Talk:Commonwealth of Nations/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Map has no legend

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

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

British Army

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

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

United States

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

Yes, it would qualify under the guidelines, as referenced in the article Commonwealth of Nations membership criteria.

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

Theoretically the US could make an application to join the commonwealth, but i think only the original 13 colonies would be eligible to enter as it was those same 13 colonies that were under British rule prior to independenceEnglish n proud (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC). Theres other countries that only had part of the nation once part of the uk that is in commonwealth of nations Flow234 (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

If the Commonwealth can accept Mozambique and Rwanda, then a British connection is no longer absolutely necessary. However, the other US states would be eligible through their connection with the original 13. Nonetheless, Americans would have to stop insulting much of the UK by referring to all of it as "England". Wikiain (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

We're not really "insulting much of the UK", as England really is most of the the UK, both by land area and population, and certainly by political and cultural dominance. So if it is an insult, it's only towards a small, mostly insignificant part of the UK. There is actually another parallel, as people from the UK refer to the Netherlands incorrectly as "Holland". Holland is actually a smaller part of the Netherlands than England is in the UK. But the Dutch don't get their knickers in a wad over it, and actually embrace it. - BilCat (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

10m people out of 63m is hardly small and and insignificant. But your focus on Scotsmen's knickers is up to you. Wikiain (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not "much of", which implies a majority. And anyway, I prefer a Scotswoman's knickers, especially if she's in them. - BilCat (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

We'd better call a halt there, pal. Wikiain (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

nominal gdp vs ppp

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

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

The English Used

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

jews; boner

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

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

Flag

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

The design of the flag is probably not in the public domain, so trying to find an image which meets our free licensing requierments will be well-nigh impossible, and I'm not sure how justifiable fair use would be in this article either. David Underdown (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair use would apply to this article, because it illustrates the public identity that the Commonwealth chooses itself to represent. It would also apply to Flag of the Commonwealth of Nations, because it illustrates the subject. In both cases, there is no substitute.

I have contacted the Commonwealth Secretariat to enquire about the legal status of the flag. The Commonwealth Secretariat has a strange legal status itself, so I'm not sure where the flag stands. Bastin 15:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Anthem

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

I don't think there's an official one, but God Save the Queen, an anthem used by many of the Commonwealth's member states which are also Commonwealth realms, could be considered to be the Commonwealth anthem. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 14:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

No, there is no Commonwealth anthem. God Save the Queen cannot be considered the anthem, and is only the national anthem of 2 Commonwealth members. It is used in connection with the person of the Head of the Commonwealth in those members where it is either the national anthem (United Kingdom, New Zealand) or the royal anthem (Canada, Australia, Jamaica, Tuvalu), but that is due to their domestic institutions, not those of the Commonwealth. Bastin 16:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that there is not an anthem of the Commonwealth. By virtue of the office of Head of the Commonwealth, the de facto anthem of the Commonwealth is in fact God Save the Queen, at least until the office is assumed by someone who is not monarch of the United Kingdom. It is commonly said that the Head of the Commonwealth is the person that binds the Commonwealth of Nations together. Historically, it is the monarch of the United Kingdom that assumes this role. More recently, member states of the Commonwealth have agreed that Prince Charles should succeed Elizabeth II in her role as Head of the Commonwealth. The anthem is also played at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings in honour of the Head of the Commonwealth, who is also monarch of the United Kingdom. God Save the Queen is the overarching anthem which binds the Commonwealth through the Head of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth would not exist without the history which lies behind the anthem. I have therefore added God Save the Queen to the infobox. Hayley007 (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

There needs to be a source stating that "God Save the Queen" is the Commonwealth anthem, not just us guessing. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree. --Lubiesque (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

There is a Commonwealth Anthem, at least as of December 2015 (see link at third line here), and, whatever it is, it isn't "God Save the Queen". Wikiain (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Lol. Yes, "whatever it is". What I like about this anthem is that the adults can go on doing their things while the dear children sing in the background.--Lubiesque (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like the adults are clumsily shifting heavy furniture—which seems quite appropriate, really. Wikiain (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

There has been a Commonwealth Anthem since 2009

"To mark the Diamond Jubilee of The Commonwealth In 2009 the Commonwealth Secretariat commissioned Paul Carroll to compose “The Commonwealth Anthem”. The lyrics of the Anthem, written by the Commonwealth Secretariat, are the words of the 1948 Universal Bill of Human Rights..." (see here)

Here it is on YouTube (with introductory narrative, without narrative). Is there a way to include this on the article? Demelza381 (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Done - and you are silently credited. Wikiain (talk) 02:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Map colours

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

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

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

The map isnt entirely accurate-- shouldnt burma be a former commomwealth nation, since it was a part of undivided india — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.89.19.132 (talk) 02:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The commonwealth wasn't around during the Empire. It arose to replace the Empire, and its members were states which emerged from the Empire as independent states (plus a couple others around those). Burma was never a commonwealth nation. CMD (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Revert move

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

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

---

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

• Note to Closer: This page was moved without discussion and against the previous consesnus formed at Talk:The Commonwealth/Archive 2#Requested move, which was closed as "not Moved". As such, I request that a "No conseus" be taken as a return to the previous consensus choice. Non-consensual choices should not be forced simply because an admin chose to user his authority by deleting an existing page to clear the way for a move to force his own will against existing consensus. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I second that, although I hope it will also be remembered that positions must be based on valid arguments if they are to count in the weighing of consensus.--Kotniski (talk) 06:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Return to: Commonwealth of Nations. It's the established and official name.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have any sources for these claims, one way or the other? For me, it's far far more often referred to as "The Commonwealth", and that seems to apply on its own website too (although it does put "of Nations" at the top of the page). --Kotniski (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The Commonwealth most often refers to the Commonwealth Secretariat, the main (but not only) intergovernmental agency of the Commonwealth. There is also The Commonwealth Foundation, Commonwealth of Learning, Royal Commonwealth Society and Association of Commonwealth Universities. It's laid out pretty clearly at [1].--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

So you actually now agree that "The Commonwealth" is the better title?--Kotniski (talk) 06:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

NO. The Commonwealth can be pejorative name (not in ref. to Commonwealth of Nations but others) but is moreso a branding title of the Commonwealth Secretariat which, as stated earlier, is but one element of the Commonwealth of Nations.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Where on earth do you get those claims from?? (Do you mean "pejorative"? Surely it isn't that, since they use it themselves?)--Kotniski (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

A clarification was very much needed. Removed the pejorative altogether given that's a historical nitpick study reference relating to other Commonwealths, not CoN.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Return to: Commonwealth of Nations - Less ambiguous title, and per the previous consensesnuses here. I'm quite disappointed that an admin (I think) moved the page without bothering to discuss it, and apparantly di not check previous discussions. See this move discussion at Talk:The Commonwealth/Archive 2#Requested move, which was closed as "not Moved". - BilCat (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support revert. I hate these silly moves that take an admin to undo them. StAnselm (talk) 23:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing any arguments in favour of "Commonwealth of Nations". It's certainly not the common name, and I'm not even seeing any evidence that it's the official name. On the surface it looks like the move made perfect sense (though generally I agree that this sort of thing ought to be discussed first).--Kotniski (talk) 06:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Revert: doesn't seem to have been a move made with consensus. I don't know if "Commonwealth of Nations" is the ideal appropriate name or not, but "The Commonwealth" is pretty ambiguous. When I lived in Boston, "the Commonwealth" referred to the state of Massachusetts. Now that I live in New Zealand, it means the Commonwealth of Nations. When I visit Australia, it often means the federal government of Australia in my professional circle. Some sort of disambiguation is needed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

But would anyone in Massachusetts or Australia honestly ever expect a Wikipedia article called "The Commonwealth" to refer to the Commonwealth of Masschusetts or of Australia? I don't believe there's any significant number of readers anywhere who would ever type in "The Commonwealth" with any expectation of seeing anything other than the article on this organization. --Kotniski (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support – The official website of the Commonwealth gives the name as "Commonwealth of Nations". The "Commonwealth" is just the short name. The correct name of an organisation should always be the article title. The source cited by the editor who made the move did not even support his claim. McLerristarr / Mclay1 11:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It gives both names, and uses the shorter one much more often. It doesn't seem to say which one it considers "correct" (well obviously it considers both correct, since otherwise it wuoldn't be using them). Looking at some recent official documents from this organization, I don't really see any usage of the "of Nations" bit. But we should be more concerned with common usage, not official usage - obviously "The Commonwealth" is overwhelmingly the common name (isn't it?), so the only real reason we might have not to use it as the article title is if it's genuinely ambiguous.--Kotniski (talk) 11:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I think we need to clear up what the organisation is actually called, and what is the "official" website. I note that the website run by Nexus Strategic Partnerships (commonwealth-of-nations.org) is being called the official site, though I am less certain of that. The site run by the Commonwealth Secretariat (thecommonwealth.org) is clearly an official site, and this page has the clearest and most up to date explanation of how the association is organised and named. In there the term "The Commonwealth" is used. It is also the term used most on Google - [2] (over 23 million hits compared to under 300K for "Commonwealth of Nations" [3]). Under WP:Commonname we should be using the name that readers most readily identify with. The wording is: "Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name."

I think it would be helpful to find accurate and reliable sources that trace the name changes, and to mention that in the article. In the meantime it would be appropriate to follow policy and keep this article name at The Commonwealth. SilkTork *^YES! 18:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the text of the declarations, the last time "of Nations" appears is in the Singapore Declaration (1971). So I think we can safely say that even if "The Commonwealth" is a shortened name, then it's a fully usable one, something like "United Kingdom". The only potentially valid objection I can see is that the organization might not be the primary topic for that name (i.e. it's too ambiguous), but for me I don't think there's any realistic doubt as to what people would be looking for if they search for that name.--Kotniski (talk) 07:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Well, in view of the lack of any counterargument, and the apparent falsehood of the claims on which the opposing positions are based, I'm going to record my position as leave at "The Commonwealth" (for all the good it will do).--Kotniski (talk) 06:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• On the fence: But I will say this: People currently in Delhi are not attending the Commonwealth of Nations Games. There is no Commonwealth of Nations Heads of Government Meeting, and nobody celebrates a Commonwealth of Nations Day. Ok, these are all adjectival uses, and it would be appropriate to omit the "of Nations" anyway, just as Australia's Commonwealth Parliament is the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. But the Queen is not the Head of the Commonwealth of Nations, just the Head of the Commonwealth. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC) OTOH, we do have Commonwealth of Nations membership criteria, which wouldn't make a lot of sense if it were just Commonwealth membership criteria. It would have to change to something like Membership criteria for member nations of the Commonwealth. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Much as I agree that the move was premature, I think that judging by the more recent Commonwealth Declarations, "the Commonwealth" now has a good claim to be the proper or at least the default name of the Commonwealth - it is commonly referred to as such even in Australia. (Admittedly, "Commonwealth of Nations", though less common, has the benefit of being unambiguous: "Commonwealth" in Australian legislation refers by default to the Commonwealth of Australia, and "Commonwealth of Nations" is usual legal name in Australia for the larger organisation. Although "Head of the Commonwealth" is used in the Queen's Australian styles and titles, it is probably not conclusive, given that it is a stylised formulation (with a capital "H") that admits of no ambiguity, and was adopted when the Commonwealth was unquestionably properly known as the "British Commonwealth of Nations".) But in the final analysis, while "Commonwealth" would be unquestionably too ambiguous, I think this the Commonwealth (of Nations) is by far and away the "primary topic" for the article title "the Commonwealth". (Let's ignore the capital "T" in the definite article, because it is not in common use except at the beginning of sentences.) No Australian would ever expect "the Commonwealth" on Wikipedia to point to the Commonwealth of Australia. Andrew Yong (talk) 02:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I think the original move way probably premature, but it does seem to be the case that the terminology "Commonwealth of Nations" is very rarely used, while references to "the Commonwealth" are standard. As such, I think this article should remain at its current location. The Celestial City (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Requested move

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

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

---

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

• Oppose. The proposed title is too ambiguous, and where we have a convenient disambiguator in the form of the official name, we should use it. Powers ^T 12:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

But as the previous discussion seemed to show, the title is not ambiguous (what else could anyone be searching for under that title? no-one's yet suggested anything), and the alleged official name appears to be nothing of the sort.--Kotniski (talk) 12:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, commonwealth, for one. Powers ^T 13:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Why would anyone prefix that with "The"?--Kotniski (talk) 13:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

For the same reason one would say "the common welfare" -- as in "such-and-such is beneficial to the commonwealth of the nation." In further support of my opposition, it appears that most other reference works use "Commonwealth of Nations"; Britannica is the primary exception I've found so far. Powers ^T 13:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Speedy close we just discussed this. One day wait to reopen a discussion, and perform the opposite of what was just decided? As it was a discussion and not a speedy revert, there should be a fair period between discussions. If the move had been speedily reverted, then a discussion might be in order, but an entire discussion over the standard period of a week occurred. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 06:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Except that towards the end of the discussion, when the arguments had been properly worked out, support seemed to be for the change. The fact that the article was (rightly) moved back to the original title in line with procedure is no reason for the consensus-forming process to stop.--Kotniski (talk) 10:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I too think the proposed title is unnecessarily ambiguous. The principal meaning of "the Commonwealth" varies considerably depending on the context in which one is living or operating. It can mean Massachusetts, the federal government of Australia, the interregnum government of England, and so forth. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

But as I keep saying over and over, no-one typing in "The Commonwealth" is going to be looking for any of those subjects. There really isn't an ambiguity problem here, it's just a question of getting the name most commonly used in reliable sources.--Kotniski (talk) 10:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

If someone typed in "The Commonwealth", I am inclined to think they would expect to end up at either Commonwealth or (more likely) Commonwealth (disambiguation). Just because you keep saying the same thing over and over doesn't mean others have to change their mind about this. One downside about reviving the issue so soon after a discussion on the same topic is that it is unlikely that consensus has had a chance to change in the short meantime. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - Agree that the most likely search target for "The Commonwealth" is either Commonwealth or (more likely) Commonwealth (disambiguation), and suggest redirecting to the DAB page. Also, since the previous moove discussion was closed with "There is clearly no consensus to support moving this article at this time", I'm not sure why the nom expects a different outcome 12 hours later, especially since the previous discussion ran for 27 days, which is more than enough time to gather attention. - BilCat (talk) 07:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Well most people before supported it, so it seemed reasonable to continue discussing. I have no idea why you all think anyone looking for other meanings of the word "commonwealth" would ever prefix it with "the". (In fact, people looking for this article would most likely not prefix it with "the" either, but at least some of them will, and adopting this title allows us to use the name that we ought to want to give to this article - using a minority and old-fashioned name like "Commonwealth of Nations" is misinforming readers as to what the organization is generally called, so we should be doing everything possible to avoid it, not inventing frankly unrealistic scenarios to try to justify it.)--Kotniski (talk) 08:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea why you thing people looking for "The Commonwealth" would add the "the" in their search, but my opinions is just as valid as yours, since you've no more supporting evidence for it than my "invented frankly unrealistic scenarios"! I'm just using common sense, as, the last time I checked, the bulk of WP's readership is still in the US, where there are 6 commonwealths unrelated to the Commonwealth of Nations. That does figure in to who is searching for what on WP. As to "Well most people before supported it", consensus is not a vote, so I still don't see a different outcome. You're the only one supporting it so far, so the outcome may bbe even stronger against it this time. - BilCat (talk) 09:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, though it would be nice to hear some arguments that actually make sense. Do you really think that someone looking for (say) Massachusetts is going to do so by typing in "the Commonwealth"? Being realistic - almost certainly not. So what reason is that for confusing readers by using a much less common name as the title for the present article? In spite of the number of people lining up to write "oppose" in bold letters, I still don't see any rational basis for their position. (And it doesn't even much matter if not many people are searching for this article by "the Commonwealth" either - they'll get here by whatever route just the same as they would at the moment, but when they got there they'd be properly informed about what the organization is called in today's world.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Even if we accept your premise that the "official" name is "The Commonwealth", not the "Commonwealth of Nations", (which I have yet to be persuaded of), the consesus here so far is that the title "The Commonwealth" is ambiguous. Your arguments aren't persuading anyone, and the thinly veiled insults certainly won't help. - BilCat (talk) 11:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Insults? Don't know what they were, but I apologize if anyone took something that way. I don't claim that there is necessarily one "official" name, but previous discussion showed that "the Commonwealth" is now the far more common way of referring to the organization in both popular and official usage. Of course it's ambiguous (many titles are), but I'm trying to show that this is the clear primary topic, so the ambiguity shouldn't matter as far as choosing a title is concerned.--Kotniski (talk) 11:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

If a title is ambiguous, then it's not the clear primary topic for that title. Encyclopedia Britannica lists the article under "Commonwealth, also Commonwealth of Nations". with no "The" shown anywhere. It's their choice that "Commonwealth" is the primary topic for the CoN, but for WP, it's not. In Merriam Webster's Dictionary, Geographical section, it's under "Commonwealth of Nations, also Commonwealth", but no "The". The "The" is just stylistic, and we don't generally see it capitalized in most pubilsehd sources. So the alternative is to have Commonwealth (association of nations), or something similar, as a DABbed title. In the end, the other common alternate title, Commonwealth of Nations, works best, as it is already disambiguated. - BilCat (talk) 12:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a good point about the "The". Essentially, the "The" being proposed here as a disambiguator from Commonwealth, but from my reading of WP:THE, I don't think this is a scenario when the word "The" should appear in the article name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The Australian government is routinely referred to as "The Commonwealth" when contrasting with state governments. I would go so far to say that, in Australia, the use of the term "Commonwealth" shorn from context would more likely to be thought to be referring to the Federal Government than the remnants of Empire. My opinion only, of course, and other Australians may think differently. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 09:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose the commonwealth of nations is more helpful than just the commonwealth. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
• All right, I remain unconvinced, but it's clear this isn't going to be supported. Closing per WP:SNOW.--Kotniski (talk) 11:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

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

New Section

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

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

Criticism

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

Ireland left before countries could be members and at the same time republics. Zimbabwe left because, well, it's Zimbabwe. Mugabe is not a well-loved fellow. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

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

The rules were changed when India (the 'Jewel in the Crown') was on the point of being in the same situation as Ireland, out of the Commonwealth. RashersTierney (talk) 00:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, there have been debates about Ireland re-joining sporadically ever since... it was even a pet cause of Eamon de Valera. Should we maybe mention that? --MichiganCharms (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Why not? If memory serves his grandson Éamon Ó Cuív has also promoted the idea. Would need to be referenced of coarse. RashersTierney (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

So, I’ve become ‘as such’

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

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

South Sudan

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

Origins re-writing

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

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

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

Quick Question

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

Simply put, it never was a British territory. You may be getting confused with the word commonwealth itself, the term used for it (Commonwealth (U.S. insular area)) and the organisation entitled here.That-Vela-Fella (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with the above....Note PR would be eligible for membership if indepdendent though, as would the Republic of Scotland. 86.41.2.94 (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

"Commonwealth" is simply a name that a country or an organisation can adopt: look at the article "Commonwealth". BTW the Scottish National Party, currently in government in Scotland and pushing for independence, proposes to maintain a shared monarchy - making Scotland just one more country that Queen Elizabeth would be queen of. --Wikiain (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

At this point, Editors should really rehash all supposed membership criteria for the Commonwealth.....all the old stuff about having a link to the British Empire or a country that was part of the British Empire has fallen by the wayside now that a couple of countries like Mozambique and Rwanda have joined.....No harm in that I suppose, a natural evolution...mind you maybe there is harm in it....less of a family feeling if you don't share ancesotrs. As for Scotland, they will never be indpendent, I metion them only because speculation around potential members of the Commonwealth is pure nonsense...86.41.2.94 (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

nonsense but maybe good fun. 86.41.2.94 (talk) 11:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

"Commonwealth realm" is not an official legal term

Hi, at present the article includes a sentence reading:

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

I changed this to read:

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

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

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

The expression "Commonwealth realms" is linked to the article "Commonwealth realms", which I think explains the term well. I would like to change "known" to "known conventionally". In law, some things are called "conventions" that have binding force - for example, in a Westminster-style democracy, that a government must resign after a vote of no confidence in it. I don't think the usage "Commonwealth realms" is binding, although here the word "realms" does have a statutory basis. However, the word "convention" is also used more loosely in legal contexts, as something that is widely accepted even for use in formal discussion - and that seems to be the case here. "Colloquial" (and, if we use it, let's spell it right) is not appropriate - for this is a matter of formal discourse. Hope we can agree.--Wikiain (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if the name "Commonwealth realms" is defined by law, but the article Commonwealth realm seems to have plenty of reliable sources, including the official website of the British Monarchy, so I don't see the justification for your suggested modification. I see also that the term has been used in formal contexts such as a debate in the Canadian House of Commons, a legal journal, and a serious book about the Commonwealth. A term doesn't have to be defined by law to be used by Wikipedia. In any case, probably a better place to discuss this is at Talk:Commonwealth realm --Macrakis (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Editor - You are the one who reverted my change so I am glad you have participated. No one is saying that the term is not used. However, I am saying that the 16 countries are not always referred to as "Commonwealth realms". None of them have Constitutions that say things like "Trinidad and Tobago is a sovereign, indepdendent Commonwealth realm" etc. I am not asking for the term to be removed from the article. I am merely asking for the word "sometimes" to be added because they are not by any means "always" referred to as Commonwealth realms....and for the word "coloquially" because the word has no legal standing whatsoever and that is important - if you are not aware of that, it would probably be interesting for you to read some of the Constitutions of these 16 countries (where they have constitutions). Other editors? 86.45.54.230 (talk) 10:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Reading constitutions to derive a common term would be original research. There are more than enough references to support its use and none that I can see which say it is colloquial. ----Snowded ^TALK 10:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikian - I disagree with the thrust of what you have posted. I think you are confusing legal conventions with a colloquialism [spelt right, thanks]. In legal contexts the term "Commonwealth realm" is not used at all. I mean zero. To suggest that there is a legal convention, binding or loose or otherwise, that the term should be used does not stack up. The article should make it clear that this term is a badge of convenience with no legal standing whatsoever. 86.45.54.230 (talk) 10:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Why this fixation on legal definitions? Clearly the term is used in formal, official contexts (the web site of the Queen), and so is not "colloquial". Can you propose a better term for the collection of countries who have the same sovereign as Great Britain?

By the way, I was interested to see that the Constitution of Jamaica, though it refers many times to the Sovereign, never defines the Sovereign, Monarch, or Head of State. The closest it gets is: "There shall be a Governor-General of Jamaica who shall be appointed by Her Majesty..." Similarly, the Constitution of Australia defines none of these terms, but starts "...the people... have agreed to unite ... under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". Would you conclude that Jamaica and Australia don't have sovereigns or heads of state? --Macrakis (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Perhaps you could answer my question. Do you consider the terms "sovereign" and "head of state" to be "colloquial" as applied to Jamaica and Australia? It is "plain silly" to consider any term that is not defined by the country's legal system as "colloquial"? Is it "colloquial" to say that Qaddafi was a dictator? I wonder... what is the statutory basis for saying that the President of the United States is its Head of State? --Macrakis (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Mackrias - there are plenty of reeferences in the Jamaican legal system to the Queen's official title. "Head of State" is not her official title. It is Her Majesty etc. What is your point? Are you seriously saying that "Commonwealth realm" is a term of art having any legal standing? 86.46.26.227 (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Mackrakis - Do you admit that you cannot find any source whatsoever where the Government of Jamaica calls Jamaica a "Commonwealth realm". It seems you admit this. You you are insisting that my proposed additions of "sometimes coloquillly" be rejected. Well, how can you reject "sometimes" when you cannot even find one source where the Jamaican Government uses it? Surely, if they never use it, it cannot be said that it is universally used. As for coloquially, you accept also that it is not used in any formal legal document or treaty or any such....so it is a ccolloquialism. I am not too hung up on words. Substance is my thing. If you don't like the word "colloquial", we could use the words "sometimes unofficially" or some such. I don't see a need to reason to get side tracked into a ddiscussion of North Korea etc. We are talking about "Commonwealth realms". You picked Jamaica as one of you example and I have not challenged that...but have asked plain, simple questions....86.46.26.227 (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

IP, just because something isn't specifically written down in a constitution doesn't make it colloquial. As for government, a communique Congratulated Her Majesty The Queen on her upcoming Diamond Jubilee in 2012, and discussed appropriate ways of recognizing this significant occasion especially in Realm Countries. CMD (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you trying to point out that Jamaica has used the term "Realm Countries"? If so, surely you concede that isn't even the term we are discussing whcih is "Commonwealth realm"....It seems to me you are insisting that these 16 countries are called "Commonwealth realms" even though use of that term is extremely limited. So limited in fact that you cannot find one instance of Jamaica using the term. 86.46.26.227 (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Separately, on the term "Realm Countries", flagged by User: Chipmunkdavis. Good spot. I have added reference to that term into the article. 86.46.26.227 (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I was pointing out they weren't averse to it. "Realm countries" is obviously derived from "Commonwealth realm", and there are plenty of sources backing up the usage of the term Commonwealth Realm, one island in the Caribbean's government does not affect this. CMD (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

A British-French merger in 1956

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

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

In 1940 when the Battle of France looked like it was being lost, the-then French government was becoming ever more despondent and defeatist, such that some French politicians attempted to accuse the British of 'betraying' France and began calling for a French armistice with Germany, alleging that Britain was going to make peace with Germany after France had been defeated anyway. In an attempt to reassure the French that this was not ever going to happen, Churchill offered France a permanent and binding (on Britain's part) combining of the two countries so that no matter what happened to France, Britain and her Empire would fight on until the rest of the two combined countries was freed of German occupation. This was intended to be a full, legal, combining of the two countries, with a Treaty signed by both sides - France and Britain.

In effect, Britain and France would become one United country, and that all the while France was fighting Germany, Britain would remain fighting alongside France. This was meant to reassure the defeatists and lesser men within the French Government, and to instil some 'fighting spirit' into the French army which was, by then, showing signs of despair at their own, and France's, predicament.

However, as the world now knows, the French government refused and the eventual result was Dunkirk, and all that followed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Rwanda

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

India is not commonwealth!!!

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

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

India is a republic, not a realm anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.119.217.157 (talk) 08:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Not all members of the Commonwealth are Commonwealth realms. William Avery (talk) 08:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

India is a Republic

Has been for over 50 years , Saxegotha are received as heads of state of Britannia, same as the Pope of Vatican City .

I said so many times if fish n chips want to create a faux wiki to feel good about themselves . We should encourage them even allow them much like the Chinese Wikipedia . I — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.161.6 (talk) 06:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Namibia was British Imperial property?

I have a question about Namibia, I know it was part of the Union of South Africa as mandate from the League of Nations but how does that make it not an outside nation like Rwanda or Mozambique. Since it was part of the German Empire’s colonization efforts within the African continent and before that Portuguese explores tried to convert the native population to Catholicism unless there was a big colony on the southern part of this nation? Meaning why is it not mentioned like the other two as outside the British Empire before it became part of the Commonwealth of Nations? Sion8 4:09 April 01, 2012 (UTC)

Reading the history of Namibia at Namibia, presumably because it was ruled by South Africa from 1915 until the 1980s, and South Africa was under British sovereignty until 1961. The territory is pink on the historical map at British Empire, listed as South-West Africa. Thom2002 (talk) 10:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

iirc, it was granted to Britain and then administered by South Africa, just like Papua was by Australia. And then South Africa unilaterally annexed it. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 02:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks you'll that answers my question. -- Sion8 22:17 April 06, 2012 (UTC)

"A Canadian citizen is a British subject" and Commonwealth citizenship

This was a recent addition to the article, but color me confused: what does that have to do with Commonwealth citizenship or a perceived decline in the importance of the Commonwealth to Canadians? Wasn't it simply a case of removing an anachronism in the wording of the passport, a step that was later taken pretty much everywhere else in the Commonwealth? I'd support some mention of the fact that some countries don't provide any benefits to Commonwealth citizens, but it should be sourced information without this kind of synthesis. If nobody objects, I'll remove the new paragraph -- MichiganCharms (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with removal....it is somewhat accurate, however its very oddly worded thus confusing. Anthony Aust (1 April 2010). Handbook of International Law. Cambridge University Press. pp. 164–. ISBN 978-0-521-13349-4. - (Commonwealth citizen - History of Canadian nationality law.Moxy (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Commonwealth Citizenship?

This notion of a "Commonwealth citizenship" may have some relevance in the United Kingdom and some other countries, but it's irrelevant in Canada, where there is no difference in law or in practice, or in the mind of people, between a citizen of Sierra Leone and a citizen of, say, Liberia. The fact that the ambassador of Sri Lanka in Ottawa is called a High Commissioner or that Canadians abroad may seek assistance at a British consulate in the absence of a Canadian consulate do not create a "Commonwealth citizenship"... and no need to point out that English accent, English sports, driving on the left, etc. hardly apply to Canada.

This article overstates the significance of the Commonwealth in A.D. 2012. --Lubiesque (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's the problem... that paragraph is just supposed to be an overhead summary of the situation. We have an article, which is linked to right above the header, on Commonwealth citizenship that details the status and the countries who give those citizens special status. There's no reason for the section to go into significant detail about any particular member country as that would be giving it undue weight... why is the lack of preference in Canada more notable than the preference given in Trinidad? That being said, I agreed with you about the section giving a false impression about just how serious and widespread the concept is, so I attempted to make it more balanced while keeping it still essentially a summary. Do you have a problem with the section as it currently reads? As to relevance... I don't think the article really takes a stance on that, actually, it's really more geared toward just presenting facts. I've considered adding some stuff on the questioning of the Commonwealth's relevance recently, but I have a feeling that it would only lead to trouble. This is a former FA, so unless there's broad-based consensus I don't think much should change, really. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 01:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

And, of course, the Commonwealth is about a lot more than accents, sports or what side of the road people drive on. Even back when Canadians considered themselves 100% British they drove on the right, spoke with North American accents and abandoned cricket and rugby by the Edwardian era. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Demographic stats

I don't know how my deletion can be seen as unexplained, considering I gave a long edit summary explaining it, but to expand slightly, the population and area of the Commonwealth have no affect on its organisation or action. It is just an intergovernmental organisation, working through agreements between the states governments. This is unlike an actual state, or perhaps the EU, where their is an overarching body which has direct influence over the people and area it covers. CMD (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The information is important because is shows the scale and scope of Commonwealth interaction. The fact that you don't feel it is important is only your own opinion which is insufficient grounds for such a major change to the article. You will need to get consensus on this talk page first. Until then per WP:Consensus the information will remain. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Per consensus, the currency information you readded should be removed. My revert was to the pre-IP version, the status quo ante (as I stated quite clearly in the edit summary).

The scale and scope of the Commonwealth is determined by the number of member states it has, not the population or area of those states. States don't have proportional power corresponding to either. And any relevance area and population do have simply doesn't exist at all for a currency list. CMD (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing on this talk page to indicate that the subject was even discussed, much less that there was consensus was reached. Lets hear what other editors have to say first. That is what consensus means. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Um...exactly? Hence my confusion on your position that these recent IP edits you reinstated are somehow part of current consensus. CMD (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I would support removal of the currencies, but strongly oppose removal of area / population size. The population and area size being so large is part of what makes the commonwealth a notable organisation. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the currencies are not neccessary. Mediatech492 (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The demographics are a minor thing to leave in as it will give other readers a perspective on the size of the organisation, in a similar way to the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie and other similar articles. I too would agree on the removal of the currencies there which could have its own separate article/section if needed.That-Vela-Fella (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

As everyone who has commented so far supports the currencies being removed ive made the change, if someone objects then it can be reverted and we can discuss it further. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

If everyone's feels that it gives an indication of perspective, then I'm happy to keep population and area, although it'd be much better with a source. CMD (talk) 04:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

This gives a rounded figure for population at least: http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Internal/180380/ That-Vela-Fella (talk) 11:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Egypt, North/South Sudan, Libya

Are not members? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.40.224 (talk) 11:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Egypt became independent long before the Commonwealth expanded from its white dominion base. Sudan I suppose never joined, and Libya was far more closely associated with Italy than Britain, although I don't know the details on those. South Sudan however, has applied for membership. CMD (talk) 11:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Libya was occupied by the Italians and the British only entered that country during operations in the Western Desert Campaign. As the Allies advanced, then Italian forces were pushed out of Libya, leaving it occupied by the British and her Allies. Post WW II Britain maintained a presence in Libya until as late as the 1950s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Can France join?

I know France wanted to join mid 1950s but was unsuccessful. But could they join now? The links are there, especially as Henry VI was de facto king of France. And needless to say other links like the Normans though strictly not French held the land in Normandy by permission of France. And other places too like Anjou have links to England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.135.224 (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The current rules require a historical and/or constitutional link to any current member. France used to own some of Canada, so there's it's link with Canada. It also is a member of the EU, so that provides a constitutional link with the UK, Cyprus and Malta. I would guess yes, but every new application is dealt with o a case by case basis by the heads of government of the members. Ezza1995 (talk) 10:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Population

Why is there written the summed-up population for the Commonwealth is 2.5 billion in the facts sheet and in the "Members"-section it says 2.1 billion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.197.59.69 (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Error on the member list

There is an error on the member list in the info box. I can't see the the members after Uganda. For example I can't see UK on the list. I looked at the edit page and they were listed there, but still they aren't on the articles list. Why is that? --Ransewiki (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I see the same thing. No idea why though. I've asked the template creator. CMD (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Also known as the British Commonwealth

As I am Australian and would prefer the opening sentence be changed to '(FORMERLY known as the British Commonwealth)', from the current '(ALSO known as the British Commonwealth)' but obviously am open to suggestions and opposing arguments. Since Britain became an equal member as per all other member countries and since all the official Commonwealth publications and statements the organisation is known as the Commonwealth of Nations, I think the title 'British Commonwealth' is not in current use. Are there any sources outside of Britain that retain the use of the phrase the 'British Commonwealth'? The reference someone has used in the article doesn't refer to itself CURRENTLY as the British Commonwealth, but instead lists this as history/background to the current organisation. --TinTin (talk) 06:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if "formerly" briefly explained in a sentence or two in the body of the article, by reference to source given in the lead and/or other sources. Qexigator (talk) 08:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

From a Google search "British commonwealth" gets 1,500,000 results, while "Commonwealth of Nations" gets 983,000. On Google News "British commonwealth" gets 1,130 while "Commonwealth of Nations" gets 404. That's hardly much grounds for claiming it was formerly known as the British commonwealth. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 15:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

A distinction needs to be made between common usage and official usage. While the organization is now officially known as the Commonwealth of Nations you will still hear of it often being referred to as the British Commonwealth even though this term is an anachronism. Most of the people I know who use the term are the older people who originally knew it correctly as such and habits are hard to change. It is an outdated term, but it is still in widespread use, despite its inaccuracy. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The mere search numbers do not disclose whether they reflect present day usage compared with earlier. But this sample shows that among the first results of a google search for "British Commonwealth" are a news item of 16 November 2013 ("The British Commonwealth should stand for something"); images, of which many items are actually titled "Commonwealth", such as "Commonwealth Games"[4]; "List of Commonwealth countries, British Overseas Territories, and EU member states eligible to register in UK [5]; BBC, 1 February 2012, "Profile: The Commonwealth: Formerly known as the British Commonwealth, the Commonwealth of Nations is a loose association of former British colonies and current dependencies, along with some countries that have no historical ties to Britain.[6] ->Timeline: The Commonwealth[7] ..."1930, First Commonwealth Games held in Hamilton, Canada..."1931, British parliament enacts the Statute of Westminster, which proclaims the Commonwealth a free association of self-governing dominions united by a common allegiance to the British Crown. 1949, Commonwealth prime ministers issue the London Declaration..." Qexigator (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The sentence should say "formerly known as". That many people incorrectly refer to the Commonwealth of Nations as the British Commonwealth is not a justification for Wikipedia re-stating a factual error, one which is commonly made, especially when the former Secretary-General (Don McKinnon) wrote at length about the issue in his autobiography. --LJ Holden 03:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, "formerly". Editors will be aware that the London Declaration reads (bolding added):

• "The Governments of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan and Ceylon, whose countries are united as Members of the British Commonwealth of Nations and owe a common allegiance to the Crown, which is also the symbol of their free association, have considered the impending constitutional changes in India. The Government of India have informed the other Governments of the Commonwealth of the intention of the Indian people that under the new constitution which is about to be adopted India shall become a sovereign independent republic. The Government of India have however declared and affirmed India’s desire to continue her full membership of the Commonwealth of Nations and her acceptance of The King as the symbol of the free association of its independent member nations and as such the Head of the Commonwealth. The Governments of the other countries of the Commonwealth, the basis of whose membership of the Commonwealth is not hereby changed, accept and recognise India’s continuing membership in accordance with the terms of this declaration. Accordingly the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan and Ceylon hereby declare that they remain united as free and equal members of the Commonwealth of Nations, freely co-operating in the pursuit of peace, liberty and progress. 26 April 1949."[8]

An article published with the imprint of The Open University at a website headed "Making Britain, Discover how South Asians shaped the nation, 1870-1950"[9], quoted that and concluded:

• "Thus, with the London Declaration, the British Commonwealth of Nations officially ended and became the Commonwealth of Nations."[10]

Qexigator (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

There's a claim now that the term "British Commonwealth" is used to distinguish it from the "Russian Commonwealth" (i.e. the Commonwealth of Independent States). I'm not sure how relevant the citation used is to the article, given that it's actually a discussion on "confederate systems", which the Commonwealth of Nations isn't --LJ Holden 02:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with "formerly known as" but request that the effective date of the change from "British Commonwealth" be mentioned (29 April 1949) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.193.165 (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Establishment date

I don't its possible to give a start date for the establishment of the British Commonwealth. It was just a phrase that gradually replaced "British Empire" over time.

If, for example, the Commonwealth established in 1931 why did the Irish Constitution of 1922 declare the state to be "is a co-equal member of the Community of Nations forming the British Commonwealth of Nations."^[11] — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 18:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The states didn't all one day become coequal to the U.K. (which is what Commonwealth is suppose to represent), it happened gradually, and de facto independence occurred a different times for different states. Rob (talk) 13:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Specific or unique meaning of "realm"?

Wikiain, with regard to this edit (and your previous one), do you have a reference to support the claim that the word realm has a unique or specific meaning with regard to the Commonwealth? Otherwise, I suggest we defer to dictionaries, which explain that the word simply means something equivalent to "kingdom" and mention nothing about it being unique or specific to the Commonwealth. --Tóraí (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

In favor of the edits Wikiain made, there *is* an article Commonwealth Realm that describes the modest differences between the usual usage of realm and the peculiarities of a Commonwealth Realm. Those modest differences are rather singular, unless you know of other realms where the states are sovereign, but still bow to a singular royal head of state.Wzrd1 (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

What you're talking about is a personal union. There have been lots of them in history. I've no objection to the article sating that these places are called "Commonwealth realms" (with or without a capital R), but stating that they are called "realms" makes something out of the word "realm", which it is not. --Tóraí (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Quite true. That is why Wikipedia has an article on realm *and* on Commonwealth Realm. I suspect that an error was made in noticing that fact, though I'll admit, I really didn't examine subsequent edits since the edit you pointed out, which is in error for not using the Commonwealth realm link instead.Wzrd1 (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Tóraí, the references needed are those used in the article Commonwealth realm. That article makes it clear that these countries are called "Commonwealth realms", as a phrase. They form a subset of the category "Commonwealth member", distinguished by the characteristic that they still have the Queen as their head of state. The use of the word "realm" doesn't seem to extend beyond that and not to be deduced from any general meaning of "realm", beyond perhaps the thin meaning "state headed by a monarch". Such an assumption of deduction would not match what Anne Twomey has called the "chameleon" usage of the expression "the Crown" in the Empire and the Commonwealth.Wikiain (talk) 00:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

"...these countries are called 'Commonwealth realms', as a phrase." Yes. However, the sentence in question doesn't make that point. It says they are "known as realms" (not "known as Commonwealth realms"), which is a pointless statement to make about any kingdom. Not to mention that the six non-republics and non-Commonwealth realms are also "realms".

I've no objection to the sentence saying they are known as "Commonwealth realms", which has a unique significance. I'll update the article to say that and see if it sticks. --Tóraí (talk) 09:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

That's fine by me. Though I've removed your italics: perhaps you meant quotation marks, but I think the blue linking distinguishes the phrase sufficiently.Wikiain (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The italics are manual-of-style thing, used to identify the use of "words as words". --Tóraí (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The term 'realm' has a specific legal meaning and it is used thus in the various states' legal documents, most of which are common law jurisdictions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.162.162 (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Ranking

I see that in the infobox thinhs like area, population etc are ranked. I can't see the value of this ranking as there is not information about it, it merely takes the reader to pages on COUNTRY rankings, where the Commonwealth (or other such organisations) is not even mentioned. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

British Commonwealth of Nations

In what year did the British Commonwealth of Nations become renamed as the Commonwealth of Nations? If it never was renamed, then the current title seems to be wholly politically motivated. 188.141.10.11 (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

From reading the official Commonwealth [website] it seems they only refer to themselves as "the Commonwealth", I could not find any use of "Commonwealth of Nations" outside of one reference in their history section. Likewise the Commonwealth Charter [[12]] does not contain "Commonwealth of Nations" anywhere. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Here:

1949

Leaders agree that Commonwealth members are “free and equal members of the Commonwealth of Nations, freely co-operating in the pursuit of peace, liberty and progress”

In 1949 India becomes a republic but still wishes to remain a member of the association. In response, leaders agree that membership does not have to be based on allegiance to the British Crown.

Commonwealth members are “free and equal members of the Commonwealth of Nations, freely co-operating in the pursuit of peace, liberty and progress” - The London Declaration 1949.

The 'British Commonwealth of Nations' becomes The Commonwealth - the association we know today.

Beginning of the modern Commonwealth, thecommonwealth.org.

Rob984 (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It's similar to the change from "British Empire" to "British Commonwealth of Nations". No official declaration, just a gradual change of convention. Rob984 (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Read your source again. It clearly says that by the London Declaration of 1949 it changed from "The 'British Commonwealth of Nations'" to "The Commonwealth". Not "Commonwealth of Nations". Mediatech492 (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Then this website must be in my imagination - http://www.commonwealthofnations.org/ A seperate website to http://thecommonwealth.org/ Digging detail it seems the Commonwealth of Nations is still in everyday use by member states for example here is South Africa President Jacob Zuma's welcome page on the same website http://www.commonwealthofnations.org/country/South_Africa/ refers first to the Commonwealth of Nations and then in seems the Commonwealth is employed as a 'shorthan' for the full version..Tmol42 (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

We are not talking about common usage, we are talking about official useage. The Commonwealth charter, and every other document on both those websites simply says "The Commonwealth" in reference to the formal body. Not one says "Commonwealth of Nations". This is not a "shorthand", this is the formal wording of official documents. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Clarification of point

The Commonwealth of Nations indicates that the idea is an idea former in the formality of former existence,

The Commonwealth of Nations,[2] or the Commonwealth (formerly the British Commonwealth of Nations),[3][1] is an intergovernmental organization of 53 member states that were mostly territories of the former British Empire.

...and therefore in the domain of some other existence, perhaps language, thus representing an idea of Dominion in the domain of culture, in the sub-domain of language, or deriving its idea of dominion of culture from the idea of language domain, or dominion. The British Empire article indicates:

The British Empire comprised the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates and other territories ruled or administered by the United Kingdom.

...the term here comprised, indicates past tense, not current. And yet the idea of the United Kingdom is itself indicated as holding similar dominions, etc. The British Empire articles The United Kingdom article indicates that it is in reference to the current, and yet the dates are not indicated as binding to bookends which determinatively indicate the boundaries of time or lands, ideas of dominion or domain.

"The British Empire comprised the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates and other territories ruled or administered by the United Kingdom. "

English overseas possessions -

The Territorial evolution of the British Empire article is clear in that this "evolution" started in the 1600s, but does not indicate when it ended, and goes on to state that some of these former territories unter the former name give are included under new name, but not that the former entities are actually formally made under former context of a new kind of idea that is any different under the quantitative delivered opinions of sovereign nation-state as indicated by the British leadership, visible or in-, representing something called "British government." Anyway, back to work. -[[User:Akuniyo|Akuniyo]] - al El o al Laat. (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Akuniyo: What??? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It would appear that Sir Humphrey Appleby is alive and well!

Misha An interested observer of this and that 11:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

This new Elections section, with all the whistles and bells, is totally irrelevant to this article

Why on earth was this long, ridiculous Elections table introduced? It is completely irrelevant and should be speedily deleted. Can you imagine such nonsense posted in, say, the page on the Organization of American States or NATO?

Some of you got way too much free time on your hands. What next: a detailed table listing the date of all incoming beauty pageants of zee Commonwealth of Nations? --Lubiesque (talk) 01:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I concur, and have removed it. - BilCat (talk) 01:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Human rights in Elections section

Why do some countries have a star next to their names with a link to the Human Rights section of the country? Shouldn't each country have one? All of them have human rights issues. Elsan (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Website redundancy

Does anyone know why the same organisation needs two different websites (thecommonwealth.org and commonwealthofnations.org)?
Robin S. Taylor (talk) 09:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

The former is the website of the secretariat and deals with intergovernmental relations. The latter is for the organisation as a whole and covers all aspects including business, social, health etc. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:47, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Commonwealth of Nations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019062503/https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/224126/FCOBritsAbroadA4_0713xx.pdf to https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/224126/FCOBritsAbroadA4_0713xx.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090904153829/http://www.thecommonwealth.org/news/34580/213088/010909fijisuspended.htm to http://www.thecommonwealth.org/news/34580/213088/010909fijisuspended.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705162909/http://www.thecommonwealth.org/press/31555/34582/35505/zimbabwes_withdrawal_from_the_commonwealth.htm to http://www.thecommonwealth.org/press/31555/34582/35505/zimbabwes_withdrawal_from_the_commonwealth.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Commonwealth of Nations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Internal/191086/34493/187367/celebrating_thecommonwealth_60
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thecommonwealth.org/shared_asp_files/GFSR.asp?NodeID=174532
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=34457
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thecommonwealth.org/news/157526/commonwealth_membership_in_focus_at_london_meeting.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130123172352/http://www.sundayvision.co.ug/detail.php?mainNewsCategoryId=7&newsCategoryId=123&newsId=598876 to http://www.sundayvision.co.ug/detail.php?mainNewsCategoryId=7&newsCategoryId=123&newsId=598876
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thecommonwealth.org/YearbookHomeInternal/139407/home/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=140761
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161014060506/http://www.foreign.gov.mv/v2/en/media-center/news/article/1999 to http://www.foreign.gov.mv/v2/en/media-center/news/article/1999
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thecommonwealth.org/document/34293/35144/174531/membership_report.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Internal/150952/our_work
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thecommonwealth.org/shared_asp_files/uploadedfiles/%7BE7A2A23D-FD9F-418B-B2D4-CC39FFD2FEF2%7D_Aso%20Rock%20Declaration.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.commonwealthfoundation.com/about/index.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Commonwealth of Nations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929181918/http://www.15ccem.com/15CCEM/CCEM_MainContent.jsp%3Bjsessionid%3D367113CBDAC84B7DEAC85D1F77B477D0?pContentID=830&p_applic=CCC&pElementID=443&pMenuID=171&p_service=Content.show& to http://www.15ccem.com/15CCEM/CCEM_MainContent.jsp%3Bjsessionid%3D367113CBDAC84B7DEAC85D1F77B477D0?pContentID=830&p_applic=CCC&pElementID=443&pMenuID=171&p_service=Content.show&
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.opc.gov.au/calc/constit.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.opc.gov.au/calc/docs/LDOs.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.commonwealthfoundation.com/about/index.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

DO MEMBERS HAVE IMMIGRATION ETC. PRIVILEGES?

What rights and privileges do nationals of the member states have within the Commonwealth? Do they have, for instance, any residence and immigration privileges? What are they? Do they share any Commonwealth citizenship? Lots of people from the Commonwealth, including from African and Asian countries, live in Britain. How did they get in, was it due to some immigration privileges? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.103.220.132 (talk) 02:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Many were born before their country's independence and were thus born British subjects and therefore had a legal right of abode in Britain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

People who are still British citizens but have resided in Australia before 1984 are entitled to vote in Australian elections https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/trav/life/aust-1 Montalban (talk) 01:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Date Errors in Map

At least three dates are wrong in the map. They pertain to the independence of Canada, Ireland and the United States.

Canada did not achieve full independence from the UK until 1982. Although the Statute of Westminster provided that pre-existing dominions became independent upon ratification, Canada requested and received an exemption from that provision because the federal and provincial governments could not agree on an amending formula for the Canadian Constitution. Thus, four times a year from 1931 until April 1982, the British Parliament hand to formally vote to grant approval to past actions undertaken by the Canadian federal and provincial governments. Under the first Prime Minister Trudeau, agreement between 9 of the 10 provinces (Quebec was the odd one out) was achieved in 1981 (following the "No" result in the 1980 Quebec referendum). The Canadian and British Parliaments then proceeded to pass parallel legislation -- the Canada Act, 1982 (UK) and the Constitution Act, 1982 (Canada) -- the end result of which was Canada's final achievement of full independence from the UK in April 1982. The Queen herself came to Ottawa to sign the Constitution Act in person. So the date shown should be 1982 not 1931.

The Irish Free State was a dominion of the British Empire created in 1922. It did not become independent of the United Kingdom until 1937, when promulgation of the current Irish Constitution effectively ratified the Statute of Westminster of 1931. The new constitution also replaced the Governor General with an elected President; but the President still officially represented the King. It was not until the Republic of Ireland Act of 1948, which took effect in 1949, that the last link with the British Empire was cut. But Ireland was fully independent of the UK as of 1937.

Other dominions that became independent as a result of the Statute of Westminster likewise did not necessarily achieve independence in 1931 because they did not all ratify the Statute in 1931. The Dominion of Newfoundland, in fact, never got around to ratifying the Statute. Thus, when its government and economy completely collapsed in 1934, London was legally able to take over running the country - which officially remained a dominion, not a colony, until it voted to join Canada in 1948.

As to the United States, the Thirteen Colonies declared independence as thirteen separate countries in 1776; and they formally confederated as the United States of America on 1 March 1781; but the United States did legally achieve independence from the United Kingdom until the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783. So the date 1783 should be shown instead of 1776 because 1783 is when the country actually became independent of the UK. Alternatively, the date 1781 could be shown -- as the date when the United States legally came into existence as a sovereign nation under its first constitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.233.198 (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Map of countries

There is within the article a map of countries that have gained independence from the United Kingdom.

This is in error. Nauru and Papua New Guinea gained independence from Australia, not the United Kingdom.

Western Samoa (now called Samoa) gained independence from New Zealand but is not on the map.

There is no consistency.

Australia gained independence from Britain in 1901. Not in the 1940s as shown in the map

Montalban (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

A date for Australian independence is debated within Australia. Few if any consider that there was independence immediately upon federation in 1901. Many favour 1942 (accession to the Statute of Westminster). The High Court has ruled that the UK had become a "foreign power" at least by 1986. The map has a good guess. Wikiain (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Her Majesty, the Queen

To editor Wallgareth: I recommend you discuss the windmill to which you've chosen to tilt. Rest assured, you can be blocked even if you don't violate WP:3RR. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks Chris Troutman I try to work out how to create a discussion on here yesterday but failed - I'm obviously not as experienced an editor as other here, so many thanks for setting it up. The first revert mentioned I didn't give enough explanation as to the edit, so the second time I provided an extensive explanation, though this seemed to have been deemed inadequate, but without an explanation.

I had deleted the following statement - #The Queen has since ceased to be the head of state or have any formal position in several nations of the Commonwealth including India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Malaysia and Singapore' as it was ambiguous, incomplete, and added nothing to the page. The relevant facts are that queens position as invited head of the Commonwealth and is head of state of 16 Commonwealth countries, including the UK. To be accurate the statement would need to lost the other 37 countries to which the Queen has no additional formal position, other than as head of the Commonwealth.

Apologies if my justification for the deletion was unclear, I hope this is clearer now, and please do feel free to challenge. There appears now to be a further edit, which has much improved this section, so maybe this is now superfluous — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallgareth (talk • contribs) 08:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC) Cheers :)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2018

Economic data by member Economies of the Commonwealth of Nations 2012 Member states Population[112] (2016) GDP (nominal)[113] (thousands) GDP (nominal)[114] per capita GDP (PPP)[115] (thousands) GDP (PPP)[116] per capita to Economic data by member Economies of the Commonwealth of Nations 2012 Member states Population[112] (2016) GDP (nominal)[113] (thousands) GDP (nominal)[114] per capita GDP (PPP)[115] (thousands) GDP (PPP)[116] per capita Nathan Tamez (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

References

 Not done - it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. - Dmezh (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

shared values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law

Is this encyclopedic? Are all C'wealth countries actually democratic and respectful of human rights? Aren't some tyrannies? To share a value, you must do more than talk about it; you must practise it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.50.84.235 (talk) 10:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

WP is reporting the Commonwealth's statements of commitment - that's all. Wikiain (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Hong Kong...Mumbai...Gujarat state

Above all have one thing in common: they are not sovereign jurisdictions. They are not eligible to become members of the Commonwealth. I’ve revised the article to reflect that as regards an absurd statement suggesting otherwise in relation to Hong Kong. I’ve left in the reference to the PRC as I didn’t want to make bold edits...But personally I think all mention of Hong Kong or any other part of the PRC or the PRC itself is pretty silly. Frenchmalawi (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Is it “The Commonwealth” or “The Commonwealth of Nations”?

Above is the question. In their report, [13], A COMMONWEALTH OF THE PEOPLE, Time for Urgent Reform, The Report of the Eminent Persons Group to Commonwealth Heads of Government, Perth, October 2011, the reports authors recommended that the organisation adopt a Charter. They set out a draft text for the Charter in their report. Their draft text begins with the words “We the people of the Commonwealth of Nations”. But the Charter that the heads of government, [14] adopted on 14 December 2012 refers only to “The Commonwealth”. The WP article is confusing and unclear around this. It beings with referring to the “Commonwealth of Nations” clearly suggesting that that’s the official name. But the info box is headed simply “The Commonwealth”. If you’ve got some valuable source based-insight on this point, rather than mere opinion, it would be good to hear it. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frenchmalawi (talk • contribs)

The Commonwealth website does not use the phrase "Commonwealth of Nations" but uses "The Commonwealth" or Commwealth in all its material. The "Charter of the Commonwealth" does not use the the phrase "Commonwealth of Nations", really the article should be called "The Commonwealth". MilborneOne (talk) 13:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Disagree strongly. That issue has been discussed before. The word "Commonwealth" may refer to a number of political entities: The Commonwealth of Nations, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Commonwealth of Massachussetts, the Commonwealth of Independent States, etc. Obviously, when an internal document of the Commonwealth of Nations refers simply to "the Commonwealth", it's sufficient because people who read the document know what Commonwealth it is about. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the title of its articles should be as explicit and unambiguous as possible.--Lubiesque (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

So the "Commonwealth of Nations" appear to be a wikipedia fudge so as not to confuse it with the other Commonwealths, but "The Commonwealth" actually reirects to hear anyhow so it would not be an issue to move the article. MilborneOne (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

When I type "Commonwealth" in Google Search, "Commonwealth of Independent States" is what comes up first. When I type "the Commonwealth", "Commonwealth of Nations" is what comes up first. So it is not so obvious. --Lubiesque (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Is the issue perhaps further muddied due to differing usage in different countries? IE don’t the British refer to it as “the Commonwealth” while many members refer to it as “… of Nations”? Gecko GMobile (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed changes: I think that whoever has raised this question (please always sign your posts) has a good point.

The founding document is the Balfour Declaration of 1926, which refers to the "British Commonweath of Nations". This name is confirmed in the Statute of Westminster 1931. (I've just corrected "British Commonwealth" to "British Commonwealth of Nations".)

The London Declaration of 1949 refers initially to "British Commonwealth of Nations" and later settles on "Commonwealth of Nations". The name is thereby converted to "The Commonwealth of Nations".

In 2013 the Charter of the Commonwealth drops "of Nations" entirely, especially in "We the People of the Commonwealth". The organisation's name is therefore now "The Commonwealth".

This is all done with a light touch, for political reasons.

Websearching, e.g. with Google, can give different answers depending on where you are located: e.g., for me in Australia Google gives first the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and then other names relating to the Commonwealth of Australia. This is not important to the article title, only to disambiguation.

Accordingly I propose that:

1. the article title be changed to "The Commonwealth" (see WP:TITLECHANGES)
2. the hatnote be changed to "'Commonwealth of Nations' and 'British Commonwealth' redirect here" (and thereafter as at present)
3. the opening sentence be changed to

"The Commonwealth, formerly known as The Commonwealth of Nations and historically as the British Commonwealth of Nations, is a ..."

Kindly indicate below (referring to their list numbers) whether you support or oppose these proposed changes. Wikiain (talk) 00:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose all three. en.wikipedia is a general encyclopedia accessed worldwide, including by non-English speakers. While less common, Commonwealth of Nations has the advantage of being unambiguous. Absence of ambiguity is the reason why the Wikipedia article on Palmerston is not titled "Palmerston" or "Lord Palmerston", but the much less common "Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston". Same with Lord Salisbury ("Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury"), etc. --Lubiesque (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

If it now calls itself just "The Commonwealth", there doesn't seem to be another option for the article title. Wikiain (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Termination - its all Greek to me?

What is the large chunk of text referring to the Greek PM on this page for at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations#Termination ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.217.125 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out; I've reverted it. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Does Irish law agree that Ireland ‘left’ the Commonwealth in 1949?

I included a change reflecting that Irish law does not accept that Ireland remained part of His Majesty’s dominions until 1949. User:Gunarathnasj reverted that change. User:Gunarathnasj why did you do that? Are you claiming that Irish law accepts and accepted at the time that Ireland was part of His Majesty’s dominions? Keep in mind that the constitution of the Republic of Ireland is the very same now as it has been since 29 December 1937. Have you looked into Irish law on this question? Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)