Jump to content

Talk:Commonwealth of Nations/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

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)

Hong Kong

Why is Hong Kong not on the list? The former British colony used to be a member of the Commonwealth until returned to China in 1997.

Colonies are not "members" of the Commonwealth - only sovereign states can be members. Andrew Yong 00:50, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Why can't HK join? Macau is in the Lusophony?

The Lusophony Games that Macau's in is a separate thing, just like the Commonwealth Games are (that HK was in before) & not related to the organization here. Also Macao is not in the CPLP, the Portuguese version of the Commonwealth. That-Vela-Fella 17:09, 5 June 2007 (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)

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

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)
Sorry, I was a little confused. Those lines are rather commonly used on maps show the general boundaries of states that are made up of multiple islands in the Pacific such, as Micronesia, Kiribati, Tuvalu, etc. Check out this link: [2]. Ddye 03:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Eh, I'm sorry too. It seems pretty obvious now that you point it out. :)
In the thumbnail version, it's really unclear what it is, and it isn't all that much better in the larger version. Could we actually "dash-ify" the lines around the islands? func(talk) 04:53, 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)


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)

According to the Commonwealth's own website, this is the case. (Contrary to edits by 124.197.31.208 on April 9th) Ref: http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Internal/150757/head_of_the_commonwealth/:

When the Queen dies or if she abdicates, her heir will not automatically become Head of the Commonwealth. It will be up to the Commonwealth heads of government to decide what they want to do about this symbolic role.

--Paul Campbell 16:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that is true, that technically it could change, suggestions about changing the Headship of the Commonwealth a few years ago, have been greeted with distinct unenthusiasm. I would not hold your breath, It would be most likely stay linked.
However 124.197.31.208 should not have removed that, and it is a citeable fact. I'll revert Brian | (Talk) 20:26, 12 April 2007 (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)

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)

Scotland Portal

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)


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)

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)

I'm really sick and tired of this adolescent chauvinism. Hakluyt bean 15:59, 12 August 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)

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)

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)

Well, like every other Empire in the history of mankind, the British Empire had dark moments. Fortunately, by our modern standards it was relatively few, but one of them you touch upon: the killing of many Australian Aborigines. I doubt that those affected were too keen on notions of British Imperialism.
However, the British Empire also brought about many global changes and situations we now regard as enlightenment: much to the displeasure of those who based their fortunes on the African/American slave trade, the British Navy destroyed the international slave trade. Also, the British Empire established education in many "uncivilised" countries, eradicated famine, ended long-standing tribal wars, introduced the concepts of suffrage, equality of gender and racial equality to much of the world. Add to that the water, sewarage, policing etc. etc., the British Empire made much of the world a better place to live.
Additionally, the British Empire was still regarded as the foremost power-blok around the time of it's evolution into the Commonwealth. Given a choice of being small and alone, or small, independent yet part of a massive power-blok, many chose the latter.
So, I think many "natives" would have thought "Hey, that sounds like our best bet!", exercised their Imperially-given right of suffrage, and elected to remain in the Commonwealth. Just look at South Africa: re-entered the Commonwealth only after the "natives" were given the right to vote.

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)


Brunei and Jamaica only members since 2004?

The table in this article says that Brunei and Jamaica have only been members since 2004. Is this accurate? --thirty-seven 06:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Jamaica joined in 1962 [4] and Brunei in 1984 [5] Brian | (Talk) 08:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It's been corrected now. Thanks for noticing that... not sure how that was changed or missed before. That-Vela-Fella 21:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


Conservapedia and the British Commonwealth

Conservapedia at [[6]] has the British Commonwealth consisiting of India and Pakistan. Anyone care to update? Jackiespeel 17:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with those on here. Let them edit the items there.That-Vela-Fella 18:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Nauru

Where's the proof that Nauru reverted to special membership of the Commonwealth in 2006? That category of membership of the Commonwealth was abolished in 1999 upon the admission of both Nauru and Tuvalu into full membership. - (203.211.73.10 23:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC))

Look at the footnote #5 direct from the commonwealth's own website. That-Vela-Fella 07:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Somaliland

Somaliland is a country that will join the Commonwealth, that is, if and when its independence is recognised. It covers the same territorial area as the British Somaliland Protectorate. - (203.211.73.10 23:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC))

As per WP:NOT#CBALL ("Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate") I removed this addition. Of course, I would not object you can provide sources to show that this is going to happen. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

United States

The paragraph on the United States ("If the US were to join the Commonwealth... etc) should be removed. As per WP:NOT#CBALL, "extrapolation, speculation, and 'future history' are original research and therefore inappropriate". I'm willing to hear evidence to the contrary, but there has not to my knowledge been any proposal ever of the USA joining the Commonwealth, so discussing it and the manner in which it could join is pure speculation and someone's own OR, even if based on facts. This kind of speculation belongs at http://future.wikia.com/, not at Wikipedia. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 16:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#CBALL doesn't apply here, nobody is predicting that the US will or will not join the Commonwealth. All that's being presented is the reality of the situation: 1) 13 original colonies were under British governance; 2) that qualifies them to enter the Commonwealth of Nations; 3) States are not allowed to individually enter into treaties or other foreign alliances. Is it really necessary to provide a source for each of the previous three statements? (Though, one is already cited to the US Constitution.) --G2bambino 16:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Did you read the CBALL text? It's not just PREDICTION. It covers SPECULATION, and it has to go. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 16:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
One more thing, sources are required if challenged. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 16:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Who's speculating? --G2bambino 16:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The article is, if it discusses hypothetical situations. "If the United States were to join..." - that is speculation. It is speculating about the hypothetical situation of the United States joining the Commonwealth. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 16:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've reworded it to remove the "if." --G2bambino 16:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
That's not good enough. You are still extrapolating and conducting your own original research. You are implying that because of the case of Cameroon, the US could do the same. It's still as unacceptable as the previous wording. Stick to the facts, that the US was a British colony but is not a Commonwealth member, and there is no problem. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 16:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
(Please note I already have compromised somewhat, with accepting that all the text prior to the "if" is reasonable.) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 16:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not implying anything - I didn't write the section in question. However, it seemed to sit relatively undisturbed through many months of editing - I imagine because it isn't making any completely ridiculous assertions. Perhaps the wording previously wasn't composed to the best level, but I, for one, can't really understand your personal objections, even to the sentence you insist on removing, and by doing so implying that the US cannot join the Commonwealth. I think the point to make clear is that that there's ambiguity in this situation, and including both the US constitutional provisions as well as previous precedent makes clear inherent conflicts in the idea of the US, or part of the US, joining the Commonwealth. --G2bambino 18:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I have outlined my objections, pointing to Wikipedia's policies at WP:NOT#CBALL and WP:NOR. It is not for Wikipedia to speculate on the technicalities of the USA joining the Commonwealth, even if it is based on the wording of the US Constitution or the Commonwealth's criteria, because that is original research. Unless it was raised as a proposal (a serious one, along the lines of France's in the 1950s), or someone reputable did some attributable research into it and came to that conclusion, it shouldn't be discussed. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Cameroon - you are implying that because Cameroon did it, the US could. You are making an argument there, admittedly based on a fact (the fact of the manner of Cameroon's joining), but it is an argument nevertheless. That constitutes OR. Can't you see that? You are confusing facts with arguments. Wikipedia is about the former not the latter. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Where on earth does the paragraph now assert the US could join the Commonwealth? To the contrary, it asserts that the situation of the US is unclear - much of the US was not previously under British control, the 13 states that are former British colonies cannot join independently of the nation, however, there is precedent of countries with territories not formerly governed by the UK joining. I can't, for the life of me, see how this is trying to put forward any "argument" other than that the present facts make the US's situation as potential Commonwealth member ambiguous. --G2bambino 19:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Where did I say you are "asserting" anything? I said you are implying it. It is OR that you are even suggesting there is a position to be unclear on. Unless there has been talk of the US joining, why are you even discussing precedents for it doing so? Again, you are in the land of speculation. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, then I suggest you argue for ridding the article completely of the section "Non-applicants," as it, by your logic, implies Egypt, Myanmar, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, Eritrea, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, Oman, Nepal, Bhutan, Afghanistan, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, the United States of America, Hong Kong and France could join the Commonwealth. --G2bambino 19:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
You clearly completely misunderstand both WP:NOT#CBALL and my point if you think that (well, I know you misunderstand because you are continuing to persist with this). There is a difference between saying "was a British colony, but never applied for membership" (verifiable facts) and "was a British colony, if applied for membership then..." or "was a British colony, similar to colony Y, so could join similarly to colony Y" (speculation and extrapolation based on historical facts). The rest of the section clearly limits itself to the first. On a previous occasion [7] I removed some speculation in this section. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
It appears you misunderstand the difference between "might be able to" (as in, there may be a possibility of the US joining) and "could" (as in, the US definitely could join if it chose to). I believe the paragraph in question attempts to say the former, not the latter, and saying the former is neither OR nor attempting to predict future outcomes. Removing the Cameroon sentence leaves one believing that because of specific clauses of the US Constitution, the individual states cannot join, and therefore the US as a whole will never join. That's more speculation than anything else. --G2bambino 20:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Both sentences should go. There should be no speculation or analysis on the USA's ability to join. Just the fact that it is eligible, it has not joined and has not applied to join. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It should be also noted that when the British Commonwealth was formed, the USA was independent for a very long time previously & had a chance to join right from the beginning if it chose to. It didn't obviously, but every other territory that was associated in some way with the UK had that choice since they got independent, including the likes of Egypt, Cameroon & so on. That-Vela-Fella 08:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Introduction - former administering countries

With regard to the edit yesterday mentioning Cameroon as noted later in the article a small portion of what is now Cameroon was indeed formerly under British administration. Perhaps instead of singling out Cameroon, the words "in whole or part" could be added in that sentence. I wonder if this would be more accurate as to some other members as well.

Another issue with the intro is the statement that with a couple of named exceptions, the member nations were all administered by the U.K. A few of the members (Samoa and Papua New Guinea occur to me) were administered by Australia or New Zealand rather than the United Kingdom. Newyorkbrad 10:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Made the note on the part of Cameroon, including the link to the former French territory within it for reference.

As for the 2nd issue, would it be best then to say they were all "former possessions" (rather than colonies, as some were not) under the British Crown? That-Vela-Fella 10:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's going completely overboard, splitting hairs about "parts" of Cameroon in the opening paragraph. The main point is that they're all ex British colonies apart from Mozambique. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

True, thought about it & was getting a bit much... like would Vanuatu be needed said also since it was a British-French Condominium? I'm sure some would figure it out or it could be mentioned elsewhere, like under a Trivia section maybe? Up to whoever wants to do that. I did though change the word to possessions from colonies since not all were, as the example I gave above or like Tonga, Brunei, etc. as a protectorate.

As for what NYBrad mentioned, for Papua New Guinea, part of it was British beforehand (see Territory of Papua) when it was later administered from Australia & as for Samoa, there was some prior British claims. Like I said before though, would it be best to change the other part from UK to British Crown or better even British Empire? That-Vela-Fella 07:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Royal Anthems

Looking at this edit, where "God Save The Queen" has been removed from the country infobox for Australia, I note that the inclusion of a Royal Anthem is seen as "trivial". Several other Commonwealth members, notably Canada and New Zealand and many Carribean nations, also have a Royal Anthem in addition to a National Anthem. The discussion here may well have a bearing on articles for other Commonwealth members, if for no other reason than the sake of conformity in presentation of information. --Pete 03:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Folks, please be aware that this message was posted by one of the disputants in a long-running edit war; that the above description of the situation would not be considered particularly accurate by people on the other side of the dispute; that participants in this dispute are under clear instructions to carry it out on the talk page, not in the article; and that one of your number has already been drawn to the dispute and found himself blocked. Hesperian 05:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

USA

Why isn't the united states of the amercan on the list? I know that is was just thirteen colonies in the beginning, but why isn't USA in the Commonwealth of Nations?

Was already discussed above in the section called ^United States^.That-Vela-Fella 18:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Contradictory statements

I quote from the article, just below the table of member nations (bold mine):

"The Commonwealth comprises fifty-three, or almost a quarter, of the world's countries and has a combined population of 1.9 billion people, about a quarter of the world population and more than that of China.[1] Of the 1.7 billion people, 1.4 billion live in the Indian Subcontinent, and 93% live in Asia or Africa."

Which is it--1.7 or 1.9 billion? -69.47.186.226 08:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, did a bit of looking into that & found for some odd reason a change was done: "Revision as of 10:05, 25 June 2007" by a Bsilver. Not sure as to why they did that to 1.9, but according to the source given there (#4), it does say 1.7 billion. Will change it back... good catch. Btw, it will I'm sure eventually hit 1.9 soon though. That-Vela-Fella 11:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


This article is just seriously fcked up

Major reorganisation and rewrite

A couple of days ago, the article was a rather haphazard collection of sections. I've begun, and shall continue a reorganisation of the article into appropriately hierarchical sections. This is mirrored in a general clean-up of the Category:Commonwealth of Nations, which was previously (and, to an extent, remains) a complete morass, and which is now being organised thematically. Since people often oppose reorganisation (seeing it as rearranging deckchairs), that's the controversial part.

The uncontroversial part ought to be a massive improvement of the content of the article. It has very few references, lacks any stylistic consistency, and seems to concentrate on entirely the wrong things (currently NON-members and small side-show Commonwealth Family organisations take up the bulk: why?). In line with a drive of mine towards improving the coverage of more important areas of the Commonwealth's history and work, I'll be rewriting much of the article. Hopefully, within a couple of weeks, this article can go back for Peer Review, and then regain its position as a Featured Article. I hope that's relatively uncontroversial. Bastin 19:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Current and possible future applicants II

For the umpteenth time, the text that I have removed from this section is crystall ball glazing synthethis. The Edinburgh criteria for membership is to:

  • accept and comply with the Harare principles.
  • be fully sovereign states.
  • recognise the monarch of the Commonwealth Realms as the Head of the Commonwealth.
  • accept the English language as the means of Commonwealth communication.
  • respect the wishes of the general population vis-à-vis Commonwealth membership

Whether or not a state complies with first, third, fourth and fifth are open to interpretation. It is not for Wikipedia editors to list countries that they think may meet these requirements. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

ps also the text I removed was incorrect. British overseas territories and crown dependencies are NOT sovereign states. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
What's listed are POSSIBLE applicates that are able to due to the relationship is has with the British Empire. It's stated as fact as has others that were in the same position. Here's a link to prove it too! http://www.15ccem.com/15CCEM/CCEM_MainContent.jsp;jsessionid=367113CBDAC84B7DEAC85D1F77B477D0?pContentID=830&p_applic=CCC&pElementID=443&pMenuID=171&p_service=Content.show&

That-Vela-Fella 11:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm shocked that you even consider that reference evidence for those claims that you have now readded.
  • "Other eligable applicants could also come from break-away states" - WHERE does the source back up that claim?
  • "or from any of the remaining [ot's, dependencies etc]" - WHERE does the source back up that claim?
  • "if any later become fully independent" - WHERE does it state that?

All it is doing is listing territories that take part in the Commonwealth activities. You have totally engaged in WP:SYN there. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops - missed an all important paragraph in the reference, adjusting my post accordingly and semi self reverted. Still, the claim about breakaway states is not backed up by that reference. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't particularly mind the overseas territories being listed. The Commonwealth does currently afford them certain say in matters related to them, and (as that link implies), they are held in some regard as 'members in waiting'. Whilst this is well-established in internal Commonwealth matters, I think we need to find a better source for it. Until then (and it shouldn't really be too long; I'm sure the Round Table has covered some of the BOTs), one should be cautious about using them.
I'm more concerned with 'non-members', etc. The only applicants mentioned should be those that are also given in reliable sources (one's opinion that they might meet the criteria in future is not enough, i.e. follow WP:SYN). At the moment, as far as I can see, that's Rwanda, Yemen, Israel, Algeria, East Timor, Angola, Cambodia, Sudan, and Senegal, plus the TRNC and Palestinian National Authority. That said, if one can find others supported by reliable sources, they can be added.
This matter is a point of consternation for me on the article Commonwealth of Nations membership criteria. Having written a well-referenced article on the development of the criteria (that, given a couple of paragraphs and some pictures, could easily be a GA), the article is somewhat ruined by a completely unsourced list of members that some over-zealous individual thinks could join the Commonwealth some day. We need to start thinking WP:CITE. Bastin 12:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Further to what I just said, I'd like to point out that Volume 95(4) (September 2006) of the Round Table is entirely dedicated to overseas territories and small sovereign island states. Take your pick! Bastin 12:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

UK, part of the British Empire

Honestly, if the UK was 'never' a part of the British Empire -- it wouldn't have been called the BRITISH Empire. Certainly - Germany was a part of the German Empire & Rome was a part of the Roman Empire. GoodDay 16:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That's just your opinion. The term British Empire was never an official term, and was equivalent to saying "British possessions" or "British colonies". People would say they were heading out and taking up service "in the empire". Your analogies are also false. Germany was the German Empire, and Rome was just a city. In short, the British Empire was called British because it was owned by Britain. TharkunColl 17:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, but we're not gonna 'edit war' over it - I'm not gonna 'revert'. PS- thanks for responding; as I've said, your opinon is valued (as is everyone's). GoodDay 17:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I suppose, by saying UK was a part of the British Empire, made the UK seem like a territory or colony. OK, I see your point now - UK was the head of the Empire. GoodDay 17:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The UK was the colonial power. The term "head" reminds one of "head of the Commonwealth", but it was most certainly not a ceremonial role. TharkunColl 17:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Definitely not ceromonial. GoodDay 17:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
So "head" doesn't really do it justice, and sounds too informal anyway. TharkunColl 17:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
We need something though; howabout 'imperal head'? GoodDay 18:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"Imperial head", since it was never used, would give a wholly misleading impression, and would put one in mind of Roman Emperors. And let it not be forgotten that the British Empire was not actually an empire - that term usually has connotations of a unified state, which the BE never was. What's wrong with "colonial power"? TharkunColl 18:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's perfect. GoodDay 18:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
There's no argument against the fact that the Empire's head was at Westminster, but the UK did not "own" the empire, the empire beyond the British Isles was as much British territory as the British Isles themselves were; the inhabitants of all lands within the empire were British subjects, the Royal Union Flag was the flag of all the lands within the empire. There's nothing wrong in pointing out the UK was the locus of the empire, but it's a fallacy to argue Britain was not itself part of the British Empire. --G2bambino 15:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
It is debatable. In some contexts (such as maps), perhaps yes. In others definitely no. Cartographers do not control politics. TharkunColl 16:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Well then, please present a sourced argument that the UK was itself not a part of the British Empire. I think you'll find that GoodDay was correct in his first statement here: Germany was a part of the German Empire & Rome was a part of the Roman Empire; ditto for Japan. --G2bambino 16:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. I hadn't realised, or had forgotten, that my edits yesterday were (slightly) less than 24 hours ago. With regard to the UK in Empire question, your version leaves no question that it was. The version agreed yesterday left the position ambiguous, which better reflects reality, which was itself ambiguous. So, answer this - if the UK was part of the Empire, then when did it cease to be so? TharkunColl 16:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Ambiguous? What's ambiguous about "..all of which are former possessions of the British Empire, except for the United Kingdom"? [Emphasis mine.] It seems quite clear that the sentence tries to state that the UK was not a part of the British Empire. If you want to make it ambiguous, why not go with something like:
The Commonwealth of Nations, usually known as the Commonwealth and formerly as the British Commonwealth, is a voluntary association of 53 independent sovereign states, all of which are former possessions of the United Kingdom, except for Mozambique.
Or:
...all of which are former possessions of the British Crown, except for..."
That would make it ambiguous as to whether or not the UK was part of the Empire. --G2bambino 18:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There is confusion here regarding what is the possessor and what are the possessions. If the UK and its colonies were possessions of the British Empire, the Empire would have to be some entity over and above the UK and its colonies. The empire was the possession of Britain, in the same way that Gaul was a possession of Rome (not the Roman Empire). But Rome and Gaul were both part of the Roman Empire in the same way that Britain was part of its empire. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I was about to revert myself after realizing exactly what you just said in your edit summary: the UK is still presently a possesion of the UK.
The overall issue isn't what nation was the possesor of the Empire, but whether or not the possesor is itself a part of what it possesses. Territory within the British Isles was as much UK territory as South Africa, India, Australia, etc., therefore it seems incorrect to remove the UK from its own empire. There must be a better way to word this; I'll have to give it some further thought. --G2bambino 23:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
How about "all of which are former British colonies, except for the United Kingdom itself and Mozambique." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think that makes perfect sense. --G2bambino 14:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
G2bambino's argument makes sense to me. When people talk about empires you cannot say that the founding city or nation is not a part of the empire it creates. The Russian and Ottoman Empires are good examples of this as is the British. It does not makes sense to say that the Commonwealth contains countries from the former British Empire except for Britain (yes I know UK) and Mozambique. This logic could allow people to believe that Washington DC is not a part of America since it is the seat of power and not a represented state, yes my example is extreme and flawed but you get my point. -- UKPhoenix79 01:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

India

If India is a member, why is it not in the list with everyone else in the article? And why is it only first mentioned halfway down? --ScreaminEagle 21:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It is in the list. And it's also mentioned in the (shockingly bad) History section, and discussed at great length under the London Declaration section. Bastin 21:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I swear that wasn't there five minutes ago....--ScreaminEagle 21:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit Wars

Is this article gonna be 'locked' too? So very unproductive, these 'edit wars' - When will they ever learn? GoodDay 23:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

So true & only by a few! I think I know how to make it look more clearer since the way it's done may seem to confuse the odd ones who see it that way! That-Vela-Fella 03:26, 29 August 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

I think you are confusing "federal" with "republic." Canada has a federal system of government, but the Head of State is Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada. She is represented nationally by a Governor General and in each province by a Lieutenant Governor. Therefore, it is not a republic. Australia has a similar (not identical) system. By contrast, the United States is also a federation, but the President of the United States is both Head of State and Head of Government and is a republic.--MarshallStack 02:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

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 ]

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)

I still hear the Commonwealth referred to as the "British" Commonwealth in Canada occasionally, particularly among older people.--MarshallStack 02:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources tags

I removed the More Sources tag from the front of the article, since it is already well supplied with sources. If you think that a source or citation is needed, please place it at the exact location within the article. Hu 11:58, 23 September 2007 (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)

  • Firstly: I don't know if the Brits use colons very often (I'm Canadian). Secondly: I personally find them a lazy way of writing. A little bit worse than bullet-points, as they are harder to read. Thirdly: I haven't seen colons used too much in encyclopaedic work. Fourthly, I believe that the word "English", as in "American English," "Canadian English," "Jamaican English" should be capitalized. Jacques A55 20:05, 30 October 2007 (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)

Mozambique

Does anyone know why Mozambique is a Commonwealth member? Aaker 14:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

In spite of its Portuguese colonial inheritance, Mozambique enjoys close relations with its formerly British-ruled neighbours, largely because of shared experience in the struggle against white rule. This led to the country joining the Commonwealth in 1995." http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029394365&a=KCountryProfile&aid=1019744977697 "Although membership requires having been a former dependency of the United Kingdom or a dependency of a dependency, former Portuguese colony Mozambique became a member 1995 under special circumstances due to Mozambique's willingness to support the Commonwealth's fight against apartheid in South Africa." http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/commonwealth.htm

It was from those Commonwealth members that helped the country to get in. That-Vela-Fella 00:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Not dominated by United States?

The Commonwealth of Nations is one of the few organizations thats not dominated by the United States.

La Francophonie and pretty much every regional organization excluding the OAS (EU, AU, CIS, ASEAN, etc.), aren't US-dominated, to name a few. Even in most truly global organizations, like the WTO, I'd say the US has influence outside but not inside them. Kelvinc 05:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Suspension date

I've edited a few pages and stated the date of Pakistan's suspension as 22 November 2007. I'm not sure if this is correct. I notice the first edit I made (before I logged in) was just after midnight 23 November 2007 Kampala time (according to Google). The announcement might have been on 23 November, and certainly it would have been 23 November in Pakistan. I'll leave the 22 November for now but it's not straightforward. Ben Arnold (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Based off this BBC link, it was Last Updated: Thursday, 22 November 2007, 21:19 GMT That-Vela-Fella (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth

I have removed the "II" in Queen Elizabeth II becauce she is not the 2nd monarch of the UK to be called Elizabeth, she's the first. She is only Queen Elizabeth the 2nd of England, NOT the United Kingdom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.188.64 (talk) 07:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Rwanda

Rwanda is due to join this week, largely as a result of its passion for cricket. Anyone feel like revising accordingly?Cooke (talk) 10:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There was various to-ing and fro-ing over this earlier in the week (see the article history). There was a Times article to this effect, but apparently the Commonwealth Secretariat has previously said that ther ewill be no new members until 2009. Best to wait for an official announcement one way or the other I think. David Underdown (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Pakistan

Its not like they invaded anyone....--Xgmx (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Pakistan should be removed from the list of members while they are suspended. Their suspension is likely to last for a few years at least. Why do people keep readding them?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.32.220 (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No they are still technically members, but suspended. They have not been expelled from membership. David Underdown (talk) 09:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Note that Fiji is also suspended, yet still a member. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 12:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

My edit

I don't know what happened there. I could have sworn I just took out the image. I don't understand how all of that other stuff was changed. --Kevin W. 20:38, 29 November 2007 (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)
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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.86.138.193 (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Oh yes it is a number!!!! 1.1 thousand million just sounds a bit rediculous, so I changed it to proper British numbers but still keeping it sensible. Because this is a rather British subject of an article, it should obviously have the long scale. An exception is probably where US Dollars are mentioned, where I think the short scale should be used. By the way, the long scale makes googles of times more sense. Any others? And by the way, what is the problem with putting the sq, km in brackets instead of the miles? Much better anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.86.167.232 (talk) 11:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Long-Scale advocates: The scale was changed to match the US scale in the 70s. There is no need for this. Sneakernets (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was not to move --Lox (t,c) 08:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Under Wiki naming policy (Wikipedia:Naming_convention#Use_common_names_of_persons_and_things) common names should be used. The common name for The Commonwealth is The Commonwealth. Commonwealth of Nations gets under 1/2 million ghits compared to nearly 15 million for The Commonwealth. The official website is The Commonwealth. In short the common name is The Commonwealth. A straight move cannot be made because The Commonwealth is a redirect to Commonwealth of Nations. As the article has been named thus for many years, even though it's a straightforward case, it's appropriate to list it here to see if there are any opposing views. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 15:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The only problem I could see is confusion (And the fact that 'The Commonwealth' in google searches is not nearly unique enough for the results to be good, as you will get sites about all the darn commonwealths) with other Commonwealths. And I suspect working out the format of this would be difficult - The Commonwealth (British) would offend people I suspect. Though I hear it called The British Commonwealth quite a bit. Narson (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose It may be different in countries that make up the commonwealth, but here in the US I almost always see the term "Commonwealth of Nations". Google hits can be a problem here because Google hits for "The Commonwealth" will include things not related the this loose association (like The Commonwealth Institute and The Commonwealth of Massachussetts), thus inflating the hit count. TJ Spyke 04:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The common name policy should be taken with a grain of salt. Granted there are more common names for other things that are at their more proper names and a line should be drawn between what is common and what is correct. The page is fine where it is. Reginmund (talk) 06:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Same reasons as above. It's already redirected to it plus mentioned within the 1st paragraph. Many are more familiar to what it's currently known by also. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 12:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - "The Commonwealth" does not take a world view that includes the "Commonwealth of Virginia" or the "Commonwealth of Australia." --G2bambino (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the above. —Nightstallion 01:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As the "commmon name" guideline says right off the top, "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things [my italics]." There are many other "Commonwealths", past and present, even if none of the others are called "the Commonwealth" more often than anything else. The present title makes the subject uniquely clear, so it should be kept. Also, as others have pointed out, the ghits test for "Commonweath" ("the" gets ignored) picks up all kinds of stuff besides the Commonwealth that's relevant here. Meanwhile, with half a million ghits, "Commonwealth of Nations" is plainly not an obscure name for the entity.
    -- Lonewolf BC 02:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per everything above. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

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).

Great Britain acknowledged the former colonies that became the USA as independent states in the first article of the Treaty of Paris (1783). It then afforded full diplomatic recognition to the USA, and negotiated treaties with the USA in 1795, 1814, 1818, 1842 and 1846. That certainly qualifies as explicit ackowledgment of independence.Jsc1973 17:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The Rhodes scholarship provides for comonwealth and US citizens scholarships for oxford. ---should be but somewhere at the end of this article, just dont know where.hh--Shawnlandden (talk) 07:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Current Members Information

Where has this info been sourced? For example, it states that Australia joined in 1939 and has a population of 21,134,563 - on the official Commonwealth website it states joining date was 1931 and population (2004) 19,942,000.

I understand that the Statue of Westminster (1931) wasn't ratified in Australia until 1942 and backdated to 1939, but the official Commonwealth website states 1931 as the joining date - Reference Link Roaringmouse 00:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems like that website needs to be updated a bit more often (having a population figure 3 years old now). Same thing as for New Zealand on the joining date also, whereas they put the date of when the Statute was done, rather the year it became effective in both nations. That-Vela-Fella 16:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Population is one thing - the current population estimate on the Australia Bureau of Statistics website shows 21,139,428 so this isn't an issue. HOWEVER, the Commonwealth of Nations website does show the joining date for Australia as 1931, and you've indicated that New Zealand is different as well. So this (the joining date) should be changed on wikipedia to match the official information? Roaringmouse 03:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
It may be an oversight on that site to the date it has there. Take a look at the references below at Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 for Australia & Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1947 for New Zealand. These articles should be linked to reflect the given dates. That-Vela-Fella 04:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the dates shown should reflect what the official information is on the Commonwealth Secretariat website, otherwise we're making up dates by using our own interpretation of Acts. Roaringmouse 10:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The constitutions of both nations state that they must vote on the matter rather than like Canada where the Statute became automatic to be legal. Here is for example another site to show New Zealand ratifying the Statute in 1947. I'll see if I can email to the Secretariat's website & get an explanation on it. That-Vela-Fella 20:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Any reply from the Commonwealth Secretariat? If there isn't soon then I suggest using the official information for the date of entry. Roaringmouse (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Nothing yet still. If anyone wants to send an email also & explain the situation, then I'm sure a reply would be done sooner. I'll try again this coming weekend in case the original one went missing. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
With no reply now, I suggest using the official information available from the Commonwealth Secretariat regarding the joining dates for Australia and New Zealand. It would seem the right thing to do - to use official information from the organisation itself rather than the interpretation of someone with no links to the Commonwealth organisation. Roaringmouse (talk) 12:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I may know now why I got no reply back & it's due to the address it was sent (to webteam@commonwealth.int). Looking at the site some more, it also mentions a disclaimer that brings some light to this matter of inaccuracies & updates. I'm now sending another email to the other link it has listed there (info@commonwealth.int) in the hopes that they do reply back. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If there has been no reply now, I definitely suggest using the official information available from the Commonwealth Secretariat regarding the joining dates for Australia and New Zealand. As I said before, it would seem the right thing to do - to use official information from the organisation itself rather than the interpretation of someone with no links to the Commonwealth organisation. Roaringmouse (talk) 06:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I have now amended the joining dates for Australia & New Zealand to match with official information on the Commonwealth Secretariat website. Roaringmouse (talk) 11:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Irish name

For the sake of not confusing the 'Republic of Ireland' with the Island of Ireland. Let's use Republic of Ireland in the article. GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


There is no confusion whatsoever. Islands do not join or leave international orgaisations. States do. The name of the state is Ireland. As the article, Names of the Irish state, indicates, this name is universally accepted. Using an incorrect name for a State is offensive. Please respect the NPOV principle.Redking7 (talk) 10:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

There obviously is confusion; a consensus was reached among WP editors to use "Republic of Ireland" when referring to the state, "Northern Ireland" when referring to the constituent country within the United Kingdom, and Ireland to refer to the island within the British Isles. Further, I'm not sure how reliable Names of the Irish state is, given that you've been, by far, the predominant editor there for the past two and a half months. That article does, however, say "the Republic of Ireland is often used as a name for the state in ordinary speech, especially in any context in which it is necessary to distinguish between the state and the island as a whole." In this circumstance, it is necessary to distinguish between the state and the island as a whole; the republic left the Commonwealth, Northern Ireland did not; the island of Ireland includes both. --G2bambino (talk) 03:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Singapore

An anon has twice now removed Singapore from the membership list without providing any evidence to show that they have left - Singapore is still listed as a member on the official Commonwealth of Nations website. David Underdown (talk) 15:07, 29 February 2008 (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)
I was explaining why the USA is not a member of the Commonwealth, whether or not it could be, and why it may choose not to be, in response to the earlier posts. If you had bothered to read the entire dialogue in detail you would understand that.Jsc1973 17:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
That and, it would violate the Constitution. Or so I was told. I need to verify that. Sneakernets (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Canada's relationship to Britain changed in 1867, (and has gradually changed in the 140 years since) but it has never changed as drastically and dramatically as the relationship between the U.S.A. and Britain changed with the American Revolution. For example, the Head of State of Canada is the Governor-General, who is appointed by HRH the Queen. Wanderer57 (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Er, Canada's head of state would be HM the Queen, who appoints a Governor General to represent her. But yes, Canada's status as a kingdom is a manifestation of the historically different relationship between it and the UK as compared to the US and the UK. --G2bambino (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Her Majesty. I should have remembered that. Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Establish archiver / automatic

This talk page is incredibly long, I'm establishing auto-archiving. Objections welcome.--Gregalton (talk) 08:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I have done so - placement of the auto-archive box suxx, so if anyone knows how to do that better, your assistance would be appreciated.--Gregalton (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I made a change to the archive coding. There was some unneeded code included which I deleted. I hope it's right now. Wanderer57 (talk) 03:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Commonwealth kingdom

A new page has been started called Commonwealth kingdom. It concerns countries such as Swaziland, Tonga etc which don't share their monarch/head of state with other Commonwealth members nor, is Elizabeth II their monarch/head of state. Commonwealth kingdom is a corollary of and consistent with Commonwealth republic. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 08:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

'The following is an extract from the Talk: Commonwealth kingdom page which also concerns the Commonwealth article:'

How is the UK not a Commonwealth kingdom? Can you please prove some references for this article. TharkunColl (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Swaziland, Tonga etc - don't share their monarch/head of state with other Commonwealth members. Nor, is Elizabeth II their monarch/head of state. GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't not make it a Commonwealth kingdom. As a country headed by a king or queen, it is a kingdom, and being in the Commonwealth, it easily follows that it is a Commonwealth kingdom. So, there are sixteen more countries to be added to the list here. Of course, there's no purpose for such an article, the same as there's no real purpose to Commonwealth republic; the titles are neologisms and the articles don't put forward any information that couldn't be, or isn't already, covered at Commonwealth of Nations. They should both go. --G2bambino (talk) 02:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
User:G2bambino - I think the distinction between a Commonwealth realm and a Commonwealth kingdom is pretty clear and well explained by User: GoodDay. Frankly, I agree with you that Commonwealth republic should go....but that seems unlikely. Therefore, a Commonwealth kingdom is a natural corollary and is consistent with Commonwealth republic. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 08:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
But you appear to have just made it up though. Is this term ever used? Oh, and by the way, Brunei has a sultan, not a king, and is therefore a sultanate, not a kingdom. TharkunColl (talk) 08:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

TharkunColl - Commonwealth kingdom has as much legal meaning as Commonwealth republic. That is to say it has none. In that sense both terms have been "made up". However they are logical categories of Commonwealth countries. So they are not "made up" in that sense. One goes with the other.

As for Brunei not being a kingdom but a sultanate – You are correct that it is a sultanate and not a kingdom per se. However no one word such as “kingdom” or “republic” can cover the many constitutional arrangements in place amongst Commonwealth countries. More importantly, the article does not state that Brunei is a kingdom. It merely states it has a monarch that is not the Head of the Commonwealth.

More generally, neither category - “republic” or “kingdom” encompass the diversity of constitutional arrangements amongst Commonwealth countries. Here are a few examples where the Commonwealth republic tag clearly does not fully fit:

However, notwithstanding the shortcommings of the above categories, unless we are to have almost endless further categories such as Commonwealth Democratic Socialist Republics, Commonwealth Islamic republics etc., we need to accept broader categories such as simply Commonwealth kingdoms, Commonwealth realms and Commonwealth republics.

Alternatively, we could do away with these categories. Frankly, I would support that. However, we can’t do away with one and leave another. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

First off, why are we discussing this here now? Secondly, I don't think I would use Commonwealth republic as an example to support the existence of Commonwealth kingdom; they're both redundant articles, as you seemingly acknowledge. This information, if necessary, could be covered in lists at Commonwealth of Nations. So, if we head towards a common agreement that Commonwealth republic, and then, by extention, Commonwealth kingdom are unneeded, then we should start to work on a way to merge them into Commonwealth of Nations. --G2bambino (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I've placed merge tags at each article. --G2bambino (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Commonwealth kingdom should be merged; Commonwealth republic shoud not be merged. What else would one call a Republic within the Commonwealth of Nations? GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Commonwealth kingdom appears to be a made up term. The article should be deleted and there should be no reference to it here. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If we're honest, they're all "made up" terms. This really is just a way of splitting up the information in the Commonwealth of Nations article. -- (talk) 05:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with User:Lholden and would support merging both Commonwealth republic and Commonwealth kingdom into Commonwealth of Nations. If this is not possible and Commonwealth republic is to remain in place then there needs to be a category for the five countries that are not Commonwealth republics or Commonwealth realms - i.e. the five Commonwealth kingdoms. Hopefully a consensus will emerge. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, to be clear, we know that Commownealth realm is the one term not made up by Wikipedia. Commonwealth republic and Commonwealth kingdom, however, seem to be. Now, that's not to say that's an absolute reason for illigitimacy - as LH says, a sister article that focuses on republics of the Commonwealth might be necessary if there's enough information to warrant it. That would therefore apply also to kingdoms of the Commonwealth that don't have EIIR as head of state. But, then, if we look at the two articles, is that the case? I'm not sure what info is in Commonwealth republic that isn't really already covered in Commownealth of Nations, and there certainly doesn't seem to be enough at Commonwealth kingdom to support its existence - content parameters aside. That is, of course, only my opinion, though. --G2bambino (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, I would support both Commonwealth republic and Commonwealth kingdom being merged into Commonwealth of Nations.
However, I don't agree with User: Gooday that we should merge Commonwealth kingdom but not Commonwealth republic. The logic that a Commonwealth republic article should be kept because "[w]hat else would one call a Republic within the Commonwealth of Nations?" applies equally to a Commonwealth kingdom - After all, "what else would one call an independent kingdom/monarchial state within the Commonwealth of Nations?!". If one is merged, the other needs to be merged also. Alternatively, they carry on as separate articles. As for the fact that currently Commonwealth kingdom is a very short article - it may well grow so that is not really a reason to merge it into another article. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Please don't zap away Commonwealth republics? Those republics deserve a Commonwealth article too. The Commonwealth of Nations is not all monarchies. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
But, GoodDay, that's more of a request than a reason. Why do republics of the Commonwealth "deserve" an article? It's irrelevant to the Commonwealth being all monarchies or all republics. --G2bambino (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Consider renaming the article. PS- My protestations are (I shamefully admit) political PoV; therefore whatever the decesion is, on Commonwealth republic? I'll abide by it. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps list of republics within the commonwealth? I agree with TharkunColl and g2; both this and the commonwealth republic articles are, quite frankly, a joke...and need to be dealt with!--Cameron (t|p|c) 19:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
It appears that a consensus for merging both the Commonwealth republic and Commonwealth kingdom articles into Commonwealth of Nations is emerging. I support that idea and agree (with User:Cameron and others) that frankly both articles are a joke and not appropriate for an encyclopedia. My initial support for there being a Commonwealth kingdom article was premised on the fact that there was a Commonwealth republic article. I hope there will be volunteers for the work. I will help! Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd also support merging Commonwealth realm into this article. Ya know, have the 3 groups here. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Either merge all three of them (keep the useful tables, though) or merge only the Commonwealth kingdom article; the other two have substantial content. —Nightstallion 21:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Commonwealth republic's content seems to mostly be a repeat of what's at Commonwealth of Nations anyway; so it's substantial, but not helpful. Commonwealth realm, on the other hand, doesn't, as far as I can see, repeat much from Commonwealth of Nations; the realms have characteristics unique to themselves, whereas the republics and non-realm kingdoms of the Commonwealth don't, besides all being Commonwealth members. --G2bambino (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Benefits and Criticisms Sections

So, these sections have remained unsourced for almost a year. It's time to either source the claims made therein or remove them entirely. If no sources are forthcoming, I plan to remove both sections. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed here [8] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Map

I've restored the older, all blue map for a couple of reasons. First: is the distinction between realms and republics in the Commonwealth that central to the topic of this article that the map should graphically show this? Surely the maps at Commonwealth realm and Commonwealth republic would suffice. Second: the map only shows realms and republics. This ignores the existence of Brunei, Lesotho, Malaysia, Swaziland, and Tonga, which are all neither realms or republics. Is it worth making another map that outlines three different types of countries in the Commonwealth? --G2bambino (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact, now, since the adoption of the slightly-modified membership criteria and entry mechanism, there is absolutely no significance of being a Commonwealth Realm - sharing a monarch is merely an internal constitutional point. For the sake of explanation and completeness, it should be noted that, until these changes, countries were formally required to reapply to join the Commonwealth if they became republics (or monarchies that didn't share the British monarch as Head of State), so there was a significance. Now, though, it is not at all relevant, and is rightly relegated to the sub-articles. Bastin 21:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Bahrain appears as a member of the Commonwealth in the map. But I checked the member list in the official website "thecommonwealth.org" included in the summary box at the start of the article, and neither Bahrain or its close neighbor Qatar is on the list. The map should be corrected. Lavidia (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Membership not terminated

Extract from the 2007 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting: Final communiqué [9]

"Heads of Government also agreed that, where an existing member changes its formal constitutional status, it should not have to reapply for Commonwealth membership provided that it continues to meet all the criteria for membership."

In cases of changes in constitutional status, as when a monarchical realm becomes a republic, it was agreed that the old procedure of reapplying for membership is not necessary. It was accepted that where an existing member changes its constitutional status, e.g. from a monarchy to a republic, it should not have to reapply for Commonwealth membership as long as it continues to accept all elements of the criteria for membership. --129.78.64.106 (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's worth leaving an explanation of the previous procedure as well, even if the policy has now changed. David Underdown (talk) 12:15, 2 September 2008 (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.

Quiensabe 18:15 UTC 28 Jun 2005

I say it all the time. 70.70.97.117 (talk) 07:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Original Research

The following in italics is original research. "The United States declared its independence from Britain in 1776, 108 years before Lord Rosebery coined the term Commonwealth of Nations, and is not a member. America's tradition of Republicanism is a barrier to recognition of the monarch of the Commonwealth realms (and by extension application for membership)." Unless a source can be provided, it must go. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 03:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed [10]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Frankly, pretty much the whole section should be shafted. Why are non-members deserving of the longest section in the entire article? Suspensions and withdrawals deserve note as part of the history, membership criteria, and principles of the Commonwealth. Refused and pending applicants deserve note as part of the membership criteria and future of the Commonwealth. Non-applicants deserve no note whatsoever. The EU article has no mention, the UN article has no mention, and the FTAA article has no mention of their respective non-applicants except in passing. Bastin 11:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd normally agree that there is no need to mention non-members, but (as evidenced by the "United States" discussion above) people visiting the article are often puzzled by US non-membership. America is the rare former British colony that has never applied for membership in the Commonwealth. If the issue must be engaged, I'd prefer a more honest attempt than "America declared independence X years before Cmnwth.". There are obviously other reasons for US non-membership, as there are member and former applicant nations with far less common history and culture with the UK (eg France and Cyprus). I feel this needs to be accounted for if the US is to be mentioned at all. I don't think its much of a reach to conclude that a contributor to this is US republicanism. I'd find a source if it weren't such common sense. The possibility of Commonwealth application isn't even entertained in the US. Plasticbadge (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The United States is also the rare former British colony that has a Declaration of Independence in which it renounces allegiance to, and vows to fight against, what it viewed as the tyranny of the British crown. I'm pretty sure it's also the only former British colony to fight two wars against Great Britain. That's all in the past now, and the U.S. and Britain have been formal allies for a very long time. But the relationship between the U.S. and Britain and that of Britain and the Commonwealth Realms is very different. It's hard for me to believe that anyone with a cursory knowledge of history wouldn't understand this. I don't even see why the U.S. would be mentioned here. Jsc1973 (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
If it was up to me, there would be no mention of "non-applicants" or the United States at all. The mere mention of it implies "it could be a member but it isn't", which is again original research. But the situation should certainly should not be made worse with reasons why it is not a member, unless those have come from a reputable source. "Common sense" is not an acceptable reason for adding material. The criteria for addition is "verifiability, not truth" - see WP:V. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I missed Bastin's comments. I have removed the section entirely, save for France, which is sourced material. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

"Old" versus "White" Commonwealth

It is not clear to me whether these two terms are understood to be essentially synonymous, in contrast with the "New" Commonwealth. Clearly India is not "white," but is it old or new? Spark240 (talk) 14:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Despite India being an old British territory, there are many sources and use of the term Old Commonwealth just to describe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa(when under white rule), This seems racist, but in my opinion its far more to do with Rich(developed) / poor (undeveloped) countries than black / white ones.
I think it would be more helpful if the New Commonwealth and Old Commonwealth were merged into this article as proposed and there simply be a small explanation of its use in the past and what some people viewed the use of the term as. I think its given far more status than it deserves, having 2 separate articles on the issue and appearing on the template. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support. I suggest that the other article be merged in here as separate sections, with redirects from the former pages specifically to those sections. Grant | Talk 07:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey

Can someone please add an explanation of the status of the above? They compete at the Commonwealth Games, and they are not part of the UK, but they are apparently not members of the Commonwealth. Abberley2 (talk) 12:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

They are (along with the Isle of Man), Crown Dependencies David Underdown (talk) 12:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan Barred : Please update Image

Since Pakistan is barred from commonwealth countries, please somebody create an image without pakistans highlighted region. Please update it, till that may be remained Non-updated. if it's an error reply. --Anuraag Vaidya 14:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan was apparently readmitted in may 2008 following the elections, so the map is correct as it stands. in any case it was not expelled, but only suspended, it's membership was retained, but it was not allwoed to participate in Commonwealth events. David Underdown (talk) 15:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Commonweath Union

what bout having an article bout it?

http://www.commonwealth-union.co.nr/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.54.62 (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Something like that isnt going to happen considering the United Kingdom is tied in with the EU on trade issues, Canada is tied to NAFTA on certain issues too. More of a mention on trade between the commonwealth countries might be justified on this article, including something of the implications to commonwealth trade rights when the UK joined the EU. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... no. How about you provide a reference showing that it's received any secondary coverage in reliable sources per Wikipedia:Verifiability?
There could be a passing reference to the drop-off in trade after the UK's accession to the EU, as part of a greater treatment of a decline of the Commonwealth in that era. It will receive treatment when the History of the Commonwealth of Nations article is finally written. Bastin 02:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

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 [11] "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)

Map of Commonwealth

This map is okay but it isn't great. it is very messy in the Caribbean and in Oceania. Also the map should show that their are two different types of participants: Commonwealth Reals and Commonwealth Republics. I recommend File:The Commonweath of Nations.PNG from wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.115.81 (talk) 01:02, 16 June 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 [12] 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 [13]. 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)

I don't know if your second point is referring to me in a good way or bad way, but I would like to point out that I was against the specific dates being added because they aren't in the official website. -- Scorpion0422 00:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI, Some mention was made here as well as first noted here. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 00:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Re Gary Joseph - I guess you are "out". Thats your decision. I am still hoping for good faith and

integrity so will press on for a bit.

Re the sources "That-Vela" points to, more of the same unfortunately - i.e. half-page type summaries on websites. Not sound sources.
Re Bastin "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." Please do so. Thanks. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 05:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
ADMINISTRATOR suggested I move this discussion to the relevant talk page so I am doing so. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Since the issue hasn't really been resolved, I have seen the commonwealth website & it's 60th anniversary of the founding of the MODERN Commonwealth, so should this point be mentioned? See for yourself here. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

ppp doesn't really mean anything

information pages on the commonwealth and other organizations like la francophonie and the g8 list nominal gdp not parity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grmike (talk • contribs) 20:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you're somewhat confused. Nominal GDP doesn't really mean anything. That's why it's called nominal, i.e. it has the name of GDP, but it doesn't reflect it statistically significantly. Bastin 22:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
nominal gdp is real gdp with updated exchange rates. it's real gdp that's just an imaginary number. developing countries get 'overrated' on ppp gdp lists, that's why they are the only ones to experience a big drop off when switching lists. the leaders in nominal gdp lists also happen to lead gdp per capita lists as well as exports. if you're looking at things objectively it seems clear that nominal gdp is the only one with meaning. switching countries it's nominal gdp that remains constant.

Bastin where do you get the right to remove information ?

the addition is simply a basis for why the commonwealth is still a powerful entity. any economic statistics having to do with any of the nations can be added under the new heading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grmike (talk • contribs) 21:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

A powerful entity? Greeeat, but that's not the point of Wikipedia. Most notably because the stock market capitalisation of the member states is not the reason the Commonwealth is a powerful entity (nor is the amount of trade, as Imperial Preference no longer exists, etc). Please find a reference indicating that the size of the stock market and Commonwealth membership are relevant to one another. If not, they are what is known as irrelevant, as two editors have now pointed out that they are. Bastin 22:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
through the commonwealth Britain still has some influence over the other nations. through Canada this influence extends into some other organizations like the g8, francophonie. through India the new Asian organization of nations.
I'd sure like to see the citation backing that statement! --Lholden (talk) 05:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. The CoN has no "economic clout" - it is not an economic bloc - and adding together the size of the economies of the member states to suggest that it does is pure OR. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC) ps I made a boo-boo reverting just now, but I reverted myself afterwards.
Don't worry, I do that all the time :-) --Lholden (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Creation of the Commonwealth

Could the UK's role, along with other nations, please be recognised somewhere in the article? The 'changing empire' and the creation of nations within it, and the creation of the Commonwealth. Flosssock1 (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The Commonwealth was not "established by the UK". It was established by an Act of Parliament. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 20:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I never said it was. But it had a sagnificant role in its establishment. Flosssock1 (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Why did you make this edit and this edit then? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Becuase I knew that it would be quickly edited out. And I would commence my proposall, of the above, to improve the article. Please keep to the point of this section. Flosssock1 (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the article could do with something similar to Flossock1's proposal. 92.239.149.50 (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The history section of the article explains clearly how it was formed and evolved from the British Empire. I wouldnt want to see created by the UK in the intro but i suppose one sentence could be reworded using whats said first in the history section "The Commonwealth is the successor of the British Empire" rather than just saying in the intro most of its members were part of the Empire. But i dont really see any need for change, the rest of the article goes into great deal about developments. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

What it should actualy read is " The Commonwealth was not the successor to the Empire " -- the Empire existed along side the Commonwealth - the Empire being a single legal jurisdiction and the Commonwealth being a free association . In the Balfour Declaration 1926 which was the definition of what a British Dominion was it clearly states that ( the Dominions ) were 1. within the Empire AND 2. members of the Commonwealth . The key word is " and " . The Empire ( the jurisdiction ) ended but the Commonwealth ( the free association ) continued .Lejon (talk) 09:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks BritishWatcher, i'll leave it there. And Lejon, as the British Empire's controlled territories developed into nations, they gradually gained independence from the UK. Through changing time, Britain, the British Empire, Commonwealth and the nations within it have all changed. The British Empire has developed from a war raging empire to a world peace wanting organisation, the Commonwealth. The British Empire effectivly acted as a catalyst in building nations. The British Empire today (known as 'British overseas territories') are mainly small islands and outposts etc. Britain provides defence (among other things) to these territories and has told them that if they insist on gaining independence, they can proceed with it. However this is not the point of this section and as far as I am conserned the point of this section is now resolved. Thanks, Flosssock1 (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

British Commonwealth/Commonwealth

The Commonwealth is not known as the British Commonwealth and it is a tad misleading to simply say that the CoN was "formerly" known as the BC. There is more to it than that. From their website [14] "What is the ‘British Commonwealth’? The ‘British Commonwealth’ refers to the Imperial British Empire. The ‘British Commonwealth’ ended in 1949 and a new union of what were defined as ‘freely and equally associated states’ was created. Before 1949, all Commonwealth dominions were united by a common allegiance to the British Crown. Then, in 1949, Commonwealth prime ministers issued the London Declaration, which changed membership in the Commonwealth from one based on common allegiance to the British Crown to one in which members agree to recognise the British monarch as the Head of the Commonwealth. It was at this time that the 'British Commonwealth' ended and the 'modern Commonwealth' was founded." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Red Hat -- check out the actual wording of the " London Declaration " there is a phrase in it that states that the change to membership requirement did not apply to the original members . The original members still had to owe allegiance to the British Crown . I think he term British was an unofficial attachment but was dropped - I am not exactly sure when .Lejon (talk) 09:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

What I am getting at is nothing official. I have spoken to many people, in person, about the Commonwealth and I can safely say the at least 50% of them refered to it as the British Commonwealth. I believe that for people that are uneducated/unaware of the Commonwealth it would be beneficial to include 'and previously the British Commonwealth' to avoid confusion for many people researching, what to themselves is known as, the British Commonwealth. Flosssock1 (talk) 13:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes I just checked the wording of the " Balfour Declaration " 1926 and it uses the term " British Commonwealth of Nations " which makes it an ( official ) previously used description . Lejon (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

1931

The above was not the year the Commonwealth was established. Merely the year the Statute of Westminster (which nowhere says a Commonwealth is being established etc and indeed refers to the existing Commonwealth). I can see this has been discussed before above where Redking7 raised the discrepancy but he was not listened to. Regards. Staighre (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Updated to show (with a source also) as to 1949 as the year it formally was established to what it is today. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 10:31, 8 October 2009 (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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.16.14 (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2004 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.17.142 (talk) 11:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Commonwealth Games

Are they really second largest games after the Olympics? I think the Asia games would be bigger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.99.247.70 (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Rhodesia

Rhodesia was never a member of the Commonwealth, as it was a British colony right up to 1980. - (203.211.73.10) —Preceding undated comment added 23:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

CN

CN is not a widely-used abbreviation. The short form is the commonwealth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauldanon (talk • contribs) 08:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Need for Update

The article mentions that a report is to be presented to the 2007 Commonwealth Heads of Goverment meeting. As this is 2009, it seems that the provision is in need of updating. John Paul Parks (talk) 13:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr Parks...I tried doing more valuable work to this article before...like trying to delete these non-sense references to it having been established in 1931......Despite sources, an insistence on "simplicity" and "consistency"...seems to have prevailed. Please join me in fixing this basic detail and then we can update the article.....Its hard to be motivated to fix up an article that is so far wrong at the moment....Regards. Staighre (talk) 06:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Updated that part of the provision to the committee that did the report (should have been done before, but wasn't). That-Vela-Fella (talk) 10:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a sentence

Sub New Commonwealth: "After the war, particularly since the 1960s when some of the Commonwealth countries disagreed with poorer, African and Asian (or New Commonwealth) members about various issues at Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings." is not a sentence. However, I can't tell from the context exactly what it was that the author(s) had in mind, so I have not attempted editing the section. --Polemyx (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Rwanda

Rwanda has joined the Commonwealth. Did anybody notice what the external-link says at List of members of the Commonwealth of Nations article? British Commonwealth. Smelling-salts for Mies. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ The population figures are given by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commonwealth_of_Nations/Archive_2&oldid=1146831123"