The" being proposed here as a disambiguator from Commonwealth, but from my reading of WP:THE, I don't think this is a scenario when the word "The" should appear in the article name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

New Section

Maybe we should add a list of former British possesions that are not members of the Commonwealth, like Zimbabwe and the United States? 97.96.65.123 (talk) 14:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those are listed in Commonwealth of Nations membership criteria. Bastin 20:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

Surely there must be more criticism of the commonwealth. Would many of Britain's former colonies not be in some way opposed to the maintenance of ties with their former ruler? Why, for example did Ireland and Zimbabwe choose to leave? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.154.4 (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland left before countries could be members and at the same time republics. Zimbabwe left because, well, it's Zimbabwe. Mugabe is not a well-loved fellow. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To say that "Ireland left before countries could be members and at the same time republics." is strictly correct but misleading in this context. The London Declaration regarding Republics being eligible for membership was made just ten days after Ireland declared itself a Republic. To suggest that the Irish did not know that they could possibly stay in the Commonwealth as a Republic at the time would be ludicrous. They knew. They left the Commonwealth owing to other Irish criticisms of the Commonwealth. These could indeed be discussed further in the article - thought they would be mostly Irish specific I think. 86.41.2.94 (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, I’ve become ‘as such’

Hi, Is there a reason for removing this line :According to Krishna Menon, King George VI said to him: “So, I’ve become ‘as such’link.” How is this copyvio or can I put it some other way? Thisthat2011 (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a copyvio because you directly copied the quote from the article in question. If you reword it and place it in context, then it should be fine. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

South Sudan

The map should be updated to reflect the independence of South Sudan in Africa. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Origins re-writing

"Australia, New Zealand, and Newfoundland had to ratify the statute for it to take effect— which Newfoundland never did, as on 16 February 1934, with the consent of its parliament, Government of Newfoundland voluntarily ended and governance of the dominion reverted to direct control from London, and later in 1949 joined Canada as its tenth province.[10] Australia and New Zealand did in 1942 and 1947 respectively.[11][12]"

Consider rewording? It sounds like Australia and New Zealand joined Canada after Newfoundland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.209.160 (talk) 05:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Clarified. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Question

Just wanted to give out a quick question on wondering why Puerto Rico was not part of the Commonwealth of Nations? I mean, despite its official name, it is not part thereof (and I am wondering why). JMBZ-12 (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, it never was a British territory. You may be getting confused with the word commonwealth itself, the term used for it (Commonwealth (U.S. insular area)) and the organisation entitled here.That-Vela-Fella (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with the above....Note PR would be eligible for membership if indepdendent though, as would the Republic of Scotland. 86.41.2.94 (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Commonwealth" is simply a name that a country or an organisation can adopt: look at the article "Commonwealth". BTW the Scottish National Party, currently in government in Scotland and pushing for independence, proposes to maintain a shared monarchy - making Scotland just one more country that Queen Elizabeth would be queen of. --Wikiain (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, Editors should really rehash all supposed membership criteria for the Commonwealth.....all the old stuff about having a link to the British Empire or a country that was part of the British Empire has fallen by the wayside now that a couple of countries like Mozambique and Rwanda have joined.....No harm in that I suppose, a natural evolution...mind you maybe there is harm in it....less of a family feeling if you don't share ancesotrs. As for Scotland, they will never be indpendent, I metion them only because speculation around potential members of the Commonwealth is pure nonsense...86.41.2.94 (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
nonsense but maybe good fun. 86.41.2.94 (talk) 11:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, at present the article includes a sentence reading:

Elizabeth II is also monarch, separately and independently, of sixteen Commonwealth members, which are known as the "Commonwealth realms".

I changed this to read:

Elizabeth II is also monarch, separately and independently, of sixteen Commonwealth members, which are sometimes coloquially referred to as the "Commonwealth realms".

I added these words because: (1) I do not believe that these states are always described as "Commonwealth realms" - hence the need to add the qualifier sometimes - Is this an appropriate addition? I think so. (2) I added coloquially because I do not believe any law defines these states as "Commonwealth realms". So, clearly, the Republic of Zimbabwe for example has a Constitution that defines itself as a Republic. I do not believe any Constitution of say Trinidad or Barbados describes these states as "Commonwealth realms". I do not believe the term is used indeed in any law whatsoever. Am I correct. I think so - so if I am correct, surely adding the word "coloquially" or something similar is needed. After all, if I am correct, the term has no official status in law.

Hope editors give thought out input! Thanks in advance. 86.45.54.230 (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The expression "Commonwealth realms" is linked to the article "Commonwealth realms", which I think explains the term well. I would like to change "known" to "known conventionally". In law, some things are called "conventions" that have binding force - for example, in a Westminster-style democracy, that a government must resign after a vote of no confidence in it. I don't think the usage "Commonwealth realms" is binding, although here the word "realms" does have a statutory basis. However, the word "convention" is also used more loosely in legal contexts, as something that is widely accepted even for use in formal discussion - and that seems to be the case here. "Colloquial" (and, if we use it, let's spell it right) is not appropriate - for this is a matter of formal discourse. Hope we can agree.--Wikiain (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if the name "Commonwealth realms" is defined by law, but the article Commonwealth realm seems to have plenty of reliable sources, including the official website of the British Monarchy, so I don't see the justification for your suggested modification. I see also that the term has been used in formal contexts such as a debate in the Canadian House of Commons, a legal journal, and a serious book about the Commonwealth. A term doesn't have to be defined by law to be used by Wikipedia. In any case, probably a better place to discuss this is at Talk:Commonwealth realm --Macrakis (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Editor - You are the one who reverted my change so I am glad you have participated. No one is saying that the term is not used. However, I am saying that the 16 countries are not always referred to as "Commonwealth realms". None of them have Constitutions that say things like "Trinidad and Tobago is a sovereign, indepdendent Commonwealth realm" etc. I am not asking for the term to be removed from the article. I am merely asking for the word "sometimes" to be added because they are not by any means "always" referred to as Commonwealth realms....and for the word "coloquially" because the word has no legal standing whatsoever and that is important - if you are not aware of that, it would probably be interesting for you to read some of the Constitutions of these 16 countries (where they have constitutions). Other editors? 86.45.54.230 (talk) 10:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reading constitutions to derive a common term would be original research. There are more than enough references to support its use and none that I can see which say it is colloquial. ----Snowded TALK 10:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikian - I disagree with the thrust of what you have posted. I think you are confusing legal conventions with a colloquialism [spelt right, thanks]. In legal contexts the term "Commonwealth realm" is not used at all. I mean zero. To suggest that there is a legal convention, binding or loose or otherwise, that the term should be used does not stack up. The article should make it clear that this term is a badge of convenience with no legal standing whatsoever. 86.45.54.230 (talk) 10:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why this fixation on legal definitions? Clearly the term is used in formal, official contexts (the web site of the Queen), and so is not "colloquial". Can you propose a better term for the collection of countries who have the same sovereign as Great Britain?
By the way, I was interested to see that the Constitution of Jamaica, though it refers many times to the Sovereign, never defines the Sovereign, Monarch, or Head of State. The closest it gets is: "There shall be a Governor-General of Jamaica who shall be appointed by Her Majesty..." Similarly, the Constitution of Australia defines none of these terms, but starts "...the people... have agreed to unite ... under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". Would you conclude that Jamaica and Australia don't have sovereigns or heads of state? --Macrakis (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Macrakis - "Why this fixation on legal definitions? Clearly the term is used in formal, official contexts (the web site of the Queen), and so is not "colloquial"." It absolutely is colloquial. A website! Is that as "official" as you can get? A website likely cobbled together by the Queen's media people. Now, a law, well that is official. Very official. No state officially defines itself as a "Commonwealth realm". You may not like that but that is the position. The term has no official status. In contrast (as you mention royal personages) the title "Her Majesty" is very much official. You mention the references to Her Majesty as ifto suggest that because there is no reference to Elizabeth, that somehow is comparable. That is plain silly. You cannot find one law or regulation that uses the term "Commonwealth realm". Despite this, you insist that this is THE term by which these states are known. Are you really being objective / neutral? You can ponder that. 86.46.26.227 (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could answer my question. Do you consider the terms "sovereign" and "head of state" to be "colloquial" as applied to Jamaica and Australia? It is "plain silly" to consider any term that is not defined by the country's legal system as "colloquial"? Is it "colloquial" to say that Qaddafi was a dictator? I wonder... what is the statutory basis for saying that the President of the United States is its Head of State? --Macrakis (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mackrias - there are plenty of reeferences in the Jamaican legal system to the Queen's official title. "Head of State" is not her official title. It is Her Majesty etc. What is your point? Are you seriously saying that "Commonwealth realm" is a term of art having any legal standing? 86.46.26.227 (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put it another way Marckrias - You talk about Jamaica. Please can you provide one formal source where the Government of Jamaica refers to Jamaica as a "Commonwealth realm". Can you do that? Let's pick up the discussion again when you have done so. 86.46.26.227 (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a) Kindly take the trouble to spell my name correctly. b) You are hung up on legal definitions. Wikipedia is not a law dictionary. Why does it matter whether the Government of Jamaica refers to Jamaica as a "Commonwealth realm"? I doubt you can you find "one formal source" where the Government of North Korea refers to North Korea as a "dictatorship" -- does that make it less of a dictatorship? --Macrakis (talk) 14:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mackrakis - Do you admit that you cannot find any source whatsoever where the Government of Jamaica calls Jamaica a "Commonwealth realm". It seems you admit this. You you are insisting that my proposed additions of "sometimes coloquillly" be rejected. Well, how can you reject "sometimes" when you cannot even find one source where the Jamaican Government uses it? Surely, if they never use it, it cannot be said that it is universally used. As for coloquially, you accept also that it is not used in any formal legal document or treaty or any such....so it is a ccolloquialism. I am not too hung up on words. Substance is my thing. If you don't like the word "colloquial", we could use the words "sometimes unofficially" or some such. I don't see a need to reason to get side tracked into a ddiscussion of North Korea etc. We are talking about "Commonwealth realms". You picked Jamaica as one of you example and I have not challenged that...but have asked plain, simple questions....86.46.26.227 (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IP, just because something isn't specifically written down in a constitution doesn't make it colloquial. As for government, a communique Congratulated Her Majesty The Queen on her upcoming Diamond Jubilee in 2012, and discussed appropriate ways of recognizing this significant occasion especially in Realm Countries. CMD (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to point out that Jamaica has used the term "Realm Countries"? If so, surely you concede that isn't even the term we are discussing whcih is "Commonwealth realm"....It seems to me you are insisting that these 16 countries are called "Commonwealth realms" even though use of that term is extremely limited. So limited in fact that you cannot find one instance of Jamaica using the term. 86.46.26.227 (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Separately, on the term "Realm Countries", flagged by User: Chipmunkdavis. Good spot. I have added reference to that term into the article. 86.46.26.227 (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was pointing out they weren't averse to it. "Realm countries" is obviously derived from "Commonwealth realm", and there are plenty of sources backing up the usage of the term Commonwealth Realm, one island in the Caribbean's government does not affect this. CMD (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A British-French merger in 1956

The article discusses this point, with France proposing and Britain declining.
To be complete, the article should clarify that Churchill had proposed the exact same thing in 1940 during the Battle of France, but France had declined on that occasion.
Varlaam (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen discussion around this some years ago.....but don't know much about it. 86.46.26.227 (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rwanda

Part of Rwanda actually was part of the British Empire for a short period of time. In 1919, the Belgians transferred control of the town of Gisaka to the UK as part of Tanganyika, after the German East Africa was brought to an end. It was intended to be part of the Cape-to-Cairo railway. Just a few years later, after plans fell through, the British returned control of Gisaka to Belgium as part of Rwanda. --98.114.176.218 (talk) 09:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

India is not commonwealth!!!

Neither is anything in Africa commonwealth anymore!!!!!!!!!!!

Here is an official commonwealth page with all current commonwealth members. http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/Overview.aspx

India is a republic, not a realm anymore.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commonwealth_of_Nations&oldid=480460797"