Talk:Commonwealth of Nations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia There is a request, submitted by (unknown), for an audio version of this article to be created.

See WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia for further information.

The rationale behind the request is: "Previously requested".

See also: Category:Spoken Wikipedia requests and Wikipedia:Spoken articles.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia

User:Robert Beck is currently recording or editing an audio version of this article.
See WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia for further information.

This notice is dated 2008-02-14 . If a significant amount of time has passed,
please check with User:Robert Beck to see if he or she is still working before removing this message.
Former featured article Commonwealth of Nations is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 16, 2005.
Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] Eurocentrism

"On the west coast of the USA, what is now part of Washington State and Oregon were first explored by Captain George Vancouver of the Royal Navy. The island State of Hawaii (the 50th U.S. state) was first visited by Captain James Cook in 1788 on his third voyage aboard the HMS Resolution." -- Absolutely no reference to the native inhabitants of these lands -- the fact is these places were not discovered as such at those dates, but discovered by Europeans... Man already inhabited these lands.

[edit] Colons should be semicolons.

Re: The colons.

In Britain, it's not normal to have that many colons used in that way. It looks like the author has been using colons where they should have used semicolons.

[edit] Sun never sets on the Brtish Commonwealth???

It seems unlikely that the expression 'the sun never sets on the British Commonwealth' would have been used at all. The term 'British Empire' was in common usage, the term Commonwealth only enterng into common usage when the Empire began to break up.

Quiensabe 18:15 UTC 28 Jun 2005

[edit] United States

Shouldn't the United States be on the list? It was a former British Colony under the British Empire. How come the map doesn't include this? Zachorious 10:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Because the map is of the Commonwealth as it existed in 2005. The US is not now nor has it or its constituent states ever been a member of the Commonwealth. The secession of the 13 colonies predates the formation of the Commonwealth by over a century. Normandy was also British at one point but it's not on the list for similar reasons. Homey 21:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! Zachorious 01:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

there needs to be a more in depth explaination of why usa isnt a member. homey's explaination makes no sense. "the secession of the u.s. predates the formation of the commonwealth by over a century, therefore, the u.s. shouldnt be a member". australia gained its independence in 1901. canada in 1867. so whats his point about usa independence predating the commonwealth? and where does it say that independence has to come after the establishment of the commonwealth? "Membership is open to countries that accept the association's basic aims and have a present or past constitutional link to a Commonwealth member. Not all members have had direct constitutional ties to the UK: some South Pacific countries were formerly under Australian or New Zealand administration, while Namibia was governed by South Africa from 1920 until independence in 1990. Cameroon joined in 1995 although only a fraction of its territory had formerly been under British administration through the League of Nations mandate of 1920–46 and United Nations Trusteeship arrangement of 1946–61. There is only one member of the present Commonwealth that has never had any constitutional link to the British Empire or a Commonwealth member: Mozambique, a former Portuguese colony, was admitted in 1995 on the back of the triumphal re-admission of South Africa and Mozambique's first democratic elections, held in 1994."

The United States could presumably apply for membership and be eligible to join if it ever chose to. However, I don't think the idea has ever been entertained by any of the parties involved. The relationship of the USA to Great Britain in modern times is far different than that of any current Commonwealth member. Also, the USA is already allied to most major Commonwealth states, including Britain itself, under the terms of other treaties and agreements. Jsc1973 21:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What's your point, and what relationship does it have to the article? Tomertalk 05:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I was explaining why the USA is not a member of the Commonwealth, whether or not it could be, and why it may choose not to be, in response to the earlier posts. If you had bothered to read the entire dialogue in detail you would understand that.Jsc1973 17:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
That and, it would violate the Constitution. Or so I was told. I need to verify that. Sneakernets (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Canada's relationship to Britain changed in 1867, (and has gradually changed in the 140 years since) but it has never changed as drastically and dramatically as the relationship between the U.S.A. and Britain changed with the American Revolution. For example, the Head of State of Canada is the Governor-General, who is appointed by HRH the Queen. Wanderer57 (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Er, Canada's head of state would be HM the Queen, who appoints a Governor General to represent her. But yes, Canada's status as a kingdom is a manifestation of the historically different relationship between it and the UK as compared to the US and the UK. --G2bambino (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Her Majesty. I should have remembered that. Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Curious

Why hasn't the US joined? Have we been offered? Or does the rest of the Commonwealth not like us?Cameron Nedland 04:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The Commonwealth would undoubtedly welcome such an influential nation, albeit one with controversial policies, such as the USA into the fold. However, the USA has not expressed interest, and accession to the Commonwealth requires an application.

I think that the key reason the USA is not a member/has not been invited to join, is that it left the influence of HMG before the Commonwealth was formed! :-) More reasons I can think of:

1) British colonies/dependencies generally became independent by mutual agreement of HMG and the governance of the colony. However, the colonies that evolved into what we now call the USA gained independence by coup. There was no roadmap to independence, discussion, treaty etc. In fact, I hear that there is still no explicit acknowledgment of USA independence by HMG. Even though implicitly HMG has recognised USA for years. 2) the USA has a well-deserved reputation for being brash, headstrong and impetuous, I doubt very much that they would request to join an institution started by the colonial masters they disowned all those years ago! 3) the USA often refers to its premiership as "leader of the free world", as members of the Commonwealth this would change to "leader of the free world, well, second-in-command, anyway" ;-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.86.138.193 (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

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

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

[edit] Commonwealth Games

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

[edit] Rhodesia

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

[edit] CN

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

[edit] Current Members Information

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Irish name

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


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

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

[edit] Establish archiver / automatic

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

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

[edit] Singapore

An anon has twice now removed Singapore from the membership list without providing any evidence to show that they have left - Singapore is still listed as a member on the official Commonwealth of Nations website. David Underdown (talk) 15:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Map

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

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

[edit] Commonwealth kingdom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Western Samoa does not style itself as a republic at all. Rather it is the Independent State of Samoa;
  • Pakistan is not just a republic, it is an Islamic Republic – quite a different thing from what many would regard as a “republic”. Should we have a Commonwealth Islamic republics category? Technically, I suppose so.; and
  • Sri Lanka – Sri Lanka is officially a Democratic Socialist Republic. Guyana is the Co-operative Republic of Guyana – The terms “Democratic Socialist” or “Co-operative” are not covered by “Republic”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Benefits and Criticisms Sections

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

Removed here [1] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research

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

Removed [2]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Frankly, pretty much the whole section should be shafted. Why are non-members deserving of the longest section in the entire article? Suspensions and withdrawals deserve note as part of the history, membership criteria, and principles of the Commonwealth. Refused and pending applicants deserve note as part of the membership criteria and future of the Commonwealth. Non-applicants deserve no note whatsoever. The EU article has no mention, the UN article has no mention, and the FTAA article has no mention of their respective non-applicants except in passing. Bastin 11:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd normally agree that there is no need to mention non-members, but (as evidenced by the "United States" discussion above) people visiting the article are often puzzled by US non-membership. America is the rare former British colony that has never applied for membership in the Commonwealth. If the issue must be engaged, I'd prefer a more honest attempt than "America declared independence X years before Cmnwth.". There are obviously other reasons for US non-membership, as there are member and former applicant nations with far less common history and culture with the UK (eg France and Cyprus). I feel this needs to be accounted for if the US is to be mentioned at all. I don't think its much of a reach to conclude that a contributor to this is US republicanism. I'd find a source if it weren't such common sense. The possibility of Commonwealth application isn't even entertained in the US. Plasticbadge (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
If it was up to me, there would be no mention of "non-applicants" or the United States at all. The mere mention of it implies "it could be a member but it isn't", which is again original research. But the situation should certainly should not be made worse with reasons why it is not a member, unless those have come from a reputable source. "Common sense" is not an acceptable reason for adding material. The criteria for addition is "verifiability, not truth" - see WP:V. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I missed Bastin's comments. I have removed the section entirely, save for France, which is sourced material. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)